As a lesbian trapped in a man’s body, I gotta say I loved this…
246 comments on “The comedy stylings of George Takei”
“So “[communication of] ideas and information from one person to another” and EXPLANATION are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE? That still sounds like BÙLLSHÍT to me.”
To define something is to say what something is, to explain something is to say why something is. This is why the answers to the questions “define yourself” and “explain yourself” can be quite different. They are two very different things. It is the nature of the different uses of language and the uses of religion that exludes one from the other. Both are tools, one of the rational, the other of the irrational.
What we define as an apple remains what it is regardless of what we call it. An appleseed cannot grow into a lemon tree that then sprouts figs. However, someone can be born into one religion and convert to another, because religion is in no way tactile or testible. It is entirely what the believer makes of it. It is just a fantasy. But if one were to walk into a grocery store, walk into the produce aisle, and pick up an apple and say to someone nearby, “Look at this grapefruit.” I think an odd look or a stated, “That’s an apple,” would be the expected responses. That is not the case with religion.
As far as atheism being a “religion.” It is not. I worship nothing, therefor I cannot be religious. As far as “proving” there is no god? A negative needs no proving, but a positive does. ( ) Can you prove to me that there are no words between those parenthesis? The very absense of words proves that there are none, so why should one even bother to prove what is obvious? The book of Hebrews states (depending on translation) that [religious] faith “is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Religion deals with the untestible and the intangible, things that do not exist outside of the mind/spirit of the believer. I am afraid that this makes the proof of God (or the truism of ones religious convictions) the burden of the believer, not the unbeliever. First define God (what God is and what God isn’t), the nature of the religious belief (what it is and what it isn’t), and then define exactly what about it makes it true and all the others false. Give some objective testible and/or provable examples of that truth, of why God chooses to act for some, but not for others. Of why a “loving” creator God would allow disasters, both man made and natural, to occur. It seems odd to me that the only answer that makes anything close to rational sense to me is found in the pages of Peter David’s Fallen Angel and Olaf Stapleton’s novel Starmaker. Hardly what one would call religious texts.
If anyone of faith is angered by my stance, I do apologize. But I think that religion is irrational. It exists entirely in the realm of emotional fantasy and cannot exist in the reality of the rational.
This topic is pointless as are these posts.
“This topic is pointless as are these posts.”
Agreed. I learned long ago that people will believe whatever they want to believe, all the rest be dámņëd.
At least it was a somewhat entertaining Saturday morning diversion while it lasted.
Peace.
So “[communication of] ideas and information from one person to another” and EXPLANATION are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE? That still sounds like BÙLLSHÍT to me.
To define something is to say what something is, to explain something is to say why something is. This is why the answers to the questions “define yourself” and “explain yourself” can be quite different. They are two very different things. It is the nature of the different uses of language and the uses of religion that exludes one from the other. Both are tools, one of the rational, the other of the irrational.
What we define as an apple remains what it is regardless of what we call it. An appleseed cannot grow into a lemon tree that then sprouts figs. However, someone can be born into one religion and convert to another, because religion is in no way tactile or testible. It is entirely what the believer makes of it. It is just a fantasy. But if one were to walk into a grocery store, walk into the produce aisle, and pick up an apple and say to someone nearby, “Look at this grapefruit.” I think an odd look or a stated, “That’s an apple,” would be the expected responses. That is not the case with religion.
Unless you specify otherwise, I’m taking “Both are tools” as a concession religion and languages are both “[constructs] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another.” That seems to be the only part of your reply that applies to the section you cite.
…a device used in the performance of a task : TOOL, UTENSIL
Fundamentalism is a tool that feeds the resolve of the insurgency in Iraq. Religion is no less rational than the guns they carry.
As far as atheism being a “religion.” It is not. I worship nothing, therefor I cannot be religious.
Buddhism is the worship of nothing. The Buddha preached embracement of the void. Are Buddhists, therefore, not religious?
As far as “proving” there is no god? A negative needs no proving, but a positive does.
I didn’t ask you to prove the non-existence of god. I said you can’t, and you haven’t disagreed with me.
So:
How does introducing yet another paradigm no one has any hope of verifying standardize our model of reality?
By sabotaging a stable paradigm of reality in this manner, how isn’t atheism — in your crude application of the word — irrational?
This topic is pointless as are these posts.
Don’t let me stop you from skipping the topic, person-whose-name-I-don’t-recognize.
Agreed.
Don’t let me stpo you from retreating.
“It’s one thing to look at the discoveries of science and say — poetically — that he represent god’s work. It is another thing entirely to try to include god or other teachings of religion as part of the scientific theories. and a third thing is to try to apply the scientific method to god and religion.”
Yeah, I know. Don’t get me wrong here, I have never and will never support teaching religion in the schools or science in the churches. Nor will you see me trying to argue that you can actually use one to explain the other.
I’ve just never seen the knowledge in science as being a threat to the faith of religion. Quite the opposite actually. The more that science sheds a light on just how complex some things really are, the greater it elevates the admiration for the divine craftsmanship that went into it.
Granted, it’s easier for me to see it that way then it is for some I’ve met in the past. I don’t read the Bible as a history book or 100% factual account of events from the past. I read it a book full of parables and good ideas. Because of that, the discoveries of science don’t threaten my view of my faith.
Jerry, you and I actually don’t disagree. We’re just saying the same thing in a different way.
I don’t believe religion can be used to explain the mechanics of natural phenomena. I also don’t believe the fact that rational explanations exist for certain natural phenomena — and that we’ll likely discover explanations for others where such explanations are currently lacking — doesn’t preclude the existence of God.
Since I am not familiar with the teaching of Buddhism, I cannot comment on that. So I will leave that to others.
But:
“How does introducing yet another paradigm no one has any hope of verifying standardize our model of reality?”
What did I introduce and what can not be verified? Please explain and I will attempt to answer to the best of my ability.
“By sabotaging a stable paradigm of reality in this manner, how isn’t atheism — in your crude application of the word — irrational?”
Are you speaking of Religion? Something that has birthed countless genocides, the denial of scientific advancement (to the point of torture), and the oppression of those who dare to believe differently (or who are unfortunate to be born of a different gender). You call that STABLE? 😀
With all honesty I admit that I am not on an intellectual level anywhere near that of a Sam Harris or a Richard Dawkins, so the question confuses me to no end. How can something with a long and bloody history of causing violence and instability possibly be considered stable?
Just curious.
Yeah, I wasn’t really saying that you and I did disagree here. We’re likely on the same page on 99% of this topic. I only disagree on the point that science exists to answer the “what” and the “how” while religion exists to explore the “why.”
I’ve always felt that the closer you get to the truth of anything, the closer you are to answering all three of those things. The “what” and the “how” can often explain the “why” of something and, when looked at with an open and investigative mind, the “why” of something can help to shed light on the path to learning the “what” and the “how” of something. I’ve only ever seen conflict in that with the people that feel that they must embrace either the teachings or religion or the teachings of science almost to the exclusion of the other.
But that’s just me.
Micha the Mika-a-holic (sorry, couldn’t resist) stated: The big bang and the story of the biblical genesis look similar, but Genesis is the result of myth-making or revelation that became tradition, while the big bang is the result of the modern scientific method. Genesis could never be considered a scientific conclusion, while Hubble could not assume in his research not treat his conclusion (the big bang) as supernatural or divine. If he did so he would move from the language of science to that of theology.”
And that is exactly as it should work. Scientists should be like V-Ger–dispassionately collecting data and analyzing it. Ministers, Rabbis, Imams and philosophers should be like Captain Matt Decker– use human faith to find both God and the why in what they see. As humans we function very poorly without either type, or if one type tries to assume the job of the other.
Jerry Chandler stated: See, this is where I disagree with most folks. I think that science and religion work very well together when you’re not trying to disprove one with the other or sticking to the belief that every single word in a book is THE WORD with no wiggle room left in there for common sense and the idea of the one can give strength to the other.
And that is exactly were I start to disagree with my Christian brethren. It isn’t enough for them to read the Word, pray about it, and ask God what its trying to say. Their interpretation is the only interpretation. That’s when trouble starts. Not only is it offensive to others, but its a lazy way to believe because HUMANS spell out all the answers to religious questions. One of the things I liked most about the Book of Job is God tells him in essence “I don’t have to justify everything that happens to you. I’m God. You’re not. Deal with it.”
Jonathan:The other one stated: “Captain, I’m not going to go into the maths here, but the question of what the Universe is “expanding into” is an artifact of the imprecision of language. Space is defined by the existence of something in it, even if that “something” is only subatomic particles. Beyond the “edge” of the Universe is nothing – in its most literal form. Until the Universe has expanded into it, the “space” (not really space yet, but again we’re dealing with the imprecision of language) doesn’t exist as yet. It’s not even really potential – it’s nothing.”
On this I would disagree. Beyond the “edge” of the Universe is nothing – that we know of… Some string theorists have with V-Ger like dispassion stated that there may be dozens or more universes. Some possibly connected to this one. Just because we cannot see does not make it not there.
Chadwick H. Saxelid stated: “If anyone of faith is angered by my stance, I do apologize. But I think that religion is irrational. It exists entirely in the realm of emotional fantasy and cannot exist in the reality of the rational.”
Not offended at all. In fact, though we disagree ecclesiastically, you concisely summed up my point nicely. Faith isn’t about being rational. It was never intended to be– and good thing too!
–Captain Naraht
(Ray from NH)
“Granted, it’s easier for me to see it that way then it is for some I’ve met in the past. I don’t read the Bible as a history book or 100% factual account of events from the past. I read it a book full of parables and good ideas. Because of that, the discoveries of science don’t threaten my view of my faith.”
It is a theological and a political decision to allow science, religion, the state, art, each its own place, thus avoiding conflict.
It could be be claimed that this is the truest form of religion and that the conflict that arises between these arenas is because of wrong religion. It could also be claimed that historically and in its true essence relgion did not and cannot share and divide the power with these other arenas. This is the view of fundemntalists (who seek the fundementals of their religion). In any case, I believe this compromise and division of labor is the better compromise. It allows people to have religion, science, and state with less conflict.
“I only disagree on the point that science exists to answer the “what” and the “how” while religion exists to explore the “why.””
This is the articulation of the division of labor between science and religion. The ‘why’ here means things like morality, the meaning of life, love, and other stuff like that. Science can tell you how the world works and what is its nature. Scientific knowledge can help deal with questions of morals and the meaning of life, but not provide the answers. Religion claims to provide the answers. So do other philosophies. Questions about the meaning of life and morality might affect the scientists who do research, but it shouldn’t affect the research itself. Here there is room only for the scientific methodolgy that deals with what and how.
——————
Chadwick. Like you I am an atheist, and to some degree because of similar reasoning. Like you I once thought that religion is dangerous because it claimed to have knowledge of and be guided by divine commands, namely something that is outside of the natural world, outside of compromise, outside of reasoned discussion. However, later I’ve come to believe that religion, like other human institutions and ideologies can be used for good or for evil. The thing that causes humans to kill, torture, act intolerantly and be close-minded are not in religion, it is part of human nature. Religion has its Osama Bin Ladens but it also has Martin Luther King. And atheism was not able to prevent Nazism.
So I still believe that on the philosophical level the belief in God and all the religious aspects that follow are unjustified. Although there have been rationalistic attempts to justify god, and I don’t know if it is fair to describe the reasoning of religious people as wholly irrational. But the truth is that it does not matter. The conflicts today that involve religion are not really philosophical/theological conflicts, they are political and (to a lesser extent) ideological. And it is quite possible for religion on atheism to have things in common on the political, ideological, and emotional level (as in the case of MLK), as well of mutual respect.
You have also probably noticed that your discussion with Mike is a little different than usual discussions. You might want to disentangle the points you are trying to make from the structure Mike is forcing on them, so as to make them more coherent.
“Chadwick. Like you I am an atheist, and to some degree because of similar reasoning. Like you I once thought that religion is dangerous because it claimed to have knowledge of and be guided by divine commands, namely something that is outside of the natural world, outside of compromise, outside of reasoned discussion. However, later I’ve come to believe that religion, like other human institutions and ideologies can be used for good or for evil. The thing that causes humans to kill, torture, act intolerantly and be close-minded are not in religion, it is part of human nature. Religion has its Osama Bin Ladens but it also has Martin Luther King. And atheism was not able to prevent Nazism.
So I still believe that on the philosophical level the belief in God and all the religious aspects that follow are unjustified. Although there have been rationalistic attempts to justify god, and I don’t know if it is fair to describe the reasoning of religious people as wholly irrational. But the truth is that it does not matter. The conflicts today that involve religion are not really philosophical/theological conflicts, they are political and (to a lesser extent) ideological. And it is quite possible for religion on atheism to have things in common on the political, ideological, and emotional level (as in the case of MLK), as well of mutual respect.
You have also probably noticed that your discussion with Mike is a little different than usual discussions. You might want to disentangle the points you are trying to make from the structure Mike is forcing on them, so as to make them more coherent.”
Thank you for your kinds words, and you are right…violence is as much a part of human nature as is compassion. The outpouring of support and aid in the aftermath of a disaster or tragedy has nothing to God and everything to the inherent decency within the human heart. All the other stuff doesn’t matter. As I said before, people will believe what they want to believe, all the rest be dámņëd.
As far as Mike goes, he has his viewpoint and I have mine. I’m not approaching it as an argument that truly winnable (see my comment about people above), but as two blokes shooting the breeze. If it gets nasty, I’ll just walk away. Besdies, there comes a time in any debate when it runs its course and we all move on, hopefully a little wiser to others point of few.
Micha,
I’m pretty sure we agree on most of this. My only fine tuning on this would be to stress that I believe that the division of labor you speak of should be enforced in institutions (like schools and the church) but people should not be stuck with that in their day to day lives.
If we were discussing ID VS evolution or science VS religion in the context of forcing faith into the public school system, then I would be talking about this in a different way. I don’t believe one should be taught in the house of the other at all. I just think that we shouldn’t have such conflict over the two. They needn’t be an either or kind of thing.
“Micha the Mika-a-holic.”
I can stop whenever I want. I only respond to his posts to be sociable.
“On this I would disagree. Beyond the “edge” of the Universe is nothing – that we know of… Some string theorists have with V-Ger like dispassion stated that there may be dozens or more universes. Some possibly connected to this one. Just because we cannot see does not make it not there.”
Here is the thing. There are parts of the natural world that are still unknown in the sense that they are not yet described by the scientific method. There are gaps in scientific knowledge. Now, you can choose to say things about the unknown, speculate about it, try to fill it with your imagination. This would be basically an artistic act. But it would be completely meaningless as scientific knowledge. Moreover, if a gap in scientific knowledge is filled using the scientific method (the way Hubble did with the big bang), the discovery will have to be treated in the dispassionate scientific way. Of course you can also super impose on it whatever extra theological or artistic meaning you like. For example, when voyager sent pictures from Jupiter, it became scientifically known. The pictures could also be described as beautiful or, if you so desire, divine.
A good example could be this: for the Vikings, thor was an unknown god. For the denizens of Marvel universe Thor is a natural entity with properties that can be described scientifically.
“Faith isn’t about being rational.”
I’ve addressed that before. In the old testament god proves himself to convince people to believe in him. The idea of faith as an irrational state of mind opposed to reason that is specifically fit for religion only came afterwards.
“And that is exactly were I start to disagree with my Christian brethren. It isn’t enough for them to read the Word, pray about it, and ask God what its trying to say. Their interpretation is the only interpretation. That’s when trouble starts. Not only is it offensive to others, but its a lazy way to believe because HUMANS spell out all the answers to religious questions. One of the things I liked most about the Book of Job is God tells him in essence “I don’t have to justify everything that happens to you. I’m God. You’re not. Deal with it.”””
There was an Israeli religious philosopher who had numerous PhD’s in natural sciences. His name was Isaia Leibowitz. This guy was a strict Ortodox Jew, but his theological view, which he followed very strongly, was the idea that god is completely beyond description — you could not say anything positive about him (this was his interpretation of Mimonides, but I don’t know if it was correct, only that he held that view). He did believe that prayer affects god. He refused to entretain questions about god to nature. He did not believe in miracles or the literal truth of the bible, but he strictly followed Jewish ritual. For him, his belief was not so much a belief about god and the rituals he followed were not for god or because of god but rather toward a completley unknown god.
I believe there were problems with his view too. I do not share it. But he was an admirable (if grouchy) man. Unfortunatly, one of the flaws of his attitude was his rejection (but not hatred) towards homosexual life, since Jewish religious law rejects it, and for him the proper devotion for the unknown god was to follow Jewish religious law to the last tenet.
“I’m pretty sure we agree on most of this. My only fine tuning on this would be to stress that I believe that the division of labor you speak of should be enforced in institutions (like schools and the church) but people should not be stuck with that in their day to day lives.”
Agreed. The seperation of Church ans State is the manifestation of the division of labor in the rame of government, but it need not be enforced in other realms. In a way, the democratic political system puts limitations on the state tha allow people who do not accept this compromise the freedom to practice their beliefs.
Religion, on the other hand, is used to EXPLAIN and, I need to point out, the explanations vary from religion to religion, from doctrine to doctrine, from church to church, and person to person. Religion is as malleable as silly puty, because it is irrational….
Being a former evangelical Christian turned atheist, I am of the opinion that Religion does not shelter a “predatory agenda,” it IS a predatory agenda. More often than not, it brings out the worst in people.
How does atheism not qualify as “a religion that insists there in no god?”
How does introducing yet another paradigm no one has any hope of verifying standardize our model of reality?
By sabotaging a stable paradigm of reality in this manner, how isn’t atheism — in your crude application of the word — irrational?
Are you speaking of Religion? Something that has birthed countless genocides, the denial of scientific advancement (to the point of torture), and the oppression of those who dare to believe differently (or who are unfortunate to be born of a different gender). You call that STABLE? 😀
I didn’t call anything stable. You:
say religions are irrational specifically because, as distinct paradigms of reality, they are incompatible with each other, and
expect us to accept as rational a paradigm of reality that neither disproves nor is compatible with any of the paradigms you are complaining about.
I call that BÙLLSHÍT. ; D
Faith isn’t about being rational.
Faith is complete trust.
Who has more faith than the person with no religion?
IMHO, competent science is kind of like good journalism. It asks and attempts to answer who,why,what,when,where and/or how without being coloured by the questioners personal beliefs or biases. The answers can be tested and proven or disproven. It is the search for facts.
Intelligent design is like Fox News. Interested in inserting it’s own truth when the facts get uncomfortable, spinning whole tapestries from hand picked threads and hoping noone looks to close, or pulls the one loose string.
Spirituality is the search for who the individual is, “why am I?”. It is individual and private, the desire to understand the truth of oneself in relation to the reality one inhabits.
Religion is the search for comfort, for acknowledegment that that there’s more to it than all this, that there’s someone in charge of this mess. It is the search for less tangible answers about the world.
Religion is of itself neither good nor evil, neither infantile nor wise. It is what it’s adherents make of it, since religion is also the search for community.
Chadwick, you have said nothing that any rational, reasoning person would find offensive, nor anything any spiritual person would find offensive. As for religious people, depends on the Path they follow.
Somebody once said, and I’m paraphrasing, “I have no problem with God, it’s the ground crew I’m not to crazy about.” Chadwick, the historical precedents you cite are accurate, but they are the work of men.
I’m not going to try to save you, I walked away from Christianity 20+ years ago. I always thought that a God so desirous of obediance and adoration could have hired some better PR, and been clear and concise.
The dark actions of religious organizatioons through history, however, do not diminish the good that they have also done. During the dark ages, it was Catholic monastaries that kept knowledge and literacy alive. Mind you, the Crusades probably weren’t the best ideas, but, again, the ground crew.
Unless someone tries to present their personal Truth as Universal Fact, I refuse to call BÙLLSHÍT.
I am of the opinion that Religion does not shelter a “predatory agenda,” it IS a predatory agenda.
Religion is of itself neither good nor evil, neither infantile nor wise. It is what it’s adherents make of it, since religion is also the search for community.
Chadwick, you have said nothing that any rational, reasoning person would find offensive, nor anything any spiritual person would find offensive….
Unless someone tries to present their personal Truth as Universal Fact, I refuse to call BÙLLSHÍT.
Whaaateeeveeer, duuude.
Or, as a friend’s T-shirt says:
Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen.
Mike, unless you can tell me WHAT I said and meant, rather than pursuing an O’Reilly/Limbaugh approach by cherry picking specific items to quote out of context, or simply quoting then ridiculing without any attempt at debate or presentation of a logical counterpoint, I call FÙÇKÍN’ BÙLLSHÍT!!!
“Whaaateeeveeer, duuude.”? That’s the best you’ve got?
“Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen.”
I like it!
How about:
“Jesus saves! But Gretzky scores on the rebound!”
“Jesus is coming! Look busy!”
“Jesus saves. Moses invests.”
“Jesus loves you!!! The rest of think you’re an áššbág.”
“We nailed Jesus to the cross once, and we still know where the hammer is!”
Welcome to the first stages of visiting Planet M, Manny. Keep your visit short. It’s not a fun place to stay for too long.
“Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen.”
That should be, like, the subtitle of the Book of Job.
The Book of Job: or Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers.
Anyone know where a guy could get that t-shirt?
Thanks,
Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
Something I wanted to respond to but did not:
“I agree that’s an aspect of it as well, but it does seem to me that when people talk about gays, it is primarily focused on gay men, rather than lesbians. And women kissing/etc. is, I don’t know if I would say accepted, but is demonized like it is for men. Am I alone in sensing that? “
It would appear that the male point of view when it comes to sexuality is still the dominant one. This is what feminists call patriarchy. Male homosexuality is more troubling to heterosexual men’s sense of identity.
I don’t know if the popularity of lesbian images among heterosexual men is a recent thing. But I think even in the past lesbianism was considered as much of a threat. Historically heterosexual men seem to have been more concerned with women overstepping their place.
I am curious if heterosexual women perceive lesbianism to be a greater threat.
In general it would be interesting to have more acces in popular media for the point of view of women.
“”Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen.”
That should be, like, the subtitle of the Book of Job.”
Wouldn’t the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?
“Wouldn’t the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?”
Not really. In the plot of the Book of Job, it is the devil that causes Job’s woes and Job’s friends that blame Job for his misfortunes. While people have debated the deeper meaning of Job for millenia, according to the text, it is Satan that harms Job.
Capt. Naraht
That Satan is such a trouble-maker.
That Satan is such a trouble-maker.
Yeah, what’s his deal?
(not really back, just typing on someone’s computer at the film fest. Uh oh, he’s coming back! Gotta run!)
“”Wouldn’t the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?”
Not really. In the plot of the Book of Job, it is the devil that causes Job’s woes and Job’s friends that blame Job for his misfortunes. While people have debated the deeper meaning of Job for millenia, according to the text, it is Satan that harms Job.”
You have to recall that Satan in this story is an agent of God and not the arch-enemy of god you see in Christian tradition. He tells god: harm Job, and we’ll see if he does not curse you. And God said: fine, go ahead and harm him. Satan is acting on behalf of god. Imagine this: Rumsfeld goes to Bush and tells him he should attack Iraq. Bush says OK. Who attacked Iraq, Rumsfeld or Bush?
OK, let’s start a religious war over this 🙂
Not really. You are correct that the Book of Job in large part a criticism of Job’s friends for presuming to judge Job. So your T-Shirt is in the mail.
“Jesus saves! But Gretzky scores on the rebound!”
“Jesus is coming! Look busy!”
“Jesus saves. Moses invests.”
“Jesus loves you!!! The rest of think you’re an áššbág.”
“We nailed Jesus to the cross once, and we still know where the hammer is!”
“Jesus saves! Everyone else, take 5d6 damage.”
“I didn’t call anything stable. You:
say religions are irrational specifically because, as distinct paradigms of reality, they are incompatible with each other
and expect us to accept as rational a paradigm of reality that neither disproves nor is compatible with any of the paradigms you are complaining about.
I call that BÙLLSHÍT. ; D”
I’m cool with that. 🙂
But my core opinion remains unchanged. Religion is irrational because it is nothing more than a human construct rooted entirely in emotional fantasy and wish fulfillment. It’s all “Might be” and “Could be” and “We hope it’s that way,” with nothing testible or researchable to prove these beliefs. To me it is no more complex or simple than that, really. That religions are incompatible with each other is nothing more than a “useful” by-product of its ability to control and influence the poorly educated and gullible with far too simple minded answers to complex questions and issues that, in time and with proper research, could be both answered and resolved.
My closing argument/example (after this we’ll just be dancing in circles) is to just look at the last few hundred years of human history. Look at what science has accomplished compared to what religion has. The answer of which paradigm is more “stable” or “useful” is self-evident and cannot be denied, it can only be ignored. Religion (especially organized religion) struggles to keep the people ill informed, while science struggles to inform. An informed people are, far more often than not, a less violent and a more accepting society than one that is ill-informed and steeped in religious beliefs.
As far as the lessons one can learn for the story of Job? My take on it is this: “Bad šhìŧ happens, get over it.” 😀
“Wouldn’t the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?”
Actually, God gave the okay. More like “Job:or How I Was a Victim of a Ðámņ Stupid Bet”
“Welcome to the first stages of visiting Planet M, Manny. Keep your visit short. It’s not a fun place to stay for too long.”
Thanks for the reminder, Jerry. Having seen what Mike did to others, I should have learned from smarter people here, ignored him, and done something pleasant. Like changed my son’s diaper. At least the conversation would have had some logical point to it.
Does the “Victims of Mike Club” have t-shirts?
Actually, God gave the okay. More like “Job:or How I Was a Victim of a Ðámņ Stupid Bet”
I have a book by an secular Israeli columnist that presents stories from the old testament in a kind of critical, sometimes modern reading. He reads Job in a similar way, he was a victim of a stupid bet, and he doesn’t accept god’s excuses. as far as he’s concerned god is like a politician who’s hiding the his real blunder. he says he should get better speech writers.
“Does the “Victims of Mike Club” have t-shirts?”
I wanted to make some, with a picture of a person hitting his head repeatedly against a wall. But Bill Myers shot the idea down.
“You have to recall that Satan in this story is an agent of God and not the arch-enemy of god you see in Christian tradition. He tells god: harm Job, and we’ll see if he does not curse you. And God said: fine, go ahead and harm him. Satan is acting on behalf of god.”
While I disagree with you that Satan is an agent of God, the Devil does make an interesting if manipulative point: Job only likes you God because you bless him. (How many times have I asked that of wealthy Christians?) God is not so much making Job suffer as proving Satan wrong. For 36 chapters of Job’s friends being judgemental dolts, Job questions God, Job complains to God, but Job never cursed God. Therefore at the end Job wins his friends livestock as a consolation prize.
“Does the “Victims of Mike Club” have t-shirts?”
Actually they are more like brandings or really painful neck tattoos.
Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
“6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan [b] also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.”
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.”
The King James vesion has a closer feel to the Hebrew
“God is not so much making Job suffer as proving Satan wrong.”
Job suffers enough. The ancient Jewish sages apparently said that it was a parable that never actually happened, because they found it so unfair.
Posted by: Micha at February 25, 2007 02:56 PM
I wanted to make some, with a picture of a person hitting his head repeatedly against a wall. But Bill Myers shot the idea down.
I never “shot the idea down.” I merely quipped that the shirts weren’t selling well.
I’ve begun to think of him as our lovable mascot, though. He’s always good for a laugh.
Jerry’s got it right, though: we should ignore Mikey. Responding to him plays right into his hands, because that gives him what he wants: attention. For the last few weeks, we weren’t giving that to him and the results were wonderful. But once again we broke down and gave him the satisfaction, and yet again he’s hijacked another thread.
So, going forward, I strongly suggest that everyone with an ounce of sanity join Jerry in putting Mike on their personal “ignore at all costs” list. Because if you really want to get at a troll, that’s the way to do it.
“So, going forward, I strongly suggest that everyone with an ounce of sanity join Jerry in putting Mike on their personal “ignore at all costs” list. Because if you really want to get at a troll, that’s the way to do it.”
No arguments here.
After all is said and done (fer now), I propoe that we all pretty much agree that:
1)Tim Hardaway (Hard-still funny) has a right to express his opinion, even if said opinion is vile, prejudices and revealing of a scared little man.
2)George Takei is a funny guy who, thankfully, has a sense of humor about himself and twits like Hardaway (stopped being funny).
3)None of us has all the answers, but there are lots of interesting questions.
Sound about right?
“1)Tim Hardaway (Hard-still funny) has a right to express his opinion, even if said opinion is vile, prejudices and revealing of a scared little man.
2)George Takei is a funny guy who, thankfully, has a sense of humor about himself and twits like Hardaway (stopped being funny).
3)None of us has all the answers, but there are lots of interesting questions.
Sound about right?”
You forgot:
4) ARRRGHH!! SQUIRRELS!
–Captain Naraht
Posted by: Captain Naraht at February 25, 2007 05:09 PM
You forgot:
4) ARRRGHH!! SQUIRRELS!
They are best forgotten.
“I wanted to make some, with a picture of a person hitting his head repeatedly against a wall. But Bill Myers shot the idea down.
I never “shot the idea down.” I merely quipped that the shirts weren’t selling well.”
I was just kidding. Still, I think there’s a growing market here.
Mike did divert the discussion. We’re a long way from George Takei. But it was an interesting diversion, quite interesting. We should be thankful to him for starting it if not for his own contributions to the discussion.
Mike, I recommend, should be consumed in moderation or not at all. Like I said, the important thing is that he discussion is enjoyable. when it stops being fun it’s time to walk away to better threads.
Looks like you folks have done just fine wwithout me. Reckon I’ll just go mosey along…
Just got back from the Nevermore Horror Film fest. Great bunch of folks. Even the one who, I fear, gave me what is almost certainly a case of noravirus. Oh well…
Check out SEVERANCE or THE HOST if you get the chance.
Oh, I am SO going to see THE HOST on opening night!
Bill, there were two posts that might require a science teacher for a proper respond:
Rob brown wrote:
“Creationism seems highly improbable to me, but I don’t feel comfortable ruling it out 100% because it’s still possible.
On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining everything on the planet evolving completely at random. My layman’s understanding of mutations is that they don’t happen all that often, and if that’s the case, wouldn’t evolution require that when organisms mutate they not only do so in a way that’s beneficial rather than harmful, but that the organism with the mutation survives long enough to mate and pass the trait on, and that this happens over and over and over again? I know the planet has been around for a long time, but has it been around long enough for this to happen enough times to get it right, without setbacks such as a promising new species going extinct and the whole process having to start over again?”
Captain Naharat wrote:
“Again back to cosmology. Scientists are debating that if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding *into*? Another dimension? One could postulate it contains an intelligence or liveform(s) too complex for concepts like evolution or even birth. An entity too complex for modern human minds to grasp, perhaps. (Unless they’re a bit arrogant and run Liberty University).”
You are probably more qualified to address these issues in a serious way.
On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining everything on the planet evolving completely at random.
But that’s the thing–Physics, it’s little sister Chemistry and Chemistry’s bášŧárd offspring Life are not just random. Atoms combine or don’t based on the electrons they have. Compunds combine or son’t based ontheir shape and charge. We are carbon based lifeforms because of the way that carbon is, not by any random lottery among the elements.
The problem withthe 747 analogy is that it assumes that supporters of abiogenesis think that all of the components fopr life just happened to luckily come together in the right place at the right time and the chemical process called life began and has been running roughshod ever since. Since evolution deals with how life changes and not how life began abiogenesis is not something evolutionists need to argue about with the doubters of Darwin but not everyone gets this.
Regardless, what proponents of abiogenesis argue is not some 1 in a billion trillion quadrillion pure lucky chance arrangements of atoms but that early life–which might not look very much like life at all–was the process of logical chemical interactions. Herein the problem–one would assume that if nature can do chemistry so can we. We should be able to also create primitive life in a lab. So far we haven’t been able to do so.
So one can argue that maybe it takes something divine to accomplish this. Or maybe it’s because we are working under most undesireable circumstances–we don’t know exactky what it is we are trying to create (what did early life look like?), we aren’t sure of which energy source to use, we can’t be positive which of the dozens of possible ingrediants to use or how much.
I’ll discuss forther in a bit–have to fix a water problem.
Posted by: Captain Naraht at February 25, 2007 05:09 PM
“You forgot:
4) ARRRGHH!! SQUIRRELS!”
And chihuahuas in celebutantes purses. They gotta go, too.
The situation eventually arises where the search for the answer to life, the universe and everything (42) eventually intersects with the question of some sort of intelligence actually pulling the strings.
Then comes the question “Is there some intelligence doing these things?”. If the assumption is yes, one then asks “What is the nature of this intelligence?”.
At some point, some bright guy assumes said intelligence not only created everything from amoebas to squirrels, but that it also wants total control of it’s creation, as well as worship and adoration. From there it’s straight on downhill to pogroms, censorship, and Bob Jones University.
Just my late night musings and two cents worth.
Okay, gonna hate myself, but I can’t keep this joke bottled up any longer.
If we’re gonna form a “Victims of Mike” club, it should actually be called “Victims of Mike’s Intransigence Together,” or VOMIT. It’s win-win. Mike gets to pretend the name reflects badly on us, and we get to giggle about how it reflects on what he spews all over the Internet.
Hey, cut me some slack, willya? Mike’s been slamming me for the last several weeks with hardly a response from me. I’m only human.
But that’s it. Like the Klingons who turned their back on Worf when he received discommendation, I’m done giving Mike any satisfaction.
I’ll just bust on Bill Mulligan instead. 😉
Oh, hey, here’s a thought that’s (gasp!) related to the thread topic. I find it fascinating that George Takei has experienced something of a resurgence after his “coming out.” Frankly, prior to this I had no idea he was so comedically gifted.
I’d love to see him in his own show. It’d have to be the right show, mind you — one that was well-written and properly suited for his particular gifts.
Just realized: there was a time gay actors wouldn’t dare “come out” because doing so would have killed their career. But George Takei doesn’t appear to have been hurt by acknowledging his sexuality; hëll, he may have even benefited from it.
People need to keep fighting the Good Fight because little by little, we’re making progress.
“Just got back from the Nevermore Horror Film fest.”
I was reading about this years line up at Horrorhounds site. I must hate you now.
Hate over. Hope your having a blast, Mulligan. Drop an email when it’s over with a list of the best BOLO films you saw.
“I’d love to see him in his own show.”
I’ve been saying that for years. I so wanted one of the Trek shows to be the Sulu Adventures. Now I would love to see him doing something that they can use his comic timing and style to its fullest.
*****Posted by Sean Scullion at February 23, 2007 08:51 PM
For those strict ID adherents, point out the differences in human height now and hundred years ago. In Denmark, I think, a hundred years ago, the population could’ve populated Snow White’s house, Munchkinland, and Moria. (Slight exaggeration, there.) Now they’re among Europe’s tallest. Evolution, for those in a hurry!********
Evolution, or the results of better nutrition? That is, if you went back that hundred years, and fed those people (while they were still kids) what nutritionists today say makes a balanced diet, would they still stay that small as adults, or would they be closer height-wise to what their desecdents are today?
Chris
Elf, you’re right, it was most likely nutrician. You can see the same thing at an airport where the tiny immigrant grandmother speaks to her average sized daughter while their 6 foot granddaughter listens to her ipod. A steady supply of milk and McDonalds toadburgers has gien her some length of bone, though Grandma isn’t the one who will have to battle breast cancer in her lifetime.
I only got to see 1 (one) (!) film at Nevermore: Night of the Hëll Hamsters. It was great.
I was in charge of a table selling our movie (The Forever Dead! Makes a great St Patrick’s day gift! ) Sold a few and made some great contacts for our next project–a zombie western called A FISTFULL OF BRAINS. I know, the title sells itself.
I play a child killing horse raping scalawag named Bill Myers.
• 
“So “[communication of] ideas and information from one person to another” and EXPLANATION are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE? That still sounds like BÙLLSHÍT to me.”
To define something is to say what something is, to explain something is to say why something is. This is why the answers to the questions “define yourself” and “explain yourself” can be quite different. They are two very different things. It is the nature of the different uses of language and the uses of religion that exludes one from the other. Both are tools, one of the rational, the other of the irrational.
What we define as an apple remains what it is regardless of what we call it. An appleseed cannot grow into a lemon tree that then sprouts figs. However, someone can be born into one religion and convert to another, because religion is in no way tactile or testible. It is entirely what the believer makes of it. It is just a fantasy. But if one were to walk into a grocery store, walk into the produce aisle, and pick up an apple and say to someone nearby, “Look at this grapefruit.” I think an odd look or a stated, “That’s an apple,” would be the expected responses. That is not the case with religion.
As far as atheism being a “religion.” It is not. I worship nothing, therefor I cannot be religious. As far as “proving” there is no god? A negative needs no proving, but a positive does. ( ) Can you prove to me that there are no words between those parenthesis? The very absense of words proves that there are none, so why should one even bother to prove what is obvious? The book of Hebrews states (depending on translation) that [religious] faith “is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Religion deals with the untestible and the intangible, things that do not exist outside of the mind/spirit of the believer. I am afraid that this makes the proof of God (or the truism of ones religious convictions) the burden of the believer, not the unbeliever. First define God (what God is and what God isn’t), the nature of the religious belief (what it is and what it isn’t), and then define exactly what about it makes it true and all the others false. Give some objective testible and/or provable examples of that truth, of why God chooses to act for some, but not for others. Of why a “loving” creator God would allow disasters, both man made and natural, to occur. It seems odd to me that the only answer that makes anything close to rational sense to me is found in the pages of Peter David’s Fallen Angel and Olaf Stapleton’s novel Starmaker. Hardly what one would call religious texts.
If anyone of faith is angered by my stance, I do apologize. But I think that religion is irrational. It exists entirely in the realm of emotional fantasy and cannot exist in the reality of the rational.
This topic is pointless as are these posts.
“This topic is pointless as are these posts.”
Agreed. I learned long ago that people will believe whatever they want to believe, all the rest be dámņëd.
At least it was a somewhat entertaining Saturday morning diversion while it lasted.
Peace.
Unless you specify otherwise, I’m taking “Both are tools” as a concession religion and languages are both “[constructs] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another.” That seems to be the only part of your reply that applies to the section you cite.
In any event, you’ve called religion a tool.
Fundamentalism is a tool that feeds the resolve of the insurgency in Iraq. Religion is no less rational than the guns they carry.
Buddhism is the worship of nothing. The Buddha preached embracement of the void. Are Buddhists, therefore, not religious?
I didn’t ask you to prove the non-existence of god. I said you can’t, and you haven’t disagreed with me.
So:
How does introducing yet another paradigm no one has any hope of verifying standardize our model of reality?
By sabotaging a stable paradigm of reality in this manner, how isn’t atheism — in your crude application of the word — irrational?
Don’t let me stop you from skipping the topic, person-whose-name-I-don’t-recognize.
Don’t let me stpo you from retreating.
“It’s one thing to look at the discoveries of science and say — poetically — that he represent god’s work. It is another thing entirely to try to include god or other teachings of religion as part of the scientific theories. and a third thing is to try to apply the scientific method to god and religion.”
Yeah, I know. Don’t get me wrong here, I have never and will never support teaching religion in the schools or science in the churches. Nor will you see me trying to argue that you can actually use one to explain the other.
I’ve just never seen the knowledge in science as being a threat to the faith of religion. Quite the opposite actually. The more that science sheds a light on just how complex some things really are, the greater it elevates the admiration for the divine craftsmanship that went into it.
Granted, it’s easier for me to see it that way then it is for some I’ve met in the past. I don’t read the Bible as a history book or 100% factual account of events from the past. I read it a book full of parables and good ideas. Because of that, the discoveries of science don’t threaten my view of my faith.
Jerry, you and I actually don’t disagree. We’re just saying the same thing in a different way.
I don’t believe religion can be used to explain the mechanics of natural phenomena. I also don’t believe the fact that rational explanations exist for certain natural phenomena — and that we’ll likely discover explanations for others where such explanations are currently lacking — doesn’t preclude the existence of God.
Since I am not familiar with the teaching of Buddhism, I cannot comment on that. So I will leave that to others.
But:
“How does introducing yet another paradigm no one has any hope of verifying standardize our model of reality?”
What did I introduce and what can not be verified? Please explain and I will attempt to answer to the best of my ability.
“By sabotaging a stable paradigm of reality in this manner, how isn’t atheism — in your crude application of the word — irrational?”
Are you speaking of Religion? Something that has birthed countless genocides, the denial of scientific advancement (to the point of torture), and the oppression of those who dare to believe differently (or who are unfortunate to be born of a different gender). You call that STABLE? 😀
With all honesty I admit that I am not on an intellectual level anywhere near that of a Sam Harris or a Richard Dawkins, so the question confuses me to no end. How can something with a long and bloody history of causing violence and instability possibly be considered stable?
Just curious.
Yeah, I wasn’t really saying that you and I did disagree here. We’re likely on the same page on 99% of this topic. I only disagree on the point that science exists to answer the “what” and the “how” while religion exists to explore the “why.”
I’ve always felt that the closer you get to the truth of anything, the closer you are to answering all three of those things. The “what” and the “how” can often explain the “why” of something and, when looked at with an open and investigative mind, the “why” of something can help to shed light on the path to learning the “what” and the “how” of something. I’ve only ever seen conflict in that with the people that feel that they must embrace either the teachings or religion or the teachings of science almost to the exclusion of the other.
But that’s just me.
Micha the Mika-a-holic (sorry, couldn’t resist) stated: The big bang and the story of the biblical genesis look similar, but Genesis is the result of myth-making or revelation that became tradition, while the big bang is the result of the modern scientific method. Genesis could never be considered a scientific conclusion, while Hubble could not assume in his research not treat his conclusion (the big bang) as supernatural or divine. If he did so he would move from the language of science to that of theology.”
And that is exactly as it should work. Scientists should be like V-Ger–dispassionately collecting data and analyzing it. Ministers, Rabbis, Imams and philosophers should be like Captain Matt Decker– use human faith to find both God and the why in what they see. As humans we function very poorly without either type, or if one type tries to assume the job of the other.
Jerry Chandler stated: See, this is where I disagree with most folks. I think that science and religion work very well together when you’re not trying to disprove one with the other or sticking to the belief that every single word in a book is THE WORD with no wiggle room left in there for common sense and the idea of the one can give strength to the other.
And that is exactly were I start to disagree with my Christian brethren. It isn’t enough for them to read the Word, pray about it, and ask God what its trying to say. Their interpretation is the only interpretation. That’s when trouble starts. Not only is it offensive to others, but its a lazy way to believe because HUMANS spell out all the answers to religious questions. One of the things I liked most about the Book of Job is God tells him in essence “I don’t have to justify everything that happens to you. I’m God. You’re not. Deal with it.”
Jonathan:The other one stated: “Captain, I’m not going to go into the maths here, but the question of what the Universe is “expanding into” is an artifact of the imprecision of language. Space is defined by the existence of something in it, even if that “something” is only subatomic particles. Beyond the “edge” of the Universe is nothing – in its most literal form. Until the Universe has expanded into it, the “space” (not really space yet, but again we’re dealing with the imprecision of language) doesn’t exist as yet. It’s not even really potential – it’s nothing.”
On this I would disagree. Beyond the “edge” of the Universe is nothing – that we know of… Some string theorists have with V-Ger like dispassion stated that there may be dozens or more universes. Some possibly connected to this one. Just because we cannot see does not make it not there.
Chadwick H. Saxelid stated: “If anyone of faith is angered by my stance, I do apologize. But I think that religion is irrational. It exists entirely in the realm of emotional fantasy and cannot exist in the reality of the rational.”
Not offended at all. In fact, though we disagree ecclesiastically, you concisely summed up my point nicely. Faith isn’t about being rational. It was never intended to be– and good thing too!
–Captain Naraht
(Ray from NH)
“Granted, it’s easier for me to see it that way then it is for some I’ve met in the past. I don’t read the Bible as a history book or 100% factual account of events from the past. I read it a book full of parables and good ideas. Because of that, the discoveries of science don’t threaten my view of my faith.”
It is a theological and a political decision to allow science, religion, the state, art, each its own place, thus avoiding conflict.
It could be be claimed that this is the truest form of religion and that the conflict that arises between these arenas is because of wrong religion. It could also be claimed that historically and in its true essence relgion did not and cannot share and divide the power with these other arenas. This is the view of fundemntalists (who seek the fundementals of their religion). In any case, I believe this compromise and division of labor is the better compromise. It allows people to have religion, science, and state with less conflict.
“I only disagree on the point that science exists to answer the “what” and the “how” while religion exists to explore the “why.””
This is the articulation of the division of labor between science and religion. The ‘why’ here means things like morality, the meaning of life, love, and other stuff like that. Science can tell you how the world works and what is its nature. Scientific knowledge can help deal with questions of morals and the meaning of life, but not provide the answers. Religion claims to provide the answers. So do other philosophies. Questions about the meaning of life and morality might affect the scientists who do research, but it shouldn’t affect the research itself. Here there is room only for the scientific methodolgy that deals with what and how.
——————
Chadwick. Like you I am an atheist, and to some degree because of similar reasoning. Like you I once thought that religion is dangerous because it claimed to have knowledge of and be guided by divine commands, namely something that is outside of the natural world, outside of compromise, outside of reasoned discussion. However, later I’ve come to believe that religion, like other human institutions and ideologies can be used for good or for evil. The thing that causes humans to kill, torture, act intolerantly and be close-minded are not in religion, it is part of human nature. Religion has its Osama Bin Ladens but it also has Martin Luther King. And atheism was not able to prevent Nazism.
So I still believe that on the philosophical level the belief in God and all the religious aspects that follow are unjustified. Although there have been rationalistic attempts to justify god, and I don’t know if it is fair to describe the reasoning of religious people as wholly irrational. But the truth is that it does not matter. The conflicts today that involve religion are not really philosophical/theological conflicts, they are political and (to a lesser extent) ideological. And it is quite possible for religion on atheism to have things in common on the political, ideological, and emotional level (as in the case of MLK), as well of mutual respect.
You have also probably noticed that your discussion with Mike is a little different than usual discussions. You might want to disentangle the points you are trying to make from the structure Mike is forcing on them, so as to make them more coherent.
“Chadwick. Like you I am an atheist, and to some degree because of similar reasoning. Like you I once thought that religion is dangerous because it claimed to have knowledge of and be guided by divine commands, namely something that is outside of the natural world, outside of compromise, outside of reasoned discussion. However, later I’ve come to believe that religion, like other human institutions and ideologies can be used for good or for evil. The thing that causes humans to kill, torture, act intolerantly and be close-minded are not in religion, it is part of human nature. Religion has its Osama Bin Ladens but it also has Martin Luther King. And atheism was not able to prevent Nazism.
So I still believe that on the philosophical level the belief in God and all the religious aspects that follow are unjustified. Although there have been rationalistic attempts to justify god, and I don’t know if it is fair to describe the reasoning of religious people as wholly irrational. But the truth is that it does not matter. The conflicts today that involve religion are not really philosophical/theological conflicts, they are political and (to a lesser extent) ideological. And it is quite possible for religion on atheism to have things in common on the political, ideological, and emotional level (as in the case of MLK), as well of mutual respect.
You have also probably noticed that your discussion with Mike is a little different than usual discussions. You might want to disentangle the points you are trying to make from the structure Mike is forcing on them, so as to make them more coherent.”
Thank you for your kinds words, and you are right…violence is as much a part of human nature as is compassion. The outpouring of support and aid in the aftermath of a disaster or tragedy has nothing to God and everything to the inherent decency within the human heart. All the other stuff doesn’t matter. As I said before, people will believe what they want to believe, all the rest be dámņëd.
As far as Mike goes, he has his viewpoint and I have mine. I’m not approaching it as an argument that truly winnable (see my comment about people above), but as two blokes shooting the breeze. If it gets nasty, I’ll just walk away. Besdies, there comes a time in any debate when it runs its course and we all move on, hopefully a little wiser to others point of few.
Micha,
I’m pretty sure we agree on most of this. My only fine tuning on this would be to stress that I believe that the division of labor you speak of should be enforced in institutions (like schools and the church) but people should not be stuck with that in their day to day lives.
If we were discussing ID VS evolution or science VS religion in the context of forcing faith into the public school system, then I would be talking about this in a different way. I don’t believe one should be taught in the house of the other at all. I just think that we shouldn’t have such conflict over the two. They needn’t be an either or kind of thing.
“Micha the Mika-a-holic.”
I can stop whenever I want. I only respond to his posts to be sociable.
“On this I would disagree. Beyond the “edge” of the Universe is nothing – that we know of… Some string theorists have with V-Ger like dispassion stated that there may be dozens or more universes. Some possibly connected to this one. Just because we cannot see does not make it not there.”
Here is the thing. There are parts of the natural world that are still unknown in the sense that they are not yet described by the scientific method. There are gaps in scientific knowledge. Now, you can choose to say things about the unknown, speculate about it, try to fill it with your imagination. This would be basically an artistic act. But it would be completely meaningless as scientific knowledge. Moreover, if a gap in scientific knowledge is filled using the scientific method (the way Hubble did with the big bang), the discovery will have to be treated in the dispassionate scientific way. Of course you can also super impose on it whatever extra theological or artistic meaning you like. For example, when voyager sent pictures from Jupiter, it became scientifically known. The pictures could also be described as beautiful or, if you so desire, divine.
A good example could be this: for the Vikings, thor was an unknown god. For the denizens of Marvel universe Thor is a natural entity with properties that can be described scientifically.
“Faith isn’t about being rational.”
I’ve addressed that before. In the old testament god proves himself to convince people to believe in him. The idea of faith as an irrational state of mind opposed to reason that is specifically fit for religion only came afterwards.
“And that is exactly were I start to disagree with my Christian brethren. It isn’t enough for them to read the Word, pray about it, and ask God what its trying to say. Their interpretation is the only interpretation. That’s when trouble starts. Not only is it offensive to others, but its a lazy way to believe because HUMANS spell out all the answers to religious questions. One of the things I liked most about the Book of Job is God tells him in essence “I don’t have to justify everything that happens to you. I’m God. You’re not. Deal with it.”””
There was an Israeli religious philosopher who had numerous PhD’s in natural sciences. His name was Isaia Leibowitz. This guy was a strict Ortodox Jew, but his theological view, which he followed very strongly, was the idea that god is completely beyond description — you could not say anything positive about him (this was his interpretation of Mimonides, but I don’t know if it was correct, only that he held that view). He did believe that prayer affects god. He refused to entretain questions about god to nature. He did not believe in miracles or the literal truth of the bible, but he strictly followed Jewish ritual. For him, his belief was not so much a belief about god and the rituals he followed were not for god or because of god but rather toward a completley unknown god.
I believe there were problems with his view too. I do not share it. But he was an admirable (if grouchy) man. Unfortunatly, one of the flaws of his attitude was his rejection (but not hatred) towards homosexual life, since Jewish religious law rejects it, and for him the proper devotion for the unknown god was to follow Jewish religious law to the last tenet.
“I’m pretty sure we agree on most of this. My only fine tuning on this would be to stress that I believe that the division of labor you speak of should be enforced in institutions (like schools and the church) but people should not be stuck with that in their day to day lives.”
Agreed. The seperation of Church ans State is the manifestation of the division of labor in the rame of government, but it need not be enforced in other realms. In a way, the democratic political system puts limitations on the state tha allow people who do not accept this compromise the freedom to practice their beliefs.
I didn’t call anything stable. You:
I call that BÙLLSHÍT. ; D
Faith is complete trust.
Who has more faith than the person with no religion?
IMHO, competent science is kind of like good journalism. It asks and attempts to answer who,why,what,when,where and/or how without being coloured by the questioners personal beliefs or biases. The answers can be tested and proven or disproven. It is the search for facts.
Intelligent design is like Fox News. Interested in inserting it’s own truth when the facts get uncomfortable, spinning whole tapestries from hand picked threads and hoping noone looks to close, or pulls the one loose string.
Spirituality is the search for who the individual is, “why am I?”. It is individual and private, the desire to understand the truth of oneself in relation to the reality one inhabits.
Religion is the search for comfort, for acknowledegment that that there’s more to it than all this, that there’s someone in charge of this mess. It is the search for less tangible answers about the world.
Religion is of itself neither good nor evil, neither infantile nor wise. It is what it’s adherents make of it, since religion is also the search for community.
Chadwick, you have said nothing that any rational, reasoning person would find offensive, nor anything any spiritual person would find offensive. As for religious people, depends on the Path they follow.
Somebody once said, and I’m paraphrasing, “I have no problem with God, it’s the ground crew I’m not to crazy about.” Chadwick, the historical precedents you cite are accurate, but they are the work of men.
I’m not going to try to save you, I walked away from Christianity 20+ years ago. I always thought that a God so desirous of obediance and adoration could have hired some better PR, and been clear and concise.
The dark actions of religious organizatioons through history, however, do not diminish the good that they have also done. During the dark ages, it was Catholic monastaries that kept knowledge and literacy alive. Mind you, the Crusades probably weren’t the best ideas, but, again, the ground crew.
Unless someone tries to present their personal Truth as Universal Fact, I refuse to call BÙLLSHÍT.
Whaaateeeveeer, duuude.
Or, as a friend’s T-shirt says:
Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen.
Mike, unless you can tell me WHAT I said and meant, rather than pursuing an O’Reilly/Limbaugh approach by cherry picking specific items to quote out of context, or simply quoting then ridiculing without any attempt at debate or presentation of a logical counterpoint, I call FÙÇKÍN’ BÙLLSHÍT!!!
“Whaaateeeveeer, duuude.”? That’s the best you’ve got?
“Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen.”
I like it!
How about:
“Jesus saves! But Gretzky scores on the rebound!”
“Jesus is coming! Look busy!”
“Jesus saves. Moses invests.”
“Jesus loves you!!! The rest of think you’re an áššbág.”
“We nailed Jesus to the cross once, and we still know where the hammer is!”
Welcome to the first stages of visiting Planet M, Manny. Keep your visit short. It’s not a fun place to stay for too long.
“Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen.”
That should be, like, the subtitle of the Book of Job.
The Book of Job: or Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers.
Anyone know where a guy could get that t-shirt?
Thanks,
Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
Something I wanted to respond to but did not:
“I agree that’s an aspect of it as well, but it does seem to me that when people talk about gays, it is primarily focused on gay men, rather than lesbians. And women kissing/etc. is, I don’t know if I would say accepted, but is demonized like it is for men. Am I alone in sensing that? “
It would appear that the male point of view when it comes to sexuality is still the dominant one. This is what feminists call patriarchy. Male homosexuality is more troubling to heterosexual men’s sense of identity.
I don’t know if the popularity of lesbian images among heterosexual men is a recent thing. But I think even in the past lesbianism was considered as much of a threat. Historically heterosexual men seem to have been more concerned with women overstepping their place.
I am curious if heterosexual women perceive lesbianism to be a greater threat.
In general it would be interesting to have more acces in popular media for the point of view of women.
“”Dear Lord Jesus, please protect me from Your followers. Amen.”
That should be, like, the subtitle of the Book of Job.”
Wouldn’t the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?
“Wouldn’t the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?”
Not really. In the plot of the Book of Job, it is the devil that causes Job’s woes and Job’s friends that blame Job for his misfortunes. While people have debated the deeper meaning of Job for millenia, according to the text, it is Satan that harms Job.
Capt. Naraht
That Satan is such a trouble-maker.
That Satan is such a trouble-maker.
Yeah, what’s his deal?
(not really back, just typing on someone’s computer at the film fest. Uh oh, he’s coming back! Gotta run!)
“”Wouldn’t the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?”
Not really. In the plot of the Book of Job, it is the devil that causes Job’s woes and Job’s friends that blame Job for his misfortunes. While people have debated the deeper meaning of Job for millenia, according to the text, it is Satan that harms Job.”
You have to recall that Satan in this story is an agent of God and not the arch-enemy of god you see in Christian tradition. He tells god: harm Job, and we’ll see if he does not curse you. And God said: fine, go ahead and harm him. Satan is acting on behalf of god. Imagine this: Rumsfeld goes to Bush and tells him he should attack Iraq. Bush says OK. Who attacked Iraq, Rumsfeld or Bush?
OK, let’s start a religious war over this 🙂
Not really. You are correct that the Book of Job in large part a criticism of Job’s friends for presuming to judge Job. So your T-Shirt is in the mail.
“Jesus saves! But Gretzky scores on the rebound!”
“Jesus is coming! Look busy!”
“Jesus saves. Moses invests.”
“Jesus loves you!!! The rest of think you’re an áššbág.”
“We nailed Jesus to the cross once, and we still know where the hammer is!”
“Jesus saves! Everyone else, take 5d6 damage.”
“I didn’t call anything stable. You:
say religions are irrational specifically because, as distinct paradigms of reality, they are incompatible with each other
and expect us to accept as rational a paradigm of reality that neither disproves nor is compatible with any of the paradigms you are complaining about.
I call that BÙLLSHÍT. ; D”
I’m cool with that. 🙂
But my core opinion remains unchanged. Religion is irrational because it is nothing more than a human construct rooted entirely in emotional fantasy and wish fulfillment. It’s all “Might be” and “Could be” and “We hope it’s that way,” with nothing testible or researchable to prove these beliefs. To me it is no more complex or simple than that, really. That religions are incompatible with each other is nothing more than a “useful” by-product of its ability to control and influence the poorly educated and gullible with far too simple minded answers to complex questions and issues that, in time and with proper research, could be both answered and resolved.
My closing argument/example (after this we’ll just be dancing in circles) is to just look at the last few hundred years of human history. Look at what science has accomplished compared to what religion has. The answer of which paradigm is more “stable” or “useful” is self-evident and cannot be denied, it can only be ignored. Religion (especially organized religion) struggles to keep the people ill informed, while science struggles to inform. An informed people are, far more often than not, a less violent and a more accepting society than one that is ill-informed and steeped in religious beliefs.
As far as the lessons one can learn for the story of Job? My take on it is this: “Bad šhìŧ happens, get over it.” 😀
“Wouldn’t the appropriate subtitle for the book of Job be: Dear God, please protect me from you?”
Actually, God gave the okay. More like “Job:or How I Was a Victim of a Ðámņ Stupid Bet”
“Welcome to the first stages of visiting Planet M, Manny. Keep your visit short. It’s not a fun place to stay for too long.”
Thanks for the reminder, Jerry. Having seen what Mike did to others, I should have learned from smarter people here, ignored him, and done something pleasant. Like changed my son’s diaper. At least the conversation would have had some logical point to it.
Does the “Victims of Mike Club” have t-shirts?
Actually, God gave the okay. More like “Job:or How I Was a Victim of a Ðámņ Stupid Bet”
I have a book by an secular Israeli columnist that presents stories from the old testament in a kind of critical, sometimes modern reading. He reads Job in a similar way, he was a victim of a stupid bet, and he doesn’t accept god’s excuses. as far as he’s concerned god is like a politician who’s hiding the his real blunder. he says he should get better speech writers.
“Does the “Victims of Mike Club” have t-shirts?”
I wanted to make some, with a picture of a person hitting his head repeatedly against a wall. But Bill Myers shot the idea down.
“You have to recall that Satan in this story is an agent of God and not the arch-enemy of god you see in Christian tradition. He tells god: harm Job, and we’ll see if he does not curse you. And God said: fine, go ahead and harm him. Satan is acting on behalf of god.”
While I disagree with you that Satan is an agent of God, the Devil does make an interesting if manipulative point: Job only likes you God because you bless him. (How many times have I asked that of wealthy Christians?) God is not so much making Job suffer as proving Satan wrong. For 36 chapters of Job’s friends being judgemental dolts, Job questions God, Job complains to God, but Job never cursed God. Therefore at the end Job wins his friends livestock as a consolation prize.
“Does the “Victims of Mike Club” have t-shirts?”
Actually they are more like brandings or really painful neck tattoos.
Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
“6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan [b] also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.”
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.”
The King James vesion has a closer feel to the Hebrew
“God is not so much making Job suffer as proving Satan wrong.”
Job suffers enough. The ancient Jewish sages apparently said that it was a parable that never actually happened, because they found it so unfair.
Posted by: Micha at February 25, 2007 02:56 PM
I wanted to make some, with a picture of a person hitting his head repeatedly against a wall. But Bill Myers shot the idea down.
I never “shot the idea down.” I merely quipped that the shirts weren’t selling well.
I’ve begun to think of him as our lovable mascot, though. He’s always good for a laugh.
Jerry’s got it right, though: we should ignore Mikey. Responding to him plays right into his hands, because that gives him what he wants: attention. For the last few weeks, we weren’t giving that to him and the results were wonderful. But once again we broke down and gave him the satisfaction, and yet again he’s hijacked another thread.
So, going forward, I strongly suggest that everyone with an ounce of sanity join Jerry in putting Mike on their personal “ignore at all costs” list. Because if you really want to get at a troll, that’s the way to do it.
“So, going forward, I strongly suggest that everyone with an ounce of sanity join Jerry in putting Mike on their personal “ignore at all costs” list. Because if you really want to get at a troll, that’s the way to do it.”
No arguments here.
After all is said and done (fer now), I propoe that we all pretty much agree that:
1)Tim Hardaway (Hard-still funny) has a right to express his opinion, even if said opinion is vile, prejudices and revealing of a scared little man.
2)George Takei is a funny guy who, thankfully, has a sense of humor about himself and twits like Hardaway (stopped being funny).
3)None of us has all the answers, but there are lots of interesting questions.
Sound about right?
“1)Tim Hardaway (Hard-still funny) has a right to express his opinion, even if said opinion is vile, prejudices and revealing of a scared little man.
2)George Takei is a funny guy who, thankfully, has a sense of humor about himself and twits like Hardaway (stopped being funny).
3)None of us has all the answers, but there are lots of interesting questions.
Sound about right?”
You forgot:
4) ARRRGHH!! SQUIRRELS!
–Captain Naraht
Posted by: Captain Naraht at February 25, 2007 05:09 PM
You forgot:
4) ARRRGHH!! SQUIRRELS!
They are best forgotten.
“I wanted to make some, with a picture of a person hitting his head repeatedly against a wall. But Bill Myers shot the idea down.
I never “shot the idea down.” I merely quipped that the shirts weren’t selling well.”
I was just kidding. Still, I think there’s a growing market here.
Mike did divert the discussion. We’re a long way from George Takei. But it was an interesting diversion, quite interesting. We should be thankful to him for starting it if not for his own contributions to the discussion.
Mike, I recommend, should be consumed in moderation or not at all. Like I said, the important thing is that he discussion is enjoyable. when it stops being fun it’s time to walk away to better threads.
Looks like you folks have done just fine wwithout me. Reckon I’ll just go mosey along…
Just got back from the Nevermore Horror Film fest. Great bunch of folks. Even the one who, I fear, gave me what is almost certainly a case of noravirus. Oh well…
Check out SEVERANCE or THE HOST if you get the chance.
Oh, I am SO going to see THE HOST on opening night!
Bill, there were two posts that might require a science teacher for a proper respond:
Rob brown wrote:
“Creationism seems highly improbable to me, but I don’t feel comfortable ruling it out 100% because it’s still possible.
On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining everything on the planet evolving completely at random. My layman’s understanding of mutations is that they don’t happen all that often, and if that’s the case, wouldn’t evolution require that when organisms mutate they not only do so in a way that’s beneficial rather than harmful, but that the organism with the mutation survives long enough to mate and pass the trait on, and that this happens over and over and over again? I know the planet has been around for a long time, but has it been around long enough for this to happen enough times to get it right, without setbacks such as a promising new species going extinct and the whole process having to start over again?”
Captain Naharat wrote:
“Again back to cosmology. Scientists are debating that if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding *into*? Another dimension? One could postulate it contains an intelligence or liveform(s) too complex for concepts like evolution or even birth. An entity too complex for modern human minds to grasp, perhaps. (Unless they’re a bit arrogant and run Liberty University).”
You are probably more qualified to address these issues in a serious way.
On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining everything on the planet evolving completely at random.
But that’s the thing–Physics, it’s little sister Chemistry and Chemistry’s bášŧárd offspring Life are not just random. Atoms combine or don’t based on the electrons they have. Compunds combine or son’t based ontheir shape and charge. We are carbon based lifeforms because of the way that carbon is, not by any random lottery among the elements.
The problem withthe 747 analogy is that it assumes that supporters of abiogenesis think that all of the components fopr life just happened to luckily come together in the right place at the right time and the chemical process called life began and has been running roughshod ever since. Since evolution deals with how life changes and not how life began abiogenesis is not something evolutionists need to argue about with the doubters of Darwin but not everyone gets this.
Regardless, what proponents of abiogenesis argue is not some 1 in a billion trillion quadrillion pure lucky chance arrangements of atoms but that early life–which might not look very much like life at all–was the process of logical chemical interactions. Herein the problem–one would assume that if nature can do chemistry so can we. We should be able to also create primitive life in a lab. So far we haven’t been able to do so.
So one can argue that maybe it takes something divine to accomplish this. Or maybe it’s because we are working under most undesireable circumstances–we don’t know exactky what it is we are trying to create (what did early life look like?), we aren’t sure of which energy source to use, we can’t be positive which of the dozens of possible ingrediants to use or how much.
I’ll discuss forther in a bit–have to fix a water problem.
Posted by: Captain Naraht at February 25, 2007 05:09 PM
“You forgot:
4) ARRRGHH!! SQUIRRELS!”
And chihuahuas in celebutantes purses. They gotta go, too.
The situation eventually arises where the search for the answer to life, the universe and everything (42) eventually intersects with the question of some sort of intelligence actually pulling the strings.
Then comes the question “Is there some intelligence doing these things?”. If the assumption is yes, one then asks “What is the nature of this intelligence?”.
At some point, some bright guy assumes said intelligence not only created everything from amoebas to squirrels, but that it also wants total control of it’s creation, as well as worship and adoration. From there it’s straight on downhill to pogroms, censorship, and Bob Jones University.
Just my late night musings and two cents worth.
Okay, gonna hate myself, but I can’t keep this joke bottled up any longer.
If we’re gonna form a “Victims of Mike” club, it should actually be called “Victims of Mike’s Intransigence Together,” or VOMIT. It’s win-win. Mike gets to pretend the name reflects badly on us, and we get to giggle about how it reflects on what he spews all over the Internet.
Hey, cut me some slack, willya? Mike’s been slamming me for the last several weeks with hardly a response from me. I’m only human.
But that’s it. Like the Klingons who turned their back on Worf when he received discommendation, I’m done giving Mike any satisfaction.
I’ll just bust on Bill Mulligan instead. 😉
Oh, hey, here’s a thought that’s (gasp!) related to the thread topic. I find it fascinating that George Takei has experienced something of a resurgence after his “coming out.” Frankly, prior to this I had no idea he was so comedically gifted.
I’d love to see him in his own show. It’d have to be the right show, mind you — one that was well-written and properly suited for his particular gifts.
Just realized: there was a time gay actors wouldn’t dare “come out” because doing so would have killed their career. But George Takei doesn’t appear to have been hurt by acknowledging his sexuality; hëll, he may have even benefited from it.
People need to keep fighting the Good Fight because little by little, we’re making progress.
“Just got back from the Nevermore Horror Film fest.”
I was reading about this years line up at Horrorhounds site. I must hate you now.
Hate over. Hope your having a blast, Mulligan. Drop an email when it’s over with a list of the best BOLO films you saw.
“I’d love to see him in his own show.”
I’ve been saying that for years. I so wanted one of the Trek shows to be the Sulu Adventures. Now I would love to see him doing something that they can use his comic timing and style to its fullest.
*****Posted by Sean Scullion at February 23, 2007 08:51 PM
For those strict ID adherents, point out the differences in human height now and hundred years ago. In Denmark, I think, a hundred years ago, the population could’ve populated Snow White’s house, Munchkinland, and Moria. (Slight exaggeration, there.) Now they’re among Europe’s tallest. Evolution, for those in a hurry!********
Evolution, or the results of better nutrition? That is, if you went back that hundred years, and fed those people (while they were still kids) what nutritionists today say makes a balanced diet, would they still stay that small as adults, or would they be closer height-wise to what their desecdents are today?
Chris
Elf, you’re right, it was most likely nutrician. You can see the same thing at an airport where the tiny immigrant grandmother speaks to her average sized daughter while their 6 foot granddaughter listens to her ipod. A steady supply of milk and McDonalds toadburgers has gien her some length of bone, though Grandma isn’t the one who will have to battle breast cancer in her lifetime.
I only got to see 1 (one) (!) film at Nevermore: Night of the Hëll Hamsters. It was great.
I was in charge of a table selling our movie (The Forever Dead! Makes a great St Patrick’s day gift! ) Sold a few and made some great contacts for our next project–a zombie western called A FISTFULL OF BRAINS. I know, the title sells itself.
I play a child killing horse raping scalawag named Bill Myers.