Tuesday, March 2, 2010

A Question of Feelings

I have a more-or-less simple question here for my Christian readers and Christians in general, regarding feelings:

Can you loving Christians who are commanded by your God Yaweh and His Son Jesus Christ to love others as you love yourselves and to love thy neighbor, admit one thing here?

Imagine if you will one day your child comes home from school and tells you about the neat Islamic prayers they had to say that morning while bowing to Mecca. Oh, it’s a regular thing now. They’ll be doing it every day from now on. Deal with it; it’s the Law. Plus the kids love the bowing.

Just imagine it. I bet you can, because some of you are misinformed enough to actually believe that this kind of thing is what Obama is really secretly all about. So imagine it.

Now can you please admit to me that you can understand that the way you would FEEL if the US Government did that, made it a law that all the schools made your kids say Islamic prayers and had your children bowing towards Mecca every day, or even just taught them to embrace pro-Islamic positions on important political issues that you care about, or even if you forget the Islam thing and they just taught them the many benefits of being an *atheist,* must be and indeed is of course identical to in every way and exactly the same as how I would FEEL if it were the law of the land that my children’s schools made them pray to Jesus every day or taught them your religion’s position on important political issues that I care about?

Can you please admit that much? You kind-of have to, really. I mean, what’s the difference? They’re logical equivalents. Of course I would feel the same. It is the same.

And so then you might as well go on to admit the obvious here. That of course you know this, but you do not care. That you believe your way is the only right way, and so my way is by default wrong and evil and therefore not worthy of your consideration. As bad as it would make me feel, my feelings are irrelevant to you.

You cannot love me enough to give a damn.

Isn’t that it, really?

Hey, just wondering.

***

Oh, and to those that think this is a trick question: Not all questions that require you to admit that you are in error are trick questions. You might actually be in error.

Heaven forbid!

194 comments:

  1. Hmmm. There was a time when the influence of general Christianity was so dominant that (I imagine) children in school were required to pray.

    Currently that is not the case. Should Islam gain sufficient influence in this country, it might well be. I don't know if that will happen, but I certainly don't fear a condition that is simply one of many that might be.

    Such fears of alternative ways of thinking have compelled a huge church schooling and home schooling movement, which would remain an option under the described condition.

    As a Christian have no desire to compel anyone to pray. As a fellow human I have no real urge to compel anyone to do anything.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a Christian have no desire to compel anyone to pray. As a fellow human I have no real urge to compel anyone to do anything.
    --------------
    Excellent. That speaks well for you.

    So I can assume then that you reject the notion of passing any laws that promote the Christian position over the generally agreed-upon position among all faiths and creeds or of none, due to how that would disenfranchise all those of other faiths, or of none at all such as myself? I hope that I can draw that conclusion here. That would be the definition of tolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hmmm. There was a time when the influence of general Christianity was so dominant that (I imagine) children in school were required to pray.
    ---
    Yes, the past was horribly unfair. No need to repeat it, then. Hopefully.
    It would detract from the concept of a free country. Same of course with teaching Intelligent Design in the schools for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Currently that is not the case.
    ----------
    No, currently the very idea is insanely delusional paranoia, but I chose it for the dramatic effect and familiarity. Not as if to give the ridiculous concept (the Islamic school takeover) any merit! Far from it.

    Why? Are they really saying this stuff?

    Anyhow, the point is to see if you can actually empathize with say, me. As pertains to my FEELINGS being the same as what yours would be in a similar situation. A situation that I did not mean to limit to school rules. I was meaning it to apply more generally, to all religiously-biased laws (or potential laws) in this country. I was looking for empathy here. An admission of similarity, of kinship even. We're all the same, basically, so why would you want to shove your faith down my throat in any way? You wouldn't, if you could feel what that does to me, and how it's precisely the same as what it would do to you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I generally support laws that encourage liberty and freedom for every individual. I would strongly oppose any laws that elevate any one group over any others, or any laws that demean any individuals or groups.

    Most who seem to push their own agenda without real concern for other minded people are insecure and acting from fear. Christians do not have a monopoly on such insecurity and fear founded thinking.

    Though I like to exist in a world of liberty and mutual respect, I do not expect to do so. Fear is compelling and pervasive. It makes me sad.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  6. Michael, you seem a sane and moral individual and so, like Botts, my somewhat broadbrush treating of Christianity in general does not apply or translate to you.

    You sir, are a decent individual, not that you needed to be so informed by the likes of me.

    Nice to meet you, as it turns out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Christians do not have a monopoly on such insecurity and fear founded thinking.
    --------------
    You are correct here of course. Religion in general however, does have a virtual monopoly on it, with a few exceptions here and there. It has to. That's how it survives. By instilling fear of change, change such as real knowledge about their own faith, or of the rest of the world. Fear of science, of logic, of reason, of facts even. A distrust of learning in general is necessary here, so that the illusion may go on for the person. And so it follows from that, that the more detached from reality the particular church is, the more ignorance it is necessary for it to induce in it's believers.

    This is accomplished by bypassing the logical functions and appealing to the raw emotions; chief among them fear but also pride and egotism, which are emotional in nature, being based in feelings of entitlement. In it's lowest forms, religion even cultivates the emotion of anger and wrath in it's believers. And let's not forget greed. again based in feelings of entitlement, entitlement that is itself induced by the religion.

    Anyhow, when ignorance is cultivated in this manner it becomes impossible for anyone such as myself to reach the person. They are locked in a spiral forever. Their mind is closed, hermetically sealed, and welded shut just to make sure. I try, even try to shock them sometimes, but like everything else, it is generally futile.

    However, not always, so I continue. It's a worthy cause, the saving of minds from invisible shackles. It can be very rewarding.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought of this poem as I wrote that last post, so I thought I would share it:

    "Slave chains forged of lies
    are stronger than fine steel

    And those enslaved see
    neither shackle nor lock.

    The mission must be,
    in order to set them free:
    show them how their
    chains were made

    and where lies hid the key..."

    by Arnie Lerma

    ReplyDelete
  9. Michael; "Should Islam gain sufficient influence in this country, it might well be."

    This is exactly why we need a good solid century or so of cultural secularism and humanism so that if Islam is ever on the ascendency in the West it's effects will be mitigated and liberlized.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Brian:

    Your attempt to illustrate how efforts on the part of believers (of any faith) to force public observance of their religious beliefs is antithetical to the teachings of the man they believe to be the Saviour of the world or of the God they have chosen to follow is, unfortunately, unlikely to accomplish anything with most of them. True, there are a few Christians who seem to really "get it", that Christ tried to tell us to love our neighbors and therefore (among other things) to refrain from behaviors that they might find offensive or upsetting, but the majority need the affirmation of their beliefs that they can only achieve in this life by getting (forcing?) the rest of us to agree with them. Whether the few who seem to have faith enough not to need this affirmation from all of their "brethren" should be seen by the rest as examples of true belief is, unfortunately, beside the point. As we have often observed, most of us non-believers would have little or no issue with self-professed Christians (or any other faith) if they were content to practise the freedom of religion that this wonderful Republic grants all of us, without finding it necessary to limit our freedom FROM religion in public domains.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Some of the activist Christians are striving to retain what they perceive as a God given influence in this country. Secularization is perceived as losing a battle. Perhaps it is, but I think giving this ground is not so dangerous as they think.

    Some secularists would demand that all religious practices be kept so private as to not be seen in public. Since some form of evangelism is at the core of most religions, and often a religious duty, the freedom to practice religion publicly is ground that must be defended, for all faiths and non-faiths.

    To be an administrator in these times has to suck with great suckitude. To do anything touching on religion is a battle. To do nothing related to religion is another battle. There is no winning from the administrators perspective.

    A successful administrator in times like these is one who can gracefully lose every battle every time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Michael; "Some secularists would demand that all religious practices be kept so private as to not be seen in public."

    I'm not aware of anyone who demands that. I think you might be mixing up "public" and "governmental".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yeah Michael, I would strongly disagree also with that. I don't know any secular person that wants that. We just don't care about religion. We don't actively *hate* it, not even me. Well, maybe the more virulent strains, they're hard to tolerate, but in general with normal people who don't take it off the ends of the earth, sure. You can do it. Not a problem. Have at it. Just as long as it doesn't creep into our laws.

    And really, Christianity is already WAAAAAY "In Your Face" as it were. It's everywhere you look, really. So you people already have plenty of licence to put your symbols all over the place, and make our malls look like Nirvanas of Commercialism every Christmas. And yet, I still don't really care. Nobody really cares, except for some about the commercialism, which is shallow and greed-oriented after all, so it's easy to see why even a Christian would object to that if they have their head screwed on straight.

    I do think that Churches need to PAY TAXES though. That part is just basic fairness.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Some of the activist Christians are striving to retain what they perceive as a God given influence in this country. Secularization is perceived as losing a battle. Perhaps it is, but I think giving this ground is not so dangerous as they think.
    ------------
    Totally agree.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As I wrote I was thinking of a conflict that happened this last Winter Holiday Season (snicker) in the school where my father once taught and served as vice principal.

    A Christmas tree was present in a set of winter decorations intended as a centerpiece for a donation effort to aid the poor. Someone complained. The tree was removed. Someone else complained. The tree was eventually put back.

    It was an administrators nightmare.

    As to "in-your-face," not so much in my area. Santa Cruz, California is heavily secularized. I have been in church-on-every-corner America.

    I have also been in bar-on-every-corner America.

    Sometimes nearly the same place.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  16. I wouldn't have a problem with a christmas tree in school, IF all other students of all other faiths which attend that school also got representation on their holidays. Even if it's one Jewish kid, there better be a menorah. That's only fair.

    Or just not allowing religion in public schools at all is fine with me. That's preferable, actually. After all, a school is a part of our government, not private ground. And they're educating our children, mine as well as yours, so placing religious icons there can be interpreted as proselytizing our young minds. That I won't stand for, as I indicated in my original post, not in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have been in church-on-every-corner America.

    I have also been in bar-on-every-corner America.

    Sometimes nearly the same place.
    -------------
    Me too. Amarillo. A real shit pit.

    And I agree with the last sentiment. These people had no religious problem with getting snockered.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Brian, I wrote a post elaborating on your post.

    http://beyondbotts.blogspot.com/2010/03/prayer-in-school.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. Actually, on the matter of the tree in school I waxed ridiculous. I suggested removal of anything that smacked of religion. Or had even been touched by religion. Like history. Or mathematics, which had religious beginnings. Purge it all.

    Use the tree as kindling to burn it all.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  20. Botts, I liked your elaboration and commented upon it. Well worth the read.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Actually, on the matter of the tree in school I waxed ridiculous.
    -----------
    Oh, don't do that dude. You'll sound just like a Christi.... Oh, er... nevermind.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. I hear the thought of forcing the ideas of religion on the populace, and the ideas against that. However I fail to hear the problem of forcing the ideas of religion on the children. How is it that the religious, so called, can have such a problem with abortion, but endorse the brain washing of a child in a religious school? If the state is supposed to protect the unborn, how is it less important to protect the child from being indoctrinated with some religious doctrine that cannot be proven to have merit in the light of day? To allow an adult to hold a child hostage to some doctrine that is dismissed by the majority of people on the planet as hogwash seems to me a very basic crime against humanity. That is precisely what religious schools do regardless of the religion taught in such schools. Who among you would raise your hand to allow me to endocrine you in my religious beliefs equal to K-12?

    ReplyDelete
  23. OK, so let's address the larger question you are presenting here. What are the responsibilities and obligations of a parent toward their child? Just to protect them, feed them, and keep them alive until maturity? Is that enough? Too much? Too little?

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  24. No, of course a parent must teach a child what they believe is right.

    It's just a crying shame when said parent is a flaming religious psychotic who is compelled to indoctrinate the child into their psychosis cult. That's the point. Whether is't madrassa schools in Saudi Arabia or Bible Camp in this country, it positively drips with evil.

    In a just world, they'd get treatment, but there are too many of them. Half of society is mentally imbalanced.

    (I am not referring to your kind of Christian here, Michael. I refer to the fundamentalist bible-literalist variety.)

    ReplyDelete
  25. I can see no reason for me, as a non-believer, to object to a parent choosing to indoctrinate a child in their choice of religion, providing this is done away from any and all public, tax supported venues (like, of course, public schools). This should include refraining from any religious references in halls of government, courts, City Halls, etc. This does not mean that I should have the right to object to "publication" of anyone's religious beliefs, up to and including the right to seek to get my attention to try to convince me that I should join them in those beliefs, PROVIDING that these "publications" or "invitations" to hear the good news are in such venues wherein I can choose to ignore them or to support them with my tax dollars. I certainly do not have to pay attention to a door to door proselytizer, I can choose not to watch a religiously oriented TV show, I do not have to purchase a particular book or magazine, and I can even decide not to read a billboard or religious tract sent to me in the mail. But.. if I am forced to "pay attention" to these ideas when I am sworn in in a court of law, if I must bow my head while someone invokes the blessings of God at a public, non-church related gathering, or if my child must choose not to take part in some quasireligous activity at public school because it is Christmas (a religous holiday, or so it seems) I am not "free" to ignore it! I think the biggest issue here is that believers may agree that the Constitution protects their freedom OF religion from interference by the state, but they don't choose torecognize the corrolary that this same protection is for my freedom FROM religion, as well. I won't, at this time, bother to point out what Brian has referred to, which is the unfairness (and probably unConstitutional nature) of permitting religious organizations to be free of payment of taxes, especially when they feel free to use some of my tax payments (which they have been spared) to further their political agendas and/or efforts to proselytize me. I guess you could say that I have very litle against Christianity, but plenty against how so many practise it in this country and at this time in our History.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think that, if society attempted to prohibit parents from teaching their children their religion, it would backfire in a huge way. It could never happen, really, but if it did the people would rise up.

    The way to defeat religion's hold on gullible minds is not force or coercion. It's progress. Time will kill it off eventually, along with the obvious value return inherent in science, logic, and reason as contrasted with the stultifying effects of blind belief. As we progress, we will outgrow it. In fact I truly believe that, if we live long enough and advance enough as a species, we will shed our religions like the outer epidermal layers after a sunburn. And it will be long overdue.

    Hey, I can dream.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think the biggest issue here is that believers may agree that the Constitution protects their freedom OF religion from interference by the state, but they don't choose torecognize the corrolary that this same protection is for my freedom FROM religion, as well.
    ------------
    Jerry, that's beause they know that you're wrong.

    I mean, it's for your own good, after all.

    Get my drift here?

    Pride makes jackasses of men and women.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Have you ever played the game, "Warhammer 40,000"? The dystopic religious Empire of that future has already been imagined. Then again, so has the Tyranid insect hive-mind of the same game.

    Ah, the future!

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  29. If such a thing could still exist, the dystopic religious empire I mean, then we haven't evolved to the place that I was indicating. Too early in the process if we still have religions that are of the controlling/programming type which could prodice such an empire. No such thing could exist in a truly enlightened future. It may exist somewhere in the future, sure, but only on the way to the enlightened one. Or to extinction. I hope for the former of course.

    The way that I see the equation is that such an enlightened future is inevitable at some point provided that we do not erase ourselves in the process. Our nature is to progress and improve as a species. We are not static; in fact we progress much faster than mere biological evolution could hope to, even in spite of our contentions atavistic tendencies.

    It may actually take a 'near-erasure' to finally get people to give up the old ways and really concentrate on getting along. I like to hope not, but that is surely a possibility. And it won't happen anytime soon, at any rate. I think in geologic time a lot rather than human time. What can I say? Former science nerd. So I'm talking say, over a thousand years here. Thats about one five-hundredth of a second in geologic time. Almost instanter.

    I prefer to take the long view. It helps me to remain optimistic in a pessimistic world.

    ReplyDelete
  30. And of course, being the logical type, I can clearly see that the more people alive now that constantly strive for such a future and hold it in their minds as an ideal at all times, the sooner it will get here.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Schools are places we go to be programmed in what ever subject we care to pursue. In the case of children, K-12, they are force feed what ever the schools want to program into the child. In the case of separation of state, and church (religion), the state has a responsibility to the child to not force a subject on the child that the child's brain is not matured enough to reject, as is all religions. I would not have a problem if a school wants to teach religion to children K-12 if there was equal time spent with several religions so the child could see the glaring mistakes they all make in their belief systems when compared to one another. In fact I would be in favor of teaching all religions so the child would have a defense when his/her parents tried to program their child to any one religion. The fate of the state is determined by the education of it's people. Any state that allows it's people to be programmed in one religion, any one, is in fact denying it's responsibility to the individual as well as it's self. The quality of life, and the speed of evolution is directly connected to education of each individual. For a government to allow any school to program children to one religion is a sure path to the evils of planned retardation.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think you have a right to indoctrinate your child with whatever garbage you want. However, you do not have a right to be the ONLY source of garbage for your child.

    I think Public schools provide a "saftey net" for children if their parents beliefs are too far from the mainstream.

    Are schools perfect in this regard? Of course not. Are they going to please everyone? Of course not. But it's necessary for society.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If someone is threatened by their child being presented with a different point of view, well then that speaks to how fragil their beliefs are.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jerry:

    Needless to say, I agree with you in general about the potential problem of providing no perspective on religions to children as they are in the process of maturing to the point where they MAY be able to "think for themselves" on the subject. Ideally, we would teach our children about all religious theory, both as concepts and from an historical standpoint, so that they could eventually make valid personal choices to accept or reject any or all of them. Realistically, even if we could manage to set up a nationally accepted (lots of luck!!) curriculum to be followed by all publicly supported school systems, there would be precious few who would not be proselytized by their parents, friends, church leaders, etc. along the way. Since that appears to be reality and because any attempt to arrive at a "fair and balanced" curriculum for teaching religion that would be acceptable to most parents is highly unlikely to be possible, I think that the best approach is to keep all religious matters out of tax supported public schooling.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If someone is threatened by their child being presented with a different point of view, well then that speaks to how fragil their beliefs are.
    --------------------
    The beliefs ARE fragile, when the mind isn't full conditioned yet. That's when there is a chance that the child will rebel against the illogic of the dogma, as did I. I started to ask really uncomfortable questions of my parents, which of course they had no answers to. Well, they had "Goddidit" but the thing is, a child won't fall for that one forever unless they're a pretty dumb child. They ask questions, get punished for it eventually, and learn one of two things. Either they learn that they are wrong and bad and influenced by the devil because they've asked sinful questions and wanted real answers, so they stop asking them and eventually come to believe in the ridiculous because there's no other option and they have to or else, or they learn that the religion is nonsense. One or the other. Depending on how smart they are.

    ReplyDelete
  36. As per normal...
    http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=103053

    Michael; Warhammer 40,000 is great, but for a more sophisticated* gaming experience, I like Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

    *as if playing with little toy soldiers on the dining room table can be described as "sophisticated".

    ReplyDelete
  37. Harvey,
    "I think that the best approach is to keep all religious matters out of tax supported public schooling."

    I have to agree with you on this issue. It is sad that something as important as this subject is, with most people, we are not ready to have a broad based curriculum on religion. There are no perfect answers for this problem. The mystery to me is why we are drawn to religious type thinking like a moth to a flame. I do not buy the fear issue as being the reason nor can I find the natural born inherent need without a real reason to be compelling either.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The mystery to me is why we are drawn to religious type thinking like a moth to a flame.
    ---------------
    In my opinion that is due to the incredible amount to which our culture is saturated with religious, Christian imagery and thinking. The programming is in everyone, even me, to some extent.

    This is the beauty of the Great Lie that Keeps On Telling Itself. It's everywhere. All-pervasive. We aren't evern aware of it anymore.

    Right from the very start, when we ask our first questions about life and the world as we all do, the answers are in most cases couched in religious imagery. Our fears of death are placates as small children with tales of heavenly bliss. We are scared into obedience with threats of hell (as are the adults, ironically enough.)

    It's in our very bloodstream. Such depth and pervasiveness of conditioning requires sustained conscious effort and a long span of time to overcome. If it can even be said to be possible to overcome it completely.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Plus it's the simple, easy-to-grasp answer to 'what happens to us after we die' and before science we really didn't have a clue that this might just be it, so we all made shit up, and there you have it. We all are aware of our mortality, after all. At first I considered that it might be some biological socially-evolved trait, to seek to believe in something, but on further reflection I now think it's just general fear of death coupled with ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Good post Brian.

    I see that attitude often. I work with a guy who is originally from Detroit, he is always going on about "those fucking muslims have taken over Detroit".

    How so?
    "Well, there is a large muslim population there. And, those assholes like to pray in public. They've built their Damned mosques all over up there. Those fucking religious nuts!"

    I say, "Uh, yeah. Kind of like the christians do here in the South?"

    "No way! Those muslim fuckers are terrorists"

    I've had that same conversation with him several times. He just can't seem to get it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I agree with Harvey, in as much as, I can make a choice whether or not to pay attention to private in public displays of religion. Door to door religious zealots do not bother me (I like messing with 'em ;-). Billboards, TV, radio, or whatever, I can choose to not pay attention to it.
    Using public finds to propagate religious ideas is absurd, whether it be christian, muslim, hindu or even the lack of religion.

    How a parent raises their children, concerning belief, is none of my business. How a school teaches children is ALL of our business'.

    If schools are to present any religion at all, it should be taught in mythology class. Teach christianity along with the other myths. Jesus could have equal billing with Zeus (or would he be Horus?).

    ReplyDelete
  42. Brian:
    "At first I considered that it might be some biological socially-evolved trait, to seek to believe in something, but on further reflection I now think it's just general fear of death coupled with ignorance."
    I think that although you are largely correct about this, our present "tendency" towards religious beliefs is not so simple. If we study history and anthropology, we see that every culture we know of has seen fit to create God(s). In a primitive society, fear of the many quite cruel and unpleasant aspects of trying to survive may certainly have led to the evolution of this seeking for an explanation and, with it, some degree of "control" by being able to blame/placate a deity when things did not go so well. Furthermore, one can see that joining in with the rest of one's tribe in such worship could lead to strengthening of the social cooperation needed to increase survival posssibilities.
    Later in our history, however, it seems to me that neither the fear nor the "belongingness" that may have encouraged such behavior could apply, and that gradually, as social advancement and ever increasing scientific knowledge began to erode the fear factor, religious belief has become evermore astrictly a social contract. Whether one actually believes in the Scriptural or doctrinal pronouncements of any modern religion, buying in gives one perceived social advantages. "I am one of the tribe." "I understand the secrets of the Universe, but everyone else doesn't". "I am better than they are." "God loves me, but not them." And do not overlook the very strong coercive value obtained by those who are "called" to lead such religious groups. In any event, it seems that our reasons for continuing to "believe" in the face of increased knowledge of reality, all of which suggests that religion is based on a total fallacy, has a multiplicity of probable reasons, not all of which apply to every "believer". Sort of like almost every psychological characteristic of humans in general, never "simple".

    ReplyDelete
  43. Harvey,
    There is one possibility you left out. What I call spiritual gravity is real coming from something we have little to no understanding of. What some would call God. That seems to me the most plausible answer to so many over so much time. Of course everyone puts their spin on the experience so we end up with all kinds of beliefs systems, and the ones that use this pull, that many have, to exploit anyone they can. People are easily exploited in this vulnerable area. I find that most, if not all, arguments against the idea of their being a God is simply arguments against the belief systems that man has created, and say little to nothing about the possibility of a God existing. Of course that would be a God that transcends our understanding, which I have come to believe. For sure I reject the religions I know about, and their books of supposed understanding of divinity.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think that although you are largely correct about this, our present "tendency" towards religious beliefs is not so simple.
    --------------
    On further reflection Harvey, I think you may be correct about this. Most things are never as 'black and white' as they seem.

    (You aren't by any chance a tall invisible bunny, are you?)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Jerry, your 'spiritual gravity' is essentially to the sum total of all the effects harvey and I have been talking about. It's the need for 'something' more. The predeliction for religion, for belief in something greater, a personified deity.

    The last part, the way the need personifies, can be explained very well by the thing about how we all had parents, these seemingly immense and omnipotent beings that protected us when we were vulnerable and took care of us and loved us when we were very small. That need for succor, for there to be immense and powerful beings that love us and take care of us in this harsh (and very scary!!!) reality, I think explains the need for an immense anthropomorphic deity in almost all cultures.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Brian:
    "That need for succor, for there to be immense and powerful beings that love us and take care of us in this harsh (and very scary!!!) reality, I think explains the need for an immense anthropomorphic deity in almost all cultures."
    Just so! If there is one common thread in all of this, it must surely be related to our experiences as totally helpless and totally dependent infants and small children. It may even explain why so many of us create our God(s) as "Father or Mother" figures. Inasmuch as we can rarely have actual recollection of our earliest post partum experiences, but "remember" them nonetheless, it may not be a surprise that some of us have "visitations" or mental/emotional experiences later in life that we choose to understand as contact with that parent/God.

    N.B. Although I am not a Pookah, my parents did, indeed, choose my name at around the time that "Harvey" was a very successful Broadway show.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I love that movie. That and "Arsenic and Old Lace" are my two favorite old comedy movies.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Jerry, your 'spiritual gravity' is essentially to the sum total of all the effects harvey and I have been talking about. It's the need for 'something' more. The predeliction for religion, for belief in something greater, a personified deity.

    "That need for succor, for there to be immense and powerful beings that love us and take care of us in this harsh (and very scary!!!) reality, I think explains the need for an immense anthropomorphic deity in almost all cultures."

    I think both of you guys are reaching for reasons to reject the possibility of some sort of divinity existing that we know so little of that we agree to call this unknown source God. I hear both of you over and over label this experience as fulfilling some need. It is not a need to get something, but an overwhelming desire to give something. You can check this out with Botts. I have to wonder if you don't have a need to keep everything tidy, so you feel secure in your beliefs. If your thoughts are on needs, maybe it is your own needs that bring those type of thoughts to question.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yes Jerry, and I'm sure that Harvey would agree with me when I say that to me, it is you that seems to be reaching.

    Not being antagonistic; I'm just fascinated with how different people see the same thing. Pretty cool, actually.

    To me, any divinity is really reaching. It's just that simple. It's easier to explain reality without one. It could be and likely is just more or less what current science thinks it all is, or it could be stranger than that, or it could be very strange, as strange even as are my Big Brain speculations, and IMHO any of those optionz is a much simpler explanation for reality than any deity ever could be to me. It just is that way. That's how I sees it, matey.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jerry "I think both of you guys are reaching for reasons to reject the possibility of some sort of divinity existing that we know so little of that we agree to call this unknown source God."

    I think one area where believers and atheists disconnect is that believers tend to think atheists/agnostics/non-believers actually claim to know one way or another.

    In this example, I agree with Brian and Harvey, but that is not to say that I am sure that our belief in god comes from the womb and childhood, I just think it's the most probable case. There is a very important distinction there.

    Nothing that's been said rules out a divine knowledge somehow buried in our psyche, but given other factors, it's a less likely case.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Nothing that's been said rules out a divine knowledge somehow buried in our psyche, but given other factors, it's a less likely case.

    March 5, 2010 2:11 PM"

    Of course, as an agnostic, I must agree with the above statement. I have no more certain knowledge of the absence of a creative force that is somehow responsible for all that we know in this life than any believer has that one not only exists, but has personal interest in individual human beings. To me, it is of little or no importance whether or not a God exists that was responsible for creation. What is important is that I see no reason to presume that IF it exists, that there is any reason for it to pay attention to me or, for that matter, for me to pay any attention to it. As long as I am not convinced that I am missing a chance for some important outcome in this life (let alone in any hypothetical future one) by paying no attention to any God or Gods AND that I feel no absence or lack in my life because I do not believe, I am quite content to accept my present existance and to be at peace with what, if anything, may follow.
    Perhaps be cause I am a physician andhave had extensive experience with at least two of the "major" religions and have, as yet, neither found "faith" nor felt any negative effects from th ese issues thus far, I have concluded that what evidence exists does not support a Deity, at least in my life.

    ReplyDelete
  52. It is not a need to get something, but an overwhelming desire to give something.
    ------------
    There are two ways to go. You can feel good when you get something (ego-driven personality) or you can feel even better when you give something (superego driven.)

    Both are evolutionary pluses in different ways. In the first case you are enriching yourself and increasing your potential for survival and successful mating by becoming wealthy etc, and in the second you are helping others, which makes society work a lot better and thus also reinforces the surival potential, albeit less directly, although just as effectively. The first way is the 'old way' which is an atavism today but is still very common, more commn than the second way, which is the way of the future which will eventually replace the path of self-interest.

    Hopefully. Because when it does, we will have arrived at a real chance for world peace.

    ReplyDelete
  53. What I'm saying here is that both ways are survival coping mechanisms which we have evolved biologically. We of course evolved the first, selfish path first when we were hunter-gatherers and have only started to evolve the second one when we became social animals.

    ReplyDelete
  54. As for the separation of church and state issue, The founding Fathers goal was to create a law that would out-law all States from recognizing any ONE particular religion. For example as in the Church of England and the Church of Rome. These were the primary reason the pilgrims fled to the Americas in search of religious freedom.

    It would be somewhat hypocritical to impose laws against other races and denominations who come to this country seeking the same liberties as our forefathers.
    The problem most Christians have with this new competition of religious variety is the teachings. I mean lets face it, somebody has to be wrong!!! There is a vast difference in religious teachings between Muslims and Christianity, and this is where the problem is. The goal of the Extremist “MUSLIMS” is to musilize the entire world even if it means killing any and all who appose them…

    America fought for religious freedom one time before ,and history often repeats it self.
    Could it be world war three? I would hate to find out…

    I say let me have my right to be free, and you have your right to be free.
    Let me worship as I see fit with liberty, and you exercise the same liberty as I. FREEDOM
    The problem here is when you teach in a public venue the doctrine of evolution then you are trampling on my religious freedom. And in turn I am trampling on your freedom FROM religious if I teach the doctrine of Creation .

    There is no neutral ground , hence comes the conflict…

    ReplyDelete
  55. The problem most Christians have with this new competition of religious variety is the teachings. I mean lets face it, somebody has to be wrong!!!
    -------------
    Hi Mike!

    Mike, you're missing the obvious answer here.

    They're all wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hey, I hate to disappoint.

    ;-)

    It is interesting how you see that they all can't be right, and yet all religions are absolutely certain that they are. Honestly, I'd be lying to you if I said that it wasn't amusing. From outside the silliness, it's apparent that they're all equally wrong. yours included. Obvious answer is obvious.

    Doesn't it even give you a moment's pause, a tiny little niggling doubt, that you yourself could just possibly be wrong? I mean, here you are quite rightly 'observing' that 'they all can't be right' but still as certain as ever that your version is the precise correct one out of them all, not just the different dects of christianity but ALL RELIGIONS that ever were? Out of all of those religions past and present that have ever existed, it's yours out of all of them? Because (hard not to laugh here) you had a spiritual experience? As if none of the others did? You really think no other people in no other religion have personal religious or spiritual experiences? People have fucking let their own hearts be carved out by a priest voluntarily, dude! I'm fairly certain that the dude with the heart cut out was absolutely sure about his religion too. Are you really saying that he was not as certain as you are here? Can you think he was just 'wrong' when that is what he would of course have said of you? Is this really invisible to you? It's pretty glaring to me. Just saying...

    ReplyDelete
  57. You might have a point, Observant, if evolution was a religion.

    It's not. It's the best theory we have as to how things got where they are today.

    Now, if anyone would be willing to allow their religion to be classified as theory(!), we might actuall get somewhere.

    Would you accept Jesus as a theory?


    word verification:
    sphip.
    Something like a floating lisp?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Mike; "The problem here is when you teach in a public venue the doctrine of evolution then you are trampling on my religious freedom."

    Yeah, good point. Also, don't forget that teaching heliocentrism and geology in general trample on your religious freedom in exactly the same way as teaching evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Observant:
    Your most recent post is refreshingly open-minded of you. As has been pointed out, however, you mistakenly see evolution as a doctrine akin to Biblical accounts of creation. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other, except possibly in the minds of fundamentalists like you. Even if you do not consider the clearly documented evidence that the world as we know it has evolved and existed for millions of years sufficient to declare it absolutely certain, there can be no comparison with the BELIEF in creationism, which is based upon absolutely no documentable evidence. According to you, geological and astronomical sciences are equally attacks upon your religious freedoms, since they also are absolutely contrary to Biblical accounts, as well. As long as noone prevents you from teaching your children about your beliefs in a non-publicly supported educational system, your freedom to worship as you see fit is in no way limited.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Mike; "The problem here is when you teach in a public venue the doctrine of evolution then you are trampling on my religious freedom."
    -----------------------
    To me that sounds like someone telling me that schools teaching their kids to not eat poison is trampling on their religious freedom.

    Your religious freedom to be sub-human? Because humans think. That's what we have the brains for. And if you just think about things for long enough, and you're really careful with what you see, making sure about the explanation for it, trying things out to see if they work, write it all down and have others check it too, and thus prove what you're thinking is true or false, and just keep doing that for hundreds of years, you get science.

    Science is taught in school. If you don't want that, just read your bible and let the rest of the world progress without you, as it already is. If you want to keep your kids ignorant, it's your business, so private school them.

    Your religious freedom does not extend to making the rest of the country ignorant, dude. Evolution is science, which is THOUGHT and not BELIEF. I've already spoken frequently about the difference between the two. So just because your BELIEFS just instantly dissolve when they encounter actual THOUGHTS, don't go complaining to us. That's your fault, for believing the preposterous. Seriously. Think about it. Your comment is just silly. Religious freedom? Really? Your religion wants you to be a child abuser? Your children need to be exposed to reality. That's what schools are for, even if you happen to be in deep denial of reality.
    What you call religious freedom is just child abuse.

    Anyhow, hope all is well with you, Mike; I'm not mad or anything, just have to make my point when someone slurs science with mere fantasy.

    (I really do like you dude, but not believing in evolution is actually sort-of creepy to me. I've loved science since I was a boy.
    Science doesn't try to kill religion by the way. Science is just truth, or as close as we can come to figuring it out, and it's supported by facts so it can't just be denied like you do.
    No, science doesn't kill religion. All science does is show the truth, and then the truth kills your religion, just by being there.)

    ReplyDelete
  61. And let's face it, evolution just makes so much sense. I mean, you have to be at least minimally science-literate for it to really show you it's sheer beauty, but just about anyone can get the basic principles.

    If they haven't been shut down in that area by religious programming of course.

    One real comprehension problem that Christians have that causes them to even make fun of evolution as if it were preposterous, is that they quite obviously cannot for some reason grasp vast spans of time at all in any way. (Nor of distance for that matter, in the case of astronomy, but I digress)
    Possibly this is because they truly believe (as hard as it is for me to imagine how) that the world is only six thousand years old. At least the christians that I'm talking about in this post do. So perhaps that's why they can't grasp large numbers at all. Maybe that's why they don't seem 'real' to them.
    Perhaps as kids when they asked their parents how old the earth was and their parents replied "Oh, very, very, very old, about SIX THOUSAND YEARS!!!" the kids must have decided that that is one really incomprehensibly HUGE number and so there's really no need to learn how to imagine large quantities. I dunno.

    Six thousand years to me is not the blink of an eye. It is much shorter than that. By comparison an eye blink is a Galapagos tortoise doing the quarter-mile. It's a really short span of time. It's barely enough time for a butterfly species to evolve a SLIGHTLY different wing shape and color pattern. And butterflies evolve much faster than mammals do. (we are mammals, btw)

    No, really. It's almost microscopically short.

    Here's a little tidbit of info. The average 'lifespan' of an average species in general is about four to six million years, and then they either go extinct completely, or the form changes enough for it to no longer be the same species. Oh, it's still a SIMILAR species. Just not the same one anymore. In other words, while it likely could still mate with one of the original species if they are still around somewhere else, the union would not produce sexually viable offspring. Any issue would be sterile, in other words.

    That's like five million years for that to happen, for it to DIVERGE enough so that it can no longer reproduce with the original species and have viable offspring.

    (Think horse plus donkey equals mule, sterile)

    (For say, the donkey to evolve from the horse, if that's how it happened, for a very similar species to evolve from a parent species, its five million years AT BEST. Could take a hell of a lot longer, too. And the more different in form a species is from an ancestor, the more time it has taken to evolve from it, through increasingly different similar species, to finally appear vastly different.

    So how long for say, our very earliest ancestors, which were like small rodents in appearance, to evolve all the way into us and the apes?

    Now, that's a span of time I can respect. Say 55 million years.

    Er, that's fifty-five hundred hundred hundred. ;-)

    Here's the link. (Not the missing one, silly!)
    The earliest ancestor, appearing just after the dinosaurs died out. Looks like a loris or maybe an exopthalmic rat.

    Notice that I said 'just after?'

    It was ten million years after.

    Now can you see how I think about time?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Now can you see how silly six thousand years sounds to me? Its utterly absurd. And gee, yes, I can prove it. In about ten million different ways, too.
    Not that proof can stop a man from believing what he wants to.


    (I wonder if Christians secretly wish that some REAL proof of God would turn up that even the scientists would believe? Of course you do, it's only natural. That's because deep down they must know that that science would accept hard evidence like that, but there just isn't any. You wish there was, but it isn't there anywhere. Must be frustrating.)


    Belief does not trump facts. If it did, then when the first people that came out saying that earth is round, they would have eventually been proven wrong by beliefs. And yet, as always, the church tries with all it's might to cling to the past and it's beliefs and only ever advances when the entire world realizes that they're being stupid. So while it did take a while, eventually the facts won out. AS ALWAYS.

    Just because certain people do not accept facts as proof, does not in any way invalidate facts you know. It only invalidates the people.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Incidentally, if you REALLY want the missing link between apes and man, well, it was never missing. Because the ONLY connection that apes and men have, the ONLY link there is between them, is that they both descended from something like this little ratlike creature 55 million years ago. So that is the missing link. Take it or leave it. It's not the link between man and apes as if the men evolved FROM the apes. That never happened.
    They simply both evolved from a MUCH more primitive, MUCH smaller, ratlike creature. So apes and men aren't 'father and son' they're 'brothers.' Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  64. My link three posts back seems not to have posted, so here it is, the earliest ancestor of apes and men:

    link

    ReplyDelete
  65. Let's take that number, 55 million years, and break down approximately what must have happened:

    Since the average lifespan of a species is about five million years, about how many different species must have evolved from the original stock in order to produce that much change? It's a lot of change, from a mousie-looking thing to a man or an ape. But it seems a lot more believable when you do the math and realize that in between was a series of about eleven or twelve different species. So each of those was only slightly different from the one before it. Much better, no?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Okay, I'm done. Lol. I guess when science is made light of, I get defensive or something. I really do love it a lot. All my life. To me it's the most noble thing we have. And our only hope as a species.

    Hey, sorry about my tone, Mike. I'm really not specifically directing this at you, just at fundamentalist christianty in general. I hate to be a jerk. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Mac said,
    Now, if anyone would be willing to allow their religion to be classified as theory(!), we might actually get somewhere.
    Would you accept Jesus as a theory?

    Certainly. I do not see any other way than to accept Jesus as theory. What I accept with faith does seem like fact to me, when we haul it out into the light of day to examine it, I see no other way than to call it theory.The only real disagreement I have with atheist is the source of what I call the spiritual ideas. Do these ideas come from the human animal or from a divine source. I think the divine source makes much more sense to me. Of course neither the atheist nor myself can prove one way or the other. I think when a religionist believes what he/she has bought into with faith is no longer theory, but an ABSOLUTE, the question of sanity is certainly in order.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I refuse to accept Jesus as a theory. Jesus is an hypothesis.

    One that lasts about ten seconds under scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  69. You are using a narrow definition for theory.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Some articles on this link may be of interest to those bloggers who ask so many questions of believers.

    So, I'll try to post the link for your edification. (Or not).

    Peace,
    MI

    http://www.keepthefaith.org/video_feature.htm

    ReplyDelete
  71. Watched the beginning of the first video. The priest started to explain the rational reasons that we can look to in order to believe in God, and his first point is that "God created us in his own image and likeness" and "we are beings who posess an intellect whose very nature is to be able to know and to grasp the truth."

    WRONG. Even if we were created by God, we all can grasp the truth, or grasp the lie. We all fall for lies, too. Our ability to 'grasp the truth' relies on our ability to discern the truth. Which you cannot do, MI, or you wouldn't be believing in this stuff.

    Then he says: "And we all have a will. A will whose very purpose is to embrace, to love the good."

    WRONG. Hitler had one of the strongest wills ever. Just ask anyone.

    You are so wrong, that you're almost right again by coming all the way around the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Brain said,
    And let's face it, evolution just makes so much sense. I mean, you have to be at least minimally science-literate for it to really show you it's sheer beauty, but just about anyone can get the basic principles.

    If they haven't been shut down in that area by religious programming of course.

    -------------------------------

    Actually Brian ,evolution is a huge leap of faith.
    It is easy to accept evolution if you don’t have a problem with it’s theory on how life begin.
    This is where I choke and gasp It is not possible for life to begin from NON-LIFE.
    Science BELIEVES life started from under the deep blue sea , yet faith is needed or should I say faith is demanded to make sense of the theory.
    Not to speak of the giant missing link….
    No, I think I will stick with the Bible.

    I don’t have a problem with science except when it comes to un-proven speculations concerning the beginning of life…

    By the way , how’s that new baby boy doing?

    --------------------------
    Ryan ,the plan is Ft. Myers with a Beach front hotel. Any suggestions…
    Warmth, sunshine and beaches , OH MY!!! LOL…

    ReplyDelete
  73. This is where I choke and gasp It is not possible for life to begin from NON-LIFE.
    -------------
    That's because you don't realize that organic molecules are
    'almost' alive themselves, and they can form in water with the right chemicals and conditions present. The more we learn about the types of molecules that were present in the primordial oceans, the more we realize that they combine naturally into more complex molecules, and these evolve in precisely the same way that animals and plants do. They get better at what they do over time. Yes, they do. Until they formed primitive cells. That's how it works. And presumably the same thing happens anywhere, on any planet there are primordial oceans.

    There's nothing that special about life. It's just really complicated chemical intereactions.

    Now, how do two molecules combine like that in the ocean? Well, it turns out that they did it in the same way that we're still doing it in our own cells. DNA replicates in the same manner. On the DNA molecule (half strand) it's like a half a ladder. It has 'half-rungs' which are molecules called nucleotides. So this half strand is in a watery solution with free-floating nucleotide molecules in it. So whenever a stray molecule happens to pass close by one of those 'half-rungs' on the DNA half-strand, it snaps onto it, like two magnets coming together. Click. And now you have the other half of the 'rung.' Eventually, the entire half-strand of DNA becomes a whole strand, perfectly reproducing the missing half of the molecule by attracting the appropriate molecules to the spots where they belong.

    Crystals grow in a similar manner, btw.

    Here's the interesting thing about these primitive molecules. If you follow them along in their evolution up to the point where the first LIVING cell was formed, at no point does the thing suddenly 'come alive.' It's just a little teensy bit more 'alive' at each step until it's entirely alive, as a cell.

    And if your eyes have glazed over here, well, that's just your conditioning, so I forgive you. This realli is the answer. Whether or not you accept it doesn't make it less real and less right.

    ReplyDelete
  74. By the way , how’s that new baby boy doing?
    ----------
    Fantastic! Beyond any reasonable expectations even. He's fantastic, and the best thing that ever happened to me. When he looks at me, I can see the love in his eyes. It's very powerful. At 48, and never having had a baby of my own, it's mindblowing, frankly.

    I have a small newer picture of him up on my main page now. It's at top right, under my new pic for my BB speculations. I'm using it as the picture link to my "My Son the Manifestation" blog.

    Check him out. He's too cute.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Observant:

    You may have "trouble" with the question of how life first began, but this in no way requires a "leap of faith" to accept and/or understand evolution and the fact that the Earth is millions of years older than 6000 or so. Even if you contend that life may have begun as a result of some creative force (which you choose to call God), this doesn't allow you to throw out all scientific knowledge about what has happened to all life forms since, and, especialy so, you cannot begin to justify Scriptural accounts as literal descriptions of these events. If, in your mind, science is unable (as yet) to explain exactly how life first began, this simply does not justify your contention that all the rest of it is just a matter of "faith", even though this is the tactic that "creationist" literature suggest that you use in discussions with non-believers. I recognize that some Christian apologists (notably the Catholic Church, which, of course, condemns the viewpoint as far as you are concerned)have decided that the overwhelming evidence for the accuracy of evolution and the age of the Earth can no longer be ignored, and have, I think, taken up the view that this does not obviate belief that God initiated whatever creation was necessary to set the whole process in motion. Somehow, such acceptance of reality does not seem to shake their "faith" in either God or scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  76. If we accept your idea, Observant, that "Life cannot come from non-life", then from where comes life?

    If godidit, where did God come from?
    Non-life?

    Your assumption that life was created from nothing is still active with a creator. You seek an explanation from science that you allow religion a pass on.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Six thousand years. That's such a short time.

    Observant, what about erosion rates? How do you explain the Grand Canyon then? Inquiring minds want to know. I'm sure that you BELIEVE that it all could have happened in six thousand years, but hey, you can figure shit like this out for yourself. It's called math.

    The Grand Canyon is five miles deep now. Five miles is 26400 feet. One six-thousandth of that is 4.4 feet.

    This means that on the average, it got deeper by 4.4 feet a year, give or take. Some years maybe almost nothing, but since it had to average that amount, some years a way lot more.

    The Grand Canyon wasn't caused by water running through earth, as in dirt. It was caused by water running over solid rock. Do you really think that mere water, even a raging rapids, could eat away at solid rock by over four feet a year? (In some years it would have been even significantly more than that due to the law of averages)

    You can go to New Hampshire and look at water rushing over rock, different kinds of rocks even, and go back there ten years later and find where you were looking beforehand, the precise rocks, and they will look almost exactly the same, and you must know this. It's common sense.

    Or even much better, we've been measuring the Grand Canyon's depth accurately for many decades. Look back over the recorded data over long spans of time for the average rate of depth increase. It won't be anything like 'feet' per year. Tiny tiny amounts, perhaps. Per decade.

    It will prove to you that it's impossible by several orders of magnitude for it to have gotten that deep in only six thousand years. It took hundreds of millions of years. That is the truth of the matter. Accept it.

    Plus, and here's a bonus, the Grand Canyon just happens to be one of the premier places in the world where you can see evolution all laid out for you far into the past. You can join up with some geology students on a field trip and go with them to take a look at the walls of the canyon. As you go down the sides there are layers, visible layers, where the rock changed composition with time. In many and perhaps most of those layers, are fossils. And you never find any one type of them except in its own layer, no matter where in the canyon you look.

    We have dated these layers with all of the modern dating techniques known, and they All agree that the layers get progressively older as you descend.

    They all agree as to not only that it gets older the deeper you go, but also in the precise age of each of the many, many layers. (Important point to think about)

    It's consistent as you go down. At the bottom it's many hundreds of millions of years. So say, perhaps ten feet down the dating techniques say it's ten thousand years old, at twenty it's twenty thousand, and so on to the bottom. I'm not being accurate here because I don't know the actual numbers, but you get the idea.

    It's consistant as you go down. The age increase of the rocks as tested by modern equipment and techniques that you insist are heavily flawed. This is an important point, no?

    So when are you going to tell your family that you've given up Christianity? I've just proven it wrong to you in a way that I am fairly sure that you can comprehend, and I can't see any way that you can deny it. You can see this yourself, with your own eyes. More than evidence, it's proof positive that the Bible is wrong about the age of the earth. Very wrong. Unless erosion was MUCH faster in the past due to God changing the laws of physics a few hundred years back so that we would think the earth is so old. Which of course would invalidate my little self-test which I've designed for you here, but it would incidentally also prove God is a colossal liar, so you might not want to go with that
    particular 'apology.'

    You move, preacher man. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  78. Oh, and btw, in all the layers of rock in all the parts of the world we never on one single occasion have seen dinosaur fossils AND human ones in the same layer, or even in layers that are near to each other.

    (Incidentally, scientists can often find the same layers at widely different locations and determine that they are the same, from the same time, because they have the exact same mix of fossils in them)

    However, in the same layers as the dinosaurs or very soon afterwards, slightly above them, we do see animals that there is nothing like today that we, using science, have determined are quite probably our very distant ancestors. Of course, they look pretty much like rats, so they were all republicans no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  79. It's consistant as you go down. The age increase of the rocks as tested by modern equipment and techniques that you insist are heavily flawed. This is an important point, no?

    -----------------------------------
    Well there you go Brian, that should be a huge red flag for you.
    What you are actually saying is the earth was built in stages. The deeper you go you find it was made before the surface was, not possible.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Mike; the surface wasn't the surface a billion years ago, or even a thousand years ago. Why do you think they call them "digs".

    PS: I'm not that familiar with Ft. Myers, but we do go to Sanibel a lot. Check out Ellington's (Jazz Club), the Mucky Duck (Pub) and the Island Cow (Casual dining) if you make it to Sanibel. Also, there are great canoe trails at Ding Darling National Wild Life Refuge and Thomas Edison's house is neat if you've got kids with you.

    ReplyDelete
  81. The deeper you go you find it was made before the surface was, not possible.
    ---------------
    THAT'S YOUR ANSWER???????????!!!!!!!


    I didn't expect you to try to rebut all of my points with something a five year old would have thought of.

    Of course it gets older as you go down. I mean, this is unbelievable. You can't imagine SEDIMENTATION????

    You really can't just automatically KNOW by sheer common sense and reason that the youngest sediments are at the top of the pile? REALLY?

    I've miscalculated then. I can see this now.

    I have once again overestimated your ability to see the obvious. How foolish of me.

    Where do I go from here? I'm already at the most simple level that I can possibly talk at in order to get these points across, and you STILL CAN'T SEE IT.

    This is frankly depressing.

    It's self-evident, and you can't see it.

    What did they do to you? Actual brain surgery?

    Jeeze.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Mike, if you have a compost heap that you've been throwing garbage into for ten years, where would you have to dig to in order to find the very first thing that you ever threw into it ten years ago?

    According to you, it's lying right there at the top of the pile.

    I'm still stunned here.

    ReplyDelete
  83. You guys (Christians) can't see that the youngest things are always at the top of a pile of things that has been laid down in layers over the years.

    And you wonder why I say that you've been programmed to be ignorant?

    C'mon. Try harder. If you can't get something like this, then how do you even live in the world? Do you have people that come in and feed and wash you?

    Dude. Not good.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Brian; I'm surprised he didn't say "flooddidit". That would have at least made a little more sense.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Well actually Ryan, I am more inclined to believe a earth quake caused the massive canyon .

    The point I was trying to make with Brian is this, The earth is not growing like a tree with ring years…
    It should be the same age from top to bottom seeing how all substance comes from the earth itself.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Mike; It should be the same age from top to bottom seeing how all substance comes from the earth itself.

    It all is the same age. 4.6 billion years old. But the organic matter and minerals in the rock is what is aged using radiometric dating. All matter on earth coaleced 4.6 billion years ago, but rocks are created, destroyed and reform all the time through various geological processes (sedementation is one).

    ReplyDelete
  87. Observant,
    Head off to Home Depot. But one stepping stone, and throw it in the yard where no one will move it for a few years. In about two years you will see it is sinking, in about five years it will probably be out of sight.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Observant,
    Conversely, you can get some land where there is a lot of rocks on the surface. You can pick up all the rocks, and behold, in the next year or two the rocks are back on the surface. We are on a living planet and the definition of life on this planet is change. I know you have found the truth than is changeless to you but you are living in a fantasy land, for all of life is nothing but change. That is the definition of life itself, CHANGE.

    ReplyDelete
  89. This is sedimentary rock. You never had any geology in high school, Mike? Religious objections?

    It's formed by sediments falling to the bottom of the ocean. The Grand Canyon used to be an ocean bottom. You can find clamshells embedded in the rock. Very very old clamshells. And no clams exist today exactly like them.

    Plus when a volcano blows, it deposits new magma rock layers on top of existing layers, so you can have a volcanic rock layer on top of one with shells in it, a sedimentary one.

    As sediments fall to the ocean bottom they form layers that eventually turn to solid rock. They can be thousands of feet thick.

    Plus the continents themselves move very slowly. Very long ago there was only one continent, Pangea. Then there were two, Laurasia and Gondwanaland. These kept splitting up until they were like they are today. They're still moving. All land masses are on huge plates of rock floating on the magma of the earth's mantle. That's about a hundred miles straight down, more or less. It's like clumps of oatmeal floating around in a boiling pot, some going down while others rising, one pushes against another and goes underneath it while raising the other one up a bit. At the plate edges you get a lot of earthquakes.

    In very deep ocean trenches the plates form by moving away from each other and magma rising up in between to fill the space.

    Cool, huh?

    So tell me you get it now please. Please.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Mike, I wish you could learn to like science. You and I could have the best conversations. I may be shallow in other areas, but a lifelong love of science has left me with literally tons of little tiny details about how everything works in the natural world.

    I have to tell you something my friend, for I do honestly consider you a friend now. (anyone who has tolerated all the shit that I've thrown at you and still can be civil to me is definitely a friend to me)

    Imagine a kid with a good memory who has made an obsession at a young age not to memorize scripture, but instead to memorize facts and information relating to the natural world as we see it. And even especially the stuff that people generally weren't interested in even if they liked science.

    That was me. I was obsessed with learning about this world, the many creatures and plants to be found, if they were dangerous to me, if they were useful, how were they called, what were their lifestyles, how did they cope with reality, how did they all relate to one another, how did they all form as they are fitting so well together. And most of all, I loved and still love to marvel at how amazing and incredible they all are taken together as a whole, and how amazing it is that they all fit together in this huge perfect web of life. And then to be able to glimpse, even dimly, the mechanism that describes so perfectly how exactly they all came to be this perfect web of life, evolution, to be able to see how it works and how everything makes sense if you can just understand that one thing, well, it's inspiring, is all.

    And also about the planet itself. I loved geology and oceanography as well as geology.

    I am still like that.

    What I want to tell you is, when someone learns even a tiny fraction of the science that describes this world, well, one can then see a picture in one's head of how it all works together as one. It starts to make sense. It takes time and effort, but one can indeed make sense of it all, without God.

    It's really beautiful. I truly wish that I could share it with you. I used to see the world with God as a child and young man, and now that I do not, I have to tell you my friend Mike, that it is actually much more beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I don't think that the technical details matter much to Mike. I think he believes that he has inspired knowledge. His inspired knowledge matches the Holy Scriptures and are 'evidenced' by them, hence, his knowledge is Holy.

    What he is saying, seems to be, "All your secular knowledge counts for nothing.", which is exactly equivalent to, "You guys think you are SO smart, don't you?"

    Try telling someone who has this attitude anything and he/she thinks, "You guys think you're SO smart, don't you?"

    He is contemptuous of all your 'secular' knowledge and anyone trying to use knowledge to alter his perception of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Deep down I know you're right Pboy, but it is really difficult for me to really 'get' this. It's difficult to believe that a man would have a belief and not be able to discard it when information comes to light that disproves it. I mean, it would hurt to discard it, but the alternative is to be totally wrong for the rest of your life, to actually live a lie till you die, and die in the expectation of waking up in heaven and then just go out like a candle and that's it, no chance to even learn that they were wrong all those years.

    It's really sad.


    You know, I see humanity's separation into 'believers' and 'thinkers' as evidence of our growing aware as a species of our own mortality having forced us into the Kubler-Ross 'stages of grief' as in denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Only the atavistic religious/magical thinking individuals are all stuck mostly in the 'denial' stage with some of them also venturing into the other intermediate stages, and only the agnostics and atheists being in the 'acceptance' stage.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I also greive for the loss of so many minds.

    So many wonders to know in this world, and it's all invisible to them forever.

    Mental slavery. It's nothing less than that.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Actually pboy, I was quite intrigued with what Brian and Ryan posted about the layers of rocks and the whole age process.
    Contemptuous you say, Not of your great knowledge, I do however feel a bit of contempt when you attack me for my lack of knowledge. I have to process all this new information and see how it aligns with scripture. Give me a chance little buddy…

    ReplyDelete
  95. Tht was a very good answer, Mike.

    I'm at the very least glad that you are processing new information rather than ignoring it.
    I'm only worried that instead of seriously considering it on it's merits you might be instead 'processing' it as in like what a food processor does. In this case though it would be finding a way in your mind where it agrees with scripture. Where somehow both the Grand Canyon can be what it is and also the age of the earth be only 6000 years. Such is not rationally possible. Now sure, you can google search christian sites and you might well find some site where some creative believer has found a way to 'apologize' the sedimentary process in such a way as to agree with a young earth, but I assure you that he has butchered science in the process. As well as reason and logic. And said person probably will posess seemingly convincing 'scientific' quotes that seem to agree with a young earth and there might even be a 'scientist' that is also a creationist or three. But the scientific quotes will onoly be scientific-sounding, and the scientist or three will be some crackpot with an internet degree or a degree from a Christian school. So, fair warning is all.

    Other than that, I'm quite pleased with your response to pboy.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Mike "I have to process all this new information and see how it aligns with scripture."

    It won't. Because "scripture" is bronze age poetry, nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Ryan, I am somewhat surprised that you would cast off your faith in God over a few verses of scripture that do not contradict the Gospel message in any way shape or form…

    ReplyDelete
  98. Mike; that's not why I "cast off my faith". Like many Christians, I was intellectually dishonest about the Old Testament and Christian theology. The historical unreliability of the gospels is why caused me to open my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  99. But to be fair, Adam and Eve as myth does undercut the gospel message (no original sin).

    ReplyDelete
  100. I mean what was it, some obscure passage in Mark ,or was it in Luke?
    Never the less , how does it change the message of Christ?
    It is a well known fact that many Jewish words are often used with multiples.
    In the translation ,I am sure some words were used that veered from the original letters, but having said this it still does NOT change the Gospel message.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Original sin is the fall from the Holy state Adam was created in...
    Our nature is a sinful nature we inherited from Adam. Hence the scripture in the Plasmas of David I was sharpen in iniquity and in sin did my Mother conceive me...

    ReplyDelete
  102. Mike: "I mean what was it, some obscure passage in Mark ,or was it in Luke?
    Never the less , how does it change the message of Christ?"

    It was the absense of a passage in Mark. But that wasn't it, that was just what got me looking at it with new eyes.

    But the real question I have to your response is... Which message of Christ? There are several.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I have to admit that I don't have much interest in debating religion at this point in my life. I do find it interesting that these discussions do provide another descriptive counterpoint between science and religion. If science texts fail to adequately explain observed facts then the science texts are considered wrong. If religious texts fail to explain observed facts then the facts must be wrong. Science texts are considered living documents in that they may well change with time.

    I wonder if some of the same thinking is applied by some to other living documents like the US Constitution? Take the revered 2nd Amendment for example. Viewed from the perspective of the design of the Constitution, the Founders thinking on the matter is largely irrelevant. They viewed the document as a starting place not an end. If they hadn't felt that way, the never would have created a method (arduous admittedly) to change it. They wanted it to be stable and resistant to prevailing whims, but never expected their 18th century perspectives to remain sacred. If they had, some of us would be counted as 3/5 of a person in this year's census.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Original sin is the fall from the Holy state Adam was created in...
    -----------
    You've never asked yourself how a loving and forgiving God can hold a case of simple disobedience against not only Adam and Eve but all of their INNOCENT descendants forever and dictate a much harsher punishment than the severity of the crime called for, did you? Not even once?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Isn't it interesting how religious programming can cause an otherwise normal person to feel major lifelong guilt for a minor sin supposedly committed by our very most distant ancestors thousands of years ago, as if there were any sense whatsoever to that?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Observant, are you in any way personally responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve? Did you have a hand in it? Did you know that it was going to happen and not tell God about it? No?

    So how can you see any sense in assuming responsibility and even guilt for that sin, solely on the basis of what other people tell you is true? Haven't you learned yet that people will tell you anything?

    You didn't do it. Neither did I. There is no guilt to feel. There is no pennance to pay.

    If God disagrees with that unassailable logic, then God Himself is an evil being. That's the one and only conclusion that a sane person can draw. And if God isn't insane, then men have lied about Him. That's the only way to think about this. The only sane way.

    ReplyDelete
  107. If science texts fail to adequately explain observed facts then the science texts are considered wrong. If religious texts fail to explain observed facts then the facts must be wrong.
    --------------
    Observant... Mike... See this above? Pliny is simply touching on the very heart of the matter here. This is the simple truth. Religious people always try to paint science as just another belief, but that is also a part of the huge lie they're telling you. Religions, systems of belief, do not correct themselves when facts prove them wrong. Science on the other hand has to, in order to be still considered science.
    Religion is belief. Science is thought. And while it's okay to believe things, one's beliefs must be moderated by one's thoughts, and not the reverse.

    Oh, and one other thing. Belief is emotional and science is rational, so beliefs usually feel better, feel stronger, feel more *right* even when they're dead wrong. So guard against that.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Observant, just how 'far out there' does it sound to you that people, mere men, might have good reason and motivation to make sure that you and all other 'good christians' feel that nonexistant guilt forever? That as long as you do, you can be manipulated by it?

    Because to me that's not far out there at all. That's typical. That's how men are.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Saint Brian the Godless said...

    Isn't it interesting how religious programming can cause an otherwise normal person to feel major lifelong guilt for a minor sin supposedly committed by our very most distant ancestors thousands of years ago, as if there were any sense whatsoever to that?

    I do not think people understand they are programmed, how it works, or how to do anything about it. It seems to me that many/most people see being programmed as a weakness, like being brain washed.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Interesting point, Jerry.

    I think you're right. Most of us see being brainwashed as a weakness. That may well be why the religious folks fail to see themselves as programmed.

    I had an interesting experience, many years ago, getting sober. I was required to go to AA meetings as part of counseling.
    (I blogged about it a year or so ago)

    I remember thinking the organization was quasi-religious, at best. All 12 step programs are. The thing that bothered me was the insistence on giving in to a "Higher Power". I was in my late twenties by then and had formed my theological opinions pretty well.

    In a discussion with one of the more senior members, I told him what I thought of the whole 12 step process, "That your insistance that I seek out, and submit to, a higher power amounts to brainwashing"

    The response he gave me echoed every subsequent conversation I had about the subject with anyone in any 12 step group, "well, maybe the way my brain was acting, it needed washed"

    I just could not abide by that.

    Forunately, I did sober up. I've got 18 years under my belt - No thanks to anyone's god :-)

    ReplyDelete
  111. Mac said,
    Forunately, I did sober up. I've got 18 years under my belt - No thanks to anyone's god :-)
    -----------------------
    Exactly right, You got yourself into it and you got yourself out. Most people ,Christian or not ,often look to God to bail them out after they get their self in some kind of a mess.
    It is not Gods place to help people kick bad habits…

    As for the original sin concept.
    I do not feel that guilt anymore … Jesus took that all away the night He saved my soul…


    You guys act as if you are all free from programming… YOU’RE NOT… You’re just as programmed against religion as the ones who YOU say are programmed. lol

    ReplyDelete
  112. Came across interesting article about Hitchens and his bro.

    In case anybody's interested.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "You guys act as if you are all free from programming… YOU’RE NOT… You’re just as programmed against religion as the ones who YOU say are programmed. lol"

    Saying stuff like the above is why you talk to us Mike.

    We say something and you figure out whatever piece of what we said and answer, "Ah-ha, no, YOU!"

    That's called turning tables and doing that allows you to believe that Satan is our God and atheism, sorry, Atheism is our religion and science is our dogma, right?

    You are basically saying, "You're as bad as us!"

    I can tell you that you're 'tool' is, "You think you're so smart, don't you?", because you don't really know anything about science and reality at all.

    There's also an unspoken ending to those that think, "You think you're SO smart, don't you?", whose main tool of argument is tu quoque, or 'back at you' or 'wrong again, smart guy', and that is, "but I can outsmart YOU!"

    It's, "You think you're so smart, don't you, but I can outsmart you!"

    Here's you..

    "I was quite intrigued with what Brian and Ryan posted about the layers of rocks and the whole age process.(Nya nya, you're wrong!)

    "Contemptuous you say, Not of your great knowledge, I do however feel a bit of contempt when you attack me for my lack of knowledge."(You think you're SO smart, don't you, but I proved you wrong above, ha-ha!)

    " I have to process all this new information and see how it aligns with scripture." (I'm programmed.)

    " Give me a chance little buddy…" (Let me be programmed)

    ReplyDelete
  114. Are we all 'programmed' to some extent?

    Yes.

    But there, as usual, is a big big but that comes into play in scientific discussions. Recognizing and mitigating cognitive biases is the very basis for a large part of the scientific method.

    I have never encountered anything comparable in theology. Quite the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Recognizing and mitigating cognitive biases is the very basis for a large part of the scientific method.
    ----------------
    This is most certainly true.

    What Pliny is saying is that it is a part of science to always ask "Could I be wrong?" in as many different ways as is possible. It's one of the main girders of scientific thought, to seek error in one's own research or hypothesis. Religion on the other hand, all religions, never ask themselves if they could be wrong. It goes directly against the grain of religion to do that. In fact it is usually forbidden to even question. A sin.

    This is one of the most salient differences between science and religion. It's what makes science NOT a religion, more than any other thing. It's what keeps science pure and reliable, at least relatively so, and what makes religious dogma biased and unreliable.

    It's why religion is consistantly wrong and science is consistantly right, in other words. Look back through history. Try to find one basic thing that religion was right about and science wrong. You can't. But you can find that religion always *believed* that it was right, against all evidence, even the obvious, until the tipping point where it would have looked stupid to even the faithful, and only then did it change to match the scientific view. Only when it absolutely had to. Never before. Religion has always dragged it's feet toward the future. It hates any change.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Observant says:
    You guys act as if you are all free from programming… YOU’RE NOT… You’re just as programmed against religion as the ones who YOU say are programmed. lol

    No question we are all programmed, the question do you challenge your program the way we challenge ours? According to every thing you have said on this blog there is no evidence you do or ever have. I have never meet one person in organized religion that does seriously challenge his/her beliefs. Ryan did, and that is the reason he is an agnostic. The way you sound about your belief system, doubting Thomas would be destined for hell as doubting in itself is a mortal sin. If that is not the case perhaps you would share how you have seriously doubted you belief system, or the book that you got it from

    ReplyDelete
  117. Can the religious people here at least admit that *hypothetically* if an *hypothetical* organization existed and survived only by propagating huge lies to it's followers that do not reflect reality, that such an *hypothetical* organization would have a vested interest in keeping it's believers as ignorant of the real world as possible?

    Can you admit that at least, in this hypothetical case about a hypothetical organization that is telling hypothetical lies to it's hypothetical followers?

    ReplyDelete
  118. Observant, Christians such as yourself are not only programmed to be for their religion, but to be against reality.

    For instance, think about how much energy the faithful devote to attempting to explain away the findings of science and scientists. To make science seem silly and unreliable, snobbish and elitist, something to be mocked even.

    To mock actual reliable provable reality-based knowledge is to be a fool, no? And yet, that is just what the programming has accomplished here. Whether with evolution or climate change or many other fields, religion always attempts to make the most credible thing we have not credible to it's followers. To make 'faith' trump reason. Once they accomplish that, well then you won't even trust your own lying eyes anymore. It's really something, let me tell you.

    The 'anti-learning' programming is painfully obvious to anyone standing outside it, my friend. To me its like a huge billboard sign on your forehead, that's how obvious it is. I'm just trying to get you to see it too. And let me tell you, it ain't easy.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Great post ST Brian,

    I've come to the conclusion that if Christianity doesn't change its ways, it will become extinct for necessity. The Christian ministers/leaders have proven time and time again that they love power, control and the positions that inflate their ego's-- more than anything else.
    I know that that's why the Christian religion was distorted in the 1st place....so that the real inner message Jesus came to teach would be lost, and people would be taught to idolize Jesus instead of following example.

    People need to realize that we need to break down the golden calves in our mind. Time to see the wolves in sheeps clothing for what they are! Only then can we discern the truth from the lies. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  120. Why does everyone assume Jesus' "real" message was the good stuff? Half the gospels are evil and division. Why do we give it the benefit of the doubt?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Ryan,
    Jesus said as a main message that God was our father, and using faith we could know that we are his children. If this is true, it would be the greatest of good news. The ideas he was credited for that rings for me is, love your fellow man, and a service attitude will result in the best life possible. I find these two ideas produce results that I like very much. There are many who have stated both of these ideas, but the experience of being born again drew my focus to him.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Ryan,
    Jesus said as a main message that God was our father, and using faith we could know that we are his children. If this is true, it would be the greatest of good news.
    --------------
    Why would that be a good thing? Faith is another word for believing without evidence. What's so fu&%ing great about that? Why are you making faith into a good and desirable thing when it's not? That's the game, dude. That's the game they play, and you're playing into it.
    I do not desire to abdicate my mind to someone else's idea.
    If the only way we can know we are God's children is FAITH, then we're not God's children. We just wanna believe that we are really, really badly. So we're willing to lie to ourselves.

    Faith is a swear word, to me. Faith is the way they neuter the minds of men. It's willing self-lobotomization.

    ReplyDelete
  123. I think you are using an ultra narrow definition for the word faith. Most of the ideas you use about science is faith based. You are buying into ideas that you read about, and you are accepting many of these ideas on faith that they are as represented. I don't disagree with doing that, but I think you take a good look and realize that is what you do. There is no way we could posses the knowledge we have if we did not accept most of it on faith as being true. About the idea of accepting if there is a God or not has to be accepted using faith because we do not have a mind that is capable of knowing if it is true or not. It seems to me you are not willing to even acknowledge the use of faith to transcend what the human mind can understand. I do not see this as being detrimental in the long run, but it is restricting possibilities that are available. I have been on both roads, and I find faith to be quite liberating. I do think in using faith one should be very cautious as the only limit to the possibilities are the limit of the imagination. Do you think if faith was not of some use that we would even have it available for our use? I do think many atrocities that are committed by some people can be traced to faith, but most if not all of the acts can be traced to the base human mind so if we are to put the blame somewhere it could start with the mind with or without faith.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Incidentally, our new member there, "Waking Up" has a very nice blog of her own. Jerry, I think you'd like it. And a few other people here will find it interesting as well. I certainly did.
    Check it out...
    Living In Divine Times

    ReplyDelete
  125. You are buying into ideas that you read about, and you are accepting many of these ideas on faith that they are as represented.
    ------------
    No, I do not do that. I have enough scientific knowledge to at least understand the basic parts of everything that I come across in science. I do not just take the word of the scientists. I can tell that what they're saying makes sense. It has to; it's peer-reviewed and very well explicated and supported. And so I can also tell when someone is using 'pseudoscience' to make their points, like the ID people do. Plus I never 'believe' anything about science, since science itself tells us that our knowledge is never complete and what we think we know today may well be wrong and need to be modified as more data comes to light. I just think of scientific knowledge as being the most reliable that we can come up with at this time, not that it's perfect. Just better than the alternatives, such as faith.

    Do I believe that I have feet? I do not have to, since I have supporting facts which prove that I have feet.

    So do I believe in evolution? I do not have to. It is supported by enough facts that I can *think* that it is likely mostly true, perhaps with small variations, and use that knowledge in my life. It makes so much sense that it's intuitive once you understand the basics. No need to believe in it, which would entail me accepting that it is exactly true as it is without any evidence or based on meager evidence. I have the supporting knowledge to not have to just merely believe in it. I can know, within certain parameters, that it is true. It works. We can even use it like a reliable tool, and it works, every single time. No belief required.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Asking if one believes in science is the same as asking someone if they believe their own eyes. Of course the answer is yes, but it's self-evident that one should trust their own eyes over someone else's, so is that really a belief?
    Just as it is self-evident that one should trust in science (and logic and reason) to find truth. That is what it is designed to do, and designed very well I might add. One can just look at the useful practical results which are all around us, unlike when one is judging a religion, which has no real useful practical results whatsoever, unless one counts the retardation of the aquisition of new knowledge as a practical result.

    ReplyDelete
  127. I enjoyed reading "Living In Divine Times". Thanks for turning me on to it.

    ReplyDelete
  128. "Just as it is self-evident that one should trust in science (and logic and reason) to find truth. That is what it is designed to do, and designed very well I might add." St. Brian

    I think you need to flesh out that argument a little more (You may have in a previous comment but I haven't read through all of them.) It's a weighty claim but I'd have to disagree.

    Are you arguing that science can discover moral truth or are you referring to scientific discovery?

    I believe the purpose of science is to discover or explain the "how & why" of a process or phenomenon. If by "truth" you mean explaining phenomenon, I couldn't agree more, but if by truth you mean "moral truth," I'd have to disagree that the principles of science can function as axioms for morality.

    More later.

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  129. Are you arguing that science can discover moral truth or are you referring to scientific discovery?
    ------------
    Hi Eric!

    Lent over already?

    No siree, I am not in any way referring to moral truth. That is not within the scientific purview. I am specifically referring to what science can speak of, this physical reality and it's many phenomena and their causes.

    Science cannot disprove God either, but it can strongly contraindicate any specific God worshipped today with simple statistics. If there's a God, it ain't Yaweh or anything like it. Highly unlikely. In fact, I'd say it's more likely that it's Odin. Less hypocrisy in Odin worship.

    ReplyDelete
  130. SBG,

    While I do agree with your view on science, I do want to point out that faith does have a rational component and that reason is indeed based to a great degree on faith. There is no such thing as the view from nowhere and you can not empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof. All we can do is observe and come up with the best explanation. Many observations on life, etc. can be used to argue for God.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Simple logic can tell us that empathetic moral behavior is the optimum for us. And also that if we wish to achieve world peace we must visualize what that would necessarily entail and work backwards from that to see what we need to do now.

    Eliminating religion altogether or at the minimum modifying it radically is one of those things.

    Your opinion of course, will differ.

    Nice to see you back.

    ReplyDelete
  132. I do want to point out that faith does have a rational component
    ------------
    I absolutely disagree, vehemently.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Faith has a *rationalizing* component. Was that what you meant, Bella?

    "Many observations on life, etc. can be used to argue for God."

    "Can be used" is the key phrase here.

    It's funny that when I observe this wonderous reality I do not see the need for any designer, isn't it? I attribute that to my seeing it through the lens of careful observation using the scientific method, and not philosophical rationalizations. But that's just me. I'm funny that way.

    Nice to meet you, btw. No offense intended in my responses. Welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  134. A child of six months thinks of a tit as being the truth. As grown men we still think of the tit as being truth, but from a different view point. So it is with all truthful ideas, in that they will always be truth no matter what viewpoint is used. That to me is science truth. It has to be true from all viewpoints, and I do not find it lacking. So when I say I have faith there is a God, he will not or cannot disagree with science truth.

    "Just as it is self-evident that one should trust in science (and logic and reason) to find truth. That is what it is designed to do, and designed very well I might add. One can just look at the useful practical results which are all around us, unlike when one is judging a religion, which has no real useful practical results whatsoever, unless one counts the retardation of the aquisition of new knowledge as a practical result."


    One of the greater needs we come preprogrammed with is, the need for approval from our peers. It does drive much of our way of life so one can say it can, and often does inhibit every aspect of our lives. Now we know most people are going to approve of us from our extrinsic value to them. While this need is probably the most civilizing quality we have it reduces us to sheep, at least partially. Now using your imagination think of what would take place in your life if you bought onto the idea the creator of the universe, and everything within it, loves, and approves of you as an individual. As an individual. Put this God of your imagination as at least as perfect father to you, as you hope to be with your son. As your love for your son will not protect him from the trials of life, so this god is to you, yet the love is still there. Imagine this love from god being so great that it is reflected in your everyday actions as your feeling of love is a constent.Now that you imagined being accepted and loved by the creator of the entire universe. Can you not see what freedom that would have? I think this would pass for having practical results.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Now that you imagined being accepted and loved by the creator of the entire universe. Can you not see what freedom that would have? I think this would pass for having practical results.
    -------------
    Ahh, dem's sure purdy words.

    However, a resounding 'no' is my response. I see the beauty in what you're saying Jerry, but it all depends on there actually being a God, one that is anthropomorphic enough to need to be love and to love. I disagree with that premise utterly, as you know.

    So to me, what you've just said is referring to how great a lie can make one feel.

    Wonderful. I guess if that's what floats one's boat, than one should just go for it.

    I prefer an ugly truth to a beautiful lie. That's me. Because a truth has it's own beauty. Even the ugly ones invariably do.

    ReplyDelete
  136. The truth is you do not know it is a lie. If you believe you do............

    I do appreciate you have a science bent while mine is philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  137. The truth is you do not know it is a lie. If you believe you do............
    -------------
    If there is a God, I am confident that it is virtually nothing like anything that we mere silly little men have come up with.

    I see that it is impossible to state that science disproves a deity. However, it is more likely that there is not one, and if there is one it is more likely that said deity will not be what we think of as a deity at all. It even may be something like the Big Brain, or something even stranger to us. Something that we're not capable of understanding yet.

    Science cannot disprove unicorns either, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  138. If God was within our understanding, it would not be God. That is one reason I do little speculation, I am as you seem to be, more interested in the now.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Realistically, is it more likely that there is a creator God who is Himself eternal, rather than the universe simply being eternal, albeit perhaps cyclical, itself?

    For that matter, if one really ponders it, one realizes that even the idea that this is all a dream and there's no such thing as a 'real' universe, that it's all in the mind, is much more likely than a God. That makes the universe the designer, in that it allows it's creations to alter it with their expectations so that it appears designed to suit them.

    Hey, just saying. It really is more likely than Yaweh. Either the current scientific paradigm or the dream one, both are more likely than a God. Seriously. We are only prejudiced to think that Yaweh is something realistic and possible. That's our conditioning, and I beat that one long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  140. If God was within our understanding, it would not be God.
    --------
    Ironically I can even disagree with this. God, if IT exists, may or may not be within our understanding. We simply can't say anything about the subject with any authority.

    Not yet. But I'm the patient sort. Science is on the right path. It's just a matter of time.

    I do like your attitude though.

    ReplyDelete
  141. I think some people cling to the idea of God because the Great Mystery apeals to them.

    However I see the universe as the Great Mystery, and not God. God is a rationalization of it. And not a particularly 'creative' one at that. But hey, it's the best primitive man could come up with. And as such, it should be studied as the historical curiosity that it is, learned from as we should learn from all of our mistakes, and then summarily discarded.

    Hey, I can dream, can't I?

    ReplyDelete
  142. We've been culturally and religiously conditioned for so long that one cannot even trust in what 'feels right.' So many people just trust in their intuition, the fact that they 'just know' that there 'must be something.'

    Our very intuitions have been skewed towards the God concept for millennia, for no real reason other than the fact that that's what our primitive ancestors used to believe in and a lot of people still do, which is not a reason at all.

    God used to 'just feel right' to me, however now the lack of any god in my life feels 'even righter.' A lot 'righter,' because I don't have to lie to myself or rationalize things in order to buy into it. I just had to give it a chance to 'take.' To replace my prior conditioning with observation and verifiable fact-based thoughts and opinions.
    The sense of newfound liberty was overwhelming. Almost a 'spiritual' experience in and of itself.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Hello St. Brian

    "I think some people cling to the idea of God because the Great Mystery appeals to them" - SGB

    Absolutely. Mystery is part of what makes life wonderful. Not having all the answers and taking part in the quest for truth - scientific and spiritual - makes it all worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Agreed, we won't find moral truths in science. We won't find them in religion either. We may, however, find WHY we believe what we believe to be moral.

    Often religion claims to know moral absolutes. However, these absolutes are always changing, or don't seem to apply to everybody...thereby negating the "absolute" part of the truth.

    We are told, "God is the source of all that is, the creator of all"
    How can the creator of evil be moral?
    How does one justify God violating his own "moral code"? Thou shalt not kill? God killed everything on the planet, a genocide not duplicated in the history of history. That's "Thou shalt not kill"??
    God kills babies, either by willful neglience or by outright infanticide. He did it in the Bible, and if one believes he is all powerful, he is doing it today. Babies are murdered, die from "crib death", or natural disasters every day. God's babies! If he's everywhere, where is he when these babies suffer? That's absolute love?

    Hardly any man in Western civilation treat a woman as is required by Levitical Law. Yet, the never-changing word of God, that Absolute Truth, is contained within those very pages.

    Tell us, Eric (or anyone), what are these absolute moral truths that God can show us?

    ReplyDelete
  145. I'd like to point out to the believers in the 'spiritual' that there is a similar belief called 'facilitated communication' where the facilitators mistakenly believe that their client is communicating with their aid.

    I'm convinced that these people actually believe that they are merely 'bringing forward' the thoughts of their client, but simple tests reveal that they are under a delusion and it is the facilitators themselves who is communicating what he/she feels that their client would wish to say.

    Seems to me that if our minds are built in such a way as we CAN delude oursleves, given enough 'belief'(and they ARE), then how is it that people cannot, will not accept that their belief in the supernatural is most likely delusion?

    I think everyone knows this, it's not new. A 'true believer' in all kinds of 'woo' is willing to accept, in the face of irrefutable demonstration that 'some' of the 'woo' is silly, but that seems to reduce their belief in nonsense by that one demonstrably wrong thing.

    It doesn't make any sense at all to me.

    ReplyDelete
  146. "I think some people cling to the idea of God because the Great Mystery appeals to them" - SGB

    Absolutely. Mystery is part of what makes life wonderful. -Eric
    -----------------------------
    Yes, but I was saying that it's the Universe that is in reality the Great Mystery and not God. That in effect, those who follow God because the " great mystery" of God appeals to them, are totally misled.
    God's ways make no sense to us, but that's only because He doesn't really exist and people made everything about Him up. Some mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  147. God: Do as I say, not as I do!

    Man: So, you're just a huge hypocrite then.

    God: The very hugest! Now get moving before I throw you into hell because I love you so much.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Seems to me that if our minds are built in such a way as we CAN delude oursleves, given enough 'belief'(and they ARE), then how is it that people cannot, will not accept that their belief in the supernatural is most likely delusion?
    --------------
    Yes pboy, I've tried that tack before. I go real slow, too. I say "So you admit that all people are imperfect and prone to error, and yet you cannot admit even the possibility that you yourself may be in error about your God..." and they reply "Well yes, but on that I can't be wrong because God revealed Himself to me..." yadda yadda... Total foolishness, and they'll never see it.
    If they could SEE it, they wouldn't BE it.

    ReplyDelete
  149. The Bible is a lot like Sesame Street. (New Parent Here!)

    If you watch it enough, you start to make sense out of it, but the sense you make out if it is in itself, nonsensical.

    It's like "Why didn't that skinny bug bitch Mrs. Sparklenose warn the fairies about not trying to use magic to turn a puppet into a real boy? Geeze, some teacher... She just lets them get into trouble and hardly even helps them out of it!" etc.

    It's a lot like Roman Catholicism's take on the Bible... The sense they make out of it is in itself nonsense that only sounds more sensible.

    ReplyDelete
  150. I've said this before but it bears repeating in a different form. A question. A question for Christians.

    The question is, "Can you admit that your God in the Bible is in essence telling us to 'Do as I say and not as I do?" He does most of the things that He tells us are forbidden for us to do. With gusto.

    As a parent, He really sucks. He sets really bad examples, and then tells us not to follow them.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Who is more moral? The person who was taught to obey their parents out of fear and thus to behave morally out of fear, or the person who was taught by their parents to love others and to feel for them, without any coercion or fear?

    The first person is moral only out of fear of consequences, but the second is moral out of a genuine desire to be a good person.

    And yet, it is the first system of morality that Christianity chose to employ.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Eric: "Absolutely. Mystery is part of what makes life wonderful."

    Keeping oneself ignorant for the sake of keeping the mystery in life is idiotic.

    But for every discovery made by science, we find out that we now know less then we did before. That's what mystery is supposed to be.

    WV: mytha (go figure)

    ReplyDelete
  153. Okay guys see the wording below and see what you think:
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    F I R S T A M E N D M E N T
    to the
    C O N S T I T U T I O N
    of the
    U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A
    ++++++++++++++++++++++See Below+++
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    ******* What's anybody's take on this?

    I'll try and comment soon.

    Hope all are well!
    Little Connor is so cute: beautiful big blue eyes on a glowing cutie-pie ;)

    ReplyDelete
  154. What's anybody's take on this?
    -----------
    All those things that 'congress shall make no law' about, are Cheney's wet dreams. That's just what they tried to do. Establish a state religion, prevent other religions from flourishing, curtail the freedom of the press and the people, remove our rights surgically one at a time. In fact, that's still the UNWRITTEN republican agenda.
    Of course, they cannot help it, being amoral scumbags and all...

    It's the amoral religion that teaches them that.

    ReplyDelete
  155. I was watching predator raw last night on MSNBC and they had this guy they show all the time, who was so retarded that he showed up at the house NAKED expecting to be meeting a thirteen year old boy, and met Chris Hanson instead. It was in the early days when the cops weren't involved so they let the guy go, and the very next day he was at it again and arrived at a McDonalds expecting to meet another boy. Chris was practically apoplectic. He asked "Are you a predator?" and this clueless pervert said "I don't know..."

    I mention it only because this time when I watched it I noticed his gold crucifix and his "Operation Iraqi Freedom" t-shirt.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Oh, and just in case anyone here is a predator, the excuse "But I'm a Christian!" doesn't work at all. Just an FYI. It's used rather frequently on the show, but with no discernable results other than derision, so keep that in mind if that's your plan.

    Hey, now the Catholic Church is involved in another huge sex scandal. All those violated little boys... what a shame. Apparently this one goes all the way up to the Top Nazi, er, Pope.

    ReplyDelete
  157. The Catholic church leaders are rotten to the core. Life in prison would be overly good to these people. Still we hear how great the last pope that saw what was happening, and they want to make a saint of him. Obvious where their values are. How anybody could belong to this outfit is beyond me. To give money to the catholic church is condoning what this scum does.

    ReplyDelete
  158. I love these republicans. There's this orthopedic surgoen tea-party guy who is saying how we can insure all americans without the government being involved. Yeah, that's worked so well before.

    And when asked whether he thought health care was a privilege or a right he dodged the question.

    It's amazing how much of an idiot an orthopedic surgeon can be. How much you wanna bet he's a christian orthopedic surgeon? Yeah, I know, it's a sucker bet.

    I've gotten to the point where I wouldn't have a christian doctor work on me. These people are scary stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  159. What a sad way to learn what the Catholic church thinks freedom of religion means. Free to pray upon children. One has to look no further for the anti-Christ, it is the catholic church, no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  160. We have a right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' First among these is life.

    Health insurance is a RIGHT. Not a privelege. Anyone who thinks it's a privilege is a selfish amoral scumbag.

    THe thing I don't get, is how they get away with even saying that it's not a right.

    In what I used to think was America of course we'd all rise up against such an evil attitude in concert. It would be (should be) as if the people were calling for the death of all jews or something like that. It should be that obvious. 45,000 americans are dying every year over this. But in the real America (which is morally tainted by it's religious heritage) they get elected to office over and over.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Brian; I’ve been mulling this over for a while because I just don’t believe health care is a “right” (I hope that doesn’t make me an amoral scumbag!).

    I guess my objection comes from the fact that anything that can be classified as “health care” is in fact a limited resource and anything that is a limited resource cannot be a right (you don’t have a right to food if there’s a famine, know what I mean?).

    Certainly, in an advanced industrial nation, we have no excuse to not at least try to provide health care to everyone, and I’m heartily for healthcare reform, I just disagree that any level of health care is a “right”.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Heh. Well, Ryan, when you boil it down, there are no 'rights' at all.

    Just ask any American citizen of Japanese descent who was living around the time right after Pearl Harbour.

    But we all understand that the whole point of insurance is supposed to be that people do not have to suffer having unduly high bills being presented to them when they need medical treatment, and it's NOT supposed to be a scam where citizens pay more and more for less and less service and perhaps no service at all.

    ReplyDelete
  163. I guess my objection comes from the fact that anything that can be classified as “health care” is in fact a limited resource and anything that is a limited resource cannot be a right (you don’t have a right to food if there’s a famine, know what I mean?).
    --------------------
    Health Care is a limited resource that can become less limited if and when we have universal health care. You hire more doctors and open more hospitals. If we PRIORITIZE corrrectly, we can do this. And because we can, we must.

    It's not right to make a person lose their house because they got ill. This punishes their whole family. It's not right to have even one single American die because they were dropped from their insurance.

    It's just not right to not help the sick. It's incumbent on us as human beings.

    And when you say it's not a right but a privilige, then it becomes so easy to take it away and save it for the wealthy. Which is, by the way, just the way the wealthy like it, which is why it's so bad today.

    It's a right. Period. It HAS to be. So I guess you can put me down as strongly disagreeing with you here.

    I guess I take this really seriously. I can't accept that it's not a right, no matter how you frame it, because it's life or death we're talking about here. And as noted, we have a right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Telling the sick that they can just die now because they have no more money is not AMERICAN.

    ReplyDelete
  164. The real irony that I see in the healthcare debate is that it's the Christians that are most set against universal health care. It's because they've been conditioned to agree with any leader that pretends to be one of them, so they're in thrall to the political party that decided to go that way. The republicans are pulling their strings by inciting them to hatred, which is always easy wwith the fundies. They love to hate. After all, even their God confuses the two, so they have no way to tell which is which.

    Can you even imagine Jesus making the point that health care is not a right but a privilege?

    It's so against everything he stood for that it actually makes a pretty good joke. People thinking that Jesus was not in favor of healing the sick. That's pretty funny.

    ReplyDelete
  165. When was our last famine, by the way?

    And how do you explain Food Stamps, if food is not today a right in this country?

    Just sayin, is all.

    ReplyDelete
  166. We're getting our wires crossed because we define "right" differently.

    I'm thinking about theoretical aboslute rights, kinda like absolute morals (which I actually don't think exist in reality). The closest we have are "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

    Even food stamps are a privilage, you have to qualify for them.

    But I think your define "right" at a more practical level. At which Health Care is already a "right". We have the best indigent care in the world. I think the problem is though the level of care that we expect as part of the "right".

    ReplyDelete
  167. I mean does everyone have a right to a half a million dollar artifical heart? I don't think so. Maybe in 50 years, they'll be cheap and easy to make, but without the markets involved, no one is going to bother to find the next break through technology.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Hello to all!

    Thought I'd pop in to see current discussions taking place in the blogosphere.

    Brian, your son is adorable. I'm sure you are incredibly proud and I don't have to tell you how lucky you are to have such a handsome little man.

    If you haven't already, you might need to start considering homeschooling him though thanks to the damned retards on the board of education in my state. It's so unfortunate that Texas has so much influence on the content of textbooks throughout the nation and also happens to be home to people who do not know how to divorce their political ideologies from standards of education.

    If I don't end up homeschooling Korbin I'll at the very least be supplementing his education so he understands the importance of the separation of church and state and the role Thomas Jefferson played in the foundation of this country.

    Unless, of course, the right wing douchebags on the board pull their heads out of their asses and stop their little conservative circle-jerk and abolish the narrow-minded amendments they voted for. But something tells me that isn't going to happen any time soon.

    Sorry, that turned into a rant.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  169. Yes, if it affects all the nations school textbooks as people are saying that it will, Connor will be homeschooled for sure. No way can I stand him being force-fed Christian propoganda like that.

    It makes me so angry, it's hard to even talk about, actually. If I were a violent man... But I'm not so it's not fruitful to speculate what I'd do. It's scary though that it makes me that mad.

    If one of those texas tea party school board members were siiting here in front of me telling me why it 'makes so much sense' and all, it would be hard to physically restrain myself, is what I'm basically saying here.

    Having lived in Texas, well, it made me realize how much better off we'd be without Texas. I really wish they would seceed as Rick Perry wants them to, or says that he does for votes or whatever.
    No offense to you Richelle. I know there are nice, decent people living in Texas. They're just rare as hen's teeth. At least in the parts where I lived in the panhandle.

    ReplyDelete
  170. No offense taken, Brian. I'm not a native anyway and a lot of people here actually call me a Yankee. To which I always respond "You ignorant southerners apparently aren't being taught American history because you should know that Wyoming (where I grew up) was not a state during the Civil War and that area was primarily inhabited by Native Americans, thus, I'm not a Yankee". That response usually gets a lot of dumbfounded stares. I'm sure if some of these morons knew I was born in Germany they would think I was a Nazi based on their fucked up line of reasoning.

    We live in East Texas, the worst area of the state when it comes to backwards thinking. And I thought Wyoming was bad when it came to ignorant people.

    Funny you mention Texas seceding, my mom and I were just talking about that today. I told her that I get so tired of the old men around here saying "Texas would be better off blah, blah, the rest of the country is dependent on our exports, blah, should secede, Obama is a communist blahdy blah." I wish they would secede so they could eat their words and find out how fucked they would be and piss themselves over their tax increases. I, of course, wouldn't stick around for that. I'd jump that sinking ship.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Brian, getting back a little late on my previous post.
    Interesting are your thoughts concerning it.
    Stereotyping's a dangerous thing...
    Actually, I copied that verbatim from the head of the American neo-nazi party's org's website.
    Very disturbed to have come across it after watching History Channel the other eve...

    Mr. Hall was quoted in the interview on the tele (show's a few years old) as saying that they feel that Americans should no longer look to the Dems nor the Repubs but rather to THEM -- as they profess to be the Vanguard of Americans (and the world!) for the future.


    ANYWAY, on a lighter note:

    Biden was very funny at tonight's dinner!!! Did you get to see him?

    Happy St. Patrick's Day =D

    ReplyDelete
  172. Actually, I copied that verbatim from the head of the American neo-nazi party's org's website.
    -----------------
    Is that your latest hang-out?

    Hey, if the shoe fits...

    ReplyDelete
  173. And MI, what possible difference does it make where you find and copy the first amendment of the constitution from? I mean, it's the fucking constitution. So they have it on the Nazi Party website. So what? Was that an attempt to 'zing' us or something? The nazis are just like your bunch as far as I can see, you know. Pretty similar. Both of you hide behind the constitution when it's convenient, and hate the constitution when it's not working in your favor. Both groups believe that they are the 'chosen few' and that they are right and society is wrong. And both are incredibly dangerous and hateful, with much violence in their past, and both wish that they could take over the world, and have tried to in the past, both with some success before they were stopped. Heck, I can't even really see any difference except that their cross is funnier than yours.

    I have a question. Are you consciously attempting to be incredibly obnoxious or is it a gift from God?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Plus the nazi party always votes for republicans, never democrats. Same with the KKK for that matter. They know which party most closely fits their ideologies.
    Just a point you should remember. When you vote.

    ReplyDelete
  175. It's not surprising that a good catholic girl would be interested in The American Neo-Nazi Party. Their Pope was, after all, a member of the German Nazi Party.

    Oh sure, they claim joining the Hitler Youth movement was compulsory, and it was. However, many did NOT join the party. Many resisted from within the movement. Some gave their lives in this resistance.

    An excerpt from the first White Rose (die Weibe Rose) leaflet:
    "Isn’t it true that every honest German is ashamed of his government these days? Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes—crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure—reach the light of day?"

    Funny how kids like Hans Scholl, Sophie Scholl, Alex Schmorell, Willi Graf (& more) can see that what their country was doing was wrong, but the future leader of the Catholic church felt compelled to follow...??

    Thcore members of The White Rose were executed in Nazi Germany. They have since become national heros for standing bravely against terrible injustice and impossible opposition.

    I suppose Ratzinger was just being a good catholic boy. The church supported the Nazi government, why should he oppose his church - he just might become Pope someday, if he played his cards right.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Thank you Mac for that. I didn't know about the White Rose.

    However it did of course occur to me (and my wife, last night in a conversation) that it was still his choice to become a nazi, and that many people died resisting them instead of joining up.

    I guess martyrdom is really 'old hat' for today's christians.

    ReplyDelete
  177. It occurs to me that if the Nazi Party is truly socialist, wouldn't they vote for the party that is today most accused of being socialist? As in, the democratic party?

    They do not, because the nazis are socialists like the christians are holy. As in, they faked it to get power. They used the term precisely because it sounded good, sounded like 'for the people' and therefore effectively disguised their real agenda. Just like today's christians use God. Today's christian ignoramuses believe that all socialism is disguised nazism or something similar. Something generically evil. They're that simple. And easily led.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Isn't it funny how all christians seem to hate the nazi party and yet they unconsciously emulate them?

    Pretty amusing, no?

    Of course you can't inform them of that, or else you're the bad one... And yet, there they are, acting just like them. Trying to take over the world with lies and amoral manipulations of the public. Believing that they're the chosen ones. That 'Gott' is 'mitt' them.

    It seems to me that the very beginning of real evil is always somebody or some group honestly believing that they're superior to everyone else. So they do it for the good of the world, as it were. I'm quite sure that in Hitler's mind, he was only doing the very highest good, even doing God's work.

    That's just how it always goes.

    ReplyDelete
  179. The First Amendment is a wonder particularly because it is so often removed from its historical context. The Founders left us a completely unambiguous message about what they thought religion's role should be - use it to stir emotions when needed but never, ever legislate it.

    The US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution illustrate both principles. If you want to stir up a bunch of people to leave their farms and families to go off (and possibly die in) on some crusade that might not actually change their daily lot all that much then appeal to God 33 times as was done in the Declaration.

    But it's a whole different story when it comes to agreeing by which laws you will consent to be governed. Rhetoric is great when rallying the troops but not so good in laws.

    In the laws of the Constitution, the consent of the governed - the Founders, is clear. The original articles prevented religion from being used against the elected. That's why you don't find oaths to Buddha, God, Jesus, Mohammad, etc. anywhere in it. None, zippo, nadda. The oath is to defend the Constitution, period. Had oaths to any deity been a prerequisite to service then the articles would have so stated, which they do not. Again, what people say compared to what they are willing to do is often very different. Allegiance to a religion was not required of any elected official by the original articles. Had that been important the articles would have said something like "kneel before Jesus and pinky swear that you will faithfully..." or something similar. Haven't found it in any copy as yet, including the hand written one in the National Archives (I have looked for it a several occasions).

    The First Amendment simply added the reciprocal- religion already was to stay out of government, but it's only fair that government do the same.

    Many assume that the First proves the primacy of religion to the Founders but in reality it merely redressed an imbalance inherent in the original articles.

    So stop with the practice of trying to wrap religiosity in the Founder's cloak. Ignoring the fact that some reading this would have been considered by these same rich white guys as 3/5 of a human being, they never enacted anything to suggest it. Plus who cares really? If these guys had thought they could predict the needs of the future they never would have created a method to amend the thing in the first place.

    If you want to believe something religious in your heart then do so as is guaranteed by the Constitution. What isn't guaranteed is anyone's right to subvert, misinform, obfuscate, prevaricate, or co-op in defense of your position.

    ReplyDelete
  180. It reminds me of the stupidity of the right wing public in not seeing the plain fact that the very people that are telling them how evil Obama's health plan is are the ones that are currently profiting hugely from the present system. I mean, even the bloody insurance companies are out there in force spreading lies. How stupid are these people? (Rhetorical question)
    And if it were actually something that will haunt the democratic party forever if it passes, as the republicans all say that it will, then why aren't the republicans IN FAVOR of it passing? If it will hurt the dems, wouldn't they be in favor of it?

    But of course, the truth is that if it passes the country will love it, and love the dems for finally doing it, and the republicans know it, so of course they're out there yelling and screaming in a state of apoplexy. Such sore losers, well, I never knew existed. What a bunch of evil idiots.

    I'll be very proud of Obama if this thing passes like it looks like it will. It's about time he grew a pair.

    How desparate are they? Recently one of them admitted that while they're telling the dems that if they vote for it they'll attack them on it in the fall, they're ALSO telling them that even if they don't vote for it they'll attack them in the fall. (so why would the dems not vote for it since they're going to be attacked either way?) One of them was even skillfully manipulated (by David Shuster) into saying that he actually supports the *public option* rather than this bill. AS IF! They're spouting anything that pops into their tiny little rotten brains now. The desparation is palpable. Boehner is sweating blood through his fake tan. McCain is so angry that his teeth have been worn down to nubs and his jaw muscles have frozen in a rictus.

    It's nice to see such a bunch of filthy rotten liars so frustrated. I'm glued to my set every night. About time they got some of their bullshit thrown back into their faces. We took George W. Bush for eight years and had to swallow a whole raft of totally evil and disgusting shit as he systematically disassembled our very reputation in the world and our constitution, but they can't stand Obama for fifteen months actually trying to improve people's lot in life. Funny.

    I swear, they're so evil and so well organized about it, that it ALMOST makes me believe in Satan.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Thanks Pliny.

    All of your unassailable logic there means nothing to a believer, of course. They see what they believe, not what is in front of them.

    They are of the mind that, when you repeat a lie often enough that people come to believe it, history itself changes to accomodate. So they attempt to manufacture the world they believe in by simply believing in it so much, with the hopes that enough repetition will make it so both in their minds and in the real world.

    It's like the school textbook thing. They're not even being shy about trying to change history anymore. They're out there in the open doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  182. News Break..........

    US Christians have been speaking out lately that Allah is not the same god as Yaweh. (He is)

    But as usual, Christianity speaks through both sides of it's mouth.

    Christian MISSIONARIES claim the very opposite! They try to use Allah being the same god as Yaweh as a conversion tool! (With very bad results)

    Read the article here.

    ReplyDelete
  183. This is precious. Christian lying in action.

    From the article:

    "some Christian missionaries call themselves Muslims — or at least muslims — because, after all, “muslim” literally means one who surrenders to God. A few have gone way undercover, growing beards and abstaining from pork."

    ReplyDelete
  184. There have been a few films made about The White Rose.

    "Sophie Scholl, The Final Days" is an excellent dramatization of the these KIDS martyrdom.

    Interestingly, to me anyway, Sophie and her brother Hans were executed, yet their sixth manuscript (Manifesto of the Students of Munich) made it to England and millions of copies were dropped over German cities via Allied planes.

    What was Ratzinger doing?
    Perhaps he was thinking of ways to scare victims of cleric abuse??

    ReplyDelete
  185. Seems to me that mainstream Christianity is climbing on board with this health legislation.

    What took them so long?

    ReplyDelete
  186. Hey, it's the nuns versus the bishops!

    Yes, some of the mainstream of christianity is climbing abord. About time.

    ReplyDelete
  187. "Hi Eric!
    Lent over already?"

    Different Eric.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Oh, yea...

    HAPPY BIRTHDAY BRIAN!!!

    YAY... almost 50 .. LOL

    ReplyDelete