Comments on INTELLIGENT DESIGNER -- EITHER NOT SO INTELLIGENT -- OR A VERY CRUEL BEING

Go to God as The Universe as an OrganismAdd a commentGo to INTELLIGENT DESIGNER -- EITHER NOT SO INTELLIGENT -- OR A VERY CRUEL BEING

Re: Difficult Childbirth....
I think its a case of 'survival of the fittest'.

posted by WaterKat on August 23, 2008 at 7:22 AM | link to this | reply

Re: That's about what I expected
Worrying about the degree of lameness of arguments is your domain, not mine.  I have actually at first agreed with you that some beliefs (hinting at the one that was originally under discussion as well as other similar beliefs) need to be addressed.  So, in that case I actually agreed with you.  I then moved on to the bigger picture of not simply assuming that one's own belief is superior and labeling other beliefs primitive, while you may not even know the experiential context in which such a belief is believed.  Since you are still into insults and shallow assumptions about me and doubt my ability to understand the elementary concepts you consider to be too deep for me, I'll leave you be.  So make-believe you are ahead (in a race only you took part in) and quit, as you suggested.

posted by AardigeAfrikaner on August 18, 2008 at 10:56 PM | link to this | reply

That's about what I expected

Challenged to defend your lame argument where you make assumptions and insinuate things that were never stated or implied, you come back with an admonishment of my behavior on this site. Which is premised on nothing more than the fact that you dislike my opinions and suffer from a bad case of "do as I say and not as I do" 

To refresh your memory; we were speaking of one particular belief (FYI: belief and believe are two separate words), specifically the belief that the pain and suffering that human women endure during childbirth is retribution from God for the actions of Eve in the garden of Eden. This is a segment of the belief that Eve and subsequently all of womankind, are responsible for the banishment from paradise and the human condition in general. A belief to which a straight line can be drawn as an underlying influence for the subjugation and mistreatment of women throughout history. An inequity that still exists today but especially amongst some religious institutions and backwards societies. This may all be too "deep" for you however, you seem more intent on deriving character assessments of the authors of opinions you dislike, than actually seeing another perspective (or heaven forbid, learning anything).

But the fact still remains that this specific belief is primitive and has no place in the modern world. If you do not like my stating that this is a primitive belief, I suggest we go back to the way things were where I just ignore you.

A quit while I'm ahead scenario if I ever saw one.  

posted by gomedome on August 18, 2008 at 9:43 PM | link to this | reply

Re: AardigeAfrikaner - nowhere in any of my comments did I say or imply thi
I have no idea what this has to do with rights, but yes, you can believe other peoples believes are primitive, delusional, ignorant or whatever you feel like and if you want the right to voice your opinions and value judgements of other peoples lifestyles and believes, you're going to have to accept that everybody is not just going to say: "Good boy, you're so sweet and intelligent" because you are sometimes crude and rude in your dealings with subjects other people value.  Calling someone elses' perspective primitive implies that you regard their view less worthy than your own implied non-primitive view.  You can try to deny this from any angle you wish, but when you "talk down" to people and peoples believes with words such as primitive, delusions, ignorance, you are implying that your view is superior.  If I was to tell you that your view is primitive, delusional and ignorant (you would probably be convinced enough of the superiority of your view to regard anyone calling you such as deluded him/herself and have a laugh about it) would you not think that I'm implying my view is superior?  Is it not natural for all people to view their own view as superior.  Why stay with a view if you don't regard it as superior?  Why are you always so defensive when it seems to you as if someone implies that you are somehow not the tower of morality and intelligence you believe yourself to be?  I'm not convinced by far that your own view is not "backwards and detrimental to society", however non-primitive and I feel no obligation to support your delusions and ignorance either.  None of this has anything at all to do with "invisible stuff".

posted by AardigeAfrikaner on August 18, 2008 at 2:54 PM | link to this | reply

AardigeAfrikaner - nowhere in any of my comments did I say or imply this:

"But to get rid of such views simply because you believe yourself to be a more advanced thinker and would like everybody to think like you do?"

This is simply something you have read into my words but while we are at it: on what possible grounds do you make your lame argument? Do I somehow lose the right to identify and articulate my opinion of that which I view as primitive simply because there are people in this world that still cling to these primitive beliefs? In a nutshell that is what you are actually saying, with the further implication of my extending to those who would not dream of extending to me, courtesies pertaining to what they believe. No matter how primitive, backwards and detrimental to society those beliefs may be? Sorry Pal but I have no obligation to support the delusions or ignorance of others. If you want to believe in invinsible stuff that is your business, the minute you attempt to defend primitive thinking and suggest that I have to consider how important it is to some people, you are attempting to make it my business and hand me an inequitable deal at the same time. . . . I have to say no thanks.

posted by gomedome on August 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Sunnybeach7 - it boggles the mind that such a primitive explanation of
However primitive some ideas may seem to you, they hold sway over millions of peoples lives and in that way effects you and me too.  We remain aware of their impact on people and meaning for people and the impact of your own and other stances on some people who are ready to hear what is being said as well as on those who are not ready.  So even though these ideas have become meaningless for you, they hold ultimate meaning for many people who live alongside you in this modern era.  Even if an idea seems totally stupid or insane to you, that does not render such an idea meaningless for someone experiencing life from another frame of reference than your own.  Fortunately nobody has to share your frame of reference or anybody elses' for that matter.  I agree with you that were these views become obstacles to a peaceful and stable society, they need to be addressed.  But to get rid of such views simply because you believe yourself to be a more advanced thinker and would like everybody to think like you do?  Not an option for me.  I personally hope neither of the two extremes (rational vs mythological) comes out on top, but a sensible amalgamation that takes both the social and biological reality into account without continuously trying to force the one into the others category of knowledge and expression.

posted by AardigeAfrikaner on August 16, 2008 at 9:01 PM | link to this | reply

Sunnybeach7 - it boggles the mind that such a primitive explanation of

human experience has any credence whatsoever in this day and age.

As you say; what was the deal with the tree? And what is the deal about remaining eternally pissed about such a minor transgression? Sometimes interpretations such as this should be recognized and dismissed for exactly what they are, primitive ideas dreamt up by primitive people from ancient times that are effectively meaningless in the modern era.

posted by gomedome on August 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM | link to this | reply

Yes...
As told in the Bible, it's a painful experience as a result of God's punishment for Eve.

This along with many other crazy ideas are what led me to my disbelief in a Christian God.

Nice, loving God. So nice he just put that tree there for the hell of it, right?

posted by Afzal_Sunny7 on August 14, 2008 at 7:32 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x - it's the old revisionist argument

The scriptures supposedly say one thing while everyone else in the world believes a different interpretation. We've seen this with those who want to tell us that the bible says the world is round and never did say that it was flat. Why then did just about all of mankind believe it was flat for all those years and use the bible to validate this idea? The same goes for the plural creator idea. Ask any person alive today who is promoting creationism if they have ever considered multiple creators and they will invariably answer that there is only one God.

If life in this world and the universe itself was created, it sure looks like the work of a committtee to me. That would explain extinction of certain species; dumb "intelligent" designers who got failing grades at omnipotent school. Or life could have evolved.   

posted by gomedome on August 14, 2008 at 7:19 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Elohim
I am referring to Genesis 2, where the deity is YHVH.

and the verse you quote is interesting in that it is a plural -- and Elohim is a plural.

we got gods there


posted by Xeno-x on August 14, 2008 at 6:31 PM | link to this | reply

Elohim
Elohim as used for God the creator in Genesis is a plural and it clearly states "And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth"

That aside, I do not believe in a remote or separate God but in an immanent and transcendant God.  Creation is continuous and always dependant on the conditions as they are now.  On top of that death is only something terrible if you yourself fear it whilst any kind of suffering never lasts eternally.  It is also possible to become non-attached from pain as clearly demonstrated by the monks in Vietnam (or was that Cambodia, can't remember now) who set themselves alight and burned to death in protest of the war without any display of suffering.  No abracadabra involved there, just possibilities within the reach of any human who is willing to do something about their present psychophysical condition.  If we don't want to learn and practice and can't accept Life and Reality as it is, we'll suffer.  Thus God does not punish anybody.  We punish ourselves by not getting to know God as the Universe and the many possible ways of engaging life meaningfully.

posted by AardigeAfrikaner on August 14, 2008 at 4:29 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Xeno-x - the creationist argument is stuck on the notion of a single
I sometimes thought it could have a "creation by committee" scenario.

posted by Xeno-x on August 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x - the creationist argument is stuck on the notion of a single

intelligent designer, when observation alone could not possible reveal this.

For argument's sake, say there were a number of intelligent designers. Maybe some of them weren't so smart. That would explain a lot of things.

posted by gomedome on August 14, 2008 at 1:57 PM | link to this | reply