Droppings of joy, courtesy of Bush Administration

[Guest]

Lemme rephrase that. I don't listen to anyone who says there isn't a God. I don't trust anyone who claims to speak for God. There we go.

So you're saying you believe there is a God, but don't trust anyone who claims to know what such a god says.

This would, of course, lead to the following questions:

1. How do you know there is a God if anything people say about or attribute to said god is questionable?

2. Do you believe that you yourself can know what said God is saying?

 

[WARMACH1NE]

So you're saying you believe there is a God, but don't trust anyone who claims to know what such a god says.

This would, of course, lead to the following questions:

1. How do you know there is a God if anything people say about or attribute to said god is questionable?

2. Do you believe that you yourself can know what said God is saying?

1) knowledge of God has been something humans have had since we came down from trees. You'll find that everywhere. The omnipresence of theism goes way beyond the explanations of psychology, etc.

2) If I did know what God was saying to me, I would invariably filter it to suit my own agenda (even guilt). I've seen that train wreck enough times to know I shouldn't go there. It's possible to have some idea of what God's saying, faintly so, but only what God's saying to you. Consider a 2nd gen copy of a tape, and the degradation in quality that ensues... now apply that to you preaching to someone else what you think God has said to them... my point on that is, when God speaks, God speaks to each person and it's kinda foolish to try and "relay". This is all just my opinion of course.

 

[Blindinthedark]

1) knowledge of God has been something humans have had since we came down from trees. You'll find that everywhere. The omnipresence of theism goes way beyond the explanations of psychology, etc.

2) If I did know what God was saying to me, I would invariably filter it to suit my own agenda (even guilt). I've seen that train wreck enough times to know I shouldn't go there. It's possible to have some idea of what God's saying, faintly so, but only what God's saying to you. Consider a 2nd gen copy of a tape, and the degradation in quality that ensues... now apply that to you preaching to someone else what you think God has said to them... my point on that is, when God speaks, God speaks to each person and it's kinda foolish to try and "relay". This is all just my opinion of course.

I agree with you on point 2.

For point 1 I'd say that God and Religion is a Human Construct. People came up with the idea of God with no real proof of the existance of God. If we could prove that there is one God or one pantheon of Gods we wouldn't have the religous wars we still have today. Just because a person doesn't believe in the same God or in God at all, does not mean that this person isn't as smart, as trustworthy or as believible as someone of a similar religious faith as your own.

 

[Guest]

1) knowledge of God has been something humans have had since we came down from trees. You'll find that everywhere. The omnipresence of theism goes way beyond the explanations of psychology, etc.

Interesting assertion. If you had written that in a term paper and I were grading it, I would probably write a comment such as, "Broad generalization. You have no way to know or prove that all people everywhere, since the time of ancestral humans onward, have always believed in a god or gods." Then I would have added, "You must be prepared to explain and back up your statement regarding the omnipresence of theism."

I can add here that we have no way of knowing when our ancestors first began believing in the supernatural. We can only know about that from archaeological evidence that we find which would suggest such a thing.

Also, you are beginning your argument based on the belief that there IS a supernatural power that exists. But you don't say how you (or anyone else) knows that.

You cannot state that an explanation for theism goes beyond psychology. IN fact, I would argue that it is VERY important to consider psychology when discussing this matter. First, you're assuming that a god or gods exist just because people believe in them. This may not necessarily be so. People could believe in such things and they may not exist. For example, many people believe in the chupacabra, but that doesn't mean it exists. Second, the question would be, WHY do people believe in the existence of a god or gods? And that is where psychology and cross cultural analysis become very important in terms of your assertion.

2) If I did know what God was saying to me, I would invariably filter it to suit my own agenda (even guilt). I've seen that train wreck enough times to know I shouldn't go there. It's possible to have some idea of what God's saying, faintly so, but only what God's saying to you. Consider a 2nd gen copy of a tape, and the degradation in quality that ensues... now apply that to you preaching to someone else what you think God has said to them... my point on that is, when God speaks, God speaks to each person and it's kinda foolish to try and "relay". This is all just my opinion of course.

How do you know that God speaks differently to each person if you don't know what he/she/it really says to anyone else? All you would know about what he/she/it says to others is what they tell you God said. And since you don't believe what anyone says when they make claims to be telling you what God told them, then you have know way of knowing whether God speaks to them at all, or if he does, whether he does so in a different way for everyone.

If you did have a vague idea of what God says to you, but filter it to fit your own agenda, why shoudl God bother to speak to you (or anyone else) at all? How can you know that he/she/it is speaking to you at all?

Do you kind of see where I'm going with this line of questioning? What I'm trying to show you is that a belief in a god or gods is a belief--not a fact. Beliefs and facts are two very different things. One can believe something but it doesn't mean that it is true. It COULD be true, but simply believing it does not make it true. Now, having said this does not (in my opinion) diminish the importance of beliefs. Just because beliefs are not facts doesn't make them any less important for people, nor should it. Beliefs serve many purposes to those who hold them. Some of those purposes may be constructive, others destructive. But that is another matter.

So, you believe in a god, and that is important to you. But that doesn't mean, necessarily, that that god exists, or that it exists in the way in which you think it exists, etc.

Don't get irritated (I'm sure by now you prob. want to smack me). I'm just giving you an exercise in the difference between belief and fact, and how to make and support assertions.

 

[Oscuridad]

Very well written. It's clear to me (as it is to you, I'm sure, and others) that all of this is the result of one section of society feeling they are entitled to do whatever they want to get whatever they want. They will use whatever justification seems most convenient to them to do it, and it happens that Christianity, or "doing what's best for the American people" are popular that way. Of course, they wouldn't be so popular if such excuses were no longer accepted by the populace. So, that is where we need to work... convince the populace that these dumbasses are saying one thing and doing the opposite, and that their actions are for their own benefit and they don't give a shit about the rest of us.

Shall the populace ever see the light? Or is it doomed only to see the shadows that are cast by the dim glow of the plastic Jesus nighlight in corner of the dark bedroom of America?

What I find impressive is how they pursue massively liberal policies and somehow manage to remain seen as the protectors of conservativism.

 

[Oscuridad]

Lemme rephrase that. I don't listen to anyone who says there isn't a God. I don't trust anyone who claims to speak for God. There we go.

I don't listen to people who cannot contemplate the possibility that they could at some point be wrong.

Was that what you meant?

 

[Guest]

What I find impressive is how they pursue massively liberal policies and somehow manage to remain seen as the protectors of conservativism.

??? I think I missed something here. You think the policies they pursue are liberal? Hm....

 

[Oscuridad]

For point 1 I'd say that God and Religion is a Human Construct. People came up with the idea of God with no real proof of the existance of God. If we could prove that there is one God or one pantheon of Gods we wouldn't have the religous wars we still have today. Just because a person doesn't believe in the same God or in God at all, does not mean that this person isn't as smart, as trustworthy or as believible as someone of a similar religious faith as your own.

Hear hear.

 

[Oscuridad]

??? I think I missed something here. You think the policies they pursue are liberal? Hm....

In the range of comfort with change (social, political or economic) a range has been expressed as:

Reactionary - Conservative - Moderate - Liberal - Radical

While playing conservative, this administration had pursued change that to my mind borders on radical but is most certainly liberal.

Having said that here's what Websters says about "liberal":

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
- lib·er·al·ly /-b(&-)r&-lE/ adverb
- lib·er·al·ness noun
synonyms LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. LIBERAL suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given <a teacher liberal with her praise>. GENEROUS stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift <a generous offer of help>. BOUNTIFUL suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing <children spoiled by bountiful presents>. MUNIFICENT suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes <a munificent foundation grant>.

And with what Websters says, I don't see why more poeple don't embrace it.

 

[WARMACH1NE]

For example, many people believe in the chupacabra, but that doesn't mean it exists.

Oh yeah it does. How else do you think Neo Cons are made?

As far as God is concerned, I don't think you can ever prove God. But you can't disprove providence either. I'm sure you can find some psychological basis for religion and some examples where some humans came down from trees not believing in God, though. But why are we the only species that seems to allude to a higher being? BTW if you wanna talk about proofs, atheism - no offense to atheists intended - assumes what cannot be proven scientifically: the belief that there is no God...

 

[Oscuridad]

BTW if you wanna talk about proofs, atheism - no offense to atheists intended - assumes what cannot be proven scientifically: the belief that there is no God...

Equally with no offense...

The belief that there is a god cannot be scientifically proven either, and is also an assumption in lieu of evidence.

Neither is scientific because they cannot be disproven.

Therefore any "scientific" explanations of theology of any stripe including absence thereof is false science.

 

[dracorix]

In the range of comfort with change (social, political or economic) a range has been expressed as:

Reactionary - Conservative - Moderate - Liberal - Radical

While playing conservative, this administration had pursued change that to my mind borders on radical but is most certainly liberal.

Having said that here's what Websters says about "liberal":

<snip>

And with what Websters says, I don't see why more poeple don't embrace it.

I agree with your last statement. MOST people, I think, DO embrace its ideas, but the far right has twisted the word itself to mean something it doesn't. Those who see themselves as liberal need to wrench control of the language and the terms of social debate away from the right-wingers.

That said, I think a more accurate spectrum is:
Anarchist -- Democratic -- Authoritarian.

Here, their goals are very clearly on the authoritarian end, and their assertion of some kind of divine interest & authority only makes it worse b/c such authority is by definition not accountable to the governed. By saying this, I am NOT saying anything about the EXISTENCE of god(s), just that basing political power on god(s) enables the rulers to do almost anything and justify it AFTER the fact.

As others have mentioned, the existence of god(s) is irrelevant to the existence of religion(s). The latter, I think, came into being as a way of maintaining community unity using shared rituals that largely honored the group's ancestors. You cannot force people to BELIEVE in the efficacy of some ritual, but the fact that they're shared experiences has the function of binding people together. Today, we are seeing that unifying ability gravely misused by people whose goal is simply self-promotion for financial/political power.

There has been some work done on the idea of a biological tendency toward "religious" experiences; for example, read Why God Won't Go Away by Newberg & d'Aquili. But these experiences (trances, etc) are NOT religious in and of themselves; they exist simply due to the way the brain works, a trait that religions take advantage of. Repetition of short phrases, for example, is an easy way to spark a trance state... it's also one of the easiest ways to impress a new idea upon people, for good or ill.

Owera wrote:

We can only know about that from archaeological evidence that we find which would suggest such a thing.

I agree. Archeologist Stuart Piggott once wrote something very relevant about this: "We have the the Druids-in-themselves, whom we can never reach, but for whom we have literary and archeological evidence from which we can infer the Druids-as-known. There has also been a process of manufacturing the Druids-as-wished-for going on since classical times."

That statement applies to ALL religions, especially those born so long ago that the evidence is open to interpretation, as is the case with Christianity, Judaism, etc.

 

[Oscuridad]

I agree with your last statement. MOST people, I think, DO embrace its ideas, but the far right has twisted the word itself to mean something it doesn't. Those who see themselves as liberal need to wrench control of the language and the terms of social debate away from the right-wingers.

That said, I think a more accurate spectrum is:
Anarchist -- Democratic -- Authoritarian.

Here, their goals are very clearly on the authoritarian end, and their assertion of some kind of divine interest & authority only makes it worse b/c such authority is by definition not accountable to the governed. By saying this, I am NOT saying anything about the EXISTENCE of god(s), just that basing political power on god(s) enables the rulers to do almost anything and justify it AFTER the fact.

As others have mentioned, the existence of god(s) is irrelevant to the existence of religion(s). The latter, I think, came into being as a way of maintaining community unity using shared rituals that largely honored the group's ancestors. You cannot force people to BELIEVE in the efficacy of some ritual, but the fact that they're shared experiences has the function of binding people together. Today, we are seeing that unifying ability gravely misused by people whose goal is simply self-promotion for financial/political power.

There has been some work done on the idea of a biological tendency toward "religious" experiences; for example, read Why God Won't Go Away by Newberg & d'Aquili. But these experiences (trances, etc) are NOT religious in and of themselves; they exist simply due to the way the brain works, a trait that religions take advantage of. Repetition of short phrases, for example, is an easy way to spark a trance state... it's also one of the easiest ways to impress a new idea upon people, for good or ill.

Owera wrote:


I agree. Archeologist Stuart Piggott once wrote something very relevant about this: "We have the the Druids-in-themselves, whom we can never reach, but for whom we have literary and archeological evidence from which we can infer the Druids-as-known. There has also been a process of manufacturing the Druids-as-wished-for going on since classical times."

That statement applies to ALL religions, especially those born so long ago that the evidence is open to interpretation, as is the case with Christianity, Judaism, etc.

I agree with your spectrum as it's more useful and as yet untainted.

But I have little hope that it could survive a barrage of talking points labelling it as "liberal propoganda".

Oh the irony.

 

[WARMACH1NE]

Equally with no offense...

The belief that there is a god cannot be scientifically proven either, and is also an assumption in lieu of evidence.

Neither is scientific because they cannot be disproven.

Therefore any "scientific" explanations of theology of any stripe including absence thereof is false science.

Very true. And religious people don't usually base their beliefs on science.

 

[Oscuridad]

Very true. And religious people don't usually base their beliefs on science.

Which makes the the whole "Creation Science" buiscut very very interesting.

But I digress.

 

[Guest]

what do you think about this?

Nonstop Scrutiny, as Orwell Foresaw

 

[Oscuridad]

Oh lovely.

 

[Guest]

Oh lovely.

I'm sure the best is yet to come *cringe*

Edited to add:
And if you check the news archives for a few months ago when Rummy went to Quito and started talking about how the U.S. has plans for dispensing with police by posting MILITARY to do the same things policemen do in the U.S., well... I hope he was talking out his ass.

 

[Oscuridad]

I'm sure the best is yet to come *cringe*

Edited to add:
And if you check the news archives for a few months ago when Rummy went to Quito and started talking about how the U.S. has plans for dispensing with police by posting MILITARY to do the same things policemen do in the U.S., well... I hope he was talking out his ass.

Rummy?

Isn't he always?

But sadly this doesn't mean he isn't serious.

 

[Guest]

Rummy?

Isn't he always?

But sadly this doesn't mean he isn't serious.

Yeah. You know the guy is serious when he goes to a meeting of Latin American countries who have only recently de-militarized themselves and tells them they should re-militarize, because that's what the U.S. is going to do. Damned asshole. And I love how something as major as that was barely mentioned in the U.S. news. You'd think it would be front page stuff, but nope. I didn't found out about it until I was reading Mexico's news online

 

[Guest]

Things to think about

Obviously these things didn't start with the shrub dynasty, but I do think he's made a lot of this worse, and hasn't been trying to make any of it better. But hey... who cares about all this stuff when there are wars to make?

• The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (The New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).

• The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

• One-third of our science teachers and one-half of our math teachers did not major in those subjects. (Quoted on The West Wing, but you can trust it – their researchers are legendary.)

• Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the Earth. Seventeen percent believe the Earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).

• "The International Adult Literacy Survey ... found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).

• Our workers are so ignorant, and lack so many basic skills, that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate elsewhere!

• "The European Union leads the U.S. in ... the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70).

• "Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70).

• Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004).

• Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28% last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56%, Indians 51%, South Koreans 28% (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore.

• The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in
terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was] ... 37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. [color+blue]"The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots
less.

• "The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80).[/color]

• Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American
deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.)
(NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)

• "U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's
the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.

• Twelve million American families – more than 10% of all U.S. households – "continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).

• The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).

• Women are 70% more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).

• The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is
murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004).

• "Of the 20 most developed countries in the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total compensation to its work-force in the 1980s. ... In the 1990s, the U.S. average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate of about 0.1%" (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time.

• "Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500
rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S. companies" (The European
Dream, p.66). "In a recent survey of the world's 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one was European" (The European Dream, p.69).

• "Fourteen of the 20 largest commercial banks in the world today are European. ... In the chemical industry, the European company BASF is
the world's leader, and three of the top six players are European. In engineering and construction, three of the top five companies are European. ... The two others are Japanese. Not a single American engineering and construction company is included among the world's top nine competitors. In food and consumer products, Nestlé and Unilever, two European giants, rank first and second, respectively, in the world. In the food and drugstore retail trade, two European companies ... are first and second, and European companies make up five of the top 10.
Only four U.S. companies are on the list" (The European Dream, p.68).

• The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005).

• U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005).

• Three million six hundred thousand Americans ran out of unemployment
insurance last year; 1.8 million – one in five – unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT, Jan. 9, 2005).

• Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40% of our government
debt. "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.

• Sometime in the next 10 years Brazil will probably pass the U.S. as the world's largest agricultural producer. Brazil is now the world's largest exporter of chickens, orange juice, sugar, coffee, and tobacco.
Last year, Brazil passed the U.S. as the world's largest beef producer. As a result, while we bear record trade deficits, Brazil boasts a $30 billion trade surplus (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

• As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

• Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible
voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.

• One-third of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004).

• "Americans are now spending more money on gambling than on movies,
videos, DVDs, music, and books combined" (The European Dream, p.28).

• "Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).

• Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004).

• "Nearly 900,000 children were abused or neglected in 2002, the last year for which such data are available" (USA Today, Dec. 21, 2004).

• "The International Association of Chiefs of Police said that cuts... in federal aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than ever" (USA Today, Nov. 17, 2004).

 

[Oscuridad]

Yeah. You know the guy is serious when he goes to a meeting of Latin American countries who have only recently de-militarized themselves and tells them they should re-militarize, because that's what the U.S. is going to do. Damned asshole. And I love how something as major as that was barely mentioned in the U.S. news. You'd think it would be front page stuff, but nope. I didn't found out about it until I was reading Mexico's news online

So...so...wrong.

This is why I like NPR.

 

[Guest]

So...so...wrong.

This is why I like NPR.

Even NPR has its short comings of late.

I like being able to read other countries' news on the web. I think that's the best way to get information on what's happening in the U.S.

 

[Oscuridad]

I love lists like that.

...

Now where is my hair shirt?
I want to suffer more.

 

[Oscuridad]

Even NPR has its short comings of late.

I like being able to read other countries' news on the web. I think that's the best way to get information on what's happening in the U.S.

I have a couple of freinds in european places. A good conversation is sometimes just as good as a foriegn paper.