John T. Elson, TIME Editor Who Asked “Is God Dead” Dies At 78 Amusing since every site in the world has this story except TIME! (As of this posting.)
The quiet, studious Mr. Elson, who died on Sept. 7 at the age of 78, was an unlikely bomb- thrower, and his article, for those who ventured past the cover, reflected his scholarly bent. Meekly titled on the inside as “Toward a Hidden God,” it began: “Is God dead? It is a question that tantalizes both believers, who perhaps secretly fear that he is, and atheists, who possibly suspect that the answer is no.”
Bomb Thrower?
God doesn’t exist, and if he did, he should be contested.
God theoretically can be “all powerful” but nothing is “all good” when there is more than one sentient being in existence==unless each are leaving the other one alone and from what I hear, thats not God’s agenda.
Has anyone successfully fought against “Act of God” via insurance companies?
Named–can you sharpen that up just a bit? Ins Co’s defense of policy exclusions for “Acts of God” are fought all the time. Unlike god, cases are fact dependent.
3, bobbo,
I find it odd that a clause like that is actually included.
I’ll also guess that Acts of God, huricanes, etc are denied by Insurance companies since they know the govt will cover them.
Could they not replace Act of God with Random Event? They seem equivalent.
Well now he can tell us if God is dead or not.
Wouldn’t god have to exist in the first place in order to die? I guess if ideas can die, the idea of god can die, but that’s not really the same thing, is it?
Insurance ((eg, think “Health Insurance”)) is mostly a scam. They collect premiums by Broad Coverage Language then they limit exposure by Policy Exclusions of every sort you can think of. If you want coverage for “nature”/Acts of God===AS DEFINED in the policy, all you have to do is pay extra for it, if it is even offered.
8 bobbo,
I am much more enamoured by the fact that in high risk areas for a certain disaster (hurricanes, tornados, flooding) you cannot get that insurance coverage.
#9–Named==enamoured? Can’t tell if that is sarcasm or not. YES–redlining certain areas for certain hazards is EXACTLY what insurance should do. Its called “free market capitalism.” Outrageous to insure houses built in flood zones, on earthquake faults, in tidal areas and not be charging the cost of replacement every 3 years or whatever the statistical event is.
Its called being rational–ie, reasonable in the face of reality.
I assume thats what you mean.
They could change it to “Act of nature” – then we could all sue Al Gore for inventing global warming.
10 bobbo,
Sarcasm is a difficult construct on the Interwebitubes.
I agree that from a stone-cold calculation of profit and risk that it’s a good thing to ensure you insure only the most remote of possibilites. From a societal standpoint, it is an absolute abhorrance to allow it. An insurance company that does not insure for hurricanes within hurricane zones should not be allowed to sell anything at all in that area.
#12–Named==I think you are missing my/the point: “the market” cannot pay the real risk inherent in building in known dangerous areas. The government deserves a FAIL for even issuing building permits in the first place, now you want to compound the stupidity by pretending that all events can be insured against?
Freedom: Build where you want, Insure where you want. Social Engineering==read a few pieces about how insurance encourages risky/harmful behavior. Interesting hooman animal stuff.
Heh, heh. Reality Bites, and bites hard.
#11 – chuck,
Though you are ignorant beyond belief, you actually make an interesting point that is made in the book The Weathermakers. We are at the point where it no longer makes sense to speak of acts of god or acts of nature. Humans have caused so much climate change that many storms and other crises are foreseeable results of our own actions.
This does indeed open the possibility for, say Inuit communities who have lost their livelihood to climate change may legitimately sue the wealthy nations of the world one day in international court. To me, this would actually seem fair. Of course the uninformed like yourself are unlikely to agree, as are the international courts that are run by the wealthy nations of the world.
Scott–does the World Court have jurisdiction over such issues? Just asking.
I don’t think Climate Computer Models would be admissable in Court.
God is all powerful and therefore responsible, not the worlds worst carbon/methane emitters.
Can God be held responsible if he’s six feet under?
#15 – bobbo,
No climate models. Actual damages. I don’t know whether international courts have such jurisdiction. My understanding is that they do take international lawsuits.
God, as you already know, is a delusional result of dysrationalia on the part of a large percentage of the humans on the world who are incapable of evaluating evidence and determining fact.
(I’ve been looking for an excuse to introduce the term dysrationalia. This one’s fairly thin, but I couldn’t resist. I’m reading What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought and like the term.)
The bogeyman in the basement is dead, the bogeyman under the bed is dead, the bogeyman in the dark forest is dead, the bogeyman in the closet is dead… it’s just a matter of time until the invisible bogeyman who watches and records everything you do, also dies. Every year that passes, he’s a little closer to death as the human race slowly grows out of him. Some day we’ll finally be able to go to the death potty all by ourselves.
#15 – bobbo,
No climate models. Actual damages. I don’t know whether international courts have such jurisdiction. My understanding is that they do take international lawsuits.
God, as you already know, is a delusional result of dysrationalia on the part of a large percentage of the humans on the world who are incapable of evaluating evidence and determining fact.
(I’ve been looking for an excuse to introduce the term dysrationalia. This one’s fairly thin, but I couldn’t resist. I’m reading What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought and like the term.)
#15 – bobbo,
No climate models. Actual damages. I don’t know whether international courts have such jurisdiction. My understanding is that they do take international lawsuits.
God, as you already know, is a delusional result of dysrationalia on the part of a large percentage of the humans on the world who are incapable of evaluating evidence and determining fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia
(I’ve been looking for an excuse to introduce the term dysrationalia. This one’s fairly thin, but I couldn’t resist. I’m reading What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought and like the term.)
#17–Jim==quit posting what we all only hope for when the evidence is mounting we are all subject to mounting religiosity and the insanity/stupidity it breeds.
#15–Scott==yes, the Inuit underwater have real damages but who is the defendant? Is there any international duty to prevent harm to low landers? Proof? There is NO PROOF possible. If you dismiss the models, then its just the poor suing the rich. Not a bad model, just don’t know if its International Court Legal–Dysrational though it may be.
Interesting word.
Let’s use dysrational in a sentence….
See Nietzsche. See Nietzsche run. See Nietzsche’s dysrational anti-philosophy valorized the insidious power of the absurd to destabilize any progressive thought or rational-utilitarian order.
Oh, and on a Google search I also found that you can download your favorite dysrational at Pdfdatabase.com.
#17-JimR-Some day we’ll finally be able to go to the death potty all by ourselves.
Not that it would be possible, but I was thinking how much fun it would be to take a picture of your face the instant you die and come face to face with Big Guy.
Having a picture of the instant you realize you are screwed would be the perfect DU post.
Wow! That should turn a few of those dead bogeymen into walking zombies. Listen, there’s one in your closet.
#21–Dr Dodd==how old are you?
For a good example of Dysrationalia, see post # 21.
#22-#23
I’m just trying to spice things up. You guys always take this discussion to the same place.
You should thank me for offering a new way to think about something you have already made up you mind about.
Dr D==Dysrationality and Dementia are not spices.
Spicing makes a conversation more complex, more interesting==just like a food spice does to food, its why the analogy works.
Shitting on food/ideas is not appetizing.
#21, Dr Dodd, when you say, “the instant you die and come face to face with Big Guy.”… are you planning on taking your face with you?
And when you say, “the instant you realize you are screwed”… are you planning to take your brain with you?
Just curious, but what do you believe you are thinking with right now? For instance, if you were to realize that you are screwed for some reason right now, by what means would you come to that conclusion? Now imagine if I were to take that means away…. say run over your head with a truck… how would you realize an moment later that you were screwed?
#25-bobbo
I get it, you are tofu kind of guy. No fun for you.
#26-JimR-are you planning to take your brain with you?
I began with, “Not that it would be possible”
Do I need to say anymore?
Well Dodd==lets take your position. Why would it be “fun” to witness a fellow human beings pain at realizing they have been wrong all their life/whatever percentage it was?
Seems rather an earth bound nasty human being thing to think/take pleasure in.
I thought when you die, your “soul” comes to know god and “all things become clear” and all that.
I take that all to mean that god being all good and merciful and loving it means that all of us go to heaven including Hitler. Maybe the one’s that don’t get to go are those who did claim belief on earth and then posted like you do? Very Unchristian in my view.
Then there are the 15 other versions of what definitely happens after we die and who knows? you could be right. On death, all the atheists get pantsed in limbo and all the believers get to laugh in righteous victory while we sink into hell.
I’m sure the bibble supports any view one wants to take.