Proselytizing overseas: Religious freedom or coercion?

DanielintheLionsDen

You wrote:

"Timmy

I also have a problem with people hanging a label on someone, and then telling us what that label means, and then saying that the labelled person believes all those things, even if the person does not.

I have noticed that this is a hallmark of Catholic argument. You can see that Daniel12 and Yael/CCNL are both strongly imprinted with this Catholic tendency."

You mention "hanging a label" and then you proceed to "hang the Catholic label". Many people from all labels seem to be quite proficient at "hanging a label", as you put it, and it seems to be much more a human thing than any one label thing.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Schaum

You wrote, "We are all born as atheists. We know nothing of god or gods until we encounter them in our culture, education, personal relationships and so forth. At that point we either remain atheists because we have not been persuaded by the god myths, or we adopt a "religion"."

Do you know this as a fact?

I, personally, do not remember if I "knew" anything or not when I was born, do you?

It could very well be that we "knew" God and then proceeded to forget.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

persiflage

You wrote, "And I agree - there are many questions that are beyond the ken of science & we should ask them anyway. If we're fortunate to find answers that satisfy us, they will remain our own personal solutions to various of life's enigmas. That's what I think...."

Thank you for your reply, life, indeed, can hand us some very unexpected things when we least expect them.

Good to hear from you.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

timmy2

I wrote, ""Some "scientists" seem to believe that if we can "figure out" everything about humans we will come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "free will", I disagree with this assessment.""

You replied, "I don't know of any scientists who've made this comment."

I also wrote, ""In other words, we are not fancy, dancy puppets on a string and neither are we just fancy, dancy biological constructs that are at the whim of our physical make-up""

You then replied, "I'd love to think so. But all evidence currently points to the probability that we are "just fancy, dancy biological constructs that are at the whim of our physical make-up"."

First you are saying that you "don't know of any scientist...", then you say that "all evidence currectly points to...", these are totally contradictory to each other.

You also wrote, "But I can not take your personal revelation as evidence because then I would also have to believe that Charles Manson is Jesus. Both of you have the exact same kind of evidence and it is not credible."

I do not expect anyone else to take my "personal revelation" as evidence and I do not take anyone else's "personal revelation" as evidence, I mention it because it is a fact in my life.

You then wrote, "Well that is the question ordinarily. We know why you think that. And it is a conversation ender. So I don't know why you try to have conversations with people when you always end it with a conversation ender. "Because I have spoken personally with God""

Actually, what I have written is that I met God and I also pointed out that God did not say a word to me, God didn't have to, there is a difference.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Are US taxpayers supporting the proselytizing of Tibetan refugees?

"Founded in 1981, with the guidance of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the Tibet Fund has grown into the principle fund raising organization for the Tibetan people, both inside Tibet and in-exile.

Since the invasion and occupation by communist Chinese troops, thousands of Tibetans have fled their homeland to take refugee in India and Nepal. There are presently over 130,000 Tibetans living in-exile worldwide. Some of the programs the Tibet Fund provides funding for include the provision of shelter, health care and training for thousands of these refugees, education to refugee children in India and Nepal, and sponsorship for students, monks and nuns.

One of Tibet Fund's primary missions is to strengthen and nurture the Tibetan refugee communities in India and Nepal, as it is within these communities that the Tibetan culture is being nourished and renewed. In these refugee communities lies the greatest chance for preserving Tibetan culture, heritage and national identity.”

This non-profit had net assets in 2008 of $8,085,961 with $3,340,096 coming apparently from US government grants i.e. the USA taxpayers.

Investments in publicly traded securities in 2008 was $3,555,895.

There is no indication that the Dalai Lama is supported in any way with monies from this fund.

Many grant purposes are given on The Tibetan Fund IRS Form 990 One was for the cultural and religious preservation (of Buddhism). Maybe this type of preservation should be done with non-USA taxpayer money?

reference: guidestar.org

A bit of opinion proselytizing?

"The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew)

1.A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

2.A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

3.A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

4.The prevailing view: public opinion.

5.Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

CCNL

"Are proselytizing atheists or those who express their strong opinions about their atheist beliefs (e.g. Timmy2) exclusivists?"

Oh, I've answered this. You must have missed it. I am not exclusivist. The world "atheist" is though. It excludes all people who believe in God. Words can be very exclusive like that.

Frankly, the most curious thing about the latest YEAL/CCNL postings is his referencing of theosophist observations as a 'wisdom' source. What would Madame Blavatsky say??

Still, digging into such esoterica may indicate that there could be hope for the old boy .........the next thing you know we'll be seeing quotes from Mary Baker Eddy.

As regards the Dalai Lama and monetary subsidies from the 1960s - money from the CIA is nefarious from first to last. Does anyone suppose that US interests were not the inspiration for this funding??

Nevertheless, China is our primary trading partner these days and continues to hold considerable financial leverage over our international policy decisions.....we never did give a rats behind about Tibet's loss of sovereignty, and still don't.

Is this a deep bow to a repressive and autocratic communist nation, per chance?

And how does that square with theosophical musings??

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

test

YEAL9

That's way too much reality, for this comment group.

Another way to proselytize?

"In October 1998, The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960s from the US Government through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and also trained a resistance movement in Colorado (USA).[46]

When asked by CIA officer John Kenneth Knaus in 1995 whether the organisation did a good or bad thing in providing its support, the Dalai Lama replied that though it helped the morale of those resisting the Chinese, "thousands of lives were lost in the resistance" and further, that "the US Government had involved itself in his country's affairs not to help Tibet but only as a Cold War tactic to challenge the Chinese."[98]

Some early examples of Faith and Community Intiatives?

And again:

'Is the Dalai Lama a proselytizing exclusivist?'
____________________

Go to the link and see for yourself.

....redundantia fio inconcinnus.....

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/dalai_lama/

Once again back to the topic with some questions:

Are proselytizing atheists or those who express their strong opinions about their atheist beliefs (e.g. Timmy2) exclusivists?

Are proselytizing "intelligent designers" (e.g. D12)exclusivists?

Is the Dalai Lama a proselytizing exclusivist?

Some words of wisdom for those who proselytize- the more important observations:

More words of wisdom:

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."

DTLD:

Hari refers to Vishnu. In the Hindu trinity the creator is Brahma, the destroyer is Shiva, and the maintainer is Vishnu. (In various Puranas it is argued that each personality of the manifest Brahman is part of the creation. Some will see these as persons, some as principles, some as categories... depending on their approach to religion). Brahma/Savitri, though worshiped fell from the supreme state due to an act of deception (one can see this as the maya, or the illusion, that stands between human cognition and reality as it is). Shiva/Parvati is the creator/destroyer of consciousness and nature duality in a monad. Vishnu/Lakshmi, the maintainer, manifests in the world to help the world remember what the material nature makes us forget - our duty, our knowledge, our sacrifices, our beliefs...In the Gita, Vishnu becomes manifest at Krishna and expounds the most profound moral text I have read yet. It is an easy platitude to say love one another. It is a real moral argument that says how to act with detachment and renunciation while in the existential moment and that sometimes means killing. The avatars of Hari (Vishnu) are many.

http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses/vishnu.htm

AUM:

It is considered the sound of the universe. It encompasses the sound that begins gutturally and ends labially in a silence. It represents the four states of consciousness: waking, dream sleep, dreamless sleep, and Turiya. The three letters represent the common states. The combination of the three into a single sound is the fourth. The fourth state is one of transcendental consciousness and common consciousness (it is not unconsciousness though this may be the singularity that Jung describes in the western construct of the subcsonsiousness from which archetypes evolve). As it encompasses our breath, our being, our consciousness, and the trinity of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva, and the totality of existence and non-existence, while also being a mantra to help us reach that being (Aum Tat Sat is all that and That Which Is), it is also sustained in various mystic traditions outside of Hinduism (whatever that means).

It is also described as the bow on which we place our atman (our personal soul - the arrow) on its flight to Paratman (our supreme sould - the target) that is the singular atman-paratman-brahman (Being) and nirguna Brahman (Non-Being) resonating in Aum.

But, though I have seen what I have seen, others are far more qualified to describe this phrase, and I am but another fool being lit the way to dusty death - for a better answer see your local guru.

hariaum

Daniel112's problem is that he is trying to work it all out in solitude and he cannot. The problems of morality and ethics are meaningless in solitude. If he cannot work it out himself, then he wants to latch on to what is timeless and absolute. But there is nothing that is timeless and absolute, but only the illusion of politically enforced regimentation. As soon as the enforced regimentation unravels, so does the absolute and timeless claim, and everyone is back to square one, forced to think for themselves, rather than being spoon fed by a politically powerful authority.

DITLD,

"If anyone wants to know what someone thinks or believes, then just ask them"

Seems so simple. Too simple. This is why I have no choice but to assume conniving on the part of those who try to tell you what you believe so they can argue with that instead of honestly enquiring what you actually believe. It is purposely deceptive which to me denotes conniving.

Perhaps D 12 does this because he himself is so dishonest about what he really believes. We have all asked him to be clear about what his actual beliefs are and he remains purposely cryptic about it. Therefore he assumes that others are also being secretive about their actual beliefs so he thinks it's a game where we all try to guess what everyone else believes in spite of their best efforts to hide it.

As for NAVIN 1 he finds our actual beliefs and arguments too sane to deal with so he feels he must put insane beliefs into our mouths so that he has a foe that is easy to argue with. That combined with a bruised ego that is out for revenge against those who do not believe his seer claims.

As for CCNL, well, we all know he his never interested in an honest exchange of any kind.

DITLD -

'I have noticed that this is a hallmark of Catholic argument. You can see that Daniel12 and Yael/CCNL are both strongly imprinted with this Catholic tendency.'

An excellent point, but the subtlety of their own conditioning seems to escape the exigencies of self-observation.

The pious smugness is not very well concealed, and the high degree of repetition and insufferably long posts as attention-getting mechanisms must come straight from years of mandatory catechism classes.

Payback is hell for one and all :^)

DITLD,

"A consensus of morality and ethics without God emerges from a discussion and conversation among many interested parties who have a sincere and honest interest, who conduct their arguments and ask their questions in good faith. This excludes, by definiton, lone individuals who seek to dream up a system of morality and ethics in their own minds. It also excludes such people as Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin, both of whom, by the way, grew up under dominating religious influences"

This seems so sensible and clear. One wonders how a person could possibly not get this or have a problem with it. This is why I have no choice but to assume conniving is at hand. I just find it hard to believe that anyone could be so obtuse as to not understand how morality exists without God, or to think that belief in God could somehow bring about a universal morality that everyone can get behind.

Morality by consensus seems to be the best we're ever going to do. It is at the very least, fair, to people of all faiths. The morality of any atheistic society that may arise in the future is sure to be a morality by consensus. Only a conniving fear monger could predict that this will lead to more Stalinism. I simply can not believe that an idea so obtuse could come from a healthy mind. Retarded or conniving is the only way I can explain it.

Timmy

I also have a problem with people hanging a label on someone, and then telling us what that label means, and then saying that the labelled person believes all those things, even if the person does not.

I have noticed that this is a hallmark of Catholic argument. You can see that Daniel12 and Yael/CCNL are both strongly imprinted with this Catholic tendency.

Yael calls you an "exclusivist" a term that you have probably never even heard of before, and then describes how being an exclusivist makes you a bad person.

This is a way of projecting negative beliefs onto another person, who may not even know what you are talking about. It is hard to argue with someone who projects all kinds of thoughts, beliefs, and motives into your mind, that you had never even thought of.

If anyone wants to know what someone thinks or believes, then just ask them. If it doesn't make sense, or seems wrong, then just say so. Don't say, "oh, so you don't believe in God; oh so you believe in mass murder, like Joseph Stalin."

By not being a mass murderer like Joseph Stalin, you are proving them wrong. The ball is therefore in their court to explain that even though you believe in mass-murder, why are you not a mass murderer. The ball is in their court, because they are the ones telling us all what you believe.

CCNL

"Are proselytizing atheists (e.g. Timmy2) exclusivists?"

Other people can not answer this question unless they have asked me the question in the past and I have given them the answer. Only I can answer this question. Just as only I can tell you if I am a democrat or a republican or a Christian or an atheist, this is not something for others to decide. So too with being an exclusivist. Only I can answer that question with regards to myself. And the answer is no. I am not an exclusivist.

Asking others to answer this question about me is part of the same disease that NAVIN 1 and Daniel 12 have where they think they can decide for others what they believe based on what they think they've heard. If you want to know if I am an exclusivist, just ask me. The answer is no. No I am not.

If you think I've said something exclusivist, just quote it and we can discuss. That's the best way to find these things out. Unless you're being conniving for some reason.

'Is the Dalai Lama a proselytizing exclusivist?'
____________________

You tell me........

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/dalai_lama/

Once again back to the topic with some questions:

Are proselytizing atheists (e.g. Timmy2) exclusivists?

Are proselytizing "intelligent designers" (e.g. D12)exclusivists?

Is the Dalai Lama a proselytizing exclusivist?

We've all read about folks selling their own organs to raise cash. Here's a new variation on that theme. I'm thinking that combining exorcism with public auctions could be a new way for the Catholic Church to raise funds.

You've got to love free enterprise!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35772415/ns/world_news/

DITLD:

"Atheism is not a religion. It has none of the characteristics of a religion. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God."

As usual, with your good sense, you capture reality and truth in their essence.

We are all born as atheists. We know nothing of god or gods until we encounter them in our culture, education, personal relationships and so forth. At that point we either remain atheists because we have not been persuaded by the god myths, or we adopt a "religion".

RELIGION is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law, also encompassing ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience.

Atheism is not a religion. It has none of the characteristics of a religion. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. If you take many of these people together, they are a collection of people who do not believe in God, not a religious movement. If you read a book written by an atheist about atheism, then you are reading philosophy and philosphical speculation, which different atheists may agree or disagree with; this is certainly very different from citing a religious text as prove that the relgiious text is true.

All morality and ethics is arbitrary. Even religious morality and ethics is arbitrary. The absolute claim of religious morality and ethics is, itself, an arbitrary claim, which varies from religion to religion, and even which varies within a single religion.

A consensus of morality and ethics without God emerges from a discussion and conversation among many interested parties who have a sincere and honest interest, who conduct their arguments and ask their questions in good faith. This excludes, by definiton, lone individuals who seek to dream up a system of morality and ethics in their own minds. It also excludes such people as Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin, both of whom, by the way, grew up under dominating religious influences.

Well now, whyunch y'all take a break. Go to YouTube, find, "Helpless" (Live), Neil Young, The Band, backup "sounds" by Emmylou Harris -- from Scorsese's "The Last Waltz." Robbie, Rick, Levon, Garth, Richard. Better lives have never....

And keep them cards and letters comin' in, folks.

NAVIN1

"You are in self denial. Schaum certainly claims to know the truth, Dawkins certainly claims to know the truth"

I am in denial because Schaum and Dawkins claim to know the truth? You should talk to them about what they say, and to me about what I say.

"When you say theists are delusional you claim to know the truth of another person's experience"

It's just my opinion. You are the one with the problem of truth obsession and so you want to make everyone's opinion a truth statement. That is why you think that all atheists think they know the truth. Because they give their opinions, and you see all opinions as truth statements. This is your disconnect from reality. People have opinions about things without thinking that they know the absolute truth about it. We just do the best we can with the evidence. I have seen evidence that you are not what you claim to be. It's my opinion. I might be wrong. But I feel confident enough to disbelieve your claims. I'm sorry that offends you. But it's just my opinion. I do not claim to know the truth about it.

"When you excuse the millions of Stalin and Mao's followers as slaves you ignore the very real history of hatred induced by claims of totalitarian regimes is based on a belief system of atheism"

Blah blah blah

"You very much claim to know the truth, even more so, you claim the right knowledge of evidence that I have"

This sentence sounds like it was put together by D -12. I claim nothing. I give my opinion. And others can give theirs. And you can give yours. But what you can not do is tell me that my opinion is a claim on truth knowledge.

"You have not faced the hard question - if you have no free will, then your perceptions are the result of your chemical processes"

That is a possibility, and I have faced it. It was a breeze. Because there's nothing I can do about it. It is what it is. Believing one way or the other doesn't change the way it is. So I leave it an open question. A pretty cool mystery.

"You are a refinery, your loves are chemical events nothing more, your loved one's have no innate value other than as chemicals"

My loves are identical to yours. Wether or not they are just chemical events or something more is what it is for both of us. Believing one way or the other does not change the reality whatever it is. You just want me to believe that you know what this reality is and I don't. And this frustrates you.

"If you do not see evidence of a transcedence, there is more than the logical possibility that it does not exist, the other is that you can not see it"

I agree 100% with this. I fully accept that such evidence might exist that I can not see. I just don't believe you or anyone else who hass made such claims so far due to lack of credibility in my opinion. I am fully open to being convinced by someone who seems especially enlightened. I just haven't been convinced by you.

"You can not see it because you choose not to see the evidence"

Says you. But you are not credible to me. I have no reason to choose not to see the evidence. This is an old theist ploy. It's pretty weak.

"or you can not see it because of a chemical failing in your perceptions (like color blind people)"

Or maybe because it's not there and you only think you see it. Or maybe it's there and I don't see it. But for now, I'm not convinced.

"The communists, as a subset of atheists (and one of the few subsets that acquired power by popular support), were happy to capitalize on the lack of morality to justify their excessive hatred and disdain for the non-party member - just evolution after all"

Blah blah blah. Not going to ever fly dude. I am against any totalitarianism. So is every atheist I've ever met. So is Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and Dan Dennet and Christopher Hitchens and Carl Segan, and every atheist you've ever debated in these forums most likely. None of us are interested in taking way anyone's right to believe whatever they want. And you know it.

"There is evidence of a transcendental reality. It is your love, it is that you can make a joke and people understand the implications beyond the simple words, it is in daily life"

Each of those things is evidence of itself. But nothing more that I can see. Certainly it's possible. I want to believe it. Very badly. I look constantly for evidence o the transcendent. I am a willing receptacle. I just haven't found anything convincing yet. And I consider myself easily convinced of such things because I want to believe it.

You can not put upon me the old "you don't want to see the evidence". In the case of the monotheistic dictatorships I do not even wish that they were true. In the case of monistic transcendence and unified consciousness I absolutely would love to discover it's existence or be enlightened of it's existence. But I'm not one who believes things because I would like them to be true. I believe what seems to be true based on the evidence. And my intuition and emotions are part of the evidence.

The main source of the need to "share" or proselytize is the feeling unique to Christians and Muslims that they have the only right answer, right prophet, right book, right truth, or right way.

Isn't this fundamentally irrational?

Contrast this with the Rig Veda, the oldest spiritual text in the world and the basis of Hinduism and secondarily Buddhism.
Rig Veda: "Truth is One, but sages call it by various names".
This attitude towards Truth seems much more rational, decent, & tolerant. No claims of monopoly of the Truth or God; no supremacism or exclusion. No need for proselytization, violence, or conflict.

Dear Navin1

At the end of each of your posts appears the word, hariaum.

I had assumed it was your name. But lately, I wonder, does it mean something else.

So, what does it mean?

I do not think that many modern scientists have a sense or feeling that we will ever "figure everything out." Perhaps 150 years ago, that was a commonly held view.

But not anymore.

The phrase "free will" is a sweeping concept that includes many, many aspects of our experiences as human beings, ranging from the geographical location and time of our births, to the very nature of the "neuro-transmitters" of our brains.

There is no way to comment on or discuss free will, without going into these many apsects, and analyzing them each.

I believe that the simple assertion that we have free will is a false statement. However, that does not mean that I believe in existential determinism, nor in metaphysical pre-destination.

Because it is more complicated than that. I am not able to extend my comprehension to all of these complicatons.

Everyone thinks they choose their beliefs, but it is difficult to understand how they do it. Because a person is defined by his beliefs, which are experienced through cultural heritage, random events, and doubt, all acquired through the senses which may be dull or sharp, and reflected upon in a mind that may be dull or sharp.

And that does not even include the actual processes of thought, and thought creation, for to create thoughts, there must be an operating process that is outside of what you think is the definition of yourself.

I do not say that in all of this, there is no trace of free will; I am merely pointing out that the entire question is far, far, far more complex than the simple plattitude that "man has free will."

This is defintiely not a true statement.

Once again back to the topic with some questions:

Are proselytizing atheists (e.g. Timmy2) exclusivists?

Are proselytizing "intelligent designers" (e.g. D12)exclusivists?

Is the Dalai Lama a proselytizing exclusivist?

Some words of wisdom for those who proselytize- the more important observations:

More words of wisdom:

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."

Timmy

You are in self denial. Schaum certainly claims to know the truth, Dawkins certainly claims to know the truth. When you say theists are delusional you claim to know the truth of another person's experience. When you excuse the millions of Stalin and Mao's followers as slaves you ignore the very real history of hatred induced by claims of totalitarian regimes is based on a belief system of atheism.

You very much claim to know the truth, even more so, you claim the right knowledge of evidence that I have. You have not faced the hard question - if you have no free will, then your perceptions are the result of your chemical processes. You are a refinery, your loves are chemical events nothing more, your loved one's have no innate value other than as chemicals. If you do not see evidence of a transcedence, there is more than the logical possibility that it does not exist, the other is that you can not see it. You can not see it because you choose not to see the evidence (as the love you have for people around you and the clear disdain you have for people who disagree with your interpretation of the evidence), or you can not see it because of a chemical failing in your perceptions (like color blind people), or you can not see it because your culture is so confused it can tell that there are more than one types of snow....

Camus was upset that people took the Plague as evidence of the nobility of existentialism. His L'Etranger was to clarify, there is no moral in a materialistic existentialism. The communists, as a subset of atheists (and one of the few subsets that acquired power by popular support), were happy to capitalize on the lack of morality to justify their excessive hatred and disdain for the non-party member - just evolution after all.

There is evidence of a transcendental reality. It is your love, it is that you can make a joke and people understand the implications beyond the simple words, it is in daily life. It is not that I am right or you, these are not exclusive - it is the elephant - we are both right but both only partially so....

hariaum

NAVIN 1

"But if science is the paradigm of knowing Truth"

Who said that? Just the person in your head who you find easy to argue with I think. No one here said that.

"Those who do not study science don't know the limitations of science, it is just a priestly edict that says to them, do this or do that for your health"

Nonsense. Priests are not put to any tests. Priests do not try to prove themselves wrong constantly. Science does. Everyone I know is well aware that science has it's limitations. But it also has more credibility that any other way of gaining knowledge because it is constantly looking for ways to prove itself wrong. Priests do no such thing. Religion does no such thing. This is why science has far more credibility.

"Once you explore science in depth (usually resulting in a PhD) you realize that science is largely uncertain"

I have no PHD and this was easy to figure out for me. Science is entirely uncertain. I am a high school drop out and I figured this out effortlessly. The myth is that atheists see science as flawless.

"For the atheists that feel they know what the truth is (or is not), it is because they have not faced the real questions"

Nonsense. We do not feel that we know the truth. We just do not feel that you know the truth which you are claiming to know. You have it backwards. We have faced the hard questions but have no answers. You are the one claiming to have such answers and we don't find you credible and therefore do not believe that you have the answers. And this upsets you. So you lash out at atheists.

"The atheists generalization that all religions are the same is non-sense just as a generalization that all atheists are the same"

D 12 is the one who sates that all atheists are the same. But who is it that has stated that all religions are the same? If you are going to say I did, please provide a quote, because I did not.

"Consequentially, atheists have been more likely to kill in genocide than theists"

This is entirely not true and just you lashing out at those who don't believe your "seer" claims.

"and it is not just Stalin, it is the millions of his followers"

Stalin had millions of followers? I think you are confusing slaves with followers. Subjects of totalitarians are not "followers". But you will try to fudge that fact because you want to get back at atheists who do not believe your seer claims.

"What is the basis of that value - the mythical particles that determine my feeling of choices in a cascade of chemical reactions, or the choices I make with a consciousness"

It is what it is. Believing one way or another does not make either true. All we can do is look at the best evidence available without prejudice.

The most important thing you need to comprehend NAVIN1 is that atheists are not the ones claiming to know the truth. We are the ones who do not believe that you know the truth. What the truth is we don't know. But we do not see any credibility in your claim to know it, so we don't believe you. That is all. I fully understand why you would then be very upset with all atheists. I can understand why you would want to get them back by trying to make it look like Stalin was the result and future of atheism. If you truly believe that you are a seer and we don't believe you it must be very frustrating. I get it. But you're not fooling anyone. No one here will ever buy your Stalin BS or your mono-ideological accusations simply because we don't believe people who claim to have had experiences with the truth, but have no evidence or verification for such.

Atheists are not people who claim to know the truth. They are people who do not believe claims of truth knowledge without evidence or verification. That is all. We do not need to know the truth to believe that you do not have it. We just have to find you not credible. And you are not. Now back to your lashing out. It is understandable given the circumstance of you believing that you are a seer.

Ah so we know.

But if science is the paradigm of knowing Truth, then we should establish that we have no free will (material and metaphysical determinism), that there is no real morality (L'etrranger of Camus), that there is no metaphysical reason (that too is a false god), that there is no love greater than biology, that there is no humanity other than that shared with particles,...

Even to the point that science has a problem determining what is alive: is a virus alive?, is a prion alive?, is a germ alive?.

Those who do not study science don't know the limitations of science, it is just a priestly edict that says to them, do this or do that for your health. Once you explore science in depth (usually resulting in a PhD) you realize that science is largely uncertain. The branches of the evolutionary tree don't fit, the idea that matter and anitmatter come into and go out of existence has no foundation (into and out of what), that particles/wave dichotomy is false, that time is an illusion, that continuity of existence is a misunderstanding of our minds, not a state of nature, that despite quanta, is there space between quanta...

For the atheists that feel they know what the truth is (or is not), it is because they have not faced the real questions. For the theists that feel they know what the truth is (or is not) we understand that there are limitations to knowledge. The atheist revolt against the christo-islamists is reasonable because the christo-islamists have an unreasonable god. The atheists generalization that all religions are the same is non-sense just as a generalization that all atheists are the same.

Consequentially, atheists have been more likely to kill in genocide than theists (in view of their short history in power, and it is not just Stalin, it is the millions of his followers, the millions of atheists that are Maoists, this is not a statistical deviation). But, is there even one that has been a succesful moral leader?

if your ideology leaves you like any ohter animal, then feed and reproduce on. Evolution will select the most efficient killer. But you and I will die off. We will not survive evolution. The question is, will we have valued the life we have lived. What is the basis of that value - the mythical particles that determine my feeling of choices in a cascade of chemical reactions, or the choices I make with a consciousness.

hariaum

T. Baum:

'This is a question that is outside the realm of science, but it is not and should not be outside the realm of thinking human beings.

At least this is what I think.'

And I agree - there are many questions that are beyond the ken of science & we should ask them anyway. If we're fortunate to find answers that satisfy us, they will remain our own personal solutions to various of life's enigmas. That's what I think....

best regards, Persiflage

T Bomb

"Some "scientists" seem to believe that if we can "figure out" everything about humans we will come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "free will", I disagree with this assessment."

I don't know of any scientists who've made this comment. Can you name them or quote them so we can verify you claim? Probably what you are referring to is that we have found no evidence thus far that would justify the notion of free will. We certainly all feel like we have free will, but do we really? Can you change your belief at will Thomas? Can you decide to not believe in God any more? Or even for 5 minutes? Just to try an experiment on free will. Can you change your beliefs? Can you stop loving your mother at will? I sure can not. This would indicate to me that my free will is not entirely free. No matter how hard I try, I can not stop loving my mother. Nor can I decide to enjoy eating turnip. Nor can I decide to believe that unicorns are real. In these matters, I have no free will.

We can then imagine that perhaps none of our free will is really that free. I understand that it's not a pleasant thought, but believing otherwise does not make otherwise true. So we might as well believe what the evidence shows us. Not even atheist author Dan Dennett believes that we are completely without some sort of free will. It's a tricky question. But we should follow the evidence where it leads us without prejudice. Thinking about how awful it would be if we truly had no free will can not make free will exist. We either have some or we don't. The best we can do is follow the evidence without prejudice.

"I believe that we are more than the sum of our chemical, electrical, biological and whatever else there may be, make-up"

It sure feels like it. But only evidence of such could make me believe it. Like all humans, I am constantly in search of such evidence. And I am open minded to any evidence that might arise. But I can not take your personal revelation as evidence because then I would also have to believe that Charles Manson is Jesus. Both of you have the exact same kind of evidence and it is not credible.

"In other words, we are not fancy, dancy puppets on a string and neither are we just fancy, dancy biological constructs that are at the whim of our physical make-up"

I'd love to think so. But all evidence currently points to the probability that we are "just fancy, dancy biological constructs that are at the whim of our physical make-up".

I have accepted that this is a possibility and it doesn't affect my life in a negative way at all. I have no reason to believe that I am anything but a fancy, dancy biological construct that is at the whim of my physical make-up" but I still love my fellow human beings. I still feel like my decisions are my own. I still want to strive to make the society I live in to be as utopian as possible. Meaning I want everyone to be as happy as they can be. I want everyone to enjoy life. And I will sacrifice some of my own pleasures to make that a reality because I can see how my life will be better if everyone else's life is better.

Even though I have no reason to believe that these decisions are the result of anything but my chemical make up doing what it does, I still love life, am inspired to live it to the fullest, love my fellow human being, want what's best for them, I appreciate art, I laugh and play and giggle and cry and work hard for outcomes that I desire etc.

"This is a question that is outside the realm of science, but it is not and should not be outside the realm of thinking human beings"

Science is nothing more than exploration. Nothing is outside of that realm. Science includes all thinking in it's explorations.

"At least this is what I think"

But why do you think that? That is the question.

Well that is the question ordinarily. We know why you think that. And it is a conversation ender. So I don't know why you try to have conversations with people when you always end it with a conversation ender. "Because I have spoken personally with God"

Friedrich Nietzsche was a significant contributor to the rise of modern-day atheism and the existentialist movement in the West.

I suspect the loss of faith in religion was a depressing, traumatic experience for thinkers and philosophers back in the day.....they arrived at their conclusions mostly under solitary circumstances.

It likely took a great deal of personal strength and courage to declare one's apostasy to Christianity, the principle religion in the western world at the time.

Judaism had a similar crisis much later on - at the hands of Nietzsche's own religious and maniacal German landsmen.

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

persiflage

I wrote, "'Instead of "Science vs intelligent design" wouldn't it be more correct to say, "Creation vs already here"?'"

You responded, "Thomas, are you a Zen Buddhist hiding out as a Catholic? Sure sounds like some brand of existentialism to me......"

I'm just a fellow human being.

What I am saying is, is what we perceive an act of not only creation but of an ongoing creation or is it that everything was here and is maybe just changing in and of itself by means of what we have discovered to be natural laws?

Figuring out the "natural laws" only tells us how things work, so to speak, but that is about the only thing that it addresses.

Natural laws seems to be about the "predictability" of things happening in nature whether on the micro or macro or everything in between level.

Even tho we are part of this "nature", we do tend to be unpredictable at times, do we not?

Could there be a "reason" for this?

Some "scientists" seem to believe that if we can "figure out" everything about humans we will come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "free will", I disagree with this assessment.

I believe that we are more than the sum of our chemical, electrical, biological and whatever else there may be, make-up.

In other words, we are not fancy, dancy puppets on a string and neither are we just fancy, dancy biological constructs that are at the whim of our physical make-up.

Is there a reason or is it a fluke?

This is a question that is outside the realm of science, but it is not and should not be outside the realm of thinking human beings.

At least this is what I think.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

D 12 says:

"Neither the atheists nor the religious are worth a damn intellectually"

Is it even possible to escape being one of the two? Atheist or Religious? I can not think of a religion that does not worship a deity of some kind. Therefore if you are not religious, you must not believe in any deity which makes you and atheist. You may also be an agnostic as well as being an atheist meaning you do not personally have a belief in any deity but you don't pretend to know for sure one way or another if there is a God of some sort out there. This would, make you an agnostic but unless you can name the God or gods that you believe in, you are also an atheist.

Conclusion. D 12 is a self loathing misanthrope. Which ever side he comes down on, atheist or religious, he thinks that he is not worth a damn intellectually. In his own personal case, he has a point. But his problem has always been projecting his own personal failings onto others.

A famous recent quote from this thread:

'Neither the atheists nor the religious are worth a damn intellectually.'

Here's a link to a number of atheist under-achievers, thanks to Farnaz from the Jacoby thread. Even the agnostics among them became outright atheists in due time :^)

Something to consider for the fence sitters out there.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_%28science_and_technology%29

Why do people become atheists? This is an easy question to answer: everyone is born an atheist – it is the default value.

Theism must be learned, from parents, culture, peers. There is no “road” to atheism. Everyone is born without belief in god. Adults who remain atheists do so based upon the individual and specific circumstances of their life, experiences, and attitudes.

Nevertheless, it is possible to describe some general similarities which tend to be common among quite a few atheists, particularly atheists in the West. But it is important to remember that nothing is necessarily common to all atheists, and even when atheists do share characteristics, it cannot be assumed that they are shared to the same degree.

A particular reason might play a very large role for one atheist, a very small role for another, and absolutely no role whatsoever for a third. One can reasonably assume that these generalities maybe true, but to find out if they are true and how true, it is necessary to ask.

One common reason for atheism is contact with a variety of religions. It isn’t unusual for an atheist to have been raised in a religious household and to have grown up living with the assumption that their religious tradition represented the One True Faith in the One True God. However, after learning more about other religious traditions, this same person may adopt a much more critical attitude towards his own religion and even religion generally, eventually coming to reject not only it but also belief in the existence of any gods.
Another possible reason for atheism may originate in bad experiences with a religion.

A person might grow up with or convert to a religious faith which they eventually find to be oppressive, hypocritical, evil, or otherwise unworthy of following. The consequence of this for many is to become critical of that religion, but in some cases, a person may become critical of all religions and, as with the previous explanation, even critical of belief in the existence of gods.

Many atheists find their way to disbelief through science. Over the centuries science has come to offer explanations of aspects of our word which were once the exclusive domain of religion. Because scientific explanations have been more productive than religious or theistic explanations, the ability of religion to demand allegiance has weakened. As a result, some people have come to entirely reject not only religion, but also belief in the existence of a god. For them, gods are useless as an explanation for any feature of the universe and provide nothing worth investigating.
There are also philosophical arguments which many regard as successful in disproving most of the common conceptions of gods. For example, many atheists think that the Argument from Evil renders belief in an omniscient and omnipotent god completely irrational and unreasonable. Although gods without such attributes are not disproven, there is also an absence of any good reason to believe in such gods.

Without good reason, belief is either impossible or simply not worth having.
I return to my first point, in many ways the most important. Disbelief is the default position — no one is born having a belief. Beliefs are acquired through culture and education. It is not ultimately up to the atheist to justify atheism; rather, it is up to the theist to explain why belief in a god is reasonable. In the continuing universal absence of such an explanation, theism should be regarded as irrelevant at best, but more likely irrational.

The question, in reality, is not “why are people atheists”, but “why are people theists?”

D 12

You are telling me that my intelligence comes from a designer who's intelligence comes from precisely the most perverse idea ever imagined "no intelligence"?

Why should I listen to anything you say if your intelligence came from a designer who's intelligence came from precisely the opposite of intelligence, what any schoolboy after thinking properly about it will tell you is called "no intelligence".

Tell me why I should listen to a man who believes in a designer who's intelligence comes from exactly no intelligence. I can't even believe my ears. How perverse could one be as to think that intelligence comes from a designer who's intelligence came from what any perverted schoolboy can tell you under the covers.... I mean... it's just so perverted to think about my intelligence coming from a young muscular designer school boy who's intelligence was perverted by the precise exact opposite of intelligence in the general third person of course which I have gone over many many times. Sheeesh, I must have gone over all of this millions of times with any schoolboy and they're coming to take me away ha ha ho ho he he who who what?

Daniel, I promise you, I really am a professional comedian. And I promise you, you are much much funnier than me. Get your ass to to the nearest comedy club amateur night. A star will be born. I can open for you on the road. I'm pretty good, but I can not follow the comedy smoke of your last two posts. After 20 years in the business, it's not easy to make me laugh out loud. You have genius in you comedy wise. Hats off.

sal on the erie canal.

i had a mule her name is sal 15 years on the erie canal she,s good strong mule and she,s good old pal 15 years on the erie canal.

sal was one of those mules who helped digging the famous erie canal at the great lakes area,sal done an excelent job and a great favor for human being world wide.

sal never made it to no school does not read nor write never made it to harvard nor georgetowen,not even to the capital hill nor the school of inteligence design or the school of uninteligence design.

the significance of sal is way beyond the canal the significance of sal is that sal knew exactly what to do in this life !she done it and now she rest in peace.

the legend of sal makes those who born suckled and raised in ^reason age^ heirs of darwinism and reasonism paganism of greco-romanism ashamed of themselvs???

sal and the rest of the asses are much advanced much superior in thought and action !

thinkers and rescherchers world wide are hi ly invited to the school of sal on the erie canal????????

Once again back to the topic with some questions:

Are proselytizing atheists exclusivists?

Are proselytizing "intelligent designers" exclusivists?

Is the Dalai Lama a proselytizing exclusivist?

Some words of wisdom for those who proselytize- the more important observations:

More words of wisdom:

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."

A final broadside against the intelligent design idea. Simply put, we've progressed beyond these ancient anthropomorphic concepts of a creator deity, fabricated in our own image and likeness.

Mythology is charming and entertaining, but common sense should tell us there is no literal truth to be found there.

Realistically, from what we know about the cosmos today, human intelligence simply couldn't fathom or comprehend intelligence of an order that might fashion or bring into being such a vastness - and yet theists pretend that these are the good old days, and that we still can. In truth, there are better, more comprehensible explanations - but these too will pass.

We can't really hypothesize a supernatural intelligence on any basis - we know too much to offer up a reified version of God that makes logical sense today.

Religion no longer is able to function in an explanatory role as regards human origins and human destiny. Like all things, it's a transient part of human culture - things change.

The tales and fables of a supreme deity no longer hold up. Humans have to rely increasingly on our own inherent intelligence and sense of humanity. The role of science continues to expand. The myths of religion are and have been an integral part of human culture, and a great comfort to believers.

This too shall pass......

Human intelligence seems to be a function of gray matter. Much harder to say with divine intelligence.....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040720090419.htm

Once again Timmy, I will address in as few words as possible, try to answer your question, will critique the notion that intelligence must have come from intelligent design. I think we can agree that by critiquing the notion that intelligence has come from intelligent design you mean show what is wrong with that argument.

I think we can also agree, that no matter my critique of intelligence coming from intelligent design that your (or if not your, "their") position of no intelligent design behind existence is THE FARTHEST, MOST PERVERSE, MOST CONTRARY ALTERNATIVE ANSWER ONE CAN GIVE UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW ME A MORE PERVERSE ANSWER AS TO HOW INTELLIGENCE HAS ARISEN THAN NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Timmy, I will critique the notion of intelligence coming from intelligent design if you explain to me how you (or rather "they"--God forbid I might misinterpret your view, even if it does daily seem to amount to be against exactly what I say) have arrived at the most perverse, contrary explanation as alternative. Actually, I could not care less whether you answer my question or not. And I certainly do not need anyone to propose a critique of how intelligence has come from intelligent design to answer this question--I do it from my own pleasure.

First, we can argue that intelligence has come from intelligent design because organic like breeds like. A dog results in little dogs. A particular tree results in offspring of the same. Intelligence must have come from intelligence. Or is it that intelligence having come from no intelligent design is a vastly more superior line of reasoning?

It is not at all hard to understand why a person would think that intelligence is ultimately traceable backward to intelligent design. What is hard to understand, and I doubt you will be any help at all, is why a person would conclude intelligence is traceable back to precisely no intelligent design. Do I dare suggest anyone critique the notion that intelligence has come from no intelligent design? No that would require too much intellectual integrity from certain persons.

This of course is not to say intelligent design is an unassailable position. What I am saying is that trying to debunk it, attack it from the angle of critiquing how intelligence has come from intelligent design is not the way to go about it. Debunking it is so much easier and obvious by questioning why so much about existence is senseless and demonstrates no intelligent design. Apparently I have to explain to the believers in no intelligent design how to defend their own position.

Let me put things in another way. Trying to say the critique of how intelligence has arisen from intelligent design is the way to debunk intelligent design is to say that an enemy piece in chess can be taken better by a bishop than a rook when obviously the rook only can move in the fashion to take the enemy piece.

But why not entertain the likes of Timmy. "Intelligence could not have come from intelligent design because we have the problem of how the designer was designed and so on--infinite regression." Of course I paraphrase this famous atheist argument against intelligent design. Ah, yes, and intelligence being traceable backward to exactly the infinite regression--if it can even be called regression--of no intelligent design behind things is the obviously superior answer...

Let me ask every person reading this a direct question: How exactly is it that no intelligent design, the most direct and diametric and perverse opposite of intelligent design, has come to be the perfectly logical answer to the problem of intelligence in the universe? By what sublime operation of thought has this been arrived at?

For the life of me I have difficulty critiquing the notion of intelligence having come from intelligent design when I am told the precise, diametric and perverse opposite--no intelligent design--is the obviously superior answer. If no intelligent design is so obviously the superior answer I would expect someone with that sublime knowledge to critique the notion of intelligence having come from intelligent design better than myself.

I have intelligence. I have apparently two choices: believe that such has come from intelligent design or no intelligent design. I apologize for saying I believe the former rather than the latter if we are to confine our critique of intelligent design to only how intelligence has arisen from it. But of course if we broaden our critique and ask how intelligent design can be behind things when so much senselessness exists then obviously I am not so confident of intelligent design. In fact I am against the concept. But then when it comes round in a circle as to how intelligence arose, if I am told that it arrived by no intelligent design, well then I find myself skeptical of this answer.

An ambiguous situation with no satisfactory answer either way. Have the courage to admit it or do not think at all, for intelligence alone does not constitute thinking.

Intelligence alone does not constitute thinking? Hmm, we might have to start arguing whether there is a courageous design behind existence or not as an explanation of our courage along with arguing whether intelligence has come from intelligent design.

D12:

"There is a quality of the universe that causes us to be intelligent, or that enables us to be intelligent. That is an undeniable fact."

Prove it.

D12 declares with authority:

'Neither the atheists nor the religious are worth a damn intellectually.'

The fact that you can't reach your own conclusions based on the evidence, points to the intellectual confusion of one individual. You've managed to blame everyone but yourself. Nice job.

D12, you first said the following:

'The person suggested there might be God, but so much about this God is evidently evil and senseless, therefore there probably is no God at all, no intelligent design behind existence.'

And then you further explained:

'Nothing but the third person, generality for an idea which has been repeated countless times all through history and which anyone at all versed in basic religion and philosophy should know.'
_______________

Then you are evidently not well versed in either - I'm not acquainted with a single theist that proposes evil or senselessness as among God's divine attributes. Atheists do of course point out certain conflicts inherent in theist logic.

For example, the fact of evil in the world should be a prime sticking point for theists that maintain the absolute goodness of God, the creator of all - and which must, perforce, include the evil that we see perpetrated by humans on other humans (and other living creatures) i.e. in countless variations of intentional harm.

The actual purpose behind such a bollixed up creation eludes the most sublime thinkers! The religious get around this condundrum by posing the idea of free will - humans choose evil, after all.

The idea that many humans are thoroughly conditioned to the point of making true free will a remote possibility, is rarely examined in the theist vision. The fact that evangelicals are committed to their literalist religious beliefs beyond all reasonable doubt, tends to support this hypothesis.

Evil is clearly a relative concept, and portrayed exclusively as a human attribute, but varies qualitatively from culture to culture.

For many theists, the idea is further complicated by the powerful allure of Satan as the spiritual embodiment of evil. In the theist paradigm, evil gets all tangled up in free will, the lure of the devil, earthly delights, and so forth. The need for salvation arises thusly. Islam has a slightly different take, but the same basic idea i.e. see the Jinn.

Atheists simply say there is no convincing evidence for the existence of God the cosmic creator/intelligent designer. God clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of good and evil, in the mind of your garden variety non-theistic, secular thinker. And this would include non-theists of the religious persuasion as well. See the link below for an example.

The God vs evil conflict is strictly with and among theists.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/evil.htm

Lion's Den below:

There is a quality of the universe that causes us to be intelligent, or that enables us to be intelligent. That is an undeniable fact. By the very fact that we are here, and dwelling on this problem, we have been enabled to be intelligent, by the way in which the complexity of existence operates.

If you infer from that that there must be an Intelligent Designer, then you are free to believe that. But it does not follow by any logic or by any observation that that is what has actually happened.

Timmy is right, that if you believe in an Intelligent Designer, that does not solve any riddles, since you still have the origin of the Intelligent Designer and the question of initial intelligence to deal with.

Me below:

And on and on we go...I repeat for the millionth time...people infer an intelligent designer is behind things because it is a piece of unintelligibility to say no intelligent design is behind things. People have intelligence and logically infer an intelligence behind things has given them that intelligence. They see all the things designed by humans and infer all they see has been intelligently designed--and by the use of the word people here I am just stating the third person, generality, for no rare but rather a quite common line of thinking.

This is not to say the concept of intelligent design is perfect, an unassailable schemata, a paradigm with no flaw. On the contrary, we do not even have to propose that such a thing has never been discoved scientifically. Simply stating the obvious, that so much about existence demonstrates a lack of intelligent design, sheer indifference to man if not evil, is enough.

And people who believe in intelligent design, people who try to prop up that concept, even if they do not declare themselves outright believers in God, try the same strategy as the outright God believers and explain the senselessness and indifference of existence away...and of course have yet to really give us a worthwhile reason to take them at their word.

But if we try to get funny and say the concept of intelligent design is just like the concept God, that it really does not explain anything, we run into other sorts of troubles. In fact this notion that "intelligent design does not really explain anything" has to be one of the most sly accusations directed to the concept of intelligent design because precisely after people use these words they say there is no intelligent design behind existence which in itself, of course, does not explain anything either. And by the use of the word people here I mean again, the third person, generality, for quite well known ideas and the people who voice them.

What exactly is explained by saying one does not believe in God or intelligent design? What step forward in intellectual schemata, paradigm? No intelligent design behind existence? Is that not the most perverse thing one could say as an alternative explanation for why intelligence exists? Ask any schoolboy what the farthest thing from intelligent design to explain intelligence can be and after a bit of familiarity he will arrive at precisely the diametric opposite, the complete antonym that no intelligent design is the explanation for intelligence.

The problem with the opponents of God and intelligent design is they present themselves as oh, so intelligent, oh, so without "religious trickery", yet propose as the explanation for existence and even human intelligence exactly no intelligent design--the most perverse alternative explanation imaginable. I think these opponents of religion and intelligent design need to explain to us why it is they have resorted to the utter perversity of no intelligent design to explain things as the alternative to intelligent design. But really no explanation is needed. They simply despise religion, are congenitally designed to take the complete opposite course and prop it up like the religious with all sorts of sly argumentation.

Neither the atheists nor the religious are worth a damn intellectually. The both are cowardly, dogmatic, argumentative and sly. The religious, yet again, tell us an intelligent design is behind things which is a direct insult to basic intelligence which can observe that so much about existence is so ridiculous, so without any sense to man, that there cannot be any intelligent design behind things.

Then we turn to the atheistic, who typically hold the following position, and they cheer us on in our belief no intelligent design is behind things. But then we pause for a moment and really think about what we have been thinking and the atheists have been drumming into our heads, and we observe that existence is not all bad, in fact we humans demonstrate intelligence, so how can no intelligent design explain anything? And is it not the direct opposite, perversely in fact, of intelligent design?

The truth is humans are caught in an ambiguous situation which the religious and atheistic try to solve in their respective ways, but each of their ways is far from flawless as intellectual conception and resolution of the problem. And this is just plain intellectual knowledge. That is all I have been trying to say but tomorrow both the religious and atheistic, if presented with these observations, will each in their own way say it is completely wrong and turn back to their typical methods of shoring up their own intellectual deficiencies of explanation.

All I am is a man who recognizes the deficiencies of explanation of both sides and refuses to be taken in by both sides. I have no answer to the problem but hope somehow a solution can be found if not by myself then someone eventually otherwise humans will just have to live with this ambiguous situation when not, of course, trying to sly around it (yes, sly used as a verb) and solve it by fake explanations and schematas.

I can only conclude that for all the talk of atheists being more free minded than the religious that man period resists as much as he can his view of existence being somehow deficient logically, that he is willing to even lie and rationalize even if declaring and actually being free of delusions such as God.

It will not surprise me in the least if I hear the most nonsensical remarks as response to this last post, everything from me being religious (according to the atheistic) and attacking atheistic positions, to being one of the most unreligious, blasphemous individuals around (according to the religious who also have quite a bit to go on what with my plots for comic novels on this thread--so antireligious in the extreme). Actually I should state that the religious do not even seem to be around here on On Faith. Certainly I have not received anywhere near the criticism from the religious that I have received from the atheistic.

It would be ironic if the religious were to welcome me and the atheistic try to do me in at every turn. The freethinking world of atheism...right. I have not seen it. So far as I can tell the atheists are hardly much better than the religious at standing the fundamental ambiguity of existence.

Note: I might not be able to respond further on this particular thread as I will be extremely busy for the next few days. But we can of course take it up again when the new topic is posted on Wednesday.

Once again back to the topic with some questions:

Are proselytizing atheists exclusivists?

Are proselytizing "intelligent designers" exclusivists?

Some words of wisdom for those who proselytize- the more important observations:

More words of wisdom:

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."

Persiflage says:

D12 confabulates:

'The person suggested there might be God, but so much about this God is evidently evil and senseless, therefore there probably is no God at all, no intelligent design behind existence.'

Is this fiction based on actual events? Who was it that said this?? A fictional vignette apropos of nothing (my French is improving though).

Nothing but the third person, generality for an idea which has been repeated countless times all through history and which anyone at all versed in basic religion and philosophy should know.

D12 confabulates:

'The person suggested there might be God, but so much about this God is evidently evil and senseless, therefore there probably is no God at all, no intelligent design behind existence.'

Is this fiction based on actual events? Who was it that said this?? A fictional vignette apropos of nothing (my French is improving though).

I'm thinking that D12 might be happier as a Deist, since he is partial to the apparent Newtonian 'clockwork' design of the universe, but prefers to do without the ritualistic rigamarole and rampant supernaturalism found among the trinitarians.

What the Deists didn't know at the time, was the propensity for matter to self-assemble - complexity spontaneously emerging out of chaos. Darwin's dangerous idea, just one among many future scientific revelations, was right around the corner.

But they were definitely ahead of the curve for that early American era, and fully grounded in the rationalism of the Enlightenment. See Thomas Jefferson, et al ;^)

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

Daniel12

There is a quality of the universe that causes us to be intelligent, or that enables us to be intelligent. That is an undeniable fact. By the very fact that we are here, and dwelling on this problem, we have been enabled to be intelligent, by the way in which the complexisty of existence operates.

If you infer from that that there must be an Intelligent Designer, then you are free to believe that. But it does not follow by any logic or by any observation that that is what has actually happened.

Timmy is right, that if you believe in an Intelligent Designer, that does not solve any riddles, since you still have the origin of the Intelligent Designer and the question of intitial intelligence to deal with.

There is no answer that is accessible to us, for the same existence that has enabled us to be intelligent also denies to us access to the knowledge that you seek. You are just spinning your wheels. Believe what you believe, and let your mind rest on this.

If you think that religion is worth preserving, then you should support it by going to church. If you are not willing to do that yourself, then why do expect other people to?

I believe in intuition, or at least something like that, and moments of insite, in which you experience great articulation of thought that may last only a brief time, maybe even for no more than a moment, before sliding back again into mute ignorance. I have had such experiences, in which I remember the moment understanding, even though I cannot reconstruct the sense of understanding in my mind that I experienced during the moment. But just having the memory of it is a good feeling.

On D-12's disconnect from reality.

He can not even comprehend the fact that he is the one and only blogger in this current discussion who believes in ID. Not even his supposed supporters, NAVIN1 and RoadRunnin believe in ID. They don't support any of his actual ideas. Only his war against Timmy and Schaum. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, type of thing,

"Go Daniel Go! God speed boy. Get that Timmy and Schaum, they called me a fraud." I want them got. Even though I do not believe in ID, and you scoff at people such as me, I support you because Timmy doesn't believe that I am a seer, and Schaum called me an idiot. So I support your craziness, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It doesn't matter that I do not believe in ID and you are scoffing such people, I support you Daniel. Go Daniel Go!"

Not one blogger here believes in ID, and Daniel's critique of his lonely theory is that "come on, it's obvious. What else could possibly be true but what I have just said." This is him critiquing his own position. By stating that there is no way to critique it because it is obviously true. In front of a group of people who do not believe in ID.

This is the perverse disconnect of D-12 the pointless atheist/theist, ID preacher.

Timmy2:

New word to describe brain dead ID preachers: retardead.

as far as i know, this Armenian Bill shall be voted and shall have agreed to pass as a Document till November 2012, due date of Yom Kippur for this century, or a consciousness shall have wide spread amongst the folks all over the world.

Once upon a time there was a pointless atheist ID preacher who thought he had figured out where intelligence came from. An intelligent designer of course. Now this pointless atheist ID preacher could rely on his intelligence because it had an origin. It came from the Intelligent designer. But when asked where the intelligence of the designer came from, the pointless atheist ID preacher could only come up with the answer 'from no intelligence." Now all of a sudden the pointless atheist ID preacher could no longer rely on what he knows to be intelligence because it came from a designer who got it's intelligence from "no intelligence". How perverse. Now the pointless atheist ID preacher has no more reason to trust his intelligence any more than anyone else, modern atheist or otherwise. Because the intelligence he received from his designer came from the very opposite of intelligence, "no intelligence."

Now the pointless atheist ID preacher has no point. No matter how you slice it, intelligence had to, at some point, come from no intelligence. At least in the demented mind of the pointless atheist ID preacher.

As for other modern atheists here on this blog. They are not obsessed with finding the source of a completely subjective human construct called "intelligence" because they know that it is nothing more than a completely subjective human construct and not an actual objective thing that exists. Most atheists see the origin of life and existence as an ongoing mystery worth exploring and contemplating.

Theists are people who have a need to find an answer to the mysteries of existence. They need to answer questions that are not yet answered. They can not stand the mystery. It scares them. They think that answering "I don't know" to the mysteries of life will get them sent to Hell or something.

D 12 is just such a theist. His invented placeholder answer is ID. He is not smart enough to realize that this answers nothing about where intelligence and existence came from. He can not see the inconsistency in claiming that intelligence can not come from no intelligence unless of course you're talking about the intelligence of the designer. It's okay for that intelligence to come from nothing, but not for our intelligence to have come from nothing. He can not see the inconsistency in logic here. But logic has never been his strong point.

today i watched documentaries named "Sailing With the Phoenicians" and another one about the DArk Age in United Kingdom from 545 AC to 640 AC, later to 1100 AC, the volcano and the vikings, till vikings came to the churches at last.

in the Assurian Culture, i met the Tower in GAllipolis and the Columns of the Monument in Ankara for Ataturk.

Prime Minister of Turkey named the voting as "comedy", is this Bill in the Council of Representatives about MArduk? is it about 2012? is it about the Photon Belt the Solar System shall enter into in these twenty years? is it about a "stand up" for what and for whom?

in the Second World WAr, Israelians were massacred. in the First World War, Armenians were massacred.

and the man known with the First World War in Ottomans against Armenians had been educated at an Israelian school, from Bulgaria.

Chairman of the Council of Representatives is one of those who had been safe out of Concentration CAmps.

what is the meditation for? what is the calculation for? what is this concentration on this subject for?

what is the problem amongst Israelians and Armenians? the Relics of Jesus Christ are in today Istanbul in Armenian Church.

lets study on the Armenian Bill in the Council of Representatives under this week's subject: "Proselytizing overseas: Religious freedom or coercion?"

the difference between a decision and agreement and coersion and manupilation is the language and syntax.

the Chairman of the Council of Representatives is an Israelian from Poland. in Poland is the Old Testament and Highest Application.

then why is the Bill in the Council of Representatives? who are Those Three Representatives latest came to vote? what is in the LAw we shall expect to appear all above us to be in our hearts and minds?

"Maybe humans will one day achieve such abilities, become space dust, and populate the hostile universe -- maybe not"

Maybe we already did.

But one thing we know for sure is that positing an intelligent designer answers nothing about where intelligence came from. This we know, no matter what definition of intelligence you have.

Schaum:

'The three links you have provided are most excellent, and I recommend that all atheists read them.'

Thanks. Hopefully they will or already have - I suppose it's too much to imagine that fundamentalists will bother to similarly educate themselves. And it's mo surprise that intelligent design is a popular concept among devout non-christian theists as well.......

George Gurdjeiff left a few memorable quotes that seem apropo of man the machine, and the failure of native intelligence to overcome conditioning, for the majority of humans:

“Self-observation brings man to the realization of the necessity of self-change. And in observing himself a man notices that self-observation itself brings about certain changes in his inner processes. He begins to understand that self-observation is an instrument of self-change, a means of awakening.”

“A considerable percentage of the people we meet on the street are people who are empty inside, that is, they are actually already dead. It is fortunate for us that we do not see and do not know it. If we knew what a number of people are actually dead and what a number of these dead people govern our lives, we should go mad with horror.”

I couldn't agree more.......

D 12 the pointless atheist liar conniver coward,

"Precisely atheists have declared there is no intelligent design behind existence"

What atheist has declared this? I am an atheist. I have not declared this. You are a liar conniver retard coward.

"Precisely atheists take offense at the concept of intelligent design being taught in schools, in biology class, calling it an attempt to sneak religion into schools"

We take offense not because we know otherwise but because there is no evidence for it and therefore no reason to teach it.

"The writer Timmy here obviously has lost his mind. He has me inventing the story that atheists believe there is no intelligent design behind existence"

I have you inventing the story that anyone here has declared that. You are debating us, not the atheist in your mind. You are welcome to debate the atheists in your mind if you find it easier, but leave us out of it. Or ask us what we believe before you speak.

"Bring up the name of Dennett. Bring up the name of Sam Harris. Bring up the name of Dawkins. Bring up the name of Christopher Hitchens. Bring up the name of Susan Jacoby. Do any of these people believe in intelligent design?"

I do not believe in intelligent design. But that is not the same as believing that intelligent design does not exist. Can you quote any of the atheist authors you listed making the claim that intelligent design does not exist? I'll bet you can not. It should be easy shouldn't it? A simple click of the mouse you say? Simply find a quote of one of the atheist authors you listed declaring that intelligent design does not exist. Good luck retard.

"Now Timmy has asked me--yet again--to critique the notion that intelligence has come from intelligent design, as if I never answered his question. I obliged but he acts like I gave him no answer"

No you did not critique it. Asking me if I can think of another way is not critiquing your position but rather reinforcing it. Do you know what the word "critique" means? Clearly not.
"I clearly asked him if he can state a better answer for how intelligence has arisen than intelligent design"

Yes you did. And that is clearly not a critique of your position but rather a reinforcement of it. Making you a liar for claiming to have critiqued it.

"I pointed out the utter perversity of the atheist position of not only not offering a better answer to the question of how intelligence has arisen than intelligent design, but suggesting that it came from no intelligent design, precisely the farthest thing one can think of from intelligent design"

And you call this a critique of the position that intelligence must have come from intelligent design? Do you know what the word critique means? Clearly not, retard.

"Maybe Timmy at the least can demonstrate his sense of humour, professional comedian supposedly he is. Or am I wrong about you being a professional comedian Timmy? If so, my mistake. But if no mistake, please demonstrate that sense of humour. Give us a laugh Timmy. Write a joke for us. Or do I always have to be the joke of the day as you see it? If so, I believe I should deserve at least half your pay comedian"

You want money form me? For being a moron and the butt of every joke here? Fat chance. You want proof that I am comedian? You seem to not believe me. Like I said, look in the archives if you're really curious. Ask Peter Huff. He knows my real identity. Otherwise, you are welcome to believe or disbelieve that I am a comedian. It makes no difference to me. I'm not the one caught being a bald faced liar. You are.

Persiflage:

The three links you have provided are most excellent, and I recommend that all atheists read them.

Ref. Intelligent Design

There is obviously some reason that it isn't taught alongside evolution in public schools - despite the best efforts of it's proponents to force it on public school children. Fortunately all such efforts have failed thus far.

But what's the problem? Just take your wee little ones to the church of your choice, where the brainwashing can proceed without messy legal restrictions. Make no mistake - intelligent design (an age-old Western concept) is conventional monotheism by any other name.

Regarding the creation of life, while science isn't there yet, it's getting there. See Julius Rebek below.

The three criteria for the presence of life: a living entity must be ... self-replicating, self-sustaining, and subject to the processes of Darwinian evolution.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/evolution.htm

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

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

Once again back to the topic with some questions:

Are proselytizing atheists exclusivists?

Are proselytizing "intelligent designers" exclusivists?

Some words of wisdom for those who proselytize- the more important observations:

More words of wisdom:

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."

A very amusing circumstance.

Once upon a time there was a person who did not believe in God, and therefore--because it is consequential--an intelligent design behind existence.

The person suggested there might be God, but so much about this God is evidently evil and senseless, therefore there probably is no God at all, no intelligent design behind existence.

Then this person began to wonder, if there is no intelligent design behind existence then how has intelligence arisen, how can I even be certain of making any sense, how can we speak of empirical and objective and scientific knowledge if there is no intelligent design behind existence, for without intelligent design there is no objective foundation to knowledge, unless of course we want to speak of this foundation being of exactly no intelligent design, in which case it makes exactly no sense.

Then this person began to wonder further, and in fact became amused. He ironically observed that in taking so much to be senseless, so expressive of no intelligent design, he went to such an extreme to have the conceptual scheme of no intelligence behind existence, the farthest thing from the very intelligence he uses to apply himself to his thoughts.

But if he goes to the other extreme and takes an intelligent design to be behind existence, he finds himself right back where he started from, wondering how so much which is senseless and evil can come from an intelligent design.

The plain fact is he is stuck. He writhes, saying one day an intelligent design is behind existence then on the next day there is no intelligent design at all, the farthest thing one can imagine from the very intelligence he values so much. He is stuck in a perverse situation. He insists one day that an intelligent design must be behind existence no matter the evil and senselessness of existence--he perversely ignores the evident evil and senselessness of existence to shore up his little hope in intelligent design and probably even just plain God--then on the next day he takes the senselessness and evil of existence as the salient fact of existence and says no intelligent design is behind existence at all, which is the farthest thing one can imagine with respect to one's own intelligence.

Complete intelligent design behind existence despite the senselessness or no intelligent design in which case all human knowledge cannot take itself as anything but pure subjectivity upon a background of fundamental nothingness? Flip flop. He should become a fish--in fact for all biological emergence from the sea he still is a flip flopping fish mentally.

In circumstances such as this it just pays to go swimming. Grow some gills. Splash around in the water. Let the tension of the situation inform the total person, let it lead to thinking paradoxically in all situations. Fish or man? Aquaman.

Ah, "intelligence." Nobody agrees what it is (see "Chomsky").

What if it is successful survival?

The shark, 400 million years; the cockroach, 100 million years -- give or take the modern one; the bdelloid rotifer, anybody's guess as to their beginning; the human, one million years.

Humans have a problem with what they call "evil." Humans have a problem with what they call death (see "SCHAUM"). Humans have a problem with their Kingdom, Animalia, all eating each other.

Call it "intelligence," call it not, humans, considering these porblems, seem to have concluded they don't like these things.

Parents rarely direct their young children's attention to the film of a crocodile projecting itself from muddy waters, grabbing the docile zebra by the neck, and dragging it under the depths, for its dinner. Yet, many American humans hope their children become the adults dinning at Morton's, Ruth's Chris, or at least Outback (my favorite, for the price).

Some humans view the universe as a hostile place; most humans do not view Morton's as such. Intelligence, designed or not, go figure.

Interesting, the bdelloid rotifer has been only female, for at least one million years. At the Dead Sea -- one of its habitats -- it is able to dry up its body, become blown by winds to a pond in the High Sierra's, and populate the place with its kind, eating the wastes of trout -- a most interesting design, one might admit.

Maybe humans will one day achieve such abilities, become space dust, and populate the hostile universe -- maybe not.

There is a concept called intelligent design. Who made up that concept? Is it a well known concept? The answers to these two questions is as follows: the religious made up that concept as another way of speaking about God. Again, is it a well known concept? Yes it is. How well known is that concept?

The answer to that question is simple as well: It is so well known that precisely atheists have taken aim at it. Precisely atheists have declared there is no intelligent design behind existence. Precisely atheists take offense at the concept of intelligent design being taught in schools, in biology class, calling it an attempt to sneak religion into schools.

The writer Timmy here obviously has lost his mind. He has me inventing the story that atheists believe there is no intelligent design behind existence. A simple few clicks on the internet--supposing a person does not know already, which is hard to believe--will demonstrate that there are those who believe an intelligent design is behind existence, and they are typically on the religious side if not believing directly in God, and there are those who do not believe in intelligent design and precisely because of that assertion demonstrate they can be only atheists.

Bring up the name of Dennett. Bring up the name of Sam Harris. Bring up the name of Dawkins. Bring up the name of Christopher Hitchens. Bring up the name of Susan Jacoby. Do any of these people believe in intelligent design? The answer is no. Are any of these people atheists? All of them are not only atheists but the big five in the world representing atheism.

And if anyone cares to demonstrate that there are atheists even better known than these five, would that person care to bet that they believe in intelligent design rather than not? No, no one will make that bet.

Now Timmy has asked me--yet again--to critique the notion that intelligence has come from intelligent design, as if I never answered his question. I obliged but he acts like I gave him no answer. I clearly asked him if he can state a better answer for how intelligence has arisen than intelligent design. I pointed out the utter perversity of the atheist position of not only not offering a better answer to the question of how intelligence has arisen than intelligent design, but suggesting that it came from no intelligent design, precisely the farthest thing one can think of from intelligent design. Or can someone else think of a more perverse answer to the question of how intelligence has arisen than no intelligent design? The question is not how intelligence has arisen from intelligent design but why someone would be so perverse as to suggest the farthest thing from intelligent design to explain the existence of intelligence--namely suggest precisely no intelligent design as the explanation for intelligence.

Maybe Timmy at the least can demonstrate his sense of humour, professional comedian supposedly he is. Or am I wrong about you being a professional comedian Timmy? If so, my mistake. But if no mistake, please demonstrate that sense of humour. Give us a laugh Timmy. Write a joke for us. Or do I always have to be the joke of the day as you see it? If so, I believe I should deserve at least half your pay comedian.

D 12 the pointless atheist liar conniver,

"Did intelligent design arrive by "duck"? Did it arrive by "Timmy"?"

The question is where did "intelligence" come from not "intelligent design". You can't even comprehend words.

"Go ahead, pick any word in the English language which makes better sense of how intelligence arose than intelligent design"

Almost any other world would make better sense since "intelligent design" can not answer where intelligence came from because the designer must have intelligence. So you still don't know where the designer's intelligence came from.

BTW that was a critique of your position. What you gave was not a critique but a further assertion of your position proving that you are a liar when you say you critique all positions.

"A good question for the modern atheist is why of all the possible answers one could give as to how intelligence arose the utter perversity--complete opposite--no intelligent design was chosen"

Ask yourself. It seems to be your assertion and your assertion alone, modern atheist.

"Well I ask the modern atheist courteously, and without any humor, because we know some them are comedians and God forbid they should find out how easy it is to be so much funnier than them, if they can find anything wrong with the sentence "intelligence must have come from intelligent design"

Here's what's wrong. Where did the designers intelligence come from? Your only answer is that it came from no intelligence.

"Again, if intelligence did not come from intelligent design then please explain how it has come about"

I don't know how it came about nor do I need to know to point out that positing an intelligent designer only raises the question of where the intelligence of the designer came from and you still are left with not knowing how intelligence arose in the first place.

"Me critique the notion of how intelligence can arise from intelligent design--me fulfill that demand of the modern atheist? That is just the flip side of the utter perversity of the modern atheist saying intelligence came from no intelligent design"

No atheist here has said that intelligence came from "no intelligent design". You just keep saying that they did even though you have been told that they don't, because you are a conniving liar coward.

But you did say that you critique all positions and now you are admitting that you will never critique the position that intelligence must come from ID because it is too sound and obvious, so you are admitting that you are a liar.

D 12 the pointless atheist conniver liar,

"A simple critique of intelligent design and religion was just made"

Still won't critique your own point though that intelligence must come from ID. Still a liar who claims to critique all points but will not critique his own.

"A simple statement by the atheistic: There is no intelligent design behind existence."

I am an atheist. I do not make such a statement. You are an atheist. You do not make this statement. Seems like not all atheists, or even most atheists make the statement you just attributed to them. Conniver. Liar.

"Now all of us who do not make any sense to the atheists please ask that they get off our backs for not making any sense"

Not a chance, retard.

"And this is really the most amusing thing about atheists and their "no intelligent design"

Invented foe. Arguing with your own lies.

"They erase the concept of intelligent design behind existence but speak every day as if in possession of objective knowledge, which is to say ultimate, truthful knowledge"

All lies. Endless psychotic lies.

"Both the religious and atheistic positions have obvious problems as to logic"

Nope. Only the atheistic position that you make up. The one that you lie about. You are a conniving liar coward.

We must entertain Timmy: He asks me to critique the notion that intelligence must have come from intelligent design. Do I have it right Timmy? If not, please let me know.

By critiquing the notion that intelligence must have come from intelligent design I assume the question in another form is: Are there any flaws as to logic, or is there anything wrong in any other sense, with the premise that intelligence must have come from intelligent design?

Let me think about that for a moment...Can one at all name anything--in fact use any word in the English language--by which intelligence could have arisen other than intelligent design?

Did intelligent design arrive by "duck"? Did it arrive by "Timmy"? Did it arrive by "universe"? Go ahead, pick any word in the English language which makes better sense of how intelligence arose than intelligent design. Oh, wait, I apologize: intelligent design is two words. So put together two words which describe better how intelligence has arisen than intelligent design.

Now, in thinking about these two possible words, would it ever cross any sensible person's mind to say that intelligence came by NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN? Avoiding entirely that these are three words rather than two, would any sensible person say intelligence has arisen by no intelligent design--exactly the opposite of it having arisen by intelligent design?

Why, yes a sensible person would. The modern atheist tells us that every damn day and that we must be stupid to argue otherwise and that we should instead be asking how intelligence can come from intelligent design. A good question for the modern atheist is why of all the possible answers one could give as to how intelligence arose the utter perversity--complete opposite--no intelligent design was chosen.

Well I ask the modern atheist courteously, and without any humor, because we know some them are comedians and God forbid they should find out how easy it is to be so much funnier than them, if they can find anything wrong with the sentence "intelligence must have come from intelligent design".

Again, if intelligence did not come from intelligent design then please explain how it has come about--and most certainly describe its characteristics. We can definitely say that if intelligence came from no intelligent design that intelligence must be defined in a drastically different manner than it would having come from intelligent design. Intelligence coming from no intelligent design would be pure subjectivity because there is nothing objective by which it has come about, it merely rests in the space of "no intelligent design".

But let me hear again an atheist answer the question of how intelligence arose by saying it came from no intelligent design. I want to marvel at the utter perversity of that answer, the most wayward, complete opposite of the word "intelligence" imaginable. Me critique the notion of how intelligence can arise from intelligent design--me fulfill that demand of the modern atheist? That is just the flip side of the utter perversity of the modern atheist saying intelligence came from no intelligent design.

A modern atheist: "intelligence came from no intelligent design you fool, now explain how intelligence could have come from intelligent design. If you cannot do so it must have come from no intelligent design". These are the minds we must trust with our no religion future.

A simple statement by the religious: There is an intelligent design behind existence. A simple refutation of that statement: So much about existence seems to demonstrate no intelligent design--the universe at the least seems to demonstrate indifference toward man. If we want to call this intelligent design God then we have to admit that this God has created much which does not seem at all intelligent to man. What is this intelligence of God that it so often seems to make little sense? This is just another way of approaching the major stumbling block of religion which is that God is supposedly good, yet so much about existence hardly warrants the description good. An intelligent design behind existence? How about a malevolent design? At best indifferent design. A simple critique of intelligent design and religion was just made. A critique which has existed for ages and which religion has never answered satisfactorily. THERE IS AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM OF LOGIC WITH RELIGION WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN SOLVED.

A simple statement by the atheistic: There is no intelligent design behind existence. Fine, there is no intelligent design behind existence. Now all of us who do not make any sense to the atheists please ask that they get off our backs for not making any sense as they so often say. Favorite words of the atheistic I have been called: retarded; stupid; conniving; a liar; and so on. If the universe has no intelligent design then quite logically those people that make the least sense are most in tune with this "no design behind existence". At the very least if there is no intelligent design behind existence all human viewpoints, no matter the sense, are strictly subjective and do not correspond to any foundational sense behind existence. This means no method toward knowledge--not even the empirical, scientific process--can be taken as objective. The entire concept of objective knowledge upon which modern science rests is tossed aside, cannot logically exist, in a universe of no intelligent design,-unless of course one wants to say the objective knowledge which is there corresponds to no intelligent design, which is to say the universe cannot make any sense. In such a world the objection to religion--anything really called delusion--is merely personal preference, for there is no antonym to the word "delusion", cannot be, for there is no reference point of ultimate sense which can ever definitively make delusion delusion. And this is really the most amusing thing about atheists and their "no intelligent design": They erase the concept of intelligent design behind existence but speak every day as if in possession of objective knowledge, which is to say ultimate, truthful knowledge--certain fact which makes sense--when their very premise of no intelligent design erases any possibility of the objective knowledge they strut and preen about and throw in the faces of us "stupid, conniving, lying, retards".

Which brings us to a simple question: Which is the greater piece of delusion, foolishness: believing in a God which evidently does as much evil as good or believing there is no intelligent design behind existence but that one can make sense in the universe of no intelligent design?

Both the religious and atheistic positions have obvious problems as to logic. Both the religious and atheistic quibble day and night and to try to shore up their positions, calling anyone who points out obvious flaws as sinful, blasphemous, stupid, retarded and so on.

And everything pointed out above is not anything new. One finds these arguments here and there though the modern atheists and the religious in general try to brush it all under the table.

Huh. "...the universe is a hostile place...."

Does that statement connote another place more to one's liking?

"...entering existence alone...."

Is there a better way?

Is there a worse way?

"...entering death alone."

I would like to hear about that -- something that is known about death, that it is something one "enters." Sounds pretty Roman Catholic, et al, to me.

Sartre laid a lot of girls, me not as many.

Once again back to the topic with a question:

Some words of wisdom for those who proselytize- the more important observations:

More words of wisdom:

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."

Are proselytizing atheists exclusivists?

Schaum,

"But whoever said that the universe, or life, must make sense?"

The characters in D 12's mind that he is arguing with I guess. None of us, that's for sure. I'm pretty sure Dan Dennett also never claimed such a thing, but that has never stopped Daniel 12 from asserting people's views for them so he can argue with them before.

DITLD

"I do not think that he is a conniving liar. I think he is trying to work his way out of the cocoon of Catholicism"

But he claims he is not religious or a Catholic. If you think that he is working his way out of the cocoon of Catholicism, that makes him a liar for denying such, which he has done several times. Any way you slice it, he is a liar and a conniver. He puts words in all our mouths knowing full well that we have denied having such beliefs. Conniver and liar is what he is. Troubled honest seeker is not what he is. You have been duped and are being duped if you believe that he is not being purposely deceptive to push his ID agenda and discredit all atheists because they balk at his ID preaching.

You are a kind soul, DITLD. But let's not be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance. Giving D 12 credit for being an honest, albeit confused, seeker, is tolerating intolerance.

From the suggested plots for novels, I think Daniel12 is a blend of Bill O'Reilly and John Waters.

I do not think that he is a conniving liar. I think he is trying to work his way out of the cocoon of Catholicism. The manner of his arguments is patterned on Catholic thought.

The biggest flaw in Daniel's arguments is his appeal to logic, when logic is not an appropriate tool. Where does the order of the universe come from? Merely applying logic will not give the answer.

The human body is designed, therefore it must have a designer; This may seem logical but it may not be true. to say that the human body is designed is to assume the answer of a designer, which is derived not by logic, but by merely assuming it is so.

Daniel may present a logcial proof of intelligent design. But if there is no intelligent designer, then what his logic proved? Not the truth, that is for sure.

In order for a logical argument to be true, the assumptions and first principles of the argument must also be true. But we have no idea what to assume about God or intelligent design.

It is all speculation. Logical arguments based on speculation just give us logical speculations.

Most of what we know of the world is by observation, not by logic. And logic is only a tool, in proposing possible outcomes, which are verified by observation, or are discredited as unproven or unprovable.

Once again back to the topic:

Some words of wisdom for those who proselytize- the more important observations:

More words of wisdom:

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."

Timmy2:

But whoever said that the universe, or life, must make sense? No atheist I know! I am an existentialist as well as an atheist...most atheists are existentialists. For us, the universe is a hostile place in which human beings solitarily exist for a very short period of time, entering existence alone and entering death alone. There is no necessary "reason" that any of this must make sense. That it must make sense is (as is the bizarre idea of resurrection) the weak-minded invention of "religious" humans who are terrified of being alone, of dying, of being eternally dead.

I know of no atheists who claim that anything must (by design or otherwise) "make sense." This is one of the many flaws in D12's "reasoning". It is amusing to watch him thrash about with it, attempting to divert attention from his illogic, inconsistencies, lies and schizoid fantasies.

DITLD,

To D-12 you said:

"Therefore, your demands for atheists to show an alternative scheme to religion are misplaced."

Daniel is under the impression that Atheists claim to know the answers to the secrets of the universe. All of his arguments are based on this false assumption. I have tried many times to get him to understand that no atheist I have ever know claims to be able to make sense of existence. And yet he insists that we all do this. That is why I label him a conniving liar. He has been told directly on several occasions that I do not claim to be able to make sense of the universe nor does anyone else here on this forum claim such things. But he continues to start out every one of his posts by asserting that all atheists do exactly that. This makes him a liar and a conniver because he has been told otherwise and chooses to ignore it.

"All atheists are saying is that in the quest for these answers, that belief in God is going down the wrong path"

He will ignore this. It doesn't fit with with his agenda of discrediting atheists, which he wants so badly to do because he is an ID preacher disguising himself as an atheist. Ergo, conniver, liar.

"But which path is the right path? They do not know, and therefore, they cannot tell you. But they do not have to. All they are saying is that they know the other path is wrong"

He will ignore this, or tell you that you can not tell people which path is wrong if you can not explain the whole universe. That is because he is an ID preacher masquerading as an atheist in his oh so conniving way. He has no honest intent to get to the truth of anything. Otherwise he wouldn't lie so much about what other believe.

D 12 the lying conniver pointless atheist.

"Well, first of all it makes no sense to criticize the notion that intelligent design must have come from intelligent design"

That's not what asked. I said "intelligence" not "intelligent design". Criticize the posit that INTELLIGENCE must come from ID. That is what I asked you to criticize and you can not. Will not. But you claim that you criticize every position which makes you a conniving liar because you are avoiding criticizing this one.

"Atheists constantly ask the religious to prove God exists"

I never have. Not once. And I am an atheist. So here you make a false statement, or in this case, a bald faced lie, because I have told you directly that I have never asked for proof of God.

"Well, where is the proof that intelligent design can come from no intelligent design behind existence?"

I have never made this claim. To insinuate that I have makes you a liar and conniver.

"The critique of intelligent design lies elsewhere"

I didn't ask you to critique ID. I asked you to critique your position that INTELLIGENCE must come from ID. But you can not. Will not. Making you a bald faced liar.

"The question is "if there is an intelligent design behind existence, than why so much evil?"

No, that is not the question. You are trying to change the subject because you can not, will not, criticize your own position that intelligence must come from ID.

"But then, if the universe has no intelligent design behind it how can we ever hope to make much sense, much design in this existence, if any sense and design at all?"

Now you are back to pushing your point instead of criticizing it, which you haven't done but you claim to do, making you a bald faced cowardly liar conniver.

"So we go around in circles"

No you do, trying to escape your situation where you claim to critique any position but you still haven't touched your own position that INTELLIGENCE must come from ID.

"First, trying to be clever and ask for a critique of how intelligent design can come from intelligent design is a nonsensical question"

I asked no such thing. Liar, conniver, dodger. You are making the point that INTELLIGENCE can only come from ID and you are claiming that you critique all positions but you have not critiqued this one.

"That is not the proper tack for criticizing intelligent design"

I didn't ask you to critique intelligent design. I asked you to critique your position that INTELLIGENCE must come from ID. But you can not, will not, because you are a liar.

"Certainly a philosopher such as Dennett gives us no answers"

Who said anything about Dennett? You are debating Timmy right now, not Dennett. Stop changing the subject, conniver.

"and why is it we should trust the atheists to make sense in a universe of no intelligent design?"

Who ever asked you to look to the atheists to make sense of the universe? What atheist ever said that they could?

"What is the big secret of atheists that they can make sense in a universe of no intelligent design while the rest of us are just plain stupid"

What do you mean "the rest of us". You are an atheist. And what atheist ever said they could make sense of the universe?

"In a universe of no intelligent design what truth can be greater than that the universe makes no sense?"

Who ever said this was a universe of "no intelligent design?" I'll tell you who. The characters you make up in your mind so you can argue with them. That is all. I have never said any such thing. You are arguing with your own lies and nothing more.

"Dennett is no help at all on the obvious"

Neither is anyone. Who the hell brought up Dennet? Are you mad at Dennet and now you're projecting him onto me? What the hell are you doing?

"The critique of intelligent design lies in the fact so much seems unintelligently designed or has no design"

No. The critique is that positing an intelligent designer answers nothing about where intelligence came from because the designer's intelligence had to come form somewhere or it came from "non intelligence" as you like to point out. The posit of ID answers nothing about the origin of intelligence and is therefore moot.

"But if we say the universe has no intelligent design behind it what greater truth is there than that the universe makes no sense?"

Who ever said that the universe makes sense. Did Dennett say this? Is that why you are mad at him and projecting him onto all atheists?

"So we are stuck in an unsatisfactory situation logically no matter how you look at it, whether atheist or believer. And I have gone over this countless times"

This is true. Your problem is showing what atheist told you that the universe makes sense or that they could make sense of the universe or existence? Who told you this, Daniel? You are inventing foes who do not exist. That makes you a conniver or skitophrenic. I criticize religion because they pretend to know the answers to these questions. I do not claim to be able to answer these questions, but you claim that all atheists do, making you wrong about your assumptions about atheists. And I have gone over this countless times.

You claim intelligence must have an intelligent designer. You still have not criticized this position. I did it in one sentence and you have no retort except to break your own logic that "intelligence must be designed" by positing a designer with intelligence that was not designed.

Daniel 12

You asked, very plainly and simply:

"But if there is no intelligent design behind existence then how is sense made at all?"

I BELIEVE that understanding of the resoning of why we are here in this world, and how this existence came to be is beyond the capacity of man to understand.

That is my simple reply.

Ultimate understanding has nothing to do with being intelligent, well-read, or studying enough. If a human being were to be born with a human brain, such as we all have, with 5 senses that we all have, and if his IQ were 2,000, and if he had the eyes of an eagle, and the ears of a wolf, still, that person would not be able to figure it out either.

Because of the nature of how the world is put together, and of our complimentary existence in it, the answers that you seek are sealed from our grasp, forever and permanenly.

Therefore, your demands for atheists to show an alternative scheme to religion are misplaced. All atheists are saying is that in the quest for these answers, that belief in God is going down the wrong path. But which path is the right path? They do not know, and therefore, they cannot tell you. But they do not have to. All they are saying is that they know the other path is wrong.

Question 1: What is the real problem with proselytism overseas by U.S. religious groups?
Answer 1: The root cause of problem with proselytism overseas by some U.S. religious groups is their genuine belief that target's religion is path to eternal damnation. It is extremely difficult to respect path to hell. Hence, Many proselytisers start walking on tensed and slippery slope of "disrespectful tolerance". Some in their righteous zeal to save slip into unethical verbal violence, immoral manipulation and illegal coercion.

Question 2: Isn't sharing one's faith part of religious freedom?
Answer 2: Yes. Both sharing and practising one's faith is part of religious freedom.

Question 3: When does it cross the line into manipulation and coercion?
Answer 3: When a proselytiser slips from "disrespectful tolerance" to "illegal coercion". Thus, Inhibiting target's right to practise his or her current faith.

Visit: www.uscirf.blogspot.com for USCIRF's current role in debate.

timmy2

I wrote, ""This is a rather absurd statement, there are plenty of people that technology hasn't touched that are alive""

You answered, "Nope. It has touched everyone. Your parents would probably not have been born if it did not exist and so neither would you have been. It is responsible for virtually all of us being here. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. Most of them would not be here without technology."

One could also say that there are some that would be here if not for "technology" one case in point is nuclear weapons and the improved technology of warfare and that some, in warfare, that wouldn't be here, but are, because of technology in the improved medivacs.

Technology is part of our life here on earth, it is not life.

One could say that technology has expanded exponentially in recent history, but as I have said, I look at technology as being neutral, neither good nor bad but with human nature being as it is, technology can be used in a variety of ways.

Reality is reality.

If one only sees the good, they have blinders on, if one only sees the bad, they also have blinders on.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

T. Baum:

'Instead of "Science vs intelligent design" wouldn't it be more correct to say, "Creation vs already here"?'

Thomas, are you a Zen Buddhist hiding out as a Catholic? Sure sounds like some brand of existentialism to me......

timmy2

I asked, ""Do you honestly believe that all "religious" are hypocrites or for that matter that one needs to be "religious" to be a hypocrite?""

You answered, "Yes to the first question, no to the second."

Is your definition of "religious" all of those that believe that God Is?

I agree with your answer to the second question but not the first.

There are those that have a "holier than thou" attitude that believe in God and also that do not believe in God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

YEAL9

You wrote, "Some words of wisdom for those who proselytize- the more important observations:"

I imagine that "proselytize" can mean many things but it seems that it should be what a person thinks or believes or knows not to pass on someone else's point of view unless of course someone doesn't think or believe or know on their own.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

persiflage

You wrote, "Science vs intelligent design - it's interesting to note that the scientific view is not necessarily in conflict with ALL religious views - only the monotheistic traditions."

Instead of "Science vs intelligent design" wouldn't it be more correct to say, "Creation vs already here"?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Science vs intelligent design - it's interesting to note that the scientific view is not necessarily in conflict with ALL religious views - only the monotheistic traditions.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404200421.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/intelligent_design.aspx

Back to the topic:

Some words of wisdom for those who proselytize- the more important observations:

http://www.theosophical.org/publications/questmagazine/mayjune2000/exclusivism/index.php

"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."

It is very disturbing that religious-based violence and hatred continues unabated due to radomness of birth. Maybe just maybe if this fact would be published on the first page of every newspaper every day, that we would finally realize the stupidity of it all.

And as per Somerville , "There is no religion in Heaven (if there is one). Religion is only the vehicle to get there. It is left at the Gate."

"Plot for a comic novel:

A failed writer named Daniel...."

Hmmmm. Yes. Well. I guess I made it too hard for you. Perhaps it would be better for you to stick to your rantings and fantasy writings about intelligent design.

Criticize the notion that intelligent design must have come from intelligent design...Well, first of all it makes no sense to criticize the notion that intelligent design must have come from intelligent design because the opposite is the absurdity: that intelligent design would come from no intelligent design. Atheists constantly ask the religious to prove God exists. Well, where is the proof that intelligent design can come from no intelligent design behind existence?

The critique of intelligent design lies elsewhere: in the fact that so much about existence demonstrates no intelligent design, is random, even truly hurtful. The question is "if there is an intelligent design behind existence, than why so much evil?" which of course is the old if God is good why so much evil in new guise.

So there is proof the universe is unintelligently designed or has no design--depending on how personal or objective one wants to take it. But then, if the universe has no intelligent design behind it how can we ever hope to make much sense, much design in this existence, if any sense and design at all?

So we go around in circles. First, trying to be clever and ask for a critique of how intelligent design can come from intelligent design is a nonsensical question. That is not the proper tack for criticizing intelligent design. The question of how intelligent design can come from intelligent design is self-evident and asking such is a tautology.

If one wants to criticize intelligent design one does not nonsensically ask how intelligent design can come from intelligent design but how can the universe be intelligent when so much about it hardly lends itself to the description intelligent. There is plenty of evidence of no intelligent design.

But if there is no intelligent design behind existence then how is sense made at all?

The problem with intelligent design is that so much about the universe is evidently unintelligent, but the problem with no intelligent design is how we can make any sense in the first place. Certainly a philosopher such as Dennett gives us no answers. He shirks precisely his job as philosopher. He benevolently and condescendingly tells us there is no intelligent design behind existence, then tells us all about the wonders born of evolution (as if that is how sense is born), but avoids the obvious question any high school student can ask which is how does intelligent design arise from no intelligent design behind things, and why is it we should trust the atheists to make sense in a universe of no intelligent design? What is the big secret of atheists that they can make sense in a universe of no intelligent design while the rest of us are just plain stupid, which ironically seems to correspond to a universe of no intelligent design more than any sense which can be offered. In a universe of no intelligent design what truth can be greater than that the universe makes no sense? Dennett is no help at all on the obvious which just shows us how irrelevant philosophy is in America these days. He passes for probably the most well known philosopher in America. That is an obvious national tragedy as I have just explained in mere sentences.

The critique of intelligent design lies in the fact so much seems unintelligently designed or has no design. But if we say the universe has no intelligent design behind it what greater truth is there than that the universe makes no sense? So we are stuck in an unsatisfactory situation logically no matter how you look at it, whether atheist or believer. And I have gone over this countless times....

Schaum, Ringworld is a circular structure which simultaneously orbits and surrounds a star. I recently read it so perhaps that is why I said a planet surrounds a star. See Niven novel.

D 12

Another of your lies your claim that you criticize all positions. Where is your critique of your own position that intelligence must come from ID?

Why do you claim to critique all positions but you won't critique your own. Come on Daniel. Criticize the notion that intelligence must come from ID. If you don't. you are lying when you claim to criticize all positions. But lying is easy for you, isn't it. Must be your atheist lack of morality coming out.

YEAL

What about acquiring knowledge of the world? ... knowledge of the mosaic of mankind, and of ones place in it?

Incuriousity and apathy towards knowledge leaves you isolated and circumscribed, engaged in permanent struggle with people of other cultures, religions, and beliefs, estranged from your fellow man.

Being aware of the whole wide world and acknowledging the subtlety of the many claims of truth, knowledge, and belief is not the same as accepting all beliefs as equally valid, and it is not the same as a convergence of the many beliefs into one.

Knowing enough about others to be able to get along well with them is not a bad thing; I do not see how anyone could think that it is.

Daniel 12

You said"

"It (secularism) is the enemy of religion because a religion cannot thrive and dominate in a society of a plurality of views."

But you do not mean to say that you want a particular religeon to dominate society are you? ... like that is a good thing? I do not think that is a good thing.

I do not understand why you persist in associating science and atheism. In no way do they relate.

Science is a complex, self-propogating, unregulated, ungoverned, unsupervised system, without philosophy, without creed, for acquiring valid information about the physical world. It is a vast and complex system, so expansive that no single person can know or understand all of it in any detail.

Atheism is " ... absence of belief in God ..." There is nothing to know about it, nor any reason to justify it; the lack of belief in God is the justification for it; you might be able to enforce a rule that no one may be allowed to express an absence in the belief in God, but you cannot change the inward beliefs of a person.

Don't you care about a person's freedom to express an inner will, religious authority, or not?

If anyone wants to suggest an idea which I can develop into a plot for a novel let me know. I learned a lot about writing from the French. The French hold that any piece of writing can be its own genre and that notebook entries, scraps for ideas, plots for novels, and so on--any piece of writing provided it has some value--can be taken as work of a writer and to be on par with any well known genre.

I could write a book which is just composed of plots for novels, the novels not really needing to be written because the plots are the novels in something of poetic, humorous and abbreviated form. In fact the plots could very well be better than novels that might be written from them because the novels would just be watered down versions of the plots.

A good example from the history of painting are the art sketches for works by Tiepolo being more valuable than the works themselves. Tiepolo was so much freer and unconventional in sketches he did for certain works than he was in the works themselves. His plots, in other words, were better, recognized as more advanced, than his novels. Of course this was not always the case, but he made his sketches for works works in themselves.

Ok Timmy, I stand corrected on such below as you insist:

"1. I have never indicated that I believe in any way that secualrism is not harmful to religion.

2. I have never stated that the universe is not intelligently designed. I hold no such belief.

3. I always start threads by answering the question and stating my beliefs on the matter.

Now that things are clear we can start totally fresh and examine each week where the each of us stand. I know eventually as we each are must come out. We will find out where we each stand. Certainly I will present myself as accurately as possible. I love clarity. I feel apart from the spy life that the secretive, lying, manipulating life is a dead end, even if it does result in financial rewards at times. The true life is the open life, the life of musicians, painters and so--those who express exactly who they are. The actor life, the pretense life, is second rate even though actors are all the rage in society.

D-12

"Read my plot for a comic novel on this very thread"

No thanks. Haven't read one of them.

"I decided to approach the topic of the week from a different angle, that is all"

But i addressed it directly and with all honesty about my belief on the matter in my first post like I always do. And you stated that I did not do so and have never done so when all of my posts on this thread always start out with an answer to the question. You are a liar and a coward. Conniver or a retard or both. Lying sack of sh!t. Why did you lie Daniel? I thought you cared about morality? But you blatantly lie constantly.

"If you want me to be serious about it, I might do so"

I want you to stop lying. I have never said that secularism is not harmful to religion and you said that I did. I always start out each post with an answer to the topic at hand but you keep saying that I don't. You need to lie about my positions to make up your fiction.

"I am willing to criticize any position"

Nope. You haven't criticized your own position that Intelligence is impossible without ID. You haven't touched it. You've only preached ID as necessity. You claim to have no position but your position is ID necessity.

"And I would like you to attempt because from what I understand you are a comedian--actually are employed as such At the least tell us an original joke mr. comedian"

Ha ha. Don't believe me? Too bad. I could give a rat's ass. Dig into the archives if you're really curious. I have revealed my identity several times in the past. I'm probably the only one who has. My screen name used to be linked to my website for a long time. I'm anything but a coward sir. I ain't afraid of mono ideologists like NAVIN 1. I'll stand behind my beliefs and opinions.

As for jokes, comedians haven't been "joke tellers" since Roadrunnin was in show biz. We're talking a long time ago. "Take my wife please" isn't where it's at anymore. I have made several jokes here, Daniel, but often the buts of jokes miss them.

"The difference between me and you Timmy, between myself and Schaum as well, is that I am capable of being detached from any position that can be taken on something and criticize it"

Nah. You haven't taken on the position that intelligence must come from ID.

I never defend a position to the point of lying and hiding its defects"

Sure you have. You are so keen to prove that you are right about atheists you lied about me holding the opinion that secularism is not harmful to religion. I have never said that or implied that. You just think you know what all atheists think and you ignore it when people tell you they don't believe a certain way. I have also told you that I do not hold the belief that intelligence can come from nothing but you continue to portray this as my view becauae you are a conniving slug.

"Who really lives the fantasy life in the universe of no intelligent design?"

Who are you arguing with here? I have never said this was a universe of no intelligent design. This is you lying about me again. Then you continue on ad nauseam with all kinds of scenarios all based on this lie and therefore moot. This is all you can do when arguing with me.

The lies, Daniel. Stop the lies.

1. I have never indicated that I believe in any way that secualrism is not harmful to religion.

2. I have never stated that the universe is not intelligently designed. I hold no such belief.

3. I always start threads by answering the question and stating my beliefs on the matter.

Stop the lies, conniving Daniel the pointless atheist.

Plot for a comic novel:

A failed writer named Daniel works in a funeral home owned by one Mr. Joyboy who takes pleasure in both boys and being a boy and has his mother stuffed and upon an alter in private backroom for himself.

Her name was Mary and he calls her predictably Mother Mary. He also likes to pretend he is Jesus and even tried to hang on a makeshift cross to see what crucifixion is like but he lost his balance when trying to tie his arms and turned completely upside down (because his legs were already tied on the cross) and bonked his head on the floor.

The failed writer Daniel heard the noise and found him in such state. But Mr. Joyboy convinced Daniel--because Daniel is such a sucker--that God will hear his prayers about wanting to be a writer if only he keeps his damn mouth shut. Daniel wonders why keep his mouth shut when Mr. Joyboy's antics have provided such fodder for a novel...

Enter one Ms. Blackwell, still light as a feather at heart, one feather slipping sliding, slipping sliding downward...But a really great person. She is actually a he dressed quite stylishly in female dress, if a bit behind the times, and a bit behind everything if not the times when attempting to wear a little black dress.

Ms. Blackwell has an alcohol problem because Lord knows (though he gives no damn predictably) a gay person has a difficult life, having so much of the male population not at all interested in homosexuality, which limits drastically the possible choices for the gay man as partner. Daniel is not gay but sleeps with Ms. Blackwell anyway because she...he reminds him of his mother.

Ms. Blackwell is occasionally employed in drag as a hired mourner. The failed writer Daniel prays so well when Ms. Blackwell is at work and has visions of her at the stations of the cross. He also knows Ms. Blackwell is good for giving him a good spanking after bodies are layed in the ground. A good reason for offering a prayer.

Days pass in the charmed circle of Mr. Joyboy, Daniel and Ms. Blackwell. They know all about each other and enjoy each other's company. Sometimes they like to get plastered on rotgut whiskey and do donuts in Ms. Blackwell's vintage 454 Chevy Chevelle. Ms. Blackwell also owns a Boss Mustang 302 and a Hemi 'Cuda. Muscle cars for a "woman" who likes muscular men.

The failed writer Daniel is scrawny and Ms. Blackwell pretty much gives him the pity f*ck which truly is pitiful because Ms. Blackwell is not that well preserved at all. Mr. Joyboy, of course, has an interest in only boys and wishes more boys would die so he can sneak their bodies out of wherever he can and stuff them in two different ways. Or maybe three ways (actually stuff their bodies like he stuffed his mother then...).

Then one day a carnival comes to town which awakens so much nostalgia in Ms. Blackwell because she was once the bearded lady in a carnival in order to appear virile and attract drunken carnival going gay men (who were totally disoriented by the androgynous situation), and even the occasional non-gay man (which was the true objective). But she was found out for quite unladylike behavior and summarily dismissed. Her last words upon leaving the carnival were "and I'm not even a lady you dumb a**holes!" So our three heroes blaze to the carnival in Ms. Blackwell's Chevy Chevelle, the 454 engine torquing like a motherf*cker which pleases Joyboy and Daniel especially because they have a thing for their mothers.

And it just happens to be mother's day. And no surprise, Ms. Blackwell flourishes a nice bouquet stolen from one of the Joyboy funeral services...The carnival is entered and our three heroes push each other and play a bit of the Three Musketeers...

After a bit of the usual foolishness (joint smoked on the rollercoaster--quick smoke on the crummy and quick coaster, and a bit of grab ass as they urge each other on and others to climb that rickety rope thing with the objective of ringing the bell. On the latter the elderly Ms. Blackwell merely paying for the attempt and grabbing the first rope and sticking her ass up to be grabbed by the gleeful Daniel and Joyboy) they come across the mystic-seer of the circus named Navin who is a seer at telling who can be parted from a quick buck.

Actually the seer is named Bruce, but he knows the whole Indian Guru thing entraps Westerners left and right so he calls himself Navin and disguises himself by rubbing some chocolate over his face. Nothing like a little blackface to enrage the blacks who are indeed waiting outside to kick Brucie's ass. And no, all Brucie's pleadings that he is pretending to be an Indian Guru will not get him off the hook. He knows that having had his ass handed to him many times before.

Fortunately for Brucie he has a totally unexpected effect on Daniel--at least Daniel did not expect it. Daniel is not gay but falls hopelessly in love with Brucie, er, Navin. But Brucie wiping the chocolate off his face sets things straight. Brucie swells with mystic-seer pride at having converted Daniel to homosexuality. Now he himself has to get into the swing of things (for he is not gay) if he wants to exit with our Three Musketeers and avoid the blacks waiting to kick his ass, which could very well be the last ass kicking he receives, as the doctor told him he cannot stand many more ass kickings.

So Brucie gives Daniel a quick BJ in the mystic-seer booth and Daniel has visions of people's pets going to heaven but finds out he is actually barking like a dog, barking mad at finding out a man does it so much better than a woman...So the Three Musketeers become four...(Ms. Blackwell apparently gave no BJs to write home about otherwise Brucie might not have had such a great effect on Daniel).

Then Brucie turns Daniel on to Isaac Asimov, a Jew as Daniel keeps saying and Joyboy and Ms. Blackwell keep repeating which truthfully annoys the freethinking and non-racist Brucie who keeps pointing out to Daniel he has a Jewish name, in fact is named after the prophet Daniel. So Daniel gets into the whole swing of the Jew thing because he loves Brucie...and because he has a great idea for a TV series he wants to peddle in Hollywood. He most certainly does not want to be confused with one famous Australian actor with the extremely foolish if brave heart who cussed out the Jew cop in a drunken antisemitic rage.

So Brucie and Daniel head to Hollywood, which causes much tears from Joyboy and Ms. Blackwell. But Joyboy and Blackwell recognize that Daniel is headed toward much better things, that he must fulfill his destiny as a...failed writer. Heh, heh, Joyboy and Blackwell know damn well Daniel will be back all too soon to the funeral home. Crocodile tears win the day, and Daniel begins bawling like a baby.

So Daniel and Brucie head to Hollywood--where Daniel insists he will work only with Jews. Only with Jews? Yes, only with Jews, for Jews are such good people and so good at squeezing a buck from a rock or an extremely recalcitrant person...which of course results in Daniel being tossed out of Hollywood on his ass not to mention being totally ass-kicked by Brucie who recognizes that his destiny is not Daniel but the lovely...blonde, Jewish actress who is all the rage and is known for her wonderful mouth and cleavage...in fact she must have some wonderful plump gene, for she is plump all over...

Daniel's last words upon leaving Hollywood are "I love Brucie!" whatever that means. Perhaps the title of the TV show he planned to peddle in Hollywood.

So Daniel returns to the funeral home. The Three Musketeers are reunited. The last Brucie is heard of he is found on television in Indian mystic-seer guise with of course chocolate on his face, which his new bride, the Jewish actress, licks off to find, not a guru at all, but just Brucie.

Brucie? she says. Brucie? Yes, just Brucie...I love you Brucie!

Daniel groans and turns off the television.

Daniel12:

"SURROUND sun. My mistake--perhaps from recent reading of Niven "Ringworld"."

Jesus! Even after having it explained to you, you STILL get it wrong! Nothing surrounds a sun. Planets ORBIT a sun. Were your parents related by more than marriage?

I am glad, though, that you finally admit my assertion was correct: you DO read a book and then steal from it to form your own "original" ideas. 'Tard.

Timmy2:

"Hypocrite, lier, conniver, retard, illiterate."

Yeah, that just about says it all. I play this idiot like a piano. He does anything I tell him! Who knew the retarded could be so amusing.

I have not touched the topic of the week Timmy? I turned it into a plot for a comic novel. Read my plot for a comic novel on this very thread. Let me help you. The first sentence goes like this:

"The President of the United States speaks out against U.S. religious groups proselytizing overseas--specifically Christian groups--and in fact declares himself an atheist believing that declaring such is a piece of good will toward religions and peoples overseas."

I decided to approach the topic of the week from a different angle, that is all. If you want me to be serious about it, I might do so. But I am much more interested in the idea for a story Schaum proposed.

Here is the salient fact between you and me Timmy. Myself and Schaum as well. I am willing to criticize any position while you two can be characterized as atheist fundamentalists because all you do is criticize religion day in day out but will not admit in the slightest that there might be problems of logic or otherwise with the atheist position. I point out some possible problems and you and Schaum do the predictable and call me defending religion and start criticizing religion as if this wipes clean the slate of my criticisms of atheism. But I criticize religion as ruthlessly as I do atheism. My plot for a teenage Catholic lesbian vampire novel should prove that. Unless you can write a plot more perverse, more critical and blasphemous than I have. And I would like you to attempt because from what I understand you are a comedian--actually are employed as such. At the least tell us an original joke mr. comedian. So far as I can tell you have never said anything funny except I believe the lame attempt at asking me if I believe in...I forget what, but it was the predictable joke line of stating some trite make believe thing and using that as a piece of scorn.

The difference between me and you Timmy, between myself and Schaum as well, is that I am capable of being detached from any position that can be taken on something and criticize it. Furthermore I can be humorous in my criticisms, willing to poke fun at myself. I never defend a position to the point of lying and hiding its defects. That is day in day out routine for you and Schaum when it comes to atheism.

What I like best these days about the atheism of you and Schaum is you criticize me mercilessly for making no sense, no logic, no intelligence, when in your very words you hold that there is no intelligent design behind things, which makes me more in tune with the universe as you conceive it than you are. In fact what is your intelligence over my lack of such in the universe as you conceive it but a piece of perversion, waywardness, departure from the universe as it actually is? Who really lives the fantasy life in the universe of no intelligent design? Me, with no intelligent design in my work (as you hold) or you two insisting you make sense in the universe of no intelligent design? In fact I think we can state that the man in greatest denial in the universe of no intelligent design, the man with the biggest fantasy, is he who believes he is making sense in the universe of no intelligent design. Which is the worse fantasy? Believing in a God which is not there in the universe or believing one can make sense in a universe of no intelligent design? There is an essay for you and Schaum. Work on that if you dare. I now dare to answer Schaum's idea for a novel.

More words of wisdom:

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.

NOTICE:

I will agree to take any dogs, cats or raccoons left behind by those who will be raptured away to spend eternity adoring their bloodthirsty god.

You can reach me at:

hugh.moser@gmail.com
People call me David, my middle name.

If you want to talk to me, my number is
540-449-2689

I live in Blacksburg, VA, so you will have to assume the cost of getting the animal(s) to me.

I have to take Susan Jacoby's position on this. I could care less if anyone proselyzes(as long as its not directed at me) but many of the groups receive large amounts of federal dollars for charity work. If they are proselytizing in the course of doing that charitable work, then I am financing them to spread their religion vs. direct aid. Also because of the gov't funding they become a defacto agent of the gov't and the gov't deffinately shouldn't be in the business of spreading superstitious bs.

If there is an intelligent designer, his intelligence must have come from unintelligence. Otherwise it was given to him by an intelligent designer who's intelligence came from unintelligence. Any way you slice it, believer in God or not, intelligence must have come from unintelligence, by the logic of one Daniel 12.

Daniel12:

I'm really impressed with your fiction writing skills. I've thought up a scenario that I'd like for you to develop into a plot outline for a book or movie. This is it:

The story is set in a funeral home, actually Joyboy's Funeral Home, where a failed writer, Daniel, is employed writing obituaries. The second character, Ms. Blackwell, is an elderly alcoholic drag queen whose "show business" career extends no farther than Joyboy's, where s/he is occasionally employed, in drag, as a hired-mourner. Daniel and Ms. Blackwell become very close and bond -- Daniel thinks of Ms Blackwell as a mother figure.

But problems arise when a small carnival comes to town. Daniel and Ms. Blackwell go to the carnival, on Mother's Day, where Daniel has his fortune told by a mystic-seer, who is named Bruce and who has read two books on science by Asimov, and with whom Daniel falls hopelessly in love.

Daniel has a great idea for a TV series, which he begins to write out in plot form to peddle in Hollywood, and which is called "I Love Brucie."

You take it from there D12. Come to think of it, you better go back and read this again, to make sure you get it all.

It seems that NAVIN 1 has joined D 12 (the pointless atheist ID preacher) in his new found comfort zone of fiction writing.

Both have always been, and continue to be, writers of fiction. It's good to see them finally accept and embrace it.

D 12 the pointless atheist ID preacher.

"Secularism not harmful to religion? A load of crap refuted by basic history"

I agree. Who has ever disagreed? Secularism is definitely harmful to religion, and thank god for that. But why do you disagree, Daniel? Why do you lie like a dog and hide like a coward about the fact that secularism definitely is harmful to religion? Why do you atheists do such things, D 12?

"To their credit they do not even disguise such by answering the topic of the week as if more on their minds than pushing atheism"

You are retarded and blind? My first two posts on this thread and all others has always addressed the topic of the week. Your first two posts on this thread did not. You have it backwards, retard.

:Or is it they have no real imagination to answer the topic of the week? Yes, that is far more likely"

I have addressed the topic of the week is full detail. You have not touched it. You have it backwards, retard.

"Or do Schaum and Timmy have the method of making sense in a universe of no intelligent design that the rest of us do not have?"

Here you are making the point that no intelligence can exist without ID. That is a point and a belief in ID, a position which you have never criticized. Hypocrite, lier, conniver, retard, illiterate.

"Please explain this method to us so the rest of us can make sense in the universe of no intelligent design"

Please explain how you reconcile your atheism with ID. You are a walking talking contradiction. You claim to have criticized all positions but you have not criticized your own position which is that intelligence and morality are impossible without ID. This is a position you hold, and have not criticized. ID is your belief, and you will not attack it. Why not?

For the record, I believe that secularism is harmful to religion, which says everything anyone needs to know about religion. I have never hidden this belief or tried to hide it in any way.

The accident of birth:

So a evangelist comes into your home, you are 30-50 years old, you're wife and children are there and depend on you to run the farm and manage society. The evangelist comes with his armed friends.

He says, join us, we will help you in your economic or political desires. If you don't join us we will kill and your family after we rape your daughters and wife.

You say, I am faithful. You die. Your wife and your children are raped. They have more children, the children of the rapists.

Your grandchildren (by the rapists) ask their mothers: who is our father, who is our grandfather? Their mother's try to explain but if they tell their kids the truth, the rapists come in and kill the mothers and take the children. If they tell their kids that they converted because of your wisdom and because of that they are alive and can be happy, the evangelist walks away to rape someone else.

A few generations go by and your great..grandchildren become evangelist. They are taught that by any means necessary bringing someone to god is good. After trying to argue the point, they find they have failed. Their holy book teaches them to lie and kill if needed. They go to you neighbors house and say: join us or die and after that we will rape your wife and daughters.

The mono-ideological religions don't care about truth, they don't care about human freedom, they don't care about the convert. The next generations will have forgotten that they used to belong to devout families as Hindu, Buddhist, Hopi, Navaho, Jew, Pagan... These are not accidents of birth. They are calculated processes of force assimilation into the mono-ideological church/mosque. An hegemon over generations. And of course the denial, "we never did that (and if you say that we did it, remember, our next generation will come and kill your brothers and rape your sisters until you accept that we are peaceful; while we tell those secularists that all religions are the same and we should not be treated as a threat. After all the real threat is the buddhist stautes, the hindu idolators, the animists with no power, the voodoo gods removed from Haiti...)". No accident of birth, the result of forced conversions by the sword.

hariaum

thanks in advance.

what is the difference between Beer and Scotch Whisky in oak barrels?

what is so Manu-Plate-Eve then while we know about Columba Constellation?

so, what is the difference between "sehr duscht ihn" in light (zerdusht armenian shakespearean way) and to shine internally like a St MArkus Lighthouse?

so, what is sex? is it reloading? is it opening the internal paths for light and love? how shall there be sex while you know about Columba Constellation? shall there be sex to be Holy Spirited?

so, having talked about doctors nurses surgery saints minerals and medicine, lets recalculate. st barbara is known with mining and towers

what is a medicine? can we eat minerals? what is a plant? what is the leafened food of Aphrodite on a CAret Turtle in Ionian Sea? we can put minerals onto glands, but can we put minerals into the glands? what is a medicine? what is organic chemistry?

we are able to put quartz battery operated vehicle to harmonize the heart beat. what mineral can we employ for a gland? can we put a lapislazuli operated battery onto liver?

wellcome to hado.net where how you address is as vital as how you are addressed to.

Some words of wisdom for those who proselytize:

http://www.theosophical.org/publications/questmagazine/mayjune2000/exclusivism/index.php

"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.

Realizing how dependent on circumstances one's religious commitment is, many well-informed Christians today are inclined to be relativists. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why mainline churches are suffering a loss of membership or at least a diminution of active participation. University-trained churchgoers tend to be less enthusiastic about their faith than were their predecessors. They distrust the ancient scriptures, created by men with little knowledge of science and cosmology or the size and age of the universe, reflecting an archaic worldview that does not speak to our contemporary concerns and understanding. What we are witnessing, then, is a shift in the composition of church membership. The evangelical and fundamentalist communities are growing while the mainline churches are losing members.

Where have the dropouts gone? Some, nowhere at all. They have simply given up on religion. Others have taken up Eastern meditative practices, which they find more rewarding than the verbal prayer they were accustomed to in their mother churches although they may still regard themselves as Christians or Jews. Some in the Jewish community call themselves a "Ju-Bu." They are Jews by birth and upbringing who have studied Buddhism and find it a useful supplement to their own Jewish faith and practice. It is also not uncommon today to find a Hindu ashram headed by a swami or guru who is not an Indian but an American or a European.

The invasion of the East represents a reversal of what Christian missionaries had in mind in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when they went to Asia and Africa to convert the infidel, though with no great success in Asia. Now purveyors of the Asian religions have come to the West and are enjoying a notable success, not so much in making converts as in convincing Americans and Europeans that Western religions are not the only spiritual paths of worth.

Proselytism and Responses to Diversity

When people in one part of the world want to make their faith palatable to those elsewhere, they often make an attempt at acculturation. Nonessential elements of the faith that would be distinctly foreign to others are suppressed, and the religion is made to look more like what the natives are accustomed to. So recently Christian missionaries in Asia and Africa have adapted their practice to the expectations and preferences of the people they have chosen to live with. In the same way, practitioners of Eastern religions try to modify their systems so they will not seem too bizarre to Westerners.

With or without adaptation, however, the aim of the zealous missionary is to make converts. As might be expected, that aim does not sit well with the natives. India does not welcome Catholic and Evangelical missionaries who have come to India with the intention of winning souls away from Hinduism or any of the other Indian religions. Russia has recently limited the stay of European and American missionaries to three months. The Russian Orthodox Church, which is gradually recovering from seventy-five years of persecution under an atheistic regime, is not at all pleased with the arrival of foreigners bent on luring Russians away from Orthodoxy to embrace some other form of Christianity. People are very sensitive about their traditional religion. Intruders are not welcome.

Churches are instinctively conservative. Catholics used to hold that a person who abandons his childhood faith, even to join another Christian denomination, has committed a grave sin. Orthodox Jews often deal severely with those who marry non-Jews, especially Christians. One response is to hold a symbolic funeral service for "the departed" and exclude the offenders from all contact with their family until they return to the fold. Author Salmon Rushdie has learned to his sorrow that any criticism of things dear to Moslems can result in a death sentence with a reward for his execution. Some Hindus maintain that those who leave India for the West to make their fortune and never return are disloyal to the Vedic tradition. Thus religions have a way of exerting moral pressure and imposing penalties on those who fail to conform.

Given the fact that the largest religions have gone their separate ways and are not likely to merge, it is clear that there is never likely to be a single world religion. Consequently the adherents of every religion are faced with the necessity of deciding how to think about other faiths. Scholars in religious studies, such as John Hick, Paul Knitter, John E. Cobb, Jr., and Raimon Panikkar, have distinguished three differing approaches to the existence of many religions in the world. These approaches are often called “exclusivism,” “inclusivism,” and “pluralism.” To them I would add a fourth---“convergence.”

Exclusivism

In the face of the diversity of religions, those in the exclusivist camp maintain that there is only one true religion, their own, and that all the others are in error to a greater or lesser degree. Many feel an obligation to work diligently to convert those in error for their own good and bring them to a knowledge of the truth. Hence, making converts is often a major concern of religious fundamentalists. After all, St. Peter declared, when he was arraigned before the Temple authorities some days after Pentecost: "There is salvation in no one else [other than Jesus], for there is no other name given among mortals by which we must be saved" (Acts 4.12). Those who hold this view are not likely to devote much time and effort to learning about the many false religions. Since they are all false, why should anyone want to cram their heads with a knowledge of things that are not true? Doing so might even lead to a temptation to abandon one's own true faith or to the weakening of faith by an exposure to error.

Until quite recently, Catholics were not supposed to read works on the Index of Forbidden Books. Even professional educators were expected to obtain special permission if they felt the need to read them. The Index was meant to warn the unsuspecting that certain ideas were in conflict with the authentic teaching of the Catholic faith, a conflict they might not be fully aware of unless they were alerted to the danger. The effect of the ban on books---the Church had given up burning them---was to situate the Catholic Church squarely on the side of exclusivism.

The mentality of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries was that there is no sustainable religious truth outside the teaching of the Church, and the only reason scholars should bother to study the works of forbidden authors was to refute them. Sometimes, however, such opposition can turn out to be counterproductive. Origen, the third-century theologian and scholar, wrote an entire treatise attacking the writings of Celsus. But Origen was honest enough to report the words of Celsus with reasonable accuracy, thus immortalizing Celsus and his thought for generations to come.

Needless to say, Catholics have not been the only ones to maintain that they alone are right, that all others are wrong, and that error has no rights. Luther is well known for the raw language he used in anathematizing the Pope of Rome, other Protestant reformers, and, in his later years, the Jews. Ask any zealous Moslem and he will assure you that Islam has superseded both Judaism and Christianity as the true religion. Even within Judaism, the ultraorthodox are hard pressed to recognize as true Jews those who espouse the ordination of women and engage in ecumenical efforts which might seem to relativize God's teaching or the Torah.

Doctrinal absolutism and exclusivism are characteristic of the three Abrahamic religions, though they all also have their liberal and moderate wings. Because of that internal diversity, it is inaccurate and quite unfair to propagate a stereotypical view of any of those religions, including Islam. Only a minority of Moslems support terrorism, while the vast majority are peace-loving and prayerful people, more prayerful, in fact, than most Christians on a day-to-day basis.

The more one learns about a second or third faith other than one's own, the greater is one's appreciation of them. And nothing helps one gain a deeper understanding of one's own religion than travel abroad, coupled with the broadening effect of reading about the teaching and practice of other religions, even those that are themselves exclusivist.

Inclusivism

Troubled by the fact that, after nearly two thousand years, some 80 percent of the people on earth are not Christian, some Catholic theologians began to feel that they had to deal with the question of the salvation of so many nonbelievers outside the true Church. What of the old axiom, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus—Outside the church there is no salvation?

As long ago as the Council of Trent (1545--1563), it was suggested that people who lead moral lives but have no knowledge of the saving grace of Christ can be saved by a “baptism of desire.” This is not the ordinary means of salvation intended by God, but for people ignorant of Christianity yet who have good intentions, a baptism of desire can substitute for the baptism of water and provide access to salvation. Those who are saved by this extraordinary means still owe their good fortune to the mercy of God and the grace of Christ purchased by his death on the cross. Although the concept of baptism of desire thus retains the belief that there can be no salvation without Christ, it goes a step beyond exclusivism in seeking a way to include non-Christians on the path to salvation. A more contemporary version is Karl Rahner's concept of "the anonymous Christian," a righteous non-Christian who, without knowing it, lives a life in accord with the basic moral principles of the Christian faith.

In spite of such efforts, the basic premise of inclusivism may seem condescending, only a disguised form of exclusivism. That is true if inclusivism means that Christians have nothing to learn from non-Christians. If, on the other hand, what is meant is that the Christ principle is everywhere present and active in the world, whether as Logos or as Divine Wisdom, inclusivism is not so condescending. Then, while it would be true to say that the Christ was in Jesus, it would also be true to say that Jesus was in the Christ, implying that the Christ is broader than the Jewish idea of the Messiah, viewed as a particular individual. The Christ would then be seen as everywhere present and active, that is, as the Wisdom of God in which the great teachers of humanity have all participated. Then we might ask with Raimon Panikkar, "Whose Christ is he?"

Christians have a share in the divine revelation, but so too have others. May not these others have certain aspects of revelation not found explicitly and immediately in the Christian deposit of faith? In that case, while it would be true to say that Christianity provides its adherents with adequate means for salvation, that fact should not deny that other religions are "equal opportunity" sharers in leading their members to salvation. Panikkar might agree with this in principle but would probably want to add a cautionary note, "not quite so equal." In other words, this is not yet what is known as pluralism, the recognition that distinctively different religious traditions are paths to God and are worth preserving.

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)."

Daniel12:

"Unlike Schaum and Timmy I will criticize any position mercilessly if it makes no sense."

Whereas we have narrowed our criticism to religion and your senseless blathering. The more you write, the more you prove that you are mentally incompetent. Keep going, boy. I never realized mental illness could be so amusing.

"I have a proven track record of that."

You have a proven broken record. You have proven your lunacy. Please keep supplying the evidence.

"My recent posts right here on this thread--the plots for a comic and a science fiction novel prove that."

Plots that will never become novels or scripts -- because you cannot write. But please keep trying. As I said, you are a source of amusement. Although you do seem to have a limited supply of admirers: a deluded seermysticscientist (self appointed, of course) and an alcoholic old drag queen.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. This gets better and better!

And you have already been given many epistemological lessons. But you don't read, or can't...so you've missed them. You lose again.

there was a factory for white-powder from Afghanistan by White Russians in Istanbul, built by Ataturk's orders, the money made was used in hard times.

those white russians have a page under WAshington Post, in fashion.

in proselytizing, there is adverse advertising, verse by verse, dominum after dominum.

prose, lyrics, poems, rhymes...

proselytizing and advertising, and the german's second world war propaganda.

yesterday i thought of Nikolas Tesla, he had a remote controlled toy-ship in a barrel of water, but Germans had planes and zeplins.

and Hitler had drugs for sex and to stand up other than ZINC.

Ihsan Doğramacı, the foudner and owner of hacettepe university, died previous week, his internal organnels failed.

he was the party in Northern Iraq with George Son Bush, Ihsan Doğramacı was son of a General in Ottomans and Groom of the President of Iraq in 1915.

Otomans is known with minerals and Germans also. Romanovs and Ottomans all met in a ceremony this year in Istanbul.

the cross George Son Bush erected in his farm in Texas, did he erect in HAcettepe in Ankara also?

how much money did Germany pay to Commonwealth's Churchill's United NAtions for compensation to Second World WAr?

more than gold in the basement of World Trade Towers which was worth 160 billions of USD?

the capital of Afghanistan is known with Alexander the Great.
there are Scopjen CAtholic, Scopjen Cryllic Russian, Scopjen Democrat PArty, governments in AFghanistan, the national anthem of Russia is by Alexander Alexandrov and Sergey Mikhalkov.
in Afghanistan are the White God, White Dove, White PAlace, Sirius and Columba Constellations.

hacettepe (cross@hill, hac@tepe) is cross on the hill, that's churchill.

this is 9120641 in hacettepe computer science engineering department, from gelibolu eskişehir, last presence on afghanforums.com

the human body is also the holy grail. the problem is should it be protected in communist way or imperialist way? better say, pragmatic or all-on-board?

MArlborough the Iron FAmily is known with the Holy Grail. holy grail is the thymuse gland of harmony. amethyst is "i am sane by enhancing the thymuse gland". there were wooden grails too.

imperialism and communism and psalmism and sionism are all on the Bible and MAths. so who is St Germain in Amthyst Mineral of Violet Flame of Divine Union? South Korea is the major source of amethyst mineral.

so, since 1860, there are mines for diamonds in SOuth Africa, and also in Australia, South America, etc. money of diamonds and mineral mines were in World Trade Center.

that money had caused the "communist" and "imperialist" distractions.

The International Space LAboratory is a W-HALE (u-bunt-u hales too). how is the digestion system of a whale? why is Hillary Clinton a Sea-Monster?

whales intake the whole sea-water and pass the small inhabitants and give the water.

so does the space laboratory. they collect the small inhabitants from comets and stars and passed-before-on-the-track-of-earth constellations and planets. they collect with electromagnetic energy.

DANIEL12.

Finally, you got it right. Lemme see our professional comedian-evolutionist top THAT one.

Speaking of such things, our professional comedian-evolutionist, and his good friend -- a non-participant in the practice of continuing evolution, perhaps one will convince the other to participate in trying to get the lower bowel to mutate into a kind of womb, thereby finally producing, by that kind of practice, the kind of evolutionary being one might expect from it, a fully grown, Untopian, secularist excrement, for our brave new world.

and 1/14 of FIAT is not able to afford germs.

but St BArbara and St PAntaleon and St Ignatius and St Francis and St Augustine already pay for germans' substitutes in Great Milled White Brotherhood, other than Bethlekhem's (broth/bread house's) Unfermented Full-Wheat Bread.

doughters and daughters already stand for their own leafened foods.

aviation and transportation in Anatolia is deeply attached and combined with France and Russia. France in PAsific Ocean launched the satellites for Anatolia.

so, where are germans? in hospitals as doctors and nurses? and mines? oh, the most vital germs are in space and on astronauts.

if greeks sell the 12 islands in Ionian Sea and the nearest three islands in ÇAnakkale İzmir and Antalya, there shall not be any problem left.

the ancestor of AJAX is JAVA and ADA.

ADA is the language of aviation and transportation in USA, developed by an israilian-french.

Anatolia is deeply attached and combined with French and Israel. Microsoft Office was developed by a Hungarian who had first watched at nights URAL computers in Russia.

the french scientist Pasteuer (your past, your cake) didnt know how to change the milk of a cow. but we do by means of changing the water cows intake. and of course, the cakes are different and advanced in Anatolia.

maybe that's why CAtholic French authorities murdered Armenians in Kilis Antep.

but Abdullah Antepli is from MAraş, where the first bullet from a milkman to a french was fired. Armenians should be frank to remind today's attitudes.

it is not about a hundred years ago, is it, billowed Armenians?

the aviation and space companies adviced the armenian bill to be rejected. they are mostly french and german, high catholic protectant, companies. and armenians were muslim, mevlevi and gurdjieffian then. and most were immigrated to Syrian Church.

now the problem is, it is not about Armenia. the person who was against Armenia was an isralian-bulgarian, and who fired a bullet to this person is a protestant, as were the missionaries from United States of America.

it is about faith and how armenians live. the towers of world trade center was bombarded by a german minerologist later baptised to be known as William of british church. Iceland in melting ice water of precious minerals bankrupted. Chile is the major land of cupper. Afghanistan is the major land of lapislazuli of egypt and rome. Anatolia is the major land of boron mineral for conductivity and space shuttle, Boeing is the fiancee of Space Shuttle and Space LAb.

and there is a kernel and hardware for each and human being here on EArth, just tailored for hospitality.

in Anatolia, we are at the moment working to differentiate the layers of german-turkos, franco-turcos, jewish-turkos, scottish-turkos, greko-turkos, russo-turkos, spaniard-turkos, etrusk-turkos, paki-turkos, to have an operating sysytem.

they shall have to find the unity, as a person needs the breath. the layer of japans shall be beneath the layer of germans, but japans shall be aware of the higher level. this must be accepted, this is not honourless.

the higher level of japans shall beware the lower level of greeks for a higher level, and greeks shall be ware of pashtos. shall Google translate for PAshto please?

so many people know how to cope with cheats and lagage. but this must be encompassing. the more spoken in English, the more compassionate and beeing shall the humans be.

another phrase from Abdullah Antepli, from University Duke : "if we forget You, do not forget Us".

is he addressing to an Entity? every human being comes to be a human being. all are being human and all shall be according to beeing of humans.

there shall be a uniform, not so far, but soon. there shall be a click of agreement and "coersion for copyrights against piracy" soon, or a "choice amongst browsers", and all are HTML and AJAX.

the prayer that Abdullah Antepli verbalized in the Entrance to the House of Representatives, for Armenian's Invioce,

isnt it Prayer of Peace from St Francis de Assisi, the prayer that President Obama had commenced with.

so how can there be conversion and proselytism but enfaithment, if the vocabularies have been transliterated on agreement through an interface?

Plot for a teenage Catholic lesbian vampire novel:

A man named Schaum challenges a writer he despises to write on a subject he, the writer, knows nothing about: teenage Catholic lesbian vampires. Schaum of course knows all about the subject because there are extensive historical records and everyone knows there is so much evidence such exist. Schaum plans to upstage the writer after the writer finishes the novel by his great knowledge on teenage Catholic lesbian vampires.

The writer begins researching for the novel. He begins to suspect that Schaum was once a teenage Catholic lesbian vampire although Schaum currently presents no such aspect, being old and ugly and gay, a man, in other words (if such can be called a man). Then the writer becomes more suspicious: He begins to suspect that Schaum still is a teenage Catholic lesbian vampire and has merely by supernatural means (as vampires apparently possess) pretended to be old and ugly and gay and a man.

The writer decides to trick Schaum and disguises himself--changes his appearance--and pretends to be a Catholic priest. The writer thinks by his obvious good looks and the pretense of being a priest that Schaum, if he is who he says he is, will have no ability to resist him, for he plans to make sexual advances to Schaum. Everyone knows a gay person would love to sexually seduce a Catholic priest.

But of course Schaum does not go for the bait, being secretly a teenage Catholic lesbian vampire. In fact Schaum becomes quite angry. So far the disguise seems to be working. The writer begins to feel that at the least Schaum might have been an alter boy that was molested--that would explain his anger. The writer in fact was once a Catholic priest and did molest alter boys so he knows something about the anger of former alter boys.

Then the writer concocts another plan: he gets in touch with nuns he knew in the past, ones with a dominatrix attitude. He enlists them so he can be provided with innocent Catholic schoolgirls to be bait for the hypothesized teenage Catholic lesbian vampire Schaum. The nuns agree to help if they in turn are allowed to use whips and chains on the writer. The writer agrees and gets beat all to hell.

But the writer is happy, smiling through broken teeth as he sends the Catholic girls to Schaum's with drugged cookies. The cookies of course are drugged with a powerful aphrodisiac guaranteed specifically to make teenage Catholic lesbian vampires horny. The girls ring Schaum's doorbell.

Schaum answers, takes one look at the Catholic girls and begins salivating. The girls succeed in drugging Schaum. Schaum sheds his disguise and becomes who he truly is: the resident teenage Catholic lesbian vampire of the city. Schaum bewitches the girls and has them believe he is Mother Mary of Jesus Harold Christ himself. The girls go "Mother of Jesus Harold? Ooh!" Schaum, heh, heh, heh, begins to have his way with the girls.

Then the writer bursts in, declaring he not only knows how to write a novel about teenage Catholic lesbian vampires, he knows how to trap one. Schaum, in fury, because he intended by challenging the writer to write a novel on teenage Catholic lesbian vampires to upstage him with greater knowledge, attacks the writer.

The writer thinks he has the upper hand because he has a crucifix and holy water, but Schaum rips the crucifix from his hand and stuffs it up his butt which is just dessert for the writer because he was a former child molesting priest. As for the holy water, Schaum drinks it down then makes a gin and tonic.

The writer of course is in an embarrassing situation. He waddles to the bathroom and manages to bar himself inside. He calls the dominatrix nuns and they burst in and a pitched battle ensues. Dominatrix nuns against the teenage Catholic lesbian vampire. The nuns of course have their hands full, oh so enjoyably full of teenage Catholic lesbian vampire flesh.

The vampire is not as happy, tearing nuns apart left and right. The writer flees to the nearest Catholic church where he begs God for forgiveness--all the stuff about molesting alter boys. The vampire tracks him down, alters appearance to seem a priest. The writer takes confession with the priest (vampire) and a very interesting conversation ensues which results in the priest (vampire) busting through the confession booth and getting the writer around his scrawny little neck.

The writer is ripped to pieces and the vampire, enjoying herself so much, decides to assume the disguise of a priest. She thinks by being a priest she can quietly subvert male power in the church. Certainly she has no interest in alter boys. But she cannot resist Catholic girls. She gets found out molesting Catholic girls (but not found out for what she truly is) and changes appearance to become a Catholic nun.

The nuns all welcome her, for they too have a thing for Catholic schoolgirls. The vampire becomes the greatest dominatrix nun of all time. She writes a better, more extended, as well as esoteric and secret, history of vampirism--focusing of course on teenage Catholic lesbian vampires.

Another writer appears she immediately takes a dislike to. She challenges him, just as she challenged the previous writer, to write a novel on teenage Catholic lesbian vampires. The writer does not know she is a nun because she changed her appearance making the challenge.

The writer happens to be her long lost brother (she was separated from as a kid) who is a teenage Catholic gay vampire. She finds out and works toward getting him a job at her parish. They live, brother and sister, happily ever after--in incestuous relationship, breeding more little vampires with who knows what sexual proclivities. The parish they work at gets the best reputation for holiness in the country.

Huh, "...teenage catholic lesbian vampires." Ah yes, who but a patriarchist without portfolio, still living with the fears of Stone Age thinking -- perplexed at the wound that never heals -- could coin that phrase?

Secularism not harmful to religion? A load of crap refuted by basic history, basic development of science, democracy, gradual decline of religion and so on. Just read the thread by one Tom Flynn right here on on Faith titled "Secular humanists have arrived". No harm to religion right? No decline in religion's power in the public sphere, right? Unlike Schaum and Timmy I will criticize any position mercilessly if it makes no sense. I have a proven track record of that. My recent posts right here on this thread--the plots for a comic and a science fiction novel prove that. Neither religion nor atheism is spared. The proof is in the words right before your very eyes. The cowardly dogs Schaum and Timmy have one agenda only: pushing atheism and discrediting religion. To their credit they do not even disguise such by answering the topic of the week as if more on their minds than pushing atheism. Perhaps they are not so cowardly after all. Or is it they have no real imagination to answer the topic of the week? Yes, that is far more likely.

I still await the joint project by Schaum and Timmy which declares logically I make no sense and they do when in their own words no intelligent design is behind existence, which makes me of course, if making no sense, more in line with the universe as they conceive it than they do. Or do Schaum and Timmy have the method of making sense in a universe of no intelligent design that the rest of us do not have? Please explain this method to us so the rest of us can make sense in the universe of no intelligent design. Give us an epistemological lesson.

Timmy2:

"I'm actually quite proud of D 12 these days. He seems to have finally accepted the fact that he has always been, and always will be, a writer of fiction."

Yes, thus he is and thus he will be. I'm going to suggest a book subject for him to work on: teenage catholic lesbian vampires. Since writing on subjects about which he has absolutely no knowledge doesn't seem to deter him, he should enjoy that one.

Chaps,

"Again, the question here is about what non-establishment means"

No it isn't. That's what you'd like the issue to be. The issue is should the government try to look neutral on religion or not. I have asked you why you do not believe that it should, but have gotten no answer.

Doesn't true freedom of religion rely the religious impartiality of the state?

Schaum,

I'm actually quite proud of D 12 these days. He seems to have finally accepted the fact that he has always been, and always will be, a writer of fiction.

D 12

"Atheists know this and push for secularity all they can. They pretend secularity is not harmful to religion like the cowardly dogs they are"

You are a cowardly dog? Why would you call yourself a cowardly dog. As an atheist, do you really pretend that secularism is not harmful to religion? I sure don't and I'm an atheist too. Most importantly though, why are you calling yourself a cowardly dog?

"lying as well, no different from any sneak religious tactics"

Why do you lie just like the sneaky religious tactics? Why, as an atheist, do you do this? I sure don't. And I'm pretty sure I'm an atheist just like you.

"Just ask an atheist where he would prefer to live--in a secular society or otherwise"

Okay, I'll ask one. Daniel, as an admitted atheist, would you prefer to live in a secular society or otherwise?

"But atheists have somehow arrived at the "obvious" observation that secularism is not harmful to religion even as they grow in force in such and say every day religion is delusion"

You have arrived at the obvious observation that secularism is not harmful? Why did you arrive at this conclusion. Seems wrong to me.

"Atheists are no braver than anybody else, that is for sure"

You are no braver than anyone else? Why be so hard on yourself?

"Nice to know for all their freedom of delusion they can be just as lying and cowardly as any religious person"

You can be just as lying and cowardly as a religious person? Why are you that way?

"But I guess their viewpoint being the correct one absolves them from blame, right?

You think you are absolved of blame? Why do you feel this way?

"And I suppose atheists have never thought once about calling themselves secular humanists"

I haven't. Have you? You know, given that you are an atheist and all.

Why are you so self loathing, Daniel? Don't be so hard on yourself. As an atheist, you do not need to have any of these crazy views you have been putting upon yourself as a confessed atheist. You can be an atheist and still be a good person. Just try. Stop beating yourself up. And stop believing crazy things like "secularism is harmless to religion". It really is harmful to religion. You should admit that and stop lying like the coward atheist that you are.

SURROUND sun. My mistake--perhaps from recent reading of Niven "Ringworld".

Daniel12:

"Just read what I wrote in my plot for a science fiction novel: religion is an illusion to keep peace of mind on the starship traveling to a planet like earth surrounding a distant sun. A true religious person would write no such thing. An atheist could easily write such a thing. But according to you I am not an atheist."

As usual, your inability to read for comprehension, or think using reason and logic is fully exposed.

In earlier posts, Timmy and I agreed that you ARE an atheist and have proved it. Don't you read? It is impossible for you to understand what you read? You are a complete idiot. Trust you? Who trusts you? Navinthemysticseerscientist and Alltheroadrunning: a fraud and an elderly alcoholic? You are so far from reality you wouldn't know truth if it french kissed you.

Your "plot" suggestions are just more of your disingenuous, ill-conceived, nonsensical "original" thinking. The reason your "plots" don't get translated into finished books or scripts is that you cannot write. You are delusional. Your favorite delusion is that you are a writer. You are the laughingstock of OnFaith, along with the other two just mentioned. You are manipulative, conniving, and ignorant.

By the way, idiotboy: a planet does not "surround" a sun.

Schaum, read the last two plots for novels I have written right here this week. I take aim at anything which tries to sneak about, get by with bad logic and so on. This means atheism, this means religion and so on. You on the other hand are just an atheist and will do anything to promote that view. I can be trusted light years beyond you. Just this week I have given ample proof of that as said.

Just read what I wrote in my plot for a science fiction novel: religion is an illusion to keep peace of mind on the starship traveling to a planet like earth surrounding a distant sun. A true religious person would write no such thing. An atheist could easily write such a thing. But according to you I am not an atheist. Well then explain how I can be religious what with my two plots for novels. Unless you want me declared Buddhist for speaking favorably of Buddhism. But Buddhism has problems like any religion. Does reincarnation really exist? Is it possible to achieve ultimate enlightenment as Buddha said?

Here is the truth of secularism with respect to religion. It coincides directly with the rise of atheism and science. It is the enemy of religion because a religion cannot thrive and dominate in a society of a plurality of views. Atheists know this and push for secularity all they can. They pretend secularity is not harmful to religion like the cowardly dogs they are--lying as well, no different from any sneak religious tactics. Just ask an atheist where he would prefer to live--in a secular society or otherwise. Of course a secular society. Why? because atheism can get a foothold and even reduce religion to harmlessness in a secular society. Common knowledge. But atheists have somehow arrived at the "obvious" observation that secularism is not harmful to religion even as they grow in force in such and say every day religion is delusion. Atheists are no braver than anybody else, that is for sure. Nice to know for all their freedom of delusion they can be just as lying and cowardly as any religious person. But I guess their viewpoint being the correct one absolves them from blame, right? Right.

And I suppose atheists have never thought once about calling themselves secular humanists. Not religious humanists--secular humanists. Secular precisely to be distinguished from religious humanists who thrive best without secularism, just as atheists thrive best and arrive at secular humanism by the increasing decline of religion.

Oh please, calling proselytizing an "open exchange of ideas" is like calling American politics a "rational discourse on the problems of the day in order to seek a useful compromise." It's like saying because someone who shoots an abortion doctor BELIEVED it was the right thing to do then religious freedom should protect his act of violence. Why is it that when it comes to Christians and Muslims spreading their religion it's an "open exchange of ideas," but say or do something they don't like and they feel justified in terrorizing you? If these two religions are SO interested in an "open exchange of ideas" why do so many of them shelter their kids from any differing viewpoint? An open exchange of ideas is when two people share their ideas with each other. Evangelizing Christians are in no way interested in the ideas of others. They are only interested in eliminating those ideas and replacing them with their own. This is evident in their tactics.

There are people in the U.S. who have their children taken away, get kicked out of homes, fired from jobs, and otherwise harassed for being the "wrong" religion. Where are all of you Christians who are so worried about religious freedom when this crap goes on in your own country? Until you truly fight for everyone's religious freedom don't try selling me this crap about evangelizing being about religious freedom.

Persiflage

cool stuff, this biology.

My "fields of study" are rather broad and specific. I have chosen to not reveal much about my degrees as 1) that may endanger my clients, colleagues, friends, and families (I don't trust the mono-ideologists) and 2) recognition would be too ego satisfying.

I am a professional and family member engaged in karma. I am a faithful engaged in bhakti. I am a lover of knowledge engaged in lifelong learning (gyana / philosophy). I am a mystic wanting direct experience of the reality that I have glimpsed at times in my life (TM, mindfulness, Zen, and chanting Hare Krishna Hare Krisha, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare). I am just another person and I am just another vessel of ignorance before the reality that is Truth for I am still identified with my ego.

hariaum

'check out mitochondria'.......

Navin, right you are. It's always the little things that count in life!

Is this your field of study??

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/mitochondria/mitochondria.html

We have something close to religious freedom in the United States, but many countries do not. Religious groups should abide by the laws of whatever country they are operating in or expect to suffer the consequences.

I object to proselytizing, but with my opening paragraph as a caveat, let 'em proselyte.

Persiflage

check out mitochondria

The ultimate shape shifters, the source of energy for all "higher" life forms, parasites / symbiotes, maternally inherited, and non-human DNA but a part of every one of our cells (except sperm).

hariaum

ThomasBaum,

In the scenario I mentioned the rifle was produced as contracted. No overt mention of their cataloging system was ever made by the company, so their was no advertising on the part of the company as you mention it.

Again, the question here is about what non-establishment means. The intent was never to shield the government from religious thought, but the people from a government sanctioned religion. It is not a violation of this law if after the fact it comes to light that somehow the company in question shared their faith indirectly--unless the product was faulty because of it.

The truth is there is no such thing as a faithless philosophy. Atheism puts its faith in something, just not God. Agnosticism even puts its faith in something. Those calling for a faithless 1st Amendment are actually calling for a faith in government--which becomes the religion in a system where people say the non-establishment clause protects the government from religion. In such a system every faith with suffer the bigotry of government religion.

Ah, if things were easy.

1) freedom of speech. This is a foundation to an open society that promotes the human right to personal conscience. But this can be overdone - as in the fatwa to call for someone's death.

2) coercion. This is a foundation for human interaction. Someone always has more power than someone else. But this can be overdone - as the idea that you have to believe what I believe.

3) self deception. this is a foundation of self worth, particularly over others. Without it, we can't believe we can do anything. With it overdone, we believe we should do things we shouldn't.

The Buddha and his followers are evangelical. Yet, their ministry is one of living as the Buddha taught and not believing that theirs is the one and only way.

Jesus, Mohammed, communists, secular western governments (through colonialism and multinational firms - East India Tea Company, slave trade,et al) each have a belief structure that says they are rightfully superior to those that disagree with them or get in their way (the heathen, the infidel, the superstitious primitive brown natives...). It is this mono-ideological construct that allows genocide and exploitation. So long as that construct is present, there is no open market of ideas, no free conversion, no egalitarian power structure.... The principles of mono-ideology are against freedom of conscience. So long as the principle of 'self superior to the other' exists, there is a natural coercion based on self deception to reduce human freedom.

So, in principle (of free speech) proselytizing may be acceptable, in practice it can never be acceptable. We must choose to allow each his/her own freedom on conscience, remove mono-ideological constructs, and then we have the necessary precondition to moral agency - human freedom. (Then each of us can choose a mono-ideological construct - religion or yoga or even materialism - but not coerce others to it)

hariaum

Schaum,

"More delusional ranting from Dr. Heckyl and Mr. Hype"

We know now that D-12 is an atheist. In fact he is a modern atheist. Every time he writes about "the modern atheist" he is referring to himself.

T-Bomb

"This is a rather absurd statement, there are plenty of people that technology hasn't touched that are alive"

Nope. It has touched everyone. Your parents would probably not have been born if it did not exist and so neither would you have been. It is responsible for virtually all of us being here. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. Most of them would not be here without technology.

Take care. Be ready.

T-Bomb,

"Do you honestly believe that all "religious" are hypocrites or for that matter that one needs to be "religious" to be a hypocrite?"

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

Take care. Be ready.

battlechaps

You wrote, " A private company provided equipment via a contract with the military, a company that happened to be Christian. As a symbol of their faith they have scripture in their serial numbers, which now they cannot because of some warped view of the First Amendment. Whose rights were really infringed upon?"

If their contract was to produce a bible than they should produce a bible, if their contract was to produce a koran then they should have produced a koran, if their contract was to produce a rifle, it should have been a rifle.

Seems to me their contract was not to produce "advertising".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Schaum

You wrote, "Timmy2:

"That's right Thomas, technology bad. Candles good."

Thomas The Hallucinator has, as you are probably aware, "met god". Does more need to be said?"

Don't worry, you will meet God some day also.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

timmy2

You wrote, "That's right Thomas, technology bad. Candles good."

This isn't what I said at all.

You then wrote, "Thanks for the fear mongering. Clearly you are frightened of technology. Probably unaware that you would not be here without it."

Why should technology frighten me, because it doesn't. As far as I wouldn't be here without it is absurd unless you are speaking about writing here on the internet.

You then wrote, "You would not even be alive without it."

This is a rather absurd statement, there are plenty of people that technology hasn't touched that are alive. Who knows maybe even if I didn't get a stent I might be still alive.

If it wasn't for the way that God created us, we would not have the ability to even have come up with the technology that we have come up with.

You then wrote, "And yet here you are communicating your ideas on the thing that you try to raise fear about."

Why should they raise fears in you?

Does the combination of our technology and human nature give you the idea that it just may be a combustible mixture that some may, shall we say throw the match into, whether purposedly or accidently?

Technology is neutral but it can be used for good or bad. Technology can even take on a "life" of its own.

Most, if not all, of technology that man has come up with has not only been directed toward something good, no matter who has come up with defining what is good, and this is a fact of human reality whether one wishes to admit it or not.

You then wrote, " It allows you to spread your fear mongering to a wider and wider audience. And yet you spread fear of it."

Reality is reality, why should you be afraid of what will be, man thru the ages has proven time and time again that he is capable of evil intentions, one has to ignore reality to pretend that this isn't true.

You then wrote, "But since when did the religious ever notice their own hypocrisy?"

Do you honestly believe that all "religious" are hypocrites or for that matter that one needs to be "religious" to be a hypocrite?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Orthodox microbes, or reformed?

Taking a break from religion:

A great article - bacteria rule!! Without bacteria, nothing is....on planet earth.

We should all be worshipping microbes...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35692681/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Daniel12:

"Secularism is no help to religion."

Is it supposed to be?

"Secularism is the road to the end of religion."

Never has been in the past. Can you prove this assertion?

"We should be honest about that."

You should be honest about SOMETHING, D12.

"Religion survive in a society of a plurality of viewpoints?"

Is this "question" rhetorical? It always has survived.

"Eventually it at least is watered down to harmlessness."

Please prove this assertion as well. Religion has never been harmless. It is "watered down" when adherents realize they have been misled by the delusions of others.

"Of course atheists know that."

I'm an atheist. I know no such thing. I do not know any atheists who make such claims.

"Atheists push secularism as much as they can because they know that is the road to the survival and increase of themselves."

Typical D12 assertion built on a previous and unproven assertion.

"Not that there is anything particularly wrong with that."

Then what is your complaint?

"We should just be honest about it."

"We? Are you admitting you are also an atheist?

"Or is it atheists feel compelled to lie about the harm secularism does to religion?"

Ah! A new delusion is entering the sizzling limbic recesses of D12's mind!

"If so, interesting how a lie, lack of morality, is so easily used to serve atheist's purposes."

And the delusion progresses into paranoia.

"But then I suppose a lie for a good cause is allowed."

You mean lies like Santa Claus, Easter Bunnies, Tooth Fairies, virgin birth, resurrection, god... I've not done extensive research, but I don't think these lies originated with atheists.

"Never mind that that piece of reason has been applied to virtually all beliefs that have ever existed."

And you are a scholar of all beliefs that have ever existed, and can speak for them?

"But I suppose atheism is exempt from that."

Exempt from what? Telling lies? Thank you.

"Nice to know atheists can be just as immoral, as lying, as the religious to suit their purposes."

You just said atheists are exempt from that. Can you form two consecutive sentences that carry the same thought to a logical conclusion?

"And all in the same breath as saying man will be of greater morality without religion."

Who has said this? Atheists? Prove it.

More delusional ranting from Dr. Heckyl and Mr. Hype, this time on Spirited Atheist:

"Secularism is no help to religion. Secularism is the road to the end of religion. We should be honest about that. Religion survive in a society of a plurality of viewpoints? Eventually it at least is watered down to harmlessness. Of course atheists know that. Atheists push secularism as much as they can because they know that is the road to the survival and increase of themselves. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with that. We should just be honest about it. Or is it atheists feel compelled to lie about the harm secularism does to religion? If so, interesting how a lie, lack of morality, is so easily used to serve atheist's purposes. But then I suppose a lie for a good cause is allowed. Never mind that that piece of reason has been applied to virtually all beliefs that have ever existed. But I suppose atheism is exempt from that. Nice to know atheists can be just as immoral, as lying, as the religious to suit their purposes. And all in the same breath as saying man will be of greater morality without religion."

POSTED BY: DANIEL12 | MARCH 4, 2010 5:58 AM
REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT

Plot for a science fiction novel:

What we think of as the earth before our eyes and our religious beliefs and opinions is an illusion. We all are actually on a starship headed toward a planet like the true earth--not the illusion one we are presently subjected to--surrounding a distant sun.

When we left earth it was 2142. By advanced technology we believe it is 2010. We believe we are on earth in 2010 but are actually on a starship headed toward an earthlike planet surrounding a distant sun. 2010 is the year chosen because it strikes the best balance between the psychological peace needed for the trip and the disorientation we will feel upon awakening.

Some of the crew are aware of our situation. They have awakened from the stasis of the machine which keeps us in sleep for centuries before the rest of us because they have demonstrated in tests on earth the greatest psychological fitness for dealing with the situation.

The rest of us are slowly being awakened. What we think of as the internet is actually a preliminary hookup to the ship's systems to acclimatize ourselves to the situation a select few crew members are already aware of.

Gradually the "internet" will take hold and we will realize we are not on earth at all, and that our religious beliefs were actually a psychological preservative while we were in sleep stasis. The more the "internet" spreads the greater the whole crew is toward awakening.

How quickly the whole crew awakens depends on us. The more quickly we spread the "internet" the more quickly we all awaken. Right now in fact we are almost at the distant planet which is the goal of the ship. All that matters is the continued spread of the "internet". It would be nice if the total spread of the "internet" and therefore our eventual awakening would coincide with dropping into orbit around the planet which is the goal of the ship.

The planet is our great hope and second chance, for we have almost destroyed the actual earth by our continued taking for granted the planet, all its resources, all the space it has provided for us to live. When we awaken to the realization that we are so close to the "second earth" we will realize also that we are in closer relationship to machines, technology, than we presently realize.

In fact much of us is machine. And paradoxically "machine being" is our best hope for having a healthy relationship to the natural world. When the ship lands on the planet it will be found to be also an instant city capable of supporting millions of lives.

The capital city of the new planet will be the ship in which we now live. The name of this new capital? Any suggestions? Suggested names for the ship when in travel and the name taken by such when landed are welcome.
Best if the name of the ship and the name taken when landed are one and the same. Blish, after James Blish and "Cities in flight"? Yes, Blish. Or maybe Bliss.

One laptop per child...nice idea. Pretend for a moment that everyone would have a laptop and not even really think, just imagine...Would it be possible to have a religion dominate people who are merely presenting their simple imaginations online? I mean the sheer wealth of just simple imagination would probably be enough in itself to prevent any dogma taking hold over a large crowd. One would not need to think but just imagine, in fact tell what happens to be on one's mind that day.

Chaps

"But let me ask you. If the quotes had been from the Koran, would anyone have raised a fuss?"

Of course. For the very same reason. The Government should avoid endorsing any one religion. It's across the board. Equal. Fair. Sensible. Obvious. Smart. Logical. Reasonable. The right thing to do. Because it's the only fair option.

"And as for us beiing a "Christian Nation", you need to take a walk around DC sometime in the near future and read some of the quotes ethced into the buildings of our nation's capitial"

No I've seen them. I can assume by your answer that I was correct then, about you believing that the US is a Christian nation. Good to know.

That will be fine, SCHAUM. Then keep your mouth off my posts, or not. I couldn't care less.

You, and your little Utopian inspired opinons will not work, and you know it. I don't think you are stupid, merely obstinate.

Timmy,

If the company was Muslim, I would have no problem with it--if they were a private company. As I said, they produced the product they were contracted for. But let me ask you. If the quotes had been from the Koran, would anyone have raised a fuss?

And as for us beiing a "Christian Nation", you need to take a walk around DC sometime in the near future and read some of the quotes ethced into the buildings of our nation's captial.

Battlechaps

Something doesn't have to violate the first amendment to be considered wrong. The government should not be seen as endorsing one particular religion. This makes sense if we all want real freedom of religion. Does it not? Are you biased towards your religion. If the gun company was Muslim and the gun barrels said "praise Allah" would you be here to defend it?

Are you one under the deluded notion that it is okay for Christian messages to delivered through government agencies because this is a Christian nations founded by christians? You might be. You sure sound like one.

Why do you have a problem with the idea of the government striving to appear and be completely neutral on religion?

There are so many things to say about what this panel has said, that it is hard to know where to begin. I think the most confusing comment is that of government funding, because it drudges up the debate over the First Amendment.

First, the conversation on what non-establishment means is far from over. Too many people still view it as some wall that protects the government from religious people. This view by and of itself creates a de facto religious system, and was never what the founding fathers had in mind when they penned the right to paper. The government by funding an organization to provide a service who then by virtue of their faith happens to convert some people is not a violation of this right, if the service was provided that was promised.

Case in point is the ludicrous "contraversy" created over serial numbers on military equipment having Bible verses in them. A private company provided equipment via a contract with the military, a company that happened to be Christian. As a symbol of their faith they have scripture in their serial numbers, which now they cannot because of some warped view of the First Amendment. Whose rights were really infringed upon?

But I'll tell you what. Let's apply the same logic of that argument to our Universities and Educational system in America. Will they measure up to the same standard?

In addition to the inner cities, there is great poverty and hunger in rural Appalachia, which extends from central Pennsylvania, to West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia. There is also great rural poverty in the Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona, New Mexico, and Alaska. `

I would have to say this question is one of the more bizarre questions posted. How could one justify limiting any religions ability to spread its beliefs and welcome followers. I understand that no religion should manipulate or use excessive coercion to create converts, but this is generally only an issue where there isn’t religious freedom. Countries like Iran (religious), North Korea (secular), and China (secular) prevent or limit these activities and ironically their residents are forced to obey what these oppressive states want. Shouldn’t we, a country that is built on the premise of religious freedom, encourage and support all countries to give their residents the right to follow what they believe to be right and true.

It does seem that most of the Panel’s comments agree with the consensus. There are some different takes on it but it just doesn’t seem there is any real justification for limiting a religion’s ability to promote itself.

I’ve seen some people say that religions manipulate with kind deeds and helping others. I’m not sure how this would work but it makes no sense. Good religions will always tell people what is important and give them reasons to do good things. Part of the practice of these religions will always be to help others and to encourage others to help also. Why shouldn’t someone be able to convert from a religion that offers no real hope to one that does and shows it by its works.

One thing I think that many people don’t realize is that many people around the world, living in squalor are anxious to change and convert to a new system. Of course, the best way to do this is to have follower explain to them how to convert. I was impressed with the book “Spirit of the Rainforest” the thoughts of these people. It has largely been assumed that these primitive tribes are happy in their current situation but this book give a voice to the natives that live this way. This may shock you but they aren’t in the least against outside influence helping them, but often beg for it. These people often live in squalor, barely able to survive, constantly threatened with death by disease, war, and famine. The most amazing part of the book was that the westerners would often try to be like the natives and the natives couldn’t understand why anyone would want to live like them.

In short, let’s promote the ideas that made our country great.

Timmy2:

"That's right Thomas, technology bad. Candles good."

Thomas The Hallucinator has, as you are probably aware, "met god". Does more need to be said?

T bomb in the house.

That's right Thomas, technology bad. Candles good.

Thanks for the fear mongering. Clearly you are frightened of technology. Probably unaware that you would not be here without it. You would not even be alive without it. And yet here you are communicating your ideas on the thing that you try to raise fear about. It allows you to spread your fear mongering to a wider and wider audience. And yet you spread fear of it.

But since when did the religious ever notice their own hypocrisy?

Haruim. Be ready.

timmy2

You wrote, "All worship the internet. ;)"

You say this in jest, I believe, but not only is there some truth to this but as should be pretty obvious, more so in the "developed world" but all over the earth, we have put ourselves at the mercy of computers.

Computers have not only become a "god" to some but "virtual reality" seems to have replaced "real reality" as the "more real" also to some.

Not just computers but all of the fancy, dancy machines that we come up with and the kicker is most of the machines will not even do anything if the computer or "chip" takes a dive.

Something to think about: when the electric goes out, quite a bit shuts down. The "electric grid" is, as far as I know, almost, if not all, completely dependent on computers.

A glitch (woops) here, a glitch there and pretty much anything can happen.

I accidentally hit the submit thing and guess what, it could happen to others but it is not only human error but a "bug" or whatever could send a command that could end up being catastrophic and all of the redundancy in the world may not be enough.

Some do seem to "worship" the works of their hands and minds, not just the "internet".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

timmy2

You wrote, "All worship the internet. ;)"

You say this in jest, I believe, but not only is there some truth to this but as should be pretty obvious, more so in the "developed world" but all over the earth, we have put ourselves at the mercy of computers.

Computers have not only become a "god" to some but "virtual reality" seems to have replaced "real reality" as the "more real" also to some.

Not just computers but all of the fancy, dancy machines that we come up with and the kicker is most of the machines will not even do anything if the computer or "chip" takes a dive.

Something to think about: when the electric goes out, quite a bit shuts down. The "electric grid" is, as far as I know, almost, if not all, completely dependent on computers.

A glitch

Alltheroadrunnin:

"No doubt there is hunger in these United States, but there is enough food available for all to not be hungry, if only a few simple rules are followed."

In your unsupported opinion. But, as I have always said, you (and everyone else) have complete freedom to be governed by your delusions. But to be honest, I'm not much interested in you or your opinion. Perhaps you should hold it in reserve against that occasion on which you find someone who is interested.

OK, I did as you asked. Yes, "they" say 1/8, some say 1/7, some say 15%.

I say none. Unless one is counting those who could feed themselves properly and don't, and also don't responsibly feed those they are responsible for. And they don't for many reasons, not one of which includes the unavailablity of food.

Besides, I note the first three articles referred by Google are the anecdotal variety of evidence.

No doubt there is hunger in these United States, but there is enough food available for all to not be hungry, if only a few simple rules are followed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States (read to the end)

"Food security

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7% in 2001 to 11.1% in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3% to 3.5%.[26]

Factors in poverty

There are numerous factors related to poverty in the United States.

Tax levels Cross-country data shows an inverse correlation between tax levels as a share of GDP and child poverty.[27]
Limited job opportunities appear to exist for significant subgroups of some races and ethnic groups. This is reflected by the low-income nature of large sections of the economy, as divided along racial/ethnic lines: 21% of all children in the United States live in poverty, but 46% of African American children and 40% of Latino children live in poverty.[28]

The Heritage Foundation speculates that illegal immigration increases job competition among low wage earners, both native and foreign born. Additionally many first generation immigrants, namely those without a high school diploma, are also living in poverty themselves.[29]

In 1991, 8.3% of children in two-parent families were likely to live in poverty; 19.6% of children lived with father in single parent family; and 47.1% in single parent family headed by mother.[30]

Much of the debate about poverty focuses on statistical measures of poverty and the clash between advocates and opponents of welfare programs and government regulation of the free market. Since measures can be either absolute or relative, it is possible that advocates for the different sides of this debate are basing their arguments on different ways of measuring poverty.

It is often claimed that poverty is understated, yet there are some who also believe it is overstated; thus the accuracy of the current poverty threshold guidelines is subject to debate and considerable concern.

In 2007, 46% of poor households in the US owned their own homes, 30% had two or more cars, and 63% received cable or satellite TV.[31].

Concerns regarding accuracy

In recent years, there have been a number of concerns raised about the official U.S. poverty measure. In 1995, the National Research Council's Committee on National Statistics convened a panel on measuring poverty. The findings of the panel were that "the official poverty measure in the United States is flawed and does not adequately inform policy-makers or the public about who is poor and who is not poor."

The panel was chaired by Robert Michael, former Dean of the Harris School of the University of Chicago. According to Michael, the official U.S. poverty measure "has not kept pace with far-reaching changes in society and the economy." The panel proposed a model based on disposable income:

“ According to the panel's recommended measure, income would include, in addition to money received, the value of non-cash benefits such as food stamps, school lunches and public housing that can be used to satisfy basic needs. The new measure also would subtract from gross income certain expenses that cannot be used for these basic needs, such as income taxes, child-support payments, medical costs, health-insurance premiums and work-related expenses, including child care.[32] ”

By now you should know that I don't make claims I can't support.

Google on 'how many americans are hungry' and you will find all you need.

Prove child hunger in the USA. If you can, you might want to inform Michelle Obama, our dear First Lady. It seems she is now devoting some of her efforts to reducing children's obesity -- said to be 1/5 of all children in the USA.

It might be child nutrition, good nutrition, you mean.

Clearthinking1:

I correct myself: "1/8 of the US population" refers to statistics from 2008. In 2009, the figure rose to 1/7. Obama says he will end "child hunger" in the US by 2015. If we have so much food and money to send to Haiti, and to fight George Bush's holy war, why can't we end child hunger in the US this week?

YEAL9.

Have you learned nothing?

One doesn't need "References...," when stating, "1/8 of America has difficulty finding sufficient food."

See, dummy, the key words in that sentence are "difficulty," and "sufficient" -- maybe even the word "food."

DITLD:

"And finally, regarding Daniel12's ideas for comic novels, why don't you write one?"

Because he can't. His inability to write, to manage grammar, to construct rational, logical thoughts and sentences would finally and ultimately be demonstrated even to himself if he ever attempted to write anything. His most important delusion, that he is a writer, would be ground to dust. He can't afford to take that risk.

The subject of proselytism relates directly to the subject of the foundations of religion.

And what has history, scriptural text reviews and archeology taught us about these foundations?

Some examples:

1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for most of the characters in the OT/Torah).

references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proof read or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own agendas.

references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong et al's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Christianity is based on the whim of Pilate, the false prophesy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.

These are some of the facts about religions that need to be promulgated/ proselytized around the world and it should be supported by USA taxpayers and should be the only thing about religion we support.

With the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, Christian missionaries have been mobilizing to those nations. With devastation, pain, and grief comes an opportunity to proselytize and spread the “Good News” about Jesus.

Missionary apologists will often sing the praises of the good work that missionaries do. They feed the hungry, build shelters, teach the illiterate how to read, etc. These are all great things but they can all be done just as effectively if not more so by leaving religion at home. People in third world nations or nations which have been devastated by a natural disaster are in a vulnerable position. They are at a disadvantage economically, scientifically, and often emotionally (due to the losses suffered by natural disasters).

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://tinyurl.com/yfkg47u

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.

-Staks
http://www.DangerousTalk.net

"1/8 of America has difficulty finding sufficient food"

References with actual counts and interviews?

Plot for a comic novel:

The President of the United States speaks out against U.S. religious groups proselytizing overseas--specifically Christian groups--and in fact declares himself an atheist believing that declaring such is a piece of good will toward religions and peoples overseas.

The Southern Baptists in the U.S. are furious at the President but are also overjoyed because the remains of Jesus have been found by them (in a secret excavation) in Israel. The Southern Baptists conceive a plan to clone Jesus from his remains and in the accelerated process of cloning (for a baby can be transformed into an adult in a matter of months) fill Christ's head with God, guns and country.

Osama Bin Laden releases a video calling the U.S. President an atheist dog and asks how it is exactly one is to know delusion (for Osama objects to the atheists in general calling religion delusion) from non-delusion in a universe which, according to the atheists, has no intelligent design behind it at all. Furthermore Osama asks why the President should object to terrorist attacks--call such irrational--if the universe has no intelligent design behind it at all. Osama of course takes credit for an explosion in India saying it is the plan of God.

Within the United States there is a character called Daniel who is in a relationship (gay) with a character called Schaum, and Daniel--of no particular belief--takes pleasure in teasing Schaum--an atheist--by saying he not only thinks of God often but that God is so much sexier than Schaum.

Schaum hears of the work of a wheelchair bound atheist named Timmy who constantly picks at his own crotch--voluntary work at prisons all across the U.S. trying to rehabilitate the prisoners by turning them to atheism, for they are such believers, having Bibles in their cells, using them to store drugs, shivs, etc. Schaum leaves Daniel for the work of Timmy.

Christ having been cloned by the Southern Baptists immediately joins the U.S. army and goes into battle in Afghanistan. The President of the U.S. gets wind of this and with other high ranking atheists in government works with the terrorists in a plot to kill Jesus thinking this is as good a plan as any to rid the world of religion.

Jesus survives in Afghanistan--in fact wins the silver star. Furthermore he gets wind of the joint atheist/terrorist plot against him and returns to the United States determined to stamp out atheism.

The terrorists join forces with Jesus, attributing his survival in Afghanistan to God being displeased with the terrorists for having joined forces with the atheists. And Jesus seals the deal with the terrorists by saying Mohammed will soon be cloned and that he and Mohammed will reign together forever (Jesus of course plans to kill Mohammed as soon as possible).

Timmy and Schaum in the thick of this try to accelerate their program with the prisoners (they are trying to rehabilitate by turning to atheism) by having gay sex with the prisoners. The prisoners call Timmy and Schaum fresh fish and Timmy and Schaum get wind of this but feel better to have the prisoners engrossed with fresh fish than the Jesus fish. The prisoners prefer having sex with Schaum than Timmy, for Timmy, being wheelchair bound, is a dead f*ck.

Jesus to his own horror discovers that the plan to clone Mohammed has backfired, for Mohammed proves to be much better at war making than Jesus and threatens to do him and the atheists in. Jesus strikes a deal with the atheists and has them working with the Christians against the Islamic, and in order to fire up his base Jesus has himself crucified on television. (CNN and Fox provide great coverage of the latter).

The atheists being in league with the Christians now sneak Jesus's body out of the morgue so the belief in resurrection takes hold and the Islamic hordes can definitely be brought to bay. A pitched battle between Christendom/atheism and Islam ensues and Mohammed is killed in battle. All seems favorable to the Western world.

In fact after the developments in the preceding paragraph Osama declares himself an atheist and goes into the construction business in Saudi Arabia. Following the atheist aesthetic (or so he believes) he creates houses of no apparent design (according to the atheist creedo that there is no intelligent design behind existence) but soon runs into trouble with both religious and atheist clientele who accuse him of shoddy workmanship.

Osama throws his hands up and goes back to Islamic terrorism. Soon it is revealed that the atheists snuck Jesus's body out of the morgue and Christianity and Islam join forces against the atheists. The atheists, desperate, clone Jesus and Mohammed and raise them (in accelerated development) in atheism. Jesus and Mohammed publish books on atheism superior to the atheist writers of the day.

Meanwhile the subplot of Timmy, Schaum and Daniel has taken a new development. Daniel starts a cult dedicated to the proposition of having sex with God. Apparently all Daniel's teasing of Schaum about God being sexier than Schaum has affected his mind. Many movie stars and musicians join Daniel and declare their bodies intermediaries between God and man and they have sex with all and sundry.

Timmy and Schaum form a countermovement to Daniel and many movie stars and musicians join them declaring their bodies free of God and for purely f*cking. Gradually it becomes difficult to tell the difference between the two cults because the religious are being f*cked so sinfully and ungodly well and the atheists are achieving ecstasy by God...

Timmy gets killed in prison by a prisoner in ecstasy throwing his Bible away and turning to atheism. The prisoner accidently threw his Bible straight at Timmy and it hit him in the forehead and drove him down a flight of steps. Schaum returns to Daniel and mentions a plan of bringing social order by removing the limbs of people leaving only their heads, and defending his position by saying we look at talking heads on television all day anyway.

The plot of the atheists to have Jesus and Mohammed cloned and raised in atheism backfires because the two, having published works on atheism superior to the leading atheist writers of the day, are taken paradoxically for being divine for such. Apparently their great powers, despite their professed atheism, are taken as proof of divine origin.

Jesus and Mohammed declare their superior work in atheism is not the result of any divine power and help get the Buddha cloned to prove that superior work can be done in atheism without having a divine origin (the Buddha of course has no God and if he can do superior work in atheism it would help Jesus and Mohammed's claim).

But the Buddha stinks at atheism despite having no professed belief in God! He declares reincarnation and enlightenment incompatible with atheism and goes his original Buddhist course. Everyone gets wind of Jesus and Mohammed's plot and Jesus gets crucified. Mohammed goes to Afghanistan, finds Bin Laden's cave purely by accident, tosses Bin Laden out (who immediately gets struck by a Predator drone) and lives in the cave for the rest of his life babbling to, possibly, the angel Gabriel.

The Buddha, out of his great integrity, turns the entire world to Buddhism. The comedy has a happy ending. The Buddha has his own television show which is the most popular and lasting of all time. Late night comedians recognize this and turn to Buddhism hoping to succeed the Buddha as hosts on late night television. They succeed. The world laughs and meditates and all is well in the world and with man.

But a small complication ensues when it is discovered the cows and other ruminants are better than man at meditating, following the Buddhist path. An eat meat movement grows rapidly out of sheer envy of the ruminants. But the ruminants pledge to do everything they can for rodeos and a compromise ensues: they will be allowed to have their status if the more promising among them fulfill bull riding duties.

The Buddha becomes a big fan of the rodeo.

PS

The charity I most strongly support is the "One Laptop Per Child" program. Every child everywhere in the world, a laptop with access to the world wide web.

The day of religious lies will be over.

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/One_Laptop_per_Child

Donate now.

People should be aloud to share their faith and religion or philosophy wherever and whenever they want. Open exchange of ideas is integral to any society that wants to flourish and succeed.

The truth is religion gained it's powerful grip on the world and has flourished precisely because of the oppression of a truly open and free exchange of ideas and philosophies. This went on for millennia where the open and free exchange of ideas and philosophies could get one hanged or crucified, or lynched, or burned, or banished.

Let them go and preach their stories of Hell. The truly open and free exchange of ideas today with the power of the internet and globalization of ideas will expose them for what they are in due time and all will be kosher. ;)

Religion's first great enemy was the printing press. Then radio and television and trains and planes. The final nail in the coffin is here. It's called the internet. Very soon people in third world countries will be able to crosscheck everything a Christian missionary tells them with the sum of all human knowledge at the click of a mouse.

The only people who should be afraid of complete and open and free exchange of ideas are the phony religions. Missionaries used to be a problem, but their day is now over. All worship the internet. ;)

As long as the process of spreading ones faith involves a dialogue in the marketplace of ideas it should be acceptable. When it involves coercion by intimidation or outright bribery as Gaddafi and theSaudis are noted for or by discrimination against the other in jobs and housing as happens in many of Islamic communities then it should be unacceptable.

Clearthinking1 is correct: "You really feel the urge to do charity? Go to the inner city in America and help those in need."

1/8 of America has difficulty finding sufficient food.

Business is business, as they say.

I "approved" of CLEARTHINKING1's first three sentences in the final paragraph, then I thought, "Nah."

Proselytization is a manifestation of the supremacist foundation of Christianity & Islam.
No one else has this serious flaw that Christians and Muslims have in their "religions" or spiritual systems. Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Jews, Wiccans, Animists, etc.. are all trying to make themselves better, not trying to undermine others.

Conversion has caused some of the biggest problems in third world countries.
The "charity" and "kind deeds" are insincere and deceptive actions, and therefore, are acts of evil.

Muslims & Christians don't seem to get the basics of goodness and spirituality. Pretending to be good while having and ulterior motive fools no one and is an act of evil. This can lead to crusades and suicide terrorism.

REMEMBER: Almost all religious conflicts in the world involve Muslims or Christians on one side or both.
Sneakiness, deception, conversion, undermining other cultures, etc... is offensive and nonspiritual.

You really feel the urge to do charity? Go to the inner city in America and help those in need. Look in your own family and help those who are depressed or drunk or angry.
Stop going to 3rd world countries and causing problems & hurting others.

hate to tell you guys, but most "missionaries" from the west nowadays work with locals...indeed, in many countries, the majority of clergy are locals...and African and Asian countries are sending missionaries to other countries, including to the US.

Presumably you are talking about American Protestants who make good newspaper fodder.

I used to resent American protestants going to SAmerica and the Philippines to "convert" Catholics, until I realized that the strict morality they teach is helping the countries as villagers move to cities and lose the village culture, morality, and communal way of worship. The Protestant church community supplies an alternative social structure to replace the lost village community.

"What is the real problem with proselytism overseas by U.S. religious groups?"

For me, it's simply embarrassment as a U.S. citizen.

"Isn't sharing one's faith part of religious freedom?"

Unfortunately, yes.

"When does it cross the line into manipulation and coercion?"

When it becomes manipulative and/or coercive.