Religious Right Groups Call on CPAC to Eject GOProud, Like Buckley Ejected the John Birch Society

Wingnuts • Views: 22,553

A coalition of religious right groups has announced that they will boycott the next Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) if the gay conservative group GOProud is allowed to attend.

They’ve posted their letter to the CPAC organizers online, demanding that teh gheys be expelled from their midst — including this absolutely hilarious section citing William F. Buckley’s expulsion of the John Birch Society from the conservative movement:

Exclusion of GOProud would not be without precedent in the modern history of conservatism. In 1962 William F. Buckley, Jr., called on the Republican Party and the conservative movement generally to dissociate themselves from the John Birch Society. There was no doubt then that the Birch Society embraced such principles as anti-communism and limited government. Yet Buckley and others rightly recognized that there were views its founder and leader possessed, and transmitted to the organization, that, as he wrote in the pages of National Review, were “far removed from common sense.” Buckley concluded, “We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner.”

A political generation ago, the John Birch Society embraced conspiracy theories about President Eisenhower, challenging his anti-communist credentials. Today GOProud describes Jim DeMint’s culturally conservative views as “bizarre.”

Why is this so funny? Because last year, of course, the John Birch Society was a co-sponsor of CPAC.

And they’ll be back with an even bigger presence next year: The John Birch Society to attend CPAC 2011 as affiliate.

APPLETON, WIS.—November 12, 2010—The John Birch Society has signed on as an affiliate for the 38th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference, otherwise known as CPAC 2011.  This will be held February 10-12, 2011, at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC. Last year’s appearance was the JBS’s first since the early 1990s.

“Last year’s appearance went so well that we are very happy to return,” said Bill Hahn, Public Relations Manager for JBS. “The attendees couldn’t have been nicer and it will be great to make further connections with those interested in learning more about Constitutional solutions for the problems affecting this nation.”

Over the last couple of years, JBS has seen a real thirst in the electorate for solutions to overbearing and unconstitutional government.  JBS has responded with a number of activist and educational tools, many of which will be displayed and given out at the JBS CPAC booth # 310 and 312.  Most prominently will be tools for choosing freedom and stopping ObamaCare, including information on nullification, repealing and defunding the unconstitutional new health care law.

Jump to bottom

429 comments
1 laZardo  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:36:40am

There is probably no bigger oxymoron than “gay Republican.”

/unfortunately, I fit into that category because I’m procrastinating on changing my voter registration to Green.

//i’m sorry.

2 iossarian  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:37:09am

The GOP and bigotry, together at last!

Wait, what’s that you say?

3 Four More Tears  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:37:16am

I find this all very confusing.

4 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:37:47am

re: #1 laZardo

There is probably no bigger oxymoron than “gay Republican.”

/unfortunately, I fit into that category because I’m procrastinating on changing my voter registration to Green.

//i’m sorry.

You oxymoron, you.

5 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:37:59am

How many actual hate groups appeared at CPAC again? Somebody link the SPLC report again. Buckley is probably a freaking gyroscope in his grave by now.

6 BishopX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:38:19am

First the laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.


Man, I hope Gandhi was wrong.

7 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:38:19am

I really don’t know how to properly address this. On the one hand, we see the fundies flexing their muscles through hateful ignorance and prejudice. On the other hand, a lot of very deluded Gay Republicans are going to have a harder time explaining how inclusive the GOP is.

On the one hand, I see a disturbing rise of genuine evil and intolerance becoming not just utterly acceptable but part of the dogma of the right. On the other hand, I see a bunch of very stupid and deluded people getting hurt by this and I think “well what did you expect dumbass?”

8 BishopX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:39:01am

re: #6 BishopX

First they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

Man, I hope Gandhi was wrong.

PIMF

9 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:39:02am
10 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:39:03am

Please do this!

The sooner the GOP expels the sane people, the quicker we can write them off completely and toss them aside.

11 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:39:09am

re: #1 laZardo

There is probably no bigger oxymoron than “gay Republican.”

/unfortunately, I fit into that category because I’m procrastinating on changing my voter registration to Green.

//i’m sorry.

Black, Hispanic and Jewish Republican are up there. If there were more people who actually believed in the teachings of Christ, so would Christian Republican.

12 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:39:41am

re: #3 JasonA

I find this all very confusing.

I think most people would agree with you. It’s frustrating that the Birch Society and folks like Alex Jones are being mainstreamed by today’s conservatives but the issue doesn’t get much attention because most people are completely unaware of who they are and why they should care.

13 iossarian  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:40:29am

re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote

If there were more people who actually believed in the teachings of Christ, so would Christian Republican.

QFT.

14 thedopefishlives  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:41:05am

re: #12 Killgore Trout

I think most people would agree with you. It’s frustrating that the Birch Society and folks like Alex Jones are being mainstreamed by today’s conservatives but the issue doesn’t get much attention because most people are completely unaware of who they are and why they should care.

In a word, this. I’m sure most of the Bible belt conservatives I know would feel very differently about the state of American politics if someone actually took the time to sit down and explain to them exactly what has been going on.

15 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:41:10am

re: #12 Killgore Trout

I think most people would agree with you. It’s frustrating that the Birch Society and folks like Alex Jones are being mainstreamed by today’s conservatives but the issue doesn’t get much attention because most people are completely unaware of who they are and why they should care.

And this is because the sources from which the average conservative gets all their news is so heavily filtered and distorted in favor of their bias that is is nearly impossible to get a dissenting message to the base.

16 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:42:25am

re: #1 laZardo

Hey if it doesn’t bother you that the party card you carry represents many people who would be happy beating you to death for your sexual preferences, go right ahead. It is no big deal.

17 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:42:43am

re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote

Black, Hispanic and Jewish Republican are up there. If there were more people who actually believed in the teachings of Christ, so would Christian Republican.

Seriously! Jesus was a super nice guy, and allegedly was God incarnate, to Christians.

Why the fuck won’t they read his teachings? Even though I am an atheist, I can’t find a single thing the guy said which I disagree with. Can they not read their own holy book?

18 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:42:46am

re: #13 iossarian

QFT.

Quantum Field Theory?

19 laZardo  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:43:30am

re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote

Black, Hispanic and Jewish Republican are up there. If there were more people who actually believed in the teachings of Christ, so would Christian Republican.

I would think that the “re-cons” that run the party are already much more religious than that. Religion is inherently bigoted (save for perhaps Buddhism.)

20 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:44:04am

These people are not fit to fix Buckley’s belt buckle….

21 thedopefishlives  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:44:13am

re: #17 Fozzie Bear

Seriously! Jesus was a super nice guy, and allegedly was God incarnate, to Christians.

Why the fuck won’t they read his teachings? Even though I am an atheist, I can’t find a single thing the guy said which I disagree with. Can they not read their own holy book?

No, in many cases, they can’t. Because Jesus says a lot of things that require people to actually CHANGE themselves, and rather than do that, they’d prefer to get their teaching from someone who makes them feel comfortable.

22 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:45:03am

re: #5 Fozzie Bear

How many actual hate groups appeared at CPAC again? Somebody link the SPLC report again. Buckley is probably a freaking gyroscope in his grave by now.

All we need is him, a cat, a piece of toast, and some butter, a turbine, and we can cure America’s energy problems!

23 iossarian  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:45:16am

re: #18 LudwigVanQuixote

Quantum Field Theory?

Quoted For Truth!

24 albusteve  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:46:11am

re: #21 thedopefishlives

No, in many cases, they can’t. Because Jesus says a lot of things that require people to actually CHANGE themselves, and rather than do that, they’d prefer to get their teaching from someone who makes them feel comfortable.

it’s not about Jesus, that’s just a front for their own raging insecurities

25 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:46:15am

re: #21 thedopefishlives

No, in many cases, they can’t. Because Jesus says a lot of things that require people to actually CHANGE themselves, and rather than do that, they’d prefer to get their teaching from someone who makes them feel comfortable.

Since we’re already quoting Gandhi up thread…

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

26 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:46:20am

re: #23 iossarian

Quoted For Truth!

Quixotically Fucking Themselves.

27 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:46:50am

re: #17 Fozzie Bear

Seriously! Jesus was a super nice guy, and allegedly was God incarnate, to Christians.

Why the fuck won’t they read his teachings? Even though I am an atheist, I can’t find a single thing the guy said which I disagree with. Can they not read their own holy book?

You should really see my post Gomorrah Old Party.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

And my other post, Why Jews Don’t vote Republican.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

The point of those posts is that the GOP types twist the verses of the Bibles they thump in terrible ways and ignore very clear calls for justice. In as much as Jesus was a Jew, he would have considered the modern GOP to be utterly evil.

28 lawhawk  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:47:08am

Bass-ackward. Figures.

The GOP claims that they want to get out of our bedrooms, except when it comes to teh ghey. Great. Instead of ejecting the JBS from their midst, the GOPers think that this is their future?

Well, it’s a future, but not one that will be appealing to more and more Americans no matter how center-right polls might appear to show the nation to be.

29 Four More Tears  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:47:09am

re: #26 Fozzie Bear

Quixotically Fucking Themselves.

Wait, i thought they were against that…

30 iossarian  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:47:33am

re: #17 Fozzie Bear


Why the fuck won’t they read his teachings? Even though I am an atheist, I can’t find a single thing the guy said which I disagree with. Can they not read their own holy book?

Even if you threw everything else out, the four words “turn the other cheek” would basically turn every current power relationship on its head.

31 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:48:08am

re: #19 laZardo

I would think that the “re-cons” that run the party are already much more religious than that. Religion is inherently bigoted (save for perhaps Buddhism.)

I think you have run into the wrong religious people.


There is a tosefta, that asks the following question. Why did God only create one Adam when he could have peopled the world at creation?

The answer:

So that all men would know they are brothers and that no man could claim he was descended from a more distinguished Adam than another.

32 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:48:36am

re: #28 lawhawk

Bass-ackward. Figures.

The GOP claims that they want to get out of our bedrooms, except when it comes to teh ghey. Great. Instead of ejecting the JBS from their midst, the GOPers think that this is their future?

Well, it’s a future, but not one that will be appealing to more and more Americans no matter how center-right polls might appear to show the nation to be.

Especially when their polling data is based almost entirely on land-line phones, which are increasingly a feature only of older households.

They are SPRINTING toward a demographic dead end, as a party.

33 S'latch  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:49:10am

I’m just pondering the idea of “the next Conservative Political Action Conference.” What an obnoxious place to be.

34 rwdflynavy  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:49:30am

re: #25 jamesfirecat

Since we’re already quoting Gandhi up thread…

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”


Yeah, Gandhi is great…

“Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”

35 laZardo  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:50:01am

re: #31 LudwigVanQuixote

That didn’t stop Cain from killing Abel, as it were.

36 William Barnett-Lewis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:50:05am

re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote

If there were more people who actually believed in the teachings of Christ, so would Christian Republican.

Bolded for truth, alas.

37 Four More Tears  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:50:42am

re: #32 Fozzie Bear

Especially when their polling data is based almost entirely on land-line phones, which are increasingly a feature only of older households.

They are SPRINTING toward a demographic dead end, as a party.

One Asian Latino at a time.

38 laZardo  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:50:49am

re: #34 rwdflynavy

Irony upon that, India’s second biggest military partner is Israel.

39 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:50:56am

re: #31 LudwigVanQuixote

I think you have run into the wrong religious people.

There is a tosefta, that asks the following question. Why did God only create one Adam when he could have peopled the world at creation?

The answer:

So that all men would know they are brothers and that no man could claim he was descended from a more distinguished Adam than another.

I like that. It is a wonderful way of looking at the creation myth.

But, I prefer my own creation myth. You are the cousin (a bajillion times removed) of every being that has ever lived, and will ever live. We are all one big family, literally.

Imo, evolution provides a very deep connection right off the bat.

40 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:51:48am

re: #35 laZardo

That didn’t stop Cain from killing Abel, as it were.

Right so? Are you arguing that the Bible considers that event a good thing somehow?

41 Four More Tears  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:52:23am
42 laZardo  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:53:35am

re: #40 LudwigVanQuixote

Right so? Are you arguing that the Bible considers that event a good thing somehow?

More like people kill each other (and not just in self-defense), that’s human nature. Religion and empires took it a step further by institutionalizing that.

43 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:54:40am

Holy crap I need to learn to stop drinking coffee at work like it’s water.

I am literally shaking.

44 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:54:44am

re: #39 Fozzie Bear

I like that. It is a wonderful way of looking at the creation myth.

But, I prefer my own creation myth. You are the cousin (a bajillion times removed) of every being that has ever lived, and will ever live. We are all one big family, literally.

Imo, evolution provides a very deep connection right off the bat.

I absolutely agree with that. Do you really think that I am anti-evolution? Or do you think that somehow the tow views are incompatible?

You do realize that being descended from a common ancestor, who was the first human, means that there was a literal generic Adam (as in father to us all) and a literal genetic Eve (as in mother to us all) right? We’ll leave the fact that they need not have been the first couple to the cognoscenti.

This is one case where the science and the faith link up perfectly and teach the same lesson.

45 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:54:45am

re: #39 Fozzie Bear

I like that. It is a wonderful way of looking at the creation myth.

But, I prefer my own creation myth. You are the cousin (a bajillion times removed) of every being that has ever lived, and will ever live. We are all one big family, literally.

Imo, evolution provides a very deep connection right off the bat.

My first self-replicating molecule was better than yours.
/

46 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:55:38am

re: #32 Fozzie Bear

Especially when their polling data is based almost entirely on land-line phones, which are increasingly a feature only of older households.

They are SPRINTING toward a demographic dead end, as a party.

To shift the circumstances slightly…

“We’re dead alright. we’re just not voted out of power. You know the surest way to get voted out of power? Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking demographic. Down the tubes, slow but sure.”

47 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:56:45am

re: #34 rwdflynavy

Yeah, Gandhi is great…

“Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”

Civil disobedience is a great idea, but it only works so you’re doing it against a foe who realizes that is afraid to just out and out kill you……

48 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:57:45am

re: #44 LudwigVanQuixote

I absolutely agree with that. Do you really think that I am anti-evolution? Or do you think that somehow the tow views are incompatible?

You do realize that being descended from a common ancestor, who was the first human, means that there was a literal generic Adam (as in father to us all) and a literal genetic Eve (as in mother to us all) right? We’ll leave the fact that they need not have been the first couple to the cognoscenti.

This is one case where the science and the faith link up perfectly and teach the same lesson.

Really, I wasn’t disagreeing at all. I was just trying to point out that even without any religious explanation, we all share a deep connection, by blood.

I have always derived great meaning and comfort from the thought that I, my cat, the grass in my yard, you, and everything alive on earth all share the same ancestry, and thus, are literally cousins. I mean, eve had a genetic eve before her, and that had a genetic eve before that, back a billion or more years.

I think that is at least as profound as anything the bible ever said, and not at all inconsistent with a metaphorical reading of genesis.

49 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:58:29am

re: #42 laZardo

More like people kill each other (and not just in self-defense), that’s human nature. Religion and empires took it a step further by institutionalizing that.

Where one of the central tenant was Do not Murder and the entire Cain story of the first murder is meant to say that it is really bad. Further, consider the whole end of that story where Cain asks if he is his brothers keeper, the whole rest of the bible screams yes, rather affirmatively.

You are making the mistake of unfairly blaming the faith for the defective people who abuse it. The same things that make a truly odious religious fanatic are seen in truly odious secular movements as well. Don’t tell me that the Stalinist purges or the Red Armies or the Nazis were particularly Christian. They weren’t. Totalitarians and ignorant haters are the same no matter what creed they abuse to justify themselves.

50 rwdflynavy  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:59:10am

re: #47 jamesfirecat

Civil disobedience is a great idea, but it only works so you’re doing it against a foe who realizes that is afraid to just out and out kill you…

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense.
- George Orwell

51 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:01:03am

re: #50 rwdflynavy

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense.
- George Orwell

Fascism wouldn’t work very well in a population of pacifists. There’s a flip side to that.

52 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:01:47am

re: #48 Fozzie Bear

Really, I wasn’t disagreeing at all. I was just trying to point out that even without any religious explanation, we all share a deep connection, by blood.

I have always derived great meaning and comfort from the thought that I, my cat, the grass in my yard, you, and everything alive on earth all share the same ancestry, and thus, are literally cousins. I mean, eve had a genetic eve before her, and that had a genetic eve before that, back a billion or more years.

I think that is at least as profound as anything the bible ever said, and not at all inconsistent with a metaphorical reading of genesis.

Much of Bereshit can only be read as a metaphor. Does it surprise you that the people who wrote that book, in their language, for their people, as a legal, philosophical and moral code for their people, have contended that for over 3,000 years?

53 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:01:50am

re: #50 rwdflynavy

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense.
- George Orwell

But can you believe in civil disobedience as a way to get what you want from a government you respect while support military solutions for problems when dealing without side forces that don’t respect your life… cause if you can that’s sort of where I fall.

I’d prefer for as many things as possible to get done non violently, but you can’t do it all non violently…

54 laZardo  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:02:07am

re: #50 rwdflynavy

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense.
- George Orwell

“What omelet?” - George Orwell on breaking eggs

55 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:02:30am

“Religious Right Groups Call on CPAC to Eject GOProud, Like Buckley Ejected the John Birch Society”

……or like Stalin ejected Trotsky (or was that injected?).

True, Uncle Joe was not a Republican but it is hard to argue with success (un-libertarian too): He put his competitors out of business for good, made himself wealthy, annoyed Democrats like Harry Truman, persecuted teh Gheys, and even killed some Nazis when given the proper incentive.

56 laZardo  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:03:35am

re: #49 LudwigVanQuixote

Where one of the central tenant was Do not Murder and the entire Cain story of the first murder is meant to say that it is really bad. Further, consider the whole end of that story where Cain asks if he is his brothers keeper, the whole rest of the bible screams yes, rather affirmatively.

You are making the mistake of unfairly blaming the faith for the defective people who abuse it. The same things that make a truly odious religious fanatic are seen in truly odious secular movements as well. Don’t tell me that the Stalinist purges or the Red Armies or the Nazis were particularly Christian. They weren’t. Totalitarians and ignorant haters are the same no matter what creed they abuse to justify themselves.

Gott Mit Uns much?

As much as I find the concept flawed, I try not to have a personal problem with most people that believe in religion. Want to keep on defined sides of the faith line, that’s fine with me. But to paraphrase for the debate arena, “push and ye shall be pushed back.” The way the religious turn more to God than reality when raw evidence e.g. Evolution, AGW is presented belies the true nature of religious belief as escapist.

57 rwdflynavy  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:03:52am

re: #53 jamesfirecat

But can you believe in civil disobedience as a way to get what you want from a government you respect while support military solutions for problems when dealing without side forces that don’t respect your life… cause if you can that’s sort of where I fall.

I’d prefer for as many things as possible to get done non violently, but you can’t do it all non violently…

I completely agree, and given my chosen profession, I’d prefer non-violence for as long as it makes sense. That being said, the carrot is of limited value without the threat of a stick.

58 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:04:32am

re: #44 LudwigVanQuixote

I absolutely agree with that. Do you really think that I am anti-evolution? Or do you think that somehow the tow views are incompatible?

You do realize that being descended from a common ancestor, who was the first human, means that there was a literal generic Adam (as in father to us all) and a literal genetic Eve (as in mother to us all) right? We’ll leave the fact that they need not have been the first couple to the cognoscenti.

This is one case where the science and the faith link up perfectly and teach the same lesson.

Except science has never suggested they were a couple. Although I don’t have it handy, my memory tells me Adam was more recent than Eve by several millennia. Science also tells us the human population at the time of each was much larger than just a few.

59 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:06:26am

re: #57 rwdflynavy

I completely agree, and given my chosen profession, I’d prefer non-violence for as long as it makes sense. That being said, the carrot is of limited value without the threat of a stick.

Yeah.

I respect Gandhi for what he did and how he managed to free India from the UK’s control without starting what would have been pretty damn big war, in the process. That said it’d be a mistake to say that the man was a living saint as he held many beliefs I don’t agree with. For that matter I don’t agree with MLK when he said that we’ve reached the point where War can no long be the lesser of two evils, though I also respect him for what he said and did on the issue of civil rights.

Moral of the story, historical figures are complex, nobody is completely good or evil…

///(Except for Hitler of course…)

60 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:06:44am

OT: Huckabee joints the creepy people who want to see the First Family get patted down.

What the hell?

[Link: www.npr.org…]

61 laZardo  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:07:23am

We are all literally extremely lucky to even all be here today. That the universe has in all its expanse created sentient life that, apart from the usual biological purpose of reproduction, wonders where it “came from” is, quoting the comic books, is miraculous enough.

3AM and I’m seriously going to bed. Nighty.

62 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:07:53am

re: #52 LudwigVanQuixote

Much of Bereshit can only be read as a metaphor. Does it surprise you that the people who wrote that book, in their language, for their people, as a legal, philosophical and moral code for their people, have contended that for over 3,000 years?

It wouldn’t surprise me, but it also doesn’t surprise me that so many have done so much to use the authority inherent in religious doctrine to manipulate people against each other.

I believe there is such a thing as benign and benevolent religion, as I have seen it. I just think it’s sad how easily one can take the authority inherent in being the person charged with dispensing ultimate truth, and use it to push people in almost any direction at the will of the teacher.

My problem with religion isn’t the teachings, because they can be both good and bad. My problem is the social result of ANY belief that there is such a thing as ultimate (i.e., “divine”) truth. I reject that there could be such a thing. I have a problem with the power structure that inevitably derives from religion, not the teachings themselves.

As they say, if you see the Buddha in the road, kill him. I find this saying to be extremely profound, because it implies that NOBODY can tell you the ultimate (divine) truth.

63 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:08:16am

re: #58 b_sharp

Except science has never suggested they were a couple. Although I don’t have it handy, my memory tells me Adam was more recent than Eve by several millennia. Science also tells us the human population at the time of each was much larger than just a few.

The guy who teaches seventh-grade religion at the school I’m at tries to tell the kids that there’s a difference between ‘true’ and ‘truth’. In other words, he tells them, is it true that once upon a time there was one man and one woman in a garden? No, almost certainly not. But is it the truth that we are all one human race? Is it the truth that we diminish ourselves when we turn against God? Yes, it is.

They’re twelve. They don’t totally get it.

64 rwdflynavy  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:08:22am

re: #60 Obdicut

OT: Huckabee joints the creepy people who want to see the First Family get patted down.

What the hell?

[Link: www.npr.org…]

The far right has such an unhealthy obsession with the President’s family. Creepy is right.

65 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:09:02am

re: #62 Fozzie Bear

It wouldn’t surprise me, but it also doesn’t surprise me that so many have done so much to use the authority inherent in religious doctrine to manipulate people against each other.

I believe there is such a thing as benign and benevolent religion, as I have seen it. I just think it’s sad how easily one can take the authority inherent in being the person charged with dispensing ultimate truth, and use it to push people in almost any direction at the will of the teacher.

My problem with religion isn’t the teachings, because they can be both good and bad. My problem is the social result of ANY belief that there is such a thing as ultimate (i.e., “divine”) truth. I reject that there could be such a thing. I have a problem with the power structure that inevitably derives from religion, not the teachings themselves.

As they say, if you see the Buddha in the road, kill him. I find this saying to be extremely profound, because it implies that NOBODY can tell you the ultimate (divine) truth.

Bloody good post.

66 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:09:52am

re: #62 Fozzie Bear

It wouldn’t surprise me, but it also doesn’t surprise me that so many have done so much to use the authority inherent in religious doctrine to manipulate people against each other.

I believe there is such a thing as benign and benevolent religion, as I have seen it. I just think it’s sad how easily one can take the authority inherent in being the person charged with dispensing ultimate truth, and use it to push people in almost any direction at the will of the teacher.

My problem with religion isn’t the teachings, because they can be both good and bad. My problem is the social result of ANY belief that there is such a thing as ultimate (i.e., “divine”) truth. I reject that there could be such a thing. I have a problem with the power structure that inevitably derives from religion, not the teachings themselves.

As they say, if you see the Buddha in the road, kill him. I find this saying to be extremely profound, because it implies that NOBODY can tell you the ultimate (divine) truth.

Then there was the guy on FSTDT, who wanted to go back in time, find the Buddha, and drown him in the “Genghis River” so he wouldn’t mislead others into atheism.

I was always intrigued that this bigoted nut-job had nevertheless stumbled on the core of a Buddhist saying like that.

67 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:10:10am

re: #56 laZardo

…the true nature of religious belief as escapist.

You are letting your own prejudices cloud your thinking. I am not going to try to claim that there isn’t a river of blood associated with the abuse of religion. As someone from a culture on the receiving end of so much of that, I could likely list more, and more gruesome examples from history than you could.

What I am saying though and your prejudice is blinding you to, is that there is a difference between what the faiths say, and what corrupt “faithful” say or do in the name of a G-d who was crystal clear about not doing such things. There is a difference between a fundamental message of “why don’t you play nice and be compassionate for a change” and the messages of the religious leaders who twist the words to ones of hatred.

More importantly, what drives that twisting need not have a religious basis. Totalitarianism is the real problem and religion is just one vehicle for those in power to incite the rubes to atrocity.

68 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:10:51am

re: #58 b_sharp

Except science has never suggested they were a couple. Although I don’t have it handy, my memory tells me Adam was more recent than Eve by several millennia. Science also tells us the human population at the time of each was much larger than just a few.

Which is why I wrote in the original post:

We’ll leave the fact that they need not have been the first couple to the cognoscenti.

69 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:11:13am

re: #60 Obdicut

OT: Huckabee joints the creepy people who want to see the First Family get patted down.

What the hell?

[Link: www.npr.org…]

Last week Drudge was linking to the exact same fantasy: Drudge Report links to fantasy about public sexual humiliation of Obama’s daughters

70 laZardo  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:11:57am

re: #62 Fozzie Bear

As they say, if you see the Buddha in the road, kill him. I find this saying to be extremely profound, because it implies that NOBODY can tell you the ultimate (divine) truth.

But they can give you the best damn sword in the world.

71 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:12:19am

re: #69 Killgore Trout

Last week Drudge was linking to the exact same fantasy: Drudge Report links to fantasy about public sexual humiliation of Obama’s daughters

Like Obama did this personally to them, and they’re entitled to some form of tribal revenge. It’s bizarre, all right. Also gross. These are little girls.

72 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:12:37am

re: #17 Fozzie Bear

Can they not read their own holy book?

Reading comprehension is lacking.

73 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:13:49am

re: #71 SanFranciscoZionist

Like Obama did this personally to them, and they’re entitled to some form of tribal revenge. It’s bizarre, all right. Also gross. These are little girls.

It is about emasculating Obama in a primal way. It lets you know how deep into the caves these barbarians are.

74 rwdflynavy  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:13:53am

re: #71 SanFranciscoZionist

Like Obama did this personally to them, and they’re entitled to some form of tribal revenge. It’s bizarre, all right. Also gross. These are little girls.

The obsession with the Bush twins was kinda creepy, but as you said, the President’s daughters are young girls, not college co-eds.

75 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:15:16am

re: #69 Killgore Trout

I made a page on the Huckster’s weird obsession with Obama’s female relations.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

It’s so weird that now it’s being spun as bravely, chivalrously defending those poor untouchable women.

Maybe we should pass a law against men touching women they’re not related to, just to put an end to all of this froofrah. Perhaps, since we’re very concerned about women’s bodies being seen in public, we should pass a law that they wear some concealing clothing, as well.

76 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:16:06am

re: #75 Obdicut

I made a page on the Huckster’s weird obsession with Obama’s female relations.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

It’s so weird that now it’s being spun as bravely, chivalrously defending those poor untouchable women.

Maybe we should pass a law against men touching women they’re not related to, just to put an end to all of this froofrah. Perhaps, since we’re very concerned about women’s bodies being seen in public, we should pass a law that they wear some concealing clothing, as well.

The terrorists have won!!!1!

77 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:16:29am

re: #74 rwdflynavy

The obsession with the Bush twins was kinda creepy, but as you said, the President’s daughters are young girls, not college co-eds.

Still, they should also have been off-limits for this sort of crap. It’s not appropriate at all.

The fact that the girls are so young does make it creepier and stupider.

78 Political Atheist  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:16:38am

re: #1 laZardo

There is probably no bigger oxymoron than “gay Republican.”

/unfortunately, I fit into that category because I’m procrastinating on changing my voter registration to Green.

//i’m sorry.

Bipartisan has it tied these days…

79 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:16:53am

re: #21 thedopefishlives

No, in many cases, they can’t. Because Jesus says a lot of things that require people to actually CHANGE themselves, and rather than do that, they’d prefer to get their teaching from someone who makes them feel comfortable.


The key there is that Jesus taught things to people so they could change themselves. It is not about changing other people. Teaching, sharing, serving others of course, but the changing was all about me and not something to impose on thee.

80 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:18:46am

re: #71 SanFranciscoZionist

Like Obama did this personally to them, and they’re entitled to some form of tribal revenge. It’s bizarre, all right. Also gross. These are little girls.


I assume they hadn’t thought past the “nyah, nyah see how you like it” stage into the repercussions of what it would mean to the First Family. It is more of a childish response than a perverse response. Still. Not the most healthy response to the problem.

81 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:19:12am

(I hope it’s not too early for an OT, since it’s still relatively fresh.)

Kilgore Trout called this one on the last thread.

As predicted, wingnuts have managed to work the LA “missile” into their response to the latest news from Korea.

It’s only going to get hotter. The “new normal” with NK pounding SK with artillary, 20 minutes of US Government web traffic being diverted to China, and an “unexplained” ICBM plume rising up out of the ocean 35 miles off the coast of L.A. Heralds a new, deadly “new normal” for America.

Possibly this missile came from the same Nork/Iranian/SEIU sub that torpedoed the Deepwater Horizon rig./

82 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:19:34am

re: #63 SanFranciscoZionist

The guy who teaches seventh-grade religion at the school I’m at tries to tell the kids that there’s a difference between ‘true’ and ‘truth’. In other words, he tells them, is it true that once upon a time there was one man and one woman in a garden? No, almost certainly not. But is it the truth that we are all one human race? Is it the truth that we diminish ourselves when we turn against God? Yes, it is.

They’re twelve. They don’t totally get it.

That’s because our culture has stressed Truth™ as something with a deeper more meaningful effect on our lives and true as something, backed by some evidence, that may or may not be important to our everyday lives. This means that Truth™ does not have to have evidence behind it, just a putative important influence on how we view and react to our human lives.

Kids want to look at things in clearly differentiated form because it makes learning easier, so to them truth is just true.

Back to what that teacher says, I agree with the italicized, but disagree with the bolded, ideas. My opinion is that we will eventually grow out of the need for a god.

83 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:19:41am

re: #74 rwdflynavy

The obsession with the Bush twins was kinda creepy, but as you said, the President’s daughters are young girls, not college co-eds.


Give him another term and they will be. Poor guy.

84 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:20:21am

re: #67 LudwigVanQuixote

More importantly, what drives that twisting need not have a religious basis. Totalitarianism is the real problem and religion is just one vehicle for those in power to incite the rubes to atrocity.

My biggest issue with religion in general, as a concept, is that there has to be some kind of authority to which to appeal in order to unify believers in a group. That authority must be composed of men and institutions composed of men, by necessity, and those men wield incredible power from the moment they are seen as “holy” men. Even if a religion is said to derive from a written work instead of from a man, then interpretation of that book becomes a path to power over other men.

The mischief that can so easily derive from that is the stuff of history. The dumbest thing Jesus ever said, imo, was that he was the son of God. The dumbest thing moses ever said was that he was a prophet who could talk to God directly. I understand they needed to appeal to some kind of authority in order to lead their people, but they poisoned the minds of their followers at the same time with the idea that there could be a divine authority among men.

If the bible started with “there is no path to God save through introspection, reason, and understanding, and no man who claims to know otherwise is being honest with you” then I could respect its teachings much more than I do.

85 Stanley Sea  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:21:18am

re: #81 Shiplord Kirel

(I hope it’s not too early for an OT, since it’s still relatively fresh.)

Kilgore Trout called this one on the last thread.

As predicted, wingnuts have managed to work the LA “missile” into their response to the latest news from Korea.


Possibly this missile came from the same Nork/Iranian/SEIU sub that torpedoed the Deepwater Horizon rig./

LOL SEIU sub!

86 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:21:33am

re: #82 b_sharp

He will be there for you if you change your mind. ;-)

87 laZardo  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:22:01am

re: #67 LudwigVanQuixote

The kicker is that “nice and compassionate for a change” does not have any specific religious bent to it, maybe none at all. Sure, tribalism is part of our evolutionary inheritance from our mammalian predecessors and religion one of its ‘children’. But perhaps the fact that people from different ‘faiths’ can even lay those differences aside and “be nice and compassionate for a change” means that the act of changing ourselves for what is increasingly agreed upon as “the better” is a sign of our advancement from those ties that bind.

Not that those that feel more psychologically inclined to draw us back to the Dark Ages in their escapist fantasies will try to fight back, tooth and nail and dollar. But neither I nor an increasing number of people are going to drag ourselves down to their level.

[Right, actually headin to bed now.]

88 Bubblehead II  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:22:23am

re: #71 SanFranciscoZionist

Like Obama did this personally to them, and they’re entitled to some form of tribal revenge. It’s bizarre, all right. Also gross. These are little girls.

Actually there is a wing nut over at Fox who actually believes that the TSA is a tool being used by Obama to take over the Country.

“The TSA and its procedures are Obama’s biggest public education initiative—even bigger than teaching Americans that their money is not really theirs at all, since they must spend it to buy health insurance, whether they choose to or not.”

89 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:23:20am

re: #81 Shiplord Kirel

(I hope it’s not too early for an OT, since it’s still relatively fresh.)

Kilgore Trout called this one on the last thread.

As predicted, wingnuts have managed to work the LA “missile” into their response to the latest news from Korea.

Possibly this missile came from the same Nork/Iranian/SEIU sub that torpedoed the Deepwater Horizon rig./

heh.

90 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:24:35am

re: #88 Bubblehead II
Zero tolerence policies in school are a much bigger threat to our future freedoms than any TSA pat down could ever be.

Are there ham handed TSA agents? You betcha. Unionize and Federalize any group of part time security employees and you are going to get some losers. But a conspiracy? Puleeeeeeaze.

91 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:24:35am

re: #85 Stanley Sea

LOL SEIU sub!

An SEIU sub would still be taking votes as to whether to leave port or not.

92 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:26:39am

Speaking of the Birch Society: Beck uses Birch society version of history to interpret the North Korea incident…
Beck: New superpower China may “come over here and rape our mountains for the coal”

93 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:27:07am

Funny, on a lot of issues gays would seem to see eye-to-eye with the GOP: as most of them are not raising children, they have more time to devote to their careers, more disposable income and fewer tax deductions and deferrals, as theya re not buying houses in residential suburbs with good schools.

They seem like people who would be interested in a low-tax, smaller-government environment

But the modern GOP has made it clear that it is more than just low taxes and small government, it is about a particular approach to its interpretation of Christian morality onto the legal and administrative system of this nation.

And gays are not part of that picture, as are non-Christians, and even those Christians whose beliefs do not fit into the narrow-minded views held by the GOP leadership.

94 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:27:42am

re: #92 Killgore Trout

Speaking of the Birch Society: Beck uses Birch society version of history to interpret the North Korea incident…
Beck: New superpower China may “come over here and rape our mountains for the coal”

And Beck would be happy to let them. It’s a free market, after all, according to Beck, and any attempt to fetter that is the stuff of nightmares.

95 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:28:23am

re: #81 Shiplord Kirel
Here’s Beck working the missile launch into the North Korea incident….
No evidence? No problem: Beck “personally believe[s]” California plume was “a message sent by China”

96 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:29:38am

Beck is too stupid to realize that the policies he champions are exactly the same policies that have allowed China to gain so much influence over out economy.

If Beck thought China was such a threat, why would he not advocate for tariffs?

97 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:30:32am

re: #84 Fozzie Bear

And without that appeal to authority, the only reasons not to do evil come back to utilitarianism and subjective definitions of what you like in who or who should not be killed.

The fundamental theological equation is that the other person was created in the image of a just and loving G-d just like you. To defile him is to defile G-d, yourself and all of creation.

That is a vastly stronger statement than “we do not murder or steal because if we did, I could not live in a safe society myself.”

98 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:30:37am
99 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:30:52am

re: #68 LudwigVanQuixote

Which is why I wrote in the original post:

We’ll leave the fact that they need not have been the first couple to the cognoscenti.

You also said the following “This is one case where the science and the faith link up perfectly and teach the same lesson.” which, in the world of creation directly contradicts the idea they were not a couple existing at the same time.

If the lesson is that humans have a common ancestor so we are all related, then yes they are similar, but that is only part of the lesson taught by modern religion. My comment was directed at the major point of the religious story, which is that god, or a facsimile, created humans as a couple and at the same time. Although there is always a focal point, an essence. to a good analog, in the case of the creation story, the essence isn’t the sharing of genetics/blood but the act of creation.

If you can find some way of divorcing the form of creation from the sharing of genetics, then I would be happy to agree that religion and science teach the same lesson.

Otherwise, I just don’t see it.

100 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:30:57am

Back to the topic…

The GOP should be about ejecting certain parts of their group. I just think they have picked the wrong targets.

I’ve argued for a long time that the current state of affairs is a natural reaction to loss of power (presidential election) and reforming around a new emerging power structure (socons vs. moderates).

If the socons continue to believe that the midterm repudiation of large and authoratative (perceived) government coupled with dissatisfaction with the economy is actually an endorsement for their flavor of authoratarianism then they are in for huge blowback.

The individual rights and local control crowd isn’t about to jump on board with an American Taliban- no matter how Christian their roots are.

101 Four More Tears  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:31:12am

re: #92 Killgore Trout

Speaking of the Birch Society: Beck uses Birch society version of history to interpret the North Korea incident…
Beck: New superpower China may “come over here and rape our mountains for the coal”

Yeah, they might start blowing the tops off of them.

Oh wait…

102 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:31:35am

re: #98 Killgore Trout

Rush is having fantasies about Obama’s children today too…
Rush suggests Obama should “take his daughter to the airport and have a TSA grope her” to show it’s safe

Pity they forgot that this was a program started under the Bush Administration and that the former Bush appointed head of homeland security has major shares in the scanner company.

103 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:32:02am

re: #96 Fozzie Bear

Beck is too stupid to realize that the policies he champions are exactly the same policies that have allowed China to gain so much influence over out economy.

If Beck thought China was such a threat, why would he not advocate for tariffs?

That’s part of the Birch Society version of history. They believe the US caused Pearl Harbor by economic sanctions against the Japanese.

104 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:34:24am

re: #93 ralphieboy
Upding - but remeber its not Christian values they want to impose. It is Christian™ values.

Trust me as a Christian who is not Christian™ I know what I speak of. I’m having a real time convincing some of my Mormon friends that the SoCons are not friends of our faith and way of life despite some superficial similarities.

105 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:35:31am

re: #98 Killgore Trout

Rush is having fantasies about Obama’s children today too…
Rush suggests Obama should “take his daughter to the airport and have a TSA grope her” to show it’s safe

Jesus H.

106 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:36:14am

re: #102 LudwigVanQuixote

Pity they forgot that this was a program started under the Bush Administration and that the former Bush appointed head of homeland security has major shares in the scanner company.

What a joy these folks are.

107 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:37:45am

re: #105 SanFranciscoZionist

What’s even weirder to me is that they probably aren’t copying each other. They all arrive at the same fantasy from their own instincts.

108 Romantic Heretic  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:37:46am

re: #23 iossarian

Quoted For Truth!

I thought it meant ‘Quite Effen True.’

109 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:37:59am

re: #99 b_sharp

Really, because the point I was making, and the point of the tosefta was that we really are all brothers.

That is the same lesson.

That is both scientifically true and the lesson of the faith.

I suppose that the issue here is that you are expecting me to be literal with a metaphoric text. Did you know that there is a Kabbalistic tradition of races of men before Adam?

Re-read that last sentence.

According to the Tradition, what made Adam the first man was that he had a human soul.

Now I am not here to say that science and the Bible line up 100%. They surely do not. I am here to say that they line up better than you might think and that the details of where they do not line up are infinitely less important than the over all message.

Just to be clear what that message is…

Hillel said “The essence of the Law is do not do to others that which is hateful to yourself. All else is commentary. Now go and learn.”

110 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:38:52am

re: #97 LudwigVanQuixote

And without that appeal to authority, the only reasons not to do evil come back to utilitarianism and subjective definitions of what you like in who or who should not be killed.

The fundamental theological equation is that the other person was created in the image of a just and loving G-d just like you. To defile him is to defile G-d, yourself and all of creation.

That is a vastly stronger statement than “we do not murder or steal because if we did, I could not live in a safe society myself.”

I disagree that it is necessary to appeal to divine authority to dissuade murder, per your example. I think it is evident that there are other ways, else there could be no such thing as a stable secular state.

I don’t disagree that it is possible to effect a net good with religious teachings. I just think it evident that there is little to stop the teacher (rabbi/priest/preacher/etc) from using his/her position as keeper of the faith to seize power, once the population has become accustomed to accepting arguments that make no sense.

“Don’t kill, because God doesn’t like that” isn’t a reason. It’s just a rule. Rules can be manipulated by those charged with enforcing them. This, in my opinion, is something best done through secular institutions composed of people, because at least people can be held accountable to each other. Gods and holy books, not so much.

111 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:39:27am

re: #106 SanFranciscoZionist

What a joy these folks are.

Just like the judges in Sodom and Gomorrah really.

People think I am being over the top when I call them the Gomorrah Old Party. I am actually being very specific, precise, and quite literal.

112 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:39:41am

re: #99 b_sharp

There are people who understand that the Bible (or any revealed Holy Scriptures) can be inspired by God and contain powerful and deep truths without having to read them entirely literally and reject anything that conflicts with a literal reading.

These people, who are able to understand that Holy Scriptures are to be reinterpreted in the light of new knowledge and discoveries, were the ones who made it possible for Christianity to end its internecine strife to a great degree and become the cradle to a modern, progressive civilization.

But there are plenty of folks who insist that their Holy Scriptures must be read literally and to be interpreted as they were when they first appeared.

These are the folks who threaten civilization and progress.

113 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:40:40am

re: #103 Killgore Trout

That’s part of the Birch Society version of history. They believe the US caused Pearl Harbor by economic sanctions against the Japanese.

Ahh, so then NK and Iran are entirely our fault as well? As was Nazi Germany? We need to open trade routes to NK immediately or we will all die! Reward dictators, quick, it’s the only way!

The logical implications of that kind of loony belief system are staggering.

114 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:41:09am

re: #110 Fozzie Bear

I don’t think you understood me. I did not say it was impossible to define a system your way. I said that the religious way was a vastly stronger statement and then I said why.

115 Stanley Sea  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:42:13am

Rush Limbaugh is so exceedingly vile. Anyone who associates with him saying “oh he’s not so bad” have sold their souls. How can you be a moral person while overlooking someone’s horrible actions?

I’m talking to you Elton John - I don’t care about the 1 million for your AIDS charity - associating with this vileness cannot be good.

gah.

116 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:42:50am

re: #109 LudwigVanQuixote


I suppose that the issue here is that you are expecting me to be literal with a metaphoric text. Did you know that there is a Kabbalistic tradition of races of men before Adam?

Re-read that last sentence.

I personally think most Bible reading people if faced with the whole Truth (Capital T) would quickly look inward to their interpretations and understanding and say to themselves… Oh- I sure read waaaay to much into that illustration. I’m one of those strange people who feels that the creation was not separate from the process of getting to Adam and Eve. The explosion of written texts and agricultural settlements around the time the Bible says man was created is another one of those fascinating coincidences I don’t think is a coincidence.

To me it is a remarkable subject - I do not enough time and learning to do it much justice.

117 Romantic Heretic  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:43:00am

re: #49 LudwigVanQuixote

Where one of the central tenant was Do not Murder and the entire Cain story of the first murder is meant to say that it is really bad. Further, consider the whole end of that story where Cain asks if he is his brothers keeper, the whole rest of the bible screams yes, rather affirmatively.

You are making the mistake of unfairly blaming the faith for the defective people who abuse it. The same things that make a truly odious religious fanatic are seen in truly odious secular movements as well. Don’t tell me that the Stalinist purges or the Red Armies or the Nazis were particularly Christian. They weren’t. Totalitarians and ignorant haters are the same no matter what creed they abuse to justify themselves.

My take on this? Many people don’t use beliefs as a guideline. They use them as an excuse.

118 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:43:12am

re: #114 LudwigVanQuixote

LVQ, I responded to your follow up query on the Overnight post below.

119 BishopX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:44:43am

re: #90 DaddyG

The TSA isn’t (currently) unionized. When the DHS was formed the TSA was speciffically exempted from union rules. There are currently unions asking the NLRB to allow them to attempt to unionize the TSA however.

120 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:45:32am

re: #117 Romantic Heretic

My take on this? Many people don’t use beliefs as a guideline. They use them as an excuse.

Yes - “its about thee and not me” is a really bad starting point for any religion or philosophy.

121 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:45:51am

re: #117 Romantic Heretic

My take on this? Many people don’t use beliefs as a guideline. They use them as an excuse.

Well said and exactly the point. Coincidently a very deep discussion of that was made by the Rabbis in Pirkei Avot.

If you read the quotation at the bottom of:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

I think you will have some satisfaction from seeing some big people who agreed with you.

122 kirkspencer  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:45:52am

re: #17 Fozzie Bear

Seriously! Jesus was a super nice guy, and allegedly was God incarnate, to Christians.

Why the fuck won’t they read his teachings? Even though I am an atheist, I can’t find a single thing the guy said which I disagree with. Can they not read their own holy book?

Because Christ==Modern Christianity as Marx==Modern Communism.

Open the Bible and compare how much is the teachings of Christ and how much is the teachings of Paul. Then take a look at the history of the church and see the number of places changes and restrictive interpretations were made by people like Augustine and Leo.

Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao all made Marxism, sorry I mean Communism into something Marx would have trouble recognizing. The similarities are strong.

(Not meant as a defense of Marxism or communism, but as an easily recognized valid comparison of how the creator of an organization has no control after he’s gone.)

123 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:47:06am

re: #119 BishopX
my bad. Strike Unionized and the statement stands. This was a huge organization slapped together from divergent parts and they were bound to have a Barney Fifes in the mix. Unfortunately in the days of cell phone cameras they are all making the cover of Drudge as soon as they crop up.

124 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:47:44am

re: #114 LudwigVanQuixote

I don’t think you understood me. I did not say it was impossible to define a system your way. I said that the religious way was a vastly stronger statement and then I said why.

I understand, and generally think you are the kind of person who can hold a religious belief and introspect to divine (pun intended) the implications of those beliefs to find moral and logical rules by which to structure your life.

I just don’t think the vast majority of people can do that without succumbing to the temptation to seize power through divine appeal, when given the opportunity to be the one charged with keeping the faith.

I guess I might say my problem with religion isn’t really a problem with religion. It’s sort of like communism, in that it sounds great, but human frailties too easily fuck it all up. My lack of faith in God is in equal measure a lack of faith in humanity, since ultimately, the two are inseparable.

If there is a just God, its about fucking time it showed its face and did some smiting of the wicked. Honestly, I would be the first to say “sorry big guy, I was wrong”.

125 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:47:56am

re: #97 LudwigVanQuixote

And without that appeal to authority, the only reasons not to do evil come back to utilitarianism and subjective definitions of what you like in who or who should not be killed.

The fundamental theological equation is that the other person was created in the image of a just and loving G-d just like you. To defile him is to defile G-d, yourself and all of creation.

That is a vastly stronger statement than “we do not murder or steal because if we did, I could not live in a safe society myself.”

In other words, religion just gives us the ultimate authority, and that authority says we are special so we shouldn’t kill each other. It is a tool. Tools evolve.

Yet killing isn’t always considered evil. In the case of self defence, whether that be personal or communal, killing is more than justified, it is considered the antithesis of evil because the lives of members of the pertinent in-group have been extended.

But that is just part of our nature, which includes the complex organizations we’ve built to help our families survive, not something coming from an ultimate authority. It is ironic that we know what is necessary for our own survival, such as not killing others, but still need something with a bigger presence to convince us to stick to what is most practical and effective.

126 William Barnett-Lewis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:51:12am

re: #109 LudwigVanQuixote


Just to be clear what that message is…

Hillel said “The essence of the Law is do not do to others that which is hateful to yourself. All else is commentary. Now go and learn.”

Or as another Rabbi put it, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

127 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:52:39am

re: #109 LudwigVanQuixote

Really, because the point I was making, and the point of the tosefta was that we really are all brothers.

That is the same lesson.

That is both scientifically true and the lesson of the faith.

I suppose that the issue here is that you are expecting me to be literal with a metaphoric text. Did you know that there is a Kabbalistic tradition of races of men before Adam?

Re-read that last sentence.

According to the Tradition, what made Adam the first man was that he had a human soul.

Now I am not here to say that science and the Bible line up 100%. They surely do not. I am here to say that they line up better than you might think and that the details of where they do not line up are infinitely less important than the over all message.

Just to be clear what that message is…

Hillel said “The essence of the Law is do not do to others that which is hateful to yourself. All else is commentary. Now go and learn.”

My frame of reference is the Bible as presented by modern Protestant faiths, so my answers will reflect that. Yours is a different reading, and I’ll admit, the original, so I now trust your take on it more than I do my father’s.

I’ll try to remember your perspective, if you try to remember mine? Deal?

128 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:55:15am

re: #113 Fozzie Bear

Ahh, so then NK and Iran are entirely our fault as well? As was Nazi Germany? We need to open trade routes to NK immediately or we will all die! Reward dictators, quick, it’s the only way!

The logical implications of that kind of loony belief system are staggering.

Actually, yes. WWII was the original “inside job” according to Beck and the Birch society. According to them it was all orchestrated by the US for the benefit of the communists in Russia and China.

129 BishopX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:55:52am

re: #123 DaddyG

I agree with you that the TSA has some…organizational problems, in fact that’s the reason that I’m so skeptical of this whole scanner/pat down thing in the first place. It feels like every time there is a attempted terrorist attack the TSA adds a policy to combat that tactic, rather than re-evaluating current security procedures. The fact that in almost nine years the TSA hasn’t proactively changed any policies really raises alarms for me.

130 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:56:03am

re: #124 Fozzie Bear


I just don’t think the vast majority of people can do that without succumbing to the temptation to seize power through divine appeal, when given the opportunity to be the one charged with keeping the faith.

If there is a just God, its about fucking time it showed its face and did some smiting of the wicked.

Edited…

Your two statements here present a paradox. How does God give us authority and allow for us to use it to bless each other (a huge upside) while allowing us agency (free will) with which we might abuse the same power He has trusted us with?

To me that is the great divide between good and evil. Not a division along the lines of who is in our out of a religion, but who will be good stewards of authority and knowledge vs. selfish hoarders of delegated power.

One of my favorite passeges from my own religion is from the LDS Doctrine and Covenants that deals directly with this issue:

121:34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. 40 Hence many are called, but afew are chosen.

God respects the agency of even the most evil. Justice is eternal not necessarily instantanous.

131 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:56:40am

re: #124 Fozzie Bear

I understand, and generally think you are the kind of person who can hold a religious belief and introspect to divine (pun intended) the implications of those beliefs to find moral and logical rules by which to structure your life.

I just don’t think the vast majority of people can do that without succumbing to the temptation to seize power through divine appeal, when given the opportunity to be the one charged with keeping the faith.

I guess I might say my problem with religion isn’t really a problem with religion. It’s sort of like communism, in that it sounds great, but human frailties too easily fuck it all up. My lack of faith in God is in equal measure a lack of faith in humanity, since ultimately, the two are inseparable.

If there is a just God, its about fucking time it showed its face and did some smiting of the wicked. Honestly, I would be the first to say “sorry big guy, I was wrong”.

Get out of my head, there isn’t room, dammit.

132 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:57:20am

re: #128 Killgore Trout

Actually, yes. WWII was the original “inside job” according to Beck and the Birch society. According to them it was all orchestrated by the US for the benefit of the communists in Russia and China.

There are neither enough palms, nor faces to fit in them, to fully express how mind-blowingly stupid that is.

I didn’t know the JBS was THAT crazy, and I knew about some pretty crazy shit they have said. Wow. Just… wow.

133 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:57:33am

BTW, Ron Paul and fox news host Andrew Nepolitano will be on the Alex Jones show today talking about North Korea and the TSA. Should be interesting.

134 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 11:58:28am

re: #133 Killgore Trout
That sounds like a joke. Ron Paul and Andrew Nepolitano walk into the Alek Jones show…

135 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:00:52pm

Uh oh… I got a little preachy and the thread ground to a halt.

136 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:01:09pm

Rush joins Beck and Alex Jones with the missile conspiracy…
Rush speculates that China will invade Taiwan while Obama is in office, says “missile” off CA coast was a “message”
Too much crazy to keep up with.

137 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:02:02pm

re: #107 Killgore Trout

What’s even weirder to me is that they probably aren’t copying each other. They all arrive at the same fantasy from their own instincts.

That is not weird at all. They are coming from the same base place and appealing to the same sorts of troglodytic audience.

138 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:02:26pm

re: #135 DaddyG

Uh oh… I got a little preachy and the thread ground to a halt.

HAHAHAHA no its ok.

I’m pretty sure I got preachy before you did, just a different gospel. ;)

139 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:02:30pm

re: #124 Fozzie Bear

I understand, and generally think you are the kind of person who can hold a religious belief and introspect to divine (pun intended) the implications of those beliefs to find moral and logical rules by which to structure your life.

I just don’t think the vast majority of people can do that without succumbing to the temptation to seize power through divine appeal, when given the opportunity to be the one charged with keeping the faith.

I guess I might say my problem with religion isn’t really a problem with religion. It’s sort of like communism, in that it sounds great, but human frailties too easily fuck it all up. My lack of faith in God is in equal measure a lack of faith in humanity, since ultimately, the two are inseparable.

If there is a just God, its about fucking time it showed its face and did some smiting of the wicked. Honestly, I would be the first to say “sorry big guy, I was wrong”.

While I can’t speak for LVQ, I believe you might be misreading his intent.

We do not need God to tell us not to murder, or rob, or beat people over the head. Those are moral matters than can be derived without a deity.

What God offers believers is a sense of meaning and purpose. That is to say, our life and time here matters beyond simply following the rules of the road.

There is a reason God has not been discarded- in fact, a inordinate number of people on this planet are believers in a deity. Clearly, they find more than just comfort. For many, faith serves as a springboard for charities and good deeds. For many, faith inspires study and moral discipline (and yes, those things are related). For still others, faith is an alternative to materialism and fads and remains a link to our common history.

Here is another way to put it it: Francis Fukayama and Marshall Berman see progress through very different lenses. Berman wants to eradicate the past and start over. Fukayama wants to keep the best from our collective past and move forward based on the good we have done as a species.

You can extrapolate from there. Religions might not be perfect expressions of mankind but religions, like all people can be flawed at times. That does not negate the good religions have accomplished.

Religion would not exist today if it offered adherents nothing meaningful.

140 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:02:34pm

re: #136 Killgore Trout

Rush joins Beck and Alex Jones with the missile conspiracy…
Rush speculates that China will invade Taiwan while Obama is in office, says “missile” off CA coast was a “message”
Too much crazy to keep up with.

The message was to the wingnuts. It read “You are stupid.”

141 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:03:51pm

re: #135 DaddyG

Uh oh… I got a little preachy and the thread ground to a halt.

It worked for me.

142 theheat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:04:42pm
A coalition of religious right groups has announced that they will boycott the next Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) if the gay conservative group GOProud is allowed to attend.

Problem being what, exactly, if the haters don’t attend? Sounds win-win to me. Perhaps they can attend an alternate function, where they can all go fuck themselves simultaneously.

143 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:05:31pm

re: #139 researchok

I take it another way. If there is no God and no afterlife, and only what we do here matters, then why not be kind and charitable to everyone? And anyone who seeks to hurt people deserves oblivion.

144 William Barnett-Lewis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:06:30pm

re: #135 DaddyG

Uh oh… I got a little preachy and the thread ground to a halt.

Couple of us did :oops:

145 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:07:01pm

One thing is very clear to me about the religion/secular humanism split. The actions of those preaching scream much louder than the doctrines and philosophies they teach. We are often our worst enemy when it comes to sharing our “gospel truths” (pun intended)

Even as a very religious man I cannot fail to appreciate the bumper sticker that says “God save me from your followers”.

146 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:09:04pm

re: #143 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I take it another way. If there is no God and no afterlife, and only what we do here matters, then why not be kind and charitable to everyone? And anyone who seeks to hurt people deserves oblivion.

By all means!

That said, religion has offered that for a very long time. Morality is not owned by either believers or non believers.

Where religion differs is in that it can (and that is a personal choice) offer meaning beyond our time here.

147 Bubblehead II  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:09:56pm

re: #135 DaddyG

re: #144 wlewisiii

*yawns* blinks eyes and stretches. Is the sermon over yet? :-)

148 theheat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:10:12pm

re: #136 Killgore Trout

I thought Rush was proud of his “fact checking.” Now the airplane missile off the coast was a dry run? Holy shit, what a counterfeit bastard. (Good thing he’s only an entertainer.)

149 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:10:24pm

re: #145 DaddyG

One thing is very clear to me about the religion/secular humanism split. The actions of those preaching scream much louder than the doctrines and philosophies they teach. We are often our worst enemy when it comes to sharing our “gospel truths” (pun intended)

Even as a very religious man I cannot fail to appreciate the bumper sticker that says “God save me from your followers”.

Well, I think that this dichotomy is proof that it is perfectly possible to arrive at the same conclusions from many different angles.

If you were to sit down and write out a list of basic rules for living, yours derived from your beliefs, I (a stanch secular humanist) would probably agree with at least 90% of the items on that list.

150 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:10:38pm

re: #145 DaddyG

One thing is very clear to me about the religion/secular humanism split. The actions of those preaching scream much louder than the doctrines and philosophies they teach. We are often our worst enemy when it comes to sharing our “gospel truths” (pun intended)

Even as a very religious man I cannot fail to appreciate the bumper sticker that says “God save me from your followers”.

Speaking of bumper stickers,

“God: Things would be so much better without religion”

151 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:10:53pm

re: #147 Bubblehead II

re: #144 wlewisiii

*yawns* blinks eyes and stretches. Is the sermon over yet? :-)


Not until you send your offerings - I’ll give you the P.O. box in a minute. /

152 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:11:32pm

re: #146 researchok

By all means!

That said, religion has offered that for a very long time. Morality is not owned by either believers or non believers.

Where religion differs is in that it can (and that is a personal choice) offer meaning beyond our time here.

I derive plenty of meaning from my completely secular take on life. Religion doesn’t offer anything to me that I can’t get elsewhere. Including a sense of meaning and purpose.

153 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:13:08pm

re: #145 DaddyG

It’s really besides the point to argue about religion with religious people. Atheism isn’t something that someone can simply come to by thinking things through. It takes a very certain progression in order to get through to actual atheism.

There is little point in proselytizing atheism, and I don’t know of any effective way to do it. I wish that atheists, would, in general, restrict their arguments against religion to the practices of religion that are offensive, such as religious attitudes towards gays are church-state separation.

154 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:13:32pm

re: #152 Fozzie Bear

I derive plenty of meaning from my completely secular take on life. Religion doesn’t offer anything to me that I can’t get elsewhere. Including a sense of meaning and purpose.

I have no issue with that- clearly, it works for you and many others. That you and millions of others like you are moral is a good thing.

My position is faith does offer billions of people something of value.

155 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:13:46pm

re: #149 Fozzie Bear

Well, I think that this dichotomy is proof that it is perfectly possible to arrive at the same conclusions from many different angles.

If you were to sit down and write out a list of basic rules for living, yours derived from your beliefs, I (a stanch secular humanist) would probably agree with at least 90% of the items on that list.


I have many smart alek responses to that statement (that I agree with). But its a straight line that cannot be passed up. Choose your poison:
-See, God can inspire even the most hellbound atheist. /
-You can’t help it your western society is steeped in Judeo-Christian tradition. /
-And its the 10% that you are going to hell for. /

156 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:13:51pm

re: #152 Fozzie Bear

to clarify: If you start from the basic premise that the goal of life is to ensure a future for life. Everything else in my world is secondary to that end.

I guess my point is that you don’t need God, at all, to have a profound sense of purpose and connection. That is the major point I would argue with.

157 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:14:12pm

re: #153 Obdicut

It’s really besides the point to argue about religion with religious people. Atheism isn’t something that someone can simply come to by thinking things through. It takes a very certain progression in order to get through to actual atheism.

There is little point in proselytizing atheism, and I don’t know of any effective way to do it. I wish that atheists, would, in general, restrict their arguments against religion to the practices of religion that are offensive, such as religious attitudes towards gays are church-state separation.

Beautifully said.

158 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:14:47pm

I am just anti-clerical in nature, not anti-religious or anti-faith or belief.

But If I were truly out to destroy faith and belief in God, then I would make sure to institute a state religion and endow it with political powers, legal exemptions and the abillity to influence legislation and society directly.

That would kill faith quicker than any secularist agenda could ever manage.

159 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:17:05pm

re: #158 ralphieboy

I am just anti-clerical in nature, not anti-religious or anti-faith or belief.

But If I were truly out to destroy faith and belief in God, then I would make sure to institute a state religion and endow it with political powers, legal exemptions and the abillity to influence legislation and society directly.

That would kill faith quicker than any secularist agenda could ever manage.


And within 500 years all of their cathedrals will be coverted into dance clubs and mosques. /oops… did I say that out loud?

160 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:17:46pm

re: #153 Obdicut

are = or

PIMF.

For a book that deals with faith and atheism in a totally balls-out, awesome fashion, I recommend Terry Pratchett’s Nation. Not only does it grapple with the subject well, but it’s a beautiful book written by a man who knows he’s dying.

161 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:19:02pm

re: #155 DaddyG

I have many smart alek responses to that statement (that I agree with). But its a straight line that cannot be passed up. Choose your poison:
-See, God can inspire even the most hellbound atheist. /
-You can’t help it your western society is steeped in Judeo-Christian tradition. /
-And its the 10% that you are going to hell for. /

I suppose it wouldn’t be all that surprising that I have heard all 3 of those arguments before, only without sarc tags. (I totally understand that you weren’t actually making those arguments.)

I greatly enjoy having a forum to talk about this stuff where everybody tries really hard to not be an ass about these things. You all rock.

162 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:19:45pm

re: #160 Obdicut

are = or

PIMF.

For a book that deals with faith and atheism in a totally balls-out, awesome fashion, I recommend Terry Pratchett’s Nation. Not only does it grapple with the subject well, but it’s a beautiful book written by a man who knows he’s dying.

Now on the list.

163 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:20:41pm

re: #156 Fozzie Bear

to clarify: If you start from the basic premise that the goal of life is to ensure a future for life. Everything else in my world is secondary to that end.

I guess my point is that you don’t need God, at all, to have a profound sense of purpose and connection. That is the major point I would argue with.

Nice post.

For me, there is no inherent attribute of faith in a god that necessarily increases the profundity of one’s sense of purpose and/or connection.

I think that religion does, often, serve an important role in bonding communities; but the religion that usually accompanies faith is not the only or necessarily best mechanism for doing that, and more often it leads to the distinction as “the other” of people that don’t share that community’s faith.

164 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:21:39pm

re: #136 Killgore Trout

Rush joins Beck and Alex Jones with the missile conspiracy…
Rush speculates that China will invade Taiwan while Obama is in office, says “missile” off CA coast was a “message”
Too much crazy to keep up with.

We’re getting an absolute shitstorm of stupid today. The nuggets of idiocy are blending into one another, coalescing toward critical mass. It is really pretty ominous.

165 Varek Raith  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:21:43pm

WTF is going on in the Koreas?!?!

166 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:22:06pm
Yet Buckley and others rightly recognized that there were views its founder and leader possessed, and transmitted to the organization, that, as he wrote in the pages of National Review, were “far removed from common sense.” Buckley concluded, “We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner.”

In what way is GOProud “far removed from common sense” or “the emblem of irresponsibility” in the way that the Birch Society was, and still is?

A political generation ago, the John Birch Society embraced conspiracy theories about President Eisenhower, challenging his anti-communist credentials. Today GOProud describes Jim DeMint’s culturally conservative views as “bizarre.”

How is describing DeMint’s culturally conservative hard core socon views as bizarre the same as embracing conspiracy theories? Especially when they are a bit more than just “bizarre”.

167 Four More Tears  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:23:17pm

re: #165 Varek Raith

WTF is going on in the Koreas?!?!

Big boom booms. S Korea scowled and said “don’t do that again.”

168 PhillyPretzel  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:23:19pm

re: #165 Varek Raith
Hopefully this might explain: [Link: online.wsj.com…]

169 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:23:20pm

re: #156 Fozzie Bear

to clarify: If you start from the basic premise that the goal of life is to ensure a future for life. Everything else in my world is secondary to that end.

I guess my point is that you don’t need God, at all, to have a profound sense of purpose and connection. That is the major point I would argue with.

Isn’t that sense of connection spiritual in nature?

In not arguing for or against any particular religion, of course. What I am saying is what you describe is indeed spiritual.

170 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:23:46pm

re: #161 Fozzie Bear
I’m not surprised at all. I’ve heard them as a member of a specific cult (non-perjorative). I can only imagine what abuse is heaped upon you as an atheist. It is my fondest wish that in the end if I am proven wrong it will be said about me “at least he was honest in his belief and did right by me.” Of course if I’m right I hope to hear the same thing.

I cannot conceive of a God who would condemn billions to hellfire because they didn’t get the correct interpretation from the correct preacher.

171 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:23:51pm

re: #165 Varek Raith

WTF is going on in the Koreas?!?!

Chinese Checkers?
/

172 PhillyPretzel  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:24:20pm

re: #171 researchok

LOL

173 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:24:24pm

re: #169 researchok

Isn’t that sense of connection spiritual in nature?

In not arguing for or against any particular religion, of course. What I am saying is what you describe is indeed spiritual.


but it doesn’t require spirituality to exist.

174 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:25:25pm

The economy, Korea attacks & TSA: Ron Paul - Alex Jones

10:00 Ron Paul thinks the US is orchestrating the North Korea incident to help the economy through the military industrial complex.

175 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:25:26pm

re: #166 Slumbering Behemoth

It’s easily understood when you contemplate that about 30%-40% of the population of the country has literally been driven insane by non-stop propaganda.

Frankly, I don’t think anything an American politics today makes any sense at all unless you first realize that a sizable minority (perhaps a slim majority) of Americans are so thoroughly deluded by propaganda that emergent flock behaviors are starting to become more influential than intentional strategies.

176 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:25:56pm

re: #174 Killgore Trout

The economy, Korea attacks & TSA: Ron Paul - Alex Jones

[Video]10:00 Ron Paul thinks the US is orchestrating the North Korea incident to help the economy through the military industrial complex.

Beck will surely latch onto that talking point.

177 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:26:01pm

re: #170 DaddyG

I’m not surprised at all. I’ve heard them as a member of a specific cult (non-perjorative). I can only imagine what abuse is heaped upon you as an atheist. It is my fondest wish that in the end if I am proven wrong it will be said about me “at least he was honest in his belief and did right by me.” Of course if I’m right I hope to hear the same thing.

I cannot conceive of a God who would condemn billions to hellfire because they didn’t get the correct interpretation from the correct preacher.

Nor do i believe we are meant to abrogate free will in our struggle for faith

The most moral of atheists will be assuredly welcomed by God.

178 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:26:03pm

re: #169 researchok

Isn’t that sense of connection spiritual in nature?

In not arguing for or against any particular religion, of course. What I am saying is what you describe is indeed spiritual.

Does your definition of spiritual necessarily entail a belief in super natural beings, life after death, or a god (let along religion)?

179 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:26:16pm

re: #174 Killgore Trout

The economy, Korea attacks & TSA: Ron Paul - Alex Jones

[Video]

10:00 Ron Paul thinks the US is orchestrating the North Korea incident to help the economy through the military industrial complex.


When he was a tot somebody must have dropped a gold brick on his head.

180 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:26:20pm

Will the last sane person to leave the GOP please close the door (the lights have been out a long time)?

181 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:26:29pm

re: #176 Killgore Trout

Beck will surely latch onto that talking point.

conspiracy theorists feel so out of control they have to invent people who are not.

182 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:27:02pm

re: #173 PT Barnum

but it doesn’t require spirituality to exist.

I’m not sure I understand.

How can one be ‘spiritual’ in a world with no spirituality?

183 HappyWarrior  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:27:08pm

So it’s not bigoted groups like the JBS at CPAC that bother the religious right, it’s groups that actually think that being gay doesn’t make you a terrible person. Great I am so glad they have their priorities in order.

184 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:27:13pm

re: #178 Talking Point Detective

I like Don Cupitt’s idea of a non-real God.

His short answer is “No”.

185 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:27:19pm

re: #177 researchok

Nor do i believe we are meant to abrogate free will in our struggle for faith

The most moral of atheists will be assuredly welcomed by God.


…and it will only take a couple of Sunday school lessons to get them up to speed. Unlike God’s followers who will need lots of re-conditioning.

(I kid I tease)…

186 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:27:32pm

glen beck talks about nwo with ron paul

187 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:27:56pm

re: #169 researchok

Isn’t that sense of connection spiritual in nature?

In not arguing for or against any particular religion, of course. What I am saying is what you describe is indeed spiritual.

I suppose it could easily be described as spiritual. I just prefer not to call it that, due to other implications inherent in the word.

It’s funny, but my near-total rejection of religion has led me to a place that looks a little bit like a religion, especially when you look at my take on life. My self-defined”purpose” does look very similar to a religious calling when you write it down and chop out the context of it.

188 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:28:31pm

re: #180 Shiplord Kirel

Will the last sane person to leave the GOP please close the door (the lights have been out a long time)?


I’m still a bitter clinger. I’m not finding attrative and viable alternatives.

Lot’s of cognitive dissonance going on here!!!

189 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:28:41pm

re: #178 Talking Point Detective

Does your definition of spiritual necessarily entail a belief in super natural beings, life after death, or a god (let along religion)?

I want to find a supernational supernatural being to the point that some nation or political sentiment doesn’t feel the need to claim that they have the sole ear of said being.

That being said, this is the song I keep singing on days like this:

190 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:28:45pm

re: #178 Talking Point Detective

Does your definition of spiritual necessarily entail a belief in super natural beings, life after death, or a god (let along religion)?

Only a God/Deity (feel free to define as you will- supreme architect, far away observer, intimate participant, etc).

191 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:28:55pm

re: #182 researchok

It’s easy. I’m an atheist. I have a spiritual attitude towards life. “Spiritual” describes a human emotional state. It’s a state of wonder, contemplation, and inner struggle. It doesn’t require anything but a human and the universe.

Read up on Don Cupitt, who I linked above.

192 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:29:08pm

re: #188 DaddyG

I’m still a bitter clinger. I’m not finding attrative and viable alternatives.

Lot’s of cognitive dissonance going on here!!!

I see hornets….

193 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:30:12pm

re: #182 researchok

I’m not sure I understand.

How can one be ‘spiritual’ in a world with no spirituality?


Remember Tammy Faye Baker? /

194 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:30:12pm

re: #174 Killgore Trout

The economy, Korea attacks & TSA: Ron Paul - Alex Jones

[Video]10:00 Ron Paul thinks the US is orchestrating the North Korea incident to help the economy through the military industrial complex.

Ron Paul gives people who believe some very bad things about the MIC (such as myself) a bad name.

195 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:30:30pm

re: #182 researchok

I’m not sure I understand.

How can one be ‘spiritual’ in a world with no spirituality?

I was trying to point out that defining a sense of connectedness as spirituality means that you are applying a preferred interpretation to a subjective experience. Just because you understand that as spirituality doesn’t mean spirituality is the only name for it.

196 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:30:41pm

re: #170 DaddyG

I’m not surprised at all. I’ve heard them as a member of a specific cult (non-perjorative). I can only imagine what abuse is heaped upon you as an atheist. It is my fondest wish that in the end if I am proven wrong it will be said about me “at least he was honest in his belief and did right by me.” Of course if I’m right I hope to hear the same thing.

I cannot conceive of a God who would condemn billions to hellfire because they didn’t get the correct interpretation from the correct preacher.

Meh, in the US, it’s not really abuse. Atheists just have to deal with arguments from time to time. Having said that, I know I will never run for office, because as we all know, you can’t get anywhere in politics unless you first proclaim your religiosity loudly and repeatedly.

That bothers me more than any personal harassment I have endured, because frankly, it’s more irritating than menacing. But then, that’s because we still live in a secular state. I cringe to think of what would happen if the fundies really took over.

197 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:31:07pm

re: #191 Obdicut

It’s easy. I’m an atheist. I have a spiritual attitude towards life. “Spiritual” describes a human emotional state. It’s a state of wonder, contemplation, and inner struggle. It doesn’t require anything but a human and the universe.

Read up on Don Cupitt, who I linked above.

Understood.

That is how you and others see and understand spirituality.

I believe the paths are many. I see and understand spirituality beyond an emotional state. For me, spirituality is more of an anchor.

198 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:31:30pm

re: #195 PT Barnum

I was trying to point out that defining a sense of connectedness as spirituality means that you are applying a preferred interpretation to a subjective experience. Just because you understand that as spirituality doesn’t mean spirituality is the only name for it.

Fair enough.

199 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:32:02pm

re: #196 Fozzie Bear

Meh, in the US, it’s not really abuse. Atheists just have to deal with arguments from time to time. Having said that, I know I will never run for office, because as we all know, you can’t get anywhere in politics unless you first proclaim your religiosity loudly and repeatedly.

That bothers me more than any personal harassment I have endured, because frankly, it’s more irritating than menacing. But then, that’s because we still live in a secular state. I cringe to think of what would happen if the fundies really took over.

On that I am with you 100%!

200 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:32:49pm

re: #191 Obdicut

It’s easy. I’m an atheist. I have a spiritual attitude towards life. “Spiritual” describes a human emotional state. It’s a state of wonder, contemplation, and inner struggle. It doesn’t require anything but a human and the universe.

Read up on Don Cupitt, who I linked above.

I’m agnostic, in that I believe in the concept of a higher power in the “Divine Watchmaker” sense. I don’t think he speaks to any of us and he sure as hell never wrote a book.

201 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:32:50pm

re: #195 PT Barnum

I was trying to point out that defining a sense of connectedness as spirituality means that you are applying a preferred interpretation to a subjective experience. Just because you understand that as spirituality doesn’t mean spirituality is the only name for it.

My rightouss agnostic father calls it his “belly button feeling”. I think he listens to God better than most men. He just hasn’t fixed on exactly what that higher power he’s tapping into is.

202 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:32:53pm

re: #153 Obdicut

It’s really besides the point to argue about religion with religious people. Atheism isn’t something that someone can simply come to by thinking things through. It takes a very certain progression in order to get through to actual atheism.

There is little point in proselytizing atheism, and I don’t know of any effective way to do it. I wish that atheists, would, in general, restrict their arguments against religion to the practices of religion that are offensive, such as religious attitudes towards gays are church-state separation.

Where’s the fun in that?

I simply enjoy debating with people who stay civil and present good arguments. I have no expectation of turning a believer into a non-believer, I just want good arguments to be recognized and appreciated.

If I run across a creationist, I smack him down, especially if stupid arguments like ‘atheism leads to genocide’ or ‘gays are evil incarnate’ are part of the package.

It isn’t hard to do both.

203 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:33:55pm

re: #197 researchok

I believe the paths are many. I see and understand spirituality beyond an emotional state. For me, spirituality is more of an anchor.

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t differ from an emotional state. Call it a combination of an intellectual and emotional state if you want, but we are both humans. Atheists don’t cut a portion of themselves away when they become atheists. I have a spirituality every bit as much as a religious person do, to the extent that the word has any meaning.

204 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:34:33pm

re: #199 researchok

On that I am with you 100%!


You, him, me and Mitt Romney’s Bishop.

205 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:34:42pm

re: #186 Killgore Trout

I made it as far as…

Beck (to Paul): “You’re the one guy that’s had this right from the very beginning”.

Flabbergasted, disgusted, and irritated, all in just under three seconds. Only Beck knows how to drop a weapons grade turd in punchbowl that quickly.

206 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:34:52pm

re: #198 researchok

Fair enough.

I consider myself a Taoist more than anything. To the extent that I understand reality as an integrated whole, I am spiritual. Does that mean I believe in a personal God as understood by many faiths? I’m not sure. I’m agnostic to the extend that I don’t think God has a brand preference, or that It/He/She is even aware of those kinds of distinctions.

207 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:37:03pm

re: #200 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I felt the same way until he spoke to me. I really do understand your very valid point of view.

BTW- the book was dictated by Him not written. According to Moses he was more into engraving than writing.

208 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:37:11pm

re: #190 researchok

Only a God/Deity (feel free to define as you will- supreme architect, far away observer, intimate participant, etc).

Although I’m more agnostic than atheist (being an atheist requires too much faith for me), I look at the notion of “spirituality” very much in the was that Obdicott describes above. As such, I think that faith in a god, deity, observer, etc., is not even remotely necessary to be “spiritual.”

I go with the Carl Sagan notion [paraphrasing] that religious belief is largely a function of human inability to tolerate ambiguity.

That said, I’m pretty sure I’ve read studies that religious faith correlates well with happiness, health, good relationships, etc., so I see a purpose to it. Sometimes a lack of ambiguity helps people to get through life.

209 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:37:26pm

re: #206 PT Barnum

I consider myself a Taoist more than anything. To the extent that I understand reality as an integrated whole, I am spiritual. Does that mean I believe in a personal God as understood by many faiths? I’m not sure. I’m agnostic to the extend that I don’t think God has a brand preference, or that It/He/She is even aware of those kinds of distinctions.

It would be funny to me if God were to manifest in the world in some tangible physical way. A whole mess of people would drop to their knees, start praying, etc., and then God would say something along the lines of “wtf are you all doing? i didn’t allow you to evolve brains so you could do this.”

210 Varek Raith  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:38:31pm

re: #208 Talking Point Detective

Although I’m more agnostic than atheist (being an atheist requires too much faith for me), I look at the notion of “spirituality” very much in the was that Obdicott describes above. As such, I think that faith in a god, deity, observer, etc., is not even remotely necessary to be “spiritual.”

I go with the Carl Sagan notion [paraphrasing] that religious belief is largely a function of human inability to tolerate ambiguity.

That said, I’m pretty sure I’ve read studies that religious faith correlates well with happiness, health, good relationships, etc., so I see a purpose to it. Sometimes a lack of ambiguity helps people to get through life.

A small quibble.
It require no faith.
Faith makes absolutely no sense to me.

211 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:38:58pm

re: #207 DaddyG

I felt the same way until he spoke to me. I really do understand your very valid point of view.

BTW- the book was dictated by Him not written. According to Moses he was more into engraving than writing.

Oh, I get calls. Loki, Coyote, but its usually them just looking to get stoned.

I hear Khorne has been making prank calls to the AFA and they haven’t caught on yet.

212 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:39:25pm

re: #209 Fozzie Bear
Frontal lobes are a two edged sword.

213 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:39:29pm

re: #203 Obdicut

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t differ from an emotional state. Call it a combination of an intellectual and emotional state if you want, but we are both humans. Atheists don’t cut a portion of themselves away when they become atheists. I have a spirituality every bit as much as a religious person do, to the extent that the word has any meaning.

To you it doesn’t differ from an emotional state. For billions of others, it does.

I understand your argument and where you are coming from.

I believe that spirituality is more than an emotion, if for no other reason than emotions are transitory, They can recur, but they are transitory. Spirituality is also a testament to fidelity and commitment.

That is why I also believe in the spiritual aspects of love. We speak of ;soul mates’ and ‘intended’ and ‘other halves’ precisely because real love transcends transitory emotions.

214 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:39:42pm

re: #154 researchok

I have no issue with that- clearly, it works for you and many others. That you and millions of others like you are moral is a good thing.

My position is faith does offer billions of people something of value.

It may be that it does offer something of value, but is religion necessary and sufficient for that value?

It may also be that religion is turned to to gain that value, even though other things like humanism may give the same value, because it is a holdover from an infant’s needs during preadolescent development.

215 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:39:44pm

re: #184 Obdicut

I like Don Cupitt’s idea of a non-real God.

His short answer is “No”.

I’ll take a look at that later - but certainly I know that for me a belief in something supernatural is not a pre-condition of spirituality.

216 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:41:29pm

re: #214 b_sharp

It may be that it does offer something of value, but is religion necessary and sufficient for that value?

It may also be that religion is turned to to gain that value, even though other things like humanism may give the same value, because it is a holdover from an infant’s needs during preadolescent development.

Nevertheless, religions have persisted. For billions, religion offers something.

217 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:41:29pm

re: #210 Varek Raith

A small quibble.
It require no faith.
Faith makes absolutely no sense to me.

Where an agnostic may say “I am willing to believe…”, and atheist says “I do not believe.”

It shouldn’t be difficult to see which relies on a certain amount of faith, and which relies on none, but it’s still confusing for some. :)

218 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:41:49pm

re: #213 researchok

To you it doesn’t differ from an emotional state. For billions of others, it does.

I understand your argument and where you are coming from.

I believe that spirituality is more than an emotion, if for no other reason than emotions are transitory, They can recur, but they are transitory. Spirituality is also a testament to fidelity and commitment.

That is why I also believe in the spiritual aspects of love. We speak of ;soul mates’ and ‘intended’ and ‘other halves’ precisely because real love transcends transitory emotions.

Would you be confortable with the statement that spirituality is a belief or idea that has become part of one’s self-described identity, as opposed to merely an idea held strongly?

219 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:42:04pm

BBIAB

220 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:42:14pm

re: #213 researchok

To you it doesn’t differ from an emotional state. For billions of others, it does.

No, it doesn’t. They may believe it does. That doesn’t change the actual nature of it.


I believe that spirituality is more than an emotion, if for no other reason than emotions are transitory, They can recur, but they are transitory. Spirituality is also a testament to fidelity and commitment.

Okay. “Emotional state” isn’t complex enough to describe it.

That is why I also believe in the spiritual aspects of love. We speak of ;soul mates’ and ‘intended’ and ‘other halves’ precisely because real love transcends transitory emotions.

Exactly. I believe in love. I’m an atheist. Ergo, spirituality. I don’t believe that I love my wife because chemicals in my brain go ‘bing’ in the right way, I believe love has meaning in and of itself. That’s spirituality.

221 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:43:00pm

re: #160 Obdicut

are = or

PIMF.

For a book that deals with faith and atheism in a totally balls-out, awesome fashion, I recommend Terry Pratchett’s Nation. Not only does it grapple with the subject well, but it’s a beautiful book written by a man who knows he’s dying.

Ah, another TP fan.

Our home library has every one of his books.

222 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:43:32pm

re: #218 Fozzie Bear

Would you be confortable with the statement that spirituality is a belief or idea that has become part of one’s self-described identity, as opposed to merely an idea held strongly?

Yes, religion is about Free Will- and that is a most direct connection to identity.

(We can talk cultural and anthropological influences as well).

223 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:43:46pm

re: #218 Fozzie Bear

Would you be confortable with the statement that spirituality is a belief or idea that has become part of one’s self-described identity, as opposed to merely an idea held strongly?

Spirituality is a belief in my religion. Anything else is heathenism or atheism.

/

224 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:44:02pm

re: #218 Fozzie Bear

Would you be confortable with the statement that spirituality is a belief or idea that has become part of one’s self-described identity, as opposed to merely an idea held strongly?

I think that’s an excellent definition.

225 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:44:18pm

re: #210 Varek Raith

A small quibble.
It require no faith.
Faith makes absolutely no sense to me.

I have to quote this to express my agreement.

I don’t understand faith, at all. It’s like an alien concept to me.

226 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:44:20pm

This discussion is invoking an image of Pascal breaking out into song…

I gotta be meeeeeee, I just gotta be meeeee!

227 researchok  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:44:39pm

re: #220 Obdicut

No, it doesn’t. They may believe it does. That doesn’t change the actual nature of it.

Okay. “Emotional state” isn’t complex enough to describe it.

Exactly. I believe in love. I’m an atheist. Ergo, spirituality. I don’t believe that I love my wife because chemicals in my brain go ‘bing’ in the right way, I believe love has meaning in and of itself. That’s spirituality.

But they say it does go beyond emotion…

OK, we’ll pick this up in a bit. RealWorld beckons (read: pesky client).

228 Killgore Trout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:45:20pm

re: #205 Slumbering Behemoth

I made it as far as…

Beck (to Paul): “You’re the one guy that’s had this right from the very beginning”.

Flabbergasted, disgusted, and irritated, all in just under three seconds. Only Beck knows how to drop a weapons grade turd in punchbowl that quickly.

It wouldn’t be so bad if it was just Beck but his viewers and the entire Republican party are willing to sign off on Ron Paul’s agenda. The crazy goes all the way to the top. I can’t wait for the Republican congressional inquiries into the Chinese missile launch off California.

229 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:45:34pm

re: #169 researchok

Isn’t that sense of connection spiritual in nature?

In not arguing for or against any particular religion, of course. What I am saying is what you describe is indeed spiritual.

Only if you define it that way. The word spiritual is becoming so broadly defined it will soon be meaningless.

230 Varek Raith  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:45:36pm

re: #226 DaddyG

This discussion is invoking an image of Pascal breaking out into song…

I gotta be meee, I just gotta be meee!

So, get dancing!

231 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:46:10pm

re: #210 Varek Raith

A small quibble.
It require no faith.
Faith makes absolutely no sense to me.

I think that atheism requires a faith in that an atheist says that they know that there is no god. In that sense, it is a claim that a human being can know absolute truth in some sense. My “spirituality” is mostly in a sense of humility that human’s basically, don’t know shit.

232 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:46:16pm

re: #228 Killgore Trout

I can’t wait for the Republican congressional inquiries into the Chinese missile launch off California.

If it involves boondoggles to China Town San Francisco I’m in!!!

233 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:46:45pm

re: #220 Obdicut

No, it doesn’t. They may believe it does. That doesn’t change the actual nature of it.

Okay. “Emotional state” isn’t complex enough to describe it.

Exactly. I believe in love. I’m an atheist. Ergo, spirituality. I don’t believe that I love my wife because chemicals in my brain go ‘bing’ in the right way, I believe love has meaning in and of itself. That’s spirituality.

But belief is a form of faith, in that you have to have faith that you are correct. This gets into a bit of circular reasoning, but the world in which you have chosen to couple yourself is one where love is a higher principle than just neurochemistry. Another self may not be so strongly coupled to that belief and lives in an entirely different understanding of what love is.

(been reading too much quantum mechanics for dummies)

234 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:48:30pm

re: #233 PT Barnum

But belief is a form of faith, in that you have to have faith that you are correct.

I don’t have faith that I’m correct. Faith doesn’t enter into it.

235 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:49:17pm

re: #231 Talking Point Detective

I think that atheism requires a faith in that an atheist says that they know that there is no god. In that sense, it is a claim that a human being can know absolute truth in some sense. My “spirituality” is mostly in a sense of humility that human’s basically, don’t know shit.

That’s why I’ve always had a problem with unquestioning faith. How can finite humans truly define the infinite. My answer has always been that it’s impossible so that religion becomes more about defining the infinite down to something that I can accept and which reinforces my preconcieved notions.

236 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:49:39pm

re: #218 Fozzie Bear

Would you be confortable with the statement that spirituality is a belief or idea that has become part of one’s self-described identity, as opposed to merely an idea held strongly?

Nice idea. In some ways, I think that spirituality is mostly the sense of lightness that one gets with some confirmation that one’s beliefs are reflected, in some absolutist way, in the world around them. A lot like love in that sense, actually.

237 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:49:59pm

re: #234 Obdicut

I don’t have faith that I’m correct. Faith doesn’t enter into it.

Then how do you know? At some point you still have faith that empirical evidence is the supreme way of knowing.

238 Bubblehead II  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:50:24pm

And of course things like this don’t help religion either.

Michael Brea killed mom with samurai sword, police say, neighbors say cops were slow to respond

*snip*

“Michael was yelling, ‘Repent, repent, sinner, sinner,’ over and over again,” Clare said. “He was screaming, ‘You never accepted Jesus.’ It was real loud.”

239 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:50:45pm

re: #208 Talking Point Detective

(being an atheist requires too much faith for me)

I hate that argument.

240 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:50:52pm

re: #237 PT Barnum

Then how do you know? At some point you still have faith that empirical evidence is the supreme way of knowing.

Faith and belief are merely bulwarks against uncertainty.

241 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:51:44pm

re: #237 PT Barnum

Then how do you know? .

How do I know what?

At some point you still have faith that empirical evidence is the supreme way of knowing

I don’t think empirical evidence is the supreme way of knowing. I don’t even think that makes any sense.

Maybe asserting what I believe and think isn’t the best way to have a conversation.

242 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:52:00pm

re: #231 Talking Point Detective

I think that atheism requires a faith in that an atheist says that they know that there is no god. In that sense, it is a claim that a human being can know absolute truth in some sense. My “spirituality” is mostly in a sense of humility that human’s basically, don’t know shit.

No, it doesn’t. Athiesm is little more or less than an unwillingness to accept that there is any reason to believe that there is or might be a God or Gods. That’s a different thing from rejecting an idea directly, though it can include that.

I don’t reject the idea that the sun might be a giant rear-projection screen maintained by an advanced alien race bent on convincing us that there is a sun. I just don’t really consider the idea at all. It’s not faith, it’s a rejection of the idea of faith.

243 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:52:32pm

re: #231 Talking Point Detective

I think that atheism requires a faith in that an atheist says that they know that there is no god. In that sense, it is a claim that a human being can know absolute truth in some sense.

How often do you actually hear an atheist say “I know there is no god” rather than “I don’t believe in a god”? Much more of the latter, in my experience.

244 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:52:34pm

re: #235 PT Barnum

That’s why I’ve always had a problem with unquestioning faith. How can finite humans truly define the infinite. My answer has always been that it’s impossible so that religion becomes more about defining the infinite down to something that I can accept and which reinforces my preconcieved notions.

Thinking we know it all (or even can know it all in our mortal state) is a form of hubris common to religionists and secularists alike. If we contemplate truth or the whole of things we see through a glass but darkly.

245 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:52:36pm

re: #216 researchok

Nevertheless, religions have persisted. For billions, religion offers something.

I have no argument with that, I’m just seeking a way to go beyond.

246 Bubblehead II  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:53:41pm

New thread ———————>

247 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:54:31pm

re: #238 Bubblehead II

And of course things like this don’t help religion either.

Michael Brea killed mom with samurai sword, police say, neighbors say cops were slow to respond

*snip*

“Michael was yelling, ‘Repent, repent, sinner, sinner,’ over and over again,” Clare said. “He was screaming, ‘You never accepted Jesus.’ It was real loud.”

No… it doesn’t help. But please don’t fall into the trap of defining a religion by the people who fail to act according to their religion (in this case thou shalt not murder and thou shalt obey thy mother…).

248 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:55:03pm

re: #235 PT Barnum

That’s why I’ve always had a problem with unquestioning faith. How can finite humans truly define the infinite. My answer has always been that it’s impossible so that religion becomes more about defining the infinite down to something that I can accept and which reinforces my preconcieved notions.

Again - that’s why I go back to Sagan’s comment that religion reflects the human difficulty in accepting ambiguity - certainly with respect to a question as existentially challenging as “Why do I exist?” or “Does my existence matter.”

Still - I kind of wish that I could be an atheist, because from a purely analytical perspective, I think atheism make more sense. I just find that nut of “My existence has no meaning” a bit of a tough one to crack.

249 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:55:12pm

re: #239 b_sharp

It’s a poor one. It’s like saying that not playing a sport requires a certain level of health and physical fitness.

250 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:56:46pm

re: #242 Fozzie Bear

Plato is that you?

251 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:56:55pm

re: #242 Fozzie Bear

No, it doesn’t. Athiesm is little more or less than an unwillingness to accept that there is any reason to believe that there is or might be a God or Gods. That’s a different thing from rejecting an idea directly, though it can include that.

I don’t reject the idea that the sun might be a giant rear-projection screen maintained by an advanced alien race bent on convincing us that there is a sun. I just don’t really consider the idea at all. It’s not faith, it’s a rejection of the idea of faith.

How do you distinguish atheism from agnosticism?

252 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:57:00pm

re: #241 Obdicut

How do I know what?

I don’t think empirical evidence is the supreme way of knowing. I don’t even think that makes any sense.

Maybe asserting what I believe and think isn’t the best way to have a conversation.

re: #241 Obdicut

How do I know what?

I don’t think empirical evidence is the supreme way of knowing. I don’t even think that makes any sense.

Maybe asserting what I believe and think isn’t the best way to have a conversation.

Sorry if that came out wrong, I was using a generic You not a specific you.

The point I’m trying to make is that belief is a matter of deciding to couple oneself to a particular understanding of reality. That requires some kind of decision to reject other ways of understanding it.

253 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:57:45pm

re: #231 Talking Point Detective

I think that atheism requires a faith in that an atheist says that they know that there is no god. In that sense, it is a claim that a human being can know absolute truth in some sense. My “spirituality” is mostly in a sense of humility that human’s basically, don’t know shit.

We don’t say any such thing, as a collective. Some of us do. Some of us simply lack faith in God’s existence. Atheism is defined as a lack of faith in God’s existence - this does include “strong” atheism, since the allegation that there is no God automatically includes the weaker profession of no-faith.

254 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:58:00pm

re: #251 Talking Point Detective

How do you distinguish atheism from agnosticism?

Agnosticism pretty much gives up on the question and says nobody can be sure.

255 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:58:04pm

re: #251 Talking Point Detective

How do you distinguish atheism from agnosticism?

The level of hell they end up in. /

ducks and runs to the next thread…

256 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:58:14pm

re: #213 researchok

To you it doesn’t differ from an emotional state. For billions of others, it does.

I understand your argument and where you are coming from.

I believe that spirituality is more than an emotion, if for no other reason than emotions are transitory, They can recur, but they are transitory. Spirituality is also a testament to fidelity and commitment.

That is why I also believe in the spiritual aspects of love. We speak of ;soul mates’ and ‘intended’ and ‘other halves’ precisely because real love transcends transitory emotions.

The memories that come of emotions, which are at their most basic electrochemical in nature, can be retained and lead to conviction.

Reductionism is sometimes necessary to parse the meaning and the method behind complex systems where viewing that system holistically gives no understanding. (Just to stave off any reductionist accusation)

257 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:59:50pm

re: #220 Obdicut

No, it doesn’t. They may believe it does. That doesn’t change the actual nature of it.

Okay. “Emotional state” isn’t complex enough to describe it.

Exactly. I believe in love. I’m an atheist. Ergo, spirituality. I don’t believe that I love my wife because chemicals in my brain go ‘bing’ in the right way, I believe love has meaning in and of itself. That’s spirituality.

Your ideas of love are what confuses me about you.

258 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:01:28pm

re: #251 Talking Point Detective

How do you distinguish atheism from agnosticism?

They intersect. There are different types of both agnosticism and atheism. By some defs I’m both an atheist and agnostic. Some types of agnosticism include statements on the “knowability” of God, so even the “weak” def of atheism does not fully include the whole of agnosticism.

259 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:02:05pm

re: #254 PT Barnum

Agnosticism pretty much gives up on the question and says nobody can be sure.

I need some more help. It seem above that Sergey is saying that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Is that what you’re saying also? As I think of atheism, it is saying that someone knows that there is no god as opposed to saying that they don’t have faith that a god exists.

If it is the later, then what is the difference between atheism and agnosticism (if not Sergey’s definition that one is a subset of the other)?

260 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:02:17pm

re: #231 Talking Point Detective

I think that atheism requires a faith in that an atheist says that they know that there is no god. In that sense, it is a claim that a human being can know absolute truth in some sense. My “spirituality” is mostly in a sense of humility that human’s basically, don’t know shit.

Here we go again.

We have been convinced there is no god. None of us just decided one day to dump the belief in god and assume we are right.

261 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:02:23pm

re: #244 DaddyG

Thinking we know it all (or even can know it all in our mortal state) is a form of hubris common to religionists and secularists alike. If we contemplate truth or the whole of things we see through a glass but darkly.

Without a doubt, one of my favorite biblical passages. 1 Corinthians 13 is some fascinating writing, to be sure.

re: #251 Talking Point Detective

How do you distinguish atheism from agnosticism?

I personally see agnosticism as usually just an expression of doubt, as opposed to an actual lack of faith. But then, who am I to define for others what they believe?

I guess I just don’t see agnosticism as much more than unfinished business of a sort.

262 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:03:43pm

re: #257 b_sharp

Your ideas of love are what confuses me about you.

No one is completely rational, and life is more fun if you ignore the likelihood that consciousness is just a bunch of nerve impulses in a chemical cocktail. Sure love is just genes and hormones causing animals to pair-bond, and free will is probably an illusion, but life sucks if you’re completely rational.

263 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:05:27pm

re: #237 PT Barnum

Then how do you know? At some point you still have faith that empirical evidence is the supreme way of knowing.

How many time do you have to be hit with a baseball bat before you trust being hit will always hurt?

That isn’t faith. That is trust.

Faith may be equated to trust but only to the extent that faith is trust without the evidence.

264 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:05:31pm

re: #262 JeffFX

It also just doesn’t work. You can’t convince yourself of it. And, even if it is fully true, then there really isn’t actually any point in convincing yourself of it. So why bother?

265 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:05:54pm

re: #259 Talking Point Detective

I need some more help. It seem above that Sergey is saying that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Is that what you’re saying also? As I think of atheism, it is saying that someone knows that there is no god as opposed to saying that they don’t have faith that a god exists.

If it is the later, then what is the difference between atheism and agnosticism (if not Sergey’s definition that one is a subset of the other)?

Atheism in my mind has always been a denial that God exists as opposed to mere questioning or doubt.

To me Agnosticism is a more reasonable point of view in that it says not only do I not know, I’m not sure I ever can beyond a reasonable doubt.

266 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:06:05pm

re: #241 Obdicut

How do I know what?

I don’t think empirical evidence is the supreme way of knowing. I don’t even think that makes any sense.

Maybe asserting what I believe and think isn’t the best way to have a conversation.

What else is there?

267 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:06:53pm

re: #261 Fozzie Bear


I guess I just don’t see agnosticism as much more than unfinished business of a sort.

Not unfinished business. It’s the belief that we can’t know if there’s a god. We can analyze man’s religions and discard the logically inconsistent, or blatantly untrue, but we can’t know if something some would define as a god doesn’t exist.

268 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:07:04pm

re: #260 b_sharp

Here we go again.

We have been convinced there is no god. None of us just decided one day to dump the belief in god and assume we are right.

So you’re rejection the notion that to know something with certainty requires a degree of faith that: (1) you actually know everything that is relevant to the question at hand, and that (2) you have the insight to get past all biases and prejudices, that are a product of your upbringing, culture, etc., that might cloud your analysis?

I’m not being snarky here (which I assume is reflected in your “Here we go again” comment).

Honest questions.

269 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:07:18pm

re: #259 Talking Point Detective

I need some more help. It seem above that Sergey is saying that agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

Just to be clear. Even if under weak def of atheism all agnostics are weak atheists, since they lack faith in God’s existence, it does not mean that agnosticism is definitionally equal to atheism. Atheism does not necessarily say something on whether the knowledge of God’s existence is possible, while a subset of agnosticism does. So I don’t think that “agnosticism is a subset of atheism” is a useful way to say it.

270 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:08:04pm

re: #263 b_sharp

How many time do you have to be hit with a baseball bat before you trust being hit will always hurt?

That isn’t faith. That is trust.

Faith may be equated to trust but only to the extent that faith is trust without the evidence.

Humans are pattern finding animals. Without there being some sort of regular pattern in reality we literally could not exist. To the extent that experience becomes our point of reference we have developed trust, or in another word, faith that the reality we’ve experienced so far will always behave in predictable ways.

271 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:09:48pm

re: #269 Sergey Romanov

Also note the existence of theistic agnostics: [Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

So let’s not mix agnosticism and atheism.

272 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:10:05pm

re: #270 PT Barnum

And we always, ceaselessly hunt for deeper patterns, and sometimes conclude they exist when they do not.

273 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:10:35pm

re: #261 Fozzie Bear

Without a doubt, one of my favorite biblical passages. 1 Corinthians 13 is some fascinating writing, to be sure.

re: #251 Talking Point Detective

I personally see agnosticism as usually just an expression of doubt, as opposed to an actual lack of faith. But then, who am I to define for others what they believe?

I guess I just don’t see agnosticism as much more than unfinished business of a sort.

Perhaps. I think that in my agnosticism there is some cowardice. I just have a hard time saying that my life has no meaning or purpose beyond of my impact on those whose lives I’ve affected.

274 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:10:37pm

I’m having a bumper sticker made up:

Doubt Unertainty

275 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:10:41pm

re: #269 Sergey Romanov

Just to be clear. Even if under weak def of atheism all agnostics are weak atheists, since they lack faith in God’s existence, it does not mean that agnosticism is definitionally equal to atheism. Atheism does not necessarily say something on whether the knowledge of God’s existence is possible, while a subset of agnosticism does. So I don’t think that “agnosticism is a subset of atheism” is a useful way to say it.

I always understood atheism to be a more definite answer than that. Atheism (literally without god) is the denial that God exists, while Agnosticism (meaning without gnosis or knowledge) is the belief that the real answer to the existence of God is unknowable.

276 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:10:50pm

re: #265 PT Barnum

Atheism in my mind has always been a denial that God exists as opposed to mere questioning or doubt.

To me Agnosticism is a more reasonable point of view in that it says not only do I not know, I’m not sure I ever can beyond a reasonable doubt.

You can’t deny something that doesn’t exist, and atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. The idea of denial of god is a religious concept, and wholly irrelevant to the non-religious.

277 DaddyG  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:11:04pm

PIMF= Doubt Uncertainty

278 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:12:19pm

re: #267 JeffFX

Not unfinished business. It’s the belief that we can’t know if there’s a god. We can analyze man’s religions and discard the logically inconsistent, or blatantly untrue, but we can’t know if something some would define as a god doesn’t exist.

It’s based on the idea we can’t prove a negative because unless we check every possibility in the universe there is always the chance we will find the positive.

Being an atheist does not demand 100% proof. I personally am fine with 90%.

279 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:12:34pm

re: #275 PT Barnum

That’s a common misconception, if by denial you mean a definitive claim that the statement “God does not exist” is true.

280 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:13:16pm

re: #276 JeffFX

You can’t deny something that doesn’t exist, and atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. The idea of denial of god is a religious concept, and wholly irrelevant to the non-religious.

But without belief they exist, isn’t that by definition a denial that they do, whether or not you apply that belief to your own understanding or to everyone’s?

281 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:13:34pm

re: #269 Sergey Romanov

Just to be clear. Even if under weak def of atheism all agnostics are weak atheists, since they lack faith in God’s existence, it does not mean that agnosticism is definitionally equal to atheism. Atheism does not necessarily say something on whether the knowledge of God’s existence is possible, while a subset of agnosticism does. So I don’t think that “agnosticism is a subset of atheism” is a useful way to say it.

There have been agnostics who believe in a god, Deists for example, so you’re definitely right about it not being a subset of atheism. You can think a god exists and also believe that it’s impossible to know for sure.

282 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:13:52pm

re: #270 PT Barnum

Humans are pattern finding animals. Without there being some sort of regular pattern in reality we literally could not exist.

Not exactly. We are pattern seeking creatures, and that is why we tend to see patterns where none exist. Were there no patterns in reality (impossible), we would still see patterns because of our nature.

Michael Shermer has a pretty good TEDTalk on the subject, if you have 19 minutes to spare.

283 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:14:01pm

re: #269 Sergey Romanov

Just to be clear. Even if under weak def of atheism all agnostics are weak atheists, since they lack faith in God’s existence, it does not mean that agnosticism is definitionally equal to atheism. Atheism does not necessarily say something on whether the knowledge of God’s existence is possible, while a subset of agnosticism does. So I don’t think that “agnosticism is a subset of atheism” is a useful way to say it.

You’re going to need to translate that into a simpler language for me to understand. As I understand it, agnosticism says that knowledge of god’s existence may or may not be possible.

284 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:14:54pm

re: #278 b_sharp

It’s based on the idea we can’t prove a negative because unless we check every possibility in the universe there is always the chance we will find the positive.

Being an atheist does not demand 100% proof. I personally am fine with 90%.

As am I. I operate as if gods do not exist, but understand I cannot know for sure.

285 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:15:46pm

re: #275 PT Barnum

I always understood atheism to be a more definite answer than that. Atheism (literally without belief in a god)…

FTFY

286 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:15:47pm

re: #268 Talking Point Detective

So you’re rejection the notion that to know something with certainty requires a degree of faith that: (1) you actually know everything that is relevant to the question at hand, and that (2) you have the insight to get past all biases and prejudices, that are a product of your upbringing, culture, etc., that might cloud your analysis?

I’m not being snarky here (which I assume is reflected in your “Here we go again” comment).

Honest questions.

The ‘here we go again’ was a reference to the umpteen times that argument has been forwarded. I didn’t assume you were being snarky, and my snark was more frustration than anything else.

Your error is in assuming an atheist needs to be 100% convinced. That isn’t true of science, and it isn’t true of atheists.

The definition of atheist you are using isn’t realistic.

287 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:17:16pm

re: #282 Slumbering Behemoth

Not exactly. We are pattern seeking creatures, and that is why we tend to see patterns where none exist. Were there no patterns in reality (impossible), we would still see patterns because of our nature.

Michael Shermer has a pretty good TEDTalk on the subject, if you have 19 minutes to spare.

But without patterns (or if you prefer, laws of nature) we would not even exist, as no chemical reaction would ever repeat itself.

We perhaps find patterns because they are there to find.

288 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:17:43pm

re: #285 Slumbering Behemoth

FTFY

fair enough..

289 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:18:53pm

re: #286 b_sharp

The ‘here we go again’ was a reference to the umpteen times that argument has been forwarded. I didn’t assume you were being snarky, and my snark was more frustration than anything else.

Your error is in assuming an atheist needs to be 100% convinced. That isn’t true of science, and it isn’t true of atheists.

The definition of atheist you are using isn’t realistic.

So then how do you define the difference between agnosticism and atheism (it’s getting a bit difficult to separate the different threads of argumentation without constructing a spreadsheet)?

290 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:19:06pm

re: #280 PT Barnum

But without belief they exist, isn’t that by definition a denial that they do, whether or not you apply that belief to your own understanding or to everyone’s?

Denial to me is the claim that something real does not exist. Skepticism is not believing something unless compelling evidence is produced. Since belief in gods is all about belief without evidence (faith), there’s nothing to deny.

291 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:19:29pm

re: #270 PT Barnum

Humans are pattern finding animals. Without there being some sort of regular pattern in reality we literally could not exist. To the extent that experience becomes our point of reference we have developed trust, or in another word, faith that the reality we’ve experienced so far will always behave in predictable ways.

We have a basic disagreement about the definition of faith then. My definition comes from my experience with YECs and reborn Christians in my own family.

I’ve also come to stress the difference between trust, which comes from repeated patterns, and faith which comes from just acceptance as valid without repetition, because of the years I’ve spent arguing with YECs online. Without the differentiation, they will twist your meaning.

292 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:19:46pm

re: #290 JeffFX

Denial to me is the claim that something real does not exist. Skepticism is not believing something unless compelling evidence is produced. Since belief in gods is all about belief without evidence (faith), there’s nothing to deny.

Except that you are denying that belief and faith are valid ways of knowing.

293 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:21:36pm

re: #287 PT Barnum

But without patterns (or if you prefer, laws of nature) we would not even exist, as no chemical reaction would ever repeat itself.

Obviously, which is why I said reality without patterns would be impossible.

We perhaps find patterns because they are there to find.

We find patterns because it is in our nature to look for them. Far, far more often than not, we find patterns where none exist.

294 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:21:40pm

re: #283 Talking Point Detective

You’re going to need to translate that into a simpler language for me to understand. As I understand it, agnosticism says that knowledge of god’s existence may or may not be possible.

As I have already pointed out, there are different defs of agnosticism. A weak agnostic may say that whether or not God exists is uknown. (That’s me.) A strong agnostic thinks that the issue is unknowable in principle.

I’m a “weak” atheist and at at least a “weak” agnostic. I think that ultimately, from the philosophical point of view, it is unknown whether God exists. (But then the same is true of fairies.) This makes me a “weak” agnostic. (Whether strong agnosticism is justified is a matter of debate, but not really important for me.) And I lack faith in God’s existence, thus I’m a “weak” atheist.

295 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:22:04pm

re: #292 PT Barnum

Except that you are denying that belief and faith are valid ways of knowing.


I would add to that - all ways of knowing require some degree of belief or faith.

296 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:23:00pm

re: #287 PT Barnum

But without patterns (or if you prefer, laws of nature) we would not even exist, as no chemical reaction would ever repeat itself.

We perhaps find patterns because they are there to find.

We find patterns real and imagined. This is why we use the scientific method to test if the patterns we see are real or not. A lot of things people believe are just the result of errors in the brain. Alien abductions and fairies for example, appear to be caused by abnormal activity in the frontal lobe. We suck at discerning what’s real or not.

297 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:23:24pm

re: #273 Talking Point Detective

Perhaps. I think that in my agnosticism there is some cowardice. I just have a hard time saying that my life has no meaning or purpose beyond of my impact on those whose lives I’ve affected.

We give ourselves meaning and purpose.

Just for arguments sake, make the assumption there is no god, but that there is meaning, and then follow the logic of where it comes from.

Some people may get meaning from their belief in a god, but ultimately, if their is no god they must be developing their own meaning. The belief, which is internal, is what is important, not the existence of a god.

298 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:24:04pm

re: #296 JeffFX

We find patterns real and imagined. This is why we use the scientific method to test if the patterns we see are real or not. A lot of things people believe are just the result of errors in the brain. Alien abductions and fairies for example, appear to be caused by abnormal activity in the frontal lobe. We suck at discerning what’s real or not.

Ah..there’s the rub. Understanding which patterns are real and which are imagined. How would you define the difference?

299 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:24:08pm

re: #274 DaddyG

I’m having a bumper sticker made up:

Doubt Unertainty


[Video]

That would be funny just because people would wonder what unertainty was.

300 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:24:35pm

re: #299 b_sharp

That would be funny just because people would wonder what unertainty was.

Heisenberg

301 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:25:09pm

re: #294 Sergey Romanov

As I have already pointed out, there are different defs of agnosticism. A weak agnostic may say that whether or not God exists is uknown. (That’s me.) A strong agnostic thinks that the issue is unknowable in principle.

I’m a “weak” atheist and at at least a “weak” agnostic. I think that ultimately, from the philosophical point of view, it is unknown whether God exists. (But then the same is true of fairies.) This makes me a “weak” agnostic. (Whether strong agnosticism is justified is a matter of debate, but not really important for me.) And I lack faith in God’s existence, thus I’m a “weak” atheist.

So then - a “strong” atheist is one who believes that it is possible to know that god does not, in fact, exist, and that, in fact, he/she/it doesn’t?

Without some Venn diagrams here, I’m still having a bit of trouble.

You can be a weak agnostic and a weak atheist. But you can’t be a strong agnostic and an atheist of any type? And you can’t be a strong atheist and an agnostic of any type?

302 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:26:17pm

re: #297 b_sharp

We give ourselves meaning and purpose.

Just for arguments sake, make the assumption there is no god, but that there is meaning, and then follow the logic of where it comes from.

Some people may get meaning from their belief in a god, but ultimately, if their is no god they must be developing their own meaning. The belief, which is internal, is what is important, not the existence of a god.

Yeah - I get that. But I find it a bit depressing. Can you cheer it up a bit?

303 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:26:39pm

re: #282 Slumbering Behemoth

Not exactly. We are pattern seeking creatures, and that is why we tend to see patterns where none exist. Were there no patterns in reality (impossible), we would still see patterns because of our nature.

Michael Shermer has a pretty good TEDTalk on the subject, if you have 19 minutes to spare.

But the reason we are pattern seeking entities is because reality does have patterns to a sufficient extent that we evolved that ability.

304 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:29:30pm

re: #298 PT Barnum

Ah..there’s the rub. Understanding which patterns are real and which are imagined. How would you define the difference?

Using the Scientific Method, maybe?

305 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:29:47pm

re: #303 b_sharp

But the reason we are pattern seeking entities is because reality does have patterns to a sufficient extent that we evolved that ability.

Exactly why atheism or agnosticism is a matter of denying or accepting that certain patterns exist in reality.

For example, as an atheist I may deny that the pattern in reality that some perceive as “God” has validity. To the extent that I accept or deny the validity of a perceived pattern I believe or don’t believe in that pattern.

306 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:30:47pm

re: #292 PT Barnum

Except that you are denying that belief and faith are valid ways of knowing.

I’d say it’s a way to think you know things that are probably not true, rather than any kind of knowledge. How can one claim to know anything if they believe what they’re told despite having no supporting evidence.

When those claiming revelation can produce cures for disease, or leaps in technology I’ll start taking them seriously, until then I’ll stick with the folks in the lab coats. They produce results, and show their work in arriving at their conclusions.

I think religion is very useful for helping people get through difficult lives, but I’m pretty sure that gods don’t intervene in our lives any more than aliens do.

307 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:30:49pm

re: #304 Slumbering Behemoth

Using the Scientific Method, maybe?

Meaning that you believe the Scientific Method is a better way of understanding reality than any other?

308 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:31:07pm

re: #301 Talking Point Detective

So then - a “strong” atheist is one who believes that it is possible to know that god does not, in fact, exist, and that, in fact, he/she/it doesn’t?

Yup.

You can be a weak agnostic and a weak atheist. But you can’t be a strong agnostic and an atheist of any type? And you can’t be a strong atheist and an agnostic of any type?

I would say yes. I would note though that all such definition try to divide along some very certain borders, and to my mind the borders are vague, because faith vs. knowledge issue is hardly clearcut. But as a matter of rough classification weak/strong atheism/agnosticism does the trick, IMHO. But Dawkin’s 1 to 7 scale may be an even better tool ;-)

309 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:31:29pm

re: #303 b_sharp

But the reason we are pattern seeking entities is because reality does have patterns to a sufficient extent that we evolved that ability.

As I said, reality would be impossible without patterns.

310 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:31:50pm

re: #308 Sergey Romanov

Dawkin’s

OK, I hate when others do it, so PIMF.

311 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:32:39pm

At this point, I’m just messing with both sides, as I’m a confirmed agnostic myself. It’s certainly a bit of a cop out, but it’s one I’m comfortable with.

312 Varek Raith  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:34:41pm

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

313 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:35:09pm

re: #307 PT Barnum

Meaning that you believe the Scientific Method is a better way of understanding reality than any other?

That’s not what I meant, but it is objectively true in the sense that it will get you closer to the truth than merely pondering reality.

What I was answering was your question of how we could tell the difference between a true pattern vs. a pattern perceived due to our nature. We test it, over and over.

314 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:35:26pm

re: #289 Talking Point Detective

So then how do you define the difference between agnosticism and atheism (it’s getting a bit difficult to separate the different threads of argumentation without constructing a spreadsheet)?

I am convinced that AGW is real and is immediate. I am convinced that evolution is the best explanation for diversity. I proceed through life and through my thoughts as if they are fact. I do recognize the potential of being wrong and will accept it if and when new evidence is presented. But as of this moment, I have not been presented with any information that will convince me they are incorrect.

I accept probability as a measure of accuracy, and the probability of there being a god is too low to affect how I think or act.

Do you describe yourself as an agnostic when it comes to AGW or evolution?

315 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:36:49pm

But what is troof? (c) PP (Pontius Pilate or President Palin, take your pick.)

316 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:37:08pm

re: #312 Varek Raith

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Which dovetails nicely with:

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

317 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:38:04pm

re: #292 PT Barnum

Except that you are denying that belief and faith are valid ways of knowing.

Now you’ve crossed over into slippery definitions of epistemology.

318 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:38:47pm

re: #298 PT Barnum

Ah..there’s the rub. Understanding which patterns are real and which are imagined. How would you define the difference?

We can’t say for sure, and could be brains in vats or computer simulations, but I choose not to go down that rabbit-hole.

319 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:39:42pm

re: #300 PT Barnum

Heisenberg

Are you being unprincipled again PT?

320 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:40:31pm

re: #302 Talking Point Detective

Yeah - I get that. But I find it a bit depressing. Can you cheer it up a bit?

Santa Claus, Christmas and the Tooth fairy.

321 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:40:40pm

re: #292 PT Barnum

Except that you are denying that belief and faith are valid ways of knowing.

I would think that this is obviously true.re: #312 Varek Raith

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

re: #316 Slumbering Behemoth

Which dovetails nicely with:

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

These two, right here, I think perfectly describe the basis of atheism. It’s not a belief. It’s not a denial. It’s just a dismissal that it is a valid hypothesis to contemplate.

322 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:41:07pm

re: #317 b_sharp

Now you’ve crossed over into slippery definitions of epistemology.

But I like slippery!

323 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:41:41pm

re: #321 Fozzie Bear

ignore the aborted quote/respose at the top of my post. I always do that. I starte to type, have a different idea, quote, type some more, and end up posting a garbled mess.

324 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:41:53pm

re: #302 Talking Point Detective

Yeah - I get that. But I find it a bit depressing. Can you cheer it up a bit?

Get a pet to take care of. Boom…Purpose in life. It doesn’t have to be a big purpose.

325 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:42:20pm

re: #319 b_sharp

Are you being unprincipled again PT?

Are you going to make me walk the Planck if I am?

326 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:42:42pm

re: #323 Fozzie Bear

ignore the aborted quote/respose at the top of my post. I always do that. I starte to type, have a different idea, quote, type some more, and end up posting a garbled mess.

Me too..

327 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:43:08pm

re: #311 PT Barnum

At this point, I’m just messing with both sides, as I’m a confirmed agnostic myself. It’s certainly a bit of a cop out, but it’s one I’m comfortable with.

Messing with both sides makes people think. Usually a good thing.

328 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:43:52pm

re: #327 JeffFX

Messing with both sides makes people think. Usually a good thing.

And provides a great deal of amusement whilst you watch people tie themselves in knots.

329 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:44:51pm

re: #328 PT Barnum

And provides a great deal of amusement whilst you watch people tie themselves in knots.

All without any anger-outbreaks. Good crowd!

330 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:45:13pm

re: #292 PT Barnum

Except that you are denying that belief and faith are valid ways of knowing.

They are demonstrably not valid ways of knowing. Faith is the belief in something in the complete absence of evidence, and therefore comes without testable facts to back their claims.

331 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:45:58pm

re: #329 JeffFX

All without any anger-outbreaks. Good crowd!

Yes..one of the many reasons I hang out here. Admittedly I’ve gotten aggravated at a couple of people here for being trollish, but now that I realize that it’s just their nature, I accept it for what it is and move on.

332 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:46:49pm

re: #330 Slumbering Behemoth

They are demonstrably not valid ways of knowing. Faith is the belief in something in the complete absence of evidence, and therefore comes without testable facts to back their claims.

Are you sure you have all the tests? :)

333 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:47:16pm

re: #314 b_sharp

I am convinced that AGW is real and is immediate. I am convinced that evolution is the best explanation for diversity. I proceed through life and through my thoughts as if they are fact. I do recognize the potential of being wrong and will accept it if and when new evidence is presented. But as of this moment, I have not been presented with any information that will convince me they are incorrect.

I accept probability as a measure of accuracy, and the probability of there being a god is too low to affect how I think or act.

Do you describe yourself as an agnostic when it comes to AGW or evolution?

The latest IPPC report says that GW being A is 90% certain (no, I’m not a denier). I think that there are a tiny minority of non-ideologically bound experts who remain somewhat skeptical. So at a certain, very low level, I’m agnostic about AGW. That doesn’t mean that I’m willing to accept the risks of not making the assumption that AGW is happening.

Evolution? No, I’m not very agnostic on that.

But I have seen far to many unexplainable phenomena (many of them discovered by scientists) to take the measurement of accuracy and probability lightly.

Do you always answer a question with a question?

334 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:48:34pm

re: #332 PT Barnum

Are you sure you have all the tests? :)

If it can’t be tested, it can’t be known. Period. I don’t have to preform all the tests myself to state that as a fact.

335 PT Barnum  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:50:17pm

re: #334 Slumbering Behemoth

If it can’t be tested, it can’t be known. Period. I don’t have to preform all the tests myself to state that as a fact.

How do you know if something can or cannot be tested?

Have to drive home…BBL

336 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:50:47pm

One thing I know for sure is that I’m going to get my ass kicked if I don’t get off this computer now.

No agnosticism on that one.

If someone could illustrate this group mind-fuck on a Venn diagram and post it on a website I’d be greatly appreciative.

337 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:54:09pm

re: #334 Slumbering Behemoth

If it can’t be tested, it can’t be known. Period. I don’t have to preform all the tests myself to state that as a fact.

In the end, being a materialist means owning the conviction that: “if it is real, it follows rules and can be tested”.

If there is any “belief” I hold at all, that would be it. There is some kind of tangible position there, but I would hesitate to call it faith. If I were forced to qualify my understanding of the world using the word “faith”, I would have to say “I have faith that the laws of nature are fixed and universal, and derive from physical properties that can in many cases be discerned by testing the behavior of physical things.”

I mean, at some point you have to make an assumption. That’s where I do. Everything else I know derives from that, and thus, it is the fundament of my “beliefs”.

338 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:56:01pm

re: #335 PT Barnum

How do you know if something can or cannot be tested?

You start with a basic understanding of the scientific method, and reject ridiculous, freshman level philosophy questions like “How do I know this chair really exists and is not just a figment of my imagination?”.

Easy enough?

339 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:56:52pm

re: #305 PT Barnum

Exactly why atheism or agnosticism is a matter of denying or accepting that certain patterns exist in reality.

For example, as an atheist I may deny that the pattern in reality that some perceive as “God” has validity. To the extent that I accept or deny the validity of a perceived pattern I believe or don’t believe in that pattern.

Belief is just an internalization of an idea, so yes you are correct. The fact that is has been internalized isn’t the issue, however, the issue is the processes taken to internalize one idea over another. Our tendency is to operate on faith, simply because we cannot fully investigate each pattern on our own, so we collect, compare and categorize patterns and then use a limited number of strategies to understand new patterns in light of a pattern group. We also rely on others to inform us of how to develop groups and what criteria to use to populate them. I guess we have to admit that even the structure of categories we use is a pattern.

As basic animals with very basic interaction with the environment, this is sufficient, but as we grew and our environment became more complex (through better understanding and recognition as well as through our own manipulation) categorizations started giving us errors in our response. When we recognized that, we developed methods to remove as much of our innate direction as possible from the development of our belief systems.

That’s where the scientific method(s) came into play. I hope the processes I used to internalize the idea that god doe not exist were based on a similar learning method. I may be wrong, but I have no choice but to proceed as if I did.

I realize this was a bit rambly and made points you already understand but I needed to clarify a few thought in my own head.

340 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:57:09pm

I have to run. BBL.

341 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:59:23pm

It’s a good old game of “how do you know you’re not a brain in a vat”. The absolute skeptic always has an upper hand in such metaphysical because it does boil down to axioms and the border between knowledge and faith becomes more or less null and void. Yet somehow this approach is not very relevant to the real world. (If the real world exists, heh heh).

342 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:00:45pm

re: #341 Sergey Romanov

It’s a good old game of “how do you know you’re not a brain in a vat”. The absolute skeptic always has an upper hand in such metaphysical debates because it does boil down to axioms and the border between knowledge and faith becomes more or less null and void. Yet somehow this approach is not very relevant to the real world. (If the real world exists, heh heh).

PIMF

343 APox  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:09:06pm

re: #302 Talking Point Detective

Yeah - I get that. But I find it a bit depressing. Can you cheer it up a bit?

I don’t really get the “it’s more depressing” argument.

In a sense that we are all finite entities, yes, believing there is no God could be seen as depressing.

But the way I see it, there is a lot of beauty in seeing people helping people and real altruism in the world because of an avid interest in connecting with humanity.

Also, it seems as though most people believe without a God things really lack any purpose. I’d have to disagree and say there is probably more purpose to things than ever. “Shrugging off the mortal coil” would have much more of an impact if you were to know there is no after-life, and trying to make a difference means just so much more.

That’s just my two cents. :)

344 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:10:08pm

re: #336 Talking Point Detective

One thing I know for sure is that I’m going to get my ass kicked if I don’t get off this computer now.

No agnosticism on that one.

If someone could illustrate this group mind-fuck on a Venn diagram and post it on a website I’d be greatly appreciative.

found one
Image: 100307-belief-venn.png

345 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:13:46pm

re: #344 JeffFX

found one
Image: 100307-belief-venn.png

Not a bad one, but there is extraneous info. Being anti-religious is not the same as being strongly atheistic. Not the same at all.

346 APox  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:14:05pm

re: #344 JeffFX

found one
Image: 100307-belief-venn.png

I disagree with that generality of atheism, sure there are people that believe religion is inherently evil (such as Bill Maher)… But I don’t really believe that if we were void of religion the world would be a better place.

People will abuse whatever system they are in if they lack good principles. I’m sure you could say that atheists are evil because they don’t believe in anything and thus get un-hinged and do all sorts of bad things because they turn into complete Nihilists.

Obviously I think what gets to people is the hypocrisy within a religion, where they preach something good and do something bad. But I don’t think that means you wouldn’t find that without religion.

347 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:19:18pm

Yep. Besides, depending on how religion is defined, one can believe in God and be very anti-religious.

BTW, I like that this diagram basically includes deism as a subset of theism (by ignoring it altogether). I never understood the distinction. Believes in God? Theist.

348 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:22:37pm

re: #345 Sergey Romanov

Not a bad one, but there is extraneous info. Being anti-religious is not the same as being strongly atheistic. Not the same at all.

You misunderstand the diagram. The stridently anti-religious fall into that part of the diagram, they don’t define it.

349 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:24:31pm

re: #347 Sergey Romanov

I think that deism is the belief in a non-interventionist god, one that does not bend the laws of reality, i.e. no such thing as “miracles” or answered prayers.

Anyone with better info, please jump in.

350 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:27:02pm

re: #348 JeffFX

You misunderstand the diagram. The stridently anti-religious fall into that part of the diagram, they don’t define it.

In EA circle there are two subsets - “100%” and “hate religion”. But the latter is a subset of the former, and the former is a def of EA as a whole. So what other groups inside EA are there besides religion-haters? This may or may not have been the author’s intent, but this part is misleading.

Besides, I have pointed out that one can hate religion while believing in God. I see it all the time - “don’t confuse religion and faith, religion fucks up everything”-type statements.

351 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:28:41pm

re: #349 Slumbering Behemoth

I think that deism is the belief in a non-interventionist god, one that does not bend the laws of reality, i.e. no such thing as “miracles” or answered prayers.

Anyone with better info, please jump in.

I know what deism is. I just think that properly it’s a subset of theism.

352 APox  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:30:27pm

re: #350 Sergey Romanov

Any type of large “group think” is dangerous. I think the most respectable Christians / people of faith are those that have a quiet understanding of their beliefs and are internally very strong.

I was really attracted to people of the Buddhist religion / philosophy the most because of that, of course they don’t really believe in a God….

353 JeffFX  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:32:28pm

re: #350 Sergey Romanov

In EA circle there are two subsets - “100%” and “hate religion”. But the latter is a subset of the former, and the former is a def of EA as a whole. So what other groups inside EA are there besides religion-haters? This may or may not have been the author’s intent, but this part is misleading.

Besides, I have pointed out that one can hate religion while believing in God. I see it all the time - “don’t confuse religion and faith, religion fucks up everything”-type statements.


I agree that having that in the chart is a distraction at best, but that is the group that the fervently anti-theists belong in. I think the author put it in to balance the “Sinners!” figure in the theist group, but missed putting a friendly atheist in the explicit atheist group.

You could put another hates religion person in the theists group to really confuse people.

354 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:32:46pm

re: #231 Talking Point Detective

I think that atheism requires a faith in that an atheist says that they know that there is no god. In that sense, it is a claim that a human being can know absolute truth in some sense. My “spirituality” is mostly in a sense of humility that human’s basically, don’t know shit.

Not so.


Atheism can simply be a mater of figuring out that certain things simply don’t exist in our world, or can’t be proven to exist beyond the impossibility of disproving a double negative.

For some people, spiritual beings that we can’t interact with in an scientifically measureable way happen to fall into that box…

355 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:32:55pm

re: #352 APox

Good point. Some forms of Buddhism are atheistic, yet they can also be condemned by a religion-hater, so it’s not a theism v. atheism thing.

356 APox  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:36:37pm

re: #355 Sergey Romanov

I’d really have to believe that a “religion hater” would be pretty misinformed to condemn Buddhism.

One book I really enjoyed reading was the Monk and the Philosopher, shed a great deal of light onto their belief system.

Things like prayer flags and water wheels were there to remind people that saw them that there is suffering in the world and to “pray” that wherever the wind blows or water moves that the people it reaches will have self-realization and lessened suffering.

I like that. It is much more charming than “Believe in God or you will burn in hell,” type message that I received daily growing up in the Bible belt.

357 APox  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:37:28pm

re: #354 jamesfirecat

Perfectly said.

358 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:52:52pm

re: #345 Sergey Romanov

Not a bad one, but there is extraneous info. Being anti-religious is not the same as being strongly atheistic. Not the same at all.

Actually, I was joking. But thanks.

359 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:13:23pm

re: #354 jamesfirecat

Not so.

Atheism can simply be a mater of figuring out that certain things simply don’t exist in our world, or can’t be proven to exist beyond the impossibility of disproving a double negative..

What can or can’t be proven is largely a function of your starting premises. Your starting premise is pretty much a matter of faith.

That the Earth is 6,000 years old is entirely logical - and consistent with all available evidence - if you start with the premise that the bible is the word of god - (as an article of faith). To the unfaithful, there is no evidence that proves that the bible is the word of god. To the faithful, there is no evidence to prove that it isn’t. To the unfaithful, the belief that the bible is the word of god is, necessarily, a product of faith because there is no evidence to prove that it is.

That the Earth is 6,000 years old is completely illogical - and inconsistent with all available evidence - if you start with the premise that the bible is not the word of god - (as an article of faith). Since you can’t prove that it isn’t the word of god, your belief that it isn’t the word of god is an article of faith. Do you have evidence that the bible isn’t the word of god?

360 Kronocide  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:17:01pm

re: #231 Talking Point Detective

I think that atheism requires a faith in that an atheist says that they know that there is no god. In that sense, it is a claim that a human being can know absolute truth in some sense. My “spirituality” is mostly in a sense of humility that human’s basically, don’t know shit.

No, I have no faith that there is god. There is distinctly a lack of faith in that.

To say that it requires a ‘faith in an certain outcome’ is to project. I am not choosing one side or another, there is merely lack of belief in god. I’m not invested in this position.

Those who are invested in a faith that there is not god may proselytize that position. Some atheists may fit into this description.

361 Wozza Matter?  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:22:47pm

re: #351 Sergey Romanov

I know what deism is. I just think that properly it’s a subset of theism.

from teh wiki -

Deism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/, us dict: dē′·ĭzm)[1][2] in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe.
362 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:33:46pm

re: #359 Talking Point Detective

What can or can’t be proven is largely a function of your starting premises. Your starting premise is pretty much a matter of faith.

That the Earth is 6,000 years old is entirely logical - and consistent with all available evidence - if you start with the premise that the bible is the word of god - (as an article of faith). To the unfaithful, there is no evidence that proves that the bible is the word of god. To the faithful, there is no evidence to prove that it isn’t. To the unfaithful, the belief that the bible is the word of god is, necessarily, a product of faith because there is no evidence to prove that it is.

That the Earth is 6,000 years old is completely illogical - and inconsistent with all available evidence - if you start with the premise that the bible is not the word of god - (as an article of faith). Since you can’t prove that it isn’t the word of god, your belief that it isn’t the word of god is an article of faith. Do you have evidence that the bible isn’t the word of god?

I don’t think you have a grasp of what evidence is out there and how interpretations of it are narrowed down to the possible/plausible.

363 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:38:58pm

re: #359 Talking Point Detective

What can or can’t be proven is largely a function of your starting premises. Your starting premise is pretty much a matter of faith.

That the Earth is 6,000 years old is entirely logical - and consistent with all available evidence - if you start with the premise that the bible is the word of god - (as an article of faith). To the unfaithful, there is no evidence that proves that the bible is the word of god. To the faithful, there is no evidence to prove that it isn’t. To the unfaithful, the belief that the bible is the word of god is, necessarily, a product of faith because there is no evidence to prove that it is.

That the Earth is 6,000 years old is completely illogical - and inconsistent with all available evidence - if you start with the premise that the bible is not the word of god - (as an article of faith). Since you can’t prove that it isn’t the word of god, your belief that it isn’t the word of god is an article of faith. Do you have evidence that the bible isn’t the word of god?

I can’t stand holistic thinkers.

Get Empirical or get out I say….

364 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:42:12pm

re: #359 Talking Point Detective

What can or can’t be proven is largely a function of your starting premises. Your starting premise is pretty much a matter of faith.

That the Earth is 6,000 years old is entirely logical - and consistent with all available evidence - if you start with the premise that the bible is the word of god - (as an article of faith). To the unfaithful, there is no evidence that proves that the bible is the word of god. To the faithful, there is no evidence to prove that it isn’t. To the unfaithful, the belief that the bible is the word of god is, necessarily, a product of faith because there is no evidence to prove that it is.

That the Earth is 6,000 years old is completely illogical - and inconsistent with all available evidence - if you start with the premise that the bible is not the word of god - (as an article of faith). Since you can’t prove that it isn’t the word of god, your belief that it isn’t the word of god is an article of faith. Do you have evidence that the bible isn’t the word of god?

Yes I do.

Look at how many different translations of the bible are there.

If the Bible was a divinely inspired book that god watches over to make sure it was perfectly true, then it would be impossible for such differences to show up.

F*** even the 4 disciples can’t agree on the same story every now and again and they were supposedly with Jesus the entire time.

How can it be divine truth when its not even internally consistent?

365 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:47:12pm

re: #360 BigPapa

No, I have no faith that there is god. There is distinctly a lack of faith in that.

To say that it requires a ‘faith in an certain outcome’ is to project. I am not choosing one side or another, there is merely lack of belief in god. I’m not invested in this position.

Those who are invested in a faith that there is not god may proselytize that position. Some atheists may fit into this description.

I’m operating from the definition of atheism as one which entails more than simply a “lack of belief in god.”

To the extent that you want to expand the definition to include those who merely have a lack of faith in the existence of a god - then I’m agreement with your post.

366 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:49:55pm

re: #365 Talking Point Detective

I’m operating from the definition of atheism as one which entails more than simply a “lack of belief in god.”

To the extent that you want to expand the definition to include those who merely have a lack of faith in the existence of a god - then I’m agreement with your post.

If your not an atheist don’t presume to tell others what atheism means.

367 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:57:34pm

re: #364 jamesfirecat

Yes I do.

Look at how many different translations of the bible are there.

If the Bible was a divinely inspired book that god watches over to make sure it was perfectly true, then it would be impossible for such differences to show up.

F*** even the 4 disciples can’t agree on the same story every now and again and they were supposedly with Jesus the entire time.

How can it be divine truth when its not even internally consistent?

Just to be clear - I don’t believe that the bible is the word of god. I don’t believe that there is a god, and even if I did, I wouldn’t think he/she/it would take the time to instruct humans how to write down his/her/its words.

But to carry this out — Jesus could have said things in such a way that he intended each disciple to hear something different; in that sense, each could have transcribed jesus’s words accurately even if what they wrote is contradictory/different.

You’re assuming that: (1) there couldn’t be an “internally consistent” truth despite the disciples hearing jesus say different things, (2) “truth” has to be internally consistent.

Also, you’re saying that you can divine “truth,” which seems to me to require a confidence in your belief that requires a kind of faith.

368 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:58:30pm

re: #366 jamesfirecat

If your not an atheist don’t presume to tell others what atheism means.

I’m not presuming any such thing. I’m not telling you what it means to you, or what it should mean to you. I’m telling you how I define it, and what the implications of different definitions are.

369 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:01:05pm

re: #367 Talking Point Detective

Just to be clear - I don’t believe that the bible is the word of god. I don’t believe that there is a god, and even if I did, I wouldn’t think he/she/it would take the time to instruct humans how to write down his/her/its words.

But to carry this out — Jesus could have said things in such a way that he intended each disciple to hear something different; in that sense, each could have transcribed jesus’s words accurately even if what they wrote is contradictory/different.

You’re assuming that: (1) there couldn’t be an “internally consistent” truth despite the disciples hearing jesus say different things, (2) “truth” has to be internally consistent.

Also, you’re saying that you can divine “truth,” which seems to me to require a confidence in your belief that requires a kind of faith.

I’m not trying to “divine truth” really.

I’m trying to divine probability.

I’m not going to win any argument with anyone who is a holistic thinker because you can’t win an argument with a holistic thinker…..

It’s a hmm…. what’s the opposite of a straw man………

A brick wall argument for lack of a better way to put it.

Your throwing up an argument that no one can defeat because you’re asking me to use logic to argue with someone who doesn’t care about logic.

A person can believe that the world is 6000 years old, but at the end of the day they only believe that because they believe in the bible, right?

I chose to believe it is a great deal older than that due to repeateable scientific tests which don’t require faith of any shape or form.

370 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:01:40pm

re: #368 Talking Point Detective

I’m not presuming any such thing. I’m not telling you what it means to you, or what it should mean to you. I’m telling you how I define it, and what the implications of different definitions are.

But if your definition is inaccurate, don’t you see how slanderous and insulting that is?

371 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:06:04pm

re: #362 b_sharp

I don’t think you have a grasp of what evidence is out there and how interpretations of it are narrowed down to the possible/plausible.

Seems like you’re leaning towards making this personal. If you are, I’m not interested in pursuing the discussion further.

Of course I “understand” what evidence there is out there regarding the possibility/plausibility of the bible being the word of god.

372 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:07:55pm

re: #370 jamesfirecat

But if your definition is inaccurate, don’t you see how slanderous and insulting that is?

No slander or insult intended. As opposed to your comments that I “don’t care about logic.”

I’m done with you.

373 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:13:31pm

re: #372 Talking Point Detective

No slander or insult intended. As opposed to your comments that I “don’t care about logic.”

I’m done with you.

I assume you’re upset by

“Your throwing up an argument that no one can defeat because you’re asking me to use logic to argue with someone who doesn’t care about logic.”

I was only claiming that someone who says that the world was created 6000 years ago because god said so, doesn’t care about logic.

You’ve also said that you aren’t that person.

So why the insult?

374 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:28:44pm

re: #371 Talking Point Detective

Seems like you’re leaning towards making this personal. If you are, I’m not interested in pursuing the discussion further.

Of course I “understand” what evidence there is out there regarding the possibility/plausibility of the bible being the word of god.

That’s not my point.

You made the claim that the evidence for a 6000 year old Earth is equally convincing based on the initial assumption. I’ve argued with quite a few YECs that made the same statement and was forced to delve into both sides and once you actually look into the twisting of evidence that has to be done to support a 6000 year old Earth you’ll soon realize that it is not just a matter of initial assumption.

For you to make that claim, tells me you haven’t seriously looked into the current evidence for an >6000 year old Earth.

It wasn’t an attack, it was an observation.

As for my second point, the more evidence you have from different disciplines, the narrower the possibilities of a mis-interpretation and the number of hypotheses that fit drop considerably.

If you consider just a single line of evidence, such as stratigraphy, there may be half a dozen possible hypotheses that fit, including YECism. However, once you add evidence from a number of other lines, the number of possible ‘right’ hypotheses will drop, because each one has to satisfy every line of evidence collectively.

If you disagree with me, I challenge you to assume the Earth is 6000 years old and present to me your evidence.

375 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:44:56pm

re: #374 b_sharp

That’s not my point.

You made the claim that the evidence for a 6000 year old Earth is equally convincing based on the initial assumption. I’ve argued with quite a few YECs that made the same statement and was forced to delve into both sides and once you actually look into the twisting of evidence that has to be done to support a 6000 year old Earth you’ll soon realize that it is not just a matter of initial assumption.

For you to make that claim, tells me you haven’t seriously looked into the current evidence for an >6000 year old Earth.

It wasn’t an attack, it was an observation.

As for my second point, the more evidence you have from different disciplines, the narrower the possibilities of a mis-interpretation and the number of hypotheses that fit drop considerably.

If you consider just a single line of evidence, such as stratigraphy, there may be half a dozen possible hypotheses that fit, including YECism. However, once you add evidence from a number of other lines, the number of possible ‘right’ hypotheses will drop, because each one has to satisfy every line of evidence collectively.

If you disagree with me, I challenge you to assume the Earth is 6000 years old and present to me your evidence.

I’m not suggesting, in any way, that I consider the conclusions equally plausible. I don’t think that the evidence is equally convincing.

But then, I start with the premise that the bible isn’t the word of god.

To someone who believes that the bible is the word of god, then they have an answer for every scientific disproof, or all contradictory evidence. It is, simply, a matter of faith.

Where we disagree is whether or not the belief that the bible isn’t the word of god is an article of faith.

376 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:52:21pm

re: #375 Talking Point Detective

I’m not suggesting, in any way, that I consider the conclusions equally plausible. I don’t think that the evidence is equally convincing.

But then, I start with the premise that the bible isn’t the word of god.

To someone who believes that the bible is the word of god, then they have an answer for every scientific disproof, or all contradictory evidence. It is, simply, a matter of faith.

Where we disagree is whether or not the belief that the bible isn’t the word of god is an article of faith.

Its not a an article of faith to believe that the bible is not the word of god.

One simply needs to lack faith.

Lack of Faith!=Faith in a lack of something else….

377 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:05:06pm

re: #372 Talking Point Detective

You’re just using one of the oldest fallacies about atheism, or non-belief. Non-belief is not equivalent to a belief. Russell’s Teapot applies.

You should stop saying that you’re done with people and suchlike. It’s a silly statement and you don’t actually appear to mean it.

378 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:13:42pm

re: #375 Talking Point Detective

I’m not suggesting, in any way, that I consider the conclusions equally plausible. I don’t think that the evidence is equally convincing.

But then, I start with the premise that the bible isn’t the word of god.

To someone who believes that the bible is the word of god, then they have an answer for every scientific disproof, or all contradictory evidence. It is, simply, a matter of faith.

Where we disagree is whether or not the belief that the bible isn’t the word of god is an article of faith.

They may have answers, but their answers certainly don’t fit in with the known physical properties and constraints of our universe. Believing that particular narrative is definitely a matter of faith, because there is nothing rational about it.

If there is no god, then the Bible could not possibly be written by a god.

We have no way to prove 100% that the Bible is not the word of god any more than we can prove 100% that there is no god. However, we have the same probability of proving there is no invisible giant 100m tea cup orbiting the Earth, yet no one that I know would seriously believe there is a tea cup that size orbiting Earth.

That’s because what we know of our physical environment would not support a 100m invisible orbiting tea cup. We have the ability to boost objects into space, we also have the ability, and the paranoia, to observe everything any country does boost into orbit. No human country has placed an extra, extra large tea cup into space. We also know how other humans think, and can see no reason to place one into orbit. There exists no evidence for an ancient culture that had the technology to put anything into orbit.

You can see how each point narrows the possibilities.

We can use the same technique to narrow the possibility of a specific god, such as the one presented by some Christian religions, affecting our physical environment. It isn’t as easy, because part of the mythos is that their god is beyond the limits of our physics, but anything proposed by humans as proof of god can be shown to be either wrong or explainable by simpler means.

As far as having faith in science itself as a way to gain reliable evidence, it too has been ‘proved’ as the best method available. I’ll trust that it works until shown otherwise.

379 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:14:56pm

I see Obdi beat me to Russell’s tea pot.

380 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:23:18pm

re: #377 Obdicut

You’re just using one of the oldest fallacies about atheism, or non-belief. Non-belief is not equivalent to a belief. Russell’s Teapot applies.

You should stop saying that you’re done with people and suchlike. It’s a silly statement and you don’t actually appear to mean it.

I should amend the statement; I’m done with [whomever] as long as they persist in what appears to me to be a belligerent tone. If I mistake something else as belligerence, then I’m happy to play again. Or, alternatively, if the other poster is willing to change their tone, I’m game. I may occasionally slip and respond if neither happens, but not for long.

As for the other point of your post - I’ve been trying to make this clear for a while now. If we’re operating a rubric such as Sergey described (or what is depicted in the linked Venn diagram) - then I think that “strong atheism” is not simply “non-belief.” “Weak atheism” I would view differently, and is essentially what I think of when I am speaking of agnosticism.

381 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:26:33pm

re: #380 Talking Point Detective

I should amend the statement; I’m done with [whomever] as long as they persist in what appears to me to be a belligerent tone. If I mistake something else as belligerence, then I’m happy to play again. Or, alternatively, if the other poster is willing to change their tone, I’m game. I may occasionally slip and respond if neither happens, but not for long.

As for the other point of your post - I’ve been trying to make this clear for a while now. If we’re operating a rubric such as Sergey described (or what is depicted in the linked Venn diagram) - then I think that “strong atheism” is not simply “non-belief.” “Weak atheism” I would view differently, and is essentially what I think of when I am speaking of agnosticism.

Moral of the story is as follows, don’t try to tell people what their system for explaining how the world works really means, hell you shouldn’t do it even if you are a member of that particular system.

Do you realize why it is insulting and demeaning when you do it?

382 Varek Raith  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:31:32pm

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

383 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:34:49pm

re: #382 Varek Raith

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

Who said that? I to get a copy of that and print it out and hang it on my door….

384 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:35:06pm

re: #378 b_sharp


They may have answers, but their answers certainly don’t fit in with the known physical properties and constraints of our universe. Believing that particular narrative is definitely a matter of faith, because there is nothing rational about it.

Agreed. It is an article of faith.


We have no way to prove 100% that the Bible is not the word of god any more than we can prove 100% that there is no god.

Also agreed.

However, we have the same probability of proving there is no invisible giant 100m tea cup orbiting the Earth, yet no one that I know would seriously believe there is a tea cup that size orbiting Earth.

Also agreed (although I prefer the flying spaghetti monster).

That’s because what we know of our physical environment would not support a 100m invisible orbiting tea cup. We have the ability to boost objects into space, we also have the ability, and the paranoia, to observe everything any country does boost into orbit. No human country has placed an extra, extra large tea cup into space. We also know how other humans think, and can see no reason to place one into orbit. There exists no evidence for an ancient culture that had the technology to put anything into orbit.

All, obviously true. But keep in mind that the article of faith that the bible is the word of god lays the groundwork for a logical extension that anything that has not happened, or which does not seem probable, does not disprove the starting premise.

It isn’t as easy, because part of the mythos is that their god is beyond the limits of our physics, but anything proposed by humans as proof of god can be shown to be either wrong or explainable by simpler means.

Simpler than the basic, simple assumption that god is all powerful and controls everything? That seems to me like the mother of all simplicities.

As far as having faith in science itself as a way to gain reliable evidence, it too has been ‘proved’ as the best method available. I’ll trust that it works until shown otherwise.

As will I. But I recognize it as trust in a belief, and ultimately an article of faith. There is much in the world for which science has no real explanation. There is much in the world which defies known science. And there is much that scientists currently believe about the world which is in pretty strong contrast to what was “known,” scientifically in the past.

Don’t get me wrong - this isn’t the denier meme that “Scientists thought that the Earth was cooling 40 years ago.” As it turns out, it was a minority of scientists who proposed those hypotheses, and many of them weren’t climate experts. In such situations, it is the exception that proves the rule; but recent scientific discoveries undermine much of what we have previously regarded as scientifically established fact.

385 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:35:46pm

re: #380 Talking Point Detective

This part:

Since you can’t prove that it isn’t the word of god, your belief that it isn’t the word of god is an article of faith.

Is completely faulty.

You are familiar with Russell’s Teapot, right?

386 Varek Raith  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:36:35pm

re: #383 jamesfirecat

Who said that? I to get a copy of that and print it out and hang it on my door…

Christopher Hitchens.
80% sure.

387 Varek Raith  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:38:12pm
Since you can’t prove that it isn’t the word of god, your belief that it isn’t the word of god is an article of faith.

Proving a negative?
Fallacy.

388 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:39:29pm

re: #387 Varek Raith

Not to mention the following problem:

Define “God”.

389 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:40:02pm

re: #384 Talking Point Detective

Agreed. It is an article of faith.

Also agreed.

Also agreed (although I prefer the flying spaghetti monster).

All, obviously true. But keep in mind that the article of faith that the bible is the word of god lays the groundwork for a logical extension that anything that has not happened, or which does not seem probable, does not disprove the starting premise.

Simpler than the basic, simple assumption that god is all powerful and controls everything? That seems to me like the mother of all simplicities.

As far as having faith in science itself as a way to gain reliable evidence, it too has been ‘proved’ as the best method available. I’ll trust that it works until shown otherwise.

As will I. But I recognize it as trust in a belief, and ultimately an article of faith. There is much in the world for which science has no real explanation. There is much in the world which defies known science. And there is much that scientists currently believe about the world which is in pretty strong contrast to what was “known,” scientifically in the past.

Don’t get me wrong - this isn’t the denier meme that “Scientists thought that the Earth was cooling 40 years ago.” As it turns out, it was a minority of scientists who proposed those hypotheses, and many of them weren’t climate experts. In such situations, it is the exception that proves the rule; but recent scientific discoveries undermine much of what we have previously regarded as scientifically established fact.

Here’s the thing, science makes predictions about how the world works that can be tested in this day and age, and science tends to get those predictions right.

Most religious people who make prophecies this day and age are not correct or the prophecy was about something incredibly unimportant/easy to guess.

That science “works” is not something you put “faith” or “belief” in because you don’t need to put faith in something you can reach out and test and study and ecetra ecetra.

Proof denies faith and baby science brings a lot of proof to the table.

390 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:42:34pm

re: #378 b_sharp

BTW - I assume that you know of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I’m a Pastafarian, myself.

391 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:43:36pm

re: #387 Varek Raith

Beat me to it. Similarly, it is equally invalid to say that since one can not disprove the existence of a race of unicorn riding elves living on the dark side of the moon, to believe that there is no such thing is an article of faith.

Very poor argument.

392 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:45:19pm

re: #385 Obdicut

This part:

Is completely faulty.

You are familiar with Russell’s Teapot, right?

I’m not saying that it must be true because it can’t be prove false.

I am simply saying that it can’t be proven false.

393 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:46:05pm

re: #392 Talking Point Detective

I am simply saying that it can’t be proven false.

So what? That doesn’t make lack of belief in it an article of faith. That is absolutely and dramatically wrong.

394 Varek Raith  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:48:08pm

re: #392 Talking Point Detective

I’m not saying that it must be true because it can’t be prove false.

I am simply saying that it can’t be proven false.

Prove that I am not God Himself.

395 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:48:22pm

re: #385 Obdicut

And I agree with Carl Sagan in that the: “absence of evidence is the not evidence of absence.”

396 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:51:24pm

re: #395 Talking Point Detective

And I agree with Carl Sagan in that the: “absence of evidence is the not evidence of absence.”

But if there is no evidence, that doesn’t mean it takes faith for us not to believe it, it makes it the default logical human condition to be skeptical of that which is not proven.

397 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:53:27pm

re: #394 Varek Raith

Prove that I am not God Himself.

Well, let’s see. You’re petty, vengeful, jealous, genocidal, torturous, unreasonably demanding, and insecure in your need for attention.

Yep, I’d say that you are in fact God Himself.
///

398 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:54:33pm

re: #395 Talking Point Detective

That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, though.

399 Varek Raith  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:55:58pm

re: #397 Slumbering Behemoth

Well, let’s see. You’re petty, vengeful, jealous, genocidal, torturous, unreasonably demanding, and insecure in your need for attention.

Yep, I’d say that you are in fact God Himself.
///

I am not unreasonably demanding!
Now, to appease my anger you must burrow to the center of the Earth an bring back a 5 ton diamond.
You have 1 day.
///

400 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:56:55pm

re: #394 Varek Raith

Prove that I am not God Himself.


My belief that you aren’t god is a product of my life experiences, my upbringing, my education - all of which condition me to believe that you are, in fact, not god. But it is my belief, as I have no proof that you aren’t.

Some would say that you are god in the sense that all beings are god. There are many people walking this planet who believe that they are god. There are many people who have walked this planet who have convinced many, many, rationale, logical people that they were god.

If someone gets well simply because they believed that someone with the healing power of jesus touched them, did they not get well? For many conditions, the placebo affect is as powerful, if not more powerful, than medicine. Am I going to go to a faith healer if I get cancer? No. Will I go to an acupuncturist? Maybe, even though we have no scientifically proven way of showing how acupuncture works.

But I view my beliefs in things that I can’t prove to be, when boiled down to their essence, as an article of faith. If you don’t , so be it.

401 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:57:33pm

re: #400 Talking Point Detective

Define ‘god’.

402 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:57:45pm

re: #399 Varek Raith

I tell you what, shove this giant coal reserve up your ass, and you’ll have that five ton diamond in less than an hour, tight wad!
/

403 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:58:39pm

er….effect.

404 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:01:12pm

Jebus! Reminds me of the reasoning of a piss poor, first year philosophy major.

405 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:02:02pm

re: #400 Talking Point Detective

My belief that you aren’t god is a product of my life experiences, my upbringing, my education - all of which condition me to believe that you are, in fact, not god. But it is my belief, as I have no proof that you aren’t.

Some would say that you are god in the sense that all beings are god. There are many people walking this planet who believe that they are god. There are many people who have walked this planet who have convinced many, many, rationale, logical people that they were god.

If someone gets well simply because they believed that someone with the healing power of jesus touched them, did they not get well? For many conditions, the placebo affect is as powerful, if not more powerful, than medicine. Am I going to go to a faith healer if I get cancer? No. Will I go to an acupuncturist? Maybe, even though we have no scientifically proven way of showing how acupuncture works.

But I view my beliefs in things that I can’t prove to be, when boiled down to their essence, as an article of faith. If you don’t , so be it.

“But I view my beliefs in things that I can’t prove to be, when boiled down to their essence, as an article of faith. If you don’t , so be it.”


But Science is things that can be proved to be.

So why the f*** do you keep saying that putting trust in science is a matter of belief?

406 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:02:49pm

re: #393 Obdicut

So what? That doesn’t make lack of belief in it an article of faith. That is absolutely and dramatically wrong.


I am not saying that a lack of belief is an article of faith. I’ve said that the “strong atheism” as per Sergey’s rubric and the Venn diagram, in my perspective, is a faith-based form of thinking.

I’m not saying that as a qualitative statement. I respect many people of faith of different sorts. As I said earlier, I , myself, am a Pastafarian.

407 Varek Raith  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:03:42pm

re: #402 Slumbering Behemoth

I tell you what, shove this giant coal reserve up your ass, and you’ll have that five ton diamond in less than an hour, tight wad!
/

LoL

408 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:05:03pm

re: #404 Slumbering Behemoth

Jebus! Reminds me of the reasoning of a piss poor, first year philosophy major.

Sorry for wasting your time. Feel free to stop reading any time you wish.

409 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:07:47pm

re: #406 Talking Point Detective

I am not saying that a lack of belief is an article of faith

You appear to be. Or rather, you appear to readily conflate ‘lack of belief’ with ‘non-belief’.

If I don’t believe someone is god, then I, grammatically, in English, believe that they’re not God. Somehow, to you, that grammatical rearrangement changes it into a positive article of faith.

410 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:10:33pm

re: #404 Slumbering Behemoth

Jebus! Reminds me of the reasoning of a piss poor, first year philosophy major.

But I do appreciate that you assume I graduated high school.

411 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:11:43pm

re: #409 Obdicut

Or, to put it another way:

I believe that person X is human. I can’t ‘prove’ their human, any more than I can prove that they exist. It doesn’t mean that it’s an article of faith that they’re human in the same way that it’s an article of faith if they believe that they’re god. The two types of ‘faith’ aren’t in any way synonymous.

412 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:14:51pm

re: #409 Obdicut

You appear to be. Or rather, you appear to readily conflate ‘lack of belief’ with ‘non-belief’.

If I don’t believe someone is god, then I, grammatically, in English, believe that they’re not God. Somehow, to you, that grammatical rearrangement changes it into a positive article of faith.


I think that the belief that there is no god is an article of faith. I do not think that a lack of belief in god is an article of faith.

413 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:17:23pm

re: #412 Talking Point Detective

Are you intentionally missing the point?

Do you think my belief that you’re a human is an article of faith in the same way it would be if I did believe you were god?

414 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:22:14pm

re: #390 Talking Point Detective

BTW - I assume that you know of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I’m a Pastafarian, myself.

Since it’s inception.

415 b_sharp  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:23:06pm

re: #399 Varek Raith

I am not unreasonably demanding!
Now, to appease my anger you must burrow to the center of the Earth an bring back a 5 ton diamond.
You have 1 day.
///

Eat planetoids.

416 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:23:43pm

re: #377 Obdicut

You’re just using one of the oldest fallacies about atheism, or non-belief. Non-belief is not equivalent to a belief. Russell’s Teapot applies

BTW - nothing I’ve said resembles what Russell is describing here:

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it,

417 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:26:07pm

re: #413 Obdicut

Are you intentionally missing the point?

Do you think my belief that you’re a human is an article of faith in the same way it would be if I did believe you were god?

Since you don’t know me well, I would say that you have more evidence that I”m a human than that I’m a god.

People who know me well really struggle with that one a lot.

418 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:26:43pm

re: #416 Talking Point Detective

You actually are saying something very close to that, yes. Depending on how you’re defining your terms.

419 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:27:00pm

re: #417 Talking Point Detective

Care to try a serious answer? Or are you unable to?

420 jamesfirecat  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:27:42pm

re: #417 Talking Point Detective

Since you don’t know me well, I would say that you have more evidence that I”m a human than that I’m a god.

People who know me well really struggle with that one a lot.

What if we have more evidence that the world is not 600 years old than evidence that it is, can’t we make a judgment then without belief coming into it?

421 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:28:52pm

re: #419 Obdicut

Care to try a serious answer? Or are you unable to?

What makes you think I wasn’t serious?

422 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:31:32pm

re: #421 Talking Point Detective

Because you didn’t answer the question. Here it is again:

Do you think my belief that you’re a human is an article of faith in the same way it would be if I did believe you were god?

423 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:39:31pm

That seems to me like some kind of a rhetorical question. If you have a point to make, go ahead and make it.

I’m a first-year philosophy student who is dead wrong about many things and who is a coward who’s unable to answer your questions I’ve had enough for now. Catch up with you later.

424 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:41:46pm

Assuming the null hypothesis is not synonymous with actively rejecting a hypothesis which cannot be tested.

425 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:44:51pm

re: #423 Talking Point Detective

It’s not anything remotely like a rhetorical question. It’s nowhere close to one.

It’s a perfectly straightforward question. You’ve asserted that belief or not believe in divine status are both articles of faith. I asked you about a particular instance. You’ve refused to answer, with a completely inappropriate excuse.

I actually want the information obtained by the question. So it’s not rhetorical.

About half the time, you argue in an amazingly, amazingly poor fashion.

426 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 6:46:59pm

I.e., given that the proposition that God exists is utterly untestable, there is a big difference between assuming that untestable propositions for which there is no evidence are unproven, or null, and do not require or merit examination.

I have no faith or lack thereof that the sun isn’t a hologram. I just assume it is what it appears to be because I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Is that distinction not obvious? A condition characterized by a lack of faith isn’t a faith consisting of faithlessness. It’s just a lack of that kind of belief system.

427 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Nov 24, 2010 6:42:52am

re: #425 Obdicut

You’ve asserted that belief or not believe in divine status are both articles of faith. blockquote>

It seems to me that I’ve said this multiple times, but allow me to state it again: It isn’t a lack of faith that I think is an article of faith. The “strong atheist” belief that no god exists, I’m arguing, is one formed w/o proof, and I believe is founded on faith.

It is entirely logical if your starting premises are, as examples, that the bible isn’t the word of god or that the universe could be created without a creator. Just as the belief that there is a god is a logical belief (based in faith) if your starting premise is that the bible is the word of god or that the universe couldn’t be created without a creator.

That’s not meant as a criticism; I respect many people who hold beliefs based on faith. Just because some people who do so think that their beliefs are the only correct beliefs - and denigrate anyone who doesn’t agree with them - doesn’t mean that everyone who formulates beliefs based on faith does the same thing.

Again with the personal attacks, huh? When you’re ready to exchange ideas in a civil fashion again (i.e., not tell me how stupid my arguments are, not tell me I’m a coward, not tell me that I’m “demanding” that you talk about things, not tell me I’ve said things that I haven’t said, not assume that if I don’t answer a question - based on a strawman - that I can’t answer your question, etc.) let me know.

428 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Nov 24, 2010 6:46:39am

re: #425 Obdicut

Sorry - I screwed up with the tags.

You’ve asserted that belief or not believe in divine status are both articles of faith.

It seems to me that I’ve said this multiple times, but allow me to state it again: It isn’t a lack of faith that I think is an article of faith. The “strong atheist” belief that no god exists, I’m arguing, is one formed w/o proof, and I believe is founded on faith.

It is entirely logical if your starting premises are, as examples, that the bible isn’t the word of god or that the universe could be created without a creator. Just as the belief that there is a god is a logical belief (based in faith) if your starting premise is that the bible is the word of god or that the universe couldn’t be created without a creator.

That’s not meant as a criticism; I respect many people who hold beliefs based on faith. Just because some people who do so think that their beliefs are the only correct beliefs - and denigrate anyone who doesn’t agree with them - doesn’t mean that everyone who formulates beliefs based on faith does the same thing.

Again with the personal attacks, huh? When you’re ready to exchange ideas in a civil fashion again (i.e., not tell me how stupid my arguments are, not tell me I’m a coward, not tell me that I’m “demanding” that you talk about things, not tell me I’ve said things that I haven’t said, not assume that if I don’t answer a question - based on a strawman - that I can’t answer your question, etc.) let me know.

429 Talking Point Detective  Wed, Nov 24, 2010 6:58:13am

re: #426 Fozzie Bear

I.e., given that the proposition that God exists is utterly untestable, there is a big difference between assuming that untestable propositions for which there is no evidence are unproven, or null, and do not require or merit examination.

I have no faith or lack thereof that the sun isn’t a hologram. I just assume it is what it appears to be because I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Is that distinction not obvious? A condition characterized by a lack of faith isn’t a faith consisting of faithlessness. It’s just a lack of that kind of belief system.

A lack of belief isn’t what I’ve been saying I think is an article of faith. The belief that “I am 100% sure that god does not exist” is what I’m characterizing as an article of faith. Again, I’ll refer back to the Venn diagram.

There are different kinds of lack of faith and they can be based on different starting premises.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 365 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1