Sunday, July 12, 2009
God Loves Sarah Palin
"Sarah Palin loves God. God loves Sarah Palin. And that is why they hate her...and Him. And why she -- and He -- will be back" says Dr.Stuart Schwartz in his article at American Thinker and judging by the comments a horde of other "thinkers" agree with him. God Loves Sarah Palin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Unfortunately for Mrs.Palin, God probably doesn't exist, and in any case, he doesn't seem to do anything for his worshippers. He certainly hasn't done anything great for her. Were I her, I would have renounced my faith about eight months ago.
ReplyDeletePresident Palin 2012 will have a lot of work to do cleaning up after Obama's disastrous administration, more work than Reagan did after Carter.
ReplyDeleteBut she has the guts and political know-how to do it. Palin kicked butt in Alaska, she took on the old boys networks, she fought oil companies - Sarah Palin brought the kind of change to Alaska that Americans thought they were getting when they voted for Obama.
Now that Americans are beginning to realize that Obama is only empowering the Washington elites to control more of their lives and leave them with less, it is only a matter of time before they demand real change instead of radical leftist sloganeering.
TangoJuliette sez:
ReplyDeleteLotsa "weasel" words for a supposedly declarative bit of bumph from a philo pastry raptor. "...probably...maybe...were I...I would have..."
Lets try it like this:
"...Probably a bad break for philosoraptor, perhaps God DOES exist after all. In any case, whether God HAS or HASN'T done anything for his worshippers is probably best known by the participants in the relationship, not some outside looking in critic.
[S]He may well have done many great things for the Palins. Were philo rap Sarah, raptor would have renounced faith about eight months ago...." Even as a hypothesis, philo, you don't seem to have what it takes to carry her shoes, let alone BE her.
By the way. I'm eating an orange right now.
From your position of infinite wisdom, can you tell me just how good or just how bad this orange is? Is it sweet? Sour? Sunkist? Haifa?
thought not!
shake your bluddy head . . .
tj
t.e. & o.e.
TJ:
ReplyDelete??? If you're trying to make a point, it must be lost in the rambling.
Probably a bad break for philosoraptor, perhaps God DOES exist after all.
I seriously doubt it, and I'm not worried.
In any case, whether God HAS or HASN'T done anything for his worshippers is probably best known by the participants in the relationship
Actually, subjective evidence is mostly useless. On the other hand, ACTUAL studies of the effects of prayer have shown absolutely no impact from any pleadings to the almighty sky fairy. I'll take objective evidence over subjective evidence, and it very clearly indicates that, at least, prayer does nothing.
Even as a hypothesis, philo, you don't seem to have what it takes to carry her shoes, let alone BE her.
I'm a hypothesis now? What does that mean?
From your position of infinite wisdom, can you tell me just how good or just how bad this orange is? Is it sweet? Sour? Sunkist? Haifa?
I don't have infinite wisdom, just possibly more than you. For instance, you know I don't know a damn thing about your orange, but you ask me the question anyway as if it will buttress your argument (whatever it may be). On the contrary, it supports my general viewpoint that we only trust our beliefs as far as the evidence weighs for them: if you cared to tell me the brand of orange, I might be able to tell you the taste, and even might be able to speculate on whether you would like it. The more objective information I get, the better an estimation I can make. This is all very much unlike the existential question wrt your imaginary friend, where apparently subjective evidence is sufficient, and where no manner of contraindicating objective evidence can sway your belief. Unfortunately, the same applies to the existence of both Zeus, and Russell's teapot orbiting the moon.
TangoJuliette sez:
ReplyDeletePhil. I don't have imaginary friends. Not even your so-called sky fairies. Almighty or otherwise.
You have gone to great lengths in your efforts to discredit one persons "faith" whatever it may or may not be. You also feel free enough to make certain assumptions because you seem to think that you might have insights to whatever you assume my faith may or may not be. A mugs game at best.
Based on their experiences and observations, some - few - many - survivors of nazi death camps, and survivors of soviet gulags [including relatives of mine] have a different take on this issue of faith. I've not ever seen any merit in trying to analyze nor debunk their beliefs.
If the nazzies and the commies couldn't beat and gas and torture their faith out of them, I accepted the certainty that I wouldn't be able to budge them one iota neither. Doubtful that even you would have had any measure of success in this endeavour.
I find it odd that the alleged faith of a person that someone like you seems to think to be somewhat less than minimally bright, would cause you such concern and consternation. Even to the point of driving you to launch into your own version of 'evangelical' preaching and proselytizing, in an attempt to bring to the feeble-minded few, your own version of the order of the universe.
You could have been far more affirmative, far less tentative, in your language re: Palin. The equivocating language hedging your position does little more than underscore what appears to be nothing other than indecisiveness on your part, your pseudo-cavalier professions of un-faith notwithstanding.
And . . . were you her, we'd be having this little tete a tete about YOUR faith. Unless you meant to convey the idea that: were she more like you. . . etc. etc.
Gotta go now. Leaving the land of electricity. Won't be back to outlets and keyboards till late Tuesday. Will try to check back in sometime Weds.
Keep the faith pilgrim!
tj
t.e. & o.e.
Philo, life must be pretty empty for you. Wise up pal and get some faith in yer life ya moron. Little pretentious fuck aren't ya.
ReplyDeleteTangoJ and Rick - it looks like my blog is attracting a lot of traffic from the Left. We seldom visit their blogs as we are always happy discussing stuff amongst ourselves, but they simply cannot do without us. No sireeee !!
ReplyDeleteTJ: You seem to be labouring under the impression that I care about Palin. If so, you misunderstand me. I think she's a joke and I couldn't care less about her or her faith. I'm not trying to change her mind about anything, and the same applies to you and all the people you know.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I don't bother trying to change anyone's mind about faith. It's pointless, and by and large I don't care what people believe. Occasionally, I take the time to point out how ridiculous it is, or to correct any glaring scientific errors, but that's about it. In this case, it seemed quite strange to me that someone would be claiming that "God" loved Palin, particularly considering the course of her life over the last couple of years in the public eye. For one thing, it always sounds silly to me to use the word "God" given its ambiguity. I always substitute "Zeus" for a lark (try it, it's good for a chuckle and really paints the speaker in a fresh light). Further, were there a God I would suggest that he work harder on her behalf. She really is floundering and can't seem to notice it. I can only HOPE that she runs for President...it guarantees a Democratic win and the further decline of the GOP, and will make for good late night comedy during the campaign. Maybe the little voice in her head that she calls God will tell her to do it. I'm not a praying man, but if I were I'd pray for that.
By the way, bringing up the Holocaust is a rather manipulative little trick, but it fails to accomplish anything, since I'm inclined to believe that people under extreme duress are going to keep their faith fervently, given that it's the only thing they have left. Even if they are not already strong believers in the supernatural, it seems to be a natural inclination to turn to it in times of stress. The peace of mind that comes with simple answers is a possible contributing factor to our evolution of the capability for faith, even though it's entirely irrational and persists (even relishes) in the absence of objective evidence.
And Rick: My life is great actually. My perspective and my choices are my own and they make sense to me, without calling upon the supernatural. I don't need (and see no reason) to believe in the magical or mystical to make moral decisions, or bring comfort to my life. Life is far more interesting, exciting and challenging given that I'm living it on my own terms and in a universe that doesn't have a 'plan', 'meaning' or 'purpose', and is full of mysteries that we'll never understand.
Sorry to disappoint you. Actually, no I'm not.
The reason that people like philosoraptor (and myself, on occasion) tend towards a sort of atheistic proselytizing is straightforward: religion is, at best, harmless. If it gives a person comfort to think that there's someone watching everything they do and that they'll be judged on every thought and deed upon their death... well, it's not my fetish, but my rule is, if someone else's fantasy life doesn't harm anyone, it's not my concern. (It does hint, however, at why the religious right has so many supporters of illegal wiretapping and torture.)
ReplyDeleteBut if people start claiming that against all the evidence, the creation myth of their faith is just as valid as evolution to explain the presence of humans upon the earth, they're aiming to harm those I care for. If they start claiming "God is on our side", they're acting with a sense of unjustifiable confidence that can, more often than not, lead to truly stupid acts. If they start claiming that they're "doing God's work"... at that point I'd be running. Because most of the most popular religious texts have a very dark and bloody side to them when it comes to making sure their meme is propagated.
As far as atheists are concerned, there is no longer any inherent benefit to religion to our species, and in fact it is a potentially harmful holdover from our past, like the appendix.
As for TJ: The reason PR uses what you call "weasel words" is because he's honest. An honest atheist would never say "There is/are no god(s)", because proving a general negative is impossible unless you can prove a specific condition to be false. So, for example, using the Problem of Evil, I can say conclusively that a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god as described in the New Testament and who thinks even remotely like humans (sort of required for "benevolent") is impossible. But an arbitrary god who watches and only interferes when no one can record it, or a helpless god who watches but has no power? There is no means of disproving either of these, since in the first case the god is inimical towards proof, and in the second, as with Russel's Teapot, there's really no difference whether the god is there or not. So all we can honestly say is that in our experience and in the body of recorded evidence, there is nothing to prove that one or more gods exist, one way or another; and that from this basis, in the same way that we are disinclined to believe in, for example, fairies or unicorns, we are disinclined to believe in the presence of said imperceptible deities.
Rick: If life is truly empty for you without your faith in something you can neither see, nor hear, nor ever experience any conclusive sign from that cannot be reproduced by pharmaceuticals... then I'm sorry for you. As for the gratuitous insults - really, calling someone a moron in argot isn't really conducive to others viewing your comment as a sign of reasonable intellect.
Oh, and MariaS - it is a weakness of ours, I'll admit. We see people and feel the need to help them, even if it seems hopeless. We just can't manage to give people up as lost causes.
ReplyDeleteAh well, I'd still rather be classified as a lefty than to be pilloried for the deeds of the Right.
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!!!
ReplyDeleteMy blog is attracting a horde of atheists.
I could tell from the long sermons they are writing here. Their sermons are as long, as boring and as full of hot air as the sermons that used to come from the pulpits of the Roman Catholic priests of my community.
As usual, Atheists are "hell bent" on teaching all and sundry about the non-existence of an entity divine. I seldom come across believers of christianity trying to push down their beliefs down the unwilling throats of other people.
Each one should be left to believe in what they want to, as long as they do no harm to others their way of life is absolutely fine in my Book of Reasoning.
Atheists should not be of the opinion that because someone believes in a supernatural being they are a lost cause. Their belief gives them comfort and a way to deal with the sorrows of this world. Envy them instead - because when people of belief lose a loved one, they firmly believe that they will reconnect in the afterlife. What's wrong with that? Do Atheists want to take away that hope and comfort from your fellow human beings?
I have noticed that when I have too much to say, my thoughts get all tangled up. Maybe the above makes no sense to many.
Carry on commenting and have a great day.
haha! Entertaining debate!
ReplyDeleteI could tell from the long sermons they are writing here...
ReplyDeleteIt takes time to deconstruct logical fallacies, but I'll make the rest of this short and simple, to suit the intellectual level and commensurate attention span.
As usual, Atheists are "hell bent" on teaching all and sundry about the non-existence of an entity divine.
Wrong. By the way, atheists is not capitalized.
Each one should be left to believe in what they want to, as long as they do no harm to others their way of life is absolutely fine in my Book of Reasoning.
I agree. Make no statements about the actual existence of your deity of choice or the implications thereof, and we have a deal.
Atheists should not be of the opinion that because someone believes in a supernatural being they are a lost cause.
I don't know what 'lost cause' implies. It does mean they've given up thinking about things.
Their belief gives them comfort and a way to deal with the sorrows of this world.
Good for them. Too bad it requires a suspension of rational thought, but so be it.
What's wrong with that?
Nothing. Have at it, Hoss.
Do Atheists want to take away that hope and comfort from your fellow human beings?
No.
Carry on commenting
Why bother? You just criticized the lengths of the replies. Do you want comments or not? Would you like detailed comments with some depth, or would you prefer simple, uninformative answers for which strawmen are easy to construct? Oh, nevermind.
philosoraptor - you said:
ReplyDelete"By the way, atheists is not capitalized"
Not according to this:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
Go ahead and use that "deconstruct logical fallacies" skill of yours to get the source of that website to change all the capital "A"s in atheist to small case "a".
BTW, have you taken the time to read those 4 little lines under the title of my blog? Just asking.
TangoJuliette sez:
ReplyDeleteMy preferred choice is "O Mighty Mithras."
Your "...bringing up the Holocaust is a rather manipulative little trick..." Cold. No intended manipulation nor trickery, litttle or not.
Having witnessed self-immolating Vietnamese Monks in the 60's,I think that you've pretty much nailed it all with the following:
"...I'm inclined to believe that people under extreme duress are going to keep their faith fervently, given that it's the only thing they have left. Even if they are not already strong believers in the supernatural, it seems to be a natural inclination to turn to it in times of stress. The peace of mind that comes with simple answers is a possible contributing factor to our evolution of the capability for faith, even though it's entirely irrational and persists (even relishes) in the absence of objective evidence..."
tj
BTW, have you taken the time to read those 4 little lines under the title of my blog? Just asking.
ReplyDeleteYou mean the ones where you claim to believe in "total free speech"? Does this apply when you're chastising people for detailed responses to comments? Does it apply to anyone else but you?
What a joke.
By the way, 'atheist' is not capitalized in any standard dictionary (e.g., www.m-w.com). 'Christian', 'Hindu' and 'Muslim' all are. Your source considers 'atheism' a religion, which is why they capitalize it. Most people disagree with that assertion. If you're not aware of that particular hidden assumption at religioustolerance.org, now you are. I suggest consulting more than one source when you're researching something.
ReplyDeleteI think that you've pretty much nailed it all with the following:
ReplyDeleteThank you. We agree then that the testimony of people who turn to the supernatural under stress is hardly reliable with respect to the question of the existence of said supernatural entities.
Too bad that the other comments I posted got 'disappeared' by the free-speech filter.