Disbelief in the pulpit

For Daniel Dennett and Rebecca Goldstein:
*****************************
"Arguments for God, God Delusion, Spells, Theological Treatise, Atheists & Deep Believers: the Debate About Religion".

What do Rebecca Goldstein, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Spinoza have in common is a deep belief and awe in the mystery and grandeur of the universe.
The immensely important debate about the scientific fact of the belief in spirits, gods, or a one God - in a word, the debate about religious belief – a debate as old as humanity, now joined by great scholars, luminaries, and the wide public, misses the critical importance of the evolutionary function which the belief in spirits conferred upon the first great-ape who discovered its self-identity, thence becoming human.
The revolutionary event that made the great-ape into the first human was the discovery of itself - the ability to “imitate” oneself - the ability to recognize itself in a reflection, to become aware of oneself as distinct from the rest of the universe.
This discovery of the self came with its twin, the “discovery” of spirit in the other and in everything around, the discovery without which the great ape could not have become human. The first human acquisition of awareness of itself came twined with the “scientific” discovery (i.e., discovery from observation, albeit erroneous discovery) that everything around have “selves”. Cloud, trees, animals, sun, moon, and stars, all were “alive” and all had “selves”. The first human could not proceed with internalizing its experience of self-awareness without this twin experience that everything around have self-awareness. Thus began the dynamic, on-going and enormously critical “conversation” between humanity and religious belief.
It is this fact of the relation between humanity’s cultural life and religious beliefs that must be placed center stage in the debate about religion.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in supernatural spirits, gods, or a one God. Nevertheless, I am convinced that we must change our understanding of the human religious impulse, its source, and its place in the evolution of the human. We cannot dismiss religion from the seminal, deeply formative, “conversation” humanity have with itself. We must recognize religion for its immense power to animate our humanity. We must change our view of religion. Religion is not primarily about a belief in spirits, gods, or a God. It is about how we became human and how we continue to evolve our humanity. While admitting belief’s continuing central position in the evolution of humanity, we do not concede supernaturalness to any religion.

Understanding, knowing the process and the step by step, of how anything evolved does not disclose its future. That missing piece of knowledge is permanent and is one of the twin mysteries of the universe: the mystery of its origin and the mystery of its future. This twin mysteries allow those who observe the universe consciously – artists, scientists, philosophers, and others – to be atheists and believers, rejecting belief in gods, spirits, and the supernatural while at the same time believing in the essentially deeper mystery of the universe.
This atheistic believer pledge allegiance to science and a deep belief in the mystery of creation and mystery of the future of the universe. Awe, the biblical description of how humans “approached” God and belief in God, is clearly present in the works of the great “atheistic” scientific thinkers, Spinoza, Richard Dawkins, Rebecca Goldstein, Daniel Dennett, among others. Awe in facing the universe, the mystery of its “begottening” (forgive me this creation) and the mystery of its “end”. This awe of belief is the necessary fundamental element that propels human to search and to know and to conquer their universe.
This may shed new light on Daniel Dennett’s recognition of the central place that belief-in-belief plays in the phenomenon of religious belief. Awe, the twin of belief, is the force that pulls the human out of the depth of “just living” a life.
Belief-in-belief seems to be an instinctive predisposition of many who, challenged about their religious belief, appear to concede their atheism but nevertheless hold on belief-in-belief as a necessity. It will be easy to attribute “Pascal’s gamble” attitude to them, but that will be too facile dismissal. It is correct to recognize here an instinctive throw-back to that seminal step that the first human took, the step of recognizing its self and the selves of everything else in its universe.
Belief-in-belief is mandatory to the human, making the human master of his sciences, a candidate-partner of a metaphorical God, controlling the drive and eventual tools with which to investigate and pry-open the mysteries of the universe.

By some accounts, the Hebrew prophets were disbelievers, as were many of the psalmists. They questioned and challenged God and openly expressed doubt. Even Jesus was charged with blasphemy for either disbelieving or challenging the orthodoxy of his day. Luther and Calvin could also be considered clergy who did not believe—as they were supposed to believe. History teaches us that today’s disbelief can become tomorrow’s orthodoxy.

NAVIN1

Just as I view the christo-islamists historically, I view all groups historically"

Atheists are no more a group than "non stamp collectors" are a group. We belong to no common institution, attend no meetings, have no doctrine or book of truths.

"To me, though I have met many a nice atheist, communism has not done well when it is in power. Secularism has done remarkably well. One is a mono-ideological form of atheism one is not"

Communism is not a form of atheism.

RoadRunnin,

"So now we'll all go to the Church of the Internet"

Nope. It's not a church or a religion. It's a piece of technology that facilitates communication. The internet has no beliefs, morals or doctrines. It is a free communication device that resembles a religion in exactly zero ways.

"Unfortunately, like all human institutions, we already see the internet containing the same amount of ciminality as any other"

The internet is not a human institution. It is a piece of technology that facilitates communication. Nothing more. This is like saying there is as much criminality on the printing press as there is in any other human institution. People who think that the printing press is a human institution are called morons. People who think that the internet is a human institution are called morons.

"No doubt there is much good to come from the internet (besides these amusements I partake), just like some good came from Hinduism, Buddhism, Zorastorism, Confucism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianism, Monarchism, Aristocratism, Democracism, Socialism, Marxism"

No not "just like" any of those things. The internet is not a religion. It is a piece of technology that facilitates communication. Nothing more.

"Has the internet yet addressed any morals?"

The internet is not a religion. It is a piece of technology that facilitates communication. Nothing more. People address morals. The internet is what will allow people from opposite sides of the world discuss morals as though they were sitting right next to each other. It is a communication tool. Not a giver of morals.

"No, like science, it has no pony in the social order contest"

Good night old man. It's bed time for you.

"The internet is a free for all, and there are the Ted Bundys that will use that advantage -- thousands of them"

Misanthrope of the highest order. They're all Ted Bundy's, RoadRunnin, and their coming to get you. Buuahahahahahah!

"All secularism, all the time, will have to face enforcing social order, just like the Holy Roman Catholic Church did, in its day"

Good night old man. It's past your bed time now.

"On a much larger scale than it operates today, secularism sooner or later will face the same challenges as any previous methods of social organization"

Secularism has been around for hundreds of years. It's working out pretty well in most countries. This "sooner or later" of yours is beginning to sound like the old Christer cry, "he is coming" "be ready".

"I find no fear in that prediction and have no fear of secularism"

I call BS

"Hey, maybe that's the goal, Automatism -- resulting in a perfect world for Timmy"

Time for bed old man.

"By the way, the "Dark Ages" were the only centuries in Europe when the various ethnic groups were not at war with each other"

Pining are ya?

"That peace was ended by the peoples who now call themselves Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, rather than the Vikings they used to call themselves"

Ah the secularists. Vikings secularists, what's the difference? Time for bed old man.

Timmy,

again we agree.

The key word is "some." And it applies not just to Atheists but also to muslims and christians... I do believe that a statistical study would find that the proportion of those with mono-ideological thinking in certain groups would likely be along the lines of: Muslims>Christians>>>all other groups.

But I am cautious. Just as I view the christo-islamists historically, I view all groups historically. That is the evidence by which to judge reasonably objectively - the local group of one's own friends has too great a selection bias to be useful. Thus the historical question is: which groups have been the most oppressive and why (with the caveat - to the best of our historical knowledge). Totalitarianism is not the answer: the US, the Nazis, even the Romans were of representative democracies. Fascism is a fair answer but this too is often based on the legitimacy of ideology.... We each draw our own conclusions based on the lens we wear. To me, though I have met many a nice atheist, communism has not done well when it is in power. Secularism has done remarkably well. One is a mono-ideological form of atheism one is not.

hariaum

"That is the true history of intellectual ideas under discussion."

Hahahahhaha. More garbage from the mentally and intellectually undeveloped!

I normally don't double-post, but I posted this on a commentator's blog, then decided it was really a general comment on the topic, not a response. So, apologies for the double-post.

This whole idea fascinates me. I came to this site originally to attempt to understand the whole concept of faith, one that is foreign to me. Recently someone made the statement, "Belief is a matter of will." That comment both shocked me and explained a lot.

In further comments, it becomes apparent that, in regards to religious faith, people appear to decide what to believe based not on evidence, but for reasons of fear, (Pascal's wager) ideas of virtue, social acceptance, or political advantage. They seem to choose to 'protect' those beliefs by filtering out anything that would call them into question.

That stands in direct opposition to the way you would, for example, choose what car to buy. If you were leaning towards a Ford Focus, you would carefully read reports critical of the brand and model. You would want to see any potential pitfalls in your decision. That might explain why the most educated members of the group, often the minister, is the first to doubt. The education required by the minister's position brings about the disbelief. To paraphrase someone in the original article, "I don't see how anyone gets through Seminary as a believer."

I think this finally explains why I don't understand what people mean by "faith." They don't mean they were convinced by the preponderance of the evidence. They decided to "believe" in a specific religious doctrine or group (for any number of reasons besides evidence) and then shut out any conflicting evidence. I must admit, it looks like when some believers use the word "faith" they mean "willful blindness." Oh well, I learned something

I normally don't double-post, but I posted this on a commentator's blog, then decided it was really a general comment on the topic, not a response. So, apologies for the double-post.

This whole idea fascinates me. I came to this site originally to attempt to understand the whole concept of faith, one that is foreign to me. Recently someone made the statement, "Belief is a matter of will." That comment both shocked me and explained a lot.

In further comments, it becomes apparent that, in regards to religious faith, people appear to decide what to believe based not on evidence, but for reasons of fear, (Pascal's wager) ideas of virtue, social acceptance, or political advantage. They seem to choose to 'protect' those beliefs by filtering out anything that would call them into question.

That stands in direct opposition to the way you would, for example, choose what car to buy. If you were leaning towards a Ford Focus, you would carefully read reports critical of the brand and model. You would want to see any potential pitfalls in your decision. That might explain why the most educated members of the group, often the minister, is the first to doubt. The education required by the minister's position brings about the disbelief. To paraphrase someone in the original article, "I don't see how anyone gets through Seminary as a believer."

I think this finally explains why I don't understand what people mean by "faith." They don't mean they were convinced by the preponderance of the evidence. They decided to "believe" in a specific religious doctrine or group (for any number of reasons besides evidence) and then shut out any conflicting evidence. I must admit, it looks like when some believers use the word "faith" they mean "willful blindness." Oh well, I learned something

Schaum below, getting it wrong as usual to suit his purposes:

"The philosophical system based on the axiom of the primacy of existence (i.e., on recognizing the absolutism of reality) led to the recognition of man’s identity and rights. But the religious and philosophical systems based on the seemingly megalomaniacal notion that nature is whatever man wants it to be lead to the view that man possesses no identity, that he is infinitely flexible, malleable, usable and disposable."

What a load of crap! The religious do not have nature any way they want it to be, let alone do they have a view of man as being infinitely malleable and so on. What rubbish! The truth is exactly the reverse! The truth is with the decline of absolute views such as in religion, and this decline affecting the hope of science, true objectivity of existence which concept was founded on the possibility of the absolute as recognized by religion, the relativity of existence was entered. In fact without religion to speak of objective reality is absurd, because we have a pure time phenomenon only without absolutes, a constant Heraclitean flowing with no fixed objective reality. Here is where reality is taken to be infinitely malleable. Here is where man is in flux, the biological animal which can go from chimp to man to who knows where. And here is where man is disposable. No religion recognized man as being anything as malleable as the biological view. Schaum here warps everything to suit his view just as he has the social darwinistic Nazis being Christians more than anything else!

Schaum here turns things exactly inside out, backwards. He has some objective reality in mind which exists as an answer, a retort to the religious ages which he has as engaged in pure subjectivity, infinite malleability and so on. But that is history backwards! The religious ages postulated absolutes despite the evident flux of time. The religious also postulated a particular idea of man--certainly not man as an infinitely flexible animal.

Here is your liar if you want one! But no, he is not a liar, just colossally ignorant.

Here is the correct order: 1) Religion with its postulation of absolutes against the flux of time, the belief in an absolute behind all change. 2) Science emerging from the religious ages but still based on the hope in the religious absolute--science as the project of determining this absolute in terms of objective reality. 3) Corrosion of both religion and science by increasing relativity, atheism, which arrive at man a biological animal in flux, capable of the most drastic changes, in a reality which is pure time, with no absolutes, which means no determinable objective reality because of course all changes. That is the correct order of progression. That is the true history of intellectual ideas under discussion.

Back to the topic:

Added items imams and khomeinies need to consider in reviewing/preaching their beliefs:

The Five Steps to Reality-

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No angels ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

Timmy2:

Apologies. I just saw that you had previously offered this link to Harris.

But my point holds: he does not say anything about whether morals are really necessary.

Interesting video of Sam Harris, explaining that science can answer moral questions:

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

but which leaves unanswered the larger question of whether morality is really necessary...

"From now on I intend to treat the topics in two ways. One a comedic treatment and the other a serious treatment."

Dear god. Now there are to be two "versions" of the same garbage.

Timmy2 -- can we rely on you to point out to us which are the comedic and which the serious "treatments"?

Timmy@:

Ruminating more about the internet's ability to explode the myths and superstitions of religion...

I think the issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy, especially religion, is the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy of existence --of reality-- is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. In this, the internet is of now-indispensable importance. The god-believer’s rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness -- either human or divine or both.

The corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness). The internet explodes and will continue to explode this idea.
The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness of god-believers to fully grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned; it must to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.

The philosophical system based on the axiom of the primacy of existence (i.e., on recognizing the absolutism of reality) led to the recognition of man’s identity and rights. But the religious and philosophical systems based on the seemingly megalomaniacal notion that nature is whatever man wants it to be lead to the view that man possesses no identity, that he is infinitely flexible, malleable, usable and disposable. Ask yourself why. Then ask how it would be possible for such idiotic beliefs to continue to be held (outside of savage societies!) in the new age of internet enlightenment.

God-believers want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness—they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of their consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.

But they shall know the truth, and the truth will either set them free, or drive them into despair.

Timmy2:

"The internet is going to revolutionize the world like the printing press did."

I agree. The internet is an extraordinarily impressive tool for revolution; it is interesting to fantasize where we would be now if it had existed 100 years earlier. "Worshiping at the Church of the Internet" is the reddest of herrings! I suppose people fear progress because they fear being left behind. Possibly also because they fear not 'fitting' in with the 'new man'. I can easily remember the fear that so many people had when word processors were introduced to the public! Writers, who usually had very little to say anyway, were often terrified that the death of the art of writing had come upon us. And I've read accounts of the resistance to telephones. And I agree that adherence religion will diminish rapidly, now, since information is both more reliably convincing and available. You say 200 years -- I think sooner than that.

Timmy, Sam Harris made sense in his speech. I took the speech as offered. He acknowledged the problem of a relativity of morals if we dispense with absolutes. And he argued for the application of reason to each moral case to avoid that problem. If he does not believe in intelligent design--and I am quite aware he does not--that is a different issue. There was nothing about that in his speech. I took his speech as given, and he made sense. Simple as that.

GRETTAVOSPER.

We are delaying the departure of DANIEL12 and NAVIN1. Amazon had no review of your work, merely an acknowledgment it existed. But, I found a long long long review, by J. F. McGrath, on exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com> McGrath even apologizes for the length.

In the review, using many quotes from your work, it seems you are working out your confusions, just like so many here. Gawd, you and Daniel would become bogged down, together, forever. We don't want that.

Comedy from Timmy? Then you should enjoy my sketch on next topic. From now on I intend to treat the topics in two ways. One a comedic treatment and the other a serious treatment. But if I can do both at the same time I will rest with just one treatment. See you on next question of the week.

So now we'll all go to the Church of the Internet. Unfortunately, like all human institutions, we already see the internet containing the same amount of ciminality as any other. Actually, the probability for a greater percentage -- some humans "acting out" the various pathologies human minds are capable. The internet, so far, is the perfect scene of anarchy.

No doubt there is much good to come from the internet (besides these amusements I partake), just like some good came from Hinduism, Buddhism, Zorastorism, Confucism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianism, Monarchism, Aristocratism, Democracism, Socialism, Marxism. Has the internet yet addressed any morals?

No, like science, it has no pony in the social order contest. The internet is a free for all, and there are the Ted Bundys that will use that advantage -- thousands of them.

All secularism, all the time, will have to face enforcing social order, just like the Holy Roman Catholic Church did, in its day.

On a much larger scale than it operates today, secularism sooner or later will face the same challenges as any previous methods of social organization.

I find no fear in that prediction and have no fear of secularism. Secularism will operate the same as all the other methods, unless secularism plans to turn all humans into automatons. Hey, maybe that's the goal, Automatism -- resulting in a perfect world for Timmy.

By the way, the "Dark Ages" were the only centuries in Europe when the various ethnic groups were not at war with each other. That peace was ended by the peoples who now call themselves Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, rather than the Vikings they used to call themselves.

Yes, once a people get pretty much everything they want out of the rest of the world (the world their abilities allow them to reach, anyway -- like the USA has also done), we see them settle into peaceful ways, and somewhat try to teach all others to adopt those ways, too. While at the same time suggesting strongly that they don't get their riches in that same manner. Yes, Canada, and its peoples, too, is an example of this.

And so, we go on and on, each being believers in stuff the evidence shows otherwise.

D12

"He is without a doubt an intelligent man"

Don't be so sure, Daniel. Sam Harris believes that intelligence came from no intelligence. So how smart could he possibly be? And if he believes that, then can we take anything he says as anything but nonsense? Ask any schoolboy and they will tell you how perverse is Sam Harris' view that intelligence did not come from an intelligent designer. Everything he says after that is irrelevant and should not be taken as intelligence.

Right?

Also, he is an atheist but dabbles in Buddhism. Ha! What a joke! Who could listen to a word this hypocrite says?

Thanks for link to Sam Harris Timmy, definitely impressive. Harris definitely did not try to get away from the problem of morality becoming relative if we dismiss God. He acknowledged a problem yet asked that reason solve that problem. And did more than ask reason to solve the problem: He gave some nice examples of reason in operation. Very nice. He is without a doubt an intelligent man.

Sam Harris crawls out on yet another limb and receives a standing ovation at TED.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

RoadRunnin

"say no more. That says it all -- your world and everything in it is your own creation"

The internet is going to revolutionize the world like the printing press did. You lived during neither of these revolutions. The one started by the internet is just beginning and it already confuses you. What on earth are all those kids doing clicking those buttons? Don't they know life for their generation isn't going to be any better than it was for mine? I know. I'm 72. I've done everything and never been to the doctor so don't tell me.

Carry on with your misanthropy. Excuse me if I don't join your quitters club. Slip back into your crack now. Some of us have to get busy cleaning up your mess.

TIMMY2.

"Fortunately we have a communication tool that you guys didn't have to help get us there."

Say no more. That says it all -- your world and everything in it is your own creation. As if all the king's horses and all the king's men had nothing to do with what you perceive as yours today. Re-read your own words, Timmy, I think you'll see your flaw. I don't think you'll accept your flaw, but you'll see it. As well as you see all other's flaws, how can you miss?

Accordingly, you are forgiven, as there are a few of us who also have a flaw. Welcome to the real human race.

RoadRunnin

"Unless, as with much you write, you writing it makes it so"

It only "makes it so" that it is my opinion. You are a misanthrope. That is my opinion. And you reinforce this position when you take other people's opinions as them telling you what to do or what you think. Get over it old man, if Big Brother was going to get us he'd have gotten us by now. We're in the clear and everything is going to be alright.

"I have never voted. I don't support democracy, your kind, or the USA's kind, or any kind"

Say no more. That says it all. But I have news for you. You are participating in the new democracy right now. What you are doing right now, here on this blog is a glimpse of the future of the digital democracy.

"Yes, the third world does get something to eat from the pushing of buttons. Those buttons belong to North Americans, some South Americans, some Chinese, some Europeans -- including Russians -- Australians and New Zelanders, and a few others"

For now. Such a misanthrope.

"I already got it"

That's the problem with 72 year-olds. They think that when they have reached that stage of their life, they've "got it".

"I am leaving it to you. Don't fuss it up"

You left it to me fussed up. It's up to us to fix it. Fortunately we have a communication tool that you guys didn't have to help us get there. Now if we could just keep you old farts off of it with your misanthropy and crotchety defeatism.

GRETTAVOSPER.

Wonderful stuff. Be advised we are shipping DANIEL12 and NAVIN1 to you, via TIMMY2's largess and accomodations (if it's OK with Tim), during their sojourn. Each will be wonderful additions to your church, and to the socialist democracy of Canada.

I'm gonna get your book. I love that stuff, contrary to my slight misanthopaea.

SCHAUM.

I am heartily sorry to hear of the tragedy with the Moet. Hopefully, the portion you poured was a full one. Knowing you a little bit, it was.

TIMMY2.

In some ways I find you a fine fellow, but your belief in some things is preposterous. And you may need to carp on many things I write, but I'll only choose a few to make response.

"But if he doesn't believe in God, will he do such a thing?"

I will have to get that answer from Wen Jiabao, Li Kiqiang, or, more especially, Liang Quanglie, as he is the one with the button. (Because you capitalized the "G" in god, I guess you are referring to the Western/Christian one, and I don't think those folks are the only ones with buttons).

"You are... A huge flamming misanthrope."

No, you are wrong. I choose what I am. For instance, if I am forced to choose what I am, and I am given these two choices only, I will choose "huge flamming queen," over "huge flamming misanthrope." Huge flamming queens have more fun, I've noticed. So far, I have not chosen to be, nor am I, either one of those.

Unless, as with much you write, you writing it makes it so.

Don't concern yourself with my voting, young man -- I mean, middle-aged man. I have never voted. I don't support democracy, your kind, or the USA's kind, or any kind. I am true to my principles, so I don't vote.

Yes, the third world does get something to eat from the pushing of buttons. Those buttons belong to North Americans, some South Americans, some Chinese, some Europeans -- including Russians -- Australians and New Zelanders, and a few others.

Jeez, I answered more than I figured I would. Oh, what the hey....

"You'll get it one day...."

No, deary, sweety, you big handsome devil, you (practicing my choice), I already got it. I am leaving it to you. Don't fuss it up.

Perhaps it is because the church I serve is in Canada and was formed by the coming together of three denominations that had to grapple with dissonant creedal statements in order to do so that I am “out” as a “non-believer” in the pulpit. It is a luxury many clergy do not have and I celebrate that privilege every day.
While in theological college, I, too, came to know much about the human origins of Christianity and, indeed, all faiths. Much, much more than I was supposed to share when I stepped into the pulpit, that is. But I found that leading with that cognitive dissonance was impossible and, some 10 years ago, began shifting my leadership to bring it into synch with my beliefs.
The study by Dennett and LaSchola only scratches the surface. The book I have had published by HarperCollins in Canada, With or Without God: Why the Way We Live is More Important than What We Believe, is a bestseller here. It is considered by many to be heretical because it lifts up contemporary scholarship that proves the human construction of the Bible, questions the centrality of a man named Jesus to anything the church finally created, and, indeed, denies the very divinity and the salvific nature of that man. The book has been the centre of controversy and an impetus for meaningful conversation. The interesting truth about it that relates to this study, though, is that there is almost nothing in the book that isn’t rooted in what I was taught at seminary. I didn’t suddenly open up The God Delusion and see the light! I was trained to be a minister at the same time as I was taught not to believe what I was going to present as truth.
The key to being able to remain in the pulpit and survive without “coming out” as a non-believer is a doublespeak massaged into acceptance by cereal box versions of a postmodern relativist approach to language; that is, the use of a postmodern approach that is dangerously over-simplistic. It goes like this: If there is no absolute definition or meaning for the word “god”, then I can use it and mean one thing and the person hearing me is responsible for determining what they think it means. Therefore, if I use the word “god” in the pulpit and mean “the challenge to live in relationship with you in a way that honors and makes sacred your life while honoring and making sacred mine” but you hear “the big guy in the sky” that’s your problem. If I say “Jesus is Lord” and mean “my commitment to live a life that refuses to crumple to its knees as it challenges any corporatist, political, social, or religious system that would, unchecked, wring the life out of every living thing on the earth as long as profit could be made or power seized by it” and you hear “I submit myself to Jesus, the Christ, only begotten Son of God, who reigns as savior over all the earth”, that, too, is your problem. So clergy can smooth over the harsh realities of their beliefs by coating them in the language parishioners find comfortable and familiar, living, in our own minds, in a world of metaphor, but working in a world still absorbed by concrete facts. Being a non-believer in the pulpit is not a strange thing. Being one who doesn’t hide behind language they are using metaphorically but their people are hearing literally, is extremely rare.
Whether we’re open about our beliefs or not, there is one thing we do believe and believe strongly: that the world can be a better place and that we stand, humbly, in a tradition that has worked long and hard toward that vision. Yes, the church has done lots of very bad stuff. Yes, religion continues to deny rights, oppress, and foment hatred. The faster organized religion acknowledges its human construction, the quicker the abuses perpetrated in its name will be overcome. But religion also shelters people when they are in the way of harm, holds them in their losses, exposes them to the costs inherent in their living that they do not want to own, supports them as they find ways to live the ideals they know are right – compassion, justice, forgiveness, love – and laments with them when they cannot. We have much to offer but our influence in the world and our ability to do the work that needs to be done will continue to slip away unless we seriously get over the exclusive language of Christianity and start speaking our words of vision, possibility, ethics, and love in language that is neither boxed in by archaic images and preconceived notions, nor excused by simplistic versions of postmodern relativism and the too-tempting, fantastical world of metaphor.

RoadRunnin,

"With the click of a button, a guy in Tampa, Florida can direct an explosion onto a person in the Swat Valley of Pakistan"

Yes he can. But if he doesn't believe in God, will he do such a thing? If he does not live in a world where some are unfairly disadvantaged, would he do such a thing? Not likely. You are a ridiculous misanthrope. Not a little one. A huge flaming misanthrope.

"On a smaller note, I already see the children of America clicking buttons on their devices, all day long, learning what?"

All kinds of things, Grampy. Like learning to vote for Obama over Palin. You'll get it one day, if you can hang in there long enough.

"Hopefully, the clicking buttons will soon grow food crops, build a shelter, and sew together warm clothing articles"

It already is doing so in the third world with what little penetration it has. And it's going to grow exponentially. You'll get it one day if you can stick around long enough. Because you definitely have not seen everything.

"As humans have "progressed," I note the same percentage living in misery, as ever it has been -- merely a larger sum"

Poppycock! Were blowing the dark ages away. Suffering has been greatly reduced. The problem with 72 year olds is they use the word "ever" when they really just mean in their lifetime.

"Yet, I agree that Canada is as near as humans have gotten to something more reasonable and rational. Yes, along with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands"

It's not our people who are so special, it's our secular socialist democracy that makes the good in people come out as opposed to religious capitalism which brings out the worst in people. Humans rock under the rights circumstances.

AlltheRR:

"Say, how's that Moet doin' for ya?"

First glass, at refrigerator temperature, was outstanding. But I screwed up. Put the open bottle in the freezer to make it colder, and forgot it. It froze. When thawed it was disgusting, of course. Even the dog wouldn't drink it.

Smoked salmon was great, though.

I rarely pick out a line of anybody's post to carp about, because, away from the theme of the post and out of context, some persons have been hanged, literally. I do not like seeing, or hearing about, or causing hanging persons.

Interesting, though, is "...a world where all human knowledge is available at the click of a button from a mobile device in the hands of every man woman and child in the world."

Yes, science (the specific technology mentioned) has no pony in this race (or any race). With the click of a button, a guy in Tampa, Florida can direct an explosion onto a person in the Swat Valley of Pakistan. Another guy in Tampa, crouched in his automobile can, with a click of a device button, direct an explosion anywhere in that city -- as some do now in Baghdad, and are probably planning for Tampa. (See, I am being fair and "relative," here).

On a smaller note, I already see the children of America clicking buttons on their devices, all day long, learning what?

Yes, it will be most interesting someday to see everybody, everywhere, clicking buttons on their devices. Hopefully, the clicking buttons will soon grow food crops, build a shelter, and sew together warm clothing articles.

Misanthope? Yes, a little. As humans have "progressed," I note the same percentage living in misery, as ever it has been -- merely a larger sum. Yet, I agree that Canada is as near as humans have gotten to something more reasonable and rational. Yes, along with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands (and certainly "Potsdorf"), a few others, smaller groups seem to be able to be "rationalized," and "reasonableized." Larger groups seem to resist gaining these qualities, at all costs.

Hopefully, a close eye will be kept, allowing the reasonable and rational to survive.

Mother Teresa continued to do good work despite 50 years of unbelief. Unfortunately, she seemed to have suffered alone; and ironically, it was her compassion for those ostracized and alone that made her a effective. One can be effective without faith, perhaps more so, depending on circumstances.

Back to the topic:

As Dennet would say to all followers of Abrahamic religions:

"Did you also sacrifice a goat?"

RoadRunnin, you ask:

"Blog? What happened to women?"

What do you mean? Sometimes I blog with women.

Oh wait, I see what you mean. What happened to chasing women instead of blogging? I married one. That's what happened to women. It's woman now. Which leaves much time for blogging. And my wife is away at this particular junction so it keeps me out of trouble.

Evidently nobody is buying the latest papal bull (sh!t).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/7489305/Anger-and-disappointment-in-Ireland-as-the-Popes-letter-fails-to-heal.html

Excellent must-see movie about how christers took over the ancient city of Alexandria and persecuted those who did not hold their superstitious beliefs, especially Jews:

http://www.novamov.com/video/561fb9f518f5f

Blog? What happened to women?

NIKOS:

"Ye may be laughing at us to-day,"

We've been laughing for more than 2000 years. Pay attention.

Roadrunnin.

Missed this one.

"Hey, don't you ever have a gig?"

I do. But when you work 40 minutes a day you somehow find time to blog.

RoadRunnin,

""Seen everything and done everything" is an expression of having seen and done enough"

Yes I know. And the point I was making is that you have not seen enough and done enough to act like you know everything. You have not seen anything even remotely close to the revolutionary sh!t that I am going to see in my lifetime. I don't buy your misanthropy.

"Let's see, you're 45. If you started in your 20's, I may have seen your act"

Perhaps. You don't even need to come to Vancouver for that. I get around. And sometimes you can see me in your own living room.

"Anyway, you're all right, I judge -- a lttle too strict for me" but, fine.

A little too strict about???

Sorry, fella, I'm a Dylan fan.

"Seen everything and done everything" is an expression of having seen and done enough. You are so precise, kimo sabe. Yeah, we old codgers, geezers, go way back. Besides, I was not quoting what you named me, I was suggesting a new one(s) -- not that you need a suggestion.

Yes, dreams, and dreamers, are nice. I never had a dream, in the way you meant it. I merely went to work -- seems "it" was all dreamed up, before me. All I had to do was follow a few simple directions, which I did, if I was being watched.

Hey, don't you ever have a gig?

Let's see, you're 45. If you started in your 20's, I may have seen your act. Last time I was there, the "John Denver" film for TV, ten years ago, I think. I went to a few clubs, don't remember the names of them. Anyway, you're all right, I judge -- a lttle too strict for me, but, fine.

NikosD29

"The glorious Light of Heaven, the Son,
Tis soon that He'll be a-coming"

I believe this line was first written about 2000 years ago. So we know that the word "soon" means at least 2000 years. Perhaps 4000? Perhaps 145,000. But get your ass ready cause he's a comin.

After the manner of "To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time" by Robert Herrick. 1591–1674 (Gather ye rosebuds while ye may)

Gather, ye atheists, while ye may,
Do your heckling and high-fiving;
Ye may be laughing at us to-day,
But, to-morrow ye'll be a-crying.

The glorious Light of Heaven, the Son,
Tis soon that He'll be a-coming;
And days as ye know them will be done,
Into His arms ye should be a-running.

The age is best which will be last,
And that is fast approaching;
Put your unbelief in the past,
Upon His grace, ye've been encroaching.

Be not fools, but redeem the time;
Away from the pit of hell, He'll carry,
Into a place beautiful and devine,
Where ye, forever, may tarry.

March 21, 2010 ~ Composed and written by Nick Duliakas. If used, please give proper acknowledgment. May not be used for profit without permission. (nikosd99@hotmail.com)

RoadRunnin

"Tell you what, I fear nothing, have never feared anything, or anybody, or any group, since being a teenager. I have not been angry at anyone or anything, as a result"

Extremely impressive. If it's true of course.

"Have at it. Discount human nature, change human nature, if you can"

Have at it. Keep believing that's what I do.

"Yeah, you go to meetings, set the new agenda, the morality you desire, enforce it how you will"

Big long career in show biz and you never learned to spot satire? Even with a comedy notification?

"When you are 72 years of age, having done everything"

That's the problem with 72 year olds. They think they've "done everything" and seen everything. To be sure they have seen more than this 45 year old, but this 45 year old knows better than to think that when he reaches the age of 72 that he will have seen everything and done everything.

"well, you write to me something that makes sense, sonny boy"

If I need to wait till I'm 72 you won't be here to read it. So I have to tell you now. You haven't seen everything. You haven't done everything.

"Old codger, geezer, that I am, you name me"

Did not.

"Of every city I've visited, Vancouver is my favorite"

It's pretty sweet I must say, at least until Cascadia gives way again and I ride that one last wave into the great beyond.

"There's just a wee bit of utopian thinking, comes out of you, young man"

What the hell is wrong with a wee bit of utopian thinking? I'll take that over being a misanthrope any day. I see all good and positive potential in humans, you see never ending power struggle by the greedy because you think you've seen it all and there;s no way out. Misanthropes are akin to those who believe in original sin and the fall of man.

There is nothing wrong with utopian thinking. The only thing wrong would be to consider enforcing our way to it. But to consider that humans could possibly live in a far more harmonious way is perfectly rational. And nice. And positive.

"But, I wish you success, keep 'em laughing, if you can"

Thanks. I don't talk about any of this stuff in my act. I've tried a few times but it does not come out funny. Religion and politics are not that funny to me. I care too much.

"Actually, I don't think your brave new world will be any worse, or any better, than the one I've experienced"

It won't be MY brave new world. And it won't be the atheists brave new world. With the help of the internet, my utopian minded ass believes it will once and for all be the people's brave new world.

I respect my elders and the experience that they have that I lack. But you have not seen everything. You have not seen a world where the sum of all human knowledge is available at the click of a button from a mobile device in the hands of every man woman and child in the world. I will see that world and if you can hang in there for another 20 to 30 years, and it sounds like you might, you might also see such a world. And you still will not have seen everything.

Though I am rooting for you, I doubt you'll be able to hang around another half a century to see it's effects begin to revolutionize democracy.

""Guys like me will connive to always slip through the cracks, luckily, and willfully"

Here's a short poem for you.

I my friend have endless hope, and you my friend are a misanthrope.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. I hope some day you will join us. And the world will live as one.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

After the manner of "To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time" by Robert Herrick. 1591–1674 (Gather ye rosebuds while ye may)

Gather, ye atheists, while ye may,
Do your heckling and high-fiving;
Ye may be laughing at us to-day,
But, to-morrow ye'll be a-crying.

The glorious Light of Heaven, the Son,
Tis soon that He'll be a-coming;
And days as ye know them will be done,
Into His arms ye should be a-running.

The age is best which will be last,
And that is fast approaching;
Put your unbelief in the past,
Upon His grace, ye've been encroaching.

Be not fools, but redeem the time;
Away from the pit of hell, He'll carry,
Into a place beautiful and devine,
Where ye, forever, may tarry.

March 21, 2010 ~ Composed and written by Nick Duliakas. If used, please give proper acknowledgment. May not be used for profit without permission. (nikosd99@hotmail.com)

Confession, I forgot women. Luckily for me, my Golf Club is restricted -- the last one left in America.

Say, how's that Moet doin' for ya?

"Tell you what, I fear nothing, have never feared anything, or anybody, or any group, since being a teenager. I have not been angry at anyone or anything, as a result. I hide merely to stay out of your way. Have at it"

Yeah, I agree with the alcoholic old codger. I fear nothing either. Except women and the police -- they can both kill you and make it look like your own fault.

lepidopteryx :
I don't accept every single scra of doctrine espoused by my denomination. Why would I expect my minister to do so?
------------
Well, a student taking Math might make mistakes and can be excused. A teacher of Math should not make mistakes or make very few. There is a difference between the two roles.

I personally do not believe Christian dogmas and believe that most of the Bible was written by humans (who were often wrong).

But if you are a Christian church, I see no reason why you should hire ME to preach to your flock.

Nor would I expect the NAACP to hire an avowed racist, or for NOW to hire someone who believes that males are superior to females.

Every organization needs to send out a coherent message and while 100% coherence is a chimera, wanting SOME coherence is perfectly reasonable.

Tell you what, I fear nothing, have never feared anything, or anybody, or any group, since being a teenager. I have not been angry at anyone or anything, as a result. I hide merely to stay out of your way. Have at it. Discount human nature, change human nature, if you can. To what, will be interesting. Yeah, you go to meetings, set the new agenda, the morality you desire, enforce it how you will. When you are 72 years of age, having done everything, lived in the valley and on the mountain top, served your nation, as by its rules, honorably, raised the child, paid for everything, without help from anyone, without inheritance, never been in a court of law, never been fired from a position, gave generous employment to others, have lived healthily to the extent of not needing medical services, ever, including this day, and you can go 45 holes of Golf last Friday, and another 36 the next day, well, you write to me something that makes sense, sonny boy.

Old codger, geezer, that I am, you name me. I will say I have enjoyed reading some of your thinking. And I have enjoyed my every visit to Vancouver, the surrounding area, Bowen Island, skiing at Whistler/Blackcomb, and especially the Canuck film crews I hired -- a rowdy bunch of drunks, but they got the work done, always. Of every city I've visited, Vancouver is my favorite.

There's just a wee bit of utopian thinking, comes out of you, young man. But, I wish you success, keep 'em laughing, if you can. Actually, I don't think your brave new world will be any worse, or any better, than the one I've experienced. And yes, I'm a free rider. There are enough of you going at it, on all sides, always have been. Guys like me will connive to always slip through the cracks, luckily, and willfully. Eat your heart out.

Back to the topic:

"Dennett lives with his wife in North Andover, Massachusetts, and has a daughter, a son, and two grandsons.[13] He is also an avid sailor.

In October 2006, Dennett was hospitalized due to an aortic dissection. After a nine-hour surgery, he was given a new aorta. In an essay posted on the Edge website, Dennett gives his firsthand account of his health problems, his consequent feelings of gratitude towards the scientists and doctors whose hard work made his recovery possible, and his complete lack of a "deathbed conversion". By his account, upon having been told by friends and relatives that they had prayed for him, he resisted the urge to ask them, "Did you also sacrifice a goat?"[14][15]

ref: answers.com

Timmy2:

I thought the party had agreed to round up all people who worship crossed pieces of wood and either put them to death, or force them to listen to public readings of everything DanielTheHomicidalFakeAtheistLiar has ever written. Their choice, of course.

Comedy notification for D12

My last post to RoadRunnin was funny.

Roadrunnin,

Maybe this will stop your fears of the future of the strong secularists. I just attended a meeting of "The Strong Secularist Party" which is a group that I and Schaum belong to. Our goal is to take power when religion slips to a point weak enough for us to cease the thrown. Anyway, I convinced them at our latest meeting to pass a resolution that we will never ban the sale of alcohol to seniors when we gain full power.

Thought that might ease your fears of what the secularists might do when they cease power and become "the strong". If you tell me what other rules you predict and fear I can bring them up at the next meeting. Heck maybe we can cover all of them for ya. Can't hurt to give it a shot. So tell us what are the rules you predict that you wont like when the secularists are "the strong." I have some sway. I might be able to do something about it. ;)

NAVIN1

You refer to "atheistic communists" as though they still exist. There may be some small insignificant groups still holding onto such nonsense but the "new atheist" movement could not be further from that. There are no communists among the authors and groups that are leading this movement, unless you are one who calls liberals and left wingers "commies".

Todays vocal atheists are not saying ours is a superior way. We are not pushing any belief system. We are being vocally critical of the very same mono-ideology that you are being critical of. We are not a mono-ideology, not even close. We are not out to rid the world of religion but to raise awareness of it's superstitious ignorance. We do not hate believers. We hate the superstitious spell that has a grip on them and those who take advantage of it. We are not interested in imposing our way of life on anyone. We are just being critical of things which we think are harmful or detrimental to society. We're just making sure that our voices are heard above the incredibly loud din that is God belief.

We are not looking for an atheist rise to power so we can end religion once and for all. None of us would ever be in favor of a law against religion or religious practices. We want to raise awareness, just like you like to raise awareness, so that people can make their own choices to leave superstition behind. We don't think the world will be a better place when we atheists finally get rid of religion. We think the world will be a better place when people stop being brainwashed as children to believe in ancient myth and superstitions. This can not come about by force. Only by awareness raising. And that requires being vocal.

It is wrong of you to equate todays atheist movement with "atheistic communists". Or to show fear of what the atheists are up to. They are the very antithesis of mono-ideology. They want people to think for themselves and stop listening to the mono-ideologies of religion.

Excellent must-see movie about how christers took over ancient Alexandria.

http://www.novamov.com/video/561fb9f518f5f

RoadRinnin sez: "Religion and politics (government) are exactly the same things: rules and regulations set by the strong, and enforced by the strong."

Hmmm. Personally I live in a democracy. The power of the people in my country set Gays free from oppression, decriminalized marijuana, brought in universal health care, and abolished the death penalty. My votes and voice helped make all of those things happen. Religion and politics are nothing alike when one lives in a democracy. The government IS the people. Now try that with religion. The Pope IS the people! Hmmm, doesn't quite work. There is zero correlation here.

"Pretty powerful stuff for many, for a long time now. I don't see it dying out very soon"

Not very soon. And not soon enough. But the die is cast. I give it 2 centuries tops.

"When it does, I doubt I'll like, or obey, all of the strong person's secular rules, either"

It won't be a strong person's rules, it will be the ever evolving rules of the collective. That's how democracy works. Strong man rules are quickly becoming a thing of the past.

"Stay under the radar. As Little Caesar (good ol' James Cagney) put it, "That's the ticket."

No, it's definitely not the ticket. People who don't get involved in democracy have no right to complain about it. But that's okay, I don't see you as being of much help to the democracy anyway what with your doom and gloom and all. So you go stick your head in the sand and let us strong secularists show you how beautiful a democracy can be. We'll let you know when it's safe to come out.

As religion slowly fades into oblivion, people are going to realize that it's replacement, which right now people are calling no replacement at all, is far better than the original. The world will be a much more peaceful place.

Timmy - I agree entirely (with your post about what I am saying, the relationship with the atheists (and that is why I have so many friends that are atheists probably), and the thing about being born with "atheistic" ideas.)

Freestinker:

In the Hindu tradition god is material and immaterial. Prakriti is the natural form of god - the mother godess that is the creation - use all the evidence in the world to understand and partake in her. Purusha is the spiritual - supernatural form. Not a specific deity but a consciousness. That is considered the more difficult one to grasp as we are geared to material evidence. And just as evidence of love, truth, consciousness, mathematical reasoning, ... and other abstractions lead to recognizing non-material constructs of reality: It is the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind. We all have these things. We all experience the ear as an organ which if we lose we still maintain hearing - Beethoven. We all experience that if we lose sight, we might be able to touch something and see it....
So the evidence of non-material meaningful construct / realization is all about us.

But Hinduism does not stop at the evident. As Persiflage as pointed out, there is much ado about duality of theism and atheism. Hinduism "preaches" that the manifest Brahman (expressed as Purusha and Prakriti) is only that aspect of Brahman that is in the differentiated (divided) state. That there is a unified state, perhaps analogous to mathematical singularity and physical unifeid field, perhaps not but each with about as much evidence to their "truthiness." And, along those lines, just as a physicist might say "if you work for 5 years on a Phd, and another 4 years in a post-doc, then teach physics for 2-10 years, you might finally grasp E=MC2 where energy and matter are equated in a complex and simple point of matter/antimatter." Likewise, a mystic, a Zen buddhist, a Hindu "gymnosopht", a Khabbalist, a Sufi, may well say, "If you work for 14 years to study one veda well, and then you go out and ask for no money while performing rites for people who want things (artha, kama), and then devote your own free time to yama and niyama,.. you will someday grasp the nirguna Brahman."

Now we could say, Aristotle's physics is wrong, therefore all physics is wrong, that I disbelieve physics is true, and all of Aristotle's ideas are false. Or we could be more reasonable and say: wow, Artitotle really got some things, he began to formalize empirical thinking (not that that has a "being"), but he just didn't have the right ideas to grasp the truth of his evidence (F=ma, for example).

In terms of religion, we begin with the idea that it is false and then satisfy our selves that it is false based on the evidence we want to see and ignoring the evidence we want to ignore (there are more religions in this world than the christo-islamists). Or we can ask, with the tools that these great thinkers of the past had, they came up with these solutions. What amongst those solutions do we find meaningful today, and what do we find not meaningful. As the Buddha pointed out, try his way, and if doesn't work for you, find another - be empirical. And yes, we are trying to get to that ambiguous thing called Truth, we are trying to relate to it even as cells in a petri dish, we are tempted to take the voice of experience of those that have gone before us (whether they are priests or Newtons), and through all that we try to define how these ideas/ ideologies impact on our choices thereby defining moralities and valuations.

And, I believe, this is how Timmy and I generally agree. This how, though Schaum keeps trying to put me down, I know he is just trying to put his beliefs and evidence (his purusha and his prakriti) together into a singularity that he calls his identity (his self = atman = paratman). Thus we are not in conflict. We are in conflict as to words, and that is entertainment.

Now I fully well know that the christo-islamists don't care about empirical reasoning - they choose blind faith. Choosing ignorance is a remarkable thing we humans do. Frankly, it is easier. But this is where Hinduism is different. If you choose ignorance, we are OK with that. We begin assuming you are doing the best you can and this is as much of the truth you can grasp. In the infinite of Being and non-Being, we are all absolutely ignorant. And so, worship your crossed pieces of wood, worship you book, pretend you are holier... This, I believe, most atheists are comfortable with.

It is the reaction of some christo-islamists and atheistic communists, and some Hindus... that believe their level of ignorance is so much better than every one else's that everyone else Should and MUST agree with them. This is not religious alone (Tobacco companies used to believe this as did the East India Tea comp.) But this is the real issue, as I see it - mono-ideology. That mono-ideology creates heathens, infidels, frauds, delusional, ... That is the faith based (theistic and non-theistic) source of hate. I believe that that is what we need to confront - in ourselves and in each other.

hariaum

Correction.

Aw, shoot. That wasn't "Little Caesar," That was "The Public Enemy." Eddie G. was "Little Caesar," I think.

Well, that's even better, "The Public Enemy." That's me, and that's the ticket. Just don't get caught.

DANIEL12. You're finally starting to "get it." When we're talking religion, when we're talking anything, we're talking what morals, who's morals, and judging morals. Morals are always, always, always set by the strong. Religion and politics (government) are exactly the same things: rules and regulations set by the strong, and enforced by the strong. "God" became one heck of a good idea -- especially the type of god adopted from the Middle East, that really strict one -- for enforcing morals. When persons can't, gods always have been the "enforcer" or the helper-enforcer, of all the rules and regulations of morality of every people; or god-like persons have been (Augustus). Don't leave home without one, unless one wants to give up Tibet.

Today's Chinese strong persons setting the morals -- the rules and regulations -- seem to be doing so without a god. Yes, humans can always do that, many just find the easier, softer way is with a god -- however they inculcate the people to believe it.

See, the trick is, wherever one finds oneself, is to stay under the radar. Today, some in China are living lives as good as can be lived anywhere. Heck, some lived any type of life they desired, under the Holy Roman Catholic (Pagan, since 325 AD) Church Empire -- even in Galileo's time. See, one is either the strong person, or stays under the radar, or lives, and dies, miserably. Galileo chose "under the radar."

Our reasonable persons, our reasonable secular persons, believe virtually all persons can be reasonable. They can be, but they won't be. Period. I am a reasonable person, and I am hiding from the rest of you, and I live very well.

Thus, the strong, religious and otherwise, will have these morals, these rules and regulations, I don't like for me (until they implant that chip into my brain).

Another purpose of gods and religion is nobody wants to die, and think they can find a way to avoid it, believing. But, the two things, enforcement and life everlasting, go hand in hand. Don't they?

Pretty powerful stuff for many, for a long time now. I don't see it dying out very soon.

When it does, I doubt I'll like, or obey, all of the strong person's secular rules, either.

Stay under the radar. As Little Caesar (good ol' James Cagney) put it, "That's the ticket."

Obviously, the followers of the Baha'i religion are another category of "Mythians".

All followers of religion are actually "Mythians" considering the mythical foundations of the major religions i.e. there was no Abraham, no Moses, no Noah, no Easter, no virgin birth and no Gabriel and therefore no angelic revelations to Mary, Mohammed or the Great Bab.

"In 1844 a Muslim named Ali Muhhamad Shirazi declared himself the spokesman for the twelfth Imam, or prayer leader, anticipated by some Shi'ite Muslims ever since the ninth century. Calling himself Bab-ud-Din, the "Gate of Faith," he introduced sweeping reforms into Islam, such as raising the status of women. A group of followers gathered around him, calling themselves Babis, "followers of the Bab." Although Bab-ud-Din was executed in 1850, he believed he had prepared the way for another who would found a worldwide religion.

A follower who escaped after the execution believed himself to be the predicted one. Mirza Husayn Ali took the name Baha'u'llah, "Glory of Allah," in 1863, and those who followed him became known as Baha'is.

Imprisoned in Acre, Turkey, Baha'u'llah was still able to receive guests and write. After his death in 1892, his son Abdul Baha took over the movement, traveling and lecturing extensively, eventually even receiving knighthood in England for his work promoting world peace.

Now, having moved far away from Islam, Baha'i is recognized as a separate religion.

Baha'u'llah's emphasis was on unity. He believed his religion to be the culmination of all the religions of the world, though he didn't seek to overthrow any of them. He taught that the Qur'an should be interpreted allegorically and was equal to the scriptures of all other religions. He did not believe in the existence of angels or spirits, and he felt that heaven and hell are symbolic conditions of the soul, not literal places.

He taught his followers that all religions come from the same source, and that divine revelation is continuous and progressive. Messengers of God, according to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, include Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, and the Buddah. Baha'u'llah was the most recent, the Manifestation of God for the New Era. His was one of the first world religions to preach the unity of the whole human race and to teach that all religions are the work of one God.

Communal worship takes place in members' homes, consisting of prayer and readings from various scriptures and Baha'u'llah's writings. The Baha'i vision is positive and world-embracing, seeking the elimination of war and armaments and the formation of a world tribunal for settling disputes.

Some five million followers carry the vision throughout the world. "

ref: www.answers.com

My question is why are clergy necessary in the first place? www.bahaithought.com

Roadrunnin, my next project for post--supposing I get an opportunity for it, an opportunity such as On Faith asking if one can be moral without God, for example--is to develop the irony that atheists are so happy religion is in decline, and never tire of telling us man can be moral without God, but man apparently disagrees with at least the portion about being moral without God for he has decided to improve on God watching over man by developing technology by which man can be routinely watched, in fact it looks to be the future of man that not only will technology watch all his actions but he will be divined (yes, divined--the irony of it all!) at the genetic level and will have his very actions predicted. Yes, we are sure to be quite moral without a belief in God! We will actually have God watching over us! Or at least his big brother and ours! God is our brother who has a big brother and we are all family...Sounds like the making of a new mythology. The story is developing a plot....

Ah, the liberty we enjoy to discuss and debate such things -- what is atheism, and the like, and the freedom and anonymity of the internet. Not much has been asked of the last two generations of the people of the Western life style -- like was asked from all those killed christer young men on the beaches of Normandy, for instance. So, we get to do this, now.

The people in China don't. No, their anonymity will not save them, in China -- we are learning. That can happen here, too.

Yes, mistakes were made, by the West. I would rather the West had understood the mind of the Confucian, Ho Chi Minh, for instance. Perhaps he was more Nietzschean, than Confucian. The will, of that man!

I do take issue with the "childish mind" of the adult primitive humans. That mind was no more childish than the she-wolf raising her cubs. It understood that might makes right.

The morality of a people comes from deciding what is right and what is wrong. That decision is made by the strong. Today, we hope they use reason. No, we demand they use reason, and so-called enlightenment. More than half the world is governed by the unreasonable -- their morality is set by unresonable strong persons. I will forever hope we have enough christers and non-theists to defend our position, our position of reason.

On whether atheism is the natural or original as opposed to a learned or secondary state of man, if we are generalizing atheism is a secondary state and man originally was religious, of an automatic "God" state of mind. It seems human biological development led through a mental religious state after the states of mind similar to chimpanzees but that during the mental, religious states there were no doubt men who were more capable of reason and less susceptible to religious thinking--there were exceptions to the general rule in other words--and arguably these exceptions are becoming the rule, the generality as we speak.

In other words, arguably the more man advances biologically the more the natural state will be atheism and man will not learn atheism in a secondary sense at all because religion will not have the hold it still does today and had to a greater extent the more we go into man's mental past until the bedrock of chimpanzee mind where no particular powers of mind exist at all. In fact we can generalize and say that man is probably becoming capable of being automatically detached from birth from anything which claims a consistent hold on mind.

But right now man is involved in something of a tug of war between mental ages, with an original, religious state of mind on top of monkey mind still claiming a great hold, but with an automatic atheistic mind--if we want to call it that, although a better word would be detached, reasoning mind period--becoming more common by the day. In fact atheism as we understand it could very well only be a stage of mind, like the religious mind, the splitting of the religious mind into reasoning mind which eventually will no longer need to clarify itself by the opposition A-theistic by simply being A-virtually anything which claims an unwarranted or even only a consistent hold on mind.

In other words, we have 1) monkey mind. 2) religious mind which begins in animism but becomes increasingly complex and takes the form of various religions. Then 3) the power of reasoning mind (preliminary) which takes itself as a stage of mind by crude dichotomies, in our case here under discussion, A-theistic, which perhaps, after all, is the most generalized understanding of self in this state. Then 4) reasoning mind period, which does not need to consider itself A-theistic or A-anything really because it takes as a given detachment and speculation of mind.

What the natural state of mind is in other words, is a piece of relativity from the standpoint of biology. I have no doubt that some people today are just born atheistic, which is to say even without having the concept God presented to them they are detached from the concept--and in this sense, natural atheism exists, yes, and I apologize to any atheists who have been trying day and night to explain this to me. I stand corrected. In fact one day, as hypothesized here, I suspect no religious or atheistic minds will exist at all because man will just naturally be of detached mind, born with a pattern making ability and capacity to reason we cannot even imagine. I personally understand something of this along the lines of playing my computer in chess: My computer often seemingly with arrogance just shrugs whatever defense I might muster aside and somehow, by some decision making process I cannot understand, just checkmates me.

I suspect the last thing on my computer's mind when making a delicate and brilliant decision is the concept God. Rather it is by brute force going through countless possible decisions, unwilling to be lulled into any particular pattern. Such I believe future man will be--and unlike the computer he will be conscious and be deliberating not just with a game in mind but the total game of life, which even today he is better at than a computer, and always will be, because a computer can perform brilliantly in a specialized manner but becomes totally incompetent at generalized and various action...

In fact future man might be better than the computer at both generalized actions of mind and specialized ones whereas today the computer gives him a run for the money in specialized actions such as games like chess. But the point is, stages of mind...And when we reflect more and more on this it becomes a nice project of thought to speculate what generalities man will use to describe his mind in the future. We speak of monkey mind, religious mind, atheistic mind, reasoning mind, aesthetic mind and so on. What new ones on the horizon? Is it not the duty of at least educators to speculate on what kinds of mind--both particular and generalized--will appear in the future? For after all, these minds will first appear in children, those we tend to take for granted as being exactly like ourselves more than we care to admit. But children are children. They will not for long agree to be as we are--even if they are no different than us as to quality and type of mind. And when they are truly different...nothing can hold them back but an even newer age of mind on top of what they are.

Makes one think of Arthur C. Clarke and "Childhood's end".

Back to the topic:

Added important issues for the preachers of the world to ponder:

"From Exclusivism to Convergence: How We Relate to the Religions of Others; Part 1: Diversity, Exclusivism, and Inclusivism

By James M. Somerville

John Hick, a noted British philosopher of religion, estimates that 95 percent of the people of the world owe their religious affiliation to an accident of birth. The faith of the vast majority of believers depends upon where they were born and when. Those born in Saudi Arabia will almost certainly be Moslems, and those born and raised in India will for the most part be Hindus. Nevertheless, the religion of millions of people can sometimes change abruptly in the face of major political and social upheavals. In the middle of the sixth century ce, virtually all the people of the Near East and Northern Africa, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt were Christian. By the end of the following century, the people in these lands were largely Moslem, as a result of the militant spread of Islam.

The Situation Today

Barring military conquest, conversion to a faith other than that of one’s birth is rare. Some Jews, Moslems, and Hindus do convert to Christianity, but not often. Similarly, it is not common for Christians to become Moslems or Jews. Most people are satisfied that their own faith is the true one or at least good enough to satisfy their religious and emotional needs. Had St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas been born in Mecca at the start of the present century, the chances are that they would not have been Christians but loyal followers of the prophet Mohammed."

Timmy2:

Actually, since you said nothing with the word "absolute" in it, I don't see how my use of that word in quotes in any way puts a word in your mouth.

In fact, that was for DanielTheLiar, who so often falls back on what he thinks are "absolutes"...that was why I used two definitions of the word "atheism"-- one for intellectuals, one for DanielTheLiar.

I'll say no more. I'm enjoying a bottle of Moet at the moment, and the screen is slightly blurred. Probably a good time to shut up.

Schaum,

Excellent topic change. Springtime actually started some time ago where I live. I've had cherry blossoms for weeks. I live in the most temperate climate in Canada. West coast of Vancouver Island. Last stop before Japan.

Schaum,

"Yes you were, and are, being conniving. I did not declare any definition of atheism to be "absolute", nor did I close discussion"

Why are there quotes around the word "absolute". I did not use that word. Please do not put words in my mouth...thats an old DanielTheHomicidialFakeAtheistLiar ploy. It is no more effective or impressive when you try it than when he does.

"I specified how "I" used the word in my original post"

And I offered my opinion about how I and others use it slightly differently and how there are several different definitions of it and how it is an ambiguous word. What's the problem?

"The fact does not change my observation or the definitions I used in making it"

I wasn't trying to change it. Just offering an alternative take. I believe I said several times that you are not wrong. It's just a semantics issue.

D12

"I remember you wrote about perhaps humanity having had its origin in our planet seeded by extraterrestrial beings. I would put more stock in such an idea than God"

As Persiflage pointed out, this idea suffers from the same problem of infinite regression as the God hypothesis. Even though it is possibly true, and could answers a lot of things about our existence it wouldn't be an answer the big question that we are all discussing. And it's hard to imagine that they might have the answer to that question either. But it is a fascinating thought. Wouldn't we all love such a discovery to occur during our lifetime. But it would not answer the big question.

"Thanks for taking my side on this atheism having had to have existed after the concept God and that it makes no sense to speak of atheism if theism does not exist first"

I wasn't taking your side. I was explaining to Persiflage and Schaum that even though technically one can make the argument that newborns fit many definitions of "atheist", using that word is confusing to those who are not of an intellect capable of understanding such a basic concept as no one is born with religious belief of any kind. In your case, even avoiding the use of the word "atheist" to describe newborns wouldn't help you get it, so I should have just kept my mouth shut. But I was trying to shut down your semantics game. I should never have used the words "Daniel is right". I was kind of mocking you but it didn't read.

It doesn't matter if some people want to call a newborn's complete unawareness of the God posit "atheism" and others don't want to call that atheism. That word is not important. The only thing that matters is that no one is born believing in God or believing in anything else. Their very first belief is that the operating room is drafty. (comedy notification for D12)

"But for Schaum and Persiflage to say atheism is the natural state and religion the learned state makes no sense what with their natural state"

I agree 100% with them. I just don't call it atheism and we were just working that out.

"Or to put it simply, how can atheism exist before theism when atheism refers precisely to theism"

This is the semantics issue that I brought up. It exists because people who do not believe in God are labeled with a word that has the word "God" in it's definition. The definition we were labeled with presupposes God. This is the problem I have with it and why I do not want to label babies with it. But I also know that babies do not believe in God which makes them technically atheists.

It's just not fair to saddle anyone with a definition that presupposes God, but I can handle it. I have the knowledge to deal with such a primitive presupposition and not have it trick me. But we are all born defenseless to this trickery. We need to learn how to defend against it. We need to learn how to deal with a label that means "one who does not believe".

It's like we have no word for the non stamp collector. But if 3/4 of the world's population collected stamps ritualistically, there would be a word for the non stamp collector. Something like "nostampies". And the definition of "nostampies" would be a definition that is centered around the word Stamp Collecting. So these people for whom stamp collecting means nothing would now be labeled with a word with a definition that takes stamp collecting as the default position.

I don't like the trickery of the label "atheist" but I'll deal with it. It's here it's queer and it's not going anywhere. And I have become well equipped to deal with it. But newborns are not equipped to deal with such nonsense. They'll believe anything.

Timmy2:

Aside from the fact that sensate beings are born as atheists, are you having spring in Canada yet?

Timmy2:

"I wasn't being conniving. I was unaware of your power to declare the definition of "atheism" closed for discussion. "

Yes you were, and are, being conniving. I did not declare any definition of atheism to be "absolute", nor did I close discussion. Please do not put words in my mouth...thats an old DanielTheHomicidialFakeAtheistLiar ploy. It is no more effective or impressive when you try it than when he does.

I specified how "I" used the word in my original post.

You are entitled to define words in any way you wish. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. You are entitled to find others to support your point of view. I also am entitled to these same liberties.

The fact does not change my observation or the definitions I used in making it. By now you are aware, I am sure, that I don't look for, cultivate or need approval. I stand by what I say: sensate beings are born atheists. Being atheist is the natural condition at birth. I am neither offended, delighted, or even interested if/when/whether others agree.

Schaum,

"Now it is you who are being conniving. I did not leave the definition of 'atheism' open to discussion"

I wasn't being conniving. I was unaware of your power to declare the definition of "atheism" closed for discussion. The overall discussion was about what babies believe and I though the ambiguous definition of "atheist" was relevant.

You can quote definitions of that word that include newborns. And I can quote definitions that word that do not include newborns.

I try to work with the definition that most people use so as to avoid confusion when I am trying to have a debate about what babies believe. This does not make your method of debate or definition wrong. It just makes them different than mine. And that does not make mine wrong either.

It's not that I "don't like your definition" I am indifferent to it. it's that most people don't use it. If I know that someone thinks that atheists are people who deny God, I'm not going to tell them that babies are born atheist because I know that they will misunderstand me and think that I mean that babies are born aware of God. I can get the same point across by telling them that babies are born with no beliefs whatsoever because they are born with no knowledge upon which to base any beliefs. Agnostic. Again this does not make your method of argument wrong. It's just a different approach.

To me, you are not the person you were when you were born. You were willing to believe in Santa and fairies back then, and you've come a long way. You are no longer willing to believe everything you are told. You learned to be skeptical. And that's a good thing.

Timmy2:

"This is about the definition of the word atheist. Technical arguments can be made for both cases based on the various ambiguous definitions of the word "atheist"."

Now it is you who are being conniving. I did not leave the definition of 'atheism' open to discussion. I very plainly stated the way I was using it in the first post (stated again here). This is only about the fact that you don't like my definition. Ok, don't like it. I'll stand by it, and my suggestion that all sensate animals are born as atheists.

Atheism:

"a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods "
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]"...Wikipedia

By definition, atheism is simply holding no beief in the existence of god.

Timmy2,

I have never denied DanielTheHomicidalFakeAtheistLiar the right to his beliefs, nor the ignorance in which he comes to them.

I do not deny you your right to your opinion.

We disagree.

It's pretty clear that Daniel 12 is never going to get it, but he really should read 'The Savage Mind'....just to get a better idea of what one of the foremost cultural anthropologists thought about the mind of 'primitive' man. Hey, it's just like yours and mine!

You can't learn what you're not taught .... really very simple.
Primates including humans learn by modeling and imitation....like I said, there are libraries full of this stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss

'But I don't think that anyone thinks that atheists are people who have never heard of the concept of God.'

Timmy, I believe you're right here in so far as cultures in the theistic Western world go, including North/South America and Western Europe as examples.

People apply these terms arbitrarily to adults that are seen as having a 'choice' to believe or disbelieve in a particular brand of theism.

People are generally assumed to have been raised with religion of some kind, and Christians and Muslims in particular are offended by folks that don't subscribe to their point of view.

How many times have we been queried 'but don't you believe in God??' when we express reservations about religion. This belief is axiomatic for people than don't even go to church!

They seldom consider that people are born without beliefs i.e the relativity of all learned beliefs based on circumstance, or that other parts of the world are essentially without a theistic orientation.

People need to be educated to these fundamental facts. They just never see how the their own accidental birth circumstances completely shapes their lives in every detail - they think they are independent!

They may begin to question at least some of their convictions if this pervasive fact of culturally inherited beliefs actually registers on their consciousness!

I strongly believe that being freed of the lifelong shackles of religion can be a kind of re-birth....and in that sense I see Schaum's point as regards a return to a naturally pre-religious state.

While I have not gone through this transition as an adult, having given up on the practice of religion at age 17, I can imagine that it brings with it strong convictions. You also report that you were raised essentially without a religious orientation - so that makes atheism an easy default!

I have an idea that many who are outspoken atheists these days were thoroughtly steeped in Christian theism before losing their religion. Frankly, you don't hear of many Muslim apostates - they understand the consequences all too well (thinking now of Salmon Rushdie)........

Whatever else we may disagree on Timmy, I should tell you that so much reading has made me detached about virtually everything. Not just detached about notions about God or atheism but television, women,--virtually everything. I might defend one position strongly as hell one day but the next...something always pops up which makes me take a second look. My stability in life is not having a particular view, but knowing something new will show up. In fact the more I realize that no particular view is completely impregnable the more I seem to just dive into books and enter new views as compensation. If one wants to credit childhood influences, i think having grown up moving a lot had a lot to do with it. I grew up traveling and know no physical place is permanent and this influenced my view toward ideas. I am still moving even if physically in one place. I just go from idea to idea now. I pretty much no longer believe anything is permanently true, that just around the corner we could have our minds blown in the sense our forefathers were stunned by Copernicus or Newton or Darwin or Shakespeare...In fact far from defending some particular view I feel afraid I might not be equal to some really mind blowing finding. I remember you wrote about perhaps humanity having had its origin in our planet seeded by extraterrestrial beings. I would put more stock in such an idea than God..and I hope to be equal to such a finding if demonstrated true in the future. I am especially concerned because I am in my mid forties and supposedly the older a person is the less flexible. I can already see obviously that if some really mind blowing finding occurs I will not be young when experiencing it. Things like that disturb me more than whether God exists or not. Thanks for taking my side on this atheism having had to have existed after the concept God and that it makes no sense to speak of atheism if theism does not exist first. And this is not to say I believe children are just born into believing in a particular sense but that the childhood mind and the savage mind just interpret things in an animistic sense, which in different cultures takes different forms and levels of sophistication. But for Schaum and Persiflage to say atheism is the natural state and religion the learned state makes no sense what with their natural state--the very word they use, atheism--referring to something they say does not even exist yet and is secondary...Or to put it simply, how can atheism exist before theism when atheism refers precisely to theism. Saying atheism came before theism is like saying the drink in the fridge came after one's decision not to drink it. Apparently Schaum and Persiflage come to decisions about things before even hearing of them. Ha! Ha! Now that is comedy.

Schaum,

I said this was about the definition of the word atheist and you said "No, it isn't...except perhaps for you. And if you are that simple, then I envy you"

It's not about being simple. By telling you that this is about the definition of a word, I am telling you that I do not believe anything different than you do about what children are born believing. It's just about wether or not to call them "atheists" or not.

"For me: I was born without god belief -- atheist"

For me I was also born without God belief. But I don't call that particular state of mind "atheist".

Because I also was born without knowledge of any kind with which to form any beliefs. The word atheist refers to what we believe and do not believe. The word Agnostic is the one that refers to knowledge. It means without knowledge. We are all born agnostic. Beliefs are things we form when knowledge starts to come in.

"I was screwed up by a succession of christer beliefs and propaganda, and it took me a LONG time to work through it. I have returned to the natural condition into which I was born, after long and difficult effort -- atheism"

I too got suckered into believing in God for a brief time and then found my way clear, though I'm sure that yours was more severe. Mine was about as mild as it gets.

But I do not consider myself as having returned to my natural condition. Back then I was unaware that there were a great many people in the world who believed in this thing called God. I was unaware of all of the information than mankind has accumulated on the topic and recorded in history books and the debates through history and the science that illuminates the subject. It is a deep deep issue and I have been made aware of this most powerful debate ever to enter our world. I am not the same as a new born at all. I have a very strong opinion on a subject I was previously entirely unaware of. It affects me as the person I am today. I can not unknow all of this knowledge and return to the innocence of a newborn.

"If you think you can intimidate or demean me by comparing me to DanielTheHomicidalFakeAtheistLiar, have at it"

Of course I in no way mean to intimidate you or demean you. Have another read of your remarks that I quoted. I was not comparing you to D12 but those particular remarks. I stand by it. You were out of line. Those remarks were in no way honest questions about what I believe but an attempt to put crazy words in my mouth.

I repeat. No one is right or wrong here. This is about the definition of the word atheist. Technical arguments can be made for both cases based on the various ambiguous definitions of the word "atheist".

I stand by my point that most people see atheists as people who are aware of the God posit, and disbelieve it. And most people see atheists as people who strongly disbelieve it. And this does not apply to newborns.

I further think there should be a distinction between people who have negated the God posit, and those who have never been aware of such a concept. I see the former as atheists and the latter as agnostics.

Back to the topic:

Something else preachers, rabbis, priests, evangelists, imams and monks must consider

http://www.theosophical.org/publications/questmagazine/julyaugust2000/somerville/index.php

"From Exclusivism to Convergence:

How We Relate to the Religions of Others; Part 2. Pluralism, Convergence, and Response

By James M. Somerville

Faced with the fact of divergence in the religious traditions of the world, some believers in a particular tradition are exclusivists, rejecting all other traditions as errors. Other believers are inclusivists, recognizing other traditions as lesser or imperfect forms of truth. As possible responses to religious diversity, there remain two other approaches: pluralism and convergence.

Pluralism

Shouldn't we regard the various spiritual traditions of the world as roughly equal? Isn't one as good as another, depending on the needs of ethnic people? What suits a Hindu villager, surrounded by temples with gongs, bells, erotic images, and grotesque statues representing different aspects of God, may repel a European or American urbanite. Yet the Hindu peasant's religion can lead to the practice of the highest moral virtue with boundless trust in the promise of the sanatana dharma, or eternal doctrine. By the same token, the Hindu would probably find the externals of Western religion not only unfamiliar but indescribably dull and depressing.
Thomas Merton, when he visited the giant Buddha images at Polonnaruwa in Sri Lanka, approached them reverently, barefoot, transformed by the peace emanating from those extraordinary faces. It was as though they had seen through every possibility, "knowing everything, rejecting nothing." Here was the peace "that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything."

Who can say whether the Cistercian monk, Thomas Merton, became a pluralist in those last days before his accidental electrocution. But it was a good way to die, away from home in a foreign land, on the verge of seeing that truth is not bound or confined in any set of theological formulas. God's reach is not shortened. There are saints and sinners in all the great traditions, and who can say "who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 18.1)?

St. Teresa of Avila strove to make it plain that her mysticism was grounded in Christ and that in her most lofty ascents he was always present. This may have been true also of St. John of the Cross, but in his poetry he does not speak explicitly of Christ. Basing much of his verse on the Song of Solomon, his stanzas are universal enough to be understood and treasured by a Sufi, such as Rumi, or a Hasidic Jewish mystic in the tradition of the Baal Shem Tov. Meister Eckhart's apophatic mysticism all but leaves behind every trace of Catholic dogma, an omission which, among other things, earned him a condemnation after his death by Pope John XXII. "His notion of God," writes Urban T. Holmes, "is more the Neo-Platonist One than the Trinity."

Regardless of how pluralistic one may become, most of us are born into a religious or an a-religious culture or household. We all begin somewhere, and most of us stay there. One is reminded of the story about the husband who, returning to his house unexpectedly, found a man who had been courting his wife hiding in a closet. Opening the closet door, he shouted to the man inside, "What are you doing in there?" to which the embarrassed intruder replied, "Well, sir, I gotta be somewhere." This is just another way of repeating what was said at the start. We've "gotta be somewhere." Most people live and die in the religion into which they were born and raised. Most will hold that it is the right religion for them, even the only true one. Few have the urge or the energy to look elsewhere. If they have to be somewhere, they might as well stay where they are.
Each religion has its own mythos, which is familiar to its adherents from childhood. It feels right and comfortable, whereas other religions, even denominations within the same faith, seem strange. And certainly, at the level of systematic belief and practice, religions vary greatly. The real issue is whether at the highest level Christian trinitarianism can be reconciled with the strict monotheism of Judaism and Islam; whether, in spite of the similarities between Buddhism and the Hinduism from which it diverged, the anatta, or no-self teaching of Buddhism, can be reconciled with the atman, or supreme-self doctrine, of Hinduism. It does make a difference when one faith holds that there has been only one incarnation (Christianity), while a second holds that there have been several (Hinduism), and a third denies that there have been any at all (Islam).

Some commentators try to weasel their way into reconciling differences by redefining what they understand by the divine, by incarnation, by what constitutes uniqueness. Since these are all merely doctrinal matters, what really matters, say the modern mystics (and not all of them are new-age types)is that, in the mystical "Cloud of Unknowing," beyond all images and conceptual structures, all doctrinal differences fall away in a direct experience of divine union. Maybe. But since few students of mysticism have actually had this kind of transforming experience themselves, they are reduced to taking someone else's word for what it is like. Reduced to faith in another's experience and not having had that kind of adventure themselves, most pluralists are loath to try to reconcile the differences among the various religions. They prefer to leave them in their otherness.

Convergence

Another approach to ecumenism plays with the idea of convergence. At their best and most authentic level, the major religions are, as Frederick Franck has said, like fingers pointing to the sacred. You get a sense that they are all moving toward the goal of transcending the limitations of image and speech, each trying through its peculiar story to communicate by the use of symbol and myth a sense of the Ineffable. Do not even presume to utter the divine Name, say pious Jews. But this very reluctance testifies to the conviction that the heart and source of all reality does exist, though it cannot be reduced to words or concepts. Each religion, beginning with its own story or myth, is capable of eliciting in its adherents a longing for transcendence and a desire for the infinite.

No religion, of course, can deliver the Absolute or the Infinite to order. That would be like trying to get back to the 10-35 second after the Big Bang and before the cosmic inflation began. At that point all the known laws of physics break down. Anterior to that moment is the pretemporal state, whose laws, if they exist, are unknown to us. Analogously, though all the various religions converge toward Omega, none ever manages to bring us all the way.
Spiritually and psychologically, what we would encounter "there" is emptiness, emptiness of all form. In the idiom of Nicholas of Cusa, Nothingness and the All coincide. But where they coincide is beyond where the lines of convergence can reach. Religion can bring us to the verge, to the brink, but like Moses, who led his people to the Promised Land, but could not enter in, there is no place for religion in the world to come. Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door.

Convergence saves us from the frustration and inconclusiveness of relativism. It recognizes the abiding reality of the Absolute, but by approaching it in conscious creaturehood, those who opt for convergence keep both poles of the creator-creature relationship intact. This enables one to acknowledge the limitations of all religions and thus to avoid turning any one of them into a Golden Calf.

Conversion and Ecumenism

Exclusivism, in its fundamentalist dress, has sometimes degenerated into bullying: either convert or be killed. Jews have repeatedly been faced with the choice of death or conversion. Short of threats to life and limb, a gentler form of terrorism is the policy of the true believer to frighten potential converts with visions of what will happen to unbelievers in the world to come. They will surely be lost unless they are baptized and are washed in the blood of the Lamb. Since they know they are right, exclusivists are known to wave aside every nonconformist element in their domain. They often use democratic means to take over the leadership of a denomination, as well as its seminaries and educational institutions, then oust all the well-trained faculty members who do not agree with their inerrantist literalism. Exclusivism does not always take this form, but the historical record shows that it very often does.

Inclusivism can admit the value of traditions other than its own and can even learn from them. But when pressed, it "knows" that its own tradition is best and truest, not just relative to the ethnic needs of its devotees but absolutely best and true. It therefore relativizes all the rest by making itself the judge and bar before which all the others are to be evaluated. It reduces, then, to a variety of exclusivism.

Pluralism, for all its good intentions, by allowing for the separate but rough equivalence of all religions, leaves itself open to the charge of relativism. Unless manyness has a focal point, even a receding one, we are left with a collection of radically independent worlds or universes with no unifying principle. As Kurt Gödel pointed out in mathematics, to account for the unity of any collection of items, one has to go beyond the set in order to find a principle of unification that is not a member of the set. Pluralism, to the extent that it leaves out transcendence as the goal toward which all religions are moving, has given up trying to address the problem of the coexistence of the one and the many.

Those who opt for convergence view the receding horizon of transcendent unity as the stimulus that animates all the religions of the world. Their starting points and some of their theologies may be irreconcilable when viewed separately. But none of the major religions is static; otherwise they would not have lasted for centuries. They are like the spokes of a wheel that converge toward the hub. Though, on the analogy, the hub may be invisible, the fact that the spoke-religions do converge means that the hub is not merely an invisible, external goal but an intrinsic, dynamic, guiding principle whose action is already inwardly operative in impelling the devotees to seek the hub.
Conversion to another religion is sometimes to the earthly advantage of the converted. If conversion frees individuals from slavery or an oppressive caste system, they may be better off joining the religion that liberates them or, in some cases, assures them of superior educational opportunities. People do not always have disinterested reasons for abandoning one religion and joining another. As for the trans-temporal advantages of conversion, who can say that a person's lot will be better hereafter for having changed from one religion to another?

All religious adherents do well if they are able to give a reasonable account of their faith to others. They also do well if they are prepared to listen patiently and attentively to what others have to say about their faiths. That is what ecumenism aims to achieve: not conversion but conversation. Where good will is at work, theologies turn out to be less important. What matters is the kind of faith which, in the Letter to the Hebrews (11.1), is defined as "the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of the reality of things not seen." But the dynamism does not stop there with a solipsistic "alone with the Alone." There must be a return movement, back, down to earth, whereby the fruits of devotion are turned into the service of others. The test of any true religion is the way it leads us to treat one another.
________________________________________
James M. Somerville taught philosophy for many years at Fordham University, where he was chair of the department and co-founder of the journal International Philosophical Quarterly. He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy from Xavier University in Cincinnati and a Quest Book author (contributing to The Goddess Re-Awakening, 1989). His most recent book is The Mystical Sense of the Gospels (Crossroad, 1997).
© 2010 by the Theosophical Society in America, Wheaton, IL, USA.
"

Timmy2:

"I told you, we both believe the same thing. This is about semantics and the definition of a word, not about what children are born believing."

No, it isn't...except perhaps for you. And if you are that simple, then I envy you.

For me: I was born without god belief -- atheist. I was screwed up by a succession of christer beliefs and propaganda, and it took me a LONG time to work through it. I have returned to the natural condition into which I was born, after long and difficult effort -- atheism.

If you think you can intimidate or demean me by comparing me to DanielTheHomicidalFakeAtheistLiar, have at it. I had not thought you so juvenile. But nothing surprises me any more.

Schaum and Persiflage,

"Absurd, Timmy. Are you saying atheists do not exist until they are recognized by others?"

Is that what you really think I meant?

"Are you suggesting that God exists for a newborn until the newborn decides for himself that he does not?"

These are like a D12 comments. Relax. I told you, we both believe the same thing. This is about semantics and the definition of a word, not about what children are born believing.

Schaum said: "No one is born believing in god"

Persiflage agrees. Timmy agrees.

The question is, does the word "atheist" imply a mere absence of belief or the stronger implication of disbelief. Disbelief is stronger than absence of belief because it implies that one has at least had the God posit put to them, and has come to the conclusion that it is not credible enough to believe. We do not disbelieve things that we have never heard of. But we are absent of belief in them.

There are many definitions of "atheist" and "atheism" and "atheistic" floating around out there. Everyone has their own interpretation of what atheists are. But I don't think that anyone thinks that atheists are people who have never heard of the concept of God.

I'd say that most people see atheists as people who have at the very least had the God posit put to them, and have chosen not to believe it. And most of these people see atheists as even stronger in that they actually have put some great thought to the God question and strongly disbelieve in it's existence. And many of them see atheists as even more certain than that and many still see atheists as those who deny god's existence outright. In fact from what I've seen on these blogs, most people think that atheists are people who deny God's existence outright.

No one is born believing in God. Correct.

No one is born denying God's existence outright. Correct

No one is born strongly disbelieving in God. No one is even born mildly disbelieving in God.

By most people's definition of "atheist", no one is born atheist.

Were we "atheistic" towards dark matter before we discovered it's existence? No. We were open minded. Willing to consider it as an explanation to strange phenomenon and then seek out evidence to prove it or discount it.

Again this is about the definition of the word "atheist" for which there are many. The question is, which one do most people go with. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people in the general public who see atheists as people who've never had the God posit put to them.

No one's right or wrong here. This is about how you use the ambiguous word "atheist". It will forever be an ambiguous moniker because it contains the most ambiguous of words, "God".

The Vatican sets the standards and the Pope rules and directs the Religous Laws. What we've seen is a Pope who allowed Priest who molested kids for decades to go free to continue their conduct and never reported the crime. How do we look to Religous Leaders like that? Would you let your child be left alone with a Priest? Only God can forgive sins and the all Religious Leaders have alot to answer for. This isn't new by any means as all Religous groups no longer follow God's teaching but greed and evil has taken over. Israel still lies about God's words to steal land and murder Palestine woman/children. Don't expect to see many in heaven as hell is getting crowded with the conduct of so many.

Persiflage:

Exactly.

Belief in a Deity is a subjective decision often governed by the religious, cultural and parental dogma surrounding the said individual. Even that idiot George Berkeley said that if something fails to be an idea in someone’s mind, it fails to exist. Therefore unless and until a human (or other) animal dreams up or otherwise comes into contact with an “idea” of god, then god does not exist for him…he is not a theist either by birth or by cultural influence. He remains (passively) without a belief in the existence of god. He remains a-theist.

I think Schaum is right here - it seems to me that atheist vs theist just represents another conceptual dichotomy.

I think we all agree that humans start out with no beliefs - if you never experience theism as a (cultural) belief system, then by default you're an atheist = free of theism.

You don't have to encounter theism in order to be an atheist by definition - but of course many people choose atheism over theism later on in life, and that's a different thing altogether.

Since Timmy brought up eastern systems of thought, it's interesting to note that the enlightened mind (particularly in the Heart and Diamond sutras) is neither theistic or atheistic - not being bound by conceptual polarities of any kind......what that may have in common with the mind of an infant is intriguing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(spiritual)

Sorry, forgot to add:

Sartre was right: if man exists, god cannot exist. His non-existence does not depend upon man's agreement that he does not exist.

Think of it this way, Timmy:

No one, of any age, is catholic by birth. Until such time as he chooses and enbraces catholicism, he is acatholic.

No one is born believing in god; he is, by the passive nature of birth, atheist. If he is later exposed to/adopts the god supersitions, he is no longer atheist. He is a theist. If subsequently he grows beyond theism, by virtue of thought/meditation/education/skepticism -- whatever -- he becomes, by virtue of active decision, an atheist again.

Timmy2:

Assuming the existence of god: are you saying he does not exist until the infant recognizes him?

Timmy2:

"You can not define an atheist without using the word God. Before the God posit is noticed, no one is "atheistic"."

Absurd, Timmy. Are you saying atheists do not exist until they are recognized by others? Are you suggesting that God exists for a newborn until the newborn decides for himself that he does not?

Schaum,

"Therefore, human infants, like all other animals, are by nature atheistic"

Not until someone proposes God to them they are not. You can not define an atheist without using the word God. Before the God posit is noticed, no one is "atheistic". We can not be absent of belief in things of which we have no concept. And until someone posits the concept of God, we can not disbelieve it. Theism comes before atheism always.

Children are born with no beliefs of any kind. But they do not become "atheistic" until they learn of the concept of God.

You and I don't believe anything different here, it's just a silly semantics thing.

Atheism:

"a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods "
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]"...Wikipedia

By definition, atheism is simply holding no beief in the existence of god.

Human infants, like all other animals, are born without any belief in the existence of god.

Therefore, human infants, like all other animals, are by nature atheistic.

D12 is correct. Theism must precede atheism in all cases. The opposite is impossible by definition.

He is also right that man was a believer before he was a disbeliever and that children are believers before they are disbelievers. In both the case of children and primitive man, there is a willingness to believe in the unseen and fantastical. It is important to note however that in neither case, the primitive man or the child, is this initial belief in monotheistic God or ID. These particular beliefs are definitely learned. In the case of man it took 145,000 years or 97% of our time in existence for the belief in monotheistic god to arise. In the case of children they too need to be taught the idea of a monotheistic god.

Children have a willingness to believe in almost anything. Santa, fairies, monsters, unicorns, God etc. They dreamt up none of these beliefs on their own. All had to be taught to them. And all were accepted without question. So the argument that children are born with beliefs is false. But the argument that they are born with the willingness to believe whatever they are told is valid. The argument that children are born open to believing in God and need to be taught how to disbelieve is quite valid. But if that makes God real then so are fairies and goblins.

In the case of primitive man, like a child, he believed in all kinds of crazy things that none of us, not even D12 now believe in. Man's willingness to believe in all of those superstitious things adds no strength to the argument that here now, after 145,000 years, man has stumbled on to the one true thing of all of the crazy things he has believed in thus far, here now is the one that is true? The evidence that man has always been willing to believe in the unseen is actually evidence that this one is no different from all of the rest. Silly superstitions. The result of an ancient or childish mind running wild with it's imagination where answers are absent.

Still a favorite among modern Nazi affiliates here and abroad......

http://www.search.com/reference/Positive_Christianity

From the Daniel Dennett thread - in the spirit of doing our best to inform and educate.......it is pretty much certain that other academically certified sources will verify this historical rendering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism

Persiflage:

I get it: DanielTheHomicidalFakeAtheistLiar is both crazy and stupid.

Isn't this the sort of thing that can happen when one's parents are related by more than marriage?

Back to the topic:

Something else preachers, rabbis, pastors, imams, prophets/"profits", priests and monks need to consider:

All followers of religion are actually "Mythians" considering the mythical foundations of the major religions i.e. there was no Abraham, no Moses, no Noah, no Easter, no virgin birth, no Moroni and no Gabriel and therefore no angelic revelations to Joe Smith, Mary or Mohammed.

Off topic:

For a thorough review of Nazism and Religion, see :

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

Schaum, you're entirely correct. D12 has serious reading comprehension issues. Cognitive processing seems to be impaired to a significant degree. We have this:

'For starters, you have atheism being the original state--disbelief in God--prior to the very concept of God which it is supposed to be the disbelief in! How can a person be an atheist before the concept of God is postulated you imbeciles?!'
_______________

Imagining that humans are born with beliefs (much less religious drives) of any kind represents a serious impairment of perceptual powers, not to mention a conspicuous absence of logic, reason, and above all, common sense.

This may be organic, and has similarities to the undiagnosed malady suffered by Spidermean. However, it is pretty clear that at least two humans that we know of were clearly pre-disposed to religion at an early age - although not at birth! That be Daniel 12 and Spidey....

It seems to me that D12's insistence on 'being right' in the face of much contrary evidence (atheist Nazis, etc.) is a textbook case of projection and personality issues...some kind of deep Freudian neurotic complex.

D12, you might consider that there is such a thing as passive and active mental states - for example, humans are born without beliefs of any kind, and this represents a state conceptually beyond atheism or theism.....neither applies to this naturally given mental state at birth - although atheism would be much closer, since it indicates a LACK OF BELIEF in a supreme deity.

And then, some folks are actively atheistic as adults - they may be active participants in a NONTHEISTIC religion of some kind, or they may be void of any interest in engaging in religious behavior and/or beliefs of any kind - they may further proclaim their LACK OF BELIEF in any/all deities,religious doctrines,or otherwise religiously based superstitions.

They will probably shun participation in religious organizations. They may even speak out against the dangers of theocracy and theodacy......however, they were born in a state beyond either theism or (active)atheism.

After being born, one eventually attains to either a religious or non-religious mode of being after much learning has occurred. Nor does any of this exist in a vacuum. Every belief held by an individual seems to be tied to every other belief in some mysterious fashion. Without a certain mental equilibrium, we eventually see mental illness and an assortment of abberant behavior issues.

When mental conflict and cognitive dissonance arises, beliefs change - thus do we have the born-again atheist that plagues the very soul of Daniel 12!

I know we all join together to pray that DanielTheHomicidalFakeAtheistLiar soon finds a publisher.

So MANY have indicated that they want to purchase leather-bound first editions of his thoughts.

More from the christer Hitler (DanielTheHomicidalFakeAtheistLiar does not need to be ignorant of these things -- the internet is full of it all):

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46

"What we have to fight for. . . is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]

early Feb. of 1933, he declared in the Reichstag (parliament) that the churches were to be an integral part of German national life.' " . . .

"The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life."

"The National Government regards the two Christian confessions as factors essential to the soul of the German people. It will respect the contracts they have made with the various regions. It declares its determination to leave their rights intact. In the schools, the government will protect the rightful influence of the Christian bodies. We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people. We hope to develop friendly relations with the Holy See" ( addressed the Reichstag on March 23, 1933)

"The Government of the Reich regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation." "The rights of the churches will not be diminished." ( from The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1, pg. 369-372 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942 - edition of 1969.)
"As we see in Christianity the unshakable foundation of moral life, so it is our duty to continue to cultivate friendly relations with the Holy See and to develop them."
(from Hitler's speech to the Reichstag on March 23rd, 1933, in which he indicated the programme of his Government. See Universe, March 31st, 1933.)

"National Socialism, he proclaimed, has always affirmed that it is determined to take the Christian Churches under the protection of the State. For their part the churches cannot for a second doubt that they need the protection of the State, and that only through the State can they be enabled to fulfill their religious mission. Indeed, the churches demand this protection from the State." [Hitler - in his first radio address to the German people after coming to power (1933).]

"The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie." Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party (quoted in John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope" )

A few days after the signing of the Lateran Treaty, Hitler wrote an article for the Volkischer Reobachter, published on February 22, 1929, warmly welcoming the agreement. "The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism," he wrote, "shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms." Turning to the German situation, he rebuked the Center Party leadership for its recalcitrant attachment to democratic politics. "By trying to preach that democracy is still in the best interests of German Catholics, the Center Party ... is placing itself in stark contradiction to the spirit of the treaty signed today by the Holy See."

"The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy." he went on, "... Proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity y than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people."

"While we destroyed the (Catholic) Centre Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests. The union of the Evangelical Church in a single Church for the whole Reich, the Concordat with the Catholic Church, these are but milestones on the road which leads to the establishment of a useful relation and a useful co-operation between the Reich and the two Confessions." Adolf Hitler, in his New Year Message on 1 Jan. 1934

"I know that here and there the objection has been raised: Yes, but you have deserted Christianity. No, it is not that we have deserted Christianity; it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity. We have only carried through a clear division between politics, which have to do with terrestrial things, and religion, which must concern itself with the celestial sphere. There has been no interference with the doctrine of the Confessions or with their religious freedom, nor will there be any such interference. On the contrary the State protects religion, though always on the one condition that religion will not be used as a cover for political ends.

"There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. (Between World War I & II, the Catholic "Center Party" had been one of the most powerful political parties in Germany.) At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the church, nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity."

"The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."
Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934.

" I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."
Adolf Hitler, Reichstag Speech, 1936

"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."
Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.174

"Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church."
Adolf Hitler, reported to have said in Berlin in 1936, on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism."
Impressed with the organization of the Papacy, Hitler is quoted as saying the following: "I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits…until now there has never been anything more grandiose on the earth than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party."
Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Said To Me (1939), 266-267.

"I believe that it was God’s will to send a youth from here into the Reich, to let him grow up, to raise him to be the leader of the nation so as to enable him to lead back his homeland into the Reich….In three days the Lord has smitten them… And to me the grace was given on the day of the betrayal to be able to unite my homeland [Austria] with the Reich….I would now give thanks to Him who let me return to my homeland in order than I might now lead it into my German Reich. Tomorrow, may every German recognize the hour, and measure its import and bow in humility before the Almighty who in a few weeks has wrought a miracle upon us. [Closing speech of the campaign at Vienna, 9 April 1938]"

Back to the topic:

Something else pastors, imams, prophets/"profits", priests and monks need to consider:

All followers of religion are actually "Mythians" considering the mythical foundations of the major religions i.e. there was no Abraham, no Moses, no Noah, no Easter, no virgin birth, no Moroni and no Gabriel and therefore no angelic revelations to Joe Smith, Mary or Mohammed.

Actually, Hitler can speak for himself:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who - God's truth! - was greatest, not as a sufferer, but as a fighter."

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

"Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice . And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.

When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."

DanielTheHomicidalFakeAtheistLiar could learn a lot about how to write by studying Hitler's speeches.

DanielTheHomocidalFakeAtheistLiar:

"Nazi Germany was far more atheistic than Christian."

Another blatant example of DanielTheHomicidalFakeAtheistLiar's willingness to lie to support his delusions. He has no more respect for truth than he has for history. And he recently posted his willingness to shoot atheists.

The fact is that the majority of the Nazi hierarchy, and the vast bulk of the German population under the Nazis, were christers--and of these, most were roman catholic.

One can begin with Hitler himself who never left the roman catholic church, and, until his death, faithfully paid his state church taxes. In fact, Hitler was adamantly opposed to atheism.

In addition to Adolf Hitler, were Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Rudolf Hoess, (commandant of Auschwitz I, not to be confused with Hitler's Deputy Fuëhrer and secretary, Rudolf Hess). Hermann Goering, on the other hand, had mixed Catholic - Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann had Protestant backgrounds. Not one of the top Nazi leaders was raised in a liberal or atheistic family.

No matter how immorally the many prominent Catholic leaders of the Third Reich acted their standing as "good Catholics" was never publicly challenged by their church's leaders until defeat or death had denied these Nazi Catholics the power to do much harm.

DanielTheHomocidalFakeAtheistLiar can't find a publisher for his revisionist garbage "essays". I wonder why. Clearly his inability to write is not the only factor.

Timmy2,Persiflage:

Did you read DanielTheHomocidalFakeAtheistLiar's last postings? Is it possible that anyone can be this stupid? So completely ignorant of history, philosophy, religion, science, biology, and the English language? Isn't there some minimum intelligence requirement for security guards? Are they no required to at least be rational? Is he, perhaps, a parody -- actually trying to make us laugh? I have never seen such a concentration of sheer ignorance. Can it be genuine? He thinks an editor would help him sell his garbage "essays" to a publisher. Ha! He doesn't need an editor, he needs a translator and a polygraph.

Oh, wait... perhaps he's really a British citizen, having us on about the poor quality of education in the US. Sure, that must be it. Nobody could be this stupid, delusional and incapable of reason, and not be institutionalized. Could he?

Schaum below:

"Typical of DanielTheLiar's inept handling of language! "I WAS a FORMER Catholic priest" would, once untwisted, mean that he has returned to being a Catholic priest."

My reply: Oh right, Schaum. In order to be a writer I must not make any errors right? There is no such thing as an editor to help me, right? So far as I can tell Schaum my errors are not fatal to my work, but you and Persiflage saying atheism is the natural state of man...There is no hope for you two being writers, you cannot even reason basically. Man originally atheistic, not believing in God prior to the concept of God itself? The concept of God must first exist before one can become atheistic. One cannot be atheistic prior to knowledge of the concept God.

As for your statement that my error is TYPICAL of my writing, please state more errors I made in the very piece you criticized. Show us all these typical errors of my writing. Quibbler. Mere quibbler.

And Schaum, do not try to get anyone to believe your crap that Nazi Germany was Christian, religious, rather than atheistic. The Nazis believed in the biology of race, believed in an empire on earth (thousand year reich). There was no talk of life after death and being good and going to church. There was talk of race, empire, master/slave relationship. Morality was subordinate to race, which was seen as the supreme good. Being moral did not get one in the good graces of the Nazis but being of them. No one would confuse Christianity with Nazi Germany except an atheist trying to confuse the issue and not have anyone see, although it was so evident, that Nazi Germany was an atheist attempt at a society. Nazi Germany was a unique and modern phenomenon. Two thousand years of Christianity prior to Nazi Germany never once arrived at the concept the Nazis had of society. That is enough right there to dispel the notion that Nazi Germany was a Christian phenomenon rather than atheistic. How many books did you say you have on Nazi Germany and/or the holocaust Schaum? You said at least a hundred, I believe. All those books and you cannot see even the basics? But that makes sense coming from someone who holds that atheism is the original state of man, the disbelief in God coming prior to the concept of God itself.

Persiflage and Schaum, no amount of arguing can make anyone take seriously your notion that atheism is the original state of man and that religion is the secondary, learned state. For starters, you have atheism being the original state--disbelief in God--prior to the very concept of God which it is supposed to be the disbelief in! How can a person be an atheist before the concept of God is postulated you imbeciles?! How can man originally have been atheistic rather than religious when atheism implies first the concept of God? Even Timmy I suspect is not that stupid. When we have reasoning this stupid we do not even have to bring up evidence from anthropology, history, philosophy and so on.

Religion is caused by any one or more of about half a dozen mental illnesses. The truth about religion can be found in these books:

"The Neuropsychological bases of god beliefs" Dr. Michael A. Persinger MD, psychiatrist 1987 "Religious people are just like my temporal lobe patients"

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind" Julian Jaynes Professor, Harvard University 1976 "Religious people are just like schizophrenic patients"

"The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice" Roger A. MacKinnon, M.D., Robert Michels, M.D. W. B. Saunders Co. 1971 "Religiosity is a common symptom [of] schizophrenic patients"

"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. "Religion is caused by a kind of computer virus that infects the living computer, the human brain."

"The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer, 2004 "Morality and Ethics are now in the jurisdiction of Science and greatly improved thereby."

Many books in the new science called "Sociobiology": Morals and ethics are instinctive and they evolved.

"God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger. Scientific proof that god does not exist.

"The God Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper 1996. "The USA is anomolusly religious because many early founder groups were religiously insane and fleeing prosecution in Europe. Religion is a genetic disorder."

"The Accidental Mind" by David J. Linden, 2007 Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Religion is caused by the extreme klugeyness of the "designed" by evolution brain. In particular, the narrative creation system cannot be turned off. It generates false narratives that are believed by the generating person. This is seen in experiments done in the laboratory. This book has the best explanation of resistance to evolution: "There has also been an assumption that if one accepts the idea that life developed without divine intervention, it necessarily follows that all aspects of religious thought must be rejected. Those who take this line of argument to extremes argue that when religious thought is rejected moral and social codes will degenerate and "the law of the jungle" will be all that is left. It is imagined by religious fundamentalists that those who do not share their particular religious faith are incapable of leading moral lives." These suppositions are not true many times over. Linden later mentions that the creationists [intelligent design advocates] are exactly 180 degrees wrong rather than just a little wrong. Being exactly wrong, they are unable to unlearn their error. See Sociobiology or Sciobio.

"Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism" edited by Petto & Godfrey, 2007. The ID and creationist crowd are trying to do away with science. They see science as a "godless religion." Science is a process, not a religion.

"Manufacturing Belief" by Lewis Wolpert http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/

"The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", by Daniel Dennett Let's do scientific research on religion and find out what causes it.

"Origins of the Modern Mind" by Merlin Donald 1991 "So what did you expect from a brain that is based on the Chimpanzee brain?

"Atheism, A Case Against God" by George Smith

"God is not Great; how religion poisons everything" by Christopher Hitchens, 2007

Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist” by Dan Barker

The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution” by Richard Dawkins

“Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time” by Michael Shermer. The list author says: "This book explains why on earth your friends and family read the horoscopes."

“Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects” by Bertrand Russell

"After Atheism" by Mark Vernon

"The New Atheists" by Tina Beattie

? "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins

“Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism” by Susan Jacoby

“Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety” by Wendy Kaminer

“Dogma (Special Edition)” DVD Matt Damon

“Cosmos” Carl Sagan (7 DVD Set)

“Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Special Edition)” DVD Connie Booth

“The God Who Wasn't There” DVD Brian Flemming

“Inherit the Wind” DVD Spencer Tracy. The movie of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

“Complaints and Grievances” DVD George Carlin

“Contact” DVD Jodie Foster
The list author says: "Sagan's story of what is out there.

As a sophomore undergraduate student in Physics, your homework in Probability and Statistics class may include figuring out when the second coming would be required, assuming that the bible was 100% true in the year zero. That is, when would the bible be down to 50% true? The popular and professors' answer in 1965 was the year 500. The true answer: A friend of mine was born and raised in Budapest, Hungary. As an adult, he came here and stayed. After 25 years, he visited his home town of Budapest. He was unable to communicate with his high school classmates because the Hungarian language had changed so much. The correct answer is less than 25 years. The first gospel was not written down until 50 years after the alleged events and then in a different language. The people who told the story were at about the same level of civilization as "wild Indians", I mean Native Americans before Columbus got here. We have all played or seen played the game called "Telephone" in which a story is passed down a line of re-tellers. By the Sixth re-telling, the story has no resemblance to the original. The gospel story had to have been re-told at least 6 times before it was mis-translated the first time. [Note that whoever wrote it down the first time was free to write whatever he wanted to. The storytellers were illiterate and unable to check his written text by reading it. Besides that, he wrote in Greek rather than Aramaic.] Conclusion: There is no truth anywhere in the bible, and there never was. There is no way to know what "jesus" or "mohammed" or any other such character actually said or did.

ALL of the jurisdictions that were formerly in the jurisdiction of religion have been taken over by Science. There is no longer a need to debate the issue. Religion is an unfortunate side effect of having evolved from a chimpanzee-like animal in a very brief 6 or 7 million years. "God" will not save us from the consequences of global warming or an asteroid impact or a tornado because there is no such critter as "god.". Ethics and morality are instinctive, not derived from religion. Female instinct has greater force in morality than male instinct because the female is in command of the sexual encounter. Look up "Sociobiology". The origin of the Universe is the subject of Cosmology which is part of astronomy which is part of the science of physics.
Religion is a SCAM. ANY religion, there are 10,000 to choose from at any one time. People keep inventing new religions [for the benefit of the "prophet," of course] and forgetting other religions. ALL preachers, priests, imams, rabbis, iatolas, etc. belong in jail for "grand theft, bunko type".

"The exception occurs if the worshipper farts silently, or the fart does not smell. In such a case, he/she may continue with the prayer (ibid, 1.4.139).Sunaan Nasai (1.162) writes that if you fart during a prayer you must redo ablution. Sahih Bukhari (9.86.86) says that for a "farter" Allah will not accept his/her prayer until he/she performs another ablution."

Hence the ancient Arabic proverb, "he who smelt it, dealt it."

NAVIN1

Said:

"Look, I don't disagree with S et al about the "christers" and the islamists"

and

"Over generalization that all theists think the same way about what ever this thing is that they call god"

You choose of your own free will to call your thing "God" when the vast majority of the world who believe in God mean something completely different from your thing. And not just a little different. Completely at odds. I have pointed this out before but your seem to think that I'm trying to tell you what to do rather than to simply point out a simple way to end the confusion. You have so many other names for "God" you can use, why not end the confusion.

Furthermore atheists are far more likely to believe what you believe in general than are theists. They just don't want to call it "God" or call themselves "theists", because it's not, and they are not.

And yet you choose to call your self a theist and a believer in "God" and then you complain about people thinking that all theists think the same way about God.

Most of the world knows God as the dictator who owns our ass, and you believe something completely different from that but chose to associate with them via the words theist and God when you could be seen as that far more sane spiritual path.

I'm not telling you you need to drop the words "God" and "Theist". By all means continue to use them. It's your right. And it is also your right to use those words and then complain about people assuming wrongly about your theism and "God" belief. It is your right. So keep on keepin on.

Like I said, atheists are far more likely to believe what you believe in general. I am an example of that. As are the many many atheists who explore the eastern spiritual paths. But you keep siding with Daniel 12 and the other Creator dictator believers, just because the atheists don't believe your visions and in the monotheists, you have an ally there. Because we don't believe their visions either. Such strange bedfellows you've chosen, and for such petty reasons.

More to the point, this particular dilemma is mirrored globally; looking past the pastor/congregation relationship, the core of this discussion reflects what is going on in the hearts and minds of individuals and communities worldwide, as we each have to face how the nature of spirituality and religion is inevitably evolving into the 21st century. The ongoing exploration of rationality vs.faith and how we handle our changing views in our interactions with others is happening here on a local community scale as well as on the world stage. The conflicting views here represent our evolving consciousness in all fields of life; psychology, ethics and values, interpersonal relationships, politics,etc. One of the most powerful ways to navigate the changing tides can be found in the work of Ken Wilber. Several notable democrats; namely Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore have embraced his integral worldview. His vision, outlined specifically in seminal works like integral spirituality offers a

Back to the topic:

What Hindu Brahmans must consider in the modern world:

The caste/laborer system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism.

FREESTINKER:

NavinTheMysticSeerScientist has, yet again, repeated his mantra: "I have defined:
God=Truth, God=love, God=consciousness..."

And, yet again, he offers no evidence, and of course no proof, to support his daffynitions. So he has expressed nothing more than OPINION -- unsupported, unsubstantiated, unproven, as always, and therefore nothing more than the expression of his delusions. He says an atheist should define god. I have to wonder at his logic -- which he no doubt developed while milking sacred cows -- suggesting that one who does not believe in god would define him!

But of course Navin, the evidently undereducated, self-professed seer and mystic who claims that he sees what others cannot see, should be believed. Well, to each his own.

NAVIN1 wrote: "I welcome S's serious attempt to define god. I welcome a definition of truth, a usable epistemology..."

----

Let me give it shot.

God = a belief in a supernatural deity.
Truth = that which can be verified by empirical evidence.

Your definitions, on the other hand, are so vague and ambiguous as to render them useless.

let me regurgitate:

No definition of religion
No definition of truth
No real method or epistemology
One probablisitc argument that is a mythological construct as to the probabilities
Over generalization that all religions are the same (while maintaining that atheism is a diverse non-construct)
Over generalization that all theists think the same way about what ever this thing is that they call god
Pre-Supposition of a mythology of the progress of history
and on and on and on.

Using s's argument, you are asking me to prove that he has no reason. A negative can not be proven.

I welcome S's serious attempt to define god. I welcome a definition of truth, a usable epistemology...

If s/he doesn't have those, then the discussion is about nonsense and I can not prove that his non-sense has no sense. If s/he has definitions, at least we can begin with those.

I have defined:
God=Truth, God=love, God=consciousness... From my definitions (which are not random definitions but commonly recognized ones by many others who take the meaning of god as serious) we can move forward to discussion. If I define god as the guy in a book, then that is non-sense as only children really see it so simply. If I define god as a dictator, then that usually stops by adolescence. The adults that I talk to and many that post on the panels believe in a personhood to god but none of the straw gods of simplistic thinking.

If S agrees that Truth/Reality is what it is, I choose to worship that s/he doesn't, end of story. Likewise with Love, Consciousness, ...

The argument that babies are born with or without religion is non-sense. Of course our biology, from before birth, is seeking to grasp our relationship with the Truth. The relationship with truth predates consciousness (but is certainly enhanced by it). That is religion (a re-ligation). A yoking (a yoga) of our self and Truth. That is innate. To argue then that a baby does not have religion because religion needs to be taught is a diversion.

To argue that the evidence shows... Is turned on its head when the same evidence one day says the world is flat and another day says the world is round. The facts are not simplistic facts. This is a simplistic construct used for semantic debate. Perception is multifaceted (semantic and nonsemantic). If all you see when you look in someone's eyes is pupils and iris, you miss the sparkle of love. If all you see is the sparkle of love, you miss the red eye that is about to infect you.

Nature (Prakriti), and the empirical data she provides to us is vastly important. Purusha, and the consciousness that it is, provides us an insight that is vastly important. The interaction of the two, not one to the exclusion of the other, is where we struggle to relate to the truth.

Look, I don't disagree with S et al about the "christers" and the islamists (and even some Hindus and Buddhists). But the label christer, islamists, Hindu...atheist is not the point. Just by getting group membership does not fully define your position. Nor is it reasonable on an argument's part to assume so. There are intelligent Christers, muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheist and there are those that are not so sharp. We're all in this together. An idea can be challenged as it is understood, but it needs to be deeply understood. When I travel all of this country and run into people thinking about god as Truth, Love, Consciousness (despite what group they belong to), I have evidence that That is far more than a book character. If s/he doesn't want to face that complexity, ok. But then there you are.

Challenging a complex of history, experiences, beliefs, education, miseducation... all those things put together in a single thing we call an individual just shows a lack of depth of understanding - a childlike approach to deep questions - a regurgitation. One commonly done by mono-ideological thinking that presumes: I know, you are delusional. I know, you are a liar. I know, you are an infidel. I know, you are a heathen. I know, you are illogical... Sometimes this is true, but it is never true for someone who does not believe in Truth (and the ability to know what is True).

hariaum

Comedy notification for D 12,

The last line in my post to Persiflage and Schaum was funny.

Persiflage and Schaum,

"some are finding that the only way out of this particular prisoner's dilemma is to stop believing it"

Imagine, all you have to do to get out of the threat of going to Hell is to stop believing in it. Such a horrible fate with such an easy escape. Or you could go your whole life in fear of getting hit by a bus on your way to confession after masturbating.

DanielTheHomocidalLiar:

"Nazi Germany was far more atheistic than Christian."

Another blatant example of DanielTheHomicidalLiar's willingness to lie to support his delusions. He has no more respect for truth than he has for history.

The fact is that the majority of the Nazi hierarchy, and the vast bulk of the German population under the Nazis, were christers--and of these, most were roman catholic.

DanielTheHomocidalLiar can't find a publisher for his revisionist garbage "essays". I wonder why.

NAVIN! wrote: "If S were serious as a skeptic, s/he would have to begin with questioning the very foundations of the questions the atheists propose. [so and so says abc, and the problems with those presuppositions are xyz, if we ignore those problems we can consider the internal logic of a-b, and the consequences c-d...] Instead he launches into regurgitation of those arguments in volume without a critical analysis. "

---------

NAVIN1,

That's a good standard by which to measure an argument but so far you have failed to apply it to your criticism of Shaum.

Please provide an actual example where you think Shaum is wrong and please explain exactly why you think he is wrong.

Schaum:

'It is small wonder that the number of christers in the world is dwindling appreciably.'
______________

Indeed - some are finding that the only way out of this particular prisoner's dilemma is to stop believing it. You can almost hear the scales falling from eyes that finally see!

NAVIN1 said:

"But of course, his/her response will be: what can you expect from a side show... Really analytical and well thought out that one, I have to say"

Ahhh the old preemptive strike on the retort that is surely to come. A little D 12 esque. Maybe D 12 is worthy of becoming a published writer. His style is already catching on.

NAVIN1

"If S were serious as a skeptic, s/he would have to begin with questioning the very foundations of the questions the atheists propose"

If Navin were a serious skeptic of non god belief, s/he would drop the ABC crap and give some examples of "the questions atheists propose." Then we can question the foundation of them right here in front of everyone's eyes. Let's try that. That is if NAVIN1 is a serious skeptic of non god belief.

Skippy said:

"Just empty words to fill your empty, nihilistic lifes. How sad for you guys"

Save the sadness for those who wish the lives of atheists were empty and nihilistic without God. They are the ones to be pitied. Imagine growing up to find out you've been duped by a cult. Must be awful. How sad for you, Skippy. How very very very sad.

Did I mention how sad I feel for you? Just wanted to make sure you knew how sad I felt for you. See how my words show no anger at all? Just pity. Do you prefer pity over anger? You got it. You have my utmost sympathy for your situation.

Freestinker

No definition of religion
No definition of truth
No real method or epistemology
One probablisitc argument that is a mythological construct as to the probabilities
Over generalization that all religions are the same (while maintaining that atheism is a diverse non-construct)
Over generalization that all theists think the same way about what ever this thing is that they call god
Pre-Supposition of a mythology of the progress of history
and on and on and on.

If S were serious as a skeptic, s/he would have to begin with questioning the very foundations of the questions the atheists propose. [so and so says abc, and the problems with those presuppositions are xyz, if we ignore those problems we can consider the internal logic of a-b, and the consequences c-d...] Instead he launches into regurgitation of those arguments in volume without a critical analysis. And after regurgitating (and to be fully fair sometimes pointing out that he is talking about the "christer" god - but then generalizing to all ideas of god) concludes that there is no god.

Sorry, I've read better papers from high school kids who really are using analytical reason. Now I recognize that this is an opinion page and not really suited to deep and substantial argument - most serious people know that type of thing takes years of research and devoted (ahm - faithful) study often confronted by those who have tread deeply before you (also known as a dissertation) - so it is ok for him to voice his opinion in the guise of selected quotes (even if he is a mythological creature created from the farts of christo-islamic suppression of reason).

But of course, his/her response will be: what can you expect from a side show... Really analytical and well thought out that one, I have to say.

hariaum

The Green Man is loose, Persephone is free, and all the fricking snow has melted! REJOICE!

Happy Vernal Equinox to all!

Please excuse the myths. ;-)

Persiflage:

As I said earlier, just another tired, garden-variety christer who attempts to drag those who are strong enough to live without beliefs, myths, superstitions...or god...down to his level. It is impossible for them to live without a sky-surfer god to protect them from ultimate reality. Nothing new. Nothing interesting. It is small wonder that the number of christers in the world is dwindling appreciably.

Skipsailing sez:

'I have faith that God exists. Schaum has faith that God does not exist.
__________

Skippy, that boat won't float....theists have faith in an unseen, unproven being that is alleged to be the 'creator of all things'.

Atheists don't rely on faith - they rely on facts in evidence, when it comes to supernatural phenomena i.e. God, etc.....

For example, Christianity represents a complicated belief system that is caught up with the ideas of God, sin and salvation, redemption, a personal savior, the saving of souls, and so forth.

All are features that result in taking as fact, an elusive idea that has thus far failed to be supported by a single iota of empirical evidence, and which is the very definition of religous faith for theists. This complex of traits is a result of successful religious conditioning.

Don't make the mistake of imagining that nontheists suffer from the same complicated dilemma...they don't.

What Hindu Brahmans must consider in the modern world:

The caste/laborer system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism.

DITLD:

Thanks for taking the time to read and critique. I appreciate your suggestions -- you always seem to perceive both spirit and intent!

SKIPSAILING28

Do not presume to give the appearance of having powers of perception which you clearly do not.

Read my first post to you. It stands.

Persiflage:

"'.......morality and religion belong altogether to the psychology of error..."

I have never understood the bizarre idea that morality resulted from religion.

wow this is fun. All those words you guys pound out and you can't answer some simple questions.

Just empty words to fill your empty, nihilistic lifes. How sad for you guys.

Barfeo (or whatever) apparently you can't answer my simple question. Instead you hurl insults. Is that supposed to impress somehow? I didn't think so.

Schaum: you must be used to getting your way. Why not just answer the question? The tone and tenor of your comments reek of anger. Why?

A tiny dose of homeopathic 'truth' medicine for Daniel 12 - Nietzsche on 'Imaginary Causes'........as the source of religion, etc.

'.......morality and religion belong altogether to the psychology of error: in every single case, cause and effect are confused; or truth is confused with the effects of believing something to be true; or a state of consciousness is confused with its causes.'

http://dailynietzsche.blogspot.com/2007/12/third-great-error.html

"...and I was a former Catholic priest although actually a Jew."

Typical of DanielTheLiar's inept handling of language! "I WAS a FORMER Catholic priest" would, once untwisted, mean that he has returned to being a Catholic priest. But "although actually a Jew"? Does that mean that he, the former Catholic Jew, has returned to being a Jew as well?

Is it any wonder DanielTheLiar, atheist-pretender and now-unmasked homicidal believer in god myths, cannot find a publisher for his garbage "essays"? Even he doesn't understand what he means!

Persiflage:

"The facts of the matter are in the links, rather than in D12's special brand of disingenuous misinterpretation. I suspect that 4 years of college might have done him some good......."

But not to worry about facts. DanielTheLiar has never allowed facts to influence his "original thinking". He will, as previously noted, lie, distort and prevaricate to prove his "original thinking" true.

No, I don't think 4 years of college for DanielTheLiar would have done anything more than irritate the real students. He does not consider sources or consequences -- he doesn't know how. He is the most dangerous of all christers: the articulate incompetent, one who will never be wiser tomorrow than he is today.

Here's Daniel 12 confabulating in his own special way:

'Piaget demonstrates children are naturally religious--just like primitive man--rather than atheistic, that they cannot reason to be atheistic in the first place'

And this:

'Persiflage insists right here Buddhism is atheistic when Buddhists believe in an absolute of enlightenment and escape from the wheel......'
________________

The facts of the matter are in the links, rather than in D12's special brand of disingenuous misinterpretation. I suspect that 4 years of college might have done him some good.......

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_development

http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/atheisms/buddhism.html

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Nativist_theorizing

Whell, I think.... Huh. Humans.

Today, oh, those awful Aztecs (though human sacrifice, ritual murder, was/is universally practiced).

Which came first, the chicken...?

Which came first, morality, politics, or religion?

Morality, of course. Right and wrong.

Who first set the morality? Who first decided?

Undoubtedly, the strong person in the group. Might made right.

In the first small groups of humans, that "worked." But, dang it, the strong person setting the rules could not be everywhere, watch everybody in the group all the time. Thus, the next invention was politics -- a way of organizing, and the strong person hired "watchers."

That "worked." But not good enough, as the group enlarged.

Next human invention, god(s). ("...someone to watch over me" -- the gay bar anthem. Nice sentiment, but I digress).

Yep, the strong person could not trust his "watchers" quite enough. God could watch everybody better.

Keeping order in the group is what "it's" all about.

Accordingly, morality came first.

But, with morality came lying. Maybe lying came before morality. Lying is the singular ability of humans, over any such ability in all Animalia, though some other animals do suggest a bit of lying ability -- camouflage, craftiness, cleverness, and some other stuff -- conniving, I doubt.

The lying ability of humans is the least studied, of all subjects. In modern times, there are a few articles appearing in philosophy magazines and journals, but only one book: Sissella Bok's, "Lying, Moral Choice in Public and Private Life" -- not a very good book, rather boring, actually.

Then there's Harry Frankfurt's little 67 page, "On Bullxxxx." When I mentioned this book, in a previous post, the post was refused. I guess because I spelled out the actual word.

Some 200 years ago, I. Kant gave it a go -- lying. Nothing much, since.

I could probably go on for another thousand pages, about human's singular reason for their organizations and institutions being the way they are -- their ability to lie, and lie well. Lying is the best tool of survival, of all the tools.

In most human analysises, it seems humans are embarrassed by this, uh, fact? condition?

So, I have tried to study lying -- and there's not much to study. So, anecdotally, my experience, I gathered all my wealth, by being able to lie right up there with he best of 'em. I was a talent agent/manager/producer. Ya hear the one about the blind agent, with the seeing-eye rat?

In retirement, when not on a Golf course, I spend all my time spreading lies about Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. He used to be known popularly as Agustus and/or Octavian, and mostly as Caesar Augustus. It is hard work, because I can find hardly anyone, in our last three generations, who ever heard of him.

"Don't get up gentlemen, I'm only passing through." Bob Dylan -- the divine Bob Dylan.

Disbelief in the pulpit, or how I came to push Coca-cola.

Greetings, my name is Joshua Lowenstein and I was a former Catholic priest although actually a Jew. Actually I am really a homosexual and would like to sell the concept of men being feminine but that has been a secondary career and I expect it to always be so. I expect to have to lie about homosexuality as much as I lie about everything else, except homosexuality will involve lies for a greater length of time.

So I was born a Jew and became a Catholic priest. Why did I do so--become born a Jew, that is? Well I really do not believe in God or Intelligent Design so I just "self-organized" into being a Jew as atheist philosophers such as Dennett would say...It was a "bottom up", strictly biological experience involving no "top down" design by a divinity not least because the doctor had to spank my ass to make me cry and breath. But I can relate entirely sensibly why I became a Catholic priest: Partly because I wanted to escape the persecution Jews are subject to and partly because I actually believed in Jesus Christ. But I never entirely believed the whole time I was a priest. Which is to say never really believed that Jews are all that persecuted these days nor the tenets of Catholicism.

But tell me, who really believes in their job? How many people just mark time and make money? Do we not go through the motions on so many things because that is what we are supposed to do and is exactly what pays? Why should I have to believe in the tenets of Catholicism to be a Catholic priest? Do I not perform a service whether I believe or not? And how is this different from selling Coca-cola? Answer: if one begins demanding honesty from one calling one must demand it everywhere. But of course that will not occur. You see, people might have no problem tossing out a priest who disbelieves in what he preaches, but they will not toss out a representative for Coca-cola for not drinking Coke because they believe in Coke so much more than any religion.

People could not care less about all the lies they tell with this job and that they have--nor do they care if others lie as well--because people believe in these daily and typical jobs and lies. Society has always run to a great extent on lies. Getting to the truth is difficult and it is questionable even if the truth is being gotten at let alone is better for man than believing in falsity. So society in the past to a great degree was dominated by religion, if not totally, but these days, in our advanced modern age, we have other beliefs, which in comparison to traditional religion are more valuable...We must toss out the priest who no longer believes in the tenets of his faith but we must protect so many others in their lies for they are self evidently of more help to man than the religious and their organizations.

So former Jew and and former Catholic priest that I am, I signed on with Coca-cola, the formula which will not rot teeth and has a long and distinguished pedigree, far from the original bottle with its dose of cocaine. And between us I believe in the original formula more than the new ones! I am a Coke fundamentalist! We should buy up the Bolivian and Peruvian crops and make some real Coke! The kids would be drinking it all day and even be quoting Sherlock Holmes and Freud perhaps and looking each other over intensely...

Might even help in promoting homosexuality, and we all know how dear that is to my heart. I just have new beliefs rather than Catholicism let alone Judaism. No circumcision but just condoms. And most important of all, just give people what they want. What sells is good. This certainly is an advance over religion...Of course the atheists, paragons of integrity that they are, have pointed out that priests not believing their own tenets is only part of the problem and that one must not lie in one's capacity at any job. The atheists in short are in the forefront of saying disbelief in the pulpit is only one lie among many services that are performed on (or should I say perpetrated in?) society. I just have difficulty quoting a single atheist on this matter. Perhaps an atheist out there can supply the quotes as they escape me at the moment (both the atheists and the quotes).

So I sell Coke. And I have a good plan coming up to sell homosexuality. My slogan will be for the former and latter, do what feels good. Of course this is not original, but people do want to do what feels good. They do not particularly care if what they do is of harm to themselves. In fact they want lies told to themselves lest the truth cut into their enjoyment of life. Tell me, who relishes the truth like a good Coke? No one. But perhaps if we go back to the original formula, packed with true cocaine, people will like the truth, will enjoy pointing it out with grim, numb-nosed intensity. Hell, maybe that is the real reason for the decline of the original Coke formula...too directive of the truth...

So we sell what harms people, what prevents them from the capacity of arriving at the truth. Or at the best, we sell what does not harm, but certainly we are far from selling what enables us to see the truth. The last thing that would sell in society is a truth formula, whether that means what makes one tell the truth as one sees it or the actual truth. Actually the latter is probably an impossibility. But the former, a formula which makes people tell the truth as they see it...that is more feasible. We can sell it as the formula which makes one tell the truth...as one sees it...which of course is not necessarily the truth. Hell, maybe I should open a chocolate factory instead. But that has already been done.

So I sell Coke. Any objections? Of course not. It is Coke, not religion...Hell! There you go!: "It is Coke, not religion". Of course the atheists would come out in droves on this one! I just cornered the atheist market on soft drinks! And we all know man is becoming more atheistic by the day! (whether that is by reason is a different question). In fact perhaps I can sell that love dear to my heart, homosexuality as well...an androgynous personage on the Coke beverage saying "it is Coke, not religion". From there I know it is just one more step to putting the cocaine back in Coke! I just know it!

The hell with the pulpit. I believe in Coke.

D 12 sez:

"As for my supposed anger Timmy and Schaum, sorry, my heart beats quite fine"

and

"As for my fellow atheists, I would have no trouble shooting them"

One of the statements must be a lie.

D 12

"Give us some evidence Timmy that you are indeed a comedian"

I have been giving you comedy notifications of my funny posts. Don't find them funny? That's okay. Comedy is subjective. And you were kind of the but of the joke in some of them.

I have no doubt though that your upcoming post will be hilarious.

Persiflage and Schaum mentioning Piaget in the context of arguing that man was naturally atheistic and had religion imposed on him, that religion is secondary, is just obscene. Piaget famously demonstrated that children are far from being capable of reasoning, that if two differently sized glasses of the same amount of liquid are placed before them they cannot see the amounts are the same. Nor are they capable of understanding the argument of God versus no God. Piaget demonstrates children are naturally religious--just like primitive man--rather than atheistic, that they cannot reason to be atheistic in the first place. Hell not even adults understand the argument of God versus no God very well. Persiflage insists right here Buddhism is atheistic when Buddhists believe in an absolute of enlightenment and escape from the wheel of reincarnation which if one is atheistic one cannot accept because the absolute of enlightenment does not exist, cannot exist in atheism no more than the absolute God which is indeed one and the same as the absolute of enlightenment, just in a different name. Both God and the absolute enlightenment of Buddhism refer to a timeless and perfect realm utterly free of suffering. Such is incompatible with atheism. Not to mention reincarnation being incompatible with atheism. Or is an atheist going to believe in reincarnation and enlightenment but not in monotheism? If so, it would be nice to hear exactly why so we can reveal in a matter of seconds no particular reason applied but just personal preference which amounts to prejudice in favor of Buddhism over monotheism.

As for my supposed anger Timmy and Schaum, sorry, my heart beats quite fine, does not choke on itself at all. I think you guys have a far more obvious reason for anger, being utterly uninventive...I still wait for the comedy sketch from the professional comedian Timmy. Give us some evidence Timmy that you are indeed a comedian. Make us laugh. Demonstrate in the same breath you know how to make people less angry by giving them a laugh. But we know no comedy sketch is forthcoming. I however, will write one now.

Dear Schaum

I made some style changes. I hope it is ok. I am a little burnt out with weddings. I have never been to a gay wedding before. Many of the vows you have here are philosophical in nature, but some of them were touching.

I mainly just made style changes; I put what you had written in upper and lower case, and then I put the modified sentence or phrase beneath it in caps.

----------------------------------------

David and Christian are happy today not only because they can share the joy of their love for each other with friends and family, but also because they have the opportunity to express their aspirations for the future.

DAVID AND CHRISTIAN ARE HAPPY TODAY TO SHARE THE JOY OF THEIR LOVE FOR EACH OTHER WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY, AND THROUGH THIS CEREMONY, TO EXPRESS THEIR ASPIRATIONS FOR THE FUTURE.

------------------------------------------

Recognizing that the external conditions in life are not always be smooth and that your own minds and emotions will sometimes get stuck in negativity, do you pledge to see all these circumstances as a challenge to help you grow, to open your hearts, to accept yourselves, and each other; and to generate compassion for others who are suffering?

RECOGNIZING THAT LIFE IS NOT ALWAYS EASY AND THAT YOUR OWN MINDS AND EMOTIONS WILL SOMETIMES BE NEGATIVE, DO YOU PLEDGE TO SEE THIS AS A CHALLENGE TO HELP YOU GROW, TO OPEN YOUR HEARTS, TO ACCEPT YOURSELVES, AND EACH OTHER, AND TO GENERTE COMPASSION FOR OTHERS WHO ARE SUFFERING?

---------------------------------------

Do you pledge to avoid becoming narrow, closed or opinionated, and to help each other to find and understand truth?

DO YOU PLEDGE TO BE EVER WATCHFUL OF BECOMING NARROW, CLOSED, OR OPINIONATED, AND DO YOU PLEDGE TO HELP EACH OTHER TO FIND AND UNDERSTAND TRUTH?

--------------------------------------

Do you pledge to preserve and enrich your affection for each other, and to share it with all beings? To take the loving feelings you have for one another and your vision of each other's potential and inner beauty as an example and to radiate this love outwards to all beings?

DO YOU PLEDGE TO LIVE LIVES THAT WOULD ENRICH YOUR AFFECTION ...

--------------------------------

When it comes time to part, do you pledge to look back at your time together with joy that you met and shared what you have, and acceptance that we cannot hold on to anything forever?

WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PART, DO YOU PLEDGE TO KEEP REMEMBRANCE OF THE JOYFUL LIVES YOU HAD TOGETHER AND ACCEPT THAT WE CANNOT HOLD ON TO ANYTHING FOREVER?

-------------------------------------

Do you pledge to remember the disadvantages of ignorance, and clinging attachment, to apply antidotes when these arise in your minds, and to remember the kindness of other beings and your connection to them? Do you pledge to work for the welfare of others, with all of your compassion, wisdom and skill?

DO YOU PLEDGE TO GUARD AGAINST IGNORANCE AND A CLINGING ATTACHMENT, TO APPLY ANTIDIOES ...
--------------------------------

Do you pledge to work to develop the wisdom of understanding the relative functioning and nature of things, and the wisdom of knowing their deeper way of existence, that they are empty of inherent existence?

(NOT QUITE SURE ABOUT THIS ONE)

------------------------------

Timmy2:

Thanks for reviewing the vows, and commenting. We are both atheists, but I am the one who practices buddhism as a philosophy. He agrees with those points, though, so I suppose he's at least a pseudo-buddhist.

You didn't equate god with truth? You must be mistaken. Surely NavinTheMysticSeer would know -- he sees things others cannot, you know. As Wittgenstein said, outside of mathematics truth cannot be known. But even there, 2+2 sometimes equal 1. How often truth is mistaken for fear.

Schaum,

Great wedding vows! I wish I had gotten married to such vows. I Got a little glassy eyed reading them, but I'm a sap like that. Even though I supposedly must see other people as just bags of chemicals I get all weepy and choked up over the slightest demonstration of love. I guess I really love chemicals and regurgitated data a lot. I get so emotional about them.

NAVIN1

"timmy we agree again. My god=Truth (satva)"

I didn't say anything about truth.

"My god=Love (anada)"

Love there is evidence for. But the word "love" suffices for me. Calling it God just makes it confusing. But call love God if you like. It's your right to do so.

"My God=consciousness (citta)"

Obviously there is evidence for consciousness. But the word consciousness suffices for me. Calling it God just makes it confusing. But call consciousness "God" if you like. It's your right to do so.

"In fact, that god is called Tat Sat (that which is - kind of like reality is what it is) and Sat Cit Ananda"

Again the word reality suffices for me. all these extra words and calling it all "God" is so confusing. But have atter.

"Maybe you're a Hindu and don't even know it. My long lost brother!"

Nah. I could believe everything you believe and I still would not be a Hindu until I call myself a Hindu which I would never do because such labels, particularly of the religious brand are divisive and troublesome. IMHO.

Love and consciousness yes. Truth, not so much. But in the words of the great Meatloaf, 2 out of 3 aint bad.

Persiflage:

You think? Thanks. I wanted essentially a buddhist exchange, sans theism. I appreciate your input.

What imams have to deal with in this contemporary world: (or are they the instigators of all this bloodshed?)

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3477 killed in action, 896
non-comabat, 95,545 – 104,244 Iraqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.

10) Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan: US troops killed in action 661, 195 killed in non-combat situations as of 12/15/09. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported that 2,118 Afghan civilians were killed by armed conflict in 2008, the highest number since the end of the initial 2001 invasion. This represented an increase of about 40% over UNAMA's figure of 1,523 Afghan civilians killed in 2007.

11) The killing of 13 citizen soldiers at Ft. Hood by a follower of the koran.

Then there is Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography, "Infidel".

"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."
ref: Washington Post book review.

four excerpts:

p. 47 paperback issue:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

p.68:

"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."

p.309

"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."

p. 347

"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".

Then there is the farting: (i.e. Sir Rushdie got it right)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1503931/Prayer-Recitation-of-Quran-and-Ablution-or-Bath?query2=islam%20fart

"Farting is problematic in Islam. During prayer, a worshipper must not fart. Sahih Bukhari (1.4.137) writes that Allah will not accept a Muslim's prayer if he/she passes wind during the ritual.

The exception occurs if the worshipper farts silently, or the fart does not smell. In such a case, he/she may continue with the prayer (ibid, 1.4.139).Sunaan Nasai (1.162) writes that if you fart during a prayer you must redo ablution. Sahih Bukhari (9.86.86) says that for a "farter" Allah will not accept his/her prayer until he/she performs another ablution."

Schaum,

Your marriage vows are impressive and without flaw. I say don't change a thing.

Congratulations and Best Wishes to you and Christian!!

Well written Yeal9. I watch a lot of debates between Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins against all the theists and come away with a little bit of disappointments. I feel that in a debate of any kind non-theist argument should be limited to the contradictions in the scriptures and challenge the opponents to find a way out of the contradictions period. There is absolutely no need to argue about cosmology, evolution etc. Hold them to be accountable to their extra-ordinary claims, not just a generalized statements. Be specific as to Abraham's transgressions and their god condoning the same and ask them to rationalize that.

Preachers, priests, shaman, whatever - those who lose faith and yet still promote it, what are we to make of them?

How do they differ from those sitting in the churches who have lost faith, or perhaps never really had it?

Imagine a preacher standing there in front of his flock, he announces that he's lost faith, that he knows the entire absurd story is a crock. How many of the faithless in the pews would walk out the front door with him?

Do you believers really know that the fool sitting next to you in church believes as hard as you?

You might want to consider that. I don't for a second think that all the churchgoers in our country are really dumb enough to believe this crap.

What Orthodox rabbis have to come to grips with in the contemporary world:(besides the 40% rate of mixed marriages)

"New York Times

| March 9, 2002
New Torah For Modern Minds

By MICHAEL MASSING (NYT)

origin:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

New Torah For Modern Minds
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document.

''When I grew up in Brooklyn, congregants were not sophisticated about anything,'' said Rabbi Harold Kushner, the author of ''When Bad Things Happen to Good People'' and a co-editor of the new book. ''Today, they are very sophisticated and well read about psychology, literature and history, but they are locked in a childish version of the Bible.''

''Etz Hayim,'' compiled by David Lieber of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, seeks to change that. It offers the standard Hebrew text, a parallel English translation (edited by Chaim Potok, best known as the author of ''The Chosen''), a page-by-page exegesis, periodic commentaries on Jewish practice and, at the end, 41 essays by prominent rabbis and scholars on topics ranging from the Torah scroll and dietary laws to ecology and eschatology.

These essays, perused during uninspired sermons or Torah readings at Sabbath services, will no doubt surprise many congregants. For instance, an essay on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology,'' by Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, states that on the basis of modern scholarship, it seems unlikely that the story of Genesis originated in Palestine. More likely, Mr. Wexler says, it arose in Mesopotamia, the influence of which is most apparent in the story of the Flood, which probably grew out of the periodic overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The story of Noah, Mr. Wexler adds, was probably borrowed from the Mesopotamian epic Gilgamesh.

Equally striking for many readers will be the essay ''Biblical Archaeology,'' by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ''There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country,'' he writes, ''and the evidence that does exist is negligible and indirect.'' The few indirect pieces of evidence, like the use of Egyptian names, he adds, ''are far from adequate to corroborate the historicity of the biblical account.''

Similarly ambiguous, Mr. Levine writes, is the evidence of the conquest and settlement of Canaan, the ancient name for the area including Israel. Excavations showing that Jericho was unwalled and uninhabited, he says, ''clearly seem to contradict the violent and complete conquest portrayed in the Book of Joshua.'' What's more, he says, there is an ''almost total absence of archaeological evidence'' backing up the Bible's grand descriptions of the Jerusalem of David and Solomon.

The notion that the Bible is not literally true ''is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis,'' observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to ''Etz Hayim.'' But some congregants, he said, ''may not like the stark airing of it.'' Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that ''virtually every modern archaeologist'' agrees ''that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all.'' The rabbi offered what he called a ''litany of disillusion'' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have ''found no trace of the tribes of Israel -- not one shard of pottery.''

The reaction to the rabbi's talk ranged from admiration at his courage to dismay at his timing to anger at his audacity. Reported in Jewish publications around the world, the sermon brought him a flood of letters accusing him of undermining the most fundamental teachings of Judaism. But he also received many messages of support. ''I can't tell you how many rabbis called me, e-mailed me and wrote me, saying, 'God bless you for saying what we all believe,' '' Rabbi Wolpe said. He attributes the ''explosion'' set off by his sermon to ''the reluctance of rabbis to say what they really believe.''

Before the introduction of ''Etz Hayim,'' the Conservative movement relied on the Torah commentary of Joseph Hertz, the chief rabbi of the British Commonwealth. By 1936, when it was issued, the Hebrew Bible had come under intense scrutiny from scholars like Julius Wellhausen of Germany, who raised many questions about the text's authorship and accuracy. Hertz, working in an era of rampant anti-Semitism and of Christian efforts to demonstrate the inferiority of the ''Old'' Testament to the ''New,'' dismissed all doubts about the integrity of the text.

Maintaining that no people would have invented for themselves so ''disgraceful'' a past as that of being slaves in a foreign land, he wrote that ''of all Oriental chronicles, it is only the Biblical annals that deserve the name of history.''

The Hertz approach had little competition until 1981, when the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the official arm of Reform Judaism, published its own Torah commentary. Edited by Rabbi Gunther Plaut, it took note of the growing body of archaeological and textual evidence that called the accuracy of the biblical account into question. The ''tales'' of Genesis, it flatly stated, were a mix of ''myth, legend, distant memory and search for origins, bound together by the strands of a central theological concept.'' But Exodus, it insisted, belonged in ''the realm of history.'' While there are scholars who consider the Exodus story to be ''folk tales,'' the commentary observed, ''this is a minority view.''

Twenty years later, the weight of scholarly evidence questioning the Exodus narrative had become so great that the minority view had become the majority one.

Not among Orthodox Jews, however. They continue to regard the Torah as the divine and immutable word of God. Their most widely used Torah commentary, known as the Stone Edition (1993), declares in its introduction ''that every letter and word of the Torah was given to Moses by God.''

NAVIN1,

Please be specific with regard to the flaws you claim to find in Shaum's arguments.

Exactly which of Shaum's arguments are merely "reguritations"?

NavinTheFraudulentSeerMysticScientist:

" but you've got the bull!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA Criticism from a side-show freak! HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Schaum, I am ok with your thought. Unlike you, I don't have to have you agree with me to consider you reasonable (whether you exist or not still remains to be evidenced), your arguments are regurgitations. In all seriousness they are arguments of uncertainty, not certainty for atheism.

but I had to say:

Yeah you're right I have a lot in common with cows, but you've got the bull! :)

hariaum

I see 4 questions posed here:

Q: What should pastors do if they no longer hold the defining beliefs of their denomination?

A: Get another profession.

Q: Do clergy have a moral obligation not to challenge the sincere faith of their parishioners?

A: They have a moral obligation to challenge those beliefs.

Q: If this requires them to dissemble from the pulpit, doesn't this create systematic hypocrisy at the center of religion?

A: Hypocrisy? No, it’s called “honesty.”

Q: What would you want your pastor to do with his or her personal doubts or loss of faith?

A: I’ve never had a pastor, but I’d suggest that he/she pursue those doubts to a conclusion…

James Randi.

FREESTINKER:

"Since you don't refute Shaum's criticism,..."

Because, of course, he can't. But lets give the kid a break: like DanielTheLiar and all other garden-variety christers, he's only looking for something that will protect him from the ultimate reality.

BARFERIO:

" the "who have we murdered lately" defense."

Considering that the Deathpope Benedict XVI has forbidden the use of condoms in parts of the world where the incidence of AIDS is increasing at heretofore unknown rates -- and moreso among the heterosexual community than among the gays -- he has probably murdered multitudes. Some defense.

SKIPSAILING28

Do not presume to give the appearance of having powers of perception which you clearly do not.

Read my first post to you. It stands.

BARFERIO:

"SKIPSAILING28 provides us with the "who have we murdered lately" defense."

Yes, when you bring a peashooter to a gunfight you sorta like, you know, impress nobody.

Skip wrote: "I made no mention of Schaum's alleged "points" I simply posted an observation concerning his tone and tenor."

--------

Skippy,

What does Shaum's tone has to do with his argument?

Since you don't refute Shaum's criticism, please tell us why Shaum's tone is of any concern?

SKIPSAILING28 provides us with the "who have we murdered lately" defense.

it is the very freedom FROM religion which has prevented your church from murdering people - directly.

Given absolute power as they once had, they behaved as all despots behave.

It is in the nature of those who maintain absolute certainty that they will attempt to destroy those who deny it.

Now tell us how 99.5% of the the members of your church never murdered anyone, therefore we should pay not attention to the leadership which did.

just too funny. And altogether too easy.

I made no mention of Schaum's alleged "points" I simply posted an observation concerning his tone and tenor.

"Freestinker" seeks to change the subject.

No thanks. I stand by my original question: Why all the anger?

From what I can tell, Skip's accusation (that Shaum is angry) is nothing more than an irrelevant ad hominem attack designed to shift attention from Shaum's critique to Shaum's person. The strength of Shaum's argument does not depend on Shaum's disposition. So even if Shaum is angry, it has no bearing on the soundness of his points. Skip uses this fallacious device to avoid defending the logical weaknesses of his argument, weakness that Shaum has articulated in detail.

Skip has no answer for these weaknesses to he simply shoots the messenger (Shaum) with irrelevant accusations of anger.

How juvenile.

NavinTheFraudulentSeerMysticScientist:

Thanks for thinking of me, bud, but I don't think too many people are searching for advice from a "mystic-seer" who can't even forsee his own spelling errors! Just a hint...

And some advice for you: stick to cows. I suspect you have a lot more than religion in common with them.

SKIPSAILING28

Do not presume to give the appearance of having powers of perception which you clearly do not.

Read my first post to you. It stands.

The Buddha commonly referred to the gods as existent (but commonly irrelevant). I would take that as non-theistic - gods exist but they are not the major issue that we need to be concerned with - as opposed to atheistic - gods don't exist.

timmy we agree again:

My god=Truth (satva). My god=Love (anada). My God=consciousness (citta). In fact, that god is called Tat Sat (that which is - kind of like reality is what it is) and Sat Cit Ananda. Maybe you're a Hindu and don't even know it. My long lost brother!

Schaum: still stuck on spelling and missing meaning. It's OK. We'll wait for you to catch up. My advice, not that you have to take it, give up your arrogance and anger and you may see more clearly. But if you don't want to see, that's ok. Some day, I believe, you will.

hariaum

How funny all this is.

aGain Schaum, your anger is quite apparent. Its source is your problem, not mine. I'm just pointing out what I believe is your motivation and asking you quite clearly to defend it. You won't. Instead you bluster. I'll presume what I please and you've got no way to stop me. Impotence thy name is Schaum!

To barferio: name a prominent scientist who was killed at the hands of the catholic church during the last 100 years.

I'll be here all the week. Try the veal.

What pastors now have to come to grips with respect to the founder of Christianity i.e. the studies of the following and their conclusions:

"Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
Alvar Ellegård

Jesus the Man of the Spirit
Marcus Borg
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
Gregory Riley

Jesus the Revolutionary
Robert Eisenman

Jesus the Wisdom Sage
John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright
"

Timmy2:

"you all of a sudden are all concerned about his ager level? It makes no sense."

Concerned about "anger"? He's not, of course. He's just another pissed off garden variety christer, who is frustrated because he cannot prove his delusions. I decline to engage him, precisely because he is garden-variety, and has nothing new, interesting, or even inventive to offer.

For SKIPSAILING28:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Perhaps you don't, won't, can't understand the damage religious faith has caused to our human progress because you simply don't want to.

Christianity is a primitive religion, invented by iron age people who at best were profoundly ignorant of the physical nature of reality. When it makes claims regarding the nature of reality which are easily proven wrong as we do progress, it resists. To the point of murder.

The people running your religion, whatever variety you profess, are not the least bit interested in seeing you learn that they are full of crap. Any more than you are interested in learning it.

SKIPSAILING28

Do not presume to give the appearance of having powers of perception which you clearly do not.

Read my post to you earlier. It stands.

Timmy2/Persiflage/DITLD/FARNAZ:

Putting together vows for an evening wedding ceremony at the Jefferson Memorial in June. This is what I've come up with, in an attempt to satisfy our atheism, and my buddhist philosophy. Would you review, and critique? Is there any hint of theism? Does it seem compatible with buddhist philosophy? If you prefer to reply privately, my email is hugh.moser@gmail.com.
==========

David and Christian are happy today not only because they can share the joy of their love for each other with friends and family, but also because they have the opportunity to express their aspirations for the future. David and Christian, do you pledge to help each other to develop your hearts and minds, cultivating compassion, generosity, ethics, patience, enthusiasm, concentration and wisdom as you age and undergo the vagaries of life and to transform them into the path of love, compassion, joy and equanimity?

“We do”

Recognizing that the external conditions in life are not always be smooth and that your own minds and emotions will sometimes get stuck in negativity, do you pledge to see all these circumstances as a challenge to help you grow, to open your hearts, to accept yourselves, and each other; and to generate compassion for others who are suffering? Do you pledge to avoid becoming narrow, closed or opinionated, and to help each other to find and understand truth?

“We do”

Understanding that, as we are a mystery to ourselves, each other person is also a mystery to us, do you pledge to seek to understand yourselves, each other, and all living beings, to examine your own minds continually and to regard all the mysteries of life with curiosity and joy?

“We do”

Do you pledge to preserve and enrich your affection for each other, and to share it with all beings? To take the loving feelings you have for one another and your vision of each other's potential and inner beauty as an example and to radiate this love outwards to all beings?

“We do”

When it comes time to part, do you pledge to look back at your time together with joy that you met and shared what you have, and acceptance that we cannot hold on to anything forever?

“We do”

Do you pledge to remember the disadvantages of ignorance, and clinging attachment, to apply antidotes when these arise in your minds, and to remember the kindness of other beings and your connection to them? Do you pledge to work for the welfare of others, with all of your compassion, wisdom and skill?

“We do”

Do you pledge to work to develop the wisdom of understanding the relative functioning and nature of things, and the wisdom of knowing their deeper way of existence, that they are empty of inherent existence?

“We do”

Do you pledge to remember your own nature, as well as the nature of all living beings? To maintain the awareness that all things are temporary, and to remain optimistic that you can achieve your greatest potential and lasting happiness?

“We do”

David, will you have Christian as your lawful wedded partner, to live together in the lawful estate of marriage? Will you love him, honor him, comfort him, and keep him in sickness and in health; forsaking all others, be true to him as long as you both shall live?

I will

Christian, will you have David as your lawful wedded partner, to live together in the lawful estate of marriage? Will you love him, honor him, comfort him, and keep him in sickness and in health; forsaking all others, be true to him as long as you both shall live?

I will

David, place the ring on Christian’s finger and repeat after me:

I, David take Christian as my wedded partner, to have and to hold from this day forward,for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.

Christian, place the ring on Christian’s finger and repeat after me:

I, Christian take David as my wedded partner, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.

For as much as David and Christian have consented together in wedlock, and have witnessed the same before this company of friends and family, and have given and pledged their promises to each other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving a ring, by the authority vested in me by the District of Columbia, I pronounce these men to be united in marriage.

SKIPSAILING28

"Try again. Why all the anger?"

Why the false accusations of anger? Over and over again, Why? Why pretend that someone is angry who is not angry? Why? Can you prove Schaum is angry? Why are you obsessed with the supposed anger of one particular poster?

I see no anger in Schaum. But D 12 rants on with hatred for atheists to the point every now and then of saying things like "I would have no problem shooting them."

And so schaum has a few choice words for this crank case and you all of a sudden are all concerned about his ager level? It makes no sense. It seems almost like there is a hidden agenda. One that would make you miss D 12's obvious homicidal anger issues, or at least not mention them at all, but focus on Schaum's anger, which to me seems more like frustration and sarcasm rather than anger.

Only one poster here has threatened the lives of other posters with talk of physical violence. And yet you only zero in on Schaum. Hmmmm. Like I said. Clear case of hidden agenda. If I was a betting man I'd lay a sawbuck down that you are a religious person who wants to get those damn atheists any way you can. So you ignore the rantings of a lunatic, and focus in on the supposed anger in Schaum's posts which I certainly do not see.

But I'll oblige you. I'll be your huckleberry. Religion has slowed the wheels of human progress. Want proof? You'll not get any. Want evidence? It's al around you. Don't see it? That's okay, I see it, and it's my opinion, so all is good. No?

I agree with D12. Humans were superstitious long before we realized there simply is no objective evidence to validate our superstitions.

With education and critical thinking, some of us have now accepted our superstitions for what they are, merely baseless superstitions while many still cling to them as if they were absolutely real.

Humans are naturally superstitious. Only with education and reason can we ever hope to escape our otherwise fanciful delusions.

well schaum it seems I've struck a nerve.

your "explanation" simply isn't satisfactory. And your bluster does little to improve your position.

Try again. Why all the anger? Is it, as I noted, your belief that people of faith have somehow slowed the wheels of human "progress"? Is so, what proof can you offer?

Daniel12

Part of the Aztec religion was the ritual of human sacrafice, in which the living, beating heart was cut from the chest of the victim, and then the bloody remains of the person were thrown down the very, very steep temple steps. This type of sacrafice was performed often.

How is this better or more natural than atheism?

When you say you are not a practicing Catholic, I believe you. But you seem to be more influenced than you realize by Catholic teaching, and the Catholic method of arguing. And you seem to have a great emotional difficulty with the loss of Catholic belief.

For a novel idea about human immortality, read what physicist Frank Tippler proposes.....we will all be incorporated as nanocomputers at the end of time!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

Timmy

You said:

"Suppose we are a seeded planet by some life form we can not even imagine."

If we became aware of this knowledge, that would not explain the ultimate quesitons, but would be just a little more knowledge.

If we evolve into a different kind of intelligence that could understand, that is different, but that does not apply to us now, nor any time soon.

You said, perhaps there is no why. That is going more along the lines of what I am getting at. We are anchored to our animal origins, with a consciousness that is aware of all of that part of reality that sustains an animnal existence. We are tuned to it, to use your word. The question "why?" is tuned to this mode of existence. Our way of thinking, is reflective of how we are tuned to an aspect of existence that sustains us; and we are in incapable of understanding, by that I mean, without capacity to understand.

You want to think outside the box. But my belief is that we are sealed inside of the box, and there is no getting out of it. There is no door, no lock, no key.

Some people take this kind of view to think about the aftelife, Heaven, the parnormal, seances, palm reading, contacting the dead. But that is all speculation outside outside the box and we can never know.

Persiflage:

DanielTheLiar, in the past, has been directed to sites which would teach him critical thinking skills -- to no avail. I've found one more for him: only 18 pages long and written in simple terms. It is a wasted effort, I imagine, but I will post it here for him.

http://www.skepdic.com/essays/haskins.pdf

BTW, the Piaget references are superb. He's one of my favorites.

With regard to man's proclivities toward religion, I'd assume that D12 is referring back to some brand of nativist theorizing - where many human attributes, including perhaps religion, are hardwired into the DNA and will automatically emerge/unfold at birth.

Intractible research-related issues are a problem with this approach to human learning. That said, there are cognitive theories tied to the history of religion. The leading proponent of this approach can be found below via the work of E. Thomas Lawson, and old religion professor of mine from the 1960's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Thomas_Lawson

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Nativist_theorizing

What the Jesus Seminar and other contemporary historical Jesus (e.g. Professor Borg), OT (e.g Rabbi Wolpe) and NT (Professor Fredriksen) exegetes have concluded:

See:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Contrary to D12's histrionic and disorganized rambling, Buddhism is most definitely atheistic. In fact, it's fair to say that Buddhism in it's essence isn't about religion at all, but would be more accurately described as a type of existential philosophy.

The Buddha is quoted as saying that he didn't gain a single thing from complete and unexcelled enlightenment. Discovering the meaning behind this statement for oneself is the heart of Buddhism.

Of course humans have ritualized it, organized it, imposed a hierarchy of personalities, and turned it into a religion - as they are wont to do. In every way, religion is and always has been a human phenomenon, created by and for humans.

Approaching every situation already convinced of one's invincible authority makes a person refractory and hard to reason with - as D12 has displayed yet again in this latest misbegotten screed against atheism and atheists!

To proclaim that humans are 'born religious' as D12 repeats ad nauseum, displays serious gaps in his self-directed education. If this were so, we'd all be religious without exception, would we not? Once again for good measure - humans are born knowing nothing whatsoever, but are born ready to learn.

Religion is a way of apprehending and organizing the complexities of life in a meaningful way, but by the same token religion is restrictive and conforming. It's cohesive effect is a primary social function, and these underlying functions are exactly what students of religion look for - so religion is far more than the ritual and dogma of a specific belief system.

BTW, rebirth is a Buddhist doctrine and is distinct from the idea of reincarnation - if you're into that sort of thing.

Schaum is correct - D12 reads voluminously, and then regurgitates what he's read without separating the wheat from the chaff. I recommend more effort be directed toward critical thinking......

More about learning from Piaget below.....

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_development

http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/atheisms/buddhism.html

In high school, I had doubts about my religious upbringing. At university, I gave up the pretense and walked away from faith in the divine. I certainly did not want to be a hypocrite. But I kept an open mind as all good secularists should do. A path, unplanned by human minds and one which I struggled against, was laid before me. I eventually gave myself back to Christ; and in so doing, have met with experiences for which I cannot deny the divine nature. I don't want to be a hypocrite, but to return to atheism and to deny Christ, would be doing exactly that.

DITLD,

Okay, I think I get most of it now. Except the part where we can never know why we are here. Again I must remind you how unlikely I think it is that we will never know, and that I fully accept that there may not even by a why. But if there is, how are we precluded from knowing about it?

Suppose we are a seeded planet by some life form we can not even imagine. Why couldn't we learn that one day? Also, remember that I said that it could be us or a future evolution of us that comes to know a profound "why" that we do not know.

Like I said, I get most of your terms now so you can have another go at the sticky point.

DanielTheLiar, self-educated, has never learned that an education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't...an ability he has never developed.

He once remarked that he "devours books." Perhaps that is the problem. He has never learned how to use books; he merely gnaws on them.

On whether atheism rather than religion is the original and natural state of man.

There is one view promoted by a significant number of atheists which definitely needs be addressed. This is the view that the natural condition of man is to be atheistic and that religion is the indoctrination of man. Or to put it in a different way, that man begins as a blank slate and has beliefs inculcated and that man was originally atheistic and had religion imposed on him in some fashion. According to this atheistic view ancient man, or if one prefers, original man was not a religious creature and had religion imposed on him or arrived at religion in some fashion which amounts to the religion being the unnatural state and atheism the original, clean, pure, natural state of man. Let me declare right out that that is a piece of utter nonsense and a rank lie to support the typical modern atheist desire to erase religion from man as if religion is nothing but a stain which has somehow been imposed on man and which is utterly safe to wipe away as if we have been subject to some sort of disease for millennia.

First of all, the notion of man being a blank slate is a modern theory and of obvious nonsense. If man were simply a blank slate capable of taking any impression he would be capable of learning anything, anything at all that could be impressed on his mind. Second, if he were a blank slate he would not at all hold so firmly beliefs that he does hold--such views would be held loosely, his blank slate mind would be able to be easily erased. The fact is man has no blank slate, free mind. Man--and to use the modern science atheists hold so sacred--is like any animal with a mind that evolved ways of seeing, and which has limits like any mind in the natural world one cares to use as comparison. If man really had a blank slate mind teachers in school would at least have a very easy job and probably be out of a job because any brilliant idea at all would quickly become common property. But the fact is people have obvious limits of mind. People are not blank slates of mind any more than having all the same face which they present to the world.

The fact is every bit of evidence concerning early man--man period--demonstrates that religion rather than atheism is the natural state of man. There has never to the best of human knowledge been a society that was originally atheistic and which turned to religion--rather the opposite is the case: Every society begins religious and it is atheism which is the learned behavior, the unnatural behavior. And atheists trying to say Buddhism is an exception, that Buddhism is atheistic, is sheer nonsense. Buddhists believe in reincarnation--which flies in the face of the skepticism of atheists--not to mention the possibility of an absolute enlightenment which they speak of as delivering man from the wheel of rebirth, which is to say an absolute state which if one is an atheist one is compelled to deny the existence of...The notion of atheism being the original and natural state of man is actually a conflation of the age of Romanticism with atheism in the sense that we have here atheists dreaming of some Golden age of man without religion, the age of atheism before religion came into the world.

Along with such Romantic leanings we have typically a romanticizing of primitive peoples and religions, that paganism, for example, is the best form of religion when the modern, new age interpretation of paganism is exactly a piece of naivete what with "Goddess empowered" women traipsing in the woods...The truth is religion is the natural state of man, that he was not indoctrinated into religion unless one wants to speak of God coming down and taking hold of an entire populace, which I suspect atheists will discount...Or is it that certain men, believers, had such a hold that they indoctrinated man into religion? If the latter is the case then how can it be objected on scientific grounds--the theory of evolution--for these certain men of course would have to have been favored by evolution over the men who were born "natural, atheistic" and so on?

But of course the notion of God coming down or favoring a particular person or a particular person indoctrinating the masses--if accepted as an explanation for the transformation of man from an atheistic natural state to religion--is an atheistic acceptance ironically of religious texts which declare angels descend and that God speaks to man and so on. It seems atheists have no problem quoting books such as the Bible when it suits them. Religion is nonsense but man is naturally atheistic and it was all Moses' fault for bringing down the tablets and inculcating religion...If Moses had not done so man would be in his natural atheistic state...

Right. The facts are that man began religious and atheism is the learned state, the state synonymous with advanced civilization. Strange how some atheists want to have atheism declared the natural state of man when atheism as the learned, advanced state of man would seem to suit their purposes better, for they can say religion was an error of primitive thinking and atheism is the result of much deliberation...But then again, if atheism is declared the natural state one can indulge in the fantasy of just wiping religion away easily and arriving at the pure state of man...And in this latter case one also does away with the problem evolution presents in that one can say religion was an evolutionary error and man should have remained atheistic (in his natural state) which is difficult to declare if atheism is not the natural state of man. If religion is the natural state then we have to admit it had some sort of evolutionary advantage for man...

And religion is the natural state and atheism the recent learned state, which throws atheism into question, forces it to answer the question of evolution, which is to say whether it really is a superior way of seeing over religion...The fact is atheism is new and has to defend itself as being better for man than religion--and that it can do only by trial and error, the test of time, the very science it likes to throw against religion. But amazing how some atheists take atheism as self evidently better than religion, that it does not have to demonstrate any trial period...Especially amazing this view when we have the evidence of our eyes not to mention the historical record, atheist projects such as the Soviet Union with its supposed new man and Nazi Germany with its blonde, will to power beast and so on--just two examples of projects of a new society and man beyond the belief in God.

But I suppose the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were the natural state of man and we should welcome such naturalism. This is not to say religious societies are much better, but that atheism and societies constructed without religion are not self evidently better than religious societies yet. And we certainly should not buy into the notion that atheism is the original, natural state of man.

edbyronadams:

The the "no atheist in a foxhole" feeling is real and powerful and it is hard to find a Darwinian explanation for such a deep emotion.
------------------
Ed,

Read Hemingway. There are ONLY atheists in foxholes.

Also, maybe COLLIN NICHOLAS will posts. He's interested in deity-free foxholes...

EDBYRONADAMS

"I prefer to think that we are connected to the whole in a way that humdrum existence blurs but at times of stress or keen observation, we reconnect"

I feel exactly the same way. That is why I am intrigued by the spiritual paths of monism in the eastern religions, and why I find distasteful the dictator worship of the monotheistic religions.

I'm not saying that the Hindu religion is correct and the Abrahamic religion is wrong. I'm saying that the general idea of the Abrahamic God is a horrible scenario, but the general idea of monism is a more comforting and awe inspiring scenario.

I think it would be a pleasant thing if monism were true. But I'm cool if it's not true. And I'm glad that Abrahamic monotheism is almost certainly not true. I can't think of a more horrible fate.

'I prefer to think that we are connected to the whole in a way that humdrum existence blurs but at times of stress or keen observation, we reconnect.'
____________

EdBryon - I personally don't doubt the interconnectedness of all things. The fact that we often act like machines doesn't necessarily mean that we are mere mechanisms.

As you point out, appreciating the awesomeness of nature and a magnificent night sky is a purely organic human response to being alive. Unfortunately those moments are all too rare!

Obviously the autonomic features of our being sustain us from day one - it seems to be our thinking that causes all the trouble.

This is the part that needs to be independent and free-functioning, in my estimation. And this is exactly where religious conditioning typically works against our better interests. There are exceptions, but that is a different discussion.....

Navin, you said:

"Reality is without mystic revelation, unknowable. You read all the scientific arguments and phenomenology that you want, you will find this to be of common understanding amongst those who take it seriously. Thus we do not know that it is what it is. We assume that as a platform on which to allow rational debate (a=a) but that is not a know thing, it is an idea for us."

For the most part, I think I understand this. For mystic revelation, I would say, intuition or momentary insight, a sense of consciousness that is released from the usual idiom and burden of animal experience.

"Reality is what is", is a grammatical sentence that is not untrue, but it does not help in understanding what reality is. It is a neutral sentence, without real meaning, in which each word is a place holder for required grammar; it is phrased in the idiom of animal knowledge, for it is such a bland non-statement that animals know it too; not in words, but in their experience of being; in the human state of complex consciousness, we do not need to say such a thing, and we do not get anything from saying it, not anymore than we already knew from our animal experience.

Later on, what you call "depth of understanding" and "wisdom," I call "knowledge of judgement" to distinguish it from the knowledge of animal experience.

Knowledge of judgement is based on an awareness of the scientific method, and perhaps the actual doing of some experiemnts in school to show how science works, and to be aware of scientific consensus and to be aware of current trends and controversies in science. Knowledge of science, for the most part, does not come from personal experience, but from what others have told us, or what we have read about science.

Animal knowledge is what we know from a local landscape of personal experience, and it is the same for people as it is for animals. It is necessary for suvival.

Knowledge of judgement is more like art and art appreciation, the result of active and conscious thought about the world, which is difficult to acquire, and is easier for some than for others, and for which people can and often do, live without.

And I also make a distinction between knowledge of judgement that is valid and knowledge of judgement that is not valid. Many people judge that science does not yield valid knowledge, and they put their faith in some different knowledge of judgement. But how do we know the difference between what is valid knowledge and what is not valid knowledge?

When you know, you know; and when you meet someone else who knows, you know they know, and there is a kindered sense between people who have mastered the art of the knowledge of judgement that is valid.

But there is no simple rule to say how we can know the difference; there is a kind of undefinable art to knowing how to know what is valid and what is not valid.

The is why I say that we will never know what reality is; what being is; why do we exist in this world which we do not understand; on a most fundamental level, we animals, do not and cannot know anything beyond the only experiences that can have, for even every concept that we can imagine, we can only think of in the idiom of animal experience, by metaphor and analogy to our everyday lives.

Persiflae:

"Otherwise, we have reflexes - a set of innate responses that preceed organized thought and which are seemingly required for basic early survival. Beliefs are complex and interactive learned responses that come later."

The the "no atheist in a foxhole" feeling is real and powerful and it is hard to find a Darwinian explanation for such a deep emotion. I offered a psychological recapitulation explanation but it seems to have fallen on dictionary difficulty.
Another innate emotive response is the awe inspired by something like a clear view of the night sky. Perhaps someone can conjure a mechanistic response to that as well.

I prefer to think that we are connected to the whole in a way that humdrum existence blurs but at times of stress or keen observation, we reconnect.

NavinTheFraudulentMysticalSeerWhoCannotForseeTheCorrectSpellingOfWordsHeUses:

"It is the atheists (and many theists) that want to limit god's definition"

Cretin, there is no god. How can you limit what does not exist? Are you one of DanielTheLiar's high school class-mates?

NavinTheFraudulentMysticalSeerScientist:

"your need to believe you are 500 years more evolved than the rest of us cretans"

The word is cretin, cretin.

Navin Navin Navin

"Thus we do not know that it is what it is"

I don't know what it is, but I know that whatever it is, it is that.

"Then while in doubt you choose to insult those who do not doubt"

Who are the ones who do not doubt? I'm pretty sure I've heard you insulting those who do not doubt as well. Doubt is a good thing. And I don't know anyone here who has not expressed doubt.

"So the one who says I don't know, tells someone else: you are an idiot, you are delusional, you are conniving"

Quote it or stuff it. You do not have paraphrasing privileges with me.

"Your logic is too flawed"

It is when you invent it and put it in my mouth. But not when I speak for myself. My logic is sound.

"The whole reason that science is so powerful is that it does not accept what is "evident. ie the world is evidently flat"

Wrong. The world WAS evidently flat. People didn't go from believing it was flat to spherical based on the claims of seers. They changed their belief when the evidence presented itself. The flat theory is no longer evidentiary. And neither is the God theory.

"Wisdom is not data regurgitation"

Children are not here for your own personal desires. There, now we have both refuted statements that the other did not make with the attempt to slander their views and to look superior. Here's another one:

You know, NAVIN1, dwarfs were not put here on this planet for you to harass and make fun of! At least that's what I believe.

See how that works. Now others reading will think that you must have at some point expressed your right to harass and make fun of dwarfs. And here's another thing, wisdom is not just data regurgitation!

"Your anger in your words evidences your struggle with uncertainty"

Your anger in your words evidences your fraudness.

"Your need to attack and demean"

Your need to attack and demean.

"your need to believe you are 500 years more evolved than the rest of us cretans"

Your need to believe that you can see things that most of us can not even conceive. Mine was a joke. You actually believe yours though.

"As to my use of the word god in a way that you don't like, too bad"

I don't mind it at all. I was just noting how strange it is that you would not want to differentiate between what you believe and a totalitarian celestial dictator whom 2 thirds of the world believe in. That's all. No skin off my nose.

"It is the atheists (and many theists) that want to limit god's definition"

So is that a new limitation on the definition of "atheist" then? One who wants to limit God's definition? Is that a new limitation you are putting on the definition of the word "atheist" with your sentence above? Interesting.

But seriously, call anything and everything God if you like. Just don't expect us to believe it exists unless you can show some kind of evidence. For example, you can call "love" God. And then demonstrate evidence for love, which there is plenty. And then I will say, yes I believe in that god. Because there is evidence for that god.

"I do not hate you, call me what ever name you want"

I do not hate you, call me what ever name you want.

SKIPSAILING28:

However, I am made bold to ask you a question -- I suppose I cannot overlook that possibility, however scant, that you may have something original, or at least interesting, to say.

What are you so frightened of? Why do you christers have so much trouble dealing with the truth? What is the source of your paranoia?

SKIPSAILING28

Do not presume to give the appearance of having powers of perception which you clearly do not.

Read my post to you earlier. It stands.

"BTW, the LDS church doesn’t have the problem of pastors, or preachers, as the question asks, because we have none. The question is a moot issue in our faith."

Well maybe not since the LDS is led by a prophet/"profit" who talks to the angel Moroni 24/7 and what happens if said angel changes his/her mind??

Some early communications by said angel with Mormon:

"Having received his father Mormon’s plates, Moroni begins to add to them, per Mormon’s request. [Mormon 8:1]

Behold I, Moroni, do finish the record of my father, Mormon. Behold, I have but few things to write, which things I have been commanded by my father.

Moroni asks the reader not to condemn this record because of its imperfections. [Mormon 8:12]

And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you.

Moroni writes about his people’s destruction, and identifies himself as a descendant of Nephi. [Mormon 8:13]

Behold, I make an end of speaking concerning this people. I am the son of Mormon, and my father was a descendant of Nephi.

Moroni announces that he is the one who will hide this record; he explains that he who brings this record to light in the future will be blessed, but no one will use the plates to get gain. [Mormon 8:14–15]

And I am the same who hideth up this record unto the Lord; the plates thereof are of no worth, because of the commandment of the Lord. For he truly saith that no one shall have them to get gain; but the record thereof is of great worth; and whoso shall bring it to light, him will the Lord bless. For none can have power to bring it to light save it be given him of God; for God wills that it shall be done with an eye single to his glory, or the welfare of the ancient and long dispersed covenant people of the Lord.

The Book of Mormon will shine forth out of darkness by the power of God. [Mormon 8:16]

And blessed be he that shall bring this thing to light; for it shall be brought out of darkness unto light, according to the word of God; yea, it shall be brought out of the earth, and it shall shine forth out of darkness, and come unto the knowledge of the people;

and it shall be done by the power of God.
Moroni acknowledges that the record has faults, but warns against those who forcefully demand to see the plates on which it is written. [Mormon 8:17–20]

And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire. And he that saith:

“Show unto me, or ye shall be smitten,”

Let him beware lest he commandeth that which is forbidden of the Lord. For behold, the same that judgeth rashly shall be judged rashly again; for according to his works shall his wages be; therefore, he that smiteth shall be smitten again, of the Lord. Behold what the scripture says—man shall not smite, neither shall he judge; for judgment is mine, saith the Lord, and vengeance is mine also, and I will repay.

Moroni additionally warns against those who will try to go against the work of God. [Mormon 8:21–22]

And he that shall breathe out wrath and strifes against the work of the Lord, and against the covenant people of the Lord who are the house of Israel, and shall say:
“We will destroy the work of the Lord,
and the Lord will not remember his covenant
which he hath made unto the house of Israel—
the same is in danger to be hewn down and cast into the fire;

For the eternal purposes of the Lord shall roll on,
until all his promises shall be fulfilled.”

Timmy timmy timmy

We agree!

Yet I am uncertain if we agree or you are conniving. Alas the words says one thing, my intuition says another. The evidence is mixed. too bad.

"Reality is not what it is? it is something other than what it is? It could be something other than what it is? explain. " Reality is without mystic revelation, unknowable. You read all the scientific arguments and phenomenology that you want, you will find this to be of common understanding amongst those who take it seriously. Thus we do not know that it is what it is. We assume that as a platform on which to allow rational debate (a=a) but that is not a know thing, it is an idea for us.

Certainly the mystics will say exactly what you said, it is what it is. But their methodology you reject, but agree with their conclusions. OK by me.

"I have doubts about that opinion, but I'm doing the best I can to work through this."
Then while in doubt you choose to insult those who do not doubt. So the one who says I don't know, tells someone else: you are an idiot, you are delusional, you are conniving, ... it seems that the evidence of your words are that intellectually you want to believe you are a skeptic but actually you are a dogmatic ideologue with an axe to grind against theists - a group that you are uncertain, in your own doubtful way, are delusional, conniving, poor thinking persons. Your logic is too flawed. Just the way it is. (And you are quite wrong, I am not attacking you, you are attacking a person when you say they are delusional... I am attacking your simplistic ideas and approach to god.)

"The importance is to learn to believe what is evident" There is another simplistic concept of yours. What is evident changes by the construct of the mind. The whole reason that science is so powerful is that it does not accept what is "evident." ie the world is evidently flat. The best government is evidently the one we have... That is too sloppy an approach. The scientific method involves hypothesis generation and testing of that hypothesis. Hypothesis is a construct of reality that is brought to bear on predicting future behavior (prospective testing - retrospective evidence used to generate is conclusion is too sloppy also). The approaches to Truth/Reality as it is does not stop nor start with evidence. There is depth of understanding. Wisdom is not data regurgitation. It is that depth of understanding.

"If uncertainty ever went away, so would my imagination." That's too bad, you may want to free your imagination a bit more. But here also we agree. Uncertainty is not an evil. If only good things happened to people, then there would be no uncertainty. If people didn't suffer, your imagination would be defunct.

Your anger in your words evidences your struggle with uncertainty. Your need to attack and demean (not me, every body else that disagrees with you on these postings), your need to believe you are 500 years more evolved than the rest of us cretans... all of these things evidence your struggle. But, I am certain that your struggle will lead you further into that thing I worship: Truth, Love, Being, Brahman, ... as I am also certain that everybody else will go deeper into That.

As to my use of the word god in a way that you don't like, too bad. People are out there that understand god is not the simplistic straw man that atheists want it to be so they can win their arguments. It is far more mysterious and uncertain than a simple phrase or idea. It is the atheists (and many theists) that want to limit god's definition so as to put it down and claim their superiority to others.

And yes, when a person has to quit a job s/he does well because s/he is not 100% certain about their beliefs, those demanding the person step down are demanding 100% certitude from other but not themselves.

I do not hate you, call me what ever name you want. I thank you for joining me on this shared journey to deeper understanding of Truth as it is.

hariaum

NAVIN1

"An atheist may have doubt as to the existence of my god, but an honest one has doubt as to their own conclusions of what they believe"

Color me an honest one then. I definitely have doubts as to my own conclusions of what I believe. It doesn't mean that I don't believe them though. And there is nothing wrong with expressing my beliefs.

"Timmy says reality is what it is - as if these are objectively true - they can not be proven as syllogisms nor as evidence"

Reality is not what it is? it is something other than what it is? It could be something other than what it is? explain.

"But an honest person says I have doubt and I'm doing the best I can to work through this"

I have doubt, but I am doing the best I can to work through this.

"Others say I am delusional"

I think you might be a little delusional. But I have some doubt about that conclusion, and I am doing the best I can to work through this.

"others say I am an infidel, I am a heathen"

Those are the people you really need to watch out for. And yet you choose of your own free will to call your "truth" by the very same name they use to describe their celestial dictator (God) which is a completely different concept. Strange that you would choose to do that of your own free will. So strange that you wouldn't want to distinguish. I believe what you believe far more than any monotheist. I almost completely believe what you believe. In just don't pretend to know it and I am not so doctrinal about it.

"The posts suggest that the "other" is assumed to be purposefully lying, while the "self" is assumed to be just mistaken"

Purposely lying is to continue to declare a person's opinions to be truth statements of certainty when he has told you that none of his opinions come with certainty. When he has told you that he sees science as uncertain and blind to many of the mysteries of life. Atheists are the ones who do not believe in certainties and absolutes. That is what theists believe in. Theists might have doubts about what they are supposedly a "seer" of, but beyond those small doubts, they believe that they know the absolute certain truth. The word atheist means you are a skeptical person. A doubter. About everything. Always doubting and second guessing and re-examining and testing and testing some more and imagining and testing and hypothesizing and testing and seeking and only ever concluding until further evidence shows otherwise while continuing to search for that evidence to prove otherwise.

Atheists are all doubt. Theists are only a little doubt and mostly certain belief in an absolute. This is why they make the mistake time and time again of taking the opinions and beliefs of atheists and scientists as statements of absolute truth. It's because they themselves are so obsessed with the absolute truth.

But when they have been told time and time again that we are not certain, nor do we believe that science is certain, and they continue to pretend that all of your beliefs are claims of certainty, then one has to start suspecting a little purposeful deception going on. And the motivation seems evident. Revenge against those with the OPINION that you are a fraud. If you make my opinion that you are a fraud into a truth statement, then you can negate it, as opposed to having to live with the fact that many of us here believe that you are a fraud seer. It's just my opinion. I have doubts about that opinion, but I'm doing the best I can to work through this.

"The attempt to form a coherent belief structure is certainly important to our biological minds as to the benefit of predicting results of our actions"

Nonsense. The importance is to learn to believe what is evident. As to the benefit of predicting results of our actions, hypothesis based on evidence and past experience is what we do. There is no evidence that forming a belief structure that is not based on evidence is helpful in any way. And there is much evidence that it is problematic in many ways.

"Should all science teachers stop teaching science because they don't understand theoretical physics?"

No. Only when they stop believing it. Did you make a mistake here confusing "losing belief" with "losing understanding" or were you deceptively twisting the facts to work in favor of your argument.

"But when you demand 100% certitude, I think you've over stepped the line"

I haven't seen a single poster on this thread ever claim 100% certitude about anything. But of all of them, you have come the closest. It's my only problem with you. No one claims to be more certain than a "seer". The one who "sees things that none of you can even conceive of".

"We struggle with certainty"

No, you do. I don't. I don't believe certainty will ever exist, so I am free from this struggle you suffer from. I accept the omnipresence of uncertainty. I love the uncertainty. It fuels my favorite human asset. My imagination. If uncertainty ever went away, so would my imagination.

"The more subtle point is that a person of belief does not need to be a person of religion"

Of course. I am a person of belief. And I am not religious. It all depends on what they believe in that makes them religious or not.

This is funny... .

When those who believe in God go to a blog full of atheists, they whine about you intruding into their blog.

But when they come among a group of believers, they spew hatred and wont go away.

Hypocrites for sure.

Har, Chuckle, snort! :o)

BTW, the LDS church doesn’t have the problem of pastors, or preachers, as the question asks, because we have none. The question is a moot issue in our faith.

Chew on that for a while… . (I won’t be listening)

Mark
Always seek the truth.

No schaum, try again.

It seems that you're angry at those of us who profess faith because somehow we've slowed the wheels of "progress". I see no evidence of that.

So why the anger?

People are not mathematical facts. A mathematician may believe s/he is correct but an honest one would have doubt about their attempted solution to difficult problems. A physicist may not know for certain that a particle exists in any real way. An atheist may have doubt as to the existence of my god, but an honest one has doubt as to their own conclusions of what they believe. The tremendous uncertainty of knowledge has never been resolved. We have appearances of truth; even though Schaum says truth is what it is, and Timmy says reality is what it is - as if these are objectively true - they can not be proven as syllogisms nor as evidence.

So the question of intellectual honesty boils down to: you agree with me, you don't, I respect your doubt, I don't respect your doubt. But an honest person says I have doubt and I'm doing the best I can to work through this. Others say I am delusional, others say I am an infidel, I am a heathen, hypocrite... I can say I believe them and should therefore look deeper into my beliefs. Or I can say I don't believe them. If the latter, then either I know they are lying to harras me or they are mistaken but representing themselves honestly. (Still with uncertainty.)

The posts suggest that the "other" is assumed to be purposefully lying, while the "self" is assumed to be just mistaken. This is, of course, the common state of affairs.

But the question refers to religion and belief. The discussion becomes so distorted by the prejudice of the discussants that nothing is being said. A person has beliefs (that a person is born with as far as the evidence shows: of a reality, of an otherness, ....) The attempt to form a coherent belief structure is certainly important to our biological minds as to the benefit of predicting results of our actions. The social memory (smrti) of attempts at creating such a construct is represented differently but the focus of our education. Thus, religion provides one such construct.

The congruence of an individual and religion's belief is not going to be 100%. (nor is that of a scientist, an atheist, a communist...) Should all science teachers stop teaching science because they don't understand theoretical physics? No. We all work together to get to a deeper understanding of the Truth, Reality recognizing our limitation.

The Gita offers that there are different types of religions. Those that are more satvic (truth oriented), rajasic (action oriented), and tamasic (inert - set in their ways). People gravitate towards certain types of religions based on their own inner working. Some might, for example, be inertly atheistic. One would certainly draw from this that those contstructs to which people flock reflect those people's beliefs. But when you demand 100% certitude, I think you've over stepped the line.

The simple answer, then, is to each their own conscience. We struggle with certainty but some we must tolerate, some we should tolerate, and some we need to walk away from. The more subtle point is that a person of belief does not need to be a person of religion.

hariaum

'Jedi-ism' is the 4th largest belief in the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html

Well, why not.

EdBryonAdams sez:

'That is an interesting assertion. Certainly infants are born with a belief in mother. Perhaps the adage about "no atheist in a foxhole" is a regression to that immature state that believes a larger than ourselves force can intervene in a bad situation or, perhaps, that feeling is innate as well, a desire to connect to a spiritual reality.'
______________

Ed, I don't think so. Without the sucking instinct, humans wouldn't survive long enough to discover their 'spiritual' side much later on.

Otherwise, we have reflexes - a set of innate responses that preceed organized thought and which are seemingly required for basic early survival. Beliefs are complex and interactive learned responses that come later.

Looking at Piaget's scheme for early infant development may shed further light on the issue.....but of course he is not without his detractors!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_humans_have_instincts_or_is_everything_a_result_of_our_environment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development

Ed,

"Thank you for the insights from someone who has no apparent knowledge of nursing infants, or infants in general it appears"

Congratulations on finding a good way to change the conversation away from confusing instinct with belief.

I don't accept every single scra of doctrine espoused by my denomination. Why would I expect my minister to do so?

Skipsailing28

Sometimes you hate somebody's guts, even though you love them.

"Are they also born with the belief that the breasts of women are filled with milk?"

Thank you for the insights from someone who has no apparent knowledge of nursing infants, or infants in general it appears.

EDBYRONADAMS

"Certainly infants are born with a belief in mother"

Oh yeah? Been interviewing newborns about their beliefs have you?

Are they also born with the belief that the breasts of women are filled with milk? Or is it just a survival instinct. Do you confuse instinct with belief often or is this your first time?

If you were able to communicate with the new born, and you asked it, "Do you believe in Mothers?" do you think the baby would answer, "oh yes I most certainly believe in mothers, I have since zygothood."

Or would the baby jut shove you out of the way, not knowing anything about beliefs, but just needing to get to a nipple for some unknown reason.

Me thinks the latter. And me thinks that it still stands true that babies are born without beliefs of any kind.

And even if the baby did believe in mothers, it would be doing so based on evidence, not faith. Try again

Yeal 9

"Speaking of business, atheists are not shy about making a buck"

No one is shy about making a buck. The difference is in who pays you? Clergy get paid by the church. There is no atheist equivalent. There is no religious institution that pays salaries for atheists to proselytize. This is a strictly religious thing.

The two scenarios are not comparable.

As a now-and-then church attender over many years, I have often wondered why the preachers to not do what all other lecturers usually do. I would like to attend a service which ends in a friendly "question and answer" session, where questions of doubts, on the part of the flock or the preacher, could be aired. The crowd of TV peachers are just that. They act as if they are in possession of all the facts and the audience can take it or leave it! They state their opinion of faith or politics, as if you believe every word he says or you are doomed! There is only one Protestant Bible and nowadays most of the congregation has read as much of it as the Preacher has. They certainly have as much right to vent any questions as the Preacher does to speak. I doubt that he has any private line to the source, or has any special approval of today's sermon. Also, he should remember who is paying his salary!

"Religion is a business."

"And with these words you have summed up the entire christer history."
(and the history of all religions to include Judaism, Mormonism and Paganism.)

Speaking of business, atheists are not shy about making a buck:

(Ex-Catholic, now atheist) Julia Sweeney's monologue "Letting Go Of God" will be the final nail in the coffin of religious belief/faith and is and will continue to be more effective than any money-generating book or blog on the historical Jesus, atheism or secularism. Buy the DVD or watch it on Showtime. Check your cable listings.

from www.amazon.com
"Letting Go of God ~ Julia Sweeney (DVD - 2008)
Buy new: $19.99 $15.99

Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
five star rating"

" What they did tell him is that humans are born without beliefs of any kind"

That is an interesting assertion. Certainly infants are born with a belief in mother. Perhaps the adage about "no atheist in a foxhole" is a regression to that immature state that believes a larger than ourselves force can intervene in a bad situation or, perhaps, that feeling is innate as well, a desire to connect to a spiritual reality.

Skipsailing28

"Why all the anger?"

Schaum gave very good reasons to be perturbed but the big question is why did you not notice that by far the angriest one here is Daniel 12.

So angry is he at atheists for denying his god he has gone to the great length of going under cover, masquerading as an atheist, lying conniving and squirming his way towards religious heroism as he intends to slay the enemy of his God from the inside.

"I would have no problem shooting them"

That quote is from D 12 aimed at supposedly his fellow atheists.

Anger? How could you have missed D 12's homicidal anger?

Are you D 12?

Are you Roadrunnin?

Are you full of it like both of them?

D 12

"But you will in the very next post and the one after that and so on have no problem discrediting the belief in God in every way possible to your intellect, which amounts to very little discrediting of God I must admit...."

Then what's your problem?

Spidermean2 is now SPIDERNEUTERED!

Given three simple algebra problems to solve,Spiderneutered proved he has no understanding of mathematics by his inability to solve any of the problems until I gave him the formulas to use. He claimed as unsolvable a problem which thread-member Arminius had no problem in solving. Then we discovered that Spiderneutered is not an engineer (what a surprise that was!) but a student! DanielInTheLionsDen then exposed Spiderneutered’s lack of even rudimentary knowledge of Euler; he further showed that Spiderneutered copied, and ALTERED, to suit his own purposes, a definition from Wikipidia. Thread-member Barferio exposed Spiderneutered's confusion of sexual reproduction with self-replication, and also repeatedly asked Spiderneutered questions about meiosis, which of course Spiderneutered could not answer because he knows even less about science than he does about math. Spiderneutered highlighted his ignorance of physics by confusing mass with energy – to him, such concepts as ‘acceleration’ and ‘speed of light squared’ are not worth consideration! Additionally, Spiderneutered further illustrated his incompetence in mathematics with the astonishingly stupid claim that "x=x+1" doesn't work in math! And of course there are the lingering questions about his relationship with his nephew...

The combined efforts of members of The Spirited Atheist blog have definitively discredited Spiderneutered as the lying, ignorant, and incompetent fraud we have long known him to be.

Disbelief in the pulpit?

The most important service rendered from the pulpit is that of educating people to approach christers with distrust; certainly with christers, reason will never be popular. Certainly they have popularized passion and unreasoned emotion -- in fact, they have made them VERY popular. But reason remains the property of the few who do not yield to religious superstitions, myths and "authority". Reason has allowed man the advances he has achieved.

"But why all the anger?"

Because delusions, lies and myths, especially in the hands of uneducated people such as DannyTheLiar, are dangerous and suppress truth, enlightenment and progress. Such as this generally angers people who value intelligence, knowledge, and truth. If that bothers you, tough.

But I suspect that you would label anything that disagrees with your point of view as an expression of anger. Perhaps you should not be so quick to make presuppositions (they tend to fail, you know) or project your own perceptions onto other people.

DanielTheLiar earned the scorn and rejection he feels by telling his lies, by his conniving, manipulation and deliberate obfuscation. As we sow, so we reap. (This idea did not originate with christ, by the way.)

Carried over from the last thread......

D12 wrote: "I declared that man began religious which you and Schaum tried to counter by saying man began atheistic. Atheism is the learned state. Man was naturally religious. Every society has born that out."
_________________

Here again, the thinking is murky at best. The confusion seems to be between ancient religions and modern atheism - two distinctly different eras with very different modes of thought. How does one really compare the two?

For the sake of clarity, the ancients were not born religious, but were born into a religious milieu, and were subsequently required to learn whatever they knew, in exactly the same fashion as every other human that's ever lived. There were fewer options and far less information available in the ancient world of course. Humans are born knowing nothing, but with considerable potential for learning.

Even so, there were atheist traditions to be found even among such a dominant early religion as Hinduism - and need we mention that Buddhism is nontheistic.

Shamanism is the most ancient extant religious tradition to be found today - pre-historic in it's origins and very far from being a form of theism.

Finally, there is religious atheism and secular atheism - but in either case, the lack of belief in gods and deities is nothing new.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 - 'What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. ...'

Given that monotheistic religions are much more recent, compared to pre-historic religious forms, we might ask how this new vision come about. Julian Jaynes believed that the emergence of the idea of self/ego was literally evolutionary, and brought with it an entirely new worldview....the future history of mankind was thereby re-written. See his views below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/athiesm.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism

I have a straigtforward question: Why is that person Schaum so angry?

It seems to me that faith is the dividing line here. I have it and so does schaum.

I have faith that God exists. Schaum has faith that God does not exist.

OK fine. Some people cannot be persuaded. Sadly they should be left alone. The best approach, it seems to me, is to ignore the slurs and insults hurled by people like Schaum and rely on one's faith to sustain a good God fearing life.

So Schaum: its your soul tend to it as you will. But why all the anger?

"In fact if we discard the concept God and embrace atheism we automatically declare all notions of absolutes null and void"

"People saying God does not exist could be undermining the very existence of the human race"

The ultimate delusions, held by the ultimately deluded. I think herein lies proof that home-schooling is not a good idea. DannyTheLiar is merely another failed autodidact. One can only hope that carrying loaded firearms is not a requirement for his job.

Timmy

The world appears seamless through our animal senses. Through our animal senses everthing that there is, seems laid out before us; everything that we need to know is already here for us to experience and know. But conscously, we realize that there is more. That is what I have meant by the seamless appearance of the world.

When you say that you know what a potato is, that is your animal side that knows what a potato is. You experience it and know it all together, seamlessly. If a philosophy leads you to conclude that the potato does not exist, then somehow the train of thought has gone wrong,

When you look at bacteria through a microscope, you are making assumptions that go beyond your animal experience, that involve conscioiusness and awareness, either of the very experiment being demonstrated, or that someone has explained to you, or that you have read about.

If you try to say what knowledge is, in a definition, then you will see that it defies definition. The three words, knowledge, truth, and belief are only definable in circular definitons that refer to each other, so that you cannot know or properly understand the meaning of any three without bringing into play one of the other. So we end up never knowing what any of them are.

What I am interested in is valid knowledge. Animal knowledge is not always valid, because it can be misleading, or else, leaves alot out, all that is not directly experienced, for example.

Beyond animal knowledge is knowledge of judgement, which is all that we are aware of beyond the local landscape of personal experience. But it is not always easy to tell the difference between this knowledge of judgement that is valid and invalid. It requires a judgement. The knowledge of judgement requires complex abstract critical thinking, which is a product of consciousness.

Our animal knowledge comes to us easily; it is just there in our minds, by our own personal experience. Knowledge of judgement, especially if it is valid, requires great effort to figure things out. You cannot acquire complex knowledge of judgement unless you are very curious to know, and try very hard to know what exists in the world beneath its seamless veneer.

Incuriosity and apathy towards knowledge leaves a person only with basic, primitive, animal knowledge, that derives from the local landscape of personal experience. Keeping to this narrow experience is all that a person needs to live; but to the curious, the development of a broader knowledge of judgement is essential.

You said that you did not undestand how this precludes us from learning anything about anything. I never meant to say that. My thinking was that we can never know "why we are here" or "what is this all about."

The arguments that Daniel12 put forward are what I mean by "jumbled confusion. You (Timmy) try and try to show him a valid knowledge of judgement, but there is no use. And he is not all that mixed up compared to a great many other people. Multiply Daniel12 by a few million, and that is conscious man, fruitlessly struggling to look beyond the seamless veneer of our animal experience.

These are not my complete thoughts on this; this is just a foundational prelude.

A final thought: there was a phrase in your post that I liked, so please hold for minute, while I go try and find it ...

( ... elevator music ... )

Ah yes! here is is: you said:

" ... so we could see germs in spite of the fact that we are not tuned to see them..."

I like what you said about being "tuned to see things ... "

That expresses my thought, we are tuned to sense the world as we do.

By this word, I can see that you getting what I mean. Also, I don't mind being criticized, since maybe none of this is right.

Dangeroustalk:

"Religion is a business."

And with these words you have summed up the entire christer history.

Persiflage:

Daniel12 misperceives nothing. He is a liar, and has repeatedly been proven to be that and nothing more.

I suggest that he is, in fact, a god-believer -- probably a christer as well -- and his insistence on an Intelligent Designer, while simultaneously attempting to pass himself off as an atheist, is just another one of his conniving frauds: he is attempting to slip god-belief and god-lies in the back door by calling god an Intelligent Designer. This is typical of christers who want creationism taught in public schools.

I think it is time, now, simply to refer to him as DannyTheLiar.

Memo to myself:

It is best not to argue,
But if you do at all,
Never do so with Danny12 --.
A fool whom myths enthrall.

He does not care at all for facts.
He does not know debate.
He’s a stranger to reason.
Logic he will negate.

In the end Danny only lies--
His (il)logic is so strong!
Decides what he does not like --
So surely it must be wrong!

It’s better to keep quiet
When challenged by this fool.
Else, to reinforce his "wisdom",
He will make of you a tool.

It is hence my policy
To not respond to those
Who ask questions not to learn
But to be bellicose.

A classic D12 mis-perception:

'Recently a couple atheists had the gall to tell me that atheism is the natural state of man and that religion is the indoctrination of man, as if every society known to man began atheistic and was indoctrinated into the very religion which in fact was the natural condition of man.'
___________

No one ever told D12 any such thing. What they did tell him is that humans are born without beliefs of any kind, contrary to the D12 contention that humans are born in a naturally 'religious' state - which is of course complete nonsense! Humans are born knowing nothing until they learn something and are otherwise conditioned through the socialization process. That of course includes emersion in an assortment of religious beliefs/doctrines/dogma, depending on the life circumstances into which they're accidentally born.

We further assume that D12 is generally referring to monotheistic systems of religious belief whenever he takes the value-laden position of religion over post-modern atheism....which he mistakenly takes for a belief system. He seems to ignore all other forms of religion - many of which are altogether non-theistic.

Narrowing the religion focus for the sake of clarity & referring specifically to the USA - most people hereabouts are raised up with heavy exposure to some form of monotheism.

Becoming a non-believer (atheist) either requires a concerted re-education effort on the part of the individual based on the development of serious personal doubts, or they simply lose interest in their childhood religion - as in my case, at age 17 i.e. lack of belief equals lack of faith.

I'll go out on a limb here and state that most highly educated people that have expertise in comparative religious studies, or otherwise study religion academically, are the least likely to be 'religious' in the classic/conventional sense. Further, there is religious atheism, and secular atheism.

D12 never bothers to draw parallels or distinctions between the two - historically speaking, non-theist positions have always been in evidence, even though embedded in some kind of religious tradition.

The education factor with regard to religious belief or lack thereof can't be under-estimated. This is something that D12 assiduously avoids in his lengthy diatribes on the value of religion vs atheism. The more one is exposed to knowledge, the less one is likely to take on faith - at least in the 21st century.

PS. 'Absolute' means fixed and unchanging for all time - there are no absolutes to be found in the human realm.....and that's the only dimension in which we have some expertise.

Timmy below:

"Once again you have mistaken me for someone who is an advocate of something called "atheism". I advocate no such thing."

But you will in the very next post and the one after that and so on have no problem discrediting the belief in God in every way possible to your intellect, which amounts to very little discrediting of God I must admit....

D 12

Once again you have mistaken me for someone who is an advocate of something called "atheism". I advocate no such thing.

Me below:

"People saying God does not exist could be undermining the very existence of the human race"

Timmy below:

"Comedy notification for D 12: Your above comment is off the charts funny. I laughed so hard my dog is freaking out."

Me below:

And why exactly is it Timmy that religion is so obviously harmful to the human race according to atheists but the supposed harmfulness of atheism is not even a question--which is to say even to mention it deserves a scornful laugh? Or is it that I have lied again and misrepresented atheism? Or are you going to provide some proof? Also please while you happen to be in the proof business demonstrate atheism will not have the harm religion does. Try not to forget the Soviets and their Gulags. Or the Red Chinese and the great leap forward. Or the Khmer Rouge. Or any other communist society which of course is avowedly atheistic and a disaster when it comes to economics and human rights. And of course do not forget to mention as you have before that those societies had nothing to do with atheism. What was it you once said? Stalinism in the Soviet Union was more a religious phenomenon, people worshipping him like God or something? Enlighten me as to the obvious social benefits of society being atheistic. And do not forget the absurd argument of prison inmates in the U.S. being believers rather than atheists as you once said--as if they pray every night before going to bed...And of course do not forget to mention the atheist Scandinavian countries which are not atheistic but have merely a higher proportion of atheists, which of course cannot be determined to be atheism out of the application of reason or simply good economics for years under the protection to the great extent of that bad U.S. with its religion and military...Europe certainly has enjoyed a nice sixty year stretch with the U.S. providing the protection from the Soviet Union, that atheistic world...which Timmy says had nothing to do with atheism.

Take a good look at your dog Timmy. Things are so obvious I think he or she might be laughing now.

It is not surprising that there are still a large number of atheists who are living in the closet. There is after all a great deal of social pressure aimed to discourage open disbelief. That pressure is much greater for those who make a living from their god-belief.

Religion is a business. There are people in the world who have trained all their lives to preach the Bible. Not all of those people are forced into a life of celibacy either. Many have families to support. So when one of these people who was raised from near birth to believe and spends their life learning the details of the Bible finally realizes that it is all a sham, they have some real problems to think about and deal with.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m3d17-On-Faith-Disbelief-in-the-pulpit

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

D 12

"In fact if we discard the concept God and embrace atheism we automatically declare all notions of absolutes null and void"

Has religion ever provided an absolute to any society in history?

"People saying God does not exist could be undermining the very existence of the human race"

Comedy notification for D 12: Your above comment is off the charts funny. I laughed so hard my dog is freaking out.

"I have no problem being an atheist myself, but my fellow atheists...I would have no problem shooting them"

It's probably your belief in God that makes you so violent.

DITLD

I caught your last post before the switch.

Sometimes I think the only people who are confused about what "knowledge" is are philosophers. Tell them to decide what the word "potato" really means and they'll be debating for centuries. The only reason anyone needs to argue about what knowledge means is to debate against religion. If it's just atheists in the room, we all know what knowledge means. It means potato. Excuse me, it means knowledge.

"we have touch to feel textures, because there are textures to be felt"

There are germs to be seen but we do not have eyes that can see them. But we have a brain that problem solves and we developed artificial super-vision so we could see germs in spite of the fact that we are not tuned to see them.

"That is what I mean when I say that we exist in a complimentary way to the world that has spun us into being"

But it doesn't stop us from seeing germs, and gas clouds around planets in far away galaxies.

"And because our sensory abilities are matched up exactly with things in the world to be sensed, we have the impression that we dwell in a seamless world"

I don't know what you mean by seamless world here.

"Yet by the consciousness that has appeared in our advanced intelligence, we see that it is not seamless at all but a sort of mixed up jumble, in which we are hopelessly ensnared"

Mixed up jumble? Hopelessly ensnared? And when did we go from having the impression that we dwell in a seamless world to realizing that it is not seamless at all?

Thank you for the elaboration I certainly understand more now that I did before, but I'm still unclear how this precludes us from learning anything about anything.

Ex-Catholic Julia Sweeney's monologue "Letting Go Of God" will be the final nail in the coffin of religious belief/faith and is and will continue to be more effective than any book or blog column on the historical Jesus, atheism or secularism. Buy the DVD or watch it on Showtime. Check your cable listings.

from www.amazon.com
"Letting Go of God ~ Julia Sweeney (DVD - 2008)
Buy new: $19.99 $15.99

Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
five star rating"

Disbelief in the pulpit?

What should a priest do if he comes to disbelieve in his faith? The difficult thing so far as modern society is concerned is how a person can hold fixed beliefs such as, say, Catholicism holds. Modern society has a way of corroding particular beliefs and making things more generalized. The spread of knowledge assures this. A generalized belief in God is more understandable. In fact the generalized belief in God explains why every single society known to man has been religious rather than atheistic as its natural condition. Atheists like to point out the differences between religions--often conflicting differences--as proof that the belief in God is purely a human phenomenon with no objective reality at all and that all religion therefore should just be eliminated. But regardless of religious differences every society has believed in some form of the transcendent whether it is called God or pure enlightenment. And if everyone has believed there might be some objective reality to it--not least because no one has demonstrated otherwise.

If a person in official capacity with a religion were to have problems with his particular belief but still hold a belief in God or enlightenment (the latter such as in Buddhism) I would expect him to make clear his belief, that he is becoming more generalized in his beliefs. Again, the generalization of beliefs is of course is to be expected in modern times with the spread of knowledge. And if a person were to not have any belief at all, of course it would be only basic honesty to reveal this disbelief. Or would it be only basic honesty to reveal this disbelief? Is disbelief really that preferable and better for society than belief?

An argument that particular beliefs are harmful to society can be made in that particular beliefs often lead to conflicts between societies, but the generalized belief in God? Is that harmful to society and man or helpful? Of course atheists would fall on the side of religion being harmful period, but what evidence have they that man would be better off without religion at all? Especially when we consider that the natural state of man is to be religious and that atheism is the learned state which depends on civilizational sophistication, which in itself is no guarantee of a better state of man when we consider that man seems to use technology to destroy the planet as much as help it, if he really helps it at all...

Certainly technology, atheism and science and the utter decimation of species left and right go hand in hand. This is not to make an argument in favor of ignorance but to set the record straight. We are not embarked on an unequivocal and better path forward. In fact if we discard the concept God and embrace atheism we automatically declare all notions of absolutes null and void which means that man is strictly a creature locked within the phenomenon of time with no way out, which means that the passage of time from past to future does not at all necessarily mean improvement, life getting better than in the past.

Atheists these days like to declare themselves scientific, that no proof for God is a decisive statement, that it in itself condemns religion to nothing. But of course if no God exists no absolutes exist which means that not only can no proof for God be demonstrated at all--in fact the concept of proof with no absolutes is a senseless statement, for proof means exactly that, absolute perfection of position--but that the position of proof is no criterion at all, for what becomes essential in a world of no absolutes is what conduces to survival only. Believing in God might better conduce to man's survival than not believing in God. People saying God does not exist could be undermining the very existence of the human race. The truth of no God--which of course means nothing this concept of "truth" if the concept of "proof" means nothing, which is to say no absolute of either can be demonstrated--might not at all be preferable to the belief in God, which cannot of course be called a lie if the supposed lie cannot at all be demonstrated to be a lie by a science which holds no absolutes to exist (which is what science becomes if the philosophy encompassing it is atheism, the disbelief in God, the disbelief in absolutes, the disbelief in objective reality which of course cannot be objective reality but only pure subjectivity without absolutes)...

Let me be clear about my concern with atheism. I have no problem being an atheist myself, but my fellow atheists...I would have no problem shooting them. Recently a couple atheists had the gall to tell me that atheism is the natural state of man and that religion is the indoctrination of man, as if every society known to man began atheistic and was indoctrinated into the very religion which in fact was the natural condition of man. Not even the Soviets had the gall to say atheism is the natural state of man. The Soviets clearly had a plan to create a new man, and the results were a disaster--millions murdered, economies of multiple nations destroyed. Just ask Milan Kundera what he thinks of the great Soviet plan. Kundera would tell you the Soviets tried to bury and destroy the very culture of his country (Czechoslovakia). But I suppose modern atheists left and right will try to tell me the Soviet Union had nothing to do with atheism. Certainly one modern atheist tried to tell me that...

Disbelief in God? Should one reveal that to one's fellow man? Should a priest reveal such? I suppose honesty is the best course. Or is it? What creature other than man makes a big deal about honesty? What creature other than man harries his fellow man for believing in something called God which is not evidently there--but which of course cannot be disproved at all, unless of course one thinks oneself in absolute knowledge of all in existence, which of course would be a most absurd statement if one also were to insist one does not believe in God, for no belief in God no belief in absolutes of any type...

Atheism, what an open world of sense it is! Or so atheists tell us. Religion is in decline atheists tell us. Or is it that people are more engrossed in the successes of economics and have no reason to pray for much of anything anymore? Who knows. What exactly is the truth of the matter? We certainly know both the religious and the atheistic are hardly known for truth--each has his proverbial axe to grind. Hell, maybe the both can agree the truth is a bad thing. That would be interesting not least because no one has ever known the truth whether they believe in the possibility of it or not. At least no one has conclusively demonstrated they know the truth.

Say a prayer or become an atheist. Just do not try to bullsh*t me with your nonsense whether you are an atheist or believer.

Timmy2,

In my opinion, "right-on" or "write-on".

Timmy

Did you read my post at the end of the last thread? At the end I tried to make a joke; it sounds a little insulting, but it wasn't meant to be.

Yeal 9

""more righter" or more right?"

More righter. it was not a typo or a mistake. I was being playful.

This is just one of the problems with a professional clergy. "Keeping the faith" is a problem for every believer and, as such, it is a problem that should be shared by believers and not delegated to a paid representative.

"more righter" or more right?

Timmmy2:

"Come out and be counted."

WHAT? And give up all that money and local power?

"What would you want your pastor to do with his or her personal doubts or loss of faith?"

Come out and be counted.

Yeal 9,

For example I find the flaw of homophobia. You do not find that flaw. There will never be religious peace my friend. Spiritual peace maybe. But not religious peace.

Comedy notification for D 12,

The last two lines in my post to Yeal 9 were funny.

Not as funny as believing that religion has ever provided any society with a moral absolute, or believing that such a thing is possible, but still humorous. Or as we say in Canada "humourous"

Yeal 9

"Then, apply the Five F rule: "First Find the Flaws, then Fix the Foundations". And finally there will be religious peace in the world!!!!!"

I think it a delusion itself to think that everyone will find the same flaws or the right flaws or fix the same foundations in the same way and all come together in one great religion. I doubt there will ever be anything called religious peace. Spiritual peace maybe.

If everyone practices Individual spirituality and agnosticism there will be secular peace in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More exclamation points means I'm more righter than you. ;)

WMARKW:

"there are many professional theists but few professional atheists."

Interesting take. I, on the other hand, don't know a single atheist who is not a professional.

Unless, of course, you meant a "professional" professional atheist -- in which case I would answer that there is nothing about atheism to profess. We have no beliefs, therefore no professing to do. We merely continued to be, as adults, what all humans are at birth: untainted by the god-myths, particularly the christer versions.

There are atheists, of course, who once were deceived by the god-myths, but who struggled successfully against those aberrations, and gave up belief in god. But they do not claim that non-belief is equal to "belief" in anything...certainly not atheism.

But I am not clear on what any of this has to do with whether the "clergy have a moral obligation not to challenge the sincere faith of their parishioners."

This has been a problem for a long time: there are many professional theists but few professional atheists.

Pastors, ministers, rabbis, imams, "prophets" et al have an obligation to educate their flocks as to what is the current thinking and conclusions of contempory theologians and historians. This obviously is not being done.

The following are some suggestions for these "stuck in the mud of the religious Dark Age leaders" on how to catch up:

As noted previously by many bloggers:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a
mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus).

Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” Eddy et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of angelic visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the massacre in Mumbai, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: To be shouted from every pulpit and every minaret - There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Then, apply the Five F rule: "First Find the Flaws, then Fix the Foundations". And finally there will be religious peace in the world!!!!!