Do you believe in God?

[JackRiddler]

.

I've come to think that it is kind of middlebrow to hold oneself up above the religious.

i agree. not that atheism itself is not a defensible stance, but the continual and overbearing drone about pink unicorns and religious wars might have lost the race a bit.

it's unthoughtful, and militant in a kind of middle-class, 1970s dormroom way.

Golly, where did that come from?

If you get out of the middle-class, 2000s polit-forum, what overbearing drone will you find going on in the real world?

- Angels help you, half the TV programs are about empaths who speak speak to the dead
- Palin's 6000-year-old universe
- Star Parker on the jihad
- oh yeah, Jihadis on the Jihad
- "The Secret"
- God made me invade Iraq
- God commands me to kill women who expose their midriffs
- Face of Jesus in a taco
- The gay must be cured or killed
- CNN special "town hall" on atheism featuring zero - zero - atheists speaking for themselves
- Bogus Pew Religion double-barreled question designed to boost the apparent numbers of the religious, presented universally as valid in its results
- "God Bless America" - or we'll kick your ass
- G-d wants His people to settle Israel
- God wants you to vote for McCain

The hegemony of the discourse goes one way. Dawkins may drone, but you can't use that as an excuse. You sound like the right-wingers who have been ascendant for 30 years, squawking louder than ever about the unfair liberal media.

[bks]

Spied on a T-shirt in my grad school philosophy department:

"God is dead"
--Nietzsche

and on the other side (or was it just below it?):

"Nietzsche is dead"
--God

I took this as evidence that there was no God, because God surely got this one wrong, as marmot points out. No one lives like Nietzsche in academe.

[FourthBase]

What's wrong with the first example of "overbearing drone"?

[FourthBase]

Spied on a T-shirt in my grad school philosophy department:

"God is dead"
--Nietzsche

and on the other side (or was it just below it?):

"Nietzsche is dead"
--God

I took this as evidence that there was no God, because God surely got this one wrong, as marmot points out. No one lives like Nietzsche in academe.

It would be hilarious if both of them were wrong, wouldn't it?

[marmot]

hey bks and Wilbur!?
I'm just curious.
What schools were you in? Were they analytic or continental?

[bks]

A deeply divided and dysfuntional department, mine was.

The center was analytic, but the more interesting work was being done by the 'marginal' figures who were influenced by Hegel and Marx, and more recently by Foucault and Bourdieu.

I gravitated toward the Continentals.

[marmot]

A deeply divided and dysfuntional department, mine was.

The center was analytic, but the more interesting work was being done by the 'marginal' figures who were influenced by Hegel and Marx, and more recently by Foucault and Bourdieu.

I gravitated toward the Continentals.

Yeah, I enjoyed reading theory over and above the more analytic math and science based philosophy. In the 90's I studied a lot of continental thought with some guys from the sociology department at Pitt---Bourdieu was huge. I liked French Theory and enjoyed reading the (literal) French theorists best, from Baudrillard (who was my gateway into an appreciation of philosophy, although his later work is sheer madness), DeBord, D&G and Derrida (who's quite Nietzschean in his own madness) to DeCerteau (my favorite) and Levinas (phenomenolgy). Habermas was good for Critical Theory.

Pitt is the mecca for philosophy of science; and Pitt regards their overall Philosophy Department as ranked number two (behind Princeton) in philosophy (in analytic philosophy, that is, the only serious philosophy). I didn't get the impression that Nietzshe was all that popular in Pitt's Philosophy.

I took a rare grad level continental class on Heidegger at Pitt from a prof, who was a 'Heideggarian scholar' now at Chicago. I don't have a clue as to what Heidegger was getting at.. I took the class because I had an interest in Time. The text, of course, was Being and Time. At the end of the class I came to realize that Martin Heidegger ran out of time before he could write about it.. So his book should really have been entitled: a treatise on the nature of Being.

[yathrib]

I have a serious question and no one seemed to want to take it on when this thread first emerged in March. But here it is again. For any Bible believers out there, from the most literal on down: What is it about the God of the Bible, particularly the O.T., that gives you the idea that he is good, kind, merciful, etc? Even in the NT we have a god who requires the brutal death of his son to feel a little more forgiving. Can someone *please* explain this to me? I'm not being snarky or sarcastic.

[King_Mob]

I'm actually speechless. Give me a moment.

Late in life, totally insane and demented from untreated syphilis, he was found embracing a broken down old nag (horse) in Turin, Italy, weeping and praying.

Yes. And?

His devoted sister protected him as best she could for years after that, although he had totally lost his mind, and she brilliantly edited all his books.

THE FUCK SHE DID. SHE DID THE EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE.

His sister Elisabeth is more responsible for his current canon than he is.

No, more responsible for the extent to which his reputation has been unfairly tainted and misunderstood. As in, it's just not fucking fair what she did. But I'm sure even her brother would have forgiven her.

I was in a top-level graduate seminar on Nietzsche one time (in a doctoral program in philosophy), with a world-famous Nietzsche scholar as the professor. One session, after about half an hour, the bullshit overcame me and I blurted out loudly: Nietzsche is a liar! This didn't help me in that course, but I still believe it.

Wow. Take that course again. 100,000 times, if you can. Until you finally understand Nietzsche, more or less. You could begin by reading what OP ED and I have posted. There are parts of Nietzsche I understand less than OP ED, and parts of Nietzsche I understand more than OP ED. Ever the two shall meet, hopefully.

I've never understood why he was treated as a serious philosopher. I own about 6 or 7 of his books, and have read most of them, and I think it's crap from start to finish.

Read them again. 100,000 times.

And, after all, it is said to have led to the Nazis.

Elizabeth is partly responsible for that. If only Nietzsche had actually possessed the power to have all anti-semites shot. He certainly willed it, though.

Thank you FourthBase... It's sad to see people spout the same tired Nietzsche bashing...

Of course people like Wilbur, who are steeped in the morality and values of religious ethos will not even want to understand... but that's the point.

Nietzsche wasn't writing to please everyone, and he certainly didn't expect, or even hope that most people would "get it".

[8bitagent]

If the story of Job is true, I cannot worship a being that could allow or be behind that.

However, liberal PC be damned, I am most definitely a fan of some creationism and intelligent design(8bitagent, say it isn't so!)
Maybe I'm just an uneducated lay commoner, but all the millennia of Christian propaganda aside...but my gut feeling is that deliberate design like a computer program effect may be at the impetus of many things out there that some think of as "random chaos"

I however, also am of the view that things are most likely so bizarre and complex, that our 2008 human minds cannot comprehend it.

I think there's a world of evidence that very emboldened, patient and unforgivingly evil forces are at the very root of all global conspiracies
and the centuries of elite rule in trying to control everyone.

I sadly don't see much evidence that there's the yin yang opposite; and all I can say is that I have faith that love has not been completely erased from the human program.

I have a serious question and no one seemed to want to take it on when this thread first emerged in March. But here it is again. For any Bible believers out there, from the most literal on down: What is it about the God of the Bible, particularly the O.T., that gives you the idea that he is good, kind, merciful, etc? Even in the NT we have a god who requires the brutal death of his son to feel a little more forgiving. Can someone *please* explain this to me? I'm not being snarky or sarcastic.

The Christ story to me is not as disturbing as the Job story, or asking others to sacrifice their son.

Only the Devil and esoteric institutions created by the elite(from Rome to Babylon to Latin America) would require such treacherous acts.

Anyone seen Apocalypto?

Also, I've noticed some people I know feel that if you're not Christian or of a religion, that you 'don't believe the stories of the Bible or in God/Christ'

I don't claim to say the bible is false; I'm sure high weirdness beyond our wildest imagination was rampant back in the day. But just because you acknowledge something doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

I think a lot just want to raise a family because it's fun at a fundamental level, paint outside, plant a garden, be silly, read, go on trips, ect.

You don't need to support "God" or "Christ" or whomever to have a rich fulfilling spiritual and positive life. I don't buy into a lot of the new age beliefs nor of Abrahamic faiths, anymore than some might be into mint or chocolate icecream.

[8bitagent]

I Believe in God the Father Almighty
Maker of heaven and earth

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost
Born of the Virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
Was crucified, dead, and buried
The third day he rose again from the dead
He ascended into heaven
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead

I believe in the Holy Spirit
The holy Catholic Church
The Communion of Saints
The Forgiveness of sins
The Resurrection of the body
And the Life everlasting
Amen

Well, I support that which gives positivity, refreshment, spiritual nourishment, hope to a person. One of my best friends is a devout Catholic(who turned me on to a lot of the deep politic stuff)

It's clearly a spiritual war going on. I'm just not sure if I can fully comprehend the Christ/God dynamic or interpretation as I should.

And, after all, it is said to have led to the Nazis.

Same could be said about Planned Parenthood, American eugenics, Darwinism, ect:)

FourthBase, I almost got a Ph.D. in philosophy. I've read many philosphers.

There are some I like very much, such as Bertrand Russell or Carl Jung (picking two from opposite poles).

There are some I just could not stand, such as Nietzsche and Hegel. I've read a lot from each, and I just plain reject them in toto.

I think Nietzsche's idea on ethics (Beyond Good and Evil) are very dangerous and false.

It's important to study Nietzsche, Hegel I feel given how much influence they had on the movers and shakers. Also, I find Jung more timely to understanding things now than ever before for some reason

[Wilbur Whatley]

marmot, I'm late to reply, but if you're still here, you asked me and another person whether we were of the analytic or continental schools. I have great appreciation of the analytic side of things, but I always tended toward the continental, to answer within the context of your question.

But I'm not sure that is the right dichotomy. My favorite philosopher is probably Kant, who is usually considered the patriarch of the continental tradition. I always thought he was the smartest of the pure philosophers, miles beyond Plato (with the possible exception of the uber-weird Immanual Swedenborg).

But I have also read more of Russell than any other philosopher, and I have about 40 books by Russell and about Russell and his circle in my own library. Russell was an atheist. I'm a Catholic. At least in my prime, I was quite smart; but Russell was smarter, and vastly more ambitious. (I've always thought it funny that Russell thought Wittgenstein was smarter, which is ridiculous in my view.) Russell would not have had the time of day for my philosophical thoughts, but we were on common ground when it came to social justice. I'm pretty sure I could beat him at chess!

I majored in philosophy of religion. I was always fond of guys like Origen and St. Justin Martyr and St. Augustine and St. Anthony of the Desert and many others like that, all of whom could thoroughly slice and dice most contemporary philosophers if they chose to do so.

But alas, although I'm only in my 50s, age and sorrow and stress and disease have knocked off the edge of my intellectual sword. But on the other hand, now I have a lot of money and get to spend a lot of time helping younger people. Just gave $2500 today to a young nephew in hard times to get him a car. I hope it balances out in the end. I believe it will.

[Wilbur Whatley]

I'd like to thank everybody here for a really interesting thread. I've read everything, without responding to all. It's nice to find a forum with so much intelligence and so much tolerance.

[Wilbur Whatley]

King Mob declaims [regarding Nietzsche]: "Of course people like Wilbur, who are steeped in the morality and values of religious ethos will not even want to understand... but that's the point."

Arrogant. Shallow. Wrong. Contradicted by what I already said in this thread.

If I were to systematically deconstruct that into English and logic, you'd be mortified. It is a very crappy sentence. Geez.

You get a D+.

The plus is for kissing up.

[marmot]

Uncle Wilbur, glad to have you on board sharing all your wisdom and ca$h...

Actually, I was wondering where you and bks studied, what institutions?
Don't know why I was curious. Just making conversation, I guess.

yathrib, I'd like to attempt an answer to your question, but I expect I'll need some time and grace, especially from whoever might be willing to read what should inevitably be a lengthy post.