Found by Misanthropic Scott.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
@Thomas #21,
You clearly have not read the entire Bible with a critical eye.” Thomas, you are the one not reading the entire Bible.
Your quotes from Matthew are not Jesus Christ telling followers to kill a person for not honoring a mother or father. What he is doing is referring to Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, Exodus 21:17 in his discussion with the scribes and Pharisees. The point of his story are summed up a few verses down in Matthew 15:16-20. So when you want to take verses out of context, it is possible to read almost anything you want from any text.
RE: #28, dexton7… re: “And… The atheists who have declared their victory over God – they are in denial of their own ignorance concerning this intricate and wondrous universe that we have only begun to understand as a species.”
Ironic, that statement was based on your own ignorance. There is no victor when there is no foe. Atheists are not known for creating illusory beings. That oddity lies solely with the religious sect. Anyone who would declare a victory over ‘God’ is not atheist.
Furthermore, our ignorance as a species concerning the understanding of the universe is relative to the meaning of ‘understanding’. One need not possess all knowledge to understand something. The universe you claim “we have only begun to understand” is simply another baseless belief. For that statement to be true you would have to know the extent of knowledge required to understand, and do a quantitative comparison of some kind. You have nothing to go on. It is just as possible that we are almost all the way to a full understanding of the universe.
To date, all mysteries that have been solved are independent of any superior being. Science: 1000’s, God: 0.
As time plods on , the prospect of the existence of any type of god diminishes exponentially. As time plods on, the lack of reason and logic supporting a god grows. For example, most of mankind would not allow a child to be tortured, mangled, disemboweled, skinned alive, diseased, drowned, starved, abandoned, raped, or abused any other atrocities… if we had the power to stop any of it with a godly command. But the god you worship allows that every second of every day. That example along with virtually endless others, indicates to those of us who actually use our powers of reason and logic, that the god you admire doesn’t exist.
Excellent piece. We need more of that in the world.
#32, Ethanol
“So when you want to take verses out of context, it is possible to read almost anything you want from any text.”
Exactly. That’s the problem with religion. There is no single interpretation, and anyone can justify anything they do using a quote from any religious text.
Also? Thomas’ interpretation is equally as valid as yours is. Who are you to say he is wrong?
#27,
HAHAHA!!
Thank you Gay Atheist.
But even as CURRENT history shows..
YOU ARE ???? RELIGION or we kill you..
You believe in Christ, or you goto hell.
YOU live the way we TELL you or we Excommunicate/shot/hang/stone/burn you at the stake..
The Christian based religions had so much infighting, they made ROMAN LIONS look easy.
#28
“If religion did not exist, we would still be killing or doing awful things to each other over other ‘made up’ things like philosophy, money, power, politics, nationalism, tribalism, and culturalism after all. People are odd like that unfortunately and carry this destructive flaw that does not seem to benefit our species in any way. ”
MOST religion in the USA is indoctrination, done to children WHO DONT KNOW any better.
also read #36.
The rest of your statement has little to do with Much. Soon you will try to explain to me that the planet is only 4000 years old.
Belief, should be OPEN WIDE. religion should GRASP science. NOT hide from it.
We are made in the image of our father, Shouldnt we try to SEE things as he did? Or do you wish to STAY a child?
#33
“As time plods on , the prospect of the existence of any type of god diminishes exponentially. As time plods on, the lack of reason and logic supporting a god grows. For example, most of mankind would not allow a child to be tortured, mangled, disemboweled, skinned alive, diseased, drowned, starved, abandoned, raped, or abused any other atrocities”..
We can reverse this also.
By showing that the perfection of what has been created. HOW everything FIXS, under its own laws. God raised his children, and we are ON OUR OWN..HE isnt going to come RUNNING when we call. WE Live or DIE by our OWN mistakes.
IF’ we are doing the right thing, and keep our house clean, HE MIGHT VISIT…If we are GOing the wrong way, we MIGHT have to live thru it.
Judging GODS problem, is fun.
Im on your side.
But, I like to sort problems as…
GODS PROBLEM
MANS PROBLEM..
God as a father TAUGHT us how to live, and IF YOU DONT live and Thrive, its YOUR PROBLEM. You live by your MISTAKES.
I cant blame a GOD for MANKINDS FAILINGS.
@Skippy #35,
You are right on one point and mistaken on two others. You are right regarding taking anything you want and using.
Now to reading comprehension skills. If you had bothered to read my entire post I pointed out that Thomas made the mistake he was criticizing another for. You are wrong that our interpretations are equal. Thomas intentionally (or ignorantly) chose to take the first four verses out of context of the chapter. I therefore am more right than Thomas because I looked at the chapter, the context, the message, and read the conclusion presented. He chose to cherry-pick what APPEARED to be a violent statement from Jesus Christ, which it very clearly was not. Non-believers have an amazing way of taking things out of context to serve their own narrow needs, exemplified by Thomas.
Ethanol, #38
“He chose to cherry-pick what APPEARED to be a violent statement from Jesus Christ, which it very clearly was not. Non-believers have an amazing way of taking things out of context to serve their own narrow needs, exemplified by Thomas.”
I see, so you’re saying that believers don’t take things out of context? How do you explain the views of extremists then? My point that Thomas’ views are just as valid as yours still stands, because he is interpreting it differently from you. You have no right to say your interpretation is better, or more right. What it means to him, it means to him.
Remember, scholars can’t even agree on what Shakespeare wrote, and he wrote in English! No one scholar has it right.
re # , ECa, “Judging GODS problem, is fun. Im on your side. But, I like to sort problems as…
GODS PROBLEM
MANS PROBLEM..
God as a father TAUGHT us how to live, and IF YOU DONT live and Thrive, its YOUR PROBLEM. You live by your MISTAKES.
I cant blame a GOD for MANKINDS FAILINGS.”
I can’t blame God for mankind’s failings either, because he doesn’t exist. If he did exist, then I could easily blame everything on him. God is culpable because his creations are not perfect and, knowing this, ethically he shouldn’t have created a flawed being capable of sadistic behavior. In doing so, he is no better than the sadist, the rapist, and the murderer. He alone would be responsible for the pain and suffering of both the innocent AND the guilty.
ECA, re #37, (again)…“We can reverse this also. By showing that the perfection of what has been created. “
Name one [god’s] creation in this world that is perfection.
#33–Skeptic==why, that was downright poetic!
Interesting how one can “just throw words” at an issue.
My favorite one really is: “Atheism is a religion too!” Here the religious insult themselves by belittling non-belief BY EQUATING IT to a system of beliefs that they are ostensibly trying to defend.
Its like the mother who calls her son: “You are a son of a bitch.”
I remember my first day in bio-chem class. The prof said we were delving into evolution. Then he mentioned that something happens in the brains of the religious types: a switch is thrown, and they can no longer consider an issue that they can see for themselves rights in front of them. Memorable not for its insight, but it was the very first time I ever heard religion confronted in a public forum. Course, we all sat there and took notes.
I digress. The point I was pointed towards is the notion that “anything can be taken out of context” as if analysis itself was a faulty process. I guess that is an attempt to make belief the default mode of perfection??? Ha. Ha. Well, context is all but the context of the very next sentence changing the meaning of the first sentence is “context.” A sentence changing its meaning because of an non referenced treatise on cultural roots is an entirely different “context” and totally arguable but it is not the “context” that counts.
God stands (sic) outside (sic) of context.
Silly Hoomans.
@Skippy #39,
Where did I say believers don’t take things out of context? Oh right, I didn’t. My point was that non-believers have a tendency to find a website which points out something out of context and then repost elsewhere. I caught Thomas doing that and pointed it out for the world to see.
Ergo Thomas’ point is logically invalid. Thomas took verses out of context, thereby misrepresenting the statements. I put the verses back in context with the conclusion explained by the verses preceding. Therefore you should quit now or admit you made a mistake. And yes, when winning an argument I can say that I am right. Sorry, go back to debate 101 and logic 101 classes.
40,
Correct,
But as with MOST fathers, letting their KIDS find their OWN WAY..To learn from what he HOPEFULLY taught them.
41,
Which do you admire MORE..The watch on your hand or the internal parts that make it all work?
Cant see the forest, cause of the trees..
IF’ there is one. We wont find him until we understand HIM and learn MORE. But we are the KNOW IT ALL, 18-20 year olds, that have left the house to find the world on our own. AND for SOME odd reason, there are allot of people out there, THAT dont see this. WE are goofing UP BADLY. I still think there is a group TRYING to create/FORCE the coming of the rapture. They are trying to push BUTTONS in certain areas, to FORCE people to REACT..and react BADLY.
This is a MANKIND problem..and God is just going to watch, and LAUGH his head off, when we BLOW ourselves OFF this planet.
As a hard agnostic I wouldn’t mind the atheists if their hardliners didn’t use the same tactics of I’m Right You’re Wrong and trying to convert and preach their message just like foaming at the mouth theists do.
I think that is why many think of them like they have a religion because the most vocal of them shout it from their lecterns like it was a pulpit.
Cursor_
45,
I like the politicians that DECLARE they are RELIGIOUS…and once in OFFICE, they act as if NOTHING happened, and act In a fashion NOT OF ANY BELIEF known to mankind.
Any person that DECLARES, his religion, should LIVE by its tenants..It matters not his beliefs, but IF HE LIVES by them, you know what to expect.
This cant be said NOW DAYS.
Ethanol, #43
Wow, that’s pretty arrogant to claim you’ve won a debate when clearly you haven’t.
“Where did I say believers don’t take things out of context? Oh right, I didn’t”
By saying that non-believers take things out of context, you are implying that believers don’t.
“My point was that non-believers have a tendency to find a website which points out something out of context and then repost elsewhere.”
Replace the word “non-believers” with “believers”, and that statement is equally true. Don’t pretend that believers are any less guilty, because they certainly aren’t, and the world is worse off for it because they outnumber the non-believers by a long shot.
You don’t seem to be understanding my basic point, which is THERE IS NO CORRECT INTERPRETATION or REPRESENTATION OF THE BIBLE, even yours. Anyone who says they have the correct interpretation of anything in that ancient text is either lying or arrogant.
Skippy–lying vs arrogant is the continuum you see? If I say 2+2=4 and other answers are wrong am I lying or being arrogant? If I say evolution is a demonstrated fact that intertwines/unites all of the biological and related science and those who do not accept this are wrong, and I lying or being arrogant?
So, there is a line between science and belief, another one between close textual context and extended philosophical context. Silly to mix everything all up and conclude we can’t analyze and reach conclusions as is our nature to do.
# 29 Bmorebadboy,
I completely agree with your statement that freedom is essential for the advancement of mankind. I also agree that all governments eventually go bad at some point in history and become tyrannical and have to be corrected or balanced at some point or another. History is full of examples of this.
#33 Skeptic,
I’m fine that you think that the concept of God is a fairy tale. For the record I am generally against highly organized religion as it usually becomes corrupted. However, you still make the close minded assumption that because human evils and free-will exist, then there can be no room for a God or a supreme intelligence in the universe. This would be like Einstein declaring that he has discovered the theory of everything and science can take a vacation because there is nothing left to discover. We know that this is false. I keep an open mind to the possibilities of science and of philosophy and do not see the last chapter of knowledge being finished any time soon. Everyone is guilty of ‘creating illusionary’ things. You still have imagination don’t you? If we were not endowed with this mental component then we wouldn’t be having this conversation much less on a computer and a network that did not ‘exist’ at one point in time any yet has been made possible by combining the laws of nature and our imperfect human imagination which is all that we have as a mechanism for discovery.
Even Stephen Hawking has his reservations about completely denying the existence of God by stating, “However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God. (p.193)” and there is this quote as well… “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? – Stephen Hawking”
If you can tell me how emergence came to being in the universe, how it works and why it exists, then I’ll accept your point of view.
# 37 ECA
You state “MOST religion in the USA is indoctrination, done to children WHO DONT KNOW any better… The rest of your statement has little to do with Much. Soon you will try to explain to me that the planet is only 4000 years old…”
Yes point taken… but what about the indoctrination of philosophy, money, power, politics, nationalism, tribalism, racism and culturalism? You do not address those. I think this indeed has ‘much to do with much’ don’t you? I do agree that religion should grasp science, and no the Earth is older than 4000 years.
“Yes point taken… but what about the indoctrination of philosophy, money, power, politics, nationalism, tribalism, racism and culturalism? ”
Yes, but many things take time and are learned from those around you. I leave religion and baptism until a person can DECIDE on their OWN as well as look at the OPTIONS/CHOICES/.. of other beliefs.
I know what you are aiming AT, Im the wrong person to say much. AS I am a Neutral person. I LIKE to find MORE then 1 side to everything, and generally find more then 3-4 very easily.
Dexton–
The argument is at least as old as the Greeks:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
– Epicurus
I enjoy a debate and good points have been mentioned. Yes, I agree that people need the opportunity decide on their thought and belief system for themselves and not to be forced into a mode of propagandistic thinking (which is rampant unfortunately now and many times in the past). And yes, the argument of the existence of God or a supreme intelligence in this universe is as old as the Greeks indeed if not much older.
One of my primary precepts is to stand with my limited power against any tyrannical force that cripples our right to debate and speak freely, be it either from religious zealots, atheist absolutists or elite sociopaths. Only in this environment can humanity refine and distill our ideas about the nature of ourselves and the age old questions of existence.
dexton==well thats great. Still, the god that everyone worships cannot be “explained” in any rational way. That means such belief is “irrational.” Irrational means: not being rational.
Now just what is “absolute” about saying” I find the concept of god to be irrational and until more evidence is offered up, I choose to find my answers in science.
You back up to a reasonable position, but out of the chute, you post that you keep rational and irrational beliefs on equal footing, belittling those who are rational. Thats not real good.
when you move away from such false equivalencies, then you will enjoy debates because there will be something you can learn from them. Until then, you exist in a morass of quibbling falsehoods.
# 53 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist
I don’t belittle rational people.. why would I do that?
Also, here is a slice of irrational for you that allows you and I to exist…
The number for π, e and √2 are ‘irrational numbers’. You cannot precisely gather π, e or √2 amount of rocks, apples, oranges, atoms or marmosets without clumsily rounding up or down.
Technically speaking these numbers are called irrational numbers because they are uncountable and unmeasurable – which by your definition – is banned from your lego-land version of reality.
So I guess that you might as well deny the existence of circles, probability and all of space-time just because it contains an irrational component. These mathematical properties do work on paper and in nature however, and is indeed not a falsehood. This is why sometimes the irrational and rational exhibit a complimentary duality in nature that you do not seem to like and makes your head hurt. Are you now going to say that all mathematicians are all wrong or speaking falsehoods on this matter?
Many people thought that Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ (entangled particles) was completely logically irrational if not impossible from the understanding of the universe at the time. This instantaneous action-at-a-distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. There was however an additional layer of complexity (or simplicity according to who you ask) that was overlooked that accounted for this.
However this ‘irrational’ phenomenon has been proven to exist and is a very real property of the universe.
This is why I usually don’t slam the mental door on a concept and say that something is ‘absolutely impossible’. At the very least I think that the probability is rather low for some things and high for others… and I do learn many things from debates by keeping an open mind.
Rationality is a relative term that is only as good as the human mind in which it resides.
assumptions…
dUCK FEATHERS AND Loud mouths..
dexton==well, congrats. You have stayed on target-there is “some” hope for you. I suggest you buy and read a dictionary and read it more often than you have. Just because various DIFFERENT things have been given the same arrangement of letters to designate them, doesn’t mean they are all the same. Your aren’t being irrational, just stupid. Silly rhetorician. Odd there are so few of you around. I wonder why that is?
I note the slight of hand/brain? that allows you to label me with your continuing misdefined words/concepts. Irrantional number have little to do with our ability/occurence of existing. What is a “lego-land version of reality” and so on at almost every sentence.
Gobbledegook. Anyone with the skills you present has short changed himself. Words have meaning, and yours are nonsense.
Stoopid Hooman.
I liked it but it was not violent enough to truly capture the essence.
bobbo,
I don’t believe in god, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s a very logical and rational statement. I’ll always argue against god’s existence, but until you find a way to unequivocally prove something that you can’t see, smell, taste, touch or measure with our still very limited means, you can’t rule god out 100%.
And what if god isn’t omnipotent, but compared to us feeble humans, he seems that way to us? Compare humans now to cavemen. They would see us as very powerful, magically so. Maybe god is an alien who is just as advanced to us? Would you rule that out as irrational?
#31 – ethanol,
Sorry, I forgot about this topic for a while. I hope it hasn’t died yet.
http://tinyurl.com/4bja8
I may be misinformed about it being the most religious list of Jews who oppose Zionism. But, the strict fundamentalist reading of the Jewish religion is that when the Messiah comes, there will be peace and Jews will return to Israel. As only Jews for Jesus believe the messiah has already come, a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible suggests anti-Zionism.
Perhaps I should have said the most fundamentalist of Jews rather than the most religious. The vast majority of Jews, religious and not, do support a Jewish state as a safe-haven.
#58–BMore==if one wants to get stupid, god might exist and you can’t prove he doesn’t===BUT the god that is trumped up in various bibles cannot exist as the concept is logically inconsistent as shown by Epicurus.
Everything proposed by the religious that was contradicted by science has been proven to be wrong. Anyone equating the two: religion and science is a fool simply on pragmatic grounds.
You can equate the validity of prayer with modern medicine, but I’ll take the pills.
bobbo,
It’s been real fun, so here we go again… here’s your definition from the esteemed dictionary that you keep harping on…
ir·ra·tion·al – without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason; outside of reason.
Typically if some idea does not fall into a person’s boundary of reason (or knowledge) they will usually label it as being ‘irrational’. If I could go back in time and told some person from the middle ages that someday people would be flying around in metal machines in the sky they would call me an irrational crazy person. You are doing the same thing and you have no proof either way of the existence of God or a ‘supreme being’ and neither do I. All that I’m saying is that it is possible – and all you say is NO much like a 2 year old covering their eyes. What is a “lego-land version of reality” you say? It means oversimplifying and overgeneralizing reality.
Also, irrational numbers have everything to do with our ability of existing. They represent the basic structure of the universe. Remember those physics equations with π, e in them everywhere? Yes those are rather important. These are numbers that can never fully be calculated (because they never terminate or repeat) which is why mathematicians of the time labeled them as ‘irrational’ or outside of reason as nobody can write down all of the digits and there is no known pattern.
Plus using the cute phrase “Stoopid Hooman” doesn’t make you look any more ‘reasonable’ either.