The god in the bible is a devil

I know you well enough to trust you and know you to be a wonderful human bean ..even without a god

http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/books/Osiris_45.html

Posted by Star Sailor Cat on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 at 7:46 AM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
Hilde

A very thoughtful and though-provoking (and beautifully written, as usual) outburst. I agree with everything you say, except one thing: I think even tribes or clans are capable of acting against their collective self-interest due to circumstances and possibly lack of understanding. For example: Somalia doesn’t have a permanent (legitimate) government, hasn’t had one since 1991. Large portions of its population are organized in family-based clans. Because of scarce resources, there is a lot of fighting among the clans and a lot of killing. In this case, although the fierce competition is a natural result of the circumstances, it would probably have benefited the clans if they were able to cooperate more with each other in order to more efficiently extract/distribute resources… but the family ties and blood feuds are tough to ignore.

Anyhow, I used to play a lot with Lego too! I always wished that they could move themselves. I agree that it is silly to cling to outdated norms, and it certainly is absurd to treat religious texts as living legal codes, considering how outdated even our 230 year old constitution is.

Thanks for your insight again! Hilde

Posted by Hilde on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 at 11:02 AM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
emcee lynx

hilde,

i absolutely agree that people are capable of acting against their self interests, whatever kind of social structure they have. hell, we do it all the time. the point of differentiating between tribal religions and codified religions is that one is dynamic and adaptable and the other is static and inflexible. that doesn’t mean that the dynamic value system will always produce perfect results, just that it is capable of adapting and over time will probably get closer to ‘perfect’ through trial and error if nothing else.

somolia is kind of a special case. tribalism is definitely part of the issue, but as i understand it imperialism and conquest have played a huge role in creating the situation that exists now. though i can’t claim to be an expert.

anyway, thanks for coming by, and thanks to everyone else too! it’s cool to see something i wrote provoke responses as thoughtful as the ones you-all contributed. =) makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and shit, hehe

Posted by emcee lynx on Thursday, December 07, 2006 at 3:23 AM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
Insurrection

I think even tribes or clans are capable of acting against their collective self-interest due to circumstances and possibly lack of understanding.

Not necessarily. Social conflict is inevitable with all the social animals. It”s how each sorts to relieve the tention and whether it chooses an approach that seekes to eliminate the violence – or not as case be – but neither means they are acting against self – interest. The best way to explain where I’m coming from is it with the example of our close cousins who are the same kind of chimpanzee – but each living in different enviromental conditions – while the common chimpanzee resolves its conflict violently – be it males challenging the dominant male for his (privileged) position and the violent sort to keep the social hierachy – will not mean that in occasions where they will face external threat as a troop they will not co-operate to turn against the outside threat as a troop – they will and then resume the inter conflict again when it arises. How is it in self-interest for the members of the troop who are on the low ranks (and have to feed as last with the shitty leftoevers) – it’s the exchange for the for the brute force of protection (reminds one of government and army and police?) against external threats (thus the anti-immigration sentiments steadily whipped up and bogey manned up by those on top of pyramid of hiearchical order).

Now, let’s go to bonobos, they resolve their conflicts by preventing violence by being sexual pleasers – you pissed off your mate – you start stimulating their pleasure centers – to turn their potential aggressivity and thus a threat into causing pleasure and switching their mode of response. Also they do so before they feed, and they share food without violence – they make each other happy and when one feels happy one is more likely to share than when one is pissed off. Their social order is looser.

Both adapted uniquely to the conditions of their enviroment and by the choice of social order they adapted by in self interest – as means of social order that serves their self-interests the best.

Humanity struggles against the conditions of its material conditions also – it does so in terms of self-interest whether it chooses the hiearchal social order or the more loose social order that is based on ‘doing to each other as one would like to be done under the same circumstance’ to the protection they invest in keeping rigid hiearchy. Those who benefit from rigid hieararchy (those on top) will big up the threats, increase the violence (so to make the other members in line – complying with the socially designated place) of establishing its position within a group. The rest will comply because they will believe that such social order protects them from being annihilated by the threats. Those in whose self – interest it is to have looser hiearchy and to choose the violent conflict and more peaceful redistribution will rgue the same – again from self-interest – because for them survival in such way is the one in their self-interest to adapt to survive.

Somalia doesn’t have a permanent (legitimate) government, hasn’t had one since 1991

Goverments as parts of hierchical order do not resolve violence – the more rigid hierarchy (we elect you to protect us because you are the stronger and we are the weaker and we exchange the privilege of being protected with giving your prilege – first one to feed) the more violence there will be, the looser social order (based on the social contract of ‘I’ll be nice to you and you’ll be nice to me’), the lesser. Therefore solving a problem of violence by government is stabbing oneself in the arm just to stop bleeding.

————————-

it’s interesting to read this blog while reading Kropotkins’ Anarchist morality. It’s great to see how the compassionate thinker I respect influences those whom I respect. Nice one Lynx.

Posted by Insurrection on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 at 1:46 PM
[Remove] [Reply to this]

I’m sorry it’s late and I posted before edited and English is not my first language, I have to correct me typos and put in the words I ommited (and which would change what the fuck i’m trying to say)

–

This paragraph was supposed to be like this:

Humanity struggles against the conditions of its material conditions also – it does so in terms of self-interest whether it chooses the hierarchal social order or the more loose social order that is based on ‘doing to each other as one would like to be done under the same circumstance’ instead of investing in the protection they would in keeping rigid hiearchy. Those who benefit from rigid hierarchy (those on top) will big up the threats, increase the violence (so to make the other members in line – complying with the socially designated place) of establishing its position within a group. The rest will comply because they will believe that such social order protects them from being annihilated by the threats. Those in whose self – interest it is to have looser hierarchy and to choose to eliminate the violent conflict and move towards the more peaceful redistribution will argue the same – that such is best – again from self-interest – because for them survival in such way is the one in their self-interest to adapt to survive…

———————-
Posted by sam random
[Remove] [Reply to this]

your ramblings belie a certain condecension- despite your argument for well informed rational moralism, underneath i see a certain contempt for organized religion. by denouncing it as irrational gibberish purported by ruling classes to continue the paradigm of inequality and repression, you simultaneously set yourself apart from those that have faith by way of making your own perspective inherently superior. such reasoning is poisonous to the soul…
in particular i find your final words most comical. would you denounce yahweh as a petty despot? you might as well shake your fist at the heavens and curse your own mother for having borne you in the first place.
for my own part, i am myself an agnostic just as you are. however, i recognize that those that have faith, whatever it may be, are in a certain sense affirming that the world is bigger than themselves, that life is mysterious because it is so complex, that morality cannot be rational because there are just too many factors to take into consideration.
to sum up, by denouncing theism, you only serve to alienate theists. to what end?

Posted by sam random on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 1:17 PM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
emcee lynx

heya sam, long time no see.

how goes it in the great midwestern metropolis? for the record i didn’t actually say anything at all about religion as a tool of ruling classes, not sure where you got that except maybe you expected it to be there. as for denouncing yaweh, why shouldn’t i? if we assume for the sake of argument that the christians are right and we’ll all have to stand before the tyrant some day for judgement then why shouldn’t i speak my mind to him? and if the christians are wrong the point is moot.

in any case, the point isn’t to denounce theism, per se, so much as to do exactly what i said the article was written to do at the beginning: to refute the claim made by a specific theist in the article I’m replying to that athiests and agnostics can never be moral because morality comes from God (and ONLY from god).

as far as why alienate theists, they come pre-alienated, i don’t have to do anything. according to the latest surveys athiests are the single most hated and feared group in america – more then any racial or religious group. so what do i care if i ruffle their feathers a little bit? they already think i’m going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity, fuck ‘em.

Posted by emcee lynx on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 9:07 PM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
pleh!

Good post. The only thing I disagree with is that Kropotkin proved evolution happens in groups and is a social process.
Some contemporary evolutionists suspect evolution is a process of competing genes.

Posted by pleh! on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 6:37 PM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
Insurrection

Evolution plays on more levels, many contemporary evolutionary biologist have a lot to say on social evolution and it’s actually pretty much confirming what Kropotkin had to say. Biological evolution does not happen by simple competition either. Darwin very clearly shown that it depends on more processes than just that – it’s not just via competition but also variantion and mutation and inheritance etc. If it’s so on base level, it’s not going to differ on the other levels. Social evolution points that natural selection favours both mutually benefitial or selfish behaviours – evolutionary process is not exclusive of one or the other. Kropotkin simply stack his head out that the mutually benefitial behaviour is the one that is more benefitial to the species as the whole.

Posted by Insurrection on Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 9:48 AM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
pleh!

The point I was trying to make is that if the gene-centric view of evolution is correct, biological evolution hinges on the genes and not individuals let alone social groups.
Whatever insights Kropotkin may have had in regards to social evolution, they have little to do with biological evolution.

Posted by pleh! on Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 6:09 PM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
Insurrection

Biological evolution does not negate social evolution. Findings in biological evolution do not negate findings in its subdivision – social evolution here. Biological evolution does dictate social behaviours also – as in kin selection etc. Genes don’t simply only compete as had been said, they work by more processes than just one. So neither they will produce biological behaviour of the whole organism only in lieu of one of its processes. So the complete divorce between those two fields of study of evolution is not there either. Natural selection at the base level as in all the other levels occurs as a result of many processes, not simply genetic competition. In field of social evolution Kropotkin wasn’t off the mark, again as many of today’s scientists will confirm – be their evolutionary biologists, anthropologists etc.