When I say "offensive", I mean literally

Post #202,689 by Arkadiy 4/10/05 10:48:46 AM Reply	When I say "offensive", I mean literally "it offends me". He can express his views all he likes, but I don't have to listen, do I? If it were in a personal encounter, I would hve walked out on him. As it was, I stopped the recording mid-stream. Now, why do I find this rant offensive? The guy is obviously beyond "atheist", he is "anti-theist". He does not comprehend how can anyone believe in such a silly notion as "God". Normally, when smart people don't understand something, they ask questions, not pontificate. He chooses to indeed mouth off about something he does not understand. Let's look at what he is saying. First, he says that religion was invented in some smoke-filled room by a bunch of conspirators. Well, even from histroical point of view that's bull. At worst, religion was invented to explain things people did not understand back when science was not available. But Mr. Carlin is too cinical to think of any non-sinister explanation. If _he_ were to found a religion, of course he would find himself some acomplices, write texts that make _him_ god, and control people minds to live happily ever after. Therefore all people who founded religions were that way. A nice case of projection, if I've ever seen one. Now, to the Ten Commandments. He does not trouble himself with considering what the commandments mean for those who actually obey them from religious POV. He already knows it's all rubbish. So he proceeds to remove pieces of the rubbish to show how silly it is. OK, first he gets rid of "I am the Lord your God". Nice, he just removed a "from" line and the signature from of the memo, as it were. Now nobody knows if it comes from the boss or from the prankster in next cubicle. Then he proceeds to lump all sorts of things into one simple rule: "thou shall be honest". Well, suppose you do happen to desire your neighbor's wife. Should you be _honest_ about it with her? Should you be "_true_ to yourself" and act on your _true_ desires? People are sophists like that. It's not that simple. This is where I stopped listening. Mr Carlin has no humor left in him, only bile and spit. He has no understanding of his opponents, only hatred for them. In fact, he has no opponents, only straw men and punching bags for his hate. -- 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #202,692 by Another Scott 4/10/05 11:06:30 AM Reply	IEEE Spectrum on outsourcing. (new thread) Created as new thread #202691 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=202691\|IEEE Spectrum on outsourcing.]
Post #202,718 by Ashton 4/10/05 4:16:24 PM Reply	Maybe a fair cop on George's anger, of late. But still a Red Herring. That is, he is an 'entertainer' of the monologue ilk. His targets all along, are pretty easy ones (because they're Everywhere) -- usually about hypocrisy in homo-sap behavior. Endless source material. Is he (now, mostly, just) Angry! -?- mostly heat and little effort at lighting that proverbial candle? Maybe - IMO his last book, Napalm & Silly Putty wasn't up to previous standards of thoughtful excoriation. (Brain Droppings was.) But while such screeds are hardly about metaphysical 'debate' - neither are the equally didactic Pronouncements of the politically powerful dissemblers and wielders of Faith-based Obfuscation - now dismantling the Republic. The patently obvious goal of permanently consolidating One-party political control of that former Republic, just might lead some towards anger, especially when the main leverage is cynically convoluted Xian Dogma. So - why would you expect reasoned exploration of the Mysteries, in a now manifestly Political battle of mixed socio- and religio- bafflegab, funded with $Billions ?? Proust on the barricades? Pshaw. Anger at manipulators and demagogues doesn't even beg the Large Questions - it is simply a guaranteed reaction from those at the 'mercy' of the demonstrably merciless. Now or anywhen. Note that, in these now too boringly predictable digital contretemps - I oppose the sophistry of Yes/No as well as I can: both (imaginary ) 'sides' of the Question, "Is there Anything There?" are incapable of persuasion IMO. "The common condition of things that did not happen is that you cannot disprove them." is one vantage point, but logic won't ever get one through anything that really Matters. Whatever There Is There - some, many? have come by now, to reject the Corporate homogenized formulas - for seeing the rather lousy warz record of duelling Corporations - who have failed utterly to produce Honesty in their shareholders. ie George has lots of company by now, y'know? (And they've always been there, but in Murica it has taken a long time to climb out of the Puritan ooze and begin to form overt Opposition.) Not long ago you could die for heresy, directly or via vigilantism. I've lived that straitjacket; I Remember the '50s - you just read about it. HTH Ashton Dalai Lama for Pres Terry Pratchett for Veep -or vice versa- "Our long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over"
Post #202,886 by mmoffitt 4/11/05 2:49:28 PM Reply	Hmmm.... Still trying to understand this. He does not comprehend how can anyone believe in such a silly notion as "God". Normally, when smart people don't understand something, they ask questions, not pontificate. I thought "questioning the Word of God" was verbotten.... bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #202,896 by Arkadiy 4/11/05 4:11:58 PM Reply	How is that relevant? How is the question "Why so many apparently reasonable and decent people believe in this nosence?" verbotten? That's the question that everyone talking about religion has to ask himself first. And if all you can come up with is a conspiracy theory as an answer, why, may be some more thinking is in order. Or even more asking. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #202,898 by ben_tilly 4/11/05 4:29:12 PM Reply	You've got the wrong question There are two related questions. The first is why people believe, and the second is how the belief got started and reached its current form. There are a lot of reasons why people would wind up believing in a religion that is all around them. No need for conspiracy theories there. There are fewer obvious reasons for how a religion could get started and reach its current form. Among them is the possibility of one or a small number of people conspiring to make it so. While you may think it unreasonable that your religion started that way, I'm sure that there are religions that you'd be inclined to think started out as conspiracies. Scientology and the Moonies come to mind. Does it shock you that what you can think about other faiths, others can think about your own? Cheers, Ben PS For the record I've met devout Christians (in a seminary!) who firmly believed that parts of the Old Testament had been altered by the Jewish priesthood to fit their own convenience and political whims. I don't know what evidence that they had for that, but it shows me that it is possible to both believe in a faith and yet still have cynicism about the history of some of its holy works. I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #202,900 by Arkadiy 4/11/05 4:48:29 PM Reply	Yes it does offend me when you lump Scientology and Judaism together. We'll talk about Scientology and other cults in a few thousand years. If they survive, may be they weren't conspiracies after all. I can certainly can believe that some priests somewhere tried to change something for their convenience. All religions get false prophets time to time. Whether they succeeded or not, I do not know. I have hard time believing that my religion was _started_ that way. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #202,901 by ben_tilly 4/11/05 4:51:11 PM Reply	OK then... What do you think the origins of astrology, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity were? Surely you can't believe that all are True. How do you think that untrue religions get started? Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #202,903 by Arkadiy 4/11/05 4:55:46 PM Reply	I have nothing to say about Astrology I am not sure it's a religion at all. Buddhismn and Christianity certainly started with something real. I have no idea how Christians and Buddhists defend their Holy Scriptures (do Buddhists even have one?). I am not going around screaming that they are fools or got duped by evil conspirators. I have my doubts as to whether they understood what they were shown. But it's up to them to figure out what really happened. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #202,905 by ben_tilly 4/11/05 5:14:21 PM Reply	And your evidence for this is...? I'm not at all sure that any religion started with something real. I see that there have been cults started in people's lives, some successful. I see that there were cults started in the 1800's that are flourishing religions today, for instance the Mormons. I see that there were branches of Christianity started 500 years ago that survive to this day. Some over demonstrably trivial things. (Various branches of Protestantism, and a demonstrably trivial one is the Anglican Church, founded for Henry VIII's marital convenience.) I see no reason at all to believe that the rules that govern human behaviour over the course of a few thousand years differ from those of a few hundred. Therefore I see no reason to believe that there is a fundamental difference between those events and events in Mohammed's, Jesus Christ's, or Moses' days. (In fact I don't believe that there is a fundamental difference, that's why I'm an atheist.) If there is anything obvious that I'm missing, please inform me. If my beliefs happen to offend you, as far as I'm concerned that is your problem. Plenty of religious people can accept that I believe this and content themselves with believing that I am wrong. After all this does come down, at some point, to faith. But my beliefs seem to me to be reasonable. Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #202,906 by Arkadiy 4/11/05 5:40:52 PM Reply	Your beliefs do not offend me The manner in which you _may_ choose to express them _may_ offend. Mr. Carlin cirtainly expresses his beliefs in an offensive manner. Branches of Christianity do not count in this discussion - they are simply about interpretation of the existing record of events. Mormonism and Islam are more to the point, and here I really don't know what to say. May be it's not a matter of all or nothing, may be there are degrees between conspiracy theory and real divine inspiration. I personally think that Islam is a case of self-delusion, and Mormonism a case of deception. But I may be wrong. I certainly will not try to prove (or even to tell) that to a Mormon, as long as he/she leaves me alone. More iterestingly, God works in misterious ways, and good may come out of illusions and even out of conspiracy. There is nothing "obvious" that you are missing. It's not my job to convince you that God exists, much less that He is what I think He is (and obviously He is not what I think He is). As long as you don't call me a fool duped by some con artist who lived 4000 years ago, I'll be happy to keep my peace. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #202,907 by hnick 4/11/05 5:50:56 PM Reply	I think the expression is calculated He is trying to make a point on issues that the majority have already decided on and will not think further. By putting his arguement crudely and in confrontational terms he may get some to think further. I don't think he's going for a 180 degree conversion. He's trying to get people to think about the unthinkable. He built his business on irony. Now he's an addict. Happens.
Post #202,910 by FuManChu 4/11/05 7:23:35 PM Reply	I don't get what u mean by: rules that govern human behavior What rules are you referring to that you think have not changed? And are you saying other people believe those rules HAVE changed?
Post #202,913 by ben_tilly 4/11/05 7:45:54 PM Reply	I'm saying that... I don't see the longevity of a belief system as necessarily deriving from its correctness or being based on something real. I can offer examples suggesting that this is true for belief systems lasting a few hundred years. I see nothing wrong with extrapolating this to belief systems that are a few thousand years old. This puts me in disagreement with people who seem to believe that all belief systems that are old enough had to have a basis in fact or they wouldn't have lasted. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #202,919 by boxley 4/11/05 8:12:46 PM Reply	so the fact that darwinism is over 100 years? All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett [link\|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/\|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/] Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #202,921 by ben_tilly 4/11/05 8:58:23 PM Reply	Of course My statement was again that, I don't see the longevity of a belief system as necessarily* deriving from its correctness or being based on something real.* That applies to any scientific claim as well. That doesn't mean that any particular claim is necessarily incorrect and based on something false. That particularly does not mean that when said claim is something that has been through the kind of stress-testing that science routinely does. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #202,962 by Ashton 4/12/05 4:32:49 AM Reply	An important distinction is being elided in this view. (as in most 'religious' exercises in our milieu.) The Question (even the lesser-set which Carlin is addressing in his own particular style) may not be reduced to Yes/No, "Do you believe in 'God'?" In framing that Question as it does, Christianity also appends the peculiar? attribute of 'God' - that of a 'Personal God' - an entity with Whom (!) one may presume to have a 2-way 'conversation' / ask-favors of, or other. Rejection of that postulate is not identical to answering the Question above: "No". This contretemps is addressed with something approaching clarity in many Eastern philosophies (and all religions have a correlative philosophy). The Question of "assigning [attributes] to 'God' ??" is also well explored, East of our Eden; hardly ever comes up - in the West. So far.. Missing this distinction guarantees that any religo- topic shall conclude with a retreat to polar opposites / more of the usual digital oversimplification. In brief - rejection of Christian dogma is not tantamount to having disposed of the conundrum: "Is there A Creator?" At. All. Only a subsequent Socratic dialogue might reveal an individual's philosophy-to-date on That Question. So let's try to keep the presumptions Clean, even if we cannot achieve Clarity. Ashton
Post #203,228 by mmoffitt 4/13/05 2:59:38 PM Reply	Well, I was finding irony in your statement. A preponderance of religious believers owe their "faith" system to Gods who were created in order to provide meaning to events which could not be explained by any other means. Among primitive people (and when most of the Western religions were started, we are talking about primitive people) whenever some phenomenon in their lives was encountered that current science couldn't explain, they attributed it to the God(s) (see periodic Nile flooding for example). Once the belief systems surrounding these events became hardened, (see the Great Flood for instance) it is considered heresy by the religious to "question The(tm) Good Book" (see Gallileo for yan example). I just found it curious to hear anyone castigating a non-believer for "failing to ask questions" given that virtually every major Western religion explicitly or at least implicitly forbids asking questions - after all, to ask questions is to "lose your faith" that the embraced religious text has all the answers. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #203,239 by Arkadiy 4/13/05 3:52:19 PM Reply	I just offered this as an example of non-sinister origin of religion that a non-believer may subscribe to. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #202,888 by ben_tilly 4/11/05 3:06:20 PM Reply	Correction Normally, when smart people don't understand something, they ask questions, not pontificate. This normally is true..the first time that they encounter something. After a few dozen encounters they tend to form opinions. And you're being silly if you think that the only reasonable opinion that one can form is, "Keep an open mind and never express doubts because maybe they are right." (If you don't see why it is silly, then apply the same reasoning to someone who is approaching the same question from the devout side of affairs and ask where they should end up.) Any reasonable adult in the USA has encountered religion more than a few dozen times. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #202,895 by Arkadiy 4/11/05 4:09:24 PM Reply	Well, I don't know how many times Mr. Carlin encountered religion, he still does not understand it. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]

Welcome to IWETHEY!