Quote
October 6th, 2001
If the people we love are stolen from us,
the way to have them live on
is to never stop loving them.
Buildings burn.
People die,
but real love is forever.
–Epilogue of The Crow, the movie.
Archive
Archive for October, 2001
Words have Meaning
October 5th, 2001
Via Bonhoeffer
God = Good.
Against God = Bad.Humans have the choice (given us by God) to “choose God” or to “go against God.”
God is not directly responsible for the bad things we do; He simply gave us a choice and we often choose to go against Him. Thus we are responsible for the “Bad.”
When we “choose God,” we are choosing “good.” Since God defines and thus is the source of “goodness,” He deserves credit for the “good.”
Hang on. Foul. Illegal use of words without meaning.
You’ve defined the problem in to shadows not actually answered or solved it. It’s all very nice to say that God=Good, if for whatever reason you choose to make that definition then you have to stop using either God or Good in their traditions meanings.
Upon seeing that statement I know I can use God to mean: ‘Competent, skillful’ (i.e. ‘I’m a pretty God brewer.’, ‘He’s a God Doctor’, etc.) That is fine and all but the new definition God says nothing about supernatural creator deities.
In the same sentence you’ve arbitrarily decided that Against God means bad. (i.e. ‘He was an against god boy, he needs to be punished’, ‘Being shot in the lung is against god’). Again that is fine but you’ve drained the meaning we normally associate with god from the term. You’ve turned the term into a value judgment about events.
For the purposes of discussion God can mean either a supernatural creator or good not both. To do otherwise is to hide the real meaning of what you are trying to say. In traditional English good may be used as part of description of God, but they are not synonymous.
It sounds to me you are trying to say that god’s nature is good, and you define god’s nature to be anything good. a=a doesn’t really say much but you hide that simple equation behind words used in strange ways so that no one notices that you aren’t saying anything.
–Zafkiel
Religious America?
October 4th, 2001
Like no other time in recent history, Americans got religion. A Gallup poll showed that 47 percent of respondents said they had attended church or synagogue in the last seven days, a level rarely seen since the 1950s. A Harris Interactive poll found that 82 percent of Americans prayed or attended religious services the week of the tragedy.
– Amanda Onion
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/abc/20011003/ts/wtc_religion011003_1.html
I think this is interesting because while most polls say that in the U.S. 95% of people believe in some sort of god, but when the chips are on the table only 82% of Americans turned to him. It seems that an extra 13% of Americans were to busy and distraught to remember they were supposed to believe in God this time around. This suggests that some 1 in 5 Americans don’t think that God either exists or does anything on or to Earth.
Even at a time of unprecedented (Christmas and Easter like) church going less than half of Americans attended their local church. This is apparently way up from normal attendance. Even at a time national tragedy and days of prayer less than half of Americans went to church. It think it can safely be said that not a lot more than these people ever go to church with the exception of weddings and funerals.
It seems America is more secular than the religious right would have us believe.
–Zafkiel
Shades of Atheism
October 3rd, 2001
There are few things worse than a dictionary definition in theology. I admit guilt of this last week. Would you accept that I as a non-theist could look up Christianity in the dictionary than argue with a Christian what their beliefs were?
I am an atheist. I discuss that on the AF board and elsewhere. I suppose you could say I’m part of the “Atheist Movement” and here is how I define the words.
I define my Atheism as meaning without belief. That is a goal state not something I could claim I have attained in my life right now, but I seek to have no belief. For me to “believe” something, for lack of a better word, it needs to be supported by evidence. I fail at this a lot, but I think it is an in intellectually honest position. This is often called “weak” atheism.
“Strong” atheism is not a position I can defend. In it’s own way it is just as unreasonable as theism and it is really unnecessary. It is the assertion that there is no God. You’d need to go to someone else for a defense of it.
Agnosticism is not a belief system of its own, it is a statement of whether the existence of God is provable. You can have a Christian agnostic or an non-theist agnostic, both believe that the existence of God is non-provable, one acts like there is a God the other acts as if their is not. There is a lot of gray in there but all someone who is an agnostic says about belief is that the existence of God is not provable.
I am technically an agnostic weak atheist. Generally speaking I just say atheist.
You can say I’ve redefined words and merged meaning, etc. I don’t think I have. I think I’ve sought to find words that convey meaning. This is not a obfuscation, atheists talking to atheists are not confused by these differences, just as Christians are aware of the denomination differences between themselves, however from the outside the difference is not so apparent.
–Zafkiel
Response to USA Today Editorial
October 2nd, 2001
I read Kathleen Parker’s 9/30/2001 editorial ‘God, country gain fragile new toehold’ and I was both insulted and terrified. You see I’m one of those atheists she thinks don’t exist anymore. Let me rephrase that, I’m one of the 25 million atheists she thinks don’t exist anymore. We are still here and we aren’t going away. I’m sorry if out compassion, concern and sorrow we let somethings slip by without challenging them.
We shouldn’t have let that happen.
Let me be quite clear. Now is the most import time to be vigilant. People like Ms. Parker and Jerry Falwell will try and use this national tragedy to sell their own unconstitutional social programs. If we let that happen that is just one of the victories the terrorists can chalk up for themselves. If protecting ourselves and our culture from terrorists is what is important we can not now quietly forget all the voices that make up America’s internal dialog.
She speaks about the values that prompted people to buy flags as if that answers the question of “what values might those be?” but it does not because when I look at a flag it represents freedom. Chiefly among those freedoms is the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. To Ms. Parker she looks at that flag and sees God. She has failed to answer the question about American values, she has diverted us from it by pointing at one symbol after another.
Our children will be patriots when they can be proud of America’s actions. They will know America’s greatness when they have no doubts that they live in a free society. Forcing children to follow symbols stifles true patriotism that comes from pride in your country. It stifles patriotism because it stifles freedom.