Religion: the ultimate tyranny

I am always amazed how theists expect everyone to accept anything they say, no matter how ridiculous, with no proof at all. Then they refuse to accept anything contrary to their delusions even with the most solid proof. But then, hypocrisy and theism are semantically equal, aren't they?

Perhaps that's how the reconcile a "loving god" with the threats of eternal punishment for being what that god created them to be.

Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion. For example, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, and family planning clinic bombing in the USA. Then there were the crusades, the inquisition, and the dark ages. Get the idea?

Humanity will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth and rational thinking.

Religion is an ego trip. Nothing less, nothing more. Human beings just have this innate desire to believe we're special somehow. Sorry folks, we're not. We're born, we die. That is all. Enjoy what little time you've got here and quit trying to oppress everyone into believing what you believe. Whether it be through religion, government, money or any other form of oppression.

Furthermore, this didn't just happen to one mammoth but thousands??? Maybe I should read more articles on that page. -- jonswitzer

If you're implying that thousands of mammoth carcasses have been found in a flash-frozen, upright position then, yes, you really do need to read more.

Cornbread,

I went to the TalkOrigins website and typed in Mammoths. I read the first article where the scientist is claiming that the frozen mammoths do not indicate a catastrophic event.

However, the scientist claims that the food found in its mouth indicated it was in the autumn. So, he is saying that in the autumn, the mammoth ate something fell into a crack in the ice, couldn't get out and froze to death in an upright position, such that his entire skeleton was intact and upright (not slowly decayed and therefore piled up on the ground) and then surrounded by some kind of mud slide. If you can't see the miss...think about it...He has fresh food he just ate while browsing and when he fell in a crack in the ice, he died quickly and froze and then was surrounded by dirt before he decomposed keeping his skeleton in the upright position. All this happened in the autumn?

Wow! We have simply never seen such a dynamic environment. Ice cracks so big an elephant can fall into it right next to fauna he can eat? Then he freezes in the fall and is covered with mud before he decomposes?? How is there mud when everything is frozen?? Pardon my limited experience.

Furthermore, this didn't just happen to one mammoth but thousands??? Maybe I should read more articles on that page. This first one leaves me feeling a bit scientificated...(when scientists pontificate dogmatically not scientifically)

jonswitzer:

For evidence-based answers to your questions regarding evolution and mammoths, moon dust, buttercups, or whatnot see the archives at TalkOrigins.

The John passage, however, refers to the "day of preparation" for the "week of Passover". -- jonswitzer

In order for your explanation to work you have to use the only translation -- out of the seventeen that I've found -- that references a Passover "week". More importantly, however, you would also have to know the exact year that Jesus died and I don't think any credible Bible scholar claims to definitely know that . But you were right, believers using creative methods like yours can dismiss any apparent contradiction.

Actually, in our Sunday School, as we came up through highschool we were taught critical thinking skills. We were encouraged to question everything. In fact, my father (the pastor) would drive such questioning more extensively than anyone in my life (including you).

If you check out both the Dark Matter issue and the Mammoth, you will find that there is NO BS involved at all. These are relevant immediate issues that are legitimately fact based issues. There is a need for genuine reconciliation of these issues with the current evolutionary dogma.

Vereshchagin is the top Siberian expert on Mammoths. He says, "...almost 50,000 mammoth tusks are said to have been found in Siberia...nothing compared to those still buried...along the 600 mile coastal shallows...lie more than half a million tons of mammoth tusks with another 150,000 tons in the bottom of the lakes..."

This is simply no small side issue.

Cornbread,

Now, I recognize that from an outsiders perspective my response to this may be rejected outright. However, from inside, this passage is somewhat easy to syngergize. The first day of the Feast of Unleavened bread is the day when the Jews would start eating unleavened bread and actually kill the passover lamb. That day was actually the day before the Feast. All this was done so that on the actual day of the Passover the could celebrate a special "sabbath" (day of rest). The John passage, however, refers to the "day of preparation" for the "week of Passover". The day of preparation is always Friday, the day before the normal weekly Sabbath. In the Jewish calendar, the first day of Passover is a Sabbath (Friday) and, of course, the last day of the week is always a sabbath (Saturday). So, the preparation day for the Passover was Thursday, but the normal preparation day for the week was Friday, hence the language used in the two accounts.

Jonswitzer,

1. Friendship and honesty is no evidence to decide about fundamental things in life. If my dear friend tells me something hard to believe because there is no evidence, and this thing can affect me seriously, we have some work to do before accepting his testimony.
2. Claims by a liar without evidences more likely are BS, no matter if the person is scientist, cleric, military or whatever. But if a liar person presents you evidence about a claim, it doesn't matter if he is a liar or a trustworthy person. It's your responsibility (and everybody's responsibility) to check the evidences that are presented to prove extraordinary claims that are important in life. The acceptance of the claim depends on evidences (tests, facts, etc.), and the burden on checking on the evidences is on you, not only on the claimant.
3. There are corrupt scientists that are theists, atheists or whatever. The character or philosophy of the person presenting evidences should not affect the outcome of your verification process. In fact you should not trust any scientist or religious person that makes a claim without presenting evidences that can be processed with a valid methodology. In most cases the claims are pure BS.
4. Evidences should be facts that can be verified by whoever process them. If tested they always should produce same results and/or be consistent in predict future outcomes, no room for interpretations o bias. There are false scientific claims or theories that have been construed with dubious evidences. In this case the claim or theory remain in process until verifiable evidences are presented.

Understand that before a claim or theory is made, a background research with facts should had be completed. After that you construct hypothesis, look for more evidences, tests, facts, more tests, etc.

Please apply those ideas to the case of the mammoth found in Siberia: was the mammoth actually found? were there undigested food in the stomach? If yes those are facts. Now, what is the claim? Is this evidence for some theory or there is a new theory for which the mammoth is the evidence? Were a large number of animals like this found in the same location or it was just one rare case? Etc.

If you are not scientist, check up on independent references to this case of the mammouth. Apply critical thinking, which is something that is not taught in Sunday schools, but hopefully you learned in high school or in college.

Also apply these ideas to your posts on dark matter, lunar dust and the implications for the theory of evolution. They may be pure BS, as Conrbread_R2 already told you.

jonswitzer:

Re: Bible contradictions:

"In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14)."

This is just one of over a hundred apparent contradictions I've found, but it's one for which I've not been able to find any apologist's explanation -- not even a convoluted or specially pled one.

Your latest contributions concerning dark matter, lunar dust and the implications for the theory of evolution are what is known as a Gish Gallop, or in other words: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, blind them with BS."

To whomever it may concern:

Doesn't anyone realize that even tho we will all be judged, ultimately, all of us will be in the Kingdom.

This really seems to irk some of those that "believe in God".

It seems as if quite a few who believe in God think that God is an egotistical maniac more interested in getting some feeble accolades from us than how we actually deal with the hand that we are dealt.

We will all be judged, why does it seem to bother so many people that we are responsible not only for what we do but also why we do it?

Whether or not we admit to that responsibility while we are still breathers is a choice that we make.

As I have said many times, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

The GOOD NEWS is that the Good News is for ALL, if the Good News were not, ultimately, for ALL then it would not be Good News at all.

Many people use many excuses, we, as a species, seem to be very creative in rationalizing some very atrocious behaviour.

We also seem to be very good at seeing the "ungood" in others rather than making a self inspection.

Seems to me that those who are going to be most surprised by the "big surprise" will include both believers and non-believers.

If God were even remotely like what some believe God to be, who would want to have anything to do with something like that?

See you all in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Bernard,

I can't tell you how deeply it angers me that you were treated with such cruelty in your religious upbringing. It makes total sense that you would consider all religion poison, if that is your experience. Unfortunately, I know many people who have had similar experiences. Though, I also know many who had better experiences, even good to great experiences, none of that in any diminishes the ugliness of what happened to you. Where is the justice!? Where is the integrity?! Where is there something better?!

I rejoice with your freedom from the poison of your particular background and situation.

So, Bernard, you were British and you came out of the Catholic church, where you were bullied in a cruel manner, leading you and your siblings to reject the hypocrisy and go searching elsewhere.

Fascinating.

My family comes from the farm in the fingerlake region of New York state. I have 3 happily married brothers, with 17 kids between us. All of us were married in non-denominational weddings overseen by my Father (a pastor). My imperfect parents exemplified to us that imperfection is part of life. Though we strive to do right, we often fail and need to forgive each other. When they failed to practice what they preached, they acknowledged it, often with tears in their eyes, and admitted the pain it caused in our lives. I can only hope to live out such integrity in my own life.

Sure, I would agree that particular post about marriages proves nothing. Just happens to be my experience.

jonswitzer said

"Here's some interesting evidence:

Of all the people that I know, the happiest are married, with children who have a strong faith in God."

Oh we can all play the anecdote game so let me tell you about my family. I have three four sisters and a brother. One of my sisters became pregnant as a teenager and then married her boyfriend, they had no problem with that except they were more or less forced to go through a Roman Catholic ceremony which more or less finished off any belief in God they might have had. The conventional wisdom was that this "Godless" marriage was doomed from the start. However they have been married for over 50 years and are among the most happily married couples I know. Three of us, including me, had Catholic marriages and all of us would have counted ourselves as believers at the time. All three marriages broke up. The youngest two were under less pressure from the family. One had a wedding in an Anglican church, which is what you do in the UK if you are not religious but like the church atmosphere and the other had a civil ceremony. the former is till going strong while the latter broke up.

What does this prove - absolutely nothing - just like your post!

DAVIVMAN

Sorry pal, but religion does = tyranny! Try to get elected to public office as an honest athiest/agnostic and see what happens in spite of our constitutional guarantees. The tyranny of religion will continue until minds are freed from it's oppression.

I now understand that I am a bully, on par with Bernard's abuse-filled childhood. Of course, never having been Catholic, you might have to help me understand how much of a bully I am. Having been called ugly and dishonest, I certainly am surprised that I am also the bully here. Help me understand.

Perhaps that is why we are different. I have never had an abusive religious experience. Clearly you have. I'm sorry you did! It angers me that you did. I wish I could have been there to stand up for you then.

DAVIVMAN

Sorry pal, but religion does = tyranny! Try to get elected to public office as an honest athiest/agnostic and see what happens in spite of our constitutional guarantees. The tyranny of religion continues until minds are freed from this oppression,

eezmamata wrote:

"JONSWITZER and his kind employ the Crap Bible fallacy to prove to what's left of their mind that their beliefs aren't as ridiculous as they really know they are."

You are, of course, right and I suspect that at some level he knows this. But pathetic though he is, he still needs to be challenged.As someone else pointed out there is no hope left for those such as jonswitzer. He is, as it were, beyond redemption. So why do I bother with him?

I went through years of what can only be called "enforced Catholicism" surrounded by bullies who argued like jonswitzer and others who, though silent out of fear, one naturally assumed agreed with the bullies. As a child or teenager it is very difficult to cope with this sort of abuse. Region breaks apart friendships and breaks up families. There are people who, even after 50 years will not talk to me. I did not make them my enemy, their religion decided I was their enemy. There are relatives of mine, people I love who, are still enslaved to this evil, and it kills me to think about it; this is absolute poison.

I have no illusions about changing jonswitzer nor do I want revenge, that is too sordid. But I want no one else to go through what I went through. So if one poor frightened child finds this site and realises that they are not insane, that the bullies are not always right, that there is hope that they can escape from the religious prison, then that is justification enough.

Here's some interesting hard to explain evidence:

It was described as “the most powerful search yet for the Universe’s missing matter” (Brumfiel, 2004). Scientists have been hard at work, trying to identify “dark matter” that can help explain why the Universe behaves the way it does. Past observations revealed that the Universe was expanding in such a manner that the physical matter of which we were aware could not explain the results we were seeing. Scientists concluded that we must be missing a “vital component.” Thus, the search for this vital component—dark matter—was launched.

The latest effort, however, has also come up empty handed. Reporting on the most recent failed attempt to detect dark matter, science writer Geoff Brumfiel noted:

The new detector is four times more sensitive than any previous experiment. To shield it from high-energy particles from outer space, the machine is based 700 metres underground in an abandoned iron mine in Soudan, Minnesota. The detector is also chilled to within a tenth of a degree of absolute zero to reduce vibrations from surrounding molecules.

Brumfiel went on to comment:

The detector itself consists of sensors attached to six germanium and silicon crystals. If a particle strikes one of the crystals, it causes the crystal to ring like a bell, and the sensors detect vibrations.

The test began looking for a type of theoretical particles called weakly interactive massive particles (WIMPS) in November 2003. However, it has yet to record even a single WIMP. These results are in direct contradiction of a less-sensitive dark matter detector based at the National Laboratory of Gran Sasso, Italy. That detector has been active since 1996, with researchers suspecting they may have detected WIMPS in the past.

Harry Nelson, a physicist at the University of California, Santa Barbara asserted “CDMSII isn’t exerting an annoying pressure on theorists yet. But they’re starting to feel it” (as quoted in Brumfiel, 2004). Evolutionists insist that dark matter (and dark energy) must exist otherwise the expanding universe should be much more expanded than it currently is. There's not enough distance to explain the amount of time that's supposed to have elapsed.

Here's some interesting evidence:

Of all the people that I know, the happiest are married, with children who have a strong faith in God. Please understand, I know many not like that who are happy. I am simply saying that the happiest, the ones that I find myself saying, I want that kind of satisfaction in life, are the ones who have a strong faith in God, strong moral stances on life and larger families.

How should I interpret such evidence?

Another hard to explain piece of evidence:

When the first astronaut stepped onto the moon his second phrase was what? ...wait for it...He said, "no dust." Why? ...because the moon was thought to be millions of years old and therefore should have collected up to 20 plus feet of dust. Then, when we arrived, it had next to none. The evidence is simply hard to explain given the "millions of years" evolution demands that it must have existed.

May I ask a few questions about your reasonable expectations based on evidence?

1. If I have a friend who I know to be honest and sharp-minded tells me he saw something hard to explain, should I believe his testimony?
2. Should I be more or less inclined to believe the testimony of a scientist who does not believe that all lying is wrong (i.e. that sometimes a lie can be used to produce good)?
3. Is there ever a time when an atheist scientist might possibly bring ulterior motives to his work, leading him to produce results that back up his pre-conceived ideas? (Please know that I absolutely think Christians can and have at times fallen into this! Kepler not-withstanding)
4. Does the interpretation of evidence depend on each individual's preconceived ideas? Or is interpretation of evidence always unbiased?

For example, we know that hundreds (thousands) of Wooly Mammoth's have been discovered buried standing upright in the frozen tundra of Siberia some with half-digested flowers in their stomachs. This is a particularly tough bit of evidence to parse. It would appear that those mammoths were eating away when suddenly somehow they were buried with mud which froze quickly enough that the food in their stomach remained undigested.

My point is that Evolutionists have tended to say that the ice-ages came and went over a period of years and that one of those wiped out the wooly mammoths. However, half-digested food in a standing up mammoth buried in mud (many, by the way with broken legs) doesn't fit the storyline. Where would you say this evidence leads us?

jonswitzer said:

"I understand that you believe that ALL things can be explained only by natural causes."

This is a particularly silly thing to say. First because such things are not a matter of belief. Second because the notion of explaining all things is clearly absurd; I'm not even sure it is coherent; and third because the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is bogus. If the evidence suggests that it is reasonable to expect that A causes B then that is the end of the matter. Adding the word "natural" does precisely nothing. The only reason you want to use the word "supernatural" is because you think that by doing so you can absolve yourself from the requirement of giving reasonable evidence.

"I appreciate that this is your worldview. I honor the fact that this is how you believe the world is."

I repeat, I have no beliefs about how the world is I only have reasonable expectations based on evidence.

Bernard,

I appreciate your observation about my ugly head and your complimentary kindness about my inability to be honest. These comments of yours are particularly helpful in our respectful discussion... May respect mark the rest of our discussions as well.

Nevertheless, I am aware of many who have changed their minds throughout the last several hundred years. Certainly, Darwin was one of those. I can list many who went the opposite direction as well. For both of us, the sense is that the only honest people are those who "let the facts change their minds."

It is interesting that you would group me in with Kepler, a man who lived some four hundred years ago. However, Kepler incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason.

In that sense, I think I probably am very much like Kepler.

jonswitzer:

"I'm saying that the Bible, unlike the Hobbit, has consistently been proven correct in places where historians previously (before archaeology provided further evidence) thought must be mere myth. Repeatedly, the more evidence we find the more the Bible looks to be what it claims. Have you read the evidence I provided below? They don't "prove" the Bible's complete trustworthiness, they simply grant that the Bible is "more right" than thought previously."

I'm afraid you have the historical facts back to front. Early geologists and palaeontologists, many of them Anglican clergy men started out with the express intention of finding evidence for the biblical flood and were appalled to find that not only was there no evidence for this but the evidence suggested the earth was millions of years old. Charles Darwin was destined to become an Anglican priest, but the chance opportunity of the voyage on the Beagle changed his life for ever. When the Israeli state was set up, the government poured money into archaeology with the express intent of "digging up the countries title deeds". But they found no evidence for the enslavement in Egypt and no evidence for the exodus and no evidence that David was a great king, if he existed he was at most a local tribal chieftain. More recently biblical scholars like Bart Ehrman and Hector Avalos started out as committed Christains whose motives were to find out more about the bible so that they could confirm their faith and explain it to others. However the more they learned the harder it was to retain their faith until they lost it altogether.

All these people display "honesty against interest", a singularly beautiful virtue. One of my greatest heroes in this respect is Johannes Kepler. In his youth he constructed a model of the universe that fitted all known observations, but could also be made to fit religious and astrological notions by describing the orbits of planets in terms of the five platonic solids, in short he could satisfy everyone and could safely pursue his study of astronomy in religious institutions. However when he learned of one single observation of Tycho Brahe which showed a discrepancy of 4 second of arc. He had the honesty to reject his own theory. He then went on to discover "Kepler's Laws" which provided part of the environment in which Newton formulated his law of gravity. However, although he never realised it, his honesty came at a terrible price - after his death his widow was burned as a witch.

jonswitzer you show no signs of being able to appreciate such honesty. If I have anything to do with it we will never return to the days of Kepler. You and your kind will be opposed wherever you raise your ugly heads.

jonswitzer said:

"Burgon has many things he understood which have now been proven wrong. That is also true about Freud, Darwin, and Einstein. None of that undermines the truth that he got right: That we can reproduce the entire New Testament texts from the quotations of the Early Church fathers. So, moving on from Burgon..."

I was questioning Burgon's scholarship. Burgeon claims that Byzantine versions of the bible must have existed in the form he prefers in the second and third century because he can find stories or sometimes single sentences that occur in other works. None of these authors say they are quoting alleged documents, in fact his alleged documents are referenced nowhere in contemporary literature.

Let's try applying Burgon's logic to other areas and see how it fares:

Haydn's drumroll symphony contains two Croatian folk songs and begins with a variant of the plainchant dies irae. I could go on because he was a notorious "re-mixer". So I can "reconstruct" the drumroll symphony from sources dating decades before he was born. So obviously these sources must have been referring to the symphony and so obviously it must have existed at the time.

Shakespeare uses stories that occur in Milton, so obviously his plays must have existed when Milton was writing.

Verdi used Shakespeare plays as plots ofr operas so obviously the operas existed when Shakespeare was writing.

No sane person argues like this. How does an argument which in any other situation you would dismiss out of hand, become valid when applied to the bible?

Thank you Paula for stating the obvious in such uncompromising terms. Religion is something to be overcome as an impediment to human freedom and progress. It is high time that people stop being afraid to state the truth and stop being afraid of the religious ideologues.

Eezmamata,

If I have two friends and one has consistently been truthful and the other has not, which one am I most likely to believe?

I'm saying that the Bible, unlike the Hobbit, has consistently been proven correct in places where historians previously (before archaeology provided further evidence) thought must be mere myth. Repeatedly, the more evidence we find the more the Bible looks to be what it claims. Have you read the evidence I provided below? They don't "prove" the Bible's complete trustworthiness, they simply grant that the Bible is "more right" than thought previously.

When I find an honest person, I tend to believe them. However, I still check things out for myself. When I find a liar, I tend to disbelieve them, keeping myself guarded.

martymar123

You wrote, "Agnosticism, I understand, but atheism is no different than any other religion.
"Only a closed mind is certain.""

Would you say that one who is "certain" that God Is, has a "closed mind"?

I agree that it is impossible for one to be "certain" that there is no God but I "know" that it is possible for someone to be "certain" that God Is.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

JONSWITZER and his kind employ the Crap Bible fallacy to prove to what's left of their mind that their beliefs aren't as ridiculous as they really know they are.

Here's how it works -- one or two things are found that resemble reality. Since part of the bible isn't crap, none of it is.

See how easy it is for the infantile believer to fall for it.

I apologize that going through the "evidence" line by line is tiresome. O, if only the scientific endeavor were easier! The evidence is significant line by line. May not be exciting, but if we intend to have integrity in our discussion, then we must be willing to slog through the data. I'm willing. Come on, let's not be afraid of hard work!

Citing the work of "apologists" from their website is different from you citing the work of your "experts" from their websites? How is that different? Everyone in debates refer to the research of others who have done the work and produced legitimate conclusions. You have cited several such "experts". I grant you your experts. I expect the same respect in return.

YEAL9

You wrote, "Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane."

Isn't it written in the bible that there were some in Jesus's day that thought He was insane?

You then wrote, "Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures"

I do not know if it is "most" but there are plenty of "NT experts" that know plenty about the "scriptures" yet know nothing or virtually nothing about God.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I admit that I believe in miracles and supernatural activity even by people like your Sri Baba gentleman. Miracles do not prove truth. I, like the majority of the world, am NOT uncomfortable with modern day miracles. I, personally, believe miracles are even performed by those who are hypocrites and sheisters. This is in line with the teaching of the Bible.

I understand that you believe that ALL things can be explained only by natural causes. I appreciate that this is your worldview. I honor the fact that this is how you believe the world is.

This, of course, is precisely where you and I disagree. I accept that.

Bernard,

I do not forget that "Christian" nations in the past not only fell short of the teaching of their Bible but were the perpetrators of the most vile of wickedness (murder, adultery, war, division, lies). I admit the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion and admit that I have within me the potential to commit them again.

I hope you will hear my sincerity on this. So called Christian nations have often fallen miserably short of their own moral teaching. My sense is that God has judged those nations for their failures and brought them to account. History, at least, seems to agree that these nations were a poor reflection of Christian teaching.

This is why I agree that a liberal democracy is the best political arrangement for promoting what is right. It does not force belief, nor does it reject it. It allows both believers in God (religious scriptures) and rejectors of God to join together in passionate debate to discover the best way to lead the nation.

Bernard,

Please list for me a "contradiction" in the Bible proving the shoddiness of the work.

Jonathan

Bernard,

Burgon has many things he understood which have now been proven wrong. That is also true about Freud, Darwin, and Einstein. None of that undermines the truth that he got right: That we can reproduce the entire New Testament texts from the quotations of the Early Church fathers. So, moving on from Burgon...

I am responding to your claim that the Bible is shoddy. I did NOT claim that everyone believes it. I claimed that it is the MOST READ book in history. That being the case, your calling it shoddy, again means that your standards do not include, "interesting enough to garner the attention of the entire world."

Also, you keep saying that its authors are anonymous. This assertion of yours has NO FACTS to back it up. There are many who CLAIM that it was written by people in the second century. However, there is NO proof of that. In fact, the outstanding proof is that it was written by first person eyewitnesses or those who interviewed first person eyewitnesses. Hence all of the "facts" that you have so conveniently written off as being not relevant.

If the bible says water is wet, this is not proof that the bible is the word of any god, nor does it prove that god exists.

This is the kind of logic believers use. Their minds are so poisoned with illogic they cannot recognize it when it shts them in the face.

Once these people are infected, almost absolutely occurring during youth when the mind is still infantile, it is highly unlikely they will ever recover.

It is a waste of time trying to explain how logic works to the jonswitzers of the world. It is a waste of time trying to explain the difference between evidence and proof.

It is a waste of time trying to explain to them the difference between fact, knowledge, and faith and belief. Remember, these people use different definitions for these words when applying it to their religion. This is where the tyranny of religious faith truly is seen, they not only have been enslaved by it, they use all of their mental faculties defending it - how can you free a slave who will not see he is enslaved?

It is too late for people like him. All we can do is protect ourselves from these insane people through our constitution.

jonswitzer said:

"You guys are very funny. You attack, attack, attack telling me and the world that there is NO rationale for trusting the Bible, NO reason is should be trusted. Then when I turn around and provide the appropriate "facts" you turn around and say, "it's so sad that he has to bolster his faith this way.""

There are several issues here. The first is that you do not seem to understand what counts as reasonable evidence. You appear to think that evidence of the provenance of the bible is evidence of its truth - that is what I find sad. Not only that but you have not even bothered to check whether any of the "evidence" you quote is reasonable. You have clearly just copied and pasted it from some Christian apologist web site. It would be tiresome to go through it line by line, but can you answer me this:

In view the fact that Burgon thinks it is reasonable to take as primary sources manuscripts which, by his own admission, do not exist and which, by his own admission, are not directly referred to by any contemporary source, but which, he says, "must have become worn out", how can you with a straight face cite him as an authority?

What I find sad is that you somehow think this "evidence" of yours is relevant. Even if you could prove to me that Mary did not have sexual intercourse before giving birth to Jesus; even if you could prove that he performed all the miracles as related in the bible, even if you could prove that he died and came alive again that would not prove that he was the son of God or that anything he said was true.. I have been shown by followers of Shri Sai Baba videotapes of him performing "miracles". he has a following far greater than the alleged Jesus could possibly had in his day (over half a million people turned up to his birthday party). There are literally hundreds of thousands of people alive today who will give eyewitness accounts his performance of miracles, including walking on water bringing people back from the dead. Do I consider that sufficient evidence to believe these things were anything other than tricks? Of course you don't. Would I, who used to supplement his income as a student by performing magic shows, be impressed by the new testament even if it consisted in a videotape made by eyewitnesses? Of course not!

"What is more sad, that the scientifically pure atheist requires evidence that demands a verdict or that I am willing to follow that atheist into the evidence?"

As I said you have confused evidence for the provenance of a document for evidence of the truth of its contents. Suppose for instance that someone were to discover that Einstein paper on general relativity were not after all written by Einstein. Would it mean that we should start to wonder whether gravitational lensing was a real phenomenon or start worrying lest the GPS system stop working tomorrow. What confidence we have in the paper depends on evidence not on who authored it or whether he was good at conjuring tricks.

JONSWITZER: “You continue to hold the belief that if God did something "right" or have written a book for people, then there would be absolute unity amongst his followers.”

That is not exactly the believe that I hold.

A poster presented to me the bible as a proof that your god exists. I riposted that the bible could not be an evidence because the books were anonymous and the witnesses were not eyewitnesses or first hand witnesses. Additionally I said that the bible was a shoddy work because contradictions and errors that resulted in people believing in different type of gods, instead in the one. You start posting defending the position that the witnesses were valid, but instead to take the bull by the horns you tried to prove that all written in what we read today in a bible was an exact copy of the lost original manuscripts.

Now you assert that “The only absolute unity on earth is found in totalitarian, repressive regimes” and that “It would appear that you would rather have a God who forces humanity to do what is right. Sounds so illiberal of you.”

Probably you forgot that the minimal differences between catholic and protestants have caused thousands and thousand of deaths. God may not care, but there are people in earth that care. You also forgot that this country was born with immigrants that came here looking for freedom to practice the religions they wanted, mostly different interpretations of the bible. Once they establish power what they did? Kill millions of long time local inhabitants that were not of the same religion to get their land. Why the message of the real god did not got to those people in this continent before the conquerors arrive with new religion and better arms? Typical christian answer: Man error or is part a god´s mysterious plan.

See, you are making me to forget about the topic in contention. Let me go back to it.

What I expect of an honest debater is to address what I question, not what the debater can or believes that can prove. Consequently I would like to hear from you how do you explain the contradictions and errors in the bible (deeds or belief, peace or sword, my own testimony is valid or not valid, four legged insects, implication that the earth was flat, this generation will see the second coming, etc) that gave foot to several religions and different gods emerged from your sacred book. Also to tell me who were the first hand independent eyewitnesses that wrote about the key events that are valid evidence that Jesus was a god (what is the evidence?).

jonswitzer said:

"It is interesting that you claim the Bible to be shoddy work. Is there anyone who would question whether or not the Bible has been the Most Influential Book on the planet? Most purchased/sold. Most pervasive? How is it that the most read book on the planet is "shoddy"? By that standard, you simply judge the whole planet as being foolish."

It doesn't matter how many dogs bark up the wrong tree, it doesn't make the wrong tree the right tree. On the other hand the bible is nowhere near as ubiquitous as many in the West imagine. I can assure you that the vast majority Chinese, citizens of the country with the greatest population in on earth, have never even heard of the bible.

You can't assume that just because someone owns a bible they believe its contents. I'm not even sure how many bibles I own, I have a copy of the Vulgate, several Greek versions, a Tyndale bible, a KJV and several others in paper form. Moreover I have about thirty different versions on my laptop and photocopies of various fragments. I also have copies of the Qur'an, the Bhagavad gita, the Lao Zi and the Analects of Confucius, but I don't regard any og them as "Holy".

The reasons why there are as many bibles as there are both political and to do with the nature of Christianity.

Two of the political reasons:

The Reformation was as much a political event as a religious one. Not to profess the same religion as one's Prince of King was normally a capital offence. Owning a bible, the "correct" version of the bible, was politically expedient and was done for the same sort of reasons that Chinese people used to own a Mao's Little Red Book.

Almost the entire continents of America (North and South), Africa, South and South-East Asia, including the Indian subcontinent, and Australasia were controlled at one time by European empires that used religion and missionary work as a deliberate political strategy to subdue their subjects.

Most versions of Christianity have this in common with Islam ans Zoroastrianism, namely, it is a proselytising religion. For Christians part of the proselytising consists in handing out unwanted and unasked-for bibles. There was a time in the UK when it was normal to find a bible in any hotel room. Even if you asked for a "room without a bible" there was normally still one there.

For centuries education in Europe and European colonies was controlled by the church. The only way to learn to read was to learn to read the bible. What is surprising is not that the influence of the bible as been so great, but that it has not been far far greater.

Just a Bernard,

You guys are very funny. You attack, attack, attack telling me and the world that there is NO rationale for trusting the Bible, NO reason is should be trusted. Then when I turn around and provide the appropriate "facts" you turn around and say, "it's so sad that he has to bolster his faith this way."

What is more sad, that the scientifically pure atheist requires evidence that demands a verdict or that I am willing to follow that atheist into the evidence?

Why are no comments being allowed here?

It is interesting that you claim the Bible to be shoddy work. Is there anyone who would question whether or not the Bible has been the Most Influential Book on the planet? Most purchased/sold. Most pervasive? How is it that the most read book on the planet is "shoddy"? By that standard, you simply judge the whole planet as being foolish.

Just a comment,

You continue to hold the belief that if God did something "right" or have written a book for people, then there would be absolute unity amongst his followers.

The only absolute unity on earth is found in totalitarian, repressive regimes. Free will is granted to all to choose. Hence, different groups that magnify different parts of theology. Furthermore, most denominational differences have arisen in the United States under liberal democracy. All of which in NO way proves a shoddy God or shoddy book but rather proves a liberal God that grants people time and space to work out their understanding of that book He has given to them.

It would appear that you would rather have a God who forces humanity to do what is right. Sounds so illiberal of you.

@BERNARDHURLEY

You: “No he hasn't. Most of it is piffle.”

I tried to be ironic by conceding on this, as long as JonSWITZER realize that he cannot get away with the old trick of proving what is not under discussion. I should have congratulated him for the “effort in presenting evidences” and not for proving anything.

You: “That he has to resort to this to bolster up his faith a sad sight to behold.”

Agree, this is sad, sad.

JUSTACOMMENT wrote:

"Congratulations Jon Switzer, with your cataclysmic diarrhea of biblical clarifications you have shown evidence that a lot of claimed inaccuracies in your book were not true."

No he hasn't. Most of it is piffle. He shows no knowledge of the current state of archaeology or biblical scholarship and has probably cut and paste this stuff from some ignorant apologist website. I fail to see how anyone who can quote Dean John Burgon as an authority can expect to be taken seriously.

That he has to resort to this to bolster up his faith a sad sight to behold.

jonswitzer said:

"By that standard, it would be also appropriate to call atheism a failure due to Stalin, Pol Pot and others. However, you have already argued that would be unwise."

The word "atheist" is merely means someone who does not hold a particular opinion about the existence of a God. "Atheism" is not a belief system or an ideology any more than a-stamp-collecting is a hobby or a-football is a sport. Logically it is not the sort of thing that could succeed or fail.

Knowing that someone is an atheist tells you nothing about what their opinions in unrelated areas such as ethics, aesthetics, politics are. It doesn't even tell you that someone is not religious, for instance, many Buddhists are atheists.

Now let's look at some more examples:

Most skeptics are also atheists, but not all atheists are skeptics - some atheists believe in irrational woo like homeopathy. Most secularists, (i.e. people think that matters of religious belief or non-belief should not be the concern of the state) also atheists. Humanists, in the sense that the BHA uses it are atheists. However the examples of Stalin and Pol Pot show that it is possible to be an atheist without being either a secularist or a humanist.

Personally being an atheists is merely a logical consequence of other views I have. I am not opposed to religion per se but to the tyranny of religion, and I am not opposed to it merely because adherents may disagree with me about the existence of mythical beings.

You can believe any nonsense you like, Yahweh, Allah, homeopathy, tooth fairies, but don't expect me to not to laugh at you when you claim to do so on the authority of Holy Books that are so stupid that an intelligent 5 year old can see through them. Don't trash the intelligence of such a 5 year old and by indoctrinating him or her with this nonsense.

My attitude to religion is a bit like my attitude to alcoholism. It is bad for the victims, it opens them up to cynical exploitation by clergy, it splits up families, it causes people to abuse their children but if you are willing to pay the price of the sacrifice of your intellectual facilities then I pity you but there is precious little I can do unless you are willing to change your ways. But if you try to get me addicted to your drug then you will have about as much success as a Heroin addict would. And don't try foisting this poison on my your or anyone else's children that is child-abuse.

@JONSWITZER,

Congratulations Jon Switzer, with your cataclysmic diarrhea of biblical clarifications you have shown evidence that a lot of claimed inaccuracies in your book were not true. Nevertheless this isn't evidence that the Bible is not shoddy nor proves the validity of witnesses that can give evidence that Jesus was God.

Let me reiterate this for you: the objective of the bible, specially the gospels, were to disseminate the truth about the real god. But instead of one religion with one god the result was three major religions with thousand denominations and cults that follow different gods, unless for you Allah, the 3xLord, 1xLordJesus and Jahweh are the same. This is what anybody will call a shoddy work. Any counterargument?

You didn't mention who can provide first hand testimony and evidences that Jesus was conceived by a supernatural agent that magically impregnated a young girl. Can we order paternity tests using the DNA in the sacred shroud?

There is even New Testament Archaelogical Evidence that is helpful:

9) Paul's reference to Erastus as the treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23) was thought to be erroneous, but now has been confirmed by a pavement found in 1929 bearing his name.

It is to Luke, however, that the skeptics have reserved their harshest criticisms, because he more than any other of the first century writers spoke about specific peoples and places. Yet, surprisingly, once the dust had settled on new inscription findings, it is Luke who has confounded these same critics time and again. For instance:

10) Luke's use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a "district" of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district.

11) Luke's mention of Quirinius as the governor of Syria during the birth of Jesus has now been proven accurate by an inscription from Antioch.

12) Luke's usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica.

13) Luke's usage of Praetor to describe a Philippian ruler instead of duumuir has been proven accurate, as the Romans used this term for magistrates of their colonies.

14) Luke's usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveller and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio's true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, "As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia..." Here then was secular corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as many liberal scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription.

It is because of discoveries such as this that F.F.Bruce states, "Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record."

Archaeological Evidence also continues to back up the veracity of the Bible:

1) Abraham's name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites.

2) The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him.

3) The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'.

There is further archaeology evidence which supports other Biblical accounts, such as:

4) The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9. Yet, if this account had been written between 900-600 B.C., as the critics previously claimed, we would have read about arches and curtains, because security was no longer such a concern then.

5) Joseph's price as a slave was 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28), which, according to trade tablets from that period is the correct price for 1,700 B.C. An earlier account would have been cheaper, while a later account would have been more expensive.

6) Joseph's Tomb (Joshua 24:32) has possibly been found in Shechem, as in the find there is a mummy, and next to the mummy sits an Egyptian officials sword! Is this mere coincidence?

7) Jericho's excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town. Yet according to the laws of physics, walls of towns always fall inwards! A later redactor would certainly have not made such an obvious mistake, unless he was an eyewitness, as Joshua was.

8) David's capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.

Old Testament Veracity:

(3) Discoveries from excavations at Nuzu, Mari and Assyrian, Hittite, Sumerian and Eshunna Codes point out that Hebrew poetry, Mosaic legislation as well as the Hebrew social customs all fit the period and region of the patriarchs.

(4) According to the historians there were no Hittites at the time of Abraham, thus the historicity of the Biblical accounts describing them was questionable. Now we know from inscriptions of that period that there were 1,200 years of Hittite civilization, much of it corresponding with the Patriarchal period.

(5) Historians also told us that no such people as the Horites existed. It is these people whom we find mentioned in the genealogy of Esau in Genesis 36:20. Yet now they have been discovered as a group of warriors also living in Mesopotamia during the Patriarchal period.

(6) The account of Daniel, according to the sceptical historians, must have been written in the second century and not the sixth century B.C. because of all the precise historical detail found in its content. Yet now the sixth century's East India Inscription corresponds with the Daniel 4:30 account of Nebuchadnezzar's building, proving that the author of Daniel must have been an eye-witness from that period. Either way it is amazing.

The strongest case for extra-Biblical corroboration of the Patriarchal period is found in four sets of tablets which have been and are continuing to be uncovered from that area of the world. They demonstrate that the Biblical account is indeed historically reliable. Let's briefly look at all four sets of tablets.

(7) *Armana tablets: (from Egypt) mention the Habiru or Apiru in Hebrew, which was first applied to Abraham in Genesis 14:13.

(8) *Ebla tablets: 17,000 tablets from Tell Mardikh (Northern Syria), dating from 2300 B.C., shows us that a thousand years before Moses, laws, customs and events were recorded in writing in that part of the world, and that the judicial proceedings and case laws were very similar to the Deuteronomy law code (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:22-30 codes on punishment for sex offenses). One tablet mentions and lists the five cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar in the exact sequence which we find in Genesis 14:8! Until these tablets were uncovered the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah had always been in doubt by historians.

(9) *Mari tablets: (from the Euphrates) mentions king Arriyuk, or Arioch of Genesis 14, and lists the towns of Nahor and Harran (from Genesis 24:10), as well as the names Benjamin and Habiru.

I just submitted a post that the WAPO has censored for some odd reason. It included data about the documentary evidence for the Old Testament. Let me try again....

Bernard,

You seem to have a standard for a religious book that goes like this: If it is divinely inspired, then all of its followers must be, if not perfect, close to it. They must not ever sin or fall out with each other. The followers must have solved the problems of the human race.

However, the Bible does not claim to do that. It claims that we as humans can NOT solve those problems and that God has entered History at various points to provide for us despite the fact that we don't deserve it. It also gives clarification as to how that God works and why he would leave certain people in their suffering. Finally, it gives promises about how best to live to motivate it followers to do better.

No where does the Bible claim perfection of its followers would prove its veracity.

By that standard, it would be also appropriate to call atheism a failure due to Stalin, Pol Pot and others. However, you have already argued that would be unwise.

@JONSWITZER,

The center of our disagreement is simple: I contend that the Bible is shoddy and that it's witnesses that Jesus was God are invalid.

Shoddy because the result has been different major religions and hundreds if not thousand of denominations and cults originated from the word of a supposed god in a single book. Not to mention the contradictions and errors that you deny are in the bible, but if you don't force yourself to mental contortions, you will find them.

Invalid because there are no first hand witnesses and the second hand witnesses that wrote what today is the bible are for the most part anonymous and the original manuscripts are just small pieces if any.

Now you come with the fact that some historical figures of the ancient world have less extant copies of their manuscripts than the bible. If your point means that because of that they also could be doubted to have existed or that their original work is different of what we see today, what does that has to do with the bible?

You ignore the fact that in addition to the manuscripts of these figures, there are other historical references and evidences like coins, statues, monuments, buildings, etc. as well as manuscripts of people that met them in person in certain cases as an evidence that they existed and what they did. As a interesting note about Caesar, there is no evidence that he was ¨Divi filius¨ (son of god), as you can read in the antique roman coins.

For the shake of the discussion I'm ready to agree with you that there is a possibility that Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, Caesar, Pliny, and Suetonius did not exist. All it becomes a matter of which books were less shoddy and which witnesses are less valid to attest for extraordinary claims in the content or about the figures.

Jonswitzer,

You have, at best, shown new testament fidelity. That is a much different animal than veracity. A string of people can copy passed down passages from The Hobbit every 40 years with great fidelity, but that doesn't mean the original copy of The Hobbit has any historical veracity.

Hellllooooo……. May Day ….. May Day …… May Day………

There is nothing more important to stop them or convince them to stop…..

May Day … May Day … May day…. TO ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN HUMANITY………..

Your Obama authorities are repeating and continuing same atrocities and genocides and carpet bomb blasts in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. There are 150000 US troops other then NATO forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan Waziristan borders clearing and killing humans indiscriminately securing their gas field routes……….

May Day …..May Day …. May Day…..

This says it all,

http://911truth.wetpaint.com/?utm_source=Wetpaint&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=Digest&utm_campaign=Site

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&feature=related

Obama Order to attack Pakistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxiWHbvkBLs&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Hellllooooo……. May Day ….. May Day …… May Day………

There is nothing more important to stop them or convince them to stop…..

May Day … May Day … May day…. TO ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN HUMANITY………..

Your Obama authorities are repeating and continuing same atrocities and genocides and carpet bomb blasts in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. There are 150000 US troops other then NATO forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan Waziristan borders clearing and killing humans indiscriminately securing their gas field routes……….

May Day …..May Day …. May Day…..

This says it all,

http://911truth.wetpaint.com/?utm_source=Wetpaint&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=Digest&utm_campaign=Site

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&feature=related

Obama Order to attack Pakistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxiWHbvkBLs&NR=1&feature=fvwp

jonswitzer said:

"possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers. Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers.."

Hmm.. Is this the nineteenth century John Burgon who claimed, without evidence, that the five oldest Greek manuscripts known at the time were among he most corrupt extant, and preferred to put his faith in non-existent Byzantine manuscripts that apparently been so highly valued that they had worn out?

All of those facts aside, this article's claim that we should throw out all religious' teaching is fabulously ridiculous. Remember, 90% of the world (non-atheist) would disagree with her.

Sir David Dalrymple sought to (reconstruct the Bible from writings of early church fathers), and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses (McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:48)! Thus, we could throw the New Testament manuscripts away and still reconstruct it with the simple help of these letters. Some examples of these are (from McDowell's Evidence..., 1972 pg. 51):
Clement (30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament.
Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) knew the apostles and quoted directly from 15 of the 27 books.
Polycarp (70-156 A.D.) was a disciple of John and quoted from the New Testament.
Thus the manuscript evidence at our disposal today gives us over 24,000 manuscripts with which to corroborate our current New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts have now been dated earlier than 60-70 A.D., so within the lifetime of the original writers, and with an outside possibility that they are the originals themselves. On top of that we have 15,000 early translations of the New Testament, and over 2,000 lectionaries. And finally we have scriptural quotations in the letters of the early Church fathers with which we could almost reproduce the New Testament if we so wished. This indeed is substantial manuscript evidence for the New Testament.

possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers. Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers (McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52). In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52). J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.

Okay, to read this, start each line with manuscript name; then date of original; then date of earliest copy; then time span between; then # extant copies. You will not that NO other historical manuscript's earliest copy is closer than 1300 years from time written. For the Bible some partial copies are within 40 years and other complete copies within 150 years. There is simply NO comparison with other historical works. The historical veracity of the Bible is well-established!

Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History)480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD 1,300 years ?
Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5
Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7
Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD 800 years ?
Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20

Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD 275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years

That's precisely the point. The gospels, thought having different details, do NOT contradict. They simply flesh out ALL of the story. It all depends on presumptions. If you presume that any "differences" mean contradictions, then you will find many. If, however, you are "open-minded" you will find that ALL of the "differences" have every possibility of happening separately. They are not contradictions but rather, additional eye witness elements that flesh out the fullness of the story.

Cold blooded murderers......

who feels nothin.....

what mare words or any evidence could do to them.......?? or to same alike..

Cooled blooded murderers......

who feels nothin.....

what mare words or any evidence could do to them.......?? or to same alike..

From Professor Gerd Ludemann's book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p.443:

"John 3: 3,5: The assumption that Jesus made participation in the kingdom of god dependent on a (Christian) baptism with the spirit would be an anachronism."

YEAL9 said:

"John 3:6 has been analyzed by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan and Ludemann) and found to be historically inauthentic."

In fact for linguistic reasons alone, the whole of the passage about an interaction between the Pharisee Nicodemus and Jesus starting at John 3:1 appears to be of Greek origin dating from at a time when the Hellenic church was trying to distance itself from its Jewish origins.

For instance John 3:3, reports Jesus as saying "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"(in the KJV). This is ambiguous in Greek; the word used for "again" is "άνωθεν", which can also mean "from on high"; in fact that is its usual meaning. The passage appears to be a dig at a "leader of Jews" who is nevertheless too stupid to understand what Jesus is saying. However the last laugh is on the writer of the passage as this ambiguity is not reproducible in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

martymar123

"Agnosticism, I understand, but atheism is no different than any other religion.
"Only a closed mind is certain.""

By saying this you make it clear that you understand neither.

The gnostic/agnostic dichotomy is about knowledge. the theist/atheist dichotomy is about belief. Each of the following is possible:

Gnostic theist: One who claims to have complete logically certain knowledge that there is a God.

Agnostic theist: One who believes there is a God but does not think one can have a completely certain knowledge of this.

Agnostic atheist: One who does not believe in any gods but does not claim claim this can be known with complete logical certainty.

Gnostic atheist: One who claims that one can be completely logically certain that there is no God or gods.

My impression is that the vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, but gnostic atheists do exist.

Consider this I am an atheist but also an a-tooth-fairy-ist, an a-Loch-Ness-monster-ist, an a-flying-spaghetti-monster-ist etc... If atheism is a religion the I must be a member of these other religions too - I must indeed be a very religious person!

John 3:6 has been analyzed by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan and Ludemann) and found to be historically inauthentic.

Mooody:

Repeating idiotic rubbish enough times doesn't make it true, and repeating things that are completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion does not make it relevant.

If you wish to discuss inane 9/11 conspiracy theories go and do it where other conspiracy nuts do. Don't insult people's intelligence by doing so where trying to high-jack this thread.

That having been said you appear to be a perfect case study of the effect of the tyranny of religion on its victim's personality. You may not be aware of the extent to which you are acting as religious automaton, but I wager it will be patently obvious to any unbiased reader of this discussion.

Yeal:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

It is utter nonsense that we continue to believe that man is the measure of all things, and yet we still do.

Agnosticism, I understand, but atheism is no different than any other religion.
"Only a closed mind is certain."

This says it all,

previously Posted by: coiaorguk

http://911truth.wetpaint.com/?utm_source=Wetpaint&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=Digest&utm_campaign=Site

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&feature=related

Karzi – Afghan dummy President was the consultant at UNOCAL oil company in USA.

HALLIBURTON AND ONLY ITS SUBSIDIORS OWN ENTIRE SHARE OF OIL PIPE IN IRAQ and ITS “CEO” IS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT – DICK CHAINY

Copper green doc… torture approved by secretary of state …. Rumsfield

US troops killing innocent civilians indiscriminately…..

Some “kind” of humans is the worst form of animals on planet earth, which never changed & will never change.

Some kind of humans are the worst animals on the planet earth.

This says it all,

previously
Posted by: coiaorguk

http://911truth.wetpaint.com/?utm_source=Wetpaint&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=Digest&utm_campaign=Site

Mooody:

I realise you find the truth objectionable, but sometimes people like you need to be bluntly told the truth.

It is quite possible for you to throw off your servitude to your mythical sky-fairy and live the rest of your life with dignity. If you choose not to do so then you are personally responsible for that decision and you are also in part personally responsible for any misery you or your co-religionists bring to the world.

If you are unable to free yourself form this bondage, then I pity you, but don't expect me to lie to make you feel happy.

BernardHurley

And I am mostly not posting any e-mail without evidence .... to expose people like your mentality...Thx again!

BernardHurley

I don't need to say you anything...You speaks for yourself loud and clear. Thx!

The real Islam as seen in the following list of koranic-driven acts of terror and horror:

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

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

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

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops killed in action, 3,481 and 924 died in non-combat98,691 – 107,707
Iraqi civilians killed as of 11/9/2010, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

10) - Afghanistan: US troops 1,116 killed in action, 902 killed in non-combat situations as of 08/10/2010. Over 40,000 Afghan civilians killed due to the dark-age, koranic-driven Taliban acts of horror

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

12) 38 Russian citizens killed on March 29, 2010 by Muslim women suicide bombers.

13) The May 28, 2010 attack on a Islamic religious minority in Pakistan, which have left 98 dead,

14) Lockerbie is known internationally as the site where, on 21 December 1988, the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 crashed as a result of a terrorist bomb. In the United Kingdom the event is referred to as the Lockerbie disaster, the Lockerbie bombing, or simply Lockerbie. Eleven townspeople were killed in Sherwood Crescent, where the plane's wings and fuel tanks plummeted in a fiery explosion, destroying several houses and leaving a huge crater, with debris causing damage to a number of buildings nearby. The 270 fatalities (259 on the plane, 11 in Lockerbie) were citizens of 21 nations.

15) Followed by the daily suicide and/or roadside and/or mosque bombings every day in the terror world of Islam.

16) Bombs sent from Yemen by followers of the koran which fortunately were discovered before the bombs were detonated.

17) The killing of 58 Christians in a Catholic church in one of the latest acts of horror and terror in Iraq.

18) Moscow airport suicide bombing: 35 dead, 130 injured. January 25, 2011.

bryanread

I hadn't realised Cecil B. DeMille was a theologian. I was under the impression that he was someone who made second rate movies.

Some, who do not know either the Bible or human nature, may see in the orgy of the Golden Calf only a riot of Hollywood's imaginations--but those who have eyes to see will see in it the awful lesson of how quickly a nation or a man can fall, without God's Law.

If man will not be ruled by God, he will certainly be ruled by tyrants--and there is no tyranny more imperious or more devastating than man's own selfishness, without the law.

We cannot break the Ten Commandments. We can only break ourselves against them.

Cecil B. DeMille

coiaorguk:

This 9/11 conspiracy nonsense is completely off topic so be a good boy and remember to take your medication.

Mooody said:

"While someone here speaking of .. complexity of life on Earth simply could not be the result of random chance ..."

Of course it's not the result of random chance it's, its the result of evolution.

"it is interesting to also watch..
What modern scientists says about findings in Qur’an"

Is it really interesting to see what people who are either insane, ignorant, or dishonest say about this alleged Holy Book? As you well know that childish piece of literature you call the Qur'an along with the Bible, the Torah and the Book of Morman contains no more scientific findings than a roll of used toilet paper and the world would be a better place if they were used as toilet paper.

"And at Oxford Union - Oxford University… An Indroduction to Islam & Qur’an... Question Answers ….."

The Oxford Union is not part of Oxford University, it is a student debating society.

I should warn you that I have spoken in debates at the OU myself, on several occasions so maybe you should regard me as infallible and believe everything I say.

A MESSAGE FROM YOUR BEST FRIEND:

A video - AN IMPORTANT FILM - every American man, woman and child should view, discuss, consider, decide and TAKE ACTION to return their country the United States of America to a path of peace, prosperity, humanity and truth. ACT NOW or forever subject your children and their children for generations with a curse of subservience to evil, fear, condemnation and suspicion.

http://911truth.wetpaint.com/?utm_source=Wetpaint&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=Digest&utm_campaign=Site

Bin-Laden had NOTHING to do with 9/11 - FBI

20 11 The Year of Atonement for America.

Every nation in the Middle East is rising up against US domination of the Middle East by supporting, financing and arming despot regimes that have suppressed the Arabic people for decades.

A 9/11 deception unearthed by scientists, ex military/secret service personnel, architects, pilots and ordinary Americans have shown the world that 9/11 has been used to protect American interests in the Middle East.

The 9/11 collapse of steel-framed buildings from nano-explosives uncovered by American and European scientific analysis of post-demolition dust has murdered many Americans.

It is the minute, the hour, the day, week, month and year for Americans to insist by demonstrations that a full public inquiry be held to examine the official story from FEMA and NIST that is littered with conflicting facts.

The American soul demands the truth now not in 100 years time when our children will have to bear the distraught of a previous assault on American citizens lives for political purposes.

Some other aspects of the Christian form of religion:

Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.

Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospels being mostly fiction.

Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infalliable, old, European, white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices

Religion must necessarily be separated from faith.

If you pit religion against atheism, atheism will win.

But I am a spiritual being and I know that there are realities I know not of.

Paula is correct in saying that "(t)rue freedom requires us to liberate ourselves from the tyranny of religion." Indeed there is no more cruel taskmaster than false religion. You'll be jumping through hoops from now to kingdom-come(whether you believe in it or not) :)

But Paula quotes selectively from the Christian scriptures. Whereas my freedom of thought and desire to explore led me to, gasp! actually do a little reading. I was interested in finding out about Jesus.

The Bible as we know it is a thicket of words and stories cobbled together in ancient times, and the canon of your choice(there are many)was decided upon by well-connected people, some of them with an eye to social control. Truth may be like a needle in a haystack, but go ahead and look anyway. The principles of Jesus are eternal and indestructible and the most authoritarian minds of all history have never been able to cull His freedom from the scriptures.

I started a project. First I read only the gospels, all the way through. When I finished with that, I started again, this time reading only the red letters. Forget about the rest. What, exactly, is JESUS credited with saying? Don't mix it up with things anyone else(like Paul) said.
Do the accounts seem to contradict themselves? Human witnesses can't even tell you the color of the car at an accident. But what is the essence here? What's the gist of what Jesus says?

I might feel differently if I grew up in a different culture, but I grew up in the west, and Jesus provides me the best way to live. Love your neighbor as yourself, don't cheat on your spouse, giving is better than taking. Whether I believe Jesus was a great teacher, the Son of God or merely a rabble-rousing fool who ended up dead for bucking the system---when I read the gospels with my heart, I find the best way to live.

Belief in God? Every generation is convinced it has reached the pinnacle of human knowledge and has all the answers, but the next generation finds the previous findings---ludicrous. So it has ever been and ever will be.

If you believe that order can be created out of chaos, try making stuffed cabbage rolls in your crockpot.

While someone here speaking of .. complexity of life on Earth simply could not be the result of random chance ... it is interesting to also watch..

What modern scientists says about findings in Qur’an
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUPYs0gElU&feature=related

And at Oxford Union - Oxford University… An Indroduction to Islam & Qur’an... Question Answers …..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEMrS9sg9TM

Something cannot come from nothing. -- Mary_Cunningham

IIRC, at one time you seemed equally confident that the complexity of life on Earth simply could not be the result of random chance -- apparently because you didn't know about the significant role that selection plays in the evolutionary process. Do you think it's possible then that you might want to amend your current pronouncement on cosmology in view of what some modern physicists are saying on the subject of existence?

MARY_CUNNINGHAM,

You: “The "atheism as progress" trope if I'm not mistaken. However, the two are coincident, I would say--atheism & progress, whatever progress means.”

I never put my ideas with those words, but sound like a good trope, thanks. I'm all with you in that they are coincident. Not necessarily linked by causality, but progress could be a big factor in that the number of individual atheistic people grow.

Digressing a little bit: we know that atheistic people exist, and are defined as people that don't believe that a god or goddess exists. But I prefer to think that atheism as such doesn’t exists. An “-ism” suffix implies a set of common practices, doctrines, principles, devotion or adherence, which is something that don't applies to atheistic people. Just a thought.

You: “And to equate atheism with democracy seems also wrong” ... “The Athenians more or less invented democracy and they were theists, well, polytheists.”

I did not intended to make that equivalency. Probably you are reading more than what I said. My point is that in the past religion was of great support to kings and tyrants to maintain the societies under rigid control, but the less king gods and tyrant theocratic dictators are the less religion is needed.

You: “Today some of the most intelligent minds of humanity are theists, and this has been the case throughout the history of homo sapiens.”

I certainly would expect that today, if more that 80-85% of the world population believe at least in one god o goddess, a great number of intelligent people will be part of that demography. I don't know if the most intelligent minds are concentrated in this group, but if you have independent and reputable sources with numbers on the concentration in the last two or three generations, would like to see them. If you go to the remote past, most of the civilized world was theistic, so no need to bother looking for numbers going back.

You: “You're too sure of yourself, that arrogance trait again. Not a good characteristic for a humanist, or a scientist, I would say. (But I would say that, wouldn't I?).

Let me refresh your memory: in your first post in this blog you said that religious instinct and religion are both universal and necessary and also said that mankind can never get rid of the need for some kind of religious self-identification. I gave you arguments to prove that not any more in the first claim and showed numbers with a trend against the second. If you have counterarguments I will be more than glad to entertain them in a dialog.

For your information, you directly or indirectly tagged me as arrogant, humanist or scientist. Not bad, you hit the bull's eye in one.

YEAL9 AKA CCNL HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY BANNED

FROM ONFAITH.

EMAIL THE PRODUCER ASAP AS I HAVE DONE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE BOTHERED BY HIS ENDLESS, REPETITIVE, BIGOTED CUTS AND PASTES SINCE THEY WILL ONLY GET WORSE AND MORE FREQUENT.

In conclusion, a prayer:

The Apostles' Creed 2010: (updated based on the studies of historians and theologians during the past 200 years)

I might believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven, human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven.

I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple, preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies amouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.

Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/ Christianity and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

Amen

Dear Mary_Cunningham,

Aren't we all in gripe of some kind of delusions? Sometimes prefer believing that there is no such reality which we are least bothered of… even if it exists, just because it does not make sense to us… and because the whole subject matter which is available to us is raped up with complete lies….
All the Great Scientists said, half knowledge of Science makes you Atheist and Complete knowledge will make you believe …. But for you people in my opinion, question is believe in whom? So better not believe!

Mary_Cunningham wrote:

"As I wrote, the questions are the same but the answers are different. We part company in that you presume to have the answer to each question and do so. IMHO that is the height of arrogance."

Well, I do have an arrogant streak, but the questions you asked did not seem to be very difficult. But I don't claim to be able to know everything - there are some things I don't know!

"I would never deny my own faith--I am Catholic--but I wouldn't attempt to answer every question."

I find that interesting. I was brought up a Catholic. I can't get myself sufficiently back into my mind set at the time to know whether I would have thought like this at the time. But I would ask you to consider whether there is an element of fear in your modesty since searching for answers to questions is precisely the sort of thing that could lead you to deny your faith.

"I do know that materialism, which I think is what you espouse, is incorrect. Something cannot come from nothing."

I don't like the word "materialism", partly because it has so many meanings from "dialectical materialism" - a Marxist philosophical concept - to "methodological materialism" - a scientific protocol. If I am to give myself a labels I would probably say I was a sceptical empiricist and a secular humanist, but, on the whole, I don't like labels.

As to whether something can come from nothing, some Quantum theorists will say it can. But that partly depends on whether one considers empty space to be nothing. But I wonder why you think "Something cannot come from nothing." is a relevant thing to say. You see the statement expresses the impossibility of a particular succession of events. As far as I know, time, as measured by physical clocks, the only time we know, is a property of the universe and even a smattering of knowledge at modern physics will tell you can't simply arrange events in a temporal line - it is far more complex than that. To make the statement relevant to whether there is anything outside the universe as we know it, we would first first have to assume that the universe can be embedded in some sort of "time" outside the physical time we measure. This would be circular as we are assuming there is something outside the universe to prove that there is.

Nevertheless the known universe may turn not to be all there is, but why shouldn't we simply say that it turns out that the universe is bigger than we thought? This has certainly happened many times in the past. But I can't see how you are going to smuggle God into this and certainly not the sort of personal God that Catholics believe in.

@BH

As I wrote, the questions are the same but the answers are different. We part company in that you presume to have the answer to each question and do so. IMHO that is the height of arrogance. I would never deny my own faith--I am Catholic--but I wouldn't attempt to answer every question.

I do know that materialism, which I think is what you espouse, is incorrect. Something cannot come from nothing.

@JAC

The "atheism as progress" trope if I'm not mistaken. However, the two are coincident, I would say--atheism & progress, whatever progress means.

And to equate atheism with democracy seems also wrong. The Athenians more or less invented democracy and they were theists, well, polytheists. Today some of the most intelligent minds of humanity are theists, and this has been the case throughout the history of homo sapiens.

You're too sure of yourself, that arrogance trait again. Not a good characteristic for a humanist, or a scientist, I would say. (But I would say that, wouldn't I?)

This will be all from me, friends.

MARY_CUNNINGHAM,

You wrote: “Firstly let’s agree to separate the religious instinct from religion. although both are universal and necessary.”

In the past the human religious tendency used to be universal and necessary. It helped primitive humans explain the unexplainable. Also it was of great support to control human groups that were growing in size and complexities. But today the more humankind has accumulated knowledge of natural phenomena and about humans themselves, the less religion is being necessary and less universal. The more societies tend to have more open and participative forms of government, the less is religion needed as support to control societies.

I think that religiosity as an instinct has not been scientifically proven, but I could be wrong. Let's not digress with this.

You also wrote: “As a whole mankind can never get rid of the need for some kind of religious self-identification...”

That was true in the past when kings and tyrants were gods and most of mankind was uneducated. Today the fasted growing demographic in religious statistics is the group of unaffiliated, which includes atheists. We should know that in the US around 15% identify themselves as unaffiliated, including 5-10% atheists.

If you say that mankind can never get rid of the need for some kind of philosophical questioning, I would probably agree with you. It is the word never that sounds too strong for me in this context.

Mary_Cunningham wrote:

"Well, I guess that Paula Kirby has inherited the Susan B. Jacoby award for terrific tirades against religion, which she doesn’t bother to define."

I had never heard of Susan Jacoby before, but she seems like an interesting person, but I can't find any reference to these awards. Can I have one too?

"Instead PK merely makes a lists of things
she doesn’t like and—guess what?—awards them to religion. But I am going to disagree."

That would strike me being as unnecessarily strenuous on her part. Religion makes quite a good job of awarding these things to itself. As in:

Deuteronomy 32:42: ‘I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh.’

"Firstly let’s agree to separate the religious instinct from religion. although both are universal and necessary."

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not sure there is a "religious instinct" although it is conceivable that religious belief would have had survival value some time in our evolutionary past.

"As a whole mankind can never get rid of the need for some kind of religious self-identification:"

I sincerely hope this is not true! The world is a dangerous enough place at the moment considering the amount of military power in the hands of the religious. I would like it to become a better place, not to destroy itself. I suspect that religion will never completely disappear. Probably the most that can be hoped for is that it will be such a minority activity that the religious will be too embarrassed to admit it.

"who am I, where did I come from,"

- evolution answers that.

"why am I responsible,"

- because you are human.

"what does my life mean,"

- that's for you to decide.

"how will I face death?"

While fear of death may be the motivation for much religious belief, certainly among those I know, atheists face death with far more equanimity than religious believers. Personally, I fear death far less now than I did when I was a victim of enforced Catholicism. I think that once one can honestly face up to the truth, its capacity to terrify is automatically reduced.

"Religion is about the meaning of Being, about the meaning of the universe and our place in it."

Ah yes! If it is spelt with a capital "B", "being" must be especially meaningful. But religion is completely unnecessary for understanding the universe and our place in it. As Laplace remarked to Napoleon: "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse".

Judaism and Christianity: Conception.

Islam: Deception.

The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

In other words, God looks at the person, not the "label".

See you all in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Well, I guess that Paula Kirby has inherited the Susan B. Jacoby award for terrific tirades against religion, which she doesn’t bother to define. Instead PK merely makes a lists of things
she doesn’t like and—guess what?—awards them to religion. But I am going to disagree.

Firstly let’s agree to separate the religious instinct from religion. although both are universal and necessary.

As a whole mankind can never get rid of the need for some kind of religious self-identification: who am I, where did I come from, why am I responsible, what does my life mean, how will I face death?

Religion is about the meaning of Being, about the meaning of the universe and our place in it.

But although the questions are universal the answers are not.

Dear Mooody:

The points you make in your last few posts, even if true, are completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. However by the style in which you express those points you merely illustrate Paula's theses, namely, that religion, all religion, is a tyranny. You clearly are one in the grip of religious delusions and, as such, I pity you.

Without your delusions you could could be free and dignified. With them you are merely pathetic.

ACCORDING TO JIHADIST :

Ahhhh...now that some of us did the so-called "secular revolts" here and there, and "freedom", "liberty" and "secularism" is a concept said to be thought up, patented and copyrighted in and exported from the west (US? France? UK? Monaco?), who do we pay royalties to? Atheists? Secularists? Christianists? Liberationists? Freedomists? Hedonists?

Which freedom you professes????????????????

LAST DESPARATE STEP

What will be your last desperate step to stop the Beacon to the World – The Torch of Islam…..what? ....starts genocide of your own white race who is so quickly converting to Islam in Millions…..like in Bosnia in 21st century under your nose…..

HAIL ISRAEL…. YES MY JEW LORDS…AT YOUR SERVICE…..

So who own the US?
watch; also don't forget to watch the thread below this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRIPythUQ5Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkdQbhB7Ckk&feature=channel

Israel Threatens To Attack Iran If U.S. Doesn't

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiAqT1ewh_s&feature=related

What crime Iran has done..how many countries he ever attacked in history?

Freedom talk: BS

LIARS

Liars….USA Lying Jewish Media…..Shame on you……or would it appropriate to call you shameless…..for your cynical, continues viral propaganda and conspiracy particularly against Islam & Muslims…..and for attacking and butchering millions of human beings….and still attacking and destroying livelihood of hundreds of millions more…..

HAIL ISRAEL…. YES MY JEW LORDS…AT YOUR SERVICE…..

So who own the US?
watch; also don't forget to watch the thread below this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRIPythUQ5Q&feature=related
Freedom talk: BS

OBAMA ATTACKED PAKISTAN

Watch below freshly exported freedom by Obama, previously by bush ...."either you are with us or against us......I will be back....again and again and again.....
Two US main political parties, Bush Or Obama belong to same butcher dictatorial regime. Very few controlling their own masses and destroying others.
No one become President in US without acceptance from Star of David.
Real Face of US Zionism,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxiWHbvkBLs&NR=1&feature=fvwp

BUSH AND OBAMA ARE SAME

US freedom agenda is very loud and clear to the world for the rest of times..........
www.youtube.com/A Smoking Gun vs. A Dumb War : Obama Bush
www.youtube.com/No Negotiations...
www.youtube.com/With Us or Against Us....
www.youtube.com/A Dangerous Threat.....
www.youtube.com/Smoking Gun.....

TWIN TOWERS EVIDENCE

We still love you all USA...f...the conscious....
9/11 inside job....jets hit twin towers.....and 300 yard away building no 7 steel inside concrete pillars melted like sh.t in their pants...releasing same white gas as in twin towers.....
Bluntly lying secular....democracy...freedom...human rights..torch holder US Presidents...in front of whole world.....bully pets of Jews...
Watch the evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&feature=related

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have seen the light. Time for the other 13.5 million to do likewise. Ditto for Christians who rely on the Torah for part of their foundation and "thumpations".

To wit:

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

New Torah For Modern Minds

"Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho.

And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures.

To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as A HUMAN-MADE DOCUMENT AND NOT A DIVINE DOCUMENT. "

JONSWITZER,

And let me add that I'll not be impressed by the response of many believers like you that say that god did not fumbled the ball in this case, the humans did. God choose the authors and the recipients of the original manuscripts, so he/she is the sole responsible for the shoddy work.

Mr. Switzer I'm embarrassed for you. Another liar for Jesus. You must be used to preaching unchallenged to the ignorant.

JONSWITZER wrote: “So, yes, some dated to within 50 years of the originals.”

Jon, where are the originals? Can you tell us for sure when and who wrote the originals? The authorship of the bible is not a settle matter for reputable scholars.

Also, do you know that the original documents are not extant? Do you know that the firsts complete copies books of the gospels date from 4th century? Probably you know all these but you didn't mentioned it. For the shake of easy references I copied below excerpts of what Wikipedia has about this topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts).

"EARLIEST EXANT MANUSCRIPTS”
The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business card sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to the first half of the 2nd century. The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century.[29] The following table lists the earliest extant manuscript witnesses for the books of the New Testament.”

DATE / BOOK / EARLIEST EXANT MANUSCRIPT / CONDITION

c. 200 / Matthew / P64, P67, P104 / Fragments
c. 250 / Mark / P45 / Large Fragments
c. 200 / Luke / P4, P75 / Fragment
c. 125-160 / John / P52 / Fragment
3rd century / 1 John / P9 / Fragment
3rd/4th century / 2 John / 232 / Fragment
c. 350 / 3 John / א/ Complete

“TEXTUAL CRITICISM”
The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: none of the original documents is extant, and the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original.[32] The New Testament has been preserved in three major manuscript traditions: the 4th-century-CE Alexandrian text-type; the Western text-type, also very early but prone to paraphrase and other corruptions; and the Byzantine text-type, which includes over 80% of all manuscripts, the majority comparatively very late in the tradition.”

Please Jon, notice this in the criticism: “copies differ from one another”, “prone to paraphrase”, “other corruptions”, and “the majority comparatively very late in the tradition.” This is what I call a shoddy work by your god. How can an omnipotent an omniscient god let the message lose credibility by choosing anonymous authors to write the testimony and then the original manuscripts get lost? We are not talking here about content. We are dealing here with basic procedures that you would expect that a supreme god will not fumble.

God has not proven to exist, but if your god exists he/she is not very professional.

In response to my challenge jonswitzer writes:

"Manuscript p52 dated to 110-125containting verses from John 18 (that's about 20-30 years from writing)"

Ha ha! Have you seen P52? If not here is a link:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-9300639326172081%3Ac6lzq8-dhwz&ie=UTF-8&sa=Search&q=Manuscript+p52&hl=en

This is one of the fragments I talked about only contains about 25 words. It is the oldest known fragment of a gospel but it is important because, being written on both sides, it must have come from a book and not a scroll. You can even use it to estimate the page size.

> Chester Beatty Papyrus II containing all of Paul's epistles (except pastorals) dated in late first century. (20-30 years from writing)

You might have noticed epistles are not gospels. However there is not a document called Chester Beatty Papyrus II, there is a collection of papyri known as Chester Beatty II. Among them is P45 which contains the Pauline Epistles and is usually dated as late 2nd or early 3rd century. It is in a very bad state and has seven leaves missing both at the beginning and the end.

The University of Mitchigen has put it on the web here:

http://www.lib.umich.edu/reading/Paul/index.html

Where there is a facility for studying it line by line.

> Bodmer Papyrii dating to late 2nd century (containing almost all of John).

You must be referring to p66. Most scholars date it as early 3rd century but if you want to say it is late 2nd century then I'll concede the point. So you win the challenge!

This is a really interesting document as it does not contain the story of the woman taken in adultery, and although the manuscript is physically incomplete there is no gap where the story should go. It is also not found in P75 the other 3rd century version of the gospel of John. In fact it does not occur in 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and the first version to contain it is the Latin/Greek Codex Bezae, usually dated late 4th or early 5th century.

The interesting thing is that the story was known to the 3rd Century Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum and who included it in his Constitutions of the Holy Apostles but did not attribute it to John. The 4th century Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, version of John contains a mark in the margin to indicate that it was customary to insert some extra material here when the gospel was read, where the story is normally found. Since this manuscript is known to have been written in Egypt, it seems likely that it the story originated in the Alexandria where it became customary to insert it as extra material in John's gospel. Later it became incorporated into the gospel, presumably by a scribe who had heard it in church and thought it had been missed out.

> Not to mention the later manuscripts all of which are in agreement with those originals (barring minor copy errors). Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae...

Well I pointed out one of the "minor copy errors" above.

5500 extant copies some dating to within 50 years of the actual events ; all in agreement with one another (except very minor copying errors completely irrelevant to all it's main doctrines. -- jonswitzer February 17, 2011 7:50 PM

So, yes, some [manuscripts] dated to within 50 years of the originals. -- jonswitzer February 18, 2011 2:49 PM

(emphasis mine)

These are two very different statements. None of the manuscripts you cited in your post of February 18, 2011 2:49 PM date to within 50 years "of the actual events", as you first stated above. The very earliest,P52, (for which you have assigned the most favorable apologetic dating), is nothing more than a scrap that can't be compared to anything other than possibly a few lines in the Gospel of John. I'd also like to see your source for dating the Chester Beatty Papyrus II to the late 1st century. My source says 2nd or 3rd century.

In addition, having 5,500 exact copies of something doesn't impress me too much. There are 100,000 thousand copies of our local phone book and in each and every one my name is misspelled. The greater issue for Christians, IMO, is that the four canonical Gospels do not agree with each other on some significant events, such as the birth narratives, resurrection accounts, Jesus's genealogy, post-resurrection events, etc.. (And, of course, it goes without saying that they differ radically from the various other Gospels that did not make it into the official canon.)

jonswitzer:

"The sacrifice of Jesus, even if it only means that he was dead for three days and a glorified eternity, in NO way minimizes his sacrifice. He walked out what he believed, that we should do to others as we would have them do to us."

Of course it does! The way it is written in the Bible makes it look like some dirty little deal Jesus did with his father in order to be resurrected as a god. What you say is in insult to all the people over history who have genuinely suffered and died for the good of humanity without the bribe of an eternal reward. My uncle knew many such people in the French resistance. You owe your way of life to such people. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself!

The sacrifice of Jesus, even if it only means that he was dead for three days and a glorified eternity, in NO way minimizes his sacrifice. He walked out what he believed, that we should do to others as we would have them do to us.

Manuscript p52 dated to 110-125containting verses from John 18 (that's about 20-30 years from writing)

Chester Beatty Papyrus II containing all of Paul's epistles (except pastorals) dated in late first century. (20-30 years from writing)

Bodmer Papyrii dating to late 2nd century (containing almost all of John).

Not to mention the later manuscripts all of which are in agreement with those originals (barring minor copy errors). Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae...

So, yes, some dated to within 50 years of the originals.

Mooody said:

"and last not the least our priests turned our whole new generation into homo’s in their private teaching lessons to our kids,.."

If this is a reference to sexual abuse by Catholic priests, there were examples of both homsexual and hertosexual abuse.

"Jews……Who are Conspirers....Controllers….Debt Collectors through Tax & what will left through high interests… Present Day Masters"

Ah yes the old "evil Jewish bankers" myth. There is this much truth in it, namely, that throughout much of European history usury laws made it illegal for Christians to lend money at interest and, as a result, financial services became one of the few professions open to Jews.

"you cannot be a Jew if not by birth"

This is quite simply false.

"ruthless killers in past & again in present day lights"

Why are you saying this about Jews? It sounds quite sinister to me.

"And those poor Christians turned into atheists or homo/gays……… due to above reasons"

People are born atheists and become indoctrinated into the religion of those around them. Some of them manage to find a way out of this by using their own reason. Nobody is turned into a homosexual, it is part of their nature.

What do you mean free like Mega hard calf in the wild, who immediately after its birth get up and start running independently. And in his/her mature thinking, do not owe anything to his/her birth givers like parents or someOne or anyOne Who created them, no responsibility, no conscious, just eat, sleep, F..k, kill and die…….

Oh yes! but who can we trust now…..

Christians…… who were crusaders , Heresy Law Owners, Racists ..white verses black…original sin, liars earth is flat…only 5000 years old, and last not the least our priests turned our whole new generation into homo’s in their private teaching lessons to our kids, while we trusted them until the end etc etc etc and the list is long require around 50,000 falsification tests……….

Jews……Who are Conspirers....Controllers….Debt Collectors through Tax & what will left through high interests… Present Day Masters……… you cannot be a Jew if not by birth….ruthless killers in past & again in present day lights..….

And those poor Christians turned into atheists or homo/gays……… due to above reasons… what other options or choice we have now…..we don’t know much about other concepts……other then what we are told, as we are continuously and systematically brainwashed by our masters against all other possibilities………so we say f..k other possibilities…… we are sick of finding the truth anymore… it is a lie, fabrication, myth….they are all the same……and we will continue…………

Christianity- a 21st century update:

Jesus was an illiterate, Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Ludemann, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/ hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/
plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current RCC problems:

Pedo-ph-iliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late conceptions).

Current problems:

Adu-lterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology

Only the elimination of all conservative Christians will allow all Americans to be free and the world to no longer have to live in fear of the U.S.A.'s imperialist, terrorist holy war. The conservative ideology has never helped mankind in any way, it has not only never helped mankind in anyway, it has oppressed, murdered, raped and killed all those in it's way to gain power. History shows us this. Fact shows us this. James Madison, the "Father of the U.S. Constitution", along with many founders of this country, regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliations, knew keeping politics and religion separate not only preserves each, but helps them flourish: "The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State."

JohnR6

"@ BernardHurley:

You are certainly entitled to post "Fool" on your resume."

Thank you for the generous compliment. As Socrates pointed out true wisdom arises not from the extent of one's knowledge but from the realisation of how limited such knowledge is.

Incidentally, when I do submit my resume would you be prepared to furnish a reference as to the extent of my foolishness?

jonswitzer said:

"See, the problem we face is that the "experts" that reject the Bible's authenticity and all of their rationale for doing so have all approached the study of the topic from the presumption that it "must" be a fraud."

If you are going to say something like this you should really name names. Who are these "experts" you had in mind?

However does it matter? Hve you heard of sri sai baba?:

http://www.saibaba.org/saipage1.html

He has millions of followers worldwide. Among them you can find thousands of "witnesses" to miracles, raising people from the dead, walking on water,.. every bit as impressive as those attributed to Jesus. In fact there is even a "latest miracles" page on their web site:

http://www.saibaba.org/saipage1.html

These are not people who are reported to have seen something in some ancient but people you can actually go and interview.

Then there are people alive today who claim to have been abducted by aliens, and their accounts are surprisingly consistent. Again these are people you can actually go out and interview.

I assume you reject these people's accounts. If so what is your rationale for accepting accounts in you Holy Book? Personally I reject the lot of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"I know of some, who when they studied it out, came to the conclusion Jesus was either who he said he was, or a liar, or a lunatic.

Would you agree that those are the choices?"

I think you are referring to C.S. Lewis who expressed it as "Lord, liar or lunatic". Another alternative that springs to mind is "myth". But the alternatives are not even mutually exclusive. One could quite consistently believe in a God who was both a lair and a lunatic. Indeed the picture of Yahweh I ge from then old testament is precisely that.

jonswitzer said:

"Your problem is that the Bible is shoddy; that it's witnesses are invalid.

"Interesting.

"5500 extant copies some dating to within 50 years of the actual events; all in agreement with one another (except very minor copying errors completely irrelevant to all it's main doctrines."

Where on earth did you get this figure from? Apart from a few fragments we have virtually nothing before the 3rd century C.E. I challenge you to identify one authenticated copy of any of the gospels dating from before the 3rd century.

jonswitzer said:

"Christ would be the quintessential example of its effectiveness. His choice to turn the other cheek and bless in the face of cursing has made him the most sublime example of doing right in history. Hence, the big following."

So you find Christ's alleged sacrifice impressive do you? If you could prove to me that by my suffering over several hours and dying in agony I could significantly reduce the suffering of my fellow creatures I might have the courage to go along with that. There are people are brave enough do such things including an acquaintance who, when terminally ill, took part in a drug trial which could have had this precise outcome. However if you then said "by the way three days later you will come alive again and be God" then this reduces it to merely swapping a terrible but finite amount of suffering for infinite power and an infinite amount of happiness. Some sacrifice!

Response to jonswitzer part 2

"For example, can you see love?"

Of course I can't "see" love, but I have no doubt that the complex of feelings and behaviours that we refer to by the word "love" exist. See, for instance, the picture of baby orangutangs here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110209131828.htm

"Darkness, for example is non-existent. There is no such thing as darkness, only the absence of light. Cold is the same thing. There is no such thing as cold, only the absence of movement (i.e. warmth). Evil, defined Biblically, is the absence of moral responsibility to others."

Are you seriously arguing that evil is non-existent? Darkness may not be a "thing", and in this sense may be said not to exist. Nevertheless if I turn of the light I am responsible for my room being in darkness. Similarly if you conceive of evil as an absence of something, then surely an intelligent omnipotent creator would be responsible for this absence.

"My point is that you argue that you can't see God, so therefore there is no God, who is by definition an invisible force/being."

Did I say that? Where did I say it? I may have my senile moments but I'm sure I would remember making such an argument.

"However, if your rationale for seeing what is invisible does not include moving beyond your 5 senses, then your rationale for God not existing is also circular."

Since you are referring to an argument I do not in fact make I think I can safely ignore this.

"You assume that only the 5 senses exist and therefore, since you cannot experience a Spiritual God with those 5 senses, he must not exist."

Why do you keep attributing opinions to me which I do not, in fact, hold? Indeed, if I did hold such opinions how the hell would you know? What do you mean by saying I assume "only the 5 senses exist"? Many birds can sense magnetic fields, dogs can hear sounds we can't hear, bat "see" using sound, some insects can see more colours than we can. I don't recall arguing anywhere that "God must not exist" so why do you say I do?

"Your beginning assumption, "only nature" precludes the options "super-nature"."

I have never really understood the distinctions between "natural" and "supernatural". I suspect it is something like the distinction between "medicine" and "alternative medicine". If the evidence indicated that homeopathy worked I would call it "medicine". However there are those who dismiss the need for such evidence merely by labelling it "alternative". Similarly if there were enough evidence for a God then it would be reasonable to call it a "natural" phenomenon, but you can't dismiss the need for such evidence merely by labelling God "supernatural". That's what you appear to be doing, although I'm not 100% sure so maybe you could enlighten me. In any event it is quite clear that it is a move you cannot make in a rational discussion.

Response to jonswitzer part 1

"Do you believe only in what you see? Is there nothing in which you believe that you cannot see? For example, can you see love?"

Well first belief is not a binary yes/no matter but a matter of plausibility. For instance most people would say that they believed the pavement outside their house was solid but they would also be aware that there have been cases when a gaping hole had opened up under someone.

let' look at some degrees of belief:
I have never seen an atom, unless you count seeing in image produced by an electron microscope. But the evidence for the atomic theory, in its most general form, is overwhelming that it would be perverse to treat it as untrue, the same could be said for the theory of evolution by natural selection, although I haven't really "seen" evolution taking place. So here are two facts that are simply not up for grabs.

I have never seen a positron, although I have seen its alleged tracks in a bubble chamber and we have a very good theory of its behaviour in magnetic fields, how to produce radioactive isotopes that emit electrons etc and this theoretical knowledge has allowed us to construct such things as PET scanners. I would consider it highly likely that positrons exist, but I would consider it a remote possibility that someone might come to another explanation of the phenomena involved.

Then there are scientific ideas that I can't exactly see and moreover are, prima facie, fairly implausible but nevertheless are supported by overwhelming evidence. An example is gravitational time dilation (the slowing of time by a gravitational field). The GPS system wouldn't work if it didn't take this effect into account.

You can go down a scale of plausibility to things like string theory M-theory which I would regard as extremely unlikely to be true although conceivably could be. To things like the "parallel universes" interpretation of quantum theory which I regard as plain bonkers.

So there are plenty of things that I believe in more or less strongly that I not only have not seen, but given the limitations of our sense I could not possible see. But the point is not what I can see but what evidence for these phenomena. In the case of the positron, for instance, we have mathematical equations that predict such at thing should exist and how it should behave, we can track its path in a bubble chamber, we can make radioactive isotopes that emit positrons, we can incorporate these isotopes in sugars, we can predict how the positrons should behave when these sugars ingested, we can build PET scanners that monitor this behaviour and finally we can build a 3-dimensional image of internal organs. In other words we do not only have a vast amount of evidence, but this evidence fits together into a coherent whole.

...with archaelogical evidence of Jericho's fallen walls, David's existence, Israelites in Egypt ...

The biblical account of Jericho is supposed to have taken place in the 13th century BCE. Archeological evidence has confirmed not only that Jericho did not have walls in the 13th century BCE, it wasn't even occupied. There was a small settlement there in the 14th century BCE, but it also did not have walls, and it was small, poor, and insignificant. Those settlers probably became pastoral nomads, a fairly common occurrence.

Yes, a man named David existed as the king of Judah, but only Judah, and he did not have anything like the great empire the bible says that he did. The southern kingdom was always poor compared to the north until much later into the Iron Age.

There were no Israelites in Egypt. There were lowland Canaanites, the Hyksos, who gradually migrated in to the Nile area, centered around the city of Avarice. As they migrated in, there was a gradual rise to power there for them. Egyptian archeological sources describe a Pharaoh Ahmose who sacked the city and chased the Canaanites back into the southern Canaan, near Gaza. This occurred more than a hundred years before the Biblical account of Exodus would have occurred.

The settlements that became the Judeans and the Israelites, in the southern and northern highlands respectively, had always been there. There were three major settlement waves pastoral to settlements, and back again, three times, independently, but at roughly the same time, in the north and the south. Each time the north was always richer and more prosperous than their southern neighbors due to the better weather and agricultural land and access to water.

The wandering in the desert has also been falsified, not least because the places mentioned in the bible during the wandering were not even occupied during the 13th century BCE. In fact many of them were only occupied during the 7th century BCE, during the reign of Josiah, when he and his priests were putting all of these stories to writing to support his takeover of the northern highlands.

"See, the problem we face is that the "experts" that reject the Bible's authenticity and all of their rationale for doing so have all approached the study of the topic from the presumption that it "must" be a fraud."

The problem was the original biblical archeologists approached their topic by first assuming that the bible was stating historical fact, and that they just had to find it. More recent archeology has corrected that error of assumption and has shown where biblical narratives and history diverged. There is no need to presume fraud. There is ample evidence that the texts were based on made up, or grossly exaggerated stories, laid against the backdrop of 7th century BCE political and international realities, and put to the Judean populace to rally them around a national foundation and support Josiah's ambitions.

POSTED BY: JONSWITZER

You wrote: “So, justacomment, Your problem is that the Bible is shoddy; that it's witnesses are invalid.”

Yep. So shoddy that resulted in three different religions (five if you consider Catholics and Mormons as separated religions) and an innumerable list of denominations and cults. The gospel message from the omniscient and omnipotent god somehow got scrambled, unless this was his heavenly plan to have Protestants killing Catholics and vice versa. After more than 2000 years, still more than 65-70% of the world population is not Christian. If your god were a CEO he will be already unemployed due to low performance. Contradictions, ambiguities and errors, not to mention outrageously incredibly passages affected the results.

If you allow me to digress for a short minute, please read the post I commented where Scottinva quoted a verse of the bible that says that god will blind “the minds of those who do not believe, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ.” This doesn't help either. Obscure on purpose the mind of those that you are trying evangelize is not a good game play.

You wrote: “I would like to find a non-biased observer.”
Let me know if you find one. In the mean time I'll remain not believing in god because there is not an evidence commensurate to the incredible claim and you will keep believing based on the evidences that satisfy you or simply you have faith with no evidences. An it is OK as long as you don't try to impose the christian morality in my private life or legislate without rational arguments just because something is in the bible. Let's discuss legislation with rational arguments and evidences, not with dogma. The public forum will be more productive irrespective if you believe or not that Jesus was conceived by a supernatural entity and a very young human mother.

You wrote: "I know of some, who when they studied it out, came to the conclusion Jesus was either who he said he was, or a liar, or a lunatic. Would you agree that those are the choices?”
Thanks for ask me. I would discard the first one. Based with what I have hear from pulpits and read in the gospel, I lean to the second but not discard totally the third. If Jesus existed as described in the gospel, he had moments of brilliance, but as many humans had also terrible lows. Just my opinion.

If God created us to live in harmony with the animals (not killing them but living with them), then would He not have had to give us the freedom to choose to misuse them just like we have misused each other? -- jonswitzer

You missed the point. It seems to me that an omnipotent god could have have created human beings and executed its plan for us without having to also create all the other animals. An omnipotent god could have set things up so we could live off plant material exclusively or not need to eat anything at all -- like plants themselves do. We would still have free will; still be able to screw up; still be able to mistreat each other and sin and whatnot; still need a savior, etc.. Instead though, this alleged omni-benevolent god also created trillions of other creatures too -- creatures who don't have a necessary role to play in the human salvation plan -- apparently just so they could suffer and die. As I said, that seems like gratuitous suffering to me.

See, the problem we face is that the "experts" that reject the Bible's authenticity and all of their rationale for doing so have all approached the study of the topic from the presumption that it "must" be a fraud. I would like to find a non-biased observer. -- j

I'll give you two (of many) experts who did not presuppose that the Bible was a fraud, but nevertheless ended up rejecting its inerrancy. They are: Bart Ehrman and Albert Schweitzer.

Cornbread,

If God created us to live in harmony with the animals (not killing them but living with them), then would He not have had to give us the freedom to choose to misuse them just like we have misused each other? The moral question is the same as humanity. We were supposed to live in harmony with them. However, according to the Bible, our bad choices led to God destroying everything with a flood after which God seemed to recognize that man would need animals for food to survive. The Biblical record is that it was not til after the flood that animals began to fear man, after God gave them to us for food. Scripture has always advocated kindness to animals, even in the manner of killing them for food or sacrifice. Further, I am sure that we might disagree over what exactly constitutes suffering in animals (i.e. farm animals working to plow? Animals caged in zoos? Lions hunting/killing antelope? Carnivorous humans? etc.)

I would argue that the Golden Rule is clearly intended to work only for those who do so for the sake of glorifying God in heaven, trusting Him to vindicate them either here or in eternity. Outside of that equation, I can think of hundreds of ways it would be said to not work. The question is what is the goal of the golden rule?

The goal of it is to expose the wickedness of those who are living selfishly. It's goal is to be a standard by which all else is measured. It's goal is not to produce great societies or produce prosperous lives.

Christ would be the quintessential example of its effectiveness. His choice to turn the other cheek and bless in the face of cursing has made him the most sublime example of doing right in history. Hence, the big following.

So, justacomment,

Your problem is that the Bible is shoddy; that it's witnesses are invalid.

Interesting.

5500 extant copies some dating to within 50 years of the actual events; all in agreement with one another (except very minor copying errors completely irrelevant to all it's main doctrines.

Because of Dead Sea Scrolls, Old Testament clearly written by at least 100 years before Christ's birth, with archaelogical evidence of Jericho's fallen walls, David's existence, Israelites in Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylonian captivity, rebuilding of Temple.

New Testament, Luke, the Physician's meticulous research of first hand witnesses. Mark's research of first hand witnesses. Matthew and John's first hand witnesses. Luke's meticulous recording of early church activity both in Jerusalem and across the Roman Empire.

See, the problem we face is that the "experts" that reject the Bible's authenticity and all of their rationale for doing so have all approached the study of the topic from the presumption that it "must" be a fraud.

I would like to find a non-biased observer.

I know of some, who when they studied it out, came to the conclusion Jesus was either who he said he was, or a liar, or a lunatic.

Would you agree that those are the choices?

CORRECTION:

In my post at FEBRUARY 17, 2011 4:49 PM I wrote "for the son of Jesus becoming god." The correct statement is "for Jesus becoming god." Apologize.

davivman:

I thought I had already conceded your point regarding human suffering. If you don't agree, I concede it now. My question pertained to the suffering of all other creatures that can experience suffering. What ultimate good can come from their suffering? It seems to me that an omnipotent god could have created humans and executed its plan for us without having to also create all the other animals that have ever lived, suffered and died. The staggering amount of their suffering therefore seems purely gratuitous to me and completely incompatible with the notion of an omni-benevolent god.

“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.”

Would your anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

more “logic”?

“I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible
Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”

There has been mention of the golden rule, do to others as you would have them do to you. Jesus did not invent it, it was a rule of thumb long before him.

If you search the web for "golden rule doesn't work" you will find many people have discovered the flaws inherent in the golden rule. Were you inclined to just obey religion you would not question this guide and the world would be worse off for it.

Just another example of why obedience to dogma is always a bad idea. Use your mind and think.

@JONSWITZER.

You wrote: “Your "majority" of scholars is a group of people who argue circular logic.”

Jon, they are not my majority of scholars nor am I a scholar. All I did was to refer Davivman to Wikipedia, which is an open forum where informed people can participate and even change the articles if they have credible references. Wikipedia is not a bible whose word cannot be changed. It's a quick reference point for a person like Davivman that was pressured by many post to respond to.

Wikipedia policy is that references must be from “reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article.” Being this topic so important what I would expect is that christian scholars have already presented their independent references to correct the statement that “Strictly speaking, each gospel (and Acts) is anonymous, meaning that none of them name an author.”

You also wrote: “If the assumption is made that the Bible cannot be "super-naturally" inspired, then all the rest is simply spin. Of course, I recognize that if I assume that it is "inspired" then I too have a pre-assumption. But let's not pretend like your scholars are unbiased without agenda.”

I'm not pretending anything about any scholar. It is well known that atheist like me don't believe that the bible was inspired by god, simply because we don't believe that god exist until a credible evidence is presented. Read again my post. I told Davivman that if the bible was the word of god, that god has done a shoddy work. All you or Davivman has to do is to prove that god in fact did a good work inspiring the bible without contradictions, errors and using well known first hand eyewitnesses.

At the end the main discussion I had was whether or not the bible witnesses will be acceptable in a court of law as valid evidence for the son of Jesus becoming god. Would like to hear about this is there is something somebody has to add.

@SCOTTINVA,

You quote the bible: “the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

Tell me if I got this correctly: you don't believe, consequently your mind has been blinded by god, so you cannot clearly understand the gospel.

Well, there are a lot of people that don't believe in any god, probably more than 10% of all humans. Plus around 60% of not Christians. But many of them will believe in your god if there were a credible evidence in the bible. Not to avail, their minds had been blinded until they believe, it doesn't matter that to believe they need to use a clear mind.

Scott, if somebody asks you $100.000 promising that you will get a return of one billion times that amount, obviously you will demand evidences. What will be your reaction if you are told to give first the money then you will understand how you will get that incredible return? Will you buy it?

But this example doesn't end here. This guy also tells you that if you don't make the transaction, at the end of the month you will be enclosed in a big hot oven for the rest of the eternity.

Ok, I know, many blinded minds fall for this scheme. The second part helps to make it a closed deal.

I don't like religions but what the writer here says is also making another religion which substitutes the personal god of the abrahamic faiths with an impersonal god named freedom. The supernatural is eventually necessary for any kind of morality since the physical world does not give people any objective values. So whatever one beliefs in, be it freedom, communism or theism, it will always be inherently irrational - like life itself.

Justacomment,

Your "majority" of scholars is a group of people who argue circular logic. Their starting assumption is God doesn't speak to people, therefore, we have to figure out who really wrote the Bible. Then when they turn around and come to the conclusion that the Old Testament was not written by Moses, David or Isaiah or that the New Testament is not trustworthy, they say, "see, it's not inspired!"

Such a person has already decided before he does any research whatsoever that if he finds any "data" that indicates "divine" authorship, then he must throw it out, for that would be inherently illogical.

Now, I'm willing to admit that I start out biased. What boggles my mind is when so-called "naturalists" or "secularists" or "atheists" won't admit they are also.

If the assumption is made that the Bible cannot be "super-naturally" inspired, then all the rest is simply spin. Of course, I recognize that if I assume that it is "inspired" then I too have a pre-assumption. But let's not pretend like your scholars are unbiased without agenda.

Davivman,

You are doing well. You don't need to expend weeks or months to prove that the authors of the bible will be acceptable in court as witnesses. You said: “witness testimony is evidence whether you want to acknowledge it or not.”

Congratulations, that was simple and quick. The only thing is that witnesses must identify themselves, the case is circumstantial and mostly hearsay. All you needed was few minutes more to google or wikiped “bible authors” to find that “Strictly speaking, each gospel (and Acts) is anonymous, meaning that none of them name an author.” Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible#Mark) This article has more than 30 references to make the case on gospels. Let me highlight for you main points in that section:

** According to the majority viewpoint, the Gospel of Mark may have been written by Mark the Evangelist, St. Peter's interpreter, as tradition holds. Numerous early sources say that Mark's material was dictated to him by Peter, who later compiled it into his gospel.

** According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness (Matthew).

** Some scholars uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles.

** In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.

The bible was supposedly written by god trough humans. If that is the case your god did a shoddy work. If he/she wanted to reveal to all humanity as the real god, why pick anonymous or doubted authors to write in his all powerful name? Why allow them to write contradictions and errors? As Christians claim, the gospel comprise the more important books in the history of the humanity, but nobody knows for sure who wrote them nor they were first hand witnesses.

COMING UP NEXT: the unmoved mover that moves everything, the ad infinitum causality, the possible to be, possible not to be or impossible to be, the god imperfect justice and goodness, and the ordered disorder of the chaotic universe.

It is called the Great Angelic Con Game:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.
Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallu-cinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

Hurley,

Do you believe only in what you see? Is there nothing in which you believe that you cannot see? For example, can you see love?

Darkness, for example is non-existent. There is no such thing as darkness, only the absence of light. Cold is the same thing. There is no such thing as cold, only the absence of movement (i.e. warmth). Evil, defined Biblically, is the absence of moral responsibility to others.

My point is that you argue that you can't see God, so therefore there is no God, who is by definition an invisible force/being. However, if your rationale for seeing what is invisible does not include moving beyond your 5 senses, then your rationale for God not existing is also circular. You assume that only the 5 senses exist and therefore, since you cannot experience a Spiritual God with those 5 senses, he must not exist. Your beginning assumption, "only nature" precludes the options "super-nature".

In such a scenario, you would not be able to "see" something that might be right in front of you.

@ BernardHurley:

You are certainly entitled to post "Fool" on your resume.

Concerning Republicanism and Capitalism.

What I'm arguing is that Republicans today base their philosophy of prosperity on a view of trust that is pre-industrial revolution. The greed that was released and seen in the context of the industrial revolution did not reflect "Christian" principles but rather Christians who were leaving behind their moral duties (there were plenty of imposters in the middle ages as well). Greed, all through the Bible, is considered one the first steps away from God. That greed was wrong then and wrong now.

So, I'm arguing that there is likely a flaw in Republican ideals. If free markets are accompanied by honest people who are committed to participation in their communities (including helping the poor), then they work. When accompanied by those who reject the idea of any absolute morality all freedom ultimately descends into chaos.

So, do moral laws ever make people more moral. NO! They never do. Please understand, when a Christian argues for moral law, he is recognizing that moral law is only effective for showing how people miss the moral law. The law is NEVER able to help people to do what is right.

According to Christianity, acting like a Christian, going to church, even reading the Bible regularly will NOT make you more moral. Moral law is only good for helping to see what should be done, not helping them to do it. That requires something more.

Using Hammurabi, Stoics and Epicurus as examples of atheism or non-religious morality unfortunately is fabulously wrong. All three were very religious. I'm not arguing that they were religious like Christianity, but they all believed in the gods and based their philosophies on some sense of attaining to god-like states through efforts.

So, I will state again, please show me historical indication of pre-religious man. I simply have yet to see it. Man, as we seem him appearing out of the mists of pre-history is already religiously oriented believing in gods and basing his moral decisions on those gods.

@bkellyusa says:

How is it that the United States of America came to be? ... Freedom is typically desired by most people. ... GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Thus the Puritans held that they had the freedom to execute Quakers because the Quakers did not obey their rules.

A variant of this notion of freedom exists with people who claim their religious freedom is being violated if evangelizing is prohibited in the US Military.

ScottinVA said:

"The reason you cannot see the glory of God revealed all around us is summed up in two verses of the Bible: ..."

Thanks ScottinVA you've made my day! Your post made me laugh so much I nearly fell of my chair. What sort of idiot of a God would reveal his glory in this beautiful 14 billion year old universe we find ourselves in and then deliberately stop someone seeing that revelation? You don't expect me to take that seriously do you?

As for you explanation of the origin of evil:

"God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness..."

It looks like you are blaming evil on God,

The second one is somewhat long, but also explains the origins of evil in the world.

"God is not a man; He is beyond man's comprehension, except as He reveals Himself to us."

Well in that case your God can damn well reveal himself to me if he so psychologically insecure as to need me to believe in him.

"It is you who argue in circular fashion about God being irrelevent to moral goodness. We cannot know goodness apart from Him."

You don't seem to have grasped the argument, which is Plato's, not mine. If you say "We cannot know goodness apart from him" and I ask you how you know this, then since this statement implies "God is good", the only coherent answer is that God revealed it to you. Now if I then ask you why I can trust this revelation then part of your reason must be that goodness is known from God. In other words you are using a proposition as part of the justification for that very same proposition. This is the very definition of circular reasoning. Now indicate where I have reasoned in a circle.

"They justify their lusts and murder by appealling to rules they have made up themselves and attriuted to the gods they worship (in your case, yourself)."

I justify my lusts and murder do I? I consider myself to be a God do I? I really think you should apologise for you Holy Offensiveness!

"There has been no more throoughly examined example of ancient literature than the Bible; it has been shown to say what was originally written, and shown to be an accurate account of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (with 500+ witnesses to the latter)."

I'm really surprised that anyone could come onto a public forum and display such ignorance of the origins of the Bible.

"All you sophistry will not change the fact that you will stand before Him to answer for your rebellion against your Creator."

Part of me would like this nonsense to be true> It would be nice to see Yahweh squirm as he tried to give an account of himself.

Hello Paula. I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I hate religion perhaps more than you do. I don't know what has turned you away from Christianity, but I hope one day you will meet Jesus without all the baggage religion has placed over him. I have come to know Jesus through the Bible when I read it without prejudice or agenda, with an open heart and mind. I have come to know Jesus in person through the Holy Spirit. I have experienced freedom from sin and condemnation. I have experienced the greatest love that I have ever experienced, a love that is constant, unfailing, and that overlooks my faults and failings, helping me to overcome them. Religion is tyranny. I agree. That list of dos and don'ts had tormented me before I knew the Jesus of the Bible.

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death." --Romans 8:1-2

May you know this Jesus. Through him, we come to truly understand God and Scripture.

bkellyusa wrote:

"We all have Faith...even if it is Faith in NOTHING."

Just like we all drive cars... even those of us who drive NON-EXISTENT cars.

"The religion of Secular Humanism (Faith in Man) is strong in the World today."

I don't think Secular Humanism is so much a matter of faith in man as a project whose aims are to progress to the point where we could have faith in man. I would label myself as a secular humanist, but I don't pretend to speak for others who would do so. As to whether Secular Humanism is a religion that is really a matter of how wide your definition of religion is. If you are going to say that the atheistic versions of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism rare religions then it might seem reasonable to say Secular Humanism is also. On the other hand it is not a certainly not a religion in the sense that is commonly understood in the West and Atheism is not a religion period.

"It is a religion that is rampant throughout our current government, schools, etc."

Curious you should say that. From this side of the pond it looks like your government and schools are dominated by fundamentalist religious nutters who think it is OK to lie to children if it stops them straying from their religion.

"As a Christian, my Faith is in God."

Once you claim that your beliefs are the result of faith you disqualify yourself from rational discussion.

"Everyone has the right to choose their own Faith."

Agreed provided you say they have the right to having no faith at all. I take this to be one of the core principles of Secular Humanism.

"GOD BLESS AMERICA"

Think how you look to the rest of the world before saying something like that.

Hurley:

The reason you cannot see the glory of God revealed all around us is summed up in two verses of the Bible:

"the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools... And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness..."

The second one is somewhat long, but also explains the origins of evil in the world.

God is not a man; He is beyond man's comprehension, except as He reveals Himself to us. It is you who argue in circular fashion about God being irrelevent to moral goodness. We cannot know goodness apart from Him.

The people who call themselves Christians, yet do not follow Christ's example, are no better than the pagans such as yourself. They justify their lusts and murder by appealling to rules they have made up themselves and attriuted to the gods they worship (in your case, yourself).

There has been no more throoughly examined example of ancient literature than the Bible; it has been shown to say what was originally written, and shown to be an accurate account of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (with 500+ witnesses to the latter).

All you sophistry will not change the fact that you will stand before Him to answer for your rebellion against your Creator.

How is it that the United States of America came to be? Why is it that we get more immigrants than any other country? Freedom is typically desired by most people. Free will is given to all. We all have free will to have a point of view, of course some pay a high price for the choices they make. We all have Faith...even if it is Faith in NOTHING. The religion of Secular Humanism (Faith in Man) is strong in the World today. It is a religion that is rampant throughout our current government, schools, etc. It is always good to have these discussions. Another aspect involved is the fact that everyone is biased. We all have our own point of view or agenda., but so many don't admit they are biased. It's OK to admit it.
As a Christian, my Faith is in God. Everyone has the right to choose their own Faith.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!

JohnR6 wrote:

"Everybody is somebody's fool."

Speak for yourself mate!

"The only freedom worth having is at the Cross of my Lord and Savior. The heavens declare His glory and majesty."

That's funny, last time I looked through a telescope I failed to notice.

"The opinions of men are worthless."

Does that include yours I wonder?

"Even the blind and deaf know His true nature:"

On the other hand the severely disabled such as Stephen Hawking apparently don't.

"Whose fool are you?"

I'm the kind of fool who says in his heart that there is no God. I say it out loud occasionally too.

Everybody is somebody's fool. The only freedom worth having is at the Cross of my Lord and Savior. The heavens declare His glory and majesty. The opinions of men are worthless. Even the blind and deaf know His true nature: "I can see, and that is why I can be happy, in what you call the dark, but which to me is golden. I can see a God-made world, not a manmade world." - Helen Keller

Whose fool are you?

I re-read Religion: the ultimate tyranny a few minutes ago, Paula.

I once watched a Glasgow atheist doing the Twist to The Old Rugged Cross, and I have to say that I found your piece just as enjoyable.

Thank you.

To put BERNARDHURLEY's argument another way, it is circular to say that it is good to do what god says is good simply because god says that it is good. In theory, god could say anything is good - murder, don't eat pork, wear this hat, don't steal stuff, genuflect to me in this specific way - without any regard to the intrinsic goodness of those actions. You could argue that god tells us what is good precisely because those actions have intrinsic goodness, but then you've eliminated the need for god. If certain actions have intrinsic goodness, then I can figure that out for myself and appeal to that reasoning, without the use of god as middleman.

The wonderfully elegant thing about the argument and evidence for the evolutionary nature of morality is that it provides exactly that intrinsic value to what is "good" and what is "bad", no middleman required.

jonswitzer wrote: A bit of a whiner this Paula...

I think you'll find the correct spelling is "winner"!

davivman :

"You can look up St. Thomas Aquinas's proofs for the existance of God if you prefer logical proofs."

Methinks you jest. I could do better than Aquinas and I'm an atheist.

davivman wrote:

"I said that perhaps God was allowing a certain amount of evil to occur in order to turn it into a good."

On the other hand perhaps God is evil but allows some good to occur in order to turn it into evil.

davivman wrote:

"AntAllan, those are interesting points, but I disagree with the overall conclusion. The way I see it is that if God created everything then things that are in union with the will of God are considered "good" and things that are not are "evil". Such a classification would not be independent of God."

This is merely a restatement of the idea that God decides what is "good" and "evil". But why should a rational person accept that? You can't say it is because "God is good" because then you are involved in a circular argument. If you think it is not then the onus is on you to demonstrate why. You can't rationally argue against something by merely saying you disagree with the conclusions, at least not if you want to be taken seriously, you have to address the argument itself.

Or is this your attempt at doing so:

"As for your two counter-intuitive results: God's will does not change, and I don't see the circular logic because our duty to obey God is a direct result of our being created for that purpose."

If so I must ask what you mean by "duty". If it means something like "what we are obliged to do to avoid some sort of punishment", then you must show why that is good. On the other hand if the notion includes that of "doing what is good or right", then the argument again becomes circular.

davivman wrote:

"Tmorvant, I'm not sure what your point is, but I certainly don't apreciate being called murderous for no reason. I guess we are not above name calling in this blog."

I would have thought Tmorvant's point was transparently obvious. He his pointing out that you appear to think you could not be a good person if you were not taking instructions from some sky-daddy. He is not insulting you, rather he is pointing out that you are insulting yourself.

CORNBREAD_R2

Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll be on the lookout for it the next time I am in the bookstore. Another you might enjoy if you haven't already read it is "Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion" by Todd Tremlin (Assistant Professor of Religion, Michigan State University). Fascinating book and very accessible reading. Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought" is also very good if a bit technical at times. Boyer's work also draws much from evolutionary neurobiology, but he is an anthropologist by trade so draws much from that discipline as well.

I've recently been reading Fisher's Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America which discusses the mindset of early British colonial groups.

They had a very different concept of freedom.

1) Everybody needs rules and orders that dictate how they should behave.

2) The natural or initial state of Man is slavery which contains no freedom.

3) The natural state of society is a strong hierarchy.

4) Individual or group freedom is a lack of ruling from above and the right to rule those below.

5) Group freedom, not individual freedom, is a main concern and consists of dictating how the group members and anybody else in their community must behave.

6) Group religious freedom is the freedom of a group (without constraint from above other than by God) to rule how everybody must obey their religion.

Thus religious freedom includes the right to execute anybody that doesn't obey the religious rules.

It is very disturbing that such religious fanaticism, 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 significant stupidity of all religions.

I don't think I have time to reply to all of the new comments people wrote to me since I last left, but I'll try:

Tmorvant, I'm not sure what your point is, but I certainly don't apreciate being called murderous for no reason. I guess we are not above name calling in this blog.

cornbread_r2, since I'm short on time I'll just answer one right now. I never said that the evil in this world was some sort of a lesson. I said that perhaps God was allowing a certain amount of evil to occur in order to turn it into a good. we could spend an afternoon discussing the nature of evil, suffering, death and end the conversation with more questions than we started.

AntAllan, those are interesting points, but I disagree with the overall conclusion. The way I see it is that if God created everything then things that are in union with the will of God are considered "good" and things that are not are "evil". Such a classification would not be independent of God. As for your two counter-intuitive results: God's will does not change, and I don't see the circular logic because our duty to obey God is a direct result of our being created for that purpose.

JUSTACOMMENT, witness testimony is evidence whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Court decisions are rendered all the time based soley on witness testimony as evidence. However that is not the only evidence. You can look up St. Thomas Aquinas's proofs for the existance of God if you prefer logical proofs.

pieroforno, you get a silly answer for a silly question.

GMartin-Royle and rwahrens, see my response to justacomment above.

kathleenabrams, I'm sorry to nit-pick but Stalin was raised Georgian Orthodox not Catholic. There was a time when you could have been burnt at the stake for making a mistake like that!

Sara121:

Another book you might find interesting is The Human Faces of God , by Thom Stark. John Loftus, a former student of William Lane Craig and ex-evangelical minister reviews it here. And thanks for your contributions on this thread.

On the issue of the archeology of the first five books of the bible: The slavery in Egypt, the mass exodus, the wandering in the desert, the god sanctioned ethnic cleansing of Canaan, and the united monarchy have all been falsified. David, as has already been pointed out, was at best a hilltop chieftain in the economically, agriculturally, population poor southern highlands, not a great and powerful king. The book I am reading is "The Bible Unearthed: Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts" by Israel Finklestein (Tel Aviv University) and Neil Asher Silberman (Ename Center for for Public Archeology and Heritage Presentation in Belgium).

There is ample evidence that these books were first written down in the 7th century BCE, second iron age, during the reign of King Josiah. In the authors' analysis they describe evidence that essentially Josiah and his priests created these text in order to unite the people of the southern highlands, justify his political and territorial ambitions to the north (where the Israelite kingdom had already fallen and the Assyrians had already pulled out), and to denigrate the people and religions of the north while giving them a path to integrate into a culturally dominate south (the northerners shared a few cultural traits with the southerners, such as worshiping Yahweh and not eating pork for example, but they also shared cultural traits with other groups in the region). The Davidic "prophesy" was made up at this time so Josiah could fashion himself as the new King David of a "new" united monarchy.

An atheist is simply a person who has listened to the explanations that religions give for the mysteries of the universe, and said "I don't buy that explanation."

A lot of people who sit in pews every Sunday fall into this catagory, but fear the stigma of being called an atheist.

Glad to see the Washington Post putting common-sense critisism of religions into the mainstream!

www.heathensguide.com

Thank you for your honest article. In response the the post inferring that Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists...I guess Hitler is now realized to have been a Catholic, and, to inform you, Stalin was raised Catholic and attended Seminary to be a Priest, and Pol Pot attended 12 years of Catholic School.

POSTED BY: DAVIVMAN

There is evidince for the existance of God.

---

Really? Where? Please provide it, or at least link to it. I'd love to examine it!

Oh, and you don't get to use the bible. It is circumstantial evidence at best, and most of it is just made up out of whole cloth.

@JONSWITZER;

(Sorry about the sign in name, I apparently have two, one at work and one at home...)

First of all, your answer about the Republicans doesn't explain their support of the ungodly capitalists. "Keeping up with the times" doesn't cut it. The Republicans are as religious a group as you can get in politics in this country, and they are supporting a group you are calling, in affect, sinners. That requires a better explanation.

I agree that a lack of morality is a problem in business, but I reject your conclusion that a lack of religion is the cause. ALL of the robber barons in the US in the nineteenth century were good christian men, at least as far as their communities were concerned. It was their reprehensible business conduct that gave the lie to their morals.

They prove conclusively that one can be religious AND immoral at the same time.

Hmm, lets see, where else could we have seen that? Ted Haggard? Jimmy Swaggart? Kent Hovand? I could go on for another twenty or thirty names. Your religion is NOT an oasis of morality, in spite of its teachings of such. You can go on about how weak people are, and you'd be right. But NO religions brought morality to humans, we figured that out for ourselves.

As for your other question, of course I support those values, but you ask the question as if the bible is the first and only place those values were dealt with. It was not, the Code of Hammurabi was at least hundreds of years prior to what we know was the beginnings of the Hebrew religion, and it included all of those values.

so, unfortunately for you, they are NOT "religious" values, but perfectly humanist ones, which human cultures have found through hard experience are needed to help people work, live and play together with a minimum of friction.

The point of this essay by Paula was that the teachings of religion are NOT compatible with our ideals of freedom.

And they are NOT.

There is evidince for the existance of God.

POSTED BY: DAVIVMAN | FEBRUARY 16, 2011 4:55 PM
REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT

Details please (& I'm sorry but the bible does not count as evidence).

In life good people do good and evil people do evil. In order for good people to do evil there must be religion.

Jihm, I'm afraid I'm not to hopeful for the future of these uncontacted tribes. There fate depends on whether the loggers or the Christians get to them first. I'm not sure which is worse. It is an incredibly sad situation.

Paula, I love you. I would like to say I couldn't have said it better myself. Though your eloquence is better than mine by a country mile.

I recently saw a documentary showing a man whose job it is to keep track of and protect tribes in the Amazon that have never been contacted. The program showed him photographing individuals in such a tribe from a plane at a distance of half a mile.
As he observed the people in the village below he said, "These may well be the last free people on earth." That notion concerning these "uncontacted" people has an undeniable ring of truth to it. My point, I guess, is that the word "freedom" has many meanings.

Davivman:
"The standard is not imaginary in the least bit. For example, bibles are not imaginary, I've seen them quite often. "

That's the silliest reply I've ever seen. Is Harry Potter real? I mean, I've seen plenty of real Harry Potter books, complete with hard cover and printed letters.

ThomasBaum said:

"Everyone's "walk with Jesus" is different from everyone else's, we are not called to be "clones"."

When is it coming out? "Walking with dinosaurs" will be a hard act to follow - that was pretty cool

ThomasBaum says:

"I have met God the Father and the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus,..."

Crikey I didn't know Glenfiddich could be so powerful.

ScottinVA says:

"The Bible is the only certified document that credibly can be identified as divinely inspired and accurate. As the historical and prophetic portions have been corroborated, those portions that seem to be illogical or unlikely--to the limited human intellect--are taken to be true by faith; just because we cannot understand a supernatural concept, does not make it untrue."

I would like to take issue with this. At the start of my copy of "Noddy goes Shopping", Big Ears predicts that Noddy will run over Mr. Plod's toe. Sure enough, two pages later Noddy does run over Mr. Plod's toe in order that the prophesy be fulfilled. As well as prophesy, this Holy Book contains accounts of historical events such as the sun setting at the end of the day and also contains scientific facts that, without divine intervention, could not possibly be known to a toy wooden boy and an elf. The most stunning example being that when you press the horn on a toy car you hear a "beep beep" sound. In view of this "Noddy goes Shopping" clearly has an equal claim to be considered divinely inspired and accurate. Those portions that seem to be illogical or unlikely--to the limited human intellect--are taken to be true by faith; just because something is a fairy story, does not make it untrue.

ABSOLUTELY!

Wish I could state the FACTS as well!

Thank you.

Davivman wrote: “As for the proof of God that you demand from religion. It is there, but you don't acknowledge it. For example, the Bible includes the testimony of people that experienced God becoming man. Yet you discount it. What good is proof if you don't acknowledge it?”

An incredibly extraordinary claim calls for incredibly extraordinary evidences. An omnipotent and omniscient agent that exists outside the natural universe, but controls and knows every bit of the present and future of all things, including human thoughts, emotions and desires, requires a more compelling evidence. Not only that, this agent created the universe. Just one minor imperfection, the gay had to rest for one full day, but it's understandable, he wanted to teach us humans that we need to rest, he doesn't.

The bible as evidence is as best second hand testimony (hearsay) of things that were experienced by primitive humans. The actual actors of the history did not experienced the related events as a distracted reader could imply when you say “people that experienced God becoming man”. Was any of the authors present when Jesus was conceived by Mary? Did any of the authors really experienced or observed first hand how god became a man? DNA tests to find the divine gene? Ultrasound of the fetus? No, as in many similar instances the real actors in the event had dreams, heard voices or saw angels. Were they checked by a certified psychologist or psychiatrist at the time? Did they took a drug test? Then the real actors or eyewitnesses of the events told others about the events and these others were the ones that wrote the key parts of the book.

If you go today to a court with this evidence to prove the paternity of Jesus, they will dismiss the case instantaneously. On the other hand if you can present today a conclusive and undeniable evidence that a god exist and Jesus was his son, that will make the world change overnight. And you will be famous in earth and heaven and hell for the rest of the eternity.

ThomasBaum "I know that God Is, because I have met God"

Are you sure you've not forgotten to take your medication?

jonswitzer

This sentence of yours:

"Certainly, nothing in the Bible condones either the pedophilia, homosexuality or deception of those scandals."

Contains one word too many. Do you have the common decency to see which one it is?

Paula, you should read what the Bible says before you state your heretical views. In his First Epistle, Peter writes (1 Peter 2, 13-16):
"Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves."

Oh -- it appears you are right after all!

www.whatwouldamericanjesusdo.com

twirlgrl

You wrote, "I will argue, however, that there is no evidence in support of God and plenty of evidence that there is no God."

There is absolutely no evidence that there is no God, this is merely your opinion.

You then wrote, "I suppose, there is a miniscule possibility of the existence of a God but if there is such a creature, it is not worthy of worship."

I know that God Is, because I have met God, God is a Trinity and is a Being of Pure Love.

As far as you saying, "if there is such a creature, it is not worthy of worship", I would have to agree with you, IF God were even remotely like what some think God to be and this does include those that happen to know God's Name.

You also wrote, ""If we do follow them, he helps us and blesses us"
...by letting us be raped, murdered, beaten, starved, lied to and stolen from? Why is it that victimization is not divided less equally between believers and non-believers? Let me guess, His ways are mysterious?"

Look what we did to God when He became One of us.

And then to top this off, Jesus extended the invitation to "Come follow Me".

And Jesus also reminded us, in case we forgot, remember what "they" did to me, don't be surprised if something similiar happens to you.

Watered down Christianity is not Christianity.

I have met God the Father and the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, one of the interesting things about the Eucharist is that it was instituted on what is referred to as Holy Thursday, which is before Good Friday, the day that Jesus was crucified.

Jesus is calling us to our own Good Friday in that we are to be active participants in God's Plan for the Salvation of not only All of humanity but also for all of creation.

Some people seemed to have missed this part of it and just want to jump right into the Easter part of it, so to speak.

We are not suppose to hide behind Jesus but to walk with Him.

When Jesus extended the invitation to "Come follow Me", He said "Me", not the bible, not the church, not those that follow me, but "Me".

Everyone's "walk with Jesus" is different from everyone else's, we are not called to be "clones".

If the Good News is not for ALL than the Good News is not Good News at all.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

PAULA,you are a gem.....as someone who has thrown away religion for free thinking,you inspire me with your writing.You are an amazing woman.....

According the christian dogma, I'm guilty for being a descendant of Adam and Eve, I inherit their guilt.

Then their god killed himself, or his son, depending on which brainswashing soap you're using, to free me of that guilt.

Where is the personal responsibility in that? Why am I guilty of what another man did? How does the human sacrifice of one man clear me of these crimes I didn't commit?

It's like christians are talking in a secret code, words don't mean what they really mean when you're talking about their religion. They think belief is fact, dogma is truth, blind adherence to primitive and barbaric myths are freedom.

The part that really tells us how insane believers are is where they agree with the atheists that all the other gods people have believed in or continue to believe in, the thousands upon thousands of gods, are false. The only difference between the christian and the atheist in this light is one god ... or is it two, Jesus was a god?

So was satan. Mary was a goddess, what about all these angels and seraphim and all those other magical creatures created .. before, at the same time as ...

You people are truly insane.

@ DAVIVMAN

« In Plato’s dialogue the Euthyphro, Socrates articulates a famous logical dilemma that challenges the coherence of any ethics that grounds human beings’ moral duties in the commands or will of a divinity.  Socrates notes that (i) either the things of value to human life would be valuable independently of the will of the gods, or they wouldn’t.  If human values (ii) were independent of the gods’ will, then gods cannot be the ultimate source of human value, since these values would exist even if the gods did not.  However, the other side of dilemma convicts theistic ethics of incoherence as well, for if human values (iii) were not independent on the will of the gods—if values followed directly and essentially from what the gods decree—then two counter-intuitive consequences result: (a) actions like murder might have been good if the gods had so deemed them and still might be good if they are so deemed in the future, and (b) our duty to obey the gods cannot be explained, for claiming that duty to be a human good would be viciously circular—asking us to follow the gods’ will because they willed it.   Socrates’ arguments in the Euthyphro have been a perennial rebuttal to any ethics that sees morality and human goodness as essentially dependent on the decrees of supernatural agents.» naturlism.org/history.html

@ YEAL9

In fact, the percentage is higher than that as a significant fraction of Buddhists (Zen, especially) & Chinese practicing traditional religion are atheistic as well. Religion doesn’t necessarily embrace any kind of supernaturalism.

@ SCOTTINVA

The “testimony” of the Bible is no more evidence for the existence of God than _The Lord of the Rings_ is for the existence of hobbits and orcs or _Star Wars_ is for the existence of Wookies and Ewoks. You’d need something rather more substantial to validate the notion that these beings exist in any way other than in the minds of the human authors and readers.

The "freedom" Kirby espouses is lasciviousness and anarchy.

Each person is "endowed by [his] Creator with certain inalienable rights..." We are given freedom to choose the slavery of a loving God (by whom we are then given the privilege to call Father), or to choose the slavery of serving our base natures.

Any choice against one's base nature is merely a vestige of the conscience placed in each person by that Creator. But once one has chosen to reject the slavery of Love, though he may pick and choose which of His rules to apply to his life, he is still the slave to Satan (yes, you may now mock me for having the temerity to mention the one you unknowingly serve).

There are those here who have presented excellent and well-reasoned defenses of God as the fountainhead of all goodness; but I fear they have erred in trying to be too inclusive in their "big tent". There is only one source of truth; and there are many counterfeits. The Papists have draped the facade of Christianity over their pagan religion, just as Mohomed took from Judaism and Christianity to "sanitize" the idolatry of the bedouins.

The Bible is the only certified document that credibly can be identified as divinely inspired and accurate. As the historical and prophetic portions have been corroborated, those portions that seem to be illogical or unlikely--to the limited human intellect--are taken to be true by faith; just because we cannot understand a supernatural concept, does not make it untrue.

Irreligious/agnostic/atheism 1.1 billion

1.1 billion/6.7 billion = 16.4%

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

New Torah For Modern Minds

"Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho.

And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

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

YEAL9

You wrote, "90% of the world is god-fearing? Not according to the following data:"

What do you mean by "god-fearing", statistically speaking, according to the data that you refer to?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

davivman:

Re: the problem of suffering:

I can see how someone can rationalize human suffering as a way a god might teach humans a valuable lesson (e.g. compassion), but how does one explain the enormous amount of suffering that has been experienced by trillions and trillions of other living creatures since life began on this planet? What lesson was being taught to them?

Re: violation of human free will when God makes his existence too apparent:

Was Moses's free will violated when God spoke with him and performed incredible miracles through him? How about the Israelites when God fed them miraculously with manna? Or the 12 apostles when Jesus performed many healing miracles in their presence? Or the 5,000 who were fed by Jesus with just a few loaves and fishes? Or the 500 who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead? Or the 70,000 who witnessed the miracle of the Sun at Fatima? Or the 7,000+ persons who claim miraculous healings at Lourdes, France? Do the saints in Heaven have their free will violated?

Davivman I fear for us all if you were to loose your faith as you seem to be arguing that the only thing standing between us and a murderous davivman is continued belief in a god. Thankfully it would appear that without god, I am more concerned for the well being of my fellow man than those with god.

Twrlgirl: of course the bible didn't give us morality. Budhists managed to come up with the idea that bashing each other's skulls was a bad idea just fine without any help from the bible. The Jains? They spend their entire lives guarding the life of even the smallest insect. I also love how Jon attempts to justify religion by Arguing that since religions of all types have existed from the beginning of time then there must be something to it. He's happy to include them in his census when justifying his position, even though he believes their particular god story is so ridiculous that they will burn for eternity.

Morality only has meaning if it is inspired by religious belief (even if you yourself don't have that belief). If God did not exist, then we are nothing more than bizare abnormalities in a soulless universe. If that were true then our lives have no meaning and our decisions are inconsequencial. Thankfully, whether you believe it or not, God is real and he has revealed he that loves us and he wants us to love him and each other. That is what gives morality meaning.

DAVIVMAN - Allow me to clarify: Religious belief does not determine morality. You are making my point for me - we make our own morality.

Jonswitzer: regarding your claim that there is no record in ancient history where it was arguably non-religious, I would ask you to define the words 'stoic', 'skeptic', and 'epicurean'. You should read about the Hellenistic period. Read the cicero's De Natura Deorum (the Nature Of The Gods) 500 b.c., and I have no doubt you will find that there is sufficient evidence to counter your assertion.

@JonSwitzer, "About the prison population - would you rather they believe that lying and stealing are okay? or that they have a conscience developed that teaches them that those things are wrong? Anyway, most likely prison populations claim religion because it helps them to get less time."

Of course I do not want people to believe that lying and stealing are ok. My point is simply that adherence to a religion does not make one morally superior. You keep making statements about the Bible giving us these rules. The Bible did not give them and the fact that they are in there seems to have no effect on believers. You may well have a point about reduced sentencing, though!

twirlgrl, oh and by the way, belief does determine morality. Morality is a series of beliefs. Thinking that stealing is wrong is just as much a belief as thinking that stealing is ok.

DAVIVMAN - "twirlgrl, I apologize. If you say you didn't bring that stat up for the reason it initially seemed like you did, then I'll believe you. My wife is a public defender and I tend to get riled up when I think people are dehumanizing prisoners."

Thank you. Your wife does a very good thing. I understand your passion. I work for a non-profit which serves many under-privileged people. I do not dehumanize ANY people.

@JonSwitzer

Theft and rape in the Bible:
Genesis 19: 3-14
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Zechariah 14:1-2

twirlgrl, I apologize. If you say you didn't bring that stat up for the reason it initially seemed like you did, then I'll believe you. My wife is a public defender and I tend to get riled up when I think people are dehumanizing prisoners.

DAVIVMAN "don't act like your random pointing out of prisoner populations having higher levels of belief than the population in general wasn't intended to insinuate a link between belief and criminal activity"

It was not. My point was the opposite. I will say it again since you seem to have an issue with comprehension: Belief does not determine morality. One more time: Belief does not determine morality. Do you get it yet?

The "People in Heaven are watching me and know my thoughts" aspect of religion DOES sound an awful lot like schizophrenia.

JonSwitzer - "I would like you show me human history before religion? Prior to the Bible (which goes back to Abraham, which is Early Egypt history) religion was certainly more pervasive than today, not less. Ancient recorded history is NOWHERE non-religious."

I said "Do you really believe that prior to the Bible, everyone ran around lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering each other?" Prior to the Bible; not prior to religion. The Bible, if I recall correctly, was written somewhere around 100 AD. We have writings that go back millenia prior to that and much of it is non-religious. The bits about Abraham were not written BY Abraham; they were written thousands of years later based on passed-down stories.

twirlgrl, don't act like your random pointing out of prisoner populations having higher levels of belief than the population in general wasn't intended to insinuate a link between belief and criminal activity. There is no other reason to bring that up in the way that you did.

I pointed out the criminal justice systems bias against the poor and minorities because those two groups tend to be more religious. That is why the belief rate in prison is so high. Its correlation not causation.

DAVIVMAN - "I guess your inference is that somehow these "criminals" are in there for their religious beliefs."

Well, I guess you are completely wrong. They are there because they were found guilty of a crime. I don't think religion has ANYTHING to do with it. My point was that even those who claim to be Christians do not follow the morals in their holy book. Religion does not bestow morality upon an individual.

"our criminal justice system is disproportionately severe to minorities and the poor"
Yes, it is. So what is your point here?

twirlgrl, God is not a creature, God is the creator. We are the creatures. I'm sorry that you feel that God isn't worthy of worship, but I for one am pretty thankful to be here. There is evidince for the existance of God. There is the testimony of people that have encountered God. What is this tons of evidence that God does not exist that you are talking about?

Thank you, Paula. We apostates are still a vanishingly small minority in this bizarro world but perhaps some kind of trend has begun.
Christians are fond of claiming that "freedom is a gift from God". G. Bush famously claimed this as a righteous rationale for a ruinous war, you'll remember. But in every historical instance I know of where a people aspired to "freedom" (in its various forms) they had to fight for it against the armies of tyrannies, often god-fearing tyrannies, with epic bloodshed all around. Sometimes freedom-fighters won; sometimes they were crushed. In what sense, then, is "freedom a gift from God"?

JonSwitzer -
One's failure to follow one's religion and consequent deception does not invalidate the religion but the failure of follower

My point exactly. Religion does not make one moral. We make ourselves moral.

Will address other points shortly, want to respond to other poster...

JonSwitzer said "Christianity argues that there are certain moral laws that if violated produce the evil we see on the earth."

I repeat, Christianity absorbed these laws; it didn't create them.

"I think it is funny on this post how one person will argue that there can't be a God because there is so much evil out there. Then the next person will argue that there shouldn't be a God because then we would have to follow his rules"

Was the first part of that supposed to be directed at me? Because I never argued that the existence of evil showed there could be no God. I will argue, however, that there is no evidence in support of God and plenty of evidence that there is no God. I suppose, there is a miniscule possibility of the existence of a God but if there is such a creature, it is not worthy of worship.

"If we do follow them, he helps us and blesses us"
...by letting us be raped, murdered, beaten, starved, lied to and stolen from? Why is it that victimization is not divided less equally between believers and non-believers? Let me guess, His ways are mysterious?

Twrlgrl,

Great questions.

I would like you show me human history before religion? Prior to the Bible (which goes back to Abraham, which is Early Egypt history) religion was certainly more pervasive than today, not less. Ancient recorded history is NOWHERE non-religious.

About murder: Capital punishment is NOT murder but justice. The Canaanites sacrificed their children in the fire to their god Baal. God sanctioned their deaths as a judgement for their evil. It is the ONE time in history that God sanctioned aggressive war (likening it to removing Hitler would reasonable).

About theft and rape, I have yet to find it sanctioned anywhere in the Bible. Can you help me?

About Catholic Scandals: One's failure to follow one's religion and consequent deception does not invalidate the religion but the failure of follower. Certainly, nothing in the Bible condones either the pedophilia, homosexuality or deception of those scandals.

About the prison population - would you rather they believe that lying and stealing are okay? or that they have a conscience developed that teaches them that those things are wrong? Anyway, most likely prison populations claim religion because it helps them to get less time.

Same thing about the rich and powerful, would we rather they believe that lying, stealing, murder and greed are okay or that they would feel constrained by a "higher power" to stop doing those unjust things?

twirlgrl, nice comment about the prison population. I guess your inference is that somehow these "criminals" are in there for their religious beliefs. I'm sure that is the reason they are in there and not because our criminal justice system is disproportionately severe to minorities and the poor. How insulting.

I think it is funny on this post how one person will argue that there can't be a God because there is so much evil out there. Then the next person will argue that there shouldn't be a God because then we would have to follow his rules...(exasperated sigh)...which is it...do you want freedom and all of the evil...or would you rather have enforced laws restraining evil?

Please.

Christianity argues that there are certain moral laws that if violated produce the evil we see on the earth. They say that God does not force these laws but instead lets us see the evil of rejecting them and freely choose to follow them. If we do not he lets us feel the brunt of our evil (i.e. lying,cheating, stealing, murder, violence, unrestrained selfishness). If we do follow them, he helps us and blesses us (even if we reject Him personally; ie. being honest, kind, hardworking etc).

Can't kick God out and then blame Him for the mess.

JonSwitzer said, "Do you think that the religious doctrine of not lying, cheating, stealing, murdering or coveting are "unenlightened" and irrelevant to a secularist's open mind"

Do you really believe that prior to the Bible, everyone ran around lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering each other? No, these societal rules were absorbed by religion; not created by it.

As of my last Bible reading, there was quite a lot of God-sanctioned murder, theft, violence and rape. The Bible is the last book one should use to determine morality.

Further, religion does not seem to be a sufficient moral guide for those who do believe as evidenced by the world-wide scandals of the Catholic church and deceitful cover-up of the same. Most of the people in prison in the USA are Christians. Non-religious people make up 10 - 15% of the total population but only about 1% of the prison population.

Yeal, Here is Wikipedia's comment. If you include Atheist and non-religious you get to about 15% of the world. However, non-religious likely includes those who still believe in a god. So, the number, generously at 10% is a good shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
The demographics of atheism are difficult to quantify. Different people interpret "atheist" and related terms differently, and it can be hard to draw boundaries between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, atheists may not report themselves as such, to prevent suffering from social stigma, discrimination, and persecution in some countries,[citation needed] or, in cases where the situation is reversed, religious people may keep their beliefs secret in pro-atheist societies.[1] Despite these problems, one study classified 2.5% of the world's population as atheists, and a separate 12.7% as non-religious.[2]

So, Yeal, which part of your list of religions is NOT included in god-fearing. Maybe the term "god-fearing" is a poor one. What I mean is that they believe in God (or gods) and that He/she/they are believed to be important to follow. Your list doesn't include non-religious people who also believe in God/goddess. The point is that the overwhelming majority of the world is religious/god-believing. Only about 10% is not and their relative strength would appear to be a recent phenomenon.

90% of the world is god-fearing? Not according to the following data:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Religion Adherents

Christianity 2.1 billion

Islam 1.5 billion

Irreligious/agnostic/atheism 1.1 billion

Hinduism 900 million

Chinese traditional religion 394 million

Buddhism 376 million

Animist religions 300 million

African traditional/diasporic religions 100 million

Sikhism 23 million
Juche 19 million
Spiritism 15 million
Judaism 14 million
Baha'i 7 million
Jainism 4.2 million
Shinto 4 million
Cao Dai 4 million
Zoroastrianism 2.6 million
Tenrikyo 2 million
Neo-Paganism 1 million
Unitarian Universalism 800,000
Rastafari Movement 600,000

I think people here are misusing the word tyranny. You would think that if living in tyranny, you would be forced to obey the tyrant. Nobody forces me to be a Christian, including my church. There is a big difference between defining what types of behavior are good and bad (as religions typically do) and forceably compelling people to behave in a certain way. The religion = tyranny equation doesn't add up.

I'm free from the ravages of the tyranny of a bronze age myth that shackled me intellectually and morally for decades. True freedom is being unrestrained from the doubts and fears imposed by ignorance, intolerance, and dishonesty of religion and allowing the possibility of becoming a self actualized person. Thanks for your article Paula.

Rwharens1,

I hear that you have significant cynicism toward religious teachings. Okay. People aside, then, are you uncomfortable with the religious emphasis on telling the truth, being kind to others, duty to society at large (not stealing etc.)...

I understand that there are about twenty laws in the old testament that appear "strange" 4,000 years later. (i.e. not mixing cloths, not eating certain foods etc.) Also, I understand that you reject the idea of God.

However, I'm just trying to get a baseline here. Do you reject all the moral teachings of the Bible, including Jesus, "do unto others as you would have them do to you." or do you reject just some of them. If so, where do you draw the line? Is lying okay? Is stealing okay? Is murder okay? Paula thoroughly rejected all religion as unhelpful. Do you also?

Drobert,

It is true that I have not tried to answer all of the earlier comments on this thread. However, I hope to answer those who are still here. I have answered Sara, Humansimpleton, BernardHurley and now you (I think you showed up about 2:49 or so). Most of my responses have been direct responses to them. Now, I would like to respond to you. Perhaps, however, I am a liar. Help me to pull this log out of my eye.

So, how about you? Do you think that the religious doctrine of not lying, cheating, stealing, murdering or coveting are "unenlightened" and irrelevant to a secularist's open mind?

Rawhrens1,

Certainly, The Republican party, unfortunately, just like the Democratic Party (or any institution for that matter) struggles to keep up with the present. I feel the Republican party is in danger of fighting for a system that only works in a Judeo-Christian world view.

Interestingly, the 19th century growth of the Industrial Machine in Eastern Europe led to a level of Greed that produced the Communist/socialist backlash. Remember, France kicked God out in their Revolution leading a continent wide rejection of God throughout the 19th century. There was a much lesser expression of that here in the United States leading to a much slower conversion to socialism. Though greed WAS certainly a problem here as well, the level of its influence was still greatly seasoned with a sense of absolute right and wrong. We didn't kick God out of our schools until the 1960s (hence God and Harvard comment) It is not until now at the end of the 20th century that we find ourselves with a unleashed greed that is similar to the European 19th century.

Capitalism without morality produces robber barons and as such produces a socialist/secularist backlash. Our only hope is to believe that lying and cheating are ABSOLUTELY wrong.

@JONSWITZER,

You keep coming up with truly amazingly wrong stuff..

God at Harvard Business School? Really? You need to go back and look American history in the 19th Century and see how those god fearing gentlemen treated the working classes until the Government stepped in to put a stop to it.

When you do, come back here and justify that last post. The CEOs of today are just getting back to their roots, which has nothing to do with secularism.

On that note, I might ask why, if they are so bad, is the god fearing Republican party so dead set on backing those same evil secularist CEOs?

Do you mind explaining that?

@JONSWITZER: Do you read the responses of others, or do you just repeat yourself, ignoring any and all opinions other than your own? In that, you are making yourself a liar, in that you make the (bold, incredible) claim that religion teaches freedom, and you accuse people like Dawkins, who after all is doing nothing but express his opinion, or imposing dogma upon others.

So please, go back and read the many well thought responses to your unwarranted attacks before simply going ahead, putting your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la-la-la, and simply repeating your initial unreasoned argument with little if any addition.

Paula - Outstanding!

@JONSWITZER;

Secularism isn't an answer, it is an umbrella term that describes people that do not subscribe to religion. Being secular is a process of discovery, of growth and learning, and as such, can lead one to the effort to attain the best you can be.

It is knowing that you do not have all the answers, but you DO have a means to discover those answers you lack.

Paula isn't saying anything about religious PEOPLE, but she is talking about religion as a series of belief systems that are, to secular people with open minds, not all they are made up to be.

Brilliantly stated! I wish the Washington Post would run this everyday on the front page. It's a message so many need to hear and understand. Thank you!!

Blondin,

I am not surprised that many secularists are law abiding citizens. They are a 10% percent minority of a 90% God-believing world. There will never be a way for a secularists to NOT be influenced by the God-believers. Try as they might, they will only find frustration.

However, God was kicked out of Harvard law school about 50 years ago. It certainly does not surprise me that their business school graduates that have now risen to the highest levels (CEO's etc.) of our Capitalist society are perpetrating the greatest levels of greed and dishonesty seen around the world. Secularism (or God's absolute laws being rejected) at Harvard 50 years ago has not led to our Business culture be more trustworthy but less.

JONSWITZER: "All I'm saying is that religion taught me to recognize these slaveries and avoid them."

So you say.

So does it come as a surprise to you that millions of people grow up to be decent, law-abiding, caring, considerate friends, neighbors and fellow citizens without ever believing in omnipotent beings?

Humane and civil behaviour between human beings has evolved and progressed in spite of religious influence, not because of it.

BernardHurley

You are right. I, perhaps, am using a broad brush stroke when dealing with secularists. However, that is precisely what Paula has done. Her personal experience with religious people has become her grid for viewing all religious people, hence her sense that no religious people live free. So, I will grant you that some "secularists" live by your UK code of secularism. The secularists, however, on this blog, including Paula, would do well to grant the same to "religionists". Broad brush strokes create sweepingly inadequate generalizations that increase ignorance instead of stopping it.

BernardHurley, I suppose you can look at this world as a predominantly evil thing. I'm going to go ahead and not do that. I see a lot of good even in the midst of misery. Perhaps you watch too much evening news and are convinced that the trageties you see are the norm of everyday life.

Additionally you seem very adamant about this not taking responsibility thing. You're going to have to connect the dots for me on this because I truly don't see the connection you are trying to make. In what way, shape, or form does me trusting that when bad things happen to good people, that God may have a plan for good that I might not fully understand have anything to do with me taking or not taking responsibility for my actions?

Great article. too bad the Christians lack the ability to read and accept another person view as equal to their own view. I guess when you put on the shackles of religion you have lost your freedom, and do what the religious leader tells you to do, not use condoms, give us your chidren, child abuse but don't blame me, do as I say and not as I do, and the list is long for a lack of freedom.

Those that already gave up thbeir freedom, misery loves company. I am quite happy as a practicing Buddhist, which BTW, has NO rules for practice other than to observe the True Aspect of All Phenomena in my own life,as see all life as EQUAL, men, women, children, animals, trees, flowers, etc. EASY

Inward focus by self is freedom, while outward focus to others is enslaving with religious views to conform to THE accepted view.

Most American's cannot even dialog about religion without calling the other person wrong. The problem is no one has gone to heaven and returned to talk about it in reality, discounting the bibile as books were left out in the beginning that did not fit the need to control freedom of individuals.

The Medicci family, the first Pope and the first Money lender of Europe to make a profit and get rich with little red shoes that cost thusands of dollars a pair, while people go hungry every day around the world with religoious leaders watching closely was a way of stealing fredom, while taxing tghe poor, something we still do today.

jonswitzer wrote:

"Such a short memory Paula has...Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jung Il, Stalin...What great freedom was found in those "secular" nations which dutifully rejected all teaching about God whatsoever!?"

Are you trying to be deliberately insulting or are you completely ignorant of what secularism means? One of the principles of the UK National Secular Society is:

"The National Secular Society affirms that progress is possible only on the basis of equal freedom of speech and publication; that the free criticism of institutions and ideas is essential to a civilised state."

When did any of the gentlemen you mention sign up for that?

It is amazing how the attestation/stratum analyses used by most contemporary NT scholars, e.g. Professors Crossan, Ludemann Borg and Fredriksen, agree with what is currently being taught in graduate theology classes at many large Catholic universities (e.g. Catholic U, Notre Dame).

Major agreements achieved but by different reasoning:

1. There was no physical resurrection (i.e. Heaven is a Spirit State)

2. And it therefore follows there was no ascension and no assumption.

3. There is/was no original sin. A&E were fictional characters living in mythical land.

4. And it therefore follows, baptism does not erase original sin since there is no sin to erase. Limbo therefore is a non-issue.

5. Jesus was crucified but details of the deed have little historic verification.

davivman wrote:

"I tend to think that God allows a certain amount of evil to occur so that it can be transformed into good."

A certain amount of evil? That's an understatement. War, rape, genocide since time immemorial, some of it explicitly ordered by God in the Old Testament. Then, of course the are Aztec human sacrifices, pogroms in central and eastern Europe, the Crusades, the Inquisition, The two world wars, the Holocaust... Terrible diseases, smallpox killed more people last century than all the military conflicts put together... Natural disasters, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions...
Your God is going to have a busy time transforming these into good.

"Since the scope of God's undertanding extends far beyond our own, it can be difficult at times to see an evil lead to a Good. Thus we are often asked to place our trust in God even when we don't understand."

There you go not taking responsibility again!

Human Simpleton,

You happen to not give any "reason" in your assertion about religion enslaving.

However, have you ever met a "liar" that has not become enslaved to his lying?

Or have you ever met a thief who was not enslaved to his desire to have things without paying anything?

What about the greedy neighbor who spends their time envying their neighbors wife or car...is that enslavement?

What about the person who murders others...is he a slave to his selfishness?

What about the rebel without a cause who hates his parents and all authority, can such a person be said to be free?

What about the person driven by greed (which is defined as idolatry in the New Testament)? Is that person free?

Is the sexually emancipated person ever free to have a long-term loving relationship with one person? At what point is their sexual desire actually a slavery? Like the pornaholic culture of today?

At what point does a "free" desire take control and become an obsession that enslaves?

All I'm saying is that religion taught me to recognize these slaveries and avoid them.

Perhaps, secularism is not the answer Paula makes it out to be.

POSTED BY: JONSWITZER

--

Actually it is a better answer than religion. For the simple reason that religion enslaves, secularism does not.

Humansimpleton,

I have many standards to which I do not yet attain. That's part of what keeps me growing.

Have you attained all of your highest ideals?

Humansimpleton,

My point is that there are plenty of doctrines that have simply come down to us via religious people. Paula would seem to be interested in getting rid of all of that influence.

By the way, Christ has forgiven us of original sin.

But let me ask you this question: Do you forgive people who refuse to admit they did anything wrong?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you." - Jesus

What a vile doctrine!??!

No that one is kinda nice. Let me know when you Christians start practicing it as if it is a religion

"Forgive your neighbor"
That one is basically meaningless. If the divine slave-owner cannot bring himself to forgive the original sin, forgiving your neighbor is meaningless. "take care of the widow, orphan and poor"
which has nothing to do with freedom

"speak up for those who can't speak up for themselves"
which has nothing to do with freedom

"Stand up against injustice"
which when he was being nailed on the cross, told a fellow innocent that he should accept the crucifixion

Are these doctrines contrary to "true freedom"?

No, they are orthogonal

Sara 121

Sure, but Paula's thesis is "secularism frees us from religion." Religion is her bogeyman. Perhaps, she should have communicated with greater nuance and sophistication...

Has she never met a religious person who compares favorably with a secular person?? If not, then she has lived in a truly sheltered environment. Certainly, a small one at that.

Also, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, Stephen Hawking...all of these are just as likely to impose their doctrines on the "ignorant" masses.

Perhaps, secularism is not the answer Paula makes it out to be.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you." - Jesus

What a vile doctrine!??!

"Forgive your neighbor"
"take care of the widow, orphan and poor"
"speak up for those who can't speak up for themselves"
"Stand up against injustice"

Are these doctrines contrary to "true freedom"?

"Such a short memory Paula has...Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jung Il, Stalin...What great freedom was found in those "secular" nations which dutifully rejected all teaching about God whatsoever!?"

The relevant commonality between your list of dictators and religion is a dogmatic adherence to an ideology with dissenters labeled as heretics or traitors and excommunicated/purged/killed accordingly. Paula is arguing against religion as the most insidious form of dogmatic ideology.

The types of secularists who post on this site are worlds away from your dictators; they have no desire to arrest, kill, or revoke the citizenship of people who believe in this or that religion. They simply want to ensure that the civil and criminal laws that must apply to everyone are not based on the beliefs of whoever the majority religion (or best funded religion) happens to be at the time.

Here are a few dogmas that I tyrannically had imposed upon me!!!! Don't hit your brother, Johnny! Johnny, don't touch that stove. Johnny, don't run in the street! Johnny, share with your friends! Johnny, say please and thank you! Johnny, if you keep lying to people, no one will trust you! Johnny, please don't talk while the teacher is talking, learn how to listen! Johnny, stop farting in public! Johnny, you need to return that gum you stole from that store! Johnny, you need to take a bath, wear deodorant and brush your teeth (if you don't want to offend)! Johnny, if you work hard, you will be rewarded, but if you are lazy, you will end up poor. Johnny, show respect for others!

When will I be free from all these rules!!!

Does "true freedom" include the freedom to kill, lie, cheat, steal, hate and envy? Does it include the freedom to kill children or those with whom one disagrees? Does it include the "right" to spend one's life "high" on drugs or drunk? Does it include the right to pee on my neighbors bushes? Does it include the right to sleep in my neighbors house? How does private property play into freedom?

Just a few questions I have about Paula's rejection of basic teachings of the Old Testament.

Take for example the "Old Testament Tabernacle". Should "offenses" against one another (lying, stealing etc.) be dealt with before we "enter" the "house" of our relationship together? or after?

Also, once we are in the "house" of our relationship with each other (i.e. sharing food, light, warmth) should we learn to gently appeal to each other (i.e. prayerful requests) or should we demand things rudely and selfishly.

Finally, should just anyone be allowed to "barge" into the most private parts of my life, or am I allowed to impose standards for entrance (i.e. don't lie to me, don't steal from me, treat me with respect)?

Again, just a few Old Testament principles that seem helpful.

Baby...bathwater...

@JONSWITZER: None of the people you mention were anti-religious. They were all quite religious, if not in the way you would understand the word. Communism was a religion no less that Buddhism (or the FreeMarket fundamentalism that drives much of the American Right today). Religion has a fixed, unchanging, unchallengeable dogma, often codified in sacred writings: Communism had that, in droves, in the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, which were seen as Gospel Truth as much as the Bible is to a Christian (to the point of citing chapter and verse). Religion tends to empower special individuals with the exclusive right to interpret said Scripture: For Communism, it was the members of the Politburo. In all ways that matter, Communism was as much a religion as the most fundamentalist Christianity or Islam.

So being anti-religious does not align one with any of the characters you mention. It is quite possible (unfortunately) to be an Atheist and yet be religious, as these people were.

An an Atheist, I have far more contempt for the religious of all stripes than for the believer who yet refuses to fully align with any received dogma. The latter I can consider a fellow skeptic. The former, even if he claims to be an atheist, is as much my adversary as Jerry Falwell was.

Love, love you Paula. Please keep writing.

Such a short memory Paula has...Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jung Il, Stalin...What great freedom was found in those "secular" nations which dutifully rejected all teaching about God whatsoever!?

By the way, Our scientific culture has way more absolute instructions about eating and cleanliness than the Old Testament ever had.

Also, secularists regularly instruct about how people "should" act. The Old Testament had only 600 some laws, the lawbooks of today way out legalize the Old Testament.

If law is tyranny, then freedom is ONLY to be found on a lonely Island in the Pacific. Of course, even there, gravity, health and weather will tyrannically demand their ounce of flesh. Perhaps Mars...

A bit of a whiner this Paula...

Sara121, the issue you are articulating is another example of he age old question - why does God allow bad things to happen to good people? This is a question humanity has struggled with for a long time and there is no simple answer. I tend to think that God allows a certain amount of evil to occur so that it can be transformed into good. Since the scope of God's undertanding extends far beyond our own, it can be difficult at times to see an evil lead to a Good. Thus we are often asked to place our trust in God even when we don't understand.

Of the many problems with the Abraham/Isaac story, one is that it completely overlooks the impact of the experience on poor Isaac. Imagine such a thing happening today. A father attempts to murder his son, then tells people he did it because god promised his descendants a nation. First he'd be sent off to the psychologist, and if was deemed mentally competent, he would be charged at least with attempted murder and reckless endangerment of a child. And he would probably be served with divorce papers from his wife.

Imagine being poor Isaac thinking you are going for a nice walk with your father only to nearly have your throat slit by someone you loved and trusted. How absolutely horrific, traumatizing, and psychologically damaging. The mental gymnastics it takes to think it is perfectly moral and acceptable for a god to even ask such a thing of a father and for a father to then actually go through with it is astounding.

JUSTACOMMENT, you seem to be questioning what it is as humans that we do or do not deserve. The more more fundamental question than what do we deserve is what are we. We are made of elements and compounds not to dissimilar to ground that we stand on. In truth we come from dust and to dust we shall return. The only thing we deserve is to be what we are. However, God wants more for us. He has given us life, awareness, free will, and an understanding that is unmatched in the known universe. God breathed this life into every one of us, and it is for that reason that we have any value whatsoever. We entered this life having recieved gifts that we neither earned nor can repay. It is up to each and and every one of us to decide how we live our lives in response to the gifts we have received.

What a beautiful tirade! I've just discovered Paula through RDF. It's nice to know Washington entertains more than just the one master of polemic.

If religion is the belief in accountability then what you have written does not make sense.Religion as a dogma is a prison for the people who believe in the dogma.This applies also for secular dogma.

BernardHurley, the points you raise bring up issues other than taking responsibility for your actions, so before I move onto those, let me just say this: By following any kind of path that relates to the way I live my life whether it be Christianity, marriage, the law of the US, or whatever, I am responsible for making that decision by the very fact that I made the decision. Just because I have a resaon for doing the things that I do, does not mean that the responsibility of the decison passes from me to the reason.

As for the story of Abraham, I agree it can be a difficult story to wrestle with. To me the story deals with the concept of putting our trust in God above our own personal desires. The reason for this is because God knows us better than we know ourselves. God promised Abraham that if he trusted in God, God would make a nation of his decendants. Abraham's faith was tested when he was asked to do something beyond his understanding. Because his faith was strong, the legacy of Abraham exists to this day.

As for the story of Jesus's death, the brutality is a demonstration of God's love for us. By becoming human and dying the way he did, God shared in our human experience. This life can be cruel and unfair at times and by enduring the life and death that he did, God showed that he was not asking anything of us that he was not willing to also endure.

As for your friend that died on a motorcycle, I am sorry for your loss. It is a good reminder of the fact that each and everyone of us has one life to live on this earth and its duration is limited. Our time here is precious, and though we may disagree on many things, I think that we can agree that we should all make the most of the time we have.

The magnificant universe as laid out in the Hubble pictures requires a god that is equally magnificant. These pygmy desert gods are so little and petty. They get involved in minor crap like eating shellfish for Jews or haveing a certain hat protocol.
Also, they are so needy. They require almost constant praise and worship to be content. This shows that they are very insecure and in doubt of their own power. Googel "islamic prayer" and see what kind of nonsense is required five times a day of muslims. If these desert gods are waiting for me to kiss their behinds, they can wait until the sun goes dark. They don't deserve a bowl of warm cow turds.

The essence of Paula's comments and worth repeating.

"Is freedom a religious idea? As John McEnroe would have said, "You cannot be serious."

If you value freedom, you should flee from religion as the antelope flees the lion.

Religion is the very antithesis of freedom, insisting on our complete subjugation to the unachievable demands of an invisible but supremely powerful overlord. Think of Islam, whose very name means 'submission'!

Think of Christianity, which claims it is disobedience that brought original sin into the world, with all that entails in terms of suffering and injustice and even earthquakes and tsunamis. Imagine!

To claim that human obedience is so imperative that the purposes of an omnipotent deity and the very fabric of the planet, if not the whole universe, depend upon it and can be catastrophically disrupted at the first whiff of rebellion - and then to claim that such a religion is the source of human freedom!"

For the religions of the book, God is an autocrat. The Book of Job makes this abundantly clear; He works in mysterious ways, and we should accept and praise Him for whatever happens to us or we get. The argument over free will versus predestination is basically moot; we have free will to accept whatever it is that God prescribes for us. Our free will does not allow us to change our destiny, only to be thankful or ungrateful for it. This system of there being only is one source of authority does, however, entail freedom, i.e., freedom among men. Under God, we are all bondsmen, with no one of us being more or less equal than any other. In short, the concept of freedom for those of the religions of the Book is of a different order than those of secular humanists, whose idea of freedom is existentially based, i.e., we all have the freedom to chart our own course as there is no divine plan. The religious and the secularists don’t really speak the same language. While they may both desire the same goal, it is usually for different reasons. The religious conceive of limited freedom, seeing a master slave relationship between creator and created but freedom among the created. Secularists conceive of absolute freedom with there being no master.

@DAVIVMAN

“God talks to us quite frequently...” If so, god talked with Abraham, Jesus and Mohamed, but they got different messages that resulted in different religions (or are they the same?). Later god kept talking with others like Joseph Smith and resulted in more religions or denominations or sects. It appears that those historical religious leaders had a problem paying attention or were not receptive or were primitives that did not understand the messages. Did god try to talk with higher cultures like Greeks and Romans? Probably they also got the message wrong because their original religion was also different.
But your point is that god still talk to us, and it's our fault not to pay attention or be receptive. Yes, we are sinners, we are guilty since the moment we are born, or according to certain denominations, even before that: the moment we are conceived we already deserve punishment or deserve to be saved from the savage abortionist doctor (killing him if necessary as some interpret). I don't know for sure the official doctrine about original sin for the fetus, but my interpretation could be as good as anybody's else. Probably each denomination and sect has its own, all coming from the same god, or gods, or goddesses, etc.
But not all is that bad. If I believe and repent, I'll get the pass to heaven. In the mean time I have to surrender my freedom to follow whatever a book or those who interpret the book wants me to do or not to do. Can I use condoms? Can I eat meat on good Friday? Can I work on Saturday? Can I leave the religion without retaliation? Can I marry a 9 years old girl? Kill cheaters? Kill infidels? Not eat pork?
Davivman, please tell me why the gods of the Aztecs were wrong or prove me that they did not existed.

Reply to DAVIVMAN - part 2

davivman said:

"BernardHurley, your point doesn't make any sense. In what way does submitting yourself to God make you avoid responsibility for your actions? Religion helps us understand that every thought, word, and action we make is an opportunity to deepen our relationship with God. In this context, one is forced to analyze the impact of their choices constantly, in an effort to grow in love and mercy."

A third example is something more personal. I once said something uncalled for to a friend of mine. I regretted it almost as soon as I said it. He was killed in a motorcycle accident about two weeks later. Now I know we can never be reconciled, and that I can never apologise to him an I can never be forgiven since only he would have the right to forgive me. As an atheist I simply have to face up to the reality of this and to take responsibility for my actions. I simply don't have any cowardly religious way out of it.

As for deepening my relationship with God, I would rather deepen my relationships with my fellow sentient beings. I will not join the ranks of those who, frightened of death, waste the one life they have chasing chimeras.

Reply to DAVIVMAN - part 1

davivman said:

"BernardHurley, your point doesn't make any sense. In what way does submitting yourself to God make you avoid responsibility for your actions? Religion helps us understand that every thought, word, and action we make is an opportunity to deepen our relationship with God. In this context, one is forced to analyze the impact of their choices constantly, in an effort to grow in love and mercy."

I thought I had explained this, so let's look at it another way. Take the example Abraham's willingness to kill his son because of his delusion that "God" commanded him to do so. This story is common to all three desert monotheisms although these seems to be some disagreement among them about which son it was. My son who although an atheist did A-level religious studies at school and is now reading philosophy at university told me that when he first read the story he was expecting there to be some sort of moral at the ending of it, something saying that there should be a limit to our willingness to submit ourselves to the will of God. But is it worse than that because it is the tradition in all three desert monotheisms to heap praise on him for his act of attempted murder arguing that his subjection to God absolves him of responsibility for the act. I know the story says an angel came and saved the day, but does that make Abraham and better? If in your deluded state of belief in the supernatural you came to believe that God was ordering you to kill your child, would you do it? Or are their limits to your subjection to God? I would tell God to f*** off.

Another example: mainstream Christianity explicitly teaches that someone was once unjustly and particularly brutally tortured to death as a punishment for my sins. You can read about it in all its gory pornographic detail in a famous book found in every church in the land. This celestial scapegoating is the most evil and corrupt doctrine I can imagine. First it is a particularly gross example of divine injustice and hardly a good example for those wishing to live a "God-like" life. But more than this, if I believe this inane twaddle, then I can commit the most horrendous crimes and ask this God person for forgiveness, say I believe in some Holy fairy tale, maybe carry out some trivial penance and all is forgiven. My soul is washed clean and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, I have evaded my responsibility for the crime.

I'm sorry but as humans we have more dignity than that! Your God, even if he exists, does not have the right punish the innocent, and does not have the right to burden one person with the sins of another. This God also forgives on behalf of other people, something he clearly has no right to do.

pieroforno, that doesn't answer the question or make sense. The standard is not imaginary in the least bit. For example, bibles are not imaginary, I've seen them quite often. They are filled with all sorts of guidelines that are actually printed on the pages. You may disagree with the authority of the standard, but the standard itself is quite real.

If I decide to use Jesus as he is portrayed in the bible as a model for how to live my life, then I am responsible for that decision and all the decisions that go with that. I have taken full responsibility for those actions.

JUSTACOMMENT, I see you were able to get some of your other points to post. I'll try to repsond to them too.

As for your comment on what religion shows, I agree that it is hard to have a conversation on religion in general when there are significant differneces between faiths. However, just because there multiple ways in which humans search for truth, does not mean that truth does not exist. This search for truth is part of the human experience.

When I say we all, I mean litterally all human beings. Regardless of whether any particular person has political freedom or repression, whether they are in bondage or walking free, there are realms of the human spirit that can be controlled by no man. For example, a person facing execution may not be able to avoid his coming death, but he can control the way in which his spirit meets that death.

As for the proof of God that you demand from religion. It is there, but you don't acknowledge it. For example, the Bible includes the testimony of people that experienced God becoming man. Yet you discount it. What good is proof if you don't acknowledge it?

As for what the choice is. For most religions the choice is similar: obedience to God or rejection of God.

To Davivman and to all readers,

I finally found and changed the word that made the system to sequester my post @Davivman Part 1.

But then I used a version not reviewed by the spelling tool (with typos like fast instead of feast, our instead of ours, and others.)

Apologize for all the mess...

Davivman:
"...how exactly is this avoiding responsibility for one's actions?"

In the worst possible way: by evaluating them according to an imaginary standard.

JUSTACOMMENT, sorry you are having trouble posting your comment. Perhaps some higher power is trying to prevevent you from getting your point across. Haha, just kidding :)

Regarding your comment about the appearance that God does not talk directly to people anymore. I think that you will find that God talks to us quite frequently, we are just not always paying attention or are not always receptive to the way in which God talks to us. However, I understand the point you are trying to make that a vision of a celestial being with a booming voice talking to his people is not part of the normal everyday human experience. I would argue that there is a reason for this. God has revealed himself enough so that people can know of his presence and his message. This is evident in the fact that even to this day God's word has spread to almost every corner of the world. Additionally if God were to manifest himself in such a supernatural way, people would be overwhelmed by his pressense and would have not choice but to submit to his will. God doesn't overwhelm us so that we can be free to choose to to seek him or not.

As for your comment on rejecting our own freedom, I perhaps didn't articulate that point as well as I could have. My point was that if God gives us the freedom to make a choice (to accept or reject him) and in liu of choosing we decide to not even acknowledge that there is a choice, then we have in effect given up our freedom to make that choice. Religion helps us to understand this choice. Religion doesn't compel us to make our choice. For example, I take my Christian faith very seriously, but yet, as much as I strive not to, I still make choices that distane myself from God on a daily basis.

Paula,

5 Stars!!!!!

@DAVIVMAN - Part 1.2

“Religion shows...”
Which religion, yours? What denomination or variant? Are you Sunni, Shiite, Mormon, Catholic, Evangelical or what? Religions are human organizations created to follow deities, and most of them claim to be the only real one with the only real one god, gods, goddesses, etc. When you say “religion shows” is too vague to understand what really you want to say in the rest of your post.

…...that we all have the freedom to seek God or reject God...”
Who are “we all”? Americans, Arabs, Blacks, Latinos, Texans, Yemenis, Iranians, Chinese, humanity at large or what? Today this is not true everywhere for everybody, since there are some countries that limit the freedom to reject the official god, gods, goddesses, etc. You have here a false generalization that makes a false premise in my opinion.

“...By rejecting the authority of God...”
First your religion or religion in general has to prove that god, gods, goddesses, etc. exist, then prove which one is the one with authority over all we, as you say (see Eezmamata post in this same blog at 6:38PM).

“...to God to give us a choice...”
What choice? Not all gods or goddesses in all religions give choices. Some religions give you tricky choices like you are free if you submit completely to it and behave exactly as it tells you, but if you don't you will toast for ever and ever. But if you do, you may go to a nice place for the eternity. You even can redeem some bonuses like a lot of virgins if you are male and die fighting for god.

@DAVIVMAN - Part 1.1

…...that we all have the freedom to seek God or reject God...”
Who are “we all”? Americans, Arabs, Blacks, Latinos, Texans, Yemenis, Iranians, Chinese, humanity at large or what? Today this is not true everywhere for everybody, since there are some countries that limit the freedom to reject the official god, gods, goddesses, etc. You have here a false generalization that makes a false premise in my opinion.

“...By rejecting the authority of God...”
First your religion or religion in general has to prove that god, gods, goddesses, etc. exist, then prove which one is the one with authority over all we, as you say (see Eezmamata post in this same blog at 6:38PM).

“...to God to give us a choice...”
What choice? Not all gods or goddesses in all religions give choices. Some religions give you tricky choices like you are free if you submit completely to it and behave exactly as it tells you, but if you don't you will toast for ever and ever. But if you do, you may go to a nice place for the eternity. You even can redeem some bonuses like a lot of virgins if you are male and die fighting for god.

Test, test,

Still trying to post @davivman Part 1

@DAVIVMAN - Part 2

“...articulated via religion...”
This implies that the religion leaders, which are the ones that make decisions without participation of the followers, are the ones with godly authority on earth. They read books, meditate, have revelations or vivid dreams and then tell you how to behave, otherwise you are not free. It appears that god, gods, goddesses, etc. don't talk with people directly anymore, unless you fast for 30 days or get caught by mass hallucinations. If god, gods, goddesses is/are in charge, he, she, them should be writing the memos and handing them to each human been.

“...we reject our own freedom.”
Our freedom is our, and we may decide to obey secular democratic laws and behave with others in the way we want they behave with us. It is our freedom to decide this. By ignoring the authority of god, gods, goddesses, etc. doesn't means that we are not free.

***************************************
What each religion really wants is for ”all we” to follow and tithe that particular religion, not others. When a religious person uses the argument of more than 85% of people believe in god, they subscribe to all things that other religions believe and do. You are counted together with those that believe that a cheater should be put to death or that transfusions of blood are not accepted by god or that it's OK to fly planes into buildings full of people. Well, yes Davivman, you are part of that "all we".

corylus78, your comparison is incorrect. Freedom is more than than just the right to obey the law. It also incorporates the humility of seeing ourselves as we are. We exist in this world not of our doing. By submitting ourselves to the will of the God who created us, we open ourselves up to being who we were meant to be.

BernardHurley, your point doesn't make any sense. In what way does submitting yourself to God make you avoid responsibility for your actions? Religion helps us understand that every thought, word, and action we make is an opportunity to deepen our relationship with God. In this context, one is forced to analyze the impact of their choices constantly, in an effort to grow in love and mercy.

Eezmatata, you can reject the existance of God all you want, and I garantee your rejection of God doesn't make God any less real. Additionally, your apples straw man argument doesn't correlate to what I said. If you think you see a logical flaw in my reasoning then point it out specifically, don't just create a logical flaw and wave your hands to say that is what I am saying.

pieroforno, as I explained religion enables poeple to evaluate their actions through the lens of a loving God. If one tries to constantly analyze their choices to see if they made in the context of love and mercy towards others, how exactly is this avoiding responsiblity for ones actions?

Sara121, God has perfect authority over everything because all of existance is God's creation. God could have chosen to create humans to be free or to not be free. God created us to be free. Why would he have created us that way if he was just going to revoke that freedom?

YASSERYOUSUFI, like so many other religious types, will scream and rant and throw crap at people who bring up all the evil regimes currently run by religious autocrats and use them as an example of how evil religion is.

In the next breath, they will do exactly the same thing themselves, screaming and ranting and throwing crap at people who point out the differences between Mubarak's secular government and the free secular nations.

Given this kind of two-faced, juvenile judgement of how the world works, should this person be surprised, do you think, that most people will pay no attention?

Mubarak did not oppress or suppress religion, religion is far to useful as a social control tool do do that. He surppressed his political opponents, among which were religiously motivated groups like the muslim brotherhood.

Nobody was shot for being a muslim in Egypt. That's religious oppression.

Again, we see in the standard muslim their inability to see the difference between politics and religion, they are one and the same to these people.

Our country is full of people like YASSERYOUSUFI, Rick Santorum is a fine example of just such a fanatic. Fortunately for us our founding fathers designed a government to protect us from such people, a SECULAR government, you fool.

BernardHurley,

I think we are both saying somewhat the same thing. A true Secular model that one can aspire for does not exist. Neither is there a truly religious country around. So have to put the Religious and Secular on the two extreme ends of the scale and judge the regimes whether they are more Secular or Religious. And therefore those Secularists who mouth off against religions 24/7 will have to take in people like Pol Pot and Stalin in their camp just as they push the Tea Partiers, KKK, IRA, Talibans and Al-Qaida etc in the religious camp and blame religion for their crimes. You cant have it both ways.

yasseryousufi

You seem to be seriously confused. Do you honestly think that a an autocrat who is not overtly religious is thereby secular? What has a "western lifestyle" got to do with secularism? The majority of western democracies do not have secular constitutions and have state religions that are funded out of taxes. The big exception is the USA, but it is only the constant vigilance of secularists that keep it that way. By fighting such inanities as teaching lies instead of biology in schools. Even there the pledge of allegiance refers to equality "under God" and their money sports the words "in God we trust".

To be publicly religious is to either be stupid, insane, ignorant or dishonest, but there are plenty of people who are or were not religious, such as Stalin or Pol Pot, who fit neatly into one or more of these categories. Historically there have been plenty of regimes that were not religious but were not secular either.

BernardHurley,

A truly Secular country, where everyone would be equal, is Utopian concept. I would be really surprised if you thought of Mubarak as more of a Religious autocrat than a Secular one. I don't know where you get your facts from, its common knowledge that religion was ferociously oppressed under Mubarak and Ben Ali's regimes. They proudly brandished their westernized lifestyles and families. What makes you think they weren't Secular?

yasseryousufi, under what warped definition of "secular" can the Mubarak regime be considered secular?

Is this woman for real? The tyrannical, bloodthirsty, murderous, torchering, corrupt to the core regime which got removed WAS a Secular regime where religion was suppressed in the most brutal form for more than 3 decades. The muslims and christian people joined hands together to call for democracy (not theocracy) in egypt. I know its hard for Secular fascists to accept that religion can be a force of good and that Secularism/Athiesm doesn't have a chequered history in this regard. The people in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere are victims of Western Sponsored "Secular" regimes. This article is so out of touch with reality. These hardcore Secularists like this authors are the Taliban's of their creed. They just close their eyes when provided with overwhelming proof against their positions.

By rejecting the authority of God to give us a choice that is articulated via religion, we reject our own freedom.

I want to revisit that again. Can you imagine the mental twisting that must take place in the mind of the believer to make such a statement possible?

All apples are red.
This car is red.
Therefore this car is made of apples.

This is the kind of logic we see in the religiously infected mind. From an invalid premise (not all apples are red) to an invalid conclusion, they execute the algorithm of logic and feel they are using reason.

The incomprehensible absurdity of such logic is appalling. Just what makes the religious infection so effective in the human mind, how did this happen?

Even worse, they claim the subservience of reason to faith is a virtue!

Appalling, just appalling.

Thanks, Paula, for expressing so well what so many of us think!

I love your last lines, they are so dead-on! "Religion claims to set its followers free, while all the time holding them in thrall and insisting they kiss the hand of their jailer. There can be no true freedom so long as religion still keeps the human mind in shackles."

Excellent piece, Paula. Not that I would expect any less, of course.

Davivman:
It truly saddens me to see human beings wishing to be slaves. Yes, you can rationalize your desire for submission through religious mumbo-jumbo, but in the end it boils down to nothing more praiseworthy than abdicating responsibility. Good luck with that.

Religion's anti-freedom agenda
We live in a new world now. People no longer need weapons to fight for freedom, now in the information age, twitter and facebook are the tools of liberty. Through the power of science and technology, the pen (on in this case the keystroke) has become mightier than the sword.

To start with, these countries may soon no longer be Muslim nations but rather become secular nations like America. Sure there will still be a large Muslim presence there just as there is a large Christian presence here, but hopefully the people of those nations will realize that you cannot force irrational beliefs at gun point any longer.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/eytiCl

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.

"By rejecting the authority of God to give us a choice that is articulated via religion, we reject our own freedom."

A god has no authority to grant freedom. That implies a god can also take it away. That is what "inalienable" means, "unable to be taken away from, or given away by the possessor." Freedom can only be restricted or unrestricted. The only authority that can restrict freedom is that which has been freely and fairly elected by the people who are to be restricted, and only for as long as those people grant that authority to those elected.

F A i T H -&- B E L I E F Is the highest ANY Human can attain/Realize/Imagine; to self of course. But

NOt "R E L i G I O N!" This part, this Baby, is in fact "iNNATE" exclusively! IT is "FELT" Not Readable nor can such FEELings be Written. When DAD's Sperm & MOM's Egg Merged there was/is, EURIKA! Better than "Let There Be [Biblical] light" Story! Aye? BEHOLD;

The "RELiGION of Everything before, The SCIENCE of Everything!"

Hint: SCIENCE of EVERYTHING is Next for a Prophetic and glorious inevitable Fulfillment.; And so,

"G-D, GOD, GUD, god, ALLAH, ISHVARA.." IS NOt a "HE" nor a "SHE"; but can only be an "IT" aka being "iTSELF" in and out of US ALL doing WORK, for "IT"s Own Sake, Nay only Ye's & YO's, Aye?! iMAGINE

The Holyi Comosis UNIVERSE (as is) Is in all TRANSF{INITY [Reality] is OUR Holyi CONSTITUTION, and IT's very "LAWS OF NATURE" is really OUR CLAUSES; To MAHNIFY, UPHOLD & MAKE HONORABLE; this, TYRANNY-FREE UNIVERSE + [here].

WE [i] Art in "IT"s "ETERNITY AVOIDING LONLINESS" A MIRACLE! Zero BORN in SIN, let alone born in any Tyrants CURSE or self serving or someone else's story's; et seq.

YE & YO & US art A Miracle in Holyi Motion!

Praise the Holyi NO MON//WOM! HAILAYEYOYA!

Good to see another On Faith column by you Paula. Keep up the good work!

I second the motion for an "On Reason" page.

Thank you for writing this piece and thank you, Washington Post, for publishing it.

Religion concerns itself with the nature of the God to Human relationship. It teaches that certain thoughts, words, and actions bring us closer to God or distance us from God. Religion shows that we all have the freedom to seek God or to reject God. By rejecting the authority of God to give us a choice that is articulated via religion, we reject our own freedom.

You have a serious error in sequence here. We reject the existence of your God, including all the other gods people worship - just as you do all the other gods.

Rejecting it's 'authority', love, and whatever other BS you ridiculous people believe in makes no sense at all since it does not exist.

You are enslaved by your religious nonsense. That you think your god is real and all others are false describes in perfect detail that you are insane.

davivman said:

"Religion concerns itself with the nature of the God to Human relationship. It teaches that certain thoughts, words, and actions bring us closer to God or distance us from God. Religion shows that we all have the freedom to seek God or to reject God. By rejecting the authority of God to give us a choice that is articulated via religion, we reject our own freedom."

It is easy to see why submission to a "God" can seem like freedom, since it allows one to avoid responsibility for one's actions. If one sees one's actions as being in accordance with the will of this "God", then, however horrendous that action may be, it can be carried out with with complete equanimity. However, if not, then one can be "forgiven" and then carry on with one's life as normal.

Once you realise that there are no "Gods" and no afterlife then you know you never be forgiven for what you do wrong and that if you wrong someone and don't apologise before they die then you will never get to opportunity to apologise. This forces you to take responsibility for your actions.

davivman

Religion concerns itself with the nature of the God to Human relationship. It teaches that certain thoughts, words, and actions bring us closer to God or distance us from God. Religion shows that we all have the freedom to seek God or to reject God. By rejecting the authority of God to give us a choice that is articulated via religion, we reject our own freedom.

This is connected with the very odd sense in which Hegel uses the word "freedom." For him ( and so far as we may agree), there is no freedom without law; but he tends to convert this, and to argue that wherever there is law, there is freedom. Thus "freedom," for him, means little more than the right to obey the law.

This piece sounds less like a cry for freedom and more like a rant against authority. For people like Paula, a rule by definition is a bad rule (which amusingly enough is itself a rule). They consider concepts like obedience to be abhorant by their very nature. And througout this rant about the follies of submitting oneself to the tyrany of religion, Paula misses the whole point of freedom.

Freedom is not the ability to do whatever I want whenever I want without any consequences. If my thoughts, words, and actions never affect the nature of an outcome, then I am a slave to that outcome because I have no way of altering it.

On the contrary, freedom allows individuals to know what the choices are, to know what the consequences of those choices are, and to have the confidence that choosing a particular choice will result in its corresponding consequence. Thus freedom permits an act of free will to alter the outcome.

Religion concerns itself with the nature of the God to Human relationship. It teaches that certain thoughts, words, and actions bring us closer to God or distance us from God. Religion shows that we all have the freedom to seek God or to reject God. By rejecting the authority of God to give us a choice that is articulated via religion, we reject our own freedom.

Great article Paula! It is a pity that such articles are still necessary.

I am a Shelley fan and have been setting the Mask of Anarchy to music but I have to admit that I cannot understand what NMCC is getting at. There are many types of slavery, but why is that an argument against speaking up about one of them? As to whether religion is the ultimate tyranny it is often the justification for other tyrannies. Yes it is necessary for the people, as in Egypt, to rise like lions against tyranny, but the danger is that religion will impose another tyranny, as happened when the Shah was overthrown in Iran. Without religion, many of our other problems would be more easily solved.

What a refreshing counter to the usual "On Faith" posts. What if the Washington Post were to initiate "On Reason" as a counterpoint to "On Faith" and separate clear thinking posts like this one from the religion-addled delusion one usually finds here?

NMCC - Okay, so you did miss Paula's point. Thanks for clearing that up.

EPEEIST

"Well Shelley is the better poet of course, but both Shelley and Dawkins do have one thing in common. They were/are both atheists."

How's it going Epeeist? Are you keeping well?

Yes, of course, you're right. I've alluded to Shelley's The Necessity of Atheism on RD.net myself and I've mentioned on there how he was punched in the face in a post office in Italy by a fellow Englishman who snarled at him: "You're that damn atheist Shelley, aren't you?"

Though atheism is just about all they have in common. Shelley wrote The Mask of Anarchy in response to the massacre at Peterloo in Manchester in 1819 when a demonstration for democracy was attacked by the military of the area resulting in death and injury.

Shelley was livid and beside himself with anger when he heard of the Peterloo massacre. Dawkins, on the other hand, thinks these demonstrations are a cause for ridicule and laughter because the demonstrators employ a form of protest unbeknown to people in the UK. Oh, and of course, because he can get a petty dig in at religion.

CAUDIMORDAX

I can't be bothered with you Dawkins groupies these days. Read the article, my short comment and the poem again. I'm sure you'll get the point in the end.

And it has begun!!!!

Recognizing the flaws, follies and frauds in the foundations of Islam, Judaism and Christianity by the "bowers", kneelers" and "pew peasants" will converge these religions into some simple rules of life. No koran, bible, clerics, nuns, monks, imams, evangelicals, ayatollahs, rabbis, professors of religion or priests needed or desired.

Ditto for houses of "worthless worship" aka mosques, churches, basilicas, cathedrals, temples and synagogues.

"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." - J. Somerville

It is very disturbing that such religious fanaticism, 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 significant stupidity of all religions.

NMCC - was that Shelley poem meant to be a rebuttal, or did you entirely miss the point of what Paula wrote?

Surely a devastating case against religion? Dogma locks you up but religion throws away the key.

NMCC said

"I suspect, be more likely to applaud the sentiments of Shelley than Dawkins-type hysteria over religion.

Well Shelley is the better poet of course, but both Shelley and Dawkins do have one thing in common. They were/are both atheists

"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme -- whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence -- the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication."

Not my words, these are from the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. Freedom definitely is a secular idea.

"There can be no true freedom so long as religion still keeps the human mind in shackles."

Indeed. But then again, there are worse and infinitely more wide-spread types of slavery. Certainly, the vast majority of the world's population would, I suspect, be more likely to applaud the sentiments of Shelley than Dawkins-type hysteria over religion.

'What is Freedom? - ye can tell
That which slavery is, too well -
For its very name has grown
To an echo of your own.

'Tis to work and have such pay
As just keeps life from day to day
In your limbs, as in a cell
For the tyrants' use to dwell,

'So that ye for them are made
Loom, and plough, and sword, and spade,
With or without your own will bent
To their defence and nourishment.

'Tis to see your children weak
With their mothers pine and peak,
When the winter winds are bleak, -
They are dying whilst I speak.

'Tis to hunger for such diet
As the rich man in his riot
Casts to the fat dogs that lie
Surfeiting beneath his eye;

'Tis to let the Ghost of Gold
Take from Toil a thousandfold
More that e'er its substance could
In the tyrannies of old.

'Paper coin - that forgery
Of the title-deeds, which ye
Hold to something of the worth
Of the inheritance of Earth.

'Tis to be a slave in soul
And to hold no strong control
Over your own wills, but be
All that others make of ye.

'And at length when ye complain
With a murmur weak and vain
'Tis to see the Tyrant's crew
Ride over your wives and you -
Blood is on the grass like dew.

'Then it is to feel revenge
Fiercely thirsting to exchange
Blood for blood - and wrong for wrong -
Do not thus when ye are strong.

'Birds find rest, in narrow nest
When weary of their wingèd quest
Beasts find fare, in woody lair
When storm and snow are in the air.

'Asses, swine, have litter spread
And with fitting food are fed;
All things have a home but one -
Thou, Oh, Englishman, hast none!

'This is slavery - savage men
Or wild beasts within a den
Would endure not as ye do -
But such ills they never knew.'

And, of course, Shelley never forgot to provide the real solution to the REAL slavery:

'Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many — they are few'

Thank you. Wonderful and uplifting.

Bravo Paula... Very well said...