Praying for Flordia

[Skep]

I think you might need to do some research on Kepler to see just how long he struggled to get the Law of Planetary Motion right. If some god was directing him, why did he accept only the math and not his gut feelings, as did Aristotle?

Who is this "you" you are talking to? thaiboxerken was not asserting a point other than that your post was mis-referenced and that you need to find the original post that I was responding to and respond to it, not to me or thaiboxerken since we were not making the assertion that you disagree with.

 

[Just thinking]

Who is this "you" you are talking to? thaiboxerken was not asserting a point other than that your post was mis-referenced and that you need to find the original post that I was responding to and respond to it, not to me or thaiboxerken since we were not making the assertion that you disagree with.

Well, then I'm a bit confused ... didn't thaiboxerken make some comments after quoting my Lincoln and Kepler statements? Who then is he referring to? I assumed since it was from my statements, he directed his comments to me about Lincoln and Kepler. (So much for assuming, eh?) Well, anyway, I guess it really doesn't matter, we all seem to be pretty much on the same page. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Skep]

Well, then I'm a bit confused ... didn't thaiboxerken make some comments after quoting my Lincoln and Kepler statements? Who then is he referring to? I assumed since it was from my statements, he directed his comments to me about Lincoln and Kepler. (So much for assuming, eh?) Well, anyway, I guess it really doesn't matter, we all seem to be pretty much on the same page. Sorry for any confusion.

I think much of the blame belongs to the fact that the vBulletin system is not nested. The flat, linear listing of posts doesn't allow for intuitive responses to sub-threads. You can't just look and see how things are related visually the way you should be able to.

 

[allanb]

... as an atheist I have spoken to quite a few believers, and they do not all go along with your line of reasoning (on their behalf). Some believe that after all creation, God let the universe continue entirely on its own accord -- taking the good along with the bad. A sort of hands-off approach.

Yes, but if you believe that (I don't mean you personally, I mean believers) then you would have to accept that prayer will not change anything.

You know, wishing someone good luck or wishing someone well is just as silly and wasteful ...

Well, I don't think that's quite true. If I wish someone good luck I don't believe my wish is going to have any effect on events, and neither does he. It's just an expression of sympathy. Now if you're saying that some people say "I'll pray for you" meaning nothing more than "good luck" you're probably right, and if it gives some comfort then it's not useless. But when G W Bush says it I think he means more than that - remember, this is a man who holds Bible study classes for his staff.

 

[Just thinking]

Yes, but if you believe that (I don't mean you personally, I mean believers) then you would have to accept that prayer will not change anything.Well, I don't think that's quite true. If I wish someone good luck I don't believe my wish is going to have any effect on events, and neither does he. It's just an expression of sympathy. Now if you're saying that some people say "I'll pray for you" meaning nothing more than "good luck" you're probably right, and if it gives some comfort then it's not useless. But when G W Bush says it I think he means more than that - remember, this is a man who holds Bible study classes for his staff.

You're probably right on both counts, and I guess that's why I don't get too upset over it. I'm sure it's more than just a gesture of sympathy (for many people) and thus gives them some comfort. Mr. Bush knows this, and expresses himself thusly. For those that have lost much, hearing this from the President can be helpful (to believers). We non-believers can be respectful to them too, especially under these circumstances. Let's just allow them the right to their own personal feelings, OK?

As for Mr. Bush's Bible classes, I don't think that anyone is forced to attend, do you?

 

[allanb]

As for Mr. Bush's Bible classes, I don't think that anyone is forced to attend, do you?

One of his staff was quoted about a month ago (in a reputable UK newspaper, not generally hostile to Bush) as saying that attendance was "almost mandatory" or "almost compulsory" or something like that. I would quote it exactly except that I can't now find it. But anyway I agree that it's not hard evidence.

Does it matter? It bothers me slightly that the man in charge of the world's most powerful nation suffers from a belief which IMO is a foolish superstition, and it bothers me more if he expects members of his administration to share it.

 

[Just thinking]

Does it matter? It bothers me slightly that the man in charge of the world's most powerful nation suffers from a belief which IMO is a foolish superstition, and it bothers me more if he expects members of his administration to share it.

If the Bible classes are required, it would certainly bother me too. On a similar note, I did note in the 1st Presidential debate that both candidates expressed a "God Bless America" closing.

 

[Skep]

If the Bible classes are required, it would certainly bother me too. On a similar note, I did note in the 1st Presidential debate that both candidates expressed a "God Bless America" closing.

True, but the difference is that I don't have to express it, unlike the "not actually mandatory" bible study classes that everyone knows they will need to be seen at if they want to get anywhere in the administration.

 

[Just thinking]

True, but the difference is that I don't have to express it, unlike the "not actually mandatory" bible study classes that everyone knows they will need to be seen at if they want to get anywhere in the administration.

That's quite a stretch of an accusation to make -- I take it you have plenty of evidence of specific cases of his cabinet members to prove your point.

 

[Skep]

That's quite a stretch of an accusation to make -- I take it you have plenty of evidence of specific cases of his cabinet members to prove your point.

The question is, do you disagree because you are partisan? The amount of evidence you demand for this is far greater than the amount of evidence GWB needs to start a war. And, who said I was talking about cabinet members? They already are "somewhere" in the administration.


All right, now I shall dispense with the distracting rhetoric. Actual research is time consuming, so it will take time to get back to on this. However, your standard of proof is unreasonably high. Just one example should be sufficient to cast doubt on the administration—an administration I think you will have to admit is not friendly to atheists.

 

[Just thinking]

The question is, do you disagree because you are partisan? The amount of evidence you demand for this is far greater than the amount of evidence GWB needs to start a war. And, who said I was talking about cabinet members? They already are "somewhere" in the administration.

The only thing I'm partisan about is fairness, in this case it's about comments I see being cast at this administration regarding conduct, beliefs and actions that were never addressed (or gotten upset over) when the party in charge was on the other side of the isle. Believe me, there are plenty of things that I'm against with George W. Bush (and his father) that are too long to get into right now -- as well as policies and actions from Bill Clinton's terms that drove me up the wall (Wacko for one). Look at your comments about GW starting a war -- virtually everyone in the world believed there were stockpiles of weapons that this guy had (or was about to make) that could fall into terrorists hands. But only GW "lied" about it. Just how many UN resolutions did Saddam have to defy before "severe consequences" were to be taken against him? (BTW, the first Gulf War never really ended, it was still under an agreed upon ceasefire -- technically, in 2003, it was resumed due to defiance of those agreed upon conditions. How often do you hear that issue raised here?) Also, a great deal of corruption in the UN, France and Germany is being exposed regarding the oil-for-food program that left many starving and without medical aid in Iraq. How much of that is discussed here? (Some, perhaps, but others get more upset when the President simply says "My prayers are with you ..." to the victims in Florida. Sheeeesh! Heck, he's sending billions of $$$$ in aid.) Be honest, has Randi made any stink over the conditions in Iraq due to Saddam?? Or his continuous defiance of UN resolutions??

Yes, perhaps I'm wrong for the descriptive term "Cabinet Members", they are high up -- but just how far do you think people get in H. Clinton's administration in New York that aren't keen on total government health care? And who here is upset about some democrats proposing a resuming of the military draft?

So, I do get upset over quite a few issues (from both sides - and the media) when their behavior is overly partisan. And I believe Mr. Randi's sarcastic comments about Mr. Bush's personal feelings about Florida were clearly a case-in-point.

 

[Beady]

Sorry for coming into this thread so late.

I am very uncomfortable when skeptics start criticizing people who pray. I remember a fairly recent photograph of several American soldiers in Iraq praying after a squad member was killed. I thought to myself then, and still think, that I would never walk up to them and tell them that what they were doing was stupid, ignorant and/or useless.

Personally, I'm an agnostic leaning toward atheism, but I'm not ashamed to admit that in times of stress I, too, offer up a mild plea to Whatever. If I have the time and the ability, I will probably offer up a little prayer in my own final moments; it would be comforting to believe Something is helping me through the experience.

 

[allanb]

I am very uncomfortable when skeptics start criticizing people who pray.

This is a problem faced by all skeptics, especially atheists. If somebody gets comfort from prayer I don't want to deprive him of that comfort; after all, it doesn't affect me. Similarly, I wouldn't criticize a child who thinks that the coin under his pillow was left there by the Tooth Fairy. However, a child is only a child, and if he's lucky he may get wiser as he gets older. When we're talking about the beliefs of the people who run the nation, it's a bit different.

Never forget that the men who destroyed the twin towers, and the men who cut the heads off hostages in Baghdad, also pray to a God. You can argue that it's a different God; but superstition is superstition, whatever its name, and it's a bad basis for running a country.

 

[Skep]

I am very uncomfortable when skeptics start criticizing people who pray. I remember a fairly recent photograph of several American soldiers in Iraq praying after a squad member was killed. I thought to myself then, and still think, that I would never walk up to them and tell them that what they were doing was stupid, ignorant and/or useless.

Here you are not so much talking about criticizing people's prayer as interrupting their grief. Naturally we want to be considerate of people's feelings, but we also can't completely ignore reality just to placate believer’s gullibility. If that sounds harsh it's because I think the "war on terror" has heightened the use of the "my god is bigger than their god" rhetoric and the idea that god is on their side leads people to excuse bad acts on their side and vilify the heathens on the other. It also leads people to stumble blindly and confidently ahead on faith without studying the facts. No good can come of this.

For an example of this, see the Sunday New York Times article, "Without a Doubt"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&oref=login&oref=login

 

[Beady]

Never forget that the men who destroyed the twin towers, and the men who cut the heads off hostages in Baghdad, also pray to a God. You can argue that it's a different God; but superstition is superstition, whatever its name, and it's a bad basis for running a country.

Yes, it's true that most men who have waged war have claimed "God" was on their side. But so have those who have waged peace. I don't see any way of documenting it, but I'd bet that for every Torquemada in history, there are milllions of Mother Theresas, Albert Schweitzers and Henry Livingstons. Religion is like everything else, it can be used and it can be abused.

Seems to me that if you're going to refuse to credit a person's good works to his/her religious faith, then neither can you blame the evils of the world on a religious faith. Religion is a motivator for both good and evil and, on balance, people are far more good than evil.

As for running a nation according to religious principles, well, it's been done by pretty much all leaders in all times in all nations. Sometimes the religion has been a religious adherence to atheism, and sometimes the leader's religion has been himself, but I really doubt you're going to find a truly atheist government in all of history. Even if you did, it doesn't necessarilly follow that a secular government would be a rational government.

 

[allanb]

... but I really doubt you're going to find a truly atheist government in all of history.

I think the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin was truly and officially atheist, and I'm sure there have been others.

As a convinced atheist myself, I'm sorry I can't think of an example of a truly atheist government that was also both rational and benevolent. However, in my view the ideal ( = rational and benevolent) government would not impose atheism on its members or anybody else; it would simply try to keep religion out of government - which is close to what the US constitution intended to do.

 

[Beady]

I think the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin was truly and officially atheist...

Soviet (and probably Chinese and most other forms) of Communism is/was, in itself, a religion. It had its dogma, its commandments, its gods (divinity is nothing more than a personality cult with a glandular condition), and the same religious certainty that it was right in all things. This isn't even stretching a point; look up "religion" in the dictionary: "a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

I repeat: There has never been an atheist nation/government in all of history.

 

[BillyJoe]

Beady,

You would agree with me then that "The Brights" is a religious movement?

bj

 

[allanb]

Soviet (and probably Chinese and most other forms) of Communism is/was, in itself, a religion ...

... I repeat: There has never been an atheist nation/government in all of history.

To the best of my knowledge, the Stalin government did not believe in the existence of any supernatural or superhuman god. This makes them 'atheist' in the ordinary meaning of the word.

You can argue that their beliefs amounted to a kind of religion, if you like, but that doesn't mean that they were not atheistic.

Undoubtedly Stalin thought that people should do what he told them to do or suffer the consequences; but that is not the same thing as believing in one's own divinity (though, now that I think about it, it does have something in common with the Christian god).

Personally I would say that communist governments generally, including the Soviet version, were based on economic dogma, not religious faith; and they were inherently anti-religious because they believed that the state must be accepted as the ultimate authority. Atheism was practically a requirement, because belief in God would interfere with that acceptance.

 

[Beady]

To the best of my knowledge, the Stalin government did not believe in the existence of any supernatural or superhuman god. This makes them 'atheist' in the ordinary meaning of the word.

"Ordinary" is an opinion. I stated I was using a standard, dictionary, definition, and I stand by it. "Religion" does not inherently involve the supernatural or paranormal, but rather is an indicator of the ardor of the adherents.

Undoubtedly Stalin thought that people should do what he told them to do or suffer the consequences; but that is not the same thing as believing in one's own divinity (though, now that I think about it, it does have something in common with the Christian god).

Precisely. Stalin's regime, as Hitler's, was a personality cult that amounted to a religion.

Atheism was practically a requirement, because belief in God would interfere with that acceptance.

"Atheism" had nothing to do with the communist system. In fact, pure communism bears an incredibly strong resemblence to early Christianity ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," "From each according to ability to each according to need"). Belief in a deity, however, did interfer with belief in the power of the state to enforce communism, and the state was personified by Stalin.

What is the difference, in the eyes of the believers, between a deity and an earthly supreme being?