Jim:
No problem, I've built quite a little library on the subject of schizophrenia. Glad to be of service.
As for my brother; sadly, he's not with us any more. He committed suicide fourteen years ago. Yep, still flashes of pain, anger and regret when the subject comes up, but time and efforts of myself and Mel have gotten the emotional wounds down to scar tissue. These days the main emotion I display towards my brother is a sense of missing him.
If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask.
Now, I'm off to play with the kids. Great way to kick off the blues.
Bag-O-Scott
Cindy,
I think you're believing that Shakespeare took himself a lot more seriously than he very well might have. I didn't cringe, mosrly because I know how much of a revision process good theater goes through. It's a cute joke, and it worked perfectly in the context of a charming movie.
What, you think ol' Will wasn't a young kid like we've all been at some point?
Regards,
Joseph
Little Washu,
Not unlike the fit of rage that William Shakespeare would exhibit if he caught a showing of Shakespeare In Love.
Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's daugther-- am I the only one who cringed? I didn't think it was funny at all. I thought it was insulting and I'm not even a rabid Shakespeare fanatic.
Cindy
CINDY: You've certainly got a point there. if Jesus was to drop by nowadays and take a long visit to the library, imagine the expression on his face when he'd come out after he found out how busy everyone's been 'interpreting' his teachings.
There must be nothing worse in the world than discovering that some dorks seized your name after you kicked the bucket and began a jihad. I wonder if Harlan's work will begin a jihad a century from now...
...and by then we could start wearing 'HARLAN'S BACK AND IS HE PISSED' t-shirts.
Little Washu
Dear Chuck,
Thank you for your kind words.
I didn't know how my post would be recieved here, so many have suffered so much at the hands of those who would shout " I am a Christian" in one breath and " I am better than all of YOU" in the next.
I am sorry for the things you have suffered at the hands of those who crouch beneath the banner of Christ and do harm to others in his name.
Theirs is behaviour beneath contempt.
What you said about me was lovely and I echo the sentiment. I would be honored to keep company with you, Chuck.
Any time.
Cindy
Dear Chuck,
Thank you for your kind words.
I didn't know how my post would be recieved here, so many have suffered so much at the hands of those who would shout " I am a Christian" in one breath and " I am better than all of YOU" in the next.
I am sorry for the things you have suffered at the hands of those who crouch beneath the banner of Christ and do harm to others in his name.
Theirs is behaviour beneath contempt.
What you said about me was lovely and I echo the sentiment. I would be honored to keep company with you, Chuck.
Any time.
Cindy
Rick, if I haven't said it before, let me say it now: You do good work here, sir. Harlan is lucky to have you for his point man in cyberspace.
SCOTT: Thank you for the suggestions. The Sheehan book comes highly recommended by Torrey, too, so I will hunt that one down will all due haste. My edition of SURVIVING SCHIZOPHRENIA is the fourth, and I agree with you--I'm only thirty pages in, but it seems to be a reasoned, balanced, COMPASSIONATE book that deserves every accolade thrown at it. (By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with his choice of the three best movies ever made on schizophrenia: THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY; CLEAN, SHAVEN; and ANGEL BABY.)
Was your brother ever successfully treated for his illness?
HEATHER: Nah, I never had religion shoved down my throat as a child. My mother was Jewish, my father Protestant, and neither seemed very interested in inculcating me with any form of religious doctrine (I don't think I went to Temple or Church more than half-a-dozen times growing up).
Now, that doesn't mean I was ignorant of matters of faith, necessarily; I was always aware of my Jewish roots, and very proud of them. But formal religious observance, except for select holidays, was a rarity in my home. Though I can understand your point that atheism is just a reaction to religious indoctrination, that just isn't the case with me. (And I'm really more of an agnostic than anything else, though I DO agree with the atheists that organized religion needs to be taken down a few pegs.)
"I'll make you a bet. Every one of you who has spread more than two lines of thought on this forum on the matter of the 'lack of a god'...was once having religion (or the views of a someone--ie. a parent or authority figure who said, "you must do as we TELL you!") shoved down his/her throat. Am I right?"
Nope. My parents (Mom considers herself agnostic, not sure about Dad but I believe he considers himself non-practicing Catholic) aren't very religious people. They had me make my First Communion and we even went to church a few times back then. I didn't make my Confirmation, though as I left Catechism looong before then. I considered myself agnostic until around sixteen, seventeen, when I "saw the light," or lack thereof. I didn't say I was atheist, though, until nineteen or twenty. No Carrietta White situation here.
Bill
Brian, Pollit did mention teflon. Hehe.
Most of what you described Brian could have easily been developed without space travel. Technology in America is slow mainly because of the Pentagon systems control in the area. And frankly, I can do without the taste treat from Romulus 3--TANG.
Satellite technology was given mostly free to corporate interest, to privatize space. I see a mostly private space program in the future--if we want it or not.
The religious right has monopolized the use of satellites in spreading the gospel. They own all these radio stations also, because they believe in the false biblical mandate. No fairness doctrine for these rubes. This is the side of the globalization arguement that is never talked about. Religion plays into a lot of the lobbying on this subject.
Heather said:
"I'll make you a bet. Every one of you who has spread more than two lines of thought on this forum on the matter of the 'lack of a god'...was once having religion (or the views of a someone--ie. a parent or authority figure who said, "you must do as we TELL you!") shoved down his/her throat. Am I right?"
In my case Heather, you're wrong.
I had a father and mother who delighted in cruelty and manifested it on my brothers and sisters with abandon.
I had a society filled with people who professed to employ the judeo-christian ethos, the principles of justice being fair, the sense that compassion should be part of the day to day existence, who turned their back on a child's pleas for help. The people who stated "suffer the children who come onto me" in their church on Sunday and on other days when abuse became present, spun on their heels and said; "it's not my concern".
I stood in the chaos of watching, one by one, my siblings die; some by their own hand, others by misadventure.
For me there can be no god, except one perhaps who delights in the torture of his creations, savoring the arbitrary misery he doles out to them as one would savor a meal.
Funny, but my experience has one of the reasons I like the story "Paingod", but the ending seems a copout.
Many don't get a deliverance for the evil that religion, in the hands of the cruel, the crazed, even worse; the indifferent, can come to represent.
Bag-O-Scott
Oh, God.
Where do I sit on the subject of faith and religion? I have a hard time finding a comfortable place on this subject. I'd like to believe that there is a diety, a life after death, I just don't want it to be the cosmic Hannibal Lecter that the Frankenchristers wish to ram down everybody's throat.
Cindy seems to be the kind of Christian I'd rather keep company with, someone who seems more truly Christian, rather than the people who turn that faith into something ugly. I think that ugliness comes from the Frankenchrister's main, true motivation: power. They are fascists who use the faith to promote their extreme, radical nationalist, anti-democratic agenda. And I mean fascists in the political sense, people who exalt the state (their state) above the individual, closet statists who want a central authority, an autocracy, headed by their Maximum Leader. To paraphrase Tim M. Berra, author of *Evolution and the Myth of Creation*, "(They) have deified their interpretation of a book, and they expect all to worship at their altar".
Even so, I would be quite happy to ingnore them, exept for the fact that they will not be IGNORED. Here in the good old state of Colorado, you may recall the issue that came up in the 1992 election, known as Amendment Two. That was the so-called "no special rights" amendment, saying that the city governments could not pass a law extending special protections for particular groups. One group in particular. Gay people. I'll have to admit, the campaign waged on behalf of Amendment Two was very well thought out. Very sophisticated. It should have been. The group promoting this amendment, Colorado for Family Values, had a lot of out-of-state help.
The more visible part of the campaign was the bland No Special Rights. Leaders of CFV claimed they wanted no special rights for anyone. Nothing personal.
Ah, but there was the dark, slimy underside of the campaign. Testimony to the state legislature on how dangerous gay people were, what a menace to society. They described the filthy habits they had, warned of the recruitment of children. Then there were the videos they showed at churches all over Colorado. I saw those videos long after the campaign. The same slanders, only brought to life on the screen. The grinning, chuckling testimony by a former psychiatrist about the filthy, destructive lifestyle of homosexuals, how they were recruited through child abuse, how they were child molesters. The more vicious he got, the more he grinned. Then there was the poison pen letters, the mailings sent by former Senator Bill Armstrong, making charges against all gay people, based on cases that were distorted, spun, and leavened with outright lies.
The amendment won by a narrow margin. It felt like a kick in the stomach. Sure, I took it personally. I'm gay. I had a personal stake in this. I'll never forget the photo in th paper the next day, a friend of mine hugging a woman he campaigned with, crying. The amendment won mainly in the countryside, the location of the most ugly part of the campaign. Metropolitan areas had the most votes against. I still shake when I remember this. We had no idea what we were up against. We were as unprepared for this as Helen Gahagan Douglas was for Nixon's campaign.
Of course, the Supremes ruled the amendment unconstitutional, mainly due to the intent of the law. Each of the supporters of the amendment, including the mephitic Judge Scalia were right wing Frankenchristers.
Maybe I believe in some ultimate intelligence. Maybe I don't. But I will not believe in the same slouching, foul entity as the religious right, including Attorney General Ashcroft, and Interior Secretary Gail Norton, who defended Amendment Two here in Colorado.
This is personal for me.
As for them, it is simply animal agression: one monkey humping another monkey to show 'em who's boss. This is not what was intended for this or most other faiths.
They're lousy Christians, but they'd make fine Satanists.
I intend to be ready next time they try another amendment.
Chuck
No blame here, Brian.
I'm afraid my wording must have been off.
I blame no religion or group. Mine is simple conjecture on perceived Bible spin.
Surely you cannot dispute that there is a list to the Bible. Things slanted in a way to help promote configuring behaviour.
If I had worded my communique effectively you would have gleaned that I love the Catholic church and subscribe to many of her edicts.
The "throwing of blame" was not my intent. Neither was the notion that the Catholic religion was original in it's take on the proper fearfulness of God.
If I gave you the wrong impression, I beg your pardon.
Cindy
Gotta take issue with Cindy's blaming the fear-of-Gahd on the Catholic Church. No doubt, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has encouraged its share of fear in the past. But notice that the final books of the Bible detail Paul's building of the Church-- most of the Bible, including the wrathful-and-vengeful aspects of the Almighty, were composed long before even Jesus drew breath.
So, if you want to throw the blame for "fear of god" on any particular religion, you might consider lobbing it at those nomadic tribes that wrote most of the stuff while they were wiping out the Amalekites. That's where the Catholics got it, after all.
Personally, I figure that the idea of _fearing_ gods exists in just about every culture that believes in them in the first place. So no one group, tribe, or sect can really be
Gotta take issue with Cindy's blaming the fear-of-Gahd on the Catholic Church. No doubt, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has encouraged its share of fear in the past. But notice that the final books of the Bible detail Paul's building of the Church-- most of the Bible, including the wrathful-and-vengeful aspects of the Almighty, were composed long before even Jesus drew breath.
So, if you want to throw the blame for "fear of god" on any particular religion, you might consider lobbing it at those nomadic tribes that wrote most of the stuff while they were wiping out the Amalekites. That's where the Catholics got it, after all.
Personally, I figure that the idea of _fearing_ gods exists in just about every culture that believes in them in the first place. So no one group, tribe, or sect can really be blamed.
Humbly added to the debate...
Religion is simply mythology - a story or play that is used to define the most conservative morality of any culture at any given time without the need to apply logic or law. Like talking clouds, dinosaurs, or other Disney constructs it is given form in some human authority figure to relate that morality to the masses.
The power of this mythology is held by those who feel they are closer to or have the ear of or enjoy special access to these culture constructs and can use influence those who NEED reassurance that this life isn't an empty shitcan of pain and woe.
FAITH and the CHURCH are two different and often incompatible institutions. I have learned that I can love "God" and be comfortable spiritually without the need of a church to tell me what is good and what is evil. If there IS a true, ultimate God, nobody on the planet's got a clean shot on what It is all about. Not a clue. I prefer the think there are just beings - spirits if you will - that exist at a sufficiently advanced level that our science cannot understand them and may influence us as we influence a bee hive or an ant colony.
I believe more that spirits of the dead, the spirits of those come and gone before us, live on in some way within the biosphere. I can look to the spirits of the past for guidance instead of some sheltered, inexperienced and shallow guy in a robe. Not that the priesthood or the church serves no purpose. Just my 2 cents.
The CHRISTIAN wades into the Lion's den.
> Is it any more laughable to consider creationist theory as reality than it is to determine cold hard fact from what we can perceive with our finite senses?
>Could not a being that had the power and inclination to create all that we see in six days also be capable of making things appear to be or seem any way he chooses?
>I don't think speculation is something that should be railed against no matter what belief one chooses to espouse.
>I am Lutheran, I believe in Christ. I cannot be dissuaded from my religion because I choose not to be.
>I don't feel threatened by the theory of evolution; fact or fiction it doesn't change a thing for me. My religion is not based on how long it took to create the earth. I see no valid reason to get bent out of shape because something from the Bible doesn't line up with science.
I believe that the Bible as we know it is a translation with a fear-factor spin by men of the Catholic faith ( I teeter on the brink of Catholicism myself) who felt the need to put the "fear of God" into the masses. In my opinion, admonitions of " Hell to Pay" were included to whip the people into shape and insure their obedience.
>My best friend Becky, aka Becky-the-Damned, fell off the Christianity wagon about a dozen years ago.
>
>She absolutely adores arguing with Christians because there are so many holes in our framework. She loves to go to Christian chat rooms where she can blindside those who have their religion on their sleeves. The more pious and devout the victim the angrier they become when she asks them questions on scripture (which she knows well enough to be the nightmare of most ministers) which have no way out.
>Nevertheless Becky and I continue a friendship that has grown only stronger since it began 33 years ago when we were in grade school. I lose no points for my Christianity and she loses nothing because she no longer subscribes.
We are all different--he made us that way for a reason. I would imagine that the reason had something to do with entertainment.
I'm Christian. Do I think God loves y'all any less because you aren't? No. Do I think I won't see y'all on the other side because you don't believe what I believe? Nope.
My religion is personal.. that's all. I don't have to inflict it on anyone else to make it real.
Cindy
To Chris L. We probably have a LOT more in common than previously understood.
Now to reply to Heather. Actually, I never had religion shoved down my throat very much. My parents were only conventionally religious. They weren't anywhere near fanatical, and when I stopped going to church, they never really objected very much.
But you ask why some of us feel the need to assert our lack of belief. It's pretty simple; we live in a world where religion _does_ get shoved down our throats, and it's nice to be able to assert our independence on this issue.
As for other people having beliefs, and this being the root of my discontent with religion... well, it's not that they have beliefs. It's that they have shallow, unquestioned, simple, and frequently _wrong_ beliefs. And history and current events demonstrate that such beliefs, when married with religion, have a tremendous capacity for torment and ruin. Heck, if I was denouncing the Nazis, would you tell me that I did so because I ressent their having an ethos I lacked?
To Zanadu, re human factors in science. Nearly 100% agreement from me on this point; all too often, science is subject to the things which have little to do with the scientific viability of an issue, and more to do with tradition, personal agendas, and financial interests. There's a fascinating body of work on the sociology of science.
Heather - I was answering this question, WHICH BY THE WAY YOU ASKED:
"Every one of you who has spread more than two lines of thought on this forum on the matter of the 'lack of a god'...was once having religion (or the views of a someone--ie. a parent or authority figure who said, "you must do as we TELL you!") shoved down his/her throat. Am I right?"
See, this is why I don't involve myself in debate here often. I answer as directly as I know how and I'm the bad guy. I call the above a sweeping generalization (which, by the way, it is), and I'm distancing myself to rationalize an attack.
I didn't get personal with you because you seem, and have always seemed, like a nice person. And since I consider the suppositions you made in your post to be patronizing, my emotional response would not have been kind. I didn't think you deserved that. I will, however, in light of your efforts on the behalf of KICK, Harlan, and this board, leave the offer open for a real, personal, direct response, guaranteed completely non-distancing.
But if you ask for it, remember that you asked for it. I don't have a rheostat when it comes to this stuff; just an on and off switch.
Heather,
One does not have to be one of the faithful to be interested in matters of religion. I am pretty sure that IsaacAsimov was an atheist but his Annotated Guide to the Bible is a wonderful reference work. I am an atheist but the first books you will see when you enter my house are several different versions of the Bible.
Atheist or theist, religion impacts your life on a daily basis. I am endlessly fascinated by the subject and try to learn all I can about different religions and religious criticism. My interest started with a love of mythology (especially Norse) and has continued to include... well, all other mythology. I know some people get upset when you use phrases like "Judeo-Christian mythology" but, sorry, that's how I view it.
I also don't agree with your assertion that atheists don't believe in anything and that, because of that, they take out their frustrations on those who do believe.
I believe in all sorts of things. Modern atomic theory. Quantum mechanics. I believe that baseball is the greatest game on earth. I believe the human race is, when you boil it down, inherently good and generally inclined to greatness though there are many inertial forces dragging us down from the lofty heights we can achieve. I believe in the power of art and music to inspire. I believe in the power of one man or woman to change the course of history. I believe Stanley Kubrick is the greatest director who ever lived.
I believe all sorts of things. Most of all, I believe that the attempt to learn the truth, as best we can, is a noble pursuit.
I believe that we should be humble enough to realize we will never understand everything but arrogant enough to try anyway.
I also believe I need at least six hours of sleep before I take a two and a half hour drive to North Jersey tomorrow so I bid you all a good night.
As mentioned, in said god(less) post, if you don't feel it's applicable to YOU, you need not argue the point (nor reduce said observations to an implied 'what an odd idea; let us not speak on the matter' sweeping generalization.)
I've 'often' observed that 'some' people who 'react' (how so? not sure) to other's observations, have tasted a tad of truth in said points of thought.
How many bodies do I need to find, to show proof, hmm?
Heather, a tad tired of the "self"-distancing (i.e., oh, isn't that a safe topic for conversation--meaning it's not real, it's not really personal; I can win this argument; that's what matters) that goes on in 'intellectual' argument.
Rick said:
>Furthermore, it is not true that "whacked out" ideas are part of the scientific process, or that opposing viewpoints should be encouraged. The only time an opposing or unusual idea should ever even be considered is when it presents testable tenets. A theoretical physicist may consider a thousand ideas about how the universe operates, from the very reasonable to the completely off-the-wall, but until one of those ideas makes it into the form of a claim that can be tested it is not a theory and not part of the process.
I read this and recalled flipping through a book, in the library, on how creative people get their ideas. I cannot relate to you who the specific person was, but there once was this scientist, I think it was a woman, who was looking for a solution to a scientific problem.
She was at a conference, one weekend, out and about wandering in a field. An idea came to her. She couldn't say why; she couldn't say how; she just knew it was the answer.
She told her associates about this idea and spent years trying to prove it--there were no measurably means to DO so, at the time.
She finally did, and proved herself right.
I believe that thinking. I don't think an idea, that can't be proved, is always wrong.
Sometimes our perceptive or measuring devices are just not advanced enough. Which gives one pause about men in the moon, gods in the church, and why peanut butter on bread falls face down, when dropped on the linoleum.
Heather
No, you're not right. I was raised in a very open-minded fashion concerning belief in God. While I don't generally have a problem with any religion as long as it's not used as a basis for dragging homosexuals behind pickup trucks, I've certainly argued the subject from the non-belief standpoint more than my share.
A blind faith eventually winds up leaving bloody corpses its wake. I therefore believe it should be combated, as should sweeping generalizations about the psychological nature of people's choice of debate topics.
The more vocal of you 'atheists' (for this reply, meaning someone who doesn't _believe_... in something'), I'll make you a bet. Every one of you who has spread more than two lines of thought on this forum on the matter of the 'lack of a god'...
was once having religion (or the views of a someone--ie. a parent or authority figure who said, "you must do as we TELL you!") shoved down his/her throat. Am I right?
Why do you waste so much brain energy disputing this? If you ARE so devout in your sense of non-religion, get ON with it. DO something else. BE creative. Why spend your life in a half-light arguing the point with someone who obviously still has _need_ of this god, I ASK you.
Let me also attempt a correlation: The ones on this board who spend so much time trouncing on another's need to believe in a 'god' (if this applies to you, take note; if it doesn't, don't worry about it, hmm?) well, maybe, just.. maybe.. it has a little more to do with the fact that the other someone HAS a belief...
...in SOMEthing--even if it's a silly ole god of some nature.
You have no belief, not even in your OWN self (it would appear--of COURSE I'm drawing conclusions; isn't that what you did to Frank's statement?), so you find it succoring to trounce on those who DO believe.
I ask you, is this a coincidence or what?
I grew up sans religion. It never came up. Neither of my parents, for whatever reason, felt the need to send us to Sunday school. When we were young, they gave us the option. And we all pretty much gave religion a pass. Can't say completely why--probably something to do with the sun. Probably something to do with a baseball. Probably something to do with being a kid on a Sunday afternoon.
I've met atheists--the vocal ones, I mean; not the ones who just get on with their day--who generally grew up in some religion. They had religion, more or less, in their view, shoved down their throats. I met this one guy when I was twenty. He was particularly engrossed with bringing it up as a topic of discussion. I cannot see the point. If it ain't your favorite flavor--think of chocolate bars--so be it. If you hated having that religion forced on you as a kid, so be it; have done with it; get ON with your life, use your powers for creative growth. The bad religious experience sucked ENOUGH out of your life, why prolong the agony?
(Unless, you're still WONDERING.........)
.....
That's tantamount to harping on that first bad relationship--on and on and on. Thing is, sometimes, that first 'relationship' (and the continual harping and recreating of the history of it) colors our approach to the next one; and the next one; and the next. The evil of the past relationship (be it god or first girlfriend/boyfriend/puppy dog) is the only thing that wins, really. It _got_ to you IN the bad relationship; and it's STILL feeding off you--as you compare every following relationship (with the "other", the god, the deity, the circumstance.)
Why waste time? You'll be dead soon enough. And you can ask him/her/it/them when you arrive in "Heaven."
I believe there IS something to mankind's need for meaning; and the need often seems to manifest in that "need for the _other_"...be it god, or girlfriend or big dog or small newborn child or wife of twenty five years.
We'd all like to think, "we mattered".. sometime, somewhere, to someone, or something, some deity.
And that deity can be god, or goy or... one's self.
Heather
Interesting sidebar: I wrote this piece in Notepad. I originally wrote "God" with a capital. Something someone once wrote--oh, guess..please--made me do a search to change the word to "god."
I was amused, when I got to the end of my search and even Notepad agreed with you when it (he? she?) said, "Cannot find "God." I just clicked "Okay." And got on with my day. A hint, perhaps? *grin*
I had to remove some updates here on the
KICK lawsuit with AOL to avoid interfering with the suit and
the decisions to be made concerning it. While it's not my usual practice, the Ellisons asked me to do so and I respect their reasons for making the request.
I'm sure we'll have an official update soon. For now,
I will onlyconcur with the people who said now is the time to help out, both to dig deep and to spread the word.
KICK Internet Donations
have raised $1,812.00 for the Ellisons so far and I have another $275.00 in pending donations. If you guys want to drum up some support or make that donation you've been putting off this weekend I will cut a check to them on Monday for whatever the balance winds up at.
Here I go agreeing with Brian (a definite sign of the coming apocalypse)... I second the question to Bill G. - an anthology of what?
I continue to resist the binary nature of Chris L.'s assertions. I guess I'm not comfortable with any statement that claims to be the absolute truth - especially a scientific statement. Chris says it is or it isn't. I say maybe, or maybe it's neither, or maybe it's some combination of both. I am saying I don't know - and I'm pretty sure YOU don't know either - but ain't life grand anyway.
Onward:
Rick was on target regarding the non-overlapping nature of science and religion, at least from my POV - no further comments there.
But Rick wrote: "a scientific theory is based on a central hypothesis - a statement of opinion about how the universe operates, yes. But this statement must be testable."
Explaining all the previously observed data is sufficient to pass the "testable" hurdle. Really. It takes nothing more than being able to explain what we've already seen to be considered a working theory.
"Additionally, most such hypotheses generate a number of other assertions which are also testable."
It is here where the rubber meets the road, scientifically speaking. This is what I said earlier: "to gain widespread, general acceptance, a theory not only has to agree with observed data, it should predict heretofore unobserved phenomena successfully, and exclusively."
But it doesn't have to have widespread, general acceptance to remain a working theory. It needs only to remain viable - not disproved by new data. Frequently, theories are championed only by small groups of scientists - and it isn't until they demonstrate some spectacular or unique data that their theory grabs the interest of their peers. Re: Cold Fusion
Once you have sufficient interest in your theory and supporting data, many clever minds bend to the task of exploring the it. THIS is the power of the scientific method. A theory is suddenly placed through the wringer, assaults from every imaginable direction and careful consideration of the logic and extensions of that logic. THIS is the crucible from which our description of reality emerges.
But all of that doesn't mean that ANY of the theories are correct - only that they remain viable. There are noted cases where "opposing" theories turn out to be seperate parts of a different, hybrid theory; the quantum nature of light - both particle-like and wave-like behaviours. "The Big Bang", and "The Steady State" theories of the Universe combine into "The Inflationary" model. And so on.
Then there are some theories for which there is no proof for many years after conception - due to an inability to perform a validating experiment, or the validation is an event that is extraordinarily rare. Further refinements and new extensions are proposed, EVEN THOUGH THE ORIGINAL THEORY REMAINS UNPROVEN. This IS science. Re: Superstring Theory, Black Holes, Proton Decay...
I don't disagree with the fundamentals of Chris', or Brian's or Rick's statements - But I do believe that human passion - and belief in an as-yet-unproven theories are an important part of the drive of science. It is passion, and sometimes madness, that pushes the boundries.
Bill/Lynn ~ Maybe I'm crazy, but have either of you considered some sort of e-book format? I'm not sure how popular this would be, but production costs would be practically nil.
On the other hand, there are several, "we'll print it for you" type, traditional paper, publishing houses as well.
Food for thought.
-Andrew
To Bill G. re anthology. I don't mean to come down on you, but anthology of _what_, exactly?
(I just wish this case would get more coverage. The fact that so many writers' organizations are NOT helping Harlan out is pretty ugly, so some press attention might have some serious benefit.)
To Frank Church. I love this. You present Pollitt's rather sweeping dismissal of NASA, but when she compiles a detailed and factually-based indictment of the free ride religions get in our society, you accuse her of lacking balance or nuance. Exactly what _is_ your criteria for "balanced" and "nuanced?"
For that matter, what of the good things the space program has done? If you're going to fault Pollitt for not mentioning the nice things from religion, than you really ought to fault yourself for not mentioning things like microcomputers, global climate mapping, study of the environment, satellite technology, and TANG when you're complaining about NASA.
Meant to post my e-mail in the last message.
Four today...I must be crazy!
Scott--I agree completely with you. I also know that sooner or later I'll crack, pulling my hair out, screaming, "There is no Santa!" Or I'll really crack and just believe in Santa. I can dig Santa more than god. Santa will give stuff. (Greedy? I dunno. But I like to get, what can I say?).
Lynn--I would love to be able to come up with some sort of antho (I was even thinking a Webderland BB Antho, there has got to be enough of us here to pull off something), but, like you, mine would be a sad little thing done completely on my PC...no Kinkos or anything else for me. Besides, the kind of antho that would really help the cause would need names whom I'm sure would want at least a little something. If writing is your bread-n-butter, you won't want to give it up. Though, I'm sure Harlan has friends who owe a favor or two...
Shaking head. I don't know....
Bill
Bill G.~ Count me in, both in donating labor & content. I can't be an organizer, tho'. If I was, it'd be a little spiral bound Kinko's reject of a publication, and I think someone here could do better.
L.
Bill:
First man, sorry, I forgot. You were supposed to get space with Jim, but posted, then kicked myself.
As to Christmas; we don't get rid of the holiday, we just have amended it to our wishes. Any who feel differently and act accordingly, more power to them. My mother and father-in-law cringed a little at first, but as soon as they got used to it came to like the idea. My mother-in-law thought it horrid, until Danny said that "the gifts from Gramma meant more knowing they came from Gramma, not from a made-up man". Not bad, if you don't mind the opinion.
For me, I can't carry the baggage of culture if I feel it's false or working to an alterior motive, much like the commercialisation of the holidays or its use to propagate the belief in some mythical deity. If there's to be celebration, I'd rather do it for a reason I can believe in. For me, considering my past, I can't see any better reason than family.
Of course, it's still burning holes in the plastic, if you get my meaning.
Now, to create the perfect non-materialistic society...
Culture is my engine, Ethics my track, says social engineer Bag-O-Scott, aka Anthropological Casey Jones
Brian, did You read the piece she did on the space program?
Katha Pollitt is right about her charges but has no balanced or nuanced review. She never mentions the good things people of faith do: The civil rights movement was mostly religious; Unitarians and other religions that supported the anti-war movement against Vietnam; Radical Catholics who help third world people ravaged by America's crimes--and on and on.
But the molestation cases have to be dealt with. But remember, this is not about religion, it is about conservative, backward church teachings, that need to be changed. Coarse, because of 9/11 we are really afraid to challenge this power structure. We used religion to help us cope with the terror attack, and now religion is about as untouchable as Police or Firemen.
It's now considered "unpatriotic" to be an atheist--I dissagree, but these are the facts. I see only more fundamentalist in our future, sadly. Hope I'm wrong.
First to the important:
Jim Davis: Yes, my brother had the disease. If you've got the fourth edition of Dr. Torrey's work, "Surviving Schizophrenia", you got the best one, or, in my estimation, the most helpful.
Others I've come across, and found excellent:
"The Eden Express" by Mark Vonnegut
"The Broken Brain: The Biological Revolution in Psychiatry" by Nancy C. Andreasen
"Is There No Place On Earth For Me?" by Susan Sheehan
"Living and Working With Schizophrenia" by M.V. Seeman
"Schizophrenia: Straight Talk for Families and Friends" by Maryellen Walsh
For websites:
www.schizophrenia.com -> first rate! You can get help and support, and discuss the disease with many who have experience as both sufferers and families.
www.nami.com -> fine informational site of the National Association of the Mentally Ill.
www.schizophrenia.mentalhelp.net -> another fine and interactive site which is quite good as a resource
www.mgl.ca/~chovil -> Ian Chovil is a gentleman suffering with the illness who has decided to build a webiste detailing his struggles with the disease, and what effects it has on his day to day existence. Quite informative.
Hope that helps. If you have any further questions you think I can help with, let me know.
Best, Scott
Gosh, Frank, considering that I've never dissed Pollitt on anything, I'm truly amazed that you think there's some odd inconsisttency in my recommending one of her essays.
As far as knowing "as little or as much about God as any of us" goes, well, could you possibly think of any reason why she _should_? Or shouldn't?
I love Katha Pollitt, but she knows as little or as much about God as any of us.
Remember, Katha also wrote the diss of the space program that all of you loved so well. So, it seems, all of a sudden Katha is smart again--sheesh, don't that beat all.
CHRIS L: Imagine how I felt the first time I drove through downtown--people on the street were wearing these crisp, white, vaguely-military uniforms, and all I could think was, "Huh. I had no idea that Clearwater housed a Naval base." Poor clueless me...
I'm going to make a rare exception and dive into the debate on religion and science.
The problem with comparing different religious beliefs and difference scientific theories is that they are not the same animal. Religious beliefs are essentially opinion -- that is, they are matters of faith, based almost purely on one's upbringing and intuition (whether or not one considers that intuition to be divinely inspired). There is no physical evidence to back up the tenets of any major religion and sketchy at best historical support.
Therefore, one can look at other religions and opposing viewpoints and say they can be given fairly equal credence. No one can truly say the belief that God is a three-part diety that sent a son to earth due to his infinite mercy is any more valid than the belief that God is a small shrivelled rutabaga controlling the universe from never-uncovered bottom of a produce pile in a health food store in the Magellanic Clouds.
On the other hand, a scientific theory is based on a central hypothesis - a statement of opinion about how the universe operates, yes. But this statement must be testable. Additionally, most such hypotheses generate a number of other assertions which are also testable. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity indicated we would see light rays bend in the presence of a strong gravity well and how much they would bend by. He had no idea if this was the case when he developed his hypothesis, but scientists were soon able to measure the change in position of stars viewed near the sun during an eclipse to see that this was true, and later to measure the divergence of a laser beam to determine that the degree of bending matched the prediction.
So a scientific theory's strength rests in HOW testable its arguments are and how much they HAVE been tested. The problem I see with the discussion here is it seems to indicate that this strength depends on the scientist's credibility. This is not the case - certainly presence and politics may cause people to hesitate to question an eminent man's opinion, but over time a theory is strong purely because it has withstood repeated tests that not only failed to disprove it but in fact strengthened it with supporting experimental data.
Furthermore, it is not true that "whacked out" ideas are part of the scientific process, or that opposing viewpoints should be encouraged. The only time an opposing or unusual idea should ever even be considered is when it presents testable tenets. A theoretical physicist may consider a thousand ideas about how the universe operates, from the very reasonable to the completely off-the-wall, but until one of those ideas makes it into the form of a claim that can be tested it is not a theory and not part of the process.
The discussion of science as it relates too or opposes religion is an essentially fruitless one. These are two pursuits which carry completely different philosophies and methodologies. God's existence or nonexistence is neither observable nor testable and therefore it has not place in any scientific process. Likewise, no scientific theory can be proven or disproven by belief or faith.
Finally, the portrayal of atheism as a "religion" is at the same time both accurate and misleading. One is not enjoined by scientific process or thinking to assert that God exists or God does not exist. Both statements are untestable. Therefore, to assert that god does NOT exist is by definition a belief. But to fail to assert that he DOES exist is not a belief, and this is the position of many people who are pigeonholed as atheist.
Science and religion do not fight or support one another. Religions have certainly contained testable statements that have been analyzed by scientists. This caused religions to adjust, not never to alter their central beliefs. The Catholic Church did not cease to exist when it was shown the sun did not orbit the earth. Likewise, scientists may be inspired or intrigued by religions beliefs in choosing what hypotheses to create and pursue. This does not mean this pursuit is religious.
One can be a man of science and religion, of one or the other, or of neither. There is no correlation or conflict.
Addendum: I couldn't find the Stephen Jay Gould essay I was looking for but I did find a
similar one from
The Atlanic online.
Make that three times.
Reading Infoman's post has got me really feeling depressed now. Going to scrape something together by the end of next week for KICK. I'd thought about an anthology where ALL proceeds (well, maybe except for production costs) goes to KICK. Which would mean volunteering work, once, for a cause to help ourselves (writers). Whattaya guys think?
Bill
Jim, no word on the trivia contest yet. They announce the winners, I believe, on their Sunday paper the day of the Oscars....of course, if I win, I'll know earlier because they will call me and interview me like they did with last year's winner (73 questions, only one person got them all right last year....I got 71, though I could have debated them to 72 but there was no purpose to it).
This year was 74 questions......waiting.....waiting......
-TODD
Scott,
I don't think my daughter will feel any less loved without Santa. I wouldn't try to get rid of Christmas altogether for her, I'm not gonna lie, I like getting things and like seeing her get things. MY problem being anti-Claus is that my wife, my mother, and everyone else around me INSISTS on talking about Santa. Even worse, they insist that Santa goes to THEIR house, too. Which, as a kid, I could never understand why Santa would make several trips for one kid when he could do just one, and if he did make those trips, then why the hell did he leave shitty stuff at the other places. Before she was born I'd said I didn't want supernatural beings coming to my house on holidays but my wife insisted. I figured, I got the god thing in my corner, I'll give her Santa, etc. I just hate it when my daughter says, "Well, Santa can get it," or asks about the hows and whys. There are so many other things that she could ask about that would be just as much fun for her; she's four years old, everything is interesting at this point. It also doesn't help that I'm not fond of the holidays, anyway. I don't have a large family at all so I see most of them all the time. The holidays are about going and visiting people I don't want to, spending money I don't have, and basically just being miserable.
But, to get back to the Santa thing; I just don't like lying to my daughter and playing along. If I don't, I'll get in trouble. If I do, I feel hypocritical. Kinda makes me wish I drank sometimes.
Wow. Two posts in one day. You can tell I have a cold and my inner censor is off.
Bill
Hey, guys, have a look at thenation.com website. There's a nice piece by Katha Pollitt on God, and Stuart Klawans mentions a well-known fantasy writer's well-known time travel story in his review of _The Time Machine_.
(Note: some information on the KICK lawsuit which shouldn't be disseminated here yet was removed from this message. Please check my follow-up post for details. My apologies - Ed)
It's time to redouble our efforts to help Harlan in his fight. I'm working on some projects that I hope will bring more publicity (on and off the web) to this David & Goliath fight (which, in the shadow of the events of last year's terrorist acts, has seen little or no sunlight of late). I'm also sending some money. And if you folks out there can scrounge up some extra cash or use your talents (especially the writers among you) to get more publications to run a story about this (and try to include the KICK address), I'm sure it would help.
With my nose once more to the grindstone,
Infoman.
Some quick comments, questions, and a joke my Momma used to tell me:
I'm really impressed that not ONCE has anyone here said, "You know, Asimov should've publicly announced he had AIDS." Just thought I'd say that.
Scott/Bag of Meat/Bag-O-Scott/(Why don't you just pick out an indecipherable glyph like Prince while you're at it?): You've mentioned that your brother is schizophrenic, if I'm not mistaken. Can you recommend some good books on the subject? I'm doing a little research, and have just picked up Torrey's SURVIVING SCHIZOPHRENIA. Any help will be mucho appreciated.
I know you guys were talking about really scary movies. Well, to reference the above topic, the most frightening movie I've ever seen is CLEAN, SHAVEN. It's a depiction of the inner life of an untreated schizophrenic, and is so uncompromising in its portrayal of the horrors of mental illness that it borders on the demonic. See it, but be prepared: It's pretty gruesome in parts. (People have supposedly fainted while viewing it.)
LORIN O: "I don't give a Tinker's Damn" is a pretty cool phrase. I think I first encountered it in some novel of the British countryside, by Hardy or Lawrence or one of those guys. It's for those times when "shit" is inappropriate, but you don't want to use "fig" or "care," either of which would get you some pretty strange looks. (Of course, some of us should be used to those...)
FAVORITE MUSICALS: Most people have mentioned my faves (PURPLE RAIN, CABERET, SOUTH PACIFIC, WEST SIDE STORY), though I'm surprised Weil/Brecht's THE THREEPENNY OPERA hasn't rated a mention. I'm also a recent convert to HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH. Does that make me a Hedhead?
LYNN: I'm so sorry for not e-mailing you about the stories. Yes, I have 'em and have read 'em, but things have been too crazy here (literally) for me to write a long critique. I could send you a condensed version, if you want. (There's not much to say about "Everything," which I really like. "Corazon" is a little more problematic for me, and I'm not sure why. But I could TRY to put something in words, I suppose.)
Oh, and here's the joke my momma used to tell me. I think I've posted it before, but it fits the religion thread so well that it deserves another appearance:
Have you heard? They've cancelled Easter.
Why?
They found the body.
Actually, the thought about junking organized religions sounds like a winner to me. Personal, private beliefs in divinity are my bag.
Brian, I do think that random chance is a lot harder to "prove" than the existense of a deity. The fact that the universe just "appeared" doesn't jell with me. Just as a building needs a builder, then a universe needs a planner. I think religion is mostly a dangerous concept, but the need to believe is innate in the human animal. The reason so many humans on the earth believe is because of an inate feeling that something out there is possible. It is a personal feeling, and hard to describe, but it is there. That's all I can say.
Eternal truth doesn't exist: everything that we rationalize is based on reason and sound judgements, not any devine fact. The problem in the world is that so few are educated enough to make these judgements--And in that lack of judgement, people can become easily swayed by false religious fanaticism.
I consider myself to be a Unitarian: I believe in our universal humanity, and all of our major religions basically believe in the same God. It is how this concept of God is used or abused. The abuse gives Brian Siano hives--but Brian has a right to be worried. Religion has given God a bad name.
Most of my hero's are atheists--not because they are atheist--but because rational thought seems to make more sense to non-believers. I can understand their worries, but I do wish they could look at the "good" perveyors of the faith and work with them to bring more rationality into society. The believers will not go away--but dialogue is important. Telling people they are stupid just sours the debate.
**As a person who frequently wakes up in the night terrified that one day I will be silenced, no matter when, no matter how, I've always wanted to know how atheists deal with such a spell.
My grandfather passed away two years ago, and being at his funeral was a grim affair (duh). I would prefer to believe that he found some measure of existence other than oblivion, but that's me and the rest of the human race.**
I would very much like to believe in God and an afterlife. It would be just wonderful to think my parents are together now and that I will see them again. That if I died tomorrow, there would still be a part of me capable of sensing and feeling joy.
I am, however, more interested in learning what is true than in what makes me feel good. Therefore, I have no choice but to rely on the evidence available to me and draw my conclusions from it.
However, I do plan to recant my heresy on my deathbed just in case. Pascal's Wager and all that. He's right - atheism is a lose-lose bet.
**By the way, I live in a town that has a higher-than-average amount of religious lunacy: Clearwater, Florida, which is the International Spiritual Headquarters of a certain unnamed religion founded by a certain unnamed science fiction author who will not be named here**
Holy crap. I never made the connection before.
All these years as a Phillies' fan, Clearwater has always been the place for fun, sun and Phillies' baseball in March. I've always wanted to go down and just watch the Phightins during the delusional phase of the season when they are still contenders.
I never thought of Clearwater as... the other thing.
They don't send their recruits out to work on the ballplayers, do they? If I ever see a clip of John Travolta chatting it up with Scott Rolen, I'm going to get very, very nervous.
Xanadu wrote:
"Yes, the burden of proof rests properly on the shoulders of the "believers". But, given the lack of definition for "God" and the paucity of data surrounding this issue, a bald statement like "God doesn't exist" is every bit as non-scientific as the statement "Yes, He does"."
I think Xanadu's point here is utterly wrong, because it rests on the lack of a definition of god and paucity of data-- two points which argue well against the existence of god.
Here's why. If we're going to ask if god exists, we have to have some operational definition of god in the first place. After all, if we're asking about the existence of dodos, ibexes, and George Bush, we have an idea of what we're looking for. So to even ask if god exists requires a definition.
The fact that we _don't_ have a definition of god rests on two issues. The first is an arcane theological concept: a definition of god would _limit_ god, and since god is assumed to be infinite and all-powerful, a definition of god is either inaccurate or impossible. (The fact that god is partially defined by his infinitness or lack of limits leads to contradictions as well.) This sort of paradox leads to all kinds of speculation, and frankly, no real resolution.
But the second issue is the one that really puts the kibosh on the god issue. It's the fact that a definition of god is subject to verification. If we say god has a certain quality, then we can look for some kind of evidence. For example, if we say god respond to prayer, then we can do a study to see if prayers work. If we say god created the Universe seven thousand years ago, we can evaluate that claim against the evidence that the Earth is several billion years older than that.
Because every definition of god is subject to this verification, the definition of god has _changed_. And it's usually been towards the goal of avoiding those troublesome questions and evidence. When the evidence says that Genesis is not true, then people advance the idea that maybe god has guided the evolutionary process. Or maybe god exists, but "in a way we can't understand or verify." Or... well, you get the idea. The process inevitably leads to a definition of god that's no different than saying he does _not_ exist for all intents and purposes.
We might as well use the Santa analogy. Imagine if we had someone who insisted that Santa existed. And after some long process of demonstrating explanations for the Xmas presents, questioning the existence of Claus, and the rest, this person _persisted_ in believing in Santa-- an incomprehensible, outside-of-reality Santa who guides parents to give presents through some unknowable process. In other words, an undefined and meaningless Santa.
For the record, I'm a recovering Catholic - I don't believe in the biblical "God" - the closest description I have is agnostic. Outside of that - I don't know nothin'.
Chris L.: "The scientific method hinges on the application of Occam's Razor. The aliens-replaced-by-furniture hypothesis cannot be reasonably considered until the nothing-happened hypothesis is rejected because the latter hypothesis is the more parsimonious one."
Actually, Occam's Razor states we must prefer the simpler hypothesis, not that we cannot consider more complex ones – especially if the more complex ones suggest new reasons/methods of gathering data. (A related aside – thank you for "enriching my word power" by using "parsimonious" – I knew and used an incomplete definition of the word 'til now and I had to go to the dictionary to check what you meant... Doesn't happen often, but I'm grateful when it does.)
"Merely stating any whacked-out idea does not grant you equal status."
Certainly not equal – but until it's disproven, it is part of the process. It also depends on who's doing the stating – a credible scientist will be given much more serious consideration by her peers than the guy shouting from the street-corner will.
"With lack of proof, the logical conclusion is that [God] doesn't exist."
It may be the logical one, but it's hardly the only human one. Human history is filled with belief in "gods" – it is a serious, visceral desire. You cannot simply dismiss that kind of passion. And it's passion that's driving this particular train.
"You must prove [God] does exist, not the other way around."
Yes, the burden of proof rests properly on the shoulders of the "believers". But, given the lack of definition for "God" and the paucity of data surrounding this issue, a bald statement like "God doesn't exist" is every bit as non-scientific as the statement "Yes, He does". This ties into Brian's thread: In a "God-drenched" culture, stating "God doesn't exist" is the minority opinion – obviously it will be the most persecuted. It opens you up to the passions of the majority – and many a skeptic has been steamrolled by it.
On atheism:
I'm always kind of in quiet awe of atheists, because they've come to terms with the VERY good possibility that there is nothing out there except our own existences. As a person who frequently wakes up in the night terrified that one day I will be silenced, no matter when, no matter how, I've always wanted to know how atheists deal with such a spell.
My grandfather passed away two years ago, and being at his funeral was a grim affair (duh). I would prefer to believe that he found some measure of existence other than oblivion, but that's me and the rest of the human race.
Harlan's stated before that the CLOSEST kind of alignment he may have is atheism, but he's also stated that there's no real word out there that can describe him. I think that's a pretty good way to put it.
(P.S. I personally think basset hounds are the physical manifestations of divine beings.)
Little Washu
Hey Jim. Did you ever read that story I flung you?
Lemme know.
L.
Thanks a fuckin' lot, Todd. As if all the cases of Webderland PTSD caused by the LAST religious foofaraw weren't enough for you. Thanks, buddy. Expect the rotting gopher anyday, now.
(How did the trivia quiz turn out, by the way?)
Personally, I don't think the existence of God can ever be proved or disproved. Religious faith is something that, by its very nature, doesn't rely on empirical evidence for sustenance. It's intensely personal, and is not concerned with matters of "how," but, rather, "why." Now, I'm not giving religion a free pass by saying that specific points of belief can't be debated on scientific/philosophical grounds--to say, for example, that the Universe is only 5,000 years old, and the fossil record is just a tool of Satan, is just plain NUTTY, and should be exposed for the nonsense it is.
I also think that ORGANIZED religion should be junked. Whatever evolutionary purpose it has served, I think it has become a liability, and has countenanced too much madness in its name to justify its existence anymore. As I'm sure I've said before, when you tell someone that the ultimate source of responsibility lies in the sky, and not in himself, then you're giving out a license to commit almost any act of barbarity. Though I agree that humanity would still be doing some pretty heinous shit without religion, I have a suspicion that the body count wouldn't be quite as high.
But as for personal spirituality...well, I have no problem with it, and can understand why people crave it so much. I've experienced that need myself, so I'd never belittle it in anyone else. (For the record: I am pretty much an atheist at this point in my life, though "agnostic" would probably be a more accurate term. If there IS a God, then I think it's like what Frank Church described: Something that sparked creation, and is completely unconcerned with the results. Aristotle posited a similar belief with his concept of the Unmoved Mover.)
Of course, my relatively benign attitude has to deal with the reality that the culture at large INSISTS on religious belief as the norm, and depicts non-belief as something morally debased. I think I'm pretty ethical in most things, but I don't act out of a desire to ingratiate myself with the Divine, like so many do. So, when someone implies that my code of ethics is basically hollow because it lacks a religious base, I get kinda pissed.
(And do things like avoid my born-again cousins who insist on proselytizing me at every opportunity. To add insult, they're born-again JEWS, which I'm sure would cause their grandparents no small amount of pain, if they were alive. Oy, the tsuris...)
By the way, I live in a town that has a higher-than-average amount of religious lunacy: Clearwater, Florida, which is the International Spiritual Headquarters of a certain unnamed religion founded by a certain unnamed science fiction author who will not be named here (and so shall remain nameless). Am I being, ahem, CLEAR?
(Did he REALLY believe in all that crap, Harlan?)
And it's also the home of this: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/clearwater1998/mary.html
*SIGH* Maybe moving out of D.C. wasn't such a hot idea, after all...
Intolerance came first, religion came second. People who are intolerant (and ain't we all a bit, in the end?) will use whatever is at hand to help their cause.
Jerry Falwell would be an intolerant ass regardless of whether he was a Christian or an atheist. I don't think we can blame religion for people like him, or those that follow him.
King Lurk
He's an aside about the intolerance of religion:
http://canada.com/news/story.asp?id={9A9572B4-2CCD-42CF-A6EA-CFC82D130FA3}
Seems to me that, for some of the religious, the greatest use they put their freedom of religious expression to is the exercise of trying to separate others from their rights of self-expression.
He stikes at midnight; a blaze of logic and reason, spreading fear into the religious fanatic:
He is...BAG-O-SCOTT, ATHEIST GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joseph, mellow, man, mellow. 'Twas a joke (notice the quotes around the word "below"?)
Some of my best friends are Reform.
Some of my best friends are Goyim.
Some of my best friends are Liberals.
My wife is an Italian Spitfire!
Ta ta.
Love, Todd
Oh boy, Oh boy, Oh boy, now we're whipping rocks at the ole wasp nest of beliefs...
Myself, I am firmly atheist. The notion of some being, in whatever incarnation man seems fit to design for them, wandering about like a landlord, telling us to obey their moral codes and eat our peas is childish nonsense to me. I'm sorry, but I look upon the arbitrary nature of our existence, the sudden explosions of cruelty and brutality that, even now, we can happily visit upon one another and find I cannot accept that some being resides over this chaos and accepts it.
That doesn't even touch the notion that a lot of the chaos is created in some god's name.
As I see it, the issue of the proof or non-proof of a god's existence is largely irrelevant. There is a basic principle that professes that things can be proven not to exist by the fact that people can argue both for or against the existence itself, and never conclusively prove either precis.
I just see the illogic of the stories that are told to us with the literalness of history; the implication being that these myths are to be believed as if they were fact, even as they contradict each other within teachings.
Man creates gods in our image; not to the converse, as christian dogma states. Most often the god becomes the justification and defense for actions borne out of fear and ignorance of the deity's creators; who could never admit to seeing those failings in themselves.
Now to a postive side to atheism;
Bill: I've never told my children about Santa, as they grew up. In my own hardscrabble childhood, I wasn't really made to be aware of such things, my parents preferring to lavish their money on booze and dope, rather than their children. Before my eldest daughter was born, Mel and I discussed it, and we came to the agreement that we wouldn't tell her about Santa, and when the issue came up, we would tell her that the story was a myth, and that he didn't really exist.
It doesn't mean we don't have Christmas; we simply dispensed with the stuff regarding St. Nick and Jesus, and instead emphasize the ideal of family, and love. We give gifts, the tree, the lot. Our kids are told that they get the presents because they are loved and wanted. Mel put it best: "We'd rather tell our babies the truth."
They are no less loved, or enjoyed, Bill, and we don't have to feel like we're somehow a might corrupt. We just decide to focus our celebration on the good fortune of having one another, rather than some abstract and illogical representation society shoves down our throats.
And, with Easter coming up, we can take a day and indulge our little ones , and have a bit of fun ourselves.
I love the Emo Phillips Line: "What does it mean when you gnaw the eyes out of the chocolate rabbit and then scream: "STOP STARING AT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!"?
Hmm, the old "has religion been a net boon or bane for the human race" argument. Yeah, we ought to resolve that one by the end of the weekend. :)
I have no idea. All I will add is that it is obviously nonsense to describe religion itself as being either good or bad. That's like calling a hammer evil or a Bowie knife bad. It's just a tool for humans to use in their pursuits.
Has it tended to be used more for evil than for good? Beats me.
Todd,
I respectfully take real umbrance to the characterization of my Judaism as being the "hippies of Judaism." Care to restate that? Just because we Reform have a different philosophy on our observance of traditional Jewish law does not make us hippies, or "below" Conservative, or any such nonsense. Hell, I don't make such statements about the Chasid, just because they observe the separation of genders in temple and we don't. Sure, the Reform have a tradition of jettisoning (sometimes unnecessarily) the traditions of the past, but a lot of that comes from deep consideration (and a lot of it is being rediscovered in recent years). Methinks you might want to reconsider your statement, or at least apologize a bit.
Regards,
Joseph
Yipes, I apologize for the next 48 hours of religious debate.
One little grenade tossed over the wall at Brian's superior attitude, and I've ignited the theology & proof debate which often goes on and on and on....
Or as I call it....the college-boy-trying-to-impress-the-chick debate.
Enjoy, all!
-TODD
Brian wrote: "Therefore, atheists are... well, something that's not terribly good."
Never once did I hear anyone say that. To say that the cultural after-effects of religion are beneficial is *not* to conclude that if you don't have religion, your cultural after-effects are useless. Nothing of the sort. I think our patron here is pure testament to that. Please, don't put words in the mouths of those who disagree with you in an attempt to make yourself look like the persecuted party because that just isn't the case.
I myself have often wondered if religion isn't an evolutionary force of itself, causing communities that unite under its banner to preserve their own genes, whereas seeking to exterminate the competition. In those terms, Christianity has done very well for its followers, evolutionarily speaking. Just a random thought.
Respectfully, and thoroughly enjoying the conversation today,
L.
I'm a little puzzled by one of the threads we've got going here, namely, the recourse to the culture created by religion to defend it in some way. People are saying that, regardless of the existence of God, we seem to need to believe, and that this need has given birth to some truly great and moving works of art. Therefore, atheists are... well, something that's not terribly good.
But consider how much art has been created by religions which are, effectively, dead. Look at the Parthenon, or the Pyramids. We still enjoy these works of art. In fact, classic Roman and Greek motifs were resurrected by the nominally-monotheistic British in the 18th and 19th centuries, and less than a hundred years ago, the Art Deco movement could draw upon the imagery of Zeus or Athena or Achilles without any qualms.
Granted, there really aren't many great works of art that are expressely for the purpose of promoting atheism. It's mainly an argument, so its canon tends to be in prose, i.e., Mark Twain's "Letters from the Earth." Still, there are works of art that are not _religious_, in the sense of promoting a particular faith or even the idea of god. And frankly, who says we need religion to create great art?
**There is data (observed phenomena), and there is theory – there are no "facts". (In the early 20th century, it was a "fact" that the atom was indivisible.)**
No, that was a theory, not a fact.
And if someone came along and said "No, no, the atom is divisible" he couldn't automatically expect everyone to just nod and say "OK, sure, if that's what you want to believe then you're as right as everyone else because everyone is as right as everyone else about everything." He would be required to prove the claim.
Since that has been proven, we now accept current atomic theory. There continue to be revisions to atomic theory but they aren't based on opinions - nobody holds a vote to decide whether electrons orbit the nucleus or whether we have discovered the smallest, indivisible unit of matter. We conduct experiments and observe the results and revise the theory in that manner.
**No. You don't have to. You take the position that is most intuitive to you. But there may be a scientist, every bit as thoughtful and intelligent, who would take the opposite tack. Science accepts this. **
No, science does not accept this. The scientific method hinges on the application of Occam's Razor. The aliens-replaced-by-furniture hypothesis cannot be reaonably considered until the nothing-happened hypothesis is rejected because the latter hypothesis is the more parsimonious one.
**The history of science is filled with counter-intuitive theories that turned out to be right. **
Of course. But they must be proven. Merely stating any whacked-out idea does not grant you equal status.
**The number and quantity of learned minds decrying an idea doesn't invalidate it. Only conflict with observed data does.**
Couldn't agree more.
**Because "God" is not an intuitive position for you, doesn't make it wrong.**
I agree. But merely because God is an intuitive position for someone else doesn't make it right.
It either is or isn't. With lack of proof, the logical conclusion is that he doesn't exist and that is not a position that needs to be proven any more than the idea that telekinesis doesn't exist needs to be proven.
You must prove it does exist, not the other way around.
Now that's just from the empirical point of view. I understand quite well that most people aren't interested in proving their belief in God and that's fine and dandy with me (well, mostly.) I don't mean you HAVE to prove it to believe it - you can believe whatever you want. It's your life and more power to you, brothers and sisters.
But that's not science.
I admit that I share Brian's view on God. I simply cannot believe that intelligent adults continue to believe in such a fairy tale. Yet I am confronted by the clearly observable fact that many intelligent adults, including most of my friends, do believe in God. Clearly, my hypothesis (no intelligent adult could believe in God) is wrong. The data clearly shows it to be so. It still causes me cognitive dissonance, however.
Re: God and Santa
I'm atheist, my wife is a "non-practicing Catholic." I don't like it that she and everyone else in my and her family insist of the Santa/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy thing. The god thing has been up in the air. Everyone knows my feelings and we came to the decision that my daughter can make her own when she wants to. My wife insisted my daughter be baptized. My problem is I feel like a hypocrite for allowing even the Santa thing. I remember what it was like to lose Santa as a kid. It's sadistic and mean. Yet, here I am each Xmas playing along. I don't know. Don't know if this fits into the discussion at all, probably not, but didn't see where the harm would come posting it in case someone else is in the same situation.
Alex, you're right. I had a brain fart (since I'm doing a few things at once today) and for some reason the word "Chasid" was not coming to me.....so I tossed out the Orthodox line figuring that the goyim out there wouldn't know the diff.
Thanks for correcting.
-TODD
Chris L.: Where I say you're wrong is your absolutism on this point.
Chris L. says: "Something is either true or it isn't. Your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter. Only the facts matter."
There is data (observed phenomena), and there is theory – there are no "facts". (In the early 20th century, it was a "fact" that the atom was indivisible.)
Re: the theory of furniture arrangement: "I cannot disprove either hypothesis. Would you contend I must therefore accept both as equally valid?"
No. You don't have to. You take the position that is most intuitive to you. But there may be a scientist, every bit as thoughtful and intelligent, who would take the opposite tack. Science accepts this. The history of science is filled with counter-intuitive theories that turned out to be right. The number and quantity of learned minds decrying an idea doesn't invalidate it. Only conflict with observed data does.
Now, to gain widespread, general acceptance, a theory not only has to agree with observed data, it should predict heretofore unobserved phenomena successfully, and exclusively.
But it doesn't have to, just to compete in the realm of ideas.
So, if you say: "Your intuition doesn't matter, my intuition doesn't matter – only correlation with all observed data matters." Then I can jump on the bandwagon with you.
Because "God" is not an intuitive position for you, doesn't make it wrong.
Todd, even most "Orthodox-style rabbis" don't fit that description. You're confusing Orthodoxy with the Chassidim. Most Orthodox are not Chassidim, and they're as unrecognizable as your dad. I speak as the grandson of an Orthodox rabbi. The majority of Orthodox are not Chassid, let alone Lubavitcher crazies. But you've touched on an interesting point: to most gentiles, the Chassidim are the "genuine" or "religious" Jews. Not because they're more righteous or religious, but because they're easily identifiable. Oi, such a message they're sending.
As to Reform being the "hippies of our clan," nah. The Progressive Jews are the hippies. They'll believe most anything.
--Alex
I can respect Siano's basic position that society is "god-drenched," and that professed atheists are generally discriminated against. We need more people willing to stand up and shout the unwanted comments, especially if they can help clear the air of all that woozy crud that usually attends the American take on Christianity.
But as to the argument of whether God exists or not, it seems to me irrelevant, since you can't really prove it either way.
If a God doesn't exist, then it looks like we've needed all along to create one. So in a way he/she/it/them DOES exist, in our literature, our music, our fine art, our places of worship, sometimes in our hearts. Really in the best of what we are, or could be.
King Lurk
Okay, the god thing. Todd was right in suspecting that I had my tongue firmly in cheek: I was irritated with the New Agey drivel _about_ god, so I decided to get all militant on the subject. Also, Frank's invocation of god with evolution really rubbed me the wrong way. Evolution is a scientific endeavor, and as a matter of principle, god has no place in it.
Frank's later comment-- "Brian, if belief in God will get people to keep their violent urges at bay, then I am all for it"-- strikes me as being more than a little elitist. It smacks of the myths Plato would feed the citizens of the Republic, in order to maintain the hierarchies of power he'd envision. I'm not keen on maintaining unsupported myths in order to keep the population under control. (And considering how often god has been invoked to _encourage_ violent behavior, I ask that Frank consider both edges of his particular sword.)
Still, I don't see anything terribly wrong with declaring, simply, that god does not exist. For one thing, it is an intellectually defensible position. For another, it's simple self-defense. We exist in a society that is pretty much God-drenched. We have religious organizations making demands on school curricula and even the agenda for scientific and medical research. We even have prime-time shows pushing religion, like _Touched by an Angel_. I might as well mention the near-impossibility of a publicly-admitted atheist being elected to high office (Hell, the Presidency's multicultural history stretches only as far as one Catholic). Frankly, the _rest_ of the culture's so steeped in monotheism that even uncompromising atheism couldn't possibly serve as a balance.
Here's another question to consider. Let's say someone turned up and announced that god _does_ exist. Sure, maybe _I'd_ argue with him on that point, but I wouldn't say he's a fanatic for that assertion. For that person to be denounced as a fanatic, he'd have to say a lot more-- that maybe god exists, hates gays, and burns single mothers in Hell, or something. So why is saying the opposite-- that god _doesn't_ exist-- seen as such a contrary, fanatic position?
So until someone comes up with a really good argument for the existence of god, I will continue to maintain that he does not exist-- if only to serve as the Loyal Opposition. If y'all really want to debate the existence of god, I'm all for it. Bring it on!
Brian, that "bullshit" on their brain is up to them to settle for themselves. To some, that "bullshit" keeps them alive. If they met you and you made your statement and they said to themselves "Hey, Brian is a smart guy. He's right. Well, I now have nothing to help me cope with life anymore, I think I'll drink that strangely sour Kool-Aid", you would be the biggest mass murderer in the history of mankind.
And as for Santa Clause, I would never allow my kid (if I had one) believe in him....because he/she would be friggin' Jewish and though I may not stick to my heritage, I would certainly make sure my children had the opportunity to make their own decision about whether to take their Judaism seriously. But one thing they wouldn't get trapped in is the Christmas-envy of many Jews.
Not all kids need to go through the cutesy joy of believing in Santa. Let the parents decide.....not the God Brian.
-TODD
Brian~ Sometimes it's dangerous (Jerry Falwell). And sometimes it inspires people to do amazing things (Mother Theresa). I submit to you that if we didn't have religion, my ever vain glorious species would find new and interesting reasons to kill each other that were just as senseless (Chante Mallard). Just as they would go on doing amazing and kind things for complete strangers out of the goodness of their heart (Heather giving someone soup & crackers).
I think I can interweave Harlan's sentiments by saying to you, please don't assume that what works for you should work for everyone. At that point, you become as dogmatic and as dangerous as the people you seek to demonize. At one end of the spectrum there's Stalin & Marx and at the other end, there is the Kingdom of Sa'udi. A reasonable and sane middle ground is somewhere in between.
Respectfully,
L.
To Todd, re God and Santa Claus. There is a very big difference between God and Santa Claus.
As far as children are concerned, there IS a Santa Claus. They usually grow out of it on their own. I'm cool with Santa and the Easter Bunny and Halloween ghosts even Punxatawney Phil.
But the God thing, shit, there are _grown-ups_ who walk around with this bullshit on their brains. That's fuckin' _dangerous_.
The concept of God, or what Paul Tillich called issues of ultimate concern, resonate a little deeper than Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
The provenance on those two fabled creations is well-established. They are acknowledged fictions (by most of us, anyway), and were consciously created for the express pleasure of our children.
God, on the other hand, is not an acknowledged fiction. There have been many deities, thousands, maybe millions, but they all serve to answer those issues that Tillich identified. That they cannot be measured by a microscope or expressed in a formula does not equate their conceivable existence on the same level as the Easter Bunny.
To do so seriously cheapens religion as one of humankind's great accomplishments. Granted, some religions are considerably less lovely than others, but let's not just write off 2 million years of passion and questing as another Grimm's fairy tale.
King Lurk
Li'l Washu: don't prejudice your thoughts with the fact that rabbis are easily recognizable. All rabbi's are not the orthodox-style rabbi that you are referring to (long scruffy beards, black hats, t'fillen peeking out from their beltline, overly-yiddish accent). You would never have recognized my father as a rabbi, and you would not recognize many other rabbis, because there are different sects of judiasm. We are Conservative Jews (and no, that has nothing to do with my coincidental political beliefs). We (that is, my mother now that my father is dead but not my sisters I'm pretty sure) are religious Jews, but we do not walk around with our yamulkes on a daily basis. We are the typical Jew that you would meet in the country who practices seriously but does not devote their entire being to their religion. "Below" us would be Reform Jews, who you would NEVER recognize as they are most likely to eat pork and have female rabbis etc. etc. Reform Jews are the hippies of our clan.
-TODD
Chris, again, you are over-intellectualizing the point I was making. I am commenting on Brian's attitude (if he meant his statement to be as conclusive and no-two-ways-about it final as it sounded). I am not getting into a "disprove God exists by debunking Santa Claus and asking for proof God does exist" argument.
And yes, I would react with derision, a different form of derision mind you, if Brian said there was no Santa Clause to my 5 year old neice. I reacted to his mightier than thou God answer with one bit of irritation, and I would react to his disappointing my neice with another bit of irritation. It's the CIRCUMSTANCES that I critique.
Stop trying to get into a college-boy I am smarter than thou intellectual argument over God existing with me. I'm not interested.....read my note, I don't believe it either. But I believe in other's right to have their faith without having to have some jackass tell them they are stupid.
Besides....define "God" before you refute God. To some, God is internal....it is your faith in yourself and your remembrance of those gone and how they affected your attitudes on life.....internalized God; not necessarily a bearded being who juggles planets at birthday parties.
-TODD
Xanadu,
I admit I don't remember the past discussion to which you are referring but I'm sure I'll say some similar things now.
**Science is willing to consider all proposed theories, and any particular one is only dismissed when it conflicts with observed data. Until then, it's part of the process.**
Right. But there is a world of difference between considering a theory and accepting it as valid. Just as there is a world of difference between keeping an open mind and letting your brain fall out.
By all means, psychic phenomena such as ESP or ghost sightings or psychic predictions should be investigated. We cannot prove they do not exist. Yet they does not mean we must treat any of these ideas as valid until they are proven. Science is not a matter of giving everyone a free pass to concoct whatever half-baked scheme they want to and then whine about not being taken seriously by the "new inquisition" or whatever similar nonsense they come up with.
Something is either true or it isn't. Your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter. Only the facts matter.
We may or may not be able to measure all the facts accurately enough to reject certain hypotheses. That doesn't mean we treat all competing hypotheses as equally valid.
I am sure that if we had this discussion before, I probably trotted out this following example but I'll do it again.
If I come home to see my living room is exactly the same as I left it, I can come up with two (or more) hypotheses to explain this observation. One: it's the same because nothing happened and nobody was there. Two: aliens flew down, stole all my belongings and replaced them with exact duplicates so that it looks exactly the same as when I left.
I cannot disprove either hypothesis. Would you contend I must therefore accept both as equally valid?
**Finally, just because science has put a pretty serious hurting on the idea of the biblical God, don't think it's come anywhere near putting the kibosh on the Idea of God.**
I agree. As I said, you can't really disprove the existence of God. That's not something science can do.
That doesn't mean the statement "God exists" needs to be considered equally valid as "God doesn't exist" anymore than "The Tooth Fairy exists" is as valid as "The Tooth Fairy doesn't exist."
**So, I guess I'm saying you're wrong. Science is a process, not a conclusion.**
I agree that science is an ongoing process of discovery and refinment. So I'm not sure what you're saying I'm wrong about in this context.
Chris L. - We've been down this road before, you and I. There's no particular need to travel it again. But my comments now will reference that discussion.
One – there are no PROVEN Laws of Nature. We have fairly good approximations, but they are theory, not fact – they can be modified.
While YOU choose not to believe any theory not empirically proven, that does not make it "the truth". There are almost always competing theories concerning every aspect of the observed world. In many cases, they are conflicting, exclusive, theories. Science is willing to consider all proposed theories, and any particular one is only dismissed when it conflicts with observed data. Until then, it's part of the process.
Frequently, when a theory is found to conflict with new data, the proponents of that theory will go back and rework it rather than trash it, in order to explain the new observations. Once the new proposal no longer conflicts with the observed data, they are back in business. Science doesn't hold a grudge.
Finally, just because science has put a pretty serious hurting on the idea of the biblical God, don't think it's come anywhere near putting the kibosh on the Idea of God.
So, I guess I'm saying you're wrong. Science is a process, not a conclusion.
Actually, scratch that, I've seen a good handful of reverends in airports too. Not to mention a few Buddhist priests. Oh, and I did see one or two scientologists...
Well, Chris L., the problem is that there is as much evidence to prove there is NO God as there is evidence to prove there IS a God. I once heard the pitch for a film that's been stuck in development hell for donkey's years entitled 'The Sky is Falling', about a pair of priests who discover actual physical evidence that God does not exist. This, to be very blunt, is one helluva dopey concept. How can you actually find physical evidence that God does NOT exist?
When it comes to 'God,' I've not yet found my niche in the cosmic rythme of things. Personally I enjoy the idea of reincarnation, Buddhism and the like. I'm very loose about religions most of the time, mainly because WAAAAAAY too many people are willing to gut one another over a 'My God is better than your God' argument...
I want to believe in SOMETHING, just to sleep at night and hope that there's something beyond the shaking of the mortal coil. I guess the fact is 'religion' isn't the right word of what I'm seeking.
So, I guess I'm searching for some form of belief, but not neccessarily in an all-powerful final truth.
On the subject of religions, I'll just pass my thoughts on Christian priests. I actually like priests...they're dedicated to their post and are often at peace within themselves. The reverends I've met in my lifetime have all been GENUINELY nice guys, as opposed to the maniacal thumpers found in Arthur Miller's THE CRUCIBLE and similar folks in real-life. If Max Von Sydow had worn a cape and a suit, THE EXORCIST would have been my favourite all-time superhero movie. "He's a priest! He's a PRIEST!!!"
Rabbis I've actually bumped into far less, but they seem even more easy-going than reverends, despite that they are usually more recognisable than a priest with a white-collar band. For some curious reason I almost always see them in airports. Hm. Odd.
Little Washu
Todd,
Would you react the same way if Brian had said, "There is no Santa Claus" or "There is no Tooth Fairy" or "There is no Easter Bunny?"
Would you think he was being obnoxious for making those statement as if they were factual?
If not, what's the difference between any of those statements and "There is no God?"
Chris, I'm not looking for proof. I never asked for proof, so you don't need to intellectualize my response into such an argument. All I said was that Brian is telling Frank there is no God, period. Fact. No two ways about it. No debate. Nada. He's right, billions of people in the world are wrong.
I don't give a rat's ass about proof in regard to this classic debate.....I only care about a statement made in the manner of Brian standing on the mountain and preaching to the world that he is the know all and be all (gasp, BRIAN IS GOD).
-TODD
Hello, all. Just a brief one, before taking the kids out. We've had a couple of sad days watching an unfortunate tragedy play itself out up here. One of those things that makes me hold the kids a bit tighter.
Rich; When all three of our little ones were born, Scotty was much the same way. He'd pick up and hold the babies more than I did, and he was almost annoying to his friends in showing the pictures he took of them. It set my mind to ease about what kind of parent he would be.
Jay: I'm sorry for forgetting your impending arrival, and marriage. Please accept my and Scotty's belated congratulations.
Mr. Ellison: Now, that was cute. I had a nice little laugh at that comment. Seems you agree with the University of Northern Colorado's "Fighting Whities" intramural team.
Myself, I love their mascot, and would love to get a t-shirt:
http://www.greeleytrib.com/story_photos/032002/0310fightingwhites.jpg
I'm not offended, by the way, I just think it's a nice turn on the nicknames such as the Redskins, or the idiotic Cleveland Indians mascot.
Love to All, Melissa
And I would like to take issue somewhat with Todd's response and thus disagree with Harlan.
Todd chastises Brian for stating there is no God when he can't prove that. That is, I believe, a nonsensical approach to the issue.
I don't have proof that there isn't a Tooth Fairy but I have no problem stating categorically that there isn't one.
It's not valid to ask for proof that something doesn't exist - only for proof that it does exist. The burden of proof lies with the believer, not the skeptic.
I would therefore have to agree with Brian. There is no God. There is no God.
Until you prove otherwise.
Intelligent design, or divine intervention, or whatever they call it these days, is a perfectly valid religious/philosophical position.
Should our public school system ever entertain the refreshing idea of teaching some units in religion or philosophy, in place of modish curricular drudge like "social studies" or "home economics," then certainly that would be the place to discuss it.
But god, keep it out of the science lab. Please.
King Lurk
After plowing through my ancient copy of 'Tales of the Black Widowers,' which I don't think I've looked at since I was 15, I realized all my Asimov fiction is extremely worn-out, $1.25 Fawcett Crest paperbacks. Grand old stuff, like 'Pebble in the Sky,' 'I, Robot,' and my fave 'The Gods Themselves.'
But, in light of the memories he invoked on this forum, I thought I should get something new. So I trucked out last night to Border's and bought The Complete Stories, Vol 1, and what a fine thing it is. You can knock off one of these gems during commercials, and then you don't feel so bad about watching taped episodes of Survivor...br>
King Lurk
Of course you missed me. That goes without saying.
Darryl,
Thankyou for your comments on parenting. And let it be known here and now that I have this uncontrollable urge to cry with joy everytime I look at Mackenzie. I find it amazing that I, the best sperm that apparently made it to the egg in my mother's womb (you're telling me that !!I!! was the best?? Jesus, how bad were the others?), could help create something this beautiful is beyond my capacity to understand or explain. As if it wasn't obvious enough, 99% of the credit for this gift goes to my wife.
Again, thankyou all for your comments.
Now...
I found the grammar debate fascinating. Simply fascinating. Please go on in greater detail. Maybe we can get Kirkpatrick involved and maybe Safire. Or, better yet, how 'bout Easy Reader?
Other than Fosse's work, I don't get into musicals much. Personal preference.
And, I've been outta the loop a bit so don't know if this was discussed, but I state the following fact: "The Time Machine" movie was not good. This is a known fact and there is no bias or opinion involved. It is a fact. Wait. I've just been given another fact concerning the movie: It sucked. I don't make the facts, I just report them.
One last thing and you can continue square dancing. This comes from the NY Public Library Desk Reference Calendar (pretty nifty stocking-stuffer, by the way):
"Isaac Asimove was not only a highly prolific author, he was also extremely versatile. He wrote over 400 books and is the only author to have a book in every major Dewey-decimal category."
Make that: Todd Cassel's response to BRIAN SIANO's response to Frank Church. Sorry. But all white boys look the same to me.
I absolutely agree with Todd Cassel's response to Frank Church in re: "there is no God."
Faith, belief, succor are just fine. Blindness, rationalizing the blame for human iniquities, slavish fanaticism, serving the ends of a religious apparat to the detriment of those who want to believe . . . are not just fine.
And just because I have arrived at a theological/philosophical conclusion that works in my life for ME, it is absolutely unacceptable to me that anyone should use it as an argument to belittle others' world-view and conclusions.
Vouchsafing I ain't yer stepping-stone, Harlan.
Brian Siano sez: "To Frank Church, re evolution. There Is No God. I don't know how often some of us have to say this, but once again, There Is No God. "
Brian, I hope you are responding in this high and mighty manner with tongue firmly in cheek, because if you're not then this is certainly the epitome of your often high-and-mighty attitude in ending arguments with the classic "I am right and you are wrong."
You've taken one of the most debated issues in the history of known thought, and you've responded to it as if you were saying to your children, "how many times must I tell you, there is no such thing as talking cows!"
You can say you don't believe there is a God, and that many on this board don't believe there is a God, and we know that Harlan does not believe there is a God, but you cannot state this in such a way that it sounds like a fact that only a moron wouldn't know.
"I don't know how often some of us have to say this, but once again, There Is No God. "
Man, if that ain't said with tongue in cheek, you sure don't see the inflexibility of your debating skills. Yeesh.
-TODD
P.S., I am not arguing with your statement.....I am a rabbi's son who basically agrees; would love to think otherwise about what happens when we depart this planet, but I basically have no faith in anything at all. I am not arguing your statement, I am arguing the way you stated it like it was fact and you had proof because of the many times others have said the same on this board.
**Brian, if belief in God will get people to keep their violent urges at bay, then I am all for it. **
Right.
And if shit didn't stink, you could rent out your bathroom to boarders.
That one got away from me.
How tough is it to play this baseball game?
If you can teach me I will play.
:)
That is if y'all don't mind a right winger.
:)
Cindy
Hey
Bag-O-Scott ~ Glad to be of service...(I hope Melissa's not jealous that she hasn't got a new name ::grin::)
As far as the ex-stepdad is concerned, no one really knows why he was so cheap. But, I'll tell you, he was very proud of his ass-wiping prowess.
BTW, I'm with Lynn. If the spots can't be filled, then by all means, let's fake a couple of teams.
Frank ~ You know, it's funny. The local paper has a slightly different take on the events at the book signing...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20020314-9999_1m14men.html
I'm curious why he'd choose a middle school auditorium for a book signing (not that I dislike the guy, quite the contrary, but it is a little strange).
-Andrew
Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.
Lynn:
Hmmmm...the High Lama as GM, Chang for manager...I guess their strategy would be a form of Buddistball.
Well, it'll be an interesting season, watching their star slugger Conway battle through spring training in the Himalayas, only to lose his love Maria when, during the September pennant drive, she suddenly starts aging after leaving the dugout to argue a close call at second.
I'm game, if there's a volunteer.
The Commissioner of Webderland Park, Bag-O-Scott, speaking before Congress: "Our league isn't in financial trouble, Senator; we have no money at all..."
Micheal Moore, it seems, almost got himself arrested at a book signing in San Diego. You gotta read this--it is a hoot.
http://www.zmag.org/content/Repression/moore_booksigning.cfm
Todd, see, no right winger would have this happen to him.
Brian, if belief in God will get people to keep their violent urges at bay, then I am all for it.
Well, isn't it obvious what it would be? The Shangri-La All Stars, of course. But then he'd want to draft out of the hall of fame. (Hey, I think I've found a new niche market. Imagine if you would, a program that would advance a hall-of-famer's best season statistics as if he were playing that season. I know, I know, they play more games now than before, but that could be figured in somehow.)
As for trades, by committee sounds terribly... stressful, if you ask me. How about a volunteer? Yes, I know it means playing two teams, and competing against yourself for your absentee owner, but if you won, think of the kudos!
L.
I don't see a problem. Maybe you could assail the man to name it.
The only rub is trades. Who works as his agent, or do we do it by committee? I'm assuming he's going to be a absentee owner, unlike a Steinbrenner...
Commish Bag-O-Scott
Dummie teams, rather. ::duh:: Is it Friday yet?
L.
Bag o' Scott~
Dummie league sounds fine with me, only let me suggest this. One of the dregs and one of the good stuff, only we'll play it for Harlan.
Whaddya think?
L.
Andrew: Me likes new nom de plume. Mucho thanko.
Now to business.
As any who care and those who don't are aware, we're trying to put together a rotisserie baseball league for those at the site who love both the One who is Ellison, and the national pastime.
We've two spots left open, but I don't feel that they will be filled by the March 27th deadline. Not for lack of interest; just folks I've talked to have other nuisances ongoing, and I don't want to push more down their throats.
If we don't fill the league, we'll lose it, and there's a great chance our teams will be spread into other leagues to fill them. Now, I myself want the league to stay, and have come up with a couple of options I'd like to present to those who've signed up for their consideration.
1) Invite a couple outsiders to join. (I'm not a huge fan of this one; I'd rather keep it to ourselves)
2) Invent two "dummies"; teams that we can put together and place in the league to fill the vacant spaces. These teams would consist of the worst ranked players, the dregs nobody's going to draft under any circumstances. Both dummy teams would be open to examination by the other eight to assure their mediocrity, and the plums in the talent pool will be shared by eight, instead of ten, teams.
Now, there's not a great rush yet, so let's take a few days to consider these proposals and any you other members of Webderland Park might come up with. I'd like to keep the seats open at least until the 20th, and see if somebody here wants to enter. After that, we can go with the consensus decision.
So, contact me either here, or at my email address. Keep your gloves oiled, your bats tarred, and your toilet paper dry.
BTW, no limit on the amount of sheets you can use at a sitting.
League Commissioner Bag-O-Scott, aka Meat Lite
For can-opening instructions, nothing beats the multiple-page memo Howard hughes wrote to instruct his staff on the proper method for opening a can of fruit. _Vanity fair_ ran it a few months ago-- it ran for nearly a full VF page, detailing the need to wash one's hands, the boiling process, the removal of the paper wrapper, and lots, lots more. Utterly mad.
To Frank Church, re evolution. There Is No God. I don't know how often some of us have to say this, but once again, There Is No God. (I, for one, just picked up Stephen Jay Gould's monumental _The Structure of Evolutionary Thought_. SERIOUS brainfood.)
Re Toilet Paper. I, too, hate the perfumed powdery crap that leaves one feeling dirtier and fouler than before-- one imagines that their main sales go to middle-aged ladies who own poodles. So, until they start marketing actual Goose's Necks for asswipe (Rabelais's preferred choice for sphincter-cleaning), I'll stick with the store-brand generic.
As Arsenio Hall used to say: This is not a joke or anything – just something to make you go hmmmm.
Had a can of Campbell's Chunky Old Fashioned Vegetable Beef for lunch at work today – and this is the first time I've ever read the instructions on how to open the can that they've printed on the top. (For those unfamiliar with the product, they've started putting the soup in pull top cans...) I read the thing and started laughing. Instructions (as printed):
1) Lift Tab To Rim
2) Pull Back Slowly
So far, so good – then I read the warning printed twice in a circle in the middle of the lid: "Do Not Use If Tab Is Lifted"
Talk about a blonde joke...
I've redirected the bulletin board and a few other pages to the new site. You don't need to bookmark this, once the doman name stuff percolates through the internet it will be back to the old URL. Due to my bandwidth throttle of 500mb/day I'm going to have to start archiving the board once a week - but I'm working on a database forum that will allow both the "old school" view and a threaded forum view.
You'll also notice the Bibliographical Database is working again. Go MySQL!
Please e-mail me if you notice any problems with the new site!
NOTE:
E-MAIL ME,
don't fill up this board with bug reports...
Actually, I believe in a form of what is known as, "creative evolution," which is basically that God, or whoever's in charge created the universe and all things, but that most of what happens in evolution is fairly natural and not supernatural. God to me has limited power and is mostly a mystery that cannot be pursued fully in this life. Coarse, as Dennis Miller says, I could be wrong.
Joseph, Actually the acting in Purple Rain is pretty weak, except for Clarence Williams, who played Prince's father. But the music is dead on amazing.
Kevin Smith bores me actually; but I did like Dogma, mainly for the performance by Matt Damon and Ben Aflect.
See Joseph, no mention of politics.
To Michael, and Lorin, and all others who have suffered loss;
I guess I sit in a port of shelter when it comes to tragic loss of those you've loved, although Scotty has been hit with loss worthy of making Job look like a petty whiner by comparison.
I'm not going to waste your time with the old chestnuts of sympathy, although I think it worth noting the ease of which you can seemingly reincarnate their personalities, their physical person, perhaps even to aid you in times of grief at their loss, almost as if their strength of being remains and seems to strengthen you at these times.