we were discussing the we were discussing the existence of God and religion around the old kitchen table and i stated that i am 100% certainlife exists on other planets somewhere. my wife said that is an atheist position. one kid seemed pretty confident life was out there, the other seemed to think that if life could spontaneously occur, then it probably does exist elsewhere, but was not willing to commit.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
10:28 AM
“We must respect the other “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
— H. L. Mencken
svelte
February 19, 2012 @
5:16 PM
walterwhite wrote:”We must [quote=walterwhite]”We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
— H. L. Mencken[/quote]
Oh, that is just golden!!
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
10:36 AM
there’s gotta be some there’s gotta be some believers out there in piggingtonia!
briansd1
February 19, 2012 @
10:45 AM
I answered atheist… but if I answered atheist… but if there’s a God, it’s the universe.
ocrenter
February 19, 2012 @
6:32 PM
walterwhite wrote:we were [quote=walterwhite]we were discussing the existence of God and religion around the old kitchen table and i stated that i am 100% certainlife exists on other planets somewhere. my wife said that is an atheist position. one kid seemed pretty confident life was out there, the other seemed to think that if life could spontaneously occur, then it probably does exist elsewhere, but was not willing to commit.[/quote]
that’s not an atheist viewpoint. Buddhist thought has always been that their are many different worlds outside of our world. I guess you can say the Buddha was the first religious leader to proclaim the existence of aliens.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
6:42 PM
So far the piggingtons seem So far the piggingtons seem to have a pretty eclectic set of religious beliefs.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
6:54 PM
transcript from penn transcript from penn jillette’s interview…
enn Jillette: Everybody seems to think that Obama is in his heart an atheist and in his heart a skeptic. The church he belonged to in Chicago is a whack-job church. It’s about equal to Palin’s church. Granted, he hasn’t been as religious as… do we know off the top of our heads the most religious president in history in terms of references… referencing to god… references to god and in terms of appearing in churches? Who the most religious president in history was? It’s an interesting answer and I got this information from NPR, so it’s probably not slanted in the way you think. The most religious president in history in terms of appearances in churches and mentions of the bible was Clinton.
Bill Clinton is the most religious president we’ve had. He beats George Bush hands down and he beats Carter, who we know was a born-again Christian. He beats him hands down. So Obama does that too. I mean at the 9/11 thing, maybe appropriately he read from the Bible. But you have two choices with Obama. You either believe that he is a man of Christ who prays for decisions in the White House, which he said he was or you think he’s a liar. And I’m surprised by the number of atheist free thinkers that support Obama and their argument is essentially, he’s lying about being religious ‘cause you have to do that to be elected.
I’m not happy with either one of those. I mean, Obama is wicked smart, he’s a wicked good talker, there is no doubt in my mind that his heart is in the right place, unfortunately I think that about almost every president we’ve had, but I think he wants to do good. I don’t think there’s any malicious quality to him at all. But I think in some sense, he’s a believer or he’s a liar. So one to 10? I rate him pretty high on the skepticism, maybe a six or a seven, but I rate him that way because somewhere in my heart I think he might be lying about being religious and that’s horrible. It’s a horrible reason to like somebody. I like him because he might be a liar. Horrible.
Question: Michele Bachmann.
Penn Jillette: Michele Bachman’s blasphemy is greater than anything I’ve ever accomplished. I have tried with friends to say the most blasphemous sentence I can possibly say and it does not come close to the blasphemy of Michelle Bachman saying that earthquakes and hurricanes were the way God was trying to get the attention of politicians. I cannot imagine a serious religious person reading that quote or hearing that quote and saying, “Yeah, right on.” It is solipsistic, it is opportunistic, it is cynical. It is deep and it is wrong and it is an insult to religious people everywhere.
For an atheist, it’s a burlesque; it’s a little bit of a joke you can dismiss her. But I can’t see it as an atheist. I see it through my father’s eyes, you know, my father was a Christian his whole life. And if he had heard Michelle Bachman say that, he would have looked away from the TV. The idea that you would lightly state that people were suffering and dying in order to, to prove that God was on the side of one politician is sickening. The only reason that Bachman and Rick Perry are able to say this stuff is because of a magic word. And this magic word is, “Christian.” And if you look back in history, the word “Christian” doesn’t really appear in the way we use it today until the anti-abortion debate in the ‘60’s. When you had 1890, end of the 19th century, you’re top three highest paid speakers; the highest paid speakers were atheists speaking about atheism. It was Ingersoll, Robert Ingersoll, number one, Mark Twain, number two, Huxley, number three. Ingersoll was the, the great infidel, the great skeptic, the atheist, Mark Twain of course. And these were people speaking on… he was not reading from Huck Finn, he was reading from Letters from Earth, he was reading atheist stuff. And Huxley, of course, Darwin’s pit bull, I guess bull dog at that time, I think he was a pit bull.
There was a real sense of atheism being an important point. They were invited to the White House. And the reason was that Catholics were terrified of Baptists who were terrified of Pentecostals who were terrified of Lutherans who were terrified of Evangelicals, the whole list. There wasn’t a feeling of Christian. The founding fathers were very afraid of Baptists taking over from the Pentecostals. Everybody was afraid of the Catholics. So you had this divided thing.
If we still had that, if we still were dividing people by sects like we should be… sects like we should be, one of the largest groups in this country would be atheists. By the USA Today poll, I think it was 22 percent, 20 percent. Even the lowest polls put it as eight. Okay? The next highest would be Catholics. And they’d be knocking around 20, you know. Then you’ve got all your divided up categories. And then abortion happens, legalized abortion, and some very smart people, very forward thinking people decided we can never fight abortion if it’s the Catholics fighting the Protestants who are fighting the Baptists, fighting the Pentecostals, fight the… we have to get them under one tent. And there’s a great book on this called The History of Free Thought, these are not my ideas. This is my understanding of the ideas in that book.
They pulled this tent together and they kind of create the word, “Christian.” And then Carter with born-again Christian really helps with the word, “Christian.” So what they’ve really done is they’ve taken very different philosophies, I mean Catholicism and Protestantism are very different philosophies, very different. You know, and they’ve pulled it together to make this term, “Christian.” Which are people that don’t agree at all and they say I’m doing a Christian message.
So Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry just 40 years ago, really recently, would have been terrified to speak about their God and their church because the second they said they were Baptist, the second they said they were Pentecostal, the second they said they were Lutheran, all the other people fall away. But now they’ve got this magic word, “Christian.” And I am helping make it worse. Because by using the word, “Atheist,” I am separating that even more from “Christian,” I’m doing a broadening umbrella and I’m making theist, atheist. And if you do theist, atheist, the theist’s win completely.
You know, what I should be doing, if I were a political thinker, if I were someone who was interested in movements, which I’m not, I’m against them. If I wasn’t for individual thinking, I would be one of those people who was saying, using a term like “free thinker,” or “open-minded.” And I would be gathering this umbrella that included people who self-identifies agnostic, atheist, against organized religion. I would get the Wiccans in there. I would get as many people as possible and I could probably pump that up to 25 percent. And then I would be also saying, “Well, you know, the Muslims are very different from the Jews, who are very different from the Catholics, who are very different from all of that.”
But what’s gonna happen, and because I’m not interested in tactical play, but rather than telling the truth. We are going to get theist to atheist. But you can’t imagine, we can’t imagine in 1965, a Baptist talking… Baptist politician talking about religion and where they go to church if they have to use the word, “Baptist.” It’s using the word “Christian” that allows this craziness to happen. Also because I am an optimist, to the point of being incorrect, to the point of not being realistic, that’s what flushes over me, that’s what I feel in my heart is optimism. I tend to go with something Christopher Hitchens said, and I don’t remember where he said it, it could have even been in personal conversation, I don’t know. But Hitchens said that what we’re seeing with this incredible crazy religious stuff is the death throws. I mean, since 9/11, free thinking atheism is growing so quickly because of the internet and people who are seeing it first with those who are called, and I realize this is a racist term, but it’s the easiest one to use, so please forgive me, Gypsies. We’re seeing it with the Amish; we’re seeing it with the Hasidics. All the groups that try to stay as a subset of America and keep their own traditions are going away. And Elvis chipped away at them and malls chipped away at them, but the internet is going to take them down.
It is just too hard to keep your children cloistered. They’re going to hear Katy Perry. There’s just no way to stop it. They’re gonna see video like this, you know. Once you’ve gotten on the internet to see Katie Perry, it’s not hard to fall over to the Big Think. It’s the same keyboard, it’s the same screen. It’s the same everything. And those… that information gets out there. And I think that everybody knows that and everybody feels that, so then those who are religious, you’re seeing a desperate, terrified, clawing. And that’s the only way you can explain Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry is the combination of desperation coupled with the magic protective word of “Christian.”
And I think… I think that’s what we’re seeing. And whether they can pull together, you know, the problem is a movement of individuals is not going to have the muscle of a cohesive movement of people who believe they’re right. And I’m not willing to lie to fight them. I want individuals who disagree on everything. And I want us to learn to band together for freedom. Band together in order to be different. And that’s a much harder thing to sell, but it’s all that matters, so we have to do it.
You know, I… I stick up for Mormons. I mean, Mitt Romney is wearing crazy underwear. He’s wearing magic underwear. He is. I mean, under his pants, he is wearing magic underwear. Magic underwear. And he believes that a convicted con man got golden tablets that no one else could see, and sat with an angel to find out that the original Jews of the Bible were living in North America. Crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy. But… just more modern, not more crazy, than other religions. Not more crazy than Islam, you know, with your… not more crazy than virgin births and resurrections. Not more crazy than any of that stuff. What’s really fascinating to me, fascinating, is that… and I cover this in my book when I say signs you may already be an atheist, it fascinates me that you can have the Bible Belt and you can have a court trial, and we’ve seen this. I’m going to use it hypothetically, but you’ll know the specifics I’m talking about, I just don’t want to talk about that kind of pain too directly, it’s too unpleasant for me. But hypothetically, in the Bible Belt, where you can have a born-again Christian Judge, born-again Christian Judge. I believe the Bible is the literal word of God, there were talking snakes, there were talking snakes and virgin births. Burning bushes and Abraham being willing to kill his son for God. He believes that.
The jury is made up of 12 people who, let’s say 10 of them believe that. And two of them believe that, but a little less. You’re Prosecuting Attorney believes that. The people that are sitting in the courtroom believe that. These are all people that know each other in church. And the person on the witness stand says that she killed her three children in cold blood because God told her to. And every single person in the courtroom decides whether she is guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Those are the two choices they weigh. And nobody, not the Defense Attorney, not the Judge, not the jury people, not the people in the gallery, not one person stands up and goes, maybe God told her to. It’s less weird than the talking snake. Maybe God told her to.
And in this country, which they say over and over again is founded on Christian values, and I’ll give them that; founded on Christian values. Okay, it is, fine. This country, founded on Christian values has guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, end of list. There is nothing that says, not guilty because God told me to. And why? Why isn’t that there? Why isn’t this country allowing in the court system someone to go on the witness stand and go, “Snake walked up to me, snaked opened his mouth, snake said, ‘go into McDonald’s, pull out an AK15, kill 10 people, walk back out,’ snake told me that. It’s that snake there, he’s not talking anymore. I throw myself on the mercy of the court. Aren’t you all good Christians? Don’t you believe in the miracles of the Bible? You’re seeing one now.”
And that’s the part that amazes me is that kind of stuff. So Mitt Romney comes along and at some level doesn’t he know what he believes is crazy? At some level, isn’t he going, “There weren’t Jews in North America.” You know, that’s not where the Garden of Eden was. Doesn’t that go through his mind? And that’s the part of that whole thing that kills me. If Mitt Romney really believes what he says he believes, he is bug-nutty, bat shit crazy. And he’s not, bug-nutty, bat shit crazy. He’s the same as Obama. If Obama believes what he was being taught in that church in Chicago, okay, he is bat shit crazy. And Obama is demonstratively not bat shit crazy.
So we have this weird deal we make with all the politicians where we say, you can say you believe bug nutty, bat shit crazy shit, and we’ll shrug it off because you’re clearly not bug nutty, bat shit crazy. And all I want out of our politicians is for them to just say, “You know, a lot of the religious stuff I’m talking about is bug nutty, bat shit crazy, but I’m not.” Because I don’t think any of these men and women are crazy. And I’ll even give you Michelle Bachman, I’ll even give you Rick Perry, I’ll even give you Sarah Palin. I don’t have that cynical MSNBC point of view that they are bug nutty, bat shit crazy. I think they are good people who somehow think that they’re morality and their love for humanity and their love for their families are tied up in this weird tradition. And when they think that the Bible is the word of God, I think they mean something else. I sometimes think that many other people are speaking in a code that I’ve not been given the key to.
When someone says to me, I believe in the Bible literally. Well, I personally, Penn Jillette, read about a chapter in the Bible a day. I just read through it, over and over again. So when someone says, they believe in the word of God literally, I go back and think about Genesis, where people were living to be 900 years old. And I say bullshit! And then I think about Noah and the flood, killing everybody? God that loves us kills everybody? And he wants to get two of every species and seven of the ones that are clean onto a boat that floats for that amount of time? And I just go, really? Because you don’t act that way. You’re able to go to Home Depot, you’re able to pay with a credit card, you’re able to go to Starbucks, you know how to use a computer. Really? Do you really mean that? What do you mean literally? Do you really mean that you’re going to stone someone to death who because they work on the Sabbath, are you really gonna do that? Really, honestly? You’re gonna take a rock in your hand and throw at the mother-fucker’s head because he worked on a Sunday to support his family? Are you really gonna do that? If you mix cotton and linen in your clothing are you really going to go to hell? What do you mean when you say that?
And no one’s ever answered me. There’s a code going on that I need the Rosetta Stone. I need someone to sit me down and go, Penn, when Obama says he went to that church and they talked about all this stuff being literal, what he really meant was… fill in the blank! Tell me! What does he really mean? These people are good, honest, smart, not bat shit crazy people, so why the fuck are they saying bat shit crazy stuff to me?
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
6:57 PM
whats the word for someone whats the word for someone prejudiced againsta certain religion?
ratheist?
NotCranky
February 19, 2012 @
7:39 PM
Bokonism doesn’t go under Bokonism doesn’t go under miscellaneous, dammit.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
8:00 PM
Ok bokonist is a category, Ok bokonist is a category, although can’t anyone be a bokonist -plus another religion?
NotCranky
February 19, 2012 @
8:34 PM
walterwhite wrote:Ok bokonist [quote=walterwhite]Ok bokonist is a category, although can’t anyone be a bokonist -plus another religion?[/quote]
I am not so sure, I really feel that Bokonism, if one can embrace it at all, is probably a “bridge” to atheism or agnosticism. I think that’s the idea. It’s satire. Sorry, I forgot about that.
TemekuT
February 19, 2012 @
8:13 PM
walterwhite wrote:transcript [quote=walterwhite]transcript from penn jillette’s interview…
Penn Jillette: Michele Bachman’s blasphemy is greater than anything I’ve ever accomplished. I have tried with friends to say the most blasphemous sentence I can possibly say and it does not come close to the blasphemy of Michelle Bachman saying that earthquakes and hurricanes were the way God was trying to get the attention of politicians. I cannot imagine a serious religious person reading that quote or hearing that quote and saying, “Yeah, right on.” It is solipsistic, it is opportunistic, it is cynical. It is deep and it is wrong and it is an insult to religious people everywhere.
[/quote]
A relative told me yesterday that the reason her daughter has cancer is because God has something to teach the family and is trying to get their attention.
svelte
February 20, 2012 @
6:19 PM
TemekuT wrote:
A relative [quote=TemekuT]
A relative told me yesterday that the reason her daughter has cancer is because God has something to teach the family and is trying to get their attention.[/quote]
This kind of logic gets me very angry.
My sister was born with legs that barely allowed her to walk (and even then with braces from the hip down) before they finally gave out on her in her 20s and she has spent the rest of her life a double amputee in a wheelchair. She had unmeasureable pain, heartbreak, and disappointments throughout her childhood and endured many surgeries. She watched longingly from the sidelines when she was a little girl as her friends ran freely playing tag, hopscotch, etc. All she could do is hobble to the edge of the playground at the start of recess to sit and watch until she hobbled back to the classroom at the end of recess.
I ask Christians – why would God do that to my sister? She was BORN that way, God could not be punishing her for anything! She was an innocent baby. A few have responded that it is God’s will, it makes her stronger, he has a plan for her we don’t see yet, etc. My response is always if your God is so cruel as to do something so dispicable to a little child – millions of little babies actually – then he is worse than any human you can name [Hitler, Pol Pot, Charlie Manson, pick your villain] and I don’t want him to be my God at all. If he lived today, we’d hang a man who injured little children in such a way. Why would you worship him?
And then I tell them: by the way, if God controls everything and a handicap like that is part of his grand plan – here, let God help me cut off *your* legs and we’ll see if you still feel the same way…come over here for second…
zippythepinhead
February 20, 2012 @
8:01 PM
svelte wrote:TemekuT wrote:
A [quote=svelte][quote=TemekuT]
A relative told me yesterday that the reason her daughter has cancer is because God has something to teach the family and is trying to get their attention.[/quote]
This kind of logic gets me very angry.
My sister was born with legs that barely allowed her to walk (and even then with braces from the hip down) before they finally gave out on her in her 20s and she has spent the rest of her life a double amputee in a wheelchair. She had unmeasureable pain, heartbreak, and disappointments throughout her childhood and endured many surgeries. She watched longingly from the sidelines when she was a little girl as her friends ran freely playing tag, hopscotch, etc. All she could do is hobble to the edge of the playground at the start of recess to sit and watch until she hobbled back to the classroom at the end of recess.
I ask Christians – why would God do that to my sister? She was BORN that way, God could not be punishing her for anything! She was an innocent baby. A few have responded that it is God’s will, it makes her stronger, he has a plan for her we don’t see yet, etc. My response is always if your God is so cruel as to do something so dispicable to a little child – millions of little babies actually – then he is worse than any human you can name [Hitler, Pol Pot, Charlie Manson, pick your villain] and I don’t want him to be my God at all. If he lived today, we’d hang a man who injured little children in such a way. Why would you worship him?
And then I tell them: by the way, if God controls everything and a handicap like that is part of his grand plan – here, let God help me cut off *your* legs and we’ll see if you still feel the same way…come over here for second…[/quote]
I am saddened to hear of your sister’s circumstance. The answers you seek cannot be summarized in a paragraph or 2. They are available however- might I suggest some reading: The Problem of Evil (Chapter 6) in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Also, as previously mentioned, CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, and the book of Job. Finally, Catholic.com has some good resources- you can use their search engine. I will be praying for your sister.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
8:13 PM
If it can’t be summed up If it can’t be summed up clearly in a couple paragraphs, whatever it is, it is almost certainly a bunch of bullshit.
Book of job: really good guy does nothing wrong, suffers a lot. No particular reason given. The end.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
8:17 PM
They say there are no They say there are no atheists in foxholes. I disagree with that. I’ve believed I was going to die one occasion a while back and god and the afterlife were the last thing on my mind.
However I will concede that there may be no atheists in the delivery room; I’d have been willing to work out any deal with any god while hoping for a good birth.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
8:29 PM
As for people praying for As for people praying for others, there have been a number of scientific studies showing that prayer actually worsens outcomes for people when they know they’re being prayed over.
The theory is religious prayees feel pressured to recover to prove the religion true, and that tends to get them sicker.
Basically, having people worry over you don’t help and probably hurts the outcome.
If you feel you must pray for someone the safe way to do it us NOT to tell them you’re praying so they don’t know about it.
Otherwise basically you’re just hurting them in a strange selfish act to prove you can connect with god to make things happen on earth.
svelte
February 20, 2012 @
8:58 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:
I am [quote=zippythepinhead]
I am saddened to hear of your sister’s circumstance. The answers you seek cannot be summarized in a paragraph or 2. They are available however- might I suggest some reading: The Problem of Evil (Chapter 6) in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Also, as previously mentioned, CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, and the book of Job. Finally, Catholic.com has some good resources- you can use their search engine. I will be praying for your sister.[/quote]
It really doesn’t matter what the reason would be. If there is someone responsible for doing that to my sister, I want no part of him/her/it. Period.
If someone gave me ultimate power over everyone’s life, I can guarantee you that I would NOT use it to hurt people physically. Ever.
But as others have pointed out here very succinctly, religion is rejected by most everyone who uses logic and science for their viewpoint anyway so I would no doubt be an agnostic atheist even had I not grown up around my sister.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
9:04 PM
Well not true. Many Well not true. Many scientists are deeply religious.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
9:07 PM
On my reading list; alain de On my reading list; alain de bottoms religion for atheists; a nonbeluevers guide to the uses of religion.
I read everything de botton writes because he’s brilliant.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
9:09 PM
We have big questions and big We have big questions and big spiritual needs that must be tended to.
I’m only an angry nasty atheist because I am mightily fucking pissed at God and I was trying to get his attention.
zippythepinhead
February 20, 2012 @
10:50 PM
svelte wrote:zippythepinhead [quote=svelte][quote=zippythepinhead]
I am saddened to hear of your sister’s circumstance. The answers you seek cannot be summarized in a paragraph or 2. They are available however- might I suggest some reading: The Problem of Evil (Chapter 6) in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Also, as previously mentioned, CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, and the book of Job. Finally, Catholic.com has some good resources- you can use their search engine. I will be praying for your sister.[/quote]
It really doesn’t matter what the reason would be. If there is someone responsible for doing that to my sister, I want no part of him/her/it. Period.
If someone gave me ultimate power over everyone’s life, I can guarantee you that I would NOT use it to hurt people physically. Ever.
But as others have pointed out here very succinctly, religion is rejected by most everyone who uses logic and science for their viewpoint anyway so I would no doubt be an agnostic atheist even had I not grown up around my sister.[/quote]
Copernicus (astronomy) and Lemaitre (big bang theory) were priests, Mendel (genetics) was a monk. Pascal was a mathematician, and most neurosurgeons and astrophysicists believe in God. Psychiatrists, historians and sociologists today do not. Your demand of an answer to a critical question can only be understood by examining that which explains it; like a question at the end of a chemistry or math textbook chapter, you must first read the chapter. Otherwise, you will miss it and remain angry and ultimately bewildered. Look at The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Ch 6 by Kreeft et al – that’s all I can say.
CA renter
February 20, 2012 @
11:29 PM
Svelte,
The story about your Svelte,
The story about your sister is heart-breaking. This is the type of thing I’ve always had a problem with as well. Watching innocent children suffer from disease, genetic mutations, war, famine, etc… How can a “good and kind” god stand back and let these things happen? Yes, some religious advocates will try to give various answers, but a compassionate being who is all-powerful would not allow these things to happen, especially not to kids. Just MHO.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
2:51 AM
pocket guide notes to ch 6 pocket guide notes to ch 6 christian apologetics:
its unlikely this bool based on my quick reading of amazon reviews, is going to persuade me of much.
it’s weird looking logic stuff. Ithink you’d do better yelling at me to just beleive. When i used to go to Mass with my wife, I preferred to go to this old fashioned place that did it in latin. it seemed much more meaningful to go somewhere we couldn’t understand anything. Better to be like a peasant in the middle ages, let the priest intercede between you and this harsh God ina a language only he and He could understand. You start getting into apologetics and it’s just a logic game
it’s difficult for me to get past the whole Jewish holocaust thing.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
3:03 AM
how dare we question God? how dare we question God? could you create even one blade of grass? Ok, maybe we might be able to make some artificial meat grown from other meat cells in special factories soon, but we can’t even make one mouse. ok, maybe we might be able to clone one, but not from scratch. and we certainly can’t create a universe, or even a cnew kind of mammal,
so who are you to question Him? If he needs to kill a few people to make it work, are you so smart you have the answer? you need to beak a few eggs, maybe even a fw million eggs, to make a decent omelette, and He is truly a master chef.
He’s Awesome and Amazing and you owe everything to him, so stop whining. It’s all preparation for eternity anyway so get with the the program. And stop being so soft on children, that’s just a mdoern sensibility thing. In the old days, kids lives were cheap. dime a dozen. Ichild mortality was super high, so we didn’t get as attached to them. Now, one kid dies, and suddenly there’s no creator of thr universe.
Modern people. sheesh. ingrates. You create an entire planet for them in the middle of a cold dark universe, and are they grateful? no, a few bad things happen, and suddenly theya re wailing and gnashing their teeth and renting their garments. there’s no god, just because a few crappy things happened, adn someone somewhere suffered. hey, we’re all suffering, ok? nobody said this was going to be a picnic.
God suffers too.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @
6:43 AM
CA renter wrote:Svelte,
The [quote=CA renter]Svelte,
The story about your sister is heart-breaking. This is the type of thing I’ve always had a problem with as well. Watching innocent children suffer from disease, genetic mutations, war, famine, etc… How can a “good and kind” god stand back and let these things happen? Yes, some religious advocates will try to give various answers, but a compassionate being who is all-powerful would not allow these things to happen, especially not to kids. Just MHO.[/quote]
Thank you CA. Your thoughts are appreciated.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @
6:38 AM
zippythepinhead [quote=zippythepinhead]
Copernicus (astronomy) and Lemaitre (big bang theory) were priests, Mendel (genetics) was a monk. Pascal was a mathematician, and most neurosurgeons and astrophysicists believe in God. Psychiatrists, historians and sociologists today do not. Your demand of an answer to a critical question can only be understood by examining that which explains it; like a question at the end of a chemistry or math textbook chapter, you must first read the chapter. Otherwise, you will miss it and remain angry and ultimately bewildered. Look at The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Ch 6 by Kreeft et al – that’s all I can say.[/quote]
Oh, I’m not bewildered. But since the other poster brought up Catholicism, let’s explore that for a minute.
How could anyone belong to a church that had a staff consisting of child molesters and HID THE FACT from the public for decades while they CONTINUED to molest children? WTF kind of church is that?
On top of that, have you heard what Catholic nuns have done in Spain for the last 100 years? The nuns stole approximately 300,000 babies from their heatbroken mothers and resold them!!! And the practice continued until just the last few years (IF it has even stopped now!!!)
Again, why would any thinking person belong to such an organization?
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
6:42 AM
well, the argument is that well, the argument is that every organization is comprised of huamns, a nd so will have failings, but that doesn’t detract from the fundamental purity, goodness and all-around sanctity of the underlying organization. We would expect in anything so huge and grand that there would be some small problems here and there. Child molestors were only a tiny portion of priests, after all.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @
6:44 AM
walterwhite wrote:well, the [quote=walterwhite]well, the argument is that every organization is comprised of huamns, a nd so will have failings, but that doesn’t detract from the fundamental purity, goodness and all-around sanctity of the underlying organization. We would expect in anything so huge and grand that there would be some small problems here and there. Child molestors were only a tiny portion of priests, after all.[/quote]
You just ignored those 300,000 “small problems” in Spain…
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
6:45 AM
its the fault of the its the fault of the oppressive regime ine xistence in Spain at the time, not the fault of anyone who is a member fo the Church.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @
6:49 AM
walterwhite wrote:its the [quote=walterwhite]its the fault of the oppressive regime ine xistence in Spain at the time, not the fault of anyone who is a member fo the Church.[/quote]
lol!
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
7:02 AM
my kids are way more my kids are way more concerned about the Church’s killing of cats in connectionw ith witchcraft concerns, as they really love cats.
it wa sonly int he late 1800’s that cats came back in style as pets with the first cat show in Westminster. before then, they were suspected to be affiliated with the Devil.
Women got killed for owning a cat.
zippythepinhead
February 21, 2012 @
10:43 AM
svelte wrote:zippythepinhead [quote=svelte][quote=zippythepinhead]
Copernicus (astronomy) and Lemaitre (big bang theory) were priests, Mendel (genetics) was a monk. Pascal was a mathematician, and most neurosurgeons and astrophysicists believe in God. Psychiatrists, historians and sociologists today do not. Your demand of an answer to a critical question can only be understood by examining that which explains it; like a question at the end of a chemistry or math textbook chapter, you must first read the chapter. Otherwise, you will miss it and remain angry and ultimately bewildered. Look at The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Ch 6 by Kreeft et al – that’s all I can say.[/quote]
Oh, I’m not bewildered. But since the other poster brought up Catholicism, let’s explore that for a minute.
How could anyone belong to a church that had a staff consisting of child molesters and HID THE FACT from the public for decades while they CONTINUED to molest children? WTF kind of church is that?
On top of that, have you heard what Catholic nuns have done in Spain for the last 100 years? The nuns stole approximately 300,000 babies from their heatbroken mothers and resold them!!! And the practice continued until just the last few years (IF it has even stopped now!!!)
Again, why would any thinking person belong to such an organization?[/quote]
Many thinking persons belong to such an organization because they know scandals occur in every organizion on the face of the earth, secular or otherwise. Everyone is a sinner. The first Church scandal occurred about 15 minutes after its founding (Peter’s denial, Judas’ betrayal, etc). The last scandal will occur about 15 seconds before the end of time. Scandals do alot of damage but what do they mean to the faithful? We’ve got to do better. Just having over 95 % of the clergy living up to Church teachings isn’t good enough. But such scandals don’t invalidate the teachings of the church. By analogy, the pythagorean isn’t invalid because the geometry teacher has been arrested for drunk driving. St Francis de Sales warned against this suckerpunch i.e. using the occasion of scandal as licence to commit spiritual suicide. Those who use such an excuse to wander off the sacrimental path to salvation do so at their own peril.
UCGal
February 21, 2012 @
12:41 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:svelte [quote=zippythepinhead][quote=svelte][quote=zippythepinhead]
Copernicus (astronomy) and Lemaitre (big bang theory) were priests, Mendel (genetics) was a monk. Pascal was a mathematician, and most neurosurgeons and astrophysicists believe in God. Psychiatrists, historians and sociologists today do not. Your demand of an answer to a critical question can only be understood by examining that which explains it; like a question at the end of a chemistry or math textbook chapter, you must first read the chapter. Otherwise, you will miss it and remain angry and ultimately bewildered. Look at The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Ch 6 by Kreeft et al – that’s all I can say.[/quote]
Oh, I’m not bewildered. But since the other poster brought up Catholicism, let’s explore that for a minute.
How could anyone belong to a church that had a staff consisting of child molesters and HID THE FACT from the public for decades while they CONTINUED to molest children? WTF kind of church is that?
On top of that, have you heard what Catholic nuns have done in Spain for the last 100 years? The nuns stole approximately 300,000 babies from their heatbroken mothers and resold them!!! And the practice continued until just the last few years (IF it has even stopped now!!!)
Again, why would any thinking person belong to such an organization?[/quote]
Many thinking persons belong to such an organization because they know scandals occur in every organizion on the face of the earth, secular or otherwise. Everyone is a sinner. The first Church scandal occurred about 15 minutes after its founding (Peter’s denial, Judas’ betrayal, etc). The last scandal will occur about 15 seconds before the end of time. Scandals do alot of damage but what do they mean to the faithful? We’ve got to do better. Just having over 95 % of the clergy living up to Church teachings isn’t good enough. But such scandals don’t invalidate the teachings of the church. By analogy, the pythagorean isn’t invalid because the geometry teacher has been arrested for drunk driving. St Francis de Sales warned against this suckerpunch i.e. using the occasion of scandal as licence to commit spiritual suicide. Those who use such an excuse to wander off the sacrimental path to salvation do so at their own peril.[/quote]
My mother was the poster child for being Catholic until about a decade ago. She’s also very Italian.
But she’s no longer of the belief that the “Church” is good. In fact everytime there’s a new scandal involving the Catholic Church she finds herself muttering:
“Il pesce comincia a puzzare dalla testa”
(The fish starts rotting at the head)
She still prays, says her rosaries, etc. But she no longer attends mass. She’s pretty disgusted with the organization… starting at the top with the Pope, Arch Bishops, Cardinals, etc.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
1:00 PM
The judgments are large. It’s The judgments are large. It’s difficult to contribute $ and think about a portion going toward settlements. My wife would have to pry the $20 out of my wallet back when we used to go and the plate came around
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
1:01 PM
If you wouldn’t trust a If you wouldn’t trust a church official of any denomnation alone with your kid for 15 minutes, why would you trust him with your soul?
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @
1:07 PM
I hope if they come out, I hope if they come out, atheists can leave their superiority trips in the closet. Humility does not come easy to the “high level” atheist. Maybe that’s the problem too?
Thank goodness wiki is handy: If Descartes or Pascal and Aquinas makes Catholicism right, certainly Einstein and a few others make agnosticism better? Who pulls rank?
Agnosticism and rejection of atheism
Einstein firmly rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God’s nonexistence. Einstein stated: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”[14]
briansd1
February 21, 2012 @
2:04 PM
Father Gary is my cousin’s Father Gary is my cousin’s priest. He’s a very interesting character, knows a lot about history and loves to eat. You could call him a gourmand.
He’s very plain spoken. I once talked to him about Poland and he said that the Church provided fax machines to revolutionaries and worked with the CIA to overthrow the Communist regime.
Is it OK to be religious and enjoy worldly things such as fine food and wine? Is working with the CIA and interfering in politics the right thing for the church to do?
I’m also pretty sure that Father Gary is gay (he likes to talk to young men). My cousin’s son is also gay so I wonder if there was anything going on while he was a choir boy at church. I found out my cousin’s son is gay on Facebook. He got married in NY and someone congratulated him online. Of course, his parents don’t know yet.
My cousin is not in-your-face religious. In fact she never talks about religion. But having a priest come to the house on family occasions is special to her. She likes that tradition. It makes her feel like her family is blessed by God. I have to say that the services and gatherings are always lovely.
zk
February 21, 2012 @
2:51 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:I hope if [quote=Jacarandoso]I hope if they come out, atheists can leave their superiority trips in the closet. Humility does not come easy to the “high level” atheist. Maybe that’s the problem too?
Thank goodness wiki is handy: If Descartes or Pascal and Aquinas makes Catholicism right, certainly Einstein and a few others make agnosticism better? Who pulls rank?
Agnosticism and rejection of atheism
Einstein firmly rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God’s nonexistence. Einstein stated: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”[14][/quote]
I think the “professional” or “high-level” atheist, the one who is certain there is no god, is very similar to the religious person. I think that type of atheist is very rare, however. If you look up the definition of atheist, most dictionaries will include both the “certain there is no god” definition and the “doesn’t believe in any god” definition. I’d say 98% of atheists aren’t certain there’s no god.
And I think we need a new word for the “level 6” atheist who thinks god is extremely improbable but who knows that he doesn’t know enough about the universe to know there’s no god. Because right now, you say your agnostic, and people think that you don’t know what to believe or something similar. Technically correct, maybe, but it doesn’t really describe what you think. And if you say you’re an atheist, they frequently lump you in with the angry, militant atheists that sometimes dominate the discussion.
Anyway, I feel almost the same way about religious people that Einstein felt about atheists. The only difference is their motivation.
Take the universe. How did it start? What was here before it? Ask all those questions. Well, we can’t possibly know. Given the choice between “god made the universe” (everything has meaning, you’ll live forever) and “there’s no god” (you’ll live a moment and then be gone forever), most people will choose god. And when I say choose, I mean that there subconscious chooses for them. They want so badly to believe that they do, regardless of the fact that there’s no evidence to support the existence of a god. For some people (probably most level 6 people) there’s no choice. They see the evidence and aren’t able to deceive themselves into believing something merely because it will comfort them.
zk
February 21, 2012 @
3:35 PM
And a lot of religious people And a lot of religious people are just people who were told by their parents about god and were never skeptical about it. I never cease to be amazed at how lacking in skepticism human beings in general are.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @
3:42 PM
Rastafarianism Rastafarianism
zippythepinhead
February 21, 2012 @
5:33 PM
zk wrote:And a lot of [quote=zk]And a lot of religious people are just people who were told by their parents about god and were never skeptical about it. I never cease to be amazed at how lacking in skepticism human beings in general are.[/quote]
I would also agree with you on this point. By the same token, however, most skeptics seem unfamiliar with the arguments for Gods existence or the evidence supporting a strong probability of such.
zk
February 21, 2012 @
5:47 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:zk [quote=zippythepinhead][quote=zk]And a lot of religious people are just people who were told by their parents about god and were never skeptical about it. I never cease to be amazed at how lacking in skepticism human beings in general are.[/quote]
I would also agree with you on this point. By the same token, however, most skeptics seem unfamiliar with the arguments for Gods existence or the evidence supporting a strong probability of such.[/quote]
I don’t know what most skeptics are familiar with. But I’ve seen a lot of the arguments for god’s existence and the evidence that you claim supports a strong probability of such. My brother in law (a pastor) and I had a deal, part of which was I’d listen to those arguments and read some about it. The arguments, to this skeptic, were ridiculously far from supporting a strong probability of god’s existence. Truly a joke. I think that only those who have a strong desire to believe and go in hoping to be converted will find those arguments compelling.
zippythepinhead
February 21, 2012 @
7:24 PM
zk wrote:zippythepinhead [quote=zk][quote=zippythepinhead][quote=zk]And a lot of religious people are just people who were told by their parents about god and were never skeptical about it. I never cease to be amazed at how lacking in skepticism human beings in general are.[/quote]
I would also agree with you on this point. By the same token, however, most skeptics seem unfamiliar with the arguments for Gods existence or the evidence supporting a strong probability of such.[/quote]
I don’t know what most skeptics are familiar with. But I’ve seen a lot of the arguments for god’s existence and the evidence that you claim supports a strong probability of such. My brother in law (a pastor) and I had a deal, part of which was I’d listen to those arguments and read some about it. The arguments, to this skeptic, were ridiculously far from supporting a strong probability of god’s existence. Truly a joke. I think that only those who have a strong desire to believe and go in hoping to be converted will find those arguments compelling.[/quote]
Fatima is a good example. At minimum, 55,0000 eye witnesses were present including the 2 self decribed sceptics of local newsprint; they were there expressly to debunk “the joke”. Not only did it occur as predicted, but the predictions of the longevity of the children also came true. Quite a coincidence.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
8:36 PM
Maybe atheists wouldn’t be so Maybe atheists wouldn’t be so angry and harsh if religious people weren’t so politically mobilized to inject religion into politics
My favorite part is when, after hours of the kid asking why, louis is exasperated and it comes to this: why? “because some things are and some things are not.” why? “because things that are not can’t be.” why? “because then nothing wouldn’t be. You can’t have fucking nothing isn’t, everything is!”
briansd1
February 22, 2012 @
10:15 AM
walterwhite wrote:Maybe [quote=walterwhite]Maybe atheists wouldn’t be so angry and harsh if religious people weren’t so politically mobilized to inject religion into politics[/quote]
That’s how I feel.
Try to be kind in life. But be as harsh to others as they are to you. Otherwise you get stepped all over.
My bro recently taught his daughter to fight back first and complain later.
As Walter said muscularity Is important. People don’t respect the weak. Pick your battles but strong is best.
briansd1
February 22, 2012 @
10:34 AM
Svelte, my parents raised us Svelte, my parents raised us like you raised your kids.
Our family is from a long line of Catholics. But religion was never the focus.
Growing up we once lived in Asia where we had a beautiful altar to a local multiple-arm diety (forgot the name but some indo goddess) in the yard. Everyday we burned incense and prayed for good luck. It was fun for kids to do.
I don’t know if Obama is faking it but I relate to his upbringing. I guess I like him for the same reason some other voters would prefer a born again Christian.
Fatima is a perfect example. Really, if that sort of thing is all it takes for you to think that there’s a “strong probability” that an omnipotent being (your personal god, no less) exists, then it’s quite clear that you’re not looking at the evidence (and coming to your conclusions) rationally and skeptically.
afx114
February 21, 2012 @
10:47 PM
I think we also need to I think we also need to separate “I think there may be a God” from “I think there is a God and it is MY God.” Every religion thinks that their religion is the one true religion, and that all others are false religions. The truth though is that one’s religion is largely a function of where one is born, which calls the “one true religion” thing into question. I once asked a fundamentalist born again Christian if they think they’d still be a Christian if they were born a poor peasant in say, India, or Tibet, or Iran. Of course they told me yes, because Christianity was the one true religion, and eventually they would come to it. Even if they were a poor shoeless Tibetan child, surely some Christian missionaries would find them and save them. But we all know that they would most likely be Buddhist if born in Tibet or Muslim if born in Iran, Hindu if born in India, etc.
An honest believer would say that they believe in a God, but they’re not sure if the groups of Gods that humans have come up with over our history is the true representation of that God. An honest believer would admit that there are just too many variations of God to settle on one true religion. An honest believer would not be resigned to the fact that a random child born in some far off country would perish for eternity simply because they were born somewhere that wasn’t exposed to the one true religion. But we all know that’s not how beliefs and religion work.
zk
February 21, 2012 @
10:59 PM
afx114 wrote:
An honest [quote=afx114]
An honest believer would say that they believe in a God, but they’re not sure if the groups of Gods that humans have come up with over our history is the true representation of that God.[/quote]
I agree with what you’re saying. I’ve asked christians the same question and gotten the same answer.
The problem with the hypothetical “honest believer” (according to my theory, anyway) is that most believers are not able to be honest with themselves. Or, more accurately, they’re able to be dishonest with themselves. Of all the things they have to overlook (lie to themselves about) to believe in god, the conundrum you mention may be one of the large ones, but it’s certainly not the biggest or the only one. Just one example of the self-deception required of any reasonably intelligent person for them to believe in god.
Fatima is a perfect example. Really, if that sort of thing is all it takes for you to think that there’s a “strong probability” that an omnipotent being (your personal god, no less) exists, then it’s quite clear that you’re not looking at the evidence (and coming to your conclusions) rationally and skeptically.[/quote]
Fatima isn’t the only thing, but it is one of many miracles publicly witnessed, and it does means something. If you look at that evidence or the approved miracles from Lourdes, what other conclusions are as reasonable given in their context. To paraphrase Chesterton, “I believe in miracles because there is evidence for them. The skeptic doesn’t believe because he doesn’t accept the evidence. He has a dogma against miracles. A materialist, after all, is not free to believe in miracles. Only a naturalistic explanation for anything will do, even if such an explantation is more unbelievable than a miraculous one”.
Fatima is a perfect example. Really, if that sort of thing is all it takes for you to think that there’s a “strong probability” that an omnipotent being (your personal god, no less) exists, then it’s quite clear that you’re not looking at the evidence (and coming to your conclusions) rationally and skeptically.[/quote]
Fatima isn’t the only thing, but it is one of many miracles publicly witnessed, and it does means something. If you look at that evidence or the approved miracles from Lourdes, what other conclusions are as reasonable given in their context.
[/quote]
What other conclusions are reasonable? If you really want to do this, give me a couple particular ones, and I’ll give you reasonable conclusions. If you want to give me a challenge, then they’ll have to be better than Fatima.
[quote=zippythepinhead]
To paraphrase Chesterton, “I believe in miracles because there is evidence for them. The skeptic doesn’t believe because he doesn’t accept the evidence. He has a dogma against miracles. A materialist, after all, is not free to believe in miracles. Only a naturalistic explanation for anything will do, even if such an explantation is more unbelievable than a miraculous one”.[/quote]
Apparently Chesterton lumped all skeptics into the “materialist” camp. A materialist believes that the only thing that exists is matter or energy. I think what you (and Chesterton) don’t understand is that most skeptics aren’t anything-ists. We don’t hold one theory, one explanation for everything and then exclude everything else. The only way that what you ascribe to Chesterton holds water is if all skeptics (or skeptics in general) think that way. Which, I assure you, we don’t. We don’t have a “dogma” against miracles. We have an open mind and look at things without bias or “dogma.” We conclude based on the evidence. And, when it comes to unknowable things like what’s the universe all about, we understand that we don’t know for sure. But we can estimate based on the evidence what’s likely and what’s not. And, if we’re honest with ourselves, and we’re truly skeptical and open-minded, then we generally conclude that an omnipotent being ruling the universe is superlatively unlikely.
Fatima is a perfect example. Really, if that sort of thing is all it takes for you to think that there’s a “strong probability” that an omnipotent being (your personal god, no less) exists, then it’s quite clear that you’re not looking at the evidence (and coming to your conclusions) rationally and skeptically.[/quote]
Fatima isn’t the only thing, but it is one of many miracles publicly witnessed, and it does means something. If you look at that evidence or the approved miracles from Lourdes, what other conclusions are as reasonable given in their context.
[/quote]
What other conclusions are reasonable? If you really want to do this, give me a couple particular ones, and I’ll give you reasonable conclusions. If you want to give me a challenge, then they’ll have to be better than Fatima.
[quote=zippythepinhead]
To paraphrase Chesterton, “I believe in miracles because there is evidence for them. The skeptic doesn’t believe because he doesn’t accept the evidence. He has a dogma against miracles. A materialist, after all, is not free to believe in miracles. Only a naturalistic explanation for anything will do, even if such an explantation is more unbelievable than a miraculous one”.[/quote]
Apparently Chesterton lumped all skeptics into the “materialist” camp. A materialist believes that the only thing that exists is matter or energy. I think what you (and Chesterton) don’t understand is that most skeptics aren’t anything-ists. We don’t hold one theory, one explanation for everything and then exclude everything else. The only way that what you ascribe to Chesterton holds water is if all skeptics (or skeptics in general) think that way. Which, I assure you, we don’t. We don’t have a “dogma” against miracles. We have an open mind and look at things without bias or “dogma.” We conclude based on the evidence. And, when it comes to unknowable things like what’s the universe all about, we understand that we don’t know for sure. But we can estimate based on the evidence what’s likely and what’s not. And, if we’re honest with ourselves, and we’re truly skeptical and open-minded, then we generally conclude that an omnipotent being ruling the universe is superlatively unlikely.[/quote]
If what you say is true about being open minded and basing conslusions on evidence, then my question would be, “What do you conclude about Fatima?”
scaredyclassic
February 22, 2012 @
2:30 PM
Miracles seem silly. Kinda Miracles seem silly. Kinda like how god messed w Abrahams mind. Stop being such a coy little freak. If you wanna do a goddamn miralcle, do something big, obvious so there’s no mire doubt. I recommend;
suspending the law of gravity for ten seconds while techno music spontaneously plays across the globe followed by midday fireworks that spell out yay god, and everyone suddenly has a free pony appear by their side. Everyone.
Or, god appears globally on the sky, causes everyone to freeze, and pokes you with a stick until you admit he exists.
Everything else is strictly gamesplayong amateur hour.
afx114
February 22, 2012 @
2:36 PM
I imagine everyone thought I imagine everyone thought that aurora borealus and rainbows and lightning and eclipses and earthquakes and tsunamis and shooting stars and beer and weed and shrooms were miraculous too, until we figured out what they actually were.
scaredyclassic
February 22, 2012 @
2:56 PM
As far as I’m concerned, the As far as I’m concerned, the only miracle is that there’s anything here at all. It’s pretty weird, I admit. Spooky even. But it doesn’t make me feel like it’s owner is necessarily into me.
NotCranky
February 22, 2012 @
3:20 PM
Zippy,
I wonder what you Zippy,
I wonder what you would come back and report to this thread after spending a few houses surfing and reading on a few suggested topics.
Miracles of Allah
Miracles of Hindu gods
Origin of Mayan Gods
You can see or not see what you want. I see milk dribbling off these statues down to the ground,maybe a little gets absorbed by capillary action.
Same thing for Fatima, I am sorry to say. The Catholic Church doesn’t even request that everyone believe it. It’s a “local miracle” and they wouldn’t want to piss everyone off stating otherwise. The Catholic church has been just fungible enough on it’s dogma to make it obvious that it is a hoax, as if the miracles and the abuses didn’t make that clear enough. Maybe they mean well somewhere in it all,and it works for you, but it really is silly to expect anyone who has escaped the brain washing to believe it. Sorry if that is harsh. I really am.
Even from the myth in Fatima, the apparition of the Virgin Mary(another good one), or whatever it allegedly was, told the children to flog themselves, which they did(moderately). I am not any less skeptical but I do feel a little bit ill. Yes no wonder some Atheists are quite angry.
briansd1
February 22, 2012 @
3:41 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:
Even from [quote=Jacarandoso]
Even from the myth in Fatima, the apparition of the Virgin Mary(another good one), or whatever it allegedly was, told the children to flog themselves, which they did(moderately). I am not any less skeptical but I do feel a little bit ill. Yes no wonder some Atheists are quite angry.[/quote]
I heard that in some developing countries, in some villages where White christian missionaries had been evangelizing, when paler than usual children were born, they’d say “it’s a miracle, the children have been blessed by Jesus and the Virgin Mary.”
NotCranky
February 22, 2012 @
4:38 PM
Funny thing and kinda sad, Funny thing and kinda sad, Brian, sometimes when I have met Mexican families for the first time, often I would met a dark little kid, and the parent might say this is so and so, then another kid just a dark would arrive and they would say “Este es el Guero” (like the Jesus given to them by europeans?). Never made the connection to miracles, when he really was white the connection to Sancho was easily made. (yes,I know lots of Mexicans families and people are white,it’s just a joke)
I know many of my Mexican friends also really don’t believe half the time, the wives appear to be more credulous than the husbands, and there are a lot of mandilones so tradition carries on! They still baptize their kids and send them to Catechism. Of course many of them know they are ancestors of conquered natives who had different beliefs as valid as any other religion, people aren’t stupid.
Most of them are actually really nice about atheism, probably because of what I penned above. I think it’s kind of fun for them to know a disbeliever. For the most part only gays are brave enough or desperate enough to be openly atheist, like Juan Gabriel, for instance. Might as well be open about it, if you are already the brunt of jokes.
Jazzman
February 22, 2012 @
6:55 PM
Nah! That’s just code for the Nah! That’s just code for the local Pasta has been rogering your wife.
scaredyclassic
February 22, 2012 @
9:46 PM
Great country song on the Great country song on the radio just now:
god is great, beer is good and people are crazy.
scaredyclassic
February 22, 2012 @
10:05 PM
Confession; I often listen to Confession; I often listen to the Christian preaching station while driving. I’m actually sitting in a minivan right now waiting for my kid listening to 107.9 the wave. Sometimes the preaching can move me to tears.
zippythepinhead
February 22, 2012 @
10:48 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:Zippy,
I [quote=Jacarandoso]Zippy,
I wonder what you would come back and report to this thread after spending a few houses surfing and reading on a few suggested topics.
Miracles of Allah
Miracles of Hindu gods
Origin of Mayan Gods
You can see or not see what you want. I see milk dribbling off these statues down to the ground,maybe a little gets absorbed by capillary action.
Same thing for Fatima, I am sorry to say. The Catholic Church doesn’t even request that everyone believe it. It’s a “local miracle” and they wouldn’t want to piss everyone off stating otherwise. The Catholic church has been just fungible enough on it’s dogma to make it obvious that it is a hoax, as if the miracles and the abuses didn’t make that clear enough. Maybe they mean well somewhere in it all,and it works for you, but it really is silly to expect anyone who has escaped the brain washing to believe it. Sorry if that is harsh. I really am.
Even from the myth in Fatima, the apparition of the Virgin Mary(another good one), or whatever it allegedly was, told the children to flog themselves, which they did(moderately). I am not any less skeptical but I do feel a little bit ill. Yes no wonder some Atheists are quite angry.[/quote]
Let me see if I have this straight. The hoax that fooled the entire multitude of eye witnesses can’t fool one who sits on a surfboard, displaced by 95 years and thousands of miles. But what I still don’t get is, do you think the mastermind’s motive was simply to flog children, or is there more to it?
NotCranky
February 23, 2012 @
7:27 AM
zippythepinhead [quote=zippythepinhead][quote=Jacarandoso]Zippy,
I wonder what you would come back and report to this thread after spending a few houses surfing and reading on a few suggested topics.
Miracles of Allah
Miracles of Hindu gods
Origin of Mayan Gods
You can see or not see what you want. I see milk dribbling off these statues down to the ground,maybe a little gets absorbed by capillary action.
Same thing for Fatima, I am sorry to say. The Catholic Church doesn’t even request that everyone believe it. It’s a “local miracle” and they wouldn’t want to piss everyone off stating otherwise. The Catholic church has been just fungible enough on it’s dogma to make it obvious that it is a hoax, as if the miracles and the abuses didn’t make that clear enough. Maybe they mean well somewhere in it all,and it works for you, but it really is silly to expect anyone who has escaped the brain washing to believe it. Sorry if that is harsh. I really am.
Even from the myth in Fatima, the apparition of the Virgin Mary(another good one), or whatever it allegedly was, told the children to flog themselves, which they did(moderately). I am not any less skeptical but I do feel a little bit ill. Yes no wonder some Atheists are quite angry.[/quote]
Let me see if I have this straight. The hoax that fooled the entire multitude of eye witnesses can’t fool one who sits on a surfboard, displaced by 95 years and thousands of miles. But what I still don’t get is, do you think the mastermind’s motive was simply to flog children, or is there more to it?[/quote]
I think people feel they need to be as important and have important events such as miracles happen a little closer to home. Of course there is much more to it, it keeps people under the fold if the authorities at least half-heartedly approve of the delusion. So this has happened with the Virgin of Guadalupe too. It is good for allegiance and revenues I imagine. Sheep and Politics of miracles.
I really should call this a “don’t feed the (religious) trolls” moment and move on.I am still interested in what you will report after dedicated investigations of the miracles of the milk and the other things that I listed.
scaredyclassic
February 23, 2012 @
8:11 AM
Either everything is a Either everything is a miracle or nothing is.
zk
February 24, 2012 @
7:00 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:
If [quote=zippythepinhead]
If what you say is true about being open minded and basing conslusions on evidence, then my question would be, “What do you conclude about Fatima?”[/quote]
Sorry for the delay, zippy, I was in Big Bear for a couple days.
Before I give you my conclusions, let me ask you this: Have you googled Fatima (or miracle of the sun) and looked at all the information out there that lays out the more likely explanations for this “miracle?” As I was looking around, I came across someone asking how atheists explain this and other miracles. I was left wondering if he or you or anyone else who wonders has tried to see the other side of it. There’s plenty of information out there that easily explains it. Have you tried finding it? If not, why not? And why are you asking me now? I guess what I’m getting at is, do you really want to hear it? I speculate that perhaps you don’t, given that you apparently haven’t bothered to read all the information that’s out there. And if you don’t, I don’t want to be the one to ruin it for you. I don’t begrudge the faithful their faith, especially the ones like you who are (from what I can see) kind, sincere, and not preachy.
We live in the information age, and it’s so much easier to find information about the other side of any argument now. While I’d foolishly hoped and speculated that this might usher in an era of enlightenment, it seems to have given more credence than ever to those who would spread misinformation, deceit, and outright lies. Perhaps this is why. Perhaps the reason that the information age has, in so many cases, spread ignorance rather than enlightenment, is because most people don’t want to see the other side of things. They don’t want to see that fatima wasn’t a miracle or that the opposition’s candidate for president was born in America and isn’t a Muslim. So they ignore the evidence supporting the things they don’t want to hear and focus on the things they agree with.
scaredyclassic
February 24, 2012 @
7:36 PM
You can lead a horse to water You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. However, in the event of dehydration you can stick an iv in it.
If what you say is true about being open minded and basing conslusions on evidence, then my question would be, “What do you conclude about Fatima?”[/quote]
Sorry for the delay, zippy, I was in Big Bear for a couple days.
Before I give you my conclusions, let me ask you this: Have you googled Fatima (or miracle of the sun) and looked at all the information out there that lays out the more likely explanations for this “miracle?” As I was looking around, I came across someone asking how atheists explain this and other miracles. I was left wondering if he or you or anyone else who wonders has tried to see the other side of it. There’s plenty of information out there that easily explains it. Have you tried finding it? If not, why not? And why are you asking me now? I guess what I’m getting at is, do you really want to hear it? I speculate that perhaps you don’t, given that you apparently haven’t bothered to read all the information that’s out there. And if you don’t, I don’t want to be the one to ruin it for you. I don’t begrudge the faithful their faith, especially the ones like you who are (from what I can see) kind, sincere, and not preachy.
We live in the information age, and it’s so much easier to find information about the other side of any argument now. While I’d foolishly hoped and speculated that this might usher in an era of enlightenment, it seems to have given more credence than ever to those who would spread misinformation, deceit, and outright lies. Perhaps this is why. Perhaps the reason that the information age has, in so many cases, spread ignorance rather than enlightenment, is because most people don’t want to see the other side of things. They don’t want to see that fatima wasn’t a miracle or that the opposition’s candidate for president was born in America and isn’t a Muslim. So they ignore the evidence supporting the things they don’t want to hear and focus on the things they agree with.[/quote]
I admit that I have not extensively researched alternative explanations to Fatima, but will now do so. We can then compare notes. Hopefully everyone would agree that we should seek the truth, where ever that takes us.
scaredyclassic
February 25, 2012 @
11:45 PM
The truth? You can’t The truth? You can’t manhandle the truth!
zk
February 26, 2012 @
7:26 AM
walterwhite wrote:The truth? [quote=walterwhite]The truth? You can’t manhandle the truth![/quote]
On cue. 7 words. They should set up bleachers around you, scaredy.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @
4:50 PM
I agree with all you I agree with all you wrote,zk. Skeptic is too weak.
It plays out, especially to believers, like you are on a fence with the dominant faith on one side and a sorry abyss( at best) on the other.
From the Einstein quote:
“of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth”
This is pretty interesting and some thing “born agains” throw back at non believers, and not just raging atheists, all the time. Unfortunately, usually it is true that we had been faced with the moral necessity to defect.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @
5:12 PM
So is Obama faking it?
His So is Obama faking it?
His upbringing is one that generally creates agnostics or a least people pretty dispassionate about religion . What makes him different?
If he is faking it is it o.k. because it is necessary to enable “progressive” ideas gradually.
“Obama is a Christian whose religious views developed in his adult life. He wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he “was not raised in a religious household”. He described his mother, raised by non-religious parents (whom Obama has specified elsewhere as “non-practicing Methodists and Baptists”), to be detached from religion, yet “in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known”. He described his father as “raised a Muslim”, but a “confirmed atheist” by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as “a man who saw religion as not particularly useful”. Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand “the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change”.[297]
Pretty audacious alright.
zk
February 21, 2012 @
5:41 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:So is Obama [quote=Jacarandoso]So is Obama faking it?
His upbringing is one that generally creates agnostics or a least people pretty dispassionate about religion . What makes him different?
If he is faking it is it o.k. because it is necessary to enable “progressive” ideas gradually.
[/quote]
I would be amazed if he actually believed in god. Like you said, his upbringing isn’t conducive to it. And you don’t get as far as he has in life if you’re credulous about everything.
Is it o.k.? My first instinct is to say yes. Otherwise, any atheist wouldn’t be able to hold a high political office in this country. On the other hand, it’s a pretty slippery slope to say it’s ok to misrepresent yourself in order to get elected. On the third hand, to say, “if I proclaim my atheism, these rubes won’t elect me because they’ve fooled themselves into believing in god and they fear the godless. These unskeptical unwashed deserve me, and I shouldn’t be kept out of office just because I know there’s most probably no god” is probably not much different from any of the other lies that politicians constantly tell the electorate.
If we didn’t elect politicians who lie, we’d have anarchy.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @
5:47 PM
Being more cynical, His Being more cynical, His trainers and handlers could have could have just told him he has to do it. Or he started picking it up clues as he went along, maybe Harvard, maybe before. The black church thing was a thing of genius, really. No one could figure out how to kiss so many asses,just the right way on his own.
Get ready for round two of “hope a dope”.
zk
February 21, 2012 @
5:49 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:Being more [quote=Jacarandoso]Being more cynical, His trainers and handlers could have could have just told him he has to do it. Or he started picking it up clues as he went along, maybe Harvard, maybe before. The black church thing was a thing of genius, really. No one could figure out how to kiss so many asses,just the right way on his own.
Get ready for round two of “hope a dope”.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s any secret that Americans aren’t going to elect an atheist. He probably started pretending as soon as he realized he might end up in politics.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @
5:48 PM
Being more cynical, Obama’s Being more cynical, Obama’s trainers and handlers could have could have just told him he has to do it. Or he started picking it up clues as he went along, maybe Harvard, maybe before. The black church thing was a thing of genius, really. No one could figure out how to kiss so many asses,just the right way on his own.
Get ready for round two of “hope a dope”.
svelte
February 22, 2012 @
6:41 AM
zk wrote:
I think the [quote=zk]
I think the “professional” or “high-level” atheist, the one who is certain there is no god, is very similar to the religious person. I think that type of atheist is very rare, however.
[/quote]
It seems rare because the non-vocal don’t stand out. It’s the vocal, “I’m right and you’re wrong” types that stand out.
To quote one of my sons from our conversation last week:
“It’s unfortunate, but it’s probably best to keep your atheism on the downlow. I’m not saying you should lie about it, but you should probably not bring it up.”
He goes on to explain an event that caused him to take that perspective:
“I remember when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade, some kids asked me during lunch some question or other about god. I just shrugged it off, explaining that I didn’t believe in a god (hadn’t really occurred to me to even consider a god at that point). But those kids wouldn’t accept that answer. They started asking me a barrage of questions: If there isn’t a god, who made the earth? Who made the sun and the moon? How does anything exist without a god? I did not much appreciate their tone and felt like I was being attacked, so I asked one of the yard supervisors if I could move tables. I remember expecting the answer to be no, as you generally couldn’t get up much during lunch, at least not until the second half where you got to run around like wild animals. I told the teacher that the kids were attacking me because I didn’t believe in god, and that I wanted to sit somewhere else, and she said “of course!” So I sat under a tree and finished my lunch all by myself.”
[quote=zk]
If you look up the definition of atheist, most dictionaries will include both the “certain there is no god” definition and the “doesn’t believe in any god” definition. I’d say 98% of atheists aren’t certain there’s no god.
[/quote]
That’s why I chose the agnostic atheist title. I’m pretty certain there is no god, but I can’t prove it. Again, to quote a son from last week:
“I can’t prove there isn’t a god, but I also can’t prove their isn’t a gecko in a rocking chair on the moon”
[quote=zk]
And a lot of religious people are just people who were told by their parents about god and were never skeptical about it. I never cease to be amazed at how lacking in skepticism human beings in general are.
[/quote]
Absolutely. We never talked about religion in our household. I wanted my kids to make their own decisions. In fact, my younger son wanted to attend church (mostly to chase girls), so we drove him there faithfully every weekend. To the church of his choice. Here is what he thinks looking back on it:
“This is a good article [redacted] about what was going through my head in my teen years when i was attending church. What you never know is that in church, they never EVER went though the bad parts of the bible, such as the how god made the jews walk though the desert for 40 years. I wish i would have actually read the whole bible when i was going through that stage so i could have slapped myself to get out of there sooner.”
And what he’s discovered – a lot of his in-law church goers (he is now married) don’t even know what is in the bible!
when i went to the [event name] up in [another state] a few years ago with [wife’s family member] in the car this subject came up. she asked me about my religion and what i believed. i told her i grew up in a household that let me believe what i wanted to believe and they didn’t force anything down my throat, yet i still went to church for two small periods of time in my life. once when i was young mostly to be with my friends a little more, then once in my teens to chase a girl but ended up interested in a religion i didn’t agree with. i quickly quieted her by asking her questions about her religion that she could not answer. what the questions were i cannot recall but they were along the lines of if your god is all knowing why would he let so much bad happen in this world. if your god creates everything, why would he create cancer, aids, and other extremely deadly illnesses such as that.”
“One thing that really has been bugging me is how [my wife] will sometimes randomly bring god into a converstation of ours (very seldom) but when I ask her about other parts of the bible, such as adam and eve, or noahs ark, she has no clue about them. these are the people i feel sorry for, they believe in something because they were born here and forced to believe in this god. I always mention what if she were to be born in per say Iran or something of that nature or India, what would she believe in then. this is one of the keys that helped me deter from the path i was walking, how are those guys wrong in their religion and i am right in mine just because i was born here and this is what everyone around me is believing?”
svelte
February 22, 2012 @
6:47 AM
This conversation with my This conversation with my sons last week was very surprising to me. I didn’t know they were both non-believers, and I was surprised at the depth of the analysis they had both put into religion.
I would have been happy with any conclusion they came to, but was thrilled to see they had both given it fairly deep thought.
scaredyclassic
February 22, 2012 @
6:59 AM
On the other hand, there are On the other hand, there are many paths to muscularity but you have to use the muscle.
Perhaps religion is just the 24 h fitness of the soul.
Ricechex
February 23, 2012 @
12:50 PM
svelte wrote:TemekuT wrote:
A [quote=svelte][quote=TemekuT]
A relative told me yesterday that the reason her daughter has cancer is because God has something to teach the family and is trying to get their attention.[/quote]
This kind of logic gets me very angry.
My sister was born with legs that barely allowed her to walk (and even then with braces from the hip down) before they finally gave out on her in her 20s and she has spent the rest of her life a double amputee in a wheelchair. She had unmeasureable pain, heartbreak, and disappointments throughout her childhood and endured many surgeries. She watched longingly from the sidelines when she was a little girl as her friends ran freely playing tag, hopscotch, etc. All she could do is hobble to the edge of the playground at the start of recess to sit and watch until she hobbled back to the classroom at the end of recess.
I ask Christians – why would God do that to my sister? She was BORN that way, God could not be punishing her for anything! She was an innocent baby. A few have responded that it is God’s will, it makes her stronger, he has a plan for her we don’t see yet, etc. My response is always if your God is so cruel as to do something so dispicable to a little child – millions of little babies actually – then he is worse than any human you can name [Hitler, Pol Pot, Charlie Manson, pick your villain] and I don’t want him to be my God at all. If he lived today, we’d hang a man who injured little children in such a way. Why would you worship him?
And then I tell them: by the way, if God controls everything and a handicap like that is part of his grand plan – here, let God help me cut off *your* legs and we’ll see if you still feel the same way…come over here for second…[/quote]
I ran into this logic recently. Two Christian mothers. One is the day care provider, the other works outside the home and her 4 month old baby is in care with the provider. Provider leaves baby on floor on her stomach and goes away. When she returns baby can’t breathe and is almost dead and is rushed to hospital. Baby lives. Provider never apologizes for the wrong (never leave a baby face down for this very reason) and tells the mother that it is God’s way to test her love for her child and make her a better mother.
scaredyclassic
February 23, 2012 @
4:04 PM
This should eliminate This should eliminate virtually all civil litigation, since ultimately He is liable. And difficult to collect from.
NotCranky
February 19, 2012 @
10:57 AM
briansd1 wrote:zk wrote:Faith [quote=briansd1][quote=zk]Faith (belief in something not supported by evidence) is, by definition, irrational.[/quote]
That’s exactly how I see.[/quote]
Human beings are so extremely creative and have such large language capacity that we can infringe upon instinct, and the path to power, with artificial systems of personal and social norms, which often become religions or contain religious like adherence with grand explanations, rituals and icons.
It breaks down at some point because it is all fake,theocracy is theatrical ,and as walterwhite points out, in its fakeness, these created systems lack mutuality. If history repeats itself, what will remain of all these religions one day will be a nice collection of artifacts for some museum.
zippythepinhead
February 19, 2012 @
11:08 AM
Pascal would disagree, “ Pascal would disagree, ” faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them. And Aquinas, ” The truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith”. Still others, “faith without reason withers to superstition, and reason without faith obscures the fullness of truth.”
briansd1
February 19, 2012 @
11:24 AM
If I had to choose among all If I had to choose among all the major religions, it would be buddhism. It’s not hardcore like the other religious.
Buddhism is more about being philosophical and taking taking things in stride.
NotCranky
February 19, 2012 @
11:39 AM
zippythepinhead wrote:Pascal [quote=zippythepinhead]Pascal would disagree, ” faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them. And Aquinas, ” The truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith”. Still others, “faith without reason withers to superstition, and reason without faith obscures the fullness of truth.”[/quote]
It does seem like there is an inherent sense of the possibility of Truth. However, Obscurity is at least as close to Truth as any collection of invented articles of faith. I believe in obscurity and from there, if there is a God, God is Love. Therefore the label that best fits me,somewhat painfully, is agnostic.
svelte
February 19, 2012 @
8:48 AM
Wow, amazing this thread Wow, amazing this thread popped up. One of my grown kids started a family email trail Friday talking about religion, how it affects people, and interactions he has witnessed.
We never really talk about religion in our household. It was the first time I found out we are all agnostic atheists. 🙂
Arguments for and agin Arguments for and agin beautifully laid bear in the Confession, with Keifer Sutherland and John Hurt engaged in a ‘confession box’ dialogue. Choice and belief come head to head exposing the hypocrisy inherent in the human condition. Highly recommended.
DMT: The Spirit Molecule is also an interesting documentary that throws out the age old question of whether reality is just controlled dreaming, and whether DMT mysteriously present in all plant and animal life is responsible for heightened experiences we associate with religion.
UCGal
February 19, 2012 @
11:37 AM
Just curious… is Southern Just curious… is Southern Baptist the only protestant selection? There are lots of flavors of Protestant t that are quite different from Southern Baptist. FWIW, I was sent to a So. Baptist Sunday school growing up and it doesn’t resemble the Presbytarian services I attended for a while as an adult.
You also skipped Unitarians (one God in everything, vs the trilogy of Christianity)
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
11:42 AM
Other Protestants are under Other Protestants are under other misc Jesus based religions
NotCranky
February 19, 2012 @
11:50 AM
Got Bokonism?
From Got Bokonism?
From Wiki
Bokononism is based on the concept of foma, which are defined as harmless untruths. A foundation of Bokononism is that the religion, including its texts, is formed entirely of lies; however, one who believes and adheres to these lies will have peace of mind, and perhaps live a good life. The primary tenet of Bokononism is to “Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy.”
Arraya
February 19, 2012 @
12:25 PM
I believe in our holy father I believe in our holy father the “Market” and his only son the invisible hand. The mystical power of money. Just like everybody else on the board.
All that old stuff is just mental masturbation at this point. The main driver of our patterns of behavior and hence culture is “economic”.
pokepud3
February 19, 2012 @
1:36 PM
Seems like I’m the only Seems like I’m the only muslim on here. I’m a daily reader, and love watching the market, and what you guys have to say. There’s nothing wrong or conflicting with believing in being a market skeptic or believing in life outside of earth. Don’t see how believing in this would make you an atheist 😐
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
2:02 PM
Believing in alien life kinda Believing in alien life kinda makes earth not the center of the cosmic action as described in lots of religious literature.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
2:23 PM
Avoid politics and religion Avoid politics and religion in polite conversation.
But query; most religions posit some events that seem a little insane; virgin births, gold tablets From God found by a con man in northern ny in the 1820’s, etc. Do religious piggs really really believe in suspension of natural laws or are you just kind of saying you do because the tradition is nice and you think it’ll help raise moral kids?
Arraya
February 19, 2012 @
3:01 PM
walterwhite wrote: Do [quote=walterwhite] Do religious piggs really really believe in suspension of natural laws or are you just kind of saying you do because the tradition is nice and you think it’ll help raise moral kids?[/quote]
Perpetual material economic growth on a finite planet is a suspension of natural law. Capital has cognition of thermodynamics.
Our economics, market based economics IS a faith based, quasi-religious- pseudo-science.
The economist has no clothes http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes
* The market system is a closed circular flow between production and consumption, with no inlets or outlets.
* Natural resources exist in a domain that is separate and distinct from a closed market system, and the economic value of these resources can be determined only by the dynamics that operate within this system.
* The costs of damage to the external natural environment by economic activities must be treated as costs that lie outside the closed market system or as costs that cannot be included in the pricing mechanisms that operate within the system.
* The external resources of nature are largely inexhaustible, and those that are not can be replaced by other resources or by technologies that minimize the use of the exhaustible resources or that rely on other resources.
* There are no biophysical limits to the growth of market systems.
I can’t speak for other I can’t speak for other religions, but there’s nothing in Islam that says “There is no life outside of earth, and thus you shouldn’t research into it and bash anyone who believes it may exist.”
We also believe that miracles are all scientifically possible achievements that god gave the know-how on how to do them directly to his messengers or prophets as we call them. In Islam there is a strong logic-faith correlation that exists, and thus allows us to strengthen out beliefs, rather then just following blind faith all the time.
Now if only I could find some know how on how to achieve those 10 percent return properties some of these REIT’s are finding that would be nice.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
5:11 PM
Aren’t there Islamic Aren’t there Islamic restrictions on lending?
I thought I heard about certain loans being not kosher.
pokepud3
February 19, 2012 @
5:44 PM
I’m part of the shiite (shia) I’m part of the shiite (shia) branch of Islam, and there is some limitations on lending from muslim to muslim, and from muslim to christian.
This is a tricky subject as it depends on sect to sect, and there are a few systems to make market growth possible.
Sunni Muslims believe all forms of lending and borrowing with interest is forbidden. (As far as I know, I may be wrong here.)
Shia’s believe that we can borrow from non-muslims although it’s not recommended as interest is a form of wage slavery as we so believe.
So yes as a shia I can get mortgages from a bank, but no I cannot loan my money out with interest.
What we are allows to do though is charge a service charge for the money we loan out. We run on a system of trust, and so far it’s working. This is also how the banking sector in most islamic countries work out. The service charge must be set at a fixed price, and must be made clear to the receiver of the loan.
It’s a tricky subject, and generally I always recommend people to do their own research. Again I’m a shia muslim, so I follow the rules set by my own sect of Islam.
Quite frankly the reason we are against interest, is that it makes a select few rich, while depriving the rest of society of their share of money to work towards (no, we do not believe everyone has a right to equal pay). Which in other words leaves only the privileged few with massive amounts of money, and the rest of humanity as their wage slaves.
TemekuT
February 19, 2012 @
6:18 PM
I’d put the “misc Jesus I’d put the “misc Jesus based” option farther up on the list and call it “Born Again Christian Fundamentalism” as that is certainly a majority religion in Southern California. Costa Mesa’s Calvary Chapel was the birthplace of the born again phenomenon in the early 70’s. And So. Cal. is home to many mega churches.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
6:26 PM
No. It stays misc. And low No. It stays misc. And low down the list. See how it feels to be marginalized?
Does it feel nice to be called “misc.”?
zk
February 19, 2012 @
6:41 PM
walterwhite wrote:No. It [quote=walterwhite]No. It stays misc. And low down the list. See how it feels to be marginalized?
Does it feel nice to be called “misc.”?[/quote]
Reminds me of a scene from The Simpsons:
Ned: Homer, God didn’t set your house on fire.
Reverend Lovejoy: No, but He was working in the hearts of your friends and neighbors when they came to your aid, be they Christian (points at Ned), Jew (points at Krusty), or … miscellaneous (points at Apu).
Apu: (offended) Hindu! There are 700 million of us, you know.
Reverend Lovejoy: Aw, that’s super.
svelte
February 19, 2012 @
8:26 PM
zk wrote:
Reminds me of a [quote=zk]
Reminds me of a scene from The Simpsons:
…[/quote]
Speaking of the Simpsons, one of my favorite lines from that show:
Maude Flanders to Marge: “Well, I’m off to Bible Camp to learn to be more judgmental!”
zk
February 20, 2012 @
7:14 AM
svelte wrote:
Speaking of the [quote=svelte]
Speaking of the Simpsons, one of my favorite lines from that show:
Maude Flanders to Marge: “Well, I’m off to Bible Camp to learn to be more judgmental!”[/quote]
And then there’s Tod and Rod praying and saying, “Thank you god, for sending Lisa to save us from that moth that you sent.”
It always cracks me up when people survive, say, a tornado that destroyed their house and call it a miracle. God saved them. Right. From the tornado that he sent.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
8:06 AM
why Do bad things happen to why Do bad things happen to good people if god is concerned for us?
SK in CV
February 20, 2012 @
8:30 AM
walterwhite wrote:why Do bad [quote=walterwhite]why Do bad things happen to good people if god is concerned for us?[/quote]
The eternal question. The disconnect between “I am a good and gracious god” and “I am a vain and jealous god”. Science, when confronted with evidence that one of its accepted truths is false, embraces the new knowledge and moves on. Religion compounds illogical thought with more illogical thought.
We KNOW what he wants, yet those of us who act in accordance with his wishes are treated no better than those that who ignore those wishes. And religion’s explanation for this disconnect? God acts in mysterious ways. And we invent an afterlife which must account for this disconnect. And another chapter of fantasy island is born.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
8:41 AM
There ain’t no Satan, that’s There ain’t no Satan, that’s just god when he gets drunk.
Tom waits.
zippythepinhead
February 20, 2012 @
12:25 PM
walterwhite wrote:why Do bad [quote=walterwhite]why Do bad things happen to good people if god is concerned for us?[/quote]
This is a great question which only makes sense for the Christian. Aquinas give us the short answer: look at the cross. The greatest injustice in world history is deicide, the killing of Christ. If God could use such evil for a greater good i.e. the salvation of mankind, then suffering on this planet may have a purpose. Moreover, it’s a supreme act of love; rather than a arm-chair God who is indifferent to the suffering of his people, He steps into human history and suffers/dies for them. No other explanation adds up. For a great treatise on this subject, I would rec: The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis. See also the biblical Book of Job.
SK in CV
February 20, 2012 @
1:13 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:
This [quote=zippythepinhead]
This is a great question which only makes sense for the Christian. Aquinas give us the short answer: look at the cross. The greatest injustice in world history is deicide, the killing of Christ. If God could use such evil for a greater good i.e. the salvation of mankind, then suffering on this planet may have a purpose. Moreover, it’s a supreme act of love; rather than a arm-chair God who is indifferent to the suffering of his people, He steps into human history and suffers/dies for them. No other explanation adds up. For a great treatise on this subject, I would rec: The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis. See also the biblical Book of Job.[/quote]
With all due respect, from the perspective of a non-believer, this makes no sense whatsoever. There are plenty of alternate explanations which are perfectly logical.
I’ll give you one, by way of Al Pacino in The Devil’s Advocate
‘Who are u carrying all those bricks for anyway? GOD!!!
Is that it? GOD!!!
Let me give u a little insight information about god. He likes to watch. He is a prankster. Think about it. He gives men instincts. He gives us this extraodinary gift. And yo know what he does?. I swear, for his own ammusement. in his own private cosmic gag reel. he sets the rules and the oppostion. Its the goof of all time. Look but dont touch. Touch but dont taste. Taste but dont swallow. And while you are jumping from one foot to the next, what is he doin? He is laughing his sick fucking ass off. He is a tight ass. He is a sadist. He is an absentee landlord. Worship that…. NEVER!!!!’
zippythepinhead
February 20, 2012 @
1:51 PM
SK in CV [quote=SK in CV][quote=zippythepinhead]
This is a great question which only makes sense for the Christian. Aquinas give us the short answer: look at the cross. The greatest injustice in world history is deicide, the killing of Christ. If God could use such evil for a greater good i.e. the salvation of mankind, then suffering on this planet may have a purpose. Moreover, it’s a supreme act of love; rather than a arm-chair God who is indifferent to the suffering of his people, He steps into human history and suffers/dies for them. No other explanation adds up. For a great treatise on this subject, I would rec: The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis. See also the biblical Book of Job.[/quote]
With all due respect, from the perspective of a non-believer, this makes no sense whatsoever. There are plenty of alternate explanations which are perfectly logical.
I’ll give you one, by way of Al Pacino in The Devil’s Advocate
‘Who are u carrying all those bricks for anyway? GOD!!!
Is that it? GOD!!!
Let me give u a little insight information about god. He likes to watch. He is a prankster. Think about it. He gives men instincts. He gives us this extraodinary gift. And yo know what he does?. I swear, for his own ammusement. in his own private cosmic gag reel. he sets the rules and the oppostion. Its the goof of all time. Look but dont touch. Touch but dont taste. Taste but dont swallow. And while you are jumping from one foot to the next, what is he doin? He is laughing his sick fucking ass off. He is a tight ass. He is a sadist. He is an absentee landlord. Worship that…. NEVER!!!!’
[/quote]
I agree with your initial statement. In fact you have made my point: “from the perspective of a non-believer, this makes no sense whatsoever”. But from the perspective of a believer, it makes perfect sense. It’s based on the Fall (Adam & Eve in paradise) and the economy of salvation as understood by Christians. Al Pacino offers and alternative explanation which does appear to be what the devil would advocate. I happen to reject this view.
briansd1
February 20, 2012 @
10:36 PM
We should also talk about the We should also talk about the Christian, Jewish and Muslim divide.
I don’t spend a lot of time on religion because it’s not really a topic that interests me… but I was wondering about Jewish identity. Is it tradition and upbringing or DNA?
It seems to me that Jewish people who moved to Northern Europe are so far removed from the tribes Israel. I’m sure that over the centuries there have been plenty of rapes, out of wedlock sex and such.
So perhaps Palestinians who lived on that land are closer to the original Israelites, from a DNA perspective.
I hope that we get the whole world’s population’s DNA in a super duper database so we can analyze the data scientifically. The information should be revealing.
TemekuT
February 19, 2012 @
8:14 PM
walterwhite wrote:No. It [quote=walterwhite]No. It stays misc. And low down the list. See how it feels to be marginalized?
Does it feel nice to be called “misc.”?[/quote]
No worries, you’re not marginalizing me. I’m just pointing out the sheer numbers of Bible fundamentalists here in So Cal. Surely they’re a majority.
briansd1
February 20, 2012 @
11:35 AM
TemekuT wrote:I’d put the [quote=TemekuT]I’d put the “misc Jesus based” option farther up on the list and call it “Born Again Christian Fundamentalism” as that is certainly a majority religion in Southern California. Costa Mesa’s Calvary Chapel was the birthplace of the born again phenomenon in the early 70’s. And So. Cal. is home to many mega churches.[/quote]
I sure am glad that’s changing.
Can’t wait for the day when Orange County is no longer home to all those religious people. The Crystal Cathedral is bankrupt. Good ridance. Did you hear that the Rev Schuller asked the bankruptcy court for something like $55,000 per month?
So many gullible Christian souls… so much money to be made.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
11:45 AM
One phenom I found One phenom I found fascinating was the prosperity gospel, ESP prevalent in black churches. Basically it’s god wants his people to be rich. There was a special emphasis on real estate. Weird.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
12:07 PM
On the other hand, my squat On the other hand, my squat is now at 180 and I think I’ll be at 225 in no time. If there were no god, could I be gaining strength this rapidly? I doubt it. He’s sending a message…
walterwhite wrote:One phenom [quote=walterwhite]One phenom I found fascinating was the prosperity gospel, ESP prevalent in black churches. Basically it’s god wants his people to be rich. There was a special emphasis on real estate. Weird.[/quote]
I’m reading the Barbara Ehrenreich book “Bright-Sided” at the moment. She documents the various movements of “believe hard enough and you’ll get what you wish for” phenomena. This has been around for a while – I remember the Reverend Terry Cole Whitaker church in the 80’s who’s slogan was “Prosperity is your Divine Right”. Think about that slogan – it’s pretty darn obnoxious in my opinion. I had friends who attended and I was talked into going to a service. Of course you had to tithe 10% to be entitled to that divine right.
These days there are a lot of followers of “The Secret” and it’s variations- if you wish for something hard enough it’s guaranteed. Just visualize it. The corollary of course, is that if your wish doesn’t happen, you must have been doing your wishing wrong. Not trying hard enough. It’s your own fault… not the fault of the secret or whatever variation you’re using.
PT Barnum had it right.
CA renter
February 20, 2012 @
1:00 AM
pokepud3 wrote:Seems like I’m [quote=pokepud3]Seems like I’m the only muslim on here. I’m a daily reader, and love watching the market, and what you guys have to say. There’s nothing wrong or conflicting with believing in being a market skeptic or believing in life outside of earth. Don’t see how believing in this would make you an atheist :|[/quote]
Agreed.
………….
BTW, what is “God,” if not an “alien” from “somewhere else”? Don’t all people who belive in a spiritual being “somewhere out there” belive in aliens — at least one? I know they don’t call God an “alien” in church, but isn’t that really what they’re saying? If he created Earth, he didn’t come from here, so he must come from somewhere else, right?
pokepud3
February 20, 2012 @
12:12 PM
Quote:Agreed. [quote]Agreed.
………….
BTW, what is “God,” if not an “alien” from “somewhere else”? Don’t all people who belive in a spiritual being “somewhere out there” belive in aliens — at least one? I know they don’t call God an “alien” in church, but isn’t that really what they’re saying? If he created Earth, he didn’t come from here, so he must come from somewhere else, right?[/quote]
When we refer to god, we are referring to the existence who created the universe, the sustainer of the universe, and with intellect so amazing it’s beyond our capabilities to understand it. The people within this universe are all created by something or someone or some process, this is something pretty much everyone accepts. I believe that without this existence, none of these processes could continue doing what they’ve been doing.
For us to be able to try to limit god to something that we can see, touch, or feel would go against the very idea of god being beyond those senses and limits. So no I don’t believe god is an alien as that would mean he’s something you can potentially limit. God imo is greater then that.
Kind of like how the sun exists, and you know it’s there from all the light it creates around you, but at the end of the day you can’t look at it with the human eye. If something like that can be created (I’m sure we’ll discover many more amazing things through modern day sciences that may be even greater then that) then how great must the creator of the created be?
So in short, no I don’t believe god is alien, as that would mean I can kill god, and if I can do that, he’s not god.
BTW, what is “God,” if not an “alien” from “somewhere else”? Don’t all people who belive in a spiritual being “somewhere out there” belive in aliens — at least one? I know they don’t call God an “alien” in church, but isn’t that really what they’re saying? If he created Earth, he didn’t come from here, so he must come from somewhere else, right?[/quote]
When we refer to god, we are referring to the existence who created the universe, the sustainer of the universe, and with intellect so amazing it’s beyond our capabilities to understand it. The people within this universe are all created by something or someone or some process, this is something pretty much everyone accepts. I believe that without this existence, none of these processes could continue doing what they’ve been doing.
For us to be able to try to limit god to something that we can see, touch, or feel would go against the very idea of god being beyond those senses and limits. So no I don’t believe god is an alien as that would mean he’s something you can potentially limit. God imo is greater then that.
Kind of like how the sun exists, and you know it’s there from all the light it creates around you, but at the end of the day you can’t look at it with the human eye. If something like that can be created (I’m sure we’ll discover many more amazing things through modern day sciences that may be even greater then that) then how great must the creator of the created be?
So in short, no I don’t believe god is alien, as that would mean I can kill god, and if I can do that, he’s not god.[/quote]
Nice post,pokepud3. That is something I can enjoy reading as an agnostic. I don’t know if many atheists would like it? Not sure why? Maybe one could answer?
briansd1
February 20, 2012 @
3:05 PM
If God did exist, would s/he If God did exist, would s/he want us to practice a religion?
BTW, what is “God,” if not an “alien” from “somewhere else”? Don’t all people who belive in a spiritual being “somewhere out there” belive in aliens — at least one? I know they don’t call God an “alien” in church, but isn’t that really what they’re saying? If he created Earth, he didn’t come from here, so he must come from somewhere else, right?[/quote]
When we refer to god, we are referring to the existence who created the universe, the sustainer of the universe, and with intellect so amazing it’s beyond our capabilities to understand it. The people within this universe are all created by something or someone or some process, this is something pretty much everyone accepts. I believe that without this existence, none of these processes could continue doing what they’ve been doing.
For us to be able to try to limit god to something that we can see, touch, or feel would go against the very idea of god being beyond those senses and limits. So no I don’t believe god is an alien as that would mean he’s something you can potentially limit. God imo is greater then that.
Kind of like how the sun exists, and you know it’s there from all the light it creates around you, but at the end of the day you can’t look at it with the human eye. If something like that can be created (I’m sure we’ll discover many more amazing things through modern day sciences that may be even greater then that) then how great must the creator of the created be?
So in short, no I don’t believe god is alien, as that would mean I can kill god, and if I can do that, he’s not god.[/quote]
Nice post,pokepud3. That is something I can enjoy reading as an agnostic. I don’t know if many atheists would like it? Not sure why? Maybe one could answer?[/quote]
It says to me, that god is the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry. Many of which we do not know, or at very least do not understand. I’m quite comfortable with that.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
3:42 PM
God Sacrifices his kid to God Sacrifices his kid to help us?
Can’t relate.
Plus it doesn’t really seem like a sacrifice. Kid Goes right back home to god.
No parent would sacrifice their kid for anyone elses spiritual benefit.
Plus you kinda feel like, if he will let his own kid suffer miserably on the cross, what kind of torture would he let his non kids go thru.
Feels harsh.
moneymaker
February 20, 2012 @
10:13 PM
I agree! Was thinking today I agree! Was thinking today if Jesus were around he would scream from the highest mountain top “why are the churches locked!”, “when they are there for everyone”. I’m not picking on any single religion, they all have locks on their front doors. Why? In this day and age with video surveillence equipment and full time paid staff there is no reason to lock god’s front door. Maybe that is why we are in the predicament we are all in.
NotCranky
February 20, 2012 @
3:45 PM
SK in CV wrote:Jacarandoso [quote=SK in CV][quote=Jacarandoso][quote=pokepud3][quote]Agreed.
………….
BTW, what is “God,” if not an “alien” from “somewhere else”? Don’t all people who belive in a spiritual being “somewhere out there” belive in aliens — at least one? I know they don’t call God an “alien” in church, but isn’t that really what they’re saying? If he created Earth, he didn’t come from here, so he must come from somewhere else, right?[/quote]
When we refer to god, we are referring to the existence who created the universe, the sustainer of the universe, and with intellect so amazing it’s beyond our capabilities to understand it. The people within this universe are all created by something or someone or some process, this is something pretty much everyone accepts. I believe that without this existence, none of these processes could continue doing what they’ve been doing.
For us to be able to try to limit god to something that we can see, touch, or feel would go against the very idea of god being beyond those senses and limits. So no I don’t believe god is an alien as that would mean he’s something you can potentially limit. God imo is greater then that.
Kind of like how the sun exists, and you know it’s there from all the light it creates around you, but at the end of the day you can’t look at it with the human eye. If something like that can be created (I’m sure we’ll discover many more amazing things through modern day sciences that may be even greater then that) then how great must the creator of the created be?
So in short, no I don’t believe god is alien, as that would mean I can kill god, and if I can do that, he’s not god.[/quote]
Nice post,pokepud3. That is something I can enjoy reading as an agnostic. I don’t know if many atheists would like it? Not sure why? Maybe one could answer?[/quote]
It says to me, that god is the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry. Many of which we do not know, or at very least do not understand. I’m quite comfortable with that.[/quote]
Wouldn’t an atheist say there is no god, just the laws of physics and chemistry?
The poster was theorizing that there is a form, with creativity that is somehow responsible for the laws of physics and chemistry and that that form is sustaining all we can think that we know of the universe, and probably much more. If you are comfortable theorizing this way, are you really atheist?
SK in CV
February 20, 2012 @
3:54 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:
Wouldn’t [quote=Jacarandoso]
Wouldn’t an atheist say there is no god, just the laws of physics and chemistry?
The poster was theorizing that there is a form, with creativity that is somehow responsible for the laws of physics and chemistry and that that form is sustaining all we can think that we know of the universe, and probably much more. If you are comfortable theorizing this way, are you really atheist?[/quote]
I probably wasnt as clear as I could have been. Simpler version: What the poster described as god, i describe as physical laws. I don’t have a belief in a creator of these laws. I’m cool with uncertainty.
briansd1
February 20, 2012 @
3:57 PM
So far the non-believers win So far the non-believers win on Piggington.
I’m gratified to see reason prevail, at least on this forum.
flyer
February 19, 2012 @
4:04 PM
Interesting poll. Amazing Interesting poll. Amazing how many different variations on a theme exist in the world with regard to spiritual beliefs.
Perhaps one thing we can all agree upon is that this life is completely temporary, and is really very short–80+ years, if you’re lucky–and, statistically, we know that many are not.
Even if you lived to be 100 (and were functioning at 100%), that would still be a mere drop in the bucket on the scale of eternity–so, I believe we should enjoy every moment of this life, because no one really knows how much time they have left. That’s one reason I retired early.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
4:26 PM
Every now and them I ask my Every now and them I ask my kids why we are on earth. The best answer I’ve gotten:
“to be awesome and to love our kittens”.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
4:33 PM
I think I could embrace the I think I could embrace the idea of indifferent or malicious gods, who war in the heavens and don’t really give a crap about us, but the idea of some being caring about me personally seems wildly improbable on comparison. I think I’d pick Norse gods of forced to choose.
urbanrealtor
February 19, 2012 @
4:26 PM
Yog-Sothoth
Cthulhu is his Yog-Sothoth
Cthulhu is his priest.
In his house at R’lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.
briansd1
February 19, 2012 @
5:20 PM
I used to love Greek I used to love Greek mythology as a teenager.
Although my family is catholic we never believed. We never said grace at the table. For us it was more tradition than religion. We think that the church was evil in many ways. I do have fervent cousins.
In public school I’d be like Jessica Ahlquist. Glad she got $40k scholarship.
ocrenter
February 19, 2012 @
6:28 PM
religion is created by man. religion is created by man. it is created as a psychiatric tool to help the mind. especially during a time when there was no other resources to help the mind cope with grief, tragedy, and simply stress.
all religions employ some type of behavior that would in effect be meditative. meditation, chanting, deep prayer, and a lot of religious rites all do the same for the mind, it help cultivate the mind’s ability to handle stress and help with general happiness.
therefore in most surveys, religious folks tend to be happier. they just have no idea they are happier because the act of being religious is helpful, so they mistakenly think their choice of deity is actually real. which could and have certainly caused a lot of problems in human history.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @
10:13 PM
Voted 44th funniest joke of Voted 44th funniest joke of all time in “The 75 Funniest Jokes of All Time” in GQ magazine (June 1999)
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”
He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
Arraya
February 20, 2012 @
2:28 PM
Physicist Erwin Schrödinger Physicist Erwin Schrödinger speculated in the epilogue to his ground-breaking treatise “What is Life?”, in which he attempts to reconcile the notion that the body functions as a mechanism following the deterministic laws of nature with the “incontrovertible experience” of willful control. He wrote, “The only possible inference from these two facts is that I think that I…am the person…who controls the motions of the atoms according to the Laws of Nature… Hence I am God Almighty.”
I’m going to go with that one
flyer
February 20, 2012 @
4:12 PM
The trend of this poll is The trend of this poll is interesting, especially when I learned from a friend that the 2011 book, “Heaven Is For Real” sold over 6 million copies last year, and that number is still climbing. Fascinating!
Even though my family and I are Christians, my main goal has always been to provide a wonderful life for my wife, my kids, and our extended family. So, regardless of what you believe, I highly suggest making your millions early, and enjoying this moment we call life!
briansd1
February 20, 2012 @
4:42 PM
flyer wrote:The trend of this [quote=flyer]The trend of this poll is interesting, especially when I learned from a friend that the 2011 book, “Heaven Is For Real” sold over 6 million copies last year, and that number is still climbing. Fascinating!
Even though my family and I are Christians, my main goal has always been to provide a wonderful life for my wife, my kids, and our extended family. So, regardless of what you believe, I highly suggest making your millions early, and enjoying this moment we call life![/quote]
Does it mean that if one can’t make millions early, that one is not in God’s good graces?
flyer
February 20, 2012 @
4:45 PM
Of course not–just sharing Of course not–just sharing what worked for our family.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
5:15 PM
Providing a wonderful life Providing a wonderful life for wife and family is not compatible with what I read is Christ’s advice.
Where’s the part in the new testament where god advises on
making money for a comfy upper middle class lifestyle?
I don’t know.
Sounds suspiciously like prosperity gospel, above.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
5:17 PM
I could never pick a I could never pick a religion; the other people in the religion would get too irritated with me aNd throw me out.
I think even the atheist club would kick me the fuck out.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
5:19 PM
I guess I can kind of support I guess I can kind of support barefoot hippie Jesus freaks with long hair who live without a thought to providing for self or future. They seem sincere at least.
Anything else that’s just for self comfort seems kind of weak.
Arraya
February 20, 2012 @
5:27 PM
walterwhite wrote:
Where’s [quote=walterwhite]
Where’s the part in the new testament where god advises on
making money for a comfy upper middle class lifestyle?[/quote]
Well, that is the new bible the fundies are working on – they want to put more of a free market slant on Christ’s teachings. Supply side Jesus
The original christians were protestors and a counter culture to the roman imperial mentality. And according to some historians(and a thesis I agree with, were a main cause of Rome’s collapse)
The resisted the lavish roman lifestlye, war for resource acquisition and stuck up for the poor.
The opposite of most Christians today.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
5:42 PM
If Jesus walked amongst us, If Jesus walked amongst us, he’d disturb the living crap out of us, right?
He’s there to upset business as usual.
If you tool his advice you’d be broke and your family would think you’d fucking lost your mind.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
5:56 PM
But I guess it doesn’t really But I guess it doesn’t really matter. Basically it’s a calming thing, insurance policy for possible afterlife, something to lean on in troubling times. The only thing that truly directs people, that really forms our worldview is money. Enjoying the life, so to speak, with cash, and providing security and creature comforts, of which a bit of religion I suppose is compatible. Money is what we center our actions aroound
zk
February 20, 2012 @
6:31 PM
walterwhite wrote:If Jesus [quote=walterwhite]If Jesus walked amongst us, he’d disturb the living crap out of us, right?
He’s there to upset business as usual.
If you took his advice you’d be broke and your family would think you’d fucking lost your mind.[/quote]
Maybe markmax is Jesus.
NotCranky
February 20, 2012 @
7:33 PM
What I find interesting about What I find interesting about faith is that most believers seem to have the idea that it is not safe, on one or more levels,present or future, to be a non believer. They especially think this when things are going badly or when their mom is around.
GH
February 20, 2012 @
7:04 PM
The idea of getting it wrong The idea of getting it wrong and ending up in another gods hell scares the daylights out of me 🙂
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
7:21 PM
When god shuts one door, he When god shuts one door, he opens another, but frequently catches someones Finger in the door jamb and pinches it off.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
7:24 PM
Sometimes I do feel Jewish. Sometimes I do feel Jewish. To me, G-d is this crazy guy who needs to be negotiated with, talked off the ledge. He’s like a crazy abusive parent who has pretty much had enough of us and our bullshit. While he promised Noah he’d never kill all of us again, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone so touchy wouldn’t fly off the handle and say fuck it, these people are just disgusting, they’ve got to go.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @
7:27 PM
Great book now that I think Great book now that I think of it…
Beware of god
by shalom auslander.
Very funny and Jewish and deep.
By the author of Foreskins lament.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @
6:41 AM
walterwhite wrote:Great book [quote=walterwhite]Great book now that I think of it…
Beware of god
by shalom auslander.
Very funny and Jewish and deep.
By the author of Foreskins lament.[/quote]
Speaking of foreskins, you never hear Christians talk about the Samuel 18:27 Bible verse:
I feel that there’s I feel that there’s discrimation against non-believers.
I doesn’t bother me at all that people believe in God, except for the fact that religious organizations get special treatment (such as tax exemption).
But I feel that the religiously minded abhor the fact that I don’t believe. Certain people also feel that other people fake their faith or aren’t sincere about their faith.
What is sincere faith vs. “fake” faith?
I was also wondering about the evangelical thing. Trying to convert others to one’s seems wrong to me.
Coronita
February 21, 2012 @
6:13 AM
Walterwhite,
How could you Walterwhite,
How could you have left Ron Paul off this poll?
Fail!
cvmom
February 21, 2012 @
7:17 AM
I was sad not to see our I was sad not to see our religion, Unitarian Universalism, on the poll. It is a creedless religion, and there are six San Diego churches. Has been great for us and our kids. Started going there when the kids started saying, Janie says we’ll go to hell if we don’t believe in xyz. Mommy, what do we believe?
Famous UU’s include Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin.
Here are the seven principles on which our faith is founded:
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote:
* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
Sorry for the proselytizing…
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
7:56 AM
Hmm. UUs seem friendly. I Hmm. UUs seem friendly. I like the Sunday sermon on “pessimism”. I could probably get along with them. Still, when Janie gets the details, I think the consensus among Janies nationwide will be UUs go to hell with the atheists.
But I like them . They get added to the Poll.
The Founding Fathers endorsement is pretty strong. You’d think that wouldve led to greater national success. I guess it takes a Jew to get a really successful religion going. I don’t see as many “my boss is a Jewish carpenter” bumperstickers around anymore, but I usually would think, yes, maybe but “my boss us the best selling Jewish author, largest franchisor and biggest Jewish rockstar EVER” is more fitting.
Think big.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @
8:09 AM
I don’t really mind people of I don’t really mind people of any religion, as long as they don’t try to infringe on my rights at the ballot box by trying to turn their religious beliefs into laws.
I’ve grown quite close to people of several religions and have made close friends of several Mormons and Jews. They seem to be more humble about their beliefs and not as you’re-with-us-or-against-us as a few Christians I’ve run into. Maybe it would be different if I lived in areas where Mormons or Jews were the majority. It’s probably a power in numbers thing I run across with Christians.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
8:15 AM
UU: Goal of world community UU: Goal of world community with justice for all?
No way Jose.
I was reading about the practice of baad in Afghanistan. It’s ghe local justice system. If you are aggrieved by another family, you get to steal that familys daughter and enslave her. Both families generally agree it’s a fair and just system.
We are never going to get world agreement on justice and what it is.
Maybe that’s why we need someone in charge.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
8:20 AM
Svelte I can guarantee you if Svelte I can guarantee you if you lived in Jew rich NYC no one would ever try to convert you to Judaism. In fact if you tried to join they’d make it difficult. They don’t want you.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @
8:34 AM
Bahai(don’t know how to type Bahai(don’t know how to type in all the accent marks)
It sounds like someplace you would order tropical drinks.
What philosophy do children of atheists and agnostics defect to? Do the do it at they same rate that people defect from their parent’s religions?
afx114
February 21, 2012 @
9:56 AM
Jacarandoso wrote:What [quote=Jacarandoso]What philosophy do children of atheists and agnostics defect to? Do the do it at they same rate that people defect from their parent’s religions?[/quote]
Atheism is a philosophy just like ‘off’ is a channel on your TV.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @
11:14 AM
afx114 wrote:Jacarandoso [quote=afx114][quote=Jacarandoso]What philosophy do children of atheists and agnostics defect to? Do the do it at they same rate that people defect from their parent’s religions?[/quote]
Atheism is a philosophy just like ‘off’ is a channel on your TV.[/quote]
Maybe, but the question was, “what philosophy do atheist’s and agnostic’s children defect to?”.
If it is not a philosophy, but the equivalent of “off” why don’t atheists just shut up?
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @
11:28 AM
“off” would be more like an “off” would be more like an attitude of “it’s not my problem”.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
12:16 PM
Geometry teachers don’t have Geometry teachers don’t have moral authority so their behavior doesn’t impact the validity of their teachings.
Churches do claim moral authority so, at some point, after a certain amount of bad behavior, it is reasonable to question whether or not they are what they say they are and wether the organizations claimed authority is valid.
I mean, let’s say you have a church where 80 percent of the clergy have felony criminal convictions for fraud. It would make you pause as to whether or not the church teachings were infallible, right?
Whereas if a biology teacher has the same convictions, you wouldn’t necessarily question the subject matter.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @
12:30 PM
Atheists do need to come out Atheists do need to come out of the closet.
Polls show Americans would sooner elect a homosexual, a Jew, a Mormon andceven a Muslim bfore voting for an avowed atheist.
Yet there are a lot of them.
afx114
February 21, 2012 @
9:54 AM
I’m a hardcore atheist, but I’m a hardcore atheist, but would have voted for “The Force” if it was up there.
Carl Sagan can describe my beliefs better than I can:
I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.
I wish more atheists would come out of the closet. I have a theory that the majority of believers know deep down that they are bullshitting themselves, but are going through the motions due to cultural/societal/familial pressures and tradition. On the Spectrum of theistic probability I think that most believers like to say that they are Level 1 (“100 per cent probability of God”) but deep down they are at Level 3: “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.” I think most atheists would put themselves at Level 6: “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.” Very few atheists would call themselves a Level 7 (“I know there is no God”) because atheists allow new evidence to alter their views as it arises. I’d be curious where Piggs rate themselves on the scale. Maybe I’ll post a poll when this thread dies out.
If you’re curious what an atheist might consider a “god” check out the short story by Asimov: The Last Question. Total. Mind. Fuck.
Sagan and Asimov are my Gods.
ocrenter
February 21, 2012 @
6:06 PM
From a pure anthropology From a pure anthropology stand point, human’s religious preference has been very logical.
In the beginning of human society, naturally, human would look at things in natural as source of higher power. Hence the sun god, Moon goddess, and looking at various animals as source of special power. And certainly, at this stage, something to pray to at time of death and tragedy is simply sufficient.
As human society advances and people start to wonder about how they came to be and their purpose, religions based on a creator come into play. In addition, because human society now start to form into cities and states and empires consisting of an absolute dictator (kings and emperors), these creator based religions also focus on a god that can be all powerful as well. As empires rise and compete against one another, these monotheist religions also fit into the “us versus them” mentality quite well.
As society advances some more and becomes more pleuralistic, this type of creationist intolerant religion began to show signs of age and incompatibility with the continuing progressive and evolving society. This is why formerly Christian 1st world countries are now mostly nominally Christian but much more secular, whereas the developing world is much more religious.
Fletch
February 25, 2012 @
3:55 PM
A materialist believes that
A materialist believes that the only thing that exists is matter or energy. I think what you (and Chesterton) don’t understand is that most skeptics aren’t anything-ists.
zk:
I recognize that no-one likes to have labels put on them. No one likes being put in a box.
But I’ve also heard other atheists make the point that not believing in God (and let’s confine the definition of “God” to a supernatural cause of the material universe) should not imply being a materialist.
I can’t get my head around this. To me, being a materialist (whether you have classified yourself as such or not) is an unavoidable consequence of atheism.
Premise: The universe is all there is.
Premise: The universe is composed only of matter and energy (or any other natural constituent of your choosing).
Conclusion: Matter and energy is all there is.
Which step is wrong?
(Apologies to scardey for the digression into logic.)
zk
February 25, 2012 @
8:16 PM
Fletch wrote:
zk:
I recognize [quote=Fletch]
zk:
I recognize that no-one likes to have labels put on them. No one likes being put in a box.[/quote]
I don’t mind being put in a box. If I fit in that box. Feel free to put me in the “skeptic” box. Or the “thinks beer and weed and shrooms are miraculous” box. Or the “loves his daughter more than he loves life” box. Or any other box I fit in.
[quote=Fletch]
But I’ve also heard other atheists make the point that not believing in God (and let’s confine the definition of “God” to a supernatural cause of the material universe) should not imply being a materialist.[/quote]
I’m not an atheist, by the strict definition (that strict definition being: holds the position that there are no deities). As you know, if you’ve been following this thread, I believe that the existence of a god (not counting the sometimes-defined-as-god “process of the universe” god or any such thing) is extremely unlikely. But I know that I don’t know enough about the universe to know for sure.
[quote=Fletch]
I can’t get my head around this. To me, being a materialist (whether you have classified yourself as such or not) is an unavoidable consequence of atheism.
[/quote]
That depends on your definition of atheist and your definition of materialist. If you define them both the same way that you define a believer in god (that definition being: is certain of his position that there is a god (believer in god), is certain that there is no god (atheist), is certain that there is only matter or energy (materialist)), then yes, I agree that one is the unavoidable consequence of the other. As I said, I don’t fit that definition of atheist. Nor, therefore, do I fit that definition of materialist.
[quote=Fletch]
Premise: The universe is all there is.
Premise: The universe is composed only of matter and energy (or any other natural constituent of your choosing).
Conclusion: Matter and energy is all there is.
Which step is wrong?
[/quote]
The premise that I am certain that the universe is all there is is wrong. I’m not certain of that. I think it is extremely likely. But I’m not certain. If I were certain, then I’d fit in Chesterton’s box. I’d discount miracles because I’d be certain they couldn’t exist. But I’m not certain. So I don’t automatically discount them. If something is presented that the evidence says is most likely a miracle, then I’ll believe miracles (and therefore god) are most likely true. Until then, I won’t.
[quote=Fletch]
(Apologies to scardey for the digression into logic.)[/quote]
Good one. While we’re on that subject,let me take this opportunity to express my amazement at walterwhite for his ability to be cram three paragraphs into about 7 words, words which make us laugh, think, nod our heads, say to ourselves, “holy crap, that’s profound, delightful, and hilarious all at the same time.” Truly amazing what he does.
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @
7:06 AM
I realize I butted-in late I realize I butted-in late (and you don’t know me), so thanks for the reply, zk. I guess to summarize: atheism does necessitate materialism, but there’s lots of real estate for one to occupy between being “atheist” and being a “theist”.
My experience is that atheists chafe at the “materialist” label because they immediately see how problematic the consequences are.
My next mental challenge: acknowledging the possibility of the existence of the super-natural without believing in God. (And I don’t even mean miracles, mind you. The existence of truth will do.)
Truly amazing what he does
The thing I admire is the ability to toss out aphorisms and get tone right. This board is dripping with hubris, but generally not from scardey. Maybe it’s just the lack of capitalization.
zk
February 26, 2012 @
7:54 AM
Fletch wrote:I guess to [quote=Fletch]I guess to summarize: atheism does necessitate materialism, but there’s lots of real estate for one to occupy between being “atheist” and being a “theist”.
[/quote]
I’d agree with that. Not sure if it’s germane to this discussion, but I think there are a lot of people in one place on that spectrum. That place being the position that the probability of anything supernatural is extremely small.
[quote=Fletch]
My experience is that atheists chafe at the “materialist” label because they immediately see how problematic the consequences are.[/quote]
If they can immediately see how problematic the consequences are, then I’m surprised they’re atheists to begin with (assuming that by atheist you mean “is certain there’s no god”). I mean, atheist, by that definition, is, in my opinion, an irrational, not-thought-out position. So I would expect them to ignore or not see the problems with materialism just like I’d expect a religious person to ignore or not see the problems with their position.
[quote=Fletch]
My next mental challenge: acknowledging the possibility of the existence of the super-natural without believing in God. (And I don’t even mean miracles, mind you. The existence of truth will do.)
[/quote]
Interesting. Figuring out how there could be supernatural phenomena without god.
What do you mean by “the existence of truth will do”?
Truly amazing what he does
[quote=Fletch]The thing I admire is the ability to toss out aphorisms and get tone right. This board is dripping with hubris, but generally not from scardey. Maybe it’s just the lack of capitalization.[/quote]
I’ve never seen him be mean, arrogant, hubristic, or even mildly rude. Clearly he’s smarter than most or all of us, but you’d never know it from his tone. An example for us all, really.
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @
2:21 PM
What do you mean by “the
What do you mean by “the existence of truth will do”?
Yeah, I guess that wasn’t clear. I think that objective truth is supernatural. I don’t see how it can be otherwise. As a specific example, I can’t comprehend believing in moral truth without also believing in God.
That place being the position that the probability of anything supernatural is extremely small.
Making the probability of a solely material universe very high, right? In other words, aren’t these folks 99% sure they are materialists?
zk
February 26, 2012 @
2:37 PM
Fletch wrote: I think that [quote=Fletch] I think that objective truth is supernatural. I don’t see how it can be otherwise. As a specific example, I can’t comprehend believing in moral truth without also believing in God.
[/quote]
I never learned the exact meaning of those types of philosophy phrases (objective truth, moral truth), so I’ll have to look up the meanings of your phrases and get back to that when I have a chance.
That place being the position that the probability of anything supernatural is extremely small.
[quote=Fletch]
Making the probability of a solely material universe very high, right?
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote=Fletch]
In other words, aren’t these folks 99% sure they are materialists?[/quote]
No, I wouldn’t say that. If I’m 99% (to use a round number) sure that all there is is matter or energy, but I believe that I don’t know enough to know for sure, that means I’m 100% sure that I’m agnostic. (definition: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable).
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @
3:41 PM
No, I wouldn’t say that. If
No, I wouldn’t say that. If I’m 99% (to use a round number) sure that all there is is matter or energy, but I believe that I don’t know enough to know for sure, that means I’m 100% sure that I’m agnostic.
Fair enough, though this still strikes me as reducing to “99% sure I’m a materialist, but 100% sure I’m agnostic”. But I’ll keep ruminating.
zk
February 26, 2012 @
4:04 PM
Fletch wrote: this still [quote=Fletch] this still strikes me as reducing to “99% sure I’m a materialist, but 100% sure I’m agnostic”. But I’ll keep ruminating.[/quote]
Here’s why it’s not “99% sure I’m a materialist.” A materialist would rule out any supernatural phenomenon out of hand. I wouldn’t do that. That’s a significant difference. I’m 100% sure I’m not a materialist.
scaredyclassic
February 26, 2012 @
4:16 PM
I guess I believe in the god I guess I believe in the god of second chances.
briansd1
February 26, 2012 @
7:44 PM
walterwhite wrote:I guess I [quote=walterwhite]I guess I believe in the god of second chances.[/quote]
How many chances do you get?
Do you get extra points for finding God early and not needing the second chance?
zk
February 26, 2012 @
4:31 PM
Fletch wrote: I think that [quote=Fletch] I think that objective truth is supernatural.
[/quote]
Why?
[quote=Fletch]
As a specific example, I can’t comprehend believing in moral truth without also believing in God.
[/quote]
Why not?
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @
4:35 PM
Why not?
Because atoms can’t
Why not?
Because atoms can’t say “ought”.
scaredyclassic
February 26, 2012 @
4:38 PM
What’s a moral truth? Like What’s a moral truth? Like keeping kosher or not stealing stuff. Or love thy neighbor as thyself?
It’s difficult for me to conceive of a morality outside of what humans might concoct for better relations with each other.
scaredyclassic
February 26, 2012 @
4:39 PM
Ought is a pretty human word. Ought is a pretty human word. Heck I think even some animals have oughts.
zk
February 26, 2012 @
5:54 PM
Fletch wrote:I think that [quote=Fletch]I think that objective truth is supernatural. I don’t see how it can be otherwise. As a specific example, I can’t comprehend believing in moral truth without also believing in God.
[/quote]
I’m not quite sure why absolute moral truth being supernatural would be an example of objective truth being supernatural. They are different, if I understand them correctly. Objective truth being, this man killed that man, regardless of your perspective. Moral truth being, this man was wrong for killing that man, regardless of your perspective. Isn’t it possible that, if there is no god, the first is absolutely true but the second isn’t? Or am I using those phrases wrong (entirely possible).
Arraya
February 26, 2012 @
6:10 PM
There is plenty of writings There is plenty of writings on atheism and morals. Secular Humanism is popular amongst scientific types.
I agree with this guy: Since atheists do not believe in gods, they also do not believe that holy scriptures could be either dictated or inspired by gods. However, most atheists agree that there is wisdom and morality in scripture. How can this be? Atheists believe that values, including morality, come from people like themselves; the values and morality are the same whether one believes in gods or not. The morality found in scriptures of various religions are remarkably similar, even if the theology is very different. The common thread of morality in these different theologies are the people who wrote them. Atheists, just like any of those people, share the same sense of morality.
On a final note, the morality of atheists is in a sense more noble by definition than the morality of theists. While theists believe that god will punish them for immoral acts and reward them for moral acts, atheists have no motivation to be moral other than their own innate sense of morality. It is morality for its own sake, not out of fear for punishment or desire for reward.
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @
6:52 PM
Or am I using those phrases
Or am I using those phrases wrong (entirely possible).
No, I think you’re understanding is fine. At least for this armchair combox philosopher. I think objective truth is supernatural because it is immaterial. Can’t be measured.
Discussing moral truth is probably a less abstract way to make my point.
Moral truth being, this man was wrong for killing that man, regardless of your perspective.
Yes, this is a good example of what I mean by moral truth. Some acts are intrinsically wrong, regardless of societal convention, or whether you get away with them. (By the way, moral culpability is not the same as moral truth. Murder can always be wrong, but one may be more or less culpable due to mitigating circumstances.)
It’s difficult for me to conceive of a morality outside of what humans might concoct for better relations with each other.
I think clubbing a baby seal is wrong even if the seal would never have had any impact on the human or seal races had it lived and no one ever found out I did it.
To the atheist (as nicely summarized by Arraya’s quote) morals originate from people themselves and are remarkably similar regardless of culture. Perhaps for the collective good and survival of the species. This is more noble because the atheist isn’t expecting an everlasting cookie for their good deeds.
I can’t comprehend this position. It’s not clear why the collection of atoms typing this post should give a damn about the species any more than the collection of atoms I’m sitting on. Also, in a solely material universe, “nobility” doesn’t really exist. It’s just an atomic pattern in brain tissue.
(In case I check out for a while, thanks for the thoughts and apologies for my drive-by. This Catholic has a bunch of kids who need skin washing and brain washing.)
zk
February 26, 2012 @
7:52 PM
Fletch wrote:I think [quote=Fletch]I think objective truth is supernatural because it is immaterial. Can’t be measured.
[/quote]
You’re going to have to explain what you mean by “can’t be measured.” And why that makes it immaterial.
[quote=Fletch]
Discussing moral truth is probably a less abstract way to make my point.
[/quote]
Moral truth being, this man was wrong for killing that man, regardless of your perspective.
[quote=Fletch]
Yes, this is a good example of what I mean by moral truth. Some acts are intrinsically wrong, regardless of societal convention, or whether you get away with them. (By the way, moral culpability is not the same as moral truth. Murder can always be wrong, but one may be more or less culpable due to mitigating circumstances.)
[/quote]
Some acts are intrinsically wrong? I think that’s only true if there’s a god. Therefore I disagree. Depending, of course, on what you mean by “intrinsically.” If you mean “intrinsically according to the universe,” then I disagree. If you mean, “intrinsically according to what’s best for humans,” well, that’s more complicated and would require taking into account mitigating circumstances.
It’s difficult for me to conceive of a morality outside of what humans might concoct for better relations with each other.
[quote=Fletch]
I think clubbing a baby seal is wrong even if the seal would never have had any impact on the human or seal races had it lived and no one ever found out I did it.[/quote]
Why do you think that? Can you think of no circumstances where it would be ok to club a baby seal?
[quote=Fletch]
To the atheist (as nicely summarized by Arraya’s quote) morals originate from people themselves and are remarkably similar regardless of culture. Perhaps for the collective good and survival of the species. This is more noble because the atheist isn’t expecting an everlasting cookie for their good deeds.
I can’t comprehend this position. It’s not clear why the collection of atoms typing this post should give a damn about the species any more than the collection of atoms I’m sitting on. Also, in a solely material universe, “nobility” doesn’t really exist. It’s just an atomic pattern in brain tissue.
[/quote]
I have two reasons why the collection of atoms typing that post should give a damn. One, (and this is actually “why does it give a damn” and not the more existential “why should it give a damn”) because that’s how we evolved. Natural selection of humans encouraged the survival of those whose genes encouraged them to get along as a group and support each other and the community as a whole. Whereas any populations whose mutations resulted in nothing but (what we would consider) psychopaths died out because they didn’t cooperate with each other. They didn’t have strength in numbers. It was every man for himself.
As to why should we give a damn, consider this: There is no god. Therefore there is no universal, absolute moral code. How do we humans live on Earth with all the other humans? Do we say, “there’s no absolute moral code, therefore there is no moral code?” “Nothing is wrong. Each person can do whatever he wants.” Obviously, that wouldn’t work. If each of us doesn’t give a damn about the species, then society crumbles. We must come up with a code for behavior. Murder is against our code (illegal) and the consequences are x. Theft is illegal and the consequences are x. Etc. Sure, it won’t be a perfect system. It won’t be as good a system as if there was a (good) god who flawlessly judged every act by every person. But it’s all we have.
[quote=Fletch]
(In case I check out for a while, thanks for the thoughts and apologies for my drive-by. This Catholic has a bunch of kids who need skin washing and brain washing.)[/quote]
Take your time.
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @
9:24 PM
You’re going to have to
You’re going to have to explain what you mean by “can’t be measured.” And why that makes it immaterial.
You can’t touch truth. You certainly can’t measure it. The scientific method (for example) is premised on it’s existence and the fact that it can be known by a mind.
Some acts are intrinsically wrong? I think that’s only true if there’s a god. Therefore I disagree.
You are an intellectually consistent agnostic.
Can you think of no circumstances where it would be ok to club a baby seal?
Good point. I should have made it clear that I didn’t have a good reason. I believe it would be wrong to club said seal for no good reason.
Obviously, that wouldn’t work. If each of us doesn’t give a damn about the species, then society crumbles.
So what? Why should individual humans care if society crumbles and the species dies? If the human race is just a cosmic fart, then it would behoove the clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms if it makes their atoms resonate with “happiness”.
zk
February 26, 2012 @
10:38 PM
Fletch wrote:
You can’t touch [quote=Fletch]
You can’t touch truth. You certainly can’t measure it. The scientific method (for example) is premised on it’s existence and the fact that it can be known by a mind.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by any of that. But my response to what I think you mean would be: Whatever is true is true. No matter what we think.
Whether we can know the truth with certainty or not is irrelevant to whether objective truth is supernatural. We get as close to it as we can and live life as best we can with what we think is likeliest to be true.
I, personally, don’t believe we can ever know with certainty the truth. About anything. It’s possible that I’m a peanut-sized mass floating through space with a stream of consciousness that feels exactly like a human being on Earth. If that’s true, how would I know?
But just because we can’t know with absolute certainty doesn’t mean we shouldn’t always be trying to be as close to the truth as possible.
Definition of scientific method (dictionary.com):
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
Which, in my opinion, gets us as close to knowing the truth as we’re going to get. I don’t see how it’s premised on “truth’s” existence or the fact that truth can be known by a mind.
And to your point of a couple posts ago, which I believe is what we’re debating here, I still don’t understand why you think objective truth is supernatural. Perhaps knowing with certainty objective truth would be supernatural. But not objective truth itself.
[quote=Fletch]
So what? Why should individual humans care if society crumbles and the species dies? [/quote]
Individual humans should care if society crumbles because without society, it’s every man for himself. Your children (whom most people have no choice but to love) aren’t safe. You’re not safe. Life would be nothing but a struggle to survive, and you might not be able to do that. You might not be able to find food. You’re much more likely (with a crumbled society) to get murdered at the whim of a passerby. All that seems pretty obvious, so perhaps I misunderstood your question.
[quote=Fletch]
If the human race is just a cosmic fart, then it would behoove the clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms if it makes their atoms resonate with “happiness”.[/quote]
It does behoove clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms. That’s why we need to do our best to build and maintain a society that doesn’t let those clever people escape consequences.
scaredyclassic
February 27, 2012 @
5:43 AM
the social threats of prison, the social threats of prison, bankruptcy and ostracism probably do more to threaten clever people to stay in line than the threat of hell.
scaredyclassic
February 27, 2012 @
5:55 AM
alain de botton’s what alain de botton’s what atheists can learn about religion” s on cnn.com today…
zk wrote:
Fletch wrote:
If [quote=zk]
[quote=Fletch]
If the human race is just a cosmic fart, then it would behoove the clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms if it makes their atoms resonate with “happiness”.[/quote]
It does behoove clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms. That’s why we need to do our best to build and maintain a society that doesn’t let those clever people escape consequences.[/quote]
Hold on a second – I strongly object. What you appear to be saying is that people only do the right thing because there is a God watching and judging them. If there is no God, then you appear to be saying people are free to do immoral things.
I don’t agree with that at all. People can be raised with a high moral standard even without the presence of a god. And many are.
Just as there are many church goers who do absolutely horrid things, despite their belief that they are being judged.
scaredyclassic
February 27, 2012 @
6:52 AM
heck isn’t Tony Soprano even heck isn’t Tony Soprano even feeling (rightly or wrongly) more free to do his business because he can get forgiven at Church? it’s not really the presence of God that made people do the right things, it was the prospect of roasting forever in the Lake of Fire.
Now hell has gone out of style.
heaven is in fashion, but hell is out.
Someone tried to convert me recently, saying something like. yeah, physicist Stephen Hawking thinks his wheelchair is bad, moving it around with his tongue, but it’ll be sheer comfort compared to spending eternity in the lake of fire.
dude had a point. Hell ups the ante. Hard to picture stephen hawking in hell, for some reason…
svelte wrote:zk wrote:
Fletch [quote=svelte][quote=zk]
[quote=Fletch]
If the human race is just a cosmic fart, then it would behoove the clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms if it makes their atoms resonate with “happiness”.[/quote]
It does behoove clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms. That’s why we need to do our best to build and maintain a society that doesn’t let those clever people escape consequences.[/quote]
Hold on a second – I strongly object. What you appear to be saying is that people only do the right thing because there is a God watching and judging them. If there is no God, then you appear to be saying people are free to do immoral things.
I don’t agree with that at all. People can be raised with a high moral standard even without the presence of a god. And many are.
Just as there are many church goers who do absolutely horrid things, despite their belief that they are being judged.[/quote]
When I say “it behooves clever people,” I’m responding to Fletch’s point that, if there’s no god (the human race is a cosmic fart), then people have no external force encouraging them to do the “right” thing. My response was that they don’t and that we as a society need to give them that encouragement. I may have made it sound like I was talking solely about punishment as a means of giving them that encouragement, so I can see how you’d take it that way. But raising people with a high moral standard is part of us building a society to give them encouragement to do the right thing. In addition, there is the internal encouragement that people get from their genetic makeup that I mentioned in an earlier post.
So I totally agree with you that people can be raised to have a high moral standard in the absence of god. And I also think that most people are, to some degree, born with some kind of moral compass.
zk
February 27, 2012 @
7:12 AM
In fact, if we could get In fact, if we could get everyone on board with raising their kids that way (impossible, of course), then there’d be a lot less need for the punishment side of the equation.
Fletch
February 27, 2012 @
8:15 AM
I don’t see how [the
I don’t see how [the scientific method] is premised on “truth’s” existence or the fact that truth can be known by a mind.
The scientific method assumes truth can be discerned. Not really sure how else to say it. It seems to be the best method for discerning scientific truths. It can not, obviously, be used to discern all truths.
I’m responding to Fletch’s point that, if there’s no god (the human race is a cosmic fart), then people have no external force encouraging them to do the “right” thing.
My point was actually that if there is no God, there is no such thing as morality. Only behaviors which promote the continuation of the species. I think we actually agree on this point.
the social threats of prison, bankruptcy and ostracism probably do more to threaten clever people to stay in line than the threat of hell.
Probably true, but I made no mention of hell (or heaven) as a motivator. I’m saying that if morality is solely a human construct, then it logically follows that it behooves those who can beat the system without consequence to do so if it will make their endocrine system happy. The larger point being that one can claim some actions will not promote the survival of the species, but you have no basis for claiming that the destruction of the species is “bad” or that well-functioning society is “good”. It is, to quote Homer (Simpson), “just a bunch of stuff that happens”. Not caring about the survival of the species may go against our evolutionary instincts, but if your intellect is smart enough to realize that your being doesn’t transcend the material universe, you are also smart enough to recognize such instincts as chemical illusions.
People can be raised with a high moral standard even without the presence of a god. And many are.
I absolutely agree with this.
UCGal
February 27, 2012 @
9:28 AM
I guess the issue I have with I guess the issue I have with hardcore atheists (Those who are 100% certain there is no higher power) is the same one I have with hard core religious folks (those who are 100% certain there IS a higher power).
Life is not black and white. There are unexplained things… coincidences, miracles, things we haven’t figured out the scientific explanation for. It takes a leap of faith to be certain, beyond doubt, in either direction.
That’s why I put myself in the agnostic camp. So far the scientific explanations appeal to me more than the religious explanations. But there are still open issues.
But Bill Maher had a funny bit, decades ago, about the wishy-washiness of agnostics. He talked about hate groups burning a question mark on their front lawn.
As for morality. I consider myself pretty darn moral and ethical. But I’m not religious. I know someone who is guided in almost every decision by his faith… He’s very active in his church, regularly acts as a lay preacher, yet he regularly screws over people he does business with. He holds himself up as a man of faith – and then rips people off. He doesn’t see the disconnect. It probably helps that his faith is different than those he’s ripping off… so I guess it doesn’t count in his mind… he’s allowed to rip off folks who don’t believe the same as him.
There are plenty of devout people who have shady ethics.
zk
February 27, 2012 @
9:30 AM
Fletch wrote:
I don’t see how [quote=Fletch]
I don’t see how [the scientific method] is premised on “truth’s” existence or the fact that truth can be known by a mind.
The scientific method assumes truth can be discerned. Not really sure how else to say it. It seems to be the best method for discerning scientific truths. It can not, obviously, be used to discern all truths. [/quote]
Ok, but if you want me to understand, you’ll have to explain why you think the scientific method assumes the truth can be discerned. And also, why exactly it’s relevant to our discussion, because I’ve lost track of that.
I’m responding to Fletch’s point that, if there’s no god (the human race is a cosmic fart), then people have no external force encouraging them to do the “right” thing.
[quote=Fletch]
My point was actually that if there is no God, there is no such thing as morality. Only behaviors which promote the continuation of the species. I think we actually agree on this point.
[/quote]
I don’t think we do. You seem to focus on the continuation of the species. You talk several times about going against the moral code to make the endocrine system happy, as if that’s the only way to make the endocrine system happy. There’s another way. And that way is living within a society that allows us to pursue things that make our endocrine system happy within the confines of that society. So behaviors that allow us to construct/maintain/live within that society can be called “morals” or they can be called “behaviors that allow us to construct/maintain/live within that society.” Whichever you want. If you define morals as something set by god, then obviously there can’t be morals without god. But I would disagree with your definition of morals. I would define morals as “behaviors that allow us to construct/maintain/live within a well-functioning society.” (Obviously it’s more complicated than that, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think that brief definition is sufficient.) And therefore I would say that there is such a thing as morality, even without god.
the social threats of prison, bankruptcy and ostracism probably do more to threaten clever people to stay in line than the threat of hell.
[quote=Fletch]
Probably true, but I made no mention of hell (or heaven) as a motivator. I’m saying that if morality is solely a human construct, then it logically follows that it behooves those who can beat the system without consequence to do so if it will make their endocrine system happy. The larger point being that one can claim some actions will not promote the survival of the species, but you have no basis for claiming that the destruction of the species is “bad” or that well-functioning society is “good”. It is, to quote Homer (Simpson), “just a bunch of stuff that happens”.
[/quote]
Well, that depends on how you define good and bad. But I think that I would call a well-functioning society “good” because it allows humans to pursue things that, as you put it, makes their endocrine systems happy.
As far as the destruction of the species, other than the pain (and/or shortening of life) it will cause individuals at the time of its occurence, I don’t think the end of the human species is a bad thing. Besides being inevitable, I don’t think it makes any difference.
But I’m not sure I see the relevance of that opinion. Also, I’m curious whether the continuation of the species is important to a Catholic and if so, why it’s important.
[quote=Fletch]
Not caring about the survival of the species may go against our evolutionary instincts, but if your intellect is smart enough to realize that your being doesn’t transcend the material universe, you are also smart enough to recognize such instincts as chemical illusions.
[/quote]
Chemical illusions? Not sure what you mean by that, but I don’t think I agree. Unless you count consciousness and everything within it as chemical illusions. Instincts are real parts of our wiring/chemical make up with real, physical components and real consequences. They’re a matter of life and death. If you’re saying that they’re no more than a matter of life and death, that they don’t mean anything to the universe, then I’d agree.
Fletch
February 27, 2012 @
4:40 PM
And also, why exactly it’s
And also, why exactly it’s relevant to our discussion, because I’ve lost track of that.
This came up because I said I could not comprehend the existence of things that transcend that material universe (such as truth) without positing a transcendent Creator.
You talk several times about going against the moral code to make the endocrine system happy, as if that’s the only way to make the endocrine system happy.
I’ve re-read what I wrote and I don’t think I implied this at all. Sure, people can be hard-wired to enjoy “good” behavior. But what about the clever misanthrope? Shouldn’t he be true to himself?
I would define morals as “behaviors that allow us to construct/maintain/live within a well-functioning society.”
So we do agree.
You: morals are human norms.
Me: morals are transcendental truths.
I think clubbing a baby seal (as described earlier) is objectively immoral.
You think it’s OK because it didn’t harm the functioning of society.
A more extreme example:.
Faced with an act of genocide, the most you can say is, “That was evil. And by ‘evil’ I mean, ‘not good for the functioning of society.'”
I can say, “That was evil.”
As Dosteyevsky put it: “If there is no God, everything is permissible.”
Also, I’m curious whether the continuation of the species is important to a Catholic and if so, why it’s important.
I didn’t bring this up because of any specific tenet of the Faith. I brought it up to point out that for the atheist, the “well-functioning society” (or continuation of the species) is the ultimate “good” even though it really has no more greater significance, value, or importance than a well-functioning rock.
Unless you count consciousness and everything within it as chemical illusions.
For the atheist, what else would instincts and thoughts be? It comes back to Zippy’s Chesterton quote (to paraphrase): the atheist is not free to believe in the transcendental. At least not with intellectual consistency.
zk
February 27, 2012 @
5:47 PM
Fletch wrote:
And also, why [quote=Fletch]
And also, why exactly it’s relevant to our discussion, because I’ve lost track of that.
This came up because I said I could not comprehend the existence of things that transcend that material universe (such as truth) without positing a transcendent Creator.
[/quote]
We must be defining truth differently. What do you mean when you say truth? And why does truth transcend the material universe?
You talk several times about going against the moral code to make the endocrine system happy, as if that’s the only way to make the endocrine system happy.
[quote=Fletch]
I’ve re-read what I wrote and I don’t think I implied this at all. Sure, people can be hard-wired to enjoy “good” behavior. But what about the clever misanthrope? Shouldn’t he be true to himself?
[/quote]
If he lived in anarchy, maybe. But, thankfully, he doesn’t. Unless he lives somewhere like, maybe, Somalia. The misanthrope or the psychopath or the sociopath, if they live in society, are required to either 1)follow the rules or 2)suffer the consequences that society has decided he should suffer or 3) hope he gets away with it. Maybe a couple other options I can’t think of off the top of my head, but you get the point. So the misanthrope or the sociopath suffer the inability to be “true to themselves.” Society can’t give everybody everything they want and still function. Not without god, anyway. It’s not a perfect system. But, as I said before, it’s all we have.
I would define morals as “behaviors that allow us to construct/maintain/live within a well-functioning society.”
[quote=Fletch]
So we do agree.
You: morals are human norms.
Me: morals are transcendental truths.
[/quote]
Close enough, I guess. I don’t know if I’d say “norms,” so much as complex rules developed over millenia.
[quote=Fletch]
I think clubbing a baby seal (as described earlier) is objectively immoral.
You think it’s OK because it didn’t harm the functioning of society.
[/quote]
I didn’t say clubbing a seal was OK. I did imply that there were (are) circumstances in which it would be ok.
[quote=Fletch]
A more extreme example:.
Faced with an act of genocide, the most you can say is, “That was evil. And by ‘evil’ I mean, ‘not good for the functioning of society.'”
I can say, “That was evil.”
[/quote]
That seems to comfort you somehow, but I’m not sure why. Besides which, if you define morals as I do, there are still gradients. A small transgression such as stealing a pencil from the store will have very little effect on society. Genocide obviously is a different story.
[quote=Fletch]
As Dosteyevsky put it: “If there is no God, everything is permissible.”
[/quote]
First of all, Dostoevsky didn’t actually say that. A character he wrote, Ivan Karamazov, claimed to believe it (but didn’t actually say it). In any case, if something is permitted by the universe but not permitted by society, then it’s still not permitted by society.
Also, I’m curious whether the continuation of the species is important to a Catholic and if so, why it’s important.
[quote=Fletch]
I didn’t bring this up because of any specific tenet of the Faith. I brought it up to point out that for the atheist, the “well-functioning society” (or continuation of the species) is the ultimate “good” even though it really has no more greater significance, value, or importance than a well-functioning rock.[/quote]
That depends on how you define significance, value, and importance. To me, the happiness of billions of people (or one, for that matter) is more significant, valuable, and important than a well-functioning rock.
It seems to me that, for you, nothing can have any importance unless your personal god is involved. Or am I misreading that?
Unless you count consciousness and everything within it as chemical illusions.
[quote=Fletch]
For the atheist, what else would instincts and thoughts be? It comes back to Zippy’s Chesterton quote (to paraphrase): the atheist is not free to believe in the transcendental. At least not with intellectual consistency.[/quote]
More than illusions but less than transcendental.
Fletch
February 27, 2012 @
6:33 PM
First of all, Dostoevsky
First of all, Dostoevsky didn’t actually say that.
I’m pretty sure what I wrote reads, “As Dosteyevsky put it”, but OK. I hope the fact that you made the distinction doesn’t mean your getting annoyed. That’s not my intent.
It seems to me that, for you, nothing can have any importance unless your personal god is involved. Or am I misreading that?
I see God as the conclusion, not the premise. I think, for example, that transcendent moral laws exist. Therefore, I conclude there is a moral law giver. I think matter exists, therefore I think there is a matter-giver. And yes, it’s true: my feeble brain can not grasp how anything has value in a universe land-locked by atoms. I can’t even grasp what “value” would even mean if it were merely a brain pattern.
I’ve enjoyed this. In my opinion, all the skirmishes over politics and worldviews are proxies for this discussion. The further you get from this fundamental discussion, the messier the discussion tends to get. Such conversations are still important, but they rely more and more on interpretation of data.
I’ll probably check in again tomorrow, but I can’t keep this up. I hope this hasn’t been tedious.
scaredyclassic
February 27, 2012 @
7:38 PM
God and religion have a God and religion have a pretty sketchy history of serving a moral example for nice, or even what we would nowadays call remotely civilized, behavior.
Isa ll human-created morality ultimately arbitrary and self-directed? Is only God’s morality is objective, unchanging, real?
Uh, no.
I’m not even sure what this God-given morality is. It seems like it would be as subject to interpretation as any other moral precepts. it sure seemed to justify Spaniards raping pillaging and torturing the natives for gold, burning witches, etc.
And your baby seal clubbing is wrong example seems to me merely a modern sensibilitity picked up from Greenpeace advertising, rather than some sort of God-given morality. It seems exactly the sort of thin that evolved from humans thinking about what is right or wrong, not anything remotely handed down from any kind of God.
Hell, weren’t we all happily clubbing baby seals just a few short decades ago for coats with nary a thought toward theological questions? Heck,
I think the Bible would actually support clubbing baby seals, too, since we have dominion over the animals. I mean, how is it different from killing baby cows or lambs or whatever, except they’re rarer and arguably cuter?
I don’t get it.
Fletch
February 27, 2012 @
9:43 PM
Durnit scardey, I have to Durnit scardey, I have to stop. But I did step in this, so:
There are three ways an act can be immoral
1. The act itself can be intrinsically wrong. Murder (as distinct from killing) is the easy example.
2. One could have a bad intention.
3. The circumstances could make it wrong.
The first factor is objective.
The second is subjective. But a transcendent moral law says I must always have the right intention.
The third is indeed relative. We have to decide how best to apply a moral absolute to a situation. This will be a function of the education/ inculcation/brainwashing of your mind. But, a transcendent moral law says the particular situation must, as your conscience sees it, support my action.
Clubbing a baby seal is not intrinsically wrong, but as I described it, would be wrong because of 2 and 3. There certainly could be circumstances when it would be necessary.
Spaniards raping and torturing natives for gold seems to fail all three. This clearly damages the moral credibility of the creed they represent, but it does not change the underlying moral ideal. In fact, you can’t truly criticize such behavior without having a moral ideal against which to compare.
Not believing in God because of the bad behavior of his followers is understandable. I think Gandhi said something along the lines of, “I love your Christ but not your Christians.” I would just offer that good acts done in God’s name, by their nature, tend to be quieter than the bad ones, but may have a far greater impact.
zk:
I look forward to it. I’m currently in escrow after renting for 3.5 years. I’m pretty nervous, but I have a renewed thirst for some housing market talk.
scaredyclassic
February 27, 2012 @
11:39 PM
arent there plenty of murders arent there plenty of murders that seem intrinsically right?
Like, all the murders on Dexter?
And besides, even if a killing doesn’t strike you as particularly right, don’t you have to kill if God tells you to kill?
Isn’t that what Abraham and Isaac teach us? When you get the word from the Big Guy, you must act, even if the Big Guy’s request seems loopy? Mustn’t direct orders be obeyed?
I suppose people feel nowadays that God wouldnt really make such wacko requests, that was just the old days. nowadays people just pray on lite issues, like who to vote for in the upcoming election, or for the speedy recovery of friends who have illnesses.
But it sure seems like if you’re in intimate contact with the creator, and like the Godfather, he calls on you for a favor, you have no choice but to respond. You cannot refer God to the Ten Commandments or some obscure Talmudic interpretation and say you cannot violate a particular moral ideal.
He’s the Boss. The Ultimate Arbiter. FOrget what’s int he book and all this philosophizing. If, as you seem to claim, he’s really out there, alive and well and full of plans for us and the world, and it’s all Really True, can’t he communicate to you to do something that might seem to you nuts and on its face immoral? He has a history of this kind fo behaviour.
What would you do if you woke up tomorrow and God told you to kill someone in particular?
Would you obey? Get some medication? Double check with him in a week?
I mean, if people really take this prayer stuff seriously, really believe God is out there and in communication with us, why don’t we take more seriously people who sayGod told them to kill particular people. it’s in the Bible, isn’t it? God telling people to do crazy things.
Your claim that morality is based in God seems like it opens the floodgates to everyone putting their own spin on what God told them last night whilst they were praying. He could be whispering all kinds of different things in everyone’s ear.
Who decides whose interpretation is correct? Reverend Lovejoy? Each individual according to his conscience? Popular opinion?
In the final analysis, Arent there plenty of meaningful moral ideals not involving God? I mean, the same ideal doesn’t become meaningless if it’s from a human as opposed to a God, does it? if it’s a good idea, it’s a good idea, regardless of author.
How is God urges you to treat your neighbor as yourself different in substance from you should treat everyone as you’d like to be treated?
NotCranky
February 28, 2012 @
8:31 AM
The whole intellectualizing The whole intellectualizing god, proving god through academic debates , strikes me a kind of desperate fallback, after the bible and miracles are shown to be weak testimony. I do find the arguments tedious because there really is no footing in philisophical debates for proving god. Might as well try finding god with peyote.
scaredyclassic
February 28, 2012 @
12:33 PM
Agreed. better w peyote. I Agreed. better w peyote. I think but am not sure the sup ct upheld certain native am rights to take peyote as part f their general quest to find god.
Not sure how you can convert in though
scaredyclassic
February 28, 2012 @
12:34 PM
So if there were a church So if there were a church that dropped peyote on the weekend, would you join?
Arraya
February 28, 2012 @
12:43 PM
walterwhite wrote:So if there [quote=walterwhite]So if there were a church that dropped peyote on the weekend, would you join?[/quote]
The Peyote Way Church of God is a non-sectarian, multicultural, experiential, Peyotist organization located in southeastern Arizona, in the remote Aravaipa wilderness. It is not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Native American Church, or any other religious organizations, though we do accept people from all faiths. Church membership is open to all races. We encourage individuals to create their own rituals as they become acquainted with the great mystery. We believe that the Holy Sacrament Peyote, when taken according to our sacramental procedure and combined with a holistic lifestyle (see Word of Wisdom), can lead an individual toward a more spiritual life.
Peyote is currently listed as a controlled substance and its religious use is protected by Federal law only for Native American members of the Native American Church. Non-Indian Peyote use is protected in five states : AZ, NM, CO, NV, and OR. We do not have access to Peyote where it grows in South Texas and Mexico. As it is an endangered species, we believe an essential and inseparable part of our religious practice is the growing and stewardship of the Holy Sacrament Peyote.
I think that walter is I think that walter is qualified to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
scaredyclassic
February 28, 2012 @
9:07 PM
If you actually talk to god If you actually talk to god on peyote is that less authentic than actually talking to god not on peyote?
LSD god vision v peyote god vision; less real?
zippythepinhead
February 28, 2012 @
9:09 PM
zk, the alternative zk, the alternative explanations for the solar miracle at Fatima are interesting (ESP, dust phenom,UFO, mass hallucination,etc) but not very satisfying. Still, they all are consistent with rare events, but then I have to put my hand to forehead, Lt. Colombo style, and say, “there is just one part I don’t understand: the TIMING. How could these 3 children have predicted to the hour when this extraordinary event would happen, whatever it was?” Remember the skeptics and believers present were out in vast numbers. “And my old raincoat has just reminded me of one more thing. How do you explain the fact that the multitudes soaked from standing for hours in pouring rain were instantly dry, clothing, hair, everything? Not even a microwave could have worked that fast. No sir, it just doesn’t add up”.
zk
February 28, 2012 @
10:18 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:zk, the [quote=zippythepinhead]zk, the alternative explanations for the solar miracle at Fatima are interesting (ESP, dust phenom,UFO, mass hallucination,etc) but not very satisfying. Still, they all are consistent with rare events, but then I have to put my hand to forehead, Lt. Colombo style, and say, “there is just one part I don’t understand: the TIMING. How could these 3 children have predicted to the hour when this extraordinary event would happen, whatever it was?” Remember the skeptics and believers present were out in vast numbers. “And my old raincoat has just reminded me of one more thing. How do you explain the fact that the multitudes soaked from standing for hours in pouring rain were instantly dry, clothing, hair, everything? Not even a microwave could have worked that fast. No sir, it just doesn’t add up”.[/quote]
The timing? Really? Sorry, zippy, but that’s the easy part. 50,000 people showed up to see what would happen. At the time it was supposed to happen. When else would all those people see what they wanted to see?
Picture it. There you are. With 50,000 other people. Hoping to see a miracle (or, in the case of a few people, doing your job reporting on a prediction of a miracle). You’re waiting around. It’s been rainy and cloudy. The sun breaks through the clouds. Maybe a few thousand people look up at it. Hey, a miracle is predicted, and the sun just broke out and is shining Jesus rays down on us. That’s pretty exciting. Maybe that’s where the blessed virgin Mary is going to show up. Let’s stare at the sun. If you stare at the sun, strange things happen to your eyes. The sun can appear to dance and move. But you don’t know this is retina damage, you just see the sun dancing and moving. And you are expecting to see a miracle. And lo and behold, there’s your miracle. You exclaim loudly along with the other thousand people who see it. The excitement spreads. Pretty soon, everyone is yelling, “look at the sun. It’s moving, changing colors, it’s dancing.” So the other 49,000 people start staring at the sun. And a lot of them see the same thing. Some because of the optical effects of staring at the sun, some because they want to see a miracle, some because they don’t want to be left out of the excitement of seeing a miracle. Maybe some because they’re so caught up in the excitement. Really, it must have been quite a wild scene.
As for the clothes drying, well, I’d imagine time flies when you’re witnessing a miracle. Maybe the sun was hot and dried people’s clothes fairly quickly. Maybe the excited, post-miracle conversations turned to the amazing drying of the clothes. Maybe this excited conversation among the crowd got exaggerated and was perpetuated and then exaggerated some more. I’ve been in situations where I witnessed an incident, and a couple hours later heard other people who were there talking about it and what they were saying didn’t match what happened at all. And these people are frequently all agreeing with each other. That’s how people operate. And this was pretty banal stuff. Imagine if you thought you’d witnessed a miracle. Imagine how much excited buzzing was going on in that crowd. It’s not hard to see how things would get distorted, exaggerated, and just plain made up.
To conclude from the reports from fatima from a hundred years ago that god came down and showed these people something doesn’t add up. Only a christian who wanted to believe it would believe it.
I’m really curious about something. You believe that what occurred at Fatima was a miracle. To me that indicates that you’re not looking at it with true skepticism. So I’m really curious whether you’d look at the things Jacarandoso mentioned (Miracles of Allah, Miracles of Hindu gods, Origin of Mayan Gods) with the same lack of skepticism. Or would those things somehow not seem like real miracles to you?
scaredyclassic
February 29, 2012 @
6:52 AM
Doesn’t this blog itself Doesn’t this blog itself stand fir the proposition that people are nuttier in crowds
zk
February 29, 2012 @
10:30 AM
walterwhite wrote:Doesn’t [quote=walterwhite]Doesn’t this blog itself stand fir the proposition that people are nuttier in crowds[/quote]
Or, as agent K said in “Men in Black,” “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.”
zippythepinhead
February 29, 2012 @
5:35 PM
I wasn’t there, so I have to I wasn’t there, so I have to go by the historical record. If the broad aclaim was that the clothing and even the ground was instantly dry, then I accept that. Your speculation on this point boils down to this: you simply don’t accept that evidence. The staring at the sun explanation would indicate that even you too would have have been taken in had you been there lest you were the sole skeptic clever enough to see through the deception. This sign was FOR the skeptics and there were many, many present; the local press was anti-clerical (akin to the NYT and Wash Post of our day) and if you read their reports, seeing “sun spots” didn’t wash with anyone. Whether or not any of this happened makes no difference in my faith, and as has been already pointed out, the church approved the miracle but doesn’t require any of the faithful to believe it. It’s the context of this whole event that makes it so important; the setting, timing, and character and message of the person to whom this event is linked. There is really no proof of God from miracles, just clues regarding his presence. Lucy was impressed enough to spend the rest of her long life as a nun! (some hoax)
zk
February 29, 2012 @
6:22 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:I [quote=zippythepinhead]I wasn’t there, so I have to go by the historical record. If the broad aclaim was that the clothing and even the ground was instantly dry, then I accept that. Your speculation on this point boils down to this: you simply don’t accept that evidence. The staring at the sun explanation would indicate that even you too would have have been taken in had you been there lest you were the sole skeptic clever enough to see through the deception. This sign was FOR the skeptics and there were many, many present; the local press was anti-clerical (akin to the NYT and Wash Post of our day) and if you read their reports, seeing “sun spots” didn’t wash with anyone. Whether or not any of this happened makes no difference in my faith, and as has been already pointed out, the church approved the miracle but doesn’t require any of the faithful to believe it. It’s the context of this whole event that makes it so important; the setting, timing, and character and message of the person to whom this event is linked. There is really no proof of God from miracles, just clues regarding his presence. Lucy was impressed enough to spend the rest of her long life as a nun! (some hoax)[/quote]
You really don’t have to go by the historical record. You can use your own judgement of human nature and some common sense.
I didn’t say anything about sun spots. Where did you get that from?
The sole skeptic clever enough? There were people there who saw nothing. Did you not read that in any of your sources?
You didn’t answer what you think about miracles from other religions. It’s a key point and you seem to be avoiding it.
scaredyclassic
February 29, 2012 @
7:19 PM
Zippythepinhead is one of my Zippythepinhead is one of my more favorite cartoon characters. Probably zippy would believe in Fatima but he’d also believe he saw god inside a jelly donut.
Are we having fun yet? I remember zippy before he was big. An early childood memory is being 13 and really interested in underground comics, for adults only, way more interested in that than porn, and trying to sneakily read them at this newsstand. Man they were interesting. Much of ny worldview I guess was shaped by r crumb.
One of the things my mom really stressed was never ever stare at the sun. Indeed during the I think 1972 or so eclipse, we viewed it with cardboard boxes on our heads with a hole cut out. Our family photo taken by the planetarium appeared in the ny daily news. Only my brother took the box off his head. We still have the tattered paper. I think the caption was ” just a bunch of blockheads”. My dad spent his entire life selling corrugated boxes, so we got them clean and free. I think my mom really drilled the no sun staring rule onto our head so she wouldn’t raise fatimaniacs.
scaredyclassic
February 29, 2012 @
7:33 PM
I added an option on the poll I added an option on the poll for peyote church.
I thought the article was relevant to this discussion.
(even if it doesn’t mention peyote or lifting weights.)
scaredyclassic
February 29, 2012 @
8:17 PM
Arraya have you done the Arraya have you done the spirit walk at peyoteway church?
Arraya
March 1, 2012 @
7:10 PM
walterwhite wrote:Arraya have [quote=walterwhite]Arraya have you done the spirit walk at peyoteway church?[/quote]
No, but I’ve done similar “rituals”;)
hslinger
March 2, 2012 @
1:53 PM
I am god and all imposters I am god and all imposters and their followers must be punished.
Send me all your money and your daughters: must be 18+, no fatties, no fuglies. Send pics prior to donating daughters.
scaredyclassic
March 2, 2012 @
5:04 PM
Wouldnt the world be a better Wouldnt the world be a better place if all Internet discussion eventually ended in discussions of peyote rituals rather than Hitler comparisons?
zk
March 1, 2012 @
12:58 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:Your [quote=zippythepinhead]Your speculation on this point boils down to this: you simply don’t accept that evidence. [/quote]
Actually, what it boils down to is this: Given all the evidence, which is more likely: That people got excited and mistook what they saw (the sun moving around, which appears to happen if you stare at it) for a miracle and that things got exaggerated in all the excitement? Or that an omnipotent, omniscient benevolent god created the universe and came down and showed the people something that day. And if you think that, based on the evidence, the latter is more likely, it can really only be because you want it to be.
zippythepinhead
March 1, 2012 @
2:13 PM
Izk wrote:zippythepinhead I[quote=zk][quote=zippythepinhead]Your speculation on this point boils down to this: you simply don’t accept that evidence. [/quote]
Actually, what it boils down to is this: Given all the evidence, which is more likely: That people got excited and mistook what they saw (the sun moving around, which appears to happen if you stare at it) for a miracle and that things got exaggerated in all the excitement? Or that an omnipotent, omniscient benevolent god created the universe and came down and showed the people something that day. And if you think that, based on the evidence, the latter is more likely, it can really only be because you want it to be.[/quote]
We may be beating a dead horse here. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.
Arraya
March 5, 2012 @
5:28 PM
The first American populizer The first American populizer of Eastern thought, Alan Watts, suggested in his 1966 book, The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, that the whole universe consists of a Cosmic Self playing hide-and-seek, hiding from ITSelf by becoming all the living and non-living things in the universe, forgetting what IT really is; the upshot being that we are all IT in disguise and that our conception of ourselves as an “ego in a bag of skin” is a myth; the entities we consider separate “things” are merely processes of the whole. Interestingly, this exotic philosophical perspective is now the core of Gaia theory, which has become broadly accepted in the biophysical sciences, the basis of epigenetics which postulates that DNA expression is controlled from outside our “bag of skin” by environmental factors, and central to evolutionary biology which notes that the mitochondria in our cells that produce chemical energy were (are?) non-human bacteria. We are as much our environment as our in-vironment.
From a long time virtual friend,a tenured professor at Case Western;
That I am Everything means that I am Everything and Everyone that has ever existed, exists now, and will ever exist in the Universe. I am the Universe. I am this sentence. I am any sentence that has ever been written or spoken in any language at any time in the evolution of the Universe. I am the person reading this sentence and the person writing this sentence. And so on. That I am Irreducible means that any attempt to study Myself (that is, the Universe), will fail to understand All that I am because I am All in All. Everything does indeed mean Everything, which, I might point out, includes Nothing within Itself. The Origin is Zero and Infinity in One.
Being awake isn’t some namby-pamby New Age schtuff. The Truth has been around for a long time. Mystics come, mystics go, All saying the exact same thing, “I am the Truth,” and “I am God,” and “I am That.”
Heh, most who hear those things rolls his/her eyes and goes, “Oh no, not another lunatic.”
Note that I give Myself the Power to reject who and what I am; to reject that I am the Truth.
Doesn’t change the fact that I=God.
Peace on Earth,
As a scientist who has spent much of his life — or, alternatively, as Science, that has spent much of the last few centuries of Homo sapiens’ existence — reducing things to their component parts, I have found that the ultimate explanation is that the biological, chemical, or physical system cannot be reduced without losing information about said system. Indeed, theory proves this to be a natural law. That law of unity is universal, unbreakable, true, absolute, and so on.
Note how, in the current zeitgeist, I resist accepting the Unity that I am (this forum, this thread, this post). Just like economies, ecosystems, bodies, wavefunctions, and political systems collapse, so too does the ego collapse (“ego death”).
All collapse simultaneously at a Universal revolution.
The Entheogen Theory of Religion and Ego Death explains what is revealed in religious revelation and in enlightenment, including the nature of personal control agency.
The essence and origin of religion is the use of visionary plants to routinely trigger the intense mystic altered state, producing loose binding of cognitive associations. This loose cognitive binding then produces an experience of being controlled by frozen block-universe determinism with a single, pre-existing, ever-existing future.
Experiencing this model of control and time initially destabilizes self-control power, and amounts to the death of the self that was conceived of as an autonomous control-agent. Self-control stability is restored upon transforming one’s mental model to take into account the dependence of personal control on a hidden, separate thought-source, such as Necessity or a divine level that transcends Necessity.
Myth describes this mystic-state experiential insight and transformation. Religious initiation teaches and causes this transformation of the self considered as a control-agent, through a series of visionary-plant sessions, interspersed with study of perennial philosophy. Most modern-era religion has been a distortion of this standard initiation system, reducing these concepts to a weak interpretation that is based in the ordinary state of consciousness.
The experiences resulting from the use of psychedelic drugs are often described in religious terms. They are therefore of interest to those like myself who, in the tradition of William James,1 are concerned with the psychology of religion. For more than thirty years I have been studying the causes, the consequences, and the conditions of those peculiar states of consciousness in which the individual discovers himself to be one continuous process with God, with the Universe, with the Ground of Being, or whatever name he may use by cultural conditioning or personal preference for the ultimate and eternal reality. We have no satisfactory and definitive name for experiences of this kind. The terms “religious experience,” “mystical experience,” and “cosmic consciousness” are all too vague and comprehensive to denote that specific mode of consciousness which, to those who have known it, is as real and overwhelming as falling in love. This article describes such states of consciousness induced by psychedelic drugs, although they are virtually indistinguishable from genuine mystical experience. The article then discusses objections to the use of psychedelic drugs that arise mainly from the opposition between mystical values and the traditional religious and secular values of Western society.
But equally suggestive, at least to us, is a quote from Steve Jobs to New York Times reporter John Markoff, who interviewed him for his 2005 book What the Doormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer. Speaking about his youthful experiments with psychedelics, Jobs said, “Doing LSD was one of the two or three most important things I have done in my life.” He was hardly alone among computer scientists in his appreciation of hallucinogenics and their capacity to liberate human thought from the prison of the mind. Jobs even let drop that Microsoft’s Bill Gates would “be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once.” Apple’s mantra was”Think different.” Jobs did. And he credited his use of LSD as a major reason for his success.
Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.
The abrasive and unorthodox Crick and his brilliant American co-researcher James Watson famously celebrated their eureka moment in March 1953 by running from the now legendary Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge to the nearby Eagle pub, where they announced over pints of bitter that they had discovered the secret of life.
Crick, who died ten days ago, aged 88, later told a fellow scientist that he often used small doses of LSD then an experimental drug used in psychotherapy to boost his powers of thought. He said it was LSD, not the Eagle’s warm beer, that helped him to unravel the structure of DNA, the discovery that won him the Nobel Prize.
Yeah. Plus, hitler never took Yeah. Plus, hitler never took any peyote.
Arraya
March 5, 2012 @
6:41 PM
walterwhite wrote:Yeah. Plus, [quote=walterwhite]Yeah. Plus, hitler never took any peyote.[/quote]
That is probably a pretty safe assumption. Turn of the century racial “science” is pretty inconsistent with the universal “oneness” that goes along with that experience.
The most important subject in the world is the question of to what extent were visionary plants used throughout Christian history. This book provides the right kind of evidence and argumentation to reverse the refusal to countenance that question, a refusal for which the exagerratedly venerated hero Wasson is largely to blame. There is a great abundance of evidence in support of the maximal entheogen theory of Christian history, which can be readily seen if one ignores Wasson’s efforts to stymie the investigation. Examining the entire issue of use of all visionary plants in all religions in all eras, including all forms of evidence, it is now a certainty that Christianity has centrally incorporated visionary plants all throughout Christian history — the question is no longer “did Christians use entheogens?”; the question has become “to what extent did Christians use entheogens?”
My systematic theory, published online and already announced to a wide variety of scholars in email, is that Christianity began not in themes from Egypt as Irvin and Acharya S would have it, but rather, first and foremost, as a counter-propaganda rebuttal to Roman Imperial theology. Roman imperial theology utilized the era’s ubiquitous use of visionary plants such as in mystery initiation and symposium “drinking” parties, to prop up and justify Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar’s violent, crucifying system of empire.
In rebuttal, Christianity was created and became popular by utilizing anti-Roman, Jewish-styled themes, fabricating a counter-Caesar figure of Jesus. The origin of Christianity has two main parts: the use of visionary plants (which was utterly normal and ubiquitous in late antiquity), utilized for the purpose of not only individual spiritual enlightenment as Irvin would have it, but even more for the purpose of erecting an alternate, egalitarian, social-political support network, using a Jewish-like synagogue network that was separate from the official culture’s honor-and-shame hierarchy.
Me, from another thread on religion;
The virgin birth, death and resurrection theme along with the “hero” God-man archetype arouse in the eastern Mediterranean, where farming cultures developed religions that celebrated the yearly return of crop fertility. It dates back to before the Abrahamic religions.
Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung argue these common archetypal manifestations fulfill a psychological need. Jung made argument that; these archetypal symbols are psychological projections of the collective unconscious, the need of the human mind faced with the overwhelming specter of imminent mortality to fashion eternal symbols of human resurrection married to the god’s victory over the shadowy domain of death, a spiritual transcendence of the physical underworld to the numinous realm of eternal spirit, logos, the human and the divine united in a transcendent marriage of cycles of life, death, and infinite revitalization. This is the role of the dying/reborn god.
Campbell concludes that the god who emerges from the virgin birth is you – you have died to your animal nature and come to life as a human incarnation of compassion… born of a virgin to signify that the begetter is of the spirit and not merely of the flesh.
And finally,
“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us ‘universe’, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest… a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
-Albert Einstein
scaredyclassic
March 5, 2012 @
6:57 PM
True, but Albert still True, but Albert still couldn’t get along w his wife even though he and she were really the same being.
Arraya
March 5, 2012 @
7:00 PM
walterwhite wrote:True, but [quote=walterwhite]True, but Albert still couldn’t get along w his wife even though he and she were really the same being.[/quote]
Heck,most of the time I don’t get along with myself
scaredyclassic
March 5, 2012 @
7:06 PM
Fair enough. I know there’s Fair enough. I know there’s been a flurry if research on psychedelic mushrooms actually curing addictions, depressions, other problems. I don’t think the country can handle the truth though.
scaredyclassic
March 5, 2012 @
7:08 PM
Did steve jobs LSD advocacy Did steve jobs LSD advocacy get press in any of those death coverage stories?
scaredyclassic
March 5, 2012 @
7:12 PM
I can only find one blog I can only find one blog mentioning that jobs asked prospective employees how many times they’d dropped acid to throw them off guard.
NotCranky
February 29, 2012 @
10:44 AM
walterwhite wrote:So if there [quote=walterwhite]So if there were a church that dropped peyote on the weekend, would you join?[/quote]
I’d probably go for the Free Weight Church of Squats first…or is that the First Church of Free Weight Squats?
scaredyclassic
February 29, 2012 @
2:49 PM
Peyote lifting? Peyote lifting?
zk
February 27, 2012 @
7:42 PM
Fletch wrote:
I can’t keep [quote=Fletch]
I can’t keep this up. I hope this hasn’t been tedious.[/quote]
I can’t keep this up, either. But it’s been far from tedious. I’ve enjoyed this exchange quite a bit. Let’s debate the Chargers or the Padres or maybe even the housing market next time.
scaredyclassic
February 26, 2012 @
10:52 AM
Several decades ago, I was an Several decades ago, I was an obnoxious, arrogant, impatient, ass.
I had a life-changing experience around that time. I screwed up in a big way. The consequences could have been really, really bad. Really bad. I shudder to think about it all.
Things amazingly luckily worked out and i got another chance at normal life.
for me it was like a secular “born again” experience and i was never a dick in the same way.
I think screwing up, and feeling like you got another chance in life can be a hugely great thing in life, if you handle it correctly. Not that I would wish it on anyone, but it seems like many people are headed for a crash-up at some point…almost liek we want our lvies to meet with disaster…at least that’s the way it looks to me…
I think in part I can relate to the intensity of people’s religious conversions because of my own personal experience with my inadequacy and foolishness.
I’ve never been the same since then. I take myself and life a lot less seriously, I expect things to get screwed up, I don’t expect things to go my way. I submit to a power greater than me–the randomness of the universe.
not quite like accepting jesus Christ as your personal savior, but there are similarities, in the sense that you realize you suck, and you have to shed a former self…also made me less judgmental of others…i see myself more as a character in a comedy, not the subject of a drama.
briansd1
February 26, 2012 @
11:31 AM
walterwhite wrote:
not quite [quote=walterwhite]
not quite like accepting jesus Christ as your personal savior, but there are similarities, in the sense that you realize you suck, and you have to shed a former self…also made me less judgmental of others…i see myself more as a character in a comedy, not the subject of a drama.[/quote]
That’s a great way of looking at life.
I’m not quite there yet.
I’m very nice when I’m around nice people.
But I have to deal with obnoxious, arrogant, impatient, asses all the time. The most effective way I found to deal with them is give them back the same medicine, only stronger. I know, I’m not good at turning the other cheek. I haven’t found God yet.
svelte
February 26, 2012 @
1:03 PM
walterwhite wrote:I think [quote=walterwhite]I think screwing up, and feeling like you got another chance in life can be a hugely great thing in life, if you handle it correctly. Not that I would wish it on anyone, but it seems like many people are headed for a crash-up at some point…almost liek we want our lvies to meet with disaster…at least that’s the way it looks to me…
[/quote]
Boy I can relate to that. I am drawn to trouble like a moth to flame or whatever the saying is.
My wife has learned this and makes sure I have something to do all the time, especially when she’s not around. Best way to keep me from doing something insanely stupid but typically male.
zk
February 26, 2012 @
2:27 PM
Very kind of you to share Very kind of you to share that story, scaredy. A lot of wisdom there.
briansd1
March 20, 2012 @
6:56 PM
Some people believe there’s Some people believe there’s only one God.
“This nation was founded as a Christian nation…there’s only one God and his name is Jesus. I’m tired of people telling me that I can’t say those words. […] If you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we do things, I’ve got one thing to say — Get out! We don’t worship Buddha. I said we don’t worship Buddha. We don’t worship Mohammed. We don’t worship Allah. We worship God. We worship God’s son Jesus Christ.”
this nation was founded as a this nation was founded as a bunch of different kinds of christians who were each irritating in their own way and fundamentally had in common the unyielding conviction that they couldn’t stand each other. Those are our bedrock principles.
I’m wondering when athiests I’m wondering when athiests are going to rally against the biggest irrational belief system of the all – Capitalism. If you believe in Capitalism you are not an atheist.
briansd1
March 23, 2012 @
9:14 PM
Are you going to the rally, Are you going to the rally, Arraya? Enjoy it if you are. Hope it doesn’t rain Saturday.
I thought you might say something like that.
I view capitalism as an economic system that can be changed. If there’s something that works better, we should try it out. Can we transition slowly and painlessly? Or do you think that capitalism must collapse creating havoc, poverty and suffering before with we try something else.
What about human greed? Is greed reasonable or not? I’m not sure how we can use reason to manage it.
scaredyclassic
February 18, 2012 @ 10:55 PM
Thesis; piggs are slightly
Thesis; piggs are slightly more skeptical therefore slightly less likely to be religious.
NotCranky
February 18, 2012 @ 11:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5jc9mY6v-U
zk
February 19, 2012 @ 7:42 AM
Faith (belief in something
Faith (belief in something not supported by evidence) is, by definition, irrational.
pencilneck
February 19, 2012 @ 8:19 AM
Can we add Henningite to the
Can we add Henningite to the poll? The followers of mystical advisor Doug Henning should certainly be represented here.
“For Doug Henning, real magic, was the unfolding of human consciousness and the unbounded potential that rests in all people to discover.”
In 1980, Season 4, Episode 21, Henning appeared to his followers and gathered his first disciple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBHJCT2UyAU
briansd1
February 19, 2012 @ 10:03 AM
zk wrote:Faith (belief in
[quote=zk]Faith (belief in something not supported by evidence) is, by definition, irrational.[/quote]
That’s exactly how I see.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 10:19 AM
penn jillette’s atheists
penn jillette’s atheists guide to the 2012 election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJGxVeQw3SE
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 10:25 AM
we were discussing the
we were discussing the existence of God and religion around the old kitchen table and i stated that i am 100% certainlife exists on other planets somewhere. my wife said that is an atheist position. one kid seemed pretty confident life was out there, the other seemed to think that if life could spontaneously occur, then it probably does exist elsewhere, but was not willing to commit.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 10:28 AM
“We must respect the other
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
— H. L. Mencken
svelte
February 19, 2012 @ 5:16 PM
walterwhite wrote:”We must
[quote=walterwhite]”We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
— H. L. Mencken[/quote]
Oh, that is just golden!!
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 10:36 AM
there’s gotta be some
there’s gotta be some believers out there in piggingtonia!
briansd1
February 19, 2012 @ 10:45 AM
I answered atheist… but if
I answered atheist… but if there’s a God, it’s the universe.
ocrenter
February 19, 2012 @ 6:32 PM
walterwhite wrote:we were
[quote=walterwhite]we were discussing the existence of God and religion around the old kitchen table and i stated that i am 100% certainlife exists on other planets somewhere. my wife said that is an atheist position. one kid seemed pretty confident life was out there, the other seemed to think that if life could spontaneously occur, then it probably does exist elsewhere, but was not willing to commit.[/quote]
that’s not an atheist viewpoint. Buddhist thought has always been that their are many different worlds outside of our world. I guess you can say the Buddha was the first religious leader to proclaim the existence of aliens.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 6:42 PM
So far the piggingtons seem
So far the piggingtons seem to have a pretty eclectic set of religious beliefs.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 6:54 PM
transcript from penn
transcript from penn jillette’s interview…
enn Jillette: Everybody seems to think that Obama is in his heart an atheist and in his heart a skeptic. The church he belonged to in Chicago is a whack-job church. It’s about equal to Palin’s church. Granted, he hasn’t been as religious as… do we know off the top of our heads the most religious president in history in terms of references… referencing to god… references to god and in terms of appearing in churches? Who the most religious president in history was? It’s an interesting answer and I got this information from NPR, so it’s probably not slanted in the way you think. The most religious president in history in terms of appearances in churches and mentions of the bible was Clinton.
Bill Clinton is the most religious president we’ve had. He beats George Bush hands down and he beats Carter, who we know was a born-again Christian. He beats him hands down. So Obama does that too. I mean at the 9/11 thing, maybe appropriately he read from the Bible. But you have two choices with Obama. You either believe that he is a man of Christ who prays for decisions in the White House, which he said he was or you think he’s a liar. And I’m surprised by the number of atheist free thinkers that support Obama and their argument is essentially, he’s lying about being religious ‘cause you have to do that to be elected.
I’m not happy with either one of those. I mean, Obama is wicked smart, he’s a wicked good talker, there is no doubt in my mind that his heart is in the right place, unfortunately I think that about almost every president we’ve had, but I think he wants to do good. I don’t think there’s any malicious quality to him at all. But I think in some sense, he’s a believer or he’s a liar. So one to 10? I rate him pretty high on the skepticism, maybe a six or a seven, but I rate him that way because somewhere in my heart I think he might be lying about being religious and that’s horrible. It’s a horrible reason to like somebody. I like him because he might be a liar. Horrible.
Question: Michele Bachmann.
Penn Jillette: Michele Bachman’s blasphemy is greater than anything I’ve ever accomplished. I have tried with friends to say the most blasphemous sentence I can possibly say and it does not come close to the blasphemy of Michelle Bachman saying that earthquakes and hurricanes were the way God was trying to get the attention of politicians. I cannot imagine a serious religious person reading that quote or hearing that quote and saying, “Yeah, right on.” It is solipsistic, it is opportunistic, it is cynical. It is deep and it is wrong and it is an insult to religious people everywhere.
For an atheist, it’s a burlesque; it’s a little bit of a joke you can dismiss her. But I can’t see it as an atheist. I see it through my father’s eyes, you know, my father was a Christian his whole life. And if he had heard Michelle Bachman say that, he would have looked away from the TV. The idea that you would lightly state that people were suffering and dying in order to, to prove that God was on the side of one politician is sickening. The only reason that Bachman and Rick Perry are able to say this stuff is because of a magic word. And this magic word is, “Christian.” And if you look back in history, the word “Christian” doesn’t really appear in the way we use it today until the anti-abortion debate in the ‘60’s. When you had 1890, end of the 19th century, you’re top three highest paid speakers; the highest paid speakers were atheists speaking about atheism. It was Ingersoll, Robert Ingersoll, number one, Mark Twain, number two, Huxley, number three. Ingersoll was the, the great infidel, the great skeptic, the atheist, Mark Twain of course. And these were people speaking on… he was not reading from Huck Finn, he was reading from Letters from Earth, he was reading atheist stuff. And Huxley, of course, Darwin’s pit bull, I guess bull dog at that time, I think he was a pit bull.
There was a real sense of atheism being an important point. They were invited to the White House. And the reason was that Catholics were terrified of Baptists who were terrified of Pentecostals who were terrified of Lutherans who were terrified of Evangelicals, the whole list. There wasn’t a feeling of Christian. The founding fathers were very afraid of Baptists taking over from the Pentecostals. Everybody was afraid of the Catholics. So you had this divided thing.
If we still had that, if we still were dividing people by sects like we should be… sects like we should be, one of the largest groups in this country would be atheists. By the USA Today poll, I think it was 22 percent, 20 percent. Even the lowest polls put it as eight. Okay? The next highest would be Catholics. And they’d be knocking around 20, you know. Then you’ve got all your divided up categories. And then abortion happens, legalized abortion, and some very smart people, very forward thinking people decided we can never fight abortion if it’s the Catholics fighting the Protestants who are fighting the Baptists, fighting the Pentecostals, fight the… we have to get them under one tent. And there’s a great book on this called The History of Free Thought, these are not my ideas. This is my understanding of the ideas in that book.
They pulled this tent together and they kind of create the word, “Christian.” And then Carter with born-again Christian really helps with the word, “Christian.” So what they’ve really done is they’ve taken very different philosophies, I mean Catholicism and Protestantism are very different philosophies, very different. You know, and they’ve pulled it together to make this term, “Christian.” Which are people that don’t agree at all and they say I’m doing a Christian message.
So Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry just 40 years ago, really recently, would have been terrified to speak about their God and their church because the second they said they were Baptist, the second they said they were Pentecostal, the second they said they were Lutheran, all the other people fall away. But now they’ve got this magic word, “Christian.” And I am helping make it worse. Because by using the word, “Atheist,” I am separating that even more from “Christian,” I’m doing a broadening umbrella and I’m making theist, atheist. And if you do theist, atheist, the theist’s win completely.
You know, what I should be doing, if I were a political thinker, if I were someone who was interested in movements, which I’m not, I’m against them. If I wasn’t for individual thinking, I would be one of those people who was saying, using a term like “free thinker,” or “open-minded.” And I would be gathering this umbrella that included people who self-identifies agnostic, atheist, against organized religion. I would get the Wiccans in there. I would get as many people as possible and I could probably pump that up to 25 percent. And then I would be also saying, “Well, you know, the Muslims are very different from the Jews, who are very different from the Catholics, who are very different from all of that.”
But what’s gonna happen, and because I’m not interested in tactical play, but rather than telling the truth. We are going to get theist to atheist. But you can’t imagine, we can’t imagine in 1965, a Baptist talking… Baptist politician talking about religion and where they go to church if they have to use the word, “Baptist.” It’s using the word “Christian” that allows this craziness to happen. Also because I am an optimist, to the point of being incorrect, to the point of not being realistic, that’s what flushes over me, that’s what I feel in my heart is optimism. I tend to go with something Christopher Hitchens said, and I don’t remember where he said it, it could have even been in personal conversation, I don’t know. But Hitchens said that what we’re seeing with this incredible crazy religious stuff is the death throws. I mean, since 9/11, free thinking atheism is growing so quickly because of the internet and people who are seeing it first with those who are called, and I realize this is a racist term, but it’s the easiest one to use, so please forgive me, Gypsies. We’re seeing it with the Amish; we’re seeing it with the Hasidics. All the groups that try to stay as a subset of America and keep their own traditions are going away. And Elvis chipped away at them and malls chipped away at them, but the internet is going to take them down.
It is just too hard to keep your children cloistered. They’re going to hear Katy Perry. There’s just no way to stop it. They’re gonna see video like this, you know. Once you’ve gotten on the internet to see Katie Perry, it’s not hard to fall over to the Big Think. It’s the same keyboard, it’s the same screen. It’s the same everything. And those… that information gets out there. And I think that everybody knows that and everybody feels that, so then those who are religious, you’re seeing a desperate, terrified, clawing. And that’s the only way you can explain Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry is the combination of desperation coupled with the magic protective word of “Christian.”
And I think… I think that’s what we’re seeing. And whether they can pull together, you know, the problem is a movement of individuals is not going to have the muscle of a cohesive movement of people who believe they’re right. And I’m not willing to lie to fight them. I want individuals who disagree on everything. And I want us to learn to band together for freedom. Band together in order to be different. And that’s a much harder thing to sell, but it’s all that matters, so we have to do it.
You know, I… I stick up for Mormons. I mean, Mitt Romney is wearing crazy underwear. He’s wearing magic underwear. He is. I mean, under his pants, he is wearing magic underwear. Magic underwear. And he believes that a convicted con man got golden tablets that no one else could see, and sat with an angel to find out that the original Jews of the Bible were living in North America. Crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy. But… just more modern, not more crazy, than other religions. Not more crazy than Islam, you know, with your… not more crazy than virgin births and resurrections. Not more crazy than any of that stuff. What’s really fascinating to me, fascinating, is that… and I cover this in my book when I say signs you may already be an atheist, it fascinates me that you can have the Bible Belt and you can have a court trial, and we’ve seen this. I’m going to use it hypothetically, but you’ll know the specifics I’m talking about, I just don’t want to talk about that kind of pain too directly, it’s too unpleasant for me. But hypothetically, in the Bible Belt, where you can have a born-again Christian Judge, born-again Christian Judge. I believe the Bible is the literal word of God, there were talking snakes, there were talking snakes and virgin births. Burning bushes and Abraham being willing to kill his son for God. He believes that.
The jury is made up of 12 people who, let’s say 10 of them believe that. And two of them believe that, but a little less. You’re Prosecuting Attorney believes that. The people that are sitting in the courtroom believe that. These are all people that know each other in church. And the person on the witness stand says that she killed her three children in cold blood because God told her to. And every single person in the courtroom decides whether she is guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Those are the two choices they weigh. And nobody, not the Defense Attorney, not the Judge, not the jury people, not the people in the gallery, not one person stands up and goes, maybe God told her to. It’s less weird than the talking snake. Maybe God told her to.
And in this country, which they say over and over again is founded on Christian values, and I’ll give them that; founded on Christian values. Okay, it is, fine. This country, founded on Christian values has guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, end of list. There is nothing that says, not guilty because God told me to. And why? Why isn’t that there? Why isn’t this country allowing in the court system someone to go on the witness stand and go, “Snake walked up to me, snaked opened his mouth, snake said, ‘go into McDonald’s, pull out an AK15, kill 10 people, walk back out,’ snake told me that. It’s that snake there, he’s not talking anymore. I throw myself on the mercy of the court. Aren’t you all good Christians? Don’t you believe in the miracles of the Bible? You’re seeing one now.”
And that’s the part that amazes me is that kind of stuff. So Mitt Romney comes along and at some level doesn’t he know what he believes is crazy? At some level, isn’t he going, “There weren’t Jews in North America.” You know, that’s not where the Garden of Eden was. Doesn’t that go through his mind? And that’s the part of that whole thing that kills me. If Mitt Romney really believes what he says he believes, he is bug-nutty, bat shit crazy. And he’s not, bug-nutty, bat shit crazy. He’s the same as Obama. If Obama believes what he was being taught in that church in Chicago, okay, he is bat shit crazy. And Obama is demonstratively not bat shit crazy.
So we have this weird deal we make with all the politicians where we say, you can say you believe bug nutty, bat shit crazy shit, and we’ll shrug it off because you’re clearly not bug nutty, bat shit crazy. And all I want out of our politicians is for them to just say, “You know, a lot of the religious stuff I’m talking about is bug nutty, bat shit crazy, but I’m not.” Because I don’t think any of these men and women are crazy. And I’ll even give you Michelle Bachman, I’ll even give you Rick Perry, I’ll even give you Sarah Palin. I don’t have that cynical MSNBC point of view that they are bug nutty, bat shit crazy. I think they are good people who somehow think that they’re morality and their love for humanity and their love for their families are tied up in this weird tradition. And when they think that the Bible is the word of God, I think they mean something else. I sometimes think that many other people are speaking in a code that I’ve not been given the key to.
When someone says to me, I believe in the Bible literally. Well, I personally, Penn Jillette, read about a chapter in the Bible a day. I just read through it, over and over again. So when someone says, they believe in the word of God literally, I go back and think about Genesis, where people were living to be 900 years old. And I say bullshit! And then I think about Noah and the flood, killing everybody? God that loves us kills everybody? And he wants to get two of every species and seven of the ones that are clean onto a boat that floats for that amount of time? And I just go, really? Because you don’t act that way. You’re able to go to Home Depot, you’re able to pay with a credit card, you’re able to go to Starbucks, you know how to use a computer. Really? Do you really mean that? What do you mean literally? Do you really mean that you’re going to stone someone to death who because they work on the Sabbath, are you really gonna do that? Really, honestly? You’re gonna take a rock in your hand and throw at the mother-fucker’s head because he worked on a Sunday to support his family? Are you really gonna do that? If you mix cotton and linen in your clothing are you really going to go to hell? What do you mean when you say that?
And no one’s ever answered me. There’s a code going on that I need the Rosetta Stone. I need someone to sit me down and go, Penn, when Obama says he went to that church and they talked about all this stuff being literal, what he really meant was… fill in the blank! Tell me! What does he really mean? These people are good, honest, smart, not bat shit crazy people, so why the fuck are they saying bat shit crazy stuff to me?
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 6:57 PM
whats the word for someone
whats the word for someone prejudiced againsta certain religion?
ratheist?
NotCranky
February 19, 2012 @ 7:39 PM
Bokonism doesn’t go under
Bokonism doesn’t go under miscellaneous, dammit.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 8:00 PM
Ok bokonist is a category,
Ok bokonist is a category, although can’t anyone be a bokonist -plus another religion?
NotCranky
February 19, 2012 @ 8:34 PM
walterwhite wrote:Ok bokonist
[quote=walterwhite]Ok bokonist is a category, although can’t anyone be a bokonist -plus another religion?[/quote]
I am not so sure, I really feel that Bokonism, if one can embrace it at all, is probably a “bridge” to atheism or agnosticism. I think that’s the idea. It’s satire. Sorry, I forgot about that.
TemekuT
February 19, 2012 @ 8:13 PM
walterwhite wrote:transcript
[quote=walterwhite]transcript from penn jillette’s interview…
Penn Jillette: Michele Bachman’s blasphemy is greater than anything I’ve ever accomplished. I have tried with friends to say the most blasphemous sentence I can possibly say and it does not come close to the blasphemy of Michelle Bachman saying that earthquakes and hurricanes were the way God was trying to get the attention of politicians. I cannot imagine a serious religious person reading that quote or hearing that quote and saying, “Yeah, right on.” It is solipsistic, it is opportunistic, it is cynical. It is deep and it is wrong and it is an insult to religious people everywhere.
[/quote]
A relative told me yesterday that the reason her daughter has cancer is because God has something to teach the family and is trying to get their attention.
svelte
February 20, 2012 @ 6:19 PM
TemekuT wrote:
A relative
[quote=TemekuT]
A relative told me yesterday that the reason her daughter has cancer is because God has something to teach the family and is trying to get their attention.[/quote]
This kind of logic gets me very angry.
My sister was born with legs that barely allowed her to walk (and even then with braces from the hip down) before they finally gave out on her in her 20s and she has spent the rest of her life a double amputee in a wheelchair. She had unmeasureable pain, heartbreak, and disappointments throughout her childhood and endured many surgeries. She watched longingly from the sidelines when she was a little girl as her friends ran freely playing tag, hopscotch, etc. All she could do is hobble to the edge of the playground at the start of recess to sit and watch until she hobbled back to the classroom at the end of recess.
I ask Christians – why would God do that to my sister? She was BORN that way, God could not be punishing her for anything! She was an innocent baby. A few have responded that it is God’s will, it makes her stronger, he has a plan for her we don’t see yet, etc. My response is always if your God is so cruel as to do something so dispicable to a little child – millions of little babies actually – then he is worse than any human you can name [Hitler, Pol Pot, Charlie Manson, pick your villain] and I don’t want him to be my God at all. If he lived today, we’d hang a man who injured little children in such a way. Why would you worship him?
And then I tell them: by the way, if God controls everything and a handicap like that is part of his grand plan – here, let God help me cut off *your* legs and we’ll see if you still feel the same way…come over here for second…
zippythepinhead
February 20, 2012 @ 8:01 PM
svelte wrote:TemekuT wrote:
A
[quote=svelte][quote=TemekuT]
A relative told me yesterday that the reason her daughter has cancer is because God has something to teach the family and is trying to get their attention.[/quote]
This kind of logic gets me very angry.
My sister was born with legs that barely allowed her to walk (and even then with braces from the hip down) before they finally gave out on her in her 20s and she has spent the rest of her life a double amputee in a wheelchair. She had unmeasureable pain, heartbreak, and disappointments throughout her childhood and endured many surgeries. She watched longingly from the sidelines when she was a little girl as her friends ran freely playing tag, hopscotch, etc. All she could do is hobble to the edge of the playground at the start of recess to sit and watch until she hobbled back to the classroom at the end of recess.
I ask Christians – why would God do that to my sister? She was BORN that way, God could not be punishing her for anything! She was an innocent baby. A few have responded that it is God’s will, it makes her stronger, he has a plan for her we don’t see yet, etc. My response is always if your God is so cruel as to do something so dispicable to a little child – millions of little babies actually – then he is worse than any human you can name [Hitler, Pol Pot, Charlie Manson, pick your villain] and I don’t want him to be my God at all. If he lived today, we’d hang a man who injured little children in such a way. Why would you worship him?
And then I tell them: by the way, if God controls everything and a handicap like that is part of his grand plan – here, let God help me cut off *your* legs and we’ll see if you still feel the same way…come over here for second…[/quote]
I am saddened to hear of your sister’s circumstance. The answers you seek cannot be summarized in a paragraph or 2. They are available however- might I suggest some reading: The Problem of Evil (Chapter 6) in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Also, as previously mentioned, CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, and the book of Job. Finally, Catholic.com has some good resources- you can use their search engine. I will be praying for your sister.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 8:13 PM
If it can’t be summed up
If it can’t be summed up clearly in a couple paragraphs, whatever it is, it is almost certainly a bunch of bullshit.
Book of job: really good guy does nothing wrong, suffers a lot. No particular reason given. The end.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 8:17 PM
They say there are no
They say there are no atheists in foxholes. I disagree with that. I’ve believed I was going to die one occasion a while back and god and the afterlife were the last thing on my mind.
However I will concede that there may be no atheists in the delivery room; I’d have been willing to work out any deal with any god while hoping for a good birth.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 8:29 PM
As for people praying for
As for people praying for others, there have been a number of scientific studies showing that prayer actually worsens outcomes for people when they know they’re being prayed over.
The theory is religious prayees feel pressured to recover to prove the religion true, and that tends to get them sicker.
Basically, having people worry over you don’t help and probably hurts the outcome.
If you feel you must pray for someone the safe way to do it us NOT to tell them you’re praying so they don’t know about it.
Otherwise basically you’re just hurting them in a strange selfish act to prove you can connect with god to make things happen on earth.
svelte
February 20, 2012 @ 8:58 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:
I am
[quote=zippythepinhead]
I am saddened to hear of your sister’s circumstance. The answers you seek cannot be summarized in a paragraph or 2. They are available however- might I suggest some reading: The Problem of Evil (Chapter 6) in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Also, as previously mentioned, CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, and the book of Job. Finally, Catholic.com has some good resources- you can use their search engine. I will be praying for your sister.[/quote]
It really doesn’t matter what the reason would be. If there is someone responsible for doing that to my sister, I want no part of him/her/it. Period.
If someone gave me ultimate power over everyone’s life, I can guarantee you that I would NOT use it to hurt people physically. Ever.
But as others have pointed out here very succinctly, religion is rejected by most everyone who uses logic and science for their viewpoint anyway so I would no doubt be an agnostic atheist even had I not grown up around my sister.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 9:04 PM
Well not true. Many
Well not true. Many scientists are deeply religious.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 9:07 PM
On my reading list; alain de
On my reading list; alain de bottoms religion for atheists; a nonbeluevers guide to the uses of religion.
I read everything de botton writes because he’s brilliant.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 9:09 PM
We have big questions and big
We have big questions and big spiritual needs that must be tended to.
I’m only an angry nasty atheist because I am mightily fucking pissed at God and I was trying to get his attention.
zippythepinhead
February 20, 2012 @ 10:50 PM
svelte wrote:zippythepinhead
[quote=svelte][quote=zippythepinhead]
I am saddened to hear of your sister’s circumstance. The answers you seek cannot be summarized in a paragraph or 2. They are available however- might I suggest some reading: The Problem of Evil (Chapter 6) in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Also, as previously mentioned, CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, and the book of Job. Finally, Catholic.com has some good resources- you can use their search engine. I will be praying for your sister.[/quote]
It really doesn’t matter what the reason would be. If there is someone responsible for doing that to my sister, I want no part of him/her/it. Period.
If someone gave me ultimate power over everyone’s life, I can guarantee you that I would NOT use it to hurt people physically. Ever.
But as others have pointed out here very succinctly, religion is rejected by most everyone who uses logic and science for their viewpoint anyway so I would no doubt be an agnostic atheist even had I not grown up around my sister.[/quote]
Copernicus (astronomy) and Lemaitre (big bang theory) were priests, Mendel (genetics) was a monk. Pascal was a mathematician, and most neurosurgeons and astrophysicists believe in God. Psychiatrists, historians and sociologists today do not. Your demand of an answer to a critical question can only be understood by examining that which explains it; like a question at the end of a chemistry or math textbook chapter, you must first read the chapter. Otherwise, you will miss it and remain angry and ultimately bewildered. Look at The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Ch 6 by Kreeft et al – that’s all I can say.
CA renter
February 20, 2012 @ 11:29 PM
Svelte,
The story about your
Svelte,
The story about your sister is heart-breaking. This is the type of thing I’ve always had a problem with as well. Watching innocent children suffer from disease, genetic mutations, war, famine, etc… How can a “good and kind” god stand back and let these things happen? Yes, some religious advocates will try to give various answers, but a compassionate being who is all-powerful would not allow these things to happen, especially not to kids. Just MHO.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 2:51 AM
pocket guide notes to ch 6
pocket guide notes to ch 6 christian apologetics:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74111944/Apologetics-Kreeft-chapter-6-Miracles
i cant sleep.
its unlikely this bool based on my quick reading of amazon reviews, is going to persuade me of much.
it’s weird looking logic stuff. Ithink you’d do better yelling at me to just beleive. When i used to go to Mass with my wife, I preferred to go to this old fashioned place that did it in latin. it seemed much more meaningful to go somewhere we couldn’t understand anything. Better to be like a peasant in the middle ages, let the priest intercede between you and this harsh God ina a language only he and He could understand. You start getting into apologetics and it’s just a logic game
it’s difficult for me to get past the whole Jewish holocaust thing.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 3:03 AM
how dare we question God?
how dare we question God? could you create even one blade of grass? Ok, maybe we might be able to make some artificial meat grown from other meat cells in special factories soon, but we can’t even make one mouse. ok, maybe we might be able to clone one, but not from scratch. and we certainly can’t create a universe, or even a cnew kind of mammal,
so who are you to question Him? If he needs to kill a few people to make it work, are you so smart you have the answer? you need to beak a few eggs, maybe even a fw million eggs, to make a decent omelette, and He is truly a master chef.
He’s Awesome and Amazing and you owe everything to him, so stop whining. It’s all preparation for eternity anyway so get with the the program. And stop being so soft on children, that’s just a mdoern sensibility thing. In the old days, kids lives were cheap. dime a dozen. Ichild mortality was super high, so we didn’t get as attached to them. Now, one kid dies, and suddenly there’s no creator of thr universe.
Modern people. sheesh. ingrates. You create an entire planet for them in the middle of a cold dark universe, and are they grateful? no, a few bad things happen, and suddenly theya re wailing and gnashing their teeth and renting their garments. there’s no god, just because a few crappy things happened, adn someone somewhere suffered. hey, we’re all suffering, ok? nobody said this was going to be a picnic.
God suffers too.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @ 6:43 AM
CA renter wrote:Svelte,
The
[quote=CA renter]Svelte,
The story about your sister is heart-breaking. This is the type of thing I’ve always had a problem with as well. Watching innocent children suffer from disease, genetic mutations, war, famine, etc… How can a “good and kind” god stand back and let these things happen? Yes, some religious advocates will try to give various answers, but a compassionate being who is all-powerful would not allow these things to happen, especially not to kids. Just MHO.[/quote]
Thank you CA. Your thoughts are appreciated.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @ 6:38 AM
zippythepinhead
[quote=zippythepinhead]
Copernicus (astronomy) and Lemaitre (big bang theory) were priests, Mendel (genetics) was a monk. Pascal was a mathematician, and most neurosurgeons and astrophysicists believe in God. Psychiatrists, historians and sociologists today do not. Your demand of an answer to a critical question can only be understood by examining that which explains it; like a question at the end of a chemistry or math textbook chapter, you must first read the chapter. Otherwise, you will miss it and remain angry and ultimately bewildered. Look at The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Ch 6 by Kreeft et al – that’s all I can say.[/quote]
Oh, I’m not bewildered. But since the other poster brought up Catholicism, let’s explore that for a minute.
How could anyone belong to a church that had a staff consisting of child molesters and HID THE FACT from the public for decades while they CONTINUED to molest children? WTF kind of church is that?
On top of that, have you heard what Catholic nuns have done in Spain for the last 100 years? The nuns stole approximately 300,000 babies from their heatbroken mothers and resold them!!! And the practice continued until just the last few years (IF it has even stopped now!!!)
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/spains-stolen-babies-an-ugly-past-on-a-staggering-scale-2/
(there are many similar articles, just google it)
Again, why would any thinking person belong to such an organization?
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 6:42 AM
well, the argument is that
well, the argument is that every organization is comprised of huamns, a nd so will have failings, but that doesn’t detract from the fundamental purity, goodness and all-around sanctity of the underlying organization. We would expect in anything so huge and grand that there would be some small problems here and there. Child molestors were only a tiny portion of priests, after all.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @ 6:44 AM
walterwhite wrote:well, the
[quote=walterwhite]well, the argument is that every organization is comprised of huamns, a nd so will have failings, but that doesn’t detract from the fundamental purity, goodness and all-around sanctity of the underlying organization. We would expect in anything so huge and grand that there would be some small problems here and there. Child molestors were only a tiny portion of priests, after all.[/quote]
You just ignored those 300,000 “small problems” in Spain…
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 6:45 AM
its the fault of the
its the fault of the oppressive regime ine xistence in Spain at the time, not the fault of anyone who is a member fo the Church.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @ 6:49 AM
walterwhite wrote:its the
[quote=walterwhite]its the fault of the oppressive regime ine xistence in Spain at the time, not the fault of anyone who is a member fo the Church.[/quote]
lol!
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 7:02 AM
my kids are way more
my kids are way more concerned about the Church’s killing of cats in connectionw ith witchcraft concerns, as they really love cats.
it wa sonly int he late 1800’s that cats came back in style as pets with the first cat show in Westminster. before then, they were suspected to be affiliated with the Devil.
Women got killed for owning a cat.
zippythepinhead
February 21, 2012 @ 10:43 AM
svelte wrote:zippythepinhead
[quote=svelte][quote=zippythepinhead]
Copernicus (astronomy) and Lemaitre (big bang theory) were priests, Mendel (genetics) was a monk. Pascal was a mathematician, and most neurosurgeons and astrophysicists believe in God. Psychiatrists, historians and sociologists today do not. Your demand of an answer to a critical question can only be understood by examining that which explains it; like a question at the end of a chemistry or math textbook chapter, you must first read the chapter. Otherwise, you will miss it and remain angry and ultimately bewildered. Look at The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Ch 6 by Kreeft et al – that’s all I can say.[/quote]
Oh, I’m not bewildered. But since the other poster brought up Catholicism, let’s explore that for a minute.
How could anyone belong to a church that had a staff consisting of child molesters and HID THE FACT from the public for decades while they CONTINUED to molest children? WTF kind of church is that?
On top of that, have you heard what Catholic nuns have done in Spain for the last 100 years? The nuns stole approximately 300,000 babies from their heatbroken mothers and resold them!!! And the practice continued until just the last few years (IF it has even stopped now!!!)
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/spains-stolen-babies-an-ugly-past-on-a-staggering-scale-2/
(there are many similar articles, just google it)
Again, why would any thinking person belong to such an organization?[/quote]
Many thinking persons belong to such an organization because they know scandals occur in every organizion on the face of the earth, secular or otherwise. Everyone is a sinner. The first Church scandal occurred about 15 minutes after its founding (Peter’s denial, Judas’ betrayal, etc). The last scandal will occur about 15 seconds before the end of time. Scandals do alot of damage but what do they mean to the faithful? We’ve got to do better. Just having over 95 % of the clergy living up to Church teachings isn’t good enough. But such scandals don’t invalidate the teachings of the church. By analogy, the pythagorean isn’t invalid because the geometry teacher has been arrested for drunk driving. St Francis de Sales warned against this suckerpunch i.e. using the occasion of scandal as licence to commit spiritual suicide. Those who use such an excuse to wander off the sacrimental path to salvation do so at their own peril.
UCGal
February 21, 2012 @ 12:41 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:svelte
[quote=zippythepinhead][quote=svelte][quote=zippythepinhead]
Copernicus (astronomy) and Lemaitre (big bang theory) were priests, Mendel (genetics) was a monk. Pascal was a mathematician, and most neurosurgeons and astrophysicists believe in God. Psychiatrists, historians and sociologists today do not. Your demand of an answer to a critical question can only be understood by examining that which explains it; like a question at the end of a chemistry or math textbook chapter, you must first read the chapter. Otherwise, you will miss it and remain angry and ultimately bewildered. Look at The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Ch 6 by Kreeft et al – that’s all I can say.[/quote]
Oh, I’m not bewildered. But since the other poster brought up Catholicism, let’s explore that for a minute.
How could anyone belong to a church that had a staff consisting of child molesters and HID THE FACT from the public for decades while they CONTINUED to molest children? WTF kind of church is that?
On top of that, have you heard what Catholic nuns have done in Spain for the last 100 years? The nuns stole approximately 300,000 babies from their heatbroken mothers and resold them!!! And the practice continued until just the last few years (IF it has even stopped now!!!)
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/spains-stolen-babies-an-ugly-past-on-a-staggering-scale-2/
(there are many similar articles, just google it)
Again, why would any thinking person belong to such an organization?[/quote]
Many thinking persons belong to such an organization because they know scandals occur in every organizion on the face of the earth, secular or otherwise. Everyone is a sinner. The first Church scandal occurred about 15 minutes after its founding (Peter’s denial, Judas’ betrayal, etc). The last scandal will occur about 15 seconds before the end of time. Scandals do alot of damage but what do they mean to the faithful? We’ve got to do better. Just having over 95 % of the clergy living up to Church teachings isn’t good enough. But such scandals don’t invalidate the teachings of the church. By analogy, the pythagorean isn’t invalid because the geometry teacher has been arrested for drunk driving. St Francis de Sales warned against this suckerpunch i.e. using the occasion of scandal as licence to commit spiritual suicide. Those who use such an excuse to wander off the sacrimental path to salvation do so at their own peril.[/quote]
My mother was the poster child for being Catholic until about a decade ago. She’s also very Italian.
But she’s no longer of the belief that the “Church” is good. In fact everytime there’s a new scandal involving the Catholic Church she finds herself muttering:
“Il pesce comincia a puzzare dalla testa”
(The fish starts rotting at the head)
She still prays, says her rosaries, etc. But she no longer attends mass. She’s pretty disgusted with the organization… starting at the top with the Pope, Arch Bishops, Cardinals, etc.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 1:00 PM
The judgments are large. It’s
The judgments are large. It’s difficult to contribute $ and think about a portion going toward settlements. My wife would have to pry the $20 out of my wallet back when we used to go and the plate came around
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 1:01 PM
If you wouldn’t trust a
If you wouldn’t trust a church official of any denomnation alone with your kid for 15 minutes, why would you trust him with your soul?
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @ 1:07 PM
I hope if they come out,
I hope if they come out, atheists can leave their superiority trips in the closet. Humility does not come easy to the “high level” atheist. Maybe that’s the problem too?
Thank goodness wiki is handy: If Descartes or Pascal and Aquinas makes Catholicism right, certainly Einstein and a few others make agnosticism better? Who pulls rank?
Agnosticism and rejection of atheism
Einstein firmly rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God’s nonexistence. Einstein stated: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”[14]
briansd1
February 21, 2012 @ 2:04 PM
Father Gary is my cousin’s
Father Gary is my cousin’s priest. He’s a very interesting character, knows a lot about history and loves to eat. You could call him a gourmand.
He’s very plain spoken. I once talked to him about Poland and he said that the Church provided fax machines to revolutionaries and worked with the CIA to overthrow the Communist regime.
Is it OK to be religious and enjoy worldly things such as fine food and wine? Is working with the CIA and interfering in politics the right thing for the church to do?
I’m also pretty sure that Father Gary is gay (he likes to talk to young men). My cousin’s son is also gay so I wonder if there was anything going on while he was a choir boy at church. I found out my cousin’s son is gay on Facebook. He got married in NY and someone congratulated him online. Of course, his parents don’t know yet.
My cousin is not in-your-face religious. In fact she never talks about religion. But having a priest come to the house on family occasions is special to her. She likes that tradition. It makes her feel like her family is blessed by God. I have to say that the services and gatherings are always lovely.
zk
February 21, 2012 @ 2:51 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:I hope if
[quote=Jacarandoso]I hope if they come out, atheists can leave their superiority trips in the closet. Humility does not come easy to the “high level” atheist. Maybe that’s the problem too?
Thank goodness wiki is handy: If Descartes or Pascal and Aquinas makes Catholicism right, certainly Einstein and a few others make agnosticism better? Who pulls rank?
Agnosticism and rejection of atheism
Einstein firmly rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God’s nonexistence. Einstein stated: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”[14][/quote]
I think the “professional” or “high-level” atheist, the one who is certain there is no god, is very similar to the religious person. I think that type of atheist is very rare, however. If you look up the definition of atheist, most dictionaries will include both the “certain there is no god” definition and the “doesn’t believe in any god” definition. I’d say 98% of atheists aren’t certain there’s no god.
And I think we need a new word for the “level 6” atheist who thinks god is extremely improbable but who knows that he doesn’t know enough about the universe to know there’s no god. Because right now, you say your agnostic, and people think that you don’t know what to believe or something similar. Technically correct, maybe, but it doesn’t really describe what you think. And if you say you’re an atheist, they frequently lump you in with the angry, militant atheists that sometimes dominate the discussion.
Anyway, I feel almost the same way about religious people that Einstein felt about atheists. The only difference is their motivation.
Take the universe. How did it start? What was here before it? Ask all those questions. Well, we can’t possibly know. Given the choice between “god made the universe” (everything has meaning, you’ll live forever) and “there’s no god” (you’ll live a moment and then be gone forever), most people will choose god. And when I say choose, I mean that there subconscious chooses for them. They want so badly to believe that they do, regardless of the fact that there’s no evidence to support the existence of a god. For some people (probably most level 6 people) there’s no choice. They see the evidence and aren’t able to deceive themselves into believing something merely because it will comfort them.
zk
February 21, 2012 @ 3:35 PM
And a lot of religious people
And a lot of religious people are just people who were told by their parents about god and were never skeptical about it. I never cease to be amazed at how lacking in skepticism human beings in general are.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @ 3:42 PM
Rastafarianism
Rastafarianism
zippythepinhead
February 21, 2012 @ 5:33 PM
zk wrote:And a lot of
[quote=zk]And a lot of religious people are just people who were told by their parents about god and were never skeptical about it. I never cease to be amazed at how lacking in skepticism human beings in general are.[/quote]
I would also agree with you on this point. By the same token, however, most skeptics seem unfamiliar with the arguments for Gods existence or the evidence supporting a strong probability of such.
zk
February 21, 2012 @ 5:47 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:zk
[quote=zippythepinhead][quote=zk]And a lot of religious people are just people who were told by their parents about god and were never skeptical about it. I never cease to be amazed at how lacking in skepticism human beings in general are.[/quote]
I would also agree with you on this point. By the same token, however, most skeptics seem unfamiliar with the arguments for Gods existence or the evidence supporting a strong probability of such.[/quote]
I don’t know what most skeptics are familiar with. But I’ve seen a lot of the arguments for god’s existence and the evidence that you claim supports a strong probability of such. My brother in law (a pastor) and I had a deal, part of which was I’d listen to those arguments and read some about it. The arguments, to this skeptic, were ridiculously far from supporting a strong probability of god’s existence. Truly a joke. I think that only those who have a strong desire to believe and go in hoping to be converted will find those arguments compelling.
zippythepinhead
February 21, 2012 @ 7:24 PM
zk wrote:zippythepinhead
[quote=zk][quote=zippythepinhead][quote=zk]And a lot of religious people are just people who were told by their parents about god and were never skeptical about it. I never cease to be amazed at how lacking in skepticism human beings in general are.[/quote]
I would also agree with you on this point. By the same token, however, most skeptics seem unfamiliar with the arguments for Gods existence or the evidence supporting a strong probability of such.[/quote]
I don’t know what most skeptics are familiar with. But I’ve seen a lot of the arguments for god’s existence and the evidence that you claim supports a strong probability of such. My brother in law (a pastor) and I had a deal, part of which was I’d listen to those arguments and read some about it. The arguments, to this skeptic, were ridiculously far from supporting a strong probability of god’s existence. Truly a joke. I think that only those who have a strong desire to believe and go in hoping to be converted will find those arguments compelling.[/quote]
Fatima is a good example. At minimum, 55,0000 eye witnesses were present including the 2 self decribed sceptics of local newsprint; they were there expressly to debunk “the joke”. Not only did it occur as predicted, but the predictions of the longevity of the children also came true. Quite a coincidence.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 8:36 PM
Maybe atheists wouldn’t be so
Maybe atheists wouldn’t be so angry and harsh if religious people weren’t so politically mobilized to inject religion into politics
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 9:57 PM
http://www.hulu.com/watch/175
http://www.hulu.com/watch/175282/louie-god
louie ck explains why God is an asshole. and it makes a lot of sense.
zk
February 21, 2012 @ 11:19 PM
walterwhite
[quote=walterwhite]http://www.hulu.com/watch/175282/louie-god
louie ck explains why God is an asshole. and it makes a lot of sense.[/quote]
louis ck is hilarious. Anyone with kids would probably get a kick out of louis ck “why?” on youtube. Watch the 9:56 long version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA
My favorite part is when, after hours of the kid asking why, louis is exasperated and it comes to this: why? “because some things are and some things are not.” why? “because things that are not can’t be.” why? “because then nothing wouldn’t be. You can’t have fucking nothing isn’t, everything is!”
briansd1
February 22, 2012 @ 10:15 AM
walterwhite wrote:Maybe
[quote=walterwhite]Maybe atheists wouldn’t be so angry and harsh if religious people weren’t so politically mobilized to inject religion into politics[/quote]
That’s how I feel.
Try to be kind in life. But be as harsh to others as they are to you. Otherwise you get stepped all over.
My bro recently taught his daughter to fight back first and complain later.
As Walter said muscularity Is important. People don’t respect the weak. Pick your battles but strong is best.
briansd1
February 22, 2012 @ 10:34 AM
Svelte, my parents raised us
Svelte, my parents raised us like you raised your kids.
Our family is from a long line of Catholics. But religion was never the focus.
Growing up we once lived in Asia where we had a beautiful altar to a local multiple-arm diety (forgot the name but some indo goddess) in the yard. Everyday we burned incense and prayed for good luck. It was fun for kids to do.
I don’t know if Obama is faking it but I relate to his upbringing. I guess I like him for the same reason some other voters would prefer a born again Christian.
zk
February 21, 2012 @ 10:28 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:
Fatima
[quote=zippythepinhead]
Fatima is a good example. [/quote]
Fatima is a perfect example. Really, if that sort of thing is all it takes for you to think that there’s a “strong probability” that an omnipotent being (your personal god, no less) exists, then it’s quite clear that you’re not looking at the evidence (and coming to your conclusions) rationally and skeptically.
afx114
February 21, 2012 @ 10:47 PM
I think we also need to
I think we also need to separate “I think there may be a God” from “I think there is a God and it is MY God.” Every religion thinks that their religion is the one true religion, and that all others are false religions. The truth though is that one’s religion is largely a function of where one is born, which calls the “one true religion” thing into question. I once asked a fundamentalist born again Christian if they think they’d still be a Christian if they were born a poor peasant in say, India, or Tibet, or Iran. Of course they told me yes, because Christianity was the one true religion, and eventually they would come to it. Even if they were a poor shoeless Tibetan child, surely some Christian missionaries would find them and save them. But we all know that they would most likely be Buddhist if born in Tibet or Muslim if born in Iran, Hindu if born in India, etc.
An honest believer would say that they believe in a God, but they’re not sure if the groups of Gods that humans have come up with over our history is the true representation of that God. An honest believer would admit that there are just too many variations of God to settle on one true religion. An honest believer would not be resigned to the fact that a random child born in some far off country would perish for eternity simply because they were born somewhere that wasn’t exposed to the one true religion. But we all know that’s not how beliefs and religion work.
zk
February 21, 2012 @ 10:59 PM
afx114 wrote:
An honest
[quote=afx114]
An honest believer would say that they believe in a God, but they’re not sure if the groups of Gods that humans have come up with over our history is the true representation of that God.[/quote]
I agree with what you’re saying. I’ve asked christians the same question and gotten the same answer.
The problem with the hypothetical “honest believer” (according to my theory, anyway) is that most believers are not able to be honest with themselves. Or, more accurately, they’re able to be dishonest with themselves. Of all the things they have to overlook (lie to themselves about) to believe in god, the conundrum you mention may be one of the large ones, but it’s certainly not the biggest or the only one. Just one example of the self-deception required of any reasonably intelligent person for them to believe in god.
zippythepinhead
February 22, 2012 @ 8:41 AM
zk wrote:zippythepinhead
[quote=zk][quote=zippythepinhead]
Fatima is a good example. [/quote]
Fatima is a perfect example. Really, if that sort of thing is all it takes for you to think that there’s a “strong probability” that an omnipotent being (your personal god, no less) exists, then it’s quite clear that you’re not looking at the evidence (and coming to your conclusions) rationally and skeptically.[/quote]
Fatima isn’t the only thing, but it is one of many miracles publicly witnessed, and it does means something. If you look at that evidence or the approved miracles from Lourdes, what other conclusions are as reasonable given in their context. To paraphrase Chesterton, “I believe in miracles because there is evidence for them. The skeptic doesn’t believe because he doesn’t accept the evidence. He has a dogma against miracles. A materialist, after all, is not free to believe in miracles. Only a naturalistic explanation for anything will do, even if such an explantation is more unbelievable than a miraculous one”.
zk
February 22, 2012 @ 9:25 AM
zippythepinhead wrote:zk
[quote=zippythepinhead][quote=zk][quote=zippythepinhead]
Fatima is a good example. [/quote]
Fatima is a perfect example. Really, if that sort of thing is all it takes for you to think that there’s a “strong probability” that an omnipotent being (your personal god, no less) exists, then it’s quite clear that you’re not looking at the evidence (and coming to your conclusions) rationally and skeptically.[/quote]
Fatima isn’t the only thing, but it is one of many miracles publicly witnessed, and it does means something. If you look at that evidence or the approved miracles from Lourdes, what other conclusions are as reasonable given in their context.
[/quote]
What other conclusions are reasonable? If you really want to do this, give me a couple particular ones, and I’ll give you reasonable conclusions. If you want to give me a challenge, then they’ll have to be better than Fatima.
[quote=zippythepinhead]
To paraphrase Chesterton, “I believe in miracles because there is evidence for them. The skeptic doesn’t believe because he doesn’t accept the evidence. He has a dogma against miracles. A materialist, after all, is not free to believe in miracles. Only a naturalistic explanation for anything will do, even if such an explantation is more unbelievable than a miraculous one”.[/quote]
Apparently Chesterton lumped all skeptics into the “materialist” camp. A materialist believes that the only thing that exists is matter or energy. I think what you (and Chesterton) don’t understand is that most skeptics aren’t anything-ists. We don’t hold one theory, one explanation for everything and then exclude everything else. The only way that what you ascribe to Chesterton holds water is if all skeptics (or skeptics in general) think that way. Which, I assure you, we don’t. We don’t have a “dogma” against miracles. We have an open mind and look at things without bias or “dogma.” We conclude based on the evidence. And, when it comes to unknowable things like what’s the universe all about, we understand that we don’t know for sure. But we can estimate based on the evidence what’s likely and what’s not. And, if we’re honest with ourselves, and we’re truly skeptical and open-minded, then we generally conclude that an omnipotent being ruling the universe is superlatively unlikely.
zippythepinhead
February 22, 2012 @ 1:08 PM
zk wrote:zippythepinhead
[quote=zk][quote=zippythepinhead][quote=zk][quote=zippythepinhead]
Fatima is a good example. [/quote]
Fatima is a perfect example. Really, if that sort of thing is all it takes for you to think that there’s a “strong probability” that an omnipotent being (your personal god, no less) exists, then it’s quite clear that you’re not looking at the evidence (and coming to your conclusions) rationally and skeptically.[/quote]
Fatima isn’t the only thing, but it is one of many miracles publicly witnessed, and it does means something. If you look at that evidence or the approved miracles from Lourdes, what other conclusions are as reasonable given in their context.
[/quote]
What other conclusions are reasonable? If you really want to do this, give me a couple particular ones, and I’ll give you reasonable conclusions. If you want to give me a challenge, then they’ll have to be better than Fatima.
[quote=zippythepinhead]
To paraphrase Chesterton, “I believe in miracles because there is evidence for them. The skeptic doesn’t believe because he doesn’t accept the evidence. He has a dogma against miracles. A materialist, after all, is not free to believe in miracles. Only a naturalistic explanation for anything will do, even if such an explantation is more unbelievable than a miraculous one”.[/quote]
Apparently Chesterton lumped all skeptics into the “materialist” camp. A materialist believes that the only thing that exists is matter or energy. I think what you (and Chesterton) don’t understand is that most skeptics aren’t anything-ists. We don’t hold one theory, one explanation for everything and then exclude everything else. The only way that what you ascribe to Chesterton holds water is if all skeptics (or skeptics in general) think that way. Which, I assure you, we don’t. We don’t have a “dogma” against miracles. We have an open mind and look at things without bias or “dogma.” We conclude based on the evidence. And, when it comes to unknowable things like what’s the universe all about, we understand that we don’t know for sure. But we can estimate based on the evidence what’s likely and what’s not. And, if we’re honest with ourselves, and we’re truly skeptical and open-minded, then we generally conclude that an omnipotent being ruling the universe is superlatively unlikely.[/quote]
If what you say is true about being open minded and basing conslusions on evidence, then my question would be, “What do you conclude about Fatima?”
scaredyclassic
February 22, 2012 @ 2:30 PM
Miracles seem silly. Kinda
Miracles seem silly. Kinda like how god messed w Abrahams mind. Stop being such a coy little freak. If you wanna do a goddamn miralcle, do something big, obvious so there’s no mire doubt. I recommend;
suspending the law of gravity for ten seconds while techno music spontaneously plays across the globe followed by midday fireworks that spell out yay god, and everyone suddenly has a free pony appear by their side. Everyone.
Or, god appears globally on the sky, causes everyone to freeze, and pokes you with a stick until you admit he exists.
Everything else is strictly gamesplayong amateur hour.
afx114
February 22, 2012 @ 2:36 PM
I imagine everyone thought
I imagine everyone thought that aurora borealus and rainbows and lightning and eclipses and earthquakes and tsunamis and shooting stars and beer and weed and shrooms were miraculous too, until we figured out what they actually were.
scaredyclassic
February 22, 2012 @ 2:56 PM
As far as I’m concerned, the
As far as I’m concerned, the only miracle is that there’s anything here at all. It’s pretty weird, I admit. Spooky even. But it doesn’t make me feel like it’s owner is necessarily into me.
NotCranky
February 22, 2012 @ 3:20 PM
Zippy,
I wonder what you
Zippy,
I wonder what you would come back and report to this thread after spending a few houses surfing and reading on a few suggested topics.
Miracles of Allah
Miracles of Hindu gods
Origin of Mayan Gods
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RHTnDuxg0o
You can see or not see what you want. I see milk dribbling off these statues down to the ground,maybe a little gets absorbed by capillary action.
Same thing for Fatima, I am sorry to say. The Catholic Church doesn’t even request that everyone believe it. It’s a “local miracle” and they wouldn’t want to piss everyone off stating otherwise. The Catholic church has been just fungible enough on it’s dogma to make it obvious that it is a hoax, as if the miracles and the abuses didn’t make that clear enough. Maybe they mean well somewhere in it all,and it works for you, but it really is silly to expect anyone who has escaped the brain washing to believe it. Sorry if that is harsh. I really am.
Even from the myth in Fatima, the apparition of the Virgin Mary(another good one), or whatever it allegedly was, told the children to flog themselves, which they did(moderately). I am not any less skeptical but I do feel a little bit ill. Yes no wonder some Atheists are quite angry.
briansd1
February 22, 2012 @ 3:41 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:
Even from
[quote=Jacarandoso]
Even from the myth in Fatima, the apparition of the Virgin Mary(another good one), or whatever it allegedly was, told the children to flog themselves, which they did(moderately). I am not any less skeptical but I do feel a little bit ill. Yes no wonder some Atheists are quite angry.[/quote]
I heard that in some developing countries, in some villages where White christian missionaries had been evangelizing, when paler than usual children were born, they’d say “it’s a miracle, the children have been blessed by Jesus and the Virgin Mary.”
NotCranky
February 22, 2012 @ 4:38 PM
Funny thing and kinda sad,
Funny thing and kinda sad, Brian, sometimes when I have met Mexican families for the first time, often I would met a dark little kid, and the parent might say this is so and so, then another kid just a dark would arrive and they would say “Este es el Guero” (like the Jesus given to them by europeans?). Never made the connection to miracles, when he really was white the connection to Sancho was easily made. (yes,I know lots of Mexicans families and people are white,it’s just a joke)
I know many of my Mexican friends also really don’t believe half the time, the wives appear to be more credulous than the husbands, and there are a lot of mandilones so tradition carries on! They still baptize their kids and send them to Catechism. Of course many of them know they are ancestors of conquered natives who had different beliefs as valid as any other religion, people aren’t stupid.
Most of them are actually really nice about atheism, probably because of what I penned above. I think it’s kind of fun for them to know a disbeliever. For the most part only gays are brave enough or desperate enough to be openly atheist, like Juan Gabriel, for instance. Might as well be open about it, if you are already the brunt of jokes.
Jazzman
February 22, 2012 @ 6:55 PM
Nah! That’s just code for the
Nah! That’s just code for the local Pasta has been rogering your wife.
scaredyclassic
February 22, 2012 @ 9:46 PM
Great country song on the
Great country song on the radio just now:
god is great, beer is good and people are crazy.
scaredyclassic
February 22, 2012 @ 10:05 PM
Confession; I often listen to
Confession; I often listen to the Christian preaching station while driving. I’m actually sitting in a minivan right now waiting for my kid listening to 107.9 the wave. Sometimes the preaching can move me to tears.
zippythepinhead
February 22, 2012 @ 10:48 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:Zippy,
I
[quote=Jacarandoso]Zippy,
I wonder what you would come back and report to this thread after spending a few houses surfing and reading on a few suggested topics.
Miracles of Allah
Miracles of Hindu gods
Origin of Mayan Gods
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RHTnDuxg0o
You can see or not see what you want. I see milk dribbling off these statues down to the ground,maybe a little gets absorbed by capillary action.
Same thing for Fatima, I am sorry to say. The Catholic Church doesn’t even request that everyone believe it. It’s a “local miracle” and they wouldn’t want to piss everyone off stating otherwise. The Catholic church has been just fungible enough on it’s dogma to make it obvious that it is a hoax, as if the miracles and the abuses didn’t make that clear enough. Maybe they mean well somewhere in it all,and it works for you, but it really is silly to expect anyone who has escaped the brain washing to believe it. Sorry if that is harsh. I really am.
Even from the myth in Fatima, the apparition of the Virgin Mary(another good one), or whatever it allegedly was, told the children to flog themselves, which they did(moderately). I am not any less skeptical but I do feel a little bit ill. Yes no wonder some Atheists are quite angry.[/quote]
Let me see if I have this straight. The hoax that fooled the entire multitude of eye witnesses can’t fool one who sits on a surfboard, displaced by 95 years and thousands of miles. But what I still don’t get is, do you think the mastermind’s motive was simply to flog children, or is there more to it?
NotCranky
February 23, 2012 @ 7:27 AM
zippythepinhead
[quote=zippythepinhead][quote=Jacarandoso]Zippy,
I wonder what you would come back and report to this thread after spending a few houses surfing and reading on a few suggested topics.
Miracles of Allah
Miracles of Hindu gods
Origin of Mayan Gods
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RHTnDuxg0o
You can see or not see what you want. I see milk dribbling off these statues down to the ground,maybe a little gets absorbed by capillary action.
Same thing for Fatima, I am sorry to say. The Catholic Church doesn’t even request that everyone believe it. It’s a “local miracle” and they wouldn’t want to piss everyone off stating otherwise. The Catholic church has been just fungible enough on it’s dogma to make it obvious that it is a hoax, as if the miracles and the abuses didn’t make that clear enough. Maybe they mean well somewhere in it all,and it works for you, but it really is silly to expect anyone who has escaped the brain washing to believe it. Sorry if that is harsh. I really am.
Even from the myth in Fatima, the apparition of the Virgin Mary(another good one), or whatever it allegedly was, told the children to flog themselves, which they did(moderately). I am not any less skeptical but I do feel a little bit ill. Yes no wonder some Atheists are quite angry.[/quote]
Let me see if I have this straight. The hoax that fooled the entire multitude of eye witnesses can’t fool one who sits on a surfboard, displaced by 95 years and thousands of miles. But what I still don’t get is, do you think the mastermind’s motive was simply to flog children, or is there more to it?[/quote]
I think people feel they need to be as important and have important events such as miracles happen a little closer to home. Of course there is much more to it, it keeps people under the fold if the authorities at least half-heartedly approve of the delusion. So this has happened with the Virgin of Guadalupe too. It is good for allegiance and revenues I imagine. Sheep and Politics of miracles.
I really should call this a “don’t feed the (religious) trolls” moment and move on.I am still interested in what you will report after dedicated investigations of the miracles of the milk and the other things that I listed.
scaredyclassic
February 23, 2012 @ 8:11 AM
Either everything is a
Either everything is a miracle or nothing is.
zk
February 24, 2012 @ 7:00 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:
If
[quote=zippythepinhead]
If what you say is true about being open minded and basing conslusions on evidence, then my question would be, “What do you conclude about Fatima?”[/quote]
Sorry for the delay, zippy, I was in Big Bear for a couple days.
Before I give you my conclusions, let me ask you this: Have you googled Fatima (or miracle of the sun) and looked at all the information out there that lays out the more likely explanations for this “miracle?” As I was looking around, I came across someone asking how atheists explain this and other miracles. I was left wondering if he or you or anyone else who wonders has tried to see the other side of it. There’s plenty of information out there that easily explains it. Have you tried finding it? If not, why not? And why are you asking me now? I guess what I’m getting at is, do you really want to hear it? I speculate that perhaps you don’t, given that you apparently haven’t bothered to read all the information that’s out there. And if you don’t, I don’t want to be the one to ruin it for you. I don’t begrudge the faithful their faith, especially the ones like you who are (from what I can see) kind, sincere, and not preachy.
We live in the information age, and it’s so much easier to find information about the other side of any argument now. While I’d foolishly hoped and speculated that this might usher in an era of enlightenment, it seems to have given more credence than ever to those who would spread misinformation, deceit, and outright lies. Perhaps this is why. Perhaps the reason that the information age has, in so many cases, spread ignorance rather than enlightenment, is because most people don’t want to see the other side of things. They don’t want to see that fatima wasn’t a miracle or that the opposition’s candidate for president was born in America and isn’t a Muslim. So they ignore the evidence supporting the things they don’t want to hear and focus on the things they agree with.
scaredyclassic
February 24, 2012 @ 7:36 PM
You can lead a horse to water
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. However, in the event of dehydration you can stick an iv in it.
zippythepinhead
February 25, 2012 @ 11:37 PM
zk wrote:zippythepinhead
[quote=zk][quote=zippythepinhead]
If what you say is true about being open minded and basing conslusions on evidence, then my question would be, “What do you conclude about Fatima?”[/quote]
Sorry for the delay, zippy, I was in Big Bear for a couple days.
Before I give you my conclusions, let me ask you this: Have you googled Fatima (or miracle of the sun) and looked at all the information out there that lays out the more likely explanations for this “miracle?” As I was looking around, I came across someone asking how atheists explain this and other miracles. I was left wondering if he or you or anyone else who wonders has tried to see the other side of it. There’s plenty of information out there that easily explains it. Have you tried finding it? If not, why not? And why are you asking me now? I guess what I’m getting at is, do you really want to hear it? I speculate that perhaps you don’t, given that you apparently haven’t bothered to read all the information that’s out there. And if you don’t, I don’t want to be the one to ruin it for you. I don’t begrudge the faithful their faith, especially the ones like you who are (from what I can see) kind, sincere, and not preachy.
We live in the information age, and it’s so much easier to find information about the other side of any argument now. While I’d foolishly hoped and speculated that this might usher in an era of enlightenment, it seems to have given more credence than ever to those who would spread misinformation, deceit, and outright lies. Perhaps this is why. Perhaps the reason that the information age has, in so many cases, spread ignorance rather than enlightenment, is because most people don’t want to see the other side of things. They don’t want to see that fatima wasn’t a miracle or that the opposition’s candidate for president was born in America and isn’t a Muslim. So they ignore the evidence supporting the things they don’t want to hear and focus on the things they agree with.[/quote]
I admit that I have not extensively researched alternative explanations to Fatima, but will now do so. We can then compare notes. Hopefully everyone would agree that we should seek the truth, where ever that takes us.
scaredyclassic
February 25, 2012 @ 11:45 PM
The truth? You can’t
The truth? You can’t manhandle the truth!
zk
February 26, 2012 @ 7:26 AM
walterwhite wrote:The truth?
[quote=walterwhite]The truth? You can’t manhandle the truth![/quote]
On cue. 7 words. They should set up bleachers around you, scaredy.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @ 4:50 PM
I agree with all you
I agree with all you wrote,zk. Skeptic is too weak.
It plays out, especially to believers, like you are on a fence with the dominant faith on one side and a sorry abyss( at best) on the other.
From the Einstein quote:
“of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth”
This is pretty interesting and some thing “born agains” throw back at non believers, and not just raging atheists, all the time. Unfortunately, usually it is true that we had been faced with the moral necessity to defect.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @ 5:12 PM
So is Obama faking it?
His
So is Obama faking it?
His upbringing is one that generally creates agnostics or a least people pretty dispassionate about religion . What makes him different?
If he is faking it is it o.k. because it is necessary to enable “progressive” ideas gradually.
“Obama is a Christian whose religious views developed in his adult life. He wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he “was not raised in a religious household”. He described his mother, raised by non-religious parents (whom Obama has specified elsewhere as “non-practicing Methodists and Baptists”), to be detached from religion, yet “in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known”. He described his father as “raised a Muslim”, but a “confirmed atheist” by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as “a man who saw religion as not particularly useful”. Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand “the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change”.[297]
Pretty audacious alright.
zk
February 21, 2012 @ 5:41 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:So is Obama
[quote=Jacarandoso]So is Obama faking it?
His upbringing is one that generally creates agnostics or a least people pretty dispassionate about religion . What makes him different?
If he is faking it is it o.k. because it is necessary to enable “progressive” ideas gradually.
[/quote]
I would be amazed if he actually believed in god. Like you said, his upbringing isn’t conducive to it. And you don’t get as far as he has in life if you’re credulous about everything.
Is it o.k.? My first instinct is to say yes. Otherwise, any atheist wouldn’t be able to hold a high political office in this country. On the other hand, it’s a pretty slippery slope to say it’s ok to misrepresent yourself in order to get elected. On the third hand, to say, “if I proclaim my atheism, these rubes won’t elect me because they’ve fooled themselves into believing in god and they fear the godless. These unskeptical unwashed deserve me, and I shouldn’t be kept out of office just because I know there’s most probably no god” is probably not much different from any of the other lies that politicians constantly tell the electorate.
If we didn’t elect politicians who lie, we’d have anarchy.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @ 5:47 PM
Being more cynical, His
Being more cynical, His trainers and handlers could have could have just told him he has to do it. Or he started picking it up clues as he went along, maybe Harvard, maybe before. The black church thing was a thing of genius, really. No one could figure out how to kiss so many asses,just the right way on his own.
Get ready for round two of “hope a dope”.
zk
February 21, 2012 @ 5:49 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:Being more
[quote=Jacarandoso]Being more cynical, His trainers and handlers could have could have just told him he has to do it. Or he started picking it up clues as he went along, maybe Harvard, maybe before. The black church thing was a thing of genius, really. No one could figure out how to kiss so many asses,just the right way on his own.
Get ready for round two of “hope a dope”.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s any secret that Americans aren’t going to elect an atheist. He probably started pretending as soon as he realized he might end up in politics.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @ 5:48 PM
Being more cynical, Obama’s
Being more cynical, Obama’s trainers and handlers could have could have just told him he has to do it. Or he started picking it up clues as he went along, maybe Harvard, maybe before. The black church thing was a thing of genius, really. No one could figure out how to kiss so many asses,just the right way on his own.
Get ready for round two of “hope a dope”.
svelte
February 22, 2012 @ 6:41 AM
zk wrote:
I think the
[quote=zk]
I think the “professional” or “high-level” atheist, the one who is certain there is no god, is very similar to the religious person. I think that type of atheist is very rare, however.
[/quote]
It seems rare because the non-vocal don’t stand out. It’s the vocal, “I’m right and you’re wrong” types that stand out.
To quote one of my sons from our conversation last week:
“It’s unfortunate, but it’s probably best to keep your atheism on the downlow. I’m not saying you should lie about it, but you should probably not bring it up.”
He goes on to explain an event that caused him to take that perspective:
“I remember when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade, some kids asked me during lunch some question or other about god. I just shrugged it off, explaining that I didn’t believe in a god (hadn’t really occurred to me to even consider a god at that point). But those kids wouldn’t accept that answer. They started asking me a barrage of questions: If there isn’t a god, who made the earth? Who made the sun and the moon? How does anything exist without a god? I did not much appreciate their tone and felt like I was being attacked, so I asked one of the yard supervisors if I could move tables. I remember expecting the answer to be no, as you generally couldn’t get up much during lunch, at least not until the second half where you got to run around like wild animals. I told the teacher that the kids were attacking me because I didn’t believe in god, and that I wanted to sit somewhere else, and she said “of course!” So I sat under a tree and finished my lunch all by myself.”
[quote=zk]
If you look up the definition of atheist, most dictionaries will include both the “certain there is no god” definition and the “doesn’t believe in any god” definition. I’d say 98% of atheists aren’t certain there’s no god.
[/quote]
That’s why I chose the agnostic atheist title. I’m pretty certain there is no god, but I can’t prove it. Again, to quote a son from last week:
“I can’t prove there isn’t a god, but I also can’t prove their isn’t a gecko in a rocking chair on the moon”
[quote=zk]
And a lot of religious people are just people who were told by their parents about god and were never skeptical about it. I never cease to be amazed at how lacking in skepticism human beings in general are.
[/quote]
Absolutely. We never talked about religion in our household. I wanted my kids to make their own decisions. In fact, my younger son wanted to attend church (mostly to chase girls), so we drove him there faithfully every weekend. To the church of his choice. Here is what he thinks looking back on it:
“This is a good article [redacted] about what was going through my head in my teen years when i was attending church. What you never know is that in church, they never EVER went though the bad parts of the bible, such as the how god made the jews walk though the desert for 40 years. I wish i would have actually read the whole bible when i was going through that stage so i could have slapped myself to get out of there sooner.”
And what he’s discovered – a lot of his in-law church goers (he is now married) don’t even know what is in the bible!
when i went to the [event name] up in [another state] a few years ago with [wife’s family member] in the car this subject came up. she asked me about my religion and what i believed. i told her i grew up in a household that let me believe what i wanted to believe and they didn’t force anything down my throat, yet i still went to church for two small periods of time in my life. once when i was young mostly to be with my friends a little more, then once in my teens to chase a girl but ended up interested in a religion i didn’t agree with. i quickly quieted her by asking her questions about her religion that she could not answer. what the questions were i cannot recall but they were along the lines of if your god is all knowing why would he let so much bad happen in this world. if your god creates everything, why would he create cancer, aids, and other extremely deadly illnesses such as that.”
“One thing that really has been bugging me is how [my wife] will sometimes randomly bring god into a converstation of ours (very seldom) but when I ask her about other parts of the bible, such as adam and eve, or noahs ark, she has no clue about them. these are the people i feel sorry for, they believe in something because they were born here and forced to believe in this god. I always mention what if she were to be born in per say Iran or something of that nature or India, what would she believe in then. this is one of the keys that helped me deter from the path i was walking, how are those guys wrong in their religion and i am right in mine just because i was born here and this is what everyone around me is believing?”
svelte
February 22, 2012 @ 6:47 AM
This conversation with my
This conversation with my sons last week was very surprising to me. I didn’t know they were both non-believers, and I was surprised at the depth of the analysis they had both put into religion.
I would have been happy with any conclusion they came to, but was thrilled to see they had both given it fairly deep thought.
scaredyclassic
February 22, 2012 @ 6:59 AM
On the other hand, there are
On the other hand, there are many paths to muscularity but you have to use the muscle.
Perhaps religion is just the 24 h fitness of the soul.
Ricechex
February 23, 2012 @ 12:50 PM
svelte wrote:TemekuT wrote:
A
[quote=svelte][quote=TemekuT]
A relative told me yesterday that the reason her daughter has cancer is because God has something to teach the family and is trying to get their attention.[/quote]
This kind of logic gets me very angry.
My sister was born with legs that barely allowed her to walk (and even then with braces from the hip down) before they finally gave out on her in her 20s and she has spent the rest of her life a double amputee in a wheelchair. She had unmeasureable pain, heartbreak, and disappointments throughout her childhood and endured many surgeries. She watched longingly from the sidelines when she was a little girl as her friends ran freely playing tag, hopscotch, etc. All she could do is hobble to the edge of the playground at the start of recess to sit and watch until she hobbled back to the classroom at the end of recess.
I ask Christians – why would God do that to my sister? She was BORN that way, God could not be punishing her for anything! She was an innocent baby. A few have responded that it is God’s will, it makes her stronger, he has a plan for her we don’t see yet, etc. My response is always if your God is so cruel as to do something so dispicable to a little child – millions of little babies actually – then he is worse than any human you can name [Hitler, Pol Pot, Charlie Manson, pick your villain] and I don’t want him to be my God at all. If he lived today, we’d hang a man who injured little children in such a way. Why would you worship him?
And then I tell them: by the way, if God controls everything and a handicap like that is part of his grand plan – here, let God help me cut off *your* legs and we’ll see if you still feel the same way…come over here for second…[/quote]
I ran into this logic recently. Two Christian mothers. One is the day care provider, the other works outside the home and her 4 month old baby is in care with the provider. Provider leaves baby on floor on her stomach and goes away. When she returns baby can’t breathe and is almost dead and is rushed to hospital. Baby lives. Provider never apologizes for the wrong (never leave a baby face down for this very reason) and tells the mother that it is God’s way to test her love for her child and make her a better mother.
scaredyclassic
February 23, 2012 @ 4:04 PM
This should eliminate
This should eliminate virtually all civil litigation, since ultimately He is liable. And difficult to collect from.
NotCranky
February 19, 2012 @ 10:57 AM
briansd1 wrote:zk wrote:Faith
[quote=briansd1][quote=zk]Faith (belief in something not supported by evidence) is, by definition, irrational.[/quote]
That’s exactly how I see.[/quote]
Human beings are so extremely creative and have such large language capacity that we can infringe upon instinct, and the path to power, with artificial systems of personal and social norms, which often become religions or contain religious like adherence with grand explanations, rituals and icons.
It breaks down at some point because it is all fake,theocracy is theatrical ,and as walterwhite points out, in its fakeness, these created systems lack mutuality. If history repeats itself, what will remain of all these religions one day will be a nice collection of artifacts for some museum.
zippythepinhead
February 19, 2012 @ 11:08 AM
Pascal would disagree, “
Pascal would disagree, ” faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them. And Aquinas, ” The truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith”. Still others, “faith without reason withers to superstition, and reason without faith obscures the fullness of truth.”
briansd1
February 19, 2012 @ 11:24 AM
If I had to choose among all
If I had to choose among all the major religions, it would be buddhism. It’s not hardcore like the other religious.
Buddhism is more about being philosophical and taking taking things in stride.
NotCranky
February 19, 2012 @ 11:39 AM
zippythepinhead wrote:Pascal
[quote=zippythepinhead]Pascal would disagree, ” faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them. And Aquinas, ” The truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith”. Still others, “faith without reason withers to superstition, and reason without faith obscures the fullness of truth.”[/quote]
It does seem like there is an inherent sense of the possibility of Truth. However, Obscurity is at least as close to Truth as any collection of invented articles of faith. I believe in obscurity and from there, if there is a God, God is Love. Therefore the label that best fits me,somewhat painfully, is agnostic.
svelte
February 19, 2012 @ 8:48 AM
Wow, amazing this thread
Wow, amazing this thread popped up. One of my grown kids started a family email trail Friday talking about religion, how it affects people, and interactions he has witnessed.
We never really talk about religion in our household. It was the first time I found out we are all agnostic atheists. 🙂
CDMA ENG
February 19, 2012 @ 9:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnsLzHYRtts
Its terrible quality but still funny…
CE
Jazzman
February 19, 2012 @ 10:45 AM
Arguments for and agin
Arguments for and agin beautifully laid bear in the Confession, with Keifer Sutherland and John Hurt engaged in a ‘confession box’ dialogue. Choice and belief come head to head exposing the hypocrisy inherent in the human condition. Highly recommended.
DMT: The Spirit Molecule is also an interesting documentary that throws out the age old question of whether reality is just controlled dreaming, and whether DMT mysteriously present in all plant and animal life is responsible for heightened experiences we associate with religion.
UCGal
February 19, 2012 @ 11:37 AM
Just curious… is Southern
Just curious… is Southern Baptist the only protestant selection? There are lots of flavors of Protestant t that are quite different from Southern Baptist. FWIW, I was sent to a So. Baptist Sunday school growing up and it doesn’t resemble the Presbytarian services I attended for a while as an adult.
You also skipped Unitarians (one God in everything, vs the trilogy of Christianity)
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 11:42 AM
Other Protestants are under
Other Protestants are under other misc Jesus based religions
NotCranky
February 19, 2012 @ 11:50 AM
Got Bokonism?
From
Got Bokonism?
From Wiki
Bokononism is based on the concept of foma, which are defined as harmless untruths. A foundation of Bokononism is that the religion, including its texts, is formed entirely of lies; however, one who believes and adheres to these lies will have peace of mind, and perhaps live a good life. The primary tenet of Bokononism is to “Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy.”
Arraya
February 19, 2012 @ 12:25 PM
I believe in our holy father
I believe in our holy father the “Market” and his only son the invisible hand. The mystical power of money. Just like everybody else on the board.
All that old stuff is just mental masturbation at this point. The main driver of our patterns of behavior and hence culture is “economic”.
pokepud3
February 19, 2012 @ 1:36 PM
Seems like I’m the only
Seems like I’m the only muslim on here. I’m a daily reader, and love watching the market, and what you guys have to say. There’s nothing wrong or conflicting with believing in being a market skeptic or believing in life outside of earth. Don’t see how believing in this would make you an atheist 😐
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 2:02 PM
Believing in alien life kinda
Believing in alien life kinda makes earth not the center of the cosmic action as described in lots of religious literature.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 2:23 PM
Avoid politics and religion
Avoid politics and religion in polite conversation.
But query; most religions posit some events that seem a little insane; virgin births, gold tablets From God found by a con man in northern ny in the 1820’s, etc. Do religious piggs really really believe in suspension of natural laws or are you just kind of saying you do because the tradition is nice and you think it’ll help raise moral kids?
Arraya
February 19, 2012 @ 3:01 PM
walterwhite wrote: Do
[quote=walterwhite] Do religious piggs really really believe in suspension of natural laws or are you just kind of saying you do because the tradition is nice and you think it’ll help raise moral kids?[/quote]
Perpetual material economic growth on a finite planet is a suspension of natural law. Capital has cognition of thermodynamics.
Our economics, market based economics IS a faith based, quasi-religious- pseudo-science.
The economist has no clothes
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes
* The market system is a closed circular flow between production and consumption, with no inlets or outlets.
* Natural resources exist in a domain that is separate and distinct from a closed market system, and the economic value of these resources can be determined only by the dynamics that operate within this system.
* The costs of damage to the external natural environment by economic activities must be treated as costs that lie outside the closed market system or as costs that cannot be included in the pricing mechanisms that operate within the system.
* The external resources of nature are largely inexhaustible, and those that are not can be replaced by other resources or by technologies that minimize the use of the exhaustible resources or that rely on other resources.
* There are no biophysical limits to the growth of market systems.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/monetary.htm
“Two Intellectual Systems: Matter-energy and the Monetary Culture”
pokepud3
February 19, 2012 @ 5:08 PM
I can’t speak for other
I can’t speak for other religions, but there’s nothing in Islam that says “There is no life outside of earth, and thus you shouldn’t research into it and bash anyone who believes it may exist.”
We also believe that miracles are all scientifically possible achievements that god gave the know-how on how to do them directly to his messengers or prophets as we call them. In Islam there is a strong logic-faith correlation that exists, and thus allows us to strengthen out beliefs, rather then just following blind faith all the time.
Now if only I could find some know how on how to achieve those 10 percent return properties some of these REIT’s are finding that would be nice.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 5:11 PM
Aren’t there Islamic
Aren’t there Islamic restrictions on lending?
I thought I heard about certain loans being not kosher.
pokepud3
February 19, 2012 @ 5:44 PM
I’m part of the shiite (shia)
I’m part of the shiite (shia) branch of Islam, and there is some limitations on lending from muslim to muslim, and from muslim to christian.
This is a tricky subject as it depends on sect to sect, and there are a few systems to make market growth possible.
Sunni Muslims believe all forms of lending and borrowing with interest is forbidden. (As far as I know, I may be wrong here.)
Shia’s believe that we can borrow from non-muslims although it’s not recommended as interest is a form of wage slavery as we so believe.
So yes as a shia I can get mortgages from a bank, but no I cannot loan my money out with interest.
What we are allows to do though is charge a service charge for the money we loan out. We run on a system of trust, and so far it’s working. This is also how the banking sector in most islamic countries work out. The service charge must be set at a fixed price, and must be made clear to the receiver of the loan.
It’s a tricky subject, and generally I always recommend people to do their own research. Again I’m a shia muslim, so I follow the rules set by my own sect of Islam.
Quite frankly the reason we are against interest, is that it makes a select few rich, while depriving the rest of society of their share of money to work towards (no, we do not believe everyone has a right to equal pay). Which in other words leaves only the privileged few with massive amounts of money, and the rest of humanity as their wage slaves.
TemekuT
February 19, 2012 @ 6:18 PM
I’d put the “misc Jesus
I’d put the “misc Jesus based” option farther up on the list and call it “Born Again Christian Fundamentalism” as that is certainly a majority religion in Southern California. Costa Mesa’s Calvary Chapel was the birthplace of the born again phenomenon in the early 70’s. And So. Cal. is home to many mega churches.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 6:26 PM
No. It stays misc. And low
No. It stays misc. And low down the list. See how it feels to be marginalized?
Does it feel nice to be called “misc.”?
zk
February 19, 2012 @ 6:41 PM
walterwhite wrote:No. It
[quote=walterwhite]No. It stays misc. And low down the list. See how it feels to be marginalized?
Does it feel nice to be called “misc.”?[/quote]
Reminds me of a scene from The Simpsons:
Ned: Homer, God didn’t set your house on fire.
Reverend Lovejoy: No, but He was working in the hearts of your friends and neighbors when they came to your aid, be they Christian (points at Ned), Jew (points at Krusty), or … miscellaneous (points at Apu).
Apu: (offended) Hindu! There are 700 million of us, you know.
Reverend Lovejoy: Aw, that’s super.
svelte
February 19, 2012 @ 8:26 PM
zk wrote:
Reminds me of a
[quote=zk]
Reminds me of a scene from The Simpsons:
…[/quote]
Speaking of the Simpsons, one of my favorite lines from that show:
Maude Flanders to Marge: “Well, I’m off to Bible Camp to learn to be more judgmental!”
zk
February 20, 2012 @ 7:14 AM
svelte wrote:
Speaking of the
[quote=svelte]
Speaking of the Simpsons, one of my favorite lines from that show:
Maude Flanders to Marge: “Well, I’m off to Bible Camp to learn to be more judgmental!”[/quote]
And then there’s Tod and Rod praying and saying, “Thank you god, for sending Lisa to save us from that moth that you sent.”
It always cracks me up when people survive, say, a tornado that destroyed their house and call it a miracle. God saved them. Right. From the tornado that he sent.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 8:06 AM
why Do bad things happen to
why Do bad things happen to good people if god is concerned for us?
SK in CV
February 20, 2012 @ 8:30 AM
walterwhite wrote:why Do bad
[quote=walterwhite]why Do bad things happen to good people if god is concerned for us?[/quote]
The eternal question. The disconnect between “I am a good and gracious god” and “I am a vain and jealous god”. Science, when confronted with evidence that one of its accepted truths is false, embraces the new knowledge and moves on. Religion compounds illogical thought with more illogical thought.
We KNOW what he wants, yet those of us who act in accordance with his wishes are treated no better than those that who ignore those wishes. And religion’s explanation for this disconnect? God acts in mysterious ways. And we invent an afterlife which must account for this disconnect. And another chapter of fantasy island is born.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 8:41 AM
There ain’t no Satan, that’s
There ain’t no Satan, that’s just god when he gets drunk.
Tom waits.
zippythepinhead
February 20, 2012 @ 12:25 PM
walterwhite wrote:why Do bad
[quote=walterwhite]why Do bad things happen to good people if god is concerned for us?[/quote]
This is a great question which only makes sense for the Christian. Aquinas give us the short answer: look at the cross. The greatest injustice in world history is deicide, the killing of Christ. If God could use such evil for a greater good i.e. the salvation of mankind, then suffering on this planet may have a purpose. Moreover, it’s a supreme act of love; rather than a arm-chair God who is indifferent to the suffering of his people, He steps into human history and suffers/dies for them. No other explanation adds up. For a great treatise on this subject, I would rec: The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis. See also the biblical Book of Job.
SK in CV
February 20, 2012 @ 1:13 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:
This
[quote=zippythepinhead]
This is a great question which only makes sense for the Christian. Aquinas give us the short answer: look at the cross. The greatest injustice in world history is deicide, the killing of Christ. If God could use such evil for a greater good i.e. the salvation of mankind, then suffering on this planet may have a purpose. Moreover, it’s a supreme act of love; rather than a arm-chair God who is indifferent to the suffering of his people, He steps into human history and suffers/dies for them. No other explanation adds up. For a great treatise on this subject, I would rec: The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis. See also the biblical Book of Job.[/quote]
With all due respect, from the perspective of a non-believer, this makes no sense whatsoever. There are plenty of alternate explanations which are perfectly logical.
I’ll give you one, by way of Al Pacino in The Devil’s Advocate
zippythepinhead
February 20, 2012 @ 1:51 PM
SK in CV
[quote=SK in CV][quote=zippythepinhead]
This is a great question which only makes sense for the Christian. Aquinas give us the short answer: look at the cross. The greatest injustice in world history is deicide, the killing of Christ. If God could use such evil for a greater good i.e. the salvation of mankind, then suffering on this planet may have a purpose. Moreover, it’s a supreme act of love; rather than a arm-chair God who is indifferent to the suffering of his people, He steps into human history and suffers/dies for them. No other explanation adds up. For a great treatise on this subject, I would rec: The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis. See also the biblical Book of Job.[/quote]
With all due respect, from the perspective of a non-believer, this makes no sense whatsoever. There are plenty of alternate explanations which are perfectly logical.
I’ll give you one, by way of Al Pacino in The Devil’s Advocate
[/quote]
I agree with your initial statement. In fact you have made my point: “from the perspective of a non-believer, this makes no sense whatsoever”. But from the perspective of a believer, it makes perfect sense. It’s based on the Fall (Adam & Eve in paradise) and the economy of salvation as understood by Christians. Al Pacino offers and alternative explanation which does appear to be what the devil would advocate. I happen to reject this view.
briansd1
February 20, 2012 @ 10:36 PM
We should also talk about the
We should also talk about the Christian, Jewish and Muslim divide.
I don’t spend a lot of time on religion because it’s not really a topic that interests me… but I was wondering about Jewish identity. Is it tradition and upbringing or DNA?
It seems to me that Jewish people who moved to Northern Europe are so far removed from the tribes Israel. I’m sure that over the centuries there have been plenty of rapes, out of wedlock sex and such.
So perhaps Palestinians who lived on that land are closer to the original Israelites, from a DNA perspective.
I hope that we get the whole world’s population’s DNA in a super duper database so we can analyze the data scientifically. The information should be revealing.
TemekuT
February 19, 2012 @ 8:14 PM
walterwhite wrote:No. It
[quote=walterwhite]No. It stays misc. And low down the list. See how it feels to be marginalized?
Does it feel nice to be called “misc.”?[/quote]
No worries, you’re not marginalizing me. I’m just pointing out the sheer numbers of Bible fundamentalists here in So Cal. Surely they’re a majority.
briansd1
February 20, 2012 @ 11:35 AM
TemekuT wrote:I’d put the
[quote=TemekuT]I’d put the “misc Jesus based” option farther up on the list and call it “Born Again Christian Fundamentalism” as that is certainly a majority religion in Southern California. Costa Mesa’s Calvary Chapel was the birthplace of the born again phenomenon in the early 70’s. And So. Cal. is home to many mega churches.[/quote]
I sure am glad that’s changing.
Can’t wait for the day when Orange County is no longer home to all those religious people. The Crystal Cathedral is bankrupt. Good ridance. Did you hear that the Rev Schuller asked the bankruptcy court for something like $55,000 per month?
So many gullible Christian souls… so much money to be made.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 11:45 AM
One phenom I found
One phenom I found fascinating was the prosperity gospel, ESP prevalent in black churches. Basically it’s god wants his people to be rich. There was a special emphasis on real estate. Weird.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 12:07 PM
On the other hand, my squat
On the other hand, my squat is now at 180 and I think I’ll be at 225 in no time. If there were no god, could I be gaining strength this rapidly? I doubt it. He’s sending a message…
it’s like the prosperity gospel…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16gospel.html
except instead of money, it’s muscle and power.
Warriors for God…
UCGal
February 20, 2012 @ 1:11 PM
walterwhite wrote:One phenom
[quote=walterwhite]One phenom I found fascinating was the prosperity gospel, ESP prevalent in black churches. Basically it’s god wants his people to be rich. There was a special emphasis on real estate. Weird.[/quote]
I’m reading the Barbara Ehrenreich book “Bright-Sided” at the moment. She documents the various movements of “believe hard enough and you’ll get what you wish for” phenomena. This has been around for a while – I remember the Reverend Terry Cole Whitaker church in the 80’s who’s slogan was “Prosperity is your Divine Right”. Think about that slogan – it’s pretty darn obnoxious in my opinion. I had friends who attended and I was talked into going to a service. Of course you had to tithe 10% to be entitled to that divine right.
These days there are a lot of followers of “The Secret” and it’s variations- if you wish for something hard enough it’s guaranteed. Just visualize it. The corollary of course, is that if your wish doesn’t happen, you must have been doing your wishing wrong. Not trying hard enough. It’s your own fault… not the fault of the secret or whatever variation you’re using.
PT Barnum had it right.
CA renter
February 20, 2012 @ 1:00 AM
pokepud3 wrote:Seems like I’m
[quote=pokepud3]Seems like I’m the only muslim on here. I’m a daily reader, and love watching the market, and what you guys have to say. There’s nothing wrong or conflicting with believing in being a market skeptic or believing in life outside of earth. Don’t see how believing in this would make you an atheist :|[/quote]
Agreed.
………….
BTW, what is “God,” if not an “alien” from “somewhere else”? Don’t all people who belive in a spiritual being “somewhere out there” belive in aliens — at least one? I know they don’t call God an “alien” in church, but isn’t that really what they’re saying? If he created Earth, he didn’t come from here, so he must come from somewhere else, right?
pokepud3
February 20, 2012 @ 12:12 PM
Quote:Agreed.
[quote]Agreed.
………….
BTW, what is “God,” if not an “alien” from “somewhere else”? Don’t all people who belive in a spiritual being “somewhere out there” belive in aliens — at least one? I know they don’t call God an “alien” in church, but isn’t that really what they’re saying? If he created Earth, he didn’t come from here, so he must come from somewhere else, right?[/quote]
When we refer to god, we are referring to the existence who created the universe, the sustainer of the universe, and with intellect so amazing it’s beyond our capabilities to understand it. The people within this universe are all created by something or someone or some process, this is something pretty much everyone accepts. I believe that without this existence, none of these processes could continue doing what they’ve been doing.
For us to be able to try to limit god to something that we can see, touch, or feel would go against the very idea of god being beyond those senses and limits. So no I don’t believe god is an alien as that would mean he’s something you can potentially limit. God imo is greater then that.
Kind of like how the sun exists, and you know it’s there from all the light it creates around you, but at the end of the day you can’t look at it with the human eye. If something like that can be created (I’m sure we’ll discover many more amazing things through modern day sciences that may be even greater then that) then how great must the creator of the created be?
So in short, no I don’t believe god is alien, as that would mean I can kill god, and if I can do that, he’s not god.
NotCranky
February 20, 2012 @ 3:00 PM
pokepud3 wrote:Quote:Agreed.
[quote=pokepud3][quote]Agreed.
………….
BTW, what is “God,” if not an “alien” from “somewhere else”? Don’t all people who belive in a spiritual being “somewhere out there” belive in aliens — at least one? I know they don’t call God an “alien” in church, but isn’t that really what they’re saying? If he created Earth, he didn’t come from here, so he must come from somewhere else, right?[/quote]
When we refer to god, we are referring to the existence who created the universe, the sustainer of the universe, and with intellect so amazing it’s beyond our capabilities to understand it. The people within this universe are all created by something or someone or some process, this is something pretty much everyone accepts. I believe that without this existence, none of these processes could continue doing what they’ve been doing.
For us to be able to try to limit god to something that we can see, touch, or feel would go against the very idea of god being beyond those senses and limits. So no I don’t believe god is an alien as that would mean he’s something you can potentially limit. God imo is greater then that.
Kind of like how the sun exists, and you know it’s there from all the light it creates around you, but at the end of the day you can’t look at it with the human eye. If something like that can be created (I’m sure we’ll discover many more amazing things through modern day sciences that may be even greater then that) then how great must the creator of the created be?
So in short, no I don’t believe god is alien, as that would mean I can kill god, and if I can do that, he’s not god.[/quote]
Nice post,pokepud3. That is something I can enjoy reading as an agnostic. I don’t know if many atheists would like it? Not sure why? Maybe one could answer?
briansd1
February 20, 2012 @ 3:05 PM
If God did exist, would s/he
If God did exist, would s/he want us to practice a religion?
SK in CV
February 20, 2012 @ 3:10 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:pokepud3
[quote=Jacarandoso][quote=pokepud3][quote]Agreed.
………….
BTW, what is “God,” if not an “alien” from “somewhere else”? Don’t all people who belive in a spiritual being “somewhere out there” belive in aliens — at least one? I know they don’t call God an “alien” in church, but isn’t that really what they’re saying? If he created Earth, he didn’t come from here, so he must come from somewhere else, right?[/quote]
When we refer to god, we are referring to the existence who created the universe, the sustainer of the universe, and with intellect so amazing it’s beyond our capabilities to understand it. The people within this universe are all created by something or someone or some process, this is something pretty much everyone accepts. I believe that without this existence, none of these processes could continue doing what they’ve been doing.
For us to be able to try to limit god to something that we can see, touch, or feel would go against the very idea of god being beyond those senses and limits. So no I don’t believe god is an alien as that would mean he’s something you can potentially limit. God imo is greater then that.
Kind of like how the sun exists, and you know it’s there from all the light it creates around you, but at the end of the day you can’t look at it with the human eye. If something like that can be created (I’m sure we’ll discover many more amazing things through modern day sciences that may be even greater then that) then how great must the creator of the created be?
So in short, no I don’t believe god is alien, as that would mean I can kill god, and if I can do that, he’s not god.[/quote]
Nice post,pokepud3. That is something I can enjoy reading as an agnostic. I don’t know if many atheists would like it? Not sure why? Maybe one could answer?[/quote]
It says to me, that god is the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry. Many of which we do not know, or at very least do not understand. I’m quite comfortable with that.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 3:42 PM
God Sacrifices his kid to
God Sacrifices his kid to help us?
Can’t relate.
Plus it doesn’t really seem like a sacrifice. Kid Goes right back home to god.
No parent would sacrifice their kid for anyone elses spiritual benefit.
Plus you kinda feel like, if he will let his own kid suffer miserably on the cross, what kind of torture would he let his non kids go thru.
Feels harsh.
moneymaker
February 20, 2012 @ 10:13 PM
I agree! Was thinking today
I agree! Was thinking today if Jesus were around he would scream from the highest mountain top “why are the churches locked!”, “when they are there for everyone”. I’m not picking on any single religion, they all have locks on their front doors. Why? In this day and age with video surveillence equipment and full time paid staff there is no reason to lock god’s front door. Maybe that is why we are in the predicament we are all in.
NotCranky
February 20, 2012 @ 3:45 PM
SK in CV wrote:Jacarandoso
[quote=SK in CV][quote=Jacarandoso][quote=pokepud3][quote]Agreed.
………….
BTW, what is “God,” if not an “alien” from “somewhere else”? Don’t all people who belive in a spiritual being “somewhere out there” belive in aliens — at least one? I know they don’t call God an “alien” in church, but isn’t that really what they’re saying? If he created Earth, he didn’t come from here, so he must come from somewhere else, right?[/quote]
When we refer to god, we are referring to the existence who created the universe, the sustainer of the universe, and with intellect so amazing it’s beyond our capabilities to understand it. The people within this universe are all created by something or someone or some process, this is something pretty much everyone accepts. I believe that without this existence, none of these processes could continue doing what they’ve been doing.
For us to be able to try to limit god to something that we can see, touch, or feel would go against the very idea of god being beyond those senses and limits. So no I don’t believe god is an alien as that would mean he’s something you can potentially limit. God imo is greater then that.
Kind of like how the sun exists, and you know it’s there from all the light it creates around you, but at the end of the day you can’t look at it with the human eye. If something like that can be created (I’m sure we’ll discover many more amazing things through modern day sciences that may be even greater then that) then how great must the creator of the created be?
So in short, no I don’t believe god is alien, as that would mean I can kill god, and if I can do that, he’s not god.[/quote]
Nice post,pokepud3. That is something I can enjoy reading as an agnostic. I don’t know if many atheists would like it? Not sure why? Maybe one could answer?[/quote]
It says to me, that god is the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry. Many of which we do not know, or at very least do not understand. I’m quite comfortable with that.[/quote]
Wouldn’t an atheist say there is no god, just the laws of physics and chemistry?
The poster was theorizing that there is a form, with creativity that is somehow responsible for the laws of physics and chemistry and that that form is sustaining all we can think that we know of the universe, and probably much more. If you are comfortable theorizing this way, are you really atheist?
SK in CV
February 20, 2012 @ 3:54 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:
Wouldn’t
[quote=Jacarandoso]
Wouldn’t an atheist say there is no god, just the laws of physics and chemistry?
The poster was theorizing that there is a form, with creativity that is somehow responsible for the laws of physics and chemistry and that that form is sustaining all we can think that we know of the universe, and probably much more. If you are comfortable theorizing this way, are you really atheist?[/quote]
I probably wasnt as clear as I could have been. Simpler version: What the poster described as god, i describe as physical laws. I don’t have a belief in a creator of these laws. I’m cool with uncertainty.
briansd1
February 20, 2012 @ 3:57 PM
So far the non-believers win
So far the non-believers win on Piggington.
I’m gratified to see reason prevail, at least on this forum.
flyer
February 19, 2012 @ 4:04 PM
Interesting poll. Amazing
Interesting poll. Amazing how many different variations on a theme exist in the world with regard to spiritual beliefs.
Perhaps one thing we can all agree upon is that this life is completely temporary, and is really very short–80+ years, if you’re lucky–and, statistically, we know that many are not.
Even if you lived to be 100 (and were functioning at 100%), that would still be a mere drop in the bucket on the scale of eternity–so, I believe we should enjoy every moment of this life, because no one really knows how much time they have left. That’s one reason I retired early.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 4:26 PM
Every now and them I ask my
Every now and them I ask my kids why we are on earth. The best answer I’ve gotten:
“to be awesome and to love our kittens”.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 4:33 PM
I think I could embrace the
I think I could embrace the idea of indifferent or malicious gods, who war in the heavens and don’t really give a crap about us, but the idea of some being caring about me personally seems wildly improbable on comparison. I think I’d pick Norse gods of forced to choose.
urbanrealtor
February 19, 2012 @ 4:26 PM
Yog-Sothoth
Cthulhu is his
Yog-Sothoth
Cthulhu is his priest.
In his house at R’lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.
briansd1
February 19, 2012 @ 5:20 PM
I used to love Greek
I used to love Greek mythology as a teenager.
Although my family is catholic we never believed. We never said grace at the table. For us it was more tradition than religion. We think that the church was evil in many ways. I do have fervent cousins.
In public school I’d be like Jessica Ahlquist. Glad she got $40k scholarship.
ocrenter
February 19, 2012 @ 6:28 PM
religion is created by man.
religion is created by man. it is created as a psychiatric tool to help the mind. especially during a time when there was no other resources to help the mind cope with grief, tragedy, and simply stress.
all religions employ some type of behavior that would in effect be meditative. meditation, chanting, deep prayer, and a lot of religious rites all do the same for the mind, it help cultivate the mind’s ability to handle stress and help with general happiness.
therefore in most surveys, religious folks tend to be happier. they just have no idea they are happier because the act of being religious is helpful, so they mistakenly think their choice of deity is actually real. which could and have certainly caused a lot of problems in human history.
scaredyclassic
February 19, 2012 @ 10:13 PM
Voted 44th funniest joke of
Voted 44th funniest joke of all time in “The 75 Funniest Jokes of All Time” in GQ magazine (June 1999)
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”
He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
Arraya
February 20, 2012 @ 2:28 PM
Physicist Erwin Schrödinger
Physicist Erwin Schrödinger speculated in the epilogue to his ground-breaking treatise “What is Life?”, in which he attempts to reconcile the notion that the body functions as a mechanism following the deterministic laws of nature with the “incontrovertible experience” of willful control. He wrote, “The only possible inference from these two facts is that I think that I…am the person…who controls the motions of the atoms according to the Laws of Nature… Hence I am God Almighty.”
I’m going to go with that one
flyer
February 20, 2012 @ 4:12 PM
The trend of this poll is
The trend of this poll is interesting, especially when I learned from a friend that the 2011 book, “Heaven Is For Real” sold over 6 million copies last year, and that number is still climbing. Fascinating!
Even though my family and I are Christians, my main goal has always been to provide a wonderful life for my wife, my kids, and our extended family. So, regardless of what you believe, I highly suggest making your millions early, and enjoying this moment we call life!
briansd1
February 20, 2012 @ 4:42 PM
flyer wrote:The trend of this
[quote=flyer]The trend of this poll is interesting, especially when I learned from a friend that the 2011 book, “Heaven Is For Real” sold over 6 million copies last year, and that number is still climbing. Fascinating!
Even though my family and I are Christians, my main goal has always been to provide a wonderful life for my wife, my kids, and our extended family. So, regardless of what you believe, I highly suggest making your millions early, and enjoying this moment we call life![/quote]
Does it mean that if one can’t make millions early, that one is not in God’s good graces?
flyer
February 20, 2012 @ 4:45 PM
Of course not–just sharing
Of course not–just sharing what worked for our family.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 5:15 PM
Providing a wonderful life
Providing a wonderful life for wife and family is not compatible with what I read is Christ’s advice.
Where’s the part in the new testament where god advises on
making money for a comfy upper middle class lifestyle?
I don’t know.
Sounds suspiciously like prosperity gospel, above.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 5:17 PM
I could never pick a
I could never pick a religion; the other people in the religion would get too irritated with me aNd throw me out.
I think even the atheist club would kick me the fuck out.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 5:19 PM
I guess I can kind of support
I guess I can kind of support barefoot hippie Jesus freaks with long hair who live without a thought to providing for self or future. They seem sincere at least.
Anything else that’s just for self comfort seems kind of weak.
Arraya
February 20, 2012 @ 5:27 PM
walterwhite wrote:
Where’s
[quote=walterwhite]
Where’s the part in the new testament where god advises on
making money for a comfy upper middle class lifestyle?[/quote]
Well, that is the new bible the fundies are working on – they want to put more of a free market slant on Christ’s teachings. Supply side Jesus
The original christians were protestors and a counter culture to the roman imperial mentality. And according to some historians(and a thesis I agree with, were a main cause of Rome’s collapse)
The resisted the lavish roman lifestlye, war for resource acquisition and stuck up for the poor.
The opposite of most Christians today.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 5:42 PM
If Jesus walked amongst us,
If Jesus walked amongst us, he’d disturb the living crap out of us, right?
He’s there to upset business as usual.
If you tool his advice you’d be broke and your family would think you’d fucking lost your mind.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 5:56 PM
But I guess it doesn’t really
But I guess it doesn’t really matter. Basically it’s a calming thing, insurance policy for possible afterlife, something to lean on in troubling times. The only thing that truly directs people, that really forms our worldview is money. Enjoying the life, so to speak, with cash, and providing security and creature comforts, of which a bit of religion I suppose is compatible. Money is what we center our actions aroound
zk
February 20, 2012 @ 6:31 PM
walterwhite wrote:If Jesus
[quote=walterwhite]If Jesus walked amongst us, he’d disturb the living crap out of us, right?
He’s there to upset business as usual.
If you took his advice you’d be broke and your family would think you’d fucking lost your mind.[/quote]
Maybe markmax is Jesus.
NotCranky
February 20, 2012 @ 7:33 PM
What I find interesting about
What I find interesting about faith is that most believers seem to have the idea that it is not safe, on one or more levels,present or future, to be a non believer. They especially think this when things are going badly or when their mom is around.
GH
February 20, 2012 @ 7:04 PM
The idea of getting it wrong
The idea of getting it wrong and ending up in another gods hell scares the daylights out of me 🙂
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 7:21 PM
When god shuts one door, he
When god shuts one door, he opens another, but frequently catches someones Finger in the door jamb and pinches it off.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 7:24 PM
Sometimes I do feel Jewish.
Sometimes I do feel Jewish. To me, G-d is this crazy guy who needs to be negotiated with, talked off the ledge. He’s like a crazy abusive parent who has pretty much had enough of us and our bullshit. While he promised Noah he’d never kill all of us again, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone so touchy wouldn’t fly off the handle and say fuck it, these people are just disgusting, they’ve got to go.
scaredyclassic
February 20, 2012 @ 7:27 PM
Great book now that I think
Great book now that I think of it…
Beware of god
by shalom auslander.
Very funny and Jewish and deep.
By the author of Foreskins lament.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @ 6:41 AM
walterwhite wrote:Great book
[quote=walterwhite]Great book now that I think of it…
Beware of god
by shalom auslander.
Very funny and Jewish and deep.
By the author of Foreskins lament.[/quote]
Speaking of foreskins, you never hear Christians talk about the Samuel 18:27 Bible verse:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+18%3A27&version=NIV
briansd1
February 20, 2012 @ 10:28 PM
I feel that there’s
I feel that there’s discrimation against non-believers.
I doesn’t bother me at all that people believe in God, except for the fact that religious organizations get special treatment (such as tax exemption).
But I feel that the religiously minded abhor the fact that I don’t believe. Certain people also feel that other people fake their faith or aren’t sincere about their faith.
What is sincere faith vs. “fake” faith?
I was also wondering about the evangelical thing. Trying to convert others to one’s seems wrong to me.
Coronita
February 21, 2012 @ 6:13 AM
Walterwhite,
How could you
Walterwhite,
How could you have left Ron Paul off this poll?
Fail!
cvmom
February 21, 2012 @ 7:17 AM
I was sad not to see our
I was sad not to see our religion, Unitarian Universalism, on the poll. It is a creedless religion, and there are six San Diego churches. Has been great for us and our kids. Started going there when the kids started saying, Janie says we’ll go to hell if we don’t believe in xyz. Mommy, what do we believe?
http://www.uusandiego.org/
Famous UU’s include Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin.
Here are the seven principles on which our faith is founded:
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote:
* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
Sorry for the proselytizing…
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 7:56 AM
Hmm. UUs seem friendly. I
Hmm. UUs seem friendly. I like the Sunday sermon on “pessimism”. I could probably get along with them. Still, when Janie gets the details, I think the consensus among Janies nationwide will be UUs go to hell with the atheists.
But I like them . They get added to the Poll.
The Founding Fathers endorsement is pretty strong. You’d think that wouldve led to greater national success. I guess it takes a Jew to get a really successful religion going. I don’t see as many “my boss is a Jewish carpenter” bumperstickers around anymore, but I usually would think, yes, maybe but “my boss us the best selling Jewish author, largest franchisor and biggest Jewish rockstar EVER” is more fitting.
Think big.
svelte
February 21, 2012 @ 8:09 AM
I don’t really mind people of
I don’t really mind people of any religion, as long as they don’t try to infringe on my rights at the ballot box by trying to turn their religious beliefs into laws.
I’ve grown quite close to people of several religions and have made close friends of several Mormons and Jews. They seem to be more humble about their beliefs and not as you’re-with-us-or-against-us as a few Christians I’ve run into. Maybe it would be different if I lived in areas where Mormons or Jews were the majority. It’s probably a power in numbers thing I run across with Christians.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 8:15 AM
UU: Goal of world community
UU: Goal of world community with justice for all?
No way Jose.
I was reading about the practice of baad in Afghanistan. It’s ghe local justice system. If you are aggrieved by another family, you get to steal that familys daughter and enslave her. Both families generally agree it’s a fair and just system.
We are never going to get world agreement on justice and what it is.
Maybe that’s why we need someone in charge.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 8:20 AM
Svelte I can guarantee you if
Svelte I can guarantee you if you lived in Jew rich NYC no one would ever try to convert you to Judaism. In fact if you tried to join they’d make it difficult. They don’t want you.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @ 8:34 AM
Bahai(don’t know how to type
Bahai(don’t know how to type in all the accent marks)
It sounds like someplace you would order tropical drinks.
What philosophy do children of atheists and agnostics defect to? Do the do it at they same rate that people defect from their parent’s religions?
afx114
February 21, 2012 @ 9:56 AM
Jacarandoso wrote:What
[quote=Jacarandoso]What philosophy do children of atheists and agnostics defect to? Do the do it at they same rate that people defect from their parent’s religions?[/quote]
Atheism is a philosophy just like ‘off’ is a channel on your TV.
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @ 11:14 AM
afx114 wrote:Jacarandoso
[quote=afx114][quote=Jacarandoso]What philosophy do children of atheists and agnostics defect to? Do the do it at they same rate that people defect from their parent’s religions?[/quote]
Atheism is a philosophy just like ‘off’ is a channel on your TV.[/quote]
Maybe, but the question was, “what philosophy do atheist’s and agnostic’s children defect to?”.
If it is not a philosophy, but the equivalent of “off” why don’t atheists just shut up?
NotCranky
February 21, 2012 @ 11:28 AM
“off” would be more like an
“off” would be more like an attitude of “it’s not my problem”.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 12:16 PM
Geometry teachers don’t have
Geometry teachers don’t have moral authority so their behavior doesn’t impact the validity of their teachings.
Churches do claim moral authority so, at some point, after a certain amount of bad behavior, it is reasonable to question whether or not they are what they say they are and wether the organizations claimed authority is valid.
I mean, let’s say you have a church where 80 percent of the clergy have felony criminal convictions for fraud. It would make you pause as to whether or not the church teachings were infallible, right?
Whereas if a biology teacher has the same convictions, you wouldn’t necessarily question the subject matter.
scaredyclassic
February 21, 2012 @ 12:30 PM
Atheists do need to come out
Atheists do need to come out of the closet.
Polls show Americans would sooner elect a homosexual, a Jew, a Mormon andceven a Muslim bfore voting for an avowed atheist.
Yet there are a lot of them.
afx114
February 21, 2012 @ 9:54 AM
I’m a hardcore atheist, but
I’m a hardcore atheist, but would have voted for “The Force” if it was up there.
Carl Sagan can describe my beliefs better than I can:
I wish more atheists would come out of the closet. I have a theory that the majority of believers know deep down that they are bullshitting themselves, but are going through the motions due to cultural/societal/familial pressures and tradition. On the Spectrum of theistic probability I think that most believers like to say that they are Level 1 (“100 per cent probability of God”) but deep down they are at Level 3: “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.” I think most atheists would put themselves at Level 6: “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.” Very few atheists would call themselves a Level 7 (“I know there is no God”) because atheists allow new evidence to alter their views as it arises. I’d be curious where Piggs rate themselves on the scale. Maybe I’ll post a poll when this thread dies out.
If you’re curious what an atheist might consider a “god” check out the short story by Asimov: The Last Question. Total. Mind. Fuck.
Sagan and Asimov are my Gods.
ocrenter
February 21, 2012 @ 6:06 PM
From a pure anthropology
From a pure anthropology stand point, human’s religious preference has been very logical.
In the beginning of human society, naturally, human would look at things in natural as source of higher power. Hence the sun god, Moon goddess, and looking at various animals as source of special power. And certainly, at this stage, something to pray to at time of death and tragedy is simply sufficient.
As human society advances and people start to wonder about how they came to be and their purpose, religions based on a creator come into play. In addition, because human society now start to form into cities and states and empires consisting of an absolute dictator (kings and emperors), these creator based religions also focus on a god that can be all powerful as well. As empires rise and compete against one another, these monotheist religions also fit into the “us versus them” mentality quite well.
As society advances some more and becomes more pleuralistic, this type of creationist intolerant religion began to show signs of age and incompatibility with the continuing progressive and evolving society. This is why formerly Christian 1st world countries are now mostly nominally Christian but much more secular, whereas the developing world is much more religious.
Fletch
February 25, 2012 @ 3:55 PM
A materialist believes that
zk:
I recognize that no-one likes to have labels put on them. No one likes being put in a box.
But I’ve also heard other atheists make the point that not believing in God (and let’s confine the definition of “God” to a supernatural cause of the material universe) should not imply being a materialist.
I can’t get my head around this. To me, being a materialist (whether you have classified yourself as such or not) is an unavoidable consequence of atheism.
Premise: The universe is all there is.
Premise: The universe is composed only of matter and energy (or any other natural constituent of your choosing).
Conclusion: Matter and energy is all there is.
Which step is wrong?
(Apologies to scardey for the digression into logic.)
zk
February 25, 2012 @ 8:16 PM
Fletch wrote:
zk:
I recognize
[quote=Fletch]
zk:
I recognize that no-one likes to have labels put on them. No one likes being put in a box.[/quote]
I don’t mind being put in a box. If I fit in that box. Feel free to put me in the “skeptic” box. Or the “thinks beer and weed and shrooms are miraculous” box. Or the “loves his daughter more than he loves life” box. Or any other box I fit in.
[quote=Fletch]
But I’ve also heard other atheists make the point that not believing in God (and let’s confine the definition of “God” to a supernatural cause of the material universe) should not imply being a materialist.[/quote]
I’m not an atheist, by the strict definition (that strict definition being: holds the position that there are no deities). As you know, if you’ve been following this thread, I believe that the existence of a god (not counting the sometimes-defined-as-god “process of the universe” god or any such thing) is extremely unlikely. But I know that I don’t know enough about the universe to know for sure.
[quote=Fletch]
I can’t get my head around this. To me, being a materialist (whether you have classified yourself as such or not) is an unavoidable consequence of atheism.
[/quote]
That depends on your definition of atheist and your definition of materialist. If you define them both the same way that you define a believer in god (that definition being: is certain of his position that there is a god (believer in god), is certain that there is no god (atheist), is certain that there is only matter or energy (materialist)), then yes, I agree that one is the unavoidable consequence of the other. As I said, I don’t fit that definition of atheist. Nor, therefore, do I fit that definition of materialist.
[quote=Fletch]
Premise: The universe is all there is.
Premise: The universe is composed only of matter and energy (or any other natural constituent of your choosing).
Conclusion: Matter and energy is all there is.
Which step is wrong?
[/quote]
The premise that I am certain that the universe is all there is is wrong. I’m not certain of that. I think it is extremely likely. But I’m not certain. If I were certain, then I’d fit in Chesterton’s box. I’d discount miracles because I’d be certain they couldn’t exist. But I’m not certain. So I don’t automatically discount them. If something is presented that the evidence says is most likely a miracle, then I’ll believe miracles (and therefore god) are most likely true. Until then, I won’t.
[quote=Fletch]
(Apologies to scardey for the digression into logic.)[/quote]
Good one. While we’re on that subject,let me take this opportunity to express my amazement at walterwhite for his ability to be cram three paragraphs into about 7 words, words which make us laugh, think, nod our heads, say to ourselves, “holy crap, that’s profound, delightful, and hilarious all at the same time.” Truly amazing what he does.
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @ 7:06 AM
I realize I butted-in late
I realize I butted-in late (and you don’t know me), so thanks for the reply, zk. I guess to summarize: atheism does necessitate materialism, but there’s lots of real estate for one to occupy between being “atheist” and being a “theist”.
My experience is that atheists chafe at the “materialist” label because they immediately see how problematic the consequences are.
My next mental challenge: acknowledging the possibility of the existence of the super-natural without believing in God. (And I don’t even mean miracles, mind you. The existence of truth will do.)
The thing I admire is the ability to toss out aphorisms and get tone right. This board is dripping with hubris, but generally not from scardey. Maybe it’s just the lack of capitalization.
zk
February 26, 2012 @ 7:54 AM
Fletch wrote:I guess to
[quote=Fletch]I guess to summarize: atheism does necessitate materialism, but there’s lots of real estate for one to occupy between being “atheist” and being a “theist”.
[/quote]
I’d agree with that. Not sure if it’s germane to this discussion, but I think there are a lot of people in one place on that spectrum. That place being the position that the probability of anything supernatural is extremely small.
[quote=Fletch]
My experience is that atheists chafe at the “materialist” label because they immediately see how problematic the consequences are.[/quote]
If they can immediately see how problematic the consequences are, then I’m surprised they’re atheists to begin with (assuming that by atheist you mean “is certain there’s no god”). I mean, atheist, by that definition, is, in my opinion, an irrational, not-thought-out position. So I would expect them to ignore or not see the problems with materialism just like I’d expect a religious person to ignore or not see the problems with their position.
[quote=Fletch]
My next mental challenge: acknowledging the possibility of the existence of the super-natural without believing in God. (And I don’t even mean miracles, mind you. The existence of truth will do.)
[/quote]
Interesting. Figuring out how there could be supernatural phenomena without god.
What do you mean by “the existence of truth will do”?
[quote=Fletch]The thing I admire is the ability to toss out aphorisms and get tone right. This board is dripping with hubris, but generally not from scardey. Maybe it’s just the lack of capitalization.[/quote]
I’ve never seen him be mean, arrogant, hubristic, or even mildly rude. Clearly he’s smarter than most or all of us, but you’d never know it from his tone. An example for us all, really.
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @ 2:21 PM
What do you mean by “the
Yeah, I guess that wasn’t clear. I think that objective truth is supernatural. I don’t see how it can be otherwise. As a specific example, I can’t comprehend believing in moral truth without also believing in God.
Making the probability of a solely material universe very high, right? In other words, aren’t these folks 99% sure they are materialists?
zk
February 26, 2012 @ 2:37 PM
Fletch wrote: I think that
[quote=Fletch] I think that objective truth is supernatural. I don’t see how it can be otherwise. As a specific example, I can’t comprehend believing in moral truth without also believing in God.
[/quote]
I never learned the exact meaning of those types of philosophy phrases (objective truth, moral truth), so I’ll have to look up the meanings of your phrases and get back to that when I have a chance.
[quote=Fletch]
Making the probability of a solely material universe very high, right?
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote=Fletch]
In other words, aren’t these folks 99% sure they are materialists?[/quote]
No, I wouldn’t say that. If I’m 99% (to use a round number) sure that all there is is matter or energy, but I believe that I don’t know enough to know for sure, that means I’m 100% sure that I’m agnostic. (definition: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable).
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @ 3:41 PM
No, I wouldn’t say that. If
Fair enough, though this still strikes me as reducing to “99% sure I’m a materialist, but 100% sure I’m agnostic”. But I’ll keep ruminating.
zk
February 26, 2012 @ 4:04 PM
Fletch wrote: this still
[quote=Fletch] this still strikes me as reducing to “99% sure I’m a materialist, but 100% sure I’m agnostic”. But I’ll keep ruminating.[/quote]
Here’s why it’s not “99% sure I’m a materialist.” A materialist would rule out any supernatural phenomenon out of hand. I wouldn’t do that. That’s a significant difference. I’m 100% sure I’m not a materialist.
scaredyclassic
February 26, 2012 @ 4:16 PM
I guess I believe in the god
I guess I believe in the god of second chances.
briansd1
February 26, 2012 @ 7:44 PM
walterwhite wrote:I guess I
[quote=walterwhite]I guess I believe in the god of second chances.[/quote]
How many chances do you get?
Do you get extra points for finding God early and not needing the second chance?
zk
February 26, 2012 @ 4:31 PM
Fletch wrote: I think that
[quote=Fletch] I think that objective truth is supernatural.
[/quote]
Why?
[quote=Fletch]
As a specific example, I can’t comprehend believing in moral truth without also believing in God.
[/quote]
Why not?
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @ 4:35 PM
Why not?
Because atoms can’t
Because atoms can’t say “ought”.
scaredyclassic
February 26, 2012 @ 4:38 PM
What’s a moral truth? Like
What’s a moral truth? Like keeping kosher or not stealing stuff. Or love thy neighbor as thyself?
It’s difficult for me to conceive of a morality outside of what humans might concoct for better relations with each other.
scaredyclassic
February 26, 2012 @ 4:39 PM
Ought is a pretty human word.
Ought is a pretty human word. Heck I think even some animals have oughts.
zk
February 26, 2012 @ 5:54 PM
Fletch wrote:I think that
[quote=Fletch]I think that objective truth is supernatural. I don’t see how it can be otherwise. As a specific example, I can’t comprehend believing in moral truth without also believing in God.
[/quote]
I’m not quite sure why absolute moral truth being supernatural would be an example of objective truth being supernatural. They are different, if I understand them correctly. Objective truth being, this man killed that man, regardless of your perspective. Moral truth being, this man was wrong for killing that man, regardless of your perspective. Isn’t it possible that, if there is no god, the first is absolutely true but the second isn’t? Or am I using those phrases wrong (entirely possible).
Arraya
February 26, 2012 @ 6:10 PM
There is plenty of writings
There is plenty of writings on atheism and morals. Secular Humanism is popular amongst scientific types.
I agree with this guy:
Since atheists do not believe in gods, they also do not believe that holy scriptures could be either dictated or inspired by gods. However, most atheists agree that there is wisdom and morality in scripture. How can this be? Atheists believe that values, including morality, come from people like themselves; the values and morality are the same whether one believes in gods or not. The morality found in scriptures of various religions are remarkably similar, even if the theology is very different. The common thread of morality in these different theologies are the people who wrote them. Atheists, just like any of those people, share the same sense of morality.
On a final note, the morality of atheists is in a sense more noble by definition than the morality of theists. While theists believe that god will punish them for immoral acts and reward them for moral acts, atheists have no motivation to be moral other than their own innate sense of morality. It is morality for its own sake, not out of fear for punishment or desire for reward.
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @ 6:52 PM
Or am I using those phrases
No, I think you’re understanding is fine. At least for this armchair combox philosopher. I think objective truth is supernatural because it is immaterial. Can’t be measured.
Discussing moral truth is probably a less abstract way to make my point.
Yes, this is a good example of what I mean by moral truth. Some acts are intrinsically wrong, regardless of societal convention, or whether you get away with them. (By the way, moral culpability is not the same as moral truth. Murder can always be wrong, but one may be more or less culpable due to mitigating circumstances.)
I think clubbing a baby seal is wrong even if the seal would never have had any impact on the human or seal races had it lived and no one ever found out I did it.
To the atheist (as nicely summarized by Arraya’s quote) morals originate from people themselves and are remarkably similar regardless of culture. Perhaps for the collective good and survival of the species. This is more noble because the atheist isn’t expecting an everlasting cookie for their good deeds.
I can’t comprehend this position. It’s not clear why the collection of atoms typing this post should give a damn about the species any more than the collection of atoms I’m sitting on. Also, in a solely material universe, “nobility” doesn’t really exist. It’s just an atomic pattern in brain tissue.
(In case I check out for a while, thanks for the thoughts and apologies for my drive-by. This Catholic has a bunch of kids who need skin washing and brain washing.)
zk
February 26, 2012 @ 7:52 PM
Fletch wrote:I think
[quote=Fletch]I think objective truth is supernatural because it is immaterial. Can’t be measured.
[/quote]
You’re going to have to explain what you mean by “can’t be measured.” And why that makes it immaterial.
[quote=Fletch]
Discussing moral truth is probably a less abstract way to make my point.
[/quote]
[quote=Fletch]
Yes, this is a good example of what I mean by moral truth. Some acts are intrinsically wrong, regardless of societal convention, or whether you get away with them. (By the way, moral culpability is not the same as moral truth. Murder can always be wrong, but one may be more or less culpable due to mitigating circumstances.)
[/quote]
Some acts are intrinsically wrong? I think that’s only true if there’s a god. Therefore I disagree. Depending, of course, on what you mean by “intrinsically.” If you mean “intrinsically according to the universe,” then I disagree. If you mean, “intrinsically according to what’s best for humans,” well, that’s more complicated and would require taking into account mitigating circumstances.
[quote=Fletch]
I think clubbing a baby seal is wrong even if the seal would never have had any impact on the human or seal races had it lived and no one ever found out I did it.[/quote]
Why do you think that? Can you think of no circumstances where it would be ok to club a baby seal?
[quote=Fletch]
To the atheist (as nicely summarized by Arraya’s quote) morals originate from people themselves and are remarkably similar regardless of culture. Perhaps for the collective good and survival of the species. This is more noble because the atheist isn’t expecting an everlasting cookie for their good deeds.
I can’t comprehend this position. It’s not clear why the collection of atoms typing this post should give a damn about the species any more than the collection of atoms I’m sitting on. Also, in a solely material universe, “nobility” doesn’t really exist. It’s just an atomic pattern in brain tissue.
[/quote]
I have two reasons why the collection of atoms typing that post should give a damn. One, (and this is actually “why does it give a damn” and not the more existential “why should it give a damn”) because that’s how we evolved. Natural selection of humans encouraged the survival of those whose genes encouraged them to get along as a group and support each other and the community as a whole. Whereas any populations whose mutations resulted in nothing but (what we would consider) psychopaths died out because they didn’t cooperate with each other. They didn’t have strength in numbers. It was every man for himself.
As to why should we give a damn, consider this: There is no god. Therefore there is no universal, absolute moral code. How do we humans live on Earth with all the other humans? Do we say, “there’s no absolute moral code, therefore there is no moral code?” “Nothing is wrong. Each person can do whatever he wants.” Obviously, that wouldn’t work. If each of us doesn’t give a damn about the species, then society crumbles. We must come up with a code for behavior. Murder is against our code (illegal) and the consequences are x. Theft is illegal and the consequences are x. Etc. Sure, it won’t be a perfect system. It won’t be as good a system as if there was a (good) god who flawlessly judged every act by every person. But it’s all we have.
[quote=Fletch]
(In case I check out for a while, thanks for the thoughts and apologies for my drive-by. This Catholic has a bunch of kids who need skin washing and brain washing.)[/quote]
Take your time.
Fletch
February 26, 2012 @ 9:24 PM
You’re going to have to
You can’t touch truth. You certainly can’t measure it. The scientific method (for example) is premised on it’s existence and the fact that it can be known by a mind.
You are an intellectually consistent agnostic.
Good point. I should have made it clear that I didn’t have a good reason. I believe it would be wrong to club said seal for no good reason.
So what? Why should individual humans care if society crumbles and the species dies? If the human race is just a cosmic fart, then it would behoove the clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms if it makes their atoms resonate with “happiness”.
zk
February 26, 2012 @ 10:38 PM
Fletch wrote:
You can’t touch
[quote=Fletch]
You can’t touch truth. You certainly can’t measure it. The scientific method (for example) is premised on it’s existence and the fact that it can be known by a mind.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by any of that. But my response to what I think you mean would be: Whatever is true is true. No matter what we think.
Whether we can know the truth with certainty or not is irrelevant to whether objective truth is supernatural. We get as close to it as we can and live life as best we can with what we think is likeliest to be true.
I, personally, don’t believe we can ever know with certainty the truth. About anything. It’s possible that I’m a peanut-sized mass floating through space with a stream of consciousness that feels exactly like a human being on Earth. If that’s true, how would I know?
But just because we can’t know with absolute certainty doesn’t mean we shouldn’t always be trying to be as close to the truth as possible.
Definition of scientific method (dictionary.com):
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
Which, in my opinion, gets us as close to knowing the truth as we’re going to get. I don’t see how it’s premised on “truth’s” existence or the fact that truth can be known by a mind.
And to your point of a couple posts ago, which I believe is what we’re debating here, I still don’t understand why you think objective truth is supernatural. Perhaps knowing with certainty objective truth would be supernatural. But not objective truth itself.
[quote=Fletch]
So what? Why should individual humans care if society crumbles and the species dies? [/quote]
Individual humans should care if society crumbles because without society, it’s every man for himself. Your children (whom most people have no choice but to love) aren’t safe. You’re not safe. Life would be nothing but a struggle to survive, and you might not be able to do that. You might not be able to find food. You’re much more likely (with a crumbled society) to get murdered at the whim of a passerby. All that seems pretty obvious, so perhaps I misunderstood your question.
[quote=Fletch]
If the human race is just a cosmic fart, then it would behoove the clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms if it makes their atoms resonate with “happiness”.[/quote]
It does behoove clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms. That’s why we need to do our best to build and maintain a society that doesn’t let those clever people escape consequences.
scaredyclassic
February 27, 2012 @ 5:43 AM
the social threats of prison,
the social threats of prison, bankruptcy and ostracism probably do more to threaten clever people to stay in line than the threat of hell.
scaredyclassic
February 27, 2012 @ 5:55 AM
alain de botton’s what
alain de botton’s what atheists can learn about religion” s on cnn.com today…
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/26/opinion/de-botton-religion-atheists/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9
svelte
February 27, 2012 @ 6:18 AM
zk wrote:
Fletch wrote:
If
[quote=zk]
[quote=Fletch]
If the human race is just a cosmic fart, then it would behoove the clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms if it makes their atoms resonate with “happiness”.[/quote]
It does behoove clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms. That’s why we need to do our best to build and maintain a society that doesn’t let those clever people escape consequences.[/quote]
Hold on a second – I strongly object. What you appear to be saying is that people only do the right thing because there is a God watching and judging them. If there is no God, then you appear to be saying people are free to do immoral things.
I don’t agree with that at all. People can be raised with a high moral standard even without the presence of a god. And many are.
Just as there are many church goers who do absolutely horrid things, despite their belief that they are being judged.
scaredyclassic
February 27, 2012 @ 6:52 AM
heck isn’t Tony Soprano even
heck isn’t Tony Soprano even feeling (rightly or wrongly) more free to do his business because he can get forgiven at Church? it’s not really the presence of God that made people do the right things, it was the prospect of roasting forever in the Lake of Fire.
Now hell has gone out of style.
heaven is in fashion, but hell is out.
Someone tried to convert me recently, saying something like. yeah, physicist Stephen Hawking thinks his wheelchair is bad, moving it around with his tongue, but it’ll be sheer comfort compared to spending eternity in the lake of fire.
dude had a point. Hell ups the ante. Hard to picture stephen hawking in hell, for some reason…
the case for hell:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/opinion/25douthat.html
zk
February 27, 2012 @ 7:08 AM
svelte wrote:zk wrote:
Fletch
[quote=svelte][quote=zk]
[quote=Fletch]
If the human race is just a cosmic fart, then it would behoove the clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms if it makes their atoms resonate with “happiness”.[/quote]
It does behoove clever people who can escape consequences to break moral norms. That’s why we need to do our best to build and maintain a society that doesn’t let those clever people escape consequences.[/quote]
Hold on a second – I strongly object. What you appear to be saying is that people only do the right thing because there is a God watching and judging them. If there is no God, then you appear to be saying people are free to do immoral things.
I don’t agree with that at all. People can be raised with a high moral standard even without the presence of a god. And many are.
Just as there are many church goers who do absolutely horrid things, despite their belief that they are being judged.[/quote]
When I say “it behooves clever people,” I’m responding to Fletch’s point that, if there’s no god (the human race is a cosmic fart), then people have no external force encouraging them to do the “right” thing. My response was that they don’t and that we as a society need to give them that encouragement. I may have made it sound like I was talking solely about punishment as a means of giving them that encouragement, so I can see how you’d take it that way. But raising people with a high moral standard is part of us building a society to give them encouragement to do the right thing. In addition, there is the internal encouragement that people get from their genetic makeup that I mentioned in an earlier post.
So I totally agree with you that people can be raised to have a high moral standard in the absence of god. And I also think that most people are, to some degree, born with some kind of moral compass.
zk
February 27, 2012 @ 7:12 AM
In fact, if we could get
In fact, if we could get everyone on board with raising their kids that way (impossible, of course), then there’d be a lot less need for the punishment side of the equation.
Fletch
February 27, 2012 @ 8:15 AM
I don’t see how [the
The scientific method assumes truth can be discerned. Not really sure how else to say it. It seems to be the best method for discerning scientific truths. It can not, obviously, be used to discern all truths.
My point was actually that if there is no God, there is no such thing as morality. Only behaviors which promote the continuation of the species. I think we actually agree on this point.
Probably true, but I made no mention of hell (or heaven) as a motivator. I’m saying that if morality is solely a human construct, then it logically follows that it behooves those who can beat the system without consequence to do so if it will make their endocrine system happy. The larger point being that one can claim some actions will not promote the survival of the species, but you have no basis for claiming that the destruction of the species is “bad” or that well-functioning society is “good”. It is, to quote Homer (Simpson), “just a bunch of stuff that happens”. Not caring about the survival of the species may go against our evolutionary instincts, but if your intellect is smart enough to realize that your being doesn’t transcend the material universe, you are also smart enough to recognize such instincts as chemical illusions.
I absolutely agree with this.
UCGal
February 27, 2012 @ 9:28 AM
I guess the issue I have with
I guess the issue I have with hardcore atheists (Those who are 100% certain there is no higher power) is the same one I have with hard core religious folks (those who are 100% certain there IS a higher power).
Life is not black and white. There are unexplained things… coincidences, miracles, things we haven’t figured out the scientific explanation for. It takes a leap of faith to be certain, beyond doubt, in either direction.
That’s why I put myself in the agnostic camp. So far the scientific explanations appeal to me more than the religious explanations. But there are still open issues.
But Bill Maher had a funny bit, decades ago, about the wishy-washiness of agnostics. He talked about hate groups burning a question mark on their front lawn.
As for morality. I consider myself pretty darn moral and ethical. But I’m not religious. I know someone who is guided in almost every decision by his faith… He’s very active in his church, regularly acts as a lay preacher, yet he regularly screws over people he does business with. He holds himself up as a man of faith – and then rips people off. He doesn’t see the disconnect. It probably helps that his faith is different than those he’s ripping off… so I guess it doesn’t count in his mind… he’s allowed to rip off folks who don’t believe the same as him.
There are plenty of devout people who have shady ethics.
zk
February 27, 2012 @ 9:30 AM
Fletch wrote:
I don’t see how
[quote=Fletch]
The scientific method assumes truth can be discerned. Not really sure how else to say it. It seems to be the best method for discerning scientific truths. It can not, obviously, be used to discern all truths. [/quote]
Ok, but if you want me to understand, you’ll have to explain why you think the scientific method assumes the truth can be discerned. And also, why exactly it’s relevant to our discussion, because I’ve lost track of that.
[quote=Fletch]
My point was actually that if there is no God, there is no such thing as morality. Only behaviors which promote the continuation of the species. I think we actually agree on this point.
[/quote]
I don’t think we do. You seem to focus on the continuation of the species. You talk several times about going against the moral code to make the endocrine system happy, as if that’s the only way to make the endocrine system happy. There’s another way. And that way is living within a society that allows us to pursue things that make our endocrine system happy within the confines of that society. So behaviors that allow us to construct/maintain/live within that society can be called “morals” or they can be called “behaviors that allow us to construct/maintain/live within that society.” Whichever you want. If you define morals as something set by god, then obviously there can’t be morals without god. But I would disagree with your definition of morals. I would define morals as “behaviors that allow us to construct/maintain/live within a well-functioning society.” (Obviously it’s more complicated than that, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think that brief definition is sufficient.) And therefore I would say that there is such a thing as morality, even without god.
[quote=Fletch]
Probably true, but I made no mention of hell (or heaven) as a motivator. I’m saying that if morality is solely a human construct, then it logically follows that it behooves those who can beat the system without consequence to do so if it will make their endocrine system happy. The larger point being that one can claim some actions will not promote the survival of the species, but you have no basis for claiming that the destruction of the species is “bad” or that well-functioning society is “good”. It is, to quote Homer (Simpson), “just a bunch of stuff that happens”.
[/quote]
Well, that depends on how you define good and bad. But I think that I would call a well-functioning society “good” because it allows humans to pursue things that, as you put it, makes their endocrine systems happy.
As far as the destruction of the species, other than the pain (and/or shortening of life) it will cause individuals at the time of its occurence, I don’t think the end of the human species is a bad thing. Besides being inevitable, I don’t think it makes any difference.
But I’m not sure I see the relevance of that opinion. Also, I’m curious whether the continuation of the species is important to a Catholic and if so, why it’s important.
[quote=Fletch]
Not caring about the survival of the species may go against our evolutionary instincts, but if your intellect is smart enough to realize that your being doesn’t transcend the material universe, you are also smart enough to recognize such instincts as chemical illusions.
[/quote]
Chemical illusions? Not sure what you mean by that, but I don’t think I agree. Unless you count consciousness and everything within it as chemical illusions. Instincts are real parts of our wiring/chemical make up with real, physical components and real consequences. They’re a matter of life and death. If you’re saying that they’re no more than a matter of life and death, that they don’t mean anything to the universe, then I’d agree.
Fletch
February 27, 2012 @ 4:40 PM
And also, why exactly it’s
This came up because I said I could not comprehend the existence of things that transcend that material universe (such as truth) without positing a transcendent Creator.
I’ve re-read what I wrote and I don’t think I implied this at all. Sure, people can be hard-wired to enjoy “good” behavior. But what about the clever misanthrope? Shouldn’t he be true to himself?
So we do agree.
You: morals are human norms.
Me: morals are transcendental truths.
I think clubbing a baby seal (as described earlier) is objectively immoral.
You think it’s OK because it didn’t harm the functioning of society.
A more extreme example:.
Faced with an act of genocide, the most you can say is, “That was evil. And by ‘evil’ I mean, ‘not good for the functioning of society.'”
I can say, “That was evil.”
As Dosteyevsky put it: “If there is no God, everything is permissible.”
I didn’t bring this up because of any specific tenet of the Faith. I brought it up to point out that for the atheist, the “well-functioning society” (or continuation of the species) is the ultimate “good” even though it really has no more greater significance, value, or importance than a well-functioning rock.
For the atheist, what else would instincts and thoughts be? It comes back to Zippy’s Chesterton quote (to paraphrase): the atheist is not free to believe in the transcendental. At least not with intellectual consistency.
zk
February 27, 2012 @ 5:47 PM
Fletch wrote:
And also, why
[quote=Fletch]
This came up because I said I could not comprehend the existence of things that transcend that material universe (such as truth) without positing a transcendent Creator.
[/quote]
We must be defining truth differently. What do you mean when you say truth? And why does truth transcend the material universe?
[quote=Fletch]
I’ve re-read what I wrote and I don’t think I implied this at all. Sure, people can be hard-wired to enjoy “good” behavior. But what about the clever misanthrope? Shouldn’t he be true to himself?
[/quote]
If he lived in anarchy, maybe. But, thankfully, he doesn’t. Unless he lives somewhere like, maybe, Somalia. The misanthrope or the psychopath or the sociopath, if they live in society, are required to either 1)follow the rules or 2)suffer the consequences that society has decided he should suffer or 3) hope he gets away with it. Maybe a couple other options I can’t think of off the top of my head, but you get the point. So the misanthrope or the sociopath suffer the inability to be “true to themselves.” Society can’t give everybody everything they want and still function. Not without god, anyway. It’s not a perfect system. But, as I said before, it’s all we have.
[quote=Fletch]
So we do agree.
You: morals are human norms.
Me: morals are transcendental truths.
[/quote]
Close enough, I guess. I don’t know if I’d say “norms,” so much as complex rules developed over millenia.
[quote=Fletch]
I think clubbing a baby seal (as described earlier) is objectively immoral.
You think it’s OK because it didn’t harm the functioning of society.
[/quote]
I didn’t say clubbing a seal was OK. I did imply that there were (are) circumstances in which it would be ok.
[quote=Fletch]
A more extreme example:.
Faced with an act of genocide, the most you can say is, “That was evil. And by ‘evil’ I mean, ‘not good for the functioning of society.'”
I can say, “That was evil.”
[/quote]
That seems to comfort you somehow, but I’m not sure why. Besides which, if you define morals as I do, there are still gradients. A small transgression such as stealing a pencil from the store will have very little effect on society. Genocide obviously is a different story.
[quote=Fletch]
As Dosteyevsky put it: “If there is no God, everything is permissible.”
[/quote]
First of all, Dostoevsky didn’t actually say that. A character he wrote, Ivan Karamazov, claimed to believe it (but didn’t actually say it). In any case, if something is permitted by the universe but not permitted by society, then it’s still not permitted by society.
[quote=Fletch]
I didn’t bring this up because of any specific tenet of the Faith. I brought it up to point out that for the atheist, the “well-functioning society” (or continuation of the species) is the ultimate “good” even though it really has no more greater significance, value, or importance than a well-functioning rock.[/quote]
That depends on how you define significance, value, and importance. To me, the happiness of billions of people (or one, for that matter) is more significant, valuable, and important than a well-functioning rock.
It seems to me that, for you, nothing can have any importance unless your personal god is involved. Or am I misreading that?
[quote=Fletch]
For the atheist, what else would instincts and thoughts be? It comes back to Zippy’s Chesterton quote (to paraphrase): the atheist is not free to believe in the transcendental. At least not with intellectual consistency.[/quote]
More than illusions but less than transcendental.
Fletch
February 27, 2012 @ 6:33 PM
First of all, Dostoevsky
I’m pretty sure what I wrote reads, “As Dosteyevsky put it”, but OK. I hope the fact that you made the distinction doesn’t mean your getting annoyed. That’s not my intent.
I see God as the conclusion, not the premise. I think, for example, that transcendent moral laws exist. Therefore, I conclude there is a moral law giver. I think matter exists, therefore I think there is a matter-giver. And yes, it’s true: my feeble brain can not grasp how anything has value in a universe land-locked by atoms. I can’t even grasp what “value” would even mean if it were merely a brain pattern.
I’ve enjoyed this. In my opinion, all the skirmishes over politics and worldviews are proxies for this discussion. The further you get from this fundamental discussion, the messier the discussion tends to get. Such conversations are still important, but they rely more and more on interpretation of data.
I’ll probably check in again tomorrow, but I can’t keep this up. I hope this hasn’t been tedious.
scaredyclassic
February 27, 2012 @ 7:38 PM
God and religion have a
God and religion have a pretty sketchy history of serving a moral example for nice, or even what we would nowadays call remotely civilized, behavior.
Isa ll human-created morality ultimately arbitrary and self-directed? Is only God’s morality is objective, unchanging, real?
Uh, no.
I’m not even sure what this God-given morality is. It seems like it would be as subject to interpretation as any other moral precepts. it sure seemed to justify Spaniards raping pillaging and torturing the natives for gold, burning witches, etc.
And your baby seal clubbing is wrong example seems to me merely a modern sensibilitity picked up from Greenpeace advertising, rather than some sort of God-given morality. It seems exactly the sort of thin that evolved from humans thinking about what is right or wrong, not anything remotely handed down from any kind of God.
Hell, weren’t we all happily clubbing baby seals just a few short decades ago for coats with nary a thought toward theological questions? Heck,
I think the Bible would actually support clubbing baby seals, too, since we have dominion over the animals. I mean, how is it different from killing baby cows or lambs or whatever, except they’re rarer and arguably cuter?
I don’t get it.
Fletch
February 27, 2012 @ 9:43 PM
Durnit scardey, I have to
Durnit scardey, I have to stop. But I did step in this, so:
There are three ways an act can be immoral
1. The act itself can be intrinsically wrong. Murder (as distinct from killing) is the easy example.
2. One could have a bad intention.
3. The circumstances could make it wrong.
The first factor is objective.
The second is subjective. But a transcendent moral law says I must always have the right intention.
The third is indeed relative. We have to decide how best to apply a moral absolute to a situation. This will be a function of the education/ inculcation/brainwashing of your mind. But, a transcendent moral law says the particular situation must, as your conscience sees it, support my action.
Clubbing a baby seal is not intrinsically wrong, but as I described it, would be wrong because of 2 and 3. There certainly could be circumstances when it would be necessary.
Spaniards raping and torturing natives for gold seems to fail all three. This clearly damages the moral credibility of the creed they represent, but it does not change the underlying moral ideal. In fact, you can’t truly criticize such behavior without having a moral ideal against which to compare.
Not believing in God because of the bad behavior of his followers is understandable. I think Gandhi said something along the lines of, “I love your Christ but not your Christians.” I would just offer that good acts done in God’s name, by their nature, tend to be quieter than the bad ones, but may have a far greater impact.
zk:
I look forward to it. I’m currently in escrow after renting for 3.5 years. I’m pretty nervous, but I have a renewed thirst for some housing market talk.
scaredyclassic
February 27, 2012 @ 11:39 PM
arent there plenty of murders
arent there plenty of murders that seem intrinsically right?
Like, all the murders on Dexter?
And besides, even if a killing doesn’t strike you as particularly right, don’t you have to kill if God tells you to kill?
Isn’t that what Abraham and Isaac teach us? When you get the word from the Big Guy, you must act, even if the Big Guy’s request seems loopy? Mustn’t direct orders be obeyed?
I suppose people feel nowadays that God wouldnt really make such wacko requests, that was just the old days. nowadays people just pray on lite issues, like who to vote for in the upcoming election, or for the speedy recovery of friends who have illnesses.
But it sure seems like if you’re in intimate contact with the creator, and like the Godfather, he calls on you for a favor, you have no choice but to respond. You cannot refer God to the Ten Commandments or some obscure Talmudic interpretation and say you cannot violate a particular moral ideal.
He’s the Boss. The Ultimate Arbiter. FOrget what’s int he book and all this philosophizing. If, as you seem to claim, he’s really out there, alive and well and full of plans for us and the world, and it’s all Really True, can’t he communicate to you to do something that might seem to you nuts and on its face immoral? He has a history of this kind fo behaviour.
What would you do if you woke up tomorrow and God told you to kill someone in particular?
Would you obey? Get some medication? Double check with him in a week?
I mean, if people really take this prayer stuff seriously, really believe God is out there and in communication with us, why don’t we take more seriously people who sayGod told them to kill particular people. it’s in the Bible, isn’t it? God telling people to do crazy things.
Your claim that morality is based in God seems like it opens the floodgates to everyone putting their own spin on what God told them last night whilst they were praying. He could be whispering all kinds of different things in everyone’s ear.
Who decides whose interpretation is correct? Reverend Lovejoy? Each individual according to his conscience? Popular opinion?
In the final analysis, Arent there plenty of meaningful moral ideals not involving God? I mean, the same ideal doesn’t become meaningless if it’s from a human as opposed to a God, does it? if it’s a good idea, it’s a good idea, regardless of author.
How is God urges you to treat your neighbor as yourself different in substance from you should treat everyone as you’d like to be treated?
NotCranky
February 28, 2012 @ 8:31 AM
The whole intellectualizing
The whole intellectualizing god, proving god through academic debates , strikes me a kind of desperate fallback, after the bible and miracles are shown to be weak testimony. I do find the arguments tedious because there really is no footing in philisophical debates for proving god. Might as well try finding god with peyote.
scaredyclassic
February 28, 2012 @ 12:33 PM
Agreed. better w peyote. I
Agreed. better w peyote. I think but am not sure the sup ct upheld certain native am rights to take peyote as part f their general quest to find god.
Not sure how you can convert in though
scaredyclassic
February 28, 2012 @ 12:34 PM
So if there were a church
So if there were a church that dropped peyote on the weekend, would you join?
Arraya
February 28, 2012 @ 12:43 PM
walterwhite wrote:So if there
[quote=walterwhite]So if there were a church that dropped peyote on the weekend, would you join?[/quote]
Here ya go!
http://www.peyoteway.org/
scaredyclassic
February 28, 2012 @ 1:01 PM
Let us pray.
Let us pray.
Arraya
February 28, 2012 @ 1:39 PM
walterwhite wrote:Let us
[quote=walterwhite]Let us pray.[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAndRR5CBjc&feature=related
briansd1
February 28, 2012 @ 2:38 PM
I think that walter is
I think that walter is qualified to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
scaredyclassic
February 28, 2012 @ 9:07 PM
If you actually talk to god
If you actually talk to god on peyote is that less authentic than actually talking to god not on peyote?
LSD god vision v peyote god vision; less real?
zippythepinhead
February 28, 2012 @ 9:09 PM
zk, the alternative
zk, the alternative explanations for the solar miracle at Fatima are interesting (ESP, dust phenom,UFO, mass hallucination,etc) but not very satisfying. Still, they all are consistent with rare events, but then I have to put my hand to forehead, Lt. Colombo style, and say, “there is just one part I don’t understand: the TIMING. How could these 3 children have predicted to the hour when this extraordinary event would happen, whatever it was?” Remember the skeptics and believers present were out in vast numbers. “And my old raincoat has just reminded me of one more thing. How do you explain the fact that the multitudes soaked from standing for hours in pouring rain were instantly dry, clothing, hair, everything? Not even a microwave could have worked that fast. No sir, it just doesn’t add up”.
zk
February 28, 2012 @ 10:18 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:zk, the
[quote=zippythepinhead]zk, the alternative explanations for the solar miracle at Fatima are interesting (ESP, dust phenom,UFO, mass hallucination,etc) but not very satisfying. Still, they all are consistent with rare events, but then I have to put my hand to forehead, Lt. Colombo style, and say, “there is just one part I don’t understand: the TIMING. How could these 3 children have predicted to the hour when this extraordinary event would happen, whatever it was?” Remember the skeptics and believers present were out in vast numbers. “And my old raincoat has just reminded me of one more thing. How do you explain the fact that the multitudes soaked from standing for hours in pouring rain were instantly dry, clothing, hair, everything? Not even a microwave could have worked that fast. No sir, it just doesn’t add up”.[/quote]
The timing? Really? Sorry, zippy, but that’s the easy part. 50,000 people showed up to see what would happen. At the time it was supposed to happen. When else would all those people see what they wanted to see?
Picture it. There you are. With 50,000 other people. Hoping to see a miracle (or, in the case of a few people, doing your job reporting on a prediction of a miracle). You’re waiting around. It’s been rainy and cloudy. The sun breaks through the clouds. Maybe a few thousand people look up at it. Hey, a miracle is predicted, and the sun just broke out and is shining Jesus rays down on us. That’s pretty exciting. Maybe that’s where the blessed virgin Mary is going to show up. Let’s stare at the sun. If you stare at the sun, strange things happen to your eyes. The sun can appear to dance and move. But you don’t know this is retina damage, you just see the sun dancing and moving. And you are expecting to see a miracle. And lo and behold, there’s your miracle. You exclaim loudly along with the other thousand people who see it. The excitement spreads. Pretty soon, everyone is yelling, “look at the sun. It’s moving, changing colors, it’s dancing.” So the other 49,000 people start staring at the sun. And a lot of them see the same thing. Some because of the optical effects of staring at the sun, some because they want to see a miracle, some because they don’t want to be left out of the excitement of seeing a miracle. Maybe some because they’re so caught up in the excitement. Really, it must have been quite a wild scene.
As for the clothes drying, well, I’d imagine time flies when you’re witnessing a miracle. Maybe the sun was hot and dried people’s clothes fairly quickly. Maybe the excited, post-miracle conversations turned to the amazing drying of the clothes. Maybe this excited conversation among the crowd got exaggerated and was perpetuated and then exaggerated some more. I’ve been in situations where I witnessed an incident, and a couple hours later heard other people who were there talking about it and what they were saying didn’t match what happened at all. And these people are frequently all agreeing with each other. That’s how people operate. And this was pretty banal stuff. Imagine if you thought you’d witnessed a miracle. Imagine how much excited buzzing was going on in that crowd. It’s not hard to see how things would get distorted, exaggerated, and just plain made up.
To conclude from the reports from fatima from a hundred years ago that god came down and showed these people something doesn’t add up. Only a christian who wanted to believe it would believe it.
I’m really curious about something. You believe that what occurred at Fatima was a miracle. To me that indicates that you’re not looking at it with true skepticism. So I’m really curious whether you’d look at the things Jacarandoso mentioned (Miracles of Allah, Miracles of Hindu gods, Origin of Mayan Gods) with the same lack of skepticism. Or would those things somehow not seem like real miracles to you?
scaredyclassic
February 29, 2012 @ 6:52 AM
Doesn’t this blog itself
Doesn’t this blog itself stand fir the proposition that people are nuttier in crowds
zk
February 29, 2012 @ 10:30 AM
walterwhite wrote:Doesn’t
[quote=walterwhite]Doesn’t this blog itself stand fir the proposition that people are nuttier in crowds[/quote]
Or, as agent K said in “Men in Black,” “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.”
zippythepinhead
February 29, 2012 @ 5:35 PM
I wasn’t there, so I have to
I wasn’t there, so I have to go by the historical record. If the broad aclaim was that the clothing and even the ground was instantly dry, then I accept that. Your speculation on this point boils down to this: you simply don’t accept that evidence. The staring at the sun explanation would indicate that even you too would have have been taken in had you been there lest you were the sole skeptic clever enough to see through the deception. This sign was FOR the skeptics and there were many, many present; the local press was anti-clerical (akin to the NYT and Wash Post of our day) and if you read their reports, seeing “sun spots” didn’t wash with anyone. Whether or not any of this happened makes no difference in my faith, and as has been already pointed out, the church approved the miracle but doesn’t require any of the faithful to believe it. It’s the context of this whole event that makes it so important; the setting, timing, and character and message of the person to whom this event is linked. There is really no proof of God from miracles, just clues regarding his presence. Lucy was impressed enough to spend the rest of her long life as a nun! (some hoax)
zk
February 29, 2012 @ 6:22 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:I
[quote=zippythepinhead]I wasn’t there, so I have to go by the historical record. If the broad aclaim was that the clothing and even the ground was instantly dry, then I accept that. Your speculation on this point boils down to this: you simply don’t accept that evidence. The staring at the sun explanation would indicate that even you too would have have been taken in had you been there lest you were the sole skeptic clever enough to see through the deception. This sign was FOR the skeptics and there were many, many present; the local press was anti-clerical (akin to the NYT and Wash Post of our day) and if you read their reports, seeing “sun spots” didn’t wash with anyone. Whether or not any of this happened makes no difference in my faith, and as has been already pointed out, the church approved the miracle but doesn’t require any of the faithful to believe it. It’s the context of this whole event that makes it so important; the setting, timing, and character and message of the person to whom this event is linked. There is really no proof of God from miracles, just clues regarding his presence. Lucy was impressed enough to spend the rest of her long life as a nun! (some hoax)[/quote]
You really don’t have to go by the historical record. You can use your own judgement of human nature and some common sense.
I didn’t say anything about sun spots. Where did you get that from?
The sole skeptic clever enough? There were people there who saw nothing. Did you not read that in any of your sources?
You didn’t answer what you think about miracles from other religions. It’s a key point and you seem to be avoiding it.
scaredyclassic
February 29, 2012 @ 7:19 PM
Zippythepinhead is one of my
Zippythepinhead is one of my more favorite cartoon characters. Probably zippy would believe in Fatima but he’d also believe he saw god inside a jelly donut.
Are we having fun yet? I remember zippy before he was big. An early childood memory is being 13 and really interested in underground comics, for adults only, way more interested in that than porn, and trying to sneakily read them at this newsstand. Man they were interesting. Much of ny worldview I guess was shaped by r crumb.
One of the things my mom really stressed was never ever stare at the sun. Indeed during the I think 1972 or so eclipse, we viewed it with cardboard boxes on our heads with a hole cut out. Our family photo taken by the planetarium appeared in the ny daily news. Only my brother took the box off his head. We still have the tattered paper. I think the caption was ” just a bunch of blockheads”. My dad spent his entire life selling corrugated boxes, so we got them clean and free. I think my mom really drilled the no sun staring rule onto our head so she wouldn’t raise fatimaniacs.
scaredyclassic
February 29, 2012 @ 7:33 PM
I added an option on the poll
I added an option on the poll for peyote church.
UCGal
March 1, 2012 @ 10:08 AM
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/01/atheist-group-targets-muslims-jews-with-myth-billboards-in-arabic-and-hebrew/?hpt=hp_c2
I thought the article was relevant to this discussion.
(even if it doesn’t mention peyote or lifting weights.)
scaredyclassic
February 29, 2012 @ 8:17 PM
Arraya have you done the
Arraya have you done the spirit walk at peyoteway church?
Arraya
March 1, 2012 @ 7:10 PM
walterwhite wrote:Arraya have
[quote=walterwhite]Arraya have you done the spirit walk at peyoteway church?[/quote]
No, but I’ve done similar “rituals”;)
hslinger
March 2, 2012 @ 1:53 PM
I am god and all imposters
I am god and all imposters and their followers must be punished.
Send me all your money and your daughters: must be 18+, no fatties, no fuglies. Send pics prior to donating daughters.
scaredyclassic
March 2, 2012 @ 5:04 PM
Wouldnt the world be a better
Wouldnt the world be a better place if all Internet discussion eventually ended in discussions of peyote rituals rather than Hitler comparisons?
zk
March 1, 2012 @ 12:58 PM
zippythepinhead wrote:Your
[quote=zippythepinhead]Your speculation on this point boils down to this: you simply don’t accept that evidence. [/quote]
Actually, what it boils down to is this: Given all the evidence, which is more likely: That people got excited and mistook what they saw (the sun moving around, which appears to happen if you stare at it) for a miracle and that things got exaggerated in all the excitement? Or that an omnipotent, omniscient benevolent god created the universe and came down and showed the people something that day. And if you think that, based on the evidence, the latter is more likely, it can really only be because you want it to be.
zippythepinhead
March 1, 2012 @ 2:13 PM
Izk wrote:zippythepinhead
I[quote=zk][quote=zippythepinhead]Your speculation on this point boils down to this: you simply don’t accept that evidence. [/quote]
Actually, what it boils down to is this: Given all the evidence, which is more likely: That people got excited and mistook what they saw (the sun moving around, which appears to happen if you stare at it) for a miracle and that things got exaggerated in all the excitement? Or that an omnipotent, omniscient benevolent god created the universe and came down and showed the people something that day. And if you think that, based on the evidence, the latter is more likely, it can really only be because you want it to be.[/quote]
We may be beating a dead horse here. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.
Arraya
March 5, 2012 @ 5:28 PM
The first American populizer
The first American populizer of Eastern thought, Alan Watts, suggested in his 1966 book, The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, that the whole universe consists of a Cosmic Self playing hide-and-seek, hiding from ITSelf by becoming all the living and non-living things in the universe, forgetting what IT really is; the upshot being that we are all IT in disguise and that our conception of ourselves as an “ego in a bag of skin” is a myth; the entities we consider separate “things” are merely processes of the whole. Interestingly, this exotic philosophical perspective is now the core of Gaia theory, which has become broadly accepted in the biophysical sciences, the basis of epigenetics which postulates that DNA expression is controlled from outside our “bag of skin” by environmental factors, and central to evolutionary biology which notes that the mitochondria in our cells that produce chemical energy were (are?) non-human bacteria. We are as much our environment as our in-vironment.
From a long time virtual friend,a tenured professor at Case Western;
Peace on Earth,
http://www.egodeath.com/EntheogenTheoryOfReligion.htm#_Toc177337609
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hW6Dm_m5t4
There is no separation between spirit and matter…all is one, as it always was.
The psychedelic experience helps some understand this
Alan Watts on LSD
http://deoxy.org/w_psyrel.htm
http://www.thefix.com/content/steve-jobs-think-different-and-lsd-9143
http://www.hallucinogens.com/lsd/francis-crick.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXmzcroUmdU
scaredyclassic
March 5, 2012 @ 5:49 PM
Yeah. Plus, hitler never took
Yeah. Plus, hitler never took any peyote.
Arraya
March 5, 2012 @ 6:41 PM
walterwhite wrote:Yeah. Plus,
[quote=walterwhite]Yeah. Plus, hitler never took any peyote.[/quote]
That is probably a pretty safe assumption. Turn of the century racial “science” is pretty inconsistent with the universal “oneness” that goes along with that experience.
More on Christianity and “psychedelics”
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Mushroom-Mushrooms-Judeo-Christianity-re-evaluation/product-reviews/1439215170/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_5?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFiveStar
Me, from another thread on religion;
And finally,
“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us ‘universe’, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest… a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
-Albert Einstein
scaredyclassic
March 5, 2012 @ 6:57 PM
True, but Albert still
True, but Albert still couldn’t get along w his wife even though he and she were really the same being.
Arraya
March 5, 2012 @ 7:00 PM
walterwhite wrote:True, but
[quote=walterwhite]True, but Albert still couldn’t get along w his wife even though he and she were really the same being.[/quote]
Heck,most of the time I don’t get along with myself
scaredyclassic
March 5, 2012 @ 7:06 PM
Fair enough. I know there’s
Fair enough. I know there’s been a flurry if research on psychedelic mushrooms actually curing addictions, depressions, other problems. I don’t think the country can handle the truth though.
scaredyclassic
March 5, 2012 @ 7:08 PM
Did steve jobs LSD advocacy
Did steve jobs LSD advocacy get press in any of those death coverage stories?
scaredyclassic
March 5, 2012 @ 7:12 PM
I can only find one blog
I can only find one blog mentioning that jobs asked prospective employees how many times they’d dropped acid to throw them off guard.
NotCranky
February 29, 2012 @ 10:44 AM
walterwhite wrote:So if there
[quote=walterwhite]So if there were a church that dropped peyote on the weekend, would you join?[/quote]
I’d probably go for the Free Weight Church of Squats first…or is that the First Church of Free Weight Squats?
scaredyclassic
February 29, 2012 @ 2:49 PM
Peyote lifting?
Peyote lifting?
zk
February 27, 2012 @ 7:42 PM
Fletch wrote:
I can’t keep
[quote=Fletch]
I can’t keep this up. I hope this hasn’t been tedious.[/quote]
I can’t keep this up, either. But it’s been far from tedious. I’ve enjoyed this exchange quite a bit. Let’s debate the Chargers or the Padres or maybe even the housing market next time.
scaredyclassic
February 26, 2012 @ 10:52 AM
Several decades ago, I was an
Several decades ago, I was an obnoxious, arrogant, impatient, ass.
I had a life-changing experience around that time. I screwed up in a big way. The consequences could have been really, really bad. Really bad. I shudder to think about it all.
Things amazingly luckily worked out and i got another chance at normal life.
for me it was like a secular “born again” experience and i was never a dick in the same way.
I think screwing up, and feeling like you got another chance in life can be a hugely great thing in life, if you handle it correctly. Not that I would wish it on anyone, but it seems like many people are headed for a crash-up at some point…almost liek we want our lvies to meet with disaster…at least that’s the way it looks to me…
I think in part I can relate to the intensity of people’s religious conversions because of my own personal experience with my inadequacy and foolishness.
I’ve never been the same since then. I take myself and life a lot less seriously, I expect things to get screwed up, I don’t expect things to go my way. I submit to a power greater than me–the randomness of the universe.
not quite like accepting jesus Christ as your personal savior, but there are similarities, in the sense that you realize you suck, and you have to shed a former self…also made me less judgmental of others…i see myself more as a character in a comedy, not the subject of a drama.
briansd1
February 26, 2012 @ 11:31 AM
walterwhite wrote:
not quite
[quote=walterwhite]
not quite like accepting jesus Christ as your personal savior, but there are similarities, in the sense that you realize you suck, and you have to shed a former self…also made me less judgmental of others…i see myself more as a character in a comedy, not the subject of a drama.[/quote]
That’s a great way of looking at life.
I’m not quite there yet.
I’m very nice when I’m around nice people.
But I have to deal with obnoxious, arrogant, impatient, asses all the time. The most effective way I found to deal with them is give them back the same medicine, only stronger. I know, I’m not good at turning the other cheek. I haven’t found God yet.
svelte
February 26, 2012 @ 1:03 PM
walterwhite wrote:I think
[quote=walterwhite]I think screwing up, and feeling like you got another chance in life can be a hugely great thing in life, if you handle it correctly. Not that I would wish it on anyone, but it seems like many people are headed for a crash-up at some point…almost liek we want our lvies to meet with disaster…at least that’s the way it looks to me…
[/quote]
Boy I can relate to that. I am drawn to trouble like a moth to flame or whatever the saying is.
My wife has learned this and makes sure I have something to do all the time, especially when she’s not around. Best way to keep me from doing something insanely stupid but typically male.
zk
February 26, 2012 @ 2:27 PM
Very kind of you to share
Very kind of you to share that story, scaredy. A lot of wisdom there.
briansd1
March 20, 2012 @ 6:56 PM
Some people believe there’s
Some people believe there’s only one God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYCgTsBiBnI
“This nation was founded as a Christian nation…there’s only one God and his name is Jesus. I’m tired of people telling me that I can’t say those words. […] If you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we do things, I’ve got one thing to say — Get out! We don’t worship Buddha. I said we don’t worship Buddha. We don’t worship Mohammed. We don’t worship Allah. We worship God. We worship God’s son Jesus Christ.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/pastor-introducing-rick-santorum-america-a-christian-nation/2012/03/20/gIQAHeMlPS_blog.html
scaredyclassic
March 20, 2012 @ 9:10 PM
this nation was founded as a
this nation was founded as a bunch of different kinds of christians who were each irritating in their own way and fundamentally had in common the unyielding conviction that they couldn’t stand each other. Those are our bedrock principles.
scaredyclassic
March 20, 2012 @ 9:12 PM
http://www.collegehumor.com/v
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6583358/why-religious-people-are-nerds
ok this is funny. why religious people are like star trek nerds…
briansd1
March 20, 2012 @ 11:13 PM
walterwhite
[quote=walterwhite]http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6583358/why-religious-people-are-nerds
ok this is funny. why religious people are like star trek nerds…[/quote]
haha that’s funny.
Watching evangelical sermons is kinda funny. I don’t really understand how people get animated and rantin’ and ravin’ like that.
briansd1
March 23, 2012 @ 1:41 PM
The Reason Rally will be
The Reason Rally will be tomorrow on the Mall in DC. I wish I could be there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/reason-rally-on-the-mall-is-a-milestone-event-for-the-growing-atheist-movement/2012/03/22/gIQAlrJ8TS_story.html
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/23/149021993/woodstock-for-atheists-a-moment-for-nonbelievers
Arraya
March 23, 2012 @ 4:43 PM
I’m wondering when athiests
I’m wondering when athiests are going to rally against the biggest irrational belief system of the all – Capitalism. If you believe in Capitalism you are not an atheist.
briansd1
March 23, 2012 @ 9:14 PM
Are you going to the rally,
Are you going to the rally, Arraya? Enjoy it if you are. Hope it doesn’t rain Saturday.
I thought you might say something like that.
I view capitalism as an economic system that can be changed. If there’s something that works better, we should try it out. Can we transition slowly and painlessly? Or do you think that capitalism must collapse creating havoc, poverty and suffering before with we try something else.
What about human greed? Is greed reasonable or not? I’m not sure how we can use reason to manage it.