Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
LOL, Thanks, but dont bet the farm on it.
Its always great to learn new stuff from people, now I have to figure out what tefillin and tzitzit are. ;)
so I guess my job here is done too
Goodnight
"they're apologizing for a ruinous and ridiculous body of mythological literature whose influence on human history has been overwhelmingly negative."
That's possibly the most ignorant statement I've ever heard concerning the study of religion and human history. But, carry on.
You're assuming that I or others who doubt haven't searched, and found the lack of anything like evidence of "the divine" wanting.
Tina Turner's legs aside, that is.
Humble, devoted and consistent to what? Seems you're assuming that Something Is Up There and then searching for ways to make your belief seem more tangible.
Which is also what some of us have done -- through the religions we grew up in and those we learned about later in life, through questioning our parents, our pastors, our friends, our professors and a whole heap o' books -- but come to the conclusion that, quelle surprise, many folks are tired of livin' but scared o' dyin'. So we dream up a fantasy otherworld where love is a constant and pain only a memory.
Not surprising, and mostly sweet. Just not compellingly believable.
Religion is not the issue. Fundamentalism is not the issue. Rote acceptance of irreconcilable dogma is not the issue. The trouble comes when an adherent of whatever world view decides to impose it on another. There have been religious monsters throughout history, most definitely - but there have also been political and economic and technological monsters as well.
It is just as wrong to accept the tenets of science without examining them critically for oneself, as to proclaim membership in a church that one has not conscientiously vetted. One key difference is that a properly posed scientific assertion is falsifiable. Buy a cheap microscope or telescope or stop watch - many of the great observations of science lie within the easy reach of kitchen experiments. Most religious assertions, however, don't lend themselves to being posed properly in the first place. We are told Jesus is the Son of God. But what does it mean to be a "Son of God"? How could mere mortals possibly comprehend such a family dynamic?
The assertions of science are far grander than those of religion. We need only believe in one Son of God. Been there, done that. Science argues for laws of nature that span identically from one side of the universe to the other, from billions of years in the past to billions of years in the future, from perfect vacuum to colliding neutron stars to the colossal black holes now conjectured to inhabit the centers of all galaxies. These things are true (or not), whether or not we believe in them. Science requires no piety. One suspects God doesn't either.
However, the central question isn't whether the panoply of the world's religions are falsifiable. After all, adherents of each religion reject the tenets of all the others. Rather, the central question is a very human one. Whether we call it hubris or chutzpah or arrogance or sinful pride, the failure is all too human. We need not look to God for someone to blame.
As a wild fan of Bill Maher's, my point-of-view on this, might surprise him, and the other readers out there.
I heard Bill say on "The View" on Tuesday that "Spirituality is on my To-Do list." He actually sounded serious about it, and I just wanted to say, Bill, you're ALREADY there:
You advocate for animals, and have adopted dogs ("Whatever you do for the least of these..."), and are a "conscious eater", choosing few flesh-foods (I heard you only allow yourself fish) so as to be respectful of the animals' lives.
You are curious, and open to questions. Good for you for questioning the dogma of religion. Many religious leaders question the existence of God(as you pointed out in this interview)--even Mother Theresa did--but what made her Faith so compelling is that even while she had doubts, SHE STILL CONTINUED TO SERVE HUMANKIND. That's having FAITH--in something greater. Even when you have doubts, you choose the good. You, Bill, are also honest about your sexual needs, and your refusal to be "hemmed-in" in a relationship like marriage, which means you are way-honest, too. In my book, that's reaching a place of Spirituality.
While for nearly 18 years I called myself a "cheerful Atheist" (so many non-believers seem so very cynical, and mean-spirited),I only a few years ago felt an awakening towards a kind of spirituality. I joined a group called Pax Christi, which protests war and violence, and encourages Peace, and meditation. Though it began as a Roman Catholic movement, anyone can join.
God bless You, Bill. If you don't mind my saying that.
Peace, man.
... that we happen to be fighting a Religious War right now, after having been attacked by fanatic Muslims (who see their world as having been defiled by infidel Christians). That's why we have a Global War On Terror and a Clash Of Civilizations, instead of doing what we would do about mass-murdering criminals under any other circumstance: track 'em down and lock 'em up.
1. We were not attacked for our religion, but for our actions, in Iran in the 50's when we imprisoned their president and took over their nation, the betrayal of the middle east in the name of oil after WW I, the tragedy of the installation of Israel at the expense of its inhabitants and all that came after, Lebanon's annihilation and bombing, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the list is endless. This was made manifest in the declaration after the attack; I daresay that they would have attacked us anyway even if they were Christian. People use whatever belief system they were born into to justify war. WE did it in the Philippines at the end of the 19th century and we certainly have generals and colonels who have stated bluntly that they are fighting the Armaggedon war with Islam as the representation of Satan.
2. The people who attacked us, The Base, could only round up 19 men out of a billion to attack us with four planes. If you read the 9-11 commission report, the original plan was to attack with 12 planes! They could not find enough men. That is the worldwide menace you fear. 19 men with a few money men behind them. That isn't an international enemy, that's a street gang.
3. The 19 men are dead, and you can't round them up and kill them. Only BL is free, and frankly that is because Bush messed it up.
4. There is no such thing as Terror, you can't have a war against a concept, and there is no "War on Terror" any more than you can have a "War on Anger". What we have is an invasion and attempted conquest of one (arguably 2!) innocent country which was made a scapegoat for what a few dozen mostly dead men did. NOW what we have is angry people trying to kill us to get us to get the hell out of their country. Religion is just something we use to justify our insanity in killing brown people who kinda look like some 19 guys who got us. We blame their religion for the fact they shoot at our armored conquerers. You want them to stop? LEAVE.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
