If I were God, I'd squash this man like a bug.

[shereads]

"God doesn't follow the linear projections of computer models," Bush told reporters here outside the emergency management center, whose roof caved in during the hurricane. "This is God's way of telling us that he's almighty and we're mortal."

15 people died in this storm. Is it any wonder so many people think of God as a miserable old bastard, when his biggest fans credit him with killing people to prove a point?

 

[minsue]

beyond words

 

[Lisa Denton]

At first I thought it said the roof caved in during his speech, oh well.

 

[amicus]

I, for one, would like to 'squash like a bug' each and every religion that has infested this good earth since man looked up and blinked.

Your hatred of Bush and all things Republican notwithstanding; it might be more productive to wonder why the obscene belief in a supreme power still exists in the 21st Century.

The billions of people who bow and sing to an immortal omniscient being never ceases to amaze.

Perhaps one should ask 'why' they continue to do so and in doing, perhaps better understand the nature of the faceless abomination called 'faith'.

Amicus...(feeling lucky to have survived two hurricanes just days apart)

 

[BlackSnake]

I, for one, would like to 'squash like a bug' each and every religion that has infested this good earth since man looked up and blinked.

Your hatred of Bush and all things Republican notwithstanding; it might be more productive to wonder why the obscene belief in a supreme power still exists in the 21st Century.

The billions of people who bow and sing to an immortal omniscient being never ceases to amaze.

Perhaps one should ask 'why' they continue to do so and in doing, perhaps better understand the nature of the faceless abomination called 'faith'.

Amicus...(feeling lucky to have survived two hurricanes just days apart)

It might be that man invented god because he is afread of death.

 

[shereads]

I should have mentioned that this is a quote from brother Jeb, not Dubya.

("The real danger is from Osama's smarter brother, Jeb Bin Laden." ~ David Letterman.}

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well, I don't believe that Jeb was talking about the death of those people--rather, the unpredictable nature of disasters. In that, he may not have considered how some people would take his statement, but its not an evil or wrongful thing to have said it. No moreso than someone saying that WW1 was the world reaping what it had sown (referring to the political climate prior to the outbreak of war) in the face of thousands of men dying during it. Crossing referents seems a bit unfair to speakers.

addendum: In support of this point, Mhari in the Hurrican Support Thread said "Hurricanes are odd creatures. It seems as though very few ever do what they're supposed to do. I think they're nature's way of playing tricks on us silly humans." Should we sneer the insensitivity derived by crossing their referent? Ought I give earth-based spirituality a jab by saying "This is why mother earth should be put down like a bitch" in response? Just a thought.
end addendum

Beyond that, as philosophy of religion is my subject, I can say that there is a lot going on with religion--too much for me to dismiss it as an across-the-board horror... and it is neither necessarily a mass delusion, nor necessarily a particular interpretation. Its neither necessarily bad (for all the good it truly has done), nor necessarily perfect.

I think it... unfair, at the least, and aggressively ignorant, at the worst, to blanketedly dismiss religion as some sort of disease of the human condition. What historian, sociologist, poiltical scientist, philosopher, or scholar that exists in good standing with the peer reviewed world can deny its value is beyond me.

 

[minsue]

Beyond that, as philosophy of religion is my subject, I can say that there is a lot going on with it... and it is neither necessarily a mass delusion, nor necessarily a particular interpretation. Its neither necessarily bad (for all the good it truly has done), nor necessarily perfect.

I think it... unfair, at the least, and aggressively ignorant, at the worst, to blanketedly dismiss religion as some sort of disease of the human condition. What historian, sociologist, poiltical scientist, philosopher, or scholar that exists in good standing with the peer reviewed world can deny its importance is beyond me.

I know I will regret this, it goes against every fiber of my being to agree with amicus about anything, but I must agree with him on the concept of religion. I would have put it a bit more tactfully, but the sentiment is the same.

I do not, however, deny religion's importance in the world. IMnsHO, more people have died in the ever-present argument of "My god's better than your god" than any other issue. It's extraordinarily important, but that doesn't make it frighteningly irrational and, quite frankly, completely beyond my ken.

Edited to add my apologies to Sher for perpetuating the threadjack.

 

[shereads]

I didn't post Jeb's quote as a slam against God(s) but to point out that if he does exist, he needs better public relations people. There's all the difference in the world between saying, "nature is unpredictable" and "God did this to show us his power," or words to that effect.

There's no greatness in demonstrating your power. But the Jeb Bushes and Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world apparently believe that there is. Falwell once said that AIDS was God's way of punishing homosexuals; Pat Robertson prayed to God to spare Virginia from a hurricane a few years ago, and preened when it hit another state instead.

They bring God down to their own level: vindictive, jealous, petty.

If God has to be given a human persona, I'd prefer Atticus Finch to the Rambo model.

 

[minsue]

If god were Atticus Finch, I'd try to believe.

Agree with you completely, BTW. Generally a safe bet.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by minsue
IMnsHO, more people have died in the ever-present argument of "My god's better than your god" than any other issue. It's extraordinarily important, but that doesn't make it frighteningly irrational and, quite frankly, completely beyond my ken.

I can not, in either good knowledge nor good faith, support that notion. Several reasons prevent me, all of them sound in their rationality:

First, I do not know that the highly popularized assertion that "more people have died because of religion than any other reason" is true. Take that and break it down to known facts and probabilities. For instance, take something small... in modern warfare (the last few hundred years), we have pulled together larger scale wars with more people (and more dying) than previously in history. Nuclear bombs, guns, chemical warfare, etc.

A military historian friend of mine told me, once, that in all records of warfare that we have that more people have died in the last few hundred years than in the last few thousand. Mostly due to techonology and guns becoming big, nations becoming wealthy enough to afford standing armies, and transportation throwing conflict faster.

I don't know anyone who would say that WW2 was a religious war. Or WW1. Or the Revolution. Or Viet Nam. Or the Korean War. Or any number of examples of this acceleratedly hgh casualty rate of modern warefare being because "my God is better than your God".

Second, I would have to have direct knowledge of all people who have died to make a statement like that. I do not have that sort of knowledge, so my saying it would be propoganda and false.

Third, I believe it a more reasonable probability that disease and human frailty has caused more deaths than religion. Looking at mortality rates, historically, relatively few deaths came about on average from religious warfare.

As a side note, I have yet to--in my entire professional career (which hasn't been too long, I admit) with philosophy of religion and religious studies--find one person who has been able to support this seemingly endless list of anti-religious cliche's with anything more than more anti-religious cliche's (or occasional secondary or tertiary sources). That's not to say it can't happen, only that it hasn't yet for me.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
There's all the difference in the world between saying, "nature is unpredictable" and "God did this to show us his power," or words to that effect.

There may or may not be. I can see how it is possible that they're in the same category of statement, given that we take it to mean "God did this to show his power over prediction". Even so, there's not necessarily that much of a difference between "nature may be playing pranks on humanity" and "God may be showing His ability to defy prediction".

Both can have "15 people being killed" inserted into their composition, to make a more hurtful or less noble proposition--but my point is, that wasn't there, it would not be prudent to insert it because we took it a different way.

I cannot speak intelligently about Falwell or Robertson, at the moment. That's all I have to say about that, I guess.

But as for greatness:

greatness
3 : remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness

A sufficient display of power can be, by definition, a greatness--as a sufficient display of power can be "remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness".

 

[Guest]

I am always offended -

when I have to listen to those pompous windbags who claim to know the mind of God. You know, those blowhards who have decided which part of the Bible (and which edition) is the most accurate and relevant for our time.

I doubt God gives a rat's ass about Jeb Bush or Pat Roberts. And shereads is quite right, God certainly doesn't need them as press agents. (In fact, they probably spoil the message for many.)

Religious zealots have used their opinions forever to control women; today's evangelists use them to make money.

Whatever religion you are, whatever you may believe, even if you have difficulty with the concept of a one true God-like being, why is it these certain arrogant humans believe only they are privy to the secret thoughts of God?

I always thought pride was a sin.



But if God is listening, a well-placed lightning bolt could do wonders right about now.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: I am always offended -

Originally posted by sweetsubsarahh
when I have to listen to those pompous windbags who claim to know the mind of God. You know, those blowhards who have decided which part of the Bible (and which edition) is the most accurate and relevant for our time.

Whatever religion you are, whatever you may believe, even if you have difficulty with the concept of a one true God-like being, why is it these certain arrogant humans believe only they are privy to the secret thoughts of God?

I've those sorts of things about "I know the truth" sorts of athiests, regularly as well as zealots.

 

[amicus]

Well...sighs...most of the faith based proponents be it religion, philosophy, politics or economics, seem to revel in calling 'ignorant' all those not in agreement.

And Joe Wordsworth, maybe it is time for a 'first time' for you, I hope you enjoy the defloration:

The healthy human mind works and learns in one way and one way only; namely that of 'reasoning'.

Since you are a student of philosophy, I need not explain in epistemological terms the means by which the mind perceives, focuses, classfiies, categorizes, conceptualizes and abstracts reality and thus learns.

All fairly simple stuff for a 'student' of philosophy and all pretty much standard terms with those who deal with the functions of the 'healthy' human brain/mind.



You said: "As a side note, I have yet to--in my entire professional career (which hasn't been too long, I admit) with philosophy of religion and religious studies--find one person who has been able to support this seemingly endless list of anti-religious cliche's with anything more than more anti-religious cliche's (or occasional secondary or tertiary sources). That's not to say it can't happen, only that it hasn't yet for me."



There will be no 'cliche's ' here:

I am not the first nor the only person to advocate that religion is the single most destructive force in all of human history.

The reason why? The absolute, true, axiomatic, self evident to all but the blind and deaf reason?

Religion is faith, belief...the acceptance of information without proof or fact or any connection to reality.

Now, ask yourself, what does the rational mind do when confronted with concepts that exist outside the 'rational' function of the mind? Further include that those 'faith based' concepts almost always contradict reality and the laws of nature.

Well...you set up a conflict in the mind. What is truth and what is not?

But the really obscene ingredient in religion, is the requirement that one sacrifice not only the rational faculty of thinking in order to learn, but also that one 'sacrifice' the 'ego' of independent individual existence to the uncaring whims of a of an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful supreme being.

Not only is religion the root cause of war, but it is destructive of the sanity of the mind and has held back human progress by its oppression and repression in chapter after chapter of history.

You have the audacity to question that the American Revolution, the 1st and 2nd World Wars, Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East wars were of a 'faith based nature'.

Just why do you think our founding documents insisted on 'no established religion?"

Perhaps you have not heard of the Serbians in WW1, perhaps you were never informed about the Jewish people in WW2.

Perhaps you do not equate 'faith based' state socialism, aka Nazi's and Communists as being religious in nature. That is to say a 'faith' that sacrifices the individual to a 'greater good' be it god or Karl Marx.

Yes, I am a militant atheist. With good 'reason'.

Amicus the unabashed atheistic ignoramus

 

[The Almighty]

Did someone mention my name?

 

[amicus]

Thas cute...Piss off almighty....grins...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You seem like a bright guy, amicus. I really hope this goes somewhere.

The reason why? The absolute, true, axiomatic, self evident to all but the blind and deaf reason? Religion is faith, belief...the acceptance of information without proof or fact or any connection to reality.

Religion is only the service or worship of the divine and supernatural. It is maintained, at times, by ardor and faith. It is also maintaned with reason and experience. "Religion" does not include in its definition or practice the necessary component of "information without proof or fact or any connection to reality". You mentioned some epistemology earlier, surely you can see my point here. If you are using the term "Religion" to mean "information without proof or fact or any connection to reality", then that is something brought to the concept, not an essential part of it. Sort of like how I can say that "smoking is the habit of those who ignore cancer" when "smoking" is only "the act of inhaling smoke, from tobacco or other dried plants" (loose definition). I am inventing my own concept, not using the actual one.

Now, ask yourself, what does the rational mind do when confronted with concepts that exist outside the 'rational' function of the mind? Further include that those 'faith based' concepts almost always contradict reality and the laws of nature.

First, the mind cannot grasp concepts that exist outside of reason. Concieving of impossibility can only be done formally, not essentially--like imagining the shape of a round square. It being a logical contradiction, one can only "talk about" the round square as the actual conception is an impossibility. Secondly, I cannot assert that "faith based concepts almost always contradict reality" as I haven't direct cognition of what faith based concepts are (the term is vague) and no direct knowledge of what they are "always" like. (Hell, I'm not even certain what my goldfish is "always" like, as I do not have direct catalogue of its experiences "all the time").

But the really obscene ingredient in religion, is the requirement that one sacrifice not only the rational faculty of thinking in order to learn, but also that one 'sacrifice' the 'ego' of independent individual existence to the uncaring whims of a of an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful supreme being.

Again, nothing about the definition or essence of "religion" necessitates a sacrifice of rational faculty. Where are you getting your definitions? The same goes for ego sacrificing or why "religion" has to include "all-" anything. None of those are necessary components of religion.

Not only is religion the root cause of war, but it is destructive of the sanity of the mind and has held back human progress by its oppression and repression in chapter after chapter of history.

Religion may be the root cause of war, but that is a hard assertion to prove. We would have to know the rationally sound regression of all war-causes to make that proposition with truth in mind. Similarly, it is not necessarily true that it is "destructive of sanity' or that it has "held back human progress". These are very emotive things you're saying, but they aren't rational. Its like saying "greed is the root of all war"... or "sex is the root of all war"... or "science is the torturer of art"... very emotive, but not actual premises to an argument.

You have the audacity to question that the American Revolution, the 1st and 2nd World Wars, Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East wars were of a 'faith based nature'.

I have the audacity to question anything that is not rationally proven, if that's what you mean. I cannot prove that Viet Nam was a religious war... certainly when it appears to have been a political and social one. Again, if you've evidence proving the contrary (not just conclusions without premises), I'd be delighted to hear them. I am very open, and always have been, to the notion of being proven wrong. It happens a lot dealing with my superiors in the department.

Just why do you think our founding documents insisted on 'no established religion?"

To protect the religious freedom that was denied them being under British rule (certainly the form it took under King George). I'm not sure what that proves, but you asked.

Perhaps you have not heard of the Serbians in WW1, perhaps you were never informed about the Jewish people in WW2.

I have heard of both, yes. But not even Holocaust organizations have said "the point of WW2 was the eradication of the Jews"... there was more to the war than that. Far, far more. For instance, Japan's last Imperial push or Italy's searching for renewed political strength under facism.

Perhaps you do not equate 'faith based' state socialism, aka Nazi's and Communists as being religious in nature. That is to say a 'faith' that sacrifices the individual to a 'greater good' be it god or Karl Marx.

No, I don't. As religion is strictly related to divine and supernatural metaphysics. Communism actively did away with both notions.

Yes, I am a militant atheist. With good 'reason'.

You have many conclusions, you have proposed no solid premises.

 

[GingerV]

Hmmm.....religion meets politics, a potentially volatile discussion between folks I can only presume are members of some long-standing.....definately a place any sensible newbie should stay away from.

Me, I'm rarely sensible.

BUT, I do know when to keep my nose out of things I'm not qualified to talk about. The philosophy is interesting, but not my subject. So please pardon me for thread jacking the thread jack, for a moment.

While I may be projecting a bit, my read is that Mhari was implying that we DON'T understand hurricanes and therefore can't predict them. Jeb's point was that we CAN'T understand God's will.

Mhari's world is one in which we can learn more, predict better, or at least build more substantive houses where the risk is high. Nature, here, is complex but does follow rules that could, someday, be understood. Jeb's is one where we can scamper around studying whatever we want, but that we are powerless to escape the plans of the Almighty. This time Nature is arbitrary, the rules God dictates at that minute and can change at will. There is little point studying or understanding Jeb's nature.

It's an attitude I reject on a visceral level. Belief and Knowledge don't have to be at odds, but when they are it seems an act of desperate ignorance to let belief win pre-emptorally. That, to my mind, is the problem with what the man said.

Going back to the newbie thread now....

G

 

[Guest]

You seem like a bright guy, amicus. I really hope this goes somewhere.
. . .
You have many conclusions, you have proposed no solid premises.

Aw, Joe, I have such faith in you.

Perdita

 

[amicus]

Ah, Reverend Wordsworth, I make the possible assumption that you are studying theology, I may be wrong.


You could have said, 'thank you amicus for presenting a rational basis for being anti-religious'

You could have said thank for for a brief presentation of the basis of human thought involving reason.

You could have acknowledged that since the great Diaspora when the Jewish people were driven out of Egypt, that religion and the imposition of it on other peoples has played a major part in most conflicts.

The only position you really have is to fully admit that you are totally faith based and claim that your spiritual needs are not met by reason and logic. You have a right to be religious, faith based and I do not deny that right. I just don't want you in my back yard.

Instead you took the typical morally cowardly path followed by so many.

While you reject reason and logic as a means to discover truth, you demand that I use it to disprove your ignorance of history and your inability to use reason.

Of course no amount of historical or scientific fact will sway your faith. I know that, I knew that going in.

So keep your blinders on Joe, go find some peaceful flock of faithful to fleece.

No one really cares.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

GingerV


You said, "Belief and Knowledge don't have to be at odds,..."


Yes, they do.


amicus...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by amicus
Ah, Reverend Wordsworth, I make the possible assumption that you are studying theology, I may be wrong.


You could have said, 'thank you amicus for presenting a rational basis for being anti-religious'

You could have said thank for for a brief presentation of the basis of human thought involving reason.

You could have acknowledged that since the great Diaspora when the Jewish people were driven out of Egypt, that religion and the imposition of it on other peoples has played a major part in most conflicts.

The only position you really have is to fully admit that you are totally faith based and claim that your spiritual needs are not met by reason and logic. You have a right to be religious, faith based and I do not deny that right. I just don't want you in my back yard.

Instead you took the typical morally cowardly path followed by so many.

While you reject reason and logic as a means to discover truth, you demand that I use it to disprove your ignorance of history and your inability to use reason.

Of course no amount of historical or scientific fact will sway your faith. I know that, I knew that going in.

So keep your blinders on Joe, go find some peaceful flock of faithful to fleece.

No one really cares.

amicus...

I'm not a theologian. Never studied it. I'm a philosopher, a logician--more accurately. What of what I have said has been a denial of logic and reason?

I don't mean to be difficult, amicus, really. If I have been irrational, please show me where--I'll try again.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

"God doesn't follow the linear projections of computer models," Bush told reporters here outside the emergency management center, whose roof caved in during the hurricane. "This is God's way of telling us that he's almighty and we're mortal."

15 people died in this storm. Is it any wonder so many people think of God as a miserable old bastard, when his biggest fans credit him with killing people to prove a point?

Personally, I think God sits up there, cursing himself for missing Bush and accidentally hitting the emergency center instead...

 

[matriarch]

Hmmm.....religion meets politics, a potentially volatile discussion between folks I can only presume are members of some long-standing.....definately a place any sensible newbie should stay away from.

Me, I'm rarely sensible.

BUT, I do know when to keep my nose out of things I'm not qualified to talk about. The philosophy is interesting, but not my subject. So please pardon me for thread jacking the thread jack, for a moment.

While I may be projecting a bit, my read is that Mhari was implying that we DON'T understand hurricanes and therefore can't predict them. Jeb's point was that we CAN'T understand God's will.

Mhari's world is one in which we can learn more, predict better, or at least build more substantive houses where the risk is high. Nature, here, is complex but does follow rules that could, someday, be understood. Jeb's is one where we can scamper around studying whatever we want, but that we are powerless to escape the plans of the Almighty. This time Nature is arbitrary, the rules God dictates at that minute and can change at will. There is little point studying or understanding Jeb's nature.

It's an attitude I reject on a visceral level. Belief and Knowledge don't have to be at odds, but when they are it seems an act of desperate ignorance to let belief win pre-emptorally. That, to my mind, is the problem with what the man said.

Going back to the newbie thread now....

G

Welcome aboard Ginger, from a fellow Brit.
YOu do believe in a baptism of fire don't you?

Brave Brit.

Mat