July 11-13: At Netroots Nation

The Hidden History of Guns and the 2nd Amendment Book Tour Is Coming...

  • Saturday, June 22: Los Angeles, CA 3:00pm - KPFK Speaker Series: Thom Hartmann (Stephanie Miller will be joining Thom) on The Hidden History of Guns. UCLA Dodd Hall 147, 315 Portola Plaza, Los Angeles - Get tkts here https://www.facebook.com/events/2263735727213646/
  • Sunday, June 23: SEATTLE, WA 7:30pm
    Location: Town Hall, 1119 8th Ave, Seattle (West Entrance) w/Elliott Bay Book Company
  • Tuesday, June 25: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 7:00pm
    Location: First Church, 2345 Channing Way, Berkeley w/The Booksmith
    Here’s the Facebook event:https://www.facebook.com/events/2418269571727663/And here’s the link to purchase tickets: https://hiddenhistoryofguns.bpt.me/
  • Friday, June 28: CHICAGO, IL 7:00pm
    Location: Frugal Muse, 7511 Lemont Rd. #146 (Chestnut Court Shopping Center), Darien
  • Saturday, June 29: MINNEAPOLIS, MN 7:00pm
    Location: Common Good Books, 38 S. Snelling Ave, St. Paul
  • Friday, July 12: PHILADELPHIA, PA 4:15pm - At Netroots Nation
    Location: PA Convention Center, 1101 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA

Become a Thom Supporter- Click the Patreon button

Atheism and the day of prayer

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

175 posts / 0 new

Comments

Finally we get to the point that it is bad v. good religion at issue. I have as much opposition to bad religion as those who hate the whole thing--or have a more mature disassociation. I am trying to develop a form for the needed discourse so we can talk about faith without fighting about religion.

That is why I see "faith" as a universally human issue of being human as we have our self-image and relationships with others. Religion can help or harm the developmental process leading to faith. But secularism and science also struggle with issues of maturity and responsibility, and I don't think it is their mission or style to be a "religion." What science teaches us does matter to how we approach our questions and journey of faith. If you want to make scientific method into your spiritual hermeneutics, I think you are going to have to be inventive and poetic about science. As was Teilhard de Chardin. The last think I advise anyone is to use theism in our new cosmology.

I have a warm and harmonious feeling with nature. Mortality is not evil. Love is the best high and the energy for the struggle. Dominance is from insecurity rather than power and competence. Compassion saves. And truth is either tautology or paradox instead of linear and literal.

I encourage the non-theistic and real world language "theology" exchange on being human. The science and the "soul." What does it take to make and keep human life human in this world?

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Johnatan Swift:

You can't reason people out of something they weren't reasoned into.

Religion vs science: If religion can survive the scrutiny of scientific methods, both from within and without, more power to it. More likely its grip on the culture it will continue to decline as its existing adherents die off and fewer and fewer young people are willing to drink the kool-aid in exchange for community and answers they kind find elsewhere. If, however, humanity faces deeply frightening catastrophes that secular leaders fail to explain or mitigate, religion may manage to continue its hold on our hearts and minds.

Heart vs mind: The "heart" is probably a subset of the mind, but that doesn't mean that the heart-of-the-mind can't legitimately be contrasted with other cognitive centers or "complexes".

Conscious and/or compassionate universe: This is probably another self-serving human fiction but I don't hold that it is impossible that there really are other sentient "principalities and powers", or even ancient astronauts, that are not dreamed of in our natural science. I think we just have to wait and see. If others are compelled to fill in the "god-shaped hole" with gods or other comforting fictions in the mean time, I just think they should be discouraged from preaching or teaching their fictions to others as fact. If they try, they shouldn't be surprised or offended by being called liars and scoundrels even if they believe themselves to be acting in good faith (who doesn't?).

I don't go out of my way to challenge the ideas offered by poets, dramaitists, artists, or even philosophers, who no doubt bring comfort to some, because they do not make the same kinds of truth claims as religious evangelists.

Free Will: More of the same, probably just a comforting fiction. The more we learn about the determinism of cognitive function, the less free will is left. Maybe at the end of the day, something of the wild, untamed will may remain free, hiding out in the weeds of the nearly infinite complexity of consciousness. That's fine. I wish it all the best. Science is not an intentional vendetta against freedom and dignity. Most scientists are as sentimental about freedom and dignity as anybody else. Centuries after we have all accepted that we are biological machines we will still be defending our freedom and dignity. In the future our intelligent robots will probably also prize whatever freedom and dignity they can carve out of their world. But human or robot, this is ego. You can construct your own ego as you see fit. That is your right. I hope it saves you well.

Your humble and devoted robot,

Poor Richard

Poor Richard's picture
Poor Richard
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:Finally we get to the point that it is bad v. good religion at issue.

I can not agree that this is the only appropriate framing of the dialog. We agree about bad religion, but I am unconvinced that there is a good religion. If a drug cartel takes care of the poor, is that a good drug cartel? Obviously, religion can perform good deeds. Does that make it good religion?

I claim that in addition to committing bad deeds, people acting on behalf of religion often commit good deeds for the wrong reasons and encourage others to do the same. Doing a good deed to get into heaven, with or without 76 virgins, is an example.

Poor Richard

Poor Richard's picture
Poor Richard
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
I am trying to develop a form for the needed discourse so we can talk about faith without fighting about religion.

I'm willing to argue about "faith", too.

"Reality is whatever remains after I stop believing in it" (attr. to Phillip K. Dick)

I am not against placebos, but I am against misrepresenting them for ulterior motives, even if the motives are "well intentioned".

I think we can talk about being human, about morality, ethics, justice, love, family, community or whatever "human" thing you like without talking about faith--but not without talking about evidence.

But I will probably rest my case at this point unless you have something new to say.

Poor Richard

Poor Richard's picture
Poor Richard
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:Reed9, you did go over the line of the personal and even a professional insult to defend your point about "standards of care' and the evidence-based science you see in conflict with what has been bad doctor practice in the past.

I appreciate your desire to keep the peace and see merit in opposing viewpoints, but, respectfully, I can't help but feel you're being slightly disingenuous here. I don't expect you to answer publicly, but in all honesty, would you feel comfortable with a doctor who didn't believe HIV was dangerous and continued to use a medical treatment 15 years after the Cardiorenal Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration unanimously rejected it for approval and the American Medical Association had studies showing no proven benefit while documentating cases where it was the cause of death?

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am

OK, for this audience, lets talk about reality without dismissing a whole language and mode of reflection about it. "Thou shalt have no other reality than Reality," for example.

Remember, unlike religion in my thinking, faith is defined as intellectual and moral integrity. That is evidence based and accountability aware. Our imagination and theories about reality based on evidence still involve some imaginative projection and frame.

When we talk about community, morality, ethics, justice, etc., I want to have more than purely subjective "values" involved. The nature of who we are as human beings is the point. The reality frame may provide a really bad "imago dei." As with the cold impersonal universe, we do not have to be cold and impersonal in response as if that settled who we are by denying all the good stuff. That is why I think it is more about how we engage life and reality including the cosmos. When we do it that way, we tend to see a much more beautiful and engaging reality. Maybe we bring the light, but does it matter?

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:When we talk about community, morality, ethics, justice, etc., I want to have more than purely subjective "values" involved.

From whence do these values come, if we are seeking a source that is not purely relativistic and subjective?

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am
Quote DRC:OK, for this audience, lets talk about reality without dismissing a whole language and mode of reflection about it. "Thou shalt have no other reality than Reality," for example.

Huh?

Quote DRC:Remember, unlike religion in my thinking, faith is defined as intellectual and moral integrity. That is evidence based and accountability aware.

There you go with your own private definition again.

Quote DRC: Our imagination and theories about reality based on evidence still involve some imaginative projection and frame.

Yes, but "some" is not a preponderance. The good-faith frame would acknowledge the relative degree of dependence on imagination and evidence of faith vs science (customary definitions assumed).

Quote DRC:When we talk about community, morality, ethics, justice, etc., I want to have more than purely subjective "values" involved.

Agreed.

Quote DRC:The nature of who we are as human beings is the point. The reality frame may provide a really bad "imago dei."

Huh?

Quote DRC:As with the cold impersonal universe, we do not have to be cold and impersonal in response as if that settled who we are by denying all the good stuff. That is why I think it is more about how we engage life and reality including the cosmos. When we do it that way, we tend to see a much more beautiful and engaging reality. Maybe we bring the light, but does it matter?

This is confusing language. I agree that a cold and impersonal universe imposes no obligation on me to be cold and impersonal. But who denies all the "good stuff"? Are you saying that how we "engage" reality is more important than what it is? The first order of business in engagement is to know the facts about what you are engaging, isn't it? Doesn't it matter whether I bring the light or there is already natural light, or some tricky magician brings some tricky magical light?

Poor Richard

Poor Richard's picture
Poor Richard
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote reed9:
Quote DRC:When we talk about community, morality, ethics, justice, etc., I want to have more than purely subjective "values" involved.

From whence do these values come, if we are seeking a source that is not purely relativistic and subjective?

My votes: utility theory, game theory, secular ethics, experimental psychology, social science, Greek drama, Victor Hugo novels... I could go on and on but suffice it to conclude with: just about anything BUT faith. How about you, reed9?

Poor Richard

Poor Richard's picture
Poor Richard
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Poor Richard:
Quote reed9:
Quote DRC:When we talk about community, morality, ethics, justice, etc., I want to have more than purely subjective "values" involved.

From whence do these values come, if we are seeking a source that is not purely relativistic and subjective?

My votes: utility theory, game theory, secular ethics, experimental psychology, social science, Greek drama, Victor Hugo novels... I could go on and on but suffice it to conclude with: just about anything BUT faith. How about you, reed9?

Poor Richard

I was thinking rather more broadly. Rights and values are not absolute edicts handed down from God, obviously, since we atheists certainly have values and agree on many rights, not to mention religious texts don't change much, but our values have evolved greatly. They cannot be derived from positive law, since we must appeal to something greater than legal positivism when the laws are not just. Nor can they derived from nature, since the universe is indeed impersonal and there is some truth to nature red in tooth and claw. I do, however, reject that rights and values are merely relativistic...

Alan Dershowitz makes a compelling case than Rights are derived from our empirical experience of wrongs in his book "Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory on the Origins of Rights".

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am
Quote reed9:Rights and values are not absolute edicts handed down from God, obviously, since we atheists certainly have values and agree on many rights, not to mention religious texts don't change much, but our values have evolved greatly. They cannot be derived from positive law, since we must appeal to something greater than legal positivism when the laws are not just. Nor can they derived from nature, since the universe is indeed impersonal and there is some truth to nature red in tooth and claw. I do, however, reject that rights and values are merely relativistic...

Alan Dershowitz makes a compelling case than Rights are derived from our empirical experience of wrongs in his book "Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory on the Origins of Rights".

Good points.

But without reading the Dershowitz book might I raise a question about it?

I have no doubt that our notions about rights are initially derived from empirical experience but perhaps only in a very raw, proto-rational form.

Superstitions are ultimately derived from empirical observations, too, observations that are then explained or rationalized in the best terms available at the time. Ideas about rights arising from experience would suffer the same fate of inconsistent interpretation by individuals. All this would remain on an individual anecdotal level without a more sophisticated layer of formal evidence compilation, validation, analysis, etc. which is what the references I cited are about.

Primitive intuitions about rights, though they may indeed be what gets the ball rolling, are hardly anything to base law or policy on.

Poor Richard

Poor Richard's picture
Poor Richard
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

.....I don't expect you to answer publicly, but in all honesty, would you feel comfortable with a doctor who didn't believe HIV was dangerous and continued to use a medical treatment 15 years after the Cardiorenal Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration unanimously rejected it for approval and the American Medical Association had studies showing no proven benefit while documentating cases where it was the cause of death?--reed9

You know, I've asked before that you keep the judgments of my capacity as a physician to yourself unless you can specify your assessment. And, you appear to be the kind of patient I don't like--someone that pretends to know more than they actually do--and, then, keeps using 'authorities' as if they, somehow, know something that I don't just because of their 'authority'. But, unlike your continued and unwarranted assault on my character, as I've tried to mention here (and the 'authorities' that have any knowledge and practice on the issue would know this, also), 'science' is not based on the premises of 'authorities' despite how malpractice litigation has tried to 'adjust that'...

If you think that it's all 'established fact' in science just because some committee says so, you must not be grown up--nor a critical thinker as if in real science. Real science operates from the perspective that all 'facts' are separately identifiable no matter who the perceiver is and no matter from what perspective they perceive from--it's the interpretation of such perceptions that ARE NOT FACTS. You mislabel 'authority judgment' (through 'committees'..) as if that is an 'accepted fact'--when, actually, that may be no more than political expediency. And, you really don't seem to understand the difference as you continue to quote 'authorities' as 'facts'.

The other point about science and critical reasoning is, as I've said, there are no such things as 'bad questions' rationally presented in science--only 'bad answers' that ignore such rationale if, for no other reason, to 'prove it wrong'. This IS NOT what has happened with the 'HIV/AIDS thesis' despite your claims on how well the 'authorities' have 'established the fact'--because, if that 'thesis' cannot be separately 'proveable' by every observer that approaches it, it is neither a 'fact' nor a 'solid thesis'. You don't seem to understand that point, either, as you continue to castigate me personally for reasons that are beyond the scope of anything that can be proven in a forum such as this.

And, your claim on my capability as a professional is off topic here--and bears nothing to the prospect of discussing the issues at hand. I offer these examples as reasons why 'authorities' don't rule 'science'--nor rule 'medicine'. I am all for appropriate training of any practitioner--I am against any rigid 'standard of care' because I know that has no bearing to the real practice of medicine where contingencies can be present that a remote judgment has no idea how to address...unless they were there. If you really 'believe' to know more than I on this topic, then, I suggest you do so by the integrity of your argument and not by trying to attack my character personally. And, absent that, attacking my character personally still does nothing to substantiate the integrity of your argument. And, then, bringing in 'authorities' to do it for you is just another fallacy in reason and logic.

Frankly, reed9, you have no idea what type of practitioner I am or am not. As I have said, my viewpoints are no secret to my fellow workers. If that were to be a basis for how I practice, then they should be able to judge that better than you. But, you still give yourself the right to judge me based on what YOU THINK about the 'HIV/AIDS thesis' and what you claim 'authorities' think about nifedipine (when I've told you that many practitioners have had the same experience that I have despite what the 'committees' think). But, as our conversation should have shown to you by now, what 'authorities think' does NOT constitute what is either actually the case nor does it rule out all alternative interpretations just because they are 'the authority' from a committee.

It is your kind of posturing that is having us slip back into the dark ages as we march on under the 'judgment' of 'claimed authorities' as if that represents critical thinking or rational analysis....in 911 and HIV/AIDS....

Superstitions are ultimately derived from empirical observations, too, observations that are then explained or rationalized in the best terms available at the time.--Poor Richard

Like the Age of Reason's political position, if theories in science take 'special perspectives' to 'understand', it is likely that it is really not as 'understood' as well as 'the believers' believe them to be. And, if it takes a 'committee' to express it more than any single person to understand it, that, also, is less likely to be 'understood' as well as it may be being promoted. That is part of my point in this ongoing discussion with a 'believer' such as reed9--no matter how much reed9 says they are an 'atheist'......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry and Reed9, I am sorry that you have made a personal tussle into an example of the problem under discussion. Abstract issues became personal. Reality and authority must either be 'scientific' or 'experiential.' One is a bad doctor if one does not accept the conclusions of a "scientific" study when practice does not confirm the findings. The issue is not conclusive either way. Studies can be wrong for many reasons, including the bias of the drug profiteers, etc. And accepted standards can become habits rather than good practice.

So why don't we accept the both/and and move on?

PR, if you do not want to respect my terms of discussion on a subject where the language is badly mauled, too bad. The reason I define "faith" as a universal human issue of reflecting upon and imagining our own humanity is that it is not about being religious. It is the promised goal of religion, but too often being very religious is the substitution in a fraud.

Faith Development is a discreet academic field of human development, and to speak of its product is to refer to a reality that is not dependent upon religion. The elements of Belief, Doubt, Imagination and Mutuality integrated into a pluralistic and interactive dynamic describe healthy and growing faith compared to what happens when any of these elements is removed or made the boss of the others. Regression is unhealthy, but visiting one's earlier selves is how to avoid being a grumpy geezer.

The essential reason that theism is a failed metaphor in the age of science is that heaven is too far away to continue to have any personal imaginary potential. The rationalist assault on theism never could have touched the metaphysics without the science, including the archaeology and geology that made us think about the stories with new complexity.

The attempt to strip the Bible of myth and get to the historical texts was misguided. It reflected a modernist historiography that did not appreciate how myth and metaphysics had been used to speak about experience. We get to argue about whether Jesus really rose from the dead instead of what it meant to those who made that claim in the conversation of their own times. All the early church stories about Jesus are apocryphal and couched in metaphysics and myths that resonated with contemporary meaning.

The point about no false realities is about the constructs we use to "understand" the mystery of reality. No ideologies allowed. Reality is the boss, not the creature of doctrine and science. I think that is the big point of the First Commandment, much less a brand for a nationalist god, but a consolidation of all the disparate "authorities" into a One and Many "realism." The "god" of the slaves who become a people and live in the worst geo-political turf in their world can be seen as the realism to adapt and grow up into maturity in the midst of challenges.

All I am saying is that this record of human reflection on being human and living with one another deserves more respect than a rejection of its form from a modernist perspective. I embrace science without reservation, but it does not cover everything even if it informs theology. That question about being human does not go away or get easy answers.

People who want God acknowledged in America are not really talking about the issues debated here. For them, it is about keeping their world human instead of cold materialism. I don't see it their way, but I want the debate to be about how we have a human world rather than one where the human image is cast in mean terms. In that regard, our embrace of nature as "good" is about our willingness or ability to receive life as a gift instead of a curse. It is about "belonging" here instead of being an alien.

If you think you are having trouble with treating "faith" as something other than religion, imagine how this goes over with church people. They want "faith" to be religious a lot more than you do. But it isn't, and the Bible says so.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Poor Richard:Primitive intuitions about rights, though they may indeed be what gets the ball rolling, are hardly anything to base law or policy on.

True. Though I think our ingrained sense of right and wrong gets short thrift. We are endowed by evolution with sense of altruism, primarily towards our close relatives (which makes genetic sense as we share many of our genes with close relatives), and our close extended family/tribe. We are also capable of abstraction and are capable of perverting our evolutionary impulses to greater inclusion, be it pride in our city, state, country, species, or planet.

But Dershowitz's argument is essentially that we do not need a utopian idea of the perfect society or perfect good to start a bottom up approach to the issue of rights. We will never agree on what the perfect society ought to look like, but almost everyone agrees we don't want to see another holocaust, another crusade, another McCarthy era. A critical examinations of wrongs throughout the long course of history gives a solid ground to develop of theory of rights which trump mere preferences of the majority, but still leave wiggle room to be modified, though not lightly, through new experiences.

Quote DRC:The "god" of the slaves who become a people and live in the worst geo-political turf in their world can be seen as the realism to adapt and grow up into maturity in the midst of challenges.

Or it could be viewed as propaganda to bind an ethnic/cultural group together, to egotistically view themselves as chosen by God, to lay claim to land by divine right, and to elevate their conflicts to holy war, their enemies as enemies of God, as not merely different but evil.

You can get whatever you want out of religious metaphor and stories.

Quote DRC:People who want God acknowledged in America are not really talking about the issues debated here. For them, it is about keeping their world human instead of cold materialism.

But "human" is every bit a part of cold materialism. Hitler and Ted Bundy are as much a part of the human story as Martin Luther King and Harvey Milk. If we're going to survive as a species, it's going to take a lot more than myth-making and inspirational stories. It's going to take real knowledge about what and who we are. Our hope lies, as Poor Richard alluded to somewhere, in the maturation of the social sciences, combined with, as I mentioned, evolutionary psychology. What species anywhere in history has been introduced into an environment with no real predators and done anything but breed themselves to the point of destruction? Whether snakes in Guam or bacteria in a petri dish?

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am
Quote DRC:

I embrace science without reservation, but it does not cover everything

Fine DRC. I am convinced you are a well-intentioned, intelligent, and compassionate person. You are entitiled to frame your views however you think best.

I would like your perspective on my virtual Town Hall Meeting: Class war, Culture war, or Holy war?

Poor Richard

Poor Richard's Almanack 2010

Poor Richard's picture
Poor Richard
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote reed9:But Dershowitz's argument is essentially that we do not need a utopian idea of the perfect society or perfect good to start a bottom up approach to the issue of rights. We will never agree on what the perfect society ought to look like, but almost everyone agrees we don't want to see another holocaust, another crusade, another McCarthy era. A critical examinations of wrongs throughout the long course of history gives a solid ground to develop of theory of rights which trump mere preferences of the majority, but still leave wiggle room to be modified, though not lightly, through new experiences.

Well said and I agree. I made a point somewhere else about progressivism being reality based and pragmatic, non-utopian, eclectic, etc. But grand utopian schemes with narrow theoretical foundations are so much more thrilling....

Quote reed9:
Quote DRC:The "god" of the slaves who become a people and live in the worst geo-political turf in their world can be seen as the realism to adapt and grow up into maturity in the midst of challenges.

Or it could be viewed as propaganda to bind an ethnic/cultural group together, to egotistically view themselves as chosen by God, to lay claim to land by divine right, and to elevate their conflicts to holy war, their enemies as enemies of God, as not merely different but evil.

You can get whatever you want out of religious metaphor and stories.

Oh! Point to Reed9.

Quote reed9:
Quote DRC:People who want God acknowledged in America are not really talking about the issues debated here. For them, it is about keeping their world human instead of cold materialism.

But "human" is every bit a part of cold materialism.... If we're going to survive as a species, it's going to take a lot more than myth-making and inspirational stories. It's going to take real knowledge about what and who we are.

Oooow. Point and match to Reed9.

Poor Richard

Poor Richard's Almanack 2010

Poor Richard's picture
Poor Richard
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

But Dershowitz's argument is essentially that we do not need a utopian idea of the perfect society or perfect good to start a bottom up approach to the issue of rights.--reed9

It seems ironic to the point of sanctimonious hypocrisy for someone to espouse a 'bottom up approach to the issue of rights' yet claim a 'top down approach' (from 'committees' and 'authorities'..) to the issue of an applied science like medicine--or even an unusual event like two airplane impacts completing imploding three buildings like have never been done before...believing (in typical orthodox fashion) without qualificaitons such 'authorized descriptions' of such events against any and all rational concerns to the contrary. Claiming the high road to 'knowledge' as if 'true facts' just because of the claims of such 'top down authorities' without, themselves, explaining how they understand that....which gets me to believe that they really don't think that 'knowledge' nor the applicaton of such 'knowledge' can come from anywhere but 'top down' as they pompously assert (quoting another 'authority' to do so) that 'rights' should come from 'bottom up'. Somehow, that really doesn't fit to me....

You can get whatever you want out of religious metaphor and stories.--reed9

I see the perspective that the 'politics of knowledge' (like R.D. Laing's 'Politics of Experience'..) is still an issue of 'orthodoxy' vs. 'heresy' oftentimes especially without the orthodox 'believer' having any prospect on what is the real confirmatory process as to exactly how 'knowledge' is obtained or applied in a rational way....one person at a time....and that 'orthodoxy/heresy religious metaphor' still works today....and, as is involved in both HIV/AIDS and 911, it uses 'fear' to do it as much as any 'rational confirmation' of its 'belief'....

As I've said in another forum concerning Locke's 'natural law', as even Locke stated, 'war' negates the 'natural law' to any rational approach--and 'fear' is its calling card.....as it appears, people tend to subdue any prospects of 'rights' or 'knowledge' obtained in any objective, or rational, fashion when pitted up against perceived overwhelming threats to the contrary....so, the trick to the trade of 'orthodox belief' is have you function more under fear than rational thought.....and, then, 'authoritatively' proclaim 'an answer'.....religion uses 'God', political hacks use 'authoritative committees' (perhaps with some 'national character' like how ancient city-states used 'gods' to establish their particular 'state character'..)--but the underlying 'belief' based on 'fear' is essentially the same....then, all that's left is 'believing' that 'something greater than yourself in this world' (nation, state, or 'authority'...) can 'answer it' for you and any contention to the contrary (no matter how rational it's framed) is what is 'wrong' without any further explanation or consideration perhaps because of the 'fear' of what one might find....

The irony is contemptuous....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I always thought the first was just god's anger issues with queue jumpers. "No other gods before me" is one trump uses for himself only he doesn't call himself a god.

'Me first' is also an American thing, a Jewish thing (race not religion, that 'chosen people' thing is similar to Tommy Smother's Mom always liked you best), and many other peoples. Each religion usually asserts itself to be the ONLY truth, and its believers to be special.

As faras some healing properties, hypnotism can do similar things. The bobbing heads toward the wailing wall like orthodox Jews do can instigate siezures and stimulate the production of brain chemicals closely related to opiods. I think those that speak in tongues have usually knocked their brains against their skull for a bit of time to reach that point of delusion.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Fox says atheists should have no rights

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Wow Doug, where'd you find this old chestnut? The number of "Godly" Americans willing to embrace Trump is truly a modern miracle. Hope your stockpiling serotonin and Vitamin D during these long summer days.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Laborisgood:

Wow Doug, where'd you find this old chestnut? The number of "Godly" Americans willing to embrace Trump is truly a modern miracle. Hope your stockpiling serotonin and Vitamin D during these long summer days.

I did a search on Thom's for the word astigmatism. I remembered the poster said Ys looked like Ts or something. So I was going to let them know that the video I had just posted from CUNY TV was NOT cable porn. It's a Warren Krugman talk at City University New York, or CUNY.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Laborisgood:

Wow Doug, where'd you find this old chestnut? The number of "Godly" Americans willing to embrace Trump is truly a modern miracle. Hope your stockpiling serotonin and Vitamin D during these long summer days.

I did a search on Thom's for the word astigmatism. I remembered the poster said Ys looked like Ts or something. So I was going to let them know that the video I had just posted from CUNY TV was NOT cable porn. It's a Warren and Krugman talk at City University New York, or CUNY.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

O'Reilly is concerned about the drop off in religion. He blames it on rap music. Then says religion is the ONLY protection from avarice. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/avarice

'tis good these folks are so religious.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Another Compilation of Christopher Hitchens’ Best Comebacks Regarding Religion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgpAPjH3IMk

NetWiz69's picture
NetWiz69
Joined:
Aug. 18, 2014 8:03 am

Here's what the feud and reconciliation between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson can teach us about civility

Thom plus logo Donald Trump did not invent the art of the political insult but he's inflamed the level of vitriolic public discourse and incivility to a new low unmatched by other presidents. In a tainted tradition that has permeated our history, other presidents have not been immune to dishing out acerbic insults against one another.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system