 |
|
|
|
 A church sign from Sunday in a town on Long Island, New York.
October 30th, 2012
04:54 PM ET
Online conversations around Sandy feature God, prayer and atheismBy Conor Finnegan, CNN (CNN) - As millions of Americans begin to clean up from Superstorm Sandy, many will turn to insurance companies to cover damages caused by an “act of God.” It’s legalese for natural disasters. Some of the online conversation around Sandy have treated it as such an act, with the term “prayer” trending on Facebook on Monday, as the nation awaited the storm’s landfall. We noticed four themes emerging that touch on God and religion on Facebook, Twitter and in CNN.com’s comments sections: 1. God bless: It was a message expressed by well-wishers around the world. Those spared by Sandy took to social media to show their support and sympathy as the images proliferated of New York’s flooded streets and New Jersey’s eroded beaches. Despite different faiths and nationalities, the upshot was the same: Our prayers are with you. From Facebook:
From Twitter:
2. Thank God: For those caught in Sandy’s path, the conversation was different. More than 7.5 million in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast were without power on Tuesday. Those who could post online expressed gratitude, with “thankful” the 8th most shared term on Facebook by Tuesday morning. And from Twitter:
3. God’s wrath: A small minority saw Sandy as God’s judgment. This Tweet is from a leader of Westboro Baptist Church, the Kansas congregation known for its anti-gay pickets at military funerals:
We found these on Facebook:
4. God does not exist: Some used Sandy to question religion or at least the idea of blaming the storm on God, employing science, humor and venom. A back and forth between believers and nonbelievers sparked a tense conversation in the comments section on CNN.com. From Facebook:
From Twitter:
What do you think? What role should faith or God play in the conversation about Sandy? Post your thoughts in the comments section. soundoff (2,260 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Next entry »My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Tuesday, October 30
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Jurassic Park is a 1993 American science fiction adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg. It is based on the 1990 novel of the same name by Michael Crichton. It stars Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough, Ariana Richards, Joseph Mazzello, Martin Ferrero, Samuel L. Jackson and Bob Peck. The film centers on the fictional Isla Nublar near Costa Rica's Pacific Coast, where a billionaire philanthropist and a small team of genetic scientists have created a wildlife park of cloned dinosaurs.,-.^
http://www.healthfitnessbook.comBye for now
there is no evidence that there is no evidence of god
no one cries out to god when she is caught in a burning building when her only option is to jump 80 stories to die on smokey shards of steel and clear sharp slabs of glass on a perfect blue sun lit morning. no one
that is proof god doesn't exist. listen to 911 atheists. very devout to science all the way down. serene and calm.
who questions if god answers prayer? that has little to do with anything. it is his "no" we question
http://MrCleo3586.info
Winners involved with Excitement, The particular Kansas city Boys
Because not too long ago virtually all I have been previously learning quite simply , could be the for starters company in order to variety the particular super toilet bowl at your residence ground. At this time the sole they strategy they should be along at the Tremendously Dish is actually Jerry whenever offers these products status room merely ticket.
All of the off season For a nice and finding out plus studying the staff better, having a 10 years younger and better casual placed target when it comes to Doug No charge, what person appears to be trying to play o . k, I have never viewed his boyfriend hair with and also maim Romo. Experiencing degree by building Dex Dez bryant, that has were located about his or her hype with his reduced jiggle, but yet his this is a problem, a fixed purpose. The group provides explanations intended for every thing as well. They've battled all of the preseason and also just as before all of I read plus been told was,"It's only preseason, you will find alright if your winter commences, and additionally Dez do not play". Some people burn with a undermaned Houston Redskins company and all sorts of When i learned was, "We do not enjoy not one but two attacking lineman.Inches These products forfeit to a new Chi town Deal with crew which http://www.denverbroncos.com/
effectively stole their very own 1st be successful just by a great unknown guideline. Constantly wait around to check on this excuses as to why people lost now. All the Cowboys have fun with this pervialable frame of mind that they may flip over that button if they prefer far too. Certainly they greater commence tossing typically the go basically because they possess a challenging program http://www.giants.com/ .
discovering activities with Texans, Leaders, as well as Colts. They're grateful Minnesota comes with staggered out of your door.
Exactly what a tactic to commence the season Facilities Cowboys. Beginning any seaon http://espn.go.com/ Espn ,
off 0-2 , and also to wind up being manner, seeking horrible as a result. Also to become flawlessly dull, certainly not exactley versus emulsion in the plant organizations. You will find ample find fault with to serve very. There were will be able to attributed to Roy Williams just who seems to be obtain a hiting as soon as a Cowboys get rid of, however his particular fumble was basically overpriced. It will be the similar problems that contain affected this specific party during year or so. Expensive penalities, turnovers, deficiency of turnovers put together by any protection, marked by controversy play dialing, very poor subject intention scolding, negative treating within main moments, plus instinct a sense of certainly not tinkering with experience of desperation.
Grant presents Because you want to make a mililon and meditate on it too | Prana Flow NZ posted at Prana Flow NZ, saying, You want to be a success in life, but you also have a
God knows better than human so lets keep the americans before God as have we give him our heart full of his healing.
burp
Blessed are the Cheesemakers wrote,
"Mark,
Than start refering to your belief in a more specific way. But my point was it doesn't matter what version of christian you are, you still refer to the contradictory immoral writings of the bible as if they were inspired by a diety. Original sin is just one of many."
BATC,
Where does the bible ever promote the doctrine of "original sin"? Again, you didn't get that from the bible, you got that from some man. Stop blaming God for man's twisting His word to say something it doesn't.
original sin refers to when the imaginary adam disobeyed the imaginary god and ate from the imaginary tree of knowledge.
the concept stems from the idea that all mankind shares the imaginary adams imaginary sin. a number of biblical theologians propagated the idea based on verses in the books of romans and corinthians.
but you can relax.. it's all hogwash.
@the AnViL
They are only dead-ends if you reject Aristotle's metaphysics—specifically on act and potency. Much of science today borrows off from this distinction between act and potency, and even the arguments themselves operate on the question, "What must a world be like to be scientifically discoverable?" There is no solid objection to them if you read through the arguments clearly and understand each premise and the terminology—with the exception of Kant's critique on metaphysics in general, and how we should be skeptical about such arguments that delve beyond the empirical.
Imaginary gods (ones created and are only present in the mind) are indeed contingent, but honestly, this is little more than a red herring; the arguments that theists make are intended to show that God is *not* imaginary, but real. Contingency is simply the possibility of something to both true and false. In the case of a rabbit, it is logically possible that such an animal could and could have not existed. The Principle of Sufficient Reason then call for us to explain why one is the case over the other—why does the rabbit exists rather than not exist. But the reason we give for the rabbit—birth from its parents—also falls under being contingent; it is logically possible that the rabbit's parents couldn't have existed either. So thus we are called to ask for a reason for that, and then for the next, and so on and on and on. This chain of causality cannot be infinitely long though, for if it was, then nothing is ever truly explained, and thus there is no reason by which these contingent things exist, which means that these contingent things should not exist (e.g., ex nihilo nihil fit). In the end, we are left with *something* which existence is logically necessary, which means its non-existence is logically impossible.
Of course, this by in no way reaches the traditional omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God that mainly popular religions subscribe to; from there, theologians carve out these traits as being necessary descriptions of the necessary thing. Nonetheless, the farting-rabbit is a poor response to these arguments, as is the popular "rebuttal" coined by New Atheists, "Who created God?"
thomas aquinas and his five ways was an excellent example of stacking presuppositions, glaring false dichotomies and heinous circular logic.
as for aristotle... once again – we've evolved since then. we can accept a great deal of his metaphysics – but that in no way validates thomas aquinas five ways.
aristotle was imperfect – he made laughable claims about physics. his system of logic is now seen as having historical value – because it describes how we got where we are at present... but mostly – his logic was limited – and eventually obsoleted by calculus.
the rest is all twaddle... rubbish.... refuse.... garbage.... trash....
there is absolutely no compelling evidence of gods in reality. all gods are imaginary – they exist in only one place... between the ears of gullible, delusional, ignorant people with virtually no critical thinking skills.
@GodFreeNow
"However, should I turn out to be wrong, I feel that god would be totally knowable and predictable and subject to the laws of physics."
Then most theists would respond by saying that simply isn't God; many religions—and simply theism in general—have described and attributed God as being transcendent and "above" the laws of physics. They even attribute Her to being the very thing that sustains the activity (and even existence) in the universe (and thus the laws of physics), much like how Thomas Aquinas flushes out in his work, the Summa Theologiæ.
"Wherever god is mentioned, I instead insert a magical bunny that shoots rainbows out of its butt that formed the universe we live in."
The difference between the bunny and God is that the bunny is contingent being while God has already been flushed out as being a necessary being. Something that is contingent relies on something else to explain its existence. As another example, I am (as well as you) are contingent; it is possible that we may have never been born, and thus, it is then called into question *why* do we exist. To answer that, we turn to our biological parents, but then, we must ask why our parents exist, and so on and so forth. You probably will recognize this argument by what is called the cosmological argument—which argues that there must be something that is *necessary* to explain everything. Your bunny would not simply fit the criteria, and as such, it is not a strong rebuttal.
"Once you have awakened to evidence-based reality, you can no longer seriously be an agnostic."
Are you imply some form of logical positivism—that all beliefs must be based on evidence to be valid? If so, what is the evidence for that belief being true? Such a philosophical stance has already been sharply criticized and majorly abandoned for its self-refuting idea.
If, however, you do want evidence and a strong argument for God, then I suggest you read Thomas Aquinas and his Five Ways—all which derive God from little more than two basic facts which I'm sure you would accept happen in our world: (1) there is change, (2) contingent things require explanations. And afterwards, I would then advise you to read up on Immanuel Kant and his rebuttals to all metaphysical arguments for God, and then see why not only does this affects theism but atheism as well.
"To me, agnosticism is just intellectual laziness."
Actually, it is (as I said before) skepticism of the conclusions of both sides. One side claims the existence of something by which we can never gather evidence for (and yet there are strong logical arguments for it) and which tries to prove something that is transcendent in nature, while the other proclaims that because we cannot view it with our senses, then therefore it most likely does not exist—even though much of science (the tool used) deals with studying the physical word, which means it is all but useless when we inquire beyond that.
If you want to know what is intellectual laziness, it is that when atheists begin placing so much authority in science (e.g., scientism) even though there are still glaring problems that it has, and when theists (mostly the fundamental religious sort) start to stray far beyond the realm of logic and start considering personal revelation and/or faith as applicable and valid reasons of belief.
"Thomas Aquinas and his Five Ways" is HARDLY good evidence for god. all five ways are dead ends. i think it's a great idea to aim people at that "work" – if only to expose it as the series of very flawed arguments that theists might attempt to use to prove evidence of their imaginary gods. we've evolved since aquinas.... none of his positions hold up.
as for "contingent beings" – if any thing were ever contingent – it's imaginary gods.... as they require the minds of men in order to exist. a magical bunny that exhibits refractory anal extrusions is just as good as any imaginary gods.
Public offerings of prayer is a great way to do nothing while at the same time giving yourself the satisfaction as if you did.
Religion is delusion. We really are in a New Age, and religion is part of the old. Time to grow up.
stevie68a, Jesus is not religion! He is the true God who created you!
Crystal twittery, spiritualistic twaddle, and similar newage are delusions also.
Jesus is life: Say it all you want, but Jesus is a messiah in the CHRISTIAN RELIGION and no other. So, yes Jesus IS religion
Garfield is life too! Doorknob is God! RoadRunner is the true God who created you, or was it Allah or Zeus? Or was it your mother?
@Doc Vestibule,
The same goes for your breakdown of "atheism". If correct, we would have something called "atheismism", which we don't. By English break down "atheism" in your isn't actually a word.
As usual, religious manipulators will manipulate a human misery to sell their snake oil i.e. their god
Most religious people sincerely belief in their god or gods. Demonizing them as snake-oil salesmen in desperate times is not going to help your case. The only thing that takes people away from the gods and religions that have dominated human history are real alternatives. The reason that more socialized countries have moved past religion is that they offer alternatives to praying for people to escape disaster and poverty. In the US, there are relatively few government offerings, so religion still plays a role. Remember that religious belief is deeply biologically rooted, and genetics predict one's level of religiosity. As a culture it may decrease overall, but that only happens with significant social changes.
@MCR
I'm not sure what you are saying.... the more govt handouts there are the less religion there is?
@Damocles,
Handouts is your word. The more one can turn to the government for help, though, the less religion. That's why Saudi Arabia uses religious organizations for all it's social services work...and one of the reasons the Republicans would like to do the same here. It's a fairly well studied response to real or imagined help from a god or religion.
@MCR
I can't take credit for the word handout, but thank you. I see what you are saying though.
MCR, this was not an attack on believers in general; he did single out religious manipulators. There are many people who do seek to manipulate the sincere beliefs of others for their own ends.
@Judas Priest, Chat Pata's comment was a general response to a story about people saying "god bless" and thanking god.