Well, let’s look at the headlines. Lots of funny stuff happening.
An eight-year-old boy recently killed his father and another man that rented a room at their house with a .22 caliber weapon. Execution style.
More fun than Halo, I bet.
The boy was previously brought by his father to visit his priest, to try to get the boy to not fear guns. Because it’s important to have your eight-year-old armed to the teeth. God says so.
I think it worked. He definitely lost his fear of guns altogether.
Praise Jesus and pass the ammo.
No doubt there’s more to the story. I’d be surprised if there was no abuse. And since he killed not only his dad but the other man as well, I’d be surprised if they weren’t both abusing the boy.
(Especially in a Christian home)
God goes so well with guns, for some reason. Like peas and carrots. And so well with child abuse too. Religious authoritarians love nothing more than having a helpless child that they can utterly control in every way.
Or wouldn't it be ironic if, instead of the abuse scenario, it was as simple as the father teaching the son to hate homosexuals, and then the son accidentally seeing his dad and this other man locked in a gay embrace?
Link
Oh, and on Election Day, the day that blacks finally achieved so very much after so very long, some of these very same blacks helped to institute a ban on Gay Marriage in California. Many of the blacks voted both for Obama and the ban. In fact, if so many new black voters hadn’t come out for Obama, it’s likely the measure wouldn’t have passed at all.
It’s like, we’re free, finally! Praise the Lord! At long last we can enjoy oppressing another minority!
Reminds me of the stories of when the Romans finally stopped feeding Christians to the lions and they immediately went into the stands to watch other people getting fed to the lions.
The only reason that so many blacks would vote against gay marriage, is of course due to the fact that the majority of them are Christians. And God says it's icky.
It’s so blessed and holy to get involved in your neighbor’s personal life like that. It’s what Jesus would have done. If he were a complete asshole that was nothing like how he was portrayed to be, that is.
Well, at least it’s nice to see that the white Christians and the black Christians can now both enjoy having a particular irrational hatred in common like that. Now they can bond over it, and the healing can begin.
Link
And let’s see. Any more religious hate out there? Oh sure, there’s the black church in Springfield Massachussets, burned to the ground minutes after Obama won on Election Day. Arson.
How much you wanna bet that it was burnt down by a member (or members) of a white church? Just sayin…
Link
You know, when I see horrific news stories involving hatred or abuse along with incredible stupidity, I always look for the religious angle. And all too often I find it.
I wonder why that is...
Oh yeah! I keep forgetting that religion, in its extreme forms, is a psychosis. This is not an exaggeration for effect. It’s literally true.
A psychosis is when you are no longer in touch with reality.
A better definition of fundamentalist Christianity (or fundamentalist Islam, for that matter) is hard to find.
Too many Christians live in a reality where gays are evil, Liberals are socialists, hate America and love abortions, smart people are not worth listening to, and God is all we need. Specifically their version of God, of course.
This reality in no way corresponds to actual reality, but this in no way distresses the believers. They’ve decided to believe it, so it becomes a minor technicality that it isn’t really so. They wish it so, they have decided that it is so, and so it is. No amount of logical discourse can change their minds, since their minds are not based in logical discourse. So with eyes turned toward heaven, they stumble through life feeling better about themselves with every stranger they oppress.
All religions, especially the more authoritarian ones, when extended to their extremes, become cults.
If you think about it, anything that offers rewards in the afterlife in trade for obedience in this one just naturally lends itself to evil ends.
The real nature of Pascal’s Wager is a con, not a bet.
I always wonder how a believer can see the evil that another believer is capable of, and just dismiss it as utterly unrelated to them. They should be able to see that that other believer that did the evil both believed in God and believed that he himself was sane. All insane people believe that they’re sane. All psychotics believe that they’re not psychotics. One would think that, due to observing this, they’d want to check and see if they’re really sane themselves once in a while.
Nope. No need to. After all, they have faith.
Why is it that the only two men that I’ve known in my life that I also know to have committed child abuse, were both practicing Christians? Did they not glean anything from their faith that might have stopped them? Sadly no, and it is my opinion that they instead gleaned something from their faith that enabled them. One of them is to my knowledge still offering up communion to seniors at the local nursing home. I rank him as one of the most evil people that I’ve ever had the displeasure of meeting, but his faith is unshakeable. So is his faith in himself, by the way. He’s fine with himself. A very proud man. One of the biggest assholes walking the planet, but he’s cool with it. That’s faith.
No really. That IS faith. That’s what faith can do to a person. Faith is only good and positive when it’s faith in something good and positive. The down side to that is, if you happen to have faith in something bad and negative, you’ll never know, since its faith.
Faith means you won’t ever question it. Or yourself. Ever again.
Oh well, I didn’t really want to rant against the Christians again. I hope that I’ve made it abundantly clear in the past that it’s only the fundamentalist and evangelical types that these occassional rants of mine really aply to anyhow. Christians that actually try to act in a “Christ-like” manner are not part of the problem. They are, in fact, part of the solution. Those that understand that loving thy neighbor doesn’t mean that you get to pick your neighbor, and that the path of Jesus is a difficult one precisely because it demands that you give up your egotism and learn to focus on loving others instead.
If only the other kind didn’t keep making the news. It gives the whole religion a bad name.
I really don't want to have a problem with someone's faith. If I did, what would that make me?
ReplyDeleteEveryone should have the option of believing any damn thing they want without someone else demeaning them or ridiculing them for it. Easy to say, harder to actually do.
I guess I should stipulate one condition: I won't make judgment calls on your beliefs as long as you keep them to yourself.
That's right, you have the express right to go about your own business in almost any fashion you choose as long as it doesn't impede anyone else's freedoms or beliefs or the laws that govern the community you live in.
But as soon as you open your mouth and tout your mindset as something I should find favor with - well then, you are open game. I might agree with your beliefs, your thoughts and your feelings or I might not and I could be inclined at that point to say so in any manner I feel necessary to make my point.
The same goes for anyone else. If I openly start a conversation on my personal beliefs, unsolicited by another, it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to comment, if that is their want, even if they don't agree with me; I should not take exception to their point of view, after all I asked for it, didn't I.
As for your observations, Brian, I have to agree to some extent and it is pitiable.
In the same notion that everything good that happens is a gift from god, doesn't it also mean that everything bad is also that same gift?
We hold no responsibilities for our actions, our moments of true triumph, or insurmountable grief and loss, or even the most mundane of days - we hand every thought, every choice made over to god, yet we can't see him, hear him, or feel him. We are only assured of his existence from others who gained that supposed knowledge from their own indoctrination, from their parents, traditions, folk lore and from a book pieced together from ancient writings that cannot be authenticated to its veracity in the same way that no other religion on this planet can be confirmed as truth.
Therefore, it is within me to decline the commonly held acceptance that the majority of our countrymen seem to favor. I reserve the right instead to find them pitiable only if they are arrogant enough to state their beliefs within earshot, and if they are stupid enough to make a statement that gets put in print? Well then, how manifest is their destiny to be ridiculed by the likes of me?
Some more Zappa, although this isn't the Maestro, it sounds a lot like the original...
ReplyDeleteJazz Discharge Party Hats
ya know, i really hope that 40 years from now homosexuals are allowed all the same rights as every other person in this country. then maybe one of my grandkids can sit in their college ethics class and discuss with their peers how unethical it was to discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation. and they can wonder how it was that people could actually justify treating other people that way.
ReplyDeleteyou would think that we would know better now because of racial segregation. we should have learned something from all that, but we didn't. how soon we forget.
homosexuals should be allowed to marry the same way any other person is allowed to. they should not have to call it anything else, just like a black person and a white person should not have to qualify their union with a separate label. they should be allowed to adopt children so they can enjoy a loving family just like every other person in this country. i truly hope i get to see the day when they are finally, and rightfully, granted these same rights.
Brian:
ReplyDeleteOnce again, as TJ has put it so well, I think those of us who are not believers really have no call to put down those who are, PROVIDING they do not see the need to impose their beliefs upon the rest of us. As long as any preaching or proselytizing is done privately, NOT in the public sector, it seems to me that our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech should apply. Of course, so should separation of Church and State! Unfortunately, and this is particualrly true of Christians, they seem to feel the need not only to procalim their beliefs in public, but also feel constrained to impose those beliefs on the rest of "for our own good" and whether we wish to pay any attention to them or not. AND... when they try to impose these views in response to secular laws (i.e. anti abortion, anti Gay marriage, etc.), THEN I have a big problem!!! Whether or not religion can be defined as a psychosis (at least in its extreme versions) should be, in my mind, no more my business than my lack of faith in God should be theirs, as long as neither of us forces the other to pay any attention.
An interesting admission (concession)...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml
Eric:
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to read some expansion on your last comment.
Eric,
ReplyDeleteA quote from your website there:
"he therefore believes that something can be created out of nothing -- and that since such a belief runs counter to the very scientific principles of verifiable evidence which he tells us should govern all our thinking, this is itself precisely the kind of irrationality, or ‘magic’, which he scorns."
EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! (Buzzer sounding)
Wrong! Think, vaccuum fluctuations.
"Nothing," as it turns out, always produces something.
Plus, who cares about Dawkins anyhow, except for a few Christians that somehow think that if they can only 'beat' him that they've 'beaten' atheism itself. Silly wabbits that they are...
ReplyDeleteDawkins is a man, and as such can have flawed thinking. Compare it to the flawed thinking of the average fundamentalist and it's apples and orangutans, though.
TJ,
ReplyDeleteI just found it interesting that the man who wrote 'The God Delusion,' the world's most famous atheist, the man who has compared belief in god to belief in faeries, the man who has said that science shows us that god almost certainly doesn't exist, now concedes that 'a serious case could be made for a deistic god.' In other words, the evidence from modern cosmology has even now moved Dawkins to concede that the case for a creator (not a personal god, but a creator god) is 'serious' (though he is not persuaded, of course).
Just to pre-empt any possible attacks: I don't think that you're all Dawkins clones; I don't think that you all wait for Dawkins to speak before you make up your minds; I don't think that all atheists need agree with Dawkins; and so on. However, it is significant that Dawkins, an avowed atheist and defender of a strict scientific rationality, has conceded that a strong case (which, in Dawkins's mind, is necessarily a scientific case) can be made for the existence of a creator god.
"Wrong! Think, vaccuum fluctuations.
ReplyDelete"Nothing," as it turns out, always produces something."
Not quite.
Vacuum fluctuations require space, and prior to the Big Bang (which is the context of the quote you referred to), there was no space.
No, one of the current theories is that the entire universe emerged as a giant vaccuum fluctuation.
ReplyDeleteNobody really knows what was before the Bang.
But there are new hints...
Something was there, perhaps.
"just found it interesting that the man who wrote 'The God Delusion,' the world's most famous atheist, the man who has compared belief in god to belief in faeries, the man who has said that science shows us that god almost certainly doesn't exist, now concedes that 'a serious case could be made for a deistic god.'"
ReplyDeleteYes. Impressive. Except this is not new, in that he his arguments against God in his book were specifically leveled against the popular conception of a personal God, and not a deistic one which resides outside of the realm of objective science .I believe he used the term NOMA, or non-overlapping magesteria to describe the common argument that the science cannot prove or disprove a god, which, in the case of a deistic god, he now clearly holds as true. However irrelevant it is, since it says nothing about the deity that people actually worship.
Ah! The labeling begins - we are always stating some or another theory about this and that.
ReplyDeleteScience proves there could be a creator god!
There is no scientific proof for the existence of any god!
Facts do fluctuate as long as there are people who continue to theorize and to test and to think.
The fact is (at this point in time) we have no irrevocable proof that a god/creator exists, or maybe at sometime existed. We have our theories, we have our folk lore, our written and embellished histories and stories but we have no proof.
So within that realm of realization we must admit that there are still mysteries to our existence that we have yet to fully come to understand. To make ourselves smaller - we would have to foresee the possibility that we might never reach such an understanding.
So it is okay for you to profess your complete trust in the ancient folklore of generations past - as it is okay for others to profess a complete lack of trust in the veracity of the same folklore.
We can use science to help us explain why there might be a creator god who masterminded all known and unknown universes in the same way as we can use that exact same science to refute such a claim.
It is without this absolute factual knowledge of our creation that we are kept seeking; learning; theorizing and in the end, growing to be a more complete and complex species than we have ever encountered.
Sometimes I feel pride at our obvious accomplishments - at how much we have progressed from our original lesser selves, and then I see news feeds that belie what I think to be true about such progress. I must concede with Brian in that I am most disappointed when the mention of faith and religiosity are coupled with an obvious lack of intelligence.
I called it that some morons would jump on Obama before he is even inaugurated...
ReplyDelete"Obama
Report Commentby Dilbo @ 3:32pm - Wed Nov 5th, 2008
Where's all my FREE stuff that you promised?
Free health care, no taxes, a chicken in every pot.
You've been president elect for half a day - what's the holdup?
I'm nearing retirement and looking forward to being a LEECH for 4 years before the country comes to it's senses."
"Nobody really knows what was before the Bang."
ReplyDeleteGranted.
"No, one of the current theories is that the entire universe emerged as a giant vaccuum fluctuation."
Right, but vacuum fluctuations take place within empty space -- and empty space isn't 'nothing.' Note this quote from the article you linked:
"Their model suggests that new universes could be created spontaneously from apparently empty *space*."
There is not a single model that I am aware of that involves a fluctuation without preexisting space or energy (just think about it: a vacuum isn't 'nothing'; in CM, a vacuum is empty space, while in QM, it's the state with the lowest energy. In neither case is it literally 'nothing'). Here's a quote from Davies:
"The processes described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of pre-existing energy into material form.”
So there was pre-existing space. It all didn't come out of the bang like we thought that it did.
ReplyDeleteThis was suggested in the article that I cited. That this universe was spawned from the remains of the cold space of a previous universe.
Plus, even if space came out of the bang along with matter and energy, nobody said that it didn't come out into an already-existing larger space.
ReplyDeleteDidja think of that one?
"I believe he used the term NOMA, or non-overlapping magesteria to describe the common argument that the science cannot prove or disprove a god, which, in the case of a deistic god, he now clearly holds as true."
ReplyDeleteActually, Dawkins explicitly rejects Gould's NOMA. To Dawkins, god's existence is a scientific question.
"Except this is not new, in that he his arguments against God in his book were specifically leveled against the popular conception of a personal God, and not a deistic one which resides outside of the realm of objective science."
No, you have it exactly backwards. Here's Dawkins from page 31:
"It is unfair to attack such an easy target. The God Hypothesis should not stand or fall with its most unlovely instantiation, Yahweh, nor his insipidly opposite Christian face, 'Gentle Jesus, meek and mild'...I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan. Instead, I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."
Note that this hypothesis is perfectly consistent with Dawkins's definition of deism on page 18:
"A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place...Deism is watered down theism."
There is no contradiction involved in supposing that a deistic god "deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us"
*by* "setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place." (Indeed, this is a popular position among deists, especially among cosmologists).
On page 46, Dawkins clearly places Deism within the definition of the God Hypothesis he set out on page 31:
"The deist god is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible. Unfortunately it is scarcely more likely that he exists, or ever did. *In any of its forms, the God Hypothesis is unnecessary*."
Brian, your last two comments dodge the main issue, i.e. whether something can come out of nothing. You seem to be conceding that at a minimum, space is required for vacuum fluctuations, and that you're thus not in fact talking about getting something from nothing.
Well, if the universe didn't come out of nothing, then trying to prove that something can come out of nothing isn't even germane to the discussion anymore.
ReplyDeleteHow did I not just win this? Tell me.
:-)
(As if you wouldn't)
"Well, if the universe didn't come out of nothing, then trying to prove that something can come out of nothing isn't even germane to the discussion anymore."
ReplyDeleteAssuming that we're now agreeing that the universe didn't come from nothing (which was what you originally claimed was possible, and which I denied -- nice to see that you now agree with me), it's yet to be established that whatever existed 'prior' to it was eternal. However, that's what you'd have to do to show that we're still not dealing with a beginning (if not of our universe, then of whatever our universe emerged from) ex nihilo.
All of this brings up the question that Denys Turner (formerly of Cambridge, now at Yale) says any 'card-carrying atheist' must try at all costs to avoid, i.e. the ultimate question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
And I'm an atheist, albeit a mystic in many ways, and I think the very idea of a deistic God or any God with a human-like personality is just silly, by the way. Childishness. If there is a creative force, and note that I said IF, it's just that, a force, or possibly an informational field of some sorts, even possibly a
ReplyDeletemind" of sort, a vast field of data providing the very ground of creation, the canvas and the paint together... but a God? Silly. Calling such a thing a God seperates it from us. That would be not smart.
What if the natural state of things is an alteration of a cyclical nature, first nothing, then something, then nothing again, etc? And perhaps whole cycles of universes during the "on" cycles, one progressing from the ashes of the previous?
ReplyDeleteWhat if it's the GSM?
"No, you have it exactly backwards."
ReplyDeleteHmmmm...you're right. I must've put my head on backwards today. Really should get that neck of mine checked out.
Should've paid more attention to that part of the book (probably the only portion of it where anything of signficance was being said...)
"What if it's the GSM?"
ReplyDeleteGSM?
This story is just too strange.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure glad I keep my guns locked up....my 14 year-old can get pretty mad at the old man ;-)
GSM = Giant Spaghetti Monster
ReplyDeleteIt's like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but more retarded, as in I misremembered the darn thing.
ReplyDeleteSo just substitute in FSM for GSM where appropriate, is what I'm tellin ya...
ReplyDeleteDoh!
"So just substitute in FSM for GSM where appropriate, is what I'm tellin ya..."
ReplyDeleteThat's what I though. [Nods head as orthodoxy is re-established]
I see a parallel between the predicament of Republicans who need to reclaim their party, and Christians who need to do the same.
ReplyDeletePolls show that Obama did well with
Christians, a hopeful sign that many rejected the McCain/Palin brand of religion. Just as the Muslims have had to come out and denounce the violent fundamentalist
branches of their religion, Christians and all religions need to do the same for their own whack jobs. And not feel as if they are "not supporting religion" if they do! IMO only, I think they have been cowed by the vocal extremists in the past, hesitant to stand up against "other Christians" lest they appear ungodly themselves. Atheists/Agnostics, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, keep the label in the eyes of the religious as bad, immoral, working for the devil, shameless, living without consequences, etc. I look at the news past, and often think "Atheists would NEVER do that". Atheists would never:
Drown their babies in a tub because you have to save them from evil......
Hand their 12 year old daughters over to old men to marry......
wrap themselves in a shroud and wear Nike's to meet the comet....
Allow the cult leader to starve their children and beat them because they are possessed....
Drink the grape kool-aid.......
Bomb abortion clinics......
Stone young girls for being raped.... Start a war in the name of religion...... Use religion in a political campaign..... Use religious beliefs to deny others their rights...... enact laws to stop scientific discovery......
Build a bunker and stock it with guns for the end times..... Nor would an atheist ever see the image of Darwin on a piece of toast and have thousands crying on their front lawn over this sign.
:-)
You didn't see this, Jude?
ReplyDeleteDarwin Stain
According to Hawking, asking what was before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole - at least in the temporal sense. I'm interested in the spark of the Big Bang. That is what I call God. The universe never had to exist. Life never had to exist. We never had to exist. Even on your worst day you should be be compelled to feel gratitude for the miracle of it all. The abstract deistic concept of what God is is quite tenable and compatable to many atheists. It's actually the reason I've stopped calling myself an atheist.
ReplyDeleteSBG,
I'm curious what kind of wedding you had. Was it a religious affair with a pastor sermonizing about "sanctity", a rabbi talking about mysticism, a 400lb Hawaiian playing a ukulele by the ocean, an off the hook Vegas party, a McWedding, a SciFi/Fantasy/Furry LARP costume wedding, or an online transaction with the state?
Why does the Darwin Stain look more like an illustration of Conan the Barbarian? (Whose Cimmerian race is a fine example of natural/martial selection)
ReplyDelete"It's actually the reason I've stopped calling myself an atheist."
ReplyDeleteHmmm...I maintain the label despite also admitting that the kind of deistic god you mention is possible. Primarily because I think can only be considered "god" for a vanishingly relevant usage of the word. If "god" only means "impersonal creative force", then I guess I am true agnostic on the issue. But, the definition is often extended beyond that very probably, very loose definition of a god, which is the scenario under which I call myself an agnostic atheist.
Then again...why do the labels matter? I can color-code myself for the convenience of others, but if it leads to so much confusion, is it really worth it?
Nevermind. Of course it is worth it if it leads to confusion. Confusing people is the best part!
Confusion tactics were always my Chess style. (Strategery!)
ReplyDelete"Confusion tactics were always my Chess style. (Strategery!)"
ReplyDeleteMine too. Unfortunately, shouting "King me!" at every conceivable opportunity and leaving an oven running in the other room in order to provide a smokescreen for my escape doesn't help when playing the online versions. Inferior scripting, I tells ya.
Wait...what was the topic of this post again?
Critically timed surface tremors have been of enormous benefit to my chess success.
ReplyDeleteHey Brian - new post - just up your alley.
SBG,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious what kind of wedding you had. Was it a religious affair with a pastor sermonizing about "sanctity", a rabbi talking about mysticism, a 400lb Hawaiian playing a ukulele by the ocean, an off the hook Vegas party, a McWedding, a SciFi/Fantasy/Furry LARP costume wedding, or an online transaction with the state?
-------------------------------
LOL! More like a nondenominational service at a local chapel.
Interestingly enough, my wife and I chose it because they advertised, and the guy assured us, that it was completely nondenominational, and I guess we thought that meant that it wasn't religious. Stupid us. So we're standing there actually getting married by the guy and he starts to talk about Jesus and we started to giggle at the silliness of that... So we had to stifle the laughter and said "I do" while giggling and we're legally married anyhow, just as if we'd gone to someone serious, like a justice of the peace. The chapel was kinda tacky but it was by the ocean...
Doggoneit! Another fantasy dashed!
ReplyDeleteI had imagined you taking your vows at the church of Elvis in Vegas.
To be honest, we had only wanted a JP, but they were more expensive than the wedding chapel, so we went there.
ReplyDeleteNo Elvis, no way... Now if we could have been married by a wiccan priestess naked in a pool, like a friend of a friend of mine did it, that would have been the best. And you can't show the wedding pics to just anyone, either... lol...
(Seriously, he did get married naked in a pool by a priestess)
My chess method is the BORG approach. "Resistance is Futile. You will be assimilated."
ReplyDeleteI've been out of the game for a long time. When I want to have an intellectual showdown I settle the score in 4-D TicTacToe (4x4x4x4).
ReplyDelete[b] "Now if we could have been married by a wiccan priestess naked in a pool" [/b]
ReplyDeleteSounds like a music video...I mean, assuming that there also something on fire somewhere.
brian,
ReplyDeletewas a jp really gonna be more expensive than a chapel? please say it ain't so! danny and i are getting married next year and i'm determined to have it done in a non-religious manner.
i think i read somewhere that you can have the mayor do it, but i don't know exactly how one would go about requesting that... seems like it might be a little awkward.
Yes Richelle, a JP really was more expensive.
ReplyDeleteYeah, silly us, we thought nondenominational meant nonreligious. So we got to hear about Jeebus on our special day.
Dunno about the mayor. I'd think he'd have better things to do than marry people, but hey, what do I know? I guess if you happen to KNOW the mayor it would be okay. Other than that it would feel weird.
And by the way, if I haven't already said it, good luck to the both of you, Richelle!
ReplyDeleteAnd, in more RELIGUN NEWZ (via PZ):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world
/feedarticle/8009124
Hasidic Jews have braindead son. Hasidic Jews keep child on life support despite no chance of recovery because "heartbeat=life" according to their beliefs (apparently). Parents clash with doctors who want to use the hospital space, labor, and machinery on someone who isn't a glorified corpse, while the parents didn't even want them making doing brain scans. Oh, and this is apparently not a rare occurrence. But, good news: they normally don't stay "alive" long afterwards, and the boy in question's heart will stop within a few weeks.
Crazy, crazy crap going on there.
Wow, if that comment was read in any other company...
ReplyDeleteSay, what's the default religious explanation for why people should be forced to die as slowly as possible on life support when they can't be saved?
I think it's the fact that we just have had a brain-dead president, so the parents have high hopes for their child, since he already has one of the important prerequisites to lead the Republican Party...
ReplyDeletewell i guess i'm just gonna have to fork out some extra dough then. oh well, small price to pay to not have to listen to a bunch of crap about jesus and god that i don't necessarily believe on what is supposed to be the happiest day of my life.
ReplyDeleteand thank you for best wishes :)
Thou shalt not stop suffering? I dunno...
ReplyDeleteI think they are way overextending the "thou shalt not kill" dictum. I'm pretty sure that was meant "thou shalt not murder" and shouldn't be applicable to mercy killing...
If you ask a fundie about it, they'll tell you all about youth in Asia...
All:
ReplyDeletePlease be aware that Hassidic jews do not represent the mainstream Jewish view of end of life issues, any more than fundamentalist, born again Christians do for the rest of mainstream humanity. Neither the Torah nor the Talmud would support this ultra conservative view, except insofar that Hassidim "listen" to certain Rabbis, past and present, whose interpretations of Jewish law are as narrow and biased as those of certain Christian Pastors and/ or the Catholic Church sometimes demonstrate.
Above all, Jewish law's fallback is "whatever is important to health and physical well-being should take precedence over observance of religious laws." The advent of Porcine insulin in the late 1920's and early 30's raised a serious religious issue for Jews. ALthough Jews do not have a Pope who can make final, worldwide pronouncements about religious issues, a council of leading Rabbis was convened and, after two years, they published their joint conclusion regarding use of insulin. Since the Torah and Talmud say that a Jew not only does not NEED to fast on Yom Kippur (the day of atonement) if it would threaten his health, but it would be a sin if he chose to fast in spite of this, the use of Porcine insulin, if needed for survival or health, is not only permitted, but it would be a sin to refuse it
Most Jewish scholars view of withholding extraordinary measures to "preserve" life when there is no reasonable chance for survival (especially when the quality of any such survival would be of little use to the patient), says that "forcing" extraordinary and unnecessarily prolonged support measures are not in the best interests OF THE PATIENT. Therefore, family and others who care about the patient's well being (both physical and mental), should not be so selfish as to try to prolong things.
Did you all hear about the KKK murder?
ReplyDeleteSome woman wanted to join their chapter of the KKK. She met them on the internet. She went into the woods to a campsite with them, and then decided that she no longer wanted to join. She's dead. Six guys are in custody along with a bunch of white sheets...
Isn't the KKK like the YMCA? I mean, a Christian oriented organization? They all seem to be white Christians, I mean...
Nice boys, the lot of them. Hey, it's boring out thar... Nuthin to do but organize coon hunts.
Fundies would tell you that youth in Asia are raised to be godless Pearl-Harbor-bombing dark ninjas with their blasphemous "yingyangs", evolution-preaching Pokemon, and that more missionaries need to be sent to save their souls.
ReplyDeleteThe closest thing to popeliness in Judaism is the Lubavitch Rebbe, the last being Brooklyn's Menachem Mendel Schneerson. My best friend converted to Chabad Lubavitch and moved to Israel. See, this is how I'm running out of friends.
ReplyDeletethat story about the brain dead boy is pretty fucked up. his brain is already decomposing and his parents refuse to take him off medical support, pretty sad. what a way to honor and respect your child, leave their corpse in a hospital to be injected with drug cocktails and pumped full of oxygen. the most pathetic part of it is the parents actually think that's what god wants them to do.
ReplyDeleteit reminds me of the whole issue with anencephalic infants. which makes me wonder, according to christians would anencephalic infants have souls?
Yikes! They're half headless, Like those Hell creatures from Constantine. ABORT! ABORT!
ReplyDeleteHey, remember that psalm about "dashing infants against rocks" we were all talking about a while back on the DD boards.
ReplyDeleteCheck this out...
"Please be aware that Hassidic jews do not represent the mainstream Jewish view of end of life issues"
ReplyDeleteI assumed that they didn't. And to hear it confirmed...sigh of relief.
Also: I am so getting that shirt.
I think we all need to get that shirt!
ReplyDeleteJust think about it. You're wearing it, and a person approaches. They're an evangelical christian. Their eyes are drawn to it. Hmm, scripture, they think. Then they read the quote, and are (hopefully) offended as they should be at such an offensive thought. Their instinct is to perhaps express their distaste to you, anything from a sneer or frown to actually saying something to you, such as "I'm a Christian and that shirt is offensive!" and then they realize (hopefully) that it's an actual quote from the Bible. So they really can't.
If they still call you out on it, you can give them the same line of horsesh*t that the Christian apologists use to defend that selfsame heinous quote. They'll be forced to buy it, since it's from their own camp...
Brilliant T-shirt.
I think the apologism is that the line is said ironically out of contempt of the unrighteous people. Not a literary device I'd expect from the word of God, but what would I know...
ReplyDeleteHe said, "Apollo-Jism"...
ReplyDelete(snicker)
Did any of you notice all the pics I have up on the right hand side of the main page?
ReplyDeleteThey're all linked to something.
(all safe links, don't worry)
It's kind-of like a grab bag. Some are serious, many are not. Some are just weird. Quite a few youtube videos in there...
And a surprise or two...
I noticed the images but didn't follow the links (though I did save a few of the images). I'll explore a bit...
ReplyDeleteRishelle - danny and i are getting married next year and i'm determined to have it done in a non-religious manner.
ReplyDelete-----
Ship's captain - only way to do it...
Richelle,
ReplyDeleteMy daughter and I witnessed a wedding a couple of years ago in our town, officiated by the mayor. It cost the couple about $20.00, but we live in a smallish town of ~10,000.
Looking at teej's comment, I have concern about the keeping beliefs to yourself thing. Where would we be if I didn't let her tell me to shove it, or say that Christians are idiots.
ReplyDeleteI affirm her right to do that very very very very much. In bringing my Christianity to humbleness (a good thing), the non-religious can't forget to create boundaries of expression for the believer. Meaning, the right to speech, pamphlet (political, religious, or whatever), bumpersticker, button...
I will gladly put up with any criticisms or even assaults on my religion for the sake of the freedom of expression through words. I think that it is a greater good to be upheld.
All of you who agree with me tell me to go to hell, or heaven :-D
-Oneblood
Brian,
ReplyDeleteDo you take requests? I've recently been desiring to see your take on what truth is.
I dunno, might be fun.
Peace
That sounds interesting oneblood... I'll try to do it in the near future. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteOn a ligter note, you have to always tell me who you are (like you just did) when you post. The last time that I saw an "anonymous" I thought it was you and wrote you a long post that meant nothing to the poor person, since they had never been to this blog before and had just posted as anonymous...
Sugar. Sorry Brian,
ReplyDeleteI did forget to do that for the second one on here. That's it, I'm finished with the apathy for now. I have to figure out why I need to keep changing passwords in order to post. No worries, I'm tenacious like a chihuahua. Grrrr.
-Oneblood
I think the idea of keeping your beliefs to yourself is more related to not prosleytizing. As in, one shouldn't try to convert someone or preach to them if they've not already expressed an interest. It's just common politeness. It's also the only way to show that you really love the other person. By not interjecting your beliefs into the situation and judging them inadequate. By making friends rather than converts. (You'll get a lot more of the former than the latter anyhow)
ReplyDeletePlus, it's the best example of your faith that you can set. Love without conditions.
"I will gladly put up with any criticisms or even assaults on my religion for the sake of the freedom of expression through words. I think that it is a greater good to be upheld."
ReplyDeleteAh come one that is way too easy - it's not your religion I find fault with. (okay it is really)
It not even the fact that YOU believe in that tripe but that you actually think I should too.
I like Brian's response - If you loved me like you say you do, you wouldn't force upon me your delusions as truth.
I promise with all my cold, bitter, atheistic heart not to tell you what I think of your religious beliefs (in a way that would offend and ultimately make you cry)if you don't tell me that your GOD is going to send me to his hell to burn for all eternity because I don't believe he/she/it/them is actually real.
I think it is as simple as that. I've really tried to be good and not go ape shit when I hear someone tell me that they are praying for me. I choose to hear instead that they are thinking of me and wishing me well - which is all they are really doing, and that makes me smile.
post note: suckape was the word verification. no shit, it really was.
Please pardon my posting this here. It was a recent response to the quoted post on another Blog, but it seems to be apropos of this current discussion.
ReplyDeleteMichael Lockridge:
"So, if you don't like God, the idea of God, or Christians, it is best just to ignore them. Otherwise the Hound of Heaven may take to your heals, and you are doomed to eternal salvation and an eternity with those nasty Christians."
Most of us who do not believe would be quite content to "ignore" Christians (and every other organized religion, for that matter), but that effort turns out to a tall order. Atheists and agnostics generally do not go out "proselytizing", they do not require general tax payer support for their beliefs and institutions by not paying taxes on the income of their churches themselves, they do not try to impose their practises or beliefs on anyone else (at least not in the public, secular arena), and they rarely are guilty of ostracizing or imprisoning people who do not agree with their lack of belief "for their own good". In short, if Christians would truly "love" everyone else (for which read respect), as I believe you are taught, we could wait around for God to "hound" us by giving us the wisdom to see the truth in Christian teachings. At that point, please have at us, so that we may perhaps realize all the eternal benefits you now enjoy.
November 12, 2008 10:29 AM
I will say in oneblood's defense that I don't ever recall him proseletyzing. I don't think he's ever tried to force his beliefs on me. He's smarter than that. And we've had very nice conversations. Just wanted to put that out there.
ReplyDeleteI guess my objections to pamphlets and such would be directly correllated to how offensive they are to myself personally and to my morality. Chick's Tracks, for example, are insulting both to my belief system or lack thereof, my mrals, and to my intelligence as well. But I doubt 'blood's talking about that kind of silliness. And I wouldn't make them illegal or anything like that, either. They're just offensive and insulting.
And some Christian "free speech" I encourage in spite of it's silliness, or perhaps more accurately, because of it.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, in my picture gallery, click on the picture of a man with his head up his a$$.
And also the picture of the Scarecrow.
Great cautionary tales, both of them.
Brian your 2 Utube links were a hoot. I particularly liked the caption to the one about the atheist. Obviously the person who wrote it needs to look up 'satire' on Merriam-Webster...
ReplyDeleteThe other one needs work with with red pen before a response would be in order.
yes the double with's was a red pen joke...
ReplyDeleteBrian and tj,
ReplyDeleteI think I'm not afraid of a rise in secularism, but rather a rise in oppression. Religion in its ardent adherents will do this. But as well anyone who believes there is a 'right' way to conduct oneself outside of pragmatic social norms.
For humanism and religion, this 'right' can function well/rationally. But we aren't rational beings, and some people would do anything to diminish or take away the freedoms of others.
To support Brian and tj here though, it is religious adherents' burden to create room to breathe, allow liberation and not oppression, I think solely because of our history of it. I do not want to curse any fellow believers with our history, but we do need to order our lives in such a manner as to leave day to day societal life free from what we restrain ourselves with (supposedly by choice no less).
I just am afraid that like the allegory in Animal Farm, people under a different name, from a different "tribe" will do exactly the same thing the religious did, simply because they are human.
Thanks for the check Brian. I appreciate that about you.
Hey tj, my word verification for this post was 'adoni' which I think is the affectionate or "diminutive" for Adonai.
You know what that means? (well taking away the "absolutely nothing, oneblood" option) It means that God has sanctioned the support of freedom of expression for all people. Well...I don't believe that but it would be cool, to me anyway.
Interesting post Oneblood.
ReplyDeleteOne of the great things about the USA is that it is the first real experiment in secular government where the attempt is made to create room for many points of view. Sometimes you wish you could skip to the last chapter to see how it all turns out. Imperfect humans will be, uh, imperfect but as long as we try to take the 'that which does not harm me or the nation is not my affair' approach to laws we have a shot.
pliny,
ReplyDeleteWell said. Sometimes we slog through the chapters in the book of society, making history whether we want to or not.
I hope it ends with love.
Maybe love is the fourth dimension? That'd be nice.
Who's actually clicked on all my photo links? I put a few surprises in there... There are about 44 photos up now, and more to come.
ReplyDeleteAdoni (pronounced ah do nee) means "my lord", Adonai (pronounced Ah do n eye)means "our lord", but usually implies The Lord (God).
ReplyDeleteMostly your image links demonstrate a disturbing tendency toward Lepus of faith...
ReplyDeleteGuess I have a coney head...
ReplyDelete"but as long as we try to take the 'that which does not harm me or the nation is not my affair' approach to laws we have a shot."
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with this is the national analog of Keohane and Nye's (international) 'complex interdependence.' The more interdependent we become, the less space there is for activities that don't harm anyone else. For example, If I choose not to exercise and to eat junk food, do I harm anyone else? Arguably, I do, since my poor health will inevitably influence the overall cost of medical care (not to mention the sundry negative effects my poor health will have on those who depend on me, or the opportunity costs imposed on society by my choices, given the increasing demand for resources). It seems to me that as societies become more complex, and as those complexities are (practically) inevitably expressed in an ever increasing interdependence among citizens, the classical liberal formulae become incresingly effete.
Eric,
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you if indeed we were becoming more interdependent. This isn't a science board, but I'm sure that as you could show examples of interdependence, counter-examples could be shown as well. Mankind is not an organism even if some of us long to be completely one.
Even if I were to agree with you that we were becoming more interdependent, it doesn't follow that it is an inevitability.
Also, I don't think freedom of expression is a liberal ideal, anymore than it is a conservative ideal. It doesn't exist independent of man, but it does of its groups. It is thought to be a good to certain groups that's all, none of which have intellectual rights to it.
-Oneblood
Eirc, since the country and indeed the world is inexorably headed toward more interdependence, wouldn't it behoove you more to devote your considerable intellect to thinking of ways in which we can get along better with each other rather than (it appears) clinging to isolationism in the name of freedom?
ReplyDeleteActually Eric I think your example demonstrates the perception problem as well as the classic butterfly paradigm.
ReplyDeleteThere are interdependencies to be sure but the overwhelming majority of these are perceptions not objective reality. (an issue I touched on in one of my blog posts a couple of days back.)
We can always come up with enormous numbers of theoretical interdependencies but that really doesn't answer questions such as why someone really cares whether two gay people have legal standing. No additional resources are consumed, no more healthcare costs are accrued, etc. to explain people's objections.
Certainly I prefer the effete liberal ethic of live and let live over requiring individuals to behave in accordance to someone else's arbitrary standards.
"Even if I were to agree with you that we were becoming more interdependent, it doesn't follow that it is an inevitability."
ReplyDeleteSorry, that was poorly phrased. I meant that total interdependence was inevitable.
I think I'd put it this way: As (modern) liberal policies lead us toward greater and more complicated states of interdependence, they effectively remove the private and public spaces in which (classical) liberal principles can meaningfully operate. In this sense, it seems to me that (modern) liberalism is creating political conditions inimical to (classical) liberalism's survival.
ReplyDeleteAll things "classical" must change. Such is the way of the world. Amen.
ReplyDeleteHey, I have an idea! Let's all apply a balance of liberal and conservative ideas in dealing with the problems in our lives! We've been off-balance toward the conservative for a while, so it needs more liberal in the mix right now, but when that goes too far we can apply more conservative (genuinely conservative, not neocon) principles, and when it attains a balance we keep it that way for a while until it doesn't anymore, then rinse and repeat.
ReplyDeleteAs long as we can keep religion out of that mix it should work okay.
ReplyDeleteReligion IS imbalance, since it automatically excludes the huge segment of humanity that doesn't believe in it in the identical manner, believes in a different one, or in none at all.
"All things "classical" must change."
ReplyDeletePerhaps (though I hope not!), but the notion that I'm free to do what I like provided it harms no one else is a principle of classical liberalism (which was much more concerned with negative freedoms) that is put in jeopardy to the extent that modern liberalism, with its concern for positive freedoms, is institutionalized. When we institutionalize positive freedoms, we increase the extent of our interdependence, and therefore slowly erase the public and private spaces we were free to act within thanks to our former emphasis on negative freedoms.
"Religion IS imbalance, since it automatically excludes the huge segment of humanity that doesn't believe in it in the identical manner, believes in a different one, or in none at all."
ReplyDeleteAll truth claims are exclusive, by definition. Since we cannot avoid truth claims, we're all 'imbalanced' (given your sense of the term). But at least most religions have resources to call upon when the exclusion becomes violent or otherwise oppressive; e.g. a Christian can always point to the example and words of Christ (both of which are too often violated by Christians, myself included; nonetheless, the resources are there). Secualrists, however, given their worldview, have no such resources (though they often assert them arbitrarily).
All truth claims are exclusive, by definition.
ReplyDelete---------------------
Perhaps, but really, Science doesn't exclude anybody or anything except ignorance. People exclude themselves from science by not understanding it or not wanting to. It is understood around the world, in the same way, by those that are capable of it. It is nothing like a religion. In many ways, it is opposite to religion. Religions exclude people. If I don't believe in God the same way that you do, I can't be in your religion, but if I believe in God I can still believe in science. I can choose not to, but there's nothing in science that disproves God or even is really in conflict with God. Science can and does disagree with false science put forth by ignorant religious people, though. Not the same as disagreeing with God, though.
But at least most religions have resources to call upon when the exclusion becomes violent or otherwise oppressive; e.g. a Christian can always point to the example and words of Christ (both of which are too often violated by Christians, myself included; nonetheless, the resources are there).
ReplyDelete-----------------------------
LOLOLOLOL!!! I'm sorry, but that is HILARIOUS, Eric! Did you mean it as a joke?
Hell, I keep pointing to Christ's words in a vain attempt to get so-called Christians to see how hypocritical they are in their bellicosity, and let me tell you, it's an exerrcise in futility. They loves them their wars...
Yeah, reliigions are so unoppressive.
Too funny, Eric. See, along with all the great Jesus words, there's the shiny packaging to deal with. And within all that tremendous volume of bullshit and apologetics and programming one can find ample reason to ignore the Good Word in favor of a good gun.
Look around sometime, willya? Try living in Texas like I did for a while...
"The resources are there"
ReplyDeleteThe resources were there during the Inquisition and the Crusades, eric. They were just not as much fun as the persecuting and killing. And the macchiavellian manipulation of the masses... All that POWER! What a RUSH.
(and it's still the same today)
"Perhaps, but really, Science doesn't exclude anybody or anything except ignorance."
ReplyDeleteIf you're speaking about science qua science, I agree. However, it's extremely rare (impossible?) to find someone who doesn't smuggle metaphysical assumptions into his understanding of science and its findings.
"Religions exclude people. If I don't believe in God the same way that you do, I can't be in your religion,"
This certainly may be true of some denominations, but it's not true of the larger and more influential ones. Anglicanism has produced the likes of the theologically conservative N.T. Wright and the very theologically liberal Shelby Spong. Catholicism claims the likes of the current pope and Gary Wills. I think there is a much greater range of opinion among most Christians, even Christians of specific denominations, than you seem to be aware of. If a person who knew nothing about Christianity read Wright and Spong, I suspect he'd think he was reading accounts of two very different religions.
"but if I believe in God I can still believe in science. I can choose not to, but there's nothing in science that disproves God or even is really in conflict with God. Science can and does disagree with false science put forth by ignorant religious people, though."
I agree entirely.
e.g. a Christian can always point to the example and words of Christ (both of which are too often violated by Christians
ReplyDelete--------------------
So a Christian can POINT to the words just before he IGNORES them. I get it now.
So he looks good as he does evil.
Right. We finally agree.
"Perhaps, but really, Science doesn't exclude anybody or anything except ignorance."
ReplyDeleteIf you're speaking about science qua science, I agree.
------------------
But earlier Eric said:
"All truth claims are exclusive, by definition."
------------------
So science has no claim to truth, or you've admitted error. Pick one. :-)
Or will you say that your first statement is in fact valid as regards science because by excluding just that one solitary thing, ERROR, it is "exclusive?"
This is interesting...
"Yeah, reliigions are so unoppressive."
ReplyDeleteI never said that. I said that all truth claims are, by definition, exclusive; that exclusion can and often does lead to violence and oppression; and that at least religion has self critical resources to deal with the oppression and violence that exclusion often leads to. This doesn't mean that no one is ever oppressed by religious folks; rather, it simply means that the self corrective resources religious folks can avail themselves of give them an advantage over secularists in this regard (i.e. the necessary exclusivity of truth claims).
"The resources were there during the Inquisition and the Crusades, eric."
Indeed, they were. Such resources, however, were decidedly lacking under the likes of Robespierre and Lenin. Note, the Inquisition and the Terror were both horrific, but religion provides the solid ground on which the Inquisition can be repudiated, since no one can say that the inquisitors were acting in accord with the example and teachings of Christ; however, the reign of Reason during the Terror all but entailed the horrors committed in its name.
"So science has no claim to truth, or you've admitted error. Pick one. :-)"
ReplyDeleteThe former, by all means. Science, *qua science*, is not in the business of making truth claims. *All* scientific conclusions are provisional, as Stephen Hawking has said. The notion of a 'provisional truth' is incoherent.
Ok, I'll admit I'm not sure to what you are referring when you speak of positive vs negative freedoms so let me pose an example. Is gay marriage (or civil union) a positive or a negative freedom?
ReplyDeleteIs it positively forcing someone to accept something to which they object, or is it redressing the negative effects of the gay couples not being allowed to unite as they wish?
I must make a book recommendation:
ReplyDelete'The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism' by Edward Feser.
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314517
If you want to read a book that covers not just what's (intellectually) wrong with atheism, but also why belief in god is rationally justified, then this is the book for you.
Pliny, here's a cool resource:
ReplyDeletehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
Gay marriage is an example of positive freedom, since it requires not just the removal of barriers (i.e.. 'freedom from'), and therefore presupposes only the freedom of the individuals involved to act as they would like, but the cooperation of others to fulfill some purpose (i.e. 'freedom to').
Think of it this way: a right to a living wage would be a positive freedom, whereas the freedom from state interference when negotiating a wage would be a negative freedom.
Richelle,
ReplyDeleteYes, you shoulds have a secular ceremony, if that's what you wish.
I was marrried at a courthouse, by a judge, in 1994. Some of my more traditional friends and family tol me "it will never last, you gotta get married in church"
Well, they were wrong....partially. My marriage did outlast many of 'church marriages'. I even outlasted BOTH of my parents marriages ( Mom married Dad twice....fools).
Heck, if I wasn't such a horn dog that good girl would not have thrown me out when she did.
We had 15 good years....I will always care about her :-)
Gay marriage is an example of positive freedom, since it requires not just the removal of barriers (i.e.. 'freedom from'), and therefore presupposes only the freedom of the individuals involved to act as they would like, but the cooperation of others to fulfill some purpose (i.e. 'freedom to').
ReplyDelete-----
Ah that's what I thought was meant here. I don't think that gay marriage requires any positive action by anyone other than the happy couple. This implies that tolerance is required for the right to be granted which is a pretty dangerous position. There is no need to cooperate in any way - merely to mind one's own affairs. To consider inaction as a positive granting of rights is to explicitly state that you are justified to act negatively against the person in the first place. A supposition that is far from proven.
Also Eric - I'll check out the recommendations you suggested
ReplyDeleteMy favorite quote on this topic is from my favorite liberals (imperfect though he was) of all time: George Washington's letter to the Newport, Rhode Island synagogue
ReplyDelete..."All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gift..."
I think he said it best. To consider that we must be tolerant of others, i.e. actively or positively grant them their rights is to honor ourselves with a stature which we do not deserve over another. It was in reference to Judaism then but no less germane to gay rights today.
Pliny, as soon as you require others to act in ways that recognize the rights of some *that don't simply involve non-interference*, and whenever you're talking about fulfilling some purpose, you're talking about a positive freedom. Now, if gay marriage were reduced to a negative freedom, then it wouldn't be an issue: gays would go through the ceremonies they chose, call themselves married, live their private lives as if they were married, and that would be that. However, this is not what they want: they want not only the negative freedom (non-interference) to get married, but the positive freedom (the concomitant rights) associated with marriage -- rights granted only to married couples.
ReplyDeleteNote, this isn't an attack on gay marriage (an issue I'm unsure about); rather, it's an elucidation of why gay marriage represents a positive, and not a negative freedom.
(Also, keep in mind the fact that the terms 'positive' and 'negative' don't in any way connote 'good' or 'bad'; rather, we're talking about whether the freedom simply involves a lack of restraints, or whether it involves the right to act in such and such a way, and that requires others to act in ways that don't merely tolerate the act, but to uphold it.)
Eric - I'm enjoying this debate so please bear with me a bit longer.
ReplyDeleteYes we are talking about recognizing rights where we didn't before. Much like slavery and women's rights. My concern is that like those rights it wasn't that new rights were being granted so much as old rights being recognized.
The positive / negative position still begs the question - Are we being asked to grant rights (which presupposes that we have that superior position to decide) Or merely being asked to stop actively suppressing rights? My own sense of it is the latter. I'm guessing yours favors the former?
Eric:
ReplyDelete"... we're talking about whether the freedom simply involves a lack of restraints, or whether it involves the right to act in such and such a way, and that requires others to act in ways that don't merely tolerate the act, but to uphold it."
With regard to the right to same sex marriege, I fail to see that anyone else is required to "uphold" anything. The "marriage" contract which Gays wish to enjoy, just as every other law-abiding citizen may so choose, is just that, a legal contract between to consenting adults which is "sanctioned" (or recognized) by the State, not by a church or religious organization. In this regard, other citizens are no more required to "uphold" anything than we are all required to do for every other legal union, or any other legal contract not pertaining to marriage, for that matter. Although no Church is asked to "sanction" this same sex contract from a religious standpoint, we all must recognize or "uphold" State sanctioned religious wedding contracts,(not just memebers of the Church or co-religionists),when they are performed by state licensed clergymen.
"My concern is that like those rights it wasn't that new rights were being granted so much as old rights being recognized.
ReplyDeleteThe positive / negative position still begs the question - Are we being asked to grant rights (which presupposes that we have that superior position to decide) Or merely being asked to stop actively suppressing rights? My own sense of it is the latter. I'm guessing yours favors the former?"
As I said, I'm undecided as far as this issue goes. I tend to think that the very notion of gay marriage is problematic, and that gays are not asking for a right to marriage (which already exists, and which they posses, but which involves the union of a man and a woman), but a right to something new. However, I'm certainly very open to alternative positions, since mine is far from settled.
With respect to your question, I don't think it's relevant to the 'positive freedom'/'negative freedom' distinction. We can grant a new right in the form of a negative freedom, or in the form of a positive freedom (and likewise for recognizing a suppressed right).
I will note, though, that to actively suppress a preexisting but unrecognized right is to presuppose philosophic assumptions that I don't think a secular worldview can sustain (forgive me, but I don't know if you're an atheist, agnostic, Christian, Rastafarian :) etc.).
Harvey: "With regard to the right to same sex marriege, I fail to see that anyone else is required to "uphold" anything."
This may help:
"Proponents of gay marriage contend that civil unions represent "separate but unequal" status for same-sex couples because marriages are likely to be recognized by other states, and many of the benefits of civil unions would stop at the Massachusetts border. *Full-fledged marriage, they point out, **confers hundreds of federal, and possibly some state, benefits** not available under civil unions*."
Does this sound like a negative freedom to you? Note, heterosexual marriage is a positive freedom, too. Read the link I provided above from the SEP to help you grasp the distinction between positive and negative freedom.
Here's a link to one of my favorite pages (apropos of nothing):
ReplyDeletehttp://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=peacocke&topic=complete
You'll find discussions with famous scientists and philosophers -- both atheists and theists -- on the sorts of issues regularly addressed on blogs like this one. Great stuff.
Eric, it all depends on how you define truth. Something oneblood recently pointed out that I should dedicate a post to in and of itself. Not that I'm the definitive authority by any means.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, in the context you chose to take it in, a philosophical one, you are correct. But if you consider the most frequent reason that we have these conversations in the first place, the fact that religion (fundamentalist) constantly makes ridiculous pseudoscientific claims in attempts to prove that science is in error, then the truth (in the context of that argument) is clearly on the side of science and not religion. For instance, religion says evolution is false. Science points out that it's observably true, and can prove it. Religion however doesn't understand the subtleties well enough and insists that they're right regardless. In that scenario, science has the truth about evolution and religion doesn't. Religion has the lie, in fact. The falsity. The ERROR. Science makes claim to the truth, when the other choice is a fairy tale.
Brian, truth is, by definition, incontrovertible. Scientific conclusions, however, to the extent that they are provisional, cannot be incontrovertible. It's always possible that any particular scientific conclusion is false; but, if something is true, it's impossible for it to be false. Now, evolution may be true -- I certainly think it is -- but when I say it's true, *I'm not speaking scientifically*. Scientifically, all that one can say is that the evidence supports it, that it sheds light on myriad phemonena, and that it makes predictions that have, up to now, been accurate. Note, this is very different from saying that it's true.
ReplyDeleteBrian, after rereading your post, I see that you're acknowledging different conceptions of truth, and that my last post was point-missing. I'd have to see exactly where you're going with that, though, before I respond. Perhaps I'll ahve to wait for your post on truth.
ReplyDeleteThank you Eric. I will be doing it soon. I would say probably the next post.
ReplyDeleteYes, I guess my point was that while within the context of science, science itself cannot prove a truth, within other, simpler contexts, it can. For instance, science cannot "prove" that if I were to step off a bridge I would fall to my death, but it can strongly enough indicate that the probability of something else happening is vanishingly small, and so a scientist standing there would hopefully tell me not to do it.
An intertesting excerpt from a page I was just reading:
++++++
Q. Can Science Prove Anything?
Ans. Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by "prove".
Suppose you have a theory that when you throw something into the air, it will fall back down. You test your theory by throwing many objects into the air, and they all fall down.
Have you proven your theory beyond doubt? No. The next object you throw might hover, or go off into orbit. But the theory is "proved" for most practical purposes.
Theories and facts (even everyday ones, not scientific ones), can be thought of on a scale of certainty. Your theory that things fall down is near the top. Down near the bottom is "the Earth is flat". Near the middle might be "I will live to be 80."
On this scale, no scientific theory can ever get all the way to the top (or the bottom), but reasonable people accept those that are near the top.
http://sciboard.louisville.edu/gensci.html#q5
Seems about right to me. -SBG
Reversing this logic is what many creationists or ID'ers or antievolutionists do.
ReplyDeleteThey put themselves in the position of the man that wants to jump off the cliff SO BADLY and BELIEVES that he will float, and is angry at science for saying that he will (very, very, very to the thousand millionth power likely) fall and die. So they seize on that one in one thousand million trillion chance (or whatever) and say "You can't PROVE that I will fall, since science can't really PROVE anything.... etc. etc. ad nauseum...
Of course, in their minds, what they believe must of necessity be real, since God says that it is, and it says that God is, so it makes a nice neat circle of logic from which escape is impossible.
But I digress...
Brian! You linked to a Stephen Lynch song, but you didn't link to this one? I am disappointed (though I never heard the Craig Christ one, so it worked out for me).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=swGBlDn_yiI&feature=related
"Gay marriage is an example of positive freedom.." says eric.
ReplyDeleteIs it just me, or is this too easy to 'turn-tables on'.
Defining 'marriage' as what that means as far as the state is concerned, calling it 'what you will', civil union e.g., then that is a negative freedom.
The state shouldn't mind giving spousal benefits and the couple themselves certainly don't mind, therefore the only thing left is the religious aspect which is other people's opinion.
QED
linkURtunes!
ReplyDeleteI love that one too. He's one of the funniest people out there. His facial expressions slay me as much as his lyrics.
ReplyDeleteI had to pick one. I like varying the pic links without redundancy.
Try the ABCD link... And the romance without tears one (really xxx rated, if you wait for it)... Oh, and the easter bunny one is, well, it's funny if you're sick enough... I try to throw in a few really sick ones. Oh, and Lobster Dinner is retty ill...
I add like ten a day to amuse myself.
Oh, and the 666 phone is HYSTERICAL. Listen to the whole thing.
ReplyDeletePboy, why?
ReplyDeleteIf I copy the URL and paste it on to the 'bar' only http://www.youtube.com shows up.
ReplyDeleteIt.is.a.pain.
I see your point pboy, but when I copied and pasted it in I got the whole thing...
ReplyDeleteI'll endeavor to link to the URLs from now on...
I do find though, that if you paste in a long URL and put a single space in the middle, it not only posts as two lines that all fit, but when you copy them both and paste them into the address bar, the space disappears and it's a valid URL just as it is.
ReplyDeleteYou'll note that in the picture that I found that I thought best represented Jesus Christ and his brother Craig, Craig even had a rolling paper in his hand...
ReplyDeleteHe always rolled such huge doobies.
"Try the ABCD link... And the romance without tears one (really xxx rated, if you wait for it)... Oh, and the easter bunny one is, well, it's funny if you're sick enough... I try to throw in a few really sick ones. Oh, and Lobster Dinner is retty ill..."
ReplyDeleteI've actually already seen the book in the ABCD in a really good Youtube video of it. The music going along with it was just right.
I did find the Easter Bunny one morbidly funny, and the lobster dinner was like surrealism meets PETA propaganda. As for the "fleshlights"...they are "proudly made in the U.S.A."! Aside from that...no comment.
Oh, Republican Jesus was also awesome.
Oh, yes. The counter-telemarketing technique. He had to have done a whole load of preparation for that, because he was incredibly convincing. Guy has talent.
ReplyDeleteAnd the XXX link is pretty funny too... A study in perseverance.
ReplyDeletegood news, i found a listing of texas jps who do weddings. so a secular event it shall be :)
ReplyDeleteSobriety kills philosophical discourse. You all need to get trippin' on that rainbow fractal road of in the depths of your minds, and witness the jah.
ReplyDeleteGHB said; "But I digress..."
ReplyDelete----------------------
What possible other reason is there for hosting a blog? ;)
Sobriety kills philosophical discourse...
ReplyDeleteDrinking kills neurons - so MM what you are saying here is that the best philosophers are brain damaged?...
Now back to Eric -Thanks Eric for your thoughts - Regarding theism that turns out to be a part of a larger set of related topics. I am an agmystic.(A topic I cover on my own blog if interested)
ReplyDeleteThat said, your last comment leads me to where I was headed in the first place with our discussion. Absent gods or revealed truth, then all truth pertaining to rights is essentially relative. In this I agree with many believers but don't find that as big of a problem. In light of this, the positive negative distinctions become mute. The moral of that story is not that morality is impossible with that assumption but rather that all freedoms become 'positive'. There are no negative freedoms in a world of relativism. Implicitly then, a secular world view does not provide for true suppressed freedoms since all are really granted freedoms and this certainly has been the case throughout history. Slavery in this country is a great example. The Bill of Rights doesn't gain its power through god's but through the consent of the governed where all freedoms and laws ultimately reside. The best we can aim for in this world is justifiable morality based upon an enlightened sense of who we are and who we would like to be in order to provide order, mutual security and reasonable opportunities for all people. As we gain in knowledge the rules necessarily will change to reflect this (or at least should). Understanding our origins and motivations seems to me to be a far better path to mutual freedoms.
Justifiable morality is a hard road since it cannot depend upon the panacea of revealed truth, as arbitrary and fluid as even that option has proven to be throughout history.
If we are alone in this, then we are left with the burden of choosing which freedoms are justifiable. The lynch pin is how we chose to approach the problem. Will we take the authoritarian or paternalistic approach of history or will we choose to use the previously outlined approach of that which does not harm me...
I still think that works best.
Absolutely. All the great thinkers were either drunkards, addicts, schizophrenic, epileptic, left-handed, etc. Having an affliction that differentiates your experience from the status quo makes your perspective interesting. So a few innocent brain cells suffer as collateral damage, the feelings are real, and you con't just write it all off as irrelevant. It's a clue of the whole picture. Don't take the sober mind for granted, that's like forgetting that the visible spectrum is only a small sliver of all light.
ReplyDeleteIf one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the Force.
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall that Timothy Leary thought he could see the lines of the force...
ReplyDeletehey Brian - the topic of Terry Pratchett came up recently - certainly you of all people have read 'Good Omens"?
ReplyDeleteI have read it, and I loved it.
ReplyDeleteRight now I'm re-reading Carrion Comfort, by Dan Simmons. My favorite horror novel.
As I said in an earlier post, acid reveals
ReplyDeleteThe Answer To Everything
The problem is remembering to write it down (and being able to write while tripping balls). If the drugs wear off before you get your thoughts in order, the knowledge goes >poof< and vanishes until the next trip.
Or as Adolfchu said,
ReplyDelete"It's a clue of the whole picture. Don't take the sober mind for granted, that's like forgetting that the visible spectrum is only a small sliver of all light."
Like the difference in perspective while standing in a cornfield in Kansas versus flying over Kansas at 30,000 feet and seeing ALL the cornfields.
Hey Brian,
ReplyDeleteIt's Friday evening, time to be taking your half bottle of cough syrup with DM to safely simulate that amanita buzz!
Good luck! Don't argue with the Queen of Spades!
"Like the difference in perspective while standing in a cornfield in Kansas versus flying over Kansas at 30,000 feet.."
ReplyDeleteI see what you mean. In one scenario, you are 'doin' ALL RIGHT!' and in the other one, your 'friends' are plants.
Actually pboy, I seem to be late... late for a very important date or something like that...
ReplyDeleteHaving been to Kansas I must say I prefer the 30,000 foot perspective
ReplyDeleteChild's Play 2 is on here.
ReplyDeleteI can see why they 'believe' now! Must counter 'Chuckie's' gratuitous evil!
Oh, wait, 'Chuckie' isn't real.
Oh well, that makes it EVEN MORE PERFECT!
In many parts of Kansas you see basically the same thing at 30,000 feet that you do standing on the ground.
ReplyDeleteCorn, right to the horizon.
Don't know if this has been discussed but:=
ReplyDeleteYyyyARRRGGHHH! (anal sex gif)
Rickrolled by Brian, you truly are GODLESS!
I put it there with you in mind, pboy.
ReplyDelete:-) heh heh heh
It's not the song, it's the video... the horror, the horror!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I knew that if I put up a sign saying "anal sex" that you'd click on it... lol...
ReplyDelete(so would I)
While we are on the subject - has anyone really seen him at the same time as David Caruso? I think not....
ReplyDeleteYea, if I'd been a good Christian, I'd have 'shunned' it.
ReplyDeleteBut the question, "What, if anything, has Brian put behind 'Door number 'anal sex''???
This I gotta see!
How can you not - one must know how truly depraved is this man
ReplyDeleteAs it turned out Pliny, I wasn't as depraved as you thought that I would be.
ReplyDeleteDon't sell yourself short Brian - yes you are ;)
ReplyDelete...commentary in the background...
ReplyDelete.. a good defensive block by Brian, but OOOO pliny comes over the top...
LOL
I think most of you will like this guy quite a bit...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m584z5aE4Uc
Here's a quote (not from the interview) to give you a sense of what he's like:
"According to a profile in Christianity Today entitled "The Positive Prophet," Campolo would often begin a speech this way: "I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
Pliny, it occurs to me that perhaps it's more depraved to post a rickroll behind an "anal sex" sign than it would have been to have actual anal sex pics there...
ReplyDeleteEric, that was a pretty cool quote. I'll check out the video later on... Thanks.
Eric - the quote is a great one and applicable to all not just a few unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteBrian - it was an obvious trap but the true depravity I think is the flashlight selection....
Do you ever image being a fly on the wall in a product development meeting like that or wonder how it was worded in the business plan?
Hey today was a milestone _ I got my first hate mail on my blog! YOOHOOO.
Clearly the joke has been 'lost' or taken too far or ...
ReplyDelete... well there's only one thing to do..
repent!
... take your punishment like a man!
Pliny.. publish it!
ReplyDeleteYes Pliny...we needz to see it.
ReplyDeleteAlso: The Campolo quote is awesome. Video ain't half bad either. Good guy.
Do you ever image being a fly on the wall in a product development meeting like that or wonder how it was worded in the business plan?
ReplyDelete-----------------
Well to be honest no, but the idea is intriguing, I have to admit.
"See, our product is a male masturbatory aid. I think it's best if you all try it out first before you make you decision... Yes, that's it, just slip it on and hit the switch... Oh, I can see that you all approve of it so far... Now as a special treat, as part of our presentation Patty, Suzi, and Chondelle will help you learn the "ins and outs" of our product. Just relax and let them demonstrate it fully for you before you make your final decision. Did I mention that no tropical hardwoods were cut down during the manufacturing process?"
The bad review was posted in response to my last post of spent nuclear fuel rod storage, but I'm guessing the person didn't actually read what I posted all that carefully before he responded judging by the direction of his ire.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't that bad as these things go. I remember once about 14 or so years ago I there was a short clip on the news where I was interviewed about an incident that had occurred. I got the most vitriolic shitogram in the mail from some crazy guy. It was bizarre and a complete over reaction to the bit. It was also very poorly written. I thought for some time how best to respond and finally settled on a pretty good approach. A friend of mine who was an English teacher sat down with me and we simply corrected the letter with a red pen and returned it to him with no comments other than the grammar and spelling corrections. Never heard any more from him.
Pliny.
ReplyDeleteRed-pen this:
NATIONAL-SECURITY-4-US
Message #21
01/17/07 02:19 AM GOD/JESUS/CHRISTIANITY IS NOT ORGANIZED RELIGION ASSHOLE EVERYTHING ELSE IS & WHAT I EXPLAINED IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE HAPPENING TO YOU DICKHEAD WHEN YOU MEET YOUR DADDY THE DEVIL & IT IS WAITING TO FUCK THE SHIT OUT OF YOU - DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU LOW-LIFE SCUMBAG FUCKING JERK-OFF OF A HUMAN BEING WHO SHOULD OF BEEN SWALLOWED & NOT CONCEIVED
This one (that I've posted previously on the DD boards) was a "Christian" response to me merely saying that Christianity most certainly IS an organized religion. I was on the MSNBC message boards, and hadn't sworn at him or even verbally abused him.
Oh, and just to let you all know, while I've already told you that I add several (or more) new pictures (with links) every day, I didn't tell you that when I add them to the page, I "sprinkle them in," so in other words, I add them in randomly. This means that the new pics can be found anywhere. Near the top, or in the middle, or at the bottom. Just an FYI.
ReplyDeleteBrian - my best red pen response to that one is merely to choose a particularly wide red marker and just cover it completely. I love the whole yelling in caps thing. Interesting aside on the dickhead thing - on the letter we sent back we did acknowledge that we weren't sure whether it or shouldn't be hyphenated ...;)
ReplyDelete"...it occurs to me that perhaps it's more depraved to post a rickroll behind an "anal sex" sign..."
ReplyDeleteThis seems like a fair segway for this NSFW Rickroll.