Displaying 3,271 To 3,300 Of 3,373 Comments I’m not the best person to ask. I was, and continue to be a Kucinich supporter and did not have extremely high hopes for this president to begin with. I like some of what he has done and oppose other actions he has taken, like the no strings giveaway to financial institutions, but I am not exasperated with those who feel misled, who were caught up in the rhetoric and the massive populist support that carried him into office and felt that change would be more dramatic (and more sharply punctuate the difference between now and the last eight years), as you and Nellie seem to be. I understand where they are coming from. » Posted By whatsthatsound On December 12, 2009 @ 8:43 pm Certainly not “deliberately” misunderstanding. But to the extent that it appears that way to you, I apologize, and will reflect on both your words and my own. » Posted By whatsthatsound On December 12, 2009 @ 8:18 pm I guess it would depend on your definition of the words “radically liberal”. » Posted By whatsthatsound On December 12, 2009 @ 8:00 pm The Malcom X comment did not hit a nerve. But I am put off by your comments regarding those who disagree with you about the president. Speaking only for myself, I find them to be often condescending, and a little cavalier in terms of characterization. For example, suggesting racism as a motivation for disgruntlement with the president. Racism is such a loaded pejorative that it should never be used in general terms, I feel. I assume you are not accusing Michael Moore, Naomi Klein,Matt Taibbi, et al, of it, but as they have been critics of Obama from the left, how is one to parse them out of your generalization? Furthermore, why always quotations around “left” and “progressives”? People can most certainly be left and progressive and still express profound disappointment with this administration. » Posted By whatsthatsound On December 12, 2009 @ 7:54 pm The statement “Apparently people thought they were electing Malcolm X” IS a straw man. It delegitimizes peoples’ real frustration with this administration. Who ARE these people that thought they were getting a radical? You yourself mention three issues of contention that hardly seem radical. Landmines is another. You are essentially agreeing with a Bush policy when you defend this administration’s course of action. Obama the candidate made it clear he was going to bring the country back into the fold of civilized nations, and there he is, standing with Russia and China and against the 100+ signatories. A policy and a course of action remains the same, and has the same effects, no matter who is the one deciding upon it. » Posted By whatsthatsound On December 12, 2009 @ 4:45 pm Nellie, I think you’d be at far less of a loss if you refrained from attaching straw men attributes to those who view this young presidency differently than you do. I think very few were expecting anything like Malcolm X. Furthermore, I think candidate Obama would have eloquently trounced some of president Obama’s courses of action. It would hardly take a golden tongued speaker to chastise the president for declining to sign an international agreement to ban landmines, to name one. » Posted By whatsthatsound On December 12, 2009 @ 12:36 am I’ll try, PST! I had sent her an earlier invitation, so let’s hope this one’s the charm! » Posted By whatsthatsound On February 14, 2011 @ 6:07 pm May I send an email telling her you are asking? » Posted By whatsthatsound On February 14, 2011 @ 6:54 am I never got banned! I feel like Bugs Bunny in the cartoon where he is upset because the bounty on rabbits is only two cents. Nice to see you here PeaceKitten! » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 24, 2009 @ 9:24 pm Destroying Religion: The Essential Task at Hand? No worries, K7. I wasn’t intending to debate anyone at first, just state an opinion. I understand your point, and was only intending to make the point that individual experiences of spirituality and faith tend to get overlooked amidst the kind of blanket statements of condemnation that people like Hitchens and Dawkins make. Those two, in particular, “cherry pick” information, which is precisely what they accuse theists of doing. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 24, 2009 @ 9:02 pm Consider it dropped. I could have used anyone else, or a hypothetical person as an example. Perhaps that would have been the wiser choice. I’m still up for that if you are. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 24, 2009 @ 1:44 pm hee hee! I’l be sure to tell her that KevenSeven has conferred sainthood upon her (as oxymoronic a distinction as ever was). And you get extra credit for not only missing, but being completely oblivious to my point! » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 24, 2009 @ 4:11 am Thanks, KQ. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 23, 2009 @ 3:32 pm I think you have missed my point. If a “debate”, as it were, were to ever occur between Hitchens and my mom, I would hope that it would not be about who would “demolish” the other. Personally, I think we have had more than enough demolishment in this world. And saying my mom would be the same without religion is completely inaccurate. She has lost both her husband and her son in tragic circumstances. She would have given up on life long ago without the belief that she will be rejoined with them in the afterlife. You may not believe in it, but she does, and that is part of what makes her what she is. What can atheism offer her? “The protoplasm specimens that were your husband and son are no longer electrically functioning and so communication with them is now impossible. Please contemplate the vastness of this universe and try to feel better.”? » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 23, 2009 @ 3:06 pm Debates like this are pretty useless to me, because they tend to do the exact thing organized religion itself does: codify and generalize what can only be innate experiences of spirituality. The question “Is the Catholic Church a force for good?” would need to be considered in respect to the times that individuals turned to it as their bedrock in times of great distress or drew upon it to perform an act of charity or forgiveness. People who have had experiences such as these (my mother comes to mind) would have no problem answering the question for themselves, and yet they wouldn’t know where to begin in terms of countering indictments about the Inquisition, etc. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 23, 2009 @ 3:24 am 🙂 » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 11:35 pm I’re considering living together. I’re considering that we(?) don’t have much choice about this. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 9:18 pm Dating myself here, but I’m a fan of “Jesus Christ Superstar”! I don’t like the movie, as I think the casting was pretty atrocious. But great songs, and a really unique approach. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 9:00 pm I agree. Most of the people I grew up with are progressive Catholics. They are helpers, not hurters. They volunteer, donate, etc, through programs my former parish has set up. Here in Tokyo, the churches allow AA and AlAnon meetings to congregate. Religion does GREAT things! But I would like to hold it to a higher standard than politics, technology, etc. Those things have other purposes. Religion has, ostensibly, one and one alone: to teach us to be better people. If it has a grade of say, B minus (I think I’m being generous) in that regard, then the need to pick up the slack is pretty obvious, I feel. Religion needs its own “Stimulus Package”. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 6:56 pm I agree. And I think our technological evolution has come too quickly, in terms of what this has meant to us as physiological beings. Our eyes were evolved to look at grasses and vistas, not all the dizzying flashes of light and color that accounts for our waking hours now. We were evolved to coexist with other animals, and this has mostly been reduced to “what’s for dinner?” and “whose turn is it to take the dog out for her walk?” We were evolved to be moving a lot, but we spend hours and hours just sitting. And so on. We don’t really know the effects this has had on us mentally and physically, but I think that many cases of depression and maladjusted behavior (including criminal activity) is a result of the difficulties of coping with the unnaturalness of our environment. So our advancement has been a mixed bag, I feel. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 6:37 pm Here’s a great fantasy: THAT might jump start the evolution of religion that some of us are considering on this post. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 5:58 pm Cheers to you, Alpha(anything but)Bitch! You sound like an amazing person, and one who lives your spirituality. As a great teacher once assured us, the Kingdom of God is within. It’s our job to live from that awareness. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 5:16 pm Wow! Thank you so much, KQ! » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 3:55 pm The book I’m referring to is called “Tomorrow’s God”. I haven’t read it, but I’ve read an article the author wrote about it. Essentially he says that, as the guardian and steward of humanity’s evolution, religion ITSELF needs to evolve beyond its tendencies to demand slavish obedience and foment divisiveness, even within sects and groups of the same religion, Catholics and Protestants killing each other in Ireland being one example. I’m not saying that religion ALWAYS does this, as the Hitchens/Dawkins crowd argues, but to me, the fact that it EVER does that means that it needs to change, and it needs to examine itself with greater honesty. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 3:22 am I completely agree. In fact, if we were to go from the idea that we seem to be on the same page about, that religion SHOULD in fact, if it is to have any purpose at all, lead people to an awareness and appreciation of their spiritual nature, then it should come up for intense criticism because it isn’t doing that! If an art school turns out people who can’t paint, if a science university turns out graduates who don’t even understand the scientific method, then we would expect them to be not only criticized, but to soon cease to exist. But religion gets a pass from its adherents. They just go along with a.) not being led to enlightenment and b.) actually being encouraged to hate and behave completely UN-spiritual in the worst (and all too common) cases. Actually, Neale Walsh, who wrote “Conversations with God” talks a lot about this, the need for a new spirituality, new ways of considering God. If I am correct, his most recent books are about exactly that. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 2:02 am Good post, although I’m not really sure about the usage of the word “destroy”. How does one go about that? It sounds like the kind of thing that Mao, etc. aimed for, and it also reads like something the militant atheists on the Dawkins website clamor for. I agree that by and large, organized religions, at least the major ones, fail to actually do the thing that one would think they are there to do: basically coach and instruct people toward coming to feel and know the innate spiritual nature of mankind that you write about. How odd that they don’t do this one thing! Instead, they create ridiculous divisions that would be laughable if they hadn’t been the cause of so much bloodshed. So yes, I agree; a new concept of religion is necessary. If the human race is to survive, it seems to me that it needs to undergo an evolution that is primarily spiritual in nature, although it may also be physical and mental. The organized religions of today aren’t doing that, although all of them have helped numerous individuals reach the state that we as a species need to reach. They are not the only thing that has done that, but at least in that one regard they have done more than other human endeavors. Just one thing to check: I don’t understand what you mean by “metaphorical truth”. I think perhaps you meant to write metaphysical truth, but if not, this is a term I’m not familiar with and unable to ascertain the meaning of. » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 1:08 am I think my comments have only accounted for about 0.5% of the total, but it looks like I’m the first to congratulate you, AdLib (and all others who work so hard on this site)! Itchy Man! (probably only Kalima will get the “joke”) » Posted By whatsthatsound On November 22, 2009 @ 2:40 am He LIKES those! » Posted By whatsthatsound On December 29, 2009 @ 4:21 am That’s great, Patsy! Thanks! » Posted By whatsthatsound On December 28, 2009 @ 8:32 pm A meeowntain climbing accident, no doubt. » Posted By whatsthatsound On December 28, 2009 @ 8:15 pmComments Posted By whatsthatsound
From what I have seen from my time at RichardDawkins.net, the arguments do tend to be macrocosmic. Whenever someone interjects with a personal story, a “touched by God” story, it is diminished, perhaps ridiculed, and labeled as not meriting discussion because it doesn’t count as evidence. But then that leaves us with only half the story of religion, the bad half!
Personally, I would like to see the human race move beyond all pyramidal structures, of which organized religion is only one example. But as long as they exist, we have to consider them both in terms of what they do on a large scale and how they serve individuals. For example, you could supplant religion with the automobile industry and say it has been a very bad thing for the environment. You could also point to the thousands of times that an automobile was the difference between life and death for someone rushing their child to the ER. We have to be like Jonie Mitchell and look at these things from “both sides now”.
What I was getting at would be perhaps the opposite of a debate, but rather a meeting of minds. If my mother and Chris Hitchens were able to share ways in which their personal stands and beliefs have made them better people, then perhaps they could BOTH move past the need to generalize and diminish each other.
Personally, I would be very interested to see Hitchens show his human side. He never smiles, he is always sarcastic, his body language and eye contact is almost always shifty and defensive. Has atheism ever warmed his heart? I’d like to know how. Maybe I would change my mind about both him and what he believes.
Perhaps it would be better to ask Hitchens how his atheism has led him to be a better person, and have him debate a simple person like my mom, who would talk about how her faith has sustained her throughout her life. Such a debate would be more revealing than shows like this, that only serve to preach to the converted on either side.
All the heads of all the major religions come together in a forum and say, “Although our aim is to involve mankind in its spiritual nature, as humans we have often fallen short of this, often with tragic consequences that no God could love. We begin by proclaiming that EVERY time ANY one of our adherents has harmed another or restricted the rights of another or made war against or practiced exclusion against another, either our religion failed us or we failed our religion. No exceptions.”
I also love the Sanskrit/Hindi greeting, “Namaste”. The God in me greets the God in you.
If everyone really lived in that spirit, what would we do with war, oppression, prejudice, etc? What place would they possibly have in a society based on “namaste”?
You have no idea how much I appreciate that!
Unfortunately, they don’t show the classic “Dreaded Ferret War Dance” one. Jim barely gets out with his arm intact!
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats