Stocks in a tailspin every other day. Jobs in jeopardy. Home values slipping.
Fear.
You can hear it in anxious conversations at the next table in the restaurant or around the coffee pot at work. It's not a hurricane of panic, just a rising tide of worry that relentlessly erodes our sense of security.
How can we stand? Where is the rock that provides stability in uncertain days? The Federal Reserve? A fat 401(k)? Family? Friends? Fate? Our own heroic efforts?
Those of us who walk the spiritual path are likely to respond that God is our foundation, our footing in slippery times. It's a matter of trust: We trust God to bring us through life's challenges. It's not that we expect to escape storms; we just rely on the promise that we don't navigate through them alone.
We trust. Or we try to, anyway. It's usually not long before we lose faith or patience and try to take matters into our own hands again ... with predictable results.
Much of our desperate grasping for security is an attempt to gain or maintain control over our circumstances. Ironically, giving up our illusion of control is the only real way to achieve peace in the chaos. It allows us appreciate the joys and opportunities of present circumstances, rather than living in fear of what lies ahead.
How do you cope with anxious times? What part does spirituality play?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Sure footing in slippery times
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
406 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 406 Newer› Newest»So, confident that most anyone would have something to hide, its acceptable to throw out vile rumours to start the conversation? e.g. I heard a rumour that a man named aztok mudered his grandmother. Opps, untrue, but he did get arrested for simple marijuana (or was it hashish) possession 15 years ago?
Gamecock, how quickly we forget that even you and many others on this board doubted that my daughter exists? People here claimed that I made her up.
And I am not even a public/political person.
Not to mention all the "you will go to hell" rumors you guys constantly throw out based on no evidence. You know, people like you (who claim hell exists on no evidence) shouldn't really say anything about rumors at all.
BTW: Where is Palin? Missing in action? Back to the debate camp? Wonder how come she hardly does any press interviews? Perhaps because she is not ready to lead this country as she confidently claimed?
For Bob:
Article about book on Ricahrd Rorty
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_corrupter_of_youth_08
Link is from Arts and Letters Daily.com, a good source of diverse essays and articles about culture and politics.
Also ScitechDaily.com is a sister site.
Excerpt:
"Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher by Neil Gross,
University of Chicago Press, 367 pages, $32.50
By the last years of the 20th century, Richard Rorty was probably the best-known university-based philosopher in the United States. In recent years he has been surpassed in notoriety by the utilitarian ethicist Peter Singer, known for his advocacy of animal rights and the acceptability of euthanizing severely disabled newborns.
Rorty, in his time, was accused of murdering truth. He argued the position that there was no standpoint outside of human descriptions of the world from which to decide that any one view was false and another true. There were only descriptions in more or less convincing language, with more or less convincing uses, by which people might persuade one another how to live in the world.
Rorty called his position pragmatism, following in the grand tradition of John Dewey and William James. Critics called it
relativism, or a claim that no view or behavior is better or worse than another, except as it appears to its possessor or practitioner.
The unshakeable consistency with which Rorty invited people to
downgrade their pretensions about themselves—including philosophers’
giving up a special, privileged access to the right, good, and
true—infuriated readers in many different fields, not least his own,for 30 years."
J:
I guess that explains why I'm so popular.
bob,
I can relate to what I understand of Rorty's view: that we have no way as yet to define what is absolute truth.
We cannot get "outside" of our insular human experiences in this isolated frame of reference(the earth)to compare other realities and perspectives.
Everything we assume is true of the world and universe has been conceived by the minds of one species,living on one planet,in the the midst of a cosmos we will probably never completely know or understand.
Gamecock clearly identified his information about this "astok" person as a rumor. There may not even be such a person. I don't believe there is, but who knows? Inquiring minds can't complain.
Bob, how about those vile rumors many Christians use to abuse their kids (threatening them with hell)? How do you feel threatening children with such rumor?
J:
I would maybe delete the "probably" and "completely" from the last sentence. But only because of the law about brevity. You do a better me than me. Uh, I.
Iz:
I am against threatening bad children with eternal damnation, except in the narrowly limited circumstance when they are within earshot of me.
I am also against invoking the name of a defenseless teenage girl to make any kind of point. I encourage everyone to take offense at your previous "agreement" with me about victimization.
bob,
I agree with deleting those words, but I did not want to speak in absolutes :)
Bob, according to many she should have kept her legs together. Because she didn't she should be shamed (per Gamecock).
I feel that as with many other unwed pregnant teens she is victim of poor parental education. Pregnant with baby father who didn't want children in the first place. Considering that she, like her mother ended up pregnant before being married the cycle is repeating. We as a society should do more to destigmatize such teens (not stigmatize more as Gamecock suggested) and provide them better and comprehensive sex education before they end up pregnant.
Bob,
The story was reported in the Charlotte Observer.
Too bad you don't understand that reporting a rumor as rumor is not the same as reporting rumor as fact.
-anon1
Bob,
If you're such a big fan of Rorty, then why would you care if people spread "rumors" as long as they're useful?
Seems to me that a useful "rumor" would be just as "true" as a fact.
It certainly would explain all the "truth" found in religions.
So why all the fuss?
-anon1
Anon 1:
For the record, Iztok uncritically passed along a link to a blog with the preface that "rumors has it ... (sic)." He then defended the act with the additional explanation: "[W]hat if it turns out to be true?" J. correctly pointed out that rumors about Obama were equally bad. The posts appear on Aug. 31.
A unsubstantiated statement that is useful for an illegitimate purpose is not a statement that should be made. Or at least it is not a good enough statement to be made by person who values decency.
Opps. "An unsubstantiated statement."
Opps. "a person." There must be a defect in this computer.
Bob, so what do we do with unsubstantiated rumors about heaven and hell?
We compare and contrast them. We compare Ecclesiates, where there is no heaven or hell, with Mark, where the two concepts seem to be apocalyptic. (At least to me they do.) We compare those ideas with the Catholic concept (where all eternity potentially hangs on your actions) and with the Calvinist concept of predestination (where the threat of heaven and hell is irrelevant to how one lives.) We compare those ideas to salvation by grace. We take what there is to take, even if strictly on psychological or literary terms, and respectfully decline to take literally that which should not be taken literally. We accept that some things don't have to be decided, and that the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
We emphasize to the religious zealot not how stupid the stupidest of their beliefs may be, but how pluralistic religious traditions are. And how important freedom is to their traditions. We value decency. We value others' ideas about decency and engage with respect. We don't lump all religions together under the rubric we find hardest to defend and then sneer like dolts. We don't emulate what we consider irresponsible behavior. And, most importantly, we agree with everything I just said without backtalk.
There's probably more, but that's a good enough list for now.
Bob, but they are still unsubstantiated rumors. Show me some evidence.
Bob,
I consider "rumors has it" to be
critical of the statement.
Most people understand rumors to be unsubstantiated (for whatever purpose they were transmitted).
You aren't saying that the PURPOSE of the rumor has any bearing on whether it should be repeated (even if identified as rumor), are you?
This would mean that no one could discuss any aspect of a malicious rumor at all, wouldn't it?
As a Rortian, are you deciding what is legitimate and decent for everyone or just yourself and your group?
-anon1
Bob,
Brilliant and well-stated explanation - as usual. But obviously a couple of the regular agressors here don't understand it.
Found an old quote from one of them from some time back:
"But I am getting sick of twisting terms and inventing new defintions when things are disputed by facts."
The fact is, apparently not sick enough to cease twisting terms and inventing new definitions in an infantile attempt to repudiate your logic.
Anonymous, still failed to deal with unsubstantiated rumor issue. Is unsubstantiated rumor ever good? Truth notwithstanding? Answer Bob gave is that one picks and chooses based on the position. Or in other words if unsubstantiated rumor fits his agenda it is ok, if it doesn't then it is vicious attack of some sort. Talking about moral relativism here.
Bob,
It seems to me, then, that you would have no problems spreading rumors of any kind as long as you can compare and contrast them and pick from them whatever you wish.
As long as you consider them "decent", by whatever standard you choose to apply, of course.
-anon1
Anon 1:
As a Rortian, I am obliged to be ironic. It is an absolute requirement.
Bob,
I think you have little choice.
-anon1
Anon 1:
I'm sorry. I didn't see your intervening post. They were coming too fast and furious. Everything you said about my having no problems with spreading malicious rumors is wrong. Absolutely. The rumor Iztok spread had so little usefulness for any legitimate purpose (such as learning something about the life of Sarah Palin) that it should be condemned as reprehensible. Such a rumor may have great usefulness for the purpose of furthering the politics of personal destruction, but I do not consider that a legitimate purpose. How do I know that is not a legitimate purpose? Ultimately, I don't. Provisionally, I listen to people who care and who know more than I do. And I pay attention to what they have to say and see if it jibes with my own experience. Similarly, I do not, at least at present, consider statements about heaven and hell to be very useful for the legitimate purpose of predicting future events. But they are useful for the legitimate purpose helping see life here on Earth in different lights. They might also be useful for the purpose of scaring children, but I do not consider that a legitimate purpose. I am surprised that any of this is controversial. But then I am surprised at how many folks here appear to view the protagonist in Anon's marvelous short story as a hero.
Bob, I qualified rumor as such. On the other hand you seem to refer to heaven and hell as statements instead of rumors. How come? Do you have any to substantiate that they are more then rumor?
You didn't learn anything from that Shakespeare thing, did you? I don't consider statements about heaven and hell to be rumors because I don't consider them very useful statements for the purpose of predicting future events. But that does not mean I consider them useless statements. People who consider them useful statements for the purpose of predicting future events can argue with you about whether they should be characterized as rumors, and, if so, whether they are rumors that give people comfort without causing harm. Thank God, that's not my department.
Hey guys,
I wouldn't think less of a mother pretending her daughter's baby is hers in order to save her from some ridicule. Doesn't hurt anyone. As it turned out it is her daughter's baby and nobody cares anyway. Cool.
"I wouldn't think less of a mother pretending her daughter's baby is hers in order to save her from some ridicule."
Yes, but people like Gamecock claim that unwed pregnant women should be shamed and that such status should be stigmatized again.
Bob: Rumors by definition are not very useful statements. But they are rumors because they are unverified statements. So by definition heaven and hell is just a rumor. Additional qualification on usefulness is not really needed, just the fact that something is unverified (and/or comes from unreliable source) is considered rumor. Just that one repeats it many times doesn't make it true by itself. Rumor of heaven/hell did more damage to many kids than rumor of Bristol's pregnancy (well rumor was verified, Bristol is pregnant, just part that Sarah's kid is actually Bristol's turned out as false). But I guess that there might be some good thing that nephew and uncle are going to be about same age.
Bob,
Is "useful statements for predicting future events" Rortian for what us old fogeys used to call "scientific" or something along those lines?
Just adjusting my decoder ring.
-anon1
Bob,
Thanks for the explanation.
I don't think there is much controversy over what I think you are getting at, just some confusion over using terms like "useful" in unusual ways.
To many people, saying something is "useful" is nowhere near as clear as as saying it is "true" (or even "true" for me, but not "true" for someone in ancient Greece, for example)
If you don't think there is an absolute or objective reality for us to reference, then that's fine, (if I'm catching your drift here),
but people still look at statements as largely true and false not useful and not useful.
-anon1
I should have written:
"but people still look at statements as largely true and false not as useful and not useful."
or something like that.
-anon1
In case people are wondering what caused the latest crisis.
http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Fundamentalists_blame_Wall_Street_0930.html
"In a September 25th blog post titled 'The Nation Will Right Itself If It Fixes Sex', Christian Civil League of Maine Executive Director Michael Heath writes that the financial crisis facing Wall Street is a symptom of America's sinful sexual culture, including the acceptance of gay unions."
Obviously Heath is not the only nutcase in recent history.
"Fred Phelps, the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, blamed gays and lesbians for hurricane Katrina, the deadliest and costliest hurricane in U.S. history that led to years of dystopia in New Orleans. “New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter. ... Pray for more dead bodies floating on the fag-semen-rancid waters of New Orleans.”
And in 2001 televangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed terrorists attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon (the 9/11 attacks) at least in part on gays and lesbians."
Some Christians seem to have never moved beyond the sin-judgment-punishment-redemption themes of the Old Testament theology. By the way, that’s not necessarily the thinking of all Christians. Many of us firmly support individual and civil rights. My thinking is that my God wouldn’t have it any other way.
But I understand why the people Iztok mentions arrive at their conclusion. It goes back to the current topic Jane posted about coping with difficult times. As a person on the verge of retiring here in Charlotte, I see the wild fluctuations in the stock value of my life-long investments and wonder if I’ll need to keep working. I see the long lines at the gas stations or empty pumps and wonder how I’m going to make my frequent doctor appointments on an empty tank. I see the potential loss of jobs locally with the Wachovia sale, and wonder how I would find even a part-time job against so much competition. I see the housing market collapse and wonder whether I’ll be able to sell my house for the market value it had last year at this time when it comes time to move into a senior community.
And I ask myself what did I ever do to deserve all this anguish? My first irrational thought is to look for a scapegoat, when part of the problem might be me.
I’ve seen posts here and in Mary Newsom’s “Naked City” blog by folks who would like to get their hands around the throats of certain CEOs, brokers, bankers and real estate salespeople whom they blame for the financial crisis. I don’t know if the posters are Christians, Muslims, Jews or atheists, but they in effect seem to be voicing a theology regarding human guilt, judgment of the guilty, punishment and perhaps redemption for all once the crisis has run its course.
I don’t know if they got that line of reasoning from their personal exposure to a religious doctrine, or whether they thought it up on their own, but it does exist. And that’s how they cope with difficult times. The persons Iztok noted seem to have added a “sacrificial” element to their reasoning, thinking that crises will go away if human sexuality is limited to reproductive purposes among heterosexuals, even though some problems (hurricanes) are as of yet beyond the control of human sexuality or other influence.
I think they are wrong, but I think everyone is entitled to their beliefs or non-beliefs, as long as they don’t start sacrificing virgins – gay, lesbian or whatever - to the volcano or hurricane.
Whatever gets you through the night.
I tend to think it's the people at the bottom of the heap who look to the gods to pull them out of problems like this.
As long as those people are a minority things usually work out.
It's when they become the majority that a group like the Taliban can come in and take over a country with promises of getting right with the gods as a cure for all ills.
-anon1
"I think everyone is entitled to their beliefs or non-beliefs"
You are absolutely right. And one should be able to voice their beliefs. However one shouldn't have expectation of people not making fun of their beliefs if they are ridiculous.
One is God sending Jesus on a suicide mission for redemption of human kind. (Or that Noah was real and other stories.)
Iztok,
I guess you subscribe to the view that "one man's religion is another man's bellylaugh".
While I tend to agree, at some point it does get old.
I'm mostly beyond laughing unless something really stupid crops up like what the Ft. Mill mayor did.
I am mostly on the lookout for times when ridiculous beliefs influence public policy.
I have travelled quite a bit and met all kinds of people with laughable beliefs.
I didn't always laugh at them even when they were talking about sacred monkeys, cows, or even mermaids.
If someone tries to pass laws to protect mermaids, though, I do react.
-anon1
As someone who works in the "financial services" industry, I'm fairly appalled at what is happening now.
But I've had an uneasy feeling about the US economy for a few years now, feeling that we were on the edge of a cliff.
I didn't expect anything quite like this quite so fast. I was expecting a more steady decline.
That could also happen, too, in the aftermath of the current crisis.
Basically, I have felt that our apparent "wealth" was way out of proportion to our capabilities compared to the rest of the world.
I felt we were living off our past, not our present, and borrowing from our future.
We were able to coast from winning WWII for quite a while. Things have gotten a lot more competetive in the last generation and I don't think we've kept up.
We were building our houses on the sand and the tide just rose.
I think politics has a lot to do with it along with the "rah-rah" cheerleading we often see about ourselves (usually from ourselves).
Even our political discourse seems more like sports trash talk than anything serious.
And when something goes wrong, people seem more interested in assigning blame than fixing the problem.
We've lost even more standing in the world than we had just a few years ago.
The British Empire suffered a similar fate and most Britons didn't realize that it was happening until way after the fact.
-anon1
“However one shouldn't have expectation of people not making fun of their beliefs if they are ridiculous.” Au Contraire!
I think the belief in a historical Noah is incorrect. I think the flood story was a myth, and have previously explained by understanding of myths in developing religious doctrine.
But I still don’t think a literalist belief in an actual Noah or his ark is ridiculous, or that it is necessary for me to make fun of it to state my own belief. I understand why some people can’t see the forest for the trees; the doctrine for the myth. But I have enough respect for my fellow humans to not think their beliefs are ridiculous.
I don’t know enough at this point to state in detail about what I think are the implications of Jesus’ life and crucifixion. I believe he was a great a wise teacher, and therefore consider myself a Christian, but as I said earlier, I have my doubts, too. I am not sure if he was divine. A lot of others who consider themselves Christians have taken a similar stance. But I think the big picture belief of most Christians is that this life isn’t the end of things and that there is a purpose or reason for being. (Bob will now insert “God is Being” below). I don’t find that belief ridiculous, and I expect others to respect my variations thereof.
I guess it goes back to the question I posed to you earlier about what is the point of your atheistic musings at this blog. For example, let’s return to the very first comment you had at the beginning of this topic, more than 235 responses ago.
(First you quoted Jane’s comment) – "We trust. Or we try to, anyway. It's usually not long before we lose faith or patience and try to take matters into our own hands again ... with predictable results.” – Jane Pope
Then you said – “Exactly! You look both ways when you cross the street. When you take matters into your own hands (look both ways), you are usually safe, when you don't (you act on faith) you are endangering yourself and exposing yourself to being run over.” - Iztok
Jane is talking about spiritual faith and the failings of trusting in our own capabilities. After all, spiritual belief is what this blog is supposed to be about, according to the bio that appears for each topic. But from your response to her words, it’s obvious you find her spiritual stance in coping with crises ridiculous. Acting on faith, per you, is ridiculous. Per you, It just gets you run over.
You’re entitled to voice an opinion. I’ll fight to the death for your Constitutional right to do so. But you go way beyond just stating an opinion at this blog. Instead of just making a statement that you believe faith is inappropriate when dealing with a crisis, and that you do such-and-such to cope, you go on the attack. You belittle the beliefs of others without really adding anything to the discussion, such as telling us why atheism is such a great thing. All we see from your comments is an embittered man who thinks he has all the answers. You usually have to feed off the beliefs of others in order to make a statement about non-belief.
So, do you have any spiritual beliefs you can discuss here? What exactly do you hope to accomplish here otherwise? Maybe you can point those of us who are new here to one of your earlier explanations.
Anonymous: Point of my first post was that faith is not such a great thing. We don't live by it and even those who claim they do really don't apply it in everyday's life. They trust reason in order to survive.
Yet somehow when it comes to "spirituality" things change and one shouldn't question this? What exactly is spirituality? How does it connect with reality? There is really no evidence of any kind that "spirit" really exist or what it is. It would be just as productive discussing Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster as they are just as real (and just as much evidence as for spirits exist).
Basically what I am saying is that when people say they have faith are full of BS as they certainly don't practice what they say. They trust reason over faith when it comes to reality. (As they should.)
As far as what atheism stands for? It can be many things to many people. But mainly only one thing is important, we don't believe in supreme being of any sort (not to be confused we believe there is no supreme being!). I've seen people here (and other places) say that atheism is religion and things like that. Sure thing... I guess non-stamp-collecting is a hobby?
Great!
Now that you've explained all, and since that statement succinctly sums up the position you have constantly adhered to throughout the history of Jane's blog, it can serve to state your repetitive point on any future topic Jane might post. Just copy and paste at the beginning of each new topic!
This will not only save you time that can probably be better spent at work or with family, but we faithful can look forward to getting on with the real topic of this blog. There'll be no futher interrruption and no waylaying distractions detouring us down some irrelevant sidestreets.
Thank you for caring and acting responsibly! You are a much better person than I ever hoped for.
"Thank you for caring and acting responsibly! You are a much better person than I ever hoped for."
And I don't even need threat of hell or promise of heaven. Imagine that.
Here is a funny comic to ponder about:
http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/rehab477.html
Iztok,
That was a unique cartoon. Did you see the last panel? It was hard to find, but the dialog went like this:
RELIGIOUS PERSON: "Dear God, please touch Iztok's soul so that he'll know enough to post atheist material at an atheist blog, not here."
THE ATHEIST: "I'm glad I can figure out on my lonesome that I should be posting at an atheist blog, not here."
Apparently neither end of the dialog is working.
Whoa! You have any idea how long it took to get him off our blogs? Thanks, but no thanks. He's your bridge to nowhere now.
Iztok
I NEVER DOUBTED YOUR DAUGHTER! AND I NEVER SAID ANYONE IS GOING TO HELL!
I was one that defended you on that and I leave matters of people's souls to God.
Palin campaigned today.
Anonymous, this is Charlotte Observer blog.
Jesus speaks of Hell more than anyone in the Bible.
Izzy
It is not necessary for you to thank me for defending you and your daughter's honor (and existence). In fact you don't even have to remember it.
Feel free to forget if I ever call you a jerk as well.
Hey, Iz. Did you know there's a blog for stamp collectors? Seriously. When you get bored here, you can go over there and disprove the 12-cent Taft. Maybe that will fill the void.
Gamecock, you are right, you did defend me to an extent during the "imaginary" daughter ad hominems.
Bob, stamp collectors are not the ones endangering life on this planet to the extent religious do. They don't run this country with false promises they can't deliver (they don't sell imaginary/invisible product).
I saw Religulous last night. Definitely worth seeing it. As it says we need to "Grow up or die!"
I would rather grow up as these "earth is few thousand years old" people (like Palin - based on her Church "doctrine") scare the heck out of me.
"Anonymous, this is Charlotte Observer blog."
What does that mean?
"...scare the heck out of me."
What is heck?
Gamecock:
Are you endangering the planet again? I thought I warned you about that hot air.
Iztok hasn’t answered my questions. I’ll just have to try and piece together his rationalizations:
“… this is Charlotte Observer blog.” Oh! Why didn’t you say so sooner? I had no idea the Observer was an atheist organization. Excuuuusssseee Me.
“… scare the heck out of me.” I looked in several dictionaries. Heck is hell. So you’re telling me that it’s in you and therefore that atheists believe in hell? Who would have believed? At least you now have a legitimate starting point for spiritual discussion with other hell-believers at this blog.
Excuse me, Anon, but I think you have it all wrong. Iztok is trying to save the world by disrupting a blog devoted to the peaceful discussion of sacred experience. The struggle against self-delusion knows no holiday. Believe me.
Bob, I think you’re right.
But I’m not letting him off the hook. Nope, there won’t be any wiggle room for you, Mr. Iztok, crafty Purveyor of Mrwiggleslovesyou Cartoons! Gottcha!
Yep, I cleverly extracted a tiny and irrelevant bit of one of your remarks and have now turned it into a major discussion topic, and you are not getting away until I’m through with you. I am so smart to have done this!!! (But I think you already know that feeling).
We are going to discuss it ad nauseum here at this blog, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with what Jane expects us to be discussing. We’re gonna have a Hop-On-Iztok Party, at least until she changes topics.
We’ll have fun-fun-fun ‘til Janie takes the topic awaaayyy!
UBL is a cave-dwelling philatelist.
Hot air reduces homeless deaths. I refuse to dedicate my life to preserving beachfront property for the wealthy.
You know, what if atheists are correct?
No, I’m not talking about their atheistic stance on or against God, faith, religion, etc. (Motto - Hate the belief, love the believer?)
I mean, what if they’re right and this blog IS part of the great Christian-Zionist Plot to dominate the world? That would make them – the brave little soldiers that they are – the only thing to block Jane’s nefarious scheme to convert all of mankind – or at least unsuspecting atheists - to Anglicanism! No wonder they are so vociferous. Can you imagine: C. S. Lewis reading material invading atheistic American homes should some innocent child stumble upon this website?
Check out this portion of Jane’s biographical info at the beginning of each and every topic: “She hopes that this will be a place where people of differing beliefs can peacefully discuss their experience of the sacred.”
No doubt taken straight from the CZP Manual on covert operations. The key and conditional phrase of this blog’s stated purpose is “discuss their experience of the sacred”.
SACRED!!! Don’t you see? People discussing God and spirituality right here in River City. What’s she trying to pull? No sir. Atheists won’t be fooled by that euphemistic rant and the Observer’s effort to tread on their rights. To arms! To arms!
Sure, they could be correct. Although I’d think they’d stand a better chance of preserving endangered atheism by posting at Jack Betts’ governmental blog. That’s a Charlotte Observer blog, too, and there would be much interest in the constitutionality of freedom of and from religion.
But I understand how they feel. I was upset to learn that three-testicled left-handed cyclops are not being catered to with an Observer blog of their own. Another plot brewing?
shondo botti-cotti be-sita be-sita
Blinded by a divine light: Creationists such as the Rev Reiss don't have the intellectual integrity to teach science by Harry Kroto
From the guardian.co.uk, Sunday September 28 2008 09:00 BST Article history
The editorial in the Guardian and various letters, such as that from the Bishop of Lincoln, contain a significant amount of self-righteous criticism of the Royal
Society's decision to ask the Rev Michael Reiss to resign from his position as Director of Science Education.
It is clear that there is almost total ignorance about the real issues involved and a truly pathetic understanding of science – the culture that created the
modern world – from anaesthetics and penicillin to jet engines and the internet.
Of course "The origin of the universe and living organisms" is a perfectly respectable question for the science lesson
(perhaps the most exciting and fundamental one), as long as someone with intellectual integrity is there to answer it. There is a major problem however
for the religious person, scientist or otherwise, in answering this question and
it involves, first and foremost, intellectual integrity.
Let me clarify the fundamental philosophical issue: the scientific mindset. Science is based solely on doubt-based, disinterested examination of the natural and physical world. It is entirely independent of personal belief. There is a
very important, fundamental concomitant – that is to accept absolutely nothing whatsoever, for which there is no evidence, as having any fundamental validity.
A lemma: one can of course have an infinite number of questions but only those questions that can be formulated in such a way that they can be subjected to detailed disinterested examination, and when so subjected reveal unequivocally and ubiquitously accepted data, may be significant.
The plethora of more-or-less incompatible religious concepts that mankind has invented from Creationism and intelligent design to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Scientology, Hinduism, Shinto, Shamanism etc, are all basically distinguishable, from the freethinkers perspective.
It really does not matter whether one believes a mystical entity created the universe 5,000 or 10,000 million years ago – both are equally irrational unsubstantiated claims of no fundamental validity.
Unfortunately Reiss, who is, apparently, a very nice guy, was in the wrong job. He, together with all religious people –
whether they like it or not, whether they accept it or not – fall at the first hurdle of the main requirement for honest scientific discussion because they
accept unfound dogma as having fundamental significance – note that I did not say value (positive or negative). In the Jeffersonian sense church and state (including education especially on Sundays) must be separated – otherwise our
democratic freedoms are ndermined. A secular socio-political framework is an absolutely necessary (though unfortunately, not always sufficient) condition to guarantee freedom of religion – as well as non-religion.
I do not have a particularly big problem with scientists who may have some personal mystical beliefs – for all I know the President of the Royal Society
may be religious. However, I, and many of my Royal Society colleagues, do have a problem with an ordained minister as Director of Science Education – this is a
totally different matter. An ordained minister must have accepted that there was
a creator (presumably more intelligent than he is?) thus many of us (maybe 90% of FRSs) cannot see how such a person can pontificate on how to tackle this
fundamentally unresolvable conflict at the science/religion interface. Reiss cannot have his religious cake in church and eat the scientific one in the
classroom. This is where the intellectual integrity issue arises – and it is the
crucial issue in the Reiss affair.
I suggest that Reiss, the Bishop of Lincoln and any other ministers who presume the authority to dictate how religious issues should be handled in the science
classroom read from Sam Harris's book "Letter to a Christian Nation" at their Sunday sermons.
Then perhaps some of their flock may understand what intellectual integrity and true humanity actually involve. Furthermore I suggest that this wonderful little book be a set text for young people at Sunday School,so they do not grow up like Don Manley who cannot see that the really "vicious" people are the religious ones who are dragging us back into the dark ages, rather than humanists struggling to save the Enlightenment.
Manley and the pope are basically 21st century descendents of Cardinal Bellarmine.
"It really does not matter whether one believes a mystical entity created the universe 5,000 or 10,000 million years ago – both are equally irrational unsubstantiated claims of no fundamental validity."
So what did create the universe? Or is that a fundamentally invalid question for humans to pose and ponder?
Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.
"...do have a problem with an ordained minister as Director of Science Education."
Just like some people at this blog have a problem with an ordained minister of the "First Church of Atheism" being the Director of Misinformation Concerning Spiritual Matters at this blog. We can empathize.
Pondering who or what created the universe is a valid, debateable question in religious and philosophical settings but is non-answerable and non-provable in the realm of science and does not belong in classrooms where science is taught. Such questions are not resolvable through the core disciplines of science.
be-sita, be-sita booga booga
"Pondering who or what created the universe is a valid, debateable question in religious and philosophical settings but is non-answerable and non-provable in the realm of science and does not belong in classrooms where science is taught. Such questions are not resolvable through the core disciplines of science."
This statement is fundamentally misleading. How universe was created is perfectly good question (who/what created is bogus for the reason that it actually opens another question who/what created creator, it doesn't give good answer) when it comes to science. Just because we might not know the answer it doesn't mean it is ultimately unknowable thus only to be in the domain of philosophy and mythology.
For now there is no evidence universe was created. In fact it seems that its existence was always there (laws of thermodynamics). When we gather more knowledge we surely will be able to explain more and amend our knowledge as such. The beauty of science is that by default it seeks answers and explanations and doesn't hold to dogmas. Better explanation that explains facts easier and more precise is always welcomed in science and there is great fame to be had if/when one comes up with better explanations.
To Anonymous that quoted Einstein. What was the point of the quote? Trying to point out Einstein's stance on religion? Perhaps you should look at his stance on personal God.
Here is an interesting quote about science:
"Science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good."
-- Terry Pratchett
be-sita, be-sita booga booga
Methinks some atheists doth protest too much.
Michael Reiss merely took the position that creationism should be treated as a "worldview," rather than as a "misconception," for academic purposes. He wrote an article arguing that creationism should be introduced into schools for the limited purpose of comparing and contrasting scientific and religious approaches to knowledge. He made clear that he did not think creationism was equally valid as a scientific theory, and that it should not be presented to students in that way. That is the heresy for which he condemned. Richard Dawkins, hardly a friend of creationism, described Reiss' treatment as "too close to a witch hunt for my taste." Mine, too. You don't have to believe in a personal God to agree with Einstein that science without religion is lame. And you don't have to be religious to agree that people should be able to discuss non-scientific topics in peace without some nitwit inevitably demanding to know the scientific basis for every statement.
But this atheist doth protest too much.
(Bob, you beat me to punch. But since I had already taken time to write this, please excuse the redundant parts.)
Methinks there was much ado about nothing from the usual paranoid atheists. Go to http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/09/rev-professor-michael-reiss-sacked-by.html for more information.
“Last week, the Rev Professor Michael Reiss called for ‘creationism’ (the belief in a literal 6-day creation) to be debated in the classroom if the subject was raised by pupils. Not, as was widely reported, to be ‘taught in science classes’.
Yesterday, he was forced to resign as director of education of the Royal Society, for bringing it into disrepute. The action followed a campaign by high-profile ‘militant atheists’, and some intolerant – one might almost say ‘bigoted’ - religious bloggers.
The Professor did not call for creationism to be taught in schools. Indeed, he stressed the belief had no 'scientific validity'. And with sensitivity to religious and ethnic diversity in schools, he observed that banning all discussion of an 'alternative world view' at a time of growing religious fundamentalism could backfire.”
First off, regarding the other posting above, cause and effect are topics that scientists have probed since at least the Middle Ages. Cause and effect are topics that theologians have probed over the ages. Each discipline asks many of the same questions, but on different planes and with different intent. One approach develops theories; the other, doctrine.
Theories and doctrines change - or should change - as more evidence is gathered and mankind progresses. Unfortunately, most religions are extremely slow to adapt. Yet the basic tenet of the major religions - that there is a Supreme Being or Beings who had and have a lead role in where we came from, why we are here and where we're going, and that they, not we, are in charge - has never been invalidated.
I'm a believer in and a supporter of scientific research, and God, too! The findings of one or the occasional fallibility of the other have yet to dissuade me or invalidate my belief.
Which leads me back to the main gist of the rather one-sided Guardian article. If I as a Christian have an open mind and no qualms about using science to answer the questions posed by both disciplines over the ages – if I believe in Science and God – why would me being an ordained minister like Rev. Reiss be detrimental to the Department of Science Education?
I could understand the author’s paranoia if we were talking about Pat Robertson holding that post, but just because a minister recites the Nicene Creed each week doesn’t mean that one who ALSO is a scientist is out to throttle scientific research or the dissemination of information. From articles I’ve read – which were so pointedly omitted - the only thing Rev. Reiss is guilty of is in attempting to be fair to both secular and the sectarian views.
Another thing. The Guardian author’s misled logic infers, for example, that an ordained minister could never become President of the United States, much as less head of a scientific group. I have yet to find that prohibition in the Constitution. Many such persons probably couldn’t separate themselves from sectarian matters to effectively govern in the secular realm, but some could. The proof would come when they swear to uphold the Constitution rather than the Bible.
"Yet the basic tenet of the major religions - that there is a Supreme Being or Beings who had and have a lead role in where we came from, why we are here and where we're going, and that they, not we, are in charge - has never been invalidated.
I'm a believer in and a supporter of scientific research, and God, too!"
Well then you would have to know that burden is on those who make certain claim to validate it not the other way around.
The existence of Invisible Pink Unicorn has never been invalidated either, yet you don't seem to believe in it. How come? We have the same argument for both God, IPU and FSM yet you refuse to believe in other? By what (double) standards?
It appears Iztok has criteria for the FSM, IPU and God, and somehow thinks his "theology" for each of them can be lumped into one size fits all.
Per Iztok, apple=orange=basketball.
Or maybe FSM=IPU=God.
Sorry, you obviously don't know my God, much as less how to describe, compare or categorize him. The burden is on you to invalidate my God - my belief.
But why am I explaining this to you in the first place? Being at this blog and having atheists attempt to do "mission work" here is like Mormons expecting to make converts in Brooklyn. What a hoot!
But you have to admire our faith.
It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be theist of any sort.
Gamecock: "It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be theist of any sort."
How is so?
By which definition of faith?
faith (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary)
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs (the Protestant faith)
Atheist requires exactly 0 faith. In fact lack of faith is what defines atheism.
If atheism takes more faith than theism, you all can stop complaining about Iztok on this blog.
-anon1
There is no evidence that your posts accomplish anything, yet you continue to expend time and resources to compose them. With religious regularity. Looks like irrational faith to me.
Bob,
From definition (2), it could be that Iztok's intentions are not sincere.
-anon1
I don't agree that a lack of "faith" defines atheism.
-anon1
Iztok,
Your mastery of science is so-so, and your theology is definitely lacking.
Bottom Line: You haven't persuaded me that my God and my spiritual beliefs are invalid. I still believe in God and Science.
But feel free to knock on my neighbor's door to present your spiel. (That will teach him not to return my jig saw).
Bob,
Sounds to me that Iztok has some doubts about the validity of his disbelief. Why else would he be trying to sell something here? Why would he otherwise be hanging with the faithful?
"See, I've got this product I'm peddling, but I suspect it might be faulty. I'm running it past you to see if you'd buy it. That may help me decide if I want to remain in the marketing program or switch brands.
Bob,
Sounds to me that Iztok has some doubts about the validity of his disbelief. Why else would he be trying to sell something here? Why would he otherwise be hanging with the faithful?
"See, I've got this product I'm peddling, but I suspect it might be faulty. I'm running it past you to see if you'd buy it. That may help me decide if I want to remain in the marketing program or switch brands.
Bob: "There is no evidence that your posts accomplish anything, yet you continue to expend time and resources to compose them."
Well consider it for public good. There is no evidence prayer accomplishes anything, yet people continue to expend time and resources praying. In fact there was research recently about prayer showing exactly that.
There is no evidence of God existing, yet people continue to spend time and lots of money (sometimes even to the extent that they can't afford to pay mortgage).
"Sorry, you obviously don't know MY GOD, much as less how to describe, compare or categorize him. The burden is on you to invalidate MY GOD - MY BELIRF."
Anonymous
I apologize for modifying part of your writings, but I captilized the words above in your post to illustrate something I see as a nearly unbreakable impasse in the otherwise articulate and passionate arguments in trying to explain your faith.
That is, you are asking us, who don't believe(or do believe)in your particular worldview/God/religion to validate something that is very personal and subjective in YOUR mind, which YOU visualize and have faith in but cannot share with us IN COMMON some type of tangible objective evidence which we could examine and compare or validate through a test perhaps.
We cannot see what YOU see as proof
of YOUR strong faith.
We have no way as yet to compare the images in human minds of what the visions of GOD are to individuals and all of us probably have very diverse images and concepts of what this "being" is, as bob calls him.
That's why I respect science. Of the many human endeavors, it is the main one I believe that is trying best to find the commonality in human experience and of the universe we all share on a physical basis.
Science doesn't have all the answers of course, like in dealing with the "deep why's" or "purposes" but those ponderings are something so subjective and individualized that it will always be hard to find commonality on such matters.
Amen. I never complain about 'tok on this blog. The Hound of Heaven won't let the Iz-fox alone. Better that the lost come to us than that we have to seek them out.
For something (prayer) that supposedly doesn't do any good or produce the prayed-for results, there sure are a heck of a lot of doing it, and they have been doing it for eons. Nope, don't see billions of people moving off that mark to suit you.
Seems like that in itself offers empirical evidence of sorts.
People generally don't stick with what doesn't work. (Except Iztok).
What defines atheism?
Anger at our fate. The same thing that made Eve succumb to the serpent: Ye shall be as Gods.
Oops...sorry bob and anonymous,I mispelled belief when I capitalized it.
gamecock,
Just because someone is a skeptic, atheist or agnostic does not mean they are angry because of the obvious limitations we all share as humans. I do not wish to be a "god" and have total control.
I just want to understand more about what is here and what I experience from as rational and "in common" basis as possible. I am not looking for answers from supernatural sources but from the acquired knowledge and rich combined experiences of my fellow humans.
To me, not depending on supernatural explanations or substance is invirgorating and empowering, but in a good way, in that you realize that you must take more responsibility for who you are and your part of the world and not blame or thank the "devil" or God for things that happen.
Iz:
Where is the evidence that your posts do any public good, let alone sufficient public good to make the expenditure of all the time and resources rational? That others do things that you find equally irrational merely supports the proposition that your behavior is no more rational than theirs. Which would seem to be an invitation to shut up.
J said: "We cannot see what YOU see as proof of YOUR strong faith."
That's exactly my point. Every man is an island. Yet we have Iztok trying to use the scientific method in an attempt to prove that this theological-scientific island is wrong to believe what his scientific-only island doesn't.
Do you think Iztok knows me and my God better than I? I think he's missing a part of the T-S team.
J said: "...I respect science."
I respect science,too. It has often answered many of my questions better than most theological doctrines ever could.
But it just hasn't answered (or invalidated) why I and millions of others still hold such deep beliefs that there is a God, or a purpose for our being, or something beyond death.
I believe science and theology both have vital and complementary roles to play in answering mankind's questions. I'm sorry that some think only it's a one-man show.
And by the way, can you explain why it is so important for an atheist to constantly attempt to tear apart everyone's spiritual beliefs at this blog?
anonymous,
I cannot speak for others intentions who are on this blog, but I think that ever since the 9/11 there has been a deep vocal frustration and a palatable fear that religious fanaticism, willfull ignorance and irrationality is becoming a real threat to the progress and continuance of civil human affairs.
I know it is unfair to lump all religions into one pot and I admit it has been done that way by a number of the more outspoken atheists and others.
The fact that billions of others humans worship and honor their personal gods is only problematic when some wish to impose their particular version upon the all of us. How we will keep our societies together without these polarizing divisions tearing us asunder is something that we will be stuggling with for a long time to come.
I think though that if there were more people like you who recognize that the various technical and social disciplines of science are some of our best tools we have for finding commonality we could have more harmony among us. Maybe I am naive or too idealistic about this, but we have no other choice but to find some way to cooperate and communicate on a basic civil and respectful level or human civilization is not going to continue as we have known it
You seem to approach your faith more intellectually, which I can appreciate and there are many who probably do the same, but unfortuantely recently it has been the extremists who have had the podium and I believe the backlash from atheists,scientists etc. has been really directed toward the extremes; those who I believe if they had more power would seriously jeopardize the hard fought progress that humans have made in many areas in creating cooperative,technically sophisticated and just civilizations.
I think the proof of the utility of Izzy's posts will be born out in his own life. How long before he convert's I do not know.
I am serious. Iz matters.
Great answer J. I believe you.
J.,
Excellent comment! Wish there were more like you at this blog who would communicate as clearly, eloquently and in detail.
I agree with your concerns. We'll need Iztok to verify that is what drives him.
Up until the late eighteenth century it was pretty much "strength rules" and "majority rules". The despots' only competition was The Church, and The Church was all about "the group". And often the two were on the same tag team.
Then in the late 1700s some very enlightened men, many if not most of whom believed in God, came up with a plan to promote individual and civil rights by check-and-balancing despotism and separating church and state. Since then it's been a never-ending battle to keep despots and church from encroaching.
I see occasional intrusions, even aggression. For example, I feel it is an affront to atheists (and agnostics and even many of the "religious") for our state legislatures to have imposed Protestant prayers in public schools (since corrected), or to have forced "In God We Trust" on the entire secular populace.
Maybe Iztok feels his battle here is to preserve his rights. I'll certainly fight to the death to preserve them. But as I jokingly mused earlier, I doubt that Jane and the Observer have some sort of nefarious scheme up their sleeves to deprive Iztok of his individual rights at "Sacred Space". The purpose of this blog is clearly stated in Jane's introductory bios - and it's clear that the purpose is not to provide a forum for discussion of non-belief in the Sacred.
If Iztok wants to safeguard his rights, wouldn't it be more appropriate and fruitful for he or other atheists to join a blog more related to secular rights? There is an Observer government blog. There is an Observer Forum. There is an Observer space on the editorial page for opinions of those differing with majority views. But why disrupt the purpose of a sectarian blog if you are not a sectarian? How does trampling on someone else's individual freedoms preserve or promote your own?
anonymous and gamecock,
Thanks for the compliments. I agree that we all deserve to be heard, our individual rights respected and appropriate tolerance should be given for different views as long as those views are presented in a civil manner.
I also agree that Jane's forum (thanks Jane for your tolerance!) is a designed to be a place for those who have faith to share their views. However, in the spirit of being open to other ideas, the input of those of us who do not share this faith might be considered a counterpoint to cultivate a discussion of ideas that may lead to some way to find common ground.
However, the ground rules should be that the discussion does not degenerate into back and forth vicious harassment that probably causes others to avoid contributing to the discussion and accomplishes very little.
I admit that I have at times been very judgemental with those I have ideological disagreements with on this blog and elsewhere...after all I am "only human" :)
Of course, this is Jane’s forum and it at her discretion as to what she allows to be posted here.
In the the skeptics’ material I have read, I do not see most of those who are non-believers as some type of evil force set to subvert and destroy our culture, but as a needed feedback to keep us thinking outside the boxes that we may inadvertently build when we uncritically accept the status quo concepts as always true.
The same thing is true about those who have faith. They are obviously not all willfully ignorant and un-critical people who will not listen to reason and thoughtful debate.
As with ecology, the optimum is to maintain a balance so that extremes do not endanger the health of the whole system.
"However, the ground rules should be that the discussion does not degenerate into back and forth vicious harassment that probably causes others to avoid contributing to the discussion and accomplishes very little."
I agree. But go back and take a gander at the first ten or so posts to the current topic.
It starts out with posts by people of both faith and non-faith (Porn Student admitted earlier he is not of the former group) simply stating their beliefs in regard to the questions Jane has posed. They are not attacking, criticizing or belittling.
Then we come to Iztok. He takes a swing at Jane, and then belittles what is holy scripture to many (even though he doesn't understand it's real point). And J, even you chime in with a critique of what's wrong with the religious who don't share your views. It goes steadily downhill from there. It's been the same thing - topic after topic after topic.
I agree more people, and probably more women, would participate if thos type of atmosphere wasn't the norm. But I guess it would be asking too much for folks, including Iztok, just to state their belief as it relates to Jane's current topic, and then sit back and see what others believe. (And respecting those beliefs).
The purpose of this blog is not to proselytyze or critique. It's to share.
Gamecock:
"What doth BEING require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly?" Underline the question mark. That is my definition of the difference between theism and a-theism. It's just a preference for brevity.
anonymous
I agree that I have been just as guilty of adding to the chaos.
Maybe the higher goal is to inspire reasonable sharing and discussion but allow that at times because of human nature, we will too easily slip into snapping back with rash zingers instead of waiting back till we can type something more thoughtful and civil.
Then is falls on all of us to act as referees to bring us back to the seeking civility and common ground.
For sure... none of us are perfect...well maybe bob comes close:)
I would argue with that last part, but I don't want to be uncivil.
"Then we come to Iztok. He takes a swing at Jane,"
No, I actually concurred that reasoning as approach to hard times is best way to deal with it and posted good example (crossing the street looking both ways vs. just going across).
Second post was a swing at "reason" in the vile book I agree.
I should have not posted it and just leave it at first post (3rd in this series) as it is how we live our lives on day to day basis (on reason not faith) except on Sundays it seems.
I still claim the same. Most people here including those who consider themselves faithful live their life based on reason in order to survive and not on faith as they claim.
The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who -- in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses" -- cannot hear the music of the spheres.
albert e.
Is that music of the spheres Wagner or Strauss?
Actually, Mozart: music so pure that it seemed to have been ever-present in the universe.
But more to the point: It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation in air pressure.
Science and appreciation of the sublime and beauty do not have to be seen as seperate realms.
Music(sound)is a vbration of air pressure but our minds interpret those vibrations as rhythmic patterns in our consciousness.
Why this is so,I am not sure but discerning how those vibrations work does not substract in my view from how I appreciate these things subjectively.
There can be a recognition of deep beauty in the investigation of what makes the universe tick. We give it the meaning we perceive.
I happen to love Mozart also and many other composers both classical and contemporary(as in movie scores)
Albert E
One of my self defining verses of Scripture is
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." - Rev. 3:16
The rabid atheist is closer to God than the complacent.
Albert E
Ever read Foster's Celebration of Discipline? Lewis's Mere Christianity?
You seem to echo their respective teachings on the importance of silence so that we can hear God.
Mozart is my favorite by far.
Power of Prayer?
This may not have been for purely altruistic purposes, but last night I was watching my favorite college team on TV. They played well enough to stay in the game, but mistakes continued to stall their drives. It was frustrating to watch.
So I turned off the TV and turned my attention elsewhere. After a long time something told me to turn the TV back on and at least check the final score. (In the meantime I had prayed that the Almighty might bless my team.)
So I turned on the tube to see, at the very moment the picture came into clarity, my team lined up on their opponents 11-yard line. But it was fourth down, and they were 4 points behind, and there was about a minute and 25 seconds left to play. I held my breath. The only way to win was to score a TD.
Unbelieveable. A few seconds after something told me to watch, our young quarterback kept the ball on an option play and runs into the end zone. An interception of the opposing QB following the kickoff cemented the win.
Some will say it was luck and coincidence. I say God was telling me something. Obviously most prayers are not for football teams, but I believe they still achieve the same results.
Tony, so you are saying that your God was answering your personal prayer for your team to win? On the other hand opposing teams prayers got unanswered? I guess they've prayed to lesser God? Or perhaps your team was planned to lose by your God but your plea convinced him to change his plan and let your team win? Wow I am impressed.
TO NEW PARTICIPANTS:
BELOW I HAVE PASTED THE “ISTOK CREDO”, BOTH AS A FAVOR TO HIM AND AS A CAVEAT FOR YOU. ISTOK IS AN ATHEIST WHO WILL GLADLY JUMP IN UNINVITED TO TEAR APART YOUR WELCOMED CONTRIBUTION TO THIS DISCUSSION OF THE SACRED. BASICALLY THE INFO BELOW SUMS UP HIS TIRED OLD IDEAS, WHICH YOU WILL SEE HIM UNCEASINGLY REPEAT AS THE CURRENT TOPIC PROGRESSES. BY PLACING THEM HERE IN ONE LUMP SUM, I HOPE TO SAVE HIM TIME AND WORDS, AND YOU FROM BOREDOM. PLEASE DO POST YOUR WELCOMED THOUGHTS ON THE SPIRITUAL AS TONY HAS DONE. THEN LOOK BACK TO HERE TO SEE HOW IZTOK WOULD HAVE RESPONDED TO YOU.
Iztok said...
“…Point of my first post was that faith is not such a great thing. We don't live by it and even those who claim they do really don't apply it in everyday's life. They trust reason in order to survive.
Yet somehow when it comes to "spirituality" things change and one shouldn't question this? What exactly is spirituality? How does it connect with reality? There is really no evidence of any kind that "spirit" really exist or what it is. It would be just as productive discussing Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster as they are just as real (and just as much evidence as for spirits exist).
Basically what I am saying is that when people say they have faith are full of BS as they certainly don't practice what they say. They trust reason over faith when it comes to reality. (As they should.)
As far as what atheism stands for? It can be many things to many people. But mainly only one thing is important, we don't believe in supreme being of any sort (not to be confused we believe there is no supreme being!). I've seen people here (and other places) say that atheism is religion and things like that. Sure thing... I guess non-stamp-collecting is a hobby?”
If a person sincerely prays for emotional strength and experiences it, by what measure is the prayer unimpressive?
Excellent point.
(Don't forget to look back at The Iztok Credo to see how he feels about prayer).
Anonymous, there is a caps lock key to the left of your keyboard ;)
Plus, I wonder how come you are anonymous. No guts to even choose nickname, let alone be identified with real name?
I guess I would be anonymous if I wouldn't stand behind what I say.
BTW: you fail to answer any of the prayer things when it comes to God's plan and prayer changing his plan to win a college game.
The obvious answer is that praying to change the outcome of a football game is not a useful way of achieving a desired goal and the desired goal is not a worthy one to begin with. So prayer for this purpose flunks the pragmatic test. But you have not answered the more serious question: why should people who obtain emotional strength after prayer eschew it merely because you don't think they can reasonably suppose that the prayer is heard by anyone other than themselves? In the name of what higher rationality should they forgo the experienced benefit of such a minimal expenditure of resources?
Well, if I'm not standing behind what I have written above, how come you knew to address your remarks to me? (Yuk, yuk, yuk!)Apparently I'm not quite as anonymous as you'd like us to think.
Your comments above demonstrate that I'm getting under your skin. Glad to oblige!! So do you have any other sticks or stones handy?
And BTW, Bob seems to be covering the non-atheist viewpoint on prayer quite well. His views so far match mine. Why would you possibly want someone else slapping you around on that topic?
Anonymous, how about introducing yourself with real name? Like some of us?
In regards to Bob, he sure takes swings, but misses often, you don't even give it a try.
As per the personal prayers. Sure personal prayers give some solace to those who pray, however how do you explain that the effect for those who pray to some other god are just the same? Are there many gods with same power to answer? I know most of you believe that there is one who hears millions of people murmur simultaneously and find it perfectly acceptable, but having one run and deliver presents in one night perfectly absurd. Weird.
BTW: Religulous (the movie) outpaced Expelled (the movie) in half the theaters on opening weekend. Worth seeing it (as opposed to Expelled which was pretty much full of misinformation.
We now have Iztok's apparent admission that prayer, in at least some circumstances, is rational behavior. That should be added to The Credo.
Query: Are there any religious people out there who gainsay that other religions might have worthwhile, but different, views of the divine? If not, the complaint about multiple gods is lame. As regards the analogy to Santa Claus, I thought I just established that praying for material favor (beyond, perhaps, daily bread) is not a proper use of prayer, and, hearing no objection, I hereby declare that opinion unanimous.
BTW, the one with the lump over his eye isn't the best judge of when a swing connected.
Bob, praying to god is just as rational as praying to jug of milk. If either gives some solace to those performing prayer then ok. But what you've missed is the "small" detail of what causes the effect of the prayer (god vs. just natural explanation). Small but important detail.
Point well taken, Bob. And thanks for sharing your views on this spiritual matter. If I had something to say about prayer from a different spiritual perspective, I'd say it. But I hope others (of faith) will share their viewpoints. I already know what the atheists will say.
In fact, I'll update The Credo ongoing as suggested, and will post it at or near the beginning of each of Jane's subsequent topics. (IN CAPS - because public service announcements should be highlighted.)
God doesn't need a name to make himself known to others through the sharing that takes place at Sacred Space. If that's good enough for God, that's good enough for me.
"If that's good enough for God, that's good enough for me."
You are right. If atheism was good enough for God it is good enough for me.
In terms of the benefits of prayer, the distinction between God and nature is not significant, except insofar as nature apparently has equipped us to achieve the genuine benefits of prayer more readily if belief is sincere. That is why the cost-benefit analysis of the jug is different, and why your jug prayer would be irrational. That is the whole point.
Is Crock,
Please cite your sources that show that God is an atheist. Such a major theological revelation needs to be shared.
Something tells me that idiomatic English is lost upon native Umekistanis.
Anonymous, in order for someone to be a theist one should believe in higher being. Obviously God doesn't believe in higher being. This being an atheist.
BTW: Nice attempt of ad hominem. Can you do better?
Is Crock,
Once again, please cite your sources that show that God is an atheist. We are all waiting. Don't try to weasle out like you usually do. Such a major theological revelation needs to be shared.
And no, I don't need any hominy grits.
Anonymous, again, no need for ad hominem attacks (giving stupid and insulting nicknames).
By definition theist has to believe in deity. God doesn't believe in deity. Thus God is atheist.
Unless you can show me in which deity does God believe.
Source? Any dictionary will do for you for definitions. Rest is pure math.
I see we're all getting warmed up for the mudfest.
Can't wait to see what McCain and Obama come up with.
It's the Keating 5 vs. the Weather Underground.
Ha. What a joke. Amateurs.
The real terrorists have made their killing and are off enjoying the spoils of their efforts once again.
Just check out Lehman Brothers and see how many Bushes are sucking at that teats of that dead hog.
Of course, we all know Jeb Bush is on the payroll...
But who is this George Herbert Walker?
Name sound familiar?
Doin' a great job, cuz...
-anon1
Allow me to explain. According to The Credo, Iztok defines an atheist as someone who DOES NOT BELIEVE that God exists, as opposed to someone who BELIEVES that God does not exist. The emphasis is on the non-use of belief in making the judgment. If God KNOWS that He exists, then He does not use belief to reach His conclusion. According to Iztok's eccentric definition of atheism, a God who knows that I Am Who I Am is an atheist because He does not BELIEVE that I Am Who I Am. By the dictionary definition, God cannot be an atheist unless he either "denies or disbelieves" His own existence. The rest is silence. Or should be. ranting.
Opps. The word "ranting" got left over from a discarded sentence. It describes no one in particular.
IsCrotch,
God is the deity. God doesn't need to believe in a deity. He is the deity. He is the one, the only, the Almighty. Duh!
No, you show me "what deity God believes in". That would be interesting. An atheist who doesn't believe in God telling us what God believes in! If that's not an admission that you believe in God, I don't know what is. You're losing all credibility here, so please keep it up.
And dictionary and math? God don't need no stinkin' badges, or dictionary, or math.
Glad to see you are capitalizing "God". Maybe we are finally getting through to you.
Bob, I posted that one too soon. Should have just let your erudite explanation settle in.
I'm trying to get through to him on a much baser,coarser level. Maybe he understands basic street fighting. Or street ranting.
J: (If you are still out there).
Something you wrote awhile back made an impression on me. "...but unfortunantly recently it has been the extremists who have had the podium and I believe the backlash from atheists,scientists etc. has been really directed toward the extremes;"
Yes, I think the last eight or so years of conservative politicking, in which a man not well suited for such a high office managed to gain it by catering to conservative Christians, is one reason why some of us are in a dogfight on this blog.
As I said earlier, my form of Christianity is a far cry from that of George W. Bush's supporters. For starters, like them, I believe in God, but I don't feel that God needs to - or wants to - get involved with our secular government. And I'll battle to the death to keep those extremists out of our secular realm. I fear what would happen otherwise.
On the other hand, I also will fight to the death to allow those "Bush Christians" the right to worship God as they see fit - as long as they understand that there's a sectarian realm AND a secular realm, and neither side needs to invade the other to accomplish their goals.
So, it comes down to asking yourself who the aggressor is here at Sacred Space? Is it fundamentalists trying to impose ultra-conservative views of God on others, or is it the atheists trying to keep the faithful from carrying on a dialog about the sacred?
No, I think it is actually worth exploring whether Iztok's eccentric definition of atheism is flawed. I think that it is, and that flaw is precisely what accounts for his descent into trivial anti-theism.
Anonymous, I capitalized God because this is what anonymous believe in and to actually make sure that we are talking about egomaniacal beast from the Bible not some other god. Just a name designation so we can pinpoint his traits more accurately. Also discussing what God thinks/believes based on definitions and vile book is not saying it exists, it is talking hypothetical.
Iz,
Would you fight for my right to believe in God, to pray, to share the spiritual with others without interference, ridicule and belittlement from others?
"Would you fight for my right to believe in God, to pray, to share the spiritual with others without interference, ridicule and belittlement from others?"
Anonymous, would you fight for my right to believe in 2+2=5, to share this truth with others without interference, ridicule and belittlement from others?
Sure everyone has the right to believe in whatever they wish. First amendment does guarantee this but it doesn't give you the right not to be insulted when beliefs are ridiculous and people point this out.
But that is ok anonymous, I am used to persecution from people like you where I live. It is subtle but ever present threat to America's most distrusted minority.
Iztok said "Anonymous, would you fight for my right to believe in 2+2=5, to share this truth with others without interference, ridicule and belittlement from others?"
I said it before in this blog,and I'll say it again. Yes I would. I'd fight for the rights of an atheist to believe or not-believe as he chooses, as I would for any believer of any faith. That's what makes America so different.
But I have to note to all reading this that you pointedly avoided answering my question. You went out of your way to avoid stating that you would fight for my rights, or the rights of any other God-believing American. And mainly because you believe we are wrong to believe. What a man! What irrationality! What an American (or resident alien)! Thank you for exposing yourself for what you are, and for what you are about. Most of us knew it all along.
"...but it doesn't give you the right not to be insulted when beliefs are ridiculous and people point this out."
I'm not insulted. I'm disappointed. Disappointed that you as a human being and fellow American doesn't have the decency to leave the people at this blog alone to discuss the sacred, without you invading their internet home. It's the internet equivalent of me inviting myself into your house to an atheist social hour and trying to shout down the festivities.
It's like me rushing across the street when your kids are in the lawn talking among themselves,and making fun of how they look.
It's like me going to a snake-handling service in the mountains and explaining to those folks that they are wrong.
It's like me getting in your face.
It's inappropriate, pointless, rude, irrational, juvenile, thoughtless and selfish. These are the attributes that clearly define you.
But that's what we should expect from someone who won't stick up for someone else's rights. The paranoid persecuting the innocent.
I doubt people have so much as persecuted you as they have reacted to your annoyance. Push, and people will push back.
Weasel,
Did you ever answer the question about eccentric definition of atheism?
Einstein said: "God does not play dice." How odd that he would use the word "God" in a sentence and not consider it a ridiculous thing to do. Couldn't he do the math?
Anonymous, I not only would but did fight for people's right to believe what they want. Just because I didn't answer the way you wanted it doesn't mean I wouldn't or didn't do such thing. Further more, I've fed church volunteers when they were preparing for a service for Sunday morning, I took children to religious services when their families couldn't or wouldn't take them (esp. Muslim kids to the Mosque when their Christian family wouldn't take them).
Bob, you are really missing the mark with Einstein. You apparently have no idea what Einstein meant with that particular statement. For the record, Einstein was clear he didn't believe in personal God.
I know exactly what he meant. And whether he was right or wrong about the uncertainty principle does not matter here. The point is that Einstein's non-personal idea of God did not prevent him from using the concept usefully. Even playfully. And it did not compel him to spend precious hours of his life shaking his fist at Martin Buber for having a different idea of God. Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he detested your grudge against traditional religion. As do thinking atheists.
Bob, as always, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but facts are still the same. As Bill Maher said in his latest movie, we need to grow up or die. Religious is getting us to the later and moderates are just enablers.
BTW: They are digitizing the oldest known Bible. It seems significantly different then versions of today. It sure things humans did a lot of editing over time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm
Einstein lived during the Third Reich and the Cold War. He knew something about the dangers of irrationality. This "enabler" wrote as follows;
"Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute, and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can lead only to a negative answer."
The Christian Register, June 1948.
All you're being asked to respect is the dispassionate part. No one expects you to be an Einstein.
Bob, don't worry. I love religious, it is religion that is the issue.
I don't care how you feel about "religious." The way you treat religion is childish. Or perhaps child-like.
anonymous
I agree with you that neither side or sides should bully and belittle the other because it rarely accomplishes anything from my experience with participating in numerous blog conversations concerning religion and disbelief in the last few years.
Though I also fall short on being fair at times, I know that there can be reasonable and respectful ways to talk and even debate with others about these topics if both sides are open to seeing things differently and not in black and white, absolutist terms.
I agree with your feelings about Bush and the the religious right also.
What's even funnier is Einstein presuming to know what "God" does or doesn't do.
-anon1
And funniest of all is presuming to "know" anything more than comparatively useful statements.
Bob, here are some things from Einstein you might find interesting:
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
"It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which [I] lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence which is dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings."
- Albert Einstein, quoted in Einstein, History, and Other Passions
"The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them."
- Albert Einstein, letter to Sigmund Freud, July 30, 1932
"It has not done so up to now."
Albert Einstein, reply to reporter's question if religion will promote peace
"I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet."
- Albert Einstein, letter, 1954
"A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of another religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of a religion will try first of all to convince those that believe in another religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not successful. However, hatred then leads to persecution when the might of the majority is behind it. In the case of a Christian clergyman, the tragic-comical is found in this..."
- Albert Einstein, Letter to Rabbi Solomon Goldman of Chicago's Anshe Emet Congregation, quoted in: Einstein's God - Albert Einstein's Quest as a Scientist and as a Jew to Replace a Forsaken God (1997)
"To take those fools in clerical garb seriously is to show them too much honor."
- Albert Einstein, Comment on the Union of Orthodox Rabbis after expelling a rabbi because of his disbelief in God as a personal entity; quoted in: Einstein's God - Albert Einstein's Quest as a Scientist and as a Jew to Replace a Forsaken God (1997)
"The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates."
- New York Times Magazine, 11/9/1930
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. ..."
- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1941)
"To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress."
- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1941)
"...if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God."
- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1941)
These are certainly painting different picture then you had in mind.
No they don't.
Now that was a comparatively useless statement.
-anon1
Best financial news I've read in a long time:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3150319/Richard-Fuld-punched-in-face-in-Lehman-Brothers-gym.html
-anon1
If anyone really wanted any proof of how bigoted religious are. Just look at the latest bigoted attacks by Elizabet Dole.
Without having read read the actual books or articles, I have yet to see anything in the Einstein Excerpts above that shows that he didn't believe in a God. A Jew, his idea of God would match his Jewish background, meaning that his God didn't vary from individual to individual (which would be a personal, always immanent God), but was the same to all. The way he talks about God infers he believes in God, as many scientists have and presently do.
Albert didn't believe God's covenant was solely with "the chosen". I don't believe Jesus was divine. Wow, such non-God views in men who both still believe in God none-the-less!
I'm not surprised that he has a distrust of Christians, or at least of their leaders. The man's ancestors were persecuted for centuries by Christians, culminating in the Holocaust in his time. His remarks quoted above express his explanation of how the never-ending attempt to convert Jews or later to "assimilate" them turned into "annihilate" them. Not new, but spot on.
Frankly it appears I share many of Albert's beliefs, including his alliance of science and theology, and a strong belief in individual rights and separate of Church (and Temple and Mosque) and State.
There's a letter in today's Observer Forum today from a man who claims Obama flunks the key test for being a Christian, as though being a Christian is a Constitutional requirement for being president. He claims Obama's mother was an agnostic or atheist, and pooh-pooh's Obama's remark that "I am sure she is in heaven, even though she may not have subsribed to everything [beliefs]that I subscribe to."
The letter concludes "Jesus said he was the only way to God. Obama's words make him popular, but they don't create truth."
Here's a case of someone who believes his view of God is the only correct one, and who will never respect the right of others to believe as they believe. He will never separate his faith from the secular realm of government for ALL the people. He will take his faith to the ballot box.
Iztok, you need to respond to the man's letter. Hate and prejudice has popped up there, not in this blog, yet you rationalize that you are serving the public interest by tarrying here among those who merely attempt to share their view of the sacred.
But we are starting to understand your real reason for being here. As Albert would say, "A man who is convinced of the truth of his atheism is indeed never tolerant. At the least, he is to feel pity for the adherent of a religion but usually it does not stop there. The atheist will try first of all to convince those that believe in religion and usually he goes on to hatred if he is not successful."
Now that was a comparatively useful statement.
Not to belabor the point, but Iztok's quote-mongering says more than he realizes. Faced with Einstein's on-point statements about militant atheism, does our disciple give up the faith? Forbid it, Lord! He cobbles together unrelated snippets from the Holy Works of the Master and then triumphantly declares that he has all the justification he needs to go on with the crusade. Now who else preaches from that pulpit? Can Brother Bob get an amen here?
I'll give you an Amen and an
Amen-Ra (and perhaps even some Ramen).
It really doesn't matter what Einstein said about religion or atheism.
-anon1
Well, he was kinda smart. Look at the way he anticipated fashion trends.
Yeah, Obama should just admit that his mama is burning in hell for not being a Christian.
The he should tell every non-Christian they'll burn in hell, too.
That would be cool.
And it just might get the Republican religious right to vote for him.
Except for the part about him still being black.
-anon1
Amen, Bob! (And look how he anticipated 1960s and 1970s hairstyles as well).
The Observer’s Mary C. Schulken had an interesting column on today’s Viewpoint page of the paper’s printed version.
A Greenville, NC, pastor gave an invocation at Sarah Palin’s rally there, asking God to close the mouths of Democrats who are “lying” about McCain and Palin.
Specifically the pastor prayed “ Father, you said the truth will set us free. We know the truth is out there, and the truth is that the other side is lying, unbelievably lying…God, we ask you to close their mouths.”
Mary chastised the minister for what she called dangerous zealotry, the same type of zealotry that drove airplanes into the World Trade Center, or that herded Jews into the gas ovens, or that sets off bombs in abortion clinics. I totally agree with her. But it’s the ridiculous mixing of metaphors on the pastor’s part that caught my attention.
I think the “truth” quote came from Jesus’ remarks in John 8:32. My interpretation is that Jesus meant God or belief in God will free one’s soul. Yet here we have someone who apparently believes in the literal interpretation of everything in the Bible. The minister in effect states that God is out there (I agree), but then changes to a different literary form and metaphorically casts the first stone, much – I presume – to God’s disgust.
He then asks God to close opponents’ mouths. Sort of like Tony sharing his spiritual experience above of asking God to be on his football team’s side. Bob has already explained how that type of prayer doesn’t cut it.
I guess it's time to dust off "The War Prayer".
-anon1
That campaign prayer shows that various interpretations of "absolute" truths are no better than relative truths.
Everyone seems to think their interpretation is also absolute,
though.
And that is where problems begin.
It's like Einsteins statement about "God" not playing dice with the universe.
How would anyone ever know?
-anon1
anonymous
I am glad you brought up the gross inappropiateness of the pastors prayer at that campaign rally.
What I always find incredulous is that anybody would want to worship a deity such as this pastor invokes.
What an inferior and despicable supernatural being this type of delusional and hate filled religion imagines is real.
Why do they choose to immerse themselves in such darkenss?
I am baffled. To me it is willfully, proudly and gladly choosing darkness over light, insanity over rationality, ludicrous fantasy over reality.
There is nothing good or loving or kind in the militant and fascist Christianity that these people invoke.
When Muslims spew hate from their mosques, people always ask why average Muslims don't object.
I think a lot of it has to do with varying "interpretations" and an unwillingness of fellow believers to challenge those interpretations.
I'm not as worried about these particular zealots being as dangerous as the WTC zealots, but I think similar social pressures to not overly-criticize fellow believers still apply.
-anon1
While that campaign prayer was a little over the top, I think the
comparison to terrorism was also a bit over the top.
It's not nearly as bad as some of the crap that's come from Pat Robertson's mouth, for example.
-anon1
Yes, it would obviously be better to pray to God open the mouths of people that vocally prevaricate even more.
Unwilliness to challenge muslim zealots because one doesn't have to reach back centuries to find more than a occasional dead objector, as with Christians.
No one fears fatwas from baptists, for good reason.
Apparently some here fear sermons that God shut the mouths of liars though.
go figure
If God really answered prayers, then prayers to shut the mouths of liars would mostly be silent prayers.
-anon1
Perhaps God has not as yet shut the mouth of Democrats because they are telling the truth :)
Seriously though gamecock, the way this type of miliatnt religion is being used to wage political battles is totally inappropiate and assumes that God would belong to one political party and one country.
Do you ever consider how immature irrational and nonsensical this type of thinking is?
If you must believe in a higher power at least give him/her more credit for intelligence, fairness, integrity and broad-mindedned inclusiveness.
Why should a zealot be tolerant when they can be infallible by proxy?
-anon1
When religious leaders "pray" for something bad to happen to someone...
Don't fear what "God" will do.
Fear what believers will do.
-anon1
People who pray should pray for wisdom. People who don't pray should try to be wiser.
“ Father, you said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone', so here I stand at [choose one] (Sarah Palin's) or (Joe Biden's) rally, reminding your servants and myself of our shortcomings, and praying that America will focus on correcting her problems, rather than on political allegiance"
Unfortunately Americans nowadays decide things according to "football fan mentality", i.e. there may be better teams running better plays, but I'll be danged if I'm going to admit it. I'm sticking with my team come what may.
"praying for something'bad' to happen"?
Praying that people's mouths be shut rather than tell lies is "something bad happening to them."?
I was taught as a child to not lie, i.e. not open my mouth and lie.
Its sad that people want to desperately find some moral equivalence between all so-called "fundamentalists". And how inconventient when they have to try and scare up same betweem suicide bomber applauders that target and kill innocents and
prayers against lies!
sad
Praying for people's mouths to be shut can mean different things to different people.
And we all know dead men tell no tales.
So that's one way to shut someone's mouth.
And don't claim that people haven't prayed for someone's death before.
-anon1
Gamecock,
As much as you dislike Muslims, you must know that they don't always have to shout "Kill the Infidels" from the mosques to get their point across.
There are much more oblique strageties that get the idea across while maintaining
"plausible deniability" for the leaders.
When people pray in public, it's not "God" they're always trying to reach.
Most know that there are bound to be a few loose screws in their audience looking for a sign.
-anon1
I don't "dislike muslims."
OK, strike out that part of my statement.
-anon1
We cool anonymous #46538
I would gladly vote for a muslim that loves america, would defend America and who would advance Judeo-Christian values, and I can name several as opposed to a Christian that espouses a "social" gospel from a re-written Bible that sees moral equivalence between us and those that attack us.
You might have to settle for a Muslim who supports Islamic values.
After all, Muhammad came along to set those other guys straight.
-anon1
As our shattered corporations slowly rise from the ashes of the last few weeks, foreign companies flush with cash are picking them off from above.
It's going to be interesting to see who is left with what.
-anon1
Stop ignoring me. This is so mean.
Just stop it.
-anon1
Come on. I'm not such a bad guy.
I have no life without this.
-anon1
Fine. Be that way. See if I care.
When your money is worth nothing, you'll wish you had my financial knowledge then, boy.
But I'll be in China. The joke will be on all you Kwazy Kwristians.
-anon1
That's Kwazy Kwistians.
-anon1
Are you talking to me? If so, ask a question and I will answer.
How can I get people to like me?
-anon1
Say their name often and compliment them before and after sticking a knife in their back!
Been away for a while.
I find it intersting that the avowed atheist and village idiot is still trolling this board. When he has nothing to do he picks up Bibles in hotel rooms and looks up dung-bread recipes. He still persists in his shallow interpretations of Scripture and his worn-out arguments. It'd be so much easier if he'd just drop all his bullshit and admit to the existence of God.
Are you talking to me?
If so, I'll just pretend to be
anon1 and post a Kwazy answer.
-anon1
Iztok,
I owe you an apology.
I had said that "Hate and prejudice has popped up there [Charlotte Observer Forum], not in this blog, yet you rationalize that you are serving the public interest by tarrying here among those who merely attempt to share their view of the sacred."
Obviously I was wrong.
Iztok,
I owe you an apology.
I had said that "Hate and prejudice has popped up there [Charlotte Observer Forum], not in this blog, yet you rationalize that you are serving the public interest by tarrying here among those who merely attempt to share their view of the sacred."
Obviously I was wrong.
shondo botti-cotti botti-cotti be-sita be-sita.
porn student
If you are still here there is a lady that just posted on the Observer Ballot blog who is on a moral tirade against your internet alias.
After reading many of these posts I have a much clearer meaning of
"A little education is a dangerous thing."
I miss Jane too.
I also miss Jane and the discussion from it's participants this blog has engendered.
Re "a little education is a dangerous thing"
Only to those who reject scientific reality,are fearful of change and the world of ideas.
Science seeks to explain the objective observation of the finite. Religion seeks to explore the subjective experience of the infinite. But that's just an uneducated opinion.
I have embraced change, especially Gates as Sec Def!
Post a Comment