Freelanceninja.net

As I read yet another refutation of Pascal’s Wager, I’m reminded of a conversation I had with my father yesterday.  For those of you not familiar with Pascal’s Wager, it goes something like this:

1. If you believe in God and God exists, you will be rewarded with an eternity in Heaven.
2. If you believe in God and God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
3. If you don’t believe in God and God exists, you will be punished with an eternity in Hell.
4. If you don’t believe in God and God exists, you will gain nothing but lose nothing.
5. The only logical choice is to believe in God, because it is the only choice in which you may be rewarded and always avoid punishment.

Of course there are already a plethora of logical arguments that blow Pascal’s Wager out of the water, but if you already accept some religious path based on faith, logic isn’t going to convince you.  Below is a recollection of the conversation I had with my father, which helps explain why Pascal’s Wager just doesn’t work in practice.

A Conversation with my Father
Yesterday my dad and I had a heart to heart about religion and it proved to me why Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work in practice, let alone under the scrutiny of logic.

After telling my dad a story about my previous night’s activities (which included going to a strip club, a bar, and nearly getting arrested for climbing up a building because I was drunk and it was fun), dad started crying.

You would think a good Christian father would be crying because of how far my life seems to have strayed from the path of Christ, but that’s not why dad was crying.

He explained that the tears were cried out of jealousy; my father envies my life because I’m able to live my life for myself, I get to taste the pleasures forbid him as a young man, and yet I remain a good person. Dad grew up not knowing the most simple pleasures because they were “sinful” in the eyes of the church and an ultra-indoctrinated family who never questioned the church’s reasoning (if there was any).

Pascal’s Wager fails because there is plenty to lose by accepting any religious doctrine that Pascal just disregards. I cry for my father that it took 50 years of living to finally get it.

Guitarist Ted Nugent writes a straight-shooting commentary to CNN about the dangers of so-called gun free zones.  It’s great reading and hard to refute.

“Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby’s Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I’ve about had enough of it.”

Former sportscaster for ESPN and columnist for the Kansas City Star wrote a commentary thanking Imus for providing the black community with yet another distraction from the real problems that plague them. He writes,

“Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.”

Didn’t I just write something about a celebrity coming under fire for racially charged banter?

Here’s the thing: Don Imus is a shock jock. He’s paid to say what’s on his mind and to say it with candor. He’s given a lot of money to shock, entertain and, every so often, to offend some people here and there. In no way do I defend what he said, but you can’t say that context doesn’t matter.

Speaking of context, does anyone actually think that Imus uttered the phrase “nappy-haired hoes” in hatred against anyone, let alone an entire race? It was clearly a joke, albeit a tasteless one, and everybody pressing this issue knows that. Imus made a mistake. Imus apologized. Now let the wrinkled alcoholic hillbilly alone.

I’ve said it before, but it amuses me how minister and civil rights leader Al Sharpton takes it as his God-given right to ruin careers and ruin lives every time a white man fucks up and gets caught saying something off-color (if you’re reading Al, that pun was completely intentional). This man knows nothing about forgiveness and, as a minister of the Christian faith, this makes him the worst kind of hypocrite. Call me naive, but shouldn’t a civil rights leader, a man that by definition demands equality and justice for all peoples, hold everyone to the same standards? I think he wants us all to be equal, but (to paraphrase Orwell) he wants the people he represents to be “more equal” than the rest of us.

“We cannot afford a precedent established that the airwaves can be used to commercialize and mainstream sexism and racism.” (Al Sharpton)

I completely agree! So why isn’t Al going after black artists for such lyrical masterpieces as A Nigga’ Wit a Gun, Bitches Ain’t Shit, Bitch Niggaz, For All My Niggaz & Bitches, Can U Control Yo Hoe, and I Miss That Bitch? Oh I get it… it’s one of those deals where you’re only allowed to say the word if you are the word, right? I can call myself a hillbilly white trash cracker, but I can only tell a woman she has nappy hair if I or someone in my family sports a similar hairstyle; and I can only call someone a ho if I myself am a scandelous skeezer or skank. Equality my ass, Al.