tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18829500.post114330306007635714..comments2023-10-11T10:40:48.712-04:00Comments on The Miserable Annals of the Earth: Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be godlessDoc Nebulahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13052810933464744998noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18829500.post-1144070033590153162006-04-03T09:13:00.000-04:002006-04-03T09:13:00.000-04:00Oh well, looks like I ruined a perfectly good cage...Oh well, looks like I ruined a perfectly good cage match-in-the-making.<BR/><BR/>Sorry.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492265703592804987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18829500.post-1143696249646010722006-03-30T00:24:00.000-05:002006-03-30T00:24:00.000-05:00Religion has always been a difficult area for me. ...Religion has always been a difficult area for me. My parents raised me as some sort of Christian, though my grandmother was the only one taking me to church. I think after the first few visits, I stopped listening, because I felt I'd gotten the important parts of the religion. I felt you were supposed to try and help people, to be accepting of others, and if you couldn't do either, then at least don't antagonize them.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, by high school, I'd fallen into the "Religion is Stupid" Realm, and ridiculed it frequently. This included a 90 minute "discussion" of religion with my friend Jesse. I put discussion in quotes because he remained calm, and actually discussed. I tried to bait him, and generally made an idiot out of myself. Fortunately, he applied some of those Christian principles and forgave me. Even continued to help me with calculus.<BR/><BR/>As of now, I guess Calvin the graduate biology student is agnostic. I don't know whether any sort of higher power exists. I certainly can't explain how the universe was formed, or how exactly life began on Earth. I know that I'd prefer for there not to be a Guiding Hand, because once you accept that idea, where does one draw the line on that Greater Power's influence? I'm sure a better person would say "The Greater Power created the universe for us to live in it. HOW we live in it is up to us." Still, I have this sneaking suspicion I'd start trying to blame failure in my life on that power, like me wrecking my car was destined to occur. I doubt I'd believe it, but I might still try to say it. At the very least, I make it a point not to belittle others faiths now, to an extent. Occasionally, I see someone on TV, saying something that seems so monumentally stupid to me, I just have to poke fun at it. And I have a difficult time being tolerant of people who aren't tolerant of others. <BR/><BR/>My feeling on religion, or belief systems in general, is that as long as you aren't doing harm to others -primarily physical, but I'd include trying to ruin people's self-esteem, like I guess I was with my friend Jesse - then I'm fine with it. If being Baptist, or Orthodox Jew, or whatever helps you live a life where you help people, then more power to you. So really, a politician's religious beliefs are pretty irrelevant to me. The important thing is how they plan to use the power of their position to make the world, or at least the area they represent, a better place.CalvinPitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11815632086057048846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18829500.post-1143386709996625132006-03-26T10:25:00.000-05:002006-03-26T10:25:00.000-05:00If something intelligent set this whole ball of wa...If something intelligent set this whole ball of wax into motion, I've yet to see proof.<BR/><BR/>Therefore I definitely stand up and say "I don't know."<BR/><BR/>But I'm still fascinated by creation myths, and that so many cultures' myths use common symbolism: the serpent, the tree of life, paradise...but then it could also be like a global game of telephone. Since we all climbed from the same ooze and went our separate ways, it could have developed out of out of our common need to explain the unexplained, like you alluded to, Highlander. Or developed out of the common roots, like languages, accents, cultural norms, etc.<BR/><BR/>What really made me bitter is that all my neighbors wanted the bunch of us to join the Moose lodge so we could get together at this cool club on the river and drink cheap beer on a Friday night, but according to the rules, you had to believe in order to be a member. And I'd never sell myself out for cheap beer.Laurie Borishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361627047571650547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18829500.post-1143343250680348342006-03-25T22:20:00.000-05:002006-03-25T22:20:00.000-05:00SWEET LITTLE OLD LADY IN THE STANDS: "Give him th...SWEET LITTLE OLD LADY IN THE STANDS: "Give him the chair!! Give him the Chair!!"<BR/><BR/>"Say, anybody got a Buddhist we can lower in on a wire?"<BR/><BR/>Priceless. Why aren't you on Jay Leno's or David Letterman's writing staff again?<BR/><BR/>A cage match? That's not what I was looking for, and I hope Mike doesn't take what I said as some sort of insult or challenge. I meant it in an at the very least respectful, if not actualy complimentary (And I was going for complimentary!) way.<BR/><BR/>He himself admits he has a different definition of atheist than the typical one. I just happen to believe that his alternate definition fits agnostic rather nicely. Hardly fightin' woids.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18829500.post-1143322567565006412006-03-25T16:36:00.000-05:002006-03-25T16:36:00.000-05:00Fucko, what a cage match! The Hardcore Atheist in...Fucko, what a cage match! The Hardcore Atheist in this corner, the Devout Fundamentalist in that one! Step right up, plonk down your cash, get your tickets, lay your bets!<BR/><BR/>Say, anybody got a Buddhist we can lower in on a wire?<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, I said all I wanted to say in the entry. But I want a good, clean fight, and no baseball bats, guys.Doc Nebulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13052810933464744998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18829500.post-1143321175101918832006-03-25T16:12:00.000-05:002006-03-25T16:12:00.000-05:00Dangerous waters we brave, for friends and acquain...Dangerous waters we brave, for friends and acquaintances...<BR/><BR/>I have to say that I do respect anyone courageous enough to say 'I don't know.' Admitting where we fall short is the beginning of wisdom, and therefore acknowledged agnostics will always have my respect and understanding.<BR/><BR/>Most atheists (and I am aware that I just declared a generalization, so I do so accepting and understanding that it will not apply to everyone in the category of atheist) base their beliefs about the universe on lines of reasoning very similar if not identical to "...empirically and rationally I am viewing the universe and have the operating presumption that there is no Supreme Being/Creator." What they, but obviously not Mike, fail to realise is that they <B>are</B> <I>presuming</I>. Mike realises that he has "no definitive proof either way", and that that makes his assumptions about the universe nothing more than assumptions. That's pretty much the definition of agnostic: 'I don't know.'<BR/><BR/>Mike is an agnostic, a really good one too. It's just that the terms have been so muddied by use by people with poor understanding of them that wrong connotations have been associated with them, that agnostic has been confused with organized faith, and atheist has been confused with total lack of faith. 'Atheist' is incorrectly viewed as 'without faith', rather than as 'faith in the non-existence of a god or gods'.<BR/><BR/>Me, I go the other way. I'm a Christian by belief. When I was a child, I would have proudly identified myself as a Jehovah's Witness. Today, I just view myself as a fundamentalist Christian, not in the erroneous connotation of fundamentalist as a raving fanatic, but rather as one who views organized religion as a corrupt human institution and believes that only in personal study and contemplation can a rapport with Jehovah be established through His Son's intervention.<BR/><BR/>I can completely understand why perfectly sane and rational people can reject something I regard as an obvious truth. So much is being done, and has been done, in the last two millennia of history to discredit Christ's teachings. The most visible self-proclaimed proponents of his teachings are visibly corrupt and wicked. Many charlatans openly prey upon the gullible in his and his Father's names. Corrupt religious leaders have whipped (and do whip) their followers into frenzies against others with bloody results.<BR/><BR/>But the one thing that people who base their dismissal of Christianity upon these things are neglecting, is that every one of these acts is completely against the teachings of the Bible, and that therefore those practicing these things, are not Christians. The Bible states that wolves will come amongst the fold and do great harm, that those 'appearing as angels of light' will poison the waters of life, turning them to Wormwood. But it also says that even as a fine tree produces fine fruit, and will be kept by the gardener, a rotten tree produces rotten fruit, and will be cut down and cast upon the fire. Much like the natural processes that He set into being which have self-correcting measures, Christianity has an immune system too. Anyone with enough faith in God to follow it will see that corrupt religious leaders should not be followed, and abandon them. Those too weak to walk alone in righteousness will follow them to destruction. (Mind you, I'm not of the belief that I'm leading anyone anywhere. I got problems of my own...)<BR/><BR/>As far as religious intrusion into secular matters goes, well, I'll let Jesus sum up my opinion of that:<BR/><BR/>"My kingdom is no part of this earth."<BR/><BR/>Christians aren't supposed to involve themselves in the politics of this world. I don't think, therefore, that a profession of Christian faith by any putative political candidate should be viewed as anything but a reason to handle his section of the ballot with tongs and gloves. A 'Chistian politician' is a walking contradiction.<BR/><BR/>...and that's all I have to say about that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18829500.post-1143310558009955922006-03-25T13:15:00.000-05:002006-03-25T13:15:00.000-05:00We've had the discussion about atheism before, so ...We've had the discussion about atheism before, so we know we have different definitions for it. In the instances where I might call myself an atheist I am perfectly willing to admit that I have no definitive proof either way, but that empirically and rationally I am viewing the universe and have the operating presumption that there is no Supreme Being/Creator. When I apply "atheist" to myself I am simply saying I am without God; I see the concept of God as at best a philosophical placeholder. In all the years of discussions with people I have yet to conceive of a situation that would give me reason to change my mind on this view of the universe.<BR/><BR/> Looking over the official atheism site you linked I see that she did (in the 1962 speech by O'Hair) chose some unfortunate language that could be interpeted as pigheaded:<BR/><BR/><I>"We need to know upon what we base ourselves. Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists. But there are those who deny this, who assert that only mind or idea or spirit is primary. This question of the relation of the human mind to material being is one of the fundamental questions dealt with by all philosophers, however satisfactorily."</I><BR/><BR/> Reading beyond that point, though, and then rolling back for a second look, we see that this can also easily and directly be interpreted as the statement that there is no <I>supernatural</I> because <B>all</B> phenomena are <I>natural</I>. We may not yet know mechanisms, but they're there to be discovered and mastered. This is the central, sole article of faith present in science.<BR/><BR/> This leaves us with an expandable envelope of "materialism" which can grow to encompass what currently seems immaterial. If one accepts this interpretation, then I could call myself an atheist. I'd simply never capitalize it unless it was the first word in a sentence, and no one had better expect me to put something in the collection plate.<BR/><BR/> Issues of origins of the matter and energy in the universe and the beginnings of life are huge ones we're not going to have definitive answers for.<BR/><BR/> My perspective remains that were I to say this requires a Creator it would be the equivalent of saying "I give up," in which case I may as well start believing that one or more of the top magicians in the world really <I>do</I> have supernatural powers since I can't explain how they accomplish some of what they do. That's my choice, and it's one that leaves a big Unknown in place -- but I'm comfortable with that. If there's a Creator behind this he's no Supreme Being, which still leaves open the question of where <I>our</I> creator came from. I don't have a reason to go down the path of floating the Earth in a water-filled basin resting on the back of a turtle swimming in a sea residing in a huge, golden chalice... Something, ultimately, <B>has</B> to exist and function simply because it exists and functions. <BR/><BR/> Mechanisms of self-organization in the nature of living chemistry are one of the many things science is in the pursuit of understanding. The derisive use of the word "random" is solely that, intended to deride. It's not an infinite number of monkeys pounding away at an infinite number of typewriters. Those are better seen as word processors, because the universe is composed of things with distinct properties; some things fit together, some don't. Some better than others. It's a natural, self-correcting grammar, and it works because it works.<BR/><BR/> Some sit in wonder of how the proportions of elements on Earth, distance from and properties of Sol, etc. are so vital to life being here and see the hand of God. Some of us look at it from the other end and note that where such things <I>didn't</I> come together in the universe there's no one to sit in wonder of why it didn't work there.<BR/><BR/> Issues of "greater meaning" are largely irrelevant to me, as I don't see where it's going to make a difference. I do appreciate you're putting it in those terms rather than simply leaving it at Meaning, the way many do, as a universal absolute. Either way, though, even if there is some higher power's design we're a part of, I have no interest in the work of art He wishes me to be a pixel in. If we're part of a vast, sentient universe, then like a tiny cell in a vast body that suddenly, somehow gained self awareness, I am interested in my own wellbeing, not in sacrificing myself for the benefit of some larger body. I don't care about the wellbeing of the body beyond what affects me. The interests of the body are not mine. I suppose that makes me cancer.<BR/><BR/> Meaning is our own decision. Our own creation. The issue of Meaning brings us back to the issue of God, and, like God, Meaning is a matter of human comfort. God is a creation of man (and probably other sentient life somewhere in the universe) because God validates our existence (Meaning) and gives those who Have something to invoke to keep those who Have Not in line. Ultimately, man would create God as an act of self-aggrandizement. To give himself Meaning.<BR/><BR/> All such decisions are for each of us to make, likely several times over and often with different results over the course of a lifetime. The debates concerning them are with few exceptions, at best, recreational. At their worst they lead to harm. My appetites for them are small and infrequent these days, so especially since this is your blog I won't be returning to the issue in this thread. I've had my say.<BR/><BR/> Certainly, with respect to the more specific issue you've raised concerning a distaste for the <I>de facto</I> links between government and religion in this country, that's something we're both bothered by.Mike Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13025995292338904959noreply@blogger.com