Pascal’s wager concluded that it would be better to believe in the existence of God than not.

This is not true.

It is better to plan for there being no God.

THE Answer:

1) We are currently unable to prove nor disprove the existence of God. – An omnipotent God would know this.
2) We cannot, therefore, know which religion, if any, is correct. – An omnipotent God would know this.
3) Given that rules 1 and 2 are indisputable facts, it is imperative that we plan for there being no God whilst we work towards understanding Our Reality sufficiently to be able to prove, absolutely, whether or not God exists and, if so, what said God...

We are what we feel (Or is that *who* we feel Arf! Arf! etc. etc.).

Did you ever wonder why, when asking somebody what music they are into, you feel compelled to say "no, I asked what music you are into, not what music you like to hear in the shopping mall".

But then this does raise the spectre of trying to actually define the validity of what we feel from music. In fact what, how and, indeed, why we feel, full stop.

The right artist, the right album or, for that matter, the right chord in a particular bar of a song can elicit a powerful response in the listener.

People (naughty, naughty, people), take drugs in order to feel something....

When I was a child, I caught a fleeting glimpse,
Out of the corner of my eye,
I turned to look, but it was gone,
I cannot put my finger on it now, the child has grown,
The dream is gone.
And I have become comfortably numb.

The very nature of our nuture condemns and compels us.
As children we are what we are made to be.
As adults we *must* learn to strip away that which will otherwise lay waste to our true self.

Larkin most accurately describes this state:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for...