Friday, June 18, 2010

MY FIRST GUEST SPEAKER

Well, some people have mentioned that I should have 'guest speakers' on here to give the place some variation, so here's my first one. He's a rather bright man from Württemberg, Germany, who shows a lot of promise.

So without further ado, my first guest speaker; let's have a round of applause for Albert Einstein!

***

Religion and Science
The following excerpt was published in The World as I See It (1999).

by Albert Einstein

Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and desire are the motive forces behind all human endeavour and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present itself to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions—fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connexions is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates for itself more or less analogous beings on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. One's object now is to secure the favour of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed towards a mortal.

I am speaking now of the religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases the leader or ruler whose position depends on other factors, or a privileged class, combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.

The social feelings are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes, the God who, according to the width of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even life as such, the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing, who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.

The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, which is continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in a nation's life. That primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that they are all intermediate types, with this reservation, that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. Only individuals of exceptional endowments and exceptionally high-minded communities, as a general rule, get in any real sense beyond this level. But there is a third state of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form, and which I will call cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to explain this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the nothingness of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvellous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. He looks upon individual existence as a sort of prison and wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear in earlier stages of development—e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learnt from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer especially, contains a much stronger element of it.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no Church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as Atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are capable of it. We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events—that is, if he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it goes through. Hence science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear and punishment and hope of reward after death.

It is therefore easy to see why the Churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion which pioneer work in theoretical science demands, can grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labour in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics!

Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a sceptical world, have shown the way to those like-minded with themselves, scattered through the earth and the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man strength of this sort. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.

But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.

***

Now, a lot of people have insisted that Einstein was a religious man. As you can see above, Einstein was religious in the traditional sense of the word like I am an Egyptian Princess. His 'religion' was more akin to feelings of awe at the grandeur of nature and the immensity of the universe, and had little or nothing to do with any deity as such.

I find this excerpt useful in examining his views on the subject, especially the part about the 'religion of fear.' It would appear that Mr. Einstein would not approve of Pascal's Wager and those who believe due to that threat to their 'eternal life,' nor would he approve of what I call 'coercive morality,' or the fact that much of the Christian moral system is based in fear and threat.

So Christians, can we finally *stop* claiming that Einstein believed in God or 'got religion' in his later years? This is a blatant lie, an attempt to claim him for one of your own, to lend credibility to a belief system that doesn't have any. It's transparent and childish and silly. So basically, cut it out. If your religion cannot stand without lies, then what kind of a religion is it anyhow? Jesus Christ, if He is indeed real and not a myth, does not need your lies. In fact, I doubt very much that they would please Him at all, if He's anything like the 'press releases.'

857 comments:

  1. Brian:
    Well chosen and thought-provoking.
    Unfortunately,I doubt that many RTChristians will be able either to see the truth about Einstein's lack of belief in anything remotely resembling their concept of an anthropomorphisized or Abrahamic God or their own gullibility in accepting what they have been told is the "truth". The simple and inescapable fact is that they simply cannot accept that this reality is "all there is", that we are animals like any other and not "special", and that there is no escape or reprieve from our inevitable and final deaths. Most of us humans, it appears, need such reassurance about our places in this otherwise vast and often cruel Universe and will, therefore, fight tooth and nail not to be disabused of those hopes, even when they are only that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We can only imagine some Christian saying, "Oh, THAT'S what Einstein thought? Well, I'll never use HIM to defend MY version again!"

    Right!

    If a Christian could have gotten a hold of that letter/paper and it was the only one, it would be 'gone'!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent piece from Einstein!

    He says so much more eloquently than I can all the things that I've been trying to express!

    He said,

    "That primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that they are all intermediate types, with this reservation, that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates."

    Looks like there's an evolutionary movement going on there! Starts with fear, then moves to morality, but doesn't stop there. He says "I will call (it a) cosmic religious feeling.

    I would call it "rational".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Okay, that's all very well to deny the religion of fear and then the religion of morality just to defend the religion of 'awe'(or whatever), but that just seems to open the door to the other religions because of course they're gonna see that as at least some kind of justification.

    As in, "Well, so what if I couch my religion in terms of fear or morality, even Einstein says that there is some basis for it!"
    .....................

    On the BB, imagine your brain Brian, in your mama's womb, growing, starting to 'work', then your born and you have to comprehend it all, mostly in dreams, then in life, but still understood, put together in dreams, then, now.

    First there was 'nothing', then jumbled up nonsense, then it started 'making sense'. So, for YOU, the fog seemed to disappear but there are still areas where it's foggy, and you just 'couch that in terms of', "We're bootstrapped up from some kind of thought matrix."

    But you are and I am 'bootstrapped up from thought matrices', aren't we?

    Seems this is just turning tables on the process of you 'growing up' to make it a process of the universe becoming clear as we investigate. Making your personal experience(and everyone elses' personal experiences) 'collective'.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "..to open the door to the other religions because of course they're gonna see that as at least some kind of justification."

    And THIS, this idea that there is 'something' that we call 'spirit', whether it is your BB or any one of those 'types' of religion that Einstein describes, is an IMAGINARY door which we cannot allow to be cracked.

    Once 'cracked', the door becomes real to us, it is opened to reveal the notion that there IS something 'standing over us', and who are you, or even Einstein to say if 'it' is the BB or the 'awe' that some might feel and NOT the antidote to fear or the objectivity of morality?

    But, to misquote Scrooge, "Perhaps it is simply a remnant of cheese eaten for supper!", that 'stone cold' clarity of thought is 'just that' and nothing more, a peaceful place in our minds, which after all, is just a collection of imaginations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would also go further and say that it is NOT spiritual.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in a nation's life."

    Could not agree more. Saudi Arabia comes to mind immediately as an example of the Religion of Fear.

    -----

    "His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

    Here it is easy to see why he has been called a *normal* theist, a deist or a pantheist.

    The religious right could latch onto this quite easily.

    -----

    I suppose I could've supported the overall thrust of his essay if he hadn't been referring to himself as the end result of the religious evolutionary process.

    That to me smacks of disingenuity, or egotism.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Police: Family Killed Dad for Changing TV to World Cup

    Police say David Makoeya, 61, fought with his wife and two children last Sunday over what to watch on television at their home in Limpopo province, in South Africa's far northeast. Makoeya wanted to watch the Germany versus Australia soccer game that night, but his family wanted to see a gospel program.
    link


    A GOSPEL program. Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Could not agree more. Saudi Arabia comes to mind immediately as an example of the Religion of Fear.
    -------------
    Really? My first thought was that he was referring to Christianity. Most of it, except a few churches which themselves are considered heretical, employ Pascal's Wager to gain converts and keep the faithful in line. Their entire morality system is based on fear and punishment. I mean, I agree that Islam is one too, mostly. But Christianity is our local home-grown variety of basically the same kind of 'do as I say or else you'll pay and how!' religion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that..
    -------------------
    He should have said 'reveals a complexity...' and not 'an intelligence.' I think that's more how he thought of it. A complexity that transcends our intelligence, rather than an intelligence of such superiority...
    I could be wrong though.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That to me smacks of disingenuity, or egotism.
    ---------------
    Hey, at least if Einstein had an ego problem, he had good reason. At least he had accomplished great things that no other person could accomplish and most couldn't even understand, which completely changed the entire world. I think I'd forgive him a bit of egotism, as opposed to the poor demented sot that thinks he poops Breyers Chocolate just because God told him so and for no other reason.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eisntein seems to have merely described the awe and 'smallness' that one feels when contemplating the immensity and complexity of the universe.
    If I go for a walk in the forest and feel a sense of awe at all the nature around me, as I being religious? I think not. It still may be a very powerful feeling, but it does not impinge on the supernatural in the least. It's awe at *nature* which is the very definition of 'natural' and not 'supernatural,' no?
    I think Einstein allowed this sense of awe that he felt to influence his way of speaking about it, and so he sort-of 'waxed spiritual' about it. But not the spiritual of a deity and a holy heirarchy of some sort. The 'spiritual' of feeling awed and humbled and small, which incidentally is very good for decreasing ego attachment, because it teaches us that we're not 'all that.' It is spiritual in a way to feel humbled like that, because by being humbled, by anything, we learn humility. And humility is the beginning of empathy, and empathy is the beginning of 'other-based' morality, as opposed to the more common self-centered variety as taught by the church.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

    Einstein in a letter to Max Born (4 December 1926); The Born-Einstein Letters (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971) ISBN 0-8027-0326-7. This quote is commonly paraphrased "God does not play dice" or "God does not play dice with the universe", and other slight variants.

    Seems Einstein at least entertained some belief in a god, but from here it looks like deism.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In response the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in (24 April 1929): "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words:

    "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ed, that sounds like an answer from an atheist who didn't want to be known as an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
    -------------
    And he was wrong about this.

    Hawking came back with 'God not only does throw dice, but sometimes He throws them where we can't see them...'

    And no, I don't think this constitutes an admission of religion from Hawking, either.

    ReplyDelete
  17. But from these tiny inklings of the spiritual seems to spring forth the ideas of a mysterious eternal mind who dreamed up this great 'game' where 'to win' is to believe in, to have faith in, the mysterious eternal mind.

    The notion that all things Godly are GOOD, but(or and) since God uses evil in his game, it is okay for believers to use evil for their benefit too!

    The cartoon about Jesus talking to recently dead Christian who imagines all things Biblical literal except of course giving away all one's riches, comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Ed, that sounds like an answer from an atheist who didn't want to be known as an atheist."

    He wouldn't be the first...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Brian, that's hardly a rebuttal.

    Per the sentiment of humility + awe, that he and you mean, I agree whole heartedly.

    -----

    Here's what Einstein was in accord with apparently.

    Spinozism

    I see what you're saying Brian, but he might've actually meant what he said ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh. I wasn't aware that Spinoza's 'God' was not a god at all. I agree, Einstein might well have believed thus.

    That's not even as strong as deism. It's 'all is God.' Heck, it'd even go fairly well alongside of my 'Big Brain' speculations. Not that dissimilar in many areas.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Brian; just out of curiosity, why do you capitalize the Jesus pronouns?

    Otherwise, I loved Einstein’s treatment of the "evolution" of religion. I've often imagined the origins of "sacrifice" and all religion coming from some Australopithecus throwing one of their sick or injured brethren out of the cave in the hopes of getting the hyenas to go away.

    I was initially put off, like Harry, by his holding scientist like himself up as the result of the religious evolutionary process, but the more I think about it, I don't see it so much as the end result, but rather religion just sort of petering out into science, regardless of how Einstein himself saw it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In any event, it is clear that Einstein did NOT believe in anything remotely like the Abrahamic God he grew up with and which is the God that all current Christians and Muslims espouse. He certainly did not see any connection between the "entity" of which he might stand in awe when he contemplated the complexity of the Universe and the need to react to it in any way other than to recognize it. I cannot imagine that he would support the idea that any of the traditional or organized religions "have it right". Theists must grasp at any straw they can infer from his writings in their efforts to "prove" that such a great thinker was actually a believer. "Argument from authority" much?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm always amused by how transparent the leap from "deity" to Jesus is for the average apologist.

    Eric's constantly doing it and the average believer who uses Einstein’s belief is doing the same thing.

    "God" is one of the vaguest terms in any language. It can mean anything from Julius Caesar to the Immutable Laws of Physics and everything in between depending on their need, it's very convenient...

    I would argue that Spinoza and Einstein really shouldn’t even be using that particular word to describe what they are describing. Maybe "foundation" would be better?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I guess I have always had some problems with Einstein's description of theology.

    The word religion gets in the way. It's part of the reason that many believers can't fathom that a sense of wonder about the universe, based upon nothing but the science of it all, can be as fulfilling as their theology.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Evolution of religion, eh? More like people just getting smarter, if you ask me (but that's probably what he was talking about in the first place..).

    That Spinozism thing was kinda cool. It's kinda close to what I sort-of believe, but not quite.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Brian; just out of curiosity, why do you capitalize the Jesus pronouns?
    -------------------
    I went through a phase where I intentionally didn't capitalize any of it for a while there. Now I just don't think about it, so I default to the old habits. It's not like I really care either way.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I would argue that Spinoza and Einstein really shouldn’t even be using that particular word to describe what they are describing. Maybe "foundation" would be better?
    ---------------
    I agree. Maybe they didn't realize how the fundies would someday parse their every word to try to claim them for one of their own.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The opposite effect can be seen with Adolph Hitler. In his case the christians try anything to 'prove' that he wasn't a believer, when we have so many direct quotes from him that contraindicate that. Some christians say that he was only 'using' the religion to control his people. So what? It still speaks to how easily the religion can be used as a control mechanism, how easily it can be perverted to evil ends. And Hitler certainly wasn't the first Christian to use the religion in that manner. Heck, the religion was *designed* for that exact purpose...

    ReplyDelete
  29. If I were an astronomer or a physicist or some great thinker like Einstein I'd likely use 'god' analogically all the time.... like 'well, we're getting closer to knowing the mind of god...' or some such thing, never thinking for a minute that people will be dumb enough or desperate enough to actually think I mean it literally.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I've given up on trying to get Christians to claim Hitler (although if they want Einstein, they have to take Hitler).

    What they can't get around, is the average member of the Wahrmacht or the SS was a devout Christian. Those would be the folks actually pulling the triggers or releasing the gas.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yeah Ryan, fortunately the very minute they decided to do that evil stuff, they stopped being a 'real christian' so it's no harm, no foul.

    (Yeah, as if)

    ReplyDelete
  32. I have to agree, Hitler wasn't a true christian. Einstein wasn't a true cristian. Absofuckinglutely NOBODY has ever been a true christian....not by the true christian's standards anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Brian,

    Apologies for another tangent (bout one a post I believe), I felt compelled because I thought of you immediately after hearing this.

    On the History Channel's 'History of Sex' someone claimed the following exchange took place.

    Queen Victoria's daughter: "What do I need to know about sex?"

    Queen Victoria: "Close your eyes and think of England."

    Even if that's bullshit, it's still pretty funny.

    ReplyDelete
  34. LOL Harry!

    As a guy it is kind of hard to imagine being a woman. Trying to imagine being a woman laying 'there' with my legs spread, a guy jamming his do-hicky into my ya-ya all the while 'thinking of England' is too much.

    "Hey, Wales is the pig's head, Cornwall the front legs and ... HOLY SHIT!.. WTF.. that was IT?? Big deal!"

    ReplyDelete
  35. Which brings a question about.

    Perhaps our picture of the evolution of religion is overly masculine in perspective?

    I was only introduced to feminism about a year ago, and it's been mind-blowing. Not at all the picture Rush Limbaugh had been giving me (through my parents listening habits) about "femi-nazis."

    ReplyDelete
  36. Indeed it must be hard to grow up being taught to look at the world through the bigotted 'lens' of Christianity.

    The doublespeak is all pervasive. "Why we only mean that the Founding Fathers were good Christians and that some 90% of Americans are Christian when we say that America is a Christian Nation! It has nothing (everything) to do with discrediting non-Christians in our own eyes!"

    "Of course we are free to worship Jesus or not but Christians know, having read the Bible, that God works against nations that don't obey HIM!"

    "What? WE'RE the bigots? These monkey's grandchildren ought to have respect for our values, they're what made our nation great!"

    "Drugs are dirty, the historical truth is that dirty Chinese brought in heroin, dirty black men brought in cocaine and dirty Mexicans brought marijuana to our Land of the Free where all men are equal."

    "Freedom to worship Christ as you choose and be fairly represented brought our great nation into being! Now that all that fairness, freedom and choice thing is out of the way, we need to impose good Christian laws and laws promoting good Christian values on everyone, regardless of their race, color, creed, sex, sexual preference, or even if they think that those laws ARE fair to them!"

    "Obviously, if you start from the premise that Christianity demands respect, then Christian laws and rules basically prohibit you from NOT being a good Christian! How fair is that? Within these boundaries, anything else is obscene and disgusting, that's just a no-brainer!"

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ryan said,
    I've given up on trying to get Christians to claim Hitler (although if they want Einstein, they have to take Hitler).

    What they can't get around, is the average member of the Wahrmacht or the SS was a devout Christian. Those would be the folks actually pulling the triggers or releasing the gas.
    ------------------------------------------

    Ryan ,you once claimed to be a Christian as do the KKK. Personally, I do not know if Hitler made that claim but the fact that he was a murder would be enough evidence in any court of law to prove contrary.. The point I am trying to make here is this , Just because one claims to be something does not make it so.
    I spend time in my garage but that does not make me a car.

    Einstein’s faith or lack thereof in God means nothing to other Christians. We / I do not need validation from man. Einstein was, is a notable scientist but science itself cannot prove or disprove the God concept.
    There are many scientist today that do believe in God or at the very least they are deist in their search for answers.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mike said "The point I am trying to make here is this , Just because one claims to be something does not make it so. I spend time in my garage but that does not make me a car."

    Sure, but you must realize no amount of time spent anywhere by anybody can make them a car...

    Just silly...

    ReplyDelete
  39. Personally, I do not know if Hitler made that claim but the fact that he was a murder would be enough evidence in any court of law to prove contrary..
    ---------------------
    You're saying that 'any court' would find that Hitler was not a christian, because he was a murderer?

    So you're saying that 'real christians' do not murder.

    How very wrong you are, sir. Real christians murder others, more often than atheists do in fact, at least in this country. Dennis Rader, the BTK killer, was a real christian in that he believed in god and jesus.

    In your world, there are like seventeen 'real christians.'

    ReplyDelete
  40. The words 'real christian' are not the same as the words 'good person.' I think this is your problem, Mike. You're getting them mixed up in your head.

    Believing with all your heart and mind that Jesus is Lord in no way stops one from being a killer. In fact, some people kill for God. Or think that they are, the deluded sots. Plus look at how many 'real christians' are in the military! Talk about being hypocrites! That'd be like Jesus signing up as a centurion.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "The point I am trying to make here is this , Just because one claims to be something does not make it so. I spend time in my garage but that does not make me a car."
    -----------------
    You didn't claim to be a car, Mike. Your example here makes no sense.
    And when a person claims to be a christian and goes to church and believes in god and jesus and the holy ghost, they're a christian, period. No matter how sick a person they might be otherwise. Then they're just a sick person who happens to be a christian. And ya know something? The christian system of morality tends to PRODUCE sickos, Mike. It's because all it offers is coercion and punishment and fear, with a reward but *not in this life.* It's carrot and stick, but they don't even have a real carrot, so it's really all stick.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Christian Morality System:

    "Johnny, if you don't stop hitting that other boy God will send you to hell when you die and you'll burn forever, and in the mean time here's a whack or two to set you straight..."

    -End result: A self-centered boy who learns not to do certain things because of punishment, but of course still wants to do them. Hence, no real morality has been instilled; just a self-centered fear of consequences.


    Love/Empathy-based morality system:

    "Johnny, can you imagine what it is like to be the other boy? How would you like it if some other kid kept hitting you when you went to school? How would that make you feel? Would you like to be afraid of some other kid all the time? Take a time out and think about it and when you're done you can tell me what it would be like to be hit all the time like that other boy and how that would make you feel..." and so on...

    -End result: A boy who wants to be good because he doesn't want to hurt others, to make others feel badly. He cares about the feelings of others. He 'behaves' out of a genuine desire to be good to others, to not hurt others. Not for selfish reasons.

    The difference is HUGE.

    ReplyDelete
  43. An update about some of my docs not taking any insurance other than Medicaid and Medicare:

    One of my docs told me he's a propronent of the one party payor system. He letures around the country about it. His desire is to force this issue on our country before it actually takes effect in the way that if you don't have Med asst. then you have to pay cash. (Our tax dollar$ are paying into the system that would be put into effect in 4 years just to assure that there's $something there to start with).

    This will cause enough non-elite-non-wealthy.like.politicians.and.rock.stars- cash-paying patients (pissed off that they have to pay cash for same services rendered to Medicaid/Medicare patients) to beg for the one party payor.

    His hospital has given him and all the other physicians a time-line *(by end of Summer at very worst) to "transition" all of their non-Med asst/Medicare pts to other docs at other places as the entire hosp is going over to this system NOW.

    Doctors like mine have signed contracts with the hospital to get paid a fixed,yearly salary independant of how many patients they see or don't see.

    So, now, when we're not legally in a one-party-payor system; we have doctors and hospitals actively telling patients they're not interested in their insurances (which, btw, pay waaaaay more than Med asst!) -- but, that, IF you come with ca$h in hand, they'll gladly treat you.

    Is this fair? Is this ethical? Is this pro-American? Is this pro-for.the.people? Is this fair competition?

    I'm sure this'll provide some fodder for you bloggers....

    ReplyDelete
  44. One of my docs told me he's a propronent of the one party payor system. He letures around the country about it. His desire is to force this issue on our country before it actually takes effect in the way that if you don't have Med asst. then you have to pay cash.
    ---------------------
    I assume you mean 'single payer' health care? As in, the government pays for it all?

    As you're describing it, it doesn't sound very fair. If we actually had single payer now, you wouldn't be having any problems like this, but to 'jump the gun' and impose it on you makes no sense. But what I'm not getting here is how you paying cash is anything like a single payer system anyhow? Single payer means you pay nothing, period. The 'single payer' is the government, not you. To you, it's free.

    If I were you I'd find another hospital and another doctor.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "The words 'real christian' are not the same as the words 'good person.' I think this is your problem, Mike. You're getting them mixed up in your head."

    -----

    Egg fuckin zactly!

    We are dealing with categories for their own sake. Having 'Christian morality' is a political statement only! It's ethical weight is zero.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "-End result: A boy who wants to be good because he doesn't want to hurt others, to make others feel badly. He cares about the feelings of others. He 'behaves' out of a genuine desire to be good to others, to not hurt others. Not for selfish reasons."

    -----

    That reminds me of a post Pliny put up about how much more compassionate a morality is a thinking person's vs. the bible's.

    Empathy, Love and Perfection: a Theological Conundrum

    ReplyDelete
  47. Brian said,

    The words 'real christian' are not the same as the words 'good person.' I think this is your problem, Mike. You're getting them mixed up in your head.

    Believing with all your heart and mind that Jesus is Lord in no way stops one from being a killer. In fact, some people kill for God. Or think that they are, the deluded sots. Plus look at how many 'real christians' are in the military! Talk about being hypocrites! That'd be like Jesus signing up as a centurion.
    ---------------------------------------
    No, I’m not the one mixed up here. There is a difference in murder , and people dieing in a war.
    If you are driving down the road and you cause an accident were in someone is killed it is not murder.
    Clod blooded murder or premeditated murder is Biblical wrong. If someone dies as a result of war it is an

    ReplyDelete
  48. Observant, since when did they change the bible to read not to murder? It used to read not to kill. I guess you change it to read what you want to suite your purpose. You are one mixed up dude.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I've always suspected there was an Observant/MI/Hydra connection.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Mike said "Clod blooded murder or premeditated murder is Biblical wrong."

    Mike, that is right, unless of course the victim is a Caanite.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jerry said "Observant, since when did they change the bible to read not to murder?"

    Yeah, Mike I thought you were a KJV Sola Scripta dude? I guess you use the NIV when it's convienent?

    Because in the KJV, it's KILL!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Nonono Mike, this is bullshit and you know it.

    You don't get to say every bullet fired by our guys is 'just war' when they hit people and 'those dirty terrorists are murderers for setting road-side bombs AT THE SAME TIME, RIGHT?

    If that's the case then you're saying YOU know murder but some guy whose family might be 'collateral damage', fighting back, "doesn't".

    You can't say that Hiroshima is fine but torpedoing civilian ships isn't.

    To get back to the oh-so-non-religious-strife-du-jour, God, it seems, lays it out for you and yours and Allah, it seems, lays it out for them and theirs, so it seems that that is just a matter of perspective.

    In effect there are no murders in the Middle East just so long as one person is not the same religion as the other, right?

    But that can't be right?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Not sure, but I've always suspected that "Thou Shall Not Kill" applied to life in Bronze Age Judea is the equivilent cult scam as "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery" was in the Roman Empire.

    It's just word game to ensure they can market their product to everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I see MI's disinformation network is running as smoothly as ever. Deathpanels? Single-payer?

    Don't know what it means but it sounds 'bad'.

    Who is this doctor willing to take the time to chat to MI about how socialist he is and WHY is he, unlike every single doctor that I know, socialist at all?

    Why WOULD a doctor be 'against' the insurance companies? Believe me, the doctors themselves are way too busy* to be up nights arguing with insurance companies, they have people to do that.

    *also way too busy to be ranting to MI about their new socialist policies which they don't have.

    ReplyDelete
  55. No, I’m not the one mixed up here. There is a difference in murder , and people dieing in a war.
    ----------------
    Only to you, because you've swallowed the conditioning that Constantine invented, that of a 'just war.' In the real world, there is no such thing as a completely just war, so any truly nonviolent person would not participate in a war, period. When you start to make exceptions to that it's more than a slippery slope; it's a luge run.

    Suppose you're one of our soldiers, the 'good guys' over in Iraq, and you have killed the 'enemy' aling with perhaps some 'collateral damage...' (I just love how cute that phrase sounds!)

    Now suppose that the entire premise of that war was unjust. Because it was, even if you can't imagine it.

    Now what are you, except a (perhaps unknowing, but still) murderer?

    If you can say that you are certain that Iraq was not an unjust war, you're only fooling yourself. There is no way you can know, plus all signs point against your belief about that, so you cannot know, nor can anyone not privy to the decision to go to war, and so how could a truly nonviolent person participate in *any* war, I ask you? They could not. Even participating in an existential war where the very survival of the nation is at stake, or one's personal survival for that matter, is not a high enough cause to negate such a high principle. Jesus died for it, didn't he? I don't recall him calling for armed rebellion against Rome.... Hmmmm....
    I think you, like most christians today, have really lost touch with the essence of Jesus' teachings. He never said that it was the easy path. Didn't you ever wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  56. MI/Hydra:
    "So, now, when we're not legally in a one-party-payor system; we have doctors and hospitals actively telling patients they're not interested in their insurances (which, btw, pay waaaaay more than Med asst!) -- but, that, IF you come with ca$h in hand, they'll gladly treat you.

    Is this fair? Is this ethical? Is this pro-American? Is this pro-for.the.people? Is this fair competition?"

    I call bullshit!!

    1) No Hospital or physician is ever required to accept any kind of insurance. This includes Medicar/Medicaid. Anyone can "opt out" and charge fee for service or nothing at all! This only means that such a provider would not get paid directly (if at all) by the insurance in question. Of course, the insurnace company might refuse to pay anything if the patient chooses to go to such provider,(so-called "out of network") and, of course, any government payor would simply refuse to pay anything.
    2) If MI hasn't either made all of this up out of whole cloth, then she is, once again, misinformed.
    3) MI's question of "is this fair?" is really strange, inasmuch as the Hospital in question is simply stating its unwillingness to have its charges dictated by third party payors (according to her except for medicare/medicaid, which they cannot "opt out of" without losing accreditation and any state or federal monetary support).
    4) In any event, this all has nothing to do with a single payor system that may eventually come to pass. MI's contract with her insurance company does not guarantee her the "choice" of any physisican, only that they will pay any physician who agrees to be in their network and to accept what they are willing to pay.
    Fianlly, ehtics has nothing to do with any of this! If any physician has established a physician patient relationship, his/her only ethical and legal responsibility if that relationship needs to be severed is to provide referral to another qualified physician/hospital that is willing to treat the patient.
    Competition (fair or otherwise) mandates that a provider can charge whatever he/she wishes. Under our present and proposed future systems, unless enough patients agree that the services provided are worth "cash-in-hand", such a physician will not be in business for very long.
    I might add that what any of this has to do with our present discussions, other than yet another effort by MI/HYDRA to get noticed again, escapes my understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yeah, Mike I thought you were a KJV Sola Scripta dude? I guess you use the NIV when it's convienent?

    Because in the KJV, it's KILL!
    --------------------------
    I am a KJV reader only.
    I don’t even own a niv.
    You have to keep the context in mind.
    The ten commandments are about justice. It is apparent that some people must be executed because of their crimes against humanity. Under the old testament times the teaching was an eye for an eye and a life for a life. This was true justice. Not murder. Jesus did not cast away justice nor did He teach contrary to the ten commandments. In the New Testament Jesus said you have heard it said in old times an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth . This teaching is based on the turn the other check doctrine…

    Jesus Prophesied about the destruction of Israel in AD 70. So in essence He foretold about an upcoming war where many people would be killed. War and dying are a part of this life. Your self-righteous attitude keeps gleaming through your finger tips Brian.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Yeah, Mike I thought you were a KJV Sola Scripta dude? I guess you use the NIV when it's convienent?

    Because in the KJV, it's KILL!
    --------------------------
    I am a KJV reader only.
    I don’t even own a niv.
    You have to keep the context in mind.
    The ten commandments are about justice. It is apparent that some people must be executed because of their crimes against humanity. Under the old testament times the teaching was an eye for an eye and a life for a life. This was true justice. Not murder. Jesus did not cast away justice nor did He teach contrary to the ten commandments. In the New Testament Jesus said you have heard it said in old times an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth . This teaching is based on the turn the other check doctrine…

    Jesus Prophesied about the destruction of Israel in AD 70. So in essence He foretold about an upcoming war where many people would be killed. War and dying are a part of this life. Your self-righteous attitude keeps gleaming through your finger tips Brian.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Observant,
    In the New Testament Jesus said you have heard it said in old times an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth . This teaching is based on the turn the other check doctrine…

    You do not seem to understand these two ideas are opposed to each other.

    ReplyDelete
  60. You know, Harvey, I really believe you're a fucking nut. And a stupid fucking nut at that!

    Brian, I think I'm going to keep this specialist as long as I can afford him. Though, I totally agree with your reasoning and if my health weren't as frail as it is, I could easily make the change of docs, you know?

    floyd: misinformed? I'm simply conveying what was stated in a letter to me from my physician; of which he sent to his entire practice.

    And, as a doctor's wife, it's not atypical for a doc to speak more freely with me about things. When he told me that the entire hospital is doing the transition - I was seriously concerned about it. And still am!

    I merely wanted to share this as a heads-up to you all here.

    Now, Harvey, can continue spinning the issue and try as he may to confuse everyone here with his psycho-fucking-bullshit but, that's of no importance to me. That is merely HIM droning on to get attention for himself; as if he's paranoid enough to think I'm stealing it from him!

    THAT is precisely why I didn't give an update on my health status; I realize you assholes don't care and honestly; that's not the issue I wished to bring before you stupid, blind, arrogant dipshits.

    (excepted Brian, for his sane post of reply). =D

    That said, I'll leave you focus all of your limited attention on the gay fucker who calls himself Harvey.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Observant: "Under the old testament times the teaching was an eye for an eye and a life for a life. This was true justice. Not murder."

    Does that include the death penalty for killers and the like?

    ReplyDelete
  62. And, um, MI?

    Why ya gotta insult people that merely disagree with what you've said? Harvey didn't even insult you...

    ReplyDelete
  63. Exodus 20:13 (King James Version)

    Thou shalt not kill.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Cogs:
    Unfortunately, it is apparent that I did "insult" her. Needless to say, except for Brian (the lucky shit!!), everyone else seems to insult her from time to time, (except for Eric and/or Mike, with whom she usually agrees about everything). Take heed, or you may be next!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Cogs; you also have to remember that MI is bat shit crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Observant,

    "I am a KJV reader only.
    I don’t even own a niv."

    This is a flat out bigoted mistake, and shows you aren't even opened minded within your dogma.

    Fact one: The NIV uses older greek texts than the KJ
    Fact two: The NIV texts explicitly contradict the KJ in
    places that make fundies very angry

    So all here who are not Christians can't use reason with you at all. Your faith is a blind faith.

    You sir, deserve my blog moniker more than anyone.

    Congratulations! You are winner of the Harry C. Pharisee award for being the most pharisaical.

    Be healed!

    ------

    Jerry,

    This shows me why you, are a "blessing,"

    ReplyDelete
  67. MI,

    For the sake of your health you should stay away from the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "You sir, deserve my blog moniker more than anyone."

    Except of course for the Harry C.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "THAT is precisely why I didn't give an update on my health status; I realize you assholes don't care and honestly; that's not the issue I wished to bring before you stupid, blind, arrogant dipshits."

    Seems MI simply wants sympathy for her mysterious 'condition'.

    Hey, MI, you're not praying enough! Instead of wasting time chiding us you REALLY ought to be communicating personally with HIM, no?

    OR, or, you really ought to be getting with the program there. There MUST be a mysterious reason why Jesus seems to be willing to allow you to suffer, right?

    Or, did you ask God and He is telling you that you haven't called us stupid, blind, arrogant assholes enough yet?

    Hey, buck up, maybe that one 'did it'!

    Oh yea, no point in asking Mike for sympathy, 'cording to him you're just a pretend Christian deserving of nothing anyways, simply under a delusion that you HAVE a personal relationship with Jesus.

    Mike has one though, a personal relationship with Jesus! You don't! You must be SOOO jealous!

    ReplyDelete
  70. I'm trying to develop a personal relationship with Jesus!

    This is what I 'got' so far!

    "Hey Jesus, what up?"
    "Not much me old Cock, what up wit' you?"
    "Ya gonna help MI or NOT?"
    "Mysterious ways dude, mysterious ways!"
    "Fuck you Jesus, you're just a figment of my imagination anyways!"
    "NOW YOU'VE DONE IT! You've consigned yourself to HELL!"
    "Right! Is it any worse than MI's living HELL? She has faith in YOU!"
    "Oh, gowan, what can a figment of the imagination really do anyways?"
    "Glad you asked! There's the placebo effect! MI could simply imagine that she is well and she will be well!(that's how faith works, isn't it?)

    ReplyDelete
  71. Ahh, MI is once again here demonstrating for us the superiority of her 'christian morality' by foaming at the mouth for all to see.

    It's so refreshing to be told how to live by someone so dumb they think Sherlock Holmes is a housing development...

    ReplyDelete
  72. Yeah, why is it that whenever there's more than one christian here (or anywhere) they all bunch up and go after the atheists, never even thinking to go after each other? I mean, why has Observant never had a conversation with MI about her faith, or vice-versa? They are almost as different as we are to them... They don't believe in the same things, not even close, and yet they have no problem 'agreeing' enough to come after us.

    MI, Mike is saved and you are not. That's what he says, anyhow. Have at him! Stop losing your focus here.

    ReplyDelete
  73. And MI, Eric doesn't believe that the Bible should be read literally! He thinks much of it is 'allegorical' or just stories made up to teach lessons.

    You take that shit from him?

    ReplyDelete
  74. That said, I'll leave you focus all of your limited attention on the gay fucker who calls himself Harvey.

    -----------------------------
    You don't have to be Nostradamus to foresee a "Bless me Father for I have sinned" in someone's future ;)

    ReplyDelete
  75. I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote the Bible with His noodly appendage to distract us from

    THE TRUTH.

    rAmen...

    ReplyDelete
  76. Seems to me that MI, Eric and Observant are not the least tiny bit interested in the content of the Gospels beyond what they get out of it.(God's forgiveness and eternal spiritual(or carnal, depending) life.

    Ignoring the silly miracles, blessings, crap that tied Jesus to the O.T. and such, his story seems to be that he was against the way Pharisees and Sadducees 'did' their religion, maybe some of their dogma, I'm not sure, is anyone really?

    Point is that Jesus seems really sure that the 'thing' was not just to say, "Well, God is real, he gave us some rules, that is that!", but this 'other stuff' which he alludes to with parables, arguments with the religious scholars/leaders, demonstrations of what faith is through how some reacted to him*.

    Woman washing his feet, children being all innocent, that kind of thing.

    I don't know about Jesus being a philosopher since it seems to me that the Gospels aren't exactly chock-a-block with 'First cause' reasoning or ontological, cosmological and teleological proofs and such.

    Don't recall Jesus getting all outraged with atheists and demanding they show sympathy for him.

    I don't remember the part where Jesus invites us to love God and believe in him to attain eternal life IF and only IF God gives the 'go ahead'.(a la Mike)

    Honestly I think Mike is trying to pull a reverse psychology thing on us. If God has to invite us, then poor us just haven't been invited, kind of thing. LOL

    Anyway the overall point is that the stories emphasize that the Pharisees were WRONG, the Sadducees were WRONG even though they were essentially right, inasmuch as their believe that there IS a God, so that is WAY RIGHTER(according to the gist of the booklets) than atheism.

    Still, he rags on them how they are 'just not getting it'.(though of course he HAD to or they wouldn't have .. .. never mind, long story.)

    I don't know how this jibes with MI, Eric and Mike at all, who all imagine that they're 'going to Heaven', right?

    Eric, the Catholic.
    Mike, the, what is it, invited?
    MI, the confused.

    All they seem to be able to agree on is that atheists are WRONG, that there is a God, but they also agree with the Pharisees and Sadducees on this point too.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I found this fascinating article on what is known as the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" that I see applies to just about everybody but in particular to christians and other religious people. Think 'MI' here.

    Apparently when one is dumb enough to make errors, one is also invariably dumb enough not to know that they're making errors... Who knew?

    Uh, me, for one. I see it here all the time. Hard to ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Cogs, you're one stupid bitch...let someone who cares school your "naive" little self...with your "gee, I'm so fucking clueless here" questions...

    Brian,

    You are one stupid motherfucker.

    I just read the your previous post in full and have gotta hand it to you; you really take the cake in being one dumb asshole who can't seem to rub 2 brain cells together and make any sense out of it.

    The craziness that you see is your own. I won't repeat the crazy shit you've said in the past. Oh, no, God help us all, you get all faggy and sanctimoniously "hurt" and can't handle the heat in the kitchen. But,then again, when -- ever -- ever -- in the history of ignoramouses oops, I mean asshole atheists == ever ===ever === NOT been a denier of something or other????
    You deny your very existences, for Fuck's sake -- just total babbling idiots trying to fool people into baseless circuitus, roboted-indocrtinated bullshit "arguments" (that's a joke!) that the passing "leading" Atheist regurgitates == whether it makes sense or not!! It's just too fucking riduculous and you wonder why educated people laugh at you and refuse to discuss anything important to you?


    But, I do believe that you are anally fixed on stereotyping and insulting anyone who believes in any type of god, yet you, the most hypocritical fucker on this blog are a new ager. Go figure.
    Stupid is as stupid does. You and everyone else here constantly call believers crazy and the like and, you don't even begin to realize how it just comes off as you trying to distract from YOUR fucking crazy-oid bat-shitted, twisted self.
    Don't think you're fooling anyone here.
    Except for yourself, maybe.

    No, Pliny, no sympathies for me and certainly no apologies coming from me any time soon. That's between me and God.

    As for the lot of you: you can rot in hell for all I care.

    For real.

    Fuck all of you!!!

    Floyd, I'm fine with my health situation. I could give a shit what a fucking loser like you thinks (or doesn't; you stupid fucking asshole). I"M Not the one who blames God for my troubles or sucky life like you do. I value my life and accept every bit of it; I take the good with the bad. I'm just tired of your tired same ol' bullshit to nowhere posts!

    Sympathy? Hell, one can't even require any sensibilities whatsoever from you dumbshits much less any "heart".

    What a joke!

    I can't believe how fucking stupid you all are. You can't even read! Much less comprehend what you've read. Then as a defense-mechanism, out of your lame ignorance; you just deny, deny, deny and oh, well, let's talk about something circular again....

    Stupid fucking blindly indoctrinated atheist assholes...

    Do your own homework and live in the REAL world for a change, eh?

    You'll have no more attention from me because not a one of you on here's worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  79. MI, this is the Sain't *wife* (lol)and I have his permission to post like this, just so ya know, I'm not one to go into my hubby's private stuff because know I'm IT for him =) (pokin atcha)...I'm posting under "Bri" (pokin atcha) because I'm too lazy and it takes too much time to recover my username and password and to sign in that way. You're probably going to say that this is Brian pretending to be his wife but, hey, I take it from where it comes (or doesn't and wishes it did) (pokin atcha again he hee) so do whatever you want to think is fine with me.

    You're so cute!! I love it. Such a heated rant and multiple expletives coming from someone who, guided by sweet Jesus, gushes over babies and even sends e-mails with pictures of them to people they wish they were boning (like my husband LOL) for some unknown reason. We had a laugh over those. It was adorable in a bipolar kinda way...one day you were telling him he was "old and ugly" in a pic he had posted, of him and Connor I think, and the next day you're sending him e-mails all sweet and with this "let me bake you a latticed cherry pie" attitude. Face it, you want him, and you can't deal with it. I predict now that you will once again try to e-mail him sweet wish-I-was-able-to-blow-you e-mails, as is your apparent cycle. I'm gonna go now...don't really post on here but after reading that beauty I had a little extra time to kill, so I spent it on YOUUUUUUUUUUUU! Muah! (Brian's an AWESOME kisser-- too bad for you lol)
    Kind regards,
    Mary

    ReplyDelete
  80. MI,

    This...

    "Sympathy? Hell, one can't even require any sensibilities whatsoever from you dumbshits much less any 'heart.'"

    ...is neither fair nor true.

    I frankly feel foolish for defending your "right" to be here, thinking it would do you good.

    Now please, understand me, I don't think it would do you good so you can be 'deconverted,' I think it would do you good to really engage people you don't agree with.

    This involves being relational, really relational, "listening/understanding," then responding.

    But if you are posting on the blog to simply make yourself angry, convert, or get attention, you aren't getting anything out of it! Nothing!

    Do you remember how Paul wrote about edification? There is a lot to his point. So much so that it can be applied to numerous areas of life, including intellectual pursuits.

    -And I hope it's for this reason that you're posting-

    If he can study "heathen" or Jewish philosophers and pull stuff they've written and apply it to his theology, what does that tell you?

    It should at least tell you that there was more to his intellectual life than the Old Testament.

    And it should also tell you that he, as much as he would allow himself, was able to find common ground with others. Now he did it so he could convert... but he was, as far as I can tell, dead honest about the commonalities.

    So, what's something that you agree with which you've learned from the atheists on this blog?

    If you can't come up with anything, do you really think you're here for the right reasons?

    ReplyDelete
  81. *Mary* , God bless ya, so you really didn't mind his sending his photos of he, your dog and your son to my email address last year when I only sent the aborted baby pics to his blog.??? Didn't see the disconnect there? Oh, I can see that....I guess =D

    I have to say, though,at the end of the day, I feel for you.

    Brian told us all here on the blog how you like to have threesomes with him with another woman. He's boasted about his huge prowess with many, many Christian ladies!
    Again, miiiighty, miiighty good of ya! Yous a betta woman dan I on 'at sorts of stuff. U gooo girrrl. If it keeps the marriage "safe" and "together so you don't lose him.....

    After all, with all of his invested interests and lustful desires toward me, that my post got to him so badly and hurt him .

    And, now, he can't even control himself; he has to show his frustrations in front of you so that you could "protect" him alongside all of the other bloggers he calls in for protection.

    He's beside himself about me leaving and puts you on to engage me. You ARE intelligent enough to see that, yes?

    In showing his lack of control here with the anger, over my posting to another blogger and he came in headfirst fighting....and then,mysteriously, other "friend-bloggers" came in with their 2cents.

    Well, I suppose you want me to thank you for the luxury of posting here.

    Thanks. ;0)










    But, ....... NO THANKS, "Hon" =D

    ReplyDelete
  82. " I"M Not the one who blames God for my troubles or sucky life like you do."

    Don't know how many times I've explained that there are no gods not even one. What does that leave me 'blaming'?

    " I value my life and accept every bit of it; I take the good with the bad. I'm just tired of your tired same ol' bullshit to nowhere posts!"

    No one is forcing you to read or respond, a even person with your fake education credentials should understand that!

    "Sympathy? Hell, one can't even require any sensibilities whatsoever from you dumbshits much less any "heart"."

    ...

    "What a joke!

    I can't believe how fucking stupid you all are."

    Oh, come on MI! Don't sell yourself short! You can believe all kinds of ludicrous nonsense if you 'just have faith'!

    " You can't even read!"

    Once again, "Don't know how many times I've explained that there are no gods not even one. What does that leave me 'blaming'?"

    Now, who is it who 'can't even read?

    " Much less comprehend what you've read. Then as a defense-mechanism, out of your lame ignorance; you just deny, deny, deny and oh, well, let's talk about something circular again...."

    Seems you HAVE read carefully what we've been telling you so you can basically say, "I know you are but what am I?"

    "Stupid fucking blindly indoctrinated atheist assholes..."

    This, for instance. What is our 'doctrine' supposed to be? I know your one is Catholic, isn't THAT right?

    BTW, your love of 'the Lord' and your 'fellow man' comes shining through on these last few comments.

    Smoooooth.

    ReplyDelete
  83. ".. with all of his invested interests..."

    Here's a good example of the Archie Bunkerisms that MI comes up with every now and then, thinkin' that she's saying something 'smart' and edjumacated and all.

    LOL

    I tend to think that when poor ill MI is overcome with our lack of sympathy for her, her doctor of sewerology or bus-driving or somesuch husband comes on and regales us with his 'angry drunk guy' talk.

    By the tone of his comments, seems he is more likely and inclined towards inflicting pain than relieving anyone of it! LOL

    What do ya think, Doctor of Truck driving maybe?

    We can only imagine the beating she takes for fraternizing with the likes of us before she is drunkenly humped for 93 seconds, falling asleep leaving her thinking, "He does love me, just got a funny way of showing it, that's all."

    ReplyDelete
  84. If anyone wants to go slumming, I've been posting over here. It's a very hostile environment in that the blog owner will often not post your comment and accuse you of all sorts of things (because he can accuse you of whatever he wants if no one else sees your post...)

    This Tony guy will never see reason, but some of the lurkers might...

    http://thelawmanchronicles.blogspot.com/2010/06/roberto-wants-evidence.html

    ReplyDelete
  85. This article got me thinking about "accomodationism". I hate the idea of it, but one question that comes to mind is which type of theocracy would I rather live under, a post-enlightenment Christian one or an Islamic one? Obviously a lesser of two evils question, but I think the answer is obvious.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidHarsanyi/2010/06/25/onward,_christian_soldier

    PS: Although this guy is an atheist, he's a libertarian, so Ian should LOVE him!!!

    ReplyDelete
  86. MI said...

    *Mary* , God bless ya, so you really didn't mind his sending his photos of he, your dog and your son to my email address last year when I only sent the aborted baby pics to his blog.??? Didn't see the disconnect there? Oh, I can see that....I guess =D
    **************************
    Nope, didn't mind it at all....I was THERE with him, dingbat. We were having a good laugh over you...he showed me all your emails. You're pathetic, sad and lonely I guess...but amusing. I know he sent pics of himself and his son...at the time he was being friendly, like he is with EVERYONE (no, not just you...alas!)...I doubt the pics were any of the ones WE took 'together' over the years, so no real skin off my nose. You can keep them to masturbate to, I don't mind. He really IS hot, I know =)

    I have to say, though,at the end of the day, I feel for you.
    ***************************
    At the end of the day I think you might feel YOURSELF and think of MY husband =). Too bad yours doesn't give you what you need.

    Brian told us all here on the blog how you like to have threesomes with him with another woman. He's boasted about his huge prowess with many, many Christian ladies!
    ***************************
    And he'd be right. I love threesomes. Bet you wish you were one of 'em. LOL....and you mean, he WASN'T a virgin when I met him when he was in his FORTIES??? Get the hell out! NOW I'm mad...he LIED to me!!

    Again, miiiighty, miiighty good of ya! Yous a betta woman dan I on 'at sorts of stuff. U gooo girrrl. If it keeps the marriage "safe" and "together so you don't lose him.....
    *******************************
    Good try....but fail, sorry. Although that part about being a better woman than you...well, OBVIOUSLY!

    After all, with all of his invested interests and lustful desires toward me, that my post got to him so badly and hurt him .
    *************************
    HA!!! I just wet myself!! You're a riot!

    And, now, he can't even control himself; he has to show his frustrations in front of you so that you could "protect" him alongside all of the other bloggers he calls in for protection.
    ******************************
    I WANTED to reply to you because every once in a while it's kinda fun. He doesn't need protection..and doesn't request it either. What you're missing is that when others "protect" him they're just reacting to your insanity. The only thing missing with you is the hydrophobia. You're like an ill-tempered Chihuahua...never know when you're going to hump someone's leg or bite their hand off...you kinda alternate.

    He's beside himself about me leaving and puts you on to engage me. You ARE intelligent enough to see that, yes?
    ************************
    And yet, here you are...still....haven't left yet....what's keeping you?? Oh, I know what's keeping you lol.....but he doesn't WANT you. YOU are that intelligent enough to see that, yes? Ummmm....no, you're not, are you?

    Look, I know you are an attention whore so I'm going to stop feeding you. I don't want to turn this blog into a cat fight so I'll not be responding to your little hissy fits again. But I would suggest trying to get YOUR husband more interested in YOU so that you aren't so desperate. Bunny boiler. Geeez! LOL

    *Mary*

    ReplyDelete
  87. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Ryan,

    No thanks brother, I don't think I'll go slumming with ya :-)

    As far as the Islamic state, I concur on the lesser of two evils.

    Ms. Ali has exactly the right attitude. It is locally focused and international in scope.

    It reminds me of pboy's The Ungodly Evil Temple of Evil

    Whaddya say peeb. Let's get started!!

    ReplyDelete
  89. I love how the doublethink comes through when MI goes off on a rant like that.

    Like, "indoctrination", there's a 'bad word' that atheists call us which we can turn around and use on THEM! HAH!

    On the other hand, if you wanna be part of any church you better be accepting their particular doctrine.

    Catholic children know this as Catechism.

    Good Catholic moms and dads would be outraged at their children for not attending Catechism, right!? They want to be sure that the kids understand, by rote all the 'correct' Catholic answers, right!?

    But tell them they're indoctrinated and 'grrr', no, it's not us but YOU who are indoctrinated.

    "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search

    Codex Manesse, fol. 292v, "The Schoolmaster of Esslingen" (Der Schulmeister von Eßlingen)A catechism (pronounced /ˈkætəkɪzəm/; Ancient Greek: κατηχισμός from kata = "down" + echein = "to sound", literally "to sound down" (into the ears), i.e. to INDOCTRINATE) is a summary or exposition of DOCTRINE, traditionally used in Christian religious teaching from New Testament times to the present.[1] Catechisms are DOCTRINAL manuals often in the form of questions followed by answers to be memorized, a format that has been used in non-religious or secular contexts as well.


    Atheist indoctrination:-

    Is there a GOD?

    No.

    (Really, thought that was just a question and NOT indoctrination at all!)

    Point is that no one should really need to explain this simple stuff to any reasonably educated person such as the wife of a doctor who owns several degrees herself!

    ReplyDelete
  90. "Mary":

    I know that you understand that MI/Hydra/Whoever is not able to control herself from time to time. As you have just pointed out, it is unlikely that she will ever "leave" this blog permanently, inasmuch as her presence here is to demand our attention, even though she then insists that 1) we are "dissing" her when we respond and 2) she really doesn't care what we think anyway. Why she has chosen to latch onto Brian in such an obsessive/compulsive way seems to suggest real mental illness, although her equally compulsive behavior on this thread in general may serve as a useful purpose in defusing her emotional outbreaks.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Harry said,

    This is a flat out bigoted mistake, and shows you aren't even opened minded within your dogma.

    Fact one: The NIV uses older greek texts than the KJ
    Fact two: The NIV texts explicitly contradict the KJ in
    places that make fundies very angry

    So all here who are not Christians can't use reason with you at all. Your faith is a blind faith.

    You sir, deserve my blog moniker more than anyone.

    Congratulations! You are winner of the Harry C. Pharisee award for being the most pharisaical.

    Be healed!

    June 24, 2010 12:59 PM
    -----------------------------------------------------
    I know enough about the niv to know it is misleading.
    I picked one up at a yard sale one day and compared it to the KJV and found many words had been changed which of course changed the context. I trashed it.
    And by the way you are wrong about fact one…
    You are right about fact two, it does contradict the KJV. The book was wrote for that purpose. It’s incorrect

    Imagine a blind spiritual dead man telling me I’m blind . Too funny!

    Just so you understand, a” Pharisee “is a person who acts like they are religious but in truth are not.
    They pray to be seen of men they want to be called master and they disfigure their faces when they fasted to be seen and or reverenced .

    Seeing how you count yourself unworthy of eternal life , Be damned !

    ReplyDelete
  92. Mike; I'm no expert, but I could not find that the KJV used any source older than Nicea (325) and most of it's manuscrips were from 500-1200.

    For the NIV, they used many 1st and second century documents.

    You can read more here...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

    and here...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIV

    Obviously, they're all just old books, nothing moreH, but it's important to note that the one you're married to says "Thou Shall Not KILL!"

    ReplyDelete
  93. Just so you understand, a” Pharisee “is a person who acts like they are religious but in truth are not.
    -----------------
    Uh, what a stupid interpretation. It's just the way a PHARISEE would see it.

    A pharisee is someone that puts the scripture and the laws above the people, as in, above *acting* in a 'holy' manner by being a good person in the world, and most important, by being HUMBLE. The defining aspect of being a pharisee (sense two) is being sanctimonious and self-righteous. Hypocrisy is another hallmark. Like when you or MI talk about scripture and then get all pissed off when we don't get all amazed by it and damn us to hell. That's being a total hypocrite.

    Sanctimonious means 'pretended, affected, or hypocritical religious devotion, righteousness, etc.' You fall into the affected and hypocritical parts of the definition rather nicely.

    You sir, are a textbook pharisee.

    See?

    phar·i·see (fār'ĭ-sē)
    n.
    Pharisee
    1. A member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form.

    2. A hypocritically self-righteous person.


    The reason that even an atheist can see that you are a pharisee is that part of being a pharisee is that you are blind to the fact that you ARE a pharisee, just like how the stupid are not smart enough to see that they are actually stupid. So you're not gonna be able to see it within yourself, but it SCREAMS OUT at anyone else that tries to talk to you, even an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  94. And BTW, the pharisees were known as the ones that REALLY followed ALL of the law, as in, thought that was all you needed to do. They were really big on following the rules, very big on never deviating from them, and also very big on telling others how wrong and sinful they are for NOT being so strict... So they were the really STRICTLY OBSERVANT ones, just like our right-wing christians are today. It's the same crowd that Jesus disliked all that time ago, becaused they had no HUMILITY nor EMPATHY nor LOVE OF OTHERS, just their blind devotion to the WORDS of the faith, and their PRIDE at being the 'BEST' of all the faithful. It was self-centered rather than other-centered, and Jesus hated that shit. Just like I do, for that matter.

    Re-read the story about the Pharisee and the tax collector in the temple, and you'll clearly see what Jesus meant. It's right there in simple terms, easy to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  95. So a pharisee can be someone that is only pretending to be religious for personal gain of some sort, but also can be someone that is very genuinely religious but interprets his religion in an self-centered manner and so is an egotistical hypocrite about it. A hypocritical true believer is still a pharisee.

    Like you.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "Just so you understand, a” Pharisee “is a person who acts like they are religious but in truth are not.
    They pray to be seen of men they want to be called master and they disfigure their faces when they fasted to be seen and or reverenced ."

    What bullshit Christian propaganda is this that you're trying to pull off?

    "The Pharisees (lat. pharisæ|us, -i; from heb. פרושים perushim/פרוש parush, meaning "set apart"[1]) were at various times a political party, a social movement, and a school of thought among Jews during the Second Temple period under the Hasmonean dynasty (140–37 BC) in the wake of the Maccabean Revolt."

    Therefore, Mike, you are a gullible fool, who just wants to believe any old bullshit made up to tarnish 'them' while shining up 'yourselves'.

    ReplyDelete
  97. In the parable I mentioned, in the temple, was the pharisee an unbeliever in God, an atheist, who just pretended to be a believer? No. He was a true believer, but he got it all wrong. He was a self-centered believer. You can tell from what he said about the tax collector; he said that he was glad that he wasn't as sinful as the other guy, which is a statement of PRIDE. The other guy KNEW that he was a sinner, and was HUMBLE about it.

    How on earth can you NOT get this?

    ReplyDelete
  98. And why do you think that Jesus said that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven?

    Because rich people generally have more problems with PRIDE and feelings of entitlement. It's really that simple.

    Genuine humility is the very key to all that Jesus said, if you were paying attention, which you obviously were not.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Furthermore:-

    "Outside of Jewish history and writings, the Pharisees have been made notable by references in the New Testament to conflicts between themselves and John the Baptist[5] and with Jesus. There are also several references in the New Testament to Paul of Tarsus being a Pharisee before he became a Christian.[6] Christian traditions have been a cause of widespread awareness of the Pharisees."

    Now we all know that Christians TRADITIONALLY put down the Pharisees, but that doesn't make it fact. More of a 'just so' answer to a child's question of who the Pharisees were.

    Mike, you're an ignorant asshole, and you're no doubt proud of it.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Mike, I know you blindly hate us but surely you can see through your fog of pious enmity that what I'm saying about the pharisee in the temple is true, no matter that I am but a lowly scumbag atheist to you.

    The pharisee in the temple. This is the longest parable Jesus used about pharisees, the most detailed, so one could say that that pharisee Jesus mentioned in that story is the classic, archetypal pharisee. The very definition of the word, as Jesus saw it.

    Your definition of 'pharisee' doesn't fit him. See?
    "“is a person who acts like they are religious but in truth are not."

    That person was very genuinely religious, honestly believed in God and the scriptures, totally in fact. He was just prideful about it.

    So somehow, no doubt through your *own pride,* you have come to believe in a definition of 'pharisee' that doesn't even fit the very definition that Jesus provided for us in that parable.

    But it's a definition that let's you off the hook, isn't it? I'm sure it's a definition that is very popular with your peer group, too, since they no doubt are a lot like you are...

    So that's why you like it. It let's you believe that you're not a pharisee, when you clearly are one.


    Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  101. If being a 'real christian' means being a real follower of Christ as depicted in the Bible, then Mike, you are not a 'real christian' at all. You've just proven it, by completely misunderstanding that parable and what Jesus meant by it, and not taking the lesson from it, not even seeing it.

    How's that feel?

    As far as I can see, Jesus stressed 'genuine empathy' and 'humility' a lot. It seems to have been his main focus, in fact. It's plain in that story, and in a lot of others. And you sir, are anything but humble and empathetic. You are self-centered (you believe you're right no matter what, and that because you're 'right,' you're superior to all those others who are 'wrong.') and totally lacking in humility as far as I can see.

    Jesus would love you... as another example of a pharisee in another one of his parables. As an example of how those who are pharisees never are aware of it. I wish he'd written that one. It would have been most instructive, I think. Too bad he didn't meet you, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Uh, what a stupid interpretation. It's just the way a PHARISEE would see it.

    A pharisee is someone that puts the scripture and the laws above the people, as in, above *acting* in a 'holy' manner by being a good person in the world, and most important, by being HUMBLE. The defining aspect of being a pharisee (sense two) is being sanctimonious and self-righteous. Hypocrisy is another hallmark. Like when you or MI talk about scripture and then get all pissed off when we don't get all amazed by it and damn us to hell. That's being a total hypocrite.

    Sanctimonious means 'pretended, affected, or hypocritical religious devotion, righteousness, etc.' You fall into the affected and hypocritical parts of the definition rather nicely.

    You sir, are a textbook pharisee.

    See?

    phar·i·see (fār'ĭ-sē)
    n.
    Pharisee
    1. A member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form.

    2. A hypocritically self-righteous person.


    The reason that even an atheist can see that you are a pharisee is that part of being a pharisee is that you are blind to the fact that you ARE a pharisee, just like how the stupid are not smart enough to see that they are actually stupid. So you're not gonna be able to see it within yourself, but it SCREAMS OUT at anyone else that tries to talk to you, even an atheist.
    June 25, 2010 4:51 PM
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    We are talking about Biblical facts here and Jesus was quite good in giving examples of what a Pharisee was in His day.
    Fact one: A Pharisee and a publican both went into the temple to pray and the Pharisee said Lord I am not like this Publican here, I fast twice a day and give alms to the poor. He was a self-righteous person thinking he was better than the Publican The publican by the way is a text book sinner showing remorse and humbleness while seeking Gods mercy..

    Second :The Pharisees were notorious for taking parts of the law and changing the wording so that they appeared to be walking in the teaching of the law. That is why Jesus said unto them they make the law of no effect.

    Thirdly: I don’t damn people to hell… you do that yourself… I just remind you that, that is where you are headed… IS The truth to strong for you Brian…
    You sir have NO understanding of the Book you hate as you have demonstrated multiple times.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Mike, you're an ignorant asshole, and you're no doubt proud of it.
    June 25, 2010 5:10 PM
    -----------------------------
    Bless them that persecute you for Jesus name sake for great its your reward in heaven.

    Bless you pboy…

    ReplyDelete
  104. Mike; being called an ignorant asshole is not persecution. Especially when you deserve it, at least the ignorant part! Just FYI.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Mike; being called an ignorant asshole is not persecution. Especially when you deserve it, at least the ignorant part! Just FYI.
    June 25, 2010 6:17 PM
    ----------------------------
    And bless you too Ryan…

    ReplyDelete
  106. May the force be with you too Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  107. So Mike, are you going to apologize to Harry for wrongly claiming he was wrong earlier?

    Somehow I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Brian,
    Enjoyed reading the link about the unknown that you posted. Along comes Observant as a shining example of the point the author was making. Of course we all fit the mold, but Observant does stand out. Not only does he not know that he doesn't know, but is unwilling to learn.

    ReplyDelete
  109. So Mike, are you going to apologize to Harry for wrongly claiming he was wrong earlier?

    Somehow I doubt it.
    ------------------------------
    What post are you refering to Ryan ?
    I don’t remember responding to anything he said, SRUGING MY SHOLDERS.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Not only does he not know that he doesn't know, but is unwilling to learn.
    -----------
    Exactly. And he's a preacher. So he qualifies for 'the blind leading the blind' very nicely. He teaches others how to be as blind as he is. Such a level of ignorance surely must feel very good indeed, no? If ignorance is bliss, imagine how happy they all are.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Jerry said,
    Enjoyed reading the link about the unknown that you posted. Along comes Observant as a shining example of the point the author was making. Of course we all fit the mold, but Observant does stand out. Not only does he not know that he doesn't know, but is unwilling to learn.
    June 25, 2010 6:52 PM
    ----------------------------------
    Jerry you are such a wonderful person ,and I am mystified when I read your post. I wish I were you… Why, you are so much better than me. Everybody wants to be Jerry…

    ReplyDelete
  112. Mike; You don't remember??? It was only three hours ago?

    Observant said...
    Harry said,

    This is a flat out bigoted mistake, and shows you aren't even opened minded within your dogma... []... Be healed!

    June 24, 2010 12:59 PM
    -----------------------------------------------------
    I know enough about the niv to know it is misleading.
    I picked one up at a yard sale one day and compared it to the KJV and found many words had been changed which of course changed the context. I trashed it.
    And by the way you are wrong about fact one…
    You are right about fact two, it does contradict the KJV. The book was wrote for that purpose. It’s incorrect

    Imagine a blind spiritual dead man telling me I’m blind . Too funny!

    Just so you understand, a” Pharisee “is a person who acts like they are religious but in truth are not.
    They pray to be seen of men they want to be called master and they disfigure their faces when they fasted to be seen and or reverenced .

    Seeing how you count yourself unworthy of eternal life , Be damned !

    June 25, 2010 4:09 PM

    ReplyDelete
  113. We are talking about Biblical facts here and Jesus was quite good in giving examples of what a Pharisee was in His day.
    Fact one: A Pharisee and a publican both went into the temple to pray and the Pharisee said Lord I am not like this Publican here, I fast twice a day and give alms to the poor. He was a self-righteous person thinking he was better than the Publican The publican by the way is a text book sinner showing remorse and humbleness while seeking Gods mercy..
    --------------
    So you admit that your definition was not right, then, since clearly in the story the pharisee was a strong believer in God and the scripture. Your definition impkies an unbeliever that pretends he's a follower. The pharisee wasn't pretending, as is obvious from the fact that he was talking to God in prayer at the time he made his prideful statement.

    So now can you see that you are like him?

    ***

    No, of course not. If you could see where you are being ignorant, you wouldn't be ignorant in the first place, now would you?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Oh , I’m sorry… I thought you said Harvey…
    I don’t owe Harry an apology for anything … He owes me one.

    ReplyDelete
  115. The publican by the way is a text book sinner showing remorse and humbleness while seeking Gods mercy..
    ----------------
    Nah, most sinners never realize they're sinners. A textbook sinner, well, that'd be you. He was a repentent sinner, which means that he was humble enough to see it within himself. You are not. His kind of sinner is the kind that your kind of christian thinks is how all sinners are, the ones that know they're sinners.

    Sinners, like the PROUD, rarely are aware that they are sinners or that they are proud. Why, they think only the very best of themselvesx, so of course they can't be any of that....

    Which is exactly why they ARE. It's the PRIDE. It blinds men to their own folly, and makes them capable of all sorts of horrible things, all the while never realizing what it is that they've made of themselves.

    You really think Hitler knew that he was a sinner? Get real. He, like you, was absolutely CONVINCED of his own rectitude, which is precisely what enabled him to be such a very bad man in the first place. Heck, it's even possible, very possible, that he was convinced that he was doing God's work. I'm quite sure that he was convinced of that, in fact. Gott Mit Uns.

    ReplyDelete
  116. "Just so you understand, a” Pharisee “is a person who acts like they are religious but in truth are not.
    ----------------
    The pharisee in Jesus' parable was the more religious of the two men, Mike. It's plain from the text.

    As it is also plain that you're full of fluffernutter here.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Observant, you are interesting in a way. You claim to follow Jesus, (Jesus claimed to be the truth) but you resent the truth. How does that make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  118. In fact, the Pharisees as a sect were well-known as the very MOST religious of all the sects of Judeaism at the time. Jesus saw them as too religious, adhering too much to dogma and scripture and not even focused on being a good person in the world themselves, on loving others, on mercy and forgiveness. They only saw the LAWS, and they appointed themselves as arbiters of them out of shallow pride, much like the right-wing christians of today do.

    ReplyDelete
  119. "Judge not, lest ye be judged"

    "Rich man/camel/eye of needle/kingdom of heaven"
    -----------------
    It's remarkable that in spite of how very crystal-clear these two Jesus quotes are, that today's christians can't even fathom their real meaning, so they have to misquote them both to themselves in order to believe that they mean something else. It's the only way they're off the hook, so they literally are forced to see it that way due to their conditioning.

    Same of course with the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector. They absolutely MUST NOT SEE what it means, because if they ever did they'd realize that it was speaking to them directly, and that'd mean that they were WRONG, which doesn't even fit into their worldview. So, blindness is the only option available to them.

    The blind who are so blind that they cannot see that they are blind and so believe that everyone else is instead. What a mindfuck.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Mike "I don’t owe Harry an apology for anything … He owes me one."

    But he was right and you were wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Without religion, it's hard for a man to be stupid enough to think he's smart.

    With religion, it's easy.

    Everyone 'knows' that 'nobody's perfect,' even christians. HOWEVER, they have an out. A way to believe that they are perfect, by proxy.

    If they're so far gone as to believe that they have a direct line of communication with God Himself, then they also by default believe that their opinions are also God's opinions, that an infallible being is speaking to the world, through them. So once they swallow that, they're lost to the world. Now they think they KNOW that they themsleves absolutely CANNOT BE WRONG in these matters, since after all, if they're wrong, so is God, and that's a non-starter.

    This is how a mere man, imperfect and even onowing that they are, can come to believe that they are infallible.

    And there's no better EGO FOOD than that, is there?

    PRIDE, Mike. It's all about PRIDE. PRIDE is why you absolutely KNOW that you are right about God and the bible, and all the rest of the world wrong. To you it must seem logical and normal; to us it's a very ugly thing indeed. It's what makes talking to you about as satisfying as talking to a stone wall. The wall in your mind is stronger than stone.

    ReplyDelete
  122. But he was right and you were wrong.
    -----------------
    Never stopped him before...

    ReplyDelete
  123. Mike "I don’t owe Harry an apology for anything … He owes me one."
    -----------------
    Just a tangential note:

    Doesn't this sound like something a schoolyard bully would say on being caught by the teacher and asked to apologize to the kid he extorted lunch money from?

    The sentence plainly looks immature. It's the pride again, showing through.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Observant, you are interesting in a way. You claim to follow Jesus, (Jesus claimed to be the truth) but you resent the truth. How does that make sense?
    --------------------
    Hey, I'll take that one for Mike...

    If it doesn't agree with Mike and his imagined God in his head, then it's false by definition.

    That's how proud people see the world.

    That article I posted about the Dunning-Kruger Effect is very applicable here.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Most of the facts of reality would fall into the category of 'unknown unknowns' to Mike.

    He doesn't know them, and he doesn't know that he doesn't know them, so in his head, he's cool. And as long as he never learns them, he'll always be happy in his delusional world.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Of course sadly, the PRIDE is not Mike's fault.

    The programming specifically fosters and encourages PRIDE, under other names of course. It uses PRIDE to latch onto people. It intentionally inflates the ego. That is it's whole trick. Once the person believes that he's better than everyone else because he believes in the TRUE GOD and said TRUE GOD has chosen him as his vessel (yuck!) then the swelling feelings of PRIDE are what is mistaken for God's grace. It feels so good to be so dense, and being so dense is what is required for belief, for FAITH to happen.

    I see FAITH as a worse swear word than FUCK, btw... It's disgusting how people are fooled into believing that ignorance trumps knowledge like that, as long as you *feel* that it's true. They've made it DESIRABLE to be ignoramuses! It's execrable.

    ReplyDelete
  127. "I see FAITH as a worse swear word than FUCK, btw... It's disgusting how people are fooled into believing that ignorance trumps knowledge like that, as long as you *feel* that it's true. They've made it DESIRABLE to be ignoramuses! It's execrable."

    Talk about ignorance...

    ReplyDelete
  128. Why Eric, I agree for once. That page you sent me to was full of ignorance. Way to go, dude!

    ReplyDelete
  129. FAITH is a great word. It sounds so innocuous and good, but all it really is, is a way to abdicate the necessity of reality-testing in favor of a belief system. It is taught that FAITH is something to aspire to, and that's a lot of peer-pressure to actually FEEL something called FAITH, even and especially if you don't seem to feel it for some reason. So you talk yourself into 'feeling' it, and then once you have it, once you have FAITH, then your fantasy world trumps reality. It's just another word for BLIND BELIEF, which is in turn another word for DUMB. But it sounds so nice, so people aspire to a state of DUMB, all the while believing it to be somehow preferable to INFORMED or SMART.

    Even you Eric, have your faith, so to that extent and in that specific area, even a very intelligent man such as you, is reduced to DUMB. You don't believe that you are, I know, but after all, that's just another BELIEF, isn't it? No doubt inspired by your FAITH.

    I am right in this matter. You however, will never see that, much as Mike will never see that he is a modern-day pharisee.

    It's the PRIDE that blinds men, that blinds you to the facts, in favor of your FAITH and your BELIEF.

    You've admitted the (in your mind slim) possibility that you are wrong, and that there is no God. Good, that places you higher on the evolutionary scale (or perhaps the devolutionary scale?) than Mike is. So IF you ARE wrong (I know, hard to BELIEVE, huh?) then it follows that what I am saying about FAITH is the absolute 'gospel' truth, that it's nothing more or less than a fancy and attractive word for VOLUNTARY STUPIDITY. That's all I'm saying here.

    ReplyDelete
  130. "That page you sent me to was full of ignorance."

    Brian, that's *the* online source for philosophical terms: it's maintained by one of the top research universities in the world, the authors of each article are invited by a committee of their academic peers to contribute to it, each article is written by a specialist in the field the article deals with, each article is peer reviewed, and the SEP's articles are cited by professional philosophers all the time. Ironically, to call it a page full of ignorance is to display the sort of arrogance only ignorance can explain.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Shit, Eric!
    Ignorance is my gig, WTF???

    First, we have MI on here, finally dropping over the edge....again.
    Then Observant is playing PeeWee Herman "I know you're a pharisee, but what am I?"

    Then You, Eric, steal my ignorance thingamajig :(


    Fuck You All ! Well, all of you except MI. That one is too nutty.....

    ReplyDelete
  132. Well call me arrogant then, because that page only DOESN'T look like a bunch of silly ignorance IF one is a christian, which sadly for you, I am not.

    And the page has like a dozen definitions, but the only one that counts isn't on there. The one about 'blind belief.' That's the 'secret meaning' of the word, the one that even the christians aren't aware of. The word FAITH aggrandizes ignorance and makes it look attractive. Plain and simple.
    It's like 'What, you're bothered by the fact that evolution seems to exclude God as our creator? Have FAITH that it doesn't, that it's wrong and christianity is right. Presto! Another religious moron is born...' If they'd say "Just believe that you are right and they are wrong for no real reason whatsoever, in the face of researched scientific facts and inescapable logic' it'd be a lot less effective, wouldn't it? So it's HAVE FAITH. Niiiiice....

    ReplyDelete
  133. Observant, you are interesting in a way. You claim to follow Jesus, (Jesus claimed to be the truth) but you resent the truth. How does that make sense?
    June 25, 2010 7:28 PM
    --------------------------------
    I resent the truth you say? Only your version …
    I’m spot on according to the book..

    ReplyDelete
  134. Brian,

    What Eric sent you to was a page of philosophical discourse about faith.

    Part of which has to, and does, presuppose the existence of God.

    I have no idea why he did that, as if it is actually a page of definitions.

    ------

    Hey Eric,

    If you send Brian to a page on Newton's Principia it's not a fucking definition of physics now is it...

    Putz.

    ------

    Observant,

    I don't owe you an apology. You are a bigot, and incorrect about the NIV.

    The evidence for damnation is nill, but I want to keep playing this game with you.

    Be leprechauned!

    ReplyDelete
  135. Ryan, Harry is wrong…
    The origin of the Bible is a follows.

    Original Manuscripts 1500BC - 100 AD

    Early Copies Codex Alexandrinus 425 AD
    Codex Vanticanus 340 AD
    Codex Sinaiticus 330 AD

    Ancient Copies

    Ancient Versions

    Vulgate 400 AD

    Wycliffe 1380 AD

    Tyndale 1525 AD

    Coverdale 1538 AD

    Matthews 1537 AD

    Great 1539 AD

    Geneva 1560 AD

    Bishops 1568 AD

    Douay 1610 AD

    King James 1611 AD
    Made by forty-seven Scholars under the authorization of King James 1 of England.
    The Bishops Bible was used a basis of the new version, but the Hebrew and Greek texts were studied and other English translations consulted with the view of obtaining the best results.

    Revised Version 1881

    American Standard 1901

    RSV 1952

    Berkely 1959

    Amplified 1965

    JB 1966

    NEB 1970

    NASB 1971

    LB 1971

    TEV 1976

    NIV 1978
    Under sponsorship of the New York International Bible Society, A Committee on Bile Translation was formed to oversee a completely new translation from the best Hebrew Aramaic and Greek Texts.

    NKJV 1982

    It is evident in my opinion that the wording in the NIV was changed not only to make it more reader friendly but also to change the true teachings on certain subjects .

    As for me I will stay with the KJV…

    ReplyDelete
  136. I don't owe you an apology. You are a bigot, and incorrect about the NIV.

    The evidence for damnation is nill, but I want to keep playing this game with you.

    Be leprechauned!
    --------------------------------------

    I don’t need your apology . You are a smug Apostate and I am right about both versions.

    The evidence of damnation is before you as is death.

    Behold eternal life or death… Your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Observant,

    I'm not trying to be snooty, but at least Eric's an erudite putz. Irony notwithstanding.

    You're just a schmekel with smegma.

    Seriously, where do you get your information, the ass end of Pat Robertson?

    Well schmekel, do you have the chutzpah to cite your reference?

    ReplyDelete
  138. "The evidence of damnation is before you as is death."

    Really? Enlighten me oh great observant one. Name me one evidence of damnation.

    You realize you're going to have to at least give evidence of hell, the immortal soul, and the Christian god to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Brian: "I see FAITH as a worse swear word than FUCK, btw... It's disgusting how people are fooled into believing that ignorance trumps knowledge like that, as long as you *feel* that it's true."

    Eric: [See the SEP article on 'faith' -- it has nothing to do with 'ignorance trumping knowledge'.]

    Harry: "What Eric sent you to was a page of philosophical discourse about faith.
    Part of which has to, and does, presuppose the existence of God.
    I have no idea why he did that, as if it is actually a page of definitions."


    From the SEP article: "This entry focusses on the *nature* of faith, although issues about the justifiability of faith are also implicated. The concept of faith is a broad one: at its most general ‘faith’ *means* much the same as ‘trust.’ This entry is specifically concerned, however, with the *notion of religious faith* — or, rather (and the difference is important), *the kind of faith exemplified in religious faith*."

    None of the models of faith -- models of "the kind of faith exemplified in religious faith" the article elucidates -- can be described as 'ignorance trumping knowledge.'

    ReplyDelete
  140. Observant said...
    Observant, you are interesting in a way. You claim to follow Jesus, (Jesus claimed to be the truth) but you resent the truth. How does that make sense?
    June 25, 2010 7:28 PM
    --------------------------------
    I resent the truth you say? Only your version …
    I’m spot on according to the book..

    Observant, Every time you are called out on your mistaken belief system you run and hide. Brian has showed you were you where mistaken on one belief or another dozens of times, and each and every time you pull a Hank Snow (moving on) Every time Ryan has put you to the test on many subjects you run and hide rather than put up or shut up, you disappear. Not counting the times I have shown your beliefs to come up short, and you never answer. Some belief system you have that you refuse to answer the question that would prove you lack in knowledge. You stated many times you like to debate, but when the real test comes you disappear. You have no answers for the questions, and rather than face the reality you just ignore the ideas that you cannot back up with any type of reason. I have faith you never will face the reality that you haven't the faintest clue on what you claim to base your faith on. A book worshiper is what you are, and that you won't even face. I am beginning to believe you are simply a coward. Let us try a simple one. The other day you stated that the old testaments idea of an eye for an eye was based on turning the other cheek. I told you that they were opposing ideas, and as usual you simply ignored the fact you were wrong. Start explaining where I am wrong with saying they are opposing ideas. Well?????

    ReplyDelete
  141. "None of the models of faith -- models of "the kind of faith exemplified in religious faith" the article elucidates -- can be described as 'ignorance trumping knowledge.'"

    Ok. Now that's a little clearer. I'll go by what you say you were meaning and not what it appeared to be...which was astoundingly nitpicky.

    I acquiesce and rescind the moniker of putz...for now! Buaw ha ha ha ha!

    ReplyDelete
  142. I’m spot on according to the book..
    --------------
    According to your interpretation of it, perhaps.

    And that's just sad, don't you think? I mean, look around. There are almost as many interpretations of the bible as there are christians. But you just KNOW that yours is the one and only right one. Beacuse God Himself told you so. (Just like he did most of those others with their differing interpretations, by the way, and they'd tell you that, too...)

    Your pride actually makes me throw up a little in my mouth sometimes. I mean, I certainly don't hate you nor even dislike you really, but your blindness to who you have becomed in the name of your faith is truly sickening. Sorry. It just is. You're the Infallible Mike God, in your own mind. You have God's ear and He has yours. How special it all makes you feel. How truly good, eh?

    Egotism is a lot of fun.

    ReplyDelete
  143. The other day you stated that the old testaments idea of an eye for an eye was based on turning the other cheek. I told you that they were opposing ideas, and as usual you simply ignored the fact you were wrong.
    ---------------
    Jerry, I missed that little exchange somehow.

    Of course they're diametrically opposite ideas. One says to be a pacifist and intentionally NOT punish the offender, the other says to punish the offender, in the same way as he offended you.

    Mike, you really thought they were the same thing, or at least, one idea coming from the other?

    Well, if I tell you you are totally wrong, you will simply listen to the trumpets in your head instead of the facts, so what's the point, eh?

    Nonetheless, you are totally wrong, of course. And it's not like it was a difficult thing to understand, either. The two things are NOT alike. They are opposites. Pretty easy to see.

    If one has 'eyes to see' of course.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Really? Enlighten me oh great observant one. Name me one evidence of damnation.

    You realize you're going to have to at least give evidence of hell, the immortal soul, and the Christian god to do it.
    June 26, 2010 12:27 AM
    -----------------------------------------
    Condemnation , guilt, judgment of ones conscious “soul” This is evidence of God existence his word and eternal judgment.
    God is a Spirit as is the evidence.
    Your rejection of God places you in a reprobate condition.

    ReplyDelete
  145. I ask for evidence and you give me basically squat. That wasn't even a remotely insightful answer.

    Then you make another truth claim which is dependent on what you didn't explain in the first place.

    Thanks Observant, real helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Thanks Observant, real helpful.
    ------------------------------------------
    Well think about it Harry, If there is no God then there would be NO RIGHT / WRONG, SIN, CONDEMNATION or CONSICOUS. No reason or purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Observant said...

    Thanks Observant, real helpful.
    ------------------------------------------
    Well think about it Harry, If there is no God then there would be NO RIGHT / WRONG, SIN, CONDEMNATION or CONSICOUS. No reason or purpose.

    How simple to think one needs a God to know what is right or wrong. It is told that the first sin was man having knowledge of right or wrong. Now you are trying to pass it off as coming from God. Knowing what God wants is now called the fall of Man? Are you confused here or what?

    ReplyDelete
  148. Jerry,
    The eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth bi-law was a true form of justice under the law of Moses.

    Jesus taught His followers that God would take vengeance on their behalf. Sort of a transfer of justice if you will. This is all part of the turn the other check doctrine. He said vengeance is mine and I will recompense…

    Hope this helps you!

    ReplyDelete
  149. Jerry,
    The Bible said the law was given for a knowledge of sin.
    When Adam ate of the tree he became as God knowing both good and evil.

    Think befor you write Jerdy.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Observant said...

    Jerry,
    The eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth bi-law was a true form of justice under the law of Moses.

    Jesus taught His followers that God would take vengeance on their behalf. Sort of a transfer of justice if you will. This is all part of the turn the other check doctrine. He said vengeance is mine and I will recompense…

    Hope this helps you

    Jesus said turn the other cheek and gave examples of doing so. In his examples there was no vengeance involved. So you are wrong again. You are reading what men wrote not what Jesus said nor what he meant as he did give two examples that are contrary to what you have stated. If you need reminded I will fill you in on the two examples. I believe tthe idea of vengence was not from Jesus but some antiquated thinker of the old testment.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Observant said...

    Jerry,
    The Bible said the law was given for a knowledge of sin.
    When Adam ate of the tree he became as God knowing both good and evil.

    Think befor you write Jerdy.

    June 26, 2010 1:38 AM

    Try thinking yourself, that is exactly what I said. Having the knowedge of right from wrong is, according to you, coming from God, and yet you say, being given that knowledge is a sin. Sorry you cannot have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Condemnation , guilt, judgment of ones conscious “soul” This is evidence of God existence his word and eternal judgment.
    ---------------------
    No, these things are instilled into people by their parents. Obviously. They are exactly ZERO proof of your God or anything else. If you need proof of that, you can find equal guilt in other faiths. Guilt that they don't properly follow their faith's respective laws, which contradict yours... For instance, an Islamic terrorist no doubt would feel guilt at not being able to carry out their mission and kill as many christian unbelievers as they could... Their guilt at such a thing PROVES that you are all wet.

    Some other faiths, at any rate. Yours is admittedly hard to beat in the guilt department. Judaism is pretty close, but you've taken your 'guilt skill set' from them, haven't you?

    Your 'evidence' is like confetti in the wind. It seems to have just blown away for some reason. Perhaps because it was a lie in the first place? Yeah, it might have been more durable if it were true.

    ReplyDelete
  153. And how is 'condemnation' any proof of God's existence? I always thought it was just what self-righteous assholes do naturally...

    ReplyDelete
  154. I mean, we live in a society, as social creatures. Whenever one of violates the 'rules' of our 'peer group' and fear being ostracised, we feel guilt, quite naturally. It is there to make us conform, for in numbers is strength. It makes sense, evolutionarily.

    So fucking cavemen felt guilt. Who are you to claim the emotion for your God?

    ReplyDelete
  155. Well think about it Harry, If there is no God then there would be NO RIGHT / WRONG, SIN, CONDEMNATION or CONSICOUS. No reason or purpose.
    ------------
    This is your delusion speaking. You've been taught, conditioned, to believe in this. If only you could see that it is not true. If only...

    ReplyDelete
  156. Well think about it Harry, If there is no God then there would be NO RIGHT / WRONG, SIN, CONDEMNATION or CONSICOUS. No reason or purpose.

    ---------------------------
    Exactly true. But one of the extraordinary things about the progression of humans as a species is that we can create laws, morality, and purpose beyond simple individual survival and procreation. I've never understood the mentality that thinks 'if tomorrow is not guaranteed me, why should I even get up and do something today?' We get to decide what our purpose is. We get to design morality that is kind and empathetic. It's really quite wonderful. Does it last for each of us? Of course not. But it can be a great ride while it does.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Pliny,

    -To borrow a Harvey phrase-

    Exactly so!

    Existence precedes essence.

    Sartre would be proud.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Eric,

    The above is something I've never inquired about concerning you.

    Are you a Christian existentialist?

    I could see that, but I dunno.

    ReplyDelete
  159. "Are you a Christian existentialist?"

    Harry, no! I've learned a lot from Christian 'existentialists'(and I'm sure you're aware of how many variations there are on the existentialism theme) like Kierkegaard, Tillich and Dostoyevsky, and I'm sympathetic to a lot of what they say, but as a Thomist I of course disagree with their overall conception of reality and our relation it. (There is a line of Thomistic thought that is called "Thomistic existentialism," but it's Thomism informed by existentialist insights -- and thus more properly called existential Thomism -- and not existentialism informed by Thomism. I know of no instances of the latter, but wouldn't be surprised to learn that they exist -- "“There is nothing so strange and unbelievable that it has not been said by one philosopher or another.”)

    ReplyDelete
  160. "Christians understand faith both as a gift of God and also as requiring a human response of assent and trust, so that people's faith is something with respect to which they are both receptive and active.

    There is, however, some tension in understanding faith as both a gift to be received and a venture to be willed and enacted. A philosophical account of what faith is may be expected to illuminate this apparent paradox."

    No. This is circular. It is designed to confuse. People HAVE faith that there exists a God before they have faith that they need to worship HIM, but worshipping HIM IS having faith in his existence.

    It is one thing looked at from different perspectives. If you BUY INTO the 'existence of God thing' THEN you (at least ought to) BUY INTO the 'faith as a gift of God thing'.

    One NEEDS to have faith of God to have faith in God to have faith for God.

    The entire object of the above is to break it down into component parts, where there ARE no component parts, only perspective.

    Basically, it is a word game, 'solidifying' the object of faith, the ethereal object in which one needs faith of and in, by espousing that faith is a gift of the object.

    Now I'm sure this seems quite reasonable to a person of faith to go ahead and conjure HIS existence to have him 'give' the faith to him/her, but it weaves God out of the 'thing' faith(the gift) and the 'process' faith, in a subtle confusing way.

    How, for example, did I get the idea that there are no gods? Was THAT a gift from God then? No.

    So at the very least, the idea that God gave you the idea that there is a God, serves to sanctify the idea, as if there ARE sacred ideas now.

    Once again Eric, this isn't designed to clarify anything at all. Where a theologian reading this might think, "See how it all fits together!", someone with no religious faith is thinking, "See how it all goes round in circles!"

    ReplyDelete
  161. Eric,
    What determines who can wear the label of philosopher? Does one have to have an educational label or is it like Christianity, anyone who declares his/her self a philosopher? Also, there was a philosopher some time ago that declared God was dead, has his declaration been proven wrong by others or is that the latest in philosophy?

    ReplyDelete
  162. This was kind of like baking a cake or making a stew.

    First we have faith that there is a God.

    Then we say, "God gave us that faith."

    (let that rest for 20 mins.)

    But we have faith, we know that, and God gave it to us, we know that, therefore there MUST BE a God that gave it to us!

    (Bake that at 350 for 20 mins.)

    Faith that there is a God, is now on much more solid ground, it is NOW just 'the knowledge that there is a God', which we have talked into existence.

    (Do I hear some small voices as the back of the class trying to say that we cannot talk gods into existence?)

    I'm sorry, small voices, you saw me bake the cake, it can't be unbaked.

    ReplyDelete
  163. "What determines who can wear the label of philosopher?"

    Here's a philosophical answer: it depends on what you mean by the term 'philosopher.' (I'll clarify below.)

    "Does one have to have an educational label or is it like Christianity, anyone who declares his/her self a philosopher?"

    In one sense, we're all philosophers insofar as we think about philosophical problems. We're not all good philosophers in this sense, but we're all doing philosophy. So here it's not necessary to have any training, but it is necessary to have philosophical problems (i.e. to encounter unanswered questions and puzzles that are philosophical in nature). And I think that anyone who reflects seriously on the fundamental questions cannot but have philosophical problems.

    In another sense of the term, a philosopher is someone who earns his living writing about and/or teaching philosophy. In this sense of the term, we're not all philosophers, and an education in philosophy is almost always necessary.

    At third sense of the term comprises anyone whose work is part of the philosophical canon, i.e. is someone we all consider to be an important philosopher. In this sense of the term, it's necessary to have philosophical problems, and so to be a philosopher in the first sense I mentioned, but it's not necessary to have a philosophical education, as is almost always the case in the second sense I mentioned. And note that not everyone in the second category is included in this third category.

    "Also, there was a philosopher some time ago that declared God was dead, has his declaration been proven wrong by others or is that the latest in philosophy?"

    That was Nietzsche. Interestingly, there is a sense in which Nietzsche's remark (which can be found in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and in "The Gay Science") is compatible with the existence of God, since he's primarily concerned with our inability to believe in God anymore. Note, I'm not saying Nietzsche was a theist; I'm simply referring to what he meant to say there. (Incidentally, in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," Nietzsche thought that we were both unable to believe and unaware of it. In "The Twilight of the Idols, he explained it this way: "I am afraid we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar." One is tempted to say, with Polonius, "How pregnant sometimes his replies are!") Further, he's concerned with the *consequences* of our inability to believe. Nietzsche is a *serious* atheist, and I highly recommend any atheist today to put down the superficial works of Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and to read Nietzsche instead.

    Now, Nietzsche himself believed, of course, that God never existed, and that what we've 'killed,' even if incompletely, is the idea of God. So, do philosophers today believe this is the case? Well, by far most philosophers today are atheists, so they agree that God never existed (though, by far most philosophers who understand the arguments for and against God's existence best are believers), but I know of no degree of agreement with the notion that most people are unaware of God's nonexistence, and that they are unaware of the consequences of it. But then again, those aren't philosophical questions.

    ReplyDelete
  164. "(though, by far most philosophers who understand the arguments for and against God's existence best are believers)"

    This has been a commercial interlude promoting the existence of God. Unbelievers simply do not 'understand' the arguments for God's existence, you see. Atheists, it seems, don't understand their OWN arguments.

    Oh, Eric, why are we such blithering idiots? Let me watch the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe again, see if I can finish it without getting nauseous.(Christian kids must love getting archtypes shoved down their throat!)

    ReplyDelete
  165. "Atheists, it seems, don't understand their OWN arguments.
    Oh, Eric, why are we such blithering idiots?"

    Well I don't know about "atheists," but you, Floyd, are a blithering idiot because of what you took me to be saying.

    I did not say that atheists don't understand their own arguments. There are many brilliant atheist philosophers who specialize in philosophy of religion, but it's simply a fact that most philosophers whose AOS includes philosophy of religion -- that is, the philosophers who deal with the arguments for and against God's religion the most, and at the highest level -- are theists.

    What do I make of this? Not much; indeed, not much more than I make of the fact that most philosophers across specialities are atheists or agnostics. I merely added that detail to round out my account of where contemporary philosophers are with respect to the existence of God. Why do you take a more complete account of the facts to be an "advertisement" rather than, well, a more complete account of the facts? Is anything I said factually wrong? Did I leave any important detail out to skew my account? Go ahead, Folyd -- don't just bitch and throw around insults; enlighten me.

    ReplyDelete
  166. correction*:
    ...that is, the philosophers who deal with the arguments for and against God's existence* the most, and at the highest level...

    ReplyDelete
  167. Eric,

    Appreciate your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Eric,

    Well said, but I agree with pboy calling you out on your comment.

    Per atheist philosophers, of the ones available to an undergrad, I would say Nietzsche and Mackie.

    Both superb.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Jerry, this is one of the best introductions I know of to philosophy, and to what it means to be a philosopher in the primary sense (i.e. to have philosophical problems). Magee is an atheist too, so don't think I'm trying to smuggle some theism into an introduction to philosophy. He gives particularly good accounts of Logical Positivism, Oxford philosophy (ideal language and ordinary language), Kantianism and of Popper's philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  170. "I did not say that atheists don't understand their own arguments."

    Well, from this:-
    "(though, by far most philosophers who understand the arguments for and against God's existence best are believers)"-

    Blithering idiots such as myself are prone to imagine that non-believers would be more inclined to argue AGAINST God's existence!

    Perhaps I'm misunderstanding human nature completely here, when I try to imagine 'the best' arguments AGAINST God's existence coming from theist philosophers and not from perhaps someone who actually doesn't believe that there are any gods at all.

    Eric seems to be saying that theist philosophers make up the best arguments against their God and no doubt, what with their 'better understanding' shoot atheist philosphical argument down in flames, handily, no doubt. Especially the ones they construct themselves with their 'high level' understanding and all.

    Now all I was saying was that your statement was a commercial for your theist philosopher's 'high level understanding' and their not-so-surprising conclusions that there exists at least the one God (plus avatars, plus saints and angels, whatever their classification).

    Seems to me that I need to throw human nature, the idea that people will back up their own conclusions, right out the window, if I'm to 'understand' Eric 'correctly' here.

    Guess I'm stuck being a blithering idiot, just bitching and throwing insults at Eric,(perhaps you could copy/paste an example of each, directed at you in the context of this particular discussion, Eric), because I, for one, cannot believe that theists are not biased towards the belief in the existence of God, mysterious 'higher level of understanding' or no 'mysterious higher level of understanding'.

    I liked your page on faith, because it explains the self-serving rhetoric, the word-magic, the diversions and the confusion technique that are entailed in 'mysterious higher level understanding', the lengths you guys will go to try to chisel a GOD out of(or 'into') an idea of God.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Eric; I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but I would imagine that there are more people who's AOS (barf, why not just say field, oh right I know...) is philosophy of religion are predisposed to be believers in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Eric,

    We're apparently on a streak here.

    I agree wholeheartedly. The more Dawkins' philosophical arguments are avoided the better.

    I like Hitchens a lot but he can be almost as bad.

    But Harris, I'm not quite seeing.

    What do you think is a significant flaw in his reasoning about religion?

    ReplyDelete
  173. "Per atheist philosophers, of the ones available to an undergrad, I would say Nietzsche and Mackie."

    Harry, I agree. I'd say both should be read, since they approach atheism -- and philosophy in general -- very differently.
    I'd add Hume (of course!) and, among contemporary philosophers, Baggini, whose writing on philosophy of religion is largely informed and accessible.

    ReplyDelete
  174. that is, the philosophers who deal with the arguments for and against God's religion the most, and at the highest level -- are theists.
    -----------
    Makes sense. Most atheist philosophers no doubt aren't interested in a discussion or an argument for a fairy tale, so their interests will lie in other areas. Only a few would like arguing about God with the theists (who cheat). It's like soiling one's hands on the fantasy-dwellers... The atheists no doubt have more realistic and productive things to think about and do in their lives. So sure, I believe that most philosophers who argue about God, are theists. The rest of would rather argue about the *possible.*

    It's kinda the same with the atheist scientists. You don't see many of them out there arguing with the theists. That's because they eschew childish things. Only a few realize that there is a real need for science to argue with the blind believers, since they're bent on taking over the world for their religion, and what they think they know about said world is so incredibly wrongheaded and ignorant that one doesn't know where to start describing it.
    And when a scientist talks to a theist, they have a lot of trouble talking that far down, simplifying it all for them... Hard to dumb the science down enough that the theists can get anything out of it.

    It's like when Richard Dawkins speaks, and then the theists all misquote him and twist his words around to try to make them sound wrong. Very few other serious atheist scientists would want to expose themselves to such silliness, I suspect. They have real research to be doing, not farting around with superstitous science-illiterates who can't tell a ribosome from a rib house.

    ReplyDelete
  175. "But Harris, I'm not quite seeing.
    What do you think is a significant flaw in his reasoning about religion?"

    Harry, his total lack of engagement with serious religious arguments, and his lack of understanding of how religious thinkers use fundamental terms -- such as faith! I also think his argument concerning 'moderate' believers is buncombe, since by parity of reasoning we could argue that it's moderate atheists who make violent atheists possible. Now sure, this latter argument on my part would rest on a confusion of a number of key terms and concepts, and on a superficial historical sense, but that's the point, since the same is the case with Harris's argument.

    I have to agree with you a bit here though: Harris isn't half the writer Dawkins is, and he isn't half the entertainer Hitchens is, but in terms of content, he's better than both of them. However, he's still not nearly as serious about his atheism as Nietzsche is. Still, I find it difficult to disagree with Berlinski's assessment of Harris in "The Devil's Delusion": "When [Harris] remarks that he has been 'dumbstruck' by Christian and Muslim intellectual commitments, I believe the word has met the man...There is a queer quality of logical brittleness to everything that Harris writes, because every argument he advances stops before it has become relevant." Hear, hear!

    ReplyDelete
  176. "Most atheist philosophers no doubt aren't interested in a discussion or an argument for a fairy tale, so their interests will lie in other areas. Only a few would like arguing about God with the theists (who cheat). It's like soiling one's hands on the fantasy-dwellers... The atheists no doubt have more realistic and productive things to think about and do in their lives."

    One of the best atheistic philosophers of religion in the world, Quentin Smith, agree with you that atheist philosophers who do not specialize in philosophy of religion are largely not interested in the debate, but disagrees with you about its implications, how its viewed by atheistic philosophers who specialize in philosophy of religion, and about the quality of theistic arguments:

    "Due to the typical attitude of the contemporary naturalist...the *vast majority* of *naturalist* philosophers have come to hold (since the late 1960s) an *unjustified* belief in naturalism. Their justifications *have been **defeated** by arguments developed by theistic philosophers*, and now naturalist philosophers, for the most part, live in darkness about the justification for naturalism. They may have a true belief in naturalism, but they have no knowledge that naturalism is true *since they do not have an undefeated justification for their belief*. If naturalism is true, then their belief in naturalism is accidentally true. This philosophical failure (ignoring theism and thereby allowing themselves to become unjustified naturalists) has led to a cultural failure since theists, witnessing this failure, have increasingly become motivated to assume or argue for supernaturalism in their academic work, to an extent that academia has now lost its mainstream secularization."

    ReplyDelete
  177. "Due to the typical attitude of the contemporary naturalist...the *vast majority* of *naturalist* philosophers have come to hold (since the late 1960s) an *unjustified* belief in naturalism. Their justifications *have been **defeated** by arguments developed by theistic philosophers*, and now naturalist philosophers, for the most part, live in darkness about the justification for naturalism.
    ---------------
    That sounds like pure horsehockey, Eric.

    I'm sure it's all on technical points that aren't really *real.* The theistic philosophers are a slippery lot, never to be trusted to be telling the truth. To them, winning the argument is everything, even if it doesn't apply in the real world. They remind me of really good salespeople. The goal is to make the sale, not tell the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  178. "I'd add Hume (of course!)..."

    Of course! I can't believe I forgot Mr. Is Ought.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Seems to me that theistic philosophers are stuck in their worldview that there IS a spiritual/supernatural component and all that they'd be able to do with arguments against God's existence is take it into their own worldview and beat it up from that perspective.

    Sort of like, "There is the universe that we know plus a mysterious spiritual/supernatural realm, all under the aegis of God!"

    Atheist response, "No there isn't!"

    Theist response, "LOL, how wrong you are!"

    Atheist response, "But there isn't!"

    Theist response, "Pfft! You just don't understand the higher level understandings of us higher level understanders."

    ReplyDelete
  180. And about that *unjustified* belief in naturalism...

    Unjustified by WHOM exactly?

    By theists?


    Yeah, bet that's it.


    You people are soooo slippery.

    ReplyDelete
  181. That's how I see it too, pboy.

    It's called 'cheating.'

    ReplyDelete
  182. "The theistic philosophers are a slippery lot, never to be trusted to be telling the truth. To them, winning the argument is everything, even if it doesn't apply in the real world. They remind me of really good salespeople. The goal is to make the sale, not tell the truth."

    Which ones have you read?

    ReplyDelete
  183. Which ones have you read?
    -------------
    Only the ones that have come into our conversation here.

    I'm hardly an authority on them. However, knowing as I do that there is no actual God which is anything like the Christian God and that it's very likely there arent ANY god or gods, one doesn't have to. I can also see, even in my limited experience with them (and you) how they finagle and spin and twist the language to the breaking point for their 'win.' It's all semantics and twisted meanings. Pfffft.

    Science will lead us to the truth eventually, and if that truth has what we now think of as 'spiritual' or 'supernatural' aspects to it, when science discovers them and quantifies them they will no longer be called spiritual or supernatural but some technical jargon that is more descriptive of them. Since anything real is natural, then even a 'supernatural' thing becomes natural once it is quantified. Four hundred years ago a cell phone would have gotten you burned as a witch. So in four hundred years we might know that what you've been calling 'God' is a naturally occurring aspect of space and time, a 'field' for instance, that we can write equations for. Or conversely in four hundred years we might all be very comfortable with the idea that this reality is all thought, a type of communal dream. Or something else. Or something else again. Or... The possibilities are literally endless.

    Of course, not to you. To you, there's only the one. The 'Big G.'

    Science may well find eventually that there is 'something more' than just the naturalistic view, but if it does, rest assured that it will resemble your God about as much as I resemble an office building.

    ReplyDelete
  184. "No. This is circular. It is designed to confuse. People HAVE faith that there exists a God before they have faith that they need to worship HIM, but worshipping HIM IS having faith in his existence...So at the very least, the idea that God gave you the idea that there is a God, serves to sanctify the idea, as if there ARE sacred ideas now. Once again Eric, this isn't designed to clarify anything at all."

    No, Floyd, you're just confused again.

    Can you believe that God exists without having faith in God? Yes, just as you can believe that human beings are contributing to global warming without committing yourself to environmentalism.

    Now, can you have faith in God without believing in God? No, belief is a necessary condition of faith, *but it's not a sufficient condition of faith*. That is, faith requires belief, but belief is not enough -- it requires trust and commitment as well.

    So, you can believe in God without having faith in God, but you can't have faith in God without belief in God.

    Now that we're a bit clearer about what faith is, and how it relates to belief, what about the source of faith, viz. God? Well it's true: Christians believe that you cannot have faith in God without God's grace. But is this 'circular,' as you suggest? Well, I have no idea what this means: it's not a circular argument, since it's not an argument; it's not a circular definition, since in the definition part we're not using the definiendum in the definiens; it's not a circular explanation, since in the explanatory part we're not using the explanans in the explanandum; it's an elucidation of the concept of faith coupled with an account of its source, so there's nothing 'circular' going on here, excepting perhaps the way my head spins after I read some of your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  185. In my view, theistic philosophers are more 'unjustified' by far than naturalistic ones. You're
    justified' only by assuming the existence of a spiritual realm and a deity. That's not any justification in the real world.

    Heck, I just discovered that it's all pixies. Pixies are why we humans keep believing in a God. They're pranking us. That's my new philosophy, and it's totally *justified.* Ask any pixie.

    ReplyDelete
  186. I just don't even get how people can believe in the Bible as the word of god, even the allegorical word of god, when it's just the work of people, humans. And humans lie. It's one of their defining charicteristics. And way back then it would have been even a lot easier to lie about such things. No matter who you talk to, no matter what they say about it, about how God inspired the writers, hecek, even that it just words of mere men. There is no divine imprimatur on the bible. Nothing to prove or even indicate that it is in any way not purely and solely the work of mere men who *believed* that they were inspired by a god. Everything we 'know' about God is from the Bible, and the Bible is totally unverifiable in any way and on any level. So it all can be, and likely is, a total fabrication with zero basis in reality. And it certainly reads like one, too.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Clearly, one needs faith to believe in god. One needs faith that, contrary to all evidence, there exists a supreme being responsible for all things in the universe.
    Now, that faith may not rise to the level of worshiping said supreme being, but it is FAITH.

    It is, exactly, my lack of faith that allows me to know there is NO god(S).

    ReplyDelete
  188. "Ask any pixie."

    I did. Ever since they unionized they won't tell me a damn thing without a 401K.

    At least imps will work for beer.

    ReplyDelete
  189. "In my view, theistic philosophers are more 'unjustified' by far than naturalistic ones. You're
    justified' only by assuming the existence of a spiritual realm and a deity. That's not any justification in the real world."

    Brian, that's not what philosophers Like Quentin Smith mean when they talk about 'justification.'

    Here's a conventional account of 'justification' arrived at by an analysis of what 'knowledge' is: To say that S knows that P, P must be true, right? It makes no sense to say that you know something that's false (note, I'm not saying it makes no sense to say you know *that* something is false, but that it makes no sense to claim to know something that is false, e.g. to claim to know that Pboyfloyd won the 2008 election, and is now president). Also, to say that S knows that P, S must believe that P, since it makes no sense to say you know something you don't believe (the common example is Moore's paradox -- it makes no sense to claim to know it's raining outside and not believe it's raining outside).

    Now, is a true belief knowledge? Let's say I claim today, "The Patriots will win the next Superbowl." Now suppose they do: If I said, "See Brian, I knew they would win!" would you agree? Of course not, for even though I had a true belief, I didn't have knowledge: something is missing, right? Well on most accounts (discounting, for the moment, the various issues raised by Gettier examples) that missing element is what we call 'justification.' In short, justification is the reasons we have for believing P is true. So, suppose you learned that when I claimed the Patriots were going to win the Superbowl I was in on some conspiracy according to which key people in the NFL were going to make damn sure the Pats won -- then, I would have a true belief that I had good reasons for holding, i.e. that was justified: I would have *knowledge*.

    So when Smith says that most naturalists have an unjustified belief in naturalism, and that theistic philosophers have defeated their justifications, he's saying that most naturalists, even if their belief in naturalism is true, don't hold it to be true for good reasons, and that theists have shown that in many cases those reasons don't in fact support naturalism.

    So it has nothing at all to do with 'assuming a supernatural realm' or anything like that. You are *waaaayyyy* too suspicious of the serious intellectual work being done in the field of the philosophy of religion by well trained, ethical professionals on both sides of the 'God' question.

    ReplyDelete
  190. "I just don't even get how people can believe in the Bible as the word of god, even the allegorical word of god, when it's just the work of people, humans. And humans lie."

    Bless you, you godless sweetheart!! You just broke down an epistemic wall for me.

    The simple things escape detection for so long.

    I didn't believe, until that very sentence above, there could be a false allegory! Really, because allegories "work" on multiple levels, I always thought there was at least one level which was true.

    Why? I have no freakin idea. I'm just glad I don't believe it any more.

    ReplyDelete
  191. So when Smith says that most naturalists have an unjustified belief in naturalism, and that theistic philosophers have defeated their justifications, he's saying that most naturalists, even if their belief in naturalism is true, don't hold it to be true for good reasons, and that theists have shown that in many cases those reasons don't in fact support naturalism.
    ---------------
    Good reasons? I'm perplexed here. Naturalist philosophers adhere to science, do they not? And so it's like you're saying that science, even if it may be right, doesn't have 'good reasons' behind it.

    I'm sure this is pregnant with meaning for you, Eric, but to me it really just sounds like once again the theists are pulling their 'reasons' out of their respective asses, and science, along with (one would assume) naturalistic philosophers, have to deal with *WHAT IS,* with hard reality, not just with words, and reality is much more complex than we even have the words for yet, so they are, unlike the theists, up against hard, complex reality which is so difficult to nail down with mere words and get everything exact and true. It's too complex.

    For example, in many cases in the past science has had to wait for more data in order to fully flesh out a theory, and *while that was happenning,* while science had incomplete or little data, religion consistently stepped up to the plate and proclaimed that science, since it 'didn't know for sure what was going on,' was all wet, was unreliable. Oh, but as time went one, every single time science eventually came through, or at least very often, and then religion ONCE AGAIN has to retreat or look as stupid (and impatient) as it really is.

    Like as in 'missing links.' We have them because fossils are damned rare and hard to find, not because they're not in existence. And sure enough, we've already found a LOT of missing links, so you don't hear so much about that one anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  192. I said, "People HAVE faith that there exists a God before they have faith that they need to worship HIM, but worshipping HIM IS having faith in his existence."

    To which you replied, "No, Floyd, you're just confused again.

    Can you believe that God exists without having faith in God?"

    Simply changing, 'have faith that there exists a God', to, 'believe that God exists', so that you can compare the belief in Gods existence to 'faith in HIM' is not me being 'confused' Eric.

    It's you trying to be confusing.

    "Yes, just as you can believe that human beings are contributing to global warming without committing yourself to environmentalism."

    Here your analogy matches the different words YOU'RE using to try to be confusing. Belief/Faith.

    But the page you gave us to inspect uses only the word 'faith' which has a sense of 'commitment to', as you point out.

    I'm saying that you cannot have a 'commitment to' the idea that God actually exists without believing that God actually exists.(i.e. not confusing or being confused)

    Your question implies that 'having faith that God exists' is the same as 'believing that God exists'.

    To be clear, to demonstrate MY confusion, you asked your question changing what I said,'having faith that God exists', to, 'believing that God exists', which your analogy shows to be a slightly different thing, while not addressing the notion that what I said was confusing at all.

    So, you're just playing more word games Eric.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Seems to me that I'm saying that you guys are being unclear and muddying the waters, using every trick in the 'book'( Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer wrote an essay called 'The Art of Controversy' that was published (in English, in 1896) after his death. It was later re-published with the more catchy title of 'The Art of Being Right'. Schopenhauer's stratagems are repeated and discussed here.), to demonstrate your 'rightness'.

    It's hilarious because I'm saying that you're doing this and you're doing the tricks trying to demonstrate that you're NOT doing them. LOL

    Perhaps tricking God into existence is the idea?

    ReplyDelete
  194. "I'm sure this is pregnant with meaning for you, Eric, but to me it really just sounds like once again the theists are pulling their 'reasons' out of their respective asses"

    Brian, that quote was fropm Quentin Smith, one of the world's leading *atheistic* philosophers of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Brian, that quote was fropm Quentin Smith, one of the world's leading *atheistic* philosophers of religion.
    ---------------
    From his website:
    "Smith's position is that big bang cosmology and quantum cosmology confirm atheism or at least the belief that God probably does not exist. Quentin Smith is more interested in answering the question about why the universe exists than he is in the question, does God exist or is atheism true? And he regards the hypothesis that God created the big bang or a quantum universe merely as one of several hypotheses about the best way to understand big bang cosmology and quantum cosmology."
    --------------------

    So then, does Mr. Smith think that the theist positions are more justified in the sense that there are more definite (albeit wrongheaded in the real world) explanations for the position? That seems likely to me, although you've actually studied his writings and I'm just looking at a webpage....

    If not, then I don't get why he'd write that, so I must not be understanding the word 'justify' in the context of philosophy. It would figure that they would use it in a totally different way than how it is commonly understood. So fill me in. He's obviously an atheist, so what he said could not have been an acknowledgement of the merits of theism. That much is plain. So vatt giffs mit der schmidt?

    ReplyDelete
  196. I'm saying that you cannot have a 'commitment to' the idea that God actually exists without believing that God actually exists.(i.e. not confusing or being confused)

    Your question implies that 'having faith that God exists' is the same as 'believing that God exists'.
    -----------------------
    Yes, that's now it seems to me as well.

    I told him that faith is just another word for 'blind belief' and he gives me a whole page of all the wondrous things faith is, and then he reverts to using it as just another word for 'belief' which just lacks the word 'blind' to complete him agreeing with my definition. And since one cannot actually ever *see* god, then what else can it be? If it's just believing all the shit written or said (preached?) about him and thus coming to believe in him, that's just listening to mere men again and forming a whole belief system based on unverifiable words of fallible (and how!) human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  197. So let's see...

    Ya hafta have faith in order to believe but you must believe at least a little in order to develop faith, since if you're a nonbeliever you just don't develop faith out of the blue like that...
    Hmmmm....

    I'm thinking that belief means buying the concept, and faith is internalizing it. If you just 'believe' then a pesky fact might come along and sway that belief, but 'faith' is beyond facts. Both words mean 'blind belief,' only faith is after the point where the mind is gone, after the conditioning has them in that eternal loop where no sensible person can ever again reach them, and they absolutely love every minute of it because it relieves their fear of death. (Ignorance is bliss)

    Faith is not a fact or a thought, it's a feeling. As I've said before, feelings are often believed over 'dry facts' and/or thoughts becaused you actually FEEL them, whereas you can only think a thought. (Once you feel it too, it's a thought AND a feeling.)
    Faith feels good. And thinking thoughts is hard. And we don't know where we go after we die, so we're fearful. And that's why we have religion. To assuage the fears of those who do not want to bother to learn how to think thoughts and would rather just pretend that everything is allright with no evidence because they're too scared to face reality. Religion is our way to fool ourselves so that we can actually believe that we will live forever. It is actually rather cowardly, when you look at it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  198. Why are there so many descriptions of faith? Why is there no clear definition?

    Because they want as many people as possible to think they have it.

    They do that a lot with words. Why pin it down? Keep it nebulous, so there's larger 'margin for error.' So more people will believe in it, since it's so vague that it speaks to more people than any definitive statement or word would.

    For instance: Being 'Born-Again.' If you describe the 'Born-Again' experience in shadowy terms with lots of 'gray area' in them, (and they do) then more people will be able to believe that they too have been 'born again.' If you are very specific and descriptive of what exactly happens when you're suddenly 'born again' then they'd snare less prey, since, being a delusion, it is not the same for any two people anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
  199. I admit I'm not a great student of philosophy. I have read what I could of it mostly to get a sense of how people were thinking at a particular time in history - not a an assessment of the truth of their beliefs.

    Philosophy vs Science to my mind is a lot like marketing vs product testing; lots of smart people can spend a lot of time trying to push buttons to get me to buy. They can put a pretty package around it and get celebrities to endorse it. They can try to get me to feel like an idiot if I don't have it. But in the end it comes down to what the product actually does that is important to me.

    ReplyDelete