There is a new, controversial, and awe-inspiring book that is taking the country by storm. The God Virus outlines the consequences of certain religious beliefs from the point of view of psychologist, prominent author, and student of religious studies Darrel Ray. Ray examines the ‘virus’ of theism and how religions often breed prejudice and harmful superstitions. He’ll be coming to Santa Barbara for a lecture on March 20 in the patio room of Vista del Monte, located at 3775 Modoc Road, at the request of the Humanist Society of Santa Barbara. As a student of religious studies myself, I wanted to find out more about this topic, so Dr. Ray agreed to discuss with me his new book earlier this week.
What first inspired you to write The God Virus, and do you think that the book will encourage other authors to step forward in the genre of non-theistic literature?
I wrote The GV because, after reading Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and Hitchens, I felt that none of them gave us a working, practical way to understand religion and live with it in our daily lives. I wanted to give people a framework that had practical and daily value to the reader, not just a good argument against gods and religion. I think I accomplished my goal to some degree because the feedback I consistently get from readers says, “Wow, now I understand my mother-in-law.” Or, “The God Virus really explains why I still feel guilty about sex or eating pork.”
It is a good practical theory that people can put to work in their daily lives, much like knowing arithmetic gives you a theory for managing your daily finances. It explains the behavior of the local priest and the governor of Utah. It guides us in understanding Ted Haggard, the President of the Mormon Church and your fundamentalist sister. To my knowledge, no one has provided this kind of framework in a format that anyone could read and understand.
The God Virus
- When: Saturday, March 20, 2010, 2:30 p.m.
- Where: Vista del Monte, 3775 Modoc Rd., Santa Barbara
- Cost: $2 - $5
- Age limit: 10+
Let me be clear, my hat is off to Dawkins, Dennett and others. They did a superb job of paving the way, but it was time for a more practical work.
Why did you originally decide to study religion and its effects on society?
I have always been interested in human behavior and what drives it. That is why I took degrees in sociology, anthropology, religion, and psychology. Religious behavior is among the most interesting things to study because it is clear that it has little or no impact on morality, yet people cling to it so strongly. I wanted to answer the question, “If religion has no effect on morality, what purpose does it serve?” Even the fundamentalists’ own researcher (George Barna) shows that divorce rates are higher and other so called “immoral” behavior is greater among religious people.
I could see in my early years the amazing ability of religious people to behave immorally while justifying their behavior through their religion. My grandmother and grandfather were among the most devout and religious people I knew when growing up, yet their racism and hatred of anyone who disagreed with their religious views was obvious to me from an early age. Amazingly, no one else seemed to notice it. They were held up as the models for the community where they lived.
I can’t tell you how many preachers in our denomination got caught committing adultery, some multiple times, yet the denomination seemed to find a way to forgive them. Look at the sex scandals of the Catholic Church. Immorality is rampant among clergy, but they don’t seem to see it until a policeman or lawyer point it out to them.
It seemed that if religion was so powerful in guiding morality, those with the most training should be the least susceptible to temptation. Looking at it through the lens of the god virus, explains much more about the behavior of priests, ministers, imams, and elders than any theological theory about sin and temptation. That is why I speak and write about religion. I want everyone to be able to identify the common manipulations that all religions use to infect people. From music techniques to hypnotic methods, sexual guilt training to trance induction techniques in prayer: All religions use a common set of tools to infect people. Once you understand this, it becomes quite easy to spot the manipulation and counter it in your own life, and maybe understand what is going on in the lives of others.
In your biography I see that, similarly to myself and many others, you were raised in a religious household. How did that affect your life and career?
It was great training for writing The God Virus. Almost all my relatives are deeply infected. There are several ministers, many Sunday school teachers, and a few missionaries. My parents even became missionaries when they retired. Interestingly, none of my siblings are the least bit religious.
I really wanted to believe when I was younger. I did everything from participate in bible contests to teach Sunday School and work as a camp counselor. I even took an MA in Church and Community. Shining the light of reason and education on the questions of religion eventually demonstrated to me that it was all a shell game. But the education and experience was worth it. There aren’t many religious people who know their religion or religious books as well as I do.
Who do you hope to reach with The God Virus and subsequent speaking tour?
I wrote the GV to the non-theist audience because it seemed to me that there was not a good framework for them to use in dealing with the religious world. Many non-theists are angry and frustrated with the religious people they have to deal with every day, but they don’t understand religious behavior and why people believe in invisible friends so adamantly. With understanding comes some compassion and maybe the opportunity to influence or live more productively with the religious people in our lives.
Given the framework, I felt that people might be able to have a more constructive dialogue. To my surprise, many theists have read the book as well! They don’t necessarily agree with everything, but they often write me to say they have a whole new perspective on their own religious indoctrination and understand their behavior and that of others better. A few have even said that reading the book helped them escape their delusions and to do a rational analysis of their early childhood indoctrination.
What one sentence best describes the message you hope to convey in Santa Barbara on March 20?
Not sure I can do that in one sentence! That religious infection generally comes at an early age. If you don’t get infected early, you have a good chance of never getting infected. That is why religions work so hard to infect you with their particular god virus, so you will stay with them for a lifetime. Each religion teaches its unique guilt message. Guilt keeps you tied to a particular religion because you learned the guilt in that religion. Baptists don’t go to Catholic confession, Moslems don’t read the bible to get rid of their guilt, and Mormons don’t ask Scientologist readers for advice. You have to come back to the god virus you were infected with to deal with the guilt that it taught you in the first place. It is the perfect con game.
I explore guilt and sexuality at some length in the book because they are so important to all major god viruses. If guilt and sexuality were taken away as tools, most religions would crumble. They are very powerful tools and religions use them quite effectively. The evidence can be seen in the degree to which fundamentalists use them and how much less they are used by the “liberal religions.” The “liberal religions” are losing the battle for membership because they have lost the ability to use sex and guilt effectively. I think this is the key to understanding the power of Islam and Christian fundamentalists. Their use of sexual control and guilt allow them to focus a lot of energy on infecting others with their parasitic virus. I could talk all day about this, but you will hear a more coherent approach in my talk on Saturday. In many ways, sex is the key to understanding a lot of religious behavior.
I hear you have started an organization for those leaving religion. Please elaborate.
Yes, my research and experience showed that there are a lot of social, emotional, and psychological consequences for people who leave any religion. I started Recovering from Religion (see www.recoveringreligionists.com ) as a way to support people who are leaving. There are lots of groups trying to get you into religion, ours is the only one helping you get out. We call it “Learning the Joy of Faith Free Living.” We now have groups all over the country. They meet monthly and discuss everything from marriage and family issues to work and social issues. How do you deal with telling your family you no longer believe? How do you work with a religious boss and keep your job? How do I deal with the guilt I learned in religion? It also gives the newly non-religious a place to interact with others going through the same thing. We have ex-Mormons, ex-Baptists, ex-Catholics, even an ex- Moonie in our groups. It is quite revealing to listen to such a collection of people all in one room. Their stories sound so much alike on many levels. It shows how the god virus works across all religions.
4•1•1
Darrel Ray will discuss The God Virus on Saturday, March 20, 2:30 p.m., in the patio room of Vista del Monte, 3775 Modoc Road. The event is being put on by the Humanist Society of Santa Barbara. See santabarbarahumanists.org and thegodvirus.net for more info.
David McAfee is an intern with The Independent.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace






Previous Month



Comments
Oh God!
"That is why I took degrees in sociology, anthropology, religion, and psychology."
Did you learn anything?
What an empty idiot. Bashing "god" to be cool. Wow, how enlightened.
Why does faith threaten people so much?
Hmmm...
maximum (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2010 at 12:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ray takes a similar position to that of proponents of roman religion, the mythologists, when enforcing state ritual. They ignored their earlier philosophers who called for virtue over power and glory. Augustine used the philosophers to show that the philosophers' pursuit was more honest, because it was a higher call. He then used that show that we reflect what we worship,and to leap forward, if we worship a holy God, it manifests in our lives.
There are plenty of us who can attest that our faith rules our lives else we would be not just moral reprobates, but in many cases, criminals.
Ray is tragically mistaken. I can say for certain that Jesus has changed my life and the path that I was on would have led to death, my own and/or others', and/or imprisonment.
I have been faithfully married for over 2 decades and do not credit it to some inherent moral fortitude. God is my strength. This relationship influences my decisions and behaviors daily in the way that I treat people, for certainly I would be a dishonest and cruel individual otherwise.
ahem (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2010 at 1:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pathetic.
fredb93117 (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2010 at 5:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What the author fails to recognize is the presence of the same behaviors in other segments of society that do not profess to be religious.
I'm looking at your corner of the room AGW enthusiasts.
And as for "...music techniques to hypnotic methods, sexual guilt training to trance induction techniques..." don't I get that all day through the TV and radio anyway?
I don't think you can make a case that people free from the influence of religion are better adjusted, happier and healthier for it.
Disturber (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2010 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My experience was similar to Darrel Ray's - when I was ~5 years old I realized the tenets of the Christian God my preacher was trying to indoctrinate me with were grossly immoral. That preacher wanted everyone who was not a member of our particular Methodist belief system to burn in Hell for all eternity. How cruel is that? I could not believe that God could be so cruel. It made more sense to me that the preacher and the religion were cruel. For those attacking Mr. Ray I suggest you read the book and spend a little time in self-reflection to see if you were indoctrinated. You do not have to give up God to give up the hatred he mentions. You may gain insights that bring you closer to a loving God. If you are afraid to read the book then you are afraid your faith is not strong enough to survive scrutiny.
neworion (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2010 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this lecture on the 10th, as it says in the first paragraph of the story --- or on the 20th, as it says in the last paragraph?
(And as for the quiz: atheism is NOT a religion!)
citti (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The lecture is on the 20th, and the date has been fixed in the first paragraph. Thanks for the catch, citti.
Tyler (Tyler Hayden)
March 12, 2010 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The poll attached to this article is ridiculous. Atheism is the answer to one question, it is not a belief system. The ubiquity of religious belief is the only reason we have a name for not believing in the supernatural. It's just as silly as calling someone "not a soccer fan," and insisting that the act of not being a fan of soccer is somehow being a fan of something else. Everyone is an atheist with the respect to all religions except their own. An Atheist has just chosen to take it a step further.
Disturber, your tu quoque defense is weak. You need to work on that. I would suggest you throw a Hitler or Stalin reference in there to button it up a bit.
FightWoo (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2010 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I neither mind nor care that adult men and women choose to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. What I resent is when such people insist that their beliefs be reflected in the institutions of our civil society.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2010 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why does faith threaten people so much? -maximum-
Because they have to have someone to scapegoat for the failed policies of our society.
I wonder what would happen if the prefix to "virus" was the name of a particular non-Christian religious group. Oh wait, didn't Hitler have that same idea?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2010 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
billclausen, nice judo move to place the believers in the position of "victims." Actually, the atheists are one of the most discriminated against minorities in the world. In many places non-believers risk death as punishment for their apostasy. In the U.S., no avowed atheist could ever be elected to public office, or even be offered a job in many places. No, it is not the believers who are victims, rather it is the non-believer who risks opprobrium and discrimination.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2010 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"No, it is not the believers who are victims, rather it is the non-believer who risks opprobrium and discrimination"
Wrong Eckermann, look at history. Christians, Atheists, Jews, Buddhists...all groups have been persecuted throughout history. My point is that in the unspoken name of "tolerance" (my quote for emphasis) we see more and more subtle scapegoating of Christians. Try being a Christian in Sudan, or for that matter, educate yourself and google "Assyrian Genocide" (I know a bit about this as my mom's family fled this genocide.) Also, let's talk about how Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin persecuted religion. There were also the Rightous Gentiles who risked and in some cases gave their lives for going against the Nazi persecution of the Jews. I can think of two cases off hand where people were motivated by their Christian beliefs to protect Jews: The Ten Boom family in Holland, and former heavyweight champion Max Schmeling. Of course in our tolerant progressive academic enclave of Santa Barbara we'd prefer to stifle these things.
I will agree with your point about people not voting for an avowed atheist which is funny because many of these people don't live up to the religious standard they profess to believe. Ironically, I voted for Harry Brown back in '96 (an atheist) even though I'm a Christian because I felt that he would be the best to deal with the functionary aspects of our country. (Besides which, many if not most--or even all of the candidates running for office claiming to be Christian do so in order to get votes)
It comes down to the fact that we're pack animals and we like to put labels on ourselves and on others. Since no matter how much persecution or simple put downs we practice we will still have religious people and atheists, the trick is to be secure in what we believe and to grow up and get over ourselves and learn to live together.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2010 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
billclausen, I'm not sure that the evidence and examples of the persecution of one set of believers by another set of believers belies my point. I am sure that you would agree that polling data indicates that over 90% of U.S. adults profess a faith in God, so I find it hard to believe that Christian's in this country are in any danger of discrimination. I would be the first to acknowledge the courage of those Christians who risked their lives to protect Jews during the Nazi pogrom, which was carried out on a day to day level by professed Christians (the vast majority of Germans at the time were either Lutherans or Catholics). Not even the Pope would intervene to help the Jews.
I fully agree with your final point. Our genetic predisoption to form cooperative tribal groups is both our greatest asset and the source of some of the most evil deeds done in history. Learning to live together, which means viewing everyone as a member of the same tribe, is our hope. I consider you, Bill, a member of my tribe regardless of your faith. I would hope that you would consider me a member of your tribe despite my lack of belief.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2010 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There's the Stalin reference! Didn't take too long. In nearly all cases it has been one religion persecuting the other, or even one denomination killing the other. There are special cases that we can discuss, but never do you see violence done in the name of "no god."
The regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il were not places of rationality and reason, they were examples of state worship, just another form of religion. In fact, North Korea could be called a necrocracy, in that they are ruled by the Great Leader, who is dead, and the Dear Leader is his son, but also him reincarnate; sort of like the jesus myth. Now Russia had been ruled for several hundred years by the Czars, rulers who weren't gods but were more than human and had a very close relationship with the orthodox church. After the revolution Stalin capitalized on this and subjugated a manipulative populace, he eliminated the church because they represented the old regime and were a threat to his power.
The Northern European countries, contrarily, are perhaps the best example of what a secular society looks like. It's not coincidental that they are among the most peaceful, healthy and prosperous places on the planet. You're right bill, it's all about living peacefully together and these places are prime examples of how to achieve that.
FYI: Hitler and the Nazis weren't atheists. Go read a couple of his speeches, you can't get through a paragraph without a god reference. The Catholic Church even declared Hitler's birthday to be a national holiday. All the Nazi officers, and nearly all enlisted men were Catholics, so how many do you think the Catholic Church excommunicated? One, Goebbels, because he married a Protestant woman.
Bonus: If you can explain to me the secular origins of antisemitism you win 3 internets.
FightWoo (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2010 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fightwoo says: The Northern European countries, contrarily, are perhaps the best example of what a secular society looks like. It's not coincidental that they are among the most peaceful, healthy and prosperous places on the planet...."
NORTHERN EUROPE is being overrun by Radical Islam precisely because they do not uphold their religious beliefs! They are a perfect example of what happens when a country loses its faith in god thus allowing a vacumm of dogmatic islamists to overwhelm them by sheer will. IF WE HAVE NO COLLECTIVE BELIEF IN FAITH, if we feel like we have to apologize for being "religious" then we will fall Islam too.
All religions have made mistakes. Only one religion right now in 2010 beheads, stones, circumsizes women, etc.
While Europe Slept - Bruce Bawer
Londonistan - Melanie Phillips
Infidel - Hirsi Ali
Why They Hate - Brigitte Gabriel
The Muslim Mafia - P. David Gaugbatz
WISE UP AMERICA they are here:
www.actforamerica.org
maximum (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2010 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hitler had only one religioun- Nazism, and his followers were to put it above all other beliefs also. Yes, they started their lives with religious beliefs instilled in their lives by their parents, but all that was set aside for the Nazi ideals. The Catholic church like any other organization was trying to stay good with both sides(Allies and Axis) so that they can share of the power with whoever the winner was. As a matter of fact the Nazi's had a plan to set up a Nazi church after the war which would have taken the place of all other religiouns. The Nazis had a god and that god was power, so did every other "atheist" leader that has walked or is walking this earth.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2010 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's the Stalin reference! Didn't take too long. In nearly all cases it has been one religion persecuting the other, or even one denomination killing the other. There are special cases that we can discuss, but never do you see violence done in the name of "no god."
So why did Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao persecute religion? Here is my point: religion *has* been persecuted because it gets in the way of statist agendas and nothing you say changes that. We are tribal creatures and nothing changes that. By the way fight woo, this is not a discussion of finding a given amount of origins of secular anti-antisemitism.
I would also posit that based on my cursory observation of everyday American culture that the influence of religion has declined sharply over the last few decades. Having said that, we see what used to be episodic problems in our culture such as road rage, gang violence, schooyard shootings and so forth becoming topics of everyday conversation. Driving down Las Positas yesterday afternoon was like taking my life in my hands with the aggressive and angry driving. I know from 32 years of driving locally that this is just one example of a problem that has increased dramatically over the years. Maybe Darrell Ray and his supporters need to actually look at *why* these things are happening, but then again, merely discussing them may cause them to find their own views on life to be at least partially responsible.
To those who side with Ray that religion is a virus, rest easy--you won the culture war--especially here in California. Do you ever wonder why so many people are moving out of here?...hint, it isn't because of the weather, and it's not always about the cost of living.
Definition of virus:3.
"a corrupting influence on morals or the intellect; poison. "
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
So Darell Ray isn't a bigot with an agenda?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2010 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think Darrel Ray would deny having an agenda ("I want everyone to be able to identify the common manipulations that all religions use to infect people."), although he would likely term it sharing the benefits of his "research and experience."
I think he would quibble about being a bigot.
As to your idea Bill Clausen, that the "influence of religion has declined sharply over the last few decades," absolute numbers of believers have grown, but most of the percentages have shrunk (although I believe in a marginal not a wholesale shift as you seem to suspect).
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-ari...
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-ari...
This is also interesting:
http://religions.pewforum.org/
binky (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2010 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting data Binky. I find it interesting that 1.6% of U.S. residents call themselves atheists but somehow the researchers want to conclude that actually 12% are atheists. This is either an indication that the researchers are massaging the data or that many atheists are so concerned with public opprobrium that they are reticent to even identify their atheism in an anonymous survey. Atheists don't want to persecute believers. However, we are weary of being accused of being evil just because we don't believe.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2010 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Guess who:
http://rexcurry.net/swastika-lambach-...
FightWoo (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2010 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice pic FightWoo.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2010 at 11:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Churches & preachers serve a pre-existing demand, IMHO. The prospect of an impersonal universe terrifies most tender little humans as much as a giant meat grinder at full throttle at the bottom of a waxed chute. We all want to live in PeeWee's Playhouse, with a talking sun and a talking chair, or at least we did as young children. That's the primal condition. Our grubbing ancestors conjured up visions of personal security while dancing the python dance around a fire. Ancestors HAD to be in a better place, protecting us. Such denial is likely a side-effect of death-avoidance (survival). There just isn't a little Nietzsche in most of us. Those few of us who have screwed up the moral courage to be honest have honesty as its own reward. We're the eeeeevil ones. Preachers may engage in choreography, but the bipeds were already stompin'.
The most unknowable propositions (i.e., religious) are uttered in tones of certainty that would be terribly inappropriate for a scientist or historian. But it's because charlatans position themselves where the money is thrown. That's also true for Episcopalians, ha ha.
Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2010 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How sad for those of you who cannot (do not wish to) know acknowledge the power of faith, to embrace the comfort of faith. All your chest-beating of "independence" aside... could there also be longing for something more, a longing to belong to something bigger than this world? Opening yourself to something bigger than "you" is an amazing experience.
I'm glad I am open... perhaps someday you will be too.
maximum (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2010 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't feel sorry for me Maximum, I don't need your pity. I am very happy and satisfied with my life, and I am part of something bigger than myself: My family, my community, and the whole human species. I do not require the fantasy of eternal life to be happy in this one. My life is full of meaning without having to conjure up a supreme being that made it meaningful. My soul is at peace because I love and treat others with justice. I do long for one thing though. I long for people of faith to stop sharing their beliefs with me as if they are offering me some kind of wonderful gift. When you take off all the pretty wrapping paper, you will find that the box is empty.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem with religion is people, not God. This book should be entitled "The People Virus".
sbmomandpop (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Glad for you eckerman. I'm not sure who goes around pushing "religion" these days... except radical islamists... except maybe a guy who's trying to sell a book with the word "virus" in it...
Catchy. Probably helps it come up on internet searches in an SEO kind of way...
I prefer quiet faith. But when I see something as dumb as this book idea, I will speak...
Apathy is not the answer to all...
maximum (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"yet the denomination seemed to find a way to forgive them"
Displays a rather limited view of what forgiveness is. I hope he has some more depth than that, otherwise probably not worth reading.
tegrat (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are two differences between Atheists and Monotheists:
1) Monotheists believe in one more 'thing'.
2) Monotheists by and large are sure they're right. Atheists by and large recognize that anything is possible, and we just might be the result of a high stakes poker game between the flying spaghetti monster, a pink unicorn, a guy with a white beard and a teapot.
Other than that, we all bleed, most of us love our children, and most of us follow the golden rule.
Rich (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I like Mr. Ray's idea of 'Recovering from Religion'. It doesn't have to be about believing or not believing. The possibility for those who abuse religion like drugs or alcohol to come clean is a healthy idea. Doesn't mean you have to not believe anymore. It does mean that if you fear other religions, wall yourself in to your beliefs, hate others because of their religion, want war, or are just unhappy, please seek help. We have learned from history the great tragedies/crimes of believers who took it too far.
spacey (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Any "proof" of god remains, thankfully, in the original box of pudding he/she/it was concocted from. Really, folks--time to put away all those marbles you lost and gave over to silly superstition.
George Carlin had it absolutely right:
"When it comes to bulls**t, big-time, major league bulls**t, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest.
Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bulls**t story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day.
And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you. He loves you and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bulls**t story. Holy S**t!"
Full brilliance here: http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm
Draxor (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Don't feel sorry for me Maximum, I don't need your pity. I am very happy and satisfied with my life, and I am part of something bigger than myself: My family, my community, and the whole human species."
Gee Eckermann, I guess it's all about humans and not about dolphins or any other species.
By the way, for all you critics who blast Intelligent Design, do you think the sophisticated intelligence of cetaceans is just a random accident?
sixdolphins (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't feel sorry for me either, Maximum, I don't have to experience the niggling of a largely suppressed awareness that religious faith creates only the illusion of knowledge. Who wants to sit on a golden pedestal and never look down? Besides, the universe is plenty bigger than any self, and fascinating in its own right. Ardipithecus tells stories better than Mesopotamian mythology. Methinks those ancients of Mudville got carried away with the malleability of clay, & crafted some tall tales to complete their little cosmos. "Big potter in sky make man, out of clay!" Sooprise.
Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Sixdolphins, for brevity I included only a short list of the greater-than-me things to which I belong. Of course I belong not only to the club of mammals (like my buddies the dolphins) but the even wider club of all living things, as well as the even wider club of all existing things, etc, etc. Come to think about it, I also belong to a history of people, things, and events that are long and near past. In fact the universe to which I belong is so vast, I find difficult to understand why some folks need to believe in the big rock candy mountain. And, yes dolphins, just like humans, are just a random accident. The unlikelyhood of our even existing at all makes life that much more precious and wonderful.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
God doesn't want me to enter his sanctuary. I'm a second-class human. It says so, right there in Leviticus (21:16,24). Yet I was born to be a crookback. Is that fair?
Go to hell, god.
CharlesB (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, for those who have nothing to "feel sorry for" me think thou dost protest too much.
I asked Fr. Virgil once, "What if there is no heaven? What if it's all hooey?"
I'll never forget his answer.
"What do you have to lose by acting as if there is..."
maximum (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pascal's wager; dismantled literally 3 1/2 centuries ago, it's a terrifically weak argument (if that).
The perfect palliative for the authoritarian personality, of which "maximum" clearly is based on her/his recitation of right-wing talking points 'o' the week she distributes throughout this website.
I believe Father Virgil could have presented a better argument, but likely he knew his audience well.
binky (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, in other words, you don't believe in something based on whether or not it is actually true. No, instead your beliefs are based on the rewards you WOULD get if it WERE true. I think that might very well be the definition of delusion.
EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please do not put words in my mouth. Maybe that's your motivation (EatTheRich) then you have an apt moniker.
Do we need a basic lesson in faith here?
Apparently. Yes, Fr. Virgil could absolutely put it better than me. Duh.
Faith, hope and charity. Who would spend time attacking faith?
Ah....
maximum (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Yes, Fr. Virgil could absolutely put it better than me."
I think what binky was speculating is that Fr. Virgil could have presented a better argument TO you, not THAN you. Since you have only echoed the original argument, all we know is that you haven't opted to present a better argument than Fr. Virgil.
As for faith, I find the truth, as best I can determine it, to be far more comforting.
Rich (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2010 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, Rich, I know exactly what Fr. Virgil said. It was simple and powerful.
PW - I'm glad you know what the truth is, for sure for sure. B/C thinkers over the ages have struggled with that one.
Whew--what a load off!
maximum (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, we know you understood Fr. Virgil.
Which Heaven? The one with the eating and drinking and telling of war stories? Or the one with the 72 black eyed virgins (at least for the martyrs)? Or the one with the playing of harps? Or the one reserved for 144 000 of God's chosen?
Rich (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm pleased that someone in the comments already poo poo'ed pascal's wager, makes me proud of our town. That makes up for the comparison of atheists to Hitler. BTW, you lose on the internet when you bring up Hitler.
However, what's with the poll? The best choice for atheists is "the sanest religion" but atheism is not a religion. Atheism means "no theism" or "no religion" so... that poll makes no sense. Think of atheists as non stamp collectors.
sbpuppet (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maximum, it appeareth that thou valuest not intellectual integrity. That's frustrating to the Universe-Is-Fascinating crowd, just as I.E. frustrateth thee. (Or why else wouldst thou comment here?) Know thou this: public expressions of faith in arbitrary belief systems come across to I.E. folk somewhat like public masturbation. "Yes, I have met the Invisible Unicorn on the Dark Side of the Moon, and I feel sorry for anyone who hasn't" etc. Blah, blah, blah. When faith is the iron spike around which all paper-clips of inconvenient reality must bend, well, then thou fallest short of respectability among realists.
Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rich,
"As for faith, I find the truth, as best I can determine it, to be far more comforting"
While your beliefs are obviously much different from those of Maximum, isn't the truth, as best as you can determine it, in itself faith? It's okay if you don't want to go to church with Maximum this Sunday, but to disregard the idea of any form of faith all together seems pretty close minded to me. I believe in gravity even though we aren't quite sure of what causes it...
PST (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the best explanation for "the truth as best I can determine it vs. faith" is where I hope to get my information from.
There are different reasons to believe what we do. Evidence is a good reason. Tradition, authority, and revelation are poor reasons.
Richard Dawkins explained it better than I can:
http://insidecredulity.blogspot.com/2...
Rich (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
maximum, don't fret. Belief has two sides. The first is faith in natural law the other is faith in man made law. One was responsible for the creation of this nation the other is says that your rights come from other men. Like the right to healthcare, the right to food, the right to a pension, the right to someone else's money.
Natural law is what all men are born with and makes you powerful and responsible for your own life. This is what is scaring those that are attacking you. They long ago gave up their freedom and deep down they realize that their lives are hollow because their 'god' is the state. And the state has never survived natural laws.
As long as you believe in a natural law no man made law can usurp it. You can try to ignore the natural laws of economics or freedom but you will have to constantly fight to hold on to your perception of that power - and you eventually will lose. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jcrdan, Wittgenstein would have a field day with your comments. How do you define "natural law" precisely, and what makes it "natural" per se? Does it come from nature? Are its fundamental propositions incontrovertible tautologies that can be understood and agreed to by everyone? Can "natural laws" be objectively measured, like gravity can be? Or is the term "natural law," as you use it, simply a lable used to give someone's opinion a validity that logic and physical demonstration are unable to provide?
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You have already made your choice. Should be interesting. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
René Descartes, 1637:
cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am")
---
Daniel Petry, 2010:
I declare, therefore it be. ("I'm Petry, dammit!")
binky (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All right everyone think on this: Calvinism vs. Arminism. Have fun.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jcrdan, good one! (not really) Enigmatic and nonsensical pronouncements do not constitute contribution to dialogue and do not a coherent argument make. Perhaps that is what this string is all about. There are folks out there who want to be convinced by rational and logic propositions that are supported by evidence that can be observed and agreed to by anyone. There are other folks who feel comfortable taking things on faith. All well and good. However, when we try to support faith based assertions with pseudo-logic or,on the other hand, attempt to assail faith using rational argument, we go wrong. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since "economics" and "freedom" cannot exist without mankind, man has to exist eternally for those laws to actually be "natural laws" - hence, the need for a heaven (and a maybe a hell).
I hear Jesus has a controversial plan for a condo development near the Pearly Gates. (I bet the Apostles are in a union. )
EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I said nothing about faith or religion. I really don't waste time in divining whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who look at their own views as so. I'm bored by elitists. I find that they usually love themselves far too much to offer anything of value; except as an example of how not to live my life. My point is that natural laws and natural rights are what is reality, grounded in essential facts, that hold universal and permanent ramifications. For instance gravity is a natural law. So is the fact that when you run out of money you are not able to do what you'd like. Or that even if you pass a law, if it runs counter to the real world...it will always collapse. These are examples of natural laws. Continue to violate them and you fail.
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyway, I'm off to Vegas to celebrate St. Pats and then March Madness. I'll work on the natural law that holding a pretty blond in one hand and a warm beer in the other does not violate the finer points of fundamental propositions with incontrovertible tautologies of what that blond and I will be doing later as you type up a storm. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now that, Mr. Petry, is a worthy worldview.
binky (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jcrdan, I'll have to take your last comment regarding "holding a pretty blond" on the more textbook definition of "faith" - a belief in something for which there is no proof.
Then again, you can buy anything in Vegas. Perhaps there are "natural laws of economics" after all...
EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2010 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rich,
Thank you for posting the link, and I actually really enjoy reading Dawkins. Without going into a long-winded response, and without denying the importance of drawing our beliefs from observation and evidence, I am not completely satisfied with his answer...
In the case of a murder, as he brings up, it would be irrational for a detective to try and solve a crime solely based on the laws of physics and chemistry. Although they would be completely necessary tools, the detective would need to look to other crucial elements, such as why the killer did it.
While I absolutely agree with the importance of acknowledging material and natural causes for events, I also admit the possibility of other types of knowledge.
For example, if we asked a scientist such as Dawkins why water on my stove was boiling, he would probably answer in terms of molecules and temperatures. But there would still be a second explanation: The water is boiling because I want to have a cup of tea. I think just about anyone would agree that this second explanation is a perfectly good view of reality, but it is something that science doesn't touch - because it isn't it's purpose. Science simply tries to answer the question, "How does it behave?" So science itself does not even claim to be a full description of reality, only one aspect of it.
I think, like you, it is crucial to draw our belief system from "good reasons," but to stop at what is directly quantifiable puts us in a place to be closed off from what could very easily be. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just a thought...
PST (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everything from money having 'value' to the 'right' to not be killed to the 'right' to health care or education are simply social contract. 'We' have decided that our chances of survival are better if we work together. Government, whether in the form of stone tablets or people arguing in a big room is simply a formalizing of those social agreements.
The only reason you can do more if you have money is because people agree to assist you in return for money.
Rich (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are many layers of explanation as to why water is boiling. We save a lot of time by assuming common knowledge. We're not going to argue the fact that heat applied to water causes it to boil. If I want to know what it's boiling, "I want tea" works because we share a lot of common understanding.
I don't think it's a matter of 'stopping'. I think it's more a matter of balancing explanations. Geocentrism was once the common understanding. When Galileo provided concrete evidence for Heliocentrism, the church initially rejected it because it violated scripture. Today we have people who reject the overwhelming evidence of evolution for the same reason.
The fact that I don't know why sunsets are beautiful, only that they are, doesn't mean I have to attribute them to God. They're still beautiful when caused by light from the sun refracting through dust in the sky.
Rich (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rich,
You’re right in saying that there are many layers of explanation for why the water is boiling, and that’s my point. Science is obviously able to explain an aspect of it, but is not able to provide a full description of this reality. I think that you’re also right in the idea of balancing explanations, but it depends on what you choose accept - Copernicus, Kepler, and Boyle all saw a deep compatibility between science and religion.
While I’m sure we don’t want to turn this into a debate over evolution – my point is simply that even the “truth, as best as you can determine it,” is in fact, faith. Let me, however, attempt to make my point using your statement regarding the overwhelming evidence of evolution…
PST (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I’m assuming you’ve read Dawkins book, The Blind Watchmaker. (If not, let me know and I can give you more background.) In it, he admits that there are significant “gaps” in the fossil record and then oddly goes on to say that “the gaps, far from being annoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect.” So basically, the absence of evidence is itself proof that the theory is correct. He finally states, that “The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. Even if the evidence did not favor it, it would still be the best theory available.”
Blinding one’s self to weaknesses in a theory leave even the most zealous fact finding scientists with… faith.
Don’t get me wrong; there is plenty of good evidence for evolution. I just take issue with a close-minded approach to science that is based on a philosophical commitment to deny the possibility of anything greater than chance, rather than the willingness to follow the path of evidence no matter where it goes.
PST (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice cherry picking on the quotes, my good friend PST!
But of course you know he goes on to say:
"...if we take seriously our orthodox neo-Darwinian theory of speciation."
And since Dawkins was talking about punctuated equilibrium as forwarded by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, in that same section, Dawkins continues:
"... Eldredge and Gould could have made this their main message: Don't worry Darwin, even if the fossil record were perfect you shouldn't expect to see a finely graduated progression if you only dig in one place, for the simple reason that most of the evolutionary change took place somewhere else."
The other quote suffers without context as well.
I suggest you have taken Dinesh D'Souza's holy neo-Con ramblings a bit too seriously.
binky (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, Daniel Petry. I'm reading you, keep writing! Hubris is rampant amongst some of the posters. I can't wait to see where this gang goes next...
maximum (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah, "HUBRIS"; what an outstanding word!
Exactly the word that springs to mind when I read the following:
===========
“Only idiots believe this is all about "health insurance reform.
"That said... (see above.)”
-- Posted on March 15 at 11:09 p.m.
“Do we need a basic lesson in faith here?”
-- Posted on March 15 at 11:08 p.m.
“The last few conferences at Fess Parker's were way over the top. I... (and I speak for many...)”
-- Posted on March 15 at 10:37 p.m.
“I prefer quiet faith. But when I see something as dumb as this book idea, I will speak...”
-- Posted on March 15 at 12:25 p.m.
==========
binky (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Binky,
You were missing the point of my post, and the point was simple. But I guess my suggestion that everyone puts faith in their beliefs, whether it be in a god or in the idea that there is nothing greater than ourselves, gives you the need to put down a view that obviously opposes your own.
Next time to spare you the upset post, I'll go ahead and re-type entire chapters so not to upset you with my choice of quotes. Might be a bit long, but hopefully you won't have to put me in a box assuming that my belief system is based on some "neo-con ramblings."
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But the sad thing here is that it's not the "religious" one who is coming across as close-minded. I don't need you to believe what I believe, but I think we need to accept that everyone lives thier lives based on some level of faith.
And if I'm wrong and life can be lived without faith, where is this absolute truth? I honestly want to know!
PST (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PST, Scientists are human, and none of us are immune to being so sure of ourselves that we forget to consider the alternatives. That said, I don't agree with your interpretation of what Dawkins wrote.
Gaps in the fossil record aren't proof of evolution- they are consistent with our understanding of how fossils are created. Although, I'd argue that that's also consistent with the idea that fossils are either God's test or the Devil's trick.
Evolution is the ONLY theory that explains the wide variety of life on this planet. And what's most important is all the evidence that does exist is consistent. There's no "hm, that animal doesn't have DNA" or "these two isotopic dating methods giving us different results for the same thing" or "radio carbon dating says this tree should be 4000 years old but the ring pattern doesn't match a known history of other trees". In other words, all the gloves fit.
As for Hubris- I think the discussion has been quite respectful really. The occasional name calling, but that's to be expected with something we all hold so dear. Most of us think we're right about most things, otherwise we wouldn't be sharing our views.
Rich (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. PST, your point may have been simple, but your examples were simply wrong and were either crafty or carelessly drawn and selectively sourced. That I pointed out in a direct fashion.
You attempt to define Atheism as "the idea that there is nothing greater than ourselves," a formulation I doubt you could get any Atheist to agree with.
I don't know what your beliefs are based on, just the (erroneous) source of your quote-mining. I also said that.
You used science to attempt to bolster your very weak equation of:
Faith = Science = Religious Belief
...which is probably a slight to all the variables.
You also use, rather carelessly and often, the word "faith" interchangeably with belief, hope, trust, and study. And the unrigorous application of the word and the ideas ends up with you making this confused declaration:
"I just take issue with a close-minded approach to science that is based on a philosophical commitment to deny the possibility of anything greater than chance..."
What you got perfectly right is the last clause, the very essence of scientific inquiry:
"...the willingness to follow the path of evidence no matter where it goes."
binky (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, Binky, you're researching my posts. I'm flattered! (-; Tell me more about "me" - have you've got me pegged?
I'm not shoving my belief in faith on you dear, Binky. You and your ilk appear to be doing all the shoving.
I AM questioning why someone writes a book tearing down the notion of HAVING faith... as if it's a sign of lemming-like weakness. I happen to belief having faith is exactly the opposite, it's an openess, an allowing for the possiblity of an oftimes unknown "more."
So I ask again, why does "faith" threaten people so much???
maximum (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2010 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think you're confusing 'threatened' with 'bemused'. At least the faith exhibited here. Some of my best friends are deeply religious, and I have no desire to change them. I can't fathom how they can reject lightening coming from Thor, but don't have a problem with a talking snake. But life would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything.
Faith is only threatening when people are killing because they think something wants them to. Or when people think it's some kind of requirement for morality.
The fact is, either of us would probably hold the door for the other. Aside from our faith or lack thereof, we're all mostly decent folk interested in what other people believe.
Rich (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2010 at 12:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW, maximum, why are people threatened by lack of 'faith'?
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/201...
Rich (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2010 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So sorry, Rich, but since you didn't invoke the Rubber/Glue Rule, "maximum's" argument stands on account of, well...
...she said it first.
binky (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2010 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Alright friends, I'm going to let you keep going on this one...
To be so certain that what you believe is absolutely correct and that I am so impressively wrong only shows that your faith is alive and well, which was my argument from the start. I'll keep the willingness to follow the path of evidence no matter where it goes, and you can hang on to your obvious philosophical commitment to deny the possibility of anything greater than chance.
While I'm sure Binky will want the last word with a response regarding my poor choices in reading, inability to reason, or my stupidity for having the beliefs that he's assumed I do, I'm going out with the same point I started with: We all have faith, and it is our decision where to place it.
And Rich, I absolutely agree with you that it is up to us to form our beliefs around "good" reasons, and it is obvious that you make a point to do so. But just don't let those reasons be solidified on third-hand stories that you read on the internet about girls at summer camps trying to kill each other. If you refer back to Dawkins letter that you referred to earlier, that belief would be come from "authority" - not a good reason.
PST (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2010 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As expected, the posts from the religious are laden with irony and intellectual dishonesty from maximum's "What an empty idiot" to PST's talk of faith and evidence and assumption and ignorant charges about denying the possibility of anything greater than chance.
truth_machine (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2010 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I don't need you to believe what I believe, but I think we need to accept that everyone lives thier lives based on some level of faith."
In other words, we need to believe what you believe -- "that everyone lives thier lives based on some level of faith". Sorry, but I don't believe that -- I think it's wrong and misleading. "faith" is believing things for no valid reason, but I eschew beliefs of that sort.
truth_machine (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2010 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Saddened would be more the word... but really any word that doesn't "fit" for you all is subject to scrutiny and ridicule.
How about this:
Do unto others as they would do unto you.
I'm bored with you people except the few who "get it." You know who you are...
maximum (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2010 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Arrogant and unintelligent is a sad combination.
truth_machine (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2010 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't there a saying God doesn't suffer fools (-;
maximum (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2010 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." Robert Pirsig
Religion can be healthy as long as it is treated for what it is: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion." (http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...)
It's when one forgets that there is no 'one way' and judges from that stance that the practice of religion becomes unhealthy.
hodgmo (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2010 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ask yourself two questions? Do I have faith in anything? If so, what do I have faith in? Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2010 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence."
-- Abu Ala Al-Ma'arri
samuel (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ask yourself two questions? Do I have faith in anything? If so, what do I have faith in? Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2010 at 1:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
#1: Yes
#2: The utter folly of the human condition.
So, jcrdan, what good now accrues from your pointless questions.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2010 at 2:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, his talk was today. How many of you commenting on his book actually went to hear what he had to say?
SezMe (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2010 at 2:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What is intersting is that the overall experience I've had with people locally is that while they ridicule people who have *religious* faith, they themselves put a lot of faith in their pet politicians.
Think about it, the fanatical devotion they have to the Democratic Party based on a misguided belief in the "hope and change" mantra that implies peace abroad and respect for rights domestically yet one can shoot holes in this by pointing out the current presidents' support of the war and the Patriot Act. To add to my point, local progressive Democrats are taking Lois Capps to task for funding the war.
My point is that the difference is that some of us choose to put faith in the idea that there is something beyond the world we create, while others put faith in other people.(and my criticism extends to those who call themselves Christians yet worship the temporal gods of the Republican National Committe--thus contradicting their own stated beliefs) Either way, putting one's faith in other people and statism has not solved the problems which have plagued us from the beginning of time and if anything, have made things much worse--judging by how as time goes on there is a collective feeling of need for more control over our day-to-day lives.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2010 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This discussion has made me proud of our city...solid. At the end of the day, we have a lot more in common with each other than we realize.
sbmomandpop (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2010 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why SezMe? It shows that at least you have some level of faith. Even if it is in the belief of the failure of you and your fellow man. Daniel Petry
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
March 23, 2010 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)