Two Facts I Did Not Know:
1. Do you get the picture? (It's Not a Joke!)Below is a picture of the oil tanker before Chevron quietly renamed it the "Altair Voyager" and before President George Bush appointed Ms. Rice as National Security Advisor
* * * * *
2. Bush and Cheney's Church Condemned the Iraq War -Oct. 31, 2005 - Last week, the United Methodist Church Board of Church and Society--the social action committee of the church that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney belong to--resoundingly passed a resolution calling for withdrawal with only two 'no' votes and one abstention.
"It is my hope and prayer that our statement against the war in Iraq will be heard loud and clear by our fellow United Methodists, President Bush and Vice President Cheney," said Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the UMC's Board of Church and Society. "Conservative and liberal board members worked together to craft a strong statement calling for the troops to come home and for those responsible for leading us into this disastrous war to be held accountable."
Comment Here on any of the above or below and read the comments of others too. Log in as "Other" if you like, but please be sure to sign some facsimile of your name. Or email me at edcoletti@sbcglobal.net.
(P2) PhilosophicalRefuting Pascal's Wager
In the seventeenth century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for belief in God in Pensees. The argument runs as follows: If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).
How should you bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God's existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God. There have been several objections to the wager: that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him; that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic; that God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one's bets; and so on.
There is much available pertaining to this fascinating philosophical debate. As for me, I'd say there is everything to be lost in making one's bet solely on the basis of fear. That would logically lead to giving up most of the ("God-given" if you like) pleasures and joys of this life on the wager that there is a next life and that (assuming you've chosen to live with your hands, mouth, and mind tied here), it might be better than anything we know here and now. See "Catholicism," "Puritanism," etc. Also see current fundamentalist all-or-nothing thinking in the political arena, eg. "Fear a lot now, obey totally, and you'll be 'safe.' " So, you tell me what hell is.
Comment Here on any of the above or below and read the comments of others too. Log in as "Other" if you like, but please be sure to sign some facsimile of your name. Or email me at edcoletti@sbcglobal.net.
(P3) Poetical
For me, baseball, soccer, and chess, at times, feel very much like poetry. Here's an example of the last.
White to play and win in 4 moves. Solution is available upon request (Press "Comment" and ask for it).
Comment Here on any of the above or below and read the comments of others too. Log in as "Other" if you like, but please be sure to sign some facsimile of your name. Or email me at edcoletti@sbcglobal.net.
