http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSKBN0LG0FX20150212
http://www.dw.de/ukraine-ceasefire-deal-live-updates/a-18250801
So an agreement was signed on Ukraine after a day and night in Minsk. I’m not entirely sure the numeral in our title is correct by the way but at some point, counting things that don’t work ( ceasefires and deals that never materialize ) has to stop having significance. If it works, we can call it THE deal,; if it doesn’t … m’well, who cares really? Certainly not those that will die between it and the next one!
http://www.dw.de/opinion-we-should-be-skeptical-after-new-minsk-ceasefire-deal/a-18251509
In essence, according to trustworthy sources, the deal is initially a rewriting of the one from September that we all know never took effect. It was not even signed by Ukraine but by Belarus for it as Kyiv refuses to talk with terrorists even though these agreed to it. Will the reality on the ground follow through this time? How would the central government regain control of its border with Russia as the separatists refuse their presence, etc. The deal is so conditional to such imponderables that it seems beyond shaky so fingers crossed.
One funny note, the deal is set to apply starting on February 15 A.K.A. Sunday next. Of course, it takes time to arrange such things but am I the only one to think that it was placed then to avoid a country torn by hate ( separatists region civilians said on TV they would never trust the central government ever again and hated Ukrainians ) from the irony of making peace before Valentine’s Day?
God is apparently an arrant knave. Or so would some people force me to think though why they feel this to be necessary to them is beyond me. In a nutshell, I have a deep but incredibly personal relationship to the concept of the deity that I do not offer on a regular basis to strangers. I won’t ring your bell on Sunday morning nor Saturday nor Friday for that matter ( I do wonder if atheists of the sort described above and below wouldn’t need one of their own, say Monday ). The most recent example of this strange behavior goes thus :
A Facebook acquaintance re-posted an item with a quote from Ricky Gervais, the Brit guy known for his TV shows about stupidity. https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/336216574174302208
“I’ve never been insulted by hateful satanists for not believeing in their devil. Only by loving Christians for not believing in their God.”
The Facebook handle of the foreign poster is : Damn Atheist or about since translation doesn’t work well on the term he or she used. It could stand for UnChristly Atheist too as it implies both a swear and an intensifying qualifier. You get the idea …
I don’t concern myself with non-beliefs of others or even of mine and vice-versa. In general, if an idea is not part of my mental set-up and view of the state of things nor a proven fact, I consider it a non-event until faced with a bad case of application of it. Be it the great Holy Skunk-Shark in its Heavenly Lair that I’m sure some animist somewhere reveres or the recurrent bi-eternal re-setting of Quantum Chromo-Dynamics into alternative current leek soup, I just don’t care, honestly. Of course, if someone starts making laws and wars based on such ideas, I will treat and denounce them on this blog. And if their disciples try to convert me on the subway ( fat chance since I ride bikes almost exclusively as a transportation means ), I’ll say “Sorry but no, thank you!” with the same tone I would if they pestered me for change or to sign a petition. In short, beliefs that are not mine are not mine to discuss unless their proponents insist … which some atheists do.
Interestingly enough, let’s specify that I’ve had profound inter-faith theological discussions with Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and others as well as with scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists. The common point of such talks being that those who partook in them were both knowledgeable and non-confrontational, qualities strikingly absent in some atheists ( but not all ).
In short, I am more concerned by what actions your beliefs lead you to take than their motivations. If you help me save lives, sanity, society or the planet, I’ll take it without further considerations and if you try to take away or undermine these, I’ll fight you without further ado. Is that clear enough?
It so happens that this is not the case in the proselytic atheists! Just as any other creed would, they want something, quite often, they want others to stop believing. Three examples :
– A couple years back, I tried to correct an atheist fellow blogger on mistakes he had quoted as facts of Christianity. He got very angry. I told him that my only qualm was that untruths undermined his point. He got angrier. I replied that you cannot argue a religion bad based on things that are not in it, regardless of the fact that some of its members disregarded or misinterpreted them any more than you can, say fault the American Constitution for asking that citizens dress as Santa Claus every first of the month because it is simply not true. He went ballistic, postal, etc! I then got it that he was not discussing Christianity for what it is but for what he wanted it to be according to his views, something that IMHoO could not be corrected so I never talked to him about it again.
– A couple weeks back, my old buddy Stephan Ormal used an argument at me that he had complained about having being thrown at him in a non-religious context spat ( feminism IIRC ) mere hours earlier. I asked him to consider the painful sarcasm that represented but he wouldn’t have it. When religion enters the fray, it seems rules & logic fly out the window although it might have been the dozen pints drank between the two debates that were talking. In my mind, forbidding others to have a given view on things in general but on unproven ones even more so is always incorrect but apparently Stephan thinks it depends on if he agrees to them or not instead.
– Yesterday, Ricky Gervais’ tweet may have been true, I’ll believe him if he’ll allow it , but becomes mere manichaeism if it is a complete and definitive opinion of his for, as I just outlined, I have repeated experiences of angry atheists insulting me for not believing in their non-God. Let me reiterate that I do not routinely start discussions on such matters with strangers in real life nor on Facebook.
All of which show A- that a true thing is no proof of the non-existence of its contrary and B- that actively professing non-belief is actually the same as actively professing one. Said otherwise, these atheists are believers and more so than many religious folks. I have Hebrew friends that never talk about faith and atheists ones that can’t stop doing so even unprovoked and even at folks whose beliefs they know nothing of. If the latter refute my point about their belief, which is their right, then they auto-qualify themselves as “antis” ( anti-liberty of religion, anti-right to differ from their view, whatever ), something that I find more of a problem than faith strictly speaking, any which.
In conclusion, here are in order of implication the things I know about Faith that belie simple black and white religious controversies :
In religion as in science, I favor Ockham’s razor; the simplest message is the most credible : respect and love each other.
You neither face or flee the devil ( Satan, Sheitan, Magog, whatever ) if you truly believe in God : you go on your way secure. He’s not allowed to touch you. You only fight it in yourself.
If you have unresolved issues with God : you’re a believer!
I guess I must be from the Berkeley school of faith then. 😉
Strangely enough, the above relates to American politics. For the last few years, the Republican Party has taken to mixing science and belief in a dualist and thus often antagonistic approach. The most evident application of this is found in regard to life itself. On average, the GOP opposes abortion and favors the death penalty! So apparently, interrupting life before it can defend itself is morally condemnable but once materialized in an autonomous individual, it can be acceptably terminated by the will of the State. How the dichotomy between the two is not a matter of intense debate is beyond me, especially since the same party’s extremist fringe considers government meddling in the people’s affairs big non-no and I ask you, where does the State impose itself more than in killing a citizen, what greater right can one be deprived of than existence itself? I’m not taking sides here or even opening the discussion, just pointing out the discrepancy.
The same Black and White approach is found on other matters ( often faith related ) where it is more problematic because it leaves irreconcilable logical flaws in the end result, in the position of the party. Nowhere is this divide more evident than on scientific knowledge. Climate change and evolution are two of the biggest sticking points in that respect but the over 50% that believe astrology to be a science and the Earth’s position in the cosmos are right up there also. I understand the first to be seen as subject to interpretation up to a point as it calls for interpreting changes that are partially of geological timeframe scope, i.e. millennia long, on which records are not quite meaningful to non-scientists. The rest however makes no sense at all unless one reverts to beliefs, be them religious or psychological. On evolution, fossils could be faked by a treacherous god, granted but not actual witnessed changes in biological species alive today. Such changes were recorded in relation to climate change ( whatever its cause ) in Alaskan ground squirrels that modify their behavior based on temperature for instance. This could lead to its population resorbing as it gives more time for predators that hunt year long. This shows adaptation and also provides an example of how environmental changes can modify a biome. Over longer periods, tens or hundreds of thousands of years ) such adaption could extinct a species ( think of the dodo ) or modify its sub-families ( elephants have varying ear sizes depending on where they live as these body parts serve as radiators to evacuate heat; bigger in the African sun, smaller in the Indian forests where heat is lesser ) and so on. This should be easy to understand unless you either cannot project your mind beyond the moment ( in which case how you could lead the country to its future is doubtful at best ). As for the 25% of the American population that thinks the Sun circles the Earth, since we have direct observation of it ( international space station ) over the indirect understanding of seasons as a result of our planet’s elliptic orbit and slanted axis, they have no excuse but belief from the Bible overcoming evidence.
The above is quite surprising when you consider the preeminence of scientific achievements that the USA holds at present in the World ( as evidenced by its domination of Nobel Prizes ). Mind you, scientific literacy is as good in America as in other modern countries to boot. The problem only appears when such believers ( like our fanatic atheist sub-set from earlier ) that confuse belief and facts play that double standard as truth to the masses which is of course allowed too under democratic rules. It does conflict with the outside world however when such parochial particularities are expressed abroad. Yesterday, GOP nomination candidate Scott Walker of Wisconsin became the last of a long list of Republicans to stumble in London.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/02/11/Memo-GOP-Presidential-Hopefuls-Skip-England
Chris Christie also blundered there earlier as did Mitt Romney in 2012. If you add the GW Bush administration’s lies about Iraq to start an unnecessary war ( not to mention Sarah Palin’s Nuke Russia comment last year ), the GOP has a perfect losing record in explaining reality outside the US in the 21st century. And I can’t help but ask :
Shouldn’t that tell them something? And to think that such trips are seen as a validation of their international status! Tsssssk!
If the GOP cannot have these debates internally to begin with, let me at least suggest that they organize field trips abroad for their nominee hopefuls at least 36 months before the race. Not only could that allow the shame to wash away from the voters’ memories but it could help them understand diplomacy : how to lie suavely, how to make cute meaningless sentences to hide your intent, how to divert attention innocuously, etc.
Reality is a harsh mistress, Tay.
Definitive Lapse of Reason 