Envy: Personal and Political Poison

Thanks, Meg. :)

Pam.

While I'm here I'd like to tell you how much I enjoy your posts.A breath of fresh air amongst all the superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Thanks,and long may you
continue commenting.
Meg.

EFavourite
Hey old buddy...like your posts...
I would think its a matter of opinion that Allah
and the white-man's no-name good are one and the
non-existing same.
Muzzies call you an infidel if you don't dig their Allah fella...
and we know what they do to infidels.
Of course you're right if you wannabe.It's that simple.
We're talking invisible imaginary gods here,
hundreds of which can dance on a pinhead no problem.
Why get all technical on me?
I was expressing some confusion with what's politically correct...thanks anyway pal.
Keep smiling.
meg

Shelley, quoting Pam: “The more education prospers, the more superstition retreats.”

Agreed – I think a difference between the US and Europe might be that clergy in the US are more respected and thus have more influence than their counterparts in Europe. I think, though, that even this is changing, as seminaries are having difficulty attracting the number and quality of students they attracted in the past. Building a successful career on a deep knowledge of theology is no longer attractive to the best students. It used to be that clergy ranked right up there with lawyers and doctors, in terms of community respect and status. That’s largely changed, except in the case of mega-church pastors, who of course don’t rely on extensive theological study – just biblical inerrancy. Scary

Meg: Allah is a “no-name God” too. Allah is simply the Arabic word for god.

David T writes:

"The law of non-contradiction. How does that law exist if mankind is contradictory? How can mankind agree to the laws of logic if we cannot agree on what is logical?"

Who says we can't agree on what is logical? This is a fallacy, and blows your whole argument.
The "laws of logic" weren't drawn up by a committee. I'm not going to bother looking up their origins, but I'm pretty sure I'd come up with some Greek mathematician if I did. Still, all he (whoever) did was to put them into words - I think they're hard-wired into every human brain. All that was done was to codify them.

I don't believe there would be any problem getting any rational human to agree that two contradictory things can't both be true. A baby could understand this. Saying that different people have differing opinions on *what* is true (e.g., whether or not there is a god) doesn't negate the fact that either or both would agree that they can't both be right. It's not the logic law that they disagree about.

Even people who have never *heard* of the laws of logic, will still agree with them when they are explained, and such people have an innate understanding of them even before the explanation. It's part of having a brain that perceives the natural world as it is, and that evolved to deal with it.

Since rational discourse is possible (in fact happens every minute of every day) among people who have never heard of these laws, this should be self-evident. This was exactly my point when I said above that the laws weren't handed down on stone tablets. I wasn't being facetious.

David T: "Now, you agreed with me that the laws of logic must exist conceptually...in a mind. But if human minds could not have created them...then what mind?"

I disagree with this conclusion and don't think you've even come close to establishing its verity.

D.T.:"1, as demonstrated is illogical"

Not demonstrated to *my* satifaction. Not by a long shot.

Shelley

I like that..."Gods are for the history books" remark.
But they are already in the Myth books anyway are they not? All except the present one (or is it two?) who,god willing,will be there soon.
I've never been able to decide whether there are supposed to be one god,two,or dozens,if we include all the Indian gods,who have just as much right to exist as Allah,and the no-name white-man's god.
Modernity cannot handle all these gods as they look more and more ridiculous in light of what we now know about the world.

I google TAG.

I got all this stuff, listed below.

I thought, wow, this is a wild goose chase. (My father used to say, this is a wild goose).

Then way down the list, way, way, way-on down the list I spied it:

"Transcendental Argument for the existence of God"

That's gotta be it. I guess I must really be out of it. I never knew there was such a thing.

(See other tag's below)

TAG Techniques d'Avant-Garde (TAG Heuer)
TAG Tactical Ada Guidance
TAG Tactical Airlift Group
TAG Tactical Assault Group
TAG Tag Attribute Language
TAG Tagalog (Filipino language)
TAG Tagbilaran, Philippines - Tagbilaran (Airport Code)
TAG Tagliabue
TAG Tailored Air Group (UK Royal Navy)
TAG Talal Abu-Ghazaleh (Jordan business law firm)
TAG Talented And Gifted (school program)
TAG Tallahassee Area Geocachers (Florida, USA)
TAG Target Acquisition and Guidance (gaming)
TAG Target Adaptive Guidance
TAG Target Aimpoint Graphic
TAG Task Action Grammar
TAG Task Assignment Guide
TAG Tasmanian Association for the Gifted
TAG Taxon Advisory Group
TAG Teaching and Academic Growth
TAG Technical AdHoc Group
TAG Technical Advisory Group
TAG Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds
TAG Technical Applications Group
TAG Technical Architecture Group (W3C)
TAG technical assessment group (US DoD)
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
TAG Technical Assistance Group
TAG Technical Association of Georgia
TAG Technology Advancement Group
TAG Technology Advocacy Group
TAG Technology Analysis Group
TAG Technology Applications Group
TAG Technology Assessment Group
TAG Technology Association of Georgia
TAG Technology Assurance Group (California)
TAG Telegraphist Air Gunner
TAG Telemetry-Archive Gateway
TAG Tell-And-Go protocol (switching technique)
TAG TEMPEST Advisory Group
TAG Temporal Annotation Generator
TAG Tenant Activities Group (Pentagon Renovation Project)
TAG Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia Railway Company
TAG Test Advisory Group
TAG Test Aerosol Generator
TAG Test Analysis Group
TAG Test Automation Group
TAG Tested and Guaranteed
TAG Text and Graphics
TAG Thalassemia Action Group
TAG The Adjutant General
TAG The Amsterdam Group (Brussels, Belgium)
TAG The Assassination Game
TAG Theater Air Group
TAG Thymine-Adenine-Guanine
TAG Tight Aggressive (Poker)
TAG Timneh African Gray (bird species)
TAG Tiny Aggregation Service (ad-hoc networks)
TAG Title Author Genre (literature)
TAG Tomahawk land-attack missile aimpoint graphic (US DoD)
TAG Towed Array Group
TAG Trailing Average Gross
TAG Training Advisory Group
TAG Trans-Atlantic Geotraverse
TAG Trans-Austria Gasleitung (Trans-Austria Pipeline)
TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God
TAG Transfer Admission Guarantee (guarantee granted to students coming from community colleges into universities)
TAG Transition Advisory Group
TAG Transport-Aggregation-Grooming
TAG Transportation Acronym Guide
TAG Transportes Aereos Guatemaltecos (Guatemala)
TAG Tree Adjoining Grammar
TAG Triacylglycerol
TAG Troop Action Guidance
TAG True Armageddon Galactica (Star Kingdoms alliance)
TAG Trust Advisory Group
TAG Trusted Agent Group
TAG TWG Administration Group
TAG Two-Axis Gimbal

Chris

You're a very good man, to be able to compose a reply to a thing like that.

David T,

TAG strikes me as utterly obscurantist. I'm not going to pursue it far but:

1) What does it mean to say that "mankind is contradictory?"

2) Why do you say that mankind cannot agree on what is logical? Your example of disagreement (God vs. no god) isn't necessarily due to a disagreement about what the admissible rules of logical inference are; it could be just a difference in axioms. Also, who says that the statements are deduced? They are empirical, so they must be the result of INDUCTIVE logic. And inductive assertions are always contingent.

3) You seem to conclude that man cannot "create" the rules of logic because he somehow isn't absolute and eternal, like you say the rules of logic are. But why can't we have inferred the rules of logic from our observations of nature? Why can't the rules of logic be no more absolute than nature is regular? You have no basis for saying that logic is EVEN MORE absolute that that. Why? Because you can't imagine otherwise? So the "absoluteness" of logic, whatever that means, is still in doubt.

4) You say "The only possible way for logical absolutes to exist is if they exist in the mind of an absolute, transcendent being." First of all, what does this even mean? How do you know? How is the quality of this argument different from the counter argument "Only an absolute, transcendent being can be absolutely sure of anything, and since mankind is not absolute, he cannot be absolutely sure of anything, particularly when it comes to absolutes such as logical absolutes."

5) You say "By using logic the only logical conclusion is that a transcendent, absolute being is God." If this is true then you should be able to express your argument within a logical formalism. That is the standard, of course. At the very least it would make it possible to follow and dissect. As is, it appears to be is full of unsupported statements like 4 above, with terms that are so ambiguous that not much can really be done with them.

So, regarding David T's very long and drawn out essay about (???), just what is TAG?

I didn't understand the first thing about what he was saying.

All I got from it was an ice cream headache.

I believe in God, but not for any of the reasons that he gave. In fact, I have never seen nor heard anything like that before, in my entire life.

mmmmmmmmm !

To The Jihadist
I'm with Drew,and all the wriggling in the world is not going to change the reality that religion is cultural groupthink,and that childhood indoctrination 'almost' guarantees lifelong adherence to that religion.
We are like robots if programed early enough.
Religious institutions know this.Their very survival depends on knowing this,and we see it at work throughout the world. Why deny it? Can one be so programed that one becomes blind to the bigger picture?

However,I think Pam has it right when she says (above)

"I think it's obvious without research to see that the world is (slowly) moving toward atheism. Just look at Europe and the British Isles (well, maybe not Ireland). The more education prospers, the more superstition retreats.

"It's happening in the US, too, but much more slowly. You can see it best where the US interfaces the most with the rest of the world - coastal states; especially those in the West and the Northeast, where immigration is greatest; and those closest to more populated Canadian areas. It's also more prevalent in University towns and large cities. Wherever you find the least intellectual stagnation."

This is my observation too,despite everything the world gets a little bit smarter and a little less superstitious every day.Despite the Muslim 'surge',the momentum is for rationality and common sense.
Gods are for the history books.

Chris Everett;

I find your following comments to be RIGHT ON the money,and I hope all posters give them some thought;

"So far, nobody has an explanation of the existence of consciousness, although stronger and stronger correlations are being made between brain activities and reported conscious states (and behavioral capabilities), so the evidence is strong that brain and mind are two sides of the same coin. Also, I don't find it at all inconceivable that there are some things that humans are incapable of knowing. That doesn't mean that "God did it" is the explanation. That's just the old God of the Gaps argument. In fact, "God did it" isn't and explanation at all, since it provides no illumination to the issue. Instead, it's a name for the ABANDONMENT of explanation, and if you look back at history you'll find that religious institutions have always used it to preserve the intellectual status quo. The firey ball in the sky, the planets in their orbits, biological diversity, weather, sickness, all have been points at which people have stopped and said "God did it". So when you say "God is the only explanation" you are really saying "I can't think of any explanation, so I'm going to quit trying, and call it God".

Ain't that the truth!

Oops! Sorry. Forgot about this thread. Having too much fun with CCNL in the main thread.

Do you guys realise how the global markets is going split-splat here and there due to the US economy?

But back to some of your questions addressed to me at before the next question comes tomorrow possibly.

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

E Favorite,

You : I don't recall seeing atheists here calling believers irrational and stupid.

Moi : Not lately, but in general terms. The prefered current term is "moron" and "idiot". This by both believers and atheists in exchanges that infuriates or frustrates one of the other, or both.

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

Drew,

You : Do you think I would be an atheist if I had grown up with you in Malaysia,as a child born (or adopted) into your family? I believe if I had been born and raised exactly as you were,I would be a believing Muslim now.What is your view?

Moi: What! Drew playing gallant in asking ladies to answer first, or playing chicken in not stating first and we thrash him? :)

This question has been posed by atheists many, many times to make a case for religion as being "indoctrinated" due to the faith of one's parents etc. and one has no choice and such.

Certainly, if you were born in Salt Lake City, a high probability you'd be a Mormon. If in Mumbai, a Hindu. If in Tel Aviv, you'd be Jewish. If in Tehran, a Shiite Muslim. If in Havana, an atheist.

One born a Catholic may remain and call himself Catholic, but be an admitted "lapsed" Catholic sometimes. Or, one born of Orthodox Jews may not practice his parents' faith, but asserted he is Jewish, or a secular Jew all the same. There are Muslims born of Muslim parents who don't fast or pray, happily down alcohol etc, but still call himself a Muslim. These are personal choices people made regardless of the tenets of their faiths - to fully comply or selectively, or none at all for any given reason.

In Malaysia itself, as Muslims are 60% of the population, chances are, Drew could be probably born or adopted, and raised not as a Muslim, but Buddhist, Hindu, animist or atheist.

In Vietnam and China, people born of atheist parents do chose to be adherents of belief. More and more so, especially in China where the Chinese goverment made it explicitly clear that they are not opposed to Chinese being Protestants or Catholics, but that the church must be indigenous based. Meaning, no reporting to and intefering by Protestant church headquarters based in Europe or North America or the Vatican. Their 18th and 20th century experiences with western powers are ones they don't forget easily it seems.

As for me, my family history is a bit different. Briefly, my father is a nominal Indonesian Muslim, my Dutch mother indifferent to the faiths of her parents, Judaism and Catholicism.

Not much religious instructions from them when we were growing up. At best, they are agnostics or deists or freethinkers. While our parents hardly spoke of God except as figures of speech and never do any rites associated with belief, for their offsrpings, the belief there is a God seems to be instinctively and inexplicably wired in all of us since very young.

My paternal grandmother attracted us to Islam by her example - a spiritual, humane, selfless, considerate, kind, patient and courteous person active in helping others no matter what and when.

I just hope the Christians I like here, Arminius, Daniel in the Lion's Den, David T and Gary D et al don't take personal offence - my mother, in spite of being indifferent to religion, send us all to Catholic run schools because they are more academically stringent. We also learn about God from the Catholic perspective there, and we came to realise what we think and believe on God is closer to Islam.

Of course our "secular" parents were surprised that their offsprings turned out to be more religious than they are. Most interesting, our maternal Catholic grandfather and Jewish grandmother, not quite devout themselves, seem pleased that at least some of their grandchildren are religiously devout, never mind the faith we chose is not theirs.

I still don't know if it is because we show more respect for their religions than their other grandchildren in politely going along to Mass when he wanted to, and participating in Hannukah when she wanted to, without cringing or giving excuses not to.

We don't take the sacraments during mass and no one forced us to. We just attend and wait out until it is all over. Hannukah is easier for us. In fact, Judaism is easier for us to take in stride due to many similarities in theology, religious practices and traditions in Judaism and Islam.

In gist, I believe in God, and discovered that Islam express the belief I have best for me spiritually, and I like the functionality of its tenets.

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

Jeff P,

You : I'd be curious: what would it take to change your mind regarding your particular belief-system. I've wondered, if a belief-system is unchallengable or unmoveable, is that a good thing?

Moi : My mind is already made up on my faith, and most of the books quoted here by atheists are ones I have already read before On Faith was started. I am, frankly, not bothered nor have any problem with evolution etc and other science and reason and logic based proof there is no God, which has yet to be diproved at this stage, but on the social imposition of beliefs in the public sphere. Of course, I am into the ongoing revisions of the man-formulated Shariah based on interpretions of Suras and Hadiths.

Islam is never unchallenable or unmoveable if one look at its history. The most challenges are by believers themselves on everything from theology to the Shariah, either as proponents or opponents of specifics. Classical Muslim scholars do selectively abrogate or ignore certain Suras if they have practical problems with them on their functionality for the public.

Muslim scholars also accepts the various strains of thoughts on theology and Shariah stating all are equally valid. It they disagree very strongly, they say, the other is in "error", and to agree to "disagree".

Mind you, these are bona-fide Muslim ulema independent of the state. Muftis appointed by states can be compromised and politicised, specifically in issuing fatwas - religious/legal opinions that Muslims either comply with or don't.

It is the lay believers or free-lance imams who are quite dogmatic, literal, hardline and militant on their interpretations. Mainstream Muslims, for better or for worse, regard them as buzzing mosquitos and ignore them.

There are not really Muslim "churches" out there competing for hearts and minds of Muslims, but more of Islam infused (in various interpretaions) political/social Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammadiyah etc. They are defined by their interpretations of what Muslims should be and do as individuals and in the public sphere - from politics to social norms.

Like the evangelical and church groups in the US, they have an impact on state policies as well as on the population that is akin to the culture war in the US, and just as intense and emotive.

I don't mind these groups operating freely in Indonesia and Malaysia. The test of the viability of their ideas is by public debate, acceptance or rejection of what they think and do.

There is much to be learn from their organisation and commitment even if one don't agree with them. And of course, they force us to think and debate on what is it we want for ourself and for others? The debate goes on..........

Thanks and regards
"J"

Daniel,

Thank you for the link about Sartre. Thanks for the offensive remarks as well. Continue in your onslaught. It's well appreciated. :)

E Fav,

Forgive me for not referencing or even trying to reference for my claim. I thought that it wasn't that important of a point. Even if he did say that as he meant it that way you made the point that it doesn't mean it was unlivable but simply for him. I agreed and figured that you refuted that example if or if he did not say that. Not a big deal.

Chris,

Nice response. Please allow me to clarify a few things because I think you have made some false assumptions about TAG. Firstly as stated in your first paragraph, I never claimed that "logic is God". I am stating that the only logical conclusion for the existence of logical absolutes is that they are a reflection of God's thinking. Not logic is God, but logical absolutes are a part of God.

You said,

" On the issue of logic, I think it's a set of man-made rules that flows from nature's order, and there's no basis to say, as you have, that logic would exist even if the universe didn't (although that's a valid conjecture). Logic exists only within consciousness."

I have shown why the laws of logic could not be man-made before. But let me give you an example.

Christian says "God exists"
Atheist says "God does not exist."

These are contradictory statements. Only one of them can be true. We contradict each other. But why? Because there is a law of logic called the law of non-contradiction that will not allow both statements to be true. This law is universallly shared. We contradict each other all the time and even ourselves. I say something that I believe to be a true statement and you say otherwise. We both say they are true statements, but yet they both cannot be. The law of non-contradiction. How does that law exist if mankind is contradictory? How can mankind agree to the laws of logic if we cannot agree on what is logical? That is why man could not "create" the laws of logic. Since man is not eternal, that also would mean that logical absolutes at one time would not be true. If I take the statement "something cannot exist, and not exist at the same time", that statement will always be true even if mankind did not exist. The only way it could transcendently be true is if the laws of logic exist.

I want to clarify that I only pointed to passages of Scripture to indicate that if TAG is true, then the Bible does account for the laws of logic. It does not mean that God exists, or that the Bible is true. I merely wanted to point to the fact that the Christian worldview can explain the laws of logic.

Now, you agreed with me that the laws of logic must exist conceptually...in a mind. But if human minds could not have created them...then what mind? Your pre-supposition that all things are natural and that God cannot exists will not allow you to agree that the possibility may be that it is the mind of God. I've argued TAG several times and there are three major illogical conclusions atheists make when determining how the laws of logic exist. 1. as stated being humanly created. 2. being contingent on language and 3. they are not absolutes.

1, as demonstrated is illogical
2. language is contingent on human minds which brings us back to the illogic of 1.
3. If the laws of logic are not absolute or transcendent then there is not possible way to have rational discourse. The law of non-contradiction would not exist, therefore, the statment God exists and He does not exist would be true. We know that would be impossible.

Now, when you say that I say "only God is the explanation" it is because it is a logical conclusion. Let me show you why. It is not a pre-supposition in this argument, but the only logical explanation of the conclusion.

The only possible way for logical absolutes to exist is if they exist in the mind of an absolute, transcendent being. There are no human beings who are absolute, transcendent beings. Therefore, only God is a logical explanation.

You said,

"the physical world is ordered, and we have some degree of understanding of it."

I agree. But how? The atheistic worldview cannot justify knowledge and how it is possible. If we could understand the universe or not, both statements of reality would still rely on the laws of logic. The Christian worldview can account for knowledge. In order for reason or logic to be possible the atheistic worldview borrows from the theistic worldview. In fact, in order for the atheist to logically conclude that God does not exist, he pre-supposes God's existence by using the laws of logic in the first place.

I want you to know, that this is not a "God of the Gaps" argument. By using logic the only logical conclusion is that a transcendent, absolute being is God. Unless you can logically conclude that a human can be absolute, transcendent and eternal, then the only explanation is God.

I have some emergency business to attend to this week, so I really wish I didn't pick a fight and have to run, but unfortunately I must. I wanted to give you guys some references and maybe you can learn this transcendental argument a little better.

First, a website called carm.org under the section titled "atheism" has a simple outline of TAG (transcendental argument). Also, if you have time, watch the debate between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein on youtube. I do believe Greg Bahnsen is the best at presenting TAG and he even uses induction as a means of evidence for God, although that is in another debate with Tagobash.

Infidels.org has a refutation of TAG called TANG. Unfortunately for infidels.org, they misrepresent Tag by stating that God "created the laws of logic" which is not what Tag claims and the rest of the refutation just falls apart on that. I still have yet to hear a refutation of Tag. I've even sat by myself and tried to think atheistically on how I could logically refute it. I kept going in circles which ended up with positing mankind as the author of the laws of logic, which does not work. I'm not saying that Tag cannot be refuted, I just haven't heard it yet and to be honest, I don't think I will.

But really, watch the Bahnsen/Stein debate, known as the "Great Debate" and maybe you will get a better idea about it.

Thanks for the conversations. I'm sorry to pick a fight and have to run, but I don't think I'll have time this week to respond.

I wish you all well.
Take care.

E Favorite

Another point, since we have been discussing Jean-Paul Sartre:

In the months just after the liberation of France, and at the war's end, Jean-Paul Sartre became very famous in France for his thinking and writing on Existentialism. He attained pop-culture fame. It is almost impossible to imagine that a philosopher such as this could ever attain such a level of popularity and fame in America. This was most certainly the traumatic reaction to all that the French nation had experienced, the extermination of a whole generation of young men in WWI, and the national subjugation, humliation, and destrution in WWII.

E Favorite

Yes, that is my own interpretation. Maybe I left a little bit out. No matter how much I want to say, I always seem to leave a little bit out.

In the United States, we have the separation of church and state. In Europe, they do not; they have a church authority merged with the state and with politics.

This would seem to suggest that religion would become weak and wither in the United States, because there is no central power to prop it up. And it would seem to suggest that religion would maintain dominance in Europe, since it is part of the institutions of the state.

The only problem, in Europe, the churches are part of the institutions of the state, but no one goes to church. I am not saying that people dropped their religious belief because they were mad at their governments. Even in World War II, most people still felt nationalistic pride, the French for France, the Brits for England.

It is just that the hypocrisy of the government sponsored church became impossible to overlook, when millions and millions lay dead. After all, Germany was Christian; Italy was Christian, in fact the cradle of the Catholic Church; what is wrong with this picture?

I do not say that I know what happened to motivate people. I am not saying they were mad at their governments. I am just observing that right about the time of this war, people stopped make their weekly visits to church.

In the United States, if someone gets upset with his own church, or if he just gets more and deeper insights than his church allows for, or if he is just restless and not sure what he wants, he can stop going to his church, and start up with another, or even start his own. It is more fluid and dynamic.

But it is not this way becaue we are more spiritual or relgious in nature; it is this way because we have the separtion of church and state in America, and they did not have that in Europe.

Daniel ITLD - thanks for the wiki reference -- they can't always be trusted either, but they often provide legitimate links that can be trusted.

Now, I assume this is your own interpretation: "The reason why Christianity has declined to such an extent in Europe is because each European nation supported a national church, funded by tax-payers. And these same nations drove the whole of European society to the brink of physical extinction in World War II. In the light of the experiences of their own nations and national churches, people simply stopped going to church."

Interesting, but I'm not so sure it a widely accepted view. How did you come up with it? Also, if it's true, it suggests to me that people will drop religious belief if they get mad at their government. Why would that be? Seems like a pretty shallow belief, if so.

When I was wondering why Europe had gone so secular, I had trouble finding sources - almost as if it were a non-subject.

I grew up in WW2 Britain. The churches were already close to empty during the war,while the pubs were bursting at the seams.
After two wars most folks simply gave up on the god idea.It was a hypothesis totally unrealistic and irrelevant in light of the brash reality of war.
People sought out other people,sang and got drunk,
lived for the moment,and were never sure they'd be around the next day..
The churches were grim and depressing and had nothing to offer.They were places to send the kids on Sunday to get them out of the way for an hour or two.I remember it all so clearly.

This is for E Favorite and David T regarding the rumors of Jean-Paul Sartre's deathbed confession.

This is copied and pasted from Wikipedia:

"Sartre's atheism was foundational for his style of existentialist philosophy. In March 1980, about a month before his death, he was interviewed by his assistant, Benny Lévy, and within these interviews he expressed his interest in Judaism which was inspired by Levy's renewed interest in the faith. Through Sartre's study of Jewish history he became particularly interested in the messianic idea of the faith. Some people apparently took this to indicate a deathbed conversion; however, the text of the interviews makes it clear that he did not consider himself a Jew, and was interested in the ethical and "metaphysical character" of the Jewish religion, while continuing to reject the idea of an existing God. In a separate 1974 interview with Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre said that "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God." But immediately adds that "this is not a clear, exact idea…"

Jean-Paul Sartre introduced the world to a fully formed philosophy of existentialsm, which suited post-war France perfectly, and for a time, there was a Sartre-mania in France. He was not, however, the first important atheist, nor the primary spokesmen of atheisitc thought. Belittling him to attack atheism is not really relevant to the statement that any human being can make: "I do not believe in God."

The reason why Christianity has declined to such an extent in Europe is because each European nation supported a national church, funded by tax-payers. And these same nations drove the whole of European society to the brink of physical extinction in World War II. In the light of the experiences of their own nations and national churches, people simply stopped going to church.

The last sentence in the above Wikipedia citation, is something that I tend to believe, espeically the part where he says, "...this is not a clear, exact idea."

Dear Chris Everett

Please sit down and tell us more.

You said:

"...everything flows from two observable facts: the physical world is ordered, and we have some degree of understanding of it."

At one time, I was like many people who post here; I thought I knew alot. Gradually, I came to realize that I know less and less. Much of what is widely regarded as rock-solid and certain, really is not.

Then I came to believe that we know little, very little. All we really know is that we have "impressions of order." And that is all we know.

We can sometimes see patterns in these impressions of order, but just what do these patterns mean? I am not so sure.

All of our knowledge consists of our cataloging of these impressions of order and the patterns we have noticed in these impressions.

Our consious awareness of the order which impresses us, is a reflection of this order, and could not exist without this order.

I often think about these things; these ideas have recently become quite clear in my mind. Yet, I have the greatest difficulty in translating my ideas, which are clear to me, into words, so that other people can understand. I am usually pretty awkward at. You are expressing, in very clear language, what I believe.

Chris Everett;

Awesome.Just awesome.

David T,

I would like to weigh in on this "logic must be God" debate, though I'll admit up front that I don't have any firm positions or well thought out arguments. Just idle musings. You say:

"This is the main question for atheists. If the laws of logic are not natural, not material by nature. How do they exist? They could not have just come into existence as shown above. They are not products of the universe, yet they are always true. Even if the universe did not exist, they would always be true.

"God is the only explanation because He is the mind that fits the description. And according to Gen 1:26, since we are created in the image of God, we can use logic since it is a reflection of God's thinking."

Aristotlians and Platonists can argue with each other about the existence, and possible primacy, of some abstract reality of logic and math, but I suspect that everything flows from two observable facts: the physical world is ordered, and we have some degree of understanding of it.

On the universe being ordered, I can't explain it, though it's less ordered than one might imagine. For example, the conservation of energy, conservation of linear momentum and the conservation of angular momentum seem to be fundamental to the universe and can be used to solve many practical problems, but it has been shown that they necessarily follow from the assumptions that there is no preferred time (conservation of energy), no preferred place (conservation of linear momentum) and no preferred direction (conservation of angular momentum). Thus it is the LACK of any kind of inhomogeneity in spacetime that gives rise to its fundamental structure.

Also, if the universe WEREN'T ordered, how would we experience it? The answer is pure conjecture, of course, but I suspect that to the degree it was disordered, we wouldn't be able to predict its behavior. At best we would be able to come up with a rule for calculating the odds of various behaviors. But that's EXACTLY what quantum mechanics is - a rule for calculating odds.

On the issue of logic, I think it's a set of man-made rules that flows from nature's order, and there's no basis to say, as you have, that logic would exist even if the universe didn't (although that's a valid conjecture). Logic exists only within consciousness.

Which gets to the second (subjectively) observable fact: we are conscious (well, I am anyway. I'm not sure about anyone else!). So far, nobody has an explanation of the existence of consciousness, although stronger and stronger correlations are being made between brain activites and reported conscious states (and behavioral capabilities), so the evidence is strong that brain and mind are two sides of the same coin. Also, I don't find it at all inconceivable that there are some things that humans are incapable of knowing. That doesn't mean that "God did it" is the explanation. That's just the old God of the Gaps argument. In fact, "God did it" isn't and explanation at all, since it provides no illumination to the issue. Instead, it's a name for the ABANDONMENT of explanation, and if you look back at history you'll find that religious institutions have always used it to preserve the intellectual status quo. The firey ball in the sky, the planets in their orbits, biological diversity, weather, sickness, all have been points at which people have stopped and said "God did it". So when you say "God is the only explanation" you are really saying "I can't think of any explanation, so I'm going to quit trying, and call it God".

But even if you're comfortable with the feeling that "God" is an explanation, there is still the question of which god (as many have said above), and there's nothing about "God did it" that implies that the Christian religious narrative is true. Even if you think it's better than other narratives, there's still the possibility that the true narrative simply hasn't been written yet (there was a time when the new testament hadn't been written yet). Your argument that Jesus said "I am the way, the truth....", which is consistent with Christianity being true, thereby proving that Christianity IS true, is circular reasoning of the silliest kind. It's no different from the Koran's assertion that Mohammad is the last and final word on God.

So the situation is this: Naturalistic explanations ARE explanations because they unify phenomena under simplifying principles that have predictive power. Religious explanations AREN'T explanations, they are an ABANDONMENT OF EXPLANATION. History has shown that it is wise NOT to abandon naturalistic explanations since this is the pursuit that has consistently and demonstrably increased knowledge. Even if there's a fundamental limit to our ability to produce naturalistic explanations, that doesn't necessarily imply God. Even if you start with an ASSUMPTION of God, there's nothing that you can say ABOUT God other than that God exists at "the ground of being", whatever that means.

For David T

Nothing about your argument makes any sense at all. There is nothing really to argue with. What are your trying to prove?

I think I liked it better when you were doing your stock Bible-quoting and running everyone else down. (But I didn't like that much either).

david T: "Sounds great buddy. Just ignore my quote then. Maybe I was hallucinating. :) But then again, it would be safe to assume that not everything can be found on the internet."

I'd like the lesson to be to not quote someone without a solid reference to back it up. If you couldn't find it on the internet, you could go to a reputable reference book on Sartre - or just leave off a quote that you can't reference.

That would be the honest and fair thing to do -- learned in high school English class, from parents and probably in church too.

David T wrote:

--"I do believe that logical knowledge does pre-suppose God anyway, because without the existence of God the laws of logic would no longer be absolute and then rational discourse or even logical conclusions would be impossible."

--"There is no point in going on with you obviously since a rational discussion would seem impossible."

Does that mean god may not exist? ;)

Seriously though...and maybe I'm missing your point, but it seems as though you're saying that logic would not exist without god and I'm having a tough time accepting that. I also have no clue how "logical knowledge" pre-supposes a being that exists outside nature.

--"And "Insert "Zeus". Sounds great, but all that matters is the definition of God's nature. Absolute, transcendent, eternal. You can call Him whatever you want. I just see your "zeus" claim to be an intellectual avoidance to the transcendental argument. However, I don't blame you. It is an un-refutable argument if you are a naturalist."

I cannot agree more that gods, as super-natural beings, are generally defined as being transcendental, absolute and eternal (some of the time.) It seems self-evident, being gods and all.

I also cannot agree more that "naturalists" cannot absolutely disprove the transcendental natures of super-natural beings any more than "super-naturalists" can absolutely prove *any* attribute of *any* gods' nature, or even which particular version of god is the correct one. (My clumsy point about Zeus.) It seems that once speculation moves into the realm of the super-natural pretty much anything goes.

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities (or anyone else's), but at this stage of my life seemingly pat assertions regarding the nature and/or existence of god attracts my attention.

Thanks

Thanks for your input Daniel...

Anyway, Pam thanks for the response.

There is a problem with your conclusion that the laws of logic are products of the human mind. First of all, logical absolutes can never be false otherwise they would no longer be absolute and it would be impossible to have a rational discussion. Secondly they are transcendent by nature because no matter how far you travel in the universe they are still true and no matter how far in the past or future, they are still true. They are conceptual realities that only can exist in a mind.

There are a few problems with the laws of logic being "man-made". First, since the laws of logic are universal and applicable to all humans, that would mean that we would all have to agree on what is logical or not. We cannot do this. We also contradict ourselves once in awhile. This would no longer allow logical absolutes to be absolute. Again, resulting in the inability to have knowledge or truth.

Now, I never said the laws of logic were sent by God "on engraved stone" as you said. I find that to be somewhat of a cheap shot at this argument to make fun of the ten commandments. I will overlook that and continue though. The laws of logic are not "handed down" as you assume by God. They are a reflection of His perfect thinking. God cannot contradict Himself nor lie. This is why morally lying is a sin because lying is in contradiction to God's perfect nature as are other other sins. The laws of logic were never created by God because they are a reflection of His thinking and since God is eternal, so are the laws of logic. Since the laws of logic are absolute and transcendent by nature and also are conceptual by nature they can only exist in a mind, but since human minds are contradictory and not absolute and transcendent, that mind must be an absolute and transcendent mind, namely God.

I do agree that the brain will work naturally. But scientists today cannot figure out what produces a thought. This is something abstract from nature. If all the brain is is a bunch of chemicals that fire on and fire off naturally there is no way of explaining the laws of logic, especially in light of mankind being contradictory to ourselves.

This is the main question for atheists. If the laws of logic are not natural, not material by nature. How do they exist? They could not have just come into existence as shown above. They are not products of the universe, yet they are always true. Even if the universe did not exist, they would always be true.

God is the only explanation because He is the mind that fits the description. And according to Gen 1:26, since we are created in the image of God, we can use logic since it is a reflection of God's thinking. Also, biblically John 1:1 says the "Word" which in greek is "logos" which is the very word we use for logic is how God is described. John 14:6 Jesus says "I am the way, the truth...." He doesn't just say He speaks the truth, but says He IS the truth. This is consistent with the transcendental argument as well as positing not just any god, but the Christian God. Jesus (God in flesh) claimed to be the embodiment of truth and righfully so since the absolute transcendent mind of God who is logically absolute would in fact be the embodiment of truth!

Truth is only possible when pre-supposing God. You can count on the laws of logic to always be true. Of course I could never say that something exists and it doesn't exist because the law of non-contradiction would not allow that statement to be true. And that statement would never be true no matter if you were on Jupiter or a trillion years in the past. Because the laws of logic will not allow it.

How in a naturalistic worldview where everything in the universe that exists is only natural, can the abstract laws of logic exist? I have already demonstrated that the human mind cannot be the cause of the laws of logic So how?

Thank you.

Oh don't bother Pam; he knows everything already.

David T.,
Since you've dismissed Neal as too flip, perhaps I can give it a try?

You wrote above, " I do believe that logical knowledge does pre-suppose God anyway, because without the existence of God the laws of logic would no longer be absolute and then rational discourse or even logical conclusions would be impossible. "

I don't see that this follows at all. The "laws" of logic are not laws in the sense of having been handed down by some ultimate authority - they are the product of the human brain as a way of describing how it works in reaching conclusions, and the human brain is a product of natural selection acting upon evolutionary processes.

I see no necessity for God in this at all. The brain will work the way the brain works, with or without a supernatural overseer. Human beings formulated and codified the laws of logic. They did not arrive engraved on stone tablets.

The "rules of logic" only exist in the mind of man, and otherwise have no reality of their own.

If you want to prove something by the fact of their "existence," it could only be something about the mind of man, and how it functions.

The universe does not exist or operate according to any rules of logic, but only by the fact of its existence.

When someone has the absolute truth about everthing already reserved unto himself, then, indeed why disucss anything with that person?

David T, I guess you didn't realize you were being insulting again. And you cannot understand the hostility of atheists towards Christians? I understand, perfectly well.

E Fav,

Sounds great buddy. Just ignore my quote then. Maybe I was hallucinating. :) But then again, it would be safe to assume that not everything can be found on the internet. And again, I'm not sure who "moderate" is.

Neal,

Insert "Zeus". Sounds great, but all that matters is the definition of God's nature. Absolute, transcendent, eternal. You can call Him whatever you want. I just see your "zeus" claim to be an intellectual avoidance to the transcendental argument. However, I don't blame you. It is an un-refutable argument if you are a naturalist.

There is no point in going on with you obviously since a rational discussion would seem impossible. Your "zeus" comment just showed the nature of your childish avoidance to the question.

Wish you the best though. Bye.

Nice irony to mis-type the word "intelligent" due to not pressing hard enough on the "n" key. Irony is one of the things that most intrigues me about life. Cest la vie.

Pam,
Thanks for your comments. I was responding about colors in the physical world in response to the following words by Chris:
"To your second paragraph, I would say that there is a solid evolutionary evidence for the colors, etc, that you speak about, and for our subjective yet evolutionarily-formed appreciations of them." (But I think he had your comment in mind when he wrote that, yes.)

I agree that you and I (as any itelligent thinking being) should "want to know how and why", and I was being facetious in my comment but I guess that didn't come through. 'Genuinely sorry. We all should keep exploring, including me. We haven't finished with life yet. (I don't mean that as a put-down or a simpleton; I just think one of our major purposes here is to learn all we can through study and observation as well as through inspiration, in spite of all the confusion about the reasons and the vastly different windows for what we see, hear, and feel.)

David T - it's not a simple matter of your word not being enough -- people's memory can fail - or remember things the way they like to. On something as serious as what a person said on his deathbed, it behooves you to be sure of it before posting. And these days it's easy enough to check. Speaking of which, I just googled "Sartre deathbed" and "Sartre deathbed unlivable" and found nothing to support your claim.

As for "Moderate" - you have similar writing and thinking styles.

Arminius - You flatter me -- I don't have a rule yet, just a hypothesis.

Parker wrote:
"Chris,
I had forgotten that in re-writing a post that didn't "take" because of a phone call interruption, that I left out a response to the color issue. I was speaking about physical formations, such as the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, the many worldwide variations in rock formations and colors within them. To say all of that "evolved" just so mankind could enjoy it, or that our eyes "evolved" so that we could enjoy the colors whereas on Mars we would have developed Martian eyes that would have found beauty in some variations that appear to me to be drab indeed, is I think just as much a conjecture as anyone could have. But again, that is my perspective. I respect that yours differs. At least we all get to enjoy the current product of "whatever" happened to bring us here. For that I am profoundly grateful."

I think maybe you meant to address this to me...?

The rock formations that you speak of were formed by many layers of sedimentary rock laid down by water - specifically, the shallow inland sea that once covered much of what is now the U.S. Then, long after the sea was gone, erosion by a river (in the case of the G.C.) exposed those layers.

Mars probably has never had the amounts of liquid water necessary for such things.

I didn't ever say that these things "evolved" (only living things are subject to natural selection) for human enjoyment. Rather the opposite.

I also didn't say that our eyes evolved so that we could enjoy them. Our eyes evolved so we could see what it was necessary for us to see in order to survive. Our *brains* evolved to appreciate the appearance of our home planet, and that in ways and for reasons important to our making our way in this world.

Nothing like us could ever possibly have evolved on Mars, so the point is moot. What it takes to produce us, is what exists on Earth, and Earth is what appears beautiful to us. Surprise, surprise.

I think your willingness to simply be grateful for "whatever" brought us here, really points up the difference between you and me. You can be told that there's a magical being, unseen and unheard, that created all of what you see, and just accept that and be happy for it. I want answers. I want to know how and why, and simple answers don't satisfy me.

David T wrote: "I do believe that logical knowledge does pre-suppose God anyway, because without the existence of God the laws of logic would no longer be absolute and then rational discourse or even logical conclusions would be impossible."

If I'm reading the preceding correctly, I assume you would agree with the following:

1 - Without God, the laws of logic are not absolute.
2 - Without absolute laws of logic, logical conclusions are impossible.
3 - Logical conclusions are possible.
4 - Therefore God exists.

If you do agree, please now insert the word "Zeus" for the word "God".

Thanks

Chris,
I had forgotten that in re-writing a post that didn't "take" because of a phone call interruption, that I left out a response to the color issue. I was speaking about physical formations, such as the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, the many worldwide variations in rock formations and colors within them. To say all of that "evolved" just so mankind could enjoy it, or that our eyes "evolved" so that we could enjoy the colors whereas on Mars we would have developed Martian eyes that would have found beauty in some variations that appear to me to be drab indeed, is I think just as much a conjecture as anyone could have. But again, that is my perspective. I respect that yours differs. At least we all get to enjoy the current product of "whatever" happened to bring us here. For that I am profoundly grateful.

Jeff,

IMHO, you are quite correct in your assessment of the situation in Wounded America today. The Shrub and his gang of knuckle-dragging neocons have done great harm to our country and to the world. Christian though I am, I want no more of 'leaders' who respond only to 'a higher father'. I want a leader who responds to the will and the needs of the people of this land, and to the Constitution.

Incidentally, I am an exception to E Fav's rule. I was raised Christian, but, as a young adult, left it for over 3 decades. But I came back, due to a spiritual experience. I am an avowed liberal Christian, trying to live my beliefs rather than shouting them on the street corners. I seem, unfortunately, to be in a minority, especially since I hold to the Gospels as the basis of my belief, not the Old Testament.

Arminius

Chris,
As you had added a P.S., I also have one about parents' influence. I find that I differ more with my parents than agree with them in matters of how we deal with people including my children, how we view the world in many respects, I having had far different experiences than they had. I didn't "copy" my parents as to feeling inpiration in my life. It has gone in far different directions than did theirs.

I also have many concrete and real bases for living as I do--healthwise, father-wise, husband-wise--learning as I go and vey much appreciating that learning process which includes sources of knowledge both outside of myself and within the breadth of my experiences. These experiences enter into realms of psychology, physiology, kinesiology, all making sense one layer at a time. This is not delusion, though you may describe it so, and if that were delusion then everyone in the world is deluded because all they have is their own reality--not someone else's.

Daniel in the Lion's Den:

Your comment are interesting.

I've often wondered if it was enough to just "live and let live" as far as our understandings or beliefs, as you point out in your post above. And to some varying degree, that's exactly what we do day to day.

However, where I think we've got to be able to come together, to agree and even to be passionate about, are those public decisions with ramifications that are universal and far reaching.

For myself (and others I suppose) the last 7 years of political rule have seen the erosion of many of our civil liberties (unauthorized telecommunication taps, imprisonment without trial or representation, deportations, government-sponsored torture, etc), a profound erosion of world confidence and trust, and a growing distrust among fellow Americans (the "moral" vs "amoral" categorical split created in a political spirit by Karl Rove) that have largely been based on belief-systems without the advantage of the analysis of evidence-based reason. Many of our administrative actions have been based upon self-confessed "gut feelings" and an appeal to a "higher Father."

This is where I think we as a nation must resoundingly say "no more" to attempts at theocracy, pseudoscience, fear-based politics, 30-second ADD-friendly sound bites, and above all religious "certainties" that alienate and divide us.

Animals might do fine in their blissful ignorance, but humans have great potential to build or destroy the future, one way or another.

Chris,
I have appreciated reading your insights, and totally respect your point of view.

As to Dawkins, I read part of "God Delusion" and noted his speculation that an evolved "God" would be possible (not probable). If one looks at probability and evolutionary theory honestly, I think that is a logical conclusion for somewhere in the Universe (or Multi-verses).

I like Darwin's idea that morality ought to "evolve" at some point in the future as an instinctive characteristic, enhanced by societal evolution in that nations would be the stronger and hence more prone to survive as they have a greater number of benevolent and energetic men, and weaker nations gradually recede such as happened to ancient Greece. It will be interesting to see in 60 years how the nations with lower-than-replacement birth rates will be doing economically, as the median age advances and the few end up working to support the many.

As to questioning how "religionists" can claim inspiration yet differ so much among themselves, I suppose any two people who would describe having been in the same place at the same time will describe what they saw differently. I have no problem with differing descriptions of inspiration. The test I would extend to any such claim would be "does the result uplift others, does it yield love and acceptance, does it enhance the human species and also preserve the Natural order on earth and in the universe, respecting all forms of life?" If not, the source was not inspiration, for sure, but perhaps "delusion" as you inferred.

I also believe it is much easier to explain a Shakespeare (or de Vere), a Darwin, a da Vinci, or other geniuses by a greater force at work than evolution. I have yet to read the writings of anyone today who can surpass Shakespeare in the incredible power, literary mastery, and depth of his writings.

E Fav,

Good point. Maybe Sartre's philosophy was only unlivable for him. I'm sorry, but I read that a long time ago when mildly studying philosophy, and I can't give an exact reference to where I read that. Of course you can disregard that if you feel that my word is not enough...I will understand.

And no, I'm not the "moderate". I'm not sure who that is. I've always been David on here. How can I "sound familiar"? Is moderate just as honest and ignorant as me? :)

Pam – of course, you’re right – broad demographic trends indicate that the educated western world is moving toward atheism. Still, I’d like to see survey research done on childhood indoctrination and the various routes to adult atheism.

Jeff P – good wording

David T: “BTW, even Jean Paul Sartre said his philosophy was unlivable while on his death bed.”
Maybe Sartre’s philosophy WAS unlivable - for Sartre. That needn’t apply to all people with a similar philosophy. If one famous Christian clergyman says he doesn’t believe in the physical resurrection of Christ, does that mean there was no resurrection? And could you reference that death bed quote of Sartre’s? I never heard it before and am a little suspicious of supposed atheist death bed quotes.

Also, David T – are you “the Moderate” too? You sounded familiar to me. I was trying to figure out who you might be, when “the Moderate” popped up here, just once yesterday, reminding me.

Chris Everett

I understand and agree exactly, with all that you have said. "The only thing that I am sure of, is that I am not sure of anything." That is a very wise. That is what I believe. Emily Dickenson said it another way, "I am a believer and an unbeleiver a thousand times, every hour." That is how I feel. But I don't feel uneasy about this uncertainty, because it is clearly a valid way to think.

The "will" is formed by the mechanisnms of the mind. But those same mechanisms are what form your knowledge of the pronoun "I." And so your will and your sense of self are sort of entwined and co-extensiive, and your will is not really determined by you, but by the internal mechanisms of your mind. If there is any sort of book that goes into this, I would be interested in reading it.

I have another thought along these line, that in order to live and sustain life, it is not necessary to know if the earth is flat or round. The animals do not know this nor care about it. They just walk on it, or fly over it, and exploit their existence and position in the world, to make their way and survive.

We are different than the animals, because we have assigned concepts to all the utilitarian things and processes in the world which we interact with. And we manipullte all these concepts in our minds with language. And we know of a past, and infer a future. And we notice patterns in this world, which are unknown and unknowalbe to animals. And we make a great deal out of these patterns and assign all kinds of meaning to them.

But it is not necessary to be aware of all of these many concepts, and it is not necessary to know about these patterns that we observe in order to make ones way successfully in the world. It is possible to go about on the earth, unaware. To me that is how many relgious people seem to be. They get along just fine, but they remain unaware of much that exists and is going on around them, much like the animals do.

Whenever a religous person insists that you must believe as they do, and whenever a Christian insists that you must choose to believe in Jesus Christ, then they are done, as far as I am concerned. Because belief cannot be turned on and off like water from a tap. There is no way that I would ever believe that God casts people into Hell who do not believe in God. And there is no way that I would ever believe that God punishes people of other religions who have not been schooled and educated in Christianity.

This type of belief indicates a shallow, callous, and egocentric attitude.

Parker,

One other aspect of your post I wanted to touch on is the VARIABILITY of the kind of subjective experience you talk about. If you can gather together everyone who testifies to the truth based on their subjective (religious) experiences you will see disagreement. How to reconcile this? There's no way, it's Ben Franklin's quote about discussions among "divines": It IS so, it ISN'T so, it IS so, it ISN'T so... From an outsider's perspective there's no basis to choose; they all seem nuts!

Parker,

There's not much I can add to the excellent responses to your email above.

To your first paragraph I would say that there is a definite difference between a model of reality that is based on perceptions which can be objectively verified (and ARE, by a community of dedicated skeptics) as compared to one which is based on subjective experience only. If I were to have perceptions that only I was aware of, I don't think I would call them "real" in the same way that I would call unanimously-attested-to perceptions "real". If they had the same qualities as those that were unanimously attested to, I would call them hallucinations or delusions. If they didn't, I would call them thoughts, daydreams or products of my imagination generally. (It was Drew who said above, The supernatural world would seem to be, in fact,
the imagination, where anything can exist.)
Of course, under these conditions I would take great comfort in a community of people that had the same strange subjective "true" perceptions as me, and could reassure me that they're absolutely real, until I began to realize that, more accurately, I wasn't THEM who had the same perceptions as ME, it was ME who had the same perceptions AS THEM! AND THEY'RE THE ONES WHO RAISED ME! AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

To your second paragraph, I would say that there is a solid evolutionary evidence for the colors, etc, that you speak about, and for our subjective yet evolutionarily-formed appreciations of them. You may be under false impressions about evolution and cosmology. I recommend studying these things, but NOT from a creationist/religious source. Dawkins is a very clear writer - The Selfish Gene and The Ancestor's Tale are good.

To your third paragraph, I agree: evolution allows for the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe, life that is possibly much more capable in many ways. To me this is totally reasonable. Whether it is true is a matter of speculation - it's an issue of competing probabilities. And until there's an evidentiary basis it REMAINS speculation, however interesting. Personnaly I would bet FOR the existince of life elsewhere. Time and again our naivety about the universe has taken the form of considering ourselves special, unique, or otherwise central to the universe.

As an aside, keep in mind that there's nothing "ultimate" about humans - were not some kind of pinnacle of evolution - we're just the most intellectualy advanced animal alive now. Far in the future, the top dog may be totally different even if it is our direct descendants.

In several recent readings, I've been impressed with the power of the mind to bring us to conclusions that can be completely derived-at by the senses, but that nevertheless have no basis in reality. Could religious claims be similar?

Examples: Out-of-body experiences, seeing of "ghosts," alien abductions--completely believable and very "real" as experienced by the individuals, yet empirically unproveable.

I'm amazed at the mysteries of the human brain, and it's physiologic and psychologic makeup.

Religious claims are oftentimes fantastic. What I celebrate about this particular time (and dialogue like the foregoing) is that it has been suggested that these claims be subject to verification and scrutiny as are all other public claims (ie political, economic, societal.) Extraordinary claims should be supported by very good evidence, per Carl Sagan.

I'm with E-Favorite on this: "...I consider your RIGHT to express your thoughts to be just as valid as mine, but I think some actual thoughts are much better than others..."

I would have said it a bit differently: some knowledge is better than other knowledge. The more the knowledge has suffered the scientific method of verification, I'll be more willing to step out onto it's foundation.

Having read through hundreds if not thousands of posts here, it seems to me that religion is among the most relativistic of human pursuits. Of course beliefs matter because they drive behavior, but at the end of the day and at the end of a life does religion matter that much??

I'm unconvinced that it does - other creatures on the planet seem to get along just fine without it.
The birds in my back yard care about getting fed, and beyond that, I have no idea what they do - but sometimes I spend a long moments just watching them. What beauty!!

Is it any different with the 6 billion humans on the planet (despite the fabled 6 degrees of separation we know a mere few personally)? We go about our business until it comes time for our surviving family members to bury us - or more expeditiously to cremate us. We either find our self-conscious selves continuing on or not....

I had a (fairly lucid) dream last nite that I walked through a long room full of (somber) women that took me to a door - when I opened the door I was greeted by a room that was also full of women (all deceased) that I had known well as a boy growing up from my parent's generation - some 50 years ago. These women were all in their prime, and not a day over 35!

They were surprised at how I looked these days.... when I woke up I wondered if they were real spirits of the departed or a figment of my imagination! Why I would have such a dream is completely beyond my comprehension.

There are mysteries ..........

Drew,

Thanks for the clarification. I guesss you would like the meditational aspects of Buddhism, as long as the supernatural is gone. I never realized that truth was a "pick and choose" method, but I guess in a relativistic society the word "truth" is a naughty word these days.

You spoke of "KNOWING" if God exists as a "we" or "our" based system of thought. Although I do agree that the absolutes in finding knowledge (laws of logic) are universal, I do not believe that ALL knowledge is empirical. If I stated that all knowledge must be empirically proven, then I just contradicted my own standard for finding truth because even that statement of knowledge was not empirically proven! I say with confidence that I have faith in God's works, but I KNOW He exists by personal experience with Him. This I cannot prove to you empirically, but then all things cannot be proven empirically anyway. I do believe that logical knowledge does pre-suppose God anyway, because without the existence of God the laws of logic would no longer be absolute and then rational discourse or even logical conclusions would be impossible.

In short, I wanted to tell you that I do KNOW God exists. My faith in Him relies on His works and His Word. His existence I have felt and because of the personal relationship with Christ, I do know Him and know Him to be real. This again, I cannot prove empirically. But then again even if I could prove it empirically it would require the use of the laws of logic which would pre-suppose God anyway.

BTW, even Jean Paul Sartre said his philosophy was unlivable while on his death bed. I think it was him that said the one question he could not answer was why he shouldn't just kill himself. The Christian worldview has all the philisophical answers. Meaning, purpose and unity among a diverse people. All those come when God said that He made us in His image.

Just thought I would share.

Have a nice day.

E Fav writes:
"I’d sure love to see some research on this."

I think it's obvious without research to see that the world is (slowly) moving toward atheism. Just look at Europe and the British Isles (well, maybe not Ireland). The more education prospers, the more superstition retreats.

It's happening in the US, too, but much more slowly. You can see it best where the US interfaces the most with the rest of the world - coastal states; especially those in the West and the Northeast, where immigration is greatest; and those closest to more populated Canadian areas. It's also more prevalent in University towns and large cities. Wherever you find the least intellectual stagnation.

Parker: “I consider your thoughts just as valid as mine, nor do I condemn anyone for having their viewpoint and holding to it.”

Here’s my take on that: I consider your RIGHT to express your thoughts to be just as valid as mine, but I think some actual thoughts are much better than others, because they are much more grounded in academic knowledge and common sense. If it involves the supernatural, I don’t consider it to be valid.

I don’t condemn anyone for their viewpoint, unless they are lying or being misleading or don’t bother to check easily referenced facts.

Parker wrote:
"Further, I have yet to see a valid explanation as to how this particular earth has such a favorable condition of beauty--colors, variety, so much beauty. I consider the probability of all this beauty occurring by chance to be so infinitismally small (where else has such color variety been found in our universe?) that I question, "do they not see what I see, or do they think probability has favored them so much--why not have evolved on some drab planet like Mars?"

There is also a great deal of ugliness on this planet, and it's no accident that the things that are good, healthy, and conducive to our welfare are the things we find beautiful, and the ones that are dangerous, unhealthy or otherwise bad for us are the things we find ugly.

Parker, we evolved on this planet. Our brains, which perceive what our eyes take in, are a product of that evolution. We are conditioned to our perception of beauty by both nature and nurture. Someone raised in a rain forest, who is moved to a desert, will find that locale alien and stark. Someone raised in the desert, used to the blooms of the saguaro, might find a rainforest dark, dank, and oppressive.

As for color variety, ironically, I just posted on another thread about human color vision. We have 3-color vision (RGB, like your computer monitor - no coincidence). We share this with the great apes and some other old world and Asian primates. Other mammals have only 2-color vision.
However, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians have 4 and 5-color vision. Their perception of the world is far, far richer than ours.

On the other thread, I explained the evoulutionary reason for these groups to have what they do in the way of color vision, which I won't go into in this post, but suffice it to say, that if the "beauty" of the world is a gift of God to Man, he must have loved frogs and goldfish better than us.

Mars lacks variety of color because it lacks life. Without Earth's atmosphere, water and life forms, it would be just a hunk of rock like Mercury, Mars, and our own moon.

Drew: “My larger point being that we are all creations of our early environment, to a greater or lesser extent, and most of us believe in the rightness of that early environment in creating the person we eventually become.”

Thanks for responding, despite Jihadist’s silence. It seems like what you’re suggesting is that is most people experience what you experienced. How does that account for me, and most of the atheists I know, who were indoctrinated as children, were believers into adulthood, then, after research and thinking, dropped their beliefs?

Here’s my speculation on that subject, based of course, on my own experience: If as an adult, you seriously reassess the evidence and think about your religious beliefs with an adult’s reasoning power, it’s easy to see that belief in the supernatural and ancient myths do not make sense. Some people recognize this lack of logic as children, despite religious indoctrination; others (like you) never believe in the supernatural because they were never taught to.

Here’s more speculation: It’s much more likely for people raised with religion to drop their beliefs as adults than it is for people raised without religion to become religious believers as adults. In other words, a much greater proportion of adults are moving toward atheism than vice versa.

I’d sure love to see some research on this.

E.Favourite;

You say...

"Hi, Drew - let me ask you -- were you raised without religion? If so, do you think that's why you're an atheist now? If not, why do you think you're an atheist?

"If you were raised in a religion, how is it that you became an atheist?"
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
Me...
I lucked out...my parents were not religious,and neither were most people in the UK where I grew up. Churches were being turned into bingo halls at the time,and religion rarely came up in general conversations.It was a non-issue.
I was a choirboy for a time,in a church where six choirboys would usually outnumber the worshipers,
and the preacher never removed his bicycle clips.

I guess I started reading Bertrand Russell as a teen,and hung out with others who were reading similar material,plus the existentialism of Sartre the ethics of Aristotle and the Republic of Plato,etc.
Just as the Jihadist was destined to be Muslim because of her background,I was destined to be atheist because of mine. If we had changed places,we would also have changed our religious destinies. She would have been the atheist,and I would be the Muslim Jihadist.
As Maggie Thatcher used to say,"It's a funny old world".
Drew.

Chris,
Interesting comment. Perception is reality, as they say. So if I have perceived and continue to perceive a guiding "energy force" or "light" or "inspiration" or frequent "epiphanies" in my life, though you may dismiss such not having experienced such, or have dismissed all inspiration as some kind of favorable coincidence from inside of the mind rather than emanating from a source external to the mind, then that's your prerogative, but some of humankind have had a different experience, a different reality, a different perception based on genuine experience that is as real to them as whatever you experience is real to you.

Further, I have yet to see a valid explanation as to how this particular earth has such a favorable condition of beauty--colors, variety, so much beauty. I consider the probability of all this beauty occurring by chance to be so infinitismally small (where else has such color variety been found in our universe?) that I question, "do they not see what I see, or do they think probability has favored them so much--why not have evolved on some drab planet like Mars?"

Still further, if you carry Dawkins' and Darwin's logic to conclusion, you follow a curve that doesn't end, because the probability will always be there that some beings in the universe are more advanced than we are, including being more "loving" and having more control over, say, the weather on their planet. These things are possible. Energy or matter can exist that are as yet immeasurable for human instruments. Those thoughts fall within the realms of my logic.

Nonetheless, I respect the learning processes all of us are going through, and I consider your thoughts just as valid as mine, nor do I condemn anyone for having their viewpoint and holding to it. Have a good day.

David T;
Hi Dave...I guess there are different forms of Buddhism,and the form I would prefer is where one concentrates on meditation and self awareness.
No I don't believe in reincarnation anymore than I believe in magic or the supernatural.
I mentioned Buddhism in my earlier post,but I am no adherent of that philosophy,or particularly knowledgeable about it.
Yeah...I said that no-one knows whether there's a God. You ask "How do I know that?"
Well...it seems obvious;if we KNEW there was a God,we wouldn't still be arguing about whether or not there is one.
I am not saying there is no God. How would I know that? I'm saying that 'as far as we KNOW' there is no God.
We know,for instance,that there was an Adolph Hitler. We know that Dick Cheney exists.
But we don't know about God,one way or the other.
If we knew there was a God,we wouldn't need to have faith that there is one. We'd simply know,and
there would be no argument.
I happen to think that there is no god. Like Voltaire,I think people invent gods;witness Apollo,Aphrodite,Thor and Woden,Zeus and Krishna.
It's what our ancestors did all the time,invent Gods.
Do you think any of those gods existed? I don't.

Hi Drew,

I see your point, but I think it's in conflict with what you believe to be reality. I understand you don't believe in anything supernatural but yet you indicate that Buddhism is a worthy religion. I assume of course becaue Buddhism is mainly atheistic. But, I wonder why Buddhism? Isn't re-incarnation supernatural? Are you being picky on what is good or not based upon what you like? I see you don't want to believe in God who is supernatual, but yet it's ok for Buddhism even though re-incarnation is a supernatural thing. It doesn't make sense to me.

You said that no one knows if God exists or not. How do you know that? Just curious?

Good day.

Hi E Favorite.

I was hoping Jihadist might have answered my question...."whether she thinks an atheist like me
would have been an atheist had I been born and raised as she was?"
I feel the answer is No,I would not be an atheist today,
I would be a Muslim,as she is.
If the Jihadist had agreed,she might have to agree that she is Muslim simply because of her indoctrination.
If the Jihadist had disagreed,and felt that a guy like me would remain atheist despite indoctrination,then I would have liked to hear her arguments.
I believe too,that if the Jihadist had been raised as I was,she would probably be an atheist now.
My larger point being that we are all creations of our early environment,to a greater or lesser extent,and most of us believe in the rightness of that early environment in creating the person we eventually become. The child is father to the man.
Jihadist did not choose to become Muslim.It was thrust upon her.She had no choice. Yet now she will defend Islam at every opportunity,as if it is the one great truth;when it is anything but that.

Chris Everett;
Like EFavorite,I read and enjoy your brilliant posts.Sometimes they are a little over my head,but always interesting and challenging.
Ditto Joet,Duckphup,HL,Terry,and EFave too.
You guys are the reason I check into these threads.

I'm not a cosmologist so mine is a lay understanding. But I've read that 5% of the universe is conventional matter, 25% is dark matter and 70% is dark energy.

Maybe what God actually said was: "LET THERE BE DARK!!!"

Dear Chris -

E Fav pointed me to your post above on free will, and I'm glad he did. Your post was well written and well argued.

In fact, it rather puts much of what is erroneously termed "Biblical wisdom" to shame.

BTW - I'm always hearing about Biblical wisdom. Can anyone point out something in the Bible that truly qualifies as wisdom? I'd appreciate it you'd stay away from the "mankind is scum, god is great" type of "wisdom" in offering your citations.

Thanx!

Rob: good points, all. I was just thinking on the drive to lunch how fairly little we actually know about even our observed universe. What is it, about 4% of all known matter is matter that can be seen? (I need Chris to pipe in here as a physicist.)

Our current unknowns are baffling!

Sorry I am so late to the conversation. I like the post from E- Favorite, Jeff P and Chris Everett.

My 2 cents is if I have to pick one of the 7 deadly sins I guess I settle on greed. I think the biggest sin or at least the biggest injustice to our species is stagnation (is that sloth?).

We have placed God in a box and many (most?) fail to question what they have been told. It is not even about questioning that what you have heard is wrong, but questioning that what I have heard is only the beginning and there is so much more.

Apparently the model, the universe, which has been created by a God, the God or it just exists is set up on observable results that strongly suggest that evolution and/or change is the only constant in the universe. Even galaxies do not last for ever.

Assuming God exists, I believe he/she does, I believe our current understanding to be infinitesimal.

We can sit on what we think we know and just spin on this rock until we die at which point we “find out for sure” (I am not even sure about that) or we can explore now. I not only find the latter more exciting, but also more pragmatic for life here on earth.

If what you are trying now is working for you don’t change a thing. If not, then change a thing, including your beliefs on love, hate, greed love, enemies, politics, government, spirituality.

When we get it perfect then we can stop looking.

Jihadi Nasheed types-

"Islam, or rather Muslims, are only harmful to those who abused Muslims of their countries and their rights."

Unfortunately for infidels, kafirs, and apostates-
Islam (or rather Muslims) consider everyone on earth born a Muslim unless as adults they do not believe AND all countries on earth rightfully belong to Islam therefore Muslims must fight to regain what is theirs and has been lost. If lucky they will die in a Holy Battle and gain eternal reward-

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

Qum Jihadi/Islamic nasheed with English subtitles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW3H-6sLwJE

Jeff P - gotta give Chris Everett the credit for the eloquent line you quote as mine.

Chris - gotta thank you for your entire incredibly thought-provoking post. I'm saving it.

E-Favorite and Chris Everett:

Yep I've wondered very recently whether or not there really is a "free will" as well.

I'm learning (very reluctantly) that we as human beings really seem to be "hard wired" into behaviors, ideals, influences that are beyond our recognition, unless those influences are intentionally examined and critiqued. Even then, we have built-in compensation techniques that tend to reduce our "cognitive dissonance" and allow us to make sense of our (often terrible or wrong) decisions along this continuum called life.

More often than not, as an "unbeliever," I'd had the liberty to examine how on earth I might have been a "believer" for so many many years, and why (given my understanding of the possibility of eternal hell) I would ever have given up on that belief-system.

I think, as E-Favorite described so eloquently above, "The only enemies of this dynamic are nature, which has the pesky habit of presenting us with facts, and science, which has the audacity to apply reason and logic to nature’s facts." Those very things "happened" to my belief-system... and here I am on "On Faith" exploring.

Drew -- It's a deal -- I'll wait for Jihadist's response.

Jeff P: "Personally, I lost my faith (Christian) prior to any of those books, but found similar "problems" with my belief-system prior to my reading of those books..."

Ditto - and I've ordered both the books you mentioned.

DITLD,

I find myself somewhat obsessed with issues of belief and choice, from a number of perspectives. At the “top level” is the issue of free will and whether it even exists. We certainly perceive free will, but at the same time there is no room for it in current scientific models of reality, and consciousness research (at least within the scope of my familiarity with it) seems to indicate that free will is a post-hoc perception of actions that have already occurred within the brain. So it may be that we’re all just along for the ride. Of course that’s not particularly satisfying to the ego and opens a can of worms about morality and the like, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

If we assume conventional free will, then your question becomes more coherent: can one choose one’s beliefs? For me, I believe the answer is no; however, what I call belief may not be what someone else calls belief. I think of my belief as my “model of reality”. Being empirically minded, I am aware that all I can have is a model of reality, and that model is contingent on the information I have been exposed to and could change, given new information. So I’m like Richard Feynman who said (paraphrasing), “The only thing I’m sure about is that I’m not sure about anything.” So for me, belief is my model, it is contingent, and different parts of it have different degrees of conviction associated with them depending on the strength of the evidence, the “fit” of the model to the evidence, and the plausibility of competing models. Of course, a philosopher might tell me that my “true” belief is really empiricism itself, and what I take AS belief is just a conceptual edifice built on my true belief. Maybe, but if so, I have even LESS capability to choose that!

However, although I’m not religious and can’t speak with authority about the religious experience, I think that religious “belief” has a different nature than the above. I suspect that religious believers CAN’T IMAGINE OTHERWISE. This is why it is impossible to have a coherent discussion of religious belief with a religious person (Lord knows I’ve tried!) Of course, if one is raised (indoctrinated) into religion it is easy to instill this kind of unquestionable belief. And people who come to religion later in life almost always do so through a process of “bottoming out”, in which they embrace the idea that their whole worldview up to that point has been a failure and they decide to abandon the wreckage. It seems to me that what is really going on is an acceptance of the idea that they’re simply incapable of intellectual self-governance, of which the whole empirical-model-building activity is a central part. Instead, they fatalistically hand over the task to a “higher power”. This liberates them from existential despair.

The fact that the more sophisticated religions REQUIRE belief is really just simple memetics – unquestioning, or more accurately, unquestionable belief is needed as a bulwark against the fact that religious beliefs can’t withstand critical, empirical analysis because they are fabrications, pure and simple. The reason we have these fabrications in the first place is another topic that is often touched upon here, but my nutshell is this: in ancient times, the most compelling tale was the most believed, and the person (or group) that was believed was more powerful and successful. Add natural selection (memetics) and time to the mix and you get extravagant tales of unbounded significance, told by immensely successful organizations of incredible power. The only enemies of this dynamic are nature, which has the pesky habit of presenting us with facts, and science, which has the audacity to apply reason and logic to nature’s facts.

So the bottom line for me is this – the whole issue of choosing one’s beliefs is a red herring! The question really only arises due to religion’s craven strategy of crippling the empirical-model-building activity. It does not speak to human nature or the nature of belief – it speaks to the nature of religious institutions and their methods of self preservation.

E. Favorite,

Danke Schoen!!! I will put your referenced book on my list of books to read.

One last thought regarding the topic of Susan's post: as I was falling asleep last night, I wondered, given the New Testament writings of Paul and the Gospels, if the greatest sin of a human being might just be: Unbelief.

If so, wow. What a thing to go to hell for...

I'm loving this conversation. It is indeed the "million dollar question" to examine the reasons we come to "believe" the way we do. It's worth the study. I'm completing "Don't Believe Everything You Think" and it's really quite mind-boggling. If anyone has any references to good books along that line I'd love to hear about them.

Jihadist, I always enjoy your posts. I frequently hear folks comment on "I've read those new atheist books and I still believe." Personally, I lost my faith (Christian) prior to any of those books, but found similar "problems" with my belief-system prior to my reading of those books...they clarified many things I'd thought about and wondered over the preceeding years.

I wonder, have you found any of their arguments compelling, even a single argument? I find that "believers" tend not to change their minds regardless. I'd be curious: what would it take to change your mind regarding your particular belief-system. I've wondered, if a belief-system is unchallengable or unmoveable, is that a good thing?

Just curious.

Hi, Concerned – I was hoping you’d pop up here. I have another resource for your collection. It’s called “God is not Three Guys in the Sky,” (2007) by Jeanette Blonigen Clancy, a practicing Catholic with a masters degree in theology. I just saw it at Barnes and Noble, and then went to her website. Here is an excerpt:

http://www.godisnot3guys.com/excerpts.htm

The Introduction
I am a practicing Catholic but I do not accept the pillars of Christian belief that Jesus is God and his death saved the world. This myth of Christ has profound symbolic meaning for millions and I value it for that reason, but my understanding of Christ differs from the one preached by the official church. The church’s message also differs from the one preached by Jesus of Nazareth.

My Aims
In this book I present scholarly findings about scripture and myth that render the traditional interpretation of doctrine impossible. The Christian story is not factual history and it is not the supreme message of God to humanity. I offer a symbolic reading of the myth of Christ and an inclusive understanding of the Reign of God proclaimed by Jesus. . . .
The best contribution Christianity can make to global spirituality in the twenty-first century is to acknowledge its myth and symbol as myth and symbol. In the chapters of this book I hope to advance these realizations, which would help immeasurably to smooth thorny relations between the peoples of the world.

The Role of Myth
While literally false, [religious] myths are nevertheless honorable and true—real but not factual, true but not historical. This is the critical distinction. Someone called them “true stories that never happened.”

Ms Jacoby,

Surely you know that criticizing any aspect of Islam could mean losing not only one's own life but putting the life of completely innocent non-Muslims anywhere in the world at risk. Read: Danish cartoons, lecture of Pope etc.

Not all are called to be martyrs for Islam. Being stupid serves no purpose. Being wise as serpents and harmless as doves in expressing an opinion cannot be wrong.

Worth a repeat since The Obfuscating One continues with her distracting commentaries.

"Tis amazing that The Obfuscating Jihadist rants on and on about failings of democracy and capitilism but again fails to note the failings of her warmongering religion and its very flawed, greed-driven founder and foundation.

Islam oozes with this stench of "don't pick on me" because Islam, according to The Jihadist, is the right and only path to heaven.

The only way to remove this stench is a complete "Febrezing"/"deflawing" of the reeking "book of death" aka the koran. "

Jihadist

You mention fear,lots.You seem the fearful one,fearful that someone will take your fantasy away if they keep talking such blatant sense.
They must be opposed before they make too much sense.
One day a bell may go off in your head like BINGO
they're right;there is no god.
So keep fighting your jihad to fend off the infidels,the worse of which are the damned atheists,
and their lies about my Allah.

E Favorite;

I would have preferred to see Jihadist's response first,
on the question whether she would expect me to be an atheist
if I had had her background.
I think that-had I been raised as she was,
I would now be a Muslim believer.
Let's wait for her comment.Ladies first.

David T

Sorry,I didn't catch your comment until now.
I hadn't scrolled back that far...
I really enjoyed reading it,and agree with most of it.
Your point that some religions are good,some religions are bad;
well.OK. Buddhism sounds pretty good,but the supernatural ones I think are outrageously silly,
and the only reason we believe them is because everybody else does.
Like the "everybody can't be wrong" syndrome,or groupthink.
But yes,it does seem that the Koran says things like kill the infidel amongst you,and kill apostates,and such,but the Bible too is pretty nasty with all that human sacrificing to the gods.

It's just that as far as we know there is no supernatural world.Period. So no gods either.
People invent them.Always have.
The supernatural world would seem to be,in fact,
the imagination;where anything can exist.

Hi, Jihadist - thanks for getting back to me.

Just one comment before I nod off. I don't recall seeing atheists here calling believers irrational and stupid.

I DO see atheists commenting that theists' beliefs are irrational. I'd say that myself - and would say it of myself when I was a believer. Whenever confronted by the irrationality of my beliefs, I'd triumphantly say "That's why they call it faith!"

regarding stupidity, from what I can see - it's an equal opportunity affliction.

Hello E Favorite,

Like some some believers making generalised remarks about atheists and upsetting atheists, I do tend to take on some atheists making generalised remarks about believers.

Indoctrination sounds like force-feeding when in fact, we spent more time on secular subjects when growing up and in school.

I always though that is an over-statement to say all believers are indoctrinated, or don't know they are indoctrinated, or blindly and uncritically accepting their faith.

I agree with your post about believers personalising their beliefs that is different from organised religion or institutionalised beliefs. Not all believers agree with or comply to aspects of organised religion or specific aspects of belief. It is not what we believe in, but what we do that harm to others. But you know that already.

I'd rather be friends with atheists and believers who are comfortable with themselves and their beliefs or non-belief rather than with pious but hypocritical believers. As you know, there are believers who think atheists are the curse of the world, and there are atheists who think that beliefs and believers are the cause of all the problems in the world. There is just more of us believers.

Just as I am impatient with my co-religionists who are "militant" or "dogmatic", so am I with such adherents of other faiths or non-belief. But of course I am still surprised to see some atheists still needing to tell believers they are irrational and stupid in their posts. It does not make them smarter or more rational everytime they say that:)

I would not mind being in the same foxhole with atheists such you, A Hermit, Norrie Hoyt, Maurie Beck etc.

Thanks and best regards
"J"

Shelly,

Just like Christian Witch Doctors who claim to be able to heal with a tap of the hand...crooks come in all stripes.
I live in Louisiana not Haiti...Voodun is different in America, you can not equate them. Just Like Wicca/Witchcraft is different here then in England or Africa.
A witch doctor often refers to healers in primitive regions, who use traditional healing rather than science or developed medicine.

The term witch doctor is generally used with negative connotations. It often is used to imply that the person trying to heal has little or no expertise or ability in healthcare.

Witch doctor is not used in anthropology. It is used colloquially to mean a shamanistic healer, especially among African peoples. The term "witch doctor" is not typically used by anthropologists because it would imply the existence of "witchery" that is in need of being cured by a "doctor" (medic); and anthropologists cannot find any authentic instances of "witchery" (harmful magic). No practitioners of magic (shamans) ever identify themselves as evil-doers; any "harmful magic" ever ascribed to them is always found to be a slander by outsiders, usually spread about by hearsay rumor.

In Brazil the Shaman's are called Quimbanda. In Southern Africa it is sangomas.A curandero (or curandera for a female) is a traditional folk healer or shaman in Hispanic-America, prevalent in Latin America.

Many of the meds you go to the doctor for and pay big money to get are based on Shamanistic herbs and healing.

I had eye surgery, what they used was curare...found in the amazone rain forest. It paralizes.

Do not think that all of what the indigenous peoples do is fraudulent..it's not. Nor am I a bumpkin to believe every faith healer or religious shyster.
terra

Arminius

The worse 9/11 conspiracy theory?
That's gotta be the one that said that
no Jewish workers showed up for work
at the Twin Towers on 9/11 because in fact
it was Jews who behind the whole thing.
Can't top that one.

Hi, Drew - let me ask you -- were you raised without religion? If so, do you think that's why you're an atheist now? If not, why do you think you're an atheist?

If you were raised in a relgion, how is it that you became an atheist?

thanks - hope to hear from you about this.

Jihadist

Thanks for your response.

I'll ask you a question.
I am an atheist.
Do you think I would be an atheist if I had grown up with you in Malaysia,as a child born (or adopted)
into your family?
I believe if I had been born and raised exactly as you were,I would be a believing Muslim now.
What is your view?

Hi, Daniel, Apology accepted. I think you probably do basically understand my point of view.

You say: “But I am not so sure about the will to choose one's beliefs. Notice that I am say I am not so sure, because I do not know, for sure one way or the other”

I’m not so sure either, overall. Some people seem more open or susceptible to various beliefs, whether it be religion, or astrology or other forms of the occult – sometimes a combination of apparently conflicting beliefs. However, I am pretty sure that childhood indoctrination plays a major role in inculcating people with beliefs that they would otherwise not hold. I know atheists, who were sent for religious indoctrination (i.e., Sunday school) , but it never “took.” They knew as small children that it didn’t make any sense, but they were quiet about it and just got out when they were old enough to leave on their own.

Then there are people like me who fell for it (excuse my bluntness, but that’s how I perceive it now), but without much thought or fervor, and just stuck with it because it was socially acceptable – and comforting (the ritual and the eternal life part).

Jihadist,

America is a hotbed of conspiracy theories. Many about 9/11, of course, are alive and well here. The worst one is the Pentagon one, where some believe that an American missile was used, because supposedly no plane remnants were visible as in the twin towers. I corresponded with a Swiss expert in airplane crashes on this; it turns out that a plane can completely disappear into whatever it crashes into if the angle was right (about 90 degrees). God but I hate conspiracy theories.

Ah, yes, Israel, that geographical construct. Kinda like Iraq and Kuwait. Or India and Pakistan. Great Britain kinda screwed up. But I would still go defend Israel if they would take me. They didn't in 1967 - I tried. Yes, I know - the Palestinians are getting screwed, big time. And somebody should do something........

Freedom without fear? No such thing. The catch here is to deal with the fear.

With respect,

Arminius

Yes, I was referring to the conspiracy theory on 9/11 including Mossad being aware of it before it happened, some people from Isreal supposedly jumping on rooftops watching it happened, people being warned and calling in sick etc. I see them more and more, not just in the Muslim world but in non-Muslim world. In fact, they emanates from the US into the Muslim world ironically.

How do I feel about 9/11? How do you think I feel aabout innocent people getting killed? There are foreigners who got killed on 9/11 too thought the majority are Americans working in the Twin Towers. Yes, most of the perpetrators of 9/11 comes from Saudi Arabia and Afghans and Iraqis made to pay for it. A case of cui bene misapplied as stated by The Moderate. Now, that is unjust.

Too many people forget that practically all governments and people in the world, condemned the 9/11 act of terrorism, including Indonesia and Malaysia. Prior to 9/11 and after, Muslim terrorists, specifically the Jemaah Islamiyah and their cohorts, perpetrate acts of terrorisms killing people in Indonesia, Malaysia too. You don't get to read too much about foreigners getting killed by terrorists overseas unless some Americans were victims.

As for Israel, many in the Middle East held it to be essentially an European solution that become a Middle Eastern problem. Still is.

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

Hello Drew,

What to do? I am being "hypnotized" to accept God just like others in my community. The power of faith and belief, eh. Er, I hate to break this to you, but I've read all the books by Hitchens, Harris and Dennet etc. before On Faith was started and noticed atheists do use what those fellows stated in their reasonings and arguments.

Congratulations to you as an at last, free person as an atheist - free from the shackles of superstitious beliefs, free from belief in God, free from nonsense, free from gullibility and foolishness, in not being stubborn etc.

But of course, as we all know, being free from a certain beliefs and being an atheist does not guarantee anyone freedom from fear and bigotry of anyone who don't share the same beliefs as them.

Where is freedom if one still have fear of others?

Regards
"J"

Jihadist: “To insist that believers are ignorant or blinkered for not accepting there is no God or the supernatural is arrogance of atheists, or the irrational fear of atheists of all believers?”

Who’s insisting? I was recently a Christian believer and I was neither ignorant nor blinkered for believing in God. I was simply indoctrinated and misinformed. I have no irrational fear of believers – Some of my best friends are still believers. I have found, though, since acknowledging my own atheism, that many of my friends are too.

By the way, I don’t notice that I’m any smarter or rational than I was as a believer, except of course , when it comes to religion – I’m much more informed and infinitely more rational. What a relief.

I bet you wouldn’t mind being in a foxhole with me.

Moderate,

Yes, a majority of Moslems apparently have a different view of 9/11, and Israel, as usual, is the normal target. I think the CIA may be blamed as well, in one theory or another. As well as assorted other groups, including the US government and Americal jews. I have no use for conspiracy theories. The perps of 9/11 were identified, and most came from Saudi Arabia. End of discussion - I wish.....

I did want to know how Jihadist feels about 9/11 in her own opinion.

David T - It’s difficult for me to converse with you when my words are misconstrued or words are put in my mouth. I see no value in countering arguments I have not made, e.g., “…declar[ing] believers unable to learn because of belief….” If you actually read that into what I said, I’m afraid my communication skills and/or your comprehension skills are sorely lacking and in need of remediation beyond the scope of this forum discussion. If you’re saying it to goad me, I’m ungoaded.

Regarding my statement, “Religious indoctrination teaches things that need to be unlearned in order to be a well-educated, open-minded adult. I don’t see how this is a good thing” - I would say that about any form of indoctrination. I’m against any circumstance in which children are forced to learn one perspective, not allowed to learn about differing perspectives in an unbiased way, and are told of the ill that will befall them if they don’t have certain beliefs and the ill that befalls all others who have differing beliefs.

Jihadist

Of course you believe in god.It could not be otherwise. You were raised to believe,therefore you believe;Bully for you!
As the person raised in a Mormon group believes
in the Mormon God,and the strict catholic believes what catholics are supposed to believe.you accept
Allah as if you were hypnotized to accept Allah,just like others in your community.
You could not do otherwise,unless you were particularly bright and stubborn enough to question the nonsense pushed into your head when you were too young to resist.Few are able.
Most atheists were once religious,but caught the scam,and see now that they were once foolish and
gullible and have learned from the experience.
Have a pleasant evening...Drew

Dear Arminius:

"Not sure where you are coming from on 9/11. Can you elaborate?"

I think she is referring to a theory that the Mossad was involved in the 9/11 incident because of the damage incident, and the US response did to the Moslem world.

A case of "cui bene" misapplied?

Jihadist, is that what you meant?

Hi, Jihadist,

I do believe you have opened a gigantic can of worms. The feedback should, as you say, be fun.

Not sure where you are coming from on 9/11. Can you elaborate?

Thanks,

Arminius

Here we go again. This is fun.

Indoctrination and group-think of religion? Islam as an ideology to be crushed as communism as an ideology was? Muslims did crush communism as and ideology in Afghanistan, Indonesia and Malaysia among others.

The Suras y'all are talking about relates to Muslims to fight against oppression whenever they find them. The related Suras also stated these can take the form of unjust rulers, or those who forced one to be displaced from one's homes and land unjustly. Terrorism is used by the illegal occupiers for freedom fighters. The Dutch called my Indonesian grandfather a terrorist because he fought against them with other Indonesians for the independence of Indonesia against Dutch colonial rule.

Islam, or rather Muslims, are only harmful to those who abused Muslims of their countries and their rights. Who transgress in their countries and their homes without consent and without any justification. Muslims are not so pliant eh. There is no "church" headquarters or "church" authority to speak for all Muslims or to make them bent to the will of any authority they don't want to.

Atheist do have a groupthink that all believers are delusionists. Atheists are also "indoctrinated" by the books written by Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins jugding by the quotes many sourced from them and their books. Akin to believers quoting scriptures to make a point, but unfornately some atheists seem to be a bit averse to. As if the scriptures quoted will turn all to pillars of salt.

And er, I hate to break this to you, but more and more Muslims don't believe 9/11 is perpetrated by Muslims. All these conspiracy theories floating around. By the way, how many 9/11 perpetrators actually have college degrees and PhDs?

And 72 virgins? Every Muslim knows that it is not virgins but purified souls in heaven to keep one company. No gender or numbers mentioned. At best, the 9/11 perpetrators are ignorant of their own faith, which is surprising considering they are Arabs.

There is a different narrative on 9/11 going on in the Muslim world by the way - contrary to the one going on in the US.

Not a good sign.

Oh yes, I believe in God. I'm happy to be called a believer of the supernatural. The operative word being "super".

Interesting is it not, Muslims believe that we can't know God's shape or form, and God has no gender. Believe in the Singularity of God.

And scientists says a "Singularity" started the Big Bang. Is that really a new and different thought from what the Genesis says on, In the begining...........no light, and there was light. And there is Enlightenment and so forth.

Come now, let people seek their own Enlightenment in whatever paths they chose. Most believers may be born in the faiths of their parents, but over time, they do read on materials on other faiths and by atheists and personalised their beliefs.

To insist that believers are ignorant or blinkered for not accepting there is no God or the supernatural is arrogance of athiests, or the irrational fear of atheists of all believers?

I'd rather be with Viejita Del Oeste, Soja from Australia, in a foxhole, than with Christopher Hitchens. That fellow don't like religionists just for being believers. Is that rational?

If Hitchens said he dislike Ayatollah Khomeini or Pat Robertson, believers would understand. If he said he is anti-theist and dislike religionists regardless, what is that really about? Blind bigotry?

Thanks
"J"

What causes religion and religious people to go so very wrong is "intolerance." I know many Christian who assert with pride, that yes they are intolerant. But that is ignorant perspecitve. It assumes dominance over the others. When in a position of political power, that dominance is easy. Otherwise, it leads to all kinds of conflict, including violence, murder, and war. When you seek dominance over others, what you are really lusting after is political power. And that is pretty far away from religion.

When an atheist says he does not believe in God, it is only a threat to people who may be having difficulty with their own personal doubts, or else it is a threat to the political dominance of a religion. When an atheist says that he does not believe in God, he is making a note of something he does not believe. It doesn't need proof. And you can't force a belief where there is none. If you think that God does not want a person to be an atheist, then couldn't God change his mind more easily than you?

Drew,

If you are an atheist, I expect you to agree with E Fav. I respect your opinions as well.

There is one particular thing that comes to mind when speaking of religions and the harm they can do. I understand 9/11 was a painful and terrible moment in history. I think this event put into the minds of many that religion is harmful and evil. Yes. Religion CAN be harmful and evil. I think the problem lies in the atheistic thinking that ALL religions are harmful and cause human suffering. But to determine the truth of a particular worldview on it's adherents would be logically fallacious. Ad pop, I believe it is. I too am effected by those events on 9/11 and when I evaluate the ideaology of Islam I can see how those events can be justified in the Quran. I agree that some religions are harmful.

Of course you will be quick to point out the Inquisitions that seemed to represent Christianity. But the difference is that in Christianity, the Inquisitions and the evil that came out of them, cannot be justified by the true teachings of Christianity whereas terrorism can be justified by muslims in their teachings. I think it's faulty to assume all religions in the same category as others.

Now, you mentioned the education of the 9/11 hijackers and what they believed. I don't believe it was just a faith in Allah and 72 virgins that caused this evil. It was the evil that murdering non-believers will get you 72 virgins and in the presence of Allah. It's not the belief in the supernatural that is harmful, Drew. It's the belief on what is justified by the teachings as to how you get there. Islam says kill, whereas Christianity says kill me for the sake of you. The Inquisitions and all other atrocities in the name of Christianity cannot be justified in the Bible. I do recommed you not lump all religions together but examine each one individually. It is then, that you might have an educated response to the atrocities that religion has brought. It is then that you will know that Christianity cannot be used to justify murdering whereas Islam can.

thanks

For E Favorite

I am sorry if I misquoted you. I was actually trying to summarize my understanding of your position. Even if I did not write it out accurately, I think I understand you.

I think I have presented my ideas a little awkwardly. What I was really wondering about is the mental phenomenon of "will." On the surface, it seems plain enough, but the more you think about it, the stranger it gets. I know I have free will when I pick the green sweater and not the blue one, or I pick the chicken and not the roast beef. But I am not so sure about the will to choose one's beliefs. Notice that I am say I am not so sure, because I do not know, for sure one way or the other.

Christians say that only by belief will you be saved, and if you choose not to believe, then you will be cast into Hell But if you already do not believe in Jesus Christ, then you cannot, by the force of your own will, suddenly start believing in him. You continue to believe as you do, without a choice. Therefore, failure to believe in Jesus cannot be anything that God would punish you for. Only people would want to punish you for that.

Or again, we each believe according to what seems obvious to us. But what seems obvious is different from one person to another. But when something seems obvious, then you have no choice, but to believe it. Not even belittlement, coersion, or even extreme physical torture can cause you to be able to choose a belief that you do not believe.

I am just pondering "will" and where does if come from, how do we form it, and what does it really mean. As much I may dissect it philosphically, I still do "feel" that my will is free, and that I do freely choose.

David T

I'm inclined to agree with you that of course one can be educated and intelligent and still believe in a God,and Heaven etc. Obviously many do.
But I put it down to indoctrination and groupthink,the reality that one generally believes what one's group believes,what one was raised to believe.
I also think that childhood religious indoctrination overrides one's education and intelligence,and often becomes paramount.
Witness the 9/11 suicide bombers;all were college educated,some had PHD's...still,it didn't stop them from actually believing in Allah and the 72 Virgins,
and other supernatural nonsense,did it?
I agree with EFavorite that we would be better off without the supernatural in our lives.

Terra Gazelle;
Read your last comments with interest.

About a month ago,PBS showed a British documentary
inquiring into voodoo and other forms of "magic"
that go on in Haiti.
The first half of the program showed the most extraordinary magic,including resurrecting people
who had died.
All manner of people were interviewed,including doctors at a local hospital,and dozens of others who swear that the dead had been brought back to life by local voodoo practitioners,many times over.
It happens all the time.
Later in the program,some doctors were interviewed
who were quite skeptical about the whole thing,and pointed the interviewers towards others who "were really in the know" about such things.
To come to the point,it turns out that in Haiti,
so-called witch doctors often inject a chemical into certain sick people,that has the same effect as the medicine that Romeo's Juliet had taken when Romeo had thought she was dead.
It's a chemical taken from certain fish that knocks a person out cold,as if they were dead.
But they can be revived if done at the right time,in the right way,within 48 hours or so,I can't remember exactly.
It's a local con game,which makes the voodoo specialist very powerful,for resurrecting the dead.
Unfortunately,upon further investigation,it turns out that most people do not always revive. Only the few actually make it back to life,that's because the timing is critical,and the quacks are not always on the ball.
The horror is that many of these people often wake up to find themselves buried. The voodoo man unable to resurrect in the given time,had to allow burial to go ahead,or else admit he was a fake.
It still goes on there unabated.
If you're ever in Haiti and get sick,don't go to a witch doctor;don't seek a voodoo cure,seek a real doctor,or come home.

Jeff P -

Good science fiction is superb literary art if you ask me - somehow it's been passed over as a kind of second tier literary confabulation rather than a singular exercise in stretching the creative imagination - & usually backed up by extensive research and knowledge of both the physical sciences and social sciences. Some great reading to be found in this genre......

HL - I'm completely with you on the mistreatment or abuse of non-human creatures...a grievous violation of the natural laws of empathy and compassion for all living things. We do it easily enough with each other and that's bad enough, but with other innocent life forms it somehow seems both intolerable & unexcusable.

Dawn - agreed. Religion will be marginalized and some will even disappear in the next few decades without massive changes.

While people rightly fear the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in all it's medieval and hyper-emotional reactionary behavior, they are more a threat to the fate of the entire Islamic world rather than to the West. I'm not certain mainstream Islam has fully recognized or appreciated the dangers inherent in the fundamentalist intention to wreak havoc in the West - one nuclear incident on US soil will bring a pre-planned response that probably could never have been predicted in the magnitude of it's devastation.

These are the times we live in.

E Fav,

Thanks for responding. I have to disagree especially in light of how you view "religion". You sum them all up in one lump and say, they differ (which they do) and that that caused division especially in terms of morality. The problem with this is that you lump together religious worldviews but forget your own. Not everyone believes in this "evolutionary morality" within specific communities. I can't imagine telling my kids that murder is not ok in this society but it is not evil in other societies. I like the fact that my child will know that murder is always evil no matter where you are at.

You mentioned that religion not only teaches morality but gives an impression of an "I'm right and you are wrong" dichotomy. Yeah. It does. And that is a good thing. This teaches that truth conforms to reality. That God either exists or He doesn't. That it's intellectual dishonesty, for the sake of tolerance, to say that the Hindu worldview is true as is the Christian. They are compeletly opposites and either one of them is true or none. Why would I teach my kids to be illogical? And concerning "supernatural beliefs" would be consistent with teaching God since He is a supernatural being. Of course you, as an atheist, cannot logically deny God in an absolute sense, therefore to teach kids about God is not illogical or meaningless. There is a FINE LINE between being open-minded and being illogical. Open minded as I am in wanting to hear other worldviews yes, but open minded by declaring all worldviews to be "true" is just illogical and unreal. If we all should be open minded to other worldviews, then why are you an atheist? You assume that those who are Christians should not believe that their Christianity is true. I ask, then, why should I not question you on why you should think your atheism is true?

I do think the worst statement you made in your response to me is this:

"Religious indoctrination teaches things that need to be unlearned in order to be a well-educated, open-minded adult. I don’t see how this is a good thing."

Are you that ignorant as to say that Christians are uneducated and cannot learn? And you have the nerve to speak about intolerance and "open-mindedness"?

I would counter by declaring that knowledge is IMPOSSIBLE without pre-supposing the Christian God in the first place. Your worldview cannot account for the laws of logic but in order for you to deny God you have to borrow from my Christian worldview in order to even make a logical conclusion. So, in order for you to even assume that God cannot exist, you must pre-suppose His existence to make that conclusion. So, for you to say that Christians cannot "learn" anything because of belief in God, is quite ignorant and a false assumption. For you to even know anything, you must rely on the absoluteness of the laws of logic which require an absolute being in order for their existence, which is the very thing you are denying. Not a very logical worldview, E Fav.

I would appreciate a clarification on the quoted statement. To declare believers unable to learn because of belief is quite ignorant. Some of the greatest scientists in history were and are Christians. To take your assumption is an act of ignorance in light of your pre-suppositionary worldview. I feel that you may need to re-word that for the sake of the very thing you fight for; tolerance.

Take care

Terry,

I saw Temple Grandin on TV one time where she demonstrated her method of calming livestock before slaughter. She is a lovely lady. I think if we have to eat meat the least we can do is to treat the animals more humanely. Seeing how the animals are driven to slaughter in traditional slaughterhouses makes one want to quit eating meat. One thing that really gets under my skin is mistreating animals or killing them for sport.

Terry

I agree with your view that science will push religion to the margins of society in the not too distant future.
It would seem the logical outcome of scientific development and influence in coming years,and the weakening of superstitious thinking in the mainstream.
I think Europe is already leading the way to this kind of world,though the rise of Islam has certainly complicated this process.
It would seem inevitable that religion will join astrology and sorcery as ancient ideas in history books of the future.
I cannot see it survive the 21st century.

Violence fear over Islam film

Counter-terrorism alert as a Dutch right-winger launches a movie that will denounce the Koran

Jason Burke, Europe editor
Sunday January 20, 2008
The Observer

The Dutch government is bracing itself for violent protests following the scheduled broadcast this week of a provocative anti-Muslim film by a radical right-wing politician who has threatened to broadcast images of the Koran being torn up and otherwise desecrated.
Cabinet ministers and officials, fearing a repetition of the crisis sparked by the publication of cartoons of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper two years ago, have held a series of crisis meetings and ordered counter-terrorist services to draw up security plans. Dutch nationals overseas have been asked to register with their embassies and local mayors in the Netherlands have been put on standby.

Geert Wilders, one of nine members of the extremist VVD (Freedom) party in the 150-seat Dutch lower house, has promised that his film will be broadcast - on television or on the internet - whatever the pressure may be. It will, he claims, reveal the Koran as 'source of inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror'.

Dutch diplomats are already trying to pre-empt international reaction. 'It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend,' said Maxime Verhagen, the Foreign Minister, who was in Madrid to attend the Alliance of Civilisations, an international forum aimed at reducing tensions between the Islamic world and the West. In Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other towns with large Muslim populations, imams say they have needed to 'calm down' growing anger in their communities.

Government officials hope that no mainstream media organisation will agree to show the film, although one publicly funded channel, Nova, initially agreed before pulling out. 'A broadcast on a public channel could imply that the government supported the project,' said an Interior Ministry spokesman.

Demonstrations are also expected from those opposed to Wilders beyond Holland's Muslim community - a number of left-wing activists have already been arrested - and from his supporters. Members of a group calling itself Stop Islamisation of Europe are planning to travel to Amsterdam. 'Geert Wilders is an elected politician who has made a film, and that he is under armed guard as a result is absolutely outrageous,' said Stephen Gash, a UK-based member, yesterday. 'It is all about free speech.'

In November 2004, anger and violence followed the stabbing and shooting by a Dutch teenager of Moroccan parentage of the controversial film-maker Theo Van Gogh, a distant relative of the artist.

The attacker said the killing was in response to a film about Islam and domestic violence that Van Gogh had made with the Somalian-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, then an MP, which showed images of naked veiled women with lines from the Koran projected over them.

From her self-imposed exile in Washington, Hirsi Ali last week criticised the new film as 'provocation' and called on the major Dutch political parties to restart a debate on immigration that has split Dutch society in recent years, rather than leave the field to extremists.

Wilders announced his plans last November, saying he was making a film to show the violent and fascist elements of the Muslim faith. The maverick politician's remarks about Islam have become increasingly radical. In February last year he said that if Muslims wanted to stay in the Netherlands, they should tear out half of the Koran and throw it away. In parliament he then called for the Koran and Hitler's Mein Kampf to be banned, a proposal that was rejected.

Job Cohen, the left-wing mayor of Amsterdam, echoed Hirsi Ali's words and called for a debate 'so that the moderates can make themselves heard'.

During a visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg last week, Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, the Grand Mufti of Syria, said that, were Wilders was seen to tear up or burn a Koran in his film, 'this will simply mean he is inciting wars and bloodshed ... It is the responsibility of the Dutch people to stop him.

Terry, someone on another post made the suggestion that science fiction writing can be threatening to fundamentalists--and to some degree I agree. Some of the writing suggests a future much better and certainly different from the "end of the book: Revelations."

I'm a fan of Star Trek, (especially Next Generation) because it seems the dream of Gene Roddenberry was to finally get past some of the tribal mentality, to explore our commonalities, and to celebrate a time where material need and belief-system-territories were defunct.

I'm with you on the need, in our immediate future, of our emphasis as a competitive nation in a world market to come to grips with our dismal science performance, our willingness to bow to the supernatural, and all those mind things that would lead us back into a dark-ages.

Fortunately I think, too, that the younger generation are actually listening to the arguments of Hitchens, Dawkins and the like. Even if viewed as "militant," there is a lot of value in considering new ideas--which I think we all need, in all our certainties.

GaryD -

While I've seen writings by both physicists & other scientists with strong atheistic leanings (see 'God the Failed Hypothesis' by Victor Stenger & 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins)
no one could say that God as a concept has been unequivically disproven. On the other hand, what science may well be proving is that God is not what or who conventional monotheistic orthodoxy has always maintained so vigorously and with such absolute certainty!

The Absolute may not change but everything else necessarily does, including our view of the Absolute. Science and religion will eventually need to reach a state of rapproachment on spiritual issues, or religion will ultimately fade due to it's inflexible resistence to change.

Curiously,the USA seems to be the last stronghold for fundamentalism and evangelism. I see this changing dramatically within the next generation, although many of the faithful today would find this idea both ridiculous and untenable.

In my opinion things have been sorely out of balance in regard to science and religion in the USA based on our government's recent preference for all things religious vs science. This will change, and when it does, there will be alot of catching up. The momentum will strongly favor science in the years ahead.

We live in curious times! If the peoples of the world can't find commmon interests vs self-interest, we're bound to continue with our perpetual war and (temporary) peace cycles, and they seem to be getting deadlier (and more costly in all ways).

Religion is in the thick of the battle, but has been far from a cure. Something tells me we're going about religion all the wrong way, but that's just a humble opinion.

regards -

David T – thanks for getting back to me.

I think it’s important for children to have morality instilled in them too, but not the morality of any one religion. Obviously the various religions have overlapping rules of morality and a moral sense existed before religion – and there is increasing research showing the origins of morality in other animals that, like human, rely on group cooperation to survive.

Unfortunately, religion doesn’t only teach morality, it teaches a series of supernatural beliefs that often conflict with the beliefs of other religions and sets up differences and rivalries and sometimes even hatreds among people who have similar morals, but who disagree strongly on invisible, untestable supernatural events that form the basis of their differing religions. It sets up an “I’m right, you’re wrong” dichotomy that otherwise wouldn’t exist.

Religious indoctrination teaches things that need to be unlearned in order to be a well-educated, open-minded adult. I don’t see how this is a good thing.

E Favorite,

Thank you for the clarification. I had assumed that you assumed that all believers were just "indoctrinated" as children and have yet to (what many atheists call it) dis-believe in "Santa" yet. I'm glad you clarified your position.

I do agree with you. I think our children do need all the information they can get. The problem is when determining what age they are articulated enough to understand the differences. I do think it's in the adulthood that those who were raised as believers NEED to question those beliefs. I did and I am so happy I did. It made my walk with Christ that much more better.

I, for one, will raise my kids in a Christian church. Eventually I hope they do grow up and question their beliefs vigorously. It's important to not take anything on blind faith but with reason and logic. But (without getting into the morality debate) I feel it's important for kids to grow up with a philisophical starting point for morality. An absolute basis in which to determine right or wrong. I only find this in the Christian worldview to be logical and consistent. You may not agree, and that's fine. But regardless of how you determine who is "indoctrinated", an absolute basis for morality is what kids need in order to really KNOW right from wrong. I find nothing wrong with teaching kids about God and the morality in which God presented to us to be never changing and a measuring rod for knowing what is right and wrong in an absolute sense. When they become adults, GREAT! Search far and wide. Stay open minded. I'm all for that. I'm that confident in God and His presence and works to know that seeking truth will lead back to Him.

Of course you may not agree, but I just wanted to show you how and why I somewhat agree and disagree with your point of view. I hope you don't mind...

Good evening to you E Fav.

The Notion that science disproves God is ultimately based upon the idea that man's senses contrary to Heisenberg are the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not reality.

HL -

I checked it out and there is evidence that Newton and Einstein showed several key signs of Asberger's syndrome, the high functioning form of autism that you mentioned. If I remember correctly the woman you mentioned, Temple Grandon, invented a successful mechanical mechanism for calming and pacifying livestock in the slaughterhouse, as animal science was her specialty. This turned out to be both a compassionate and practical solution to an environmental situation predictably filled with panic and fear.

She professed to being a loner and could not easily tolerate a social milieu or abide physical human contact. which are common for this syndrome. She claimed to prefer using her own invention when she was in need of comfort!

If order, predictability, and structural elegance were obsessively important to Einstein, its no wonder he couldn't buy into Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle - what would he have done with Chaos and Complexity theory or Goedel's Incompleteness theorom??!

As another poster indicated, as a hide-bound determinist Einstein didn't believe you could do science without the predictability promised by a fully materialist outlook, and a objectively existing material universe that is what it appears to be (neither of which are fully supported by quantum mechanics).

Well, ordinary folks with the right determination can still hope to climb that magic mountain you mentioned and eventually join the other mystics, magicians, and assorted enlightened ones waiting at the top.

Once in a while in our human history we witness the appearance of a very smart person, a genius, who revolutionizes the way we view and understand certain subjects. Things are invented and other concepts are written in those elegant equations that we grew to admire and marvel. We owe our advancements and civilization to those we call ‘geeks.’ ‘Normal people really’ rarely contribute much to science.

Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were two of the most recognizable personalities of the modern age; we refer to both as geniuses in their fields. Recently, they have been speculated to have autism. Newton never cared much for people and preferred to be alone. It is common knowledge that locked himself up in his room for more than two months and when he emerged ‘Principia’ was his masterpiece. He had a disdain for dealing with people when trying to explain things to them; he was also ‘thin skin’ and have his feelings hurt when criticized by others.

Albert Einstein for instance was slow to develop language skills in his early childhood as normal child should. He used to go to work sometimes with un-matching socks. He was so obsessive with his work that in his death bed he was still working on the theory of everything until his last moments. His Bette noire, however, was quantum mechanics. He couldn’t relate to the Heisenberg uncertainty, hence his quote “God does not play dice with the universe.” I found this analysis of Einstein which says:

[Albert Einstein was typical as far as higher-functioning autistics. He was extremely logical and analytical, though socially awkward. He could deal with people, but he was a loner, and he felt a need for considerable solitude on a daily basis. He was extremely perseverative, spending more time on a given problem (of interest to him) than any normal person would have been capable of giving. These attributes are what gave Einstein the ability to think as he did. These abilities are rather common in higher-functioning autistics, although few achieve the greatness or prominence that Einstein has.

Autism has been described by some as a condition wherein people have an affinity for objects (tangible or otherwise) rather than people. This was clearly the case with Einstein. In his case, the object was physics. As far as people went, Einstein was somewhat aloof and indifferent, but when it came to science, he was very much engaged.

Einstein's intelligence may have been a function of his autistic brain. Absent the intuitive means to make sense of the world, he, as is usual with autistics, may have relied heavily upon his analytical, logical abilities. Thus, the neural pathways related to analysis and logic were reinforced, and his adaptable human brain grew in its ability to do those things as a result. Einstein's relative lack of interest in people, and his great thirst for knowledge, would have again reinforced the analytical parts of his brain, while allowing the relatively unused social areas to become deficient. As such, his genius is part and parcel of his autism, and indeed is directly related to his lack of interest in convention and social activities. As Temple Grandin put it in her book Thinking in Pictures, genius itself is an abnormality.

Einstein was perseveratively interested in physics. He could not stand the idea of the unknowable, and he spent much time thinking about things that most people would have declared hopeless, or never bothered to think about in the first place. This feverish devotion to knowledge and fact is not uncommon in the higher-functioning autistic community, but among normal people, it is strange and unusual.

The normal mind's primary function is to be social, not to think about physics. That is, after all, what the normal mind is supposed to do; humans, like wolves, are pack animals, and in the pre-civilization days, survival depended upon group cohesion. Society may have changed since then, but basic human neurology has not. As such, social interaction is the only thing the normal mind can handle for extended periods of time (perseveratively, in other words), which limits its utility with regard to science and academic knowledge. The autistic mind is capable of focus on areas of interest for extremely long periods of time, day after day, without boredom. Normal people may not truly understand the depth of focus or the length of attention span that the autistic person has when dealing with his special interest. It would not be surprising to see an autistic person spend virtually every waking moment, day after day, for months at a time, thinking about, researching, and otherwise involving himself, with one very specific subject, without ever becoming bored or weary of that subject. In the sciences, this feature is an asset of indescribable worth, and it was doubtless of great value to Einstein. In short, Einstein was one of the century's top thinkers because of his autistic condition, not despite it.]

In a nutshell then Albert Einstein was great in his field of theoretical physics. We can appeal to his wisdom and knowledge in that field. But then why should we appeal to him for metaphysical questions? He did not have more spiritual insight than the rest of us. In that regard he was no more qualified than the Bushman.

As far as evolution is concerned, there is no denying the soundness of the Darwinian concept of natural selection. Actually it is amazing that Darwin came upon his theory without all the tools available to us. His theory is still standing after one hundred and fifty years. Not one argument has been advanced as to contradict his theory. Actually, the more we advance in knowledge the more we see his theory of inheritance in action especially in the field of genetics. Fossils are good evidence but the study of genome is where Darwin’s theory is most evident. One reason is that fossils are hard to come by given their nature; but every now and then a new fossil or precisely a new missing link is found that solidifies this concept of common ancestry of all living things.

Having said that I think Dawkins is out of his domain when he proclaimed that an acceptance of evolution in biology requires an acceptance of atheism in theology. Science is a tool we use to understand our natural world; “Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny the existence of God. And those who argue that it disproves God have just lost the plot, imposing their atheism on a neutral science.”

If God is outside time and space, then our scientific tools are useless for us to prove or to disprove the existence of God. It could be argued that evolution is God’s elegant plan for creating humankind and all other living creatures.

Stephen Gould wrote about Dawkins perspective:
To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time: science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney [Gould’s third-grade teacher] and have their knuckles rapped for it. … Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example). … Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale Fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equal firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct the history of life according to His plans and purposes.

“While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.”

“In that context, evolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from God’s perspective the outcome would be entirely specified. Thus, God could be completely and ultimately involved in the creation of all species, while from our perspective, limited as it is by the tyranny of linear time, this would appear a random and undirected process.”

Also science cannot tell us why we exist. Stephen Hawking once said: “Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God.”

So then if there exist among us, although very sporadically, people with high degree of intelligence, why can’t we give credence to those among us who claim they have knowledge of the unseen. We should take seriously those people who say they have some kind of link to the spiritual realm. I think we should peel away all the traditions that accumulated over time to get to their basic teachings and see if there is any truth in their message. Maybe, just maybe, all those teachers of old like Moses, Muhammad, Zoroaster, Buddha and others like them were trying to tell us something. Maybe we should listen to them.

In God and the Astronomers, the astrophysicist Robert Jastrow wrote: “At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Wouldn’t that be special !!!

David T - I'm fully aware that some people change their religious beliefs as adults - in some cases, several times. I don't have a problem with adults making a free choice about what religion is right for them.

I do have a problem with children being indoctrinated into beliefs without having access to information about other religions and without the option of choice.

I hope you see the difference.

E Fav,

I do hope you can get past the "child indoctrination" assumption. I know several people that came to Christ as an adult. I for one, was raised in church, but as an adult I had to explore the facts to see if what I believed was true. Come to find out that faith and reason go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

I do think the worst mistake an atheist can make is the "child indoctrination" assumption. Because if that were true, then how do you explain adult conversions from atheism to Christianity? C.S. Lewis being a more famous conversion. How do you explain John Polkinghorne (professor of quantam physics at Cambridge University) becoming a Christian? Your assumption of child indoctrination also assumes that uneducated people believe in God. Unfortunatly for you, this is not true unless of course you are willing to posit a professor of quantam physics to be uneducated?

Good day.

Sin then is willfully engaging in actions that have negative consequences for one's self and/or others.

Sin then is willfully engagin in actions that have negative consequences for one's self and/or others.

Sin then is willfully engagin in actions that have negative consequences for one's self and/or others.

Sin then is willfully engagin in actions that have negative consequences for one's self and/or others.

Jeff P - thanks for the book recommendations - I checked them out at amazon and they sound great.

I often wondered how people can read something in black and white, and then state that something entirely different was said. Maybe these books will explain that.

DZ:

"It's been years since I encountered anyone in any context who used Spenser's The Faery Queen as a source. Gives me some confidence that education is not yet dead."

I'm glad someone noticed.

Daniel -

Your poem sums up the human condition in a starkly realistic way. It seems to me that when religion is stripped of all it's trappings, this is the vision that drives it - and the conviction that there is life after death in some mode or manner. Without the core concept of survival, religion and religious belief has no basis and no reason for being.

Oddly, most of us don't think much of our impending death from day to day, much less on a more frequent basis! Don Juan of Carlos Casteneda fame advises Carlos to consider that death is always lurking over his left shoulder, and will strike at any moment...he should never lose sight of this fact & live life accordingly.

Buddhism advises the same - don't delay in the search for truth because death is certain but the time and circumstances are unknown. What I like in particular about Buddhism is it's emphasis on individual responsibility for finding and determining 'first things first' - that being the discovery of the actual 'nature of things' including our own being and life as we know it.

From that follows the moral and ethical basis that helps ensure the well-lived life here and in future lives - yet another variation on the idea of survival. The idea of salvation is murky at best with this (Buddhistic) view, and of course no one is saved by another.... and there is no eternal damnation here (although afterlife circumstances may not be rosy, depending on your karmic status at the moment of death). Intuitive (spiritual) knowledge is the road to 'salvation' in this view....and over many lifetimes.

It does seem to me that the theistic approach to religion is highly limited and in fact unreasonable, given the conviction that there is only one life to be lived, only one savior to do the saving, only one option of heaven or eternal hell, and only one God to do all the arranging. On top of that, very little attention is paid to the fact that we're getting closer to that day of reckoning every moment.

Theists seem distracted by life on the one hand, and convinced of their own guaranteed salvation on the other by virtue of their good fortune at having the right beliefs and worshipping the right God. A God who has arranged things so that a poorly lived life will likely condemn folks to the eternal fires of hell whereas the righeous will gain the eternal bliss of heaven.

This seems awfully cut and dried and downright simplex for an otherwise infinitely complex cosmos if you ask me. But still, the idea of survival drives this entire belief system too.

My mental meandering is not directed at you of course, as you seem to me a fine person....it was your poem that got me started!

And this is not to say that a person needs religion of any kind to live the moral life - if a person does not consider the possibility or liklihood of survival after death to be important (or possible), they will not be pursuaded by metaphysics, which religion surely is.

Living well does not require religion, but religion requires the belief in survival at it's foundation and perhaps this is where the absolutism of (some) religions have their basis.

thanks again for the poem -

I'm just following along in the conversation, but I've been fascinated recently by two books I'd recommend regarding this conversation:

1) Mistakes were Made (but not by me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

2) Don't Believe Everything You Think. The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking, by Thomas Kida

The value I find in atheistic/agnostic/faith-based dialogue is revealed over and over in these writings--it's amazing (as Daniel in Lion's Den has tried to show) how we are generally hard-wired into certain patterns of thought, and where we seek to confirm, not to question, our ideas.

Anyway, for what it's worth, these are wonderful reads, and I really think should be required reading for us all!

Has anyone else read these?

Daniel – to clarify – I dropped the supernatural religious beliefs instilled in me for empirical facts about religion that I learned from reading books written by academicians.

Daniel: “You say that you get your beliefs from logical consideration of things.”

No Daniel, what I said was: “The reason most of us don’t choose our beliefs is because they were instilled in us by parents and a society that didn’t choose their beliefs either.” My beliefs in the supernatural and beliefs in the significance of the bible changed with education – actually reading books filled with facts on archeology and history that are freely available in public libraries and book stores. If that is hard for you to accept, fine, but please don’t put words in my mouth. Instead I suggest you examine your own thought process.

David T: “You want so badly to eradicate religion and all beliefs in any deity.”

I didn’t say that and I don’t mean it. I said: “if all religions could teach what paganism does about other "paths," I think humanity would be on the right track.” Regarding the facts that are “out there,” I hadn’t seen them either, until I started looking. Then it was easy (see above paragraph). Before that, I simply accepted what I heard in church and what I learned in Sunday school – which was indoctrination about beliefs, not education about facts. Try “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman, “Unearthing the Bible” by Finkelstein and Silberman, “From Eden to Exile” by Eric Cline. All of the authors are Ph.D. professors at respected universities who have done extensive academic research in their subject areas.

E Favorite,

I see your philosophy about religion and life itself is purely unlivable. You want so badly to eradicate religion and all beliefs in any deity. It won't happen. Nature abhorrs a vacuum. Atheism might work here in America, but take that to the east and it will get eaten up alive.

For some reason you speak as if your worldview is the only way. Isn't that the very thing you want to eradicate? Any system of thought that proclaims absolute truths?

"The facts are out there".

Where? I haven't seen them. The facts are out there for God too. Where? You haven't seen them. Isn't this the circular argument that will never cease? Shouldn't we be asking question like "Daniel in the Lions Den" about knowledge and how that's possible? Do you really think that it's a good idea to kill God philisophically?

And do you really have a case against God? I thought atheism was a "lack of belief", not a dogmatic denial of God?

You seem to indicate that religion must be eradicated in order for mankind to progress. Religion is not the problem E Fav...mankind is the problem. One of the shortest letters written in response to an editor about an article entitled "What's wrong with the world" G.K. Chesterton responded "I am". Atheists tend to forget that the most empiracally verifiable fact is human depravity and sin. This goes for all of us.

Good day to you.

I agree that alot of what parents teach their children is not good or valid. I just note that it happens. I do not see any way that there can be an organized effort to control what parents teach their children.

I also believe that what is passed down from one generation to the next changes; but it changes according to the complicated interactions of each succeeding generation with the world; it is not something that would be easily controllable.

And I do not believe in hopeless passivity; as I said, I cannot change an indivdual person's belief by my own design, but I can toss out my ideas, so that they might then become part of another person's experiences, and who knows what they may make of them?

more for E Favorits on anyone else who might be interested:

You say that you get your beliefs from logical consideration of things. And you feel very frustrated with people when you present your logical arguments to them, and they are unmoved in their belief. I have a reply for this, also.

Your beliefs are formed by your experiencs and your doubts operating on your heritage of belief. I think that, generally, you do not choose your experiences and cannot control them. But what goes into making your experiences? It is the succession of contingent events, which you react to. But why do you react as you do? You react as you do, according to the alertness of your mind, and the acuity of your senses, and according to your psychological disposition. But as with everything else that goes into forming your beliefs, you also do not control any of these things; they are your attributes, which you did not choose.

I do not think that we choose our beliefs. But beyond that, I do not know how our beliefs are formed. There is an unknowable rythm to the world which helps us form our beliefs. This way of thinking makes me wonder, how do we know anything at all, and what is knowing? I can ask these questions, but I do not know the answers.

Even if I have not convinced or persuaded anyone, this way of thinking helps me be tolerant of all the many and varied ways that people have of believing, some of which do seem very strange and illogical to me.

Daniel – I didn’t call you fatalistic, but I’m beginning to think the term fits. The reason most of us don’t choose our beliefs is because they were instilled in us by parents and a society that didn’t choose their beliefs either – they were shoved down their throats – oh excuse me – they were indoctrinated and educated in their heritage.

That can change – and must change in my opinion – for humanity to progress religiously the way it has progressed in so many other ways in modern times.

Imagine if mothers were still teaching their daughters’ to douche as a form of birth control or if doctors were still bleeding their patients, or didn’t know enough to wash their hands?

You’ve really named the problem, I think, without realizing it. We’re teaching religion in an entirely outmoded way – passing down religious ignorance to the next generation and dressing it up as “our religious heritage.”

The reason we “don’t choose our beliefs” is because we’re indoctrinated by people who are either ignorant themselves or purposely keeping the facts from us. We can change that. The facts are out there, easily accessed. The next generation needn’t be stuck in the past the way we were, unless we purposely keep them there.

Daniel – I didn’t call you fatalistic, but I’m beginning to think the term fits. The reason most of us don’t choose our beliefs is because they were instilled in us by parents and a society that didn’t choose their beliefs either – they were shoved down their throats – oh excuse me – they were indoctrinated and educated in their heritage.

That can change – and must change in my opinion – for humanity to progress religiously the way it has progressed in so many other ways in modern times.

Imagine if mothers were still teaching their daughters’ to douche as a form of birth control or if doctors were still bleeding their patients, or didn’t know enough to wash their hands?

You’ve really named the problem, I think, without realizing it. We’re teaching religion in an entirely outmoded way – passing down religious ignorance to the next generation and dressing it up as “our religious heritage.”

The reason we “don’t choose our beliefs” is because we’re indoctrinated by people who are either ignorant themselves or purposely keeping the facts from us. We can change that. The facts are out there, easily accessed. The next generation needn’t be stuck in the past the was we were, unless we purposely keep them there.

Fact Checker,

Agreed. That is why I like Ideas and Opinions. It was compiled under Einstein's supervision in the 1950's, the autumn of his life.

Here is a poem written by "anonymous." I found it in a book about Abraham Lincoln. It said it was his favorite poem. I believe it may have been written in the nine-teenth century.

Mortality

So the multitude goes, like the flower or the weed
That withers away, to let others succeed.

So the multitude comes, even those we behold
To repeat every tale that has ever been told.

For we are the same our fathers have been;
We see the same sights our fathers have seen.

We drink the same streams, and see the same sun,
And run the same course our fathers have run.

They died, yes they died, and we are here now;
And work the turf that lies on their brow;

And make in their dwellings a transient abode,
And meet what they met on their pilgramage road.

Yes, hope and despondancy, pleasure and pain
Are mingled together in sunshine and rain.

And the smile and the tear, and the song and the dirge
Still follow each other, like surge upon surge.

In the wink of an eye, in the draw of a breath,
From the blossom of health to the paleness of death,

From the guilded salon to the bier and the shroud,
Oh, why should the spirit of mortal be proud?

Chris Everett:

Einstein had a long life in which he took, at various times, various positions on "The Old One", or commented that it was too bad for God if He disagreed with General Relativity. He was raised Jewish, and had an aggressively Atheist phase. Still, his lifelong relationship with the sacred beauty of the universe is beyond reasonable doubt.

What I wrote before, and lost, I will try to write again, with some improvements, I hope.

The reason that I feel some empathy for atheists is because I often get the same treatment from conservative Christians. I am used to being called a heretic, or a more modern name, apostate. I am routinely called alot worse.

Contrary to what many people on this forum have said in the past, I do not believe that religion is, itself, the cause of so much that is bad in the world. If you could wish away religion all at once, all of the bad people who do bad things in the name of relgion would still be here, doing their bad things in the name of something else. All of the ranters would still be ranting. Religon is not what makes people bad or crazy; it is just a tool that they exploit. The most religious people of all are politicains and prisoners; that is not a coincidence.

In watching all of the back and forth of people arguing and fighting over belief and faith, I have made an observation, that we do not choose our beliefs, freely. E Favorite said that I am fatalistic, or that I believe in fate, or something like that. I would not characterize it like that, because that assumes that things are, somehow, predestined, and I do not feel that they are.

When people teach their children their religious beliefs, I do not think of it as indoctrination or brain-washing. They are merely educating their children in the only way that they know how. When children are educated in this way, I call that their religious heritage. Your relgious heritage comes from your progenitors, your parents, care givers, teachers, and the culture in general. You have no control over this. It is handed to you, and you take it.

But, then, your relgious heritage is transformed by your experiences and your doubts. Likewise, you have no control over these either. Your experiences are a succession of contingencies that happen to you, and that you react to. And your doubts appear in your mind; you can neither summon them nor dismiss them.

So what if you have doubts about your religous heritage? You decide to do some research, to find out for yourself. You find a book that interests you; you take it off the shelf, and open it up and begin to read. But what do you read? Words that were already there, placed their by someone else. You do not choose these words; you do not know what will come next; each sentence is a revelation. What you may get from this book, would go under the category of religious heritage. And once you have read it, again, your own experiences, which you do not choose, and your doubts, which you also do not choose, change what you have read, until you form a belief that is different.

This is my observation, that we do not choose our beliefs, but experience them in a way similar to our experince of seeing or hearing. You do not choose the images that you see nor the sounds that you hear. You percieve what is already there, in the landscape that surrounds you. In this way, we do not choose our beliefs, but experience them as part of the general landscape.

What does this mean about fate and fatalism and predistination? I do not know; I just know that this is my observation. When I first began to realize this, I felt very, very good, because it makes alot of sense. This is why I cannot get people to change their beliefs, no matter how well I argue my case. I cannot even choose my own beliefs; how then, can I change someone else's? A person's mind works according to some sort of rythm unknown to him, or to anyone else, and each person believes as they will.

I can toss my ideas out for other people to consider; then I have entered them into the succession of contingent events that make up the expereinces of other people, where they may have some influence, but I cannot know who I will influence, nor how, nor even if my ideas may cause someone to believe exactly opposite to the way I believe.

This is the most profound error of all that religious people make, even worse than mischaracterizaion of God or of human morality, but their ceaseless efforts to "convert" people to think and believe as they do.

Chris Everett: "religion, where at a minimum there's a willingness to humor the delusion that it's true."

That's religious indoctrination, not religious education. Granted, indoctrination is the predominate way in which religion is currently taught, and that is what has to change.

By the way, I loved greek mythology as a kid. It was so imaginative and psychologically deep. I never thought of comparing it to religion, which I recall was the only class in which questions were not welcomed.

E Favorite:

I love Greek mythology, and I know that the Bible, etc, have a lot to offer, as long as they are understood as myth. But that's totally different from religion, where at a minimum there's a willingness to humor the delusion that it's true.

Fact Checker:

I'm getting back to you about the Einstein reference. See "Science and Religion," which I have in Ideas and Opinions. Section II, paragraph 4 has the statement, "For science can only ascertain what IS, but not what SHOULD BE, and outside of its dominion value judgements of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts." Paragraph 4 goes on to say, "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I take this to mean that science can educate about the facts but doesn't inform about what to do with the facts, so you don't know the right way to act (lame). Religion is incapable of learning facts, so without science it will launch off in what it thinks is the right direction, but it will be wholly ignorant (blind). Does 9-11 come to mind? Or Terry Shivo?

FC, forgive me any overlap between this post and yours - I haven't gone back to review what you said.

My education is in physics and I have read a lot of Einstein, and my perspective on his religious beliefs are this: Einstein was loathe to believe anything unsupported by compelling evidence - that's what allowed him to see patterns in nature that were masked by what turned out to be superficial biases. If you read what he has to say about special relativity, he deconstructed the concept of velocity down to length and time - he decomposed length down to the process of laying out a measuring rod from point A to point B - he deconstructed time down to the act of looking at a clock at one moment and then looking again at another moment. General relativity was similar (but unlike special relativity, which was practically forced on the physics community due to apparent problems with electrodynamics, was Einstein's own personal triumph). Inertial mass (the difficulty in putting an object in motion) was 100% correlated with gravitational mass (the mutual pull that objects inflict on each other), despite being "intuitively" completely different things. Einstein postulated otherwise. But I digress.

I think that for Einstein, God was an open question awaiting evidence. He knew that the popular conceptions of God were preposterous; he explicitly didn't believe in a personal god, or a god of miracles, or a god that cared about human affairs. But the fact of nature is inexplicable, and the presence of order so absolute, that he was unwilling to exclude any non-preposterous conception categorically. He did say that his god was the god of Spinoza; he also believed in determinism and therefore did not believe in free will.

I personally think his objections to quantum mechanics are well founded and stand today, although they are philosophical as opposed to scientific (Einstein was one of the principal contributors to quantum mechanics, both for his discovery of quantum phenomena in the first place via the photoelectric effect to his contribution to statistical mechanics - e.g. Bose-Einstein condensation). But here's his main objection: if the universe is nonlocal, then there's no way to isolate a system. If you can't isolate a system then you can't control the influences on a system. If you can't control the influences, then you can't interpret measurements. If you can't interpret measurements then you can't validate hypotheses. If you can't validate hypotheses than you can't develop theories. If you can't develop theories than you can't do science.

Terra, I sorta agree with Chris Everett on this one.

I admire the way you've let your kids explore their spirituality, but prior to encouraging anything else I hope my own will learn the skills to think critically, to recognize fallibility in thinking and reasoning, and not to depend too much on intangible or immeasurable "energies" or "spirits" or other non-reproducibles.

I realize I don't have any business suggesting how we raise our kids but my gosh I just about fell out of my chair when I saw small clips of "Jesus Camp." So many of the decisions of this administration were made by "gut feeling" without regard to fact or verification, which has resulted in disasterous consequences.

My personal hope for the next few decades is that our kids can become critical thinkers and out-do our generation in regard to being skeptical towards superstitions, "energies," or gut-feelings of all colors.

Please understand no offense intended. I'd be curious for your response.

that should be "would have Never been a believer"

CCNL,
I am Wiccan...and really though Voodun looks spooky in the movies and really different, they are not any more dangerous then some of the Christian sects that are filled with the Holy Spirit. I went to one of those churches (Pentacostal) as a kid..scared the bejesus out of me...lol. Wicca is really tame compared to that.

And Hoodoo is not a religion, its a magickal practice that uses herbs.Most of the time it is Christian, it came with the slaves out of Africa, but was changed and became very Christian...it is close to Powwow magick, which used to be very proliffic in early Pennsylvania. Powwow is of German/Pennsylvania Dutch extraction.If you go to some parts of Pa. you will see the Hex signs on barns and such.

Any way, no religion is as bad as what they look really. They are just strange to those not familiar with them.

Now I will say that those Snake handling churches I would not send my kids too...and you could not get me any where near one. ( I honor snakes for being part of Godhood, but as I kept telling my cat when he brings them in the house for love offerings to me...If they come in to my turf, they will go and meet the Lady, sooner...)

I think as long as religion honors life..and voodun does, then it is not bad..only different.

terra

Chris Everett - I see your point and you might be right for the unfortunate time in which we live, but ultimately, I see religion without indoctrination to be like English literature or Greek mythology without indoctrination.

They are academic and cultural subject areas that are enriching as long as that are not misconstrued and taught as fact.

I am fairly certain that if I had not been sent to sunday school as a child and if I had been taught world religion by an unbiased teacher. that I would have ever been a believer. As soon as I learned about Christian and jewish history and the origin of other religions (on my own, as an adult), my beliefs fell away. I know that doesn't happen with everyone, but I think it would happen a lot -- it's only logical.

Arminius,

Yes...there is energy surounding all life, it is a matter that Wiccans/Pagans believe is part of the Godhood. Trees are powerful beings...they take into themselves the poisons that come out of us...and they give to us what we need to live. There is synergy between all of nature. That is why to destroy species and forests is plain stupidity on our part. Mama Earth will win, even if She has to shake things up a bit.

Of course if you are open to it, you will feel that power. My hubby is the same...has the same connection with nature.

terra

Pagans come in many stripes. VooDoo with some added HooDoo I am sure is not a preferred religion for children to be exposed to whereas Wicca would be I trust. Bottom line- it would great if the commenting Pagans would always note their brand of paganism.

I just wrote a long thing. Then when I was previewing it for errors, it went "poof" and disappeared. I am not sure if I posted it by accident, or if it is just gone. Maybe I will try to type it again, later, if there is no sign of it.

I had included the following link, which goes along the lines of my interests:

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/you_are_an_illusion.php

Terra,

I totally agree with your beliefs in raising kids. Did the same for my two; even though I was a non-believer thru most of their childhood, I told them to make their own journeys. When I went back to the church, they were puzzled, but not put off, and I did not push my new beliefs.

As for the knot magick - really fascinating. I have tried at certain mad moments to focus the energy within me. I have also sensed energy outside of me - often in a forest. Something about trees. I have a lot in my yard, many that I planted myself.

Arminius

E Favorite,

I disagree. Religions should only be taught defensively, the same way we teach children not to get into a car with a stranger, and to tell us if they've been touched in an inappropriate place. What SHOULD be cultivated (not taught) in children is the ability to pay attention to their own thoughts and feelings, to subject those same thoughts and feelings to critical analysis, to listen to others and empathize with them, and to recognize the effects that their actions have on others and the world at large. The rest is nonsense that does nothing but corrode the ability to do any of the above.

Terra - Thanks

Others -- there you have it -- if all religions could teach what paganism does about other "paths," I think humanity would be on the right track.

E Favorite,
Yes you are correct.
I have two children, one is a liberal Christian another is an agnostic seeker.

We tend to teach our children about alot of religions and they choose their own as they mature and can decide on their own. We do not believe that there is one true religion, we see Creator as too big and too powerful. Each person, each religion, as well as atheists have a truth.

Our children own their own spirits..and they will find their own way as long as they are taught to be strong and use wisdom, they will be fine no matter what path.

terra

Terra – I think you actually strengthen the points being made here about childhood indoctrination. Paganism came naturally to you, in spite of how you were indoctrinated. Also, from what I’ve gathered elsewhere on the forum, Pagans don’t “do” childhood indoctrination, they’re not drumming up members, and they make no threats about nonbelief. They want religious practice to be natural and pleasurable, right?

As to my post above about me being Pagan...I mis spoke.
I was born Pagan..from a Christian family. I happened to have the pure good luck to have found teachers that aided me to be Wiccan.

terra

LouieSully: “someone asked why the atheists and agnostics come here at all: For me it’s because I like to understand others' opinions and how they arrived there, and because I wonder if I can glean new enlightenment from others.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself! (except I might have included “information” along with “enlightenment.”) I think the question was raised because some believers would prefer just to chat with each other about their supernatural beliefs, because (in response to “why is it so important to some believers and nonbelievers to convince others that their way is best?”) it’s more comfy to be around like-minded people who confirm one’s beliefs and assuage one’s doubts – sort of like what you and I are doing -- at least for the moment.

Also, believers are not used to having their beliefs openly questioned. The norm in our society has been to be “respectful” of disparate beliefs, even while knowing that: a)not all of them can be true; b)there’s no evidence for any supernatural events or for many of the supposed historical events of the various religions. It’s mind bending.

As for why it’s important for non-believers to try to convince believers – I see it a bit differently than you. Atheists that I’ve seen here are not trying to convince people to accept their “beliefs,” they’re asking people to look objectively at the evidence, or lack thereof. In other words, to use the same thinking skills they use in other aspects of their lives. Truly I think that if people were not indoctrinated as children (as I was, though it was pretty mild), most of them would be very unlikely to hold supernatural beliefs as adults. Why do I say that? We give up the Easter bunny and Santa Claus. We find it easy to reject other religions’ supernatural beliefs. Some of us will even switch supernatural beliefs as adults for convenience sake (e.g., converting to get married). How sincere can that be? Once you are indoctrinated though, it can be hard to give up religion – it means giving up a community, a set of traditions, trust in the authority figures who misled you and of course, belief in an afterlife. Going into denial can be easier – especially when the whole society is doing it.

I think it’s essential to stop childhood indoctrination and to teach facts about religions from the start, not just beliefs that deny or defy the facts. Christians like Daniel and Arminus are pretty rare, I suspect –they’ve worked through the indoctrination to find a niche for themselves inside their religious tradition. I’ve found a good spot on the outside, but many people don’t go through that education and introspection process. Some of them are just misguided, but some of them are downright dangerous, as Drew and Meg pointed out above.

Arminius,
Knot Magick is a form of spell work.

We believe that all things have a spark of the Creator in it...like DNA. well..lol. Not to go into Magick 101...I focus energy into a cord as I knot it. The knots hold the energy until I release them. It's like a pot of water boiling with a top on it. After a while it will blow..lol.Right before that time I release the knots..and the energy is stronger because of the build up and away it will go to the universe.
Since God is the Universe and everything else, then that little knot magick will give a little push for what the universe/God wants anyway..for you to be happy and fulfilled.

The magick has started already because it is in my mind and I am thinking about the action.

terra

as far as religion being nature or nurture...
I was not born a Pagan. Parents were both Christian. I did not know any Pagans...but as an 8 year old I was making offerings to the Lady under a full moon. Ok so I was a strange kid.

I met my first "maybe" Pagan at the age of 13..and she was just a carnival fortune teller. She let me know that there were others that felt like me..I never did know if she was one also. I was 20 before I met my first Wiccan...we were called Witches back then, unless you were in Cowan company.

I can say that my religion is part of my nature. I used to go to church as a kid, i was very spiritual. I thought if I learned more I would be more like everyone else. At the age of 13 I told my Mother I was not going to church anymore. I just could not make what they were saying in church make sense with how I saw God. To me it was hateful and cruel.

So maybe yes, for some they will just follow what ever their parents were. But think of this...
We are now going into the 6th generation of US Wiccans. What of those first generations whose parents knew nothing but Christianity? What of the Buddhists whose parents again were of a major religion? What of people like Starhawk, who came from a Jewish back ground?

You can not say it is so simple that we follow our parents...some do, some are called to dance to a different drum. And I have...

terra

Terra,

Go for it - and thanks. What's 'knot' magick?

Also, I got educated above about the Einstein quotation. Fits what I know about old Albert.

Arminius,

I am with Wiccan...if you will allow me I would be honored to send some " good job prospects energies" going your way.

umm maybe some "knot" magick?
; )

terra

Terry,

Thanks. I've known some things about some of the ideas you've mentioned, but your post knits them together in a helpful way.

I'll explore further.

Best wishes.

Arminius,

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Yes, but what Albert was talking about..what religion he believed in was what he called "Cosmic Religion". Which when I read his article on it, I could recognize and feel connected to. He was not talking about the biblical religion of a personal god. I think he was talking about nature and the awe and wonder of it....that was God to him.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23008
terra

Godfrey:

It's been years since I encountered anyone in any context who used Spenser's The Faery Queen as a source. Commendable. Gives me some confidence that education is not yet dead.

LOUIESULLY;

Your question; why is it so important to some believers and nonbelievers to convince others that their way is best?

Speaking for just myself...I would say 9:11.

Religious thinking seems to me to be irrational
and dangerous,and grounded in old myths and superstitions,and may kill us all in the end.

Also the fact that one`s religious beliefs are usually acquired through childhood indoctrination,and are different from what children of other cultures are indoctrinated into believing.
One believes what one was programed to believe as a child.
It`s outrageous when you really think about it.
Even sinful.

E.Favorite;

Interesting comments.
But,let`s remember that childhood religious indoctrination
really does trump intelligence and education.
The Saudi Arabian gentlemen who
destroyed the Twin Towers on September 11,2001,
were intelligent and college educated.But it didn`t
stop them from actually believing in Allah the Skygod,
and the 72 virgins they would each enjoy after their deaths;
which to the rest of us is a completely ridiculous expectation,because not having
been indoctrinated,we know they are just dead.
Religion makes people do the darndest things.

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
-- Bertrand Russell

Sorry about the brain scramble above -

Neils Bohr is one person, not two - and is one founder among others of quantum mechanics in the first half of the 20th century.

He was unsuccessful in convincing Einstein of the validity of this view of atomic/sub-atomic particles as a replacement for classical Newtonian physics.

Newton's view is still widely in use for understanding the macro-universe, and continues to reinforce the wildly popular idea that the material universe is 'as it appears'.

It's hard to imagine that the 'objective' view will disappear anytime soon, quantum thinking not withstanding. The 'material realism' view completely supports conventional religious orthodoxy and visa versa....at least for those that are counted among the faithful.

E-Favorite said:
"And here’s my (unsolicited) assessment. Daniel’s beliefs are more benign because they are more personal. He just says what they mean to him and his own sense of how he’s come to his beliefs, without presenting them as a logical way to think about science or historical events. Parker, in contrast, does what many religious people do – present their beliefs as the logical conclusion to a set of circumstances and deductions that are themselves not logical at all. I think such an approach, which is typical in established religion, perpetuates conflict, misunderstanding and myth, speculation and belief presented as fact. "

Could not have said it better. The posts here that become offensive are not the ones that simply state "I believe..."; it's the ones that go on to say "and what you believe is completely wrong/stupid/illogical." It's the ones that become combative when faced with disagreement. That includes both religious folks AND athiests. I myself am agnostic and, while I don't believe in any specific god for many of the reasons others have mentioned, I also don't deny the possibility of some higher being. I'm comfy with that, and I'm comfy with others not sharing my belief. My question is: why is it so important to some believers and nonbelievers to convince others that their way is best? I understand--and even admire to a point their motivation--those who truly believe that all who do not follow their path are doomed and who therefore do all they can to convert "the unenlightened." But I would guess that group is in the minority. What about the rest?

oh, and a while back someone asked why the atheists and agnostics come here at all: for me, it's because I like to understand others' opinions and how they arrived there, and because I wonder if I can glean new enlightenment from others.

Daniel and Parker – you’ve obviously both thought about this deeply, and it seems to me, have come to your conclusions in different and very personal ways.

Daniel, in a way it seems like you think of yourself as a object of fate and have no choice but to believe as you do, because of the experiences you’ve had, but I think there’s much more choice than you imply. From what I’ve seen here on the forum and from what I’ve read, it appears that two people can look at the same set of evidence about religion and come to different conclusions – one based on logic and the other based on emotion and perhaps habit or dependence. Person A looks at science and/or history and concludes “This didn’t happen.” Person B looks at the same set of information and says “I don’t care that this didn’t happen, it makes me feel good.”

Then there’s person C who won’t even look at the information, discounts it or looks only at information that confirms already existing beliefs, no matter how illogical. Also, person D, who uses imagination to weave a whole personalized response to explain established beliefs and deflect any threat to them. (I suppose there are other types, as well – if I gave it more thought.) I suspect Bs, Cs and Ds will continue to flourish as long people are indoctrinated into religion as children; as long as society gives respect and privileged non-judgmental status to conflicting, supernatural religious beliefs; and as long as trusted clergy obfuscate about their own knowledge doubts and beliefs.

Parker – what you wrote seems like a continuation of other conversations we’ve had – not surprising, of course, and indicates consistency. Seems to me you’re making numerous and in some cases quite complex rationalizations to show that your beliefs make sense. It’s quite different from Daniel’s approach.

And here’s my (unsolicited) assessment. Daniel’s beliefs are more benign because they are more personal. He just says what they mean to him and his own sense of how he’s come to his beliefs, without presenting them as a logical way to think about science or historical events. Parker, in contrast, does what many religious people do – present their beliefs as the logical conclusion to a set of circumstances and deductions that are themselves not logical at all. I think such an approach, which is typical in established religion, perpetuates conflict, misunderstanding and myth, speculation and belief presented as fact.

Norrie -

Exactly. Plato's (primary) archetypal world of Ideas and Jung's archetypal dimension of the Collective Unconscious point to the same transcendent/transpersonal realm. Jung's theory of synchronicity (as an acausal connecting principle) is completely in harmony with the nonlocal (signal-free communications) realm of the quantum.

Physicist David Bohm attempted to describe this realm with his hypothesis of Implicate and Explicate orders in "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". His idea was that material manifestations are actually holographic projections from the higher order Implicate realm. His orientation is free of 'transpersonal' elements. I believe he was sensitive to his theories being being misconstrued as heading in the direction of religion.

On the other hand, physicist Amit Goswami does head in that direction with his book "The Self-Aware Universe". He makes that case that Consciousness (with and without awareness) is the primary source & foundation of the material universe - and is pretty Buddhistic in his thinking, even with the load of quantum physics that he conjures up to support his position of Idealistic Monism.

He contrasts his ideas with Bohm's and admits that his position is definitely tending toward the 'anthropic' school of cosmology & quantum thinking.

Advocating the primacy of Consciousness as a theorom can be easily misunderstood as making the case for intelligent design, but the difference is vast - to my way of thinking ID is a completely materialistic orientation, while the Consciousness position is a form of transcendentalism that supports the relativity of an apparently (subjectively) existing material universe. In short, Goswami says that through free will and choice, consciousness causes probabilistic quantum wave functions to collapse thus creating the observable material universe. (he talks alot about Schrodinger's cat, of course).

With this position there is no good reason to believe that the cosmos ever had a true beginning, given the absolute and infinite nature of Consciousness (very different from the ID position).

Fact Checker,

I'm not conflating anything, and I'll post the specific reference when I get home.

Terry,

I've never really understood about Plato's Cave, et al., but aren't you saying the same thing?

Regards.

I agree with Chris Everett:

There is no such thing as sin.

Thre are only actions (including thoughts), arising from preceding causes and conditions, and carrying their own natural consequences.

Einstein's major failure as a scientist was in not accepting the truth of quantum mechnanics and all that it implied. Neils and Bohr were unable to convince him of it's validity - in spite of the outcomes of his own EPR experiments with two other physicists - the results set the stage for proving out nonlocal relationships between entangled or correlated particles which Einstein called ' spooky action at a distance'.

Correlated particles remain perfectly (instantly) synchronized regardless of distance, thus defying
Einstein's own relativistic time-bound 'speed of light' threshold.

Later on Bell's Theorom as applied to Alain Aspect's experiments in 1982 proved out the reality of nonlocal relationships.....which seems to indicate very strongly that there is a transcendent domain beyond the laws of time and space as we know them now. Being the material realist that he was, Einstein furthermore would not accept the probabilistic 'uncertainty' that Heisenberg attributed to the quantum universe, and which has since been proven out countless times. Clearly 'God does not play dice with the universe' was highly metaphorical statement indicating his frustration with this point of view! Einstein was much closer to being a Pagan or a Gnostic if he were to be viewed as 'religious' in any sense - he was in awe of the mechanisms of nature and that's a fact (maybe kindred spirits with Tom Jefferson??).

The implications of the existence of a nonlocal (archetypal?) domain that may be primary to a secondarily manifest 'material' universe is largely ignored by physicists even today.

Daniel ITLD,
I have very much enjoyed reading your comments here, and your insights and perspective. You offer such a loving example of the teachings of the Savior, it was heartwarming and delightful.

E Favorite,
I realize you may prefer not to hear from me, but for others' sake I'll briefly answer your challenge question from earlier.

Why would a loving Creator put us here to pretty much "fend for ourselves" and yet have the plan that His Son, a Savior, would be needed to "rescue" us from our mistakes? An answer can be discovered in realizing that we lived as an individaul entity before this life, and that the Creator wanted to give us an opportunity to "prove ourselves" so that we could grow immeasurably using our own and each others' experiences.

At the same time, His power derives from His knowledge of universal laws including the need for balance and order in the Universe. (This has been talked about by theologians.) That order says a Supreme Power doesn't get involved in swaying humankind's "agency" or "right of free choice", even though all will have very different mortal experiences and backgrounds, i.e. "lenses" through which they look at their lives.

But the need for "balance" since the Universe is charged with energy fields and energy sources, says for every action there must be a consequence, thus the "rescue" part of the Savior's mission--and that "rescue" applies to everyone, believers or non-believers, to the extent they eventually come to accept its opportunity (through learning about it, not by force or cooercion) here or in the next phase of existence.

This is not a "deterministic" philosophy, but it recognizes that actions do have effects in the Universe. One of the things that is splendid about much of what Ms. Jacoby writes (and how Daniel ITLD has written here) is that the positive tone contributes to positive energy, positive thoughts, and a worthwhile attitude. We are better for having read the thoughts and pondered the insights. Have a good day.

More for E Favorite

I think I am just taking it to the next level.

Since I think of God as an inexplicable Providence, I don't like to discuss God much. What is to say? You will notice that I say little about God, except when I say that I can understand an atheist's point of view that he does not believe in God.

I also do not believe that we choose our own beliefs but they are sculpted and formed by our doubts and experiences, which we cannot control, working with the beliefs that we have inherited from our progenitors, our parents, teachers, care givers, culture, and even from books when we are seeking greater understanding, all of this which also, we cannot control. And so, our beliefs are part of the landscape of our experiences and not what we freely choose.

And I believe, like Shakespeare, that the world is a stage; that we are set here, and that in fact, we are in a sort of confinement, like a box which is our world of experience, and that all that we can know of this world is through the perceptions of our senses. But beyond this confinement, we are forbidden to know, ever, anything.

And of course, you are right, this cannot be carried much further in such a setting; this is something meant more for a long conversation.

Daniel in the Lion's Den:

"I have never heard the 'seven deadly sins' discussed in church, or mentioned, even one time. It is something left over from Medeival times, possibly Catholic.

"The 'seven deadly sins' may have been passed down to the modern day as some sort of antiquated Christian heritage, but I am not so sure it means much now, in a Christian context."

You are correct that the concept is Catholic but not strictly medieval. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure give the list of seven deadly sins, but the concept goes way back. St. Cyprian (third century C.E.) gives eight deadly sins, though it's not clear he intends a definitive list.

Hermas (first or second century) gives twelve: unbelief, incontinence, disobedience, deceit, sorrow, wickedness, wantoness, anger, falsehood, folly, backbiting, and hatred. There are other lists in Patristic literature.

Augustine doesn't give a list, but says, "These three kinds of vices, that is, carnal pleasure, pride, and curiosity comprehend all sins."

John Cassian, about the time of Augustine's death, gave "eight principle vices:" gluttony, fornication, avarice, anger, dejection, langour, vainglory, and pride.

The number seven evidently originated with Gregory the Great (sixth century), who took off on Cassian's list, but changes the order to make Pride and Lust the worst sins. After that, seven became the standard number.

In any case, no list of deadly sins appears in the Bible.

As to how they were passed down, Chaucer picked them up, probably from Aquinas, and included them in "The Parson's Tale," and later Spenser mentions them in _The Faery Queen_ as minor characters. They've been in the English language ever since.

Fact Checker;

Einstein obviously used the word God as a metaphor,
a metaphor for the immense and wonderful mystery of
existence and the cosmos.
He was irritated having to continually explain this
to religionists who were unable to get beyond the naive idea of a Skygod;
which is no help at all when
you're trying to figure out the actual mystery of it all.
God is the invention of primitive man,and primitive
cultures.Einstein was way beyond such simple minded thinking.

Sorry anonymous. They weren't sinless they just hadn't sinned they were created with the capacity to sin and in fact had to be for a robot cannot truly love.

Einstein has also said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it".

The above quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in " Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. Also from the same book:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

Chris,and others...

see below the full Einstein quote from
"The World As I See It".

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate,of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty,which are only accessible to our reason in their their most elementary forms...it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude;in this sense,and in this alone,I am a deeply religious man.
I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures,or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves.An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension,nor do I wish it otherwise;
such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls".
Albert Einstein
"The World as I see it"
page 5

Chris Everett:

""Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" was made in reference to a distinction between science and religion that he made for the purpost of a particular essay: science relates to what IS; religion relates to what OUGHT TO BE."

You are conflating an essay in "Out of My Later Years" in which he said:

"Yet is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be."

with one from "Ideas and Opinions" in which he said:

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

If you mean that he rejected religious denominations, that is true. But Einstein famously spoke of decoding the thoughts of "the Old One" and seemed to have a deeply religious, almost mystical, reverence for the order of the universe. For him, understanding the laws of physics was learning about the mind of God.

Hi, Arminius -- In my mind "Personal" isn't contrasted with of "herd mentality" or "group think."

I was thinking of personal Christianity being different from doctrinaire Christianity.

Or maybe “personalized” is the word -- personalizing Christianity to suit ones needs. It doesn’t matter what the historical basis of it is, nor is there a need to accept it. It’s all about how it makes you feel.

Now I’ve said more than I intended to, but hopefully have made my thoughts more clear.

Hi, E Fav,

Daniel has it right. It is very personal, has nothing to do with a herd mentality or group think.

Daniel -- Thanks a lot. Obviously your Christianity is very personal. I think we've gone about as far as we can with it in this kind of discussion.

"But Jews, who, along with Gypsies, were the only people systematically targeted by the Nazis for group extermination, cannot and should not forget what happened."

Can you EVER get your facts right???

- Twenty-five thousand Catholic Priests were sent to the concentration camps from Poland and systematically exterminated.

- Twenty million or so Russian Slavs were killed by the Nazis. The majority were non-Jewish and non-Gypsy. The Nazi plan was to keep fifteen-million or so Slavs as slaves and kill the rest. See Generalplan Ost in your favorite browser.

- Homosexuals were systematically exterminated.

- People with birth defects like cleft-palate were systematically exterminated.

- Soviet Communists were systematically exterminated.

- Red Army POWs were systematically exterminated.

Your knowledge of history is time and again shown to be minimal. Crack a book. Take a class. Stop opining based on fantasy "facts".

Chris,

Thanks for the explanation of the Einstein quotation. That makes it fit better to what little I know about that great man. And also, it is great to know the Bohr saying is real!

Wiccan,

Please do ask the Lady to send help. Thanks, your offer is quite a compliment, and I take it seriously, believe me.

God bless,

Arminius

Wiccan,

The Bohr quote is factual. What a crazy crowd!

Arminus,

I can't help but chime in when science quotations are being bandied about, especially Einstein, whose words were so often taken out of context during his lifetime that he had to start his own cottage industry of refuting the religious sentiments that were attributed to him. Einstein's quotation, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" was made in reference to a distinction between science and religion that he made for the purpost of a particular essay: science relates to what IS; religion relates to what OUGHT TO BE. There was nothing supernatural in Einstein's worldview. Another quotation, which I'm parphrasing from memory, is "If there's anything in me that can be called religious, it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

That said, I imagine that you would resonate with much of what he wrote, which spanned just about every topic worth writing about. A truly great man.

For E Favorite

I believe, as I stated before, that all is a succession of contingencies. That would go for all cultural settings and religons, along with each of our personal lives. I do not believe that the particular form in which Christianity now exists is necessarily important to God, whom I have described as an inexplicable Providence. I do not for example, believe that a church with a steeple would be particularly signigigant to God. I do not believe that singing Silent Night at Christmas time would be particular signifigant to God.

The Christianity that we have now was not ordained and placed upon the Earth by God; it was scooped up by the power of the Roman Empire and delivered to the Medeival Catholic Church, which put quite an imprint on it, and then it trickled down through the ages to the present day. Much of what we think of as real, is not real. When you fly in an airplane and look down on the earth, you cannot see all the boundaries that divide up and separate the nations of the earth because all these are just imaginary, and exist only as artificial lines, drawn arbitrarily on a map. God would not be able to see the borders of the nations, even though they are rock solid and real to us.

That is how I think of the religions of the world, including Christianity. I know that if I had been born in Morroco or India or Japan, that I would not be a Christian. I understand all of that. Maybe my Chrisianity is a little off-theology, but that is how it is.

Sorry to hear that, Arminius. May I ask the Lady to send some help your way?

My knot was getting pretty frayed about the end of September. Then..., well, all I've got to say is that when you ask the Lord and Lady to change the universe to better suit your circumstances, it would behoove you to be ready when they do it. I wasn't.

I'm not sure if the Bohr quote is factual, but by the third time I read the Einstein quote I knew I had to post it! ;-)

Daniel: "I understand your question and I see your point. But I do not know the answer to that."

Just trying to understand what you mean --

You don't see a connection?
and/or
You don't think there is a connection?

Something else?

Hey, Wiccan,

Well, not doing too great here, my friend. Unemployed. But like FDR said, "If you're at the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on!"

Did Bohr really say that? I laughed a lot, what a reply!

It's hard to imagine that the intelligent (but mysterious) architect that designed the entire cosmos to operate and function as it does is exactly like a really really big & very very intelligent .... invisible human with superhuman powers. But there you have it, according to Vinny. The evidence is overwhelming -

and again:

religion = faith-based belief
science = empirical fact-based evidence

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and you can't infer an intelligent designer just because science hasn't completely uncovered the mechanisms and laws governing cosmic emergence.
Well, you can, but who are you going to convince other than fellow intelligent designers??

Even the idea of intelligent design as a concept wouldn't be so bad, but creationism and religion are always following close behind. Logically speaking, a true cosmic-grade intelligent designer would be forever beyond classification or identifying characteristics - not a single thing could be said about such a singular supernal mind - those that knew couldn't say.

Religion reduces that conceptually unknowable mind to understandable terms, and that's when all the trouble starts. Folks are either convinced by religious, faith-based arguments or they're not. Believing seems similar to curling your tongue - if you've got the gene, no problem - otherwise, not in a million years!!

Yep, faith is alot like that........

!((((Arminius)))!

How are you doing, my dear? I have missed you and the other fine folks on this forum, though I did stop by now and then to see that you are still "keeping the faith". :-)

Merry Meet, Terra! Great reply to Vinny. I've always liked this:

Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

Nils Bohr said, "Albert, stop telling God what to do."

My sad story for Susan and E Favorite

This is a story about being anonymous on the internet:

About 2 years ago, I was directed by a friend to an article posted on the website for the Concerned Women of America, whom I knew nothing about. I found the article to be pretty objectionable, so I pressed the "feedback" button and noted my objections. I gave my real name, and my address, so I would be taken seriously. (That was sure a mistake).

Afterwards, I was flooded with mean, spiteful, and personally threatening emails from 2 men who seemed to represent the Concerned Woman of America. I was very upset. These email "rants" were coming to my personal email address, and the people sending them knew my identity and address. It was much more frightening than the rants posted here.

I became anxious and worried, and could not sleep. I did not tell anybody, because it seemed like such a weird problem to have, getting threatening emails from the Concerned Women of America. Finally, after about 2 weeks, I couldn't take it anymore, and I was afraid my symptoms of anxiety might make me look crazy, so I began tellling people my problem.

Then, we set to work to fix it. First, we blocked these 2 guys, so they couldn't send me any more emails. Then the plan was to call the police and file a complaint. But before doing that, I decided to call the Concerned Women of America to complain to them.

I spoke to a woman there. She listened to my whole story. She was horrified and apologetic, said this is not their policy to treat people like this, that she would look into it, and would see that these 2 guys do not engage in this practice anymore, and asked me please not to take the matter to the police. I was satisfied.

I think these 2 guys suffered from a common internet email syndrome, that they said things in emails that they would never say in person, and they were apparently unaware of just how threatening they seemed to me.

Anyway, I can see E Favorite's point, and that I am a little afraid to present my true identity here, although, perhaps, someday, I will have enough courage to do so.

Terra,

More quotations by the Great Albert:
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Yes, we all experience our own views of creation, and proofs are not relevant. Many paths to the truth...

Arminius

Dear E Favorite

You asked,

How does Christianity follow from a creator having set the universe in motion?

I understand your question and I see your point. But I do not know the answer to that.

Susan Jacoby – Please consider that people have reasons for anonymity besides license to be uncivil. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that anyone “hiding” behind a handle on the internet has nefarious motives. Some of us are just trying to hold on to a little privacy.

Anything I’ve said on this forum I would say, and in many cases have said, in my “real” life. I don’t mind being straightforward. I do mind, however, having all of my remarks on any subject up on the internet for all to see.

As it is, googling my real name brings up more information than I’d like – some of it not accurate. Maybe I’m just old-fashioned and will someday get used to having everything about me just a click away. Until then, I’ll take advantage of the opportunity to be anonymous, knowing full well, at least in my own heart, what a civil person I am.

Daniel, Luke and Gaby – thanks for your excellent responses to Vinny.

Daniel said just what I was thinking. Luke said what I would have said if I were more scientifically oriented and Gaby said what I wish I’d been clever enough to think of.

Vinny – have you thought about my question – what does the existence of a creator have to do with the stories and beliefs of the various religions?

Daniel – It seems the question you very eloquently answered was “Why I am a Christian” not how Christianity follows from a creator having set the universe in motion.

Vinny,
Ghandi was Hindu..he was what is considered now..a Pagan.

Einstein?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
--"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Einstein was not a normal believer of god.God was the creative life force, not the entity of the bible. When he said that God did not play dice with the universe, he was talking more about Quantum Machanics then god.

There has been billions of believers of all kinds of religions..Pagans were believers of their gods since the beginning of humanity...we still do. believeing is great, believe. But don't expect everyone to go along with your view. We each see our own Creator,or not... because we each experience our own view of creation.

terra

terra

Well don't have a heart attack, Vinny. Then again, if you were designed better, you would never have to worry about it. It's nice that you think the stars were put in the universe for your enjoyment, but why would a creator care if you thought it was pretty. Sounds like your creator could use a slice of humble pie, and my appendix would be a good place to start. I am not saying that the world wasn't designed, but do you know any men who exist outside of the laws of physics? Didn't think so. Your attitude that you are so much smarter than atheists because your idea of order is so clear-cut (Everything is harmonious...since when? Right now? Are you kidding?), then fine. I don't think any religion today has a firm grasp on a creator - we've got a zombie desert person who is actually three people, a myriad of floaty men and women with elephant heads and multiple limbs, one-eyed "wizards", and plenty of others. I am not saying that there is no chance of a Creator - I agree that plenty of processes are easier to describe with some "finger-pointer" in the midst, but I just don't think it's so simple, and I could never grasp why someone would feel compelled to create it.

Vinny,
Check out this site:
http://www.experiencefestival.com/james_lovelock

Gaea Hypothesis is as interesting as the Theory of DaisyWorld. Both make better ssense then your view of creation.

Ever catch a cold, take meds and that cold change? That is evolution.

The big bang happened aroung 12 to 14 Billion years ago...
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html

Really Vinny, science is proven, religion is faith. You have faith that Creator/s got it all started . Science tells how it all happened. It just is hard for you to swallow, because if your book is wrong on that..what else is it wrong about?
Umm?

terra

Gaby,

There are many possible reasons why A Supreme Being allows the problems to exist today.

Helps us develop greater appreciation for life and health and even for God.

Develops endurance, faith and other positive qualities.

He is perhaps allowing humans to govern themselves for all to see the results firsthand.

Humans are moved to think spiritually, to look for an answer to these issues when faced with these issues.

Life in this world prepares us for something better.

Draws communities and individuals together.

I can believe and do believe in the existence of God, through more than just FAITH itself. Though faith is an integral part of this equation too. In fact it is needed to a degree.

But there is also EVIDENCE, logical PROOF that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all features of life today. Complex, intelligent, purposeful systems that reflect the intellect of that designer himself.

There are numerous court cases that have gone to trial where all of the evidence is circumstantial. Perhaps no dead body has been found. Still, today's technology now allows trace evidences and other signs to give very convincing testimony that a crime was committed. Juries have been thoroughly and unitedly and fully convinced to convict criminals based on such outside, circumstantial evidence exclusively.

Likewise then, there are numerous "evidences" that all life arrived due to the hand of a Master Designer.

The complexity and uniformity, the order and structure, the harmony of system after system, feature after feature, from the smallest molecules to the incredible living breathing life forces surrounding us all, to the incredibly complex earth where so many systems are just perfectly balanced all working together to allow life to exist are evidences to me that somebody surely must be responsible.

The far more complex, far more powerful and awe inspiring universe with star after star, planet after planet solar system after solar system all beautifully organized, with inconceivable, unimaginable amounts of power and energy, give further testimony, in my mind, that these things did not just "happen" through some unguided series of accidents. Just some fortuitous combination of circumstances. A blind fluke of good fortune?

As Einstein astutely stated, "God does not play dice with the universe". Though we cannot see God, we can see EVIDENCE that he does indeed exist. Just as we cannot see our own brains or gravity, or oxygen etc... the evidence that these things are nonetheless real is overwhelming. For myself then, evidence that God exists is even more powerful. The evidence supports this belief for me.

After an examination of much evidence, I am 100 percent certain that these things surrounding us are the result of a Superior Designer. In my mind and in my sincere opinion God DOES exist.

And He is responsible for my being here right now. I owe him the gratitude he so deserves. I thank him for letting me live and exist. Sure I am also here because my mother and father married, had intimate relations and I was born. But that created PROCESS in itself is so complex, such an outstanding system of design that, for me, the credit rightfully goes to the Creator himself. This is why HE deserves the credit; my parents had me because a masterful designer created this process called REPRODUCTION.

In fact there was very little on their part, to be truthful. He is worthy of friendship and worship in my mind. My questions as to how life arose are answered.

I personally do believe in a God because for me it makes the most logical sense to do so. (As did Einstein, Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Max Planck, and thousands of others scientists, philosophers, leaders such as Ghandi, MLK, every single president elected and many other successful people too).

I too believe for genuine reasons then, not to just save my skin, not simply because of emotional reasons.

It makes sense! It is logical and sensible to believe that we are the product of Intelligence.

Am headed out for a while.

Visiting with the atheists has been fun once again.

All the best,

Vinny

Vinny:

You are a cretin!!! Why don't you go to a street corner and preach with Canyon Shearer.

You want answers about the universe? Well, here you go...

http://www.everythingforever.com/

Happy reading!

I have often thought about the myth of Adam and Eve...and what would have happened if Mother Eve was that well behaved woman and did not talk to the talking snake and did not eat of the apple.

So what would our world be like?
Two people running around nakid in a garden.
The apple is the fruit of the Goddess...knowledge. Nothing would have happened. No striving for food and shelter...
No Science..
No inventions...
NO children...hanky panky happened after they "saw" each other.Seems being ashamed of nakedness is a symtem of having fallen from grace.
So and why was Eve thought to be the down fall of man..when she was the cause and creator of humanity? Seems man likes the idea of sitting in a garden and picking his teeth all life long.

I hope one day I get a reason to go into The Other People.

terra

Luke shows up and says:..."Vinny...I'll take a crack at it."

***** : )

Luke quotes Vinny:...""Do you believe that the earth we live on, with it's many intricate systems, that is spinning and revolving at just the right speed 24 hours and 166,000 mph is all the result of mere chance? From some "Big Ole Bang" without any designer involved?"

Luke replies to Vinny:..."You almost make it seem like life existed before the planet did - and then the world slowed down for life. We haven't seen life on planets that revolve faster or slower, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Also, who's to say that the planet itself doesn't regulate that? If our little bodies can do it, why can't a planet?"

******* What kind of reply is this? How did I ever imply life existed here before the earth existed? You are just playing games, right? This makes no sense Luke.

My questions is HOW DID THESE THINGS GET HERE?

The universe, earth and all life upon are complex, organized and harmonious. These are purposeful features and things.

Every beginning has a cause. So how did these things all originate, from nothing at all, by nobody at all?

Your reply was totally meaningless. Sorry.

Luke quotes Vinny:..."That the entire universe for that matter with its incredible power and precision is also the result of some kind of mindless chance like explosion as well?"

Luke replies to Vinny's quote:..."The universe is "powerful" (whatever that means), but it is far from precise. A mindless chance explosion would explain why objects are constantly running into one another, and what purpose would it serve to make black holes, etc. for a universe where life only exists on a single planet (I guess for decoration?)"

*****What I have said is that we have one amazing Universe out there RIGHT NOW.

What I have said is that we have one round, spinning, revolving, tilted earth with atmosphere, land, water cycles food, plants etc RIGHT NOW.

What I said is that we have all kinds of complex and amazing life forms on the earth RIGHT NOW.

What I said is that all beginnings have a cause is universally accepted RIGHT NOW.

What I said is that science cannot create even simplest of life from lifeless RIGHT NOW.

What I have said is that there are numerous "evidences" that all life arrived due to the hand of a Master Designer.

That the complexity and uniformity, the order and structure, the harmony of system after system, feature after feature, from the smallest molecules to the incredible living breathing life forces surrounding us all, to the incredibly complex earth where so many systems are just perfectly balanced all working together to allow life to exist are evidences to me that somebody surely must be responsible.

The far more complex, far more powerful and awe inspiring universe with star after star, planet after planet solar system after solar system all beautifully organized, with inconceivable, unimaginable amounts of power and energy, give further testimony, in my mind, that these things did not just "happen" through some unguided series of accidents.

Just some fortuitous rolling of the dice combination of circumstances. A blind fluke of good fortune?

What I have said is (just like Einstein stated): "God does not play dice with the universe". So though we cannot see God HIMSELF, we DO SEE "EVIDENCE" that he does indeed exist. We cannot see gravity, or oxygen etc... the evidence that these things are nonetheless real is overwhelming. Evidence that God exists is even more powerful. The "evidence" supports this belief for me.

The EVIDENCE IS POWERFUL and irrefutable for atheists.

Where is your EVIDENCE then that all things can arise from nothing, by nobody, into harmonious, complex things? Never been done.

Luke quotes Vinny:..."And that all of the complexities of life today are the same result of some merely lucky circumstances that have no intellectual force whatsoever behind these many forms of life? That all life today originated from nothing, to primordial soup to polymers to fishes to human brains and beyond?"

Luke replies to Vinny:..."Wouldn't it be lucky if there were a being who cared enough to make you and I? It might have gotten a push, but it would make more sense if it were by an alien than a floaty man - not assuming that you believe either.

******* Then if life is so bad, why are you still living? People can easily find a tall bridge to jump off if life is so rotten. But there is far more that is good than is not for most humans on earth today.

But whether life is great or not, these things arrived either by somebody, some Intelligent Force, or all on their own through Lots O' luck and FAT CHANCES.

What do you think makes the most sense?

Luke quotes Vinny:..""Did the amazing variety of life on earth today simply ORIGINATE on its very own through a series of unguided chances?"

Luke replies to VinnY:..."The amazing variety of life may have been designed by something, but a lot it isn't practical or designed very well.

****** Yet here we are. All systems balancing in harmony to allow you and I to have this conversation. The atmosphere has just the right elements needed to sustain life. We are at just the right temperature to sustain life. Food exists in abundance as does water. The earth is an amazing thing to behold. All by chance and luck?

Luke quotes Vinny:..""And same applies to the far more impressive UNIVERSE. All of this power and precision and ORDER just happened by mere chances?"

Luke replies to Vinny:..."Once again, not particularly ordered. Ordered things don't fly into each other. Entropy rules. Is the creator not also a maintainer? If there was no one to view, it would be pointless, wouldn't it? I know that doesn't answer the questions thoroughly, but until I can meet the creator himself, I don't know what to think.

****** Fair enough if you are not certain what to think, IMO.

But since God has not shown up on people's doorsteps to introduce Himself, many atheists say there is no God at all.

Which is foolish nonsense to most today.

There is NO LOGIC and NO REASONABLENESS to atheist claims that all intelligent life and all organized systems and planets and stars galaxies just happened to fall into place without any intelligent force behind it.

There is just no way that it is even remotely possible that ALL of those marvelous features coming together at one time is due to a series of random, evolutionary, unguided chances.

When I look at an incredible startlit sky, in my mind there is not a chance that these all happened to be formed by a similar series of just aimless, arbitrary, haphazard, hit-or-miss events; a rolling of the dice if you will. They are extremely organized. They have clearly been PUT there and brought into motion by SOMEBODY.

The many systems that allow life on this earth to exist likewise are organized, they are purposeful, intricate and finely tuned with other systems.

Again, by some accidental, casual, fortuitous, stroke of luck? That simply is not reasonable or logical to myself nor most other people. I have examined both sides of the evidence. For me there is just no way these things happened without the guiding hand of intellect. For you and some others they may have come together by chance or in fact did come together by chance. I disagree.

I have read the textbooks, have seen the arguments from atheists like Dawkins and Hutchins. I consider such attempts to use abiogenesis/evolution as the explanation to explain how life arose to be far, far-fetched, and one giant stretch after another.

Nothing has ever been duplicated. It bypasses the "Every beginning has a Cause" universal principle. It seeks to eliminate God altogether and then build around that premise in what many consider to be embarassing, feeble attempts of explanation. It fails miserably in my opinion and the opinion of billions of others as well.

I have asked our atheists to explain just how "DEAD MATTER" turns into "LIVING THINGS". Now read the thread, all of it folks. A lot of comments have been posted. WHERE ARE THE ANSWERS??

You got to just love this. I am not making this stuff up. So tell me, where I can sign up and join the atheists club now.

: )

Daniel,

I understand. I was just trying to make a point to Vinny.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that not only humans are capable of suffering or enjoying. And not only humans have social structure and certain behavioral ethics. Much of it can be found in the animal world as well.

They simply developed their social structures and certain ethics by living in packs or clans, which made a certain hierarchy necessary.

Which leads me to believe that the bible is man made after all and God was the figment of imagination of early mankind. I could imagine that in the very early days there was not really any kind of tribal structure. Everyone was on the same level with each other and there really wasn't a leader. What better for an ambitious person to invent god complete with ten commandments? That person would now be recognized as someone special and would be leader.

Pure conjecture on my part of course. But I think it’s just as possible as the bible being the truth.

Hi, Wiccan!
Well met! Glad you're here.

George of the Frozen North:
Good posts, and a good question - why are the non-believers here? Maybe sheer curiosity, and an urge to dialog. Some, of course, come to rant, just as some religious types do. But this is 'On Faith', meaning 'Concerning Faith', so an atheist/agnostic can be just as eager to discuss it, even if for different reasons. I'm Christian, by the way, but have many friends here of other faiths or no faith at all.

Daniel ITLD:
I hereby nominate you as the Official Wise Man of On Faith. You are an inspiration.

Vinny,
Put a lid on it. All you are doing is pissing people off. I don't want to think that was your intent, but it sure was the result.

Dear Vinny

What is your problem?

Dear Vinny

What is your problem?

With name attached this time...

Daniel, you seem to have skipped over my reply to you. I wonder why?

I said:

"Susan Jacoby is the atheist with MANY THREADS that come across as FACT.

I have simply challenged her in rebuttal. Challenges that she has run away from every single time.

Challenges that not one atheist on any of her sorry threads have been able to refute.

Who says anything about trying to change her mind? I am simply questioning her position. I believe they call that DEBATE.

And if memory serves me well (and it does), isn't this what these threads are all about?

***** Make sense now Daniel? Memory refreshed for you?

So Daniel, why don't you worry about Daniel and let Vinny about Vinny? And Susan can worry about atheist nonsense that she cannot defend.

Sound fair enough to you?

Daniel says:..."Are you really a believing Christian? You do not seem like one to me.

and then......

Daniel says:..."Rather, it is you who are a little squirt."

******Folks you just gotta love Christians like Daniel with two sets of standards.

Okay Daniel, I am not impressed with your posts. If Susan wants to post her atheist nonsense and the Washington Post is willing to put it on the front page, then we all get to take our shots at her atheist nonsense.

Which she has been unable to defend btw.

Daniel says:.."You get to ask all the questions you want. But if atheists do not have an answer, how does that prove the existence of God, and persuade them that there is a God?"

***** They do not have to answer any questions. But is it because they do not want to, or is it because THEY CAN'T?

And if they want to start their own threads, about how there is no God then they get to play "ANSWER THE QUESTIONS".

And as far as I'm concerned, the lack of (((ANYBODY ANSWERING UP))) just illustrates how weak and lame atheist beliefs truly are.

Sure, Daniel whines, "Vinny aint enough like Jesus" .

But lookey at what's NOT here:

No arguments explaining how life arises from nothing.

No arguments dealing with science failing to create life from lifeless in controlled settings.

No arguments dealing with science cannot even PUT LIFE BACK where it life once was hours before.

No arguments dealing with the universal "every beginning has a cause" fact of life.

No arguments explaining how big BANG results in orderly, intricate, powerful universe; a spinning, orbiting earth with atmosphere, water, ozone etc, with moon practically attached; and life all throughout that earth.

And dozens of other issues unanswered. Just "vinny aint being enough like jesus" comments from a guy who goes right into name calling and pretending to be some kind of enforcer.

This is a joke, right?

“Why must we suffer?” is the cry of man. Even I have said, “...my God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me.”

At the very best, it is a mystery.

I do not believe that God has made a world of suffering. Rather, by Providence, we dwell in a world of contrasting experience, and only by this contrasting nature of experience can we experience anything at all.

We feel joy and sadness, each together, in contrast, and cannot know neither without the other.

Like sunshine and rain, all mingled together, that is the experience of our lives.

Daniel, you seem to have skipped over my reply to you. I wonder why?

I said:

"Susan Jacoby is the atheist with MANY THREADS that come across as FACT.

I have simply challenged her in rebuttal. Challenges that she has run away from every single time.

Challenges that not one atheist on any of her sorry threads have been able to refute.

Who says anything about trying to change her mind? I am simply questioning her position. I believe they call that DEBATE.

And if memory serves me well (and it does), isn't this what these threads are all about?

***** Make sense now Daniel? Memory refreshed for you?

So Daniel, why don't you worry about Daniel and let Vinny about Vinny? And Susan can worry about atheist nonsense that she cannot defend.

Sound fair enough to you?

Daniel says:..."Are you really a believing Christian? You do not seem like one to me.

and then......

Daniel says:..."Rather, it is you who are a little squirt."

******Folks you just gotta love Christians like Daniel with two sets of standards.

Okay Daniel, I am not impressed with your posts. If Susan wants to post her atheist nonsense and the Washington Post is willing to put it on the front page, then we all get to take our shots at her atheist nonsense.

Which she has been unable to defend btw.

Daniel says:.."You get to ask all the questions you want. But if atheists do not have an answer, how does that prove the existence of God, and persuade them that there is a God?"

***** They do not have to answer any questions. But is it because they do not want to, or is it because THEY CAN'T?

And if they want to start their own threads, about how there is no God then they get to play "ANSWER THE QUESTIONS".

And as far as I'm concerned, the lack of (((ANYBODY ANSWERING UP))) just illustrates how weak and lame atheist beliefs truly are.

Sure, Daniel whines, "Vinny aint enough like Jesus" .

But lookey at what's NOT here:

No arguments explaining how life arises from nothing.

No arguments dealing with science failing to create life from lifeless in controlled settings.

No arguments dealing with science cannot even PUT LIFE BACK where it life once was hours before.

No arguments dealing with the universal "every beginning has a cause" fact of life.

No arguments explaining how big BANG results in orderly, intricate, powerful universe; a spinning, orbiting earth with atmosphere, water, ozone etc, with moon practically attached; and life all throughout that earth.

And dozens of other issues unanswered. Just "vinny aint being enough like jesus" comments from a guy who goes right into name calling and pretending to be some kind of enforcer.

This is a joke, right?

George of Alaska:

You and I are on the same "hope" train! I appreciate your response.

My hope for all of us in the next several years is a healing of bitter partisanship, a constructive conversation about what needs to be "fixed," (and the willingness and means to accomplish it,)the leveling of power structures that keep us locked in rivalry, a resurrection of justice and honor and fairness in dealing with our own citizens and citizens of other countries, and finally an outstretched hand to the global communities--many of whom (up to the last several years) have considered America to be a model democracy, and a generous, giving people. Anyone and everyone (faithful or unbelieving) would be welcome on that journey, in my view.

Dear George

I too appreciated your post. I think part of your problem (everybody's problem) is the rapid communication system that we have now, that makes everything seem more immiment than perhaps it really is. You are anxious about the unravelling of the world that you grew up with and were used to.

But that is how it is in all generations. The generations come and the generations go, in succession, as they always have, and the world changes, as it always had, but still, it keeps going.

William James said, "...have courge, hope for the best, work for the best..." I like that advice, and that is what I try to do.

Vinny is not your real name; it is a nick name variant of your fist name, with your last name absent. Would you post as you do, using your real name? I doubt it. Because you would be ashamed of yourself. Doesn't that tell you something about the nature of your commentary?

Vinny:

"I TOO often marvel at what I see around us. Playful kittens, having fun with my dogs... . They can truly make life fun and enjoyable. Same goes with most food. Same with relationships, and seasonal changes, parenthood, beautiful sunsets, waterfalls, flowers, hummingbirds, turquoise waters and white sandy beaches. Even sleep can be a pleasure, on and one we could go.

All of these things that we humans enjoy just happened by chance and unguided random events?

To most intelligent people, NO WAY."

How about this:

I TOO often marvel at what I see around us. Horrendous poverty, famine (wish I could post some photos of emaciated children), disease (wish I could post some photos of people in excruitiating pain), war (well these photos are posted daily in major newspapers), violence, tsunamis (I am sure you remember the pictures), tornadoes (ever been close to one?), earthquakes, etc.

All of these things that we humans abhor just happened by chance and are unguided random events?

To most intelligent people, HOPEFULLY!

Because if not, the God you believe in is nothing but a cruel monster that needs to be eradicated.

By the way, I do believe in a certain cosmic intelligence, but certainly not the one described in the bible.

Vinny...I'll take a crack at it.
"Do you believe that the earth we live on, with it's many intricate systems, that is spinning and revolving at just the right speed 24 hours and 166,000 mph is all the result of mere chance? From some "Big Ole Bang" without any designer involved?"

You almost make it seem like life existed before the planet did - and then the world slowed down for life. We haven't seen life on planets that revolve faster or slower, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Also, who's to say that the planet itself doesn't regulate that? If our little bodies can do it, why can't a planet?

"That the entire universe for that matter with its incredible power and precision is also the result of some kind of mindless chance like explosion as well?"

The universe is "powerful" (whatever that means), but it is far from precise. A mindless chance explosion would explain why objects are constantly running into one another, and what purpose would it serve to make black holes, etc. for a universe where life only exists on a single planet (I guess for decoration?)

"And that all of the complexities of life today are the same result of some merely lucky circumstances that have no intellectual force whatsoever behind these many forms of life? That all life today originated from nothing, to primordial soup to polymers to fishes to human brains and beyond?"

Wouldn't it be lucky if there were a being who cared enough to make you and I? It might have gotten a push, but it would make more sense if it were by an alien than a floaty man - not assuming that you believe either.

"Did the amazing variety of life on earth today simply ORIGINATE on its very own through a series of unguided chances?"

The amazing variety of life may have been designed by something, but a lot it isn't practical or designed very well.

"And same applies to the far more impressive UNIVERSE. All of this power and precision and ORDER just happened by mere chances?"

Once again, not particularly ordered. Ordered things don't fly into each other. Entropy rules. Is the creator not also a maintainer? If there was no one to view, it would be pointless, wouldn't it? I know that doesn't answer the questions thoroughly, but until I can meet the creator himself, I don't know what to think.

Vinny

You referred to me as "our little Daniel lad..."

Pardon me. I am sure by the way that you write, that I am older than you, probably by a few decades. I hardly think that you would call me a lad, if you met me. Rather, it is you who are a little squirt.

You get to ask all the questions you want. But if atheists do not have an answer, how does that prove the existence of God, and persuade them that there is a God?

It doesn't.

An atheist is someone who does not belive in God, not someone who knows all the answers of creation.

All an atheist has to do to answer your question and maintain his atheistic belief is say "I don't know." How, then have you proved anything? You have not.

You are really asking these questions of yourself, and trying to prove them to yourself. It is really a problem inside of you, not in atheism. For if you were confident in your own beliefs, you would not be bothered that others might believe differently. But you are very bothered.

In the first part of your post, you were very rude. As far as I am concerned, the rest of your commentary lacked credibility because of that. Are you really a believing Christian? You do not seem like one to me.

Suzie Jacoby says:..."I don't often get this far down in the blog"

***** What a load of bologna. You just need some sort of excuse to avoid answering up.

I am happy if you are happy as an atheist, Susan.

But when you start posting your sorry atheist beliefs on a public domain, you get to be challenged for posting those beliefs.

That is l healthy debate.

Instead all you do is post your atheist nonsense threads (in which I have thoroughly refuted many times now) and then do the vanishing act, avoid the issues altogether or come up with some lame, "I don't often get this far down in the blog", laughable excuse.

This is your thread Suzie. You SHOULD get this far down the blog. 80 comments is nothing.

The fact is you simply cannot defend sorry atheist beliefs when cornered with the facts.

As I said above, if intelligent men cannot create even the SIMPLEST of life today from dead matter, how can you atheists believe that COMPLEX LIFE arises from no intelligence at all, from dead matter? And then you get to tell us where that dead matter comes from as well.

I admit being an atheist is one tough road Susan.

If I were you, and believed in sorry atheist "all things from nothing by nobody" nonsense, I'd avoid the actual debates as well.

And your "I don't often get this far down in the blog", would be as good excuse as any!

All the best,

Vinny (my real name)

Susan,

Thanks and Have a good day, really enjoyed your response. And I'll cheer up!

God bless (and he does exist, can't help it!),

George

Jeff P -

Very good points that were well made. I agree that the inclusion of religion/faith into politics over the past several decades, slowly creeping in, has created a backlash on the part of some who in the past were neutral or at least less vocal about their views. We do need to move forward globally, but that is the great challenge; we need to agree on more of the major issues here at home before we can be the strong world influence we have been. Unfortunately, each step or 2 forward is accompanied by a few steps back. I do agree that faith based organizations should be more active in the communities they are located in - feeding the poor, clothing the homeless, etc. really making a difference. THAT would add teeth to the claims they make and what they hae to say.

Thank you again,

George

Daniel in Lion's den said:...""An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Why should an atheist be able to prove how the world came to be without God?

****** When an atheist starts posting their beliefs on a very public soap box, then they get to play "answer the questions".

Only I have been asking these questions many times with ZERO ANSWERS.

Susan likes to write out her atheist nonsense, but when asked to explain difficult things she always does the same thing.

RUNS AND HIDES.

DANIEL IN LIONS DEN SAYS:..."That question is beside the point, of whether one believes in God or not. Merely pointing out that an atheistic belief does not account for existence does not and cannot influence a person's belief in God or lack of such belief. People believe as they will; you cannot tinker with the inner workings of someone's brain to alter their belief, nor cram yours down their throat; it just plain does not work that way.

****** Excuse me our little Daniel lad, but just WHO TRIES TO CRAM WHAT DOWN WHOSE THROAT?

I think you have some comprehension problems.

Susan Jacoby is the atheist with MANY THREADS that come across as FACT.

I have simply challenged her in rebuttal. Challenges that she has run away from every single time.

Challenges that not one atheist on any of her sorry threads have been able to refute.

Who says anything about trying to change her mind? I am simply questioning her position. I believe they call that DEBATE.

And if memory serves me well (and it does), isn't this what these threads are all about?

My suggestion, Chill out a little. No need to blow a gasket here. I asked you several questions that have once again gone UNANSWERED.

"Let me ask ALL ATHEISTS a series of questions:

Do you believe that the earth we live on, with it's many intricate systems, that is spinning and revolving at just the right speed 24 hours and 166,000 mph is all the result of mere chance? From some "Big Ole Bang" without any designer involved?

That the entire universe for that matter with its incredible power and precision is also the result of some kind of mindless chance like explosion as well?

And that all of the complexities of life today are the same result of some merely lucky circumstances that have no intellectual force whatsoever behind these many forms of life? That all life today originated from nothing, to primordial soup to polymers to fishes to human brains and beyond?

Did the amazing variety of life on earth today simply ORIGINATE on its very own through a series of unguided chances?

The same applies to the EARTH itself. Look at just how purposeful and harmonized the many processes and systems that make life possible really are. All through an unguided, intelligence-less big BANG resulting in a spinning, revolving, atmosphere in place EARTH?

And same applies to the far more impressive UNIVERSE. All of this power and precision and ORDER just happened by mere chances?

What allowed those conditions to exist where such an event could take place? And what uncontrolled explosion ever results in amazing order and structure anywhere.

The cosmos are a beauty to behold. And like I have said many times, the tides are predicted long before due to knowing precisely where the moon will be centuries from now. All this by mere CHANCE?

When anybody really thinks these things one usually realizes the foolishness of believing that these things could all just come together without the guiding hand of Intellect.

As Albert Einstein astutely stated, "God does not play dice with the universe".

I TOO often marvel at what I see around us. Playful kittens, having fun with my dogs... . They can truly make life fun and enjoyable. Same goes with most food. Same with relationships, and seasonal changes, parenthood, beautiful sunsets, waterfalls, flowers, hummingbirds, turquoise waters and white sandy beaches. Even sleep can be a pleasure, on and one we could go.

All of these things that we humans enjoy just happened by chance and unguided random events?

To most intelligent people, NO WAY.

Or were these things PUT THERE by somebody? The amazing order, purposefulness, usefulness, harmony, etc etc precision surrounding us all gives powerful evidence that these things are the result of Intelligence. An Intelligent Designer, a God, a Supreme Being of some kind.

The alternative to this belief as to the source of these things leaves you with ATHEISM. That ALL these things and all this order, power, precision, harmony etc just happened through fat chances and lot's of luck, all from nothing.

Simply not logical, reasonable, rational or making any sense or worth trusting in. Never duplicated in even the simplest way by science. All beginnings have a cause. A simple fact of life that makes atheism impossible.

vinny

To George Miller:

I don't often get this far down in the blog, but the reason you don't hide behind anonymity is that your comments are perfectly civil. I hope you understand that I am not objecting to ideas that don't coincide with mine but to what amounts to hate speech.

I think, in a way, that you're too pessimistic. I don't think it's true that few people share the same sense of morality any more. One doesn't have to believe in life after death, to cite just one example, to believe that we have an obligation to treat one another decently here on earth. Whether you call wrongdoing sin or moral failing, some things are evil, period, because they demean us and violate the rights of others. Look at it this way: the Ten Commandments, whether you consider them the word of God or not, were written down because a lot of people--believers and nonbelievers alike--frequently violate them. To me, this indicates that human error has nothing to do with whether one believes that laws are God-given or man-made.

But really, cheer up. I just saw a woman risk life and limb today to save a complete stranger whose leg was about to be caught between a subway care and a subway platform. I don't know whether the rescuer was a religious believer or an atheist, but I'll be she acted out of simple human solidarity.

I'm happy to see you on my blog.

Susan,

I do NOT hide behind the internet and invite you to reply, if you get this far down in the blog. I'd even post my e-mail, but for the abuse that would result.

Whether one chooses to accept the writings of 2000 + years ago, (not including those of the early church fathers, etc) has little bearing on the truth of them. We live in an age where we write our own "Gospel" and live by our own commandments. Morality is relevant to what is "socially acceptable", what the Jones' are doing and what I want to adapt as my own morality. Very few people share the same sense of morality any more. Many with no faith do not see this as a problem, that pluralism is good, diversity a must, etc. and I do not reject those notions. It is, however, throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that the common sense of morality that we once had as a nation going back to post WWII was the glue that held America together. People of all colors, nationalities, etc. adhered in some form, loosely or very closely, to a common set of morals and expectations from one another based on them.

Today, with as many different "moralities" and theological mindsets (even atheists have a theology - not sarcastically, it is in the mirror - one's ability in oneself to mentally master the universe, thus placing self and the scientific method up as a god or the god, or goddess, to be fair). As a Christian, yes with some fundamentalist beliefs, it really grieves me to see more and more people each year, the Gen-Xers, Post-Modernists (depending on who you read, we are all post-modernists), etc. simply give no thought or concern to some of the matters that for 2000 years have concerned man in his thinkinsg and philosophy - life after death, is there God, who is man, how does man relate to God if he does, etc. For some really scary reading, read of the account of Voltaire's deathbed experience...

The bottom line is that most Christians I know and "talk code" with are concerned about the vast difference in morals globally, not just in the USA, over the past 50-60 years and their decline. Some call it the sexual revolution, the "Counter Culture" of the 60s-70s, when I was a kid, or whatever you want to call it, but the result is the same, fewer people believing in absolute truths that never change, hard though it may be for many readers here to accept this, an objective review of recent acceptable morals, morailty wil reveal some very alarming trends.

Not to sit in judgement, for I have not always been a choir boy, even as a Christian, but this moral decline has really hurt us as a nation and had been the bedrock of our interactions, expectations with one another, etc. for so long that when they changed subtly, people feel adrift, less connected to each other than before, slowly becoming more autonomous and isolated. One big misconception is that Christians aspire to perfection - those that do will find much frustration in life for we are still human and frail - but we are to aspire to live ever increasingly in and on faith. Our Jewish brothers are included, not in Christianity, but in that we both look forward to the coming of the Messiah, though with a different perspective, and share the same sacred writings, Law, Prophets, Poetry books and History books. To lose this foundation of morality to relativism which is what we have today is to turn the egg timer over and watch the stability that we once enjoyed as a nation slowly slip away.

George of Alaska

You said of atheists,

"...seemingly they would have no interest here..."

But since they do, your assumption must be wrong. Why do you think that is? What do you think is the answer to your own quesion?

George of Alaska:

You are right, this site is called "on Faith", it's not called "On Christian Faith" or "For Religious Posters Only".

Atheists have faith also, just not the kind you have. As a matter of fact, I believe every human being has faith in something. It might just not be a "supernatural" being.

You said: "It makes chatting on here tiresome to read so many atheistic/agnostic posts on an "On Faith" blog."

Well, if you only want to talk to people who think exactly like you, maybe your hometown church would be a better forum for you.

George of Alaska: Fair question.

As you might have read from other posters, probably a large percentage of us are self-confessed ex-Christians. I think in the past, non-believers were content to just let things be, or risk being penalized if there was a decision to speak out. Certainly the last 7 political years have been a "call to arms" for the folks who understand and want to maintain a secular Constitution.

It's not necessarily the pleasure of argument for argument's sake--it's the ?attempt? to better understand one another (and I do agree with others that we do get emotional at times) in a world which should be moving forward with great ideas, better resources, more knowledge, bigger dreams.

Instead we seem so many times to be inching back to the dark ages of superstition, divisions among people for any and every reason, and the very visible attack on institutions that secure our freedoms and insure a future where we can agree to disagree on the insignificant, but where we try to come together on the important.

Where has religion been more significant than in the last decades, where it has genuinely been questioned regarding whether or not it's helpful for the human race instead of a hindrance? It is being used as a tool in the political realm, and thus in our public life's realm, and one should expect to see participation in any and all avenues where "faith" is considered a virtue.

Personally I'm very much encouraged by the postings on this site, and am grateful for the panel participants who give their time and efforts to answer these important questions.

I hope that gives you at least one answer.

In fact why not rename this "No Faith" or begin one by the same name, just a little juxtaposition of letters, and those of faith can talk among themselves without having to sift through 5, 6, 7 posts opposed to faith for every 1 in support of it. It makes chatting on here tiresome to read so many atheistic/agnostic posts on an "On Faith" blog.

Better yet, those of "No Faith" can talk to each other and agree in what they do not believe in, sort of oxymoronic???

I'm not knocking one's right to believe or not, just making a comment. No doubt, the "No Faithers" will jump all over it as usual.

Gaby

Maybe you were placed in a different worldly setting.

Alot of Christians attend Bible study together, and they speak a very specialized lingo to each other, which they understand. They say things like, "you MUST believe, in order to be ssved..." to buck up each other's nerves, whenever they may feel doubt. In these ways, they are very sheltered and cloistered. Then, they use this same lingo on a forum such as this, and it doesn't make sense; it even makes them seem a little weird and they are perplexed and confused. But, in the end, I think it is good for them, to come here and spout off, and get a good dose of reality thrown back at them.

Merry Meet, Daniel in the Lion's Den! I have enjoyed your posts; common sense like yours is a rare visitor here. I was struck by this sentence:

"All you can do is lay out your own life for other people to see, and then accept that it is beyond your power to change another person's belief. If you think that the example of your own life is not good enough to teach other's about Christianity, then that is your problem, not theirs."

I will commit the sin of repeating myself:

"Conversion by coercion isn't salvation, it's rape."

I submit that threatening people with eternal torture is damn coercive. Surely the Divine knows you cannot force love.

"If your actions aren't suffient proof of your faith, you're doing it wrong."

Consider Canyon Shearer's and Angela B's posts. What God are they the image of? Then there are Christians like you and my sister, and my friend, Arminius. I think that you are a better mirror.

DZ-

I am sorry about the loss of your beloved. Your confession of the Seven Deadly Sins was stark and beautiful. Blessed Be.

Susan,

You are TERRIBLY mistaken and out of place in mentioning rape and sex between a couple who love each other. They are not fueled by the same emotions, which you wished equated the 7 deadly sins to!!! Love making between a man and wife who love each other is born out of love.

Rape is, by any psychological research, a crime of hate. How can one force oneself on another out of lust? No, rape has long been acknowledged as a crime of hate and violence. Unfortunately for the victims, it is sexual in nature and so dehumanizing. But it is not the same as seeing an attractive woman and wondering what it may be like to be with her. That is lust, and the void between it and both rape and love making is huge.

A question I have: If this is the blog for "On Faith" then why are so many atheists, who have no faith, regulars here? Seemingly they would have no interest here, since they have no faith, unless they like to jump in and comment on the faith that others hold, usually in the form of criticism and often devoid of civility.

Daniel ITLD:

W think very much alike actually, the only thing we differ in is that I am not Christian.

Well said, Ms Jacoby. I believe this envy extends to other 'issues' as well - illegal immigration (they get free services!), gay rights (why can't I be fabulous?), etc. On the other hand, it's good to be reminded that these people are around and to hear what they have to say (provided you can wade through the grammatical and logical inconsistency). On the whole, though, I'd rather do that by occasionally dropping by RedState than have their bile spewed on a reasonable discussion.

I have already thought of the questions which E Fav and Joet have posed. For a Christian to have a valid belief system, the answers to the questions must co-exist with their Christian belief.

We are born in a tiny neighborhood of earth, in a brief moment of time. The extent of all that we may become, derives from this origin, over which we have no choice, and from which we cannot escape.

No matter what, my view on God is colored by all the human interpretations of God that I have encountered, together with my own conscious thinking and wondering.

I am aware, that my total being, personality, and beliefs are merely contingent upon virtual "accidents" of the flow of events; and where I may have been on any certain day; and who may have spoken to me; whom I may have listened to; what book, movie, or television show I might have read or watched; if I glanced into the sky and saw a shape in the clouds that cheered me up or made me think of some specific thing...

I consider all of this, in the formation of my Christian belief. I think of God as unexplainable, inexplicable Providence. I think of Christianity as the worldly setting into which I have been placed, to live and experience life.

Bill: finally someone who has hit on the absurdity of people's dogmatic claims to the one true faith. Had we all been swithched at birth, we would be screaming that people of the faith we do hold were damned. It is absurd that we can all believe that we are simply fortunate to have been born of the right parents. When will people simply ponder the absurdity of that proposition and adopt some humility. Pride is the sin being committed by half the self righteous (I know that's redundant) christians on these posts.

"Daniel in the Lion's Den, STOP being silly ... What I write is the truth plain and simple."

Anybody with such a claim is a public danger. The flat earth was just as eternal a truth as the rest of the prevalent mass superstition of people like this particular anonymous or our little youngster Vinny appearing here again with his drivel. With such "redeemed" neighbors, I certainly prefer hell as a future living, lol.

It has been a while since I have read a similar piece of condensed nonsense like the bible link anonymous proposes. To think that the writer was "educated" in the 20th century makes me pessimistic.

If it was only private stupidity, there would not be any harm done. People get "inspired" by astrology, tea leaves, card reading and coffee grounds. But alas, fundamental religion has huge political consequences, as it has had huge historical impacts. Just look at god converser Bush, look at Constitution changer Huckebee - minds with the maturity of 5 year old children, with the capacity to destroy the world.

Daniel ITLD, I second E. Favorite's post.

I think you are a genuinely wonderful person and just happen to be a Christian.

"All you can do is lay out your own life for other people to see, and then accept that it is beyond your power to change another person's belief. If you think that the example of your own life is not good enough to teach other's about Christianity, then that is your problem, not theirs."

Some Christian seem to believe they are good people because they are Christian. I happen to believe that good people are just that, good people. Some are Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Bhuddist, etc., and some are Atheist. Religious believe has nothing to do with chosing to do the right thing.

One can be a total dirtbag and religiously affiliated or not, and one can be saint and religiously affiliated or not.

To Vinnie, Mike, Nick B and any religious person who wants to answer:

Let's say there is a creator who set the universe in motion - a being far greater than humans or any living thing.

Please explain how Christianity, or any religion, follows from that.

For instance, why a Jesus or Jehovah or Mohammed? Why different sets of rules and different stories for different religions? What does a creator have to do with that? Why a chosen people, a sacrificed son, a prophet? Why rules set in stone, then broken or golden sheaves, then lost?

and Nick B, another thing:

...the definitions of words are by commone consent and can be found in the dictionary, and are not under the control of the Catholic Church.

Nick B

I think that you should apologize to Susan for all the mean and misguided things you have said about her.

You have also made it pretty obviously clear that only Catholics are Christians, and non-Catholic people who call themselves Christian don't count.

Most all of your comments only make sense in a Catholic context; if that is your attitude, then maybe it would be better to read and debate opinion that overtly Catholic because you come accross to me, at least, as someone with not very good manners.

Nick B

I think that you should apologize to Susan for all the mean and misguided things you have said about her.

You have also made it pretty obviously clear that only Catholics are Christians, and non-Catholic people who call themselves Christian don't count.

Most all of your comments only make sense in a Catholic context; if that is your attitude, then maybe it would be better to read and debate opinion that overtly Catholic because you come accross to me, at least, as someone with not very good manners.

Nick B - FYI, Susan Jacoby was raised Catholic and attended catholic schools, so she learned about the seven deadly sins as a child. You'll find that many, possibly most atheists posting here were raised in a religious tradition and know quite a lot about religion, via both childhood indoctrination and adult study.

Daniel ITLD - thanks for your sane post -- you're typically sane, of course, but a dose of sanity from a Christian was particularly needed here, I thought.

Dear Mike

Please put yourself in an atheist's shoes.

Is your argument going to change an atheist's belief? Is an atheist going to read what you wrote and then say, "oh, now I see; now I believe in God."

The answer is "no."

If you are really, truely, and sincerely interested in transforming a person's belief from atheism to belief in God, then you are going to have to put alot more effort into it than that.

First of all, you are going to have to get them interested in entertaining the question, which they might never do. And you do this by the way you live your life, every day, year in year out, forever.

Recrimination, coercion, belittling, plattitudes, cliches, bogus "proofs," and Bible-quoting is not going to work.

All you can do is lay out your own life for other people to see, and then accept that it is beyond your power to change another person's belief. If you think that the example of your own life is not good enough to teach other's about Christianity, then that is your problem, not theirs. You will be a better person, if you can let other people believe as they do.

Who's the Bigot:

Sorry to offend you with this, but..

...if being "right wing" means:
distrust of government-

distrust of science-

belief of cornering the market of "family values" or "morals"-

homophobia-

"right-to-life" at all costs... until they're actually here-

witty sarcasm of "liberals"-(Here's your quote: "Posters on this blog(and most Post blogs) are overwhelmingly liberal. Odds are most of the anti-Semitic posts are coming from liberals." ...Then, "If you notice, there was no criticism of liberals in my post.")

...then, I'm happy not to be right-wing.

Your criticisms are a sorry piece of work. Sarcastic, self-righteous, certain, sorry piece of work. If you don't want to hear someone's self-defined ideas of "liberal," go plug in to your IV of Fox News and Powerlineblog. Or, look up "liberal" in your own encyclopedia before you demonize it.

Regarding your "odds are" statements, if you want a "debate" on that, just read the recent several month's worth of posts, and see who are those born-again Christians who have recently posted on Susan's blog here, who are the subject of her current dialogue.

Your categorical definition of posting liberals: "They are generally busy coming up with lame zingers, calling people names and citing the Wikipedia when attemoting to define the ideology to which they subscribe.

But what do I know. We conservatives are a bunch of superstitious dummies."

I'm not going to comment on your pre-supposition of what I think about other's beliefs, I'll just leave you looking self-described.

In response to criticism against my post:

Thank-you all for your input. I'll try to check my arrogance at the door. I do not wish to sound smug or unapproachable. Rather, I wish to expound my position that journalists have a responsibility.

Madam Jacoby did not use her public position with any care, therefore she is open to public criticism from those of us who are familiar with the terms used.

They do have a meaning, and if one wishes to discuss Christian words and phrases, then one must recognize their origin and fall in line with their meanings, otherwise discussion is difficult since we talk past each other.

If you wish to talk about lust, anger, pride etc, feel free. But do not for a moment think they are the same meanings as those that fall under the banner "The Seven Deadly Sins": these are reserved for Christians and we define their meaning.

I know there may be disagreements. I am not here to argue, but to promote truth and not deception.

All the best,
Nick

I am a Christian. I think that Susan Jacoby is a lovely person who writes interesting things. She is intelligent, educated, sophistocated, and worldly. What is not to like? Why should it bother me if she is an atheist? Why should it bother any Christian, or anyone else?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Why should an atheist be able to prove how the world came to be without God? That question is beside the point, of whether one believes in God or not. Merely pointing out that an atheistic belief does not account for existence does not and cannot influence a person's belief in God or lack of such belief. People believe as they will; you cannot tinker with the inner workings of someone's brain to alter their belief, nor cram yours down their throat; it just plain does not work that way.

If Susan Jacoby mocks the ranting comments here, in a basically light-hearted way, by comparing them to grafitti, it is not directed at any particular person. If you feel that she is targetting you specifically, and this gets you boiling mad at her, then maybe you are one of the ranters, whom she was referring to, in general.

(This post is not directed to any one particular commenter, but just to commenters and readers, in general).

I'm confused. With no God, then I must have evolved. If I evolved then I am a product of the genes that nature gave me. If my genes tell me to do something, I will do it. My actions are a product of my nature...the nature that I happened to recieve from the genes of my parents. There is no evil. There is only natural actions that people do not control because they evolved a certain way. Or is evil just mutated genes acting out? I guess that is a good thing because without mutations we could not evolve.

So Jacoby, what is your problem? All that you see around you is nature acting out. Please take your faith to the logical conclusions. You will quickly come to a dead end.

I find it interesting that the people who unashamedly spout out "get over it" are never those who have been harmed in the least by the agregious offense, and often have received undeserved benefit by way of it.

Yes, you're right, there is bigotry in this country--especially against people who are committed Christians and actually believe there are certain things that are sins---to include lust, homosexuality and abortion. Of course you paint such people as "right wing" nut jobs. Oh well, it's only because of God's grace that you're allowed to have the good things in life that you have now---including your very own web space to toot you're liberal/quasi-atheist viewpoints.

I can hear you giggle Ms Jacoby. You're soooo smart.

I have always used my real name, and have always said atheist beliefs are nothing but foolish, embarrassing nonsense.

I have always stated though that people have the right to believe whatever they wish to believe as long as other people are not hurt in the process.

That said, when atheists like Susan Jacoby want to hop up on their soap box, rambling on about how there is no God anywhere, then be prepared to be SPANKED while on that soapbox.

And SPANKED you have been. Many times now.

Once again, Susan the atheist, you get to explain to the class just how organized, complex, purposeful, and amazing features and things arise from nothing at all, by nobody at all into these organized, complex, purposeful and amazing features and things that make up the entire universe, earth and all life thereon right now.

If the most intelligent men cannot make even simple life from dead matter today (has never been done anywhere at any time); how then can any atheist try pushing on the rest of us that COMPLEX THINGS (including those intelligent men themselves) arose from NO INTELLIGENCE AT ALL, ALL ON THEIR OWN??

This is where the little atheists always do the, "it's time to GET OUT OF DODGE" three step atheist shuffle.

Fine with me if you are agnostic. Fine with me if you throw out the bible. But to say there is NO GOD, NO CREATOR, NO INTELLIGENCE AT ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT WE SEE RIGHT NOW, is sorry, lame and foolishness that always gets artheists TROUNCED again and again.

Just telling it how it is.

With my real name.

Sorry atheists!

Vinny

For the record, I'm happy as can be that Eve ate the "forbidden fruit" and thus brought death and knowledge of good and evil into the mortal world. I don't think curiosity got the best of her or that God was jealous of having them get knowledge. I think He knew exactly what He was doing and that by letting Eve figure out that in order to progress from innocence she/they had to know good and evil, He was showing that choices are necessary for growth, and that opposition is also. Hooray for Eve, and hooray for the growth this world offers us. On the other hand, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," as we see so much here and have seen in Washington as pointed out by Ms. Jacoby.

It must be nice to live in a world where you can make up your morality as you go. What is "too" much for an atheist? Just curious...

God I pray that the mockers of the Truth found in your Christ meet someone who is forlorn and forsaken so they will get a glimpse of the torment awaiting...

i'm knott sure i see a conflict with the idea of knowledge bing the original big sin.... God apparently stated in the 10 commandments that he was a jealous God and worshipping another God before him was a pretty big deal.. i guess most good intentioned people don't realize what they are actually doing when they think they know exactly what another human being should be doing at any given time... i agrre that most of the time at least when it comes to myself.. that i am like adam and eve suddenly deciding 4 themselves that they required clothing. the original sin had nothing 2 dew with apples or snakes or even aquiring much true knowledge... it was the idea that we know more than god that gets us in trouble i suspect... why do we live in a world 2 where human nudity is considered threatening to morales and violence and vilent video games are considered life principles in action... i'm an artist so i'm a little confused by the apparrent rules of proper society, who is making up these rules and i 'll bet we find the second most distructive sin the love of money oover people and God... but then again i'm no great theologion or religioous leader, i'm just an unknown artist with very little to show 4 my efforts in life... but ey do observe and ask some good questions from tyme 2 time

Anonymous says: " There IS a truth and it can only be understood by those who are BORN AGAIN"

Don't you realize that your privileged enlightenment in comparison to the rest of us poor fools is just due to the accident of where and to whom you happened to be born the first time? Do you not have enough intelligence and imagination to admit that if you were born in Riyadh with your same fundamentalist personality that you would have just as strong a conviction that the newest, final revelation is in fact the true one, and that you could only know God through his prophet Mohammed, and that it was all Christians including BORN AGAIN, Jews, and Shia that were in fact hellbound?

Just where do you get your endless supply of self-righteousness? Don't you realize that every religion from time immemorial has claimed that theirs is the only true path to heaven? What makes your claims any different? I'm surprised that you're willing to lower yourself and use a product of the Enlightenment to post your views here, since they clearly come from a time of intolerance when computers did not exist.

Well and righteously said, Ms. Jacoby. It's long been my intuition that Holocaust deniers, in particular, are driven by ENVY of the sympathetic attention and remorseful deference granted by our culture to the Holocaust. How else to explain their persistent "denial" in the face of mountains of evidence, except as an bold attempt to steal the Holocaust from the Jews?

Jeff P:

If you notice, there was no criticism of liberals in my post. Instead, I was making a logical argument that there was no reason for Jacoby to lable anti_semites on this board as from "the right wing".

Sorry to make you cite the Wikipedia for nothing. That being said, the self-described liberals on this board are among the least tolerant folks I have ever encountered. I won't even go into their inabilty to have a rational debate of ideas. They are generally busy coming up with lame zingers, calling people names and citing the Wikipedia when attemoting to define the ideology to which they subscribe.

But what do I know. We conservatives are a bunch of superstitious dummies.

Arminius:

"Well, dude (or dudette), I am liberal. I am also Christian. I am NOT anti-semitic, anti-Islam, or anti much of anything, except for anti-bigot."

I never said all liberals are anti-Semites. In fact, I think a tiny percentage of liberals are anti-Semites.

My point was that Jacoby assumed that all of the anti-Semites on this board are from the "right-wing". It was my point that since the overwhelming majority of posters on this blog are liberal, it is reasonable to assume that most of the anti-Semites are also liberal.

I also pointed out that she is not offended by the same type of bigotry when directed at Christians, as it is frequently on this blog. I don;t think most of the anti-Chritian bigots are conservatives, particularly when they conflate their hatred of Bush and the GOP with their hatred of Christians.

Do you understand the difference, "dude"?

I must respectfully disagree with Susan. Envy is the not the most destructive, that would be greed. Greed is political poison, envy destroys the self. Greed dictates our oppressive policies. America surpassed its needs long ago, our greed for oil and power fuels our catastrophic foreign policy. Greed is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The religious and oil oligarchs that suppress its people are kept in place by American greed.

Greed does not imply simply money. Jewish greed is responsible for their image worldwide. The greed for land to create a religious homeland creates a negative effect for any Jew even if they disagree with this policy. The Jewish religion should not be singled out, all other religions (save for Buddhism) have built themselves up by greed. Fredrick Douglas summarizes this greed created by Christian religious hypocrisy so eloquently in the appendix of his amazing book, "The Narrative". I can do it no justice, I can only implore one to read it. It's theme rings true today, not only in this country, but many countries worldwide.

Arminius, except for still being a Christian, I'm right there with you!

Who's the bigot?:

Well, dude (or dudette), I am liberal. I am also Christian. I am NOT anti-semitic, anti-Islam, or anti much of anything, except for anti-bigot.

Go figure. If you can.

Those above-paragraphs should have been in quotes, they're from Wiki.

Who's the Bigot:

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

Thank goodness for liberals.

The seven deadly sins are all human characteristics and lesser attributes, through and through. We've had millions of years to perfect these attributes - they're all about human survival (these days we could do with a lot less of most, but unfortunately they survive as strong vestigial remainders of earlier 'tooth and nail' survival).

They often result in short term benefits (in spite of a modern idealized world) and they have to be viewed in a sociological context. While everyone claims to revile the seven deadly sins, virtually everyone practices each in their own way (7 is a magical number after all). These are really an integral part of human nature but we've managed to parse them out as individual failings. This is merely a convenient observation.

Sin (however defined) is another (coercive) human invention after all - there is nothing divine whatsoever in sociological principles that are universally cogent, wherever human culture is observed in all it's similarities and differences.

For those that are thumping their bibles, religion and the 'wages of sin' exist as part of the ancient human moral structure and are fully human cultural enterprises - religion is about as native to the planet Earth as anything could possibly be - everything about religion consists of human mental, emotional, and physical artifacts through and through. Historically it's as human as Neanderthal, Homo Erectus and before that Homo Habilus. We might say that religion is as earth-bound as the Rocky Mountains and the High Himalayas.

Looking outward to the stars, we might even imagine the smallness and incompleteness of world-weary religious revelations, for a brief moment in time. We really haven't found our place in the cosmic scheme of things, but the religious faithful prefer to imagine otherwise.

It seems to me that it's functionally impossible to separate these 7 'deadly' attributes, and that they reside together very comfortably - all facets of the same chunk of coal, as it were. On any given day, one looks worse than the others.

Leave it to the religious fundamentalists to find the origins of human nature and it's seven deadly sins in some divine providential Garden of Eden when in fact it's really in your very own DNA.

The notion that the anti-Semites on this board are all from the "right wing" is absurd.

Posters on this blog(and most Post blogs) are overwhelmingly liberal. Odds are most of the anti-Semitic posts are coming from liberals. They are probably the same liberals who trash Christians, although that does not seem to bother you.

Gee, I thought that Jacoby believed that the only real sin was to have any spiritual beliefs that differed from her own.

Pride is the root of envy.

Anonymous, I expect you mean well. I think we get your drift.

Someday, I think you'll find that people are people (good and bad,) and that we're all trying our hardest.

Please trust me on this one thing though: your type of evangelism really doesn't help much on this site, although I know you are "called" to try.

From my stand point: your mission is "accomplished." You've done your job. Please no more about hell, the devil, unworthiness, and the general sinful state of "the world." Most of us have heard quite enough about it.

Garyd, how can a sinless human being have envy? Eating of the forbidden fruit PRODUCED envy. The Apostle Pauls said, "It wasn't Adam who was deceived, but Eve being quite deceived fell into transgression." The devil IS origional sin. All who reject God's Christ prove themselves to be children of the devil and worthy of hell. DO NOT BE DECEIVED! ACCEPT CHRIST JESUS AS YOUR PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOR! You CANNOT be good enough to pass through heaven's door. ONLY at the Cross of Christ Jesus do you find forgiveness.

Ms. Jacoby, stand too your guns. It wasn't curiosity that Drove Adam and Eve to eat of the apple but envy. They envied God's knowledge of Good and evil and Satan played marvelously upon that envy nourishing it every step of the way.

Envy is indeed the root of every other sin.

One last thing in general when the Bible speeks of pride it isn't talking about how you feel when one of your kids preforms exceptionally well or when you feel like you have done a job particularly well. What it is referencing and you got quite close without saying the word though I would have used a different example such as the so-called War on poverty is hubris.

Daniel in the Lion's Den, STOP being silly and reading emotions into a statement where none exist. What I write is the truth plain and simple. Because God gave you a free will YOU can choose to believe it or reject it BUT if you reject it DOESN'T mean its not true. THAT is your other error. Religious and non believers think truth is subjective. NOT TRUE. There IS a truth and it can only be understood by those who are BORN AGAIN. THAT is the great divider between TRUE CHRISTIANITY and the lies of religion. Christ Jesus came into the world to enlighten people through His Born Again experience. And ALL Born Again believers said Amen.

Tis amazing that The Obfuscating Jihadist rants on and on about failings of democracy and capitilism but again fails to note the failings of her warmongering religion and its very flawed, greed-driven founder and foundation.

Islam oozes with this stench of "don't pick on me" because Islam, according to The Jihadist, is the right and only path to heaven.

The only way to remove this stench is a complete "Febrezing"/"deflawing" of the reeking "book of death" aka the koran.

Someone: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb930112.htm

Envy is indeed a poisonous emotion. It can lead one to violate our own moral code in order to cahieve. This is evident today in the American political arena. Huckabee is a Christian Minister who so envies the power of the Presidency that he would forsake his own values.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/02/huckabee-exposed-ambition-overrules-compassion/

I run the risk of posting something that does not add much to the debate, ChuckMCF, but here goes.

In college six of my friends and I decided to dress up as the seven deadly sins on Halloween. we all wanted to be Lust but I won the toss so the coveted sin (the others were all envy, perhaps?) was mine.

I have read in some sources that the fruit has been interpreted to be sex. So Ms. Jacoby is not going completely off on her own when she wrote this.

In the faith tradition of my upbringing we were taught that there were two trees - one was the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2, 17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.) and the tree of Life (Gen. 3, 22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.)

As a Pagan who worships Eve as the voice through which the Goddess speaks to me, I prefer to see the fruit as a choice, a gift. Eve could choose eternal life in ignorance, or mortal life with knowledge. She made the wise choice.

A Pagan world view does not have a concept of sin. One of the other panelists (Gabriel Salguero) wrote that sin alienates us from God. This concept has no place in Pagan thealogy (thea = Goddess as opposed to theo = God) in that divine energy flows through everything. There is no way to extricate ourselves from the Goddess. We may choose to ignore our own divinity, or the divininty of every other thing, but we can not be separate from it.

Pagans certainly do recognize right and wrong, behaviors and attitudes that support the life force and those that degrade it, healing and hurting. but we choose to do the right things because we do recognize that everything is full of divine energy and to willingly cause harm would be an insult to all that is sacred.

Evil exists, sin does not.

Thanks.

A jerk is a jerk.

I've often tried to scan reader comments to a variety of columns, but usually came away with a realization of how much moronic behavior is given licence by internet posting opportunities.

My thanks to you for naming what these posts truly are... an affront to civilization and acall, rather, to barbarism of the worse order.

Bob N

Dear "Someone:"

What a fabulous example of bigotry shielded by anonymity.

I am not biased against "Christians" or "Jews" or "Muslims." I am biased against your kind of Christian, your kind of Jew, your kind of Muslim--people who believe in the absolute truth of every line in books written thousands of years ago by fallible human beings. I don't in any way believe that your views reflect the views of the majority of Christians in this country. Honorable Christians, like honorable non-Christians, stand up for what they believe and don't hide in the shadows of the Internet.

Someone:

One only needs to read your witty, sarcastic, whimsically "sophistocated" remards to be reminded all over again about how easy it is to be "biased" against Christianity. You're a shining example.

God bless you too, "sweetheart." Keep on "chuckling!"

DontTypeLies is an example of the worst type of nonthinking theist. She or he does not advance an argument, or try to build a case against Jacoby. Donttpelies just calls her names. Very fruitful. Advances the discussion no end. At least she or he didn't USE ALL CAPS in an effort to scream her/his maledictions.

DZ:

Let me join the others here and express my sympathy to you on the loss of your wife.

Also, excellent response to Nck B.

Susan Jacoby,
Thanks very much for your insights, knowledge (including the literary gems), and comraderie expressed in your posts, with the encouragement for commenters to use language well and to try and quit the bigotry. As a member of a minority Christian faith, I can relate. It was a treat to read your comments about Eve and her curiosity being a virtue--splendid observation!

To anonymous and "Don't Type",
Since Susan herein has practiced teachings of the Sermon on the Mount much moreso than your comments, and I assume you consider her a "stranger", then it would seem to me that she is among those of whom Matt. 25:40 and Isaiah 53:6 are speaking, and that you may want to re-think how your comments have treated her. But we're all learning. Peace to you.

Susan Jacoby: "Many biblically illiterate fundamentalists are under the mistaken impression that sex was the original sin."

WOW, where did you hear that from? I've been a Christian most of my life, and I have to honestly say that I've NEVER heard that one before. I have, however, heard that pride or disobedience was the first sin, or pride that led to disobedience. But you are the first person to ever reveal to me the idea that sex might have been the first sin. Not that it really matters in the scope of things. It just struck me as odd.

Oh, and I have to say that I chuckled at your sly remark about fundamentalist Christians. I think it is so funny that Christians bug you SO much that you feel you must slam them every chance you get. It sorta reminds me of a teacher I had. He HATED what I believed in, and thought I was the most arrogant SOB alive. And I relished the fact that I was constantly on his mind, 24/7, figuring out "brilliant" on-liners that he thought made him look intelligent and sophisticated. I was the most important person in his life! So I couldn't help but laugh at him. It seems as though every essay you write, you feel you must add your snood, unnecessary remarks about Christians. Even after you speak about bigots! I think the only bigot here is you sweetheart. People, isn't it amazing how controlling someone's bias can be? Bias is a more controlling force than crack. Susan, can I challenge you to post one comment or one essay that has NOTHING to do with your bias towards Christians? I know it will be hard, but you can do it!!!

God bless!!!

Thanks for the post. I'm not sure which of the cardinal sins are worse... If I had to put one out there, I'd name "certainty."

And thanks to Chris Everett, whose posts I always enjoy and learn from.

Not to name names, but Angela B comes to mind as the "anonymous" poster above, given her status of "true christian." Generally all I read about from her is the damnation we face as non-believers, but I have to confess I think she writes with a genuine concern. She might not like us as people, but maybe, deep inside, she does have some concern for our "souls."

I agree with much of what you have written in this post, an interesting topic. My only quibble is with your statement on the point of the first amendment. The first amendment has long been used to protect a right of anonymous speech and assembly. It may in some cases be cowardly not to claim your statements, but in other circumstances it is a necessity. Early civil rights groups and other entities needed the 1st amendment's secrecy protections to protect members' identities from their societies and sometimes governments who would have persecuted them.

DONTTYPELIES

You seem bitter. Maybe there is alot to be bitter about. But you are letting it get the better of you.

As I get older and older, I see how my friends and relatives are, and what they are becoming. Many of them look back with remorse and recrimination, and they look ahead with foreboding. Some of them are developing a perpetual scowl on their faces, and a harsh tone in their voices, which they retain, even when they are in a light-hearted mood.

I look at them, and I think, "I do not ever want to be a person like that." No matter what has happened or may happen, it is sad and a waste, to squander all that you do have on bitterness.

Dear Chris Everett

You are exactly right!

I just want to know who appointed Susan Jacoby as an authority on these issues. Another person who has the same opinion I guess.

Well, the time has come where the free people call it like we see it. Even if it doesn't fit into the liberal fantasy world.

Your fantasy worlds were created by you. And I refuse to live in your fluffy dream.

There is stabiity in the truth, although the truth is ugly, it is what it is.

Graffitti? Oh, when all else fails, make up insults right?

Greed, greed, greed!!!!

And you can measure it:

Enron: lost jobs, 4,500 and a loss of $80 billion

WorldCom: lost jobs, 17,000 jobs and a loss of $100 billion.

Qwest Communications: lost jobs, 11,000 and a loss of $32 billion.

Sunnis ("Wannabees") vs. Shiites (Iran): 80,000 Iraqi citizens killed and $ 200++ billion to prevent added blood shed in the obvious greed for oil in the 800 year-old blood feud.

I say - Keep the Bigots Coming!!!

One of the interesting characteristics of venues like this is that it shines a light on the continuum of human attitudes and beliefs. It's easy to take the most extreme posts and call them noise, but in reality, no man is a villian in his own mind, and its useful to see what passes for reason and conviction in our species. For example, take the Anonymous post above that begins with "Forlorn and Forsaken." To me, that poster is a nut. But he clearly sees himself (herself) as filled with the divine truth.

On the temple at Delphi are inscribed the words "Know Thyself" and "Measure is All". As a species, exposure to bigots, fundamentalists and ignoramuses helps us to know ourselves, using the safe and benign medium of a newspaper blog. Regarding "Measure is All" I recommend restraint against engaging posters (Canyon Shearer comes to mind) that aren't interested in honest, respectful dialogue. I have fallen into that trap myself (with Canyon!) and realize that all it does is monopolize the thread. Other than that, it's just words.

And besides, the On Faith contrubutors themselves can be just as bad, like the contributor (I forget who it was) who essentially said that Jews and Christians should team up "to oppose all forms of Paganism". That one pissed me off, and is no different from a call to, say, oppose Jews everywhere.

There are no virtues or vices, only might.

Anonymous, above, was practiclly salivating as he savored the future suffering of the wicked, on God's behalf. But that is not God's will, but the human will of the person who wrote it. These words were not inspired by God, but were the ill-will of one little man towards his fellow man. If that is religious commentary, then that is why atheists may often seem so hostile towards relgion and religious people.

And Nick B's comments were dripping with arrogant Catholic superiority. He did not identify himself as a Catholic, but I am from a very, very small town, with 12 churches, and it is not hard to identify which negative ways of thinking match up to each particular Christian sect.

Even if you do not agree with Susan's essay, I would hardly call it a "shoddy piece of trash." To say such a thing is just plain mean and spiteful. Such a comment probably covers a whole bunch of those "seven deadly sins" though it is not worth my trouble to anyalyze which ones.

The error is to think Christian virtues are for those who reject God and His Christ. You can no more 'do' (greek deffinition NOT english) God's will than a pack of dog's play cards around a card table. So why in the world are you upset? If you know any born again Christian's they will be telling you the same thing. The same happened in Jesus day when the Pharisee's ruled. They are here today too in the form of Mormons, JWs and Muslims and the multitude of religious churchs that call themselves Christian who want to form you in 'their' image. THAT is their error and your's if you follow. Jesus said it to them I say it to you. You MUST be born again.

Susan,
Interesting take on the vices. I am Christian, but protestant, and don't pay much attention to that list of don'ts, I just try to live as the Gospels teach me. On to your other half of the post: a splendid slam on the bigots. Two thumbs up!

Nick B,
You were way out of line. You should apologize.

Ryan,
Good reply to Nick B.

DZ,
Likewise a good reply to Nick B, and I, too, am really sorry for your loss.

The tree in the Garden of Eden is often described as the "tree of knowledge" by theologians and biblical scholars because of the following passage in Genesis:

"And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then shall your eyes be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
(Genesis 3:2-5)

The root of "original sin" was, therefore, curiosity. And that's why many theologians view pride as the original sin--pride that led Eve to want to know what God knew. Again I say: good for her. Many biblically illiterate fundamentalists are under the mistaken impression that sex was the original sin.

To the blogger who noted that the "seven deadly sins" are not acts but feelings, kudos. I wish I'd thought to put it that way myself. Take lust. It can lead to rape, a grievous crime in secular moral terms and a sin in theological terms. Or it can lead to the highest expression of love between a man and a woman. As Nick B. to whom I also extend my condolences on the death of his wife of 37 years, so eloquently pointed out.

DZ, I'm really sorry for your recent loss.

Nick B.,

St. Ignatius Loyola taught that it is an act of charity to interpret another's actions and words in the best possible light.

Naturally, coming from a secularist and/or atheist vision, Ms. Jacoby is going to be mistaken on a range of issues. But not on all. Ms. Jacoby is not likely as well educated about the Christian tradition(s) as she may think; nor is she as educated in the traditions at all, probably. Why should she be? She isn't a Christian. But the question wasn't addressed only to Christians, nor were the answers intended to be catechetical statements. She isn't a catechist.

She simply did what all the respondents will do: pick out of the list the ones that seem the worst to them, and maybe discuss the others in passing.

A singularly ineffective approach to any conversation is to find all the things wrong with another's views and then to personally and harshly scold the other for being less clearsighted, perfect, or whatever than oneself.

Nick B.

The primary irresponsible thing here is your unprincipled personal attack on Ms. Jacoby. She is an atheist as am I and as are many others who post here. I assure you that our goal is NOT to pursue the theological virtues. We don't believe in god and, therefore, 'love in god' is meaningless and inapplicable to our lives.

What is it that gives you the gall to claim that someone else is uninformed? What is the basis for your concept of the meaning of these terms? I hate to break it to you, but there is no empirical, definitive meaning to the words in the so called Seven Deadly Sins. Further, your statement about what constitutes a 'prudent life' is based on what? Things that many of us do not believe? What? We don't believe in your mystical absolutes - morality comes exclusively from humans not from some supernatural something.

As an example, my wife of 37 years died on December 22. BUT, I lusted for her to the bitter end, I envied her sense of justice, proportionality and freedom, I was greedy for her company, she and I were foodies so we were probably gluttonous, I was proud of her courage in the face of terminal illness, I was angry at the unfairness of life. I have been slothful since she died because I can hardly bear to go on without her. So, I have committed the 7 deadlies. So what? I have had as good and honest and rewarding and 'prudent' a life as anyone I know.

Your holier than thou crap is really offensive.

Au contraire, Nick B., Susan was right on target!

You say: "The goal of life is to move towards the Theological virtues".

That may be true for you, but it certainly isn't true for everyone. The term itself "Theological virtues" is an oxymoron to me.

This article was incredibly uninformed. The ignorance of the author is truly irresponsible. She does not use the correct definition of the terms she seeks to speak on.
A little more work and some deliberate study on the topics one writes about seems to me a prudent practice.
Shame on you Susan Jacoby for this shoddy piece of trash.
The seven deadly sins are to be viewed in light of the cardinal virtues: Fortitude, Temperance, Justice and held together by Wisdom. The goal of life is to move towards the Theological virtues: faith, hope and love in God.
Madam Jacoby has completely misrepresented the practice of a prudent life by avoiding the deadly sins by deceiving her readers into thinking they are allowed to do some of these things because it seems right in light of life's circumstances.
This article was weak, please refrain from such irresponsible journalism Jacoby, shame on you.

BRAVA susan!!

A stinging rebuke of bigotry, hatred and cowardice.

One possible solution is to ask all adult posters to ignore responding in any way to the lunatics.

That is the pigeon theory.

Please post your tour de force on the Faith blog.It too, could use a dose of sanity.

I am happy to have joined this group!

david

In my lifetime, I have calculated that I have attended church about 1,500 times. That is really alot. Yet, I have never heard the "seven deadly sins" discussed in church, or mentioned, even one time. It is something left over from Medeival times, possibly Catholic.

The "seven deadly sins" may have been passed down to the modern day as some sort of antiquated Christian heritage, but I am not so sure it means much now, in a Christian context.

Still, it ia an interesting list, worth a good discussion. I agree that it is difficult to have a discussion here, with all the background noise of cranks, crackpots, fanatics, and bigots commenting, which Susan amusingly compared to grafitti.

Forlorn and forsaken. Sadly most of humanity will live eternity in that state. Forlorn and forsaken with NO hope of escape. Then in that pit you will seek God with ALL your heart because you will know He is the only who can get you out but THEN it will be too late. He will not hear you, nor will those Love Jesus now. Then you will remember that last glass of delicious water that even the wealthiest there will NOT be able to purchace. Now God speaks that universal cry to humanity he said after Adam fell in the garden, "Adam, where are you?!?
God has and is finding those who are His. Then the tables will be turned and you will be seeking Him. Then it will be too late. Seek Him now while He can be found!

Isaiah 55:1

"Ho ! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost.
55:2
"Why do you spend money for what is not bread, And your wages for what does not satisfy ? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good , And delight yourself in abundance.
55:3
"Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live ; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David.
55:4
"Behold, I have made him a witness to the peoples, A leader and commander for the peoples.
55:5
"Behold, you will call a nation you do not know, And a nation which knows you not will run to you, Because of the LORD your God, even the Holy One of Israel; For He has glorified you."
55:6
Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near.
55:7
Let the wicked forsake his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the LORD, And He will have compassion on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.

the handbook for moral relativism.

Susan,

I really enjoyed your post on this matter. First, I want to second everything you wrote about the Holocaust, antisemitism, and about bigtory against Muslims.

Second, I want to point out something about the Seven Deadly Sins that is elusive because of their names. Most of the names of the deadly sins are shared by emotions. So a distinction must be made.

Anger, as an emotion, is not a sin.
Pride, as an emotion, is not a sin.
Sloth, as a physical or emotional state, or taken to mean a state of relaxation, is not a sin.
Lust, as a state of physical arousal, is not a sin.

But the points you made about the other 3, Susan, kinda show how the first four can be sinful. In discussing Greed, you discussed it as an attitude or an habitual inclination of the will, one might say; rather than as a simple desire for something, or for more.

Let's take that as our point of departure and we'll see what the Church has meant in speaking of these as Deadly Sins.

Anger (not as a feeling of indignation at wrongdoing, or a passionate in the face of aggression or danger) but as a general inclination of our will, or as an attitudinal lens through which we see life - well, that sort of Anger is a very ugly and destructive thing. We all see it everywhere. People whose first response to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is anger are not fun people to be around, to put it mildly. They react violently (physically or verbally) not only to small injustices like being butted in front of in line, but waitresses who are a bit slow, children behaving like children, their own clumsiness.

Lust (not as a state of physical arousal or normal, healthy levels of sexual attraction) as an attitude or habitual inclination of the will whereby other people, any other person, maybe even mere material objects become tools for one's own gratification - especially, but not only, sexual gratification. That's why we can speak of a powerlust, coincidentally, or a wanderlust. Lust, as an attitude or habituation inclination of the will, reduces people to objects. Who wants to be treated like an object?

Sloth (not in the sense of relaxing, taking it easy, or taking a breather) is an attitude of not caring. It is apathy. Remember, the Ten Commandments demand a full day of rest - chill time - each week. This day of rest is important in the 24/7 go-go-go sort of world that is rising up around us, as Susan pointed out. It's a good reminder that the world doesn't depend on me. That's not sloth. That's healthy. Sloth is the attitude or habitual inclination of the will that just doesn't care about goodness. It is seeing a good thing, and without even making excuses, saying, "So?" Some things are common goods - goods we all need and to some extent share, like food, clothing, shelter, environment, healthy economy, public safety, etc. Some goods are good for me, but not necessarily for others, like "clothes for shortish men." Some goods are more absolute even if we are not sure exactly where they lie or even if they will be a bit different in each case, like health and justice. But the slothful person, sitting on his couch, just doesn't care. Sloth is the deadly sin by which most otherwise good-enough men and women just can't be bothered to fight injustice or to stand up against wrongdoing. Not because they are busy fighting other causes. But because they don't care enough.

Pride (not in an accomplishment or sense of satisfaction with oneself or one's work or children) as an attitude of self-centeredness. The prideful person is his or her own center of gravity. For that person, life (and everyone else) revolves around himself. The more prideful, the more completely so. For such people, one's own desires trump over anything else: their "loved ones", the structure of the universe, justice, society's greater needs - even their own genuine self-interest. A prideful enough person will literally overturn heaven and earth to get his way. We've all been around people with immense egos. We've all had times of life where our own egos were superinflated. Such people need "to be stroked" and can easily be manipulated by subtle flattery. This sense is the sense in which the Church has said Pride is the root of all sins.

I also have to agree with Susan about Envy. She pretty much nailed the definition, as far as I can tell. Of all the deadly sins, it's been the one that has most undermined my efforts to be a good person. It has damaged relationships, left me with that sick feeling she described, and robbed me of the much more pleasant peace and joy that comes from its opposite: Gratitude.

Susan, it's a pleasant experience to agree with you and your articulate views.

It wasn't the "tree of knowledge." Perhaps what undermined Christianity for you was your reading skills. Maybe?

Jihadist,

I really liked you first post.

There is no such thing as sin. The essence of the concept of sin is not the act of sin itself but the threat of supernatural retribution. The whole idea of sin is morally corrosive because it distracts from the cultivation of conscience in favor of self preservation.

For me, morality is founded in empathy – understanding that your suffering is no different from my suffering, and that all actions should be taken for the greatest good. Susan is right to point out that envy is the one “sin” that by its nature creates a separation between “self” and “other”. That’s the REAL root of all evil.

EJDALISE said : "But mostly is is now used by cowardly persons to spout venomous comments in anonymity."

Yes, some dastardly ones have a fun-time with my given first name - Julia to Jewlia :)

Sometimes, putting one's real name can be cause for more merry-making among the more invective prone posters.

What if one is named Lucy Furr? Johnny B. Goode is not so bad, but one will be constantly reminded not to commit any of the Seven Sins and to live by the Ten Commandments.

I agree with Ejdalise and Robert C Haskell on what said in their posts. But there is no avoiding bigots anywhere in the world. They are the first ones to scream on their rights to freedom of speech. People seething with hatred and rage have so much energy. Is hatred and rage an andrenalin? Or, is it something that can't be controlled by some?

We can temper and check all the seven sins. But is anger, rage and bigotry the other sins we can't or won't temper and control within us?

Ms. Susan Jacoby once wrote that "anger" can be a good thing. Yes, if channeled positively into transforming positive acts such as abolishing slavery, putting an end to racial and gender inequality, preventing environmental degradation. But for some, it is very, very, very destructive to others and themselves when they vent their anger.

The trouble with the ones who look back in anger, the problem with the angry ones with what is happening now, is that, most would not and could not look beyond and to work to move forward. So many fears, so many uncertainties, so much lack of trust and faith in themselves and others to contend with. They demand a lot of our attention and take a lot of our time in drawing us, in forcing us to deal with them.

When someone call one a "terrorist" or "moron" in a blog, he is just screaming for your attention any which way he can. Of course, an expression of sheer frustration too.

Thank you and best regards

"J"

You have touched on something I've often spoken, and written about. The use of pseudonyms is sometimes justified when worried about repercussion from one's own social and work networks because of certain beliefs (or non-beliefs).

But mostly is is now used by cowardly persons to spout venomous comments in anonymity. There is no courtesy, consideration, or decency when one can hurl insults with impunity, secure in the knowledge that their own identity will not be touched by the mud they so freely sling.

Sadly, there is little discourse that can occur when such vermin prowl with impunity. These people are not interested in having their narrow view of the world challenged. They just want to hear themselves roar, mistaking anonymous postings for courage of conviction. I think at some level they must be aware of their own ugliness, but that certainly does not excuse their behavior.

ejd

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

I am sorry to say it but I am afraid there are a lot more bigots in this country than anyone realizes. As I am sure you know, they attack not only Jews but also people of color, immigrants, women, gays, liberals, etc. I do not know how much danger they pose. But I hope they will not discourage you from continuing to write your articles. They are great.

Ms. Susan Jacoby stated:

"I am certain, for example, that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were motivated by a compound of envy and hatred. Bringing down the World Trade Center, a symbol of successful western capitalism, obviously did nothing to help the millions of Muslims who live in poverty around the world because their countries are run by religious fanatics or oil-rich oligarchs. But the attack certainly showed those greedy westerners that they could be brought low!"

Oh, let's get political then. With some of the seven sins thrown in. I am not too sure about "envy" in the 9/11 attack of the World Trade Centre. Hatred yes. And anger. And to get "attention".

Millions of poor Muslims in poor developing and third world countries, being poor, were and are largely untouched by western capitalism (as in investments and loans) before and after 9/11.

Except, of course, when Muslim states such as Afghanistan and Iraq became the battlefields in the "war on terror" (instead of "war against terrorists") to protect the "homeland" against those who hated America's freedom and democracy. And Muslims die killing each other for barely understood motives and intentions by the poor.

Perhaps we are forgetting that Muslims, ironically, are the bulwark against communism which effectively bled the Soviet Union in the eighties during the Soviet invasion there. With the help of the Mujahideen, armed with weapons funded by US, and channelled through Pakistan of course. And training camps for the Mujahideen too with some American "advisers" on hand.

And, ah yes, with the Database (Al Qaeda) as a child of that fight in Afghanistan for democracy and freedom in the determining hot war of the Cold War and its final outcome of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc collapsing. The Database (Al Qaeda) is not exactly started by the poor envying the rich or envying the west. More accurate to say it was and is, resentment.

It would seem that currently, the American frontline away from the homeland to fight for "freedom and democracy" is currently in Afghanistan and Iraq against those who "hated" American "freedoms".

And now, President Bush is trying to rally and array the small Gulf states against Iran. And selling weapons to them and Saudi Arabia too against this threat to their countries' freedom and democracy? So, are we saying Muslim states and people are not to practice democracy themselves, but to protect and defend that of Israel and America?

In this "war on terror" it would surely be most inconvenient for democracy to be in place and elections to be held in the Middle Eastern Muslim countries in case Muslims voted in nationalistic governments which may be less amendable to America' political, economic and security interests.

I am sure the people in the small Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are thrilled to be the designated front-line, first line of defence or offence against Iran to protect freedom and democracy in America and Israel. I am sure they are thrilled contemplating on possible attacks launched against Iran from their countries hosting American military bases, and be the recipients of any military retaliations on their people and country.

I am sure Muslims in undemocratic but friendly regimes towards US interests in protecting its capitalism, freedom and democracy would be delighted to bear the consesquence of this noble fight. If the manufactured one is really believed and with some mad dogs or war and war mongering from both sides just itching to pull the trigger and set off getting at one another.

Interesting is it not, that in this century, Muslims have had to pay the price in so many ways for the fight for American homeland's security, freedom, democracy and capitalism in the Middle East.

Surely Muslims are only too happy to kill each other and be called barbarians by Americans whose freedom, democracy and capitalism they are fighting and dying for, but purportedly for their own freedoms and democracy.

The American troops knows they are fighting for America in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Muslims in those countries are really messed up, politically, economically, socially. Ravaged by wars mentally and physically. In bodies. In mind. In infrastructure. Who and what are they fighting for? Who and what are they fighting against? Who will benefit? Them or others?

Is this about - What are you doing to us? Why are you doing this to us? Why are we going against one another? Who brought us to this state? Why is our well-being secondary to theirs?

This is about a world messed with and messed up with or without consent.

This is about pride in one's own values and beliefs and not those of others.

This is about lust for everything one thinks one is entitled to at the expense of others.

This is about anger in not getting one's way and what one see as unjust.

This is about sloth in not fully understanding what one is getting into and not finishing off what one started.

This is about envy of what others have and one wanted but is deprived of equal chance, opportunity and access.

This is about gluttony of wanting and having what one already has, don't really need, can control in consuming, and one knows one being wasteful.

This is about greed of wanting more and more for oneself regardless of the cost to others, the needs of others and oneself.

We are all clueless and selfish and self-centred and self-absorbed in minor and major ways. Perhaps ignorance and lack of empathy should be listed as additional sins.

Thank you and best regards

"J"