Virtual Illusions

A man went on a vacation to the Middle East with most of his family,
including his mother-in-law. During their vacation and while they
were visiting Jerusalem, George’s mother-in-law died.

With the death certificate in hand, George went to the American
Consulate Office to make arrangements to send the body back to the
States for proper burial.

The Consul, after hearing of the death of the mother-in-law told
George that the sending of a body back to the States for burial is
very, very expensive. It could cost as much as $5,000.00.

The Consul continues, in most cases the person responsible for the
remains normally decides to bury the body here, as a burial in
Jerusalem would only cost $150.00.

George thinks for some time and finally answers, “I don’t care how
much it will cost to send the body back; that’s what I want to do.”

The Consul, after hearing this, says “You must have loved your mother
-in-law very much, considering the difference in price.”

“No, it’s not that,” says George. “You see, I know of a case many years
ago of a person that was buried here in Jerusalem. On the third day
He arose from the dead! I just can’t take that chance!”

Religion

Announcer:
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time for America’s favorite metaphysical game show - Whose God Is It Anyway? With your host, Blaise Pascal!

Studio Audience: [wild applause]

Pascal: Good evening, America, and welcome to Whose God Is It Anyway?, the metaphysical game where contestants get to wager their earthly existence against an eternity of reward. Let’s get right down to business and meet tonight’s contestant, Arthur Johnson!

A portion of the stage rotates, bringing Arthur into frame. He waves gamely to the audience

Pascal: Hello, Arthur, and welcome to Whose God Is It Anyway? Are you ready to play our little game?

Arthur: I sure am, Blaise!

Pascal: Super. Okay, now, you know how are game is played. We’re going to show you a number of conceptions of God, the divinity, and the divine. You get to select one that’s right, one - of those (makes quote symbols with fingers) “Gods.” You then have to live your life abiding by that deity’s
rules and commandments. If you’re right, you win the blessed reward of that deity….

Arthur: Whoo!

Pascal:….but if you’re wrong, you face the eternal consequences of whichever deity is the true
God!

Arthur: Um, hold on a sec….

Pascal: So let’s get cracking! Black curtain at rear of stage falls, to reveal an overwhelming number of flashing displays Now then, after we had a little problem with Thomas Hobson last week, we’ve reorganized our categories of divine conceptions but all you have to do is pick one, and we’ll let you know what it is.

Arthur: Okay how about door number eighty-seven?

Pascal: Ah, those are the Greek and Roman pantheistic gods: Zeus, Hera, Athena. Typically speaking, they require obeisance and ritual, and can bestow benefits during your material existence. However, choosing to believe in them doesn’t usually get you a different outcome in the afterlife you’re going to Hades no matter what.

Arthur: So there’s not much point, huh? How about that door over there, “Forces”
Pascal: That’s an interesting choice those are the non-anthropomorphic conceptions of the Divine. Those notions of the deity don’t have a central personality at their core, but rather a “force” Buddha nature, the Universal Spirit, Cosmic Love.

Arthur: So, what happens if I choose a different God, and the right answer is in there?

Pascal (to audience, which starts to clap): Aaah, he’s catching on! (to Arthur) Absolutely nothing, Arthur! Those essences of deity don’t have human emotions, so they neither seek (nor demand) worship or belief. Their indifference results in a nondiscriminating afterlife, so there’s no consequence to disbelieving them. That’s why so few of our contestants pick from that group.

Arthur: So I want an anthropomorphic deity, who actually cares whether people believe in him or not! Otherwise there’s not benefit. How about that big blue curtain?

Pascal: Sorry, Arthur those are the many conceptions of an anthropomorphic Gods who are indifferent to belief. The Jewish notion of Yahweh, ancestor worship, and the many tribal spirits believe or not, you’re still assured a nice place in the happy hunting grounds.

Arthur: And the black box off in the corner?

Pascal: Those are the evil deities the concept of the universe created by a dark and uncaring God, who seeks only to torment the poor mortals he creates. If the real God is in there, you’re screwed no matter what you do!

Arthur: I’m so confused….

Audience (in unison): It’s time for Pascal’s Wager!

Pascal: Yes it is, folks. You see, Arthur, while my famous wager is usually described as being a broad choice between God and atheism, it actually incorporates some very strict assumptions about the nature of God. There are countless possible religions where “God” doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not, or where believing in “God” is only advantageous in mortal existence. My Wager assumes that “God” is an anthropormorphic deity with human-style desires to be acknowledged, loved and believed in.

Arthur: Well, then, that’s the group I want to pick from!

Pascal: Okay, Arthur then here we go!The left stage wall falls away, revealing a line of small colored boxes topped with bows. Each has a line of tags. The line stretches on endlessly.

Arthur: There’s so many….

Pascal: An infinite number, actually. After all, the concept of divinity cannot be bounded. There are more possible Gods than are capable of being comprehended by our nervous systems. Thus, there are an infinite number of different possible choices that you can make and if the true divine is not the one you choose, you’re toast!

Arthur: But I can’t possibly win! Since my odds are infinitely low, I might as well choose nothing at all and enjoy my life! The only way to win is not to play! Runs off stage to begin living life to the fullest!

Pascal: Well, we’ve lost another contestant but we’ll be back next week to entice a new soul here on…. Whose God Is It Anyway?!!

By Albaby

Philosophy, Religion

There is another word for preemptive strike. It is called a war of aggression. In case you forgot that is the reason we were justified in attacking Iraq the first time, not general feelings about him being a “Bad Man.”

The only reason we have for this war of aggression is because Hussein is a “Bad Man.” Unfortunately the world is full of bad men, even sadder is that we have embraced them over the years as we did with Hussein when he committed his most atrocious acts. When we choose to act against “Bad Men” it is done through diplomacy and sanctions. I see no reason why we are treating Iraq any differently. There are many worse men and regimes in Africa (and other places), yet we don’t threaten war there.

This suggested war seems to be little more than political mis-direction at best and temper tantrum over not being sure about killing bin Laden at worse. There appears to be no contemporary link between Iraq and terrorism, much less al-Q’aida or September 11th.

I have heard no contemporary evidence on why we need to risk 250,000 troops, spend billions of dollars, and be committed to decades of peace keeping so president Bush can have his war of aggression on Iraq. Israel has shown what decades of military occupation reaps, unceasing hostility and an increase in terrorism, not its end. We are beginning to feel the effects of not fielding a sufficient peace keeping force in Afghanistan. What we feel there will be little compared to what changing the face of Iraq will cost us. I’m not prepared to pay that price so president Bush can exercise whatever demons he has left over from his father’s invasion.

When I was 12 I stood at the Vietnam Memorial with my father, he hugged me as tight as he could, he had tears pouring down his face. This is the only time I remember seeing my father cry. We were looking at the sea of names each representing a missing life, a husband, brother, or son lost in a pointless war. A war over a concept that was better thought out than why we are talking about attacking Iraq. He told me not to let it happen again. I’d hate to fail my father in one of the only important things he asked of me.

We have no business engaging in this war of aggression. We certainly shouldn’t be doing it without U.N. Support. If congress appropriately doesn’t make a formal declaration of War and we act anyway I would consider it a criminal act easily worthy of impeachment.

Politics

I believe it is your duty and responsibility as my representative in congress to stop the president and his administration from destroying the wall of separation between church and state.

I’ve read in the last few days of the various departments, Health and Human Services leading the way but with many followers, rewriting there administrative rules to do what congress wisely wouldn’t. They are attempting to allow religious organizations to compete for federal contracts to a greater extent than is already possible. This is a mistake that needs to be corrected. Given the Free Exercise clause of the first amendment it isn’t clear that these contracts can be overseen or expectations enforced in any meaningful way.

You need to question these administrative changes , hold hearings, and stop them from proceeding.

I was reading yesterday about Nazareth House in The New Zealand Herald yesterday. If you haven’t heard about it, it was an orphanage run by a religious organization receiving money from the Australian government to provide faith based services. I trust the parallels are apparent.

Residents of that and similar orphanages were raped, assaulted and abused by priests and nuns. Examples given include the 11 year old who had a nun rape her with a flagstick to “get the devil out.” She was also forced to drink urine, eat feces and rotting fish covered in maggots. She is not alone 17 other women have logged very similar complaints in the Australian courts.

I don’t bring this to your attention with regards to the church pedophilia scandal (which is an educational issue in its own right) but over what I fear is a prophetic paragraph in the article I read. I include the paragraph in it’s entirety.

“To save money, the State encouraged Church orphanages and it also believed a religious upbringing was as close to Christian family life as possible. Government supervision was minimal and, Forde said, bland official reporting on conditions was probably designed to avoid antagonising a cheap service provider.”
The New Zealand Herald, “When Child Cruelty Reigned,” by Greg Anley, 8/31/2002
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2352086&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

The list of systemic cruelty and abuse is prodigious, ranging from the rapes above, to cultures of cruelty and humiliation to children scavenging grass and garbage bins to get enough food. I could list them all but I really don’t have the stomach for it. They are all in the article.

Think about that carefully if and when charitable choice, faith based service providers (or one of its clones) comes before you again. Think about it carefully as the president signs executive orders enacting it without your consent. Will there be actual supervision of these contracts or will churches claim Free Exercise and special exceptions. We are learning of the many loopholes and exceptions crafted for churches over the years from tax to zoning to civil rights. I am not prepared to trust that the government will be in a position to legally supervise churches as they spend tax payer money.

For these reasons I believe it is essentially that the wall of separation be maintained and strengthened. You need to act now to stop the administration from creating our own Nazareth House. The wall serves the both the churches and the government. More importantly is serves the people.

As my representative I hope you will keep these this in mind in the future.

Philosophy/Religion, Politics

Was it Arthur C. Clarke who said “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine” ?

Quote

Via alchook

So what’s the alternative? Are you arguing that religion is fine so long as nobody takes it seriously? When a person or a group decides that it is in communication with the Almighty, how do you expect them not to think that they are right, others are wrong, end of story?

What you describe is not a religious person, it is a fanatic. Most religious people in this country and I would suggest most countries do not believe they have a direct connection to their version of god (personal relationship, maybe, direct communication, no). Most just tend to have some unquestioned assumptions about the metaphysics of the universe.

To condemn people based on unquestioned assumptions is the behavior of the fanatic that you describe. What we must do is rip apart he label and use the better definition of those who attack and those who let us live in peace regardless of their theological stance.

Pat Robertson and many others listed in Kazim’s speech attack us for our disbelief. That is not a valid position. My mother believes in God, she does not believe her way is the only way. I think (maybe imagine) she believes I, as an atheist, will go to heaven if I live a moral life. Those are very different positions and I think we need to make sure we don’t confuse them.

There is no reason (and it’s a waste of effort) to fight my mother’s religiosity. She doesn’t threaten to make us in any way violate our conscience. Pat Roberson wants a theocracy. Lets not waste a lot of effort in quarrels with people who aren’t are enemies and may be our supporters.

We talk a lot about separation of church and state, freedom of conscience and similar veins. If we are serious about that we must accept that some people are religious and so long as they let us live our life according to our conscience, we must afford them the same right.

–Zafkiel

Philosophy/Religion

Only if every individual strives for truth can humanity attain a happier future…

– Albert Einstein

…there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men — above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends.

– Albert Einstein

The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellow-men.

– Robert Green Ingersoll

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the star-less night, — blown and flared by passion’s storm, — and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.

– Robert Green Ingersoll,

[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason.

– Thomas Jefferson,

It is surely time for men to think for themselves…

– Thomas Jefferson,

It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood…

– Abraham Lincoln,

Conscience is the most sacred of all property.

– James Madison,

Truth is the foundation, the superstructure, and the glittering dome of progress. Truth is the mother of joy. Truth civilizes, ennobles, and purifies. The grandest ambition that can enter the soul is to know the truth. Truth gives man the greatest power for good. Truth is sword and shield. It is the sacred light of the soul. The man who finds a truth lights a torch.

–Ingersoll

Each man, in the laboratory of his own mind, and for himself alone, should test the so-called facts — the theories of all the world. Truth, in accordance with his reason, should be his guide and master.

–Ingersoll

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

–Paine

You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

–Paine

Philosophy/Religion, Politics, Quote

Each of us stands as individuals. We belong to groups and ascribe to labels, but ultimately they are nothing more than comfortable shorthand to avoid having to know strangers or even friends too closely. They are the accepted form of connection from a distance.

When that convenient shorthand starts to stand in for the thoughts and feelings of millions of people it has failed to be useful and becomes harmful. We as atheists are guilty of this. All to often we will rail against Christians by connecting the word with the religions right and those who seek to have us run out of town or tell us to go back where we came from despite the fact that we weren’t born anywhere but here.

There are so many more Christians than those who belong Pat Roberson’s ilk. At some level I hope we know that, even if sometimes we forget it or a particularly good one liner gets the better of us.

If we can expect that of ourselves, we can ask it of other people. We can expect and demand that we look at people with fresh eyes. And we are looked upon with innocent curiosity.

People come in all shapes, sizes, colors, thoughts, beliefs and ideologies. It serves no one to choose one particular variant of person to hate. It serves no one to lose sight of the beliefs of others and realize they came to those opinions through thought and consideration. We are not all put together the same way and we come to different conclusions due to different natures and nurture experiences. We come to the table with pre-conceptions. I’m not suggesting surrendering our own beliefs but it is necessary to respect those conceptions and take the time to think about how they got there instead of randomly dismissing them.

This is what a diverse poly-cultural society must do it must be able to accept that people you disagree with came to those conclusions because they started from a different place not because they are in some way fundamentally flawed. Understanding how they got there enable s meaningful discussion ignoring it engenders hate. Hate benefits nothing.

–Zafkiel

Philosophy/Religion