The Mind-Body Connection

And Mr Mark, just in case you took it literally, I do NOT write to the Pope or the Vatican to respond to any comment. I was only pulling your legs. I am a liberal Catholic who had a very liberal English Benedictine monk as a spiritual guide for nearly nine years and have known only extremely liberal Catholics. Having been brought up in a multi-religious atmosphere in India and having attended a school for eight years which consciously drilled the importance of national unity in diversity, acceptance of different religious view points is natural to me. Anti-theism is just another view point.

Dear Mr Mark and "not sorry atheist" Gerry

Since this discussion is finally closed, I wish you leave you both with a beautiful quote I found on the thread of Andy Bachman's blog (July 1, 2008 6:05 AM) :

"Faith comes about in a collision of an unending passion for Truth and the failure to attain it by one's own means." -- Heschel

Wishing you both happiness always!

Not sorry believer

Soja

Mr Mark:

Soja writes:

"the quality and result of a communication should also be judged by the receiver."

Message received loud and clear.

I will no longer comment on or respond to your posts.

I would ask that you return the courtesy.

Enjoy.

June 29, 2008 1:31 PM

==========================================

Dear Mr Mark

Now you have gone and proved how limited Gerry's theory is! It is partially correct though. Now I modify it thus: it is not enough to know how the message is received but also to know what the sender of the message actually meant, especially if the reaction is completely inappropriate to the intention of the message as meant by the sender.

Didn't I say any theory is good only until more data comes in to disprove it? That is why science provides such a limited vision of reality and values. I can't build any eternal truth based on the shifting sands of scientific truth alone. Therefore I need religion, quite simply out of necessity.

This is a public forum in which only ideas are being exchanged. I do not take any atheist's criticism about theism or believers personally. So you must rest assured that I did not imply that you should not respond to my posts because I'm offended by your posts or whatever. I was referring to the tone of your anti-theistic rants in general, an example of which I posted here. You don't use such a tone with me at all. You are always reasonable in the way you pose your questions to me. (I'm not a regular blogger hence I'm unable to participate in any ongoing discussion.) Consider me a moth who attempts to snuff out the flame of *anti-theism* (not the anti-theist!) occasionally. Anti-theists seem to believe in many fairy tales concerning religions and believers. Unraveling those fairy tales and shining the torch of reason concerning what believers and religion is really about, to increase understanding is what I would like to be about. It would be wonderful if in the process I managed to "convert" an anti-theist to an ordinary atheist who can accept a believer's right to believe in and worship a coconut tree as God if they so chose. But as a sporadic poster it is impossible for me to develop any theme of discussion, and worst of all I find myself repeating everything I have written dozens of times. So the incentive to remain in an ongoing discussion doesn't exist. An occasional impulsive remark once in a while is all I can manage.

The "God knows" response to your question was actually the most accurate one anyone could give you. Who else but God would know where the Neanderthals are? I believe God judges people based on their level of consciousness, each one's idea of right and wrong and actions that hurt oneself and others based on what we know.

You are free to respond to my posts (should I post comments) any time you like. I have responded to this post of yours only to clear the misunderstanding, in the hope you may stop by and read it someday.

Ready to declare peace?

unable to post

testing

Gerry: "But then, why turning to the existing Catholic church, even to the Pope with his very doubtful historical legitimation?"

Gerry

Jesus did choose Peter as the Apostle on whom He promised to build His Church. We also read in the Gospel about Jesus asking Peter three times if he loved Jesus and being instructed to take care of the sheep and lambs. It is a symbolic reference to Peter's role.

That aside, I love the idea of being part of a universal Church, the teachings of which are no different from my own, even if rituals are somewhat different, my denomination following the Syrian rite from the East and the Latin one from Rome in the West. Being in union with the Roman Catholic Church gives me the advantage of attending the same Mass and celebrating all the Sacraments and feasts anywhere in the world, and feeling a part of a worldwide community rather than being restricted to a small group (however special)in Kerala, India.

There is a treasure house of spirituality and culture in the Catholic Church for anyone who cares to seek it. With Vatican Council II, the Church opened itself and came to respect the value of other paths to God. That leaves me with incredible freedom.

I spent one week in Rome in 1991 and it left an unforgettable impression on me. The history of Christianity in the first three *hundred* years filled with martyrdom, the traces of which are to be seen in Rome, cannot fail to move any Christian. Seeing the collosseum where at least some Christians were killed providing public entertainment, the catacomb...all told a story of courage and faith beyond imagination. Then the mind boggling Christian art, architecture, music etc of Rome and Vatican...the Western civilization that it gave birth to, how could I as a Catholic not be impressed?

No the Church was never perfect. Its political abuse of power is enough to make Catholics feel ashamed. But that does not rob it of its glory.
The church is alive today with 1.3 billion followers worldwide, so no one country can destroy the Catholic Church. That is why I mentioned my love of Germany in my post to Mr Mark. I know its good and bad sides and love it, not in the abstract as a result of book knowledge. I mentioned it as a comparison because Catholic bashing seems to be a favourite sport with some people, a phenomenon I encountered for the first time on this forum. If you enjoy the bashing party...shrug. I have not been exposed to it in real life at any time and what is happening on this forum leaves me completely amazed but not feeling ashamed of being Catholic. Quite the contrary. A Catholic fool is a mighty good fool to be.

The Protestant Churches have some wonderful spiritual insights too. As a Catholic nothing prevents me from learning from them. I have never been taught to hate Protestants, and I have had several very good Protestant friends who have enriched me beyond words with their spiritual sharing and their sheer goodness.

So that was an essay answer to a very simple question. I hope you may never ever have to wonder why a Catholic remains a Catholic by choice.

Gerry: But then, why turning to the existing Catholic church, even to the Pope with his very doubtful historical legitimation?"

Soja: Jesus did choose Peter as the Apostle on which He promised to build His Church. We also read in the Gospel about Jesus asking Peter three times if he loved Jesus and being instructed to take care of the sheep and lambs. It is a symbolic reference to Peter's role.

That aside, I love the idea of being part of a universal Church, the teachings of which are no different from my own, even if rituals are somewhat different, my denomination following the Syrian rite from the East and the Latin one from Rome in the West. Being in union with the Roman Catholic Church gives me the advantage of attending the same Mass and celebrating all the Sacraments and feasts anywhere in the world.

There is a treasure house of spirituality and culture in the Catholic Church for anyone who cares to seek it. With Vatican Council II, the Church opened itself and came to respect the value of other paths to God. That leaves me with incredible freedom.

I spent one week in Rome in 1991 and it left an unforgettable impression on me. The history of Christianity in the first three *hundred* years filled with martyrdom, cannot fail to move any Christian. Seeing the collossueum where at least some Christians were killed providing public entertainment, the catacomb...all told a story of courage and faith beyond imagination. Then the mind boggling Christian art, architecture, music etc of Rome and Vatican...the Western civilization that it gave birth to, how could I as a Catholic not be impressed?

No the Church was never perfect. Its political abuse of power is enough to make Catholics feel ashamed. But that does not rob it of its glory.
The chur

And: (...the fact that ono additional "religious brain")....you say "hence proves there is such a thing as a spiritual experience INDEPENDENT of the workings of a normal physical brain.

You could use your stance to prove exactly the contrary, namely, that there is no experience, "spiritual" or otherwise, working outside a "normal physical brain".

June 29, 2008 7:09 AM

Mr Mark:

RNH writes:

"It's amazing to me that people miss the love of God by holding Christians and Christianity to a standard they would never hold anything else to."

You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

We hold Xianity to the SAME standard we hold everything else.

That is where Xianity comes up short.

That is why it can't be considered truth.

The "truths" of Xianity cannot compete with the truths of reality, the proven facts of science and the awful delimiter of truth that is logic and reason. Xianity - and all beliefs in the supernatural - need a special pleading to make their case, a pleading reality doesn't ask for and doesn't need.

Xians call this special pleading many things, and demonstrate it every day in their lives: dispensationalism; faith; miracles; ancient knowledge; god knows; cherry picking the Bible; willful ignorance of scientific fact; etc.

No, RNH, your Biblical truth and knowledge can't stand up to the standards of truth and knowledge that it takes to refine a gallon of gas or to design a computer. Your "truths" are on the level of fable and fairy tale. That doesn't mean that there aren't messages to hear and lessons to be learned from these fables, but to imagine that their supernatural underpinnings are the stuff of history and reality are the beliefs of fools.

Be happy in your foolishness, RNH. You truly are a fool for Christ.

June 29, 2008 11:25 PM

Soja writes:

"the quality and result of a communication should also be judged by the receiver."

Message received loud and clear.

I will no longer comment on or respond to your posts.

I would ask that you return the courtesy.

Enjoy.

Soja,

thanks for your biography and religious ancestry, a very interesting and new information for me.

But then, why turning to the existing Catholic church, even to the Pope with his very doubtful historical legitimation?

And: (...the fact that there is no additional "religious brain")....you say "hence proves there is such a thing as a spiritual experience INDEPENDENT of the workings of a normal physical brain.

You could use your stance to prove exactly the contrary, namely, that there is no experience, "spiritual" or otherwise, working outside a "normal physical brain".

Gerry: "Your "spiritual intuition" is also based on nothing, just an ideological claim of yours. You don't have an additional "faith brain" for such experiences."

June 28, 2008 1:33 PM

==================================

Gerry

That is the whole point, if there was such a thing as "faith brain" spiritual experiences would not be spiritual at all. They would be the activity of a physical faith brain, which as you yourself admit doesn't exist, hence proving there is such a thing as a spiritual experience independent of the workings of a normal physical brain.

I was the Anonymous at 10:53 PM (28 June)

Gerry

The historical basis of my faith is very very simple. I have a very unspectacular "unmixed" background. My Hindu ancestors supposedly practiced the oldest form of Hinduism, the most orthodox form of Vedic religion and they belonged to the priestly class, Nambudiri Brahmins. Then in 52 AD, Apostle Thomas, the very same Apostle the Doubter (whom I have referred to as the scientist in this forum) came to Kerala along the well established spice route, also to reach out to the community of Jews who lived there. Apostle Thomas impressed some Brahmins (including my Hindu ancestors) and other high caste Hindus of that time with his miracles and teachings of Jesus. At a very high price my ancestors were among those who gave up the privilege of their Hindu high caste status to become Christians (for they were all promptly ex-communicated). However the newly converted Christians did not give up their Hindu social customs. They married only within the same Hindu caste from which they originated and did not proselytize and remained a closed community for fifteen centuries. Only when the Jesuit missionary Francis Xavier came did Kerala come in contact with the Catholic Church of Rome. Until then they had followed a Syro-Aramaic liturgy which is known as the Syrian rite. Francis Xavier was responsible for mass conversions of even the poor. His converts came to be known as Latin Catholics and they follow the Latin rite of Rome. Some of the
Apostle Thomas converts to Christianity agreed to the communion with Rome while retaining their autonomy and their Syrian rite liturgy. One such group was named the Syro-Malabar Church and I'm a member of it. By tradition nobody converts to the Syro-Malabar Church because it signifies an ethnic and historical identity. Hence there are very few Syro-Malabar churches outside Kerala, and those which do exist only cater to Syro-Malabar Keralites.

As proof of how unspectacular my family background is:

My family had lived within a few kilometers of the original Hindu family in a remote village for nineteen and a half centuries. All our relatives are within fifty Kms! My father was the first to venture out with his family. I was eight years old when he did. My father insisted on being buried in our native village when he died and that is what we did a little over eleven years ago.

Moral of the story: Christianity did not come to my people through any Council but by an Apostle of Jesus Christian, namely Thomas who was the most skeptical of all the Apostles. The frantic historical search for evidence of Jesus and His teachings has no relevance to my Christian faith. No Nambudiri Brahmin would have given up his faith and suffered ex-communication if Apostle Thomas had not made a good case for Jesus Christ. That case I take by faith (it requires no special spiritual intuition on my part) because there is no reason for Christianity to sprout in far away India out of the blue among staunch Hindu Brahmins without a historical background to it. In Edessa, Syria, supposedly where the remains of Apostle Thomas is buried, he is venerated as the Apostle of India.

I did NOT claim to possess any spiritual intuition. I was referring to founders of religions (e.g. Jewish prophets, Buddha and Hindu sages etc Jesus is the Son of God and so I do not refer to Him as a spiritual teacher) and great spiritual leaders. The last time I checked I did not found any religion and neither am I a spiritual teacher of any sort. Mine is ordinary knowledge which has to do with my biography.

Thank you for giving me permission to derive my good feelings from religion. I grant you permission to remain a "non-sorry atheist," and derive your good feelings from atheism.

The discussion on this thread has long come to end, don't you agree? I don't want Mr Mark to think I'm a moth who can't get away from the flames of atheists.

PS Mr Mark, since I'm a Christian who happens to have read the Bible and am aware of the teachings and life of Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament, I have no need to duck any question regarding Christianity as a religion. As a member of Syro-Malabar Church in communion with RCC only for the past 400 years, and still retains autonomy, I do not have to carry the guilt and shame of the political misuse of power by certain Christians in Europe. Yet as someone who has been attending RCC since the age of fifteen, I take RCC as it is and love it unconditionally. I know the grand good and terrible bad and love it just the same. It is the same as far as my love of Germany goes. I love Germany fully aware of its Nazi past. There are no denominational, religious or geographical borders in my heart. In many ways it has to do with my conditioning and biography and has nothing to do with special spiritual intuition.

Dear Mr Mark

Your cop out question deserved a cop out answer.

I look forward to not reading your usual line of arguments with believers about how they do not understand science and how science is the domain of atheists etc. Maybe you didn't mean it that way. But as Gerry famously and wisely said, the quality and result of a communication should also be judged by the receiver. (Aside to Gerry: I do appreciate wisdom even when it comes from a "not sorry atheist.")

When clever atheists ask me questions, I usually write to the Pope asking for permission to answer them in the way The Vatican and Canon Law approves. Hence the delay in responding to you and other clever atheists.

Soja,

no comments on the strange historical genesis of your faith, the Councils of Nicaea in 325 and Constantinople in 381? Or were they just "inspired by god", flip-flopping between Arianus, doubting Jesus' divinity, and Athanasius, claiming that Jesus is god etc.? Or maybe you just say ("faith") these Councils didn't take place, for the sake of your "truth"?

Well, if you feel good, stay with your faith. Religious wellness is not connected to any historical source. But that's obviously its charm.

Your "spiritual intuition" is also based on nothing, just an ideological claim of yours. You don't have an additional "faith brain" for such experiences.

Dear Soja -

Where did I say that religious belief was tied to a lower IQ? I think you're reading something into this discussion of scientists that isn't there.

As far as dodging my question about Neanderthals with your reply, "God knows" - why the cop out? You have no problem offering your opinions on other matters or pontificating when it suits your purposes, so why refuse to offer your opinion on this particular question?

Why do we see this type of non-response so often from you believers? Are you instructed not to offer opinions on certain types of questions? I'd like to know.

Mr Mark:

Dear Soja -

Care to answer my earlier question: are Neanderthals in heaven?

Thanks.

June 26, 2008 3:35 PM

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

Dear Mr Mark

The answer to your question is quite simple:

GOD KNOWS!

Gerry

I'm wondering how to respond to your posts of
June 23, 2008 11:49 AM & 4:38 PM, without boring you or other readers with the same answers. But I am going to do it anyway.

I have posted the part of an interview with Ralph Cicerone (June 27 5:51 AM) to answer your question how even some scientists at NAS manage to do science while still believing in God and there is no contradiction.

Your story about a man who refused the human help that God sent him in answer to his prayers is familiar to me from the point of a believer. Except the part that the man being sent to hell is missing. The moral of the story was only to show that God answers prayer not by sending angels on wings, but by using human beings to carry out His will. Atheists call it coincidence. Read the Book of Tobit in (Catholic) OT for an illustration of how angels may come in human form. Sometimes the answer to a prayer is a "no," and it is just as difficult for believers to understand and accept. But King David's response to the death of his son and Job's response to all the loss of everything he had. is meant to inspire faith in God even when things do not turn out as we desire.

There is such a thing as spiritual intuition. When knowledge or deep wisdom cannot in anyway be traced to a person's learning or experience or conditioning, then it is assumed to come from a source beyond the normal intellect. That level is defined as spiritual.

I agree that religions have amassed superstitions along the way and there is a constant need to identify them and purge them. But not all is superstition.

There is a spiritual world. How could there be religions without a belief in it? There are good and bad spirits interposed between man and God. Islam is not very different to Judaism and Christianity as far as its major spiritual beliefs go, because it has adopted those aspects from the Bible. Mohammad was impressed by the monotheism and teachings of the Jews and Christians he knew. Islam has also its unique beliefs which is why it is a different religion.

The Catholic Church believes in the devil because the Bible says the devil is real. The Catholic Church also has a special area called the discernment of spirits, teachings to distinguish between good and evil spirits.

Now it is advised that psychiatric illness should be ruled out before a decision about possession by an evil spirit can be made. Psychiatry as you know is a very new science, so the Catholic Church could not have consulted a science that didn't exist. There was a famous American psychiatrist who believed in possession by evil spirits too. He also wrote about the evil committed by soldiers, not just by Nazis, that defy human imagination.

Jesus Christ drove out the demons with a few words. Even the best psychiatrist cannot do such magic. Sometimes lifetime medication and long therapy sessions are required. Jesus didn't even have to take the history of the patient, He just knew what was wrong. I know it makes no sense to an atheist.

Maybe someday you'd like to read two books written by atheists about their journey to God through reason:

Bede Griffiths, The Golden String
C S Lewis, Surprised by Joy

As to all the Catholic bashing on this forum, to which you feel obliged to make your contribution - shrug. Although I have been attending the Roman Catholic Church exclusively from the age of about fifteen, I belong to a small Eastern Apostolic Church, which came in communion with the RCC only four hundred years ago, and still retains autonomy. So my church, although as old as the Church in Rome, shares neither the horrors nor the glorious achievements of the Church in Rome. Even if I belonged to the Roman Catholic Church alone, my answer to your Catholic criticism (which by the way you drag out from the long ago and you continue to use despite official worldwide apologies by the Pope John Paul II, and resembles the repeated criticism of Nazi Germany) would be, Na und?

Be happy and continue not to be a "sorry atheist."

On this forum my thoughts recycled for the nth time:

June 11 -

3:44, 6:10,6:28,7:29,8:04,9:29 AM

June 12 -

1:55, 2:08, 2:20, 4:50, 5:09, 5:19, 5:23, 5:32, 5:39, 5:46, 6:10 AM &
11:15, 11:28 11:38, 11:41 PM

June 13 -

12:03, 12:16, 12:18, 2:38, 3:08, 3:34, 3:44, 4:12, 4:39, 5:26, 5:56, 6:11, 7:29, 7:31 AM &
7:27, 8:14, 8:15, 8:28, 11:16 PM

June 15 -

1:21 AM & 11:27 PM

June 16 -

12:59, 1:03, 1:23, 1:35, 1:52, 2:58, 5:02, 5:14, 5:34, 5:42, 6:19, 6:29, 6:43, 7:07, 7:32, 7:46, 8:05, 8:21, 8:37 AM &
8:37, 11:35 PM

Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia:

Mary

Nice to see you back too. I think there is a certain moth attracted to a flame quality about the need some believers feel, including myself, to engage in a useless dialogue with atheists. So I say to myself every time I pop in here, "Hi Soja moth, having a good masochistic time, eh?"

June 16, 2008 5:14 AM

Gerry:

Atheists are "hostile" not to truth, but to the perversion of "truth" people like TT... try to sell with a straight face.

Same as his assertion that Albigensians were "destructive and dangerous", again for refusing to be subdued by the catholics in power. TT... is a guy who certainly would have us atheist slaughtered like the Albigensians, if he could. He obviously approves of the slaughter of the Albigensians. What a farce of a world view in the 21st century!

I am so happy I live in a country where people ignore such trolls and let people believe whatever sense or nonsense they may care to believe, as long as they leave others alone. The catholic church never left others alone: A person hostile to their "truth" should preferably be killed to have their "truth" prevail - or else their "truth" would be debunked as "true" illusion, stripping them of their power.

June 24, 2008 2:10 PM

Gerry:

Talking about committees:

The Christian doctrine was established for the first time during the Nicaean Council, a "committee" organized by the Emperor Constantine in 325, assembling a group of around 300 Bishops and another 1200 clergy. One of their main topics was the (originally majority) stance of Arianus of Alexandria that Jesus Christ was not fully of the substance of god and the idea of a trinity was wrong, while Athanasius maintained the contrary. The committee finally sided with Athanasius, but the emperor Constantine was baptized by an Arian priest shortly before his death. (One of the decisions made during the Council was a ban on self-castration (???). They were arguing and quarrelling in Greek and Latin (we must assume that half of the attendees spoke no Greek, the other half no Latin) over semantic Greek/Hebrew/Latin finesses such as the difference between “essence” and “substance” etc. etc.

In later Councils (381, Constantinople), the emperor Theodosius finally ORDERED Athanasianism, including the Trinity to be the true belief, threatening everybody who did not believe this version with punishments for heresy. There were other modifications of the Christian doctrine, up until the 5th century, and we are not even talking about the "Donation of Constantine" three hundred years later, which proved to be one of the biggest frauds in history, which the Vatican even concedes, a lie made up to guarantee the Popes’ power over half of the Old World. (The Pope invented another version of the installment of papal power to circumvent this embarrassment.) Btw, In the Westphalian Peace in 1648, people were also ORDERED to believe either the catholic or the protestant version of Christianity, depending on in which principality or countship they lived (“Cuius regio, eius religio”). Eternal truth?

Let’s make a little thought experiment: If we go back 300 years from today (roughly the interval between the supposed life of Jesus and the Council of Nicaea) and imagine such a story as the life of Jesus, say around the year 1700, 50 years after the 30 years’ war, translated and edited over and over - I don’t think anybody in his clear mind would assign much validity to anything philosophical, religious or scientific (still a unity then) that might have happened at this occasion, except maybe an interest on what people thought in that long bygone historic past. Galilei comes to mind. That is the "eternal truth" people like Tim want to sell us as the voice of God!

Scholars have pointed out that already in those old Greek, Latin and Hebrew texts there were thousands of errors, mistakes and discrepancies, and the discrepancies up to this day, of course, have multiplied. The English language didn’t exist at that council, and still the pious believers actually believe that “God” dictated his word (in English?) - to whom, btw?, since the persons supposed to have written the NT are rarely, if at all, clearly documented outside the church itself.

In the face of such historical documentations I really am at a loss to find any reason whatsoever (except for the social usefulness) for anybody to be a “believer” – the object of the "belief" actually being untraceable.

June 26, 2008 1:14 PM

Gene:

Books that changed my life. Jesuitical Poohbahs never stopped Brewer and the Romanish persecutors never stopped Chick. They were condemned and everything possible was done to silence Chick, but he persists. I admire them because they spoke the truth to Christians. Jews, if you want to know the truth about some things, start reading. Read Chick, and read him carefully. Spread the word.

Bartholomew F. Brewer, Pilgrimage from Rome*

Bart Brewer was a discalced friar and Catholic priest, who made it out of the Romanish labyrinth.
http://mtc.org/ex-priest.html

Jack T. Chick:

Sabotage
The Sissy
Four Horsemen
The Greatest Story Ever Told: The Birth of Jesus
The Sissy
Smokescreens

June 28, 2008 12:21 AM

Mr Mark:

Dear Karen -

Like a moth to the flame, you seem strangely attracted to me.

Sorry, but I'm already married...to a woman named Karen, in fact!

;)

June 27, 2008 6:54 PM

PS: When I referred to a large percentage sof scientists being believers I did not mean that the majority of scientists were believers. I was only trying to disprove your theory that IQ and atheism are directly proportional. If 10% of top scientists are believers by choice, in a social situation where such a choice is possible, then it is ample proof that your pet wishful theory is *wrong.* NAS represents only a fraction of scientists in the US and worldwide. You could get completely different results if you were to do the survey in China or Russia where probably 100% of scientists would probably be atheists; in a country like India, close to a 100% would be believers by choice and in Muslim countries 100% would be believers, whether by choice or not.

Dear Mr Mark

Agreed it doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that I was the one providing background information before I answered your oft practiced anti-theist posts.

I hope you understand that I need to respond to Gerry's post first before I respond to your more recent ones.

As to the percentage of atheist scientists proving any point except that 40% scientists ARE believers and a belief in God is not a *prerequisite* for doing science, just as neither atheism nor theism is a prerequisite for becoming a plumber. There are one billion Chinese atheists and additional millions in the former Soviet Union. What point does that prove?

Dear Soja -

I'm going to assume it was you who did the research under the posts from "To Dear Mr Mark and Gerry"

Thank you proving my point.

You originally wrote:

"Even today a large percentage of scientists are believers."

Your cited source states that only 40% of scientists are believers. That means fully 60% are non-believers. Ergo, the "large percentage of scientists" are NOT believers.

As far as JPII's 1981 quote: big deal. He's trying to retrofit scientific truth onto religious lies. Religionists do it all the time. It doesn't make the religious claim true.

January 26, 1999

VATICAN CITY (CNN) -- Blaming Satan for many of today's ills, the Vatican on Tuesday unveiled updated exorcism rules, along with a caution not to mistake psychiatric problems for diabolic possession.

The Vatican's first updated ritual for exorcism since 1614 tries to bring the church up to date with modern science and, for the first time, urges church-approved exorcists to consult modern medicine where needed...

Pope John Paul II in 1981

"The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer".

Scientific American, September 1999

"Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife."

Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.

============================================

1. Forty percent of scientists believe in God.

2. The NAS survey shows that 28% members (total number of scientists at NAS = 2100 Americans and 380 from overseas)are NOT atheists, even if only seven percent believe in a *personal God.*

The obvious conclusion is that belief in God and doing science is not contradictory. If it were mutually exclusive the number of atheists in both surveys would have been 100%.

THE CHARLIE ROSE SHOW

August 22, 2005

Discussion With Ralph Cicerone
President of National Academy of Sciences

CHARLIE ROSE: And to those people who believe God created man, what do you say to them?

RALPH CICERONE: I don't find any inconsistency in that. I'm not a theologian or an expert in too many religions, but I do know that there's a lot of room in most religions for different views of how God set up the universe and the physical laws and the biological creation. And to what extent God could set up a creation that then goes on according to laws...

CHARLIE ROSE: The planets.

RALPH CICERONE: ... which he may have set up, which we try to figure out. And science is doing that pretty well. There's a long way to go. So I see this as something...

CHARLIE ROSE: Is this sort of like saying, isn't God amazing, he created science, and look what science has been able to give us?

RALPH CICERONE: Sure. So where`s the inconsistency there? Why are people fighting?

CHARLIE ROSE: I.e., it is that many scientists don't believe in an all-powerful God.

RALPH CICERONE: A lot of other people don't too. And there are some scientists who do.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.

RALPH CICERONE: So I don't see the inconsistency, I don't see the reason for the fighting. So...

Dear Soja -

Care to answer my earlier question: are Neanderthals in heaven?

Thanks.

Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia writes:

"Dear Mr Mark

1. All Christians including Jews, who by the way authored the Book of Genesis, understand the creation story to be an allegory expressing spiritual wisdom."

Fine. So, who gets to decide what all is allegory in the Bible? I happen to read the Gospel of Mark as pure allegory, with Jesus as a fictional figure. It makes more sense that way than to read it as a historical document. Who are you or anyone else to tell me that Jesus was literally a corporeal being? If the creation story is allegory, then so is the life of Jesus. Case closed.

Once you've opened the door to any part of the Bible being allegory, you have opened the door to all of it being allegory. Stating that you or some Biblical scholar or your mother-in-law can separate literal from allegory in the Bible is opinion and nothing more. It may even be a considered opinion, but it remains an opinion, not a fact.

"2. It is written nowhere in the Bible that the earth is flat."

If you as a Xian believe that god gave you a mind with which to reason, then you can easily deduce the flat earth concept from reading the Bible. What else does one make of terms like "ends of the Earth" and "the 4 corners of the earth"? Sure, we still use those terms in modern parlance, but only because they came from the Bible in the first place.

Are you to have me believe that the same deductive minds who have the ability to separate allegory from history in the Bible are unable to deduce the flat earth because the Bible never uses the words, "flat earth?" Give me a break!

"3. Science divorced itself from religion only about three hundred years ago as a separate discipline. Until then people who did science were also deeply religious and they found no contradiction in exploring the physical properties of the world God created."

Science divorced itself from the church out of necessity. Persecution does that to one. And, yes, the earliest scientists were religious, but they saw science as a discipline that confirmed god's hand in creation, not as something to argue against it. This direction of scientists existed up until the time of Darwin. As you wrote, "they found no contradiction in exploring the physical properties of the world God created."

Science has since matured and moved on. Today's scientists don't explore with pre-existing agendas to prove that god created the world. Nor do they approach it trying to disprove god's hand in creation, They offer reasonable explanations for things. It just happens that they don't need to invoke the supernatural to explain this natural universe.

Were god involved and did scientists discover so, they would be the first to advance that position. But they don't need god in the equation, and they've proved beyond any doubt that earlier estimations of god's hand in the natural world were the stuff of fearful, ignorant fantasy.

"4. Even today a large percentage of scientists are believers."

Not true. Fully 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA are non-believers. I would ask that you provide documentation to support your claim that a large percentage of scientists today are believers in religion.

"5. What exactly in your opinion proves that God doesn’t exist? The whole universe is proof of God’s existence. Science has not proved matter comes from nothing. Matter, time and space has a beginning, even according to the science of the Big Bang. God is the cause of the beginning. That is what believers claim, nothing more."

If god could "come from nothing"" then why couldn't matter come from nothing? In fact, matter comes from energy, so it doesn't come from nothing.

You're advancing the lame "first cause" excuse for god. Yes, everything HAS to have a first cause you say, except God, who - so say you - has always existed. Well, if god could have always existed, then why couldn't matter have always existed? And, if everything needs a first cause, then what created god? What was the first cause that brought god into existence? Some other god? Perhaps, matter and energy? Don't you see the infinite regression in this non-argument?

"First cause" is a stupid argument that should have been consigned to the intellectual scrap heap a century ago.

And, for the thousandth time, one cannot prove a negative. Can you prove that faeries don't exist? Didn't think so. Should we all believe in them and run our lives based on a belief in faeries, simply for the fact that you can't prove they don't exist? How about Zeus? Can you prove he doesn't exist? If not, what are you not running your life based on a belief in Zeus?

If you can't extend the courtesy to Zeus or faeries, then why should I extend it to Jehovah and Jesus? There is no more proof that Jehovah created the universe than there is that Zeus was responsible. There is no more proof that Jesus existed than there is that Apollo existed...and less proof for Jesus existing than there is for Julius Caesar and countless other figures from antiquity.

Care to answer any of this?

Gerry & Mr Mark --- FYI, from the Roman Catholic Document known as Vatican Council II

Catholic Colleges and Universities

The Church is concerned also with schools of a higher level, especially colleges and universities. In those schools dependent on her she intends that by their very constitution individual subjects be pursued according to their own principles, method, and liberty of scientific inquiry, in such a way that an ever deeper understanding in these fields may be obtained and that, as questions that are new and current are raised and investigations carefully made according to the example of the doctors of the Church and especially of St. Thomas Aquinas,(31) there may be a deeper realization of the harmony of faith and science. Thus there is accomplished a public, enduring and pervasive influence of the Christian mind in the furtherance of culture and the students of these institutions are molded into men truly outstanding in their training, ready to undertake weighty responsibilities in society and witness to the faith in the world.(32)

In Catholic universities where there is no faculty of sacred theology there should be established an institute or chair of sacred theology in which there should be lectures suited to lay students.

Since science advances by means of the investigations peculiar to higher scientific studies, special attention should be given in Catholic universities and colleges to institutes that serve primarily the development of scientific research.

The sacred synod heartily recommends that Catholic colleges and universities be conveniently located in different parts of the world, but in such a way that they are outstanding not for their numbers but for their pursuit of knowledge. Matriculation should be readily available to students of real promise, even though they be of slender means, especially to students from the newly emerging nations.

Since the destiny of society and of the Church itself is intimately linked with the progress of young people pursuing higher studies,(33) the pastors of the Church are to expend their energies not only on the spiritual life of students who attend Catholic universities, but, solicitous for the spiritual formation of all their children, they must see to it, after consultations between bishops, that even at universities that are not Catholic there should be associations and university centers under Catholic auspices in which priests, religious and laity, carefully selected and prepared, should give abiding spiritual and intellectual assistance to the youth of the university.

Whether in Catholic universities or others, young people of greater ability who seem suited for teaching or research should be specially helped and encouraged to undertake a teaching career.

testing

Dear Mr Mark

Re your posts June 21, 2008 12:33 PM & June 22, 2008 12:54 PM

I’m only chewing cud for the nth time here, and here it goes:

1. Except for a *handful* (from among 2.3 billion Christians worldwide) of extremely fundamentalist *American* Christians, no other Christians, whether Catholic or almost all Protestant Churches, reads the Bible so literally as you claim and use it as a science textbook. All Christians including Jews, who by the way authored the Book of Genesis, understand the creation story to be an allegory expressing spiritual wisdom. So don’t you dare come back with the same boring line that all Christians believe the earth is six thousand years old, and use the Bible as their science textbook etc.

2. It is written nowhere in the Bible that the earth is flat. Some bad politics in the Vatican in the course of its long two thousand year history should not be summed up as essence of Christianity or the essence of the Catholic Church itself. How many worldwide institutions are you familiar with that was built on the blood of martyrs, has had so much political and religious influence and has lasted two thousand years, all its limitations and unimaginable mistakes notwithstanding?

3. Science divorced itself from religion only about three hundred years ago as a separate discipline. Until then people who did science were also deeply religious and they found no contradiction in exploring the physical properties of the world God created.

4. Even today a large percentage of scientists are believers. Only in the mind of an atheist it is impossible to believe in God and do science at the same time. Such difficulty does not exist in the mind of a believer who does science.

5. What exactly in your opinion proves that God doesn’t exist? The whole universe is proof of God’s existence. Science has not proved matter comes from nothing. Matter, time and space has a beginning, even according to the science of the Big Bang. God is the cause of the beginning. That is what believers claim, nothing more.

Conclusion: You cannot make a case for atheism to a believer who believes in science.

I know you cannot help trying anyway. I appreciate the way you try so hard.

(PS: I recommend Sally Quinn’s Divine Impulses interview with Professor Francis Collins, once an atheist, now an Evangelical Christian.)

Dear Mr Mark

Re post June 23, 2008 11:11 AM

I hope you get to read this someday considering this discussion is already closed.

It is a great relief that I don’t have to toss a coin to decide how to address you. Now I’m sure neither I nor anybody else is going to mistake you for Master Mark, Ms Mark or Mrs Mark. As to the religion of addressing others, the Australians are as casual as the Americans, at least most of the time.

Is there an old saying that goes: I would call you if you would only sing a new song…your broken record claims that believers don’t believe in science needs a break.

End of sidebar…

testing

Gerry writes:

"Can you understand that a person with a residue of self-respect cringes at this nonsense? "The devil understands Latin", hahaha!"

I've read that there's a group of nuns who wear clothes while showering so as not to offend god as he looks down upon their naked persons. One might wonder how a wet t-shirt can obstruct the vision of a god who can see perfectly well through the cinder blocks that make up the shower's walls.

:0

Soja,

oh, and I forgot: The Vatican just published a new exorcism manual. Reading example:

"The new manual comes into effect today in its Latin version," he said. "An exorcist can use the Latin version tonight if he wants because the devil understands Latin."

Can you understand that a person with a residue of self-respect cringes at this nonsense? "The devil understands Latin", hahaha!

Soja writes:

"People believed in God long before scientists came up with the idea of the Big Bang. In other words, spiritual intuition had already come to the conclusion that there was something before the created universe."

A few thoughts:

1. The Big Bang happen long before anyone was around to come up with the idea of god, roughly 4.5 BILLION years before, to be exact.

2. Neanderthals were around for at least 30,000 - 100,000 years before homo sapiens. Neanderthals had some kind of religious beliefs, at least that's what their burial sites indicate. They went extinct 30,000 years ago. Were Neanderthals created in god's image? Are Neanderthals in heaven?

Soja,

you said:
"People believed in God long before scientists came up with the idea of the Big Bang. In other words, spiritual intuition had already come to the conclusion that there was something before the created universe."

Intuition is condensed experience available for a person in his life. "Spiritual intuition" believed the earth is flat (that was our ancestors' experience), the sky is a dome ("firmament") to which little lights are fixed as Mr. Mark has pointed out, etc. Do you still rely on this "spiritual intuition", do you still believe this in spite of scientific findings, in spite of Google Earth, in spite of the Hubble telescope? What more convincing arguments are you waiting for? The fact that there are things "beyond our senses", of course, does not mean that what our senses perceive must by all means be false.

Do you know the little story of the pious man, whose house was inundated, and he prayed for salvation? An ambulance came along and wanted to pick him up. No, he said, god will save me. As the water rose, a boat came along to pick him up, no he said, god will save me. A helicopter finally wanted to pick him up from his roof, and again he declined: God will save me. He drowned.

Arriving in heaven, he asked god why he didn't save him. You idiot, god said, I sent you an ambulance, a boat and a helicopter, and you didn't accept my help. Go to hell!

What would the argument look like that would convince you that religions are made up by men?
Up to this very day you can find the most atrocious (man-made) superstitions in all religions (exorcism being a horrible example, where a "demon" is beaten to death (death of the host, of course), generated by the belief that "someone" must be made responsible for anything that goes wrong.

The partially ignorant need a "person" as a cause, and cannot come to grips with nature being that "person". Luther believed in witches in this context. Jesus (assuming he existed) believed in these superstitions, when he chased the "demon" into a herd of pigs (poor owner of the pigs). Football players believe in god giving victory or defeat. Do you believe such nonsense, or do you, as many believers do as they are confronted with impossibilities, regard it as a "metaphor"? There is not a single event or lie that cannot be interpreted as a "metaphor", as explained by another poster. Preachers do this every Sunday for a living.

I just read a monstrous article about Hindu exorcisms witnessed by a journalist. (Moslems also believe in such "spirits"). It is all "human religion". All contents of human brains, fed and threatened with horror.

Dear Soja -

There's an old saying: I don't care what you call me...as long as you call me.

My handle on this blog is Mr Mark. There are other Marks on the blog, so so most likely need to include the "Mr" when addressing me.

As far as adding a salutation before the name (ie: Dear), I usually include it as a way of being polite. Sometimes I fail to include it. I also make typos. There's no rule involved...though I have no doubt that there's a religion somewhere in this world which holds that not including "Dear" in a salutation is a "proven" ticket to hell.

OK. We've dealt with that sidebar. Care to comment on the content of my previous post?

Gerry:

Gerry, you wrote

"can you be more specific about my "backwards logic" without simply displaying your "faith"?

I am afraid you cannot produce any argument pro your faith except that it is what you believe. And that simply is not enough for me. People believe a lot of things that later have to be modified or turn out to be wrong.

But if you are happy with your belief without any proof except your feeling - the pursuit of happiness is a noble and valid goal!"

June 22, 2008 7:38 AM

=====================================

Gerry

The fundamental difference between an atheist and believer regarding the origin of the universe is this: we believe God created it and by God we mean an Eternal Absolute Entity, beyond time, beyond form and beyond space, which according to science itself are entities with a beginning. God IS eternal and existed before the Big Bang.

Even the atheist philosopher, Professor David Chalmers, agrees that such a conclusion makes perfect sense. Even Professor Dawkins is slowly coming around to accepting the possibility he may have to review some of his ideas based evolutionary biology of animals.

It is my reason that tells me God exists, the Absolute and Eternal Entity, the Creator who conceived the Big Bang and brought it to fruition. My feelings are not a reliable indicator of any truth. My feelings may or may not affirm truth and reality. The reality of the Big Bang is not based on whether I believe in it or not. As a believer my reason as to the origin of the Big Bang differs. People believed in God long before scientists came up with the idea of the Big Bang. In other words, spiritual intuition had already come to the conclusion that there was something before the created universe. The spiritual questions are different as are the methods of investigation to arrive at spiritual conclusions. Nobody demands of a chemist that he should prove his knowledge using methods used by a physicist. Yet believers are being constantly belittled on the grounds that spiritual insights must be explained in ways that makes perfect sense to those who don't believe in the reality of spiritual truth. Advanced mathematics I understand is theoritical and only advanced mathematicians can make sense of it.

The spiritual world functions by different laws, and we know so little about it. Religions are based on some great breakthroughs. As a Christian by conviction I have no doubt about what I believe. If someday someone should convince me that thee is a truth or religion greater than what Jesus Christ taught I would have no fear to convert to that religion. But I have come across nothing better than Christianity, although I have great respect for all religions and believe there are things a Christian can learn. To me Jesus Christ modeled the perfect life of unconditional love and selfless service. I'm willing to believe He was a human incarnation of God for that reason.

O yes, it gives me good feelings. Why not? But they are feelings based on reason.

As to atheism, my explanation is this: just as I could buy a CD of your music and enjoy it with awe without ever bothering to find out if you exist, so can anyone feel awe about the universe without asking the question who created it.

In diesem Sinne

Soja

Dear Mark

An aside, here an observation. Sometimes you address me as Soja and sometimes as Dear Soja. Sometimes I'm confused, sometimes I'm not as to why you do it. Dear____, is a formal way to address anyone, so Soja/Dear Soja means the same to me. Only I feel silly trying to address you exactly as you address me, now writing Mr Mark and now Dear Mark depending on whether you address me as Soja/Dear Soja. So how would you prefer me to address you - Mr Mark, Dear Mr Mark, Mark, or Dear Mark?

Dear Soja -

Timing is everything!

After my post to you yesterday, I set down in front of the TV, flipped on The History Channel and watched two 2-hour programs aired back-to-back entitled, "How Life Began" and "How the Earth was born." I'd recommend both shows to believers such as yourself as they provided more than enough insight into what we do and do not know about the topics discussed.

Soja,

can you be more specific about my "backwards logic" without simply displaying your "faith"?

I am afraid you cannot produce any argument pro your faith except that it is what you believe. And that simply is not enough for me. People believe a lot of things that later have to be modified or turn out to be wrong.

But if you are happy with your belief without any proof except your feeling - the pursuit of happiness is a noble and valid goal!

SOJA sez:

"Never forget however you have no proof how a mind boggling universe came into existence and your backwards logic is really no logic at all."

How wrong you are.

There is ample proof of how the universe came into existence. The question is whether or not that evidence is being interpreted correctly (which it most likely is) and what degree of exactitude that interpretation achieves (which any scientist will tell you is an ongoing process). A large part of that exactitude comes through applying logic and deductive reasoning to the evidence available to make predictions on what we will learn in the future.

Clearly, we have been extremely successful in deducing many realities about our universe. Case in point - manned space flight. We could have believed the "truths" of the Bible, which stated that the earth was flat and that a solid firmament sat above the earth with tiny, tiny points of light (stars) affixed to that solid dome, OR - we could go with the truths discovered by science and realize that the Earth wasn't flat, that there wasn't a solid dome to somehow get through or around to move beyond the sky, and that it was possible to land men on the moon (which the Bible says is a light-producing source, not a light-reflecting object. Phew! Good thing, too! Otherwise Neil Armstrong would have been incinerated!) and to send unmanned probes into the furthest reaches of our solar system.

You do yourself a disservice by not staying up on all of the amazing discoveries that science is making these days, especially in the field of cosmology, but you do yourself an even GREATER disservice by arguing the truth of settled science, like the settled science of evolution.

Just because you don't have or don't want to have the knowledge does not mean that said knowledge isn't operational. The world is not limited by your willful ignorance...and thank god for it, otherwise, we'd still be communicating with pen and ink, rather than via computers.

Gerry

OK....Patt...once more. Never forget however you have no proof how a mind boggling universe came into existence and your backwards logic is really no logic at all.

Soja,

thank you. Novak writes: "This, too, is evidence that we live in God, and He in us". Sounds good, generates a feeling, describes nothing.

Everybody, believer or atheist can have wonderfully fuzzy feelings about our existence, our origin as an individual (two cells!) the universe, the unanswered questions of how the concept of "I" arises, etc., for which he even might desperately find a word. Language provides "god" as a rather preliminary if not futile semantic attempt, but there is not the slightest objective description, or describability of a "god", a fact which mystics admit or even tout.

Thus, god is nothing but a feeling which every thinking and sensitive human being is capable of, and that is more or less the substance of Novak's article. Proof of the existence of god as an entity, as an objective reality? Gottesbeweis? Far from it!

FYI to Gerry

By Michael Novak

...Here, some philosophers observe that people deploying practical reason live as if in the presence of an objective Observer. This Observer cannot be deceived by a person’s own self-deceptions. This Observer keeps pushing one to become more honest with oneself. And this Observer is not “out there,” but within. This Observer is sentinel not only over our scientific reasoning, but also our practical reasoning.

This, too, is evidence that we live in God, and He in us, at the very center of our identity. Within us is the Light, Judge, Merciful One, Brother, Inspirer, Prodder, Driver at the heart of our existence. Without becoming aware of this dimension of our own honesty and unlimited drive to understand, we cannot properly understand ourselves. We think ourselves smaller than we are.

“I searched for Thee everywhere, my God,” wrote St. Augustine in his mature, pagan, often profligate years. “When I found Thee, Thou wert within.” And later: “Thou wert closer to me than I to myself.”

The New Agnostic may not know, not yet, but a great, great number of us do know – yes, know – that the best drives within us do not come from our finite, sensory selves. We participate in them as an inner light all unbidden. Sometimes even as a torment. These inner drives are much greater than ourselves. They teach us that we are open to the Infinite.

Y C+2 & Co., PSC:

Anon, My Child,

The "72 virgins" are better understood as Houri.
See Wikepedia, and impress fellow bloggers.

Yours and everyone else's,
Y C+2 & Co., PSC

June 20, 2008 1:30 AM

Re Sigmund Freud and Irish Catholic Mary C ?unningham

There is always a danger of being misunderstood when an ultra-conservative Irish Catholic pleads for bananas to let the simians living in Ireland feast in ante-chambers of heaven for there is an Islamic version of heaven where males recline on silk cushions and feast on 72 virgins.

"Scripture is known to be preserved for centuries by exact copying or accurate learning the original orally before writing became the norm."

Known to be preserved? Exact copying? What are you, gullible? There are great differences between the existing manuscripts, as is to be expected.

"Those who preserved Scripture took great care to preserve the text exactly as got it. If they had been dishonest they could have easily rewritten it erasing contradictions."

Another incredibly presumptuous and wishful statement. Do you think things through before you post? This assumes that every scribe copying a book of the Bible had all other books of the Bible on hand to reconcile the contradictions between them. Do you know how many gospels there actually are outside of the 4 selected to be canonized? Your scribe could have spent decades reconciling the gospels of Judas and Thomas only top have them left out of the canon.

The Bible wasn't even assembled into something resembling the book of books we now know until Jerome put together his collection (the Vulgate) around 400AD. That means that scribes had roughly 400 years to get it wrong in their copying and editing of the diverse books that did end up in the Bible.

You believe in a lot of myths, my friend.

Mr Mark: "We have no contemporary copies of the Gospels. The earliest manuscripts we have (P75) are copies of copies of copies that date from the late 2nd to the early 3rd century."

June 18, 2008 11:25 PM

That is the standard argument used by *Muslims* to invalidate Christian Scripture. No need to go into Islam on this atheist thread.

Scripture is known to be preserved for centuries by exact copying or accurate learning the original orally before writing became the norm.

Those who preserved Scripture took great care to preserve the text exactly as got it. If they had been dishonest they could have easily rewritten it erasing contradictions.

The NT is known to have been written between 50 -120 AD. Jesus was crucified 29/33 AD.

Dear Paul C -

Thanks for your response, but it believe it is a prime example of jumping through hoops to explain away obvious inconsistencies in the Bible.

I will also pass on your suggestion that I consult the Catholic Catechism to gain enlightenment on these things. The last time I took that advice I wasted the better part of a month trying to understand the dogma of limbo, only to have the Catholic Church reverse centuries of their dogma and come around to my way of thinking, ie: that limbo doesn't exist.

In time, the Catholics Church will come around to many of the positions I've been advocating on this blog. I hope that they do so in time for you to profit from their enlightenment, no matter how late in the day it was in coming.

BTW - you do yourself no favors referring to the Gospels as "eyewitness accounts." Nobody of any standing in theological circles believes that the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus. Nobody believes they were written by the men bearing the names of those apostles. We know that Mark was the first Gospel written, that it was written AFTER Paul's epistles and that it was written no earlier that 65CE (AD). Matthew was written next, then Luke. They date from around 90CE. Both were based in a very large part on Mark. John was written last and is a not-very-good attempt at retro-fitting OT prophecies to fit the Jesus myth.

The similarities between the three synoptic Gospels far outweigh their differences. How could it be otherwise as they are all based on the same source?

We have no contemporary copies of the Gospels. The earliest manuscripts we have (P75) are copies of copies of copies that date from the late 2nd to the early 3rd century.

Gotta go.

;)

Mr. Mark,
I am happy and impressed that you went to the bible for your essay early this morning.

To discuss a couple of your points. The 4 gospels are not identical becuae they were written by 4 different authors. If you get 4 eyewitnesses to any event, you will get different account because each has his own perception of the event and each will emphasize different things depending on what seems important to them. So it is with the Gospel accounts

Even in Matthew, there is doubt portrayed by the apostles. This is the end of Matthew's Gospel chapter 28:16-20 The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but some doubted. Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." The fact that the gospel writers acknowledge this is part of their credibilty.

As for your arguments that just because he rose from the deade doen't make Jesus divine because he raised others from the dead, like Lazarus. There are actually two distinctions between Jesus and the others. Jesus rose from the dead once and for all time, while the others he raised subsequently died again. More importantly, Jesus was the instument of the other's rising, a second argument for his divinity, while Jesus of course, was raised on his own.

Finally, the question of Jesus being the first to rise from the dead. Well, first of all he wasn't the first to rise from the Dead. We know that Tabitha, the widow from Nain's son and Lazarus were all raised from the dead. The difference of course, was that Jesus was raised to heaven, while the others just came back to Earth.

As for the Zombie Saints you reference from Matthew. The Catholic Catechism teaches that when Jesus died, he went to preach salvation to the righteous dead. This was done in condensed time and allowed his message to be preached to all men from all times. You can find this is Chapter 2, Article 5 paragraph 1 of the Catechism on line (use google, Catholic Catechism on line). Keep in mind that these risen Saints were risen to earth, not to heaven at this point as another sign of God's power.

Of course, God could have risen the dead at any point. He is after all, omnipotent. However, he chose however to do it through Jesus, who redeemed Human Kind through his sacrifice for our sins.

Since you are obviously well read and obviously still searching, Mr. Mark, I suggest you use the Catholic Catechism as a reference. It can help you at least understand the reasons that the Church gives for what you see as contradictions or inadequacies. The Church has been questioned on these truths for 2000 years..

More atheist jokes:

Why did the atheist cross the road?
He thought there might be a street on the other side, but he wouldn’t believe it until he tested his hypothesis.

Why did the atheist throw her watch out the window?
She wanted to see if it was designed intelligently enough to evolve into a bird.

A minister, a priest, a rabbi, and an atheist meet in a bar at 10:00 a.m. The bartender asks the minister what he’ll have, and the minister orders a martini. The priest also orders a martini, as does the rabbi. When the bartender asks the atheist what he wants, the atheist says he'd like a cup of coffee. “Why aren’t you having a martini like those guys?” asks the bartender. “Oh,” says the atheist, “I don’t believe in martinis before lunch.”

Why does an atheist wear red suspenders?
To keep his pants from being taken up to heaven during the rapture.

A Jew, A Catholic, and an atheist are rowing in Lake Erie when their boat springs a huge leak. The Jew looks skyward, and says “Oh, Adonai, if you save me, I promise I’ll sail to Israel and spend the rest of my days trying to reclaim the land you gave us.” The Catholic looks skyward, and says, “Oh, Jesus, if you save me, I promise I’ll fly to the Vatican and spend the rest of my days singing your praises.” The atheist says, “Oh, guys, if you pass me that one life preserver, I promise I’ll swim to Cleveland.” “And how will you spend the rest of your days?” the Jew and the Catholic ask. “Well,” says the atheist, “I’m not sure, but I can tell you one thing: I’ll never go rowing with other atheists.”

How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to actually change the bulb, and the other to videotape the job so fundamentalists won’t claim that god did it.

An atheist goes to a Christian psychiatrist, who hands her an inkblot and says, “Tell me what you see.” The atheist says, “I see Jesus on the cross.” The psychiatrist hands her a second inkblot, and says, “Now tell me what you see.” The atheist says, “I still see Jesus on the cross.” The psychiatrist hands her a third inkblot, and says, “What do you see now?” The atheist says, “It’s Jesus on the cross again.” The psychiatrist says, “Hmmm. Obviously you’ve got Jesus on the brain.” The atheist replies, “Me? I only read the captions you wrote.”

Atheist: What’s this fly doing in my soup?
Waiter: Praying.
Atheist: Very funny. I can’t eat this. Take it back.
Waiter: You see? The fly’s prayers were answered.

How can you tell if an atheist lives in your refrigerator?
You find a copy of The God Delusion hidden in the cream cheese.

An atheist buys an ancient lamp at an auction, takes it home, and begins to polish it. Suddenly, a genie appears, and says, “I’ll grant you three wishes, Master.” The atheist says, “I wish I could believe in you.” The genie snaps his fingers, and suddenly the atheist believes in him. The atheist says, “Wow. I wish all atheists would believe this.” The genie snaps his fingers again, and suddenly atheists all over the world begin to believe in genies. “What about your third wish?” asks the genie. “Well,” says the atheist, “I wish for a billion dollars.” The genie snaps his fingers for a third time, but nothing happens. “What’s wrong?” asks the atheist. The genie shrugs and says, “Just because you believe in me, doesn’t necessarily mean that I really exist.”

Two cannibals are eating an atheist, and one says to the other, “Can you believe the way this guy tastes?”

Knock, knock.
Who’s there?
God.
Who?
God.
Who?
God.
Must be the wind.

During the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, one morning's executions began with three men: a rabbi, a Catholicpriest, and a rationalist skeptic.

The rabbi was marched up onto the platform first. There, facing the guillotine, he was asked if he had any last words. And the rabbi cried out, "I believe in the one and only true God, and He shall save me." The executioner then positioned the rabbi below the blade, set the block above his neck, and pulled the cord to set the terrible instrument in motion. The heavy cleaver plunged downward, searing the air. But then, abruptly, it stopped with a crack just a few inches above the would-be victim's neck. To which the rabbi said, "I told you so."

"It's a miracle!" gasped the crowd. And the executioner had to agree, letting the rabbi go.

Next in line was the priest. Asked for his final words, he declared, "I believe in Jesus Christ the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost who will rescue me in my hour of need." The executioner then positioned this man beneath the blade. And he pulled the cord. Again the blade flew downward thump! creak! ...stopping just short of its mark once more.

"Another miracle!" sighed the disappointed crowd. And the executioner for the second time had no choice but to let the condemned go free.

Now it was the skeptic's turn. "What final words have you to say?" he was asked. But the skeptic didn't hear. Staring intently at the ominous engine of death, he seemed lost. Not until the executioner poked him in the ribs and the question was asked again did he reply.

"Oh, I see your problem," the skeptic said pointing. "You've got a blockage in the gear assembly, right there!"

I found this joke on the net.

Why God never got a PhD
-----------------------

1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was written in Aramaic, not in English.
3. It has no references.
4. It wasn't even published in a refereed journal.
5. There are serious doubts he wrote it himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since
then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The Scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9. He unlawfully performed not only Animal, but *Human* testing.
10. When one experiment went awry, he tried to cover it by drowning his
subjects.
11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from
the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told his students to read the book.
13. Some say he had his son to teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students
failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.

Religious Anonymouses:

You said: "Don't you think it is somewhat limited to measure all human experience in terms of one's own and claim that it is not possible for anything beyond one's own knowledge and experience to exist?"

I fully agree, and that was exactly my point: This vantage point and experience ("beyond") is not limited to the religious!

Religious and atheists have "similar" brain structures, where ALL experience is processed, religious or otherwise.

And: I was a fervent believer in my youth, trying to pray for black being white, so I know very well your feelings as to faith. Therefore I think there is no reason at all for a believer to feel superior to an atheist ("limited") on any level whatsoever.

The little superstitious rituals of musicians (and speakers etc.) can be regarded as innocent micro-religions created for the occasion... They stem from the cozy "post hoc-proper hoc" fallacy we all are prone to carry around to some extent.

It becomes catastrophically dangerous when politics is decided by superstition (Bush, Nancy Reagan's astrology, Hagee, the whole bunch of dangerous idiots...). The Myanmar dictator moved his capital on the order of his astrologist. There is no principal difference between such monsters and Western unchecked superstition.

Final Word to Believers writes:

"We owe atheists no justification for our beliefs."

Agreed...until you try to make your beliefs the law of the land...as soon as you insist on erecting the 10 Commandments in public courthouses...as soon as you insist on teaching the myth of creationism as an equal to settled science.

As soon as you make ANY assertion that your beliefs are facts, you will be asked to justify those beliefs to the same degree that any other fact requires justification.

Keep your beliefs to yourself and there shouldn't be a problem.

Dear Gerry, It is just my blind guess that atheism probably feels good to those who live so much in the here and now that their minds do not reach out beyond what their *senses* and science can tell them. I have another little theory about atheism too...but I will save that for another time.

Must be gone now...

Whoooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Dear Gerry, thanks for clarifying your non-creation myth. Even as a non-musician who understands no theory about the order, structure and harmony of music, I appreciate music with awe in the depths of my being beyond words and beyond thoughts. Yet, God is more! He is the ultimate source of all music and the creator of musicians through whom music comes. That feeling is a different kind of awe. It adds more beauty and depth to the appreciation of music and the work of musicians. As the author of all beauty in the world, God is more than the sum of all beauty I can perceive. It is that deep awareness and sense of eternity beyond the passing world that makes faith in God inevitable.

If I had your idea of God and religion, I would be an atheist too. A religion that is measured materialistically in terms of its socio and psycho-economic impact is too small and unworthy of a God I believe in. Just as a man born blind claims that a rainbow cannot exist because he has not seen it, so it seems to me does an atheist claim what he himself has not experienced is beyond all human experience. Don't you think it is somewhat limited to measure all human experience in terms of one's own and claim that it is not possible for anything beyond one's own knowledge and experience to exist?

So at least you agree even adult human beings, whether atheists or believers, just like children love rituals and in some ways need them. Might not one call it religious genius to provide rituals as trapping along with the spirit and truth?

It is just my blind guess that atheism probably feels good to those who live so much in the here and now that their minds do not reach out beyond what science can tell them. To me as a believer it is too limited a vision of reality.

But that is just me. What makes sense to you and brings you joy is what matters to you. I respect that fully.

Take care and be happy always!

Whooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Dear Gerry, thanks for clarifying your non-creation myth. Even as a non-musician who understands no theory about the order, structure and harmony of music, I appreciate music with awe in the depths of my being beyond words and beyond thoughts. Yet, God is more! He is the ultimate source of all music and the creator of musicians through whom music comes. That feeling is a different kind of awe. It adds more beauty and depth to the appreciation of music and the work of musicians. As the author of all beauty in the world, God is more than the sum of all beauty I can perceive. It is that deep awareness and sense of eternity beyond the passing world that makes faith in God inevitable.

If I had your idea of God and religion, I would be an atheist too. A religion that is measured materialistically in terms of its socio and psycho-economic impact is too small and unworthy of a God I believe in. Just as a man born blind claims that a rainbow cannot exist because he has not seen it, so it seems to me does an atheist claim what he himself has not experienced is beyond all human experience. Don't you think it is somewhat limited to measure all human experience in terms of one's own and claim that it is not possible for anything beyond one's own knowledge and experience to exist?

So at least you agree even adult human beings, whether atheists or believers, just like children love rituals and in some ways need them. Might not one call it religious genius to provide rituals as trapping along with the spirit and truth?

It is just my blind guess that atheism probably feels good to those who live so much in the here and now that their minds do not reach out beyond what science can tell them. To me as a believer it is too limited a vision of reality.

But that is just me. What makes sense to you and brings you joy is what matters to you. I respect that fully.

Take care and be happy always!

Whooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Immanent Divine
Birth, life, death, rebirth circle
Being is worship

Dear Religious Anonymouses,

I never said only atheists feel awe towards the universe. That certainly is not my "creation myth" (??). My point was directed to the contrary: Awe, which I interpreted as the (non-monotheistic Wiccans') "divinity" is what sensible and sensitive atheists feel when they contemplate life and the universe, its origin and evolution. (They certainly don't have to be musicians, as you allege to me ;), although music requires a feeling for order, structure and harmony!). Thus, I consider "awe" and "divinity" as somewhat similar experiences in this context.

It is the "personalization" of such a feeling, mirroring and transferring human properties on god(s) what I refer to as atavistic. Of course it feels good and can be handled much more easily (for better or worse) than if left in the unknown and yet to be discovered...

And I fully realize the socio-economic and psycho-economic impact of religion, especially of the ritual parts of it. Most musicians, btw., follow rituals to evade stage fright, lol!

We owe atheists no justification for our beliefs.

Atheists could be helpful in identifying superstitions in our belief system.

Atheists do us no favor if they are about destroying the very foundation of our faith, faith itself.

Each of us must decide how long we would like to invest in a never-ending debate and what we intend to learn from it.

If our faith does not make us better persons, it is more honest for us to abandon our faith.

Atheists will judge us only by our fruits. Clever words just won't do.

And in our turn we should return the favor of judging them by their fruits only. If their atheism does not make them better persons it is just as useless as a faith that does not make us better persons.

Goodbye one and all! It has been fun and educative here.

Milk, Sugar & Cream prophets, Yahweh & Co, panelist Professor Stevens-Arroyo has written about priest celibacy and women priests. Read all the comments too and post your response after consulting JC on the matter. Thx.

Signed

Sigmund Freud

Wiccan, monotheism evolved from pantheism and polytheism over many many centuries. It did not happen overnight nor was it an attempt at religious oneupmanship. It was an evolution in consciousness about the spiritual world. If the new level of consciousness did not have merits it would not have been adopted by so many as to make them world religions.

Non-Wiccan believer

Gerry: We atheists only want the "pious" to spare us the over-simplified concepts of their closed codified fossil "creeds", their immobile atavistic world explanations with their restrictions and enforcements.

June 18, 2008 3:41 AM

Unfortunately Gerry, the world cannot be run based on the philosophy of a musician alone, even of many musicians, although even the "pious" with their over -simplified fossil "creeds" their immobile atavistic world explanations with their restrictions and enforcements, find music integral to a beautiful life.

I really, really wish you'd let go of your creation myth Gerry, that only atheists feel awe about the universe. You'd realize then believers enjoy the universe no less than you do, and the fossil "creeds," restrictions and enforcements are meant to provide happiness to all, even the weak and vulnerable, while survival and overabundance just for the fittest leave them out in the cold.

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Gerry: We atheists only want the "pious" to spare us the over-simplified concepts of their closed codified fossil "creeds", their immobile atavistic world explanations with their restrictions and enforcements.

June 18, 2008 3:41 AM

Unfortunately Gerry, the world cannot be run based on the philosophy of a musician alone, even of many musicians, although even the "pious" with their over -simplified fossil "creeds" find music integral to a beautiful life.

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It is far better to be an honest atheist than a religious hypocrite.

Wiccan,

I think we may be closer than it appears: If you substitute the concept of "awe" (which no sensible atheist ever has denied on theses threads and otherwise) for "divine", you find a "feeling" and a sense of the value and meaning of life which is rather similar, without having to "believe" in a supernatural being, mirroring human properties: All the universe is already full of wonder, provoking the most possibly intensive thinking, feeling - and searching! - we humans are capable of.

We atheists only want the "pious" to spare us the over-simplified concepts of their closed codified fossil "creeds", their immobile atavistic world explanations with their restrictions and enforcements.

Dear Paul C -

You mention the resurrection story as told in Mark, ie: where none of the disciples believed Mary Magdalene's story. The same basic version appears in Luke.

However, Matthew tells a completely different story:

28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
(28:8) "And they departed quickly ... and did run to bring his disciples word.
(28:9) "As they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them.... And they came and held him by the feet."
(28:10) "Go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me."

There is no doubting on the part of the disciples in Matthew's version.

Neither is there any doubt on the part of the disciples in John's Gospel, where Peter and Mary go to the tomb together. Only Thomas has doubts in John, and it's only because he wasn't with the other disciples when Jesus reappeared to them.

The Gospels can't agree on a resurrection story, and they cannot be rectified into a single, non-contradictory story line.

Again, this isn't science. It's just inner logic that is sadly missing.

Dear Paul C -

I think that you're quite mistaken in asserting that Jesus' returning to the living after three days dead is a sign of his divinity.

Let me ask you this: was Lazarus returning from the dead a sign of Lazarus's divinity?

How about the zombies who arose when Jesus was resurrected?

Matthew 27:51 "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Now, the first thing that's interesting about this story is that these dead people arose in their graves immediately upon Jesus "giving up the ghost" and STAYED THERE in their graves for three days until AFTER Jesus was resurrected, at which point they got OUT of their graves and walked into Jerusalem. Don't believe it? Re-read the verses I posted above.

But the more-important point in OUR discussion is that - using your logic (ie: " Is it reasonable to believe that a man who was dead for three days came back to life. No, it's not, which is why it was and is evidence of Christ's divinity.") - one would have to assert that all of these "saints" were divine, just like Jesus.

Here's a further complication: one would assume that these saints had been mouldering in the earth for a lot longer than the mere 38 hours Jesus was ABOUT to spend in the grave. Some of them could have been there for centuries. Certainly, it would be an even greater (more divine?) feat for some 300-year-old remains to come back to life than a body that had been dead a mere 38 hours?

Here's yet another complication: these "saints" were actually resurrected a full THREE DAYS BEFORE Jesus was resurrected. Here's the chronology according to Matthew:

27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,"

According to Matthew, these saints were resurrected and sitting in their graves alive while Jesus' dead body still hung on the cross. Seems to me that one could easily make the claim that these saints were actually the divine ones, not Jesus. Indeed, perhaps there was a true son of god among them who needed to be resurrected FIRST, ie: before Jesus could be resurrected.

After all, the famous verses from the Bible (so beautifully set by Handel in his Messiah) say, "I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter days, the first fruits of them that sleep." (Ref: I Corinthians 15:12-29)

Well, apparently, Jesus was NOT the "first fruits of them that sleep." That honor goes to the zombie saints who were resurrected three days before Jesus.

BTW - this is yet more proof that Paul's epistles were written before any of the Gospels. Paul asserts that until and unless Jesus is resurrected, no one else can be resurrected ("And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.'). But Matthew asserts that saints WERE resurrected three days before Christ was resurrected. That seems like an obvious contradiction to me.

Closing thought: I don't think it will suffice to say that Jesus was "about" to be resurrected, so the first fruits honor shouldn't go to the Jerusalem zombies. After all, before is before. A century could be like a mere blink of an eye to god, so the saints being resurrected 38 hours before Jesus could be like unto a thousand years. That being the case, why the need for the blood sacrifice? If god could raise the saints 38 hours before Jesus' resurrection, he could have raised them centuries before.

And are we not to believe that there was a chance that Jesus would not win his battle against Satan in hell? Is that not the whole point of Jesus descending to hell, beating the devil and arising victorious? If it was all a foregone conclusion that he would rise victorious (ie: that Satan didn't stand a chance), then why the blood sacrifice? Why the divine infanticide?

Your thoughts?

Susan Jacoby's new thread is active

Visitors to this thread are invited to continue the conversation there

Susan Jacoby has already posted her new essay

Notes of a Free-Speech Junkie

All are invited to continue the conversation on that thread

Hi Arminius,

Interesting? What happened?

Wiglaf

Well, it was an interesting evening once...

Hi, Wiglaf,

It's been a pretty interesting evening here.

hello arminius,

how are you?

wiglaf

M. Anon, Thomas Baum, Arminius, Wiccan, angels, trees, Christ, Spinoza, Deleuze, Beruriah, God quarreling--in near-serial, respectful posts.

Then there are, indeed, more things in heaven and earth....

Wiccan,

Thanks for the reply. (I like Deleuze!) Mostly, I like the Jewish idea of quarreling with God, of no rendering unto Caesar, no distinction between the spatial and the temporal, in this sense.

Like Beruriah. Like trees and am much taken to task by Deleuze for it as a benighted Westerner.

Still, like trees. Weeping willow first important childhood tree. Also saw an angel in a tree, looked like a piece of sky, but that is another matter. This was empirical, experiential, seen, verified by others, although never replicated.

M. Anonymous

M.A-

It's been awhile since I've read Spinoza. Spinoza leads to
Deleuze, which leads to the plane of immanence, which leads to A LIFE, which leads to vertigo (I get dizzy contemplating the infinite).

My small philosophy is that LIFE is the default position for this universe, and that as soon as there is LIFE there is the Divine, that the Divine has different aspects, these aspects have attributes, and then I get dizzy again. :D

Mr. Mark,
thank you for the kind words. Lets explore your last question: Is it reasonable to believe that a man who was dead for three days came back to life. No, it's not, which is why it was and is evidence of Christ's divinity. Even his own disciples didn't immediately believe it. When Mary Magdalene came back with the report that Jesus was alive, the Apostles didn't believe her. When Jesus appeared to them, he chided them for their unbelief. Thomas, who was not with them, told them that he wouldn't believe that Jesus was alive unless he put his fingers into his wounds. Only when he actually had that opportunity did he exclaim , " My lord and My God." So you are not alone in your unbelief. The whole question is whether the eyewitnesses are credible. I believe they are because the whole sequence of events makes sense to me. Its not blind faith. I read alot, as do you.

Pam,
You pleasantly surprise me! Good verse, thanks. This is the best I can do right now:

What is perception, I might gently ask
To answer that is not an easy task
Reason's road is always quite clear
But there's another that I hold dear
The unseen path behind reason's mask.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- Hamlet

Best,
Arminius

Arminius can be very droll
When blogging, he's clearly no troll,
But he'd have us believe
What we cannot percieve,
That there's some anatomical soul.

Thomas Baum,

You said to Merry Anonymous, "... I believe that you are Christian where it is important, in your heart, even tho you do not believe in God."

That is a profound, beautiful, and compassionate statement. It shows once again that you know what Jesus really taught.

And what M Anon replied to you is true: you are an extraordinary person.

God bless,

Arminius

Thomas Baum writes:

Besides the fact that this was not a geography lesson, they missed the fact that to see "all the kingdom's of earth", you would have to see thru time considering that "all the kingdom's of earth" were not here at the same time and some had not even come into being yet.
-------------------------
Sub specie eternitatus. Not a trivial construct.

PAUL C

In response to Mr Mark you wrote, "2) When the devil was testing Jesus just after the latter's baptism, one of the temptations was to take Jesus to a high point and show him all the kingdom's of earth. The point of the story was that he could have all those kingdom's if he would worship Satan but chose note to. Your author decided that the point of this discussion was that the earth was flat because you couldn't see all the kingdom's on the round earth. Again, how could he have missed the point so badly."

Besides the fact that this was not a geography lesson, they missed the fact that to see "all the kingdom's of earth", you would have to see thru time considering that "all the kingdom's of earth" were not here at the same time and some had not even come into being yet.

As one should be able to see, the conclusion that they came up with is not even "reasonable".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

You are an extraordinary man, Thomas Baum.

MMA, Arminius! Remember that without the irritant the oyster would never create the pearl.

:-)

MERRY ANONYMOUS

I would also like to thank you for not only asking but for actually reading my replies. I do not know why God chose me but He did. I hope that you take this the right way but I will say it anyway, I believe that you are Christian where it is important, in your heart, even tho you do not believe in God.

It sounds like your Mom and Dad did a great job of not only raising you but of educating you in what is important in life.

I would also like to say something about God choosing me, it definitely does not mean that I am better or nothing of the sort but it does mean that I have an awesome responsibility and I do not take that responsibility lightly.

Take care, be ready and thanks again for the chat.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Wiccan,

Beautiful post! Best description I've heard of Wiccan. I guess I've said this before, but we certainly have the reverence of Creation in common. It is what brought me back to belief.

Chris - and Mr Mark - are both highly intelligent, and write great stuff. They have on occasion been an irritant, but what the hell, comes with the turf.

Arminius

Wiccan:

RE: Knowledge through the senses

All knowledge, I think, is mediated. Science, the journal, is also good to read.

Read any Spinoza? Monist, pantheist

M. Anonymous

To Sigmund Freud Imposter:

This is not a nursery kids forum

Religious married women reap contempt from atheists when they preach morality

Signed

Sigmund Freud
-------------------------

Y c+2 & Co., PSC has passed along your remarks for me to reply.

If you review the chat in question, you will see that the PSC raised neither my name nor the banana banter. Rather both were introduced by a pre mortem married believer with a sense of humor.

You will also understand, if you've read even a cursory textbook introduction to my work that our interests (yours and mine), values, and priorities differ.

You will, no doubt, be delighted to know that I am not having an easy time, celestially, due, in large part, to The Case of Dora, which you are free to read. Admittedly, I screwed up, have yet to be able to explain the error, will never be able to make amends pre mortem, for obvious reasons.

Kindly, do not impersonate me again. As you may know, I was busy revisiting, revising, and discovering until my departure, and have been at it ever since, post mortem. Timelessness is precious.

S. FREUD

Doug, don't be so flippant about the cell membrane - much has been learned about that, too.

The Teaching Company (just Google it) is an organization that puts together lecture series on a wide variety of subjects (including religions) by the most academically distinguished professors in the country. For very little money, you can get all the benefit of studying at the top universities, though, of course, without the credentials. If you're moved by a simple love of learning, it's an incredible bargain.

One of their series, Origins of Life, by Robert Hazen, covers in 24 lectures most of the current work on - what else? - the origin of life. See particularly Lecture 16 - "Lipids and Self-Organization" - to learn what is known about the origin of cell walls. It's a good bit more than a throwaway line from a man who was working on something else entirely, which you seem to find so amusing. And aren't you lucky - this lecture series is on sale right now!
***
Paul C., I certainly don't dispute that there are many (otherwise) intelligent people who are religious. Some of them blog here. But to be convincing you will have to find one who believes that he's discovered God through reason *who did not otherwise have any way of knowing about God*. If the notion is inculcated during childhood, then it's not reason, it's rationalization.

Surely you don't think that if you had been raised by wolves, you would believe all the things you now believe - do you?
***

Consciousness is patently of the brain and nothing else. If you doubt this, just ask someone to whack you in the head with a baseball bat.

In "On Intelligence", by Jeff Hawkins (of Palm Pilot fame) he opines (and I'm paraphrasing, as I don't have the book in front of me) that consciousness is what it feels like to have a cerebral cortex.

Those with severely damaged cortexes, as you might have noticed, have no consciousness. Witness Terri Schaivo.

Chris Everett-

I love this forum! I have learned so much from the posters here.

I enjoy gaining knowledge, as attested to by the stacks of Discover Magazine all over my house. (I read Scientific American, too, but it's a bit over my head.) I have no problem with acquiring knowledge through the senses. But here is where I'll make you shake your head, or pull your hair out.

The Wiccan worldview, belief system, what have you, is that the Divine is immanent, or present and part of, everything in this existence. My son, my cats, my friends and neighbors, all are inextricably part of the Divine, and the Divine is part of them. The fire in the sky above my head, the earth beneath my feet, the wind that blows through the trees, the water that flows to the ocean, these too are part of the Divine. So if you prove empirically the existence of any or all of these, TO ME the existence of the Divine is proven also.

I have no desire to impose my belief system on anyone else; my religion is there to instruct ME as to my responsibility to the world. I neither pick your pocket nor break your leg by believing as I do. This is part of what my post was about. The cultural bias in the West is that the fewer Gods you believe in, the smarter you are (culminating, of course, in the atheist). The atheist is usually so hung up on disproving the Christian God that he discounts other belief systems, so we all are tarred with the same brush.

I enjoy your posts very much, and I hope you will continue to use your wit and wisdom to battle the believing hordes, which of whom I am just an insignificant foot soldier. Peace and long life! :-)

Dear Thomas Baum,

I want to thank you more than I can say for your thoughtful, deeply considered reply. It is the most substantive answer to these questions I've ever received by a Christian, and that says a great deal.

Without dwelling on my past, I would like to tell you that I was raised in a Christian family within
a Christian community. My parents were literally good Christian people, who understood "innocense" without naivete. They understood that goodness is something one strives for and performs. They fought for the oppressed, and did not have a bigoted bone within them. Nevertheless, I did not believe, never believed, I think.

I somethimes think that things might have been different with me if people like my father and mother had been my only source of Christian education, I don't know. However, within the larger community, there were many who were as different from them as I am.

With gratitude,
M. Anonymous

Mr Mark,

That one I can't top. Gotta think on it for a while.

For Arminius:

The challenge for me hearing Bach,
As religion I ravage and mock,
Is what sounded like passion,
In Bach's multi-note fashion,
Now resembles and old clock's "tick-tock."

When divorcing the text from his "Mass,"
(A practice reserved for THIS ass),
The old feeling is gone
And Bach's warm Baroque song
Doesn't pull the same strings, as did past.

My advice - on which I must insist,
To those who love the "Fifth Evangelist,"
Is to embrace hocus-pocus,
Lest the Bard's magnum opus
Lose all of its magic forthwith.

;)

Mr Mark, that's a hard act to follow!

Mr Mark, that poet and musician
Is truly a man for all seasons
Now by reason he's led
His beliefs he has shed
He's a really fine guy - we'll forgive him!

Arminius is the exception that proves the rule,
A Christian who respects the grand teachings of school.
Though believing the invisible,
His mind's still divisible -
He'll embrace knowledge scorned by god's fools.

Paul c writes:

"You can not deny that there are plenty of very intelligent people who feel that they have found God through reason."

Oh, I don't deny it. Paul C seems to be a pretty reasonable guy.

No, there's a different explanation for some people. Perhaps they have an ability to compartmentalize. Perhaps that ability is driven by the sticks and carrots of religious dogma (eternal life v eternal suffering).

There are the nutty religious who abhor reason, and there are those who listen to reason up to a point, that point being when reason puts real pressure on their fantasies...at which point, the faith card usually makes an appearance.

But at some point, reason and fact MUST be ignored/abandoned if religious beliefs are to be countenanced. Simple test: is it reasonable to believe a person can come back from the dead after 3 days of being quite dead?

You just draw the line at a different place than does the fundie, but you're still drawing a line against reason, all the same.

Wiccan,

Your equating atheism and rationalism is incorrect. As you indicate, rationalism is the notion that truth can be deduced by pure rationization, without recourse to sensory input. Rationalism stands in contrast to empiricism, which is the notion that truth comes in the form of sensory input.

By and large, atheists are empiricists, not rationalists. They believe that knowledge OF the world comes FROM the world. They believe that if there's anything that can be said to be true, it's the physical world, which we are made aware of through our senses. In particular, the fact that we share a common physical world allows agreement about its properties, and agreement is indeed what is found.

Your request for equal status of the God hypothesis with the NO God hypothesis is specious, since the God hypothesis is totally unsupported by the physical evidence, meaning that there's no truth upon which it hangs. Show some EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for God and you will have a valid hypothesis, one that might warrant more than immediate dismissal. But you don't have empirical evidence.

The typical gambit now is to ask for proof of No God, but that is a logically illegitimate move. It's not the atheist's job to disprove anyone else's conjectures. There's simply no end to it.

Which brings up the point, which I seriously implore you to incorporate into your critical thinking toolbox, of what KIND of belief is it anyway, and what other beliefs are of the same KIND? In terms of evidentiary basis, your God belief is of the same kind as Spiderman2's God beliefs, Osama Bin Laden's God belief, the ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Mayan God beliefs, the Loch Ness Monster, alien abductions (with and without anal probes), etc. Is there consistency among beliefs of this kind? Emphatically NO. So what can be said about truth criteria that admit beliefs of this kind? Well, that they FAIL.

Now think about the beliefs of the ideal empiricist/atheist, and what KIND of beliefs he/she has. By requiring all beliefs to be rooted in physical evidence, we have a situation where they are all justified by the truth. Of course, this doesn't mean that they are true in and of themselves, and certainly not true in an absolute way. But they HANG on the truth. Truth is their support. They are consistent among each other. They are consistent with the real world. And they are consistent among people who share empiricism as the criterion for belief. That's what KIND of belief atheists have.

Atheists like to keep their minds clean. Truth is so important, so precious, so irreplaceable, that atheists don't like their minds to be polluted by beliefs that have no evidentiary support. Once that happens, consistency is fractured and self deception is needed in order to prevent internal conflict.

This does not mean, as religionists like to say, that atheists believe that if they can't see it it doesn't exist. It only means that the status of truth is reserved for beliefs that actually hand on empirical truth. But since no one has "seen it all", nature will forever be revealing truths, and the atheist's beliefs will forever be improving with the garnering of new evidence.

If you want to believe most fervently in that for which you have the least evidence, go right ahead. But a good atheists will respect your belief only to the extent that KIND of belief hangs from truth, which is nil.

Mr Mark,
Good one! Looks like the poetry wars are back. Keep 'em clean, this time, please!

My believer's mind is hard to explain
I believe in science, but then again
I have faith in God
It's really not odd
I use both my soul and my brain.

Mr mark:
Don't be so quick to assume that reason and God can't co-exist. They surely can, even if it doesn't seem that way to you based on the information you have and how you process that information. You can not deny that there are plenty of very intelligent people who feel that they have found God through reason.

Mr. Mark,
Good one! :) No offense taken. Have a good day.

For Doug:

The religious mind is quite hard to explain,
Running the gamut from staid to insane,
Their belief in the gods,
Is surely at odds
With the knowledge we've gained with our brains.

M ANONYMOUS

You wrote, "Free will, then, does not explain the suffering of the innocent, regardless of the cause--I assume I may conclude this from your comments."

I don't know exactly what you mean by this but the best I can answer is that there is not an explanation for the suffering but that since we have free will, we can inflict suffering on others in various forms; physical, emotional, etc., sometimes intentionally and sometimes not but also since we have free will, the way that we respond to that is our choice also.

You also wrote, " Again and again, I read of people having conversion experiences when confronted with dire illness. I believe you reported having had such an experience."

I experienced what I call a reconversion experience but it did not coincide with a dire illness, it happened at a point in my life that I look on now as just when it was suppose to happen, the way that I put it is that I HAD to know some things to do the job that God chose for me to do, not just believe.

You then wrote, "How, then, are we to explain why God chooses to save X, but not Y?", you wrote this in reference to "personal salvation" and personal saviour".

From listening to what some people say when talking about a "personal saviour", I totally disagree with such a selfish attitude, not that Jesus isn't my Saviour but if God's Plan isn't for All than it isn't much of a Plan.

As far as God chooses X, but not Y; it isn't that God chooses, it is that God knows that X will accept the gift while Y will reject the gift whereas in God's Plan, X by accepting the gift also accepts to die for Y, just as Jesus died for X.

Do you see where some seem to completely miss what Jesus taught and the invitation that He sent out to us to: "Come follow Me" and "Take up your cross".

As I have said before, some people seem so intent on being "Easter People" that they don't even notice that Jesus called us to be "Good Friday People", I would like to ask you, do you see what I am writing? Also, do you see any of this in some of the absolutely hate-filled posts by some who call themself "christian"?

You also wrote, "Why don't Christian believers rejoice at death, at the prospect of their own and that of others, since, many believe, that they will be with God after they pass?"

There can be many answers to this since all of us are individual people and everyone reacts to things in life differently including death which is part of life. In my life, different people's death at different periods in my life affected me differently. Also, you say, "Christian believers", we are all people whatever label someone puts on us whether believer, unbeliever or whatever and you know what this just brought to mind something in the bible that I find very enlightening and it concerns Jesus and His buddy Lazarus, when Lazarus died and it says, "Jesus wept".

Then you asked, "A last question: This concerns creation: HOw do Christian believers explain the FOSSIL RECORD? Cro Magnon man, Homo erectus, etc."

If you have read some of the postings by "Christian believers" you will see that they run the gamut, so there is no one answer to how a "Christian believer" explains the fossil record.

I will tell you how I look at it, I look at the six days of creation as quite literal but not in the sense that some do. I look at them as God Day's or periods of time, how long the first five lasted, individually and collectively, I do not know. I also believe that the sixth day has lasted quite a while, again how long I don't know, and we are still in it.

Jesus said a couple of things that I believe are in reference to this and they are: "Night is coming when no man can work" and "My Father has been busy even until now". It happens to say in the bible that God: "Blest, Rested and made Holy the seventh day".

The night of the sixth day when God lifts His Spirit from the earth and the dawning of the seventh day when God declares victory in favor of the Holy Ones.

I, personally, do not think that God was in a rush when He made not only this world but the entire universe considering that He also created Time along with Space, the material universe.

I hope that this is at least something to think about, thanks for asking the questions.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

A

Realist.

We will agree to disagree on separation of consciousness from the brain.

We can agree on two things. "Skepticisim doesn't hurt. It can only prevent you from being misled." and that we are all in this (life) together.

Thanks for the dialouge.

Regards.

Ode to Scientific Discipline

Great is the genius of scientific discipline,
Stretching the mind to heights unfathomable,
Piercing the past with precision theoretical--
Posit a theory, test a hypothesis,
Garner acclaim by explaining the difference
Between theory and fact
("Could be this, could be that")
And when all else fails, exclaim with great emphasis:

The gap did it!

Pam:
I worked for fifteen years as a vet tech. I've seen the pain that animals suffer as a result of microbial infections, insects, other animals, mechanical injury, and human cruelty and negligence.
I most definitely know that other living things feel pain. I am of the belief that plants feel pain as well as animals.
While pain is not pleasant, regardless of your species, it is a part of being alive. And it is often useful as a warning. If I touch something sharp and it hurts, I pull my hand away, hopefully before sustaining a nasty cut. If I didn't feel the pain, I might not realize that I was in danger of being cut until I saw blood spurting from an artery.
If I feel a bite, I slap at the spot where I felt it, I notice that the mosquitoes are becoming active, and I get out the eucalyptus oil. If I didn't feel the pain of the bite, I might not notice the mosquitoes until I was covered in welts.

While I do believe we (and the rest of the Universe) are more than the sum of our parts, I don't believe in an external Creator. Rather,I see all that exists as co-creators of the moment in which it exists.

Spritual Mongrel,
I apologize for implying that you are "religious".

I'm pretty spiritual also, particularly for an atheist.

I agree that human consciousness is something that is not well understood, but everything I've learnt about it indicates that it is always firmly attached to a brain. Any solid evidence to the contrary would turn physics on its head. It would instantly earn a Nobel prize.

One of the dads attending my son's football matches is an expert on rehabilitation of people with brain injuries. I love to spend hours talking to him about consciousness, how the brain works, or the latest medical breakthrough. I almost always learn something new and interesting, maybe about evolution or experimental psychology. The clear message I get from him is that consciousness depends on the brain. Injure the brain and you injure the mind. The more you injure the brain the less there is left of the mind. Injuring the brain can damage a person's memories change their personality or reduce their consciousness. I think the obvious conclusion to draw is that the mind and consciousness are consequences of the functioning of the brain. There does not seem to be any reliable evidence to the contrary.

If there is anyone who can astral travel or do remote viewing, it would be very simple for them to prove it. Just get some Zenner ESP cards, have someone who has no contact with the "viewer" select one at random and place it face up on a table in another room, and have the viewer write down which card it is. If the viewer can reliably get significantly better than chance, then remote viewing works and our knowledge of the laws of physics is not valid. It's that simple. That's a properly designed experiment to test the hypothesis that the mind can percieve things other than through the senses. It's funny how "researchers" in this field can't seem to design experiments correctly. Mnay experiments done in this field involve subjective judgement of the results. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that they need to get some good results to continue getting funding. When the experiments are correctly designed, the results are always the same as random guessing.

I did lots of those kinds of experiments with my friends when I was a kid (that's what I did when other kids were playing cricket or football). We did get some results that were significantly better than chance ... but only by ignoring results until we got some that looked good. Then we jumped up and down convinced that we had psychic powers.

Parapsychologists have also been known to fall into the same trap. They do lots of experiments and only publish the ones that are "successful". It's very tempting but it's bad science! Properly designed experiments in parapsychology that indicate the existence of psychic abilities never seem to be repeatable.

Anyway I probably won't convince you, but please remember: as somebody else also pointed out earlier, you can never be too skeptical! Skepticisim doesn't hurt. It can only prevent you from being misled.

Regards,
Realist

This is not a nursery kids forum

Religious married women reap contempt from atheists when they preach morality

Signed

Sigmund Freud

Sam Harris, My Child,

Contrary to popular opinion, He is not intransigent regarding your tolerance of bananas, or lack thereof.

J. Christ M+1

cc: M. Anonymous

I am not allergic to bananas.

Y c+2 & Co., PSC:

I am at a loss as to why you assert that Sam Harris is allergic to bananas. With my own eyes, I have seen him eat bananas (with yogurt).

If I have confused bananas with another fruit, please let me know, also if I have confused Harris with another person. You will rightly judge my fear of bearing false witness to Harris's constitution and dining habits or to any other man's.

Yours,
M. Anonymous

he thunder of the funders?

I fear the allusion to our simian ancestors has awakened them from their slumber.

But fear not! funds

The Almighty looks after all his creatures and that includes the simple simians and their beloved bananas.

Not me, alas. I have no such sweet innocence.

And I cannot tarry. I must away.

Love and kisses to all.
Mary C.

June 17, 2008 6:42 AM

Love and kisses to all.
Mary C.

Love and kisses to all.
Mary C.

Love and kisses to all.
Mary C.

If not nursery kid farewell

If no nursery kid farewell

If not nursery kid farewell

then...silly silly silly adult

Signed

Sigmund Freud

Sam Harris is allergic to bananas.

Yahweh C+2
J. Christ M+1
Moses B0S

Mary C, My Child,

You are not alone on this thread regarding said bananas. Sometimes, a banana is just a banana.

Y Guy & Co., PSC

Y Guy et al:

Whomever, My Child, et al,

Whence this sudden preoccupation with bananas?

Sigmund Freud asks the same here is why

I would finish by asking you not to forget our simple simians. Keep them well supplied with their beloved bananas, O Yahweh&Co! Provide them with comfortable cushions as they feast in your antechamber. It is not their fault they evolved into us.

I am, your faithful servant,
Mary C.

June 17, 2008 5:54 AM

A Modest Appeal:

PS I don’t much care for bananas. Hence I am donating any bananas that might come my way to Sam’s* Banan-appeal for Simple Simians. Of course Sam is posthumous but should he be humous is surely an appeal that would be close to his heart.

Mary C.

*the Beckett variety, not the Harris type

June 17, 2008 6:58 AM

Whomever, My Child, et al,

Whence this sudden preoccupation with bananas?
We cannot dwell on Sam Harris because he is still of your world. We would have him there for a long time. He has work to do but does not yet see when he misses the mark.

Freud smoked one too many cigars, which were just cigars, and we warned him. We are troubled by him and he by Us, but he is with Us.

Dora is closer to Us.

Y Guy et al.

A Modest Appeal:

PS I don’t much care for bananas. Hence I am donating any bananas that might come my way to Sam’s* Banan-appeal for Simple Simians. Of course Sam is posthumous but should he be humous is surely an appeal that would be close to his heart.

Mary C.

*the Beckett variety, not the Harris type

June 17, 2008 6:58 AM

Q. E. D. Signed Sigmund Freud

PS I don’t much care for bananas. Hence I am donating any bananas that might come my way to Sam’s* Banan-appeal for Simple Simians. Of course Sam is posthumous but should he be humous is surely an appeal that would be close to his heart.

Mary C.

*the Beckett variety, not the Harris type

To Y Guy & Co., PSC:::

I would finish by asking you not to forget our simple simians. Keep them well supplied with their beloved bananas, O Yahweh&Co! Provide them with comfortable cushions as they feast in your antechamber. It is not their fault they evolved into us.

I am, your faithful servant,
Mary C.

June 17, 2008 5:54 AM

On an atheist blog out of the blue such a comment I needs must read between the lines...

he thunder of the funders?

I fear the allusion to our simian ancestors has awakened them from their slumber.

But fear not! funds

The Almighty looks after all his creatures and that includes the simple simians and their beloved bananas.

Not me, alas. I have no such sweet innocence.

And I cannot tarry. I must away.

Love and kisses to all.
Mary C.

June 17, 2008 6:42 AM

Read Freud no funder knew simians and their beloved bananas

The thunder of the funders?

I fear the allusion to our simian ancestors has awakened them from their slumber.

But fear not! funds

The Almighty looks after all his creatures and that includes the simple simians and their beloved bananas.

Not me, alas. I have no such sweet innocence.

And I cannot tarry. I must away.

Love and kisses to all.
Mary C.

Whomever, My Child,

JC chides me for being abrupt. We are fond of Sam Harris. (Mo says Harris thinks he is Moses, a source of minor irritation to us both.)

Love,
Y C+2 & Co., PSC

To Whomever,

Yahweh C+2 et al referred in previous post to S. Beckett, not Harris, between whom We and Mary can distinguish.

Of Sam Harris, Son of Man. He can find his own bananas.

Y C+2 & Co, PSC

I would finish by asking you not to forget our simple simians. Keep them well supplied with their beloved bananas, O Yahweh&Co! Provide them with comfortable cushions as they feast in your antechamber. It is not their fault they evolved into us.

I am, your faithful servant,
Mary C.

June 17, 2008 5:54 AM

Don't blame atheists when they mock religion as sham

Y Guy & Co., PSC:

Mary C, My Child,

Yahweh admires and loves you deeply, but Our love is not of your world.

Love,
Y Guy et al

PS. Do not doubt Sam. He is always near Us. One thief was saved.

June 17, 2008 6:22 AM

You gotta be joking for recommending faith in Sam Harris

Faithful servant Mary C would have you to keep her supplied with many bananas on this earth she has not read the Ten Commandments

Mary C, My Child,

Yahweh admires and loves you deeply, but Our love is not of your world.

Love,
Y Guy et al

PS. Do not doubt Sam. He is always near Us. One thief was saved.

Read the Ten Commandments

Mary C, My Child,

Do not doubt Beckett. We love him deeply. (Malloy did visit his mother. Read the signs.)

Y Guy & Co., PSC

I would finish by asking you not to forget our simple simians. Keep them well supplied with their beloved bananas, O Yahweh&Co! Provide them with comfortable cushions as they feast in your antechamber. It is not their fault they evolved into us.

I am, your faithful servant,
Mary C.

Come on out with it - is it your way of asking for sex

Gerry, Son of Man,

Heed me. I have heard the cries of man, and no harm will befall you.

JC admires Bach, which I suggest you keep in mind when posting on this thread.

Cordially,

Y C+2 & Co., PSC

Yahweh and Co.,

Thank you for your responce. And You are right about the Hebrew Bible, well, You did have a hand in a lot of it. Of course, You also are right about the Irish, but then, You had a hand in them too. Not the drinking part, obviously, although maybe it helped with the poetry.

This blog is finishing: alas! we have so little time!--not You, certainly--but your material world..I would finish by asking you not to forget our simple simians. Keep them well supplied with their beloved bananas, O Yahweh&Co! Provide them with comfortable cushions as they feast in your antechamber. It is not their fault they evolved into us.

I am, your faithful servant,
Mary C.

Anonymous (es?),

Re: CCNL

Ye of little faith, We do not post for CCNL, Our child. JC commends him for his progress, and asks that all support him. (I will pass on Mo.)

Love,
Y Guy, et al

A Closer Look/Just:

We will return. Name your post mortem favorites, writers, preferably.

Know that you will be with your fellow man for a long time.

Yc+2 & Co., PSC

Milk, Cream & Sugar prophets ignore Gerry he has no sense of humor. Don't punish him for it for he can't help it.

Milk, Cream & Sugar prophets you have a great sense of humor even if I'm of the opinion it is not fair to torture poor CCNL by posting his rubbish over and over again considering he does so himself without any help from anyone.

Mary C, My Child,

JC says to mention that we will be stopping by for coffee after we have hosted the post mortems.
(Scroll down, if you'd like.)

He knows how wasted I get when in need of caffeine and wished me to remind you to have necessary supplies on hand. (We are all very particular about silverware.)

We have given your people great gifts, Mary C., Yeats, Joyce (not so lapsed as he still insists he is), Beckett, & Synge. More on them post mortem, later.

Mo recommends Martin Esslin's book Theatre of the Absurd, for Beckett. JC says to look for Him in Waiting for Godot. He is there in abundance, unironically.

The world owes much to the Irish.

Y C+2 & Co, PSC

PS. Should you see Mr. Mark, tell him that the Bible (OT to him) is among the greatest works of literature We have given the world. There are countless (for him) books and articles on the subject. If he will hear you, suggest he lift his eyes from his navel and visit a library.

Tell him that for the Biblical NT, We had other things in Mind. To read the NT without the OT is not to read it at all.

Love,
Y C+2 & Co., PSC

Mary C., My Child,

I do not answer direct questions, for reasons, as a Catholic, you surely understand. If you will rephrase your question re: the burning bush business, I will pass it along to Moses BOS. I suggest rephrasing because although the prophet to whom I was able to reveal some of my being, knowing he would live, I have found he does not have a sense of humor. Recall, too, that he is reticent, does not have a way with words. You may find this ironic. It is not.

BTW, when you read he was the prophet to whom I showed my face, understand that you are reading metaphor.

Know that I never incarnated any aspect of my self. I am not a murderer and did not send my "son" to earth to be tortured to death. Beware of literalism.

Mo & JC like the simians and the three of us like bananas.

As for Ireland, although we are enormously fond of the Irish (Where does one begin?), I foresaw, in the beginning, that the idols would be hanging in the Middle East. Know that the weather has never kept us from the Irish.

Love,

Yahweh C+2
J.C. M+1
Mo. BOS

Yahweh & Co:

Is it true that originally you attempted to contact our ancestors (the human not the simian) in Ireland, only were not able to manifest Yourself in the burning bush as it kept raining?

And what is your plan for our simian predecessors? I see them as happily enjoying their bananas in the antechamber of your almighty presence.

I am not blaspheming, only interested.

Mary C.

Which in fact she has. It is titled 'Notes Of A Free-Speech Junkie'

May I pronounce this thread dead so that all may rest in peace until Susan Jacoby posts her next essay?

Jihadist does not share her Muslim views on the fellow Muslim Eboo Patel blog

I see I should have just quoted the article. OK:

"With all the mixing, something special might eventually have formed: an RNA molecule that made rough copies of itself. And as Earth warmed, these molecules might have found a home in newly thawed seas or ponds, where something even more complex might have emerged—such as a cell-like membrane. “You have something that is multiplying itself, and you have variation that is inherited,” says Antonio Lazcano, a biology researcher and professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, in Mexico City?. “There you have the onset of Darwinian evolution. I’m willing to call that living.” (p.4)

The Starbucks faction (Its jokes are wearing off, after having been brandished sooo many times!) displays the classical religious persuasion pattern, shown through religious history: If you run out of arguments, you start screaming. If that doesn’t help, you start threatening. If that doesn’t get you anywhere, you start annihilating.

An infantile, but no less dangerous pattern found already early in life in the sandbox: “My shovel is bigger than yours” etc. And to increase “shock and awe”, you threaten to call your daddy, and if you went to school, you even use the pluralis maiestatis for the same purpose.

Enemies of general evolution should at least believe in individual HUMAN evolution from the sandbox to adult behavior. But no: “Unless you become like children….” There you have it.

But then, as I think about it: It may be an attempt at sarcasm from the sugar and milk author. Here, of course, the pertaining facial expression is missing to define the degree of such sarcasm. It may be disappointment seeing it… And calling someone an idiot is usually not called sarcasm.

And: To be called in idiot by an idiot amounts to a compliment: -1 x -1 = +1. So thanks!

Soja:
Again, we have this semantic question, with all the traps language holds, in which nobody seems to be very interested here: "Intuition” cannot exist outside of your brain. No single thought, religious or otherwise, exists outside of your brain. And your brain has developed through life, of course. It represents your biography. So your intuition belongs to the biography your brain represents: Condensed experience, immersed in the unconscious.

Mr. Mark:

We conferred and share equally in this opinion.

We opine: You are a jerk, not because whenever you venture beyond "plain language," you offend the eye and ear, but because you are an arrogant and silly little man. Son of Man, gaze upon thy self and reflect.

Vade in pace (Vade.)

Y C+2
J. Christ M+1
Moses B0S

ANONYMOUS spews:
"Mr Mark all anti-theists have your problem. Don't trouble yourself about something that can never be cured. You will be rid of it when you die. Then you have proof whether God exists or not. Only pity you can't return to tell anyone the answer."

Oooo...the threat of the big, bad, invisible, illiterate bogeyman makes yet another hapless appearance. He's gonna GIT you, suckah! BFD.

PS: by definition, there can be no "proof" that an afterlife/god doesn't exist. It there's no consciousness after death, you can't know that there is no consciousness after death. It kinda works that way. It's the flip side to, "if you never exist, you'll never know that you never existed" thingee.

Oh, wait...I get it...the religionist thinks there IS an afterlife, so we're all going to find out that god does exist. Wow. I'm impressed.

PPS: You wrote - "Only pity you can't return to tell anyone the answer."

Care to name a few people who have returned from the dead to tell us god does exist? Didn't think so.

Next!

Anonymous, you idiotic, though honest fool,

We are loathe to burst mortal bubbles, but we are occupied in various parts of the world with matters even more grave (not punning) than those on this thread. We will return when the post mortems arrive. (Scroll down. We gave Mankind the capacity to review for himself.)

It could be, says J. Christ, in no mood, as of late, that you are Mr. Mark. If this is correct, leave the coffee, cream, milk, sugar, utensils (about which we are all particular) outside, protected from insects and flying particles.

We have not abandoned you, but do not enjoy your company. (Moses says he dislikes it intensely).

The same message we gave to Gerry applies to you.
Farnaz has read the signs. As for you, shop early.

We'll be by.

Y C+2 & Co. PSC

Doug -

Pam provided a perfectly acceptable answer, perhaps THE acceptable answer to your question.

I'd think a relgionist like yourself would appreciate the brevity and succinctness of the occasional "Amen" from the atheists. ;)

Mr Mark all anti-theists have your problem. Don't trouble yourself about something that can never be cured. You will be rid of it when you die. Then you have proof whether God exists or not. Only pity you can't return to tell anyone the answer.

Pam,
Thanks--fun reading. Lovely assumptions such as the magic cell wall must delight scientists.

Mr. Mark,
Nice punt. No return. (Why bother?--not interested.)

PAUL C remonstrates:
"Mr.MARK,
Your problem seems to be that you think that the bible should be a scientific text book and you are more concerned with finding fault than understanding what the bible is really trying to portray..."

No, I just expect any historic novel (that's what the Bible is in modern parlance, after all) to have an inner consistency (which the Bible is missing in spades...outside of the genocide, that is) and to be at least mildly believable from a scientific prospective.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't find anything special about the Bible as literature. I don't hear the "poetry" others claim. It sure ain't Shakespeare, that's for sure.

I disagree that I'm trying to "find fault" with the Bible. On the contrary, the fault rather whacks one in the face if one gives it half a chance. Finding fault with the Bible is like finding water in a hurricane.

As far as what "the bible is really trying to portray" - I can't believe you actually said that. Isn't that purely a matter of opinion, and opinion that varies from sect to sect, parish to parish and - ultimately - from believer to believer? Which interpretation of the bible am I to believe is the correct "portrayal?" Pauls C's? Arminius'? Spiderman2's? Mary Cunningham's? All or none of the above?

For some strange reason, I don't believe that I'm the one who has the problem.

Milk, Cream & Sugar prophets even divine knowing can sometimes err. It is human.

Milk, cream & Sugar prophets thou art not permitted to insult an innocent man. Gerry is an innocent man.

Gerry, you idiot,

Not about to torment CCNL next...Milk, Cream & Sugar prophets?

1. Adjust your absurdly mortal vision when you read this thread, so you know to Whom you are raving.

2. Make sure you have coffee, cream, milk, and sugar because We like to drop by unannounced.

3. Make all needed food purchases (all purchases, actually) since prices will be rising even higher in your part of the world very, very soon.

4. Re: CCNL, My Child
Appears to be doing better, we agree. Have had no further communications with Mr. Waters.

CCNL: Heed Me

5. Gerry, We'll be by as soon as We can.

Y C+2 & Co., PSC

PS. Kindly, do not insult our divine knowing by posting that you are not Gerry. I don't like to say it, but We have been known to get pissed off.

Jihadist does not post on fellow Muslim Eboo Patel blog.

Y Guy + 2 & Co PSC:

Religious Anonymous, My Child,

Thanks for helping out with reading recommendations for Farnaz, but, this one, I rather think, We have under control.

Yahweh Cream + 2 Sugars
J. Christ Milk + 1 Sugar
Moses Black no Sugar

**************

Not about to torment CCNL next...Milk, Cream & Sugar prophets?

Religious Anonymous,

Farnaz read the signs.

Y Guy C+2 & Co, PSC

Religious Anonymous, My Child,

Thanks for helping out with reading recommendations for Farnaz, but, this one, I rather think, We have under control.

Yahweh Cream + 2 Sugars
J. Christ Milk + 1 Sugar
Moses Black no Sugar

I notice that the link I gave puts you in the middle of the article (I was too specific with my keywords, I guess). If you want to read the whole thing, either scroll down and click on page 1, or go to:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

The early part concerns the search for the origin of amino acids.

Doug - more tomorrow, if not here, then on Susan's next thread...

The modern day prophets need to read and reread Matthew chapters 5 - 7

Y Guy C+2 & Co., PSC:

Alternatively FARNAZ can read in one go Matthew chapters 5 -7 in an online NIV Bible

And the modern day prophets too

Y Guy C+2 & Co., PSC:

Alternatively FARNAZ can read in one go Matthew chapters 5 -7 in an online NIV Bible

Farnaz,

All I can do is post signs that the prophets will read. I do not judge them should they tire.

For you:

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Is. 61.2

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Ps. 37.11

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Is. 55.1, 2

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Ps. 24.4, 5

Doug writes:

"Now, my question for you or Mr. Mark or Chris:
Explain perfectly (with the minute detail and logic you hold as scientifically necessary) how amino acids formed RNA or DNA and then began replicating themselves?"

Pam answers:

"Of course you know that we (or I - I should speak only for myself) can't do that. The mechanism is not yet discovered. I say "not yet", because I think it will be, and probably in my lifetime. There are some very promising fields of research - probably the best is a quite new one, concerning sea ice. It was reported in Scientific American just a few months ago."

Thanks for responding, Pam. I guess we should give Doug credit for at least knowing which question to ask that would elicit the "science doesn't yet know response.

I get the feeling that maybe Doug isn't your typical religionist. I can see him offering a different response than "godidit" for those gaps yet to be explained by science. In Doug's case, he may well say "Henny Youngman did it" instead.

Pam,
You gave a great answer to my question (I would be interested in the articles). You also asked great questions.

By "Creator" I really mean "Organizer"--a better translation of the Biblical term. The "Creator" energizes matter into the complexity of primitive earth to allow life to begin to form, then brings life forms to earth from another sphere where their predecessors lived, then allows or energizes evolution plus the changes in stages of the earth's "evolution" to how it exists as we know it today. The Creator does all of this ultimately so we can learn how to get along with each other and learn from all of the life processes and life experiences and human interactions--because learning provides growth and, ultimately, the opportunity to really understand agape.

You are right, IMO, that we wouldn't "need" a Creator in all of this process, other than the observation that humankind seems to make the same basic mistakes over and over throughout history. One could say, "we ought to be able to learn collectively from all the mistakes of the past and present", but then wouldn't there be world peace and very little malnutrition?

Then, too, if actions have the ramifications of consequences that have "domino effects", then I for one am grateful to acknowledge the possibility (IMO) that there is a way of overcoming those "domino effects ad infinitum". But I won't go there in this dialogue. As far as I'm concerned, by living and growing through learning, we're all on a path of progress. All the best to you. Thanks for responding.

PS Gerry

As an afterthought:

There are different kinds and levels of intuitions. Spiritual intuition itself can be of varying degrees. The intuition you mentioned, which is merely a product of a conditioned unconscious, is at a purely human level and is not what religion refers to as spiritual intuition.

Soja

There is only one degree of disgust when it comes to Islam- i.e. extremely and universally disgusting as easily seen from the "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of said religion. These "fems" are never debated by the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist and other so called liberal Islamic "thinkers".

Once again the "fems" of Islam:

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/ mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The muck and stench of Islam you ask?

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering , womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

Here is a link to the sea ice story. There is more in-depth stuff available, from the journal Nature, for one, but you have to pay to see it. This is the pop version.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=

Doug says:
"Some of us believe in a Creator within the universe, not outside of the universe, and in a Creator using scientific knowledge and principles that work in the universe, not making them up."

OK, help me understand. Are you saying that the Universe and the scientific principles that it seems to operate under were already here - NOT created by God? God came later and used those principles to what - start life? Just start it, but not make it do anything specific? Create the world, or was that here along with the Universe? (Serious questions, I'm not like Jihadist.)

"Under that scenario, why shouldn't there be "evolved parasites" just as much as any other evolved species? If you accept evolution totally, then you accept that parasites evolved."

Yes, I do. But where does humanity fit into this?
If evolution was just set in motion and left to run by itself, we might never have come about. Or am I misunderstanding?

"If a Creator uses the existing science that you believe in, and lets it move along, then in your mind that says that Creator must not be loving, but some of us don't think of an arbitrarily interposing Creator "at whim"--acting out of love. Why not let us learn from the existing universe, instead of making it all "just right" for us, with no messiness?"

I'm just not seeing much need for a creator at all in this scenario - which takes us to your question:

"Now, my question for you or Mr. Mark or Chris:
Explain perfectly (with the minute detail and logic you hold as scientifically necessary) how amino acids formed RNA or DNA and then began replicating themselves?"

Of course you know that we (or I - I should speak only for myself) can't do that. The mechanism is not yet discovered. I say "not yet", because I think it will be, and probably in my lifetime. There are some very promising fields of research - probably the best is a quite new one, concerning sea ice. It was reported in Scientific American just a few months ago.

If you're sincerely interested, I will find my issue and tell you which it is. I can also point you to a lecture series from The Teaching Company that explores all of the current thinking.

One point - RNA (which almost certainly preceded DNA, and likely was preceded itself by something even simpler - replicates by itself, as long as the requisite chemical environment, containing the right amino acids, is available - it doesn't need to made to do so.

The problem is to discover how all of the amino acids came to be (we know how to make most, but not all of them, by replicating early Earth conditions) and how they became organized along a sugar "spine". The sea ice discoveries go a long way toward explaining the latter.

Mr.MARK,
Your problem seems to be that you think that the bible should be a scientific text book and you are more concerned with finding fault than understanding what the bible is really trying to portray.. I believe instead that its intent is and was to convey theological truths in ways that the common people would understand. So if they understood anything that flew to be a bird, than to describe a bat as a bird would be what the people could comprehend. How would describing a microbe help someone understand theological truths? Why would God waste prophetic time talking about Marsuppials. Wouldn't that be missing the point?

I did check out your website on "Biblical idiocies". I see now where you get your material. Its really embarrassing that your author missed the points of the readings so badly in an effort to show he was smarter than the author's of scripture. I'll just give thee examples in the interest of time.

1) When Jesus talked about the sanctity of marriage, he described that God made them male and female to be together from the beginning of time. Your author understands that to mean that Jesus doesn't recognize evolution. Talk about missing the point of the discussion..

2) When the devil was testing Jesus just after the latter's baptism, one of the temptations was to take Jesus to a high point and show him all the kingdom's of earth. The point of the story was that he could have all those kingdom's if he would worship Satan but chose note to. Your author decided that the point of this discussion was that the earth was flat because you couldn't see all the kingdom's on the round earth. Again, how could he have missed the point so badly.

3. When Jesus was providing a parable about how the kingdom of God would start out small and grow large like a mustard seed, your author smuggly states that there are actually seeds smaller than a mustard seed.

Every one of his examples was like this. Isn't it a little embarrassing paying so much attention to someone who misses the point of the bible so thoroughly?

Merry Anon,

I'm off for a few days, probably longer. Have enjoyed your posts, Arminius's, Mr. Mark's, Gerry's, Pam's, Minterle's, Y Guy, et al.

Much fiddling while Rome burns as was brought home to me recently as a Pakistani colleague faces death threats to herself and family, coming from Taliban.

Maybe, one had to be in New York City on 9/11 to get it. To watch the Towers flame up, to see paper, manila folders floating on the waters, to try to get a dial tone, as I endlessly tried to do. To drive frantically to get one's daughter out of school, to shout to traffic police signalling you to turn back that you had to get to your child, to hear her tell you that the teacher took the children whose parents worked in the WTC out of the room.

Maybe you just had to be there. Don't know.

Good luck to you.

Farnaz

"The definition of a religious fundamentalist could be that he/she insists that he/she has the answers and all others are wrong. I submit that you refuse to admit that any others have any possibly valid answers that differ from your answers. That makes you a fundie."

*Sigh*. The definition of a religious fundamentalist is one who believes that whatever scripture or other first principles form the beginnings of his faith, is literally true and unchanging. He adheres to the *foundation* (thus the term).

There is no foundation for atheism. There is no set of beliefs that all hold in common. There is only a lack of belief in a god, or gods.

So far I haven't seen any answers, so it's hard to compare them to mine.

"On Faith is less than two years old. One and half year perhaps, to say you quit reading my posts? In fact, On Faith is less than one and a half years old."

Quite right in the first part - I was adding a year to its age (seems that long). But in fact it IS a year and a half - it began in November, as I recall, with Thanksgiving questions. It was early in the New Year that I began scrolling past your posts. There was a lot of discussion at the time about repressive Muslim laws and you were defending the faith vs. the rules of the countries that mandated the religion. There was nothing in those posts to indicate, however, that you weren't engaging in serious discussion, rather than childish baiting.

"No such thing as "good faith" discussion. Only a debate - pros and cons of any issue."

I disagree. Debating pros and cons should BE done in good faith.

"I never hide the fact I'm prone to a wee bit of satires, sarcasms and ironies. And bad ones too."

Yeah, well, lesson learned. I don't have to read it.

"Be clear in your own mind of who you are, what you believe in, what you want, what are your priorities. Not on just on others, and to be defined by them or to let them define you."

Oh, I'm very clear.

Pam:

If I may interject before I depart, I enjoy your thinking, your mind enormously. Jihadist's style and posts differ from yours. I have seen more of her posts than I have of yours and have thought highly of a number of them. Unlike you, she writes in a breezy "postmodern" style commonly called "pastiche," the practice of which, I confess, I have occasionally been guilty. In the main, I find she is quite adept at it.

However current postmodernist thought no longer holds that there is only "text," whether satire or other, I am happy to report. There is such a thing as good faith, always has been, and a very good thing it is, when held by all who are in dialogue.

The devil that frequently haunts Susan's threads, is, in my view, conversionism, practiced by both believers and atheists alike.

Again, I have greatly enjoyed reading your posts and hope to read many more of them.

Merry Anonymous

Jihadist it might well be PAM cannot take the match she has met in you, your sharp intellect, your tit for tats. Take PAM's complaints as a compliment.

Arminius, Noble Soul,

Like Wiglaf, I am off (in my case to prepare for his visit and that of the warband), but will check back later to see if you have responded to my inquiries, and inquiries are all they are.

As I have remarked until I am blue, dare I say, aqua, in the face I do not understand these "dialogues" between believers and atheists, nonconversionistically speaking. I do agree with Pam that there are good faith and bad faith debates, agree strongly.

However, I don't understand why Jihadist's posts concern Pam as much as they do. I like good posts regardless of who they come from. When I need clarification or disagree, I try to enter into good faith discussion. I am indebted to Mr. Thomas Baum, whose perspective on religion I do not share, for sharing his thoughts with me. Like him, I am a seeker. And there are atheist seekers.

I neither need nor wish to convert anyone.
On the other hand, I will always challenge selective evidence used to support one's views regardless of whether they are put forth by atheists or believers. Shoddy thinking is shoddy thinking.

As well, I cannot and will not, as a citizen of the US, stand by and watch fundamentalists try to legislate their religious beliefs. I would imagine that many who post on this thread share these values and practices.

M. Anonymous
------------------------------------
Wiglaf, Noble Thane,

I await thee...

Gerry wrote:

Soja,

may I modify your poetic answer by substituting a single word: human for religious. Here it goes, I just add some minor comments:

"Human imagination (religious, scientific or otherwise) is based on reason (curiosity) in the origins of a mind boggling universe; on the perception of a reality beyond the sensory (whose mind can grasp billions of galaxies? Who can feel a magnetic field?), a deeper knowing like intuition (intuition is condensed experience, immersed into the unconscious); for some there is a 'beyond body - beyond mind' experience that is real and indicative of realities (all new finding possibilities are open!) beyond (so far) empirical proof."

Your definition can easily renounce "religion" and still be valid!

June 16, 2008 8:43 AM

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

Gerry

I'm genuinely pleased with your compliment. You have done a great job and almost flattered me by converting my spontaneous musing into a quote that is valid for more than religion. Many thanks indeed!

The point of my definition is that it IS valid for religion. If it can be made valid for other human endeavors (by the way to a believer, religion includes all areas of human life; and you know only too well that as far music goes, how music is integral to religious worship)then all the better.

Bis zum nächsten Mal!

Alles Gute!

Soja

Pam,
Since you asked a question about parasites in animals that seemed to be to "all takers", I'll briefly respond and then ask you a simple question.

Some of us believe in a Creator within the universe, not outside of the universe, and in a Creator using scientific knowledge and principles that work in the universe, not making them up. Under that scenario, why shouldn't there be "evolved parasites" just as much as any other evolved species? If you accept evolution totally, then you accept that parasites evolved. If a Creator uses the existing science that you believe in, and lets it move along, then in your mind that says that Creator must not be loving, but some of us don't think of an arbitrarily interposing Creator "at whim"--acting out of love. Why not let us learn from the existing universe, instead of making it all "just right" for us, with no messiness?

Now, my question for you or Mr. Mark or Chris:
Explain perfectly (with the minute detail and logic you hold as scientifically necessary) how amino acids formed RNA or DNA and then began replicating themselves?

Pam,

This is getting a bit tiresome. I am not a Deist. I know (not provable) that God is here and with me. I do not pretend to know the mind of God.

The definition of a religious fundamentalist could be that he/she insists that he/she has the answers and all others are wrong. I submit that you refuse to admit that any others have any possibly valid answers that differ from your answers. That makes you a fundie.

It is painfully obvious that this conversation will never go anywhere.

How could I really go off to work and look at markets without seeing your last words on me, Pam?

Pam : "I quit reading J's posts about two years ago"

On Faith is less than two years old. One and half year perhaps, to say you quit reading my posts? In fact, On Faith is less than one and a half years old.

No such thing as "good faith" discussion. Only a debate - pros and cons of any issue.

I never hide the fact I'm prone to a wee bit of satires, sarcasms and ironies. And bad ones too.

Be clear in your own mind of who you are, what you believe in, what you want, what are your priorities. Not on just on others, and to be defined by them or to let them define you.

Defining others don't really define thyself. This is so obvious and simple.

Cheers

"J"

M. Anonymous,

Alas, Language Warlord, I cannot remain to read Arminius's reply to your most recent post, as I am off to join you in pursuit of murderous creatures that lurk beneath the sea.

I shall, upon arrival, return to this thread. In the interim, may I suggest that if you haven't gone to YouTube to watch the Jesus Lizards today, you do so before your work is done?

'Twas Arminius, Noble Soul, who brought news of said Lizards to us. May they be with this dark and brooding ev'n.

Wiglaf

Arminius writes:
"Why do you insist that religion has to be a predestination creed? God created the universe (IMHO!), and with it, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The universe is VERY fuzzy, in case you have not noticed. We cannot know the mind of God, and to presume that he set every atom in its course is really silly."

Yet many believers think exactly that. All the same, my question just concerns creation, not predestination, at all. Bear in mind that I believe NONE of this.

Would you then characterize yourself as a Deist? Do you think that god created the Big Bang and then washed his hands of the whole mess? I don't think many people of faith would agree with you.

You say that you subscribe to the scriptures as pertains to the Gospels, but Jesus didn't speak of a "hands off" God. He espoused creation. I'm just asking why certain creatures would have been included. If they were here to torment people, then I know that your sort can make that part of some religious test. But when it's animals. Why?

"Also, I pity you somewhat. Jihadist is playing some marvelous head games with you, and you can't perceive. Ah, well. So much for the atheist fundies."

I'm tempted to tell you what to do with your pity, but I'll try to refrain.

There is no such thing as an atheist "fundie", BTW.

I quit reading J's posts about two years ago (same with Begone and JJ), because they were long, full of bulleted points, and just not very interesting. Therefore I'm not as familiar with her style as are you. I thought (at first) that she was entering into a good faith (yes, I'm aware of the irony of the word) discussion here instead of just trying to be infuriating. I will go back to skipping her posts. However, I don't feel that she wasted my time, because my points were never intended solely for her.

Also - easy to be annoying for the sake of it - WHEN YOU CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Arminius,

That should have read contradictions among MMLJ, of course.

Unrabidly & nonconversionistically yours,

M. Anonymous

Arminius,

I have indeed asked about the two creation myths on this very thread and was told by a highly literate Catholic that there is only one.

I have also posted repeatedly on the non-existence of the "Q" Gospel, in fact, introduced "Gospel" to this thread, the lack of any convincing NT archaeological findings, contradictions among MMLT, etc., etc.

I have found that whether Fundie, merely Observant, would-be demytholizer (CCNL), I do not get very far.

As for your reply, am I then to understand that although the Tahakh does not account for the Fossil Record, cro magnon man, homo erectus, etc., since the Tanakh (but not the NT) is myth, then the true revelation of why God proceeded in such a mysterious way remains to be revealed?

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you would want to "blast me."

M. Anonymous

PS. I am glad the creator (Y c+2? J.Christ M+1) gave us Heisenberg, a great aid to physics.

Blast away, Noble Soul.

wiccan,

Forgive my accusation!
Live long, and perspire!

M Anon,

I read your post to T Baum, and noted your reference to the fossil record. I came close to blasting you about it, but fortunately remembered that you were merely curious.

Yes, I believe that God created the universe, Heisenberg's principle and all. Happened sometime about 14 billion years ago, as I recall. The fossil record is real. Much of the OT is instructive mythology. If you ever want to confuse a fundie, ask them to reconcile the two separate creation myths in Genesis.

Arminius

M. Anonymous:

Delighted I am to find that we are once again, if only briefly, brought together on this thread. I shall do my best not to let my ever-drifting thoughts wonder off in search of Bewildful and Pseudo.

You write to Arminius, "How does your view of creation square with your view of creation?"

A question for the ages, Language Warlord. What with fossils scattered about in plain and mountainous sight, how can we make the circle squate?

Wiglaf

Wiccan,

Your posts are hugely enjoyable. I really do wish I lived next door to you!

Arminius

Tommyo,

I hope you'll forgive me for not defending the parent's concept of God. From this Pagan's point of view, the parents are idiots and criminally liable.

Arminius- Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle! Here's where I show my nerd credentials. In Star Trek TNG, the transporters have "Heisenberg compensators"; otherwise, they would never be able to reconstitute whatever was transported. When the writers were asked (at a sci-fi convention) how the "Heisenberg compensators" worked, they replied, "Very well, thank you".

Mr Mark,

We do seem to have similar thought patterns, and that is something to be glad about. Let us continue the unending debate, and try to be models of civility in the process. I continue to learn.

Arminius

Hi Arminius,

You write, "God created the universe...."

Would you be so kind as to scroll down and read the bottom of my post to Thomas Baum? (I'd be delighted if you would read and comment on all of it, but the bottom part is most germain now.)

I am referring to the part about the Fossil record, cro magonon man, homo erectus, etc. How does your view of creation square with your view of creation?

This is merely a question. As you know, I'm not a conversionist, "rabid atheist," etc.

Yours,
M. Anonymous

Mr Mark : I think we can agree that there's little reason for us to submit self-mocking posts when Cal Thomas has cornered the OnFaith market.

LOL. Yes. Hard to beat Mr. Thomas no matter how hard one tries at self-parody and to parody him.

Cheers and out of here.

"J"

"Is it just to blame God for the parents' stupidity?"

So your claim is that the parents are stupid? What if they were truly trying to live by faith and did put their complete trust in the lord?
god could have struck the stupid parents down, or plagued them with boils, or...
Or save the life of an innocent 11-year old girl on Easter Sundy!

Pam : Nope, set only by me, and only for my own satisfaction. You flunked by any standards. Not just you. Every religious person on this blog. No one has answered.

Moi : Whew! That is a such a relieve to hear. Not to be in your group. And best of all, I don't have to become an atheist! All that reason and logic and rationalism!

The religious dumb and non-meek shall inherit the earth.

Cheers

"J"

Pam,

Why do you insist that religion has to be a predestination creed? God created the universe (IMHO!), and with it, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The universe is VERY fuzzy, in case you have not noticed. We cannot know the mind of God, and to presume that he set every atom in its course is really silly.

Also, I pity you somewhat. Jihadist is playing some marvelous head games with you, and you can't perceive. Ah, well. So much for the atheist fundies.

Thomas Baum writes:

You [i.e., M. Anonymous] wrote, "You make your definition of God sound simple, but of course we know it is not."

Actually, when I say that God is a Being of Love, Pure Love, I really do mean that it is that simple.

From some of those that call themselves "christian" on various postings, one would not even think that God would have anything to do with Love, much less that Love is "His" Very Being. "His" is in quotes because God is not a He, a She or an It, even tho God-Incarnate was a He.

You also wrote, "How would you explain the case of mass murder? The mass murderers exercised free will. The victims?"

I am not here to explain the "case of mass murder", for one thing exactly what do you mean by this?

[You go on to list various kinds of mass murder, explain that human nature hasn't changed much, that you are merely God's messenger]

I am not God, I am just a messenger and I thank God that He has a Plan and His Plan is for All of humanity to be with Him in His Kingdom.
--------------------
First, I want to thank you for your thoughtful and considered reply.

In your comments, you are addressing my question concerning the seeming irreconcilability of the notions of free will and victimization.

In previous posts, you remarked that suffering at human hands, whether directly or indirectly is an issue of free will. When asked about the suffering of victims, that it could not have been their will to suffer, your reply seemed cryptic to me.
---------------------
Free will, then, does not explain the suffering of the innocent, regardless of the cause--I assume I may conclude this from your comments.
----------------------
I'm having difficulty navigating this thread to locate my original query, but I believe I asked you how one justifies the notion of God as one's "personal saviour." Again and again, I read of people having conversion experiences when confronted with dire illness. I believe you reported having had such an experience.

Is this what personal salvation is? Is this a part of personal salvation?

How, then, are we to explain why God chooses to save X, but not Y? (Or is this beyond human ken? Or is it part of God's plan? I mean no offense.)

This raises another question I've had since childhood. Why don't Christian believers rejoice at death, at the prospect of their own and that of others, since, many believe, that they will be with God after they pass? (I trust you are wiser than to reply that their fear shows their fallibility or lack of faith.)

A last question: This concerns creation: HOw do Christian believers explain the FOSSIL RECORD? Cro Magnon man, Homo erectus, etc.

Thank you again for your kind and thoughtful comments.

M. Anonymous

Dear Jihadist -

I think we can agree that there's little reason for us to submit self-mocking posts when Cal Thomas has cornered the OnFaith market.

Tommyo,

Have you heard the story of the preacher and the flood?

The water was up to the top of the church steps when a truck came by. "Get in, Preacher! The water's rising."

And the preacher said, "No. I trust in the Lord. He'll save me."

The water rose and flooded the church. The preacher climbed up on the roof. Two boys came by in a boat.

"Get in, Preacher! The water's rising."

And the preacher said, "No. I trust in the Lord. He'll save me."

The water rose higher, and the preacher climbed up on the steeple. A helicopter came by and dropped a sling.

"Grab the sling, Preacher! The water's rising."

And the preacher said, "No. I trust in the Lord. He'll save me."

The water rose even higher, and the preacher drowned. In heaven, he asked, "Lord, I trusted you to save me. Why did you let me drown?"

And the Lord said, "Idiot! I sent you a truck, a boat and a helicopter!!"

Is it just to blame God for the parents' stupidity?

"Sure about that is better? Any studies to say bolt to the brain is quick and painless? Is so, people on death row show be bolted instead of being electrocuted."

It's instant. Much as a high-caliber bullet to the brain. Most states now use lethal injection. People are tending toward as little violence to it as possible. Hopefully, someday it will end.

"And, oh, we having a "religious test", no, set by atheists? I flunked by your high rational and logical intellectual and grammatical standards?"

Nope, set only by me, and only for my own satisfaction. You flunked by any standards. Not just you. Every religious person on this blog. No one has answered.

TommyO writes:

"Parents' Faith Fails to Save Diabetic Girl"
Cops Mull Charges After 11-Year-Old With Undiagnosed Disease Dies Easter Sunday"

In all fairness to god, he's had his hands full answering all those prayers to hold back the flood waters in the heartland.

What's that you say? The girl died at Easter...and the flood waters haven't been held back anywhere?

Never mind...

Mr. Mark,

1% to 3% of self-mocking posts out of 100% of posts is not the norm that proves the rule.

Stats are useful, but do not fold, spindle, mutilate or manipulate the stats. You know this already my friend.

Cheers
"J"

Arminius -

We think alike.

C'est la guerre! BION, I was going to write that after my second phrase, but I forgot! Too bad. My post was weaker for the omission.

I've seen the Bugs/Elmer thing many times and have it on video somewhere.

"Parents' Faith Fails to Save Diabetic Girl"
Cops Mull Charges After 11-Year-Old With Undiagnosed Disease Dies Easter Sunday

Wisconsin authorities will consider filing charges in the case of an 11-year-old girl who died on Easter Sunday of complications from diabetes that went untreated because police say her parents' obscure religious beliefs do not allow medical intervention.

March 27, 2008 abcnews.com

So did god take the 11-year old "home"; wanted to keep her living, but chose not too; too busy with Easter Sunday business?

Hi, Mr Mark,

Yeah, I'm back. Different attitude. A bit more combative, a lot not too sensitive.

C'est la vie? Nah.... C'est la guerre! Damn the teapots, full steam ahead! (Yes, of course, it is an engaging argument, but does not breach the gap.)

PDQ Bach RULES! On that topic - have I asked you this before? - have you ever seen Elmer and Bugs in "What's Opera, Doc?"? Apologies if I have mentioned it before....

Arminius

Pam : No. It is entirely mechanical. Nothing to do with "lightning bolt".

Sure about that is better? Any studies to say bolt to the brain is quick and painless? Is so, people on death row show be bolted instead of being electrocuted.

Sarcasm is not wasted if you actually noticed them as sarcasm.

And, oh, we having a "religious test", no, set by atheists? I flunked by your high rational and logical intellectual and grammatical standards?

Cheers

Arminius -

You make the point of what was the subtext of my post, ie: that rationalists rarely give up reason, but the religious do give up fantasy and become rationalists. Ref: me, e Fav, and a host of others. Your journey back to religion is the exception, not the rule.

Jihadist -

Oh, come on. I poke fun at myself on occasion on this blog. Sure, you may miss it when I do. It's not often, after all. I'm too busy fighting for truth, justice...and the increasingly unAmerican (ie: secularist) way.

"Moi : Is bolt to the brain not zapping them with electricity, like electrocuting? "

No. It is entirely mechanical. Nothing to do with "lightning bolt".

All the rest of your sarcasm is wasted - the fact remains that you can't answer the question.

Which answers the question.

Mr Mark,

You said, concerning the gulf between us,
"But it can moderated on those days when a rationalist elects to give up reason and to discount that which they know to be factual to embrace the fantasies of the religious mind. It can also be moderated on the days when the religionist tires of fantasy and submits to the factual reality that surrounds him"

Me: I have never seen here any rationalist giving up their dedication to reason, and reason alone. I have seen many believers acknowledging the factual reality that surrounds us all. The key word here is your word here, 'submit' to reason. I.E., give up belief and agree with you guys. Ain't gonna happen. We see reason, we see the 'real' world. There is another 'reality', in our view. Which of us is bounded? (Here insert sound of can of worms being opened.... why, oh why, do I keep doing this?)

Mr. Mark : "The deficiency in Jihadist's satire is that she rarely if ever directs it at herself and her beliefs."

I have yet to see an athiest poster in On Faith threads mocks atheism and atheists. Unless I miss one or two post.

As atheists are having fun with beliefs and believers, like I always say, I am returning the favour.

Whoever said I'm into essays here? We can read better stuff in books and articles by professional writers than any essay by any poster in On Faith threads. Gleaned and/or cut and paste too from all that googling and yahooing, and from books and essays quoted verbatim, including those by Harris and Hitchens.

I don't live and die by the parameters atheists set in On Faith threads for everyone by their terms. No apologies.

Live with it.

Cheers

"J"

Arminius says:
"Ah, yes, of course, it's all God's fault."

You believe in him but you don't believe that everything sprang from the mind of God? Well, that's novel. What's the point, then?

Arminius -

I see we're back to discussing religion once again. C'est la vie!

Also - I notice that E Fav and a few others have - in this thread - asked you questions very similar to the one I asked that so pissed you off a few weeks ago, yet you've stayed engaged. Interesting.

Re: PDQ Bach. Of course, I know the work of the brilliant Peter Schickele and his alter ego. Funny stuff that can be enjoyed on many levels.

Re" Russell's teapot, flat earth etc. There's nothing wrong with an old argument if it's still a good argument, wouldn't you agree?

Arminius, after all the hell (and I use the word advisedly) the Christian fundamentalists give us Pagans, the atheistic fundies are actually quite tolerable. For when it comes down to brass tacks (for me), the Lord still beats the drum, the Lady still sings, and I dance to their tune with joy. If others want to laugh at my capering, it's all good.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

Hello pussycat.

CCNL " Oh Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, there is only one statistic you should be concerned with i.e. 100% of the non-Muslims of the world are disgusted with Islam and its "fems".

How do you regard Islam and Muslims? Please tick.

(a) indifferently disgusted

(b) mildly disgusted

(c) moderately disgusted

(d) highly disgusted

(e) extremely disgusted

Therefore, 100% of non-Muslims are disgusted with islam and Muslims.

Cheers

Arminius -

The deficiency in Jihadist's satire is that she rarely if ever directs it at herself and her beliefs.

My problem with her posts is that they don't scan very well and take too much work to plow through visually. The content might be entertaining, but my eye tires long before the punch line is delivered.

Arminius -

I actually agree with you that - in most cases - "the gulf cannot be bridged" between rationalists and religionists.

But it can moderated on those days when a rationalist elects to give up reason and to discount that which they know to be factual to embrace the fantasies of the religious mind. It can also be moderated on the days when the religionist tires of fantasy and submits to the factual reality that surrounds him.

But the "bridge" you mention only provides passage from one side to the other, not a link between the two sides of the gulf.

Pam,

Ah, yes, of course, it's all God's fault. I wish I had a direction to point fingers. Black and white. Silver bullets. Horse poop.

Also, you have no comprehension of satire. That is what Jihadist is all about. I find it hysterically funny.

Hi, Wiccan,

My pleasure, dear friend. Your attitude, I might add, is typical of all the Pagans I have met here. It is to be admired.

Look for Mr Mark to return. I put a shot across his bow myself. I gotta hand it to him, he can really argue. But, like a fundie, he cannot acknowledge that the gulf cannot be bridged.

Arminius

"Please do not confuse torture with suffering. I think Lep was quite clear on that. Intent is the issue."

Asked and answered, Arminius. God is the one with intent.

If you take the last three posts from anonymous and read them top to bottom, you'll get my longish post to Paul that was being embargoed by the site.

Mister Marcus - end runner around the WaPo censors!

Pam : Are you really this big an idiot, or do you just play one on TV?

Moi : I am an idiot by virtue of believing in God. Religion has all the answers. So, I don't need to know anything from other sources.

Pam : In addition, as you admit further down, the thin veneer of civilization that we're all so high and mighty about (religion included) quickly goes out the window when sheer survival is the operative mode.

Moi : You forgot I told you the earth and animals are for the use and disposal of man as he see fit.

Pam : It NEVER WAS whether one liked animals. I'm not sure that your reading comprehension skills are what they should be.

Moi : Very poor reading and writing comprehension obviously.

Pam : Finally, you twig to the question, and then you follow it with another non-sequitur. To borrow an expression, SHEESH!

Moi : I am learning from you. I will use SHEESH! too in my posts. Thanks for that word.

Pam : We use a bolt to the brain (the device used in "No Country for Old Men"). Death is instant.

Moi : Is bolt to the brain not zapping them with electricity, like electrocuting?

Pam : Here we go again. By the way, that should be "doesn't" and "does", not "don't" and "do".
No, but he did, for those who believe he exists, create the parasites. It's hard for me to believe that you can't grasp this simple premise.

Moi : Thanks for the lessons on English grammar. I needed that to improve my reading and writing and comprehension skills.

Hard for a believer like me to grasp that as unlike atheists, our IQs are very low and we are not MENSA members.

Pam : I just don't care for the word "morals", because it has been co-opted by religion. I prefer "scruples".

Moi : From "morals" to "scruples" now. Morals co-opted by religion? Not originating from religion? Whatever happened to "ethics"? Need to read further on ethics - moral principles and behavior and nature of good and all that? Oh, what about "virtues",

Pam : If you can't answer the question this time, I'm done. The thread's too long, and the skulls are too thick.

Moi : Some claimed Neanderthal man never really died out, but the genes passed on to me. Some say I'm the Missing Link. Hence the thick skull.

Oh, thanks for the tips on those books on those beasts in the animal kingdom.

As for "ethics", I take it you were trying to articulate that moral questions can be resolved by careful inquiry (John Dewey), and free, rational discourse can provide can provide moral guidance (Jurgen Habermas).

Cheers

"J"

Cheers
"J"

"Paul c writes:

"
Are you seriously stating that the bible has to be wrong because some of the prophets described being able to see things to the end of the earth?"

No, you seem to be the one limiting the discussion to the flat earth issue. My original post contained a litany of Biblical idiocies that we haven't even touched upon. To recap:

"Science has shown conclusively that Biblical beliefs like the flat earth, the sun revolving around the Earth, that the Earth is set on pillars, that the moon is a light-emitting source, that the Earth was created in 7 days, etc" (Post 6/13 at 2:43).

And, as is CLEARLY indicated by my parenthetical question, "well, need I go on," the above list is "hardly all I've got."

continued below:

Oh Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, there is only one statistic you should be concerned with i.e. 100% of the non-Muslims of the world are disgusted with Islam and its "fems".

PART I

Tell you what: let's take my short list above one by one. Let's move on from the flat earth and discuss fire-breathing dragons, unicorns and bats being birds. Let's discuss the Tower of Babel and all creatures being created as herbivores, shall we? After that, we can move on to a more-comprehensive list of scientific (and historical) idiocies in the Bible by addressing the following link (...http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html...) which lists 336 of them.

BTW Paul - the point isn't that the Bible espouses a flat earth, which it does. Most ancient people believed this was true. I don't hold it against them. They only knew what they saw a few feet in front of them. In fact, I remember something about Columbus fearing he'd fall off the edge of the world, so the flat earth belief hardly ended with the Biblical age.

No, the point, Paul, is that WERE the Bible the inspired word of god, then we might - MIGHT - expect that an all-knowing god would have fairly littered the Bible with scientific truths that the ancients would have found quite loony, but truths that later generations of men would remarkably prove to be dead on.

Imagine if the Bible mentioned micro-organisms or marsupials? Imagine if the Bible spoke of the earth being a sphere that revolved around the sun? Imagine if the stars were described for what they are, rather than tiny points of light affixed to a solid "firmament" that would some day fall to earth?

Yes, imagine how scientists themselves would regard the Bible today if one by one the idiocies of man (like the flat earth) were set aside as science began to prove that the Biblical account was actually correct.

Thank you, Arminius, that is one of the nicest things anyone has said about me.

I knew my post would make Mr. Mark trim sail, come about , and fire broadsides. I'd hope to give him the smallest target possible. I'm lucky he went for the teapot!

This has been a very interesting thread, with great sallies on both sides. I hope Miss Jacoby always posts here.

PART II

But that isn't what happens, is it? Quite the opposite, I fear.

Which only goes to prove that the Bible was written by men who were afflicted with man's ignorance, not by god or by men guided by the knowledge of an omniscient god. And if men wrote the Bible's "scientific accounts" without the guidance of an omniscient god, what would possibly make one believe that a single word in the book was written with the guidance of god, supported by his all-knowingness?

In short, if you own up to the fact that the Bible is absolutely wrong on science, then you can't honorably trust it on anything else, including whether or not Jesus was even a real person. At best, it's a story written entirely by men who knew very little about truth but had an acquaintance with the myths of their day. At worst, its knowledge came from a supernatural being whose knowledge set compares unfavorably to a present-day 5th grader.

The shame of it is that were there an omniscient god, he probably would have had no problem confounding the ancients with reality as it truly was, rather than speaking to them through their own ignorant prism. After all, this is the god who sent his son to an Earth where "an eye for an eye" was SOP, a god who had that son advance the radical idea of "loving your enemy," and "turning the other cheek." Clearly, such a god would have had no trouble alerting the ancients that marsupials were roaming Australia and South America, even if it would be centuries before the truth was revealed to one and all.

Perhaps the proof isn't that "god is non-existent," Paul. Perhaps the proof is that the Biblical god really isn't much of a god at all.

From The Mark known as Mr

Pam,

Please do not confuse torture with suffering. I think Lep was quite clear on that. Intent is the issue.

Sooner or later, probably sooner, given my age, I will die. If I die like most of my family, it will be disgusting, hideously painful, and my mind will be intact clear up to the end. Not a pleasant prospect. But... am I being tortured? Or am I simply tortured by the pain? Finger pointing is pointless here (pun intended). Same as the deer.

My latest reply to Paul C has been embargoed. I've copied it into a word doc and will try to post later.

Lepi wrote:
"Your use of the word 'torture' to describe parasite/host relationships is extremely anthropomorphic. "Torture" carries with it connotations of intent to inflict pain. Animals don't torture each other."

The distress of the bot fly infested deer would be obvious to anyone. Please don't tell me you're one of those who believe that only humans feel pain.

As to the definition of torture, one of them is: "extreme anguish of body or mind; agony". But even if we stick to your "intentional" definition, I would agree that there's no malice in the bot fly, but I wasn't asking about the bot fly "torturing" the deer, but *GOD* doing so by creating the bot fly. Surely believers think that things he created were intentional...?

I have no quarrel with the rest of your post, but there's no god in it. Just the natural order of things.

Mr Mark,

Ah, yes, old Bertie Russell's teapot. At least you didn't bring up the flat earth and the Easter bunny.

What's your point here? Surely not humility. Wiccan is by her nature pretty humble. You are universally polite, but no one would accuse you of humility. (Me either, I might add.) Her point is the old conundrum that neither side can prove nor disprove the other. Where believers come from is a different place than non-believers. I know you cannot acknowledge that place except in terms of 'delusion'. Thus, the gulf cannot be bridged. The grand argument continues, no end in sight. Fun, though.

Arminius
p.s., since you are the resident music expert (I mean that very sincerely!), have you ever heard any P D Q Bach?

Why, Mr. Mark, there is a plethora of Near Earth Objects, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object.

It is possible, though not probable, that one is a teapot. :-)

Mr. Mark : Hey, did you know that 88% of auto mechanics don't like opera? I guess that means opera is kinda worthless, right?

By the same reasoning, as 75%-80% (at least) of Americans are not atheists, does it mean atheism is worthless?

Or by that reasoning, is both opera and athiesm the taste, the preference, the choice (based on personal reasoning) of a minority - a snobbish, elite minority some would say?

If opera is wiped off the face of the earth today, who would one miss more? A tenor or a mechanic?

Paul C.,
At one point (I can't find it to quote now) you said something about the parasites possibly being an integral part of the food chain in some way that we can't understand, and that eliminating them would have some deleterious effect. But aren't you ignoring the fact that according to your beliefs, God set up that food chain, and could have made it work any way he wanted it to?

So why did he set it up to torture the animals?

WHY???????????????????

The question is open to all. Is God a cruel, sadistic, and evil-minded little petty tyrant, OR...does he just not exist?

Pam,
I'm going to throw in my 2 cents here.
Your use of the word "torture" to describe parasite/host relationships is extremely anthropomorphic. "Torture" carries with it connotations of intent to inflict pain. Animals don't torture each other.

The fact of the matter is that everything that eats does so at the cost of something else's life. When a cow eats grass, the grass dies. The cow does not intend to torture the grass, that's just what it has to do to eat. When a wolf eats a rabbit, the rabbit dies. It is not the wolf's intent to cause the rabbit excruciating pain, it simply does what it must to put food in its belly. A flea's diet consists of blood. In order to obtain blood, it must bite its host. Flea saliva contains an anti-coagulant which facilitates its feeding. Most mammals are allergic to this anti-coagulant. That's what makes bites from blood-sucking insects itch. Some animals are more severly allergic than others - that's why some will barely notice a bite, while others will scratch until they bleed.
In the big picture, insects are part of Nature's grand recycling pattern. All living things eat, all living things eventually become food for other living things, whether as prey or as carrion. It's just one more illustration of the conservation of matter and energy.

Wiccan writes:

"Once again, since the atheists can no more prove there is no Divine than I can prove there is, a little humilty would be in order."

The atheists would ask that you exhibit the same humility as you cannot disprove that there is a teapot circling the sun at this very moment (and I'm not referring to all the teapots located on planet Earth).

Mr. Mark,
Are you seriously stating that the bible has to be wrong because some of the prophets described being able to see things to the end of the earth? And you're making the distinction that that means the earth had to be flat and that therefore the inspired writers were ignorant of Science? Is that all you've got? Please! You will need far more than a turn of a phrase to demonstrate that scripture is false and God is non-existent.

Good Grief, go away for two days and there's 400+ posts to digest.

Theists believe in the Divine, however they may define it, atheists do not believe in the Divine, however they may define it. What do atheists believe in? Most, I would say, believe in rationalism.

"Rationalism:

In epistemology and in its broadest sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Bourke 263). Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the radical position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge" (Audi 771). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

Moderate and radical rationalists? What fun! Since those with moderate outlooks are amenable to others holding differing viewpoints from theirs, let's concentrate on the radicals.

How does a theist experience the Divine? Usually through their emotions, and that is evidence enough for them. But the radical atheist demands evidence "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive". Nope, no way the theist is going to convince the atheist here.

Radical atheists mirror the outlook of fundamentalist theists; their way is the only "right" way; i.e. "Reason is "the unique path to knowledge", compared to "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life", or "There is no God but Allah". Their way is the "Truth"; all other ways are thus "False", so they are not interested in learning about the precepts of differing belief systems since all are "mere superstitions". They proselytize, to lead the benighted to the light of rationalism. If the benighted refuse to follow, the fools must suffer in the fire of their eternal scorn. And here is where the radical atheists are most like the fundamentalists, for they make no bones about being better, smarter, more adult, and superior to theists, who "stop thinking when they've found God, because it feels good".

There are many atheists who are gentlemen and ladies, and there are those who are just as much of a jerk as Canyon Shearer. Once again, since the atheists can no more prove there is no Divine than I can prove there is, a little humilty would be in order.

Jihadist wrote:
"Moi : So, you are saying man is another animal? To torture animal? I don't recall any deity/deities in any religious texts (with deity/deities) considering man as animals."

Are you really this big an idiot, or do you just play one on TV? The question was about the parasites THAT GOD MADE torturing animals THAT GOD MADE, not about man torturing animals. Man didn't enter into it in any way. You keep returning to the relationship between humans and other animals, and that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the question.

Yes, of course man is another animal. We have skeletons exactly analogous to any other mammal's, we have hearts, lungs, eyes, brains, livers, kidneys, skin, hair, and we reproduce and feed our offspring milk just like every other mammal in the world. In addition, as you admit further down, the thin veneer of civilization that we're all so high and mighty about (religion included) quickly goes out the window when sheer survival is the operative mode.

"Moi : So, now it is not whether one likes animals, but what is the point of deity/deities in doing that - torturing animals? I ask you again, - did not all the monotheistic text focus on God and man?"

It NEVER WAS whether one liked animals. I'm not sure that your reading comprehension skills are what they should be. Yes, after MANY posts, it is about the deity torturing animals (with other, parasitic, animals). Finally, you twig to the question, and then you follow it with another non-sequitur. To borrow an expression, SHEESH!

"Moi : To be killed with dignity? How can man or animals be killed with dignity and as quickly as possible? Even by electrocution? Is there anything dignified in killing? So - "It was a quick and painless death" when something or someone is killed?"

We don't electrocute them - at least not in this country. We use a bolt to the brain (the device used in "No Country for Old Men"). Death is instant. Some packing houses (not yet all, unfortunately) are actually hiring consultants to help them get the animals to the killing floor without causing them fear or pain. Read "Animals in Translation" by Temple Grandin.

"Moi : look back in your earlier posts on animals. God tormenting animals? God don't hunt, raise and eat animals. Man do."

Here we go again. By the way, that should be "doesn't" and "does", not "don't" and "do".
No, but he did, for those who believe he exists, create the parasites. It's hard for me to believe that you can't grasp this simple premise.

"Moi : Let me get this straight. Are you saying "morals" is the word used by the "religious? Ethics is more used by the professions for stated standards of behaviour or conduct. Morals is about what is right and wrong conduct. Animals have a sense of right and wrong and can be ethical?"

I just don't care for the word "morals", because it has been co-opted by religion. I prefer "scruples". Other animals don't have such in a religious or philosophical sense (nor do humans, if they haven't been exposed to religion or philosophy) but they have, if they are social animals, an innate appreciation of the rules required to exist in their societies. In some, most notably the great apes, this includes a perception of the feelings of others and an identification with them - the root of the "golden rule". Read Frans de Waal - any of his books will do. It's not limited to the apes, though. Puppies and kittens start out playing with each other and biting quite hard, but after hearing their playmates cry out in pain, they learn to inhibit their bites. When they're raised without littermates, the difference is quite noticeable to any human who plays with them.

"Moi : I can hardly wait for you to share on the mating habits of tortoise. They take hours. I can't imagine how long a "sacred multibillion year old tortoise" will take. Or for you to share the mating habits of the black widow spider. Or to share on the lemmings. Or to share on the gorillas' 'social structure'."

Sorry, but I'm missing your point here.

"Moi : Mosquitoes are insects (animals). Cheney is not. All the same, to say to prefer a malaria mosquito to Cheney, never mind what he did, is to demean human lives lost due to malaria in Asia and Africa."

Sense of humor transplant was rejected, I see.

"I certainly appreciate the "sense of humour" of some athiests in On Faith threads in tying up and giving the example of relating thousands upon thousands of deaths during the 26 December 2004 tsunami in Asia due to their "stupid" belief in God. It was really hilarious."

Sorry, but neither I, nor any atheist I know believes such a thing. Where on Earth did you come up with that?? I have, however, heard many religious people, including those in the area, opine that it was God's judgement on people for not living according to his laws. Nonsense either way.

If you can't answer the question this time, I'm done. The thread's too long, and the skulls are too thick.

M. ANONYMOUS

You wrote, "You make your definition of God sound simple, but of course we know it is not."

Actually, when I say that God is a Being of Love, Pure Love, I really do mean that it is that simple.

From some of those that call themselves "christian" on various postings, one would not even think that God would have anything to do with Love, much less that Love is "His" Very Being. "His" is in quotes because God is not a He, a She or an It, even tho God-Incarnate was a He.

You also wrote, "How would you explain the case of mass murder? The mass murderers exercised free will. The victims?"

I am not here to explain the "case of mass murder", for one thing exactly what do you mean by this?

Do you mean someone like a serial killer, do you mean someone who works up other people into a patriotic or nationalistic frenzy as in some of the actions of the 20th century and into today, do you mean someone or a group of someones who violate all forms of human decency to make a buck and in the process destroy fellow people and the planet in the process, do you mean people or companies that make products that they may or may not know is destroying others, do you mean a person or persons that kill outright or over an extended period of time or something else?

Has human nature changed for the better or are we just better at pretending that it has changed for the better? Reality is reality whether people will look beyond their own little spot on the planet or not.

This is not a safe and secure world that we live in, is it? The more safe and secure that we try to make this world, the more that it is going to resemble a prison, granted, some people have really built themselves some really fancy prisons, have they not?

I am not God, I am just a messenger and I thank God that He has a Plan and His Plan is for All of humanity to be with Him in His Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Realist.

Thank for the response.

Sorry to spoil the fun but don’t let me give you hope about being appreciate by religious folk. I am very spiritual, but I personally I have not found much use for religion. It does nothing for me.

As for God(s) always hiding somewhere; yes I agree with that. If God exists then I believe him/her/it to be significantly different that the definition religions tend to give. The God of religion I am highly skeptical of. A different version of God may indeed exist and I can see this new God fitting in within the laws of the universe.

TMI is a nonprofit educational and research organization dedicated to the exploration of human consciousness so I don’t dismiss them as pseudo scientific money making business.

As for astral travel being easy to prove if it is indeed the consciousness separate from the body, I disagree. Many theories, particularly physics have elaborate setups to help prove they are right; for instance the Large Hadron Collider.

First man has to get to a point where they can even fathom a way to test something, then they need the money and engineering to build it. The exploration of human consciousness is in its infancy.

Perhaps God is the totality of human consciousness, the totality of consciousness of all beings in the universe, just the machine called the universe/life, something completely different or just a concept we use to help grasp timelessness.

If multiple time lines are possible, as some scientific hypothesis predict, that sheds new light on the concept of the mind being separate from the body.

In the end I think our race is better served by continuing to challenge our thinking unless of course we believe the world to be perfect the way it is. Now that I find hard to believe.

I am not sure what scientism is, but I think that science is a simple process, which is, by definition, neither religious nor philosophical.

I do not believe there is any philosophy of science. I believe that science is a kind of reflection of physical reality, focussed in our minds, and there is nothing that science reveals to our consciousness which was nor already in existence, previous to this awareness. By this, I mean, that for a scientist to participate in scienctific investigations, and to debate on the meaning of some scientific result, does not require any prior knowledge or study of any kind of philosophy, even including "the scientific method" which is merely a simple recipe, as simple as boiling water, requiring no effort or study to learn.

Of course, there may well be much philosophical speculation on how science works, or why science works, or why science is so successful, or why science is good or why science is bad. And there may be much philosophical speculaiton on the nature of existence which science uncovers. But the scientific process of uncovering things, is not philosophy.

Scienits make emperical observations, and then try to discern patterns of order. It is philophical speculations, which assigns the concept of "law" to these pattersn of order, as though nature is bound by "laws." But we do not know of the existence of any such laws, nor what the assignment of this word "law" might mean, nor even this metaphoical concept of "law" might mean in a scientific sense. But this is irrelevant to science, and to conduct of science.

It only matters, if a person is seeking to assign the cause of all existence to some Intelligent Desiner who caused all these "laws" to operate. But, once again, this is not necessary to the conduct of science.

Au Contraire there Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, it is not about you but who and what you represent i.e. the "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of Islam. Your Five Point Escape Route from these "fems" had been graciously presented to you many times. We to include Hirsi Ali await your acceptance.

E Favorite,

Almost forgot about the 'pious wish' of atheists that I would 'see the light'. That has happened more than once. Mr Mark and Chris have done it, and a few others. Always politely and in an off-hand remark. Even you have, when reading between the lines of your posts. No offense taken here.

Arminius

Gay men have similar brains to straight women, scientists claim.

* Ian Sample, science correspondent
* guardian.co.uk,
* Monday June 16 2008
* Article history

Brain scans showing electrical activity according to sexuality

Striking similarities between the brains of gay men and straight women have been discovered by neuroscientists, offering fresh evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired into our neural circuitry.

Scans reveal homosexual men and heterosexual women have symmetrical brains, with the right and left hemispheres almost exactly the same size. Conversely, lesbians and straight men have asymmetrical brains, with the right hemisphere significantly larger than the left.

Scientists at the prestigious Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden also found certain brain circuits linked to emotional responses were the same in gay men and straight women.

The findings, published tomorrow in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest the biological factors that influence sexual orientation - such as exposure to testosterone in the womb - may also shape the brain's anatomy.

The study, led by the neurobiologist Ivanka Savic, builds on previous research that has identified differences in spatial and verbal abilities related to sex and sexual orientation. Tests have found gay men and straight women fare better at certain language tasks, while heterosexual men and lesbians tend to have better spatial awareness.

Savic and her colleague Per Linström took MRI brain scans of 90 volunteers who were divided into four groups of similar ages according to whether they were male, female, heterosexual or homosexual. The scans showed the right side of the brain in heterosexual men was typically 2% larger than the left. Lesbians showed a similar asymmetry, with the right hand side of the brain 1% larger than the left.

Scans on homosexual men and heterosexual women revealed both sides of the brain were the same size.

The results could explain a University of London study earlier this year that found gay men and straight women share a poor sense of direction compared with heterosexual men, and were more likely to navigate using landmarks alone.

The right hand side of the brain dominates spatial capabilities, so may be slightly more developed in heterosexual men and lesbians. An earlier study by the same team found gay men and straight women outperformed lesbians and straight men at tasks designed to test verbal fluency.

Savic's team has yet to confirm whether the differences in brain shape are responsible for sexual orientation, or are a consequence of it. To find out, they have begun another study to investigate brain symmetry in newborn babies, to see if it can be used to predict their future sexual orientation.

"These differences might be laid down during brain development in the womb, or they could happen after birth, though it could very likely be a combination of the two," said Savic.

In another series of tests, Savic and Lindström used a technique called positron emission tomography (PET) to look at brain wiring in a smaller group of volunteers. They found heterosexual women and gay men shared brain circuitry linking a region called the amygdala, which plays a key role in emotional responses, to other parts of the brain.

The research is part of a larger effort to identify differences between the male and female brain, in the hope they will shed light on why some mental disorders affect men and women differently. For example, major depressive disorders are far more common and persistent in women, while autism is around four times more common in boys than girls.

"There's a well known uneven sex distribution in the number of psychiatric disorders and trying to understand sex differences, and differences in orientation, may give you a hint of the mechanism underlying these diseases," said Savic.

End of article.

Science strikes again; out with myth, in with knowledge.

E Favorite,

I remember, and I would appreciate it if you did not put it out here. BTW, I do refer to my experience as spiritual, not religious, but I understand if that makes no difference to you. Thanks in advance.

Arminius

Arminius: you mention the “'pious' wish of many atheists here that I should 'see the light.'” I must say, I haven’t noticed that. In my case, I enjoy hearing you discuss your religiosity. It’s very interesting – especially in the light of your past agnosticism.

Regarding keeping secret the religious experience that caused your transformation – too late – you posted it months ago – possibly on a “Jacoby” thread, in response to a question I asked. I won’t repeat it here, because you obviously don’t want it repeated, but I have alluded to it often in my discussions with you.

Hi, Mr Mark,

Here's an interesting statistic that I heard in an ad on a recording of Abbott and Costello's wonderful "Who's on First?" routine: 80% of all doctors prefer Camel cigarettes.

Also, here are some useful stats for atheists:
Did you know that 86% of all believers are habitual mashed potato eaters? And did you know that 92% - 92%! - of all 'Born Again Christians' consumed mashed potatoes before becoming 'born again'? We MUST stop this plague of mashed potatoes that is ruining our country and the world!

Ain't statistics FUN?!?

Arminius

SOJA JOHN writes:

"Pop over to the Guest Voice section of the On Faith Forum and read the essay by Dr Manoj Jain. Seventy six percent of medical doctors are believers."

And what, pray tell, does that prove beyond the fact that doctors are just as accepting certain myths as fact as is the rest of the population?

It appears that both you and Jain are offering that 76% figure as if you were speaking about scientists or cosmologists. You offer the figure with a subtext of, "these are the kind of people one would think were predisposed to not believe in god, yet, they do."

Well, doctors are doctors. They deal with the physical and mental conditions of the human body. They have no specific training that would dispose them to forsake their religious beliefs.

One may as well say that "76% of personal trainers" believe in god...or "76% of English teachers" believe in god. The statements prove nothing.

Hey, did you know that 88% of auto mechanics don't like opera? I guess that means opera is kinda worthless, right?

A word to the not-so-wise: when one attempts to use statistics to bolster a debating point, the statistic usually has some relevance to the debate at hand.

Soja – I recall in a much earlier discussion (Sam Harris, I think) on spiritual/transcendent experiences, that you felt strongly that a non-believer could not have such experiences, or if they thought they had experienced something, it would be by definition, something lesser than a religious experience, because of the lack of belief. Of course that’s conjecture – no one can prove any difference between the experiences of believers and non-believers based only on their reports. And even the reports describe the experience on at least two levels – how it felt (e.g., like “nothing I’ve felt before,” “like I’d been lifted out of myself into another level,” “enveloped by infinite love” and how the affected person interpreted the feeling (e.g., "visited by God,” “at one with the universe,” “protected by Jesus for the rest of my life.”)

I would think religious people, if not interested in the physiological origins of these feelings, would at least not be opposed to learning more about them. Why cut off knowledge?

Where are the rabid atheists?

All as "Anonymouses" now?

Rabid athiests needs rabid religionists to play off and against.

They are nothing without the likes of moi.

Cheers

"J"

Realist,

If I had the honor to teach your kids in a science class, I would teach science, including evolution. My belief, if it belongs in formal learning at all, should be in a comparative religion course.

Yes, alas!, I am an apostate from atheism. No regrets. My time as a non-believer, however, does give the the interesting position of understanding them. Oddly, I have no interest in 'converting' non-believers. This would be in contrast to the 'pious' wish of many atheists here that I should 'see the light'. Deal with it.

As to God - my view is there is one God, and those who see something else are, in Paul's words, 'seeing through a glass darkly'. And so do I see through that glass darkly. As to Christianity, I crept back into it from a different perspective. I had the good sense to start with the Gospels, which I wrestled with for several years before (largely) accepting. The Epistles, too, but to a lesser extent. The OT I mostly ignore. I totally ignore Revelation. I am aware, and amused, that most Christians don't accept me as 'Christian'. Their problem.

Arminius

Oh, yeah - Paul's 'glass' is actually a mirror; we see in a mirror dimly. Always reminded me of Plato's cave.

Arminius, (I even managed to spell it correctly)
Thanks for responding to my question.

Sheesh, I come home from work, and there's a hundred more posts to read.

Thirty years as an atheist/agnostic, and you go and blow it all by having a spiritual experience? How could you? :-) Oh well, whatever makes you happy - as long as you don't come and teach my children about it in their science classes.

You call yourself a "Christian" but you claim not to follow dogma or a book? Why would you believe that the God that found you happens to be the same one described in the Bible? Could it not have been Brahman or some other God, or maybe Satan playing tricks on you? Or did you just assume that it must have been the Christian one because that's the one you are most familiar and comfortable with?

Maybe if I lost my family in a car accident and I was injured, and lost my job, desparate, alone and vulnerable and a bunch of really nice moderate Christians befriended me and helped me out, I might be tempted to believe again ............. Nah, what was I thinking? Couldn't happen :-)

Regards,
Realist

It is is pathetic to argue over me instead of searching yourself what you really think and feel what is right for you.

Can't stand a little rough and tumble on ye delicate humanistic, humane, rational, reasonable and logical sensibilities?

Fact : athiests are never above name-calling and labellings too.

Reality and life is not neat. Reality and life is not rational. Reality and life is not logical. How do you deal with it?

Cheers

"J"

Soja,

may I modify your poetic answer by substituting a single word: human for religious. Here it goes, I just add some minor comments:

"Human imagination (religious, scientific or otherwise) is based on reason (curiosity) in the origins of a mind boggling universe; on the perception of a reality beyond the sensory (whose mind can grasp billions of galaxies? Who can feel a magnetic field?), a deeper knowing like intuition (intuition is condensed experience, immersed into the unconscious); for some there is a 'beyond body - beyond mind' experience that is real and indicative of realities (all new finding possibilities are open!) beyond (so far) empirical proof."

Your definition can easily renounce "religion" and still be valid!

Arminius: It IS fun!

Hello Pam,

This is culturally interesting and fun.

Pam : I'm not talking about what is of "primary concern", I'm asking WHY an all powerful being would create an animal and then create another animal to torture it.

Moi : So, you are saying man is another animal? To torture animal? I don't recall any deity/deities in any religious texts (with deity/deities) considering man as animals.

You : Whether you like animals or not has nothing whatever to do with the question. *What would be his point in doing that????* Just answer that question.

Moi : So, now it is not whether one likes animals, but what is the point of deity/deities in doing that - torturing animals? I ask you again, - did not all the monotheistic text focus on God and man?

You : I'm not a vegetarian myself and have no problem with anyone eating meat. I do want it killed with dignity and as quickly and painlessly as possible, however.

Moi : To be killed with dignity? How can man or animals be killed with dignity and as quickly as possible? Even by electrocution? Is there anything dignified in killing? So - "It was a quick and painless death" when something or someone is killed?

Pam : What?? What has sin got to do with anything?? Of course the animals are sinless - they aren't "eligible" for salvation, so what would sin even mean to them. That's the point, don't you see - why would God want to torment them? To what end? And whether a baby is sinless or not, why would it be OK to have it die a horrible death?

Moi : look back in your earlier posts on animals. God tormenting animals? God don't hunt, raise and eat animals. Man do.

Pam : I don't see a difference between morals and ethics, but "morals" is the word used by the religious, and they tend to think they came from on high. That's all.

Moi : Let me get this straight. Are you saying "morals" is the word used by the "religious? Ethics is more used by the professions for stated standards of behaviour or conduct. Morals is about what is right and wrong conduct. Animals have a sense of right and wrong and can be ethical?

Pam : As for altruism, I could go on for much longer than I care to stay up (late here), so just one example - the troupe member (bird, monkey, baboon, and others) etc.....

Moi : I can hardly wait for you to share on the mating habits of tortoise. They take hours. I can't imagine how long a "sacred multibillion year old tortoise" will take. Or for you to share the mating habits of the black widow spider. Or to share on the lemmings. Or to share on the gorillas' "social structure".

We can barely understand each other in communicating. And we are both humans. Not to mention not to understand the various human anthropological and sociological structures and various cultures.

Pam : And that should tell you something of my regard for Mr. Cheney. Time to develop a sense of humor, J.

Moi : Mosquitoes are insects (animals). Cheney is not. All the same, to say to prefer a malaria mosquito to Cheney, never mind what he did, is to demean human lives lost due to malaria in Asia and Africa.

I certainly appreciate the "sense of humour" of some athiests in On Faith threads in tying up and giving the example of relating thousands upon thousands of deaths during the 26 December 2004 tsunami in Asia due to their "stupid" belief in God. It was really hilarious.

Pam : Yes, you do live in the part of the world where cat is on the menu, don't you?

Moi : Yes. People love dogmeat better. Considered good meat for winter. And padi field rats. And grasshoopers. And sea slugs. And bird's nest. And shark fin. And frogs. The list is endless. Asia is not for those of delicate sensibilities and sensitivities in eating and drinking, in living and dying.

Don't forget that during the American civil war, the people of Richmond, Virginia, survived on anything they can lay their hands on. Don't forget Stalingrad. Don't forget Nanking. Dont' forget Spam too in the US. The list is long of people eating anything in times of famines and wars.

Cheers

"J"

Gerry

Arminius and other regular believers on this thread will carry on the discussion where you and I left off. It has been nice hearing your side of the argument; unfortunately neither of us are any closer to reaching an agreement and my guess is we never will be.

So for now...

Best wishes
Soja

Worth reading!!!

Health and Healing in the Land of Israel

A Paleopathological Perspective

by Joe Zias

http://www.joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

Arminius

I'll let you take it from there, if needed.

As to spiritual experiences, I'm glad you are guarding it as your personal secret. An experience like that is strictly between you and God and needs no public discussion. If you feel the need to seek out a spiritual guide, that is a different matter, but it is not meant for examination or analysis by an atheist.

Time to pop out again.

Best wishes
Soja

I thought it might be interesting to review a deep 'spiritual' and even transformative experience outside the bounds of organized religion. In this spirit, I'm pasting a brief excerpt from an article by John Wren-Lewis, former Australian physicist and now-current spokesman for the Consciousness movement.

Curiously, he was in the forefront of the 'God is Dead' movement back in the 1960's. Maybe he's taken with movements! His wife Ann Farraday is in a similar line of work. I think they go far beyond the typical New Age claptrap and speak of real and life-altering experiences in their writings and research.

Anyway, check out the links as well for an expanded view of how his 'perception' has changed based on an event that occurred some 25 years ago.

These things do occur, and for folks that have never had such an experience to malign others as delusional, even by implication, is just wrong-headed in my view. While it is true that similar experiences are most often 'interpreted' post facto in a religious context, the experience itself is more accurately described as 'transpersonal' (and is relatively rare). I would maintain that these experiences are initially outside the bounds of religion altogether - and perhaps a good preventative antidote to the dangers of a materialistic scientism! Wren-Lewis believes they are available to one and all......

____________________

John Wren-Lewis is one of the freshest voices in contemporary spirituality probably because, for many years, he viewed mysticism as escapism. Mystical beliefs were no better than religious or scientific beliefs -- to believe was not the same as to know. When, in 1983, Wren-Lewis had a profound mystical experience, he was free to describe it in his own words and not in the terms of any spiritual tradition.

John Wren-Lewis' description of his experience is so vivid and personal that you can feel the Truth that underlies it: . . . it is all still here, both the shining dark void and the experience of myself coming into being out of, yet somehow in response to, that radiant darkness. My whole consciousness of myself and everything else has changed. I feel as if the back of my head has been sawn off so that it is no longer the 60-year-old John who looks out at the world, but the shining dark infinite void that in some extraordinary way is also "I."

And what I perceive with my eyes and other senses is a whole world that seems to be coming fresh-minted into existence moment by moment, each instant evoking the utter delight of "Behold, it is very good." Here yet again I am constantly up against paradox when I try to describe the experience. Thus, in one sense, I feel as if I am infinitely far back in sensing the world, yet at the same time I feel the very opposite, as if my consciousness is no longer inside my head at all, but out there in the things I am experiencing ... .

The circumstances of Wren-Lewis' enlightenment are equally unique. While travelling in Thailand, he was poisoned by a would-be robber. Upon awakening in the hospital, he became conscious of the "dazzling darkness" from which he has lived ever since. Now, he devotes himself to discovering how to pass this experience on to others. With no vested interest in any traditions, he is free to honestly evaluate their efficacy.

He concludes that there is little or no evidence of any spiritual system offering a sure road to awakening. John Wren-Lewis calls upon all spiritual teachers to share their findings in the spirit of scientific inquiry to help uncover the factors that bring about awakening. To this task, he has dedicated the rest of his life.

I highly recommend you read the following articles:
http://www.nonduality.com/dazdark.htm
http://www.globalideasbank.org/befaft/B&A-5.HTML

Many more articles are available at the John Wren-Lewis Archive on the Capacitie website.

Soja, you said,

"Religious imagination is based on reason in the origins of a mind boggling universe; on the
perception of a reality beyond the sensory, a deeper
knowing like intuition; for some there is a 'beyond body - beyond mind' experience that is real and indicative of realities beyond empirical proof."

Wow! Thanks! I wish I had said that. You know, of course, that our atheist friends will soon have a feeding frenzy with it. Should be fun,

Arminius

Hi, Wiglaf,

Safe here? Well, not really, but it's been fun lately. Come and join in the donnybrook.

Arminius

Gerry

Religious imagination is based on perception of ....?

Religious imagination is based on reason in the origins of a mind boggling universe; on the
perception of a reality beyond the sensory, a deeper
knowing like intuition; for some there is a 'beyond body - beyond mind' experience that is real and indicative of realities beyond empirical proof.

Pam,

Regarding my 'experience', I see no reason to supply you with ammunition by explaining it. As Soja mentioned, this debate between believers and non-believers, while fun and instructive, is ultimately a dead end.

I did find your 'wet dream' description quite funny, though.

Arminius

hello arminius,

is it safe to come out on this thread?

wiglaf

Soja,

imagination is valid - for music and for god - as imagination! A powerful tool. My musical imagination is based on musical perception, on sound. Religious imagination is based on perception of ....?

A few corrections here.

I do not currently post under any name but Arminius.

Drooling over Jihadist? Thanks for a good laugh this early in my day. I certainly respect her, and am not reluctant to say so. I don't agree with everything she says.

Arminius

Gerry

"So don't use the old straw men strategy to call your opponent simply "stupid" if all you do is refuse to even only experimentally follow the course of his thinking."

I do not recall having used the word stupid. So you might like to show me when I did?

Trying to follow the course of another person's thinking is something I try to do as a matter of conditioning. But you will have to forgive me if I don't really see the point you are actually trying to make when you imply that I'm trying to understand only if I agree with your point of view. I'm more than willing to learn new things. Z.B I found your description of how you encourage your students to learn, extremely useful. But your rebuttal of a believer's position with regard to faith in God makes no sense to me as a believer, just as the remarks of a person who does not enjoy Western classical music would not make sense to you if the person had never heard the music in the first place.

Gerry

Da haben wir den Salat!

When you as a musician "have an imagination" it is wonderful. It is essential to your profession. You don't need to prove anything empirically. But when a believer "has an imagination" about God, it is not valid until it can be proved empirically to the satisfaction of an atheist. Stimmt?

As to referring to anyone as stupid, that distinction goes to atheists. Don't the atheists starting with Professor Dawkins pick their words to insult believers from a very good thesaurus? But "of course" believers are not expected to say atheists do write nonsense about faith in God which they are not qualified to write about because they don't have any. Or are you expecting me to say that atheists are always right about what they say about believers? Believers, if you haven't noticed, find themselves in a defensive position always, having to "prove" and justify their beliefs to the atheists. That is why on the whole this debate is something of a useless exercise for believers.

Farnaz:

More correctives: germ warfare, gasing, atomic and nuclear bombs, etc.

A key corrective for Science as pure, abstract, indistinguishable from its practioners ("How can we tell the dancer from the dance?"): Thomas Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Accepted by science, the humanities, social sciences, fine arts, etc.

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

Scientism has meanings byeond those I've described. Also, historically, whenever science and technology make huge advances, religious extremism, in a sort of dialectical motion follows in its wake.

Soja,

"dreadful" or "unimaginative" are judgments, not arguments.

I claim to have a lot of imagination; my whole professional life as an artist is defined by it - and proves it. So don't use the old straw men strategy to call your opponent simply "stupid" if all you do is refuse to even only experimentally follow the course of his thinking.

My point certainly is not a demeaning of imagination, quite on the contrary, but the DIFFERENCE between imagination and perception (philosophy build on perception included).

So far my new "nonsense". Again, a judgment, not an argument.

Mary

I must confess when I first started responding to posts by atheists on this forum(popping in and out occasionally on a whim) about eighteen months ago, I found it fun. Atheists are witty and clever. Only if they didn't write nonsense regarding the faith of serious believers! For me it was like getting to know a new species. I have known atheists of course, but it had never occurred to me or them to have a debate over beliefs. So the situation on this forum was a novelty. My eyes were opened only when after even twelve months the discussion was exactly where we started and I realized that is where we are sure to be in a zillion years. So I pop in with that knowledge, when a particular comment makes me respond on an impulse, and try to pop right out.

What each one finds useful is not for another to decide. I don't know what you would consider the best use of your time. If popping in here to participate in the discussion that has no end in sight for the sake of the interaction, then why not? It is entirely your call. But if spending more time with your children and husband, or some other activity brings more joy than going through the same round of arguments with atheists on this blog, that is your choice too. There are other blogs on this forum which provides interesting discussion material too. Didn't we get acquainted on the Catholic blog? I have wondered why atheist blogs are so popular on this forum while other blogs die out without much of a discussion.

All the best to you too
Soja

Gerry

I have only proved that there IS a God who has been called by different names.

Mary,

Thanks! I think scientism has been defined. To my way of thinking, it is science as pure "being." That is its mystification and metaphyscs. Enlightenment teleology, which, along with some wonderful discoveries, has left a lot of dead people in its wake. This view, that science is not interested, not vested, operates in the abstract seems to continue apace.

The metaphysics of science is something else, a branch of the philosophy of science, googleable. Do recommend that all google. Very enlightening if even superficially considered.

Correctives for scientism: George Mosse, Nazi Ideology, Nazi Culture. Anthologizes essays by Nazi scientists, whose prior work was not trivial.

Science, the journal. An issue about twenty years old. Reviewed Nazi science, causing quite an uproar in science community, which, despite all evidence to the contrary (!), continued to hold itself as immune to social pressure. Pure.

More correctives: Johns Hopkins, for about sixty years has run a program with, I think, 90%+ success rate for children with epilepsy. The treatment involves an untra high fat diet which only this population can tolerate. Neverthelss, doctors, who are aware of this program, treat these children prescribe powerful drugs which don't always work. Hence, children with epilepsy grow up to become adults with epilepsy.

More: The view that despite vastly different biochemistry, women exhibit the same heart attack symptoms as men.

I could go on and on and on. All idols are false idols. Posted these examples on Dennett's thread.

As I've said before, I don't even understand the terms of this argument. True, I'm an atheist, but my first biology prof. in college was an observant Orthodox Jew, who taught evolution, etc.
There are Orthodox Jewish scientists, physicians, etc. The same is true of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, et al.

I don't know, Mary. I think Soja's question about what we're trying to convince one another of is a very good one. I think the issues are more complex, deeper than we have yet gone.

Regards,
Farnaz

Soja,

thanks for your answer. Hippokrates, I know, believed in the gods of his time. You believe in another god. If you use Hippokrates as an argument, you affirm that gods are arbitrarily interchangeable, depending on history. q.e.d.

Gerry

Unimaginative would be the wrong word to use considering how dreadfully you choose to interpret it to "prove" your story. "Uncurious" is the better word. Your curiosity stops with what your senses can perceive and what can be proven empirically.

I could go on and on but isn't this supposed to be a debate that has no end and I will have achieved nothing but merely have you respond with some other nonsense?

It's a good question, Soja. Maybe, we're doing the same thing as the atheists, defining ourselves in opposition. Well, at least some of the time, because, like you, I'm not here very often.

And, I agree with you,inviting ourselves serves no purpose, hence our presence effects no good. So we'd be better off *doing * something useful, curing the sick or visiting them, or weeding the garden. All good things, well, certainly better than this, eh?

All the Best,
MC

Gerry

Pop over to the Guest Voice section of the On Faith Forum and read the essay by Dr Manoj Jain. Seventy six percent of medical doctors are believers. Hippocrates, the father of Western allopathic medicine, believed in the gods of his time too and in fact the original Hippocrates' oath for medical doctors included an invocation to the gods in in it.

A lot more people than me prove that your story is not worth buying! Btw I learned human physiology (although not about human imagination) twenty eight years ago. Learning about human perception didn't make me lose my faith in God. In fact it made me proclaim with the Psalmist (139 is my favorite), Lord I'm fearfully and wonderfully made! Even atheists are fearfully and wonderfully made, only a bit unimaginative about deep and eternal dimensions of human nature.

Soja,

of course you are not impressed by my "story" of imagination vs. perception in the brain.
Of course you don't buy it:
You prove it!

Mary

We believers can come here until eternity and do the rounds as many times as we want like chewing cud...and we will be no closer to bringing this debate to a conclusion.

Moral of the story: we believers are not looking for a solution on this blog. Then what are we looking for? That IS the REAL question, not whether there is a God or not and what constitutes evidence and what evidence would suffice as proof.

Mary

The fact is that this is an atheist blog and we believers are the ones inviting ourselves here.

Anonymous:

Arminius drools over Jihadist, and hangs on her every indecipherable phrase as if they actually mean something.

Go figure.

June 16, 2008 5:12 AM

Anonymous just in case you haven't noticed Arminius is not the only one who drools over Jihadist the woman. It is a fact of life not something that needs to be figured out. Married women have a certain kind of appeal for a certain kind of men.

Go figure.

Anonymous:

Arminius drools over Jihadist, and hangs on her every indecipherable phrase as if they actually mean something.

Go figure.

June 16, 2008 5:12 AM

Anonymous just in case you haven't noticed Arminius is not the only one who drools over Jihadist the woman. It is a fact of life not something that needs to be figured out.

Go figure.

And to answer an objection:

One of the tells of homo sapiens--our species-- is that they buried their dead. Thus they were concerned about matters of existence/non existence.

But we simply cannot deduce whether their perceptions were "primitive" or not, although I certainly would say such an arrogant statement is proof that the scientists who maintain such are homo sapiens.

Have respect for the ancestors! I do. And our simian ones too...sitting in the Antechamber of the Almighty feasting on bananas. Sometimes I think they got evolved the right way.

Mary

Nice to see you back too. I think there is a certain moth attracted to a flame quality about the need some believers feel, including myself, to engage in a useless dialogue with atheists. So I say to myself every time I pop in here, "Hi Soja moth, having a good masochistic time, eh?"

Arminius drools over Jihadist, and hangs on her every indecipherable phrase as if they actually mean something.

Go figure.

Error: Should read:

"If there is * nothing*, belief in absolutely no type of God or meaning behind existence is _WARRANTED_ and Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism are all false.

If there is * something*, then they are all true and atheism is false."

Sorry.

Gerry

Your "proof" of why God cannot exist and everything is a fantasy of believers, is no better than the story told by Michael Shermer. You're welcome to your story "of course." Just don't expect believers to be impressed by it, leave alone buy it.

ON THE TWO EITHER/ORS AND CUNNINGHAM’S FIRST LAW

Metaphysics: philosophy of being: the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of the nature of being and beings, existence, time and space, and causality.

Hate to say it folks, but humankind has been involved with metaphysics since, well, Homo Sapiens was: Evolved? Which is to say about 100,000 to 200,000 years. Of course, they, not knowing English, well Greek really, didn’t actually * know* it was metaphysics, but then they didn’t know about oxygen and they still knew how to breathe.

And judging from the preceding it doesn’t seem that this stuff will be resolved any time soon.

Because it can’t. Either Creation happened or something came from nothing and that the universe just appeared. Most questions about God and meaning will boil down to this: Why not Nothing? If there is no meaning, no God, why is there not Nothing? ( Or put another way, why does matter exist?)

If there is * nothing* belief in absolutely no type of God or meaning behind existence is not warranted, and Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism are all false. If there is * something*, then they are all true and atheism is false.

(If there is something: ie the Creation and a Creator, then He revealed himself or not. If He did, then atheism is still false.)

IMHO the arguments below are quite futile as they concern (ultimately) the creation, which either 1)happened or 2)didn’t happen. So we are arguing about a fact which is either true or false, and worse, whose solution is outside our observable remit.

Which leads to *Cunningham’s first law of religious debate *: it will be unsatisfying, discouraging and will never come to fruition.

PS Farnaz, think you asked a question about metaphysics and scientism, could you restate it & I’ll get back to you later. This blog is almost at an end, so we might have to wait.

To Soja: nice to see you stayed. Although, how much any can accomplish in jousting with ardent atheists? I don’t think much. And this is their blog.

Gerry: your a-theology can only work with your own definitions, ie if you frame the argument. An example: your classification of two types of human perception--laughable: how can you know what prehistoric man perceived? Your posts do, however, serve as a good example of Cunningham’s first law of religious debate. Which is why I won’t go any further.

To all: if you refer to a post it helps when you include the day and time.

Humans have a brain (most of them, lol!). The brain is the place where ALL perception, learning, imagination, creativity, love, hatred, belief, doubt, joy, sorrow, pain, action, and errors are processed.

The brain of an atheist is not basically different from the brain of a believer. His imagination is different.

The atheist has learned (by whichever biographical conditions or incidents) to sort out the difference between imagination and perception. He doesn’t confound perception with imagination, a behavior that may have been socially useful in former, pre-knowledge days (A position Jihadists actually holds, in spite of all the colorful disguises). It is, btw, an experience everybody has while dreaming: In dreams imagination comes along in the guise of perception.

For proving that there is something "a priori" different (“spiritual”) in a believer, he would have to produce a special, additional organ where belief as "proof" of god(s) is located and processed. Nobody has ever found or even claimed such an additional “spiritual” brain.

Nobody has perceived or can possible perceive a god outside of his brain. Nobody, even Arminius with his religious coup de foudre, claims he can prove there is a god (the coup de foudre occurred as a perception in his brain, of course, where else? He confounds imagination, which I know can be a smashing experience, with perception.).

So we might agree on the situation: Believers imagine a god, for reasons whatsoever, while atheists say that nobody has ever produced the slightest proof ("perception") of him, which believers admit. They also say: “God” is indescribable. An indescribable object has no features (a tautology). An object with no features has no existence.

The probability of the existence of a god therefore tends to zero.

Hmmm, why aren't there more women members of the Jesus Seminar? I thought I answered that last year i.e. unfortunately there are not many women who specialize in first to third century Palestine scripture and religion. Tis probably due to "prude Paul"'s influence which was also blended into the anti-female character of the koran by the plagiarizing Islamic scribes.

The Jihadist profile was not posted by Arminius but by a female admirer in response to the questions posed by several perplexed bloggers about her complexity.

Lewis, you know what? I'm not even going to try to defend Jihadist because she is more than capable of defending herself.

As for you, I can't imagine a defense. There is something to be said for civility, which cats, of whom you are evidently fond, know something about. One can be a civil a-theist. (I do my best.) Once can also be a religious adherent and accept science. Jihadist does. I don't always agree with her, but there you have it.

There are a lot of things one can be, a jealous snob, for instance.

Of Man's First Disobedience
and the Fruit

The following Monday (the eighth day), I said, "Let there be W.B. Norton so that Man may be anthologized in critical editions. Let there be Shermer down the line, who can speak to those who do not know much of science, and this will be good."

To Adam and his descendents I gave education. "Of this fruit," I said, "you must eat."

But Satan, pre-herpetologically, appeared in the form of a serpent, convincing Adam that the commandment to eat was meant to make him obese and lethargic so that he would never reach his god-like potential. Gullible and Dismayed, Adam told Eve that they already had indigestion, couldn't eat everything, etc. Eve sighed, had premonitions, but went along.

On the evening of the eighth day, heretofore unmentioned, I saw that I had left out significant details of my early doings.

And I said, "Let there be Mike."

Jihadist

Arminius may think you're bright, but to me you sound like you just got out of High School.

Pam will never penetrate the concrete. You still don't even understand her questions at all.
And you don't know that you don't understand the questions.(Which figures of course)

Thing is...you don't even TRY to understand.

Its pity. You really could learn so much from her.
You're too busy trying to be amusing and impressive, but sounding girlish and foolish instead. Except to others equally naive.

Pam.
You might enjoy this one.

Two English girls in China were appalled with the treatment of animals there, and were most upset when the saw two scrawny kittens in a tiny rusty cage for sale in a market.

They decided to buy them, take them back to the guest house and nurse then back to health.

Counting their money...they inquired of the Chinaman how much the cats were?

He said,"Cat one dollar"

Well,thats not too much. We'll buy them both, they said.

"Two cats, two dollar" said the Chinaman.

"We'll take them" said the delighted girls.

Grabbing the cats in a hairy fist the Chinaman said, before dropping the kittens into a vat of boiling oil, "How you want your cat, with rice or with noodles?"

Mike

Nice story by Michael Shermer. He's got hold of a Christian fundamentalist version of the Bible story that most other Christians know nothing about. Too bad.

What funny story will Michael Shermer tell believers who believe in science and do not use the Bible as a science textbook as he does or conclude all Christians do?

Time for anti-theists to move and find other ways to poke fun of believers. But they'd have better come up with a version that doesn't include their own creation myth that believers don't believe in science or do science.

In the beginning - specifically on October 23, 4004 B.C., at noon - out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang, followed by cosmological inflation and an expanding universe. And darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He commanded hydrogen atoms (which He created from Quarks) to fuse and become helium atoms and in the process release energy in the form of light.

And the light maker He called the sun, and the process He called fusion. And He saw the light was good because now He could see what He was doing so He created Earth. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be lots of fusion light makers in the sky. Some of these fusion makers He grouped into collections He called galaxies, and these appeared to be millions and even billions of light years away from Earth, which would mean that they were created before the first creation in 4004 B.C. This was confusing, so God created tired light, and the creation story is preserved.
And created He many wondrous splendors such as Red Giants, White Dwarfs, Quasars, Pulsars, Supernova, Worm Holes, and even Black Holes out of which nothing can escape. But since God cannot be constrained by nothing, He created Hawking radiation through which information can escape from Black Holes. This made God even more tired than tired light, and the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God said, Let the waters under the Heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the continents drift apart by plate tectonics. He decreed sea floor spreading would create zones of emergence, and He caused subduction zones to build mountains and cause earthquakes. In weak points in the crust God created volcanic islands where the next day He would place organisms which were similar to but differerent from their relatives on the continents, so that still later created creatures called humans would mistake them for evolved descendents created by adaptive radiation. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And God saw that the land was barren, so He created animals bearing their own kind, declaring Thou shalt not evolve into new species, and thy equilibrium shall not be punctuated. And God placed into the rocks, fossils that appeared older than 4004 B.C. that were similar to but different from living creatures. And the sequence resembled descent with modification. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundanty the moving creatures that hath life, the fishes. And God created great whales whose skeletal structure and physiology were homologous with the land mammals He would create later that day. God then brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and small, declaring that microevolution was permitted, but not macroevolution. And God said, 'Natura non facit saltum' - Nature shall not make leaps. And the evening and morning were the fifth day.

And God created the pongidids and hominids with 98 percent genetic similarity, naming two of them Adam and Eve. In the book in which God explained how He did all this, in one chapter He said He created Adam and Eve together out of the dust at the same time, but in another chapter He said He created Adam first, then later created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. This caused confusion in the valley of the shadow of doubt, so God created theologians to sort it out.
And in the ground placed He in abundance teeth, jaws, skulls, and pelvises of transitional
fossils from pre- Adamite creatures. One chosen as His special creation He named Lucy, who could walk upright like a human but had a small brain like an ape. And god realized this too was confusing, so He created paleoanthropologists to figure it out.

Just as He was finishing up the loose ends of the creation God realized that Adam's immediate descendents would not understand inflationary cosmology, global general relativity, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, biochemistry, paleontology, and evolutionary biology, so He created creation myths. But there were so many creation stories throughout the world God realized this too was confusing, so He created anthropologists and mythologists.
By now the valley of the shadow of doubt was overruneth with skepticism, so God became angry, so angry that God lost His temper and cursed the first humans, telling them to go forth and multiply themselves (but not in those words). But the humans took God literally and now there are six billion of them. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.
By now God was tired, so He proclaimed, "Thank me it's Friday," and He made the weekend. It was a good idea.

Michael Shermer. Originally published in Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition.NY.

Minterle Drajjit:

Great post, thanks! I haven't read the Weinstein book, but will. Of course, antisemitism is nothing new in the US military, predates the current Fundo movement by a very long time.

I guess the fundamentalists Weinstein writes of are unaware that all us Jews, atheist or not(a contradiction in Fundo terms, but then we are sui generis, as many have noted), according to their very own relgion, are going to meet up in Jerusalem, and convert. I mean we have to. Otherwise how will the Apocalypse apocalyze? However did they overlook this important tenet of theirs.

Farnaz

Jihadist,
For someone just described as "brilliant", I find you quite obtuse.

"Moi : Frankly, I never get your point of "why torture animals" when it is man torturing man that is of primary concern, both mental and physical torture. Until I realise your love and concernd for animals short of telling us all to be vegetarians. "

I'm not talking about what is of "primary concern", I'm asking WHY an all powerful being would create an animal and then create another animal to torture it. Whether you like animals or not has nothing whatever to do with the question. *What would be his point in doing that????* Just answer that question.

I'm not a vegetarian myself and have no problem with anyone eating meat. I do want it killed with dignity and as quickly and painlessly as possible, however.

"Moi : I repeat as part of educating you a wee bit on Islam and Muslims not that it matter to you as belief in God is nonsensical - For Muslims, as everyone is born sinless and animals too, then what you are arguing on is, frankly irrelevant for Muslims."

What?? What has sin got to do with anything?? Of course the animals are sinless - they aren't "eligible" for salvation, so what would sin even mean to them. That's the point, don't you see - why would God want to torment them? To what end? And whether a baby is sinless or not, why would it be OK to have it die a horrible death?

"Moi : This is your contention on animals having ethics? Are you absolutely sure morals tend to be religiously based? What about Confucianism for one? "

Pure semantics. I don't see a difference between morals and ethics, but "morals" is the word used by the religious, and they tend to think they came from on high. That's all.

"Is it not more accurate to say that animals have instincts for individual and group survival? Of course some mammals seem smarter than other animals. Animal altuism? "

Yes. Precisely where our own "ethics" come from as well. As for altruism, I could go on for much longer than I care to stay up (late here), so just one example - the troupe member (bird, monkey, baboon, and others) that sounds the alarm call when a predator is sighted, thus warning the others, who are more likely to escape, but drawing the predator's attention to himself, making him *less* likely to escape. There are good evolutionary reasons for this, but it's more than I care to go into right now. Some other time.

"Moi : Excuse me? Mosquitoes are quite lethal killers. Malaria and dengue and yellow fever to name a few, killed lots of people. HIV/AIDs were from a specific monkey transmitted to humans. Likewise avian flu and JE and of course, the bubonic plague? "

Precisely. And that should tell you something of my regard for Mr. Cheney. Time to develop a sense of humor, J.

"Moi : "In general"? At least CCNL is against abortion and makes no bones about it when it comes to human life and CCNL is not being "in general" about it. "

Yes, in general. There are a good many people that I think the world would be better off without. A mass murderer's life for a cheetah's? I wouldn't even have to think about it.

"Moi : Well, Pam. No one ever said athiests are clear in the mind on every issue. As for me, I would have no compunction in killing our two cats to save my kids if we are faced with a situation where they have nothing to eat at all are facing death by starvation. "

Yes, you do live in the part of the world where cat is on the menu, don't you?

Arminius, what I meant by Bible oriented Catholicism, is that I keep my faith simple and do not spend time contemplating the many Church dogmas and creeds. I find the Catholic Mass beautiful beyond comparison. That alone is sufficient to keep me in the Catholic Church. Since I have had the good fortune to attend Mass conducted by Dom Bede Griffiths many, many times while I spent time at his Ashram, I know how beautiful it can be if it is conducted with deep devotion and one participates in it with real devotion.

PS Arminius

Catholicism is too wide and deep for any Catholic to grasp it fully. We have core beliefs and common Sacraments. Apart from that each one is free to choose any from the many streams of spirituality that is available in the Catholic tradition.

I personally follow a Bible oriented form of Catholicism. I went from the rosary reciting to the Charismatic Renewal, to the Ignatian spirituality and finally found my home in the contemplative tradition, thanks to Dom Bede Griffiths OSB ( http://www.bedegriffiths.com ), whom I met in 1984 and spent many weeks at his Christian Ashram over several visits.

Gotta go...

Anonymous : Hitchins makes jihadist cringe.

Of course he does. All the supernaturalists cringe at common sense and logic, like vampires cringe from the sunlight.

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

Uhhh. Is that all?

Er, you mispelled his name several times. It is Hitchens, not Hitchins.

Ah just love to mock the sacred cows espoused by the sacred bulls of atheism.

Including: "God is not great", "religion poisons everything".

And I only come out at night.
I am the Blogstalker.
I am the Blogcrawler.
Suck. Suck. Suck.

Hitchens is a third rate atheist for fifth rate atheist readers!

Common sense and logic is over-rated!

Cheers

"J"

Arminius

Thanks for your response.

I'm glad you are not anti-Catholic. My guess is too that the recent popularity in anti-theism came in the wake of 9/11, the foreign policy blunder of the US in invading Iraq which anti-theists happily distort and call a religious war waged in the name of Christianity, some fanatic and virulent forms of Christian fundamentalism unique to the US (it frightens me as much as it must non-Christians)...

I'm grateful I have never been exposed to hatred in the name of religion,have not lived anywhere where inter-denominational Christian hatred existed... Neither my collective unconscious nor my personal conditioning has any exposure to it. I'm fortunate in that sense as some are not. They carry the burdens of their histories or the negative impact of their geographical location or ethnic origin or whatever.

We all have a chance to create a new global consciousness in the new millennium. But I doubt if investing all the energy and time in an endless debate: God exists - no He doesn't, is going to get us, atheists and believers, anywhere.

Wishing you all the best
Soja

PAUL C writes:
Mr. mark.
"You make a big distinction that the bible can't be correct because it says the world is flat. Where does it say that?"

I'm surprised you don't know this.

Check out Isaiah 40:22, ie" the circle (a 2-dimensional object) of the earth...that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." How does one pitch a tent on a sphere? One pitches a tent on a flat surface.

Check out Daniel 4:10: "4:10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth."
Only on a flat earth could a tree be seen to "the end of all the earth."

Check out Deut 13:7 "...from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth." Does a sphere have "ends?"

Check out Matt 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him (Jesus) up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world."

Go up a mountain high enough and you can see the whole world all at once. Oh sure, you'll say its a metaphor for something, but why climb the high mountain if not to gain a vantage point? And why claim all the kingdoms of the earth can be seen at the same time from any high mountain? The Bible even goes out of its way to build a relationship between vertical height and what one can see from a high perspective by saying Satan took Jesus up an "exceedingly high" mountain, ie: one so high you could see all the earth at the same time.

Time for some religionist hoop jumping.

Hello Pam,

Pam : Ah, Jihadist, more obfuscation (CCNL is right about that, at least).

Moi: That is what CCNL always said. The CCNL won't even answer a simple question as to why there are not many women as members of Jesus Seminarians. CCNL would die to have me on the CCNL side on belief.

You : Then why torture the animals? What's the point?

Moi : Frankly, I never get your point of "why torture animals" when it is man torturing man that is of primary concern, both mental and physical torture. Until I realise your love and concernd for animals short of telling us all to be vegetarians.

You : Personally, I would find god (if there were one) equally reprehensible for allowing infants and children to die horrible deaths, but the religious always come up with some tripe to get around that one.

Moi : I repeat as part of educating you a wee bit on Islam and Muslims not that it matter to you as belief in God is nonsensical - For Muslims, as everyone is born sinless and animals too, then what you are arguing on is, frankly irrelevant for Muslims.

Muslims have no notion of being born with sin or original sin. No tripe on this, except in menudo and other tripe dishes. For Muslims, there is no illusion that God created perfect beings and creatures and life.

You have not been listening to what I am saying. I am not asking you to agree, but to point out that beliefs on "suffering" are different.

This is why atheists failed in communicating with believers because they think all beliefs and believers are the same on life and death and God and other matters. Even within the same creed, individual believers are different on their belief.

You : "None have been able to answer the animal thing, though."

Moi : I repeat - That is simply because you want to hear the answer you want to hear, not as held by beliefs, including the Muslim belief. I am educating you a wee bit on Islamic belief so you would know how to talk to believers or all stripes and have some impact and effect in what you want to say.

You : (On whether animals have ethics and values) Actually, yes, in their way. Ethics and values, at least. Morals tend to be religiously based, so not so much those. Animals that live in societies live by rules, take care of each other (and sometimes those not of their kind), and exhibit altruism.

Moi : This is your contention on animals having ethics? Are you absolutely sure morals tend to be religiously based? What about Confucianism for one?

Is it not more accurate to say that animals have instincts for individual and group survival? Of course some mammals seem smarter than other animals. Animal altuism?

Pam : In point of fact, it depends on the specific animal and the specifc human. Between Mark Twain and Big Brown, I'd go with Twain. Between Dick Cheney and a malaria mosquito, I'd take the mosquito, hands down.

Moi : Excuse me? Mosquitoes are quite lethal killers. Malaria and dengue and yellow fever to name a few, killed lots of people. HIV/AIDs were from a specific monkey transmitted to humans. Likewise avian flu and JE and of course, the bubonic plague?

Pam : In general, I value human life more highly, but it would please me if humanity would stop reproducing at its present rate, and would leave some of the Earth for her other inhabitants.

Moi : "In general"? At least CCNL is against abortion and makes no bones about it when it comes to human life and CCNL is not being "in general" about it.

Pam : It will be a far, far poorer place if we don't stop driving them to extinction.

Moi : Well, Pam. No one ever said athiests are clear in the mind on every issue. As for me, I would have no compunction in killing our two cats to save my kids if we are faced with a situation where they have nothing to eat at all are facing death by starvation. This is the kind of person I am. All the same, I gave lots of funding support for enviromental groups in Southeast Asia.

Well, Pam, be clear of mind on everything and not just on God and religion.

Cheers and out.

"J"

Of course I meant to add that there are no gods, which is the ultimate irony.

The enemies of peace are the radical Christians who would rather see the world in wars and turmoil so their messiah might hasten his return; they are counting on being spirited away in the clouds and the rest of us stay here on earth and suffer. They may claim that they preach a message of love but what they hide and wish for is destruction, suffering and annihilation of the non-Christains.

Sixteen words may be all that stand right now between the apparatus of government and the Founding Fathers' worst nightmare. And those words are starting to give.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

When George Bush, in the wake of 9/11, puffed himself into Richard the Lionheart and declared he would lead the country in a "crusade" against terrorism - you know, crusade, as in slaughter of Muslim infidels - turns out . . . oh, how awkward (if you're on White House spin duty) . . . he may have been speaking literally.

What's certain, in any case, is that a lot of people in high and low places within the Bush administration - and in particular, the military - heard him literally, and regard the war on terror as a religious war:

"The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He lives in Fallujah. And we're going to destroy him," a lieutenant colonel, according to a BBC reporter, said to his troops on the eve of the destruction of that undefended city in post-election 2004.

"I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol," Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jerry Boykin notoriously boasted a few years back, speaking of a Muslim warlord in Somalia. And by the way, George Bush is "in the White House because God put him there."

And, of course, just the other day, Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, who conducted the first official investigation into Pat Tillman's death, opined that Tillman's family is only pestering the Army for the, ahem, truth about how he died because their loved one, a non-believer with no heavenly reward to reap, is now "worm dirt."

Until I read the newly published "With God on Their Side" (St. Martin's Press), Michael Weinstein's disturbing account of anti-Semitism at the U.S. Air Force Academy, I shrugged off each of these remarks, and so much more, as isolated, almost comically intolerant noises out of True Believer Land. Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do . . .

Now my blood runs cold. Weinstein, a 1977 graduate of the Academy and former assistant general counsel in the Reagan administration, and a lifelong Republican, has devoted the last several years of his life to battling what he has come to regard as a fundamentalist takeover of the Academy, turning it, in effect, into a taxpayer-supported Evangelical institution. He charges that the separation of church and state is rapidly vanishing at the school, which routinely promotes sectarian religious events, tolerates the proselytizing of uniquely vulnerable new recruits and, basically, conflates evangelical interests and the national interest.

If you think this is just a fight over some abstract principle, with ramifications only for atheist, Jewish, Buddhist and other cadets who may be "offended" by fundamentalist God talk, I urge you to check out Weinstein's book or website (militaryreligiousfreedom.org). He documents a chilling phenomenon: The whole U.S. military, up and down the chain of command, is coming to be dominated by members of a small, characteristically intolerant sliver of Christianity who truly regard themselves as Christian soldiers, on a God-appointed mission to harvest souls and battle evil.

Weinstein, whose family tradition of national service is pretty impressive, does not do battle lightly with those who now run his alma mater. One of his sons is a recent graduate of the Air Force Academy and the other is still a cadet there. The fact that both of them endured anti-Semitic harassment initially spurred him to take action. But this goes deeper than disrespect for other faiths. The attitude he has encountered in his attempt to hold the institution, and the rest of the military, accountable smacks of a coup: "The Christian Taliban is running the Department of Defense," he told me. "It inundates everything."

Can you imagine a contingent of religious zealots, with their contempt for secular values (and such manifestations of secular order as the U.S. Constitution) - and with their zest for holy war - in control of the most potent fighting force and weaponry in human history? Is this possible?

Well, said Weinstein, consider the 523rd Fighter Squadron, based at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., which calls itself The Crusaders, and whose emblem consists of a sword, four crosses and a medieval knight's helmet. Check 'em out at globalsecurity.org, which reports that the payload on the F-16s they fly consists of "a wide variety of conventional, precision guided and nuclear weapons."

And listen once again to Commander-in-Chief Bush, speaking in 2003 to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: "God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

If this is a religious war - a "clash of civilizations," waged by competing agents of God's will - victory may be indistinguishable from Armageddon. God help the human race.

Anonymous:

Hitchins makes jihadist cringe.

Of course he does. All the supernaturalists cringe at common sense and logic, like vampires cringe from the sunlight.

June 16, 2008 12:54 AM

--- --- ---

Believers do cringe at the nonsense atheists pass off for common sense and logic.

Paul

Professor Francis Collins put it quite simply and wonderfully, "God created evolution."

Hitchins makes jihadist cringe.

Of course he does. All the supernaturalists cringe at common sense and logic, like vampires cringe from the sunlight.

Mr. mark.
You make a big distinction that the bible can't be correct because it says the world is flat. Where does it say that?

I am a Catholic, not a fundamentalist. I believe that the purpose of the bible is to describe theology and that it uses allegory to do so at times. I don't therefore, believe that the world was created in 7 actual days but over a long period of time. I personally believe in evolution and that it was the mechanism that God put in place to create the world as we know it. I also beleive that the big Bang was the start of creation. I see no contradictions with any scientific discovery and the existence of God. God can be found though reason. This must be true of any real God.

I believe that the great divide between thinking religious people and thinking atheists is what data they find credible. I can accept the testimony of scripture and the church because I find them to be credible and consistent with what I personally observe. When a doctor at Lourdes describes a miraculous cure, I see that as being consistent with other miracles. When 70,000 people at Fatima witness the Dancing of the Sun, I see that as also part of a pattern, consistent with my faith. When I see the order of the universe, I think to myself that some intelligence put that in place. I know that you haven't seen God (not have I) so you can't accept any of this. I'm just explaining myself so you will have a better understanding of at least one religious person and maybe won't be quie so dismissive of our way of seeing the facts. A teacher of mine once told me (correctly) that things aren't always as you see them. I try to remember that and also to pass on the thought.

As for why I read this post. Well, I have a great desire to understand God and I look in all kinds of forums to find him. Its equally important to understand the opposing views to test the credibility of what I've learned and understand to be the truth.

Anonymous is transparently Arminius.

How bizarre

Jihadist:

Is someone as "Anonymous" doing a profiling of me? I've been letting on too much about myself then. "Brilliant"? Bah! Pooh!

Jihadist is a banker by profession, probably something related to the stock exchange.

Jihadist is the mother of three children.

Jihadist is *brilliant.*

Andrew

Why believe something depressing and morbid, when with a little effort you can believe nice things; things to make you feel good all over?

You don't have to believe that we are all alone in the cosmos if such a thought frightens you. You don't have to believe that we all inevitably die and rot sooner or later; if it gives you the heebie-jeebies.

Tune out the bad thoughts and tune in to good ones like maybe you'll live forever with a loving God, (or Goddess if that's your taste). It's easy if you try. You just have to really really wanna feelgood.

It don't have to be real or true... what you think, is up to you.

Capt.F.

To W. Shakespeare Believer-Doubter:

Re: Your questions

The situation in Iran is not good. Although Iran is a very wealthy nation, indifference, ineptitude, wide-scale corruption have kept the standard of living low for most people. As far as I know the so-called "sanctions" have had little or no effect, since they are voluntary, and, officially, the US is the only country volunteering. I say "officially," since US corporations are doing business with Iran. Moreover, the only people sanctions harm are those who are already suffering.

Russia is supporting Iran's nuclear development, while China, France, and many other nations are drawing on its oil wealth. In these countries, in England, etc., Ahmadinejad is something of a culture hero, for the "left," of course, especially for academics, while Iranian academics here often wonder among themselves why the so-called left is so indifferent to the material welfare of Iranians, their civil and human rights.

There are demonstrations by IRanians demanding jobs, women demanding better treatment, etc. Since there are only so many people one can beat up and arrest, in periods of frequent demonstrating, the official savagery is curtailed. Little changes.

Although officially, Jews and Christians are protected minorities in Iran, in fact, they are not. There are almost no Jews left. There are some remaining Christians, but they are limited in their "rights," i.e., the schools they can attend, the jobs they can get, etc. The situation of the Bahai grows worse every day. Interestingly, one reads little about the Bahai in the "newspapers."

Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran doesn't recognize "atheism." If you are fortunate enough to have a passport, your "religion" is stamped on it, just as it is in every other country in the Middle East.

No one in my family has been back to Tehran. We cannot return. It is not only Jews who are in this postition, but many Iranian Muslims as well. The best we can do is manage some communication with a few old family friends. Many, many Iranians are reaching the breaking point, but they cannot get out, and, even if they could, they have few options regarding where they could go.

Farnaz

Hmmm, if the flaws of Mr. Otterson's "healthy" Mormonism were removed i.e. all references to Moroni and his revelations and if the flaws of warmongering Islam were removed i.e. all references to Gabriel and his revelations, there would hardly be anything left in either religion other then some version of the Commandments. Finally the start of the Utopia of Religious Convergence!!!!

Hmmm, what shall we call this potential joining? Musmors? Morms? Musmos? M&Ms? Ismors? Moisls? or Islamorms? or simply Healthy Atheism/Atheists??

Is someone as "Anonymous" doing a profiling of me? I've been letting on too much about myself then. "Brilliant"? Bah! Pooh!

I am a dumb broad given to taking on dumb brutes.

*************************************************

Anonymous:

"Believers breathe oxygen, and the last time I checked, atheists do too. There is no way of verifying who used up more than their fair share."

Believers take note, the atheist fresh air may be a blast."

Believers takes up more oxygen. There is more believers still.

The "atheist fresh air" is more often than not, a blast of hot air.

And who posted a bit by Hitchens? An atheist running out of things to say? Hitchens don't even have self-respect for himself to be talking about self-respect. He could at least, reduce smoking knowing full well it is detrimental to his health.

What kind of fellow knows the facts and ignore them? Even on a simple thing as "smoking is detrimental to your health"? No self-respect or no self control or both? Or just sheer self-indulgence in poisoning his own body?

Atheists take note: Quoting Hitchens is not validating or strengthening your case that God is not great and religion poisons everything.

Cheers
"J"

Aah, Jihadist, more obfuscation (CCNL is right about that, at least). First you say you won't answer the question (no surprise, since you can't), but then later in you post, you begin tapdancing around the subject again, with the likes of this:

"* In all faiths with deity/deities, it is specific to man, not to deer and dogs and other animals. Everything is between man and the deity."

Then why torture the animals? What's the point?
Personally, I would find god (if there were one) equally reprehensible for allowing infants and children to die horrible deaths, but the religious always come up with some tripe to get around that one. None have been able to answer the animal thing, though.

You ask "Animals have morals, ethics and values?"

Actually, yes, in their way. Ethics and values, at least. Morals tend to be religiously based, so not so much those. Animals that live in societies live by rules, take care of each other (and sometimes those not of their kind), and exhibit altruism.

Then, outrageously, you say this:

"I would like to ask you more on why you think animals is worth more than human life, but of course, that would be regarded as avoiding “your question”, the core question of why God is cruel.

You've already avoided my question - for many long posts now, so how would this make it any worse?

Please show me where I said that an animal's life is worth more than a human's. In point of fact, it depends on the specific animal and the specifc human. Between Mark Twain and Big Brown, I'd go with Twain. Between Dick Cheney and a malaria mosquito, I'd take the mosquito, hands down.

In general, I value human life more highly, but it would please me if humanity would stop reproducing at its present rate, and would leave some of the Earth for her other inhabitants. It will be a far, far poorer place if we don't stop driving them to extinction.

Some Mark Twain quotes:

"Heaven goes by favor; if it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in."

"I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the "lower animals" (so called) and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me."

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man."

"Of all the creatures, man is the most detestable. Of the entire brood, he is the only one that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain. The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot."

"Such is the human race. Often it does seem such a pity that Noah... didn't miss the boat. "

"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."

Andrew

OK I get it. There ain't no loving god.

But I can pretend cant I? Any law against it?

It's a free country and I can believe anything I choose.

If it feels good I believe it.

A.Christian.

Believers take heart, Sir John Templeton, the founder of the Templeton Foundation is a Christian.

http://www.templeton.org

Once again I invite all believers visiting this thread to pop over to http://www.templeton.org and read *all* the brilliant essays posted there.

Do take the time to read and reflect on them if you can. It would add to more spice to your contributions in the discussions here and on other threads on this forum.

Atheists are sure to find more ammunition
for their case there but so can believers.

More Templeton...enjoy.

Is it not foolish to close one's eyes to the reality that much of the Christian faith is simply impossible to accept as fact? And is it not a fundamental error to base one's life on theological concepts formulated centuries ago by relatively primitive men who believed that the world was flat, that Heaven was "up there" somewhere, and that the universe had been created and was controlled by a jingoistic and intemperate diety who would punish you forever if you did not behave exactly as instructed?
Listed below is a repetition of some of the questions raised in the pages of "A Farewell To God". Put them to yourself.
Is it not more likely thst had you been born in Cairo you would be a Muslim and, as a billion people do, would believe that 'there is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet?
If you had been born in Calcutta would you not in all probability be a Hindu, and as a billion people do, accept the Vedas and the Upanishads as sacred scriptures and hope sometime to dwell in Nirvana?
Is it not probable that, had you been born in Jerusalem, you would be a Jew and, as some 15 million people do, believe that that Yahweh is God and that the Torah is God's word?
Is it not likely that had you been born in Peking, you would be one of the millions who accept the teachings of the Buddha or Confucious or Lao Tse and strive to follow their teachings and examples?
Is it not likely that you, the reader are a Christian (or Muslim etc) because your parents were before you?

From "A Farewell to God" by Charles Templeton, as reprinted in "The Portable Atheist". page 285. Pub.DaCapo press

Once again I invite all believers visiting this thread to pop over to http://www.templeton.org and read *all* the brilliant essays posted there.

Do take the time to read and reflect on them if you can. It would add to more spice to your contributions in the discussions here and on other threads on this forum.

Why go to Templeton, when Templeton can come to you.
Here's Charles Templeton.

"If there is a loving God why does he permit - much less create - earthquakes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters which kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children every year?
How can a loving omnipotent God permit - much less create - encephalitis, cerebral palsy, brain cancer, leprosy, Alzheimer's, and other incurable illnesses to inflict millions of men, women, and children, most of whom are decent people.
How could a loving Heavenly Father create an endless Hell and,over the centuries consign millions of people to it because they do not or cannot or will not accept certain religious beliefs? And, having done so,how could he torment them FOREVER?"

from "A Farewll to God" by Charles Templeton, quoted in "The Portable Atheist" page 285.

Gerry:

thank you, Mr. Mark, for your crystal clear analysis, and also Pam and E Favorite. It feels like someone opening a window and let some fresh air into a room where oxygen was almost used up.

June 15, 2008 4:05 PM

Believers breathe oxygen, and the last time I checked, atheists do too. There is no way of verifying who used up more than their fair share.

Believers take note, the atheist fresh air may be a blast.

Arminius

All those who say that you cannot look at the sky (or at a leaf or at a gazelle or a mountain) without realizing that God must exist, don't consider that the hypothesis has already been put in their minds.
As children they are taught that God exists and that they will go to hell if they doubt it. If their parents don't tell them, their teachers or their playmates do. ( Lots of children learn about God from the gutter.)

When they grow up, they seize on any seemingly rational excuse to make their beliefs non-superstitious. The real test would be to take someone who has grown up in a completely material philosophy and who has never heard of God. Let him look at the heavens ( or a turtle or a delicate rose) and let me hear him say, "Why, there must be some supernatural power that has created us all."

If he does, I will be shaken, but I am perfectly confident he will say, "My, Look at the heavens or turtle or rose; how pleasant to know a little about astronomy or zoology or botany so that I can truly appreciate the marvelous natural phenomenon." pp318

I would not be satisfied to have my kids choose to be religious without trying to argue them out of it, just as I would not be satisfied to have them smoke regularly or engage in any other practice I considered detrimental to mind or body.

No scientist in speculating on the origin of the universe offers the answer "God made it." He searches for an answer of another kind on the usually unspoken assumption that the existence of God is irrelevant in this respect. pp319

Isaac Asimov from "Yours, Isaac Asimov; A Lifetime Of Letters."

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental tenents and rituals irrational, archaic and more importantly when it comes to matters of humanity’s long-term survival, mutually incompatible. There are names for people who have beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad,’ ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional.’ ‘’ To cite but one example: ‘’Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his 'blood' as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?’’ The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.

Any wonder why atheists are happy with the latest Einstein document showing that the great thinker saw through all this religious nonsense when he was just twelve years old.

Arminius is past sixty and still doesn't get it.

Some things can be believed and some things simply cannot. I might choose to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, and that later he both did and did not die, since he was seen again by humans after the time of his apparent decease. Many have argued that the sheer unlikelyhood of this story makes it fractionally more probable. Again, then, suppose that I grant the virgin birth and the resurrection, The religious still have all of their work ahead of them. These events, even if confirmed, would not prove that Jesus is the son of God. Nor would they prove the truth or morality of his teachings. Nor would they prove that there was an afterlife or a last judgment. His miracles, if verified, would likewise leave him one among many shamans and magicians, some of them mentioned in the Old Testament, who could apparently work wonders by sorcery. Many of the philosophers and logicians mentioned in this book (The Atheist's Handbook) take the view that miracles cannot and did not occur, and Albert Einstein took the view (which some stubbornly consider to be a deist one) that the miracle is that there are no miracles or any othere interruptions of a wondrous natural order.

Once again I invite all believers visiting this thread to pop over to http://www.templeton.org and read *all* the brilliant essays posted there.

Hi Farnaz:

You said you had escaped from Iran. Have you been back there? Do you know how things are there now?

Arminius,
Isn't it about time that you told us about this "thing" that happened to you that has so convinced you that God is real?

For quite a long time now you've been trumping every argument with this singular experience, but refusing to tell anything about it. Is that fair?

If you don't get more specific, I, for one, intend to start thinking of it as a wet dream, and according it all the respect that that deserves.

Arminius,

Apparently you haven't read much of Dawkins or Harris... Yup, I hate to break it to you. You are just as delusional as Canyon or Falwell. Certainly not as dangerous, but just as delusional.

So welcome to the club.

"The man who fears God will avoid all extremes".

The verse wasn't necessary. I just threw it in for fun.

Hello SC Cromett and Lepidopteryx

Thanks for your posts on dinners guests. It was not designed for the likes of you, but to see the reactions of those less “rounded” than you both in their attitude on believers and even the reactions of believers on those having different beliefs from theirs. In my personal experience, a believer of any faith immediately grasped and respects the specific needs due to belief. All the contentions that food taboos due to beliefs being nonsense and that allergies are real. If one can accommodate for allergies, why not for certain food taboos? Or that one can become a vegetarian by choice, or chose not to drink alcohol by choice but not acceptable if imposed by belief?

**************************************************

Hello Pam,

Ah, deserving of more words and words from me then. To mess up simplicity of notions and clear solutions like a chemical formula. The brain is more complicated. Human needs and wants are more complex.

Parasites and deer and cruel God? If God is loving, if God is merciful, why does It give parasites to the creatures It created?

Good question and which adult believers avoided answering as they would to a child whose view of the world and life is so black or white, true or false and that is all?

So, go ahead and ask believers why the loving God would put parasites even in innocent animals, one of Its creation which did not commit the original sin and still suffer. It is, between God and man, the selfish animal who regards the world from his own perspective only. His suffering is more important, his pain is more important than other man. Animals? I don’t think so, unless they are you pets. Believers have priorities. They do what is right for them no matter how one disagrees with them.

Atheists do regard religion as a tumour to be removed surgically from society. Or to treat it like a virus. Well, the diagnosis and remedies as offered by atheists are thus far ineffective and ignored.

Let me state here a few wee reasons why believers ignore such questions as yours, even if it is so obvious and brilliant in all its childlike simplicity. A question, obviously, not tainted by the realities of life and understanding human nature and needs as adults tend to deal with and ponder over eons.

Let us also recap the premise put forth by atheists on god/s and religions so you may grasp a wee bit why discussions do get nowhere on God and religion.

Basic atheist reasoning:

- there is no God based on logic and evidence historical and scientific evidence.

- religion is a means to control man by putting the fear of God in them and as answer to everything in this world and about life and death too.

- heaven and hell and the afterlife are false hope for man and to put the fear of sins too, so man will be abiding, obedient, compliant etc. for control by fear.

Therefore, chip and hack away at the core belief in God as a delusion and fiction, and viola! religion will be no more, and man will be free from fear and have freedom from delusions.

So, the premise being, as God is the cornerstone of belief, and the house of God is build on that belief, with no belief in deity/deities, the houses of religions will fall away.

Problem with this premise and approach:

* Buddhism is also a religion, but without belief in deity though Buddha is almost deified by some Buddhists schools.

It is possible to have religions without belief in deity/deities, and Buddhism survived for over two thousand years. Even without belief in deity/deities, specific cultures that adopted Buddhism also laced it with their pre-Buddhism belief and traditions. Fortune telling is quite significant and Buddhist monks do practice them.

* In all faiths with deity/deities, it is specific to man, not to deer and dogs and other animals. Everything is between man and the deity.

Recall phrases such as, “It is between me and God”. “God is on our side”, “God will forgive me if others don’t” as God is personal to man.

* All faiths never said God is merciful or loving to all.

Recall all the wraths of God on man in the religious texts. Recall the plagues of God inflicted to man. God is loving and merciful? Only to those who transgress morally and ethically according to the religious texts of the monotheistic religions. Animals have morals, ethics and values?

* All faiths never say God bring forth perfect humans and beasts.

There is no religious text that is not replete with human nature, faults and flaws of men. Not on animals. As atheists likes to point out, religion is by man for man. So, the focus is on man. Likewise, in religions, the pact is between God and man, and between man and man.

There religious texts are all focused on order over chaos, and choices designed for order rather than chaos. God made no illusions over the chaos in the religious texts. God made no illusions that man has good and evil.

* Organised monotheistic and polytheistic religions, to generalize, in daily life, is focused on 10% belief in God (and this includes prayers) and 90% on how to live well and right as individual and communities. For Buddhism, it is 100%.

This 100% total of personal belief and organized religion in daily life, when taken in total and as percentage of focus for the lay believers daily, is less than 10% of actual thinking and action related to religion.

You will ask me, what is the point of all this? And this is just a start. The point is, atheists are coming from an angle that is not all-encompassing and compelling for believers. After all, even atheists themselves spoke of the “believers’ worldview”. And this worldview is, indeed, deep and broad and not just belief in God, but also on ethics and values. Buddhists may not have a belief in deity/deities, but also focus on ethics and values. It is cultural, it is emotional, it is intellectual, it is spiritual.

The yearning of man is never to be underestimated. That is some of the reasons why atheists failed to convince believers that in not believing in deity/deities or being members of organized religion life can be better or richer or more fulfilling. Who is to tell anyone what is good for them is good for others?

I would like to ask you more on why you think animals is worth more than human life, but of course, that would be regarded as avoiding “your question”, the core question of why God is cruel. We are in invoking the name of God, or against God, or even without God against those we don’t share in beliefs.

This is one believer who remains unconvinced that a life without belief in a deity is any better than one with belief in it, or lesser. I respect your non-belief, but that does not mean I have to respect or agree with any posts put forth by atheists on anything or everything. It is apparent that atheists logic and reason can sometimes be random and spotty too when talking on other matter besides religion and belief in God.

Do I believe in atheist exceptionalism as better man due to not believing in god/s or being an adherent of organized religion? Not at all. That would be the worst kind of delusion for me.

Indeed. God and religion is by man for man a as quest to understand and manage the chaos in this world and the universe. I like this quest, and science the enabler, the facilitator. We've got a long way to go to "touch the face of God".

Cheers
“J”

Arminius, you say, “Something happened then that was and is very REAL to me.” Does this mean you’re not the least interested to know that “it” might be real to others, but they might not interpret “it” as God? Is there a difference between “real” and “real to me.” Does it matter? Do you think it matters in other aspects of life, not related to religion? For instance, if a person feels strongly that someone has stolen their wallet, should the accused person be punished, even though there’s no evidence of a crime, maybe even no evidence that the person ever had a wallet to steal?

Also, I don’t buy your comparison - “"Because of the tests we just ran, I know exactly what neurons are causing you to love your husband. I can do microsurgery and zap them if you wish.....".

No one’s suggesting zapping the feeling – just being interested in understanding it.

The neurons would cause me to LOVE – not love a particular person. Other tests might show what smells attract a particular man and woman to each other (a saw a special on this once – all very experimental).

Other tests could show why some people are generally good natured and calm, so maybe a method could be developed to inject those qualities into other people.

Jihadist represents Islam as best as she can because she is the daughter of a native Indonesian Muslim and wife of a practicing native Malaysian Muslim.

Farnaz:

Re: Your essay

It's not only about doubt. It's about an insularity and quietism that transcends issues of belief and disbelief. It's about living with blinders on so that we can easily divide everything up into good/bad, right/wrong, never asking about interconnections. It's about media-think, and supermarket knowledge-getting. Are we a hopeless case? Yes.

Farnaz:

Re: Your essay

It's not only about doubt. It's about an insularity and quietism that transcends issues of belief and disbelief. It's about living with blinders on so that we can easily divide everything up into good/bad, right/wrong, never asking about interconnections. It's about media-think, and supermarket knowledge-getting. Are we a hopeless case? Yes.

Gerry:

thank you, Mr. Mark, for your crystal clear analysis, and also Pam and E Favorite. It feels like someone opening a window and let some fresh air into a room where oxygen was almost used up.

June 15, 2008 4:05 PM

Believers breathe oxygen.

Jihadist's gene pool is drawn from Indonesia and Holland

Jihadist has Atheist, Muslim, Christian and Jewish influences in her upbringing

Farnaz:

Thank you for your highly informative and very enlightening essay. You've given me a lot to mull over.

You're damned right about that door and DOUBT. Why we're so naive and self-congratulatory about being informed is beyond the ken of mortals such as I. If, whether atheists or believers, we don't start thinking about our numbing credulity, we'll soon be joining agnostic Hamlet. Note the pun, intended.

“the rest is silence” (Hamlet 5.2.363)

Jihadist is a liberal Muslim who lives in a country with a Muslim majority population

Here's why Jihadist is brilliant and complex

Jihadist has many genes and many influences

Jihadist's mother is a Dutch Indonesian Atheist with Dutch Jew and Christian blood

Jihadist's father is a native Indonesian non practicing Muslim

Jihadist bears a Christian name and has had Western education

Jihadist is married to a practicing Malaysian Muslim

Jihadist has not disclosed why she retained her Christian name when she converted to

Jihadist is not your run-of-the-mill Malaysian Muslim, don't forget that!

hitchens:

Horse poop, the usual tripe. Any moderate believer will instantly admit that religion has no hammerlock on morality. And no moderate believer will make the claims that you say they make. Apparently all of us believers are, as usual, lumped together as brain-damaged fundies. Wonderful. You make me start to believe that there is an atheist Taliban.

To be charitable, one may admit that the religious often seem unaware of how insulting their main proposition actually is. Exchange views with a believer even for a short time, and let us make the assumption that this is a mild and decent believer who does not open the bidding by telling you that your unbelief will endanger your soul and condemn you to hell. It will not be long until you are politely asked how you can possibly know right from wrong. Without holy awe, what is to prevent you from resorting to theft, murder, rape, and perjury? It will sometimes be conceded that nonbelievers have led ethical lives, and it will also be conceded (as it had better be) that many believers have been responsible for terrible crimes. Nonetheless, the working assumption is that we should have no moral compass if we were not somehow in thrall to an unalterable and unchallengeable celestial dictatorship. What a repulsive idea! As well as taking the axe to the root of everything that we have learned about evolutionary biology (societies that tolerate murder and theft and perjury will not last long, and those that violate the taboos on incest and cannibalism do in fact simply die out), it constitutes a radical attack on the very concept of human self-respect. It does so by suggesting that one could not do a right action or avoid a wrong one, except for the hope of a divine reward or the fear of divine retribution. Many of us, even the less unselfish, might hope to do better than that on our own.

Christopher Hitchins. intro to The Portable Atheist

Some Thoughts about Theocracies, Extremism, Relgious States, Citizenship and Dialogue the Public Sphere
-----------------------

No doubt you have read of the car bombing of the Danish embassy in Islamabad a few weeks ago. Things have gotten worse since the murder of Benazir Bhutto, persuaded by this country to return to her own, where, her letters show, she knew she risked death. Indeed, she was persuaded by this country to fix the mess, which this country helped to create.

Her father, Ali Bhutto, made the horrible error of announcing his intention to introduce socialist reform in wretchedly impoverished Pakistan. Following this unforgiveable sin, the US withdrew its "support" from him, paving the way for Zia, of the Madrassah Zias, the man who invited the Saudis in to open the "schools," produce the element now thriving in Pakistan, our guy, Zia, Zia, of the theocratic state Zias.

In the meantime, my closest friend, a professor with an international reputation, is receiving death threats from Taliban. (Mirror, mirror on the wall, Which country brought the Talib to us all. "Why you did, US.")
------------------------------
MY COUNTRY, Iran, now an Islamist state, was also the beneficiary of US "support," Iran from which my family fled in the middle of the night, having seen blood flow in the streets courtesy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Iran where my family lived since the middle ages, Iran which legislated against me because in their view, I was a JEW. (I am an atheist, was probably one since birth.)

----------------------------
Pakistan's first Long March in protest was reported in WaPo. Here is a link that gives more insight into the people who are participating in this democracy movement. It is not merely lawyers demanding the restoration of the judges, but ordinary persons. They are not being led by politicians or extremists for once.

They, too, are the people of Pakistan. We are speaking of millions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7445927.stm
--------------------------------
Since the newspapers have decided it's in their interest to print this, we ought to read it. May I suggest that we ask about that which perhaps is going on, but is not printed?

Newspapers are curious publications with respect to what they print and do not print. On another thread, Curious wrote about that "pig Muabarek," friend of the US. This would be the Mubarek to whom this country donates, yearly, five billion of your tax dollars, which Egyptions don't see, because they don't get any of this money. They are very busy anyway, busy starving in the midst of an international food crisis.

In the meantime Mubarek does have the money to give to various terrorist groups, Egyption "newspapers" etc. to spread filth about us DEADLY JEWS. On the last thread Merry Anonymous mentions being with a group of Israeli orphans in the midst of shelling. His interlocutor was surprised since he hadn't heard of shelling!!! Hadn't heard. I guess it's not news, since it's been going on for fifty years on a daily basis. But, of course, there were newspapers fifty years ago.

ATHEISTS: Some of us have been trying to tell you something. DOUBT, DOUBT, DOUBT.

That is the first word, the call of atheism, and it goes not only to science, but to everything!!! Are there vested interests at work in what you read in the media?

WHO owns the media? WHAT does the media own?
Why, really, does the US give a damn about Israel?
You read so much about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East. So? Then we care because we share the same principles? Can anyone really believe this??!!

Because it is a democracy, it has consistency in government which means we are free to manipulate it as we wish, and we have. Fatah folks have three mercedes per family, while people in Gaza starve. Notice any rebuilding since the Israelis tore down the settlements? NO. Not in the newspapers though. BTW, the Israelis would have left all the houses schools, everything in tact. The Palestinian government insisted they be torn down. Why.

NOW, we have come to the conclusion after lo these many years of supporting dictators, "Shah" and the like, Zbignew Brezinski's old friend (Brezinski, Obama's foreign policy advisor, yes, that's correcr), that it would be easier for us to manipulate democracies. POOR Iraq.

Iraq and Iran have been age-old enemies. No longer. Now thanks to Bush, the worst elements of both countries, are best friends for life.
---------------------------------

AMERICA, the world is knocking at our door, Atheists and Believers, alike. It behoves you to listen before they break it down....again.

Realist/Pythagoras,

I'll try again. I went thru the usual experience of the average non-believer, the worn-out Santa Clause and flat earth arguments, yes, and for over 30 years was your garden variety atheist/agnostic.

Something happened then, something spiritual. That engendered a strong belief that is fully supported in my own experience. I am all too painfully aware that this cannot be proven or even explained. That does not shake me. Unlike others, I have never tried to convert anyone.

Note well that I have the same sense of awe and wonder and connectedness with the universe that you do. But I have found another path too. And I travel both. I don't have to change roads to do this.

Arminius, the local madman and believer

Arminus,
Can't you keep the good feelings and ditch the unsupported beliefs?

I practice meditation, and I get the same good feelings that I got from my religious experiences, but I no longer believe in anything supernatural.

I used to be a Christian, then I was a Hindu (i.e. practicing yogi), then a Buddhist, then a Taoist. I didn't really find any difference in the depth or quality of my religious experiences while changing my beliefs.

Now I'm an atheist, but I still feel the same sense of awe and wonder and connectedness with the universe. In becoming and atheist, I didn't lose anything that I miss. If anything I gained that realisation that my understanding of the universe is now based on facts and evidence rather than on feelings - which are not a reliable indicator of truth.

Not that I'm trying to convert you or anything :-)

Regards,
Pythagoras

I don't mean for this to sound condescending toward religion... but it will anyway. Faith is a difficult thing to reconcile once you are conditioned to apply the calculus of logic on reason.

Knowledge acquired by faith substitutes for actual experience, and hence needs no basis in objective reality to be true. I have a hard time with that.

I have a particularly hard time with the fact that organized religion often promises rewards after death, but asks for a level of servility while alive. In every instance where the end of the world has been predicted, it has turned out wrong. If that knowledge was gained through revelation and it didn't come to pass, then that person was a false prophet. In some cases, dates were meticulously calculated using some system of calculus, and an answer we put forth which absolute certainty the event would happen.

Seek, and you shall find, and that applies to everything. It is amazing how many UFO's UFO hunters see.

Bigfoot.
Terrorists.
Suspicious people.
Ghosts.

I read a book about true ghost stories called True Ghost Stories.

When I was a little boy, I awoke one night to see a ghost float across my bedroom.
Terrified, I pulled the covers over my head and waited for something awful to happen.
When nothing happened I took another look, and quickly switched the light on.
The window was open and the white curtains were blowing wildly about, their reflection was being picked up across the room by a full length mirror on the inside of a closet door that had been left open, when normally it was closed.

This incident really impressed me. Whenever anyone mentioned ghosts or anything spooky or unreal, I'd remember the ghost I saw float across my room.I have been a skeptic ever-since about most things, so it was natural that I would become an atheist.
There was no way those priests could break me. I refused to believe their spooky god-talk.

Odd. I have no trouble understanding Jihadist, and can converse with her pretty well. Yes, she does write a lot, but she can be very good at it. And she can be satirical, too. Deal with it. She wrote an incredible satire on my favorite sport, baseball, which literally had me ROTFLMAO. I wish I had saved it. I find her puzzling, sometimes, but underneath, accepting and even compassionate.

PAM;

Right on the money. Quite brilliant and so lucid.

I have tried communicating with Jihadist myself once or twice and got nowhere, I made my questions as simple as I could, even hoping for a one word answer like yes or no. But forgedaboudit. I got dodge ball, name calling, sarcasm, jest, and a whole lot of gibberish. I gave up.

Even for this post I am reluctant to use my name because of the catty attack-mode she'll respond in.
I can handle it better as anonymous.

I'm sure she is a very nice person, but fully indoctrinated and proud of it. You will get nowhere.

E Favorite,

In the words of one Ronnie Reagan, "There you go again!". Been there, done that, heard the loss of belief and Santa Claus thing from you and others multiple times here and elsewhere. Tell me something new, please!

I was there once, I understand. Something happened then that was and is very REAL to me, a fact, a truth, but cannot be explained. Therefore it is a feeling to you, and you are quite correct in saying so.

You say, "...if we could measure the feeling...". Well, let's take another perspective. I don't know if you are married, but let's assume so for the sake of argument. A neurosurgeon says to you, "Because of the tests we just ran, I know exactly what neurons are causing you to love your husband. I can do microsurgery and zap them if you wish.....". This is the sort of thing you suggest. I, for one, do not wish to be viewed as a programmable organic computer. Or a deprogrammable one.

That truly would drive me mad. I'm already viewed as borderline nuts anyway, which does not bother me. (I AM bothered that I am not rich enough to be considered merely eccentric.)

Would that the religious seriously read and think about the comments from Pam, EFave and Mr Mark.

The clarity and real sense of their posts should make us all THINK.

MAYBE THEY'RE RIGHT. MAYBE THEY'RE RIGHT.

MAYBE THE RELIGIONISTS HAVE IT ALL WRONG.

THIS MUST BE CONSIDERED IF IT IS TRUTH WE SEEK.

OR ARE WE MORE COMFORTABLE NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH.

PLAYING MAKE BELIEVE.

Mr. Mark,
Love this:
"Does every Biblical "fact" once disproved simply traipse over into the metaphor column with nary a care in the world?"

:D

Arminius – I and many (if not all) of the other atheists here know that religion isn’t static and that all religious believers aren’t fundamentalists. As you know, I was a believer recently myself. I wasn’t deluded - I was misinformed, uniformed and not very interested in religion beyond it rituals and cultural aspects. Still, I believed in the supernatural and the christian story – and now that I’m informed, I don’t. Not that simple but that is the major difference between my believing and my non-believing self. I’m just as logical, analytical, etc., etc. as I was before. I dropped beliefs that didn’t make any sense. God and saints and angels may be more complex than the tooth fairy and Santa Claus – but they all have a common essence – they are invisible beings for which there is no evidence. I know you say you “know God is” – but that is a feeling, not evidence. I don’t discount the depth of the feeling. I’m sure something very meaningful happened to you – and then you decided (in my opinion) that it was God, specifically, the Christian God. If we could measure that feeling, we might find it was the same experience biochemically as someone who felt “at one with the universe” and didn’t attribute a cause and didn’t adopt religious beliefs as a result. I’d like to get to the point where we can do those kinds of experiments and really learn what the religious experience is. Aren’t you?

Sorry to be so long in posting, Jihadist - busy weekend.

Your reply was, as usual, disappointing. It's not relevant whether anyone in the culture you come from cares about animals or keeps pets. That wasn't the question. You reminded me of Richard Gere's character in Chicago - tap dancing around the arguments and the facts as he made his case in court.

I keep thinking that if I make the question simpler and simpler, eventually someone will answer it straight up, but this is probably just wishful thinking on my part.

You see, I'm not *complaining* that animals have parasites because I like animals - quite the opposite - I understand that the parasites are here because they *can* be - there's an otherwise untapped niche, and nature abhors a vacuum. I don't dispute their right to exist, or to do what they do (although, when it comes to my pets, I do take sides). It's nature, and I accept it fully.

BUT I don't believe in an omnipotent God. If I did, I would hate him with a passion. What amazes me, is that believers can look upon all the cruelties (again, concerning the innocent - I know you've all been taught to rationalize all the sufferings of humans, even, somehow, children), think that God created the parasites along with everything else, and still think that he's about love and mercy, and want to, for Pete's sake, WORSHIP him!

What kind of a twisted mind does it take to dream up such creatures? And to inflict them on those that aren't "being tested", or "building character", or "setting a good example." How can you think that someone with that kind of mind is about love? I would see him more as a nasty little boy, pulling the wings off butterflies.

So the question, once again, is how do you worship someone with that kind of mind?

Paul C., I'm simply at a loss. You've clearly drunk long and deep of the Kool-Aid. You accept without the slightest question that scripture is completely true and that all Catholic miracles are factual. You need to read more about the history of the Bible. I recommend almost anything by Bart Ehrman. See his story here: www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html

Arminius, you said that most belivers accept the truth of evolution. I doubt this, at least in the USA. A poll in late 2006 by CBS found that 55% of respondents subscribed to the creationist view of human origins, 27% believed that man evolved, but God guided the process, and 13% believed in natural evolution. The ignorance is appalling.

Wiccan, you stated that there were (because everyone had his own version of religion) many truths. I disagree. There is only one truth. All else that may be viewed as truth by those who hold it, is actually delusion. The trick is to discover which is which.

Dear Paul C -

Thanks for the comments.

You wrote:

"You are mistaken in your assumption that those that are religious are merely superstitious and incapable of studying God through reason. This is a common bias of the athiests.

"The final part of your essay is actually just insulting. First you describe religion as the product of man's ANCIENT, fearful, ignorant, and childish mind. Well that isn't very open minded is it. It just relegates people who see things differently than you do as inferiors. An open minded person is one who will accept and judge an opposing opinion on its merits and its intent."

Again, your comment goes to heart of the difference between rationalists and religionists.

I would hope that we can go ahead and stipulate that most religions and all of the major religions are the product of an ancient age. Some date from pre-history. The more-modern religions and sects - Mormonism and Scientology, for example - seem to be stigmatized simply because they aren't centuries old.

I don't blame the ancients for coming up with religion. As Christopher Hitchens has so brilliantly remarked, religion was our first and worst attempt at science. One can hardly blame the ancients for imagining that they were surrounded by evil, sentient forces who were attempting to harm them. One can hardly blame them for imagining gods for themselves who would protect them from this malevolence. After all, most children died at birth or before their teen years, and the life span for an adult was at best early-30s. Life was tough and scary.

The ancients didn't have the tools or the knowledge available to them to see the world as it actually was and is - they did the best the could, dealt with what they knew how to deal with and made up the rest.

You - on the other hand, Paul C - have no excuse.

Science has revealed the universe to us in ways that our ancient selves could never have imagined. Science has proven beyond ANY doubt that the Bible and the other holy books are wrong on major points of reality.

Science has shown conclusively that Biblical beliefs like the flat earth, the sun revolving around the Earth, that the Earth is set on pillars, that the moon is a light-emitting source, that the Earth was created in 7 days, that all creatures were created as herbivores, that at one time the entire population of the Earth spoke the same language, that diseases are caused by a displeased god, that the Exodus was a real event, that a bat is a bird, that unicorns and fire-breathing dragons exist...(well, need I go on?) are absolutely and undeniably FALSE, have never been true and will never be true.

When I examine these things as, "an open minded person...and judge an opposing opinion on its merits and its intent," my conclusion is, "the Bible is without merit on these things." Having made that informed judgement, I don't think it's my duty to return to the subject every waking moment of every day to re-examine whether or not the Earth actually IS flat, or whether science got it wrong and the sun actually DOES revolve around the Earth. Perhaps that's because we're no longer dealing with opinions but facts. We're also at the point where not all opinions are of equal standing, as the facts on the ground have proven one opinion to be sound, while another can be demonstrated as conclusively false.

With the advent of chemistry, do we still hold to the "truths" revealed by alchemy? With the knowledge gained through astronomy, do we still allow astrology an equal seat at the table? I don't think so. So why should the Bible get a special carve-out in the truth department when it has been shown to be just as reality challenged and factually clueless as astrology and alchemy?

My next step is to judge whether a book that gets these "little" things so wrong could possibly be right on what you call the "big" question - ie: is there a god? Judging the "merits and intent" of the Bible on the little things, I reach the conclusion that it shouldn't be trusted on the big things. That seems to me to be a logic and reasonable conclusion. It's certainly a conclusion I'd reach if I took my car to a mechanic for a timing belt change and he first demonstrated that he had trouble doing a simple oil change. It's a conclusion I'd reach if I went to a surgeon for a major operation and his first question to me was, "are you male or female, plant or animal?"

After a lifetime of "judging things on their merit and intent," I've come to the place where I am.

So, the question arises for religionists like Paul C: what do YOU do with the absolutely incorrect "facts" that the Bible presents, like the flat Earth? Do you jump through hoops to offer an explanation that attempts to square the straight-forward error of the Bible with the truth as revealed by modern science? Do you compartmentalize and admit those mistakes...but still hold that the Bible is RIGHT on the big stuff!? Do you take the worn-out "the Bible is a mix of fact and metaphor" ploy, a ploy that works as long as YOU or some other religiously biased person gets to determine what is metaphor and what is fact? Does every Biblical "fact" once disproved simply traipse over into the metaphor column with nary a care in the world?

I'm not being facetious...I'd really like to know.

You close by writing:

"Finally, I'd like to point out that I find it very peculiar that so many athiests are so vocal in the On Faith website. Since you don't think there is a God, why is there any reason for you to pay any attention to such discussions."

I could ask you why you bother reading columns by an avowed atheist like Susan Jacoby, whose column you're posting in right now. Do you not find that a bit peculiar? C'mon, Paul, is your question even worthy of being asked? Think about it.

At the end of the day, all I'm repeating are facts, facts discovered by people other than myself. My facts are the same facts that everybody else in the world lives by, whether they care to acknowledge it or not. You, on the other hand, are offering stale opinions IN SPITE OF the facts, demanding that I place your whole-cloth opinions on the same plane of "truth" as those things we call facts.

Who is really the elitist here, Paul? I'd ask you to think about that one as well.

Final point: I absolutely respect your right to believe whatever you wish. However, that respect does not extend to my granting in any way, shape or form that your beliefs are true. While your right to your beliefs is a given, the truth of your beliefs is not.

I hope you understand the distinction.

Jihadist:
Respecting others' religions -
You wrote:
Lovely to be stated on paper but in life? Say, a Mormon, a Muslim a Hindu and an orthodex Jew is to be invited for dinner. Do an atheist:

(a) - respect all beliefs and serve no alcohol, all vegan menu, no coffee, no tea, alcohol, no cigarettes/cigars, weeds, recreational drugs

(b) - invite them and still serve whatever you want as host and tough if they won't, can't eat or drink or smoke or do drugs

(c) - tell the guests they are nuts to comply by stupid superstitions and eating pork or beef or animals or drinking coffee or tea or wine, or doing a little bong is not detrimental to one's health

(d) - tell the guest there is a vegetarian option, non-smoking section of the dinner table, and anyone can chose not to drink alcohol, coffee, tea or any kind of drinks they don't want to.

(e) - none of the above

Or, will the reaction be:

"What! I'll never ever invite religious nuts over for dinner or even drinks!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I enjoy entertaining, and have people over for dinner, bridge, parties, etc. as often as time and finances permit.

I have a good friend who is violently allergic to MSG - since most of the food I serve is made from scratch, that isn't generally a problem. On the rare occasions when I serve an item that does contain MSG, I simply place an index card on the item's container that says "contains MSG" so that he will know to avoid it, and I don't have to worry if I can't buttonhole him before dinner and warn him.
I see religious food issues the same way. If I'm having a cookout, there will be beef burgers, and there will be kosher franks (I buy them because they contain no artificial ingredients). There will also be cheese and bacon for those who want them on their burgers, along with the usual accompaniments of mayo, mustard, ketchup, lettuce, tomatoes, pickles,onions, sprouts, and avocado slices. Those who don't eat pork or don't combine meat and dairy are no more compelled to do so than those who don't like onions are forced to add themto their sandwiches.
I have vegetarian and vegan frineds, and I always have plenty of side dishes that they can eat with a clear conscience. But I don't let the fact that some of my guests are vegan stop me from serving deviled eggs.
My mom is a tee-totalling Baptist. Nonetheless, there will be an ice chest full of Guinness and several bottles of wine. There is always an assortment of fruit juices and a case of seltzer in my fridge, as well as a tap at the kitchen sink from which flows potable water. She isn't compelled to drink beer, nor does she have the right to try to stop anyone else from partaking if they so choose.

On the other hand, when we recently held a blessing ritual for our new house, we wrote it exactly the way we wanted it - unapologetically full tilt Pagan. I invited pretty much everyone I knew who lived close enough to come, and spelled out in the invitation that it would be a Pagan ritual, that one need not be Pagan to be welcome and participate, but that I didn't want anyone to put themselves in a position that made them spiritually uncomfortable.
One can be respectful of tohers' beliefs without betraying her own. But then again, I've never noticed you having difficulty with respect for others' beliefs.

Jihadist

I think you are making the same error that so many make about Islam when you state: "Atheist do think all believers are alike. Not very scientific with no data, stats, surveys made on this. After all, it is the "You people are all the same" mindset of bigots." It is the equivalent of lumping you in with Osama Bin Laden.

We don't all think alike. I for one couldn't care what you or anyone else believes and don't think that all believers are fools. People like yourself are a good example of that.

Do I think that religious fundamentalists who believe things that are clearly contradicted by observation to be foolish? Yes I do. Most believers outside of the United States and Saudi Arabia aren't that silly.

I work for a very multicultural university with fellow staff from all over the world: Muslim, Hindu and all. If I invite them over to dinner, I try to respect what to me are their cultural preferences, so I don't offer Muslims alcohol or pork for example, or meat to my vegetarian Hindu boss. It is just a matter of being civilized.

(I'm going to use my full name from now on.)

Pseudo wrote:
You pseudo know what you think you know.
Epistemology? What about all that?
If your hypothesis is silly, we of science say it's wrong.
And kids like you fall flat.

Your post does not make much sense to me.
What about epistemology?
If I made an incorrect assumption, please point it out. I would be happy to hear it.

Regards,
Realist

Which Witch??, My Child,

Yahweh, cream two sugars, was wrongly accused regarding CCNL, Son of ?, maligned (rightly) for bad writing.

J. Christ, milk + 1, got all defensive, and Moses B0S went on about accusation, but judged the literary critique fair.

The Kid thinks CCNL, Son of ?, is healing, has free will, etc. All post mortems, except for Gert Kolmar (at the beach) are out seeing the sights. Haven't seen Gertie in decades, and We miss her.

Know that We love witches. (Moses black no sugar says he likes them.)

Y Guy & Co., PSC.

Farnaz,

thank you for your interesting and moving post. Yes, I have read it, enjoyed it and thought about it.

I agree with you that the US is a wonderful and mostly open-minded country, with some very bad "messianic" foreign policy ideas, trying to force everybody else to love and imitate the "American way of life". I had a wonderful study period in the US myself, long ago.

Now I have to run, we can converse later.
-------------------
Which white witch,
thanks for the advice. I'll think about it, once my fingers get too stiff..."It may help to increase my word power".

Hmmm, the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist again notes her aversion to superstition i.e. the tooth fairy comment but she still clings to the wingie thingies of Islam. Strange? Not really since "wingie thingies" are the foundations of Islam. Belief in them is for example a tenet of Islam. And with the deletion of the "wingie thingies", The Jihadist would forward immediately into the ranks of Atheism.

Whatever is she going to do?? Recommendation: take the road traveled by Hirsi Ali!!!!

Gerry, do me a solid, and at least let me know you've read what I've written.

Whatever magical powers I once may have had are gone, so the only way I can no if I'm not writing in the wind is through your human self.

Farnaz :)

Gerry, I'm glad that we can part ways on this thread on a happy note. Who knows our paths may cross on this forum again. If not, the spell continues to work; whenever you choose to appear or disappear as an act of your free will anywhere on this forum, remember to remember the spell is working....immer. ;)

Whooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhh

If you ever fail at Bach, you can always take up copywriting,Gerry.

But can't stay. Gotta fly!

Which witch,

even you can improve your spelling, as you harp on my bad English... ("Englightening").

I like Bach. And Mozart.

Gerry,

A couple of other thoughts about Scientism. There is a method, I forget the name, for teaching violin in Japan, which has had tremendous success, so I'm not at all sure whether the next definition I offer of "scientism" is even sound.

But I've seen empirical as in mathematical approaches to studying writing. To an extent, the findings were valuable, but then, as often happens here, things got out of hand, writing became the subject of mechanism, and along comes the S word. Interestingly, at the same time, while writing was being quantified to an extent that required medication for those such as I, an approach to teaching it developed that was downright solpsistic. (More medication for Farnaz)

It's interesting to me how, historically, as we advance in science, various religious movements, or other kinds of "backlashes," like Romanticism, develop.

Theocracies and Religious States
When you are talking about some theocracies or quasi-theocracies, the matter is far, far more complex, and does have something to do with history. My country, IRan, was not always what it is today, might never have become what it is today, if it had been left alone by the West. I can't say for sure.

With considerably more certainty, though not full, I can say that I doubt we would see the Pakistan we see at present, if the US had left Ali Bhutto alone. We also might not see the wretched poverty we see there now. Changes might have occurred, and we would not have seen the Islamism we see. That was at the invitation of Zia, one of our guys, i.e., we liked him and knew what he was up to.

And btw, as was posted, the Chinese are in Pakistan now, bringing in jobs. Of course, they have interests in mind, but not only will they not harm Pakistan, they will help it.

I know people in Pakistan who are struggling for democracy quite vocally, hold Pakistan responsible for its present and future. That is a healthy outlook. We need to let them have a future, I'm sure we'll all agree. Anyone who knows Islamabad knows these people. May they be protected by whatever powers may be.

Karzai is a big question, a long time friend of the Bushies. Maybe a good man, maybe not. He cannot by himself make the changes we'd all like him too.

I should point out that you are chatting with a woman who faced institutionalized racism, discriminatory legislation in Iran because she is a "Jew." Not a practioner, never was. An atheist, in fact. Saw blood flow, courtesy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Fled with family in the middle of the night.

Still deal with bigotry all the time, and, as you know, I'm living in the good old US. What can I say?! At least I'm living, can vote, can speak, etc. These are not trivial things, and I wish them for every person in the world who does not have them now. That's why religionism, not religious belief worries me: for what it brings and for what it takes away.

Goodnight, Gerry.

Farnaz

Thanks, Religious Anonymouses, you made my day, which has just started here!

Best to you,

Gerry

Just because Gerry can bang on about Bach doesn't mean he can write englightening English.

Bring back Yahweh and two sugars.

Gerry, lest you should misunderstand again, and I hate to take leave with a misunderstanding hanging in the air, here a clarification on my statement, "In nineteen months this "Religious Anonymouses" has been exposed to the most vile communication from anti-theists..."

All those who participated in the forum from the beginning know that not all anti-theists were kind when they communicated with believers. I personally had to cop only a couple of the bad communications, so I'm merely referring to the communication style in itself used by *some* anti-theists. We have come a long way on this forum and the attempt by both sides to have a meaningful dialogue has born fruit despite the occasional hiccups.

Gerry, I do enjoy reading your posts and learn from them, as I do from any well thought out comment whether from atheists or religionists. I simply am too lazy to take the time to respond to your comments with such great care as some other bloggers do. I write spontaneously, like a knee-jerk response or not at all. I'm not part of this community which has an ongoing conversation among regulars.

No, no, no! The quality of information, which is high, in your posts is not being ridiculed.

And soooooooooooooooooo

I read your posts on an impulse as I read other comments and enjoy them as I enjoy other good comments. No less...

Hi Gerry, :)

Oh God, Gerry, I don't think anyone wishes you dead! You shouldn't say that even in jest!

No, what I mean by scientism, is the belief that Science operates in the Abstract. That's all. The Englightenment, even Renaissance Teleology. No, it hasn't worked that way. Lotsa dead people show that.

One of the Anonymouses mentioned the pressure that a lot of Americans are subject to from religion, and I, too, thinks that accounts for some of the anger of atheists. But not all adherents are Religionists, and as I posted below, you can be an adherent, scientist, doctor, perform abortions, do stem cell research, etc.

I'm no fan of religionism, couldn't live in a theocracy. One of the funniest chats I've ever seen on this thread, although I don't know if those involved saw the humor and I mean no offense occurred when MA asked for more civility between atheists and theists, saying he had no problem with the latter so long as they allowed him to live in peace, etc.

Both Arminius and Mr. Mark heartily agreed. Along comes Believer Hugh, to whom all are civil--for awhile. Then Believer Hugh equates abortion with murder. Mr. Mark continues the exhange with the utmost civility, and Merry Anonymous loses it.

No. I can't have religionism either, not in any form. By religionism, I mean conversionism and legislating your religion for the rest of us, interweaving it throughout the curriculum or trying to.

But don't like hypocrisy either. See HMMs post on Dennett's thread and my comment.

Anyway, I'm about to pack it in, but I would like to know what instrument you play!!

Farnaz

Said Gerry: And if one of the religious Anonymouses thinks only a "disappeared" Gerry is a good Gerry...

Gerry, time to use a logic other than your own in interpreting words used in a particular context. You misunderstood the tone of the highly comical style of communication!

In nineteen months this "Religious Anonymouses" has been exposed to the most vile communication from anti-theists and took it with the best humor without feeling in the least bit threatened, without feeling the least need to disappear any anti-theist. The only negative result was to get bored, with an ever diminishing threshold for boredom was more like it...The arguments put forward by anti-theists are clever no doubt, but endless rehash is not everybody's idea of delight. I listen to my favorite piece of music endless times, but that is not the same as anti-theist arguments.

No, no, no! How it comes across to you is not how I meant it. Sorry if I hurt your feelings unwittingly. Have fun here by all means!

Farnaz,

thanks for your interest! From my last post to Jihadist you know what I do.

You are certainly right that atheists have different backgrounds and probably very different reasons for being a-theists (thanks for the instruction, everybody!). Some atheists just don't care and never have about religion, others broke away by a particular experience or by just thinking or contact with others or reading or a combination of these and more.

Talking about theism or atheism: An Afghan 23 year old student was recently sentenced to death, execution pending, for proposing a discussion on the Koran on the internet. There is a law providing freedom of press and opinion in Afghanistan. That is what religion, in this case Islam, is able to achieve in human minds. (I know, I know, Jihadist, the extremists... we have had this already ad nauseam.)

Even Karsai (does he, can he, does he want to fight the Taliban?) hasn’t intervened yet, out of fear of losing support. At the same time, he asks the West in a donor conference to give him 50 billion (!) to establish "security" there. That is what US and European soldiers defend and die for as “democracy” in Afghanistan. Stone Age.

In some Muslim countries (400 years ago: Christian countries) I probably would have been executed a long time ago. That means I regard this whole discussion as only partly funny and entertaining…
And if one of the religious Anonymouses thinks only a "disappeared" Gerry is a good Gerry it reminds me of the same slogan applied to Vietcong (here: "dead"), or any other sort of "tribal" enemy. Such socially challenged talk doesn’t exactly attract me to religion, as long as I have the freedom to stay away from it – physically, emotionally, intellectually.

On the other hand: Like everybody else I have very good friends from the other side of the aisle. It gives insight to the labyrinths of human thinking, both my own and the others'. Talk about the pleasure of learning!

Goodbye Non Wiccan Anon,

I shall miss you! :( (sad) and won't come back to this thread again either!

Will look for you on the next one!

Ex-Be (or not)

Ex - Believer, I *had* to return for your sake to cheer you on to find a real Wiccan. Cannot stay, got work to do.

I know *who* brought Gerry back. How could I not know given my power to cast spells on those who believe in me....or don't.

This non-Wiccan Anonymous shall not return to this thread again...Ab - ra - ca - da - br - aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Non Wiccan Anon,

Yes, your formula explaining scientism is correct.
Scientism is the metaphysics of science. Ex-Be is a misnomer. Never was much of a Be.

Don't have any problem with either Be-s or A-believers.

Only troubled by -IZMs.

But now it's my turn for some magick!

Aroint Thee, Isms! Whooooooooooooooooooooooosh!

Ex-Be :)

Non Wiccan Anon,

Was it you who brought Gerry back? Like this Gerry!

Ex-

I had noticed Susan Jacoby's comment about using names, so before signing off I decided to post one more thank you to several writers: to Darian for her significant example, to Susan Jacoby for her marvelous and insightful writing style, to Jihadist for persistence and many insights, to those several "atheists" who write with warmth and good humor, to Arminius and Daniel ITLD for that same warmth and good humor, to all those with the courage to state their beliefs without being afraid of having them be challenged. Congratulations, all! And sincere best wishes always, wherever you go in this beautiful, wonderful world. May each of you reach your vast potential, whatever road you go down to get there. Go for it. No need to quibble about how.

Hello Jihadist,

thanks for the fun!

I never said learning is tortured, painful and full of suffering. I wholeheartedly agree with you! On the contrary, learning belongs to the life necessities for our phylogenetic and ontogenetic existence, which all are connected with pleasure: To propagate, to love, to eat, to move, to touch, to breathe, to learn. Schiller/Beethoven come to mind: "Freude, schöner Götterfunken".

That is what I try to show and teach to my students when they, for instance, learn how to play a Suite of Bach: To experience pleasure in learning, in discovering new aspects, new methods, new experiences, feel their own growth as a musical artist, and to develop the ability to have others share this pleasure, get away from what I call the stale "right or wrong-syndrome" ("Sin"? Strike a chord?). It is a wonderful experience for me, certainly a wonderful "purpose" so often quoted here as missing with atheists.

I can live very well without the religious notion of sin and hell, as you can see. I wish you the same (live very well!).

Greetings.

Hi Jihadist, :)

Merry Anonymous posted to you awhile back. Then you posted-er, anyway, I think that was the order, and I tried to synthesize the two posts.

Asked both of yu if there was overlap in what you were saying, but never heard back. :( (sad!)

Anyway, if you get a chance, please scroll down. Would like to know what you think. Am packing, so shd be around for awhile.

Thx!

Best,
Farnaz

Hello Arminius :)

Of course nonbelievers really think believers, a.k.a, religionists, are afflicted with abject stupidity and deluded and demented. Some have only got a bit more civil, and some are more civil. Their "frustrations" and "exasperations" with believers of all stripes is also apparent.

I could not care less for tooth fairy or flat earth analogies, but very entertaining examples they gave and sometimes fun to get back on those. And now our favourite anti-thiest has come out with an iceberg anology. Brrrr....

Atheist do think all believers are alike. Not very scientific with no data, stats, surveys made on this. After all, it is the "You people are all the same" mindset of bigots.

One of my favourite assertions by atheists are:

"I respect you, but I don't have to respect your belief."

"I don't have to respect your belief".

Lovely to be stated on paper but in life? Say, a Mormon, a Muslim a Hindu and an orthodex Jew is to be invited for dinner. Do an atheist:

(a) - respect all beliefs and serve no alcohol, all vegan menu, no coffee, no tea, alcohol, no cigarettes/cigars, weeds, recreational drugs

(b) - invite them and still serve whatever you want as host and tough if they won't, can't eat or drink or smoke or do drugs

(c) - tell the guests they are nuts to comply by stupid superstitions and eating pork or beef or animals or drinking coffee or tea or wine, or doing a little bong is not detrimental to one's health

(d) - tell the guest there is a vegetarian option, non-smoking section of the dinner table, and anyone can chose not to drink alcohol, coffee, tea or any kind of drinks they don't want to.

(e) - none of the above

Or, will the reaction be:

"What! I'll never ever invite religious nuts over for dinner or even drinks!"

Regards

"J"

Gerry, back again one last time to say when I listen to Bach (not ba! Gerry) I do it with a deep sense of religious joy, the religious part is extra joy (which you as an atheist misses out on).

Woooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Gerry:

Thanks, Anonymous, for your permission to appear - or not. Help! Will you or someone else please explain to me the difference between the metaphysics of the "S"-word scientism and of the "R"-word religionism?

But as to the spell: It wasn't you, it was J.S.Bach (believer) who cast a spell on me (atheist), because I had to practice for a concert, trying to play at the best of my possibilities "ad majorem gloriam dei".

"Bah" is really very convincing, especially if you have a grateful audience!

================

Ex;- kindly bestowed a non-identity on me by mistaking me for a Wiccan. I'm the non-Wiccan who casts spells on those who believe in my existence although I don't exist.

Now to "the difference between the metaphysics of the "S"-word scientism and of the "R"-word religionism?"

Answer: The difference between the metaphysics of "S"- word *in* scientism and of the "R" word in religionism is the difference between metaphysics of the "M" word in musicism and "C" word in chemistry.

On the day you do not appear on thread or disappear from it at your own free will, you know that my spell has lost its power on you.

Wooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Gerry, since my spell works so well and you may and may not appear to read this message -

old ba! Gerry is *not* equal to Bach Gerry.

Brush up on your school mathematics.

Ex;-

I *had* to make a short visit because Gerry proved my spell works. :) Now every time Gerry appears or disappears you know that my last spell on him is still working powerfully.

My last spell was: Gerry, you may appear or disappear anytime you choose. Ab - ra -ca - da - br -aaaaaa!

Non Wiccan Anon:

If you're the same NWA, you didn't answer my question about the Mountain and the Squirrel (poem posted below), anyway.

And...A real Wiccan came in right away to take your place. She said that real Wiccans always come when dubious Wiccans exit. She would've restored my beliefs entirely, I'm sure, but I had to go!

So, I am now,

For the moment, Ex-

Non Wiccan Anon:

The one who went Whoooooooooooosh! ?

Non Wiccan Anonymous:

Are you the NWA I corresponded with this morning, the one who shattered my beliefs?

Ex-

Farnaz writes;

What does Intelligent Design and related views have to say about the fossil record? Cro Magnon man, etc?
----------

First, I don't have an agenda. Second, I've asked this question many times, and although I've gotten answers, for the life of me, I can't restate them because I didn't understand them!

IMHO, it's an important question though.

Once upon a time a suggestion was made that CCNL be sent to France to improve US-French relations. Here is to confirm the response posted once upon a time, i.e. President Sarkosy and his Italian-beauty wife are doing an impressive job without help from CCNL.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7455156.stm

Inspired by Jihadist's marvelous post, I will try to add some thoughts.

- While the accusations against believers of being afflicted with abject stupidity have abated, I still detect an undercurrent that non-believers feel that we believers are at best, deluded, at worst, demented. Initially I was offended, but now it is a LOL situation.

- The naming of the tooth fairy and flat earth geography aimed at believers is tiresome and proves nothing. It is name-calling, not debating.

- The constant labeling of believers as all like the fundies, whether overt or not, is outright wrong. The majority of Christians, Jews, and, I suspect, educated Muslims accept evolution and the big bang. Note well that the largest Christian group by far, the RCs, have accepted evolution and the big bang, and teach both in their schools. Only a minority of believers reject science. Spidey has very few friends.

- The view of religion as totally static simply ignores history. Do the Catholics' ecumenical councils come to mind, and the changes they made? For those familiar with the American Episcopal church, it morphed in the 1970's from a study in staid boredom into a vibrant, dynamic, progressive church. Is Judaism, in its multiple forms, identical to that of 500 BC(E)? The list goes on and on.

Arminius

Pseudo Realist:

"I do know that any argument using Fine Tuning of the universe for life to deduce something about the creator is logically invalid."

You pseudo know what you think you know.
Epistemology? What about all that?
If your hypothesis is silly, we of science say it's wrong.
And kids like you fall flat.

Question for supporters of Intelligent Design, etc. (Really, just a question!)

What does Intelligent Design and related views have to say about the fossil record? Cro Magnon man, etc?

Nostradamus and others have been commenting on Victor Stenger's book and the Anthropic Principle.

While I haven't read Stenger's book, I do know that any argument using Fine Tuning of the universe for life to deduce something about the creator is logically invalid.

Unfortunately, you can't deduce anything from the fact that the universe supports life. I say "unfortunately" because it would be great if we could settle the question of the existence of God using logic.

For a start it makes no sense to say that a universe that supports life is "unlikely" and therefore our universe must have been specifically made to support life. It makes no sense to assign any probability to the existence of any particular universe. We have a sample size of 1, the probability that the universe supports life is 1.0. You can't draw any valid conclusions from the constants that define our universe.

Another way to see this is to consider the opposite situation. What if the universe we observe was not able to support life, or extremely unlikely to support sentient life? Then the fact that we exist would prove that there must be some supernatural force that created us.

So the exact opposite observation leads us to conclude the existence of a supernatural creator, so it can't be logically valid to deduce the existence of God from the fact that the universe supports life.

Regards,
Realist

Mr Mark:

When you quote Einstein, I believe you misunderstand what he is saying. He is not saying the universe isn't orderly. He's just saying we don't know very much about it - very different things. The universe is very orderly. It follows a set of laws (like Gravity). It is built on common bulding blocks (sub atomic particles) that we are just starting to understand. And much of it is build on common ratios like Pi and Phi. I don't think that is by accident. And yes, it was discovered by science. Afterall, science is only a process by which we identify a hypothesis and then test it as best as we can through observation and experimentation. Science is of course limited, therefore on what we can test and measure. Hence, the problem with understanding dark matter and also why it is hard to prove that there is a God, at least directly. Like Dark matter, we surmise God's existence through His actions. Which includes the order we CAN see in the universe.

You are mistaken in your assumption that those that are religious are merely superstitious and incapable of studying God through reason. This is a common bias of the athiests. In fact, the Catholic Church clearly advocates Faith THROUGH reason.

As for your comments that only human life is bold and conceited enough to imagine it has a purpose. Well on earth, as far as we know, humans are the only sentient beings so of course they are the only ones to think about a purpose. However, that doesn't include everything else HAVING a purpose. If it exists, I believe it has a purpose, even if we don't understand right now (through scientific discovery) what it is.

The final part of your essay is actually just insulting. First you describe religion as the product of man's ANCIENT, fearful, ignorant, and childish mind. Well that isn't very open minded is it. It just relegates people who see things differently than you do as inferiors. An open minded person is one who will accept and judge an opposing opinion on its merits and its intent. And who is qualified in your mind to have answered the God question in the way you claim: "unlikely to a incredibly high statistical probability and undeniably false in a rational sense."

Let me at least tell you what I believe, so that you can have something tangible to attempt to discredit. I believe that God created man out of love to share his love and to serve him. I believe that he unveiled these truths to man over a long period of time through human experience and through the prophets. These prophets announced for hundreds of years that a Messiah would arise for the salvation of Mankind. Around 2000 years ago, God became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ to fully explain these mysteries. Jesus announced that he was the son of God and demonstrated his power through healings and other miracles which are well documented in scripture. Ultimately Jesus said that to be saved we needed to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves.

The leaders of the time were threatened by his teachings so they killed Jesus on a cross. However, 3 days later, in the ultimate proof point of his divinity, Jesus was raised from the dead and appeared to several hundred people over the course of 40 days. These people were not shy about publicizing the matter, even when they were persecuted for doing so.

Later he appeared to his most dangerous critic, Saul of Tarsus, who was on his way to Damascus to persecute the early church. This appearance on the road to Damascus converted Saul to the faith, and in an astounding turnaround, he became one of the founding apostles of the Church.

The church has continued to spread this gospel in good faith for 2000 years. During that period, countless other miracles have taken place to confirm the veracity of the faith to the faithful. These include the healings at Lourdes, the dancing of the Sun at Fatima, and the stigmata of Padre Pio, all in the last 150 years.

You will notice that what I am not talking about making a better wheel or mapping out the next solar system. I am talking about Man's striving to reunite with God because that's what I think is really important. You may not and that's your right but you shouldn't call me ignorant unless you can prove me wrong. I've just told you what I believe and why so go to it.

Finally, I'd like to point out that I find it very peculiar that so many athiests are so vocal in the On Faith website. Since you don't think there is a God, why is there any reason for you to pay any attention to such discussions. I must admit, though, I'm glad you do because it causes me to analyze my own faith, which is very healthy and productive. I hope you have a similar feeling.

Pam still not here? Ah, never mind.

**************************************************
Hello Chris Everett,

I wanted to know what a “positive atheist” is, you gave it, and with rah rah rah too, in your post! LOL. I have no doubt you are a positive atheist.

Always a pleasure to josh with you a bit.

Regards
“J”

**************************************************

Hello Gerry,

We believers are given to nonsensical notions? We know that already.

This is On Faith where we learn and share on beliefs and from one another if we want to. So here is another dose of my worldview as “shaped” by my faith. Who says learning has to be tortured, painful and full of suffering? Let’s have fun…

You : On the word "atheist" etc

* That we already know as often told here and as stated in many dictionaries. Some of us have them and do actually use them to refer to. I never bothered to tell or explain to non-Muslims what Islam means.

* If you have been reading On Faith threads, you would have realised that atheists do speak on how since becoming an atheist, it change their thinking, attitude, outlook, approach in life. Some did say that it was their thinking on religion and God that changed and made them atheists. Atheists do share on information and thoughts on everything from evolution to politics, to physiology to philosophy etc. Every imaginable topic in fact.

* Certainly, in the early days of On Faith, there were quite a number of posts from atheists calling believers “morons”, “idiots” and “stupid” for their beliefs, and believers retort that atheists are “smug” or “condescending” or “arrogant”. Frankly the tone of some atheist posts do remind me of the tone and the thrust of Christian missionaries of yore proselytising in Africa and Asia, especially on “the truth”.

* What is perceived by some atheists is that a believers’ worldview is dictated or determined by his religion and nothing else. So it seems. And an atheist’s worldview by his reason and Enlightenment. So it seems too. I have been, and am, the happy recipient of several interesting and enjoyable posts from some posters that everything I posted should be dismissed just because I believe in God and I am a Muslim. Meaning, if I am a believer of God and, gasp, a Muslim too! then I am (fill in the blanks). I ignore those posts as the worst form of bigotry. Or sometimes josh back.

You : On possibility or impossibility of god(s)etc

* Yes. We know the definition of atheism already. Others have done so. Thanks for reminding and restating that for, God knows, how many times. It is about the name-callings and labellings, the easy generalisations and lazy stereotyping that gets both atheists and believers irate in the heat of the discussions.

* Yes, there has been research and ruminations through the ages on God/s and religions, the last three hundred years mostly, but religions are still with us regardless, and so is faith. The question that perplexed atheists is why people believe in God, and why do they have faith. Believers are saying why they have faith in On Faith, and seem largely unconvinced by the reasoning and logic and facts put forth by atheists. Why is that? Believers are stupidly, stubbornly, blinded by faith? Believers are arrogant and devoid of humility in their belief of God? In stating they have or know the truth? Atheists are arrogant and devoid of humility in their non-belief of God? In stating they have or know the truth? There is rational intelligence and there is emotional intelligence. Do believers have emotional intelligence? Do atheists have emotional intelligence?

You : on honest and modest clear scientific thinking etc

* Is there really “rather honest and modest clear scientific thinking”? Is this an opinion or a fact? Does not clear scientific thinking not honestly and modestly see how religion permeates societies throughout history? How religion connects man by shared beliefs and mutual interests? Are realities of life imagination or reality? Is religion, especially organised religion, a response to or a reactions of the reality of life and human nature, hopes and aspirations?

* Are you absolutely sure religion is also not works in progress – the evolution of how man see God from the god of wine, the goddess of fruits and nuts, the god of the hammer, the goddess of the basket and such, to the God of now? How could religion survive through the ages? Religion, especially organised religion, is resilient in the face of challenges within and outside it, adaptive of trends, needs and realities, and capable of self-reinventing itself for relevance in meeting its adherents’ needs.

You : On moi and literalism of my religion etc.

* Uhhh! LOL. Such eloquence in the description of moi, but not in offering any substantive new thoughts or views that we have not heard of before? What you said in your post has been said before by other atheists and better too. At least I am a bit more original in my posts (in not incessantly quoting from other sources or in giving links at all) and go to any directions.

* I have been reading On Faith for months to learn and understand various beliefs more, and saw how much and how little is known or understood re the “other”, regardless of faith or no faith at all. Only sometimes did I put in some comments here and there regarding some easy and lazy easy assumptions and perceptions on Islam and Muslims.

* Surely you are not prematurely articulating on faith, belief and believers? Still much to learn on faith, religion and science. I am still learning and do step out of my faith and cultures to understand others. Can you? Will you?

You : On religion substitutes fantasy and hope for facts etc

* Are you absolutely very sure religion substitutes fantasy and hopes for facts? How did facts affects religion? Are not religious organisations the curse of some governments in state affairs? And, did Osama/Al Qaeda knows facts from fantasies? Did neocons knows facts from fantasies? Surely all believers here in On Faith are not interested in Snow White or Sleeping Beauty or any given Hans Christian Andersen fairy tales when we are more interested in current fictions, myths and fantasies spin and spurned, twisted and manipulated by adults everyday on religions, on beliefs, on politics, on the economy, on other people different from us etc.

* Surely you would not think that believers are tired of recounting on history of what people in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages do as torture? Look now and here – look at Hostel I and II, look at all the human rights abuses going on in some countries. Look at the stats of child and spousal abuses. Look at the stats of drug abuses. Look at the stats of murder and rapes. Look at current armed conflicts.

* Most of the unspeakably sadistic, with threats, anguish, living hell on earth, appealing to the lowest animal cruelties in the food chain are in North Korea and Burma. It has be going on for decades now and religion has nothing to do with it.

- Religion, as has been pointed out before, simply substitutes the unknown for another unknown, explaining exactly nothing etc.

* Sounds like another of those lectures here again on religion as fluff with fluffier notions. What exactly is meant by substituting one unknown for another unknown? God is the Ultimate Unknowable. Man has been looking for, towards God/s for eons. This is a fact.

* Superstition is walking under ladders, cats crossing your path, broken mirrors., Friday 13th etc? Superstitions are really “preventive” measures of possible harm if you look at most objectively. It has to do with fear of getting hurt, not the or a “virtual causality based on hope”?

* And whoever said “creating non-existing, visual causality based on hope” is not happening even now? The Birth of a New Middle East? The fall of the Soviet Union is The End of History? This is the American Century? Want me to go on about this, but not called superstion?

You : On EVERYTHING could be connected to the god you just invented etc.

* Ah, another of the same notion posed as something akin to: If God created everything, who created God?

* What is it about science and reason and logic that seem “cold” in answers and responses to humans’ “soft” needs as opposed to humans’ “hard” needs?

* If there is no supernatural God, there would not be any differences to this world. But it has never stop man from self-deification and being deified by others. Read history and look at the world from a political, economic and social perspective and you will see in history and now, it is man that make claims on himself and for himself.

* If you are into anthropology and archaeology, you would know how man made claims of bravery and magic over others, or are proven to be and regarded as braver, smarter, or having special skills that impress others that they became leaders of men, or are made into a leader of men, or morphed into gods and goddesses in ensuing years. These are apparent in the myths and legends of all societies in the world for their authority over men. Look today and we will still see people in the arts or sports being adulated . Look around today and we still see people claiming they speak to God for extra authority. Why bother to look back on Zeus when modern day Zeus are making claims? And believed?

* Don’t think God is a superstition of old. It is “real” it is being invoked by man for his own purposes – both negative and positive. Want to tell Mr, Bush that? He has the “authority” of God to push that button to set off weapons created by science to kill more men than God in this day and age.

* Perhaps it is not believers who are unaware of reality and facts. Perhaps it is some atheists blinded by notions that God is a myth, religions poison everything, that they don’t see the fact that it is men, from the atheistic North Korean leaders to the God-invoking American leaders who posed the greatest threats in the poisoning of men’s minds towards disharmony and conflicts. Where we once have divine ordained kings, we now have democratically-elected ordained leaders taking us on the same well trodden part in highlighting our exceptionalism (as the neo-chosen people), our differences (our ideologiy is better than theirs), and divisiveness (us vs them).

Once upon a time, in some On Faith threads, I did call some atheists who posted silly posts the “dim bulbs” or, “lesser lights” of Enlightenment. As for the responses….

I am not above or below getting sillier and more ridiculous than anyone in hitting new highs in lows of absurd tit for tat, spit for spat.

Cheers
“J”

RE: DITLD and the opposition between science and religion

Daniel said awhile back that he didn't understand why the two had to be in opposition. I confess I don't either.

There are many religious Jewish doctors and scientists, who have no problems reconciling the two.

In college my first biology prof. was an Orthodox Jew, taught us about evolution, etc. He showed films of sexual intercourse, mother's delivering babies, was pro-choice, etc.
---------------

Stem cell research: When I first saw the arguments against stem cell research, Bush consulting with Fundo's, the Pope, I was aghast. Would have been, of course, if he has asked rabbis, imams, et al.

To me, it was a no brainer, a let's get moving. Then (back in the day), I began reading secular ethicists on the matter, and my "arrogant" atheist thinking changed a little. There is concern that women will become pregnant in order to abort and sell. This, said these writers, is a particular concern in countries where poverty abounds, such as India, where mothers sell parts of their bodies to feed their children.

I recall feeling almost physically sick while reading this. I have been to India and I have seen these women.

Should they continue selling a kidney, a this, a that rather than an embryo?

That, of course, is the flip side of said ethical dilemma. (An alternative, of course, would be to feed these women and their children.)

Hi E Favorite :)

You write:
I suggest folks here go to the Rabbi Adin's essay to give him a piece of your mind.

I'm guessing you mean R. Steinhaltz? I've read his reply along with the other panelists' responses and was most impressed with Dennett's.

R. Steinhaltz's short essay is merely a gentler reply than R. Hirschfeld's. Normative Judaism cannot allow that the deity will heal your child but not your neighbor's as R. Herschfield rightly says.

Normative Judaism really can't say very much more than there is a mind/soul (spiritual) connection.
From a Jewish perspective, that's it. Because of how he is situated, he will be extra careful not to advise those who are not Jewish, since Judaism rigorously adheres to the view that the deity has a covenant with all people's. Hence, the mildness of his closing. As well, he, like other Jews of the rationalist Jewish "persuasion" more and more try to be gentle while delivering their message. True, the idea of personal physical salvation for you but not Bob, Mary, or Joe is unacceptable, he is saying, but how may I tell you this, you whose child is suffering without causing you more pain?

But the mind (brain) body connection has been established. Neither Atheist Farnaz nor the other atheists on this thread object to this view. How can they? It is the view of this atheist writing and of anyone else, who has looked at the effect of relaxation training on Presbyterian Hospital on pre-surgical patients, etc., etc.

End point. You may not know that R. Steinhaltz has had just about the most comprehensive secular education one can have. Wikepedia has a less than satisfactory article on him, but there you have it.

Like many of his brand of Judaism, he was drawn to math and science.

As a sister atheist, I'm wondering what in his reply you could object to.

Farnaz :)

Nostradamus;

Interesting. But I don't think the issue was Stenger particularly. As I read it, the issue seems to be curiosity; and are those who have already 'found' God no longer curious enough to consider other viewpoints?
DanielITLD is an intelligent Christian, for instance, and posted his searching thoughts on existence and the cosmos and God rather nicely back a day or two ago.
Another poster wondered whether Daniel would also consider non-religious sources of information in his search for cosmic meaning, ie. Stenger's recent book.
It's a fair question.

I read Stenger's book and as an atheist all I can say is 'So what'? According to Stenger, the universe that we see is the universe that we would naturally expect to see, going by the so-called 'cosmological constants' that everyone talks about, and that gets us where we are today.

These of course are what the the ID folks fall back on all the time as proof of a 'higher power'. He does make a valid point that any kind of mythical Creator found in stories for children really botched it, given the vastly inefficient and 'wasteful' nature of the inopportune use of dark matter and dark enery. On the other hand, the universe is not only flat, but is uniform in all directions. Victor will have to dig deeper, I do believe.

If such and such hadn't occurred within the likely parameters of 10 to the 10th power and so forth, we wouldn't have the universe that we have.....and so on.

According to Stenger, what you see is what you get, because 'what you see is what you get'....period. Thereby eliminating any explanation whatsoever. I suppose we've off to a nice start, but check it out in 10 millenia or so....Victor will not have made it to the list of the ten greatest thinkers of all time - by a power of 10 to the 10th - so I predict.

Don't be taken in by posers - that's my advice. Humans are very far from the answer of answers....this is the age of debunkers, and that is all.

Another poster quoted the Vedanta - 'everything you seek is directly in front of you'. Victor didn't see it....

Since I'm here and you're there, it's hard to see 'It' from my point of view. We that reside in and with the Pleroma always wish our brethren in Spirit the best of all possible worlds.

E Ponsonby - agree re Mr Mark's essay, disagree re Daniel ITLD's weak response, plus I'm not so sure he'd call himself a "believer" - what say you, Daniel?

I suggest folks here go to the Rabbi Adin's essay to give him a piece of your mind. Also check out Dan Dennett's and Martin Marty's essays - both quite good, I think. If you're in the mood to tear your hair out, read Chuck Colson's essay.

I'm having trouble navigating this thread, it's so full, so may not be back here much.

Brilliant essay Mr Mark; also concise and crystal clear. It is one to file away for further perusal.

It does seem that even the best of the religionists are not as interested in truth as much as verification for what they already believe. I imagine many will scroll right past your post.

I followed the recent exchange between Daniel and Yoyo where Yoyo suggested to Daniel(ITLD) that as he is so interested in the god search, then why not read Victor Stenger's, 'God; The Failed Hypothesis?'

Daniel's response was disappointingly lame and non-committal, and my feeling was that there is no way Daniel, or any other believer, is interested in hearing what the 'other side' is saying. Verification seems the goal, not education.

So, aren't we all wasting our time in a sense? And aren't we all dug in and immovable anyway?

Regards

Bush 'may convert to Catholicism'

By Peter Popham in Rome
Saturday, 14 June 2008

* Print Print
* Email Email

Independent.co.uk Web

President George Bush was given such a splendid welcome by Pope Benedict XVI yesterday that rumours started flying that the President, like Tony Blair before him, was on the verge of converting to Catholicism.

It was a Vatican visit such as no other head of state has ever enjoyed. Instead of greeting him, like all previous high-ranking visitors, in the papal library of the Apostolic Palace, the Pope took Mr Bush round the medieval St John's Tower then gave him a tour of the Vatican gardens, culminating in a brief open-air concert by the Sistine Chapel Choir.

The Pope waited for the President at the entrance of the tower. As he arrived, the President was overheard gushing "What an honour" as the two men disappeared for a half-hour tête-à-tête, details of which have not been made public.

The special reception was seen as a return of favours for the magnificent party thrown for the Pope two months ago when he turned 81 during his US tour, attended by up to 9,000 guests. But yesterday the Vatican was seething at rumours that there was much more to it than protocol: George Bush,lifelong Methodist, was about to convert.

The notion was given extra mileage by the fact that the President's brother Jeb, the former governor of Florida, converted to Catholicism on marrying his wife Columba, a Mexican.

The Vatican differs from the White House on immigration and the death penalty but on other issues including stem cell research, gay marriage and abortion there has been, as the Catholic daily L'Avvenire put it, "total harmony."

Cardinal Pio Laghi, the papal envoy to the White House, said: "Bush believes in the values of the Church and his brother is a convert."

Dear Paul C -

I wanted to respond to your last post as you raise some fundamental issues that mark the differences between religionists and rationalists.

First, on the subject of "having to believe" that the order we see in the universe came from disorder. As Einstein said, the real mystery about the universe is that we can understand ANYTHING about it. ie: that any order is even discerned.

The universe is a chaotic place. We actually know very little about the universe. We don't even know what dark matter is, and it makes up most of the universe. "Dark matter" is simply a term we use as a place holder until we figure out what it really is.

That said, what we DO know about the universe we have learned from science, not religion. In fact, on naturalistic and scientific points, religions have been and are invariably WRONG in their assessments of how things are.

Think of the universe as an iceberg. Science has been able to explain the part of the iceberg that is above the water line, while at the same time acknowledging that there is much to learn that lies beneath the surface. Science endeavors to go beneath the surface to find out more about the iceberg.

Religion, on the other hand, sees an ice cube and avers that "the ice cube is all you need to know." Religion won't even acknowledge that the ice cube is attached to the part of the iceberg that we can actually see. For the religious, the ice cube is a supernatural thing that exists in it own sphere.

The moral: don't be a typical religionist and claim order in the universe when disorder is the universe's stock in trade.

As far as life having "a purpose," it is only human life that is both bold and conceited enough to imagine it has a purpose. Perhaps our "purpose" in life was simply to discover plastic, the better to encase the world in the stuff so the next time a self-destructive species such as ours comes along, the world will be better protected (George Carlin).

Perhaps we human beings are the Earth's (and, possibly, the universe's) evolutionary attempt at becoming self aware. After all, were we humans not here, it's entirely possible that the universe would have no awareness of itself. Human beings may well be the only thing in the universe qualified to answer "yes" to the perennial question, "if a tree falls in the forest..."

From my viewpoint, I would say that THAT qualifies as THE "biggest question" to ask oneself in the realm of bigger questions.

And - with all due respect - I would say the shallowest ANSWERS one could possibly accept to the big questions are the answers proposed by religion. To allow religion - the product of man's ANCIENT, fearful, ignorant and childish mind - to have a special carve out of authority that we do not gainsay for ANY other aspect of our 21st century lives is the ultimate embrace and practice of meaningless shallow-hood.

The curse of the religionist is that he imagines that religion/god is THE BIG question. It isn't, anymore than imagining that the existence of Zeus or Santa Claus is THE BIG question. That this particular imagining is most often based in abject fear and stupidity earns it no credibility as a question AT ALL, let alone a question of any import.

When one thinks about it, religion's questions aren't the right questions one should be asking, even at this point in our existence where we know the relatively little that we do know about the universe. The "god" question - at least as it has been presented and defined in the world's "holy books" - has already been answered, and the answer is, "unlikely to a incredibly high statistical probability and undeniably false in a rational sense."

The only question that legitimately remains is whether there is something out there that in its broadest outlines would fit what we humans have defined for ourselves as being a "god." Based on our ancient and feeble attempts to define the indefinable, about the only thing we can be sure of is that such a "force" would bear no resemblance to said ancient and feeble attempts...and that doesn't even contemplate the issues of sentience. "God" could be no more than a broader understanding of physics.

At best, religion stands as an arbitrarily arrived at attempt at a unified field theory, a common way of viewing reality that is seen today primarily in two places: religion, and the minds of young children. The only difference between the two is that the child's mind is OPEN to new answers to any and all questions, while the religious mind is sealed shut to most of the same.

Good chatting with you.

Gerry,

Gotta go. Anyway, I replied to your post of yesterday, but never heard back--that one was "serious."

So long as your a Ba(c)h believer, you're okay in my book.

Farnaz :)

Hi Gerry,

I know you posted that you'd like to do some serious writing, but I can't stay logged on for long, and I'd like to know what you play.

Music and poetry are great for both atheists and theists.

Farnaz

Thanks, Anonymous, for your permission to appear - or not. Help! Will you or someone else please explain to me the difference between the metaphysics of the "S"-word scientism and of the "R"-word religionism?

But as to the spell: It wasn't you, it was J.S.Bach (believer) who cast a spell on me (atheist), because I had to practice for a concert, trying to play at the best of my possibilities "ad majorem gloriam dei".

"Bah" is really very convincing, especially if you have a grateful audience!

And now, I would like to go back to serious writing, and I apologize to whomever I trod on his or her feet! The thread was always very instructive and thought-provoking, especially where I disagree. We always change as we live.

I will say this of Faith: it has been the foundation of every religion, every cult, every sect, every religious terrorist organization that desired to gain advocates whose will greatly exceeded their intelligence. When a religion asks that its followers believe all that it declares, and to do so without evidence, it speaks volumes of the intent and meaning of that religion. These churches, temples and mosques, they will keep their followers in the shadows of millennium past. Evolution is still howled as the great enemy of faith. It simply has the greatest following of scientists and evidence. It's not scientifically that any religion has ever tried to debunk Evolution. They brought forth no evidence. They claimed no new discoveries. Their only tactic was to point to tattered and very old scriptues -- to flip through the pages, and read the rancid words, almost as if they were pure gold. Faith does not require investigation, or evidence, or demonstration, or observation, or logical deductions. It simply requires that a person believe, in spite of what evidence may say: it requires that a person blindfolds themselves when demonstration is shown, to use earplugs when anyone speaks of logic, and to turn away at every reason for them to believe what Faith tells them is wrong. Those cults and sects which have utilized violence for the realization of their apocalyptic future -- they required nothing but the willpower and a great deal of Faith.

Wayne

It seems to me that religious systems boil down to a few fairly simple common components. I use the term religious systems somewhat loosely, because this is just as true of groups as large as nations down to groups as small as mafia families.

You have a leadership who claims to have a direct line to the "higher authority," either literally (as with messianic leaders), figuratively (where the higher authority is a particular ideological, tribal, or racial/ethnic identity), or both.

Next you have a faux moral system where a few common sense truisms are intermingled with far more dubious claims that equate morality with group/ideological fealty.

Then you have a dehumanizing of members of competing tribes, ideologies, races, and so on which is cemented by an indoctrinated persecution complex intended to create fear of the "others," and equate them with the opposites of the faux moral system. Non-believers become heretics, liberal become commies, war opponents become traitors. All of which points to how easily led people become when their sense of self and their relationship to others is wrapped up in their tribal identity.

Then you have ritual and symbols designed to both reinforce the group identity and the link between the pseudo-moral system and group identity, like worship, ritual prayer, ceremonies, pledges of allegiance, rites of passage, flags, crosses, and so on.

Put those all together and apply them on a population and what you get are loyal drones ready to do the bidding of the tribe or nation without much critical thought and who'll feel good about doing it. They'll be able to do incredibly immoral things while feeling that doing them obediently makes them more moral.

I'm not sure I believe that people are smart enough to have designed religious systems (in which I include nationalism) with these things in mind, but I think it's inarguable that this is how they've come to be applied. It's also why I have no love of them and believe that humanity must work towards dismantling them, and must teach our children a morality and ethical system based on rationalism, critical thinking, and humanism, and individualism.

All of the above is probably overly simplistic but it's the way I see things, and so as not to have strayed way way off topic, it's also why I don't want to see politics where atheists attempt to field an atheist candidate simply because he/she is an atheist. That isn't progress. It's just the same old same old.

A.C.Grayling

There is an increasingly noisy and bad-tempered quarrel between religious people and non-religious people in contemporary society.

It has flared up in the past few years, and has quickly taken a bitter turn. Why is this so?

AC Grayling argues that religion has lost respectability
As one of those participating in it - and, confessedly, contributing to its acerbity - my answer might seem partisan. But both sides of the current dispute agree that it raises important questions about the place of religious belief in modern society.

Until very recently, people tended not to fall out with one another if they discovered that they held different views about religion.

There were three main reasons for this.

Most believers did not brandish their faith publicly, society had become increasingly secular in most major respects, and memories of the past's murderous religious factionalisms had bequeathed a reluctance to revive the problem. The latter's lingering consequences in Northern Ireland anyway served as a distasteful warning.

But all the major religions have become more assertive, more vocal, more demanding and therefore more salient in the public domain.

Followers of Islam were the first to push forward: protests against Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses in 1989 were an early indication of what has since become an insistent Islamic presence in the public square.

Not willing to be left behind, other faiths have followed suit. In 2004 Sikhs closed a play in Birmingham, Hindus complained about Christmas stamps Christianising an Indian theme and, in 2005, evangelical Christians protested against Jerry Springer: The Opera.

But it has not all been about protests.

In Britain public funding has gone to Church of England and Roman Catholic schools for a long time; now Muslims, Sikhs and Jews receive public money for their own faith-based schools. BBC radio has steadily increased the airtime available to religions other than the established one.

Requests for extra protections in law, and alternatively for exemptions from the law, to cater for religious sensitivities soon followed these developments: criminalising offensive remarks about religion, and allowing faith-based organisations to be exempt from legislation outlawing discriminatory practices, are the main examples.

The Labour Government has been as concessive and inclusive as it can be to all the religious groups in Britain.

This is well intentioned but misguided, as the example of faith-based schooling shows. If children are ghettoised by religion from an early age, the result, as seen in Northern Ireland, is disastrous.

In the past decade exactly such segregation has been given a publicly funded boost in the rest of the UK, at a time when religion-inspired tensions and divisions in society are increasing. The remedy for the latter should be to ensure that schooling is as mixed and secular as possible; instead, tax money has gone to deepen the problem because the Government thinks that by giving sectarianism its head it will appease it.

Yet history teaches that appeasement never satisfies appetites, it only feeds them.

In the face of the growing volume and assertiveness of different religious bodies asking for preferential treatment, secular opinion has hardened. The non-religious response has come largely from individuals who have a platform or the talent to speak; and they speak for themselves, not for an organisation.

In the US, the religious Right numbers about 35 million. Recent polls show that about 30 million Americans define themselves as having no religious commitment.

But whereas the religious Right is a formidable body whose constituent churches and movements have salaried administrators, vast funds, television and radio outlets, and paid Washington lobbyists, America's non-religious folk are simply unconnected individuals.

It is no surprise that the religious Right has political clout and can make a loud noise in the American public square, whereas the non-religious voice is muted.

There are two main reasons for the hardening of responses by non-religious folk.

One is that any increase in the influence of religious bodies in society threatens the de facto secular arrangement that allows all views and none to coexist. History has shown that in societies where one religious outlook becomes dominant, an uneasy situation ensues for other outlooks; at the extreme, religious control of society can degenerate into Taliban-like rule.

Look at the period in which liberty of conscience was at last secured in Christian Europe - the 16th and 17th centuries. It was an exceptionally bloody epoch: millions died as a result of a single church's reluctance to give up its control over what people can be allowed to think and believe.

The famous Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 accepted religious differences as the only way of preventing religion from being an endless source of war. Religious peace did not come straight away, but eventually it arrived, and most of Europe for most of the years since 1700 has been free of religiously motivated strife.

But this is under threat in the new climate of religious assertiveness.

Faith organisations are currently making common cause to achieve their mutual ends, but, once they have achieved them, what is to stop them remembering that their faiths are mutually exclusive and indeed mutually blaspheming, and that the history of their relationship is one of bloodshed?

The second reason why secular attitudes are hardening relates to the reflective non-religious person's attitude to religion itself.

Religious belief of all kinds shares the same intellectual respectability, evidential base, and rationality as belief in the existence of fairies.

This remark outrages the sensibilities of those who have deep religious convictions and attachments, and they regard it as insulting. But the truth is that everyone takes this attitude about all but one (or a very few) of the gods that have ever been claimed to exist.

No reasonably orthodox Christian believes in Aphrodite or the rest of the Olympian deities, or in Ganesh the Elephant God or the rest of the Hindu pantheon, or in the Japanese emperor, and so endlessly on - and officially (as a matter of Christian orthodoxy) he or she must say that anyone who sincerely believes in such deities is deluded and blasphemously in pursuit of "false gods".

The atheist adds just one more deity to the list of those not believed in; namely, the one remaining on the Christian's or Jew's or Muslim's list.

Religious belief is humankind's earliest science. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are young religions in historical terms, and came into existence after kings and emperors had more magnificently taken the place of tribal chiefs. The new religions therefore modelled their respective deities on kings with absolute powers.

But for tens of thousands of years beforehand people were fundamentally animistic, explaining the natural world by imputing agency to things - spirits or gods in the wind, in the thunder, in the rivers and sea.

As knowledge replaced these naiveties, so deities became more invisible, receding to mountain tops and then to the sky or the earth's depths. One can easily see how it was in the interests of priesthoods, most of which were hereditary, to keep these myths alive.

With such a view of religion - as ancient superstition, as a primitive form of explanation of the world sophisticated into mythology - it is hard for non-religious folk to take it seriously, and equally hard for them to accept the claim of religious folk to a disproportionate say in running society.

This is the more so given that the active constituency of all believers in Britain is about eight per cent of the population. A majority might have vague beliefs and occasionally go to church, but even they do not want their lives dictated to by so small and narrow a self-selected minority.

The disproportion is a staring one. Regular C of E churchgoers make up three per cent of the population, yet have 26 bishops in the House of Lords. Now that religion is bustling on to centre-stage and asking for everyone's taxes to pay for faith schools and exemptions, this anachronism is no longer tolerable.

And all this is happening against the background of atrocities committed by religious fanatics in America, Europe and the Middle East, whose beliefs are not very different from the majority of others in their faith.

The absolute certainty, the unreflective credence given to ancient texts that relate to historically remote conditions, the zealotry and bigotry that flow from their certainty, are profoundly dangerous: at their extreme they result in mass murder, but long before then they issue in censorship, coercion to conform, the control of women, the closing of hearts and minds.

Thus there is a continuum from the suicide bomber driven by religious zeal to the moral crusader who wishes to stop everyone else from seeing or reading what he himself finds offensive. This fact makes people of a secular disposition no longer prepared to be silent and concessive.

Religion has lost respectability as a result of the atrocities committed in its name, because of its clamouring for an undue slice of the pie, and for its efforts to impose its views on others.

Where politeness once restrained non-religious folk from expressing their true feelings about religion, both politeness and restraint have been banished by the confrontational face that faith now turns to the modern world.

This, then, is why there is an acerbic quarrel going on between religion and non-religion today, and it does not look as if it will end soon.

A C Grayling will be speaking for the motion, We'd be better off without religion, at the Intelligence2 debate on Tuesday 27 March; see www.intelligencesquared.com

Against All Gods by AC Grayling (Oberon Books) is available for £8.99

Thomas Baum,

Thank you for your posts. I put the word "religionists" in quotation marks for the reasons you mention. It's use should be reserved, in my view, for those who seek to legislate their religious views.

For both atheists and theists or adherents who must "prove" whatever they must prove in the name of their convictions, win over or defeat the heinous adversary, I use the word "conversionist."

I am an avowed atheist and secularist, yet I know many relgious adherents, theists of all sorts who neither wish nor seek to impose their programs on this culture.

You make your definition of God sound simple, but of course we know it is not. How would you explain the case of mass murder? The mass murderers exercised free will. The victims?

Best regards,

M. Anonymous

Jihadist,

I apologize for my behavior yesterday. Your posts are always with the best intent. Sorry.

Chris

ARMINIUS

You wrote, " We amuse ourselves by referring to the Pope as the Bishop of Rome."

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

By the way, I am not, sort of a fundie, I don't go by labels, I am just a messenger.

It sure does seem like a lot of people get upset because God did not make this a perfect world and it also seems to get a lot of people upset that God gave us free will or in some cases that God gave others free will.

Have you ever heard of or met the proverbial schoolyard bully? Some bullies use the physical, some use the emotional, some use the intellectual, some use various other forms and sometimes I wonder if they even see themselves for what they are?

Sometimes, it can be very easy to belittle another but really which person is the lesser for it?

Reading over some of these posts, not all of them but some of them, sure does remind one that there is a world of difference between being child-like and childish.

Hope that you are doing fine, hang in there.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

MERRY ANONYMOUS

You wrote, " Nowhere, in any comment, do I see any definition of God."

I have wrote many times that God is a Being of Love, Pure Love, Love is not an attribute of God but is His Very Being.

You also wrote, "Speaking as an atheist, I must say the arrogance of fellow atheists, the sense of superiority, scares me almost as much as "religionism."

On my post of 6-13-8 at 4:07 PM, I wrote, "Arrogance knows no labels. God looks at the person not whatever label someone describes themself with or in some cases to denigrate or belittle others.

I do not consider myself a religionist which is just another label people use. I am just a fellow human being who has met God and has met satan.

I have said many times that if God was anything, even remotely, like what some people think that He is, then who would want to have anything to do with Him, I sure wouldn't.

I have also said, "God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and that it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know".

I happen to think that the above statement is very simple and to the point whether one believes in God or not, can you see what I am saying in the above statement?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Ex;-

God the silent partner, I know Him too.

When one not-Wiccan disappears the real Wiccan breezes in to fill the vacuum. Be of good cheer!

Certain parts of the south, even Texas. Went cross country awhile ago. Found that God was the silent partner in every restaurant.

Day and night there were evangelicals on TV, on the radio. Religious music of every variety. All very interesting to me, but then I didn't live there.

Now, I read some posts of travails with conversionists and I sympathize.

Must go...

Ex-believer

Believer Anonymous:

Wiccan, you know, I can't comprehend the arrogance of American atheists, nor most European for that matter. I think, in many cases, it is defensive. In parts of this country, they are harassed endlessly from what I hear, literally can't get away from conversionists of every desciption.

That, I think, is part of the problem. Another is that they don't recognize the metaphysics of their scientism. Bah! Gerry, I said the S word.

**********************************************

Where might 'parts of this country' be? I have no doubt that you know where you live but 'this country' is not so clear to me.

It is a mystery why believers should find it so important to prove their faith to atheists.

Well, now, you have crushed me utterly, if in fact you are not. I have lost all my faith and will now become a Gerry disciple. I'd become a Mr. Mark follower, but I don't think he could tolerate anyone crowding his shadow.

I'm off, whoever you are!! Must run errands, spend money. Since you're not Wiccan, I'm back in the material world. No shopping goddesses in Wicca anyway. :( Sad.

Btw I'm not Wiccan.

Cute poem. Who is the mountain and who is the squirrel? Now let me see......who indeed?

Now my final spell for Gerry: Gerry may reappear whenever he likes......or not.

I have work to do, I'm off to cast my spells on those who believe me.

Thnx for your poems.

Swishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Wiccan, you know, I can't comprehend the arrogance of American atheists, nor most European for that matter. I think, in many cases, it is defensive. In parts of this country, they are harassed endlessly from what I hear, literally can't get away from conversionists of every desciption.

That, I think, is part of the problem. Another is that they don't recognize the metaphysics of their scientism. Bah! Gerry, I said the S word.

Now, Wiccan, who is the mountain and who is the squirrel?

Fable
by: Ralph Waldo Emerson

The mountain and the squirrel
Had a quarrel;
And the former called the latter "Little Prig."
Bun replied,
"You are doubtless very big;
But all sorts of things and weather
Must be taken in together
To make up a year
And a sphere.
And I think it's no disgrace
To occupy my place.
If I'm not so large as you,
You are not so small as I,
And not half so spry.
I'll not deny you make
A very pretty squirrel track;
Talents differ: all is well and wisely put;
If I cannot carry forests on my back,
Neither can you crack a nut."

Have you not heard: be careful what you cast your spell on, it might just come true? The best Gerry is a disappeared Gerry.

Wiccan, you could make a spell for him in rhyme, that is, unless he's someone's familiar, which could be. Anything is possible if you believe. :)

Thx for the lovely poem. Hmmm... but Gerry doesn't believe in me. So unless he reappears to say he believes in me, I can't cast the spell to make him reappear.

Now, here is another, for all those who think religion is a fairy tale, so is your brand of atheism, and, yes, bah! Gerry, there are brands.
--------------------

Gretel in Darkness
Louise Gluck

This is the world we wanted. All who would have seen us dead
Are dead. I hear the witch's cry
Break in the moonlight through a sheet of sugar: God rewards.
Her tongue shrivels into gas....

Now, far from women's arms
And memory of women, in our father's hut
We sleep, are never hungry.
Why do I not forget?
My father bars the door, bars harm
From this house, and it is years.

No one remembers. Even you, my brother.
Summer afternoons you look at me as though you meant
To leave, as though it never happened. But I killed for you.
I see armed firs, the spires of that gleaming kiln come back, come back--

Nights I turn to you to hold me but you are not there.
Am I alone? Spies
Hiss in the stillness, Hansel we are there still, and it is real, real,
That black forest, and the fire in earnest.

Wiccan, I have a surprise for you. Even for old bah! Gerry, that is if you'll let him reappear!

Cinderella

You always read about it:
the plumber with twelve children
who wins the Irish Sweepstakes.
From toilets to riches.
That story.

Or the nursemaid,
some luscious sweet from Denmark
who captures the oldest son's heart.
From diapers to Dior.
That story.

Or a milkman who serves the wealthy,
eggs, cream, butter, yogurt, milk,
the white truck like an ambulance
who goes into real estate
and makes a pile.
From homogenized to martinis at lunch.

Or the charwoman
who is on the bus when it cracks up
and collects enough from the insurance.
From mops to Bonwit Teller.
That story.

Once
the wife of a rich man was on her deathbed
and she said to her daughter Cinderella:
Be devout. Be good. Then I will smile
down from heaven in the seam of a cloud.
The man took another wife who had
two daughters, pretty enough
but with hearts like blackjacks.
Cinderella was their maid.
She slept on the sooty hearth each night
and walked around looking like Al Jolson.
Her father brought presents home from town,
jewels and gowns for the other women
but the twig of a tree for Cinderella.
She planted that twig on her mother's grave
and it grew to a tree where a white dove sat.
Whenever she wished for anything the dove
would drop it like an egg upon the ground.
The bird is important, my dears, so heed him.

Next came the ball, as you all know.
It was a marriage market.
The prince was looking for a wife.
All but Cinderella were preparing
and gussying up for the big event.
Cinderella begged to go too.
Her stepmother threw a dish of lentils
into the cinders and said: Pick them
up in an hour and you shall go.
The white dove brought all his friends;
all the warm wings of the fatherland came,
and picked up the lentils in a jiffy.
No, Cinderella, said the stepmother,
you have no clothes and cannot dance.
That's the way with stepmothers.

Cinderella went to the tree at the grave
and cried forth like a gospel singer:
Mama! Mama! My turtledove,
send me to the prince's ball!
The bird dropped down a golden dress
and delicate little gold slippers.
Rather a large package for a simple bird.
So she went. Which is no surprise.
Her stepmother and sisters didn't
recognize her without her cinder face
and the prince took her hand on the spot
and danced with no other the whole day.

As nightfall came she thought she'd better
get home. The prince walked her home
and she disappeared into the pigeon house
and although the prince took an axe and broke
it open she was gone. Back to her cinders.
These events repeated themselves for three days.
However on the third day the prince
covered the palace steps with cobbler's wax
and Cinderella's gold shoe stuck upon it.
Now he would find whom the shoe fit
and find his strange dancing girl for keeps.
He went to their house and the two sisters
were delighted because they had lovely feet.
The eldest went into a room to try the slipper on
but her big toe got in the way so she simply
sliced it off and put on the slipper.
The prince rode away with her until the white dove
told him to look at the blood pouring forth.
That is the way with amputations.
The don't just heal up like a wish.
The other sister cut off her heel
but the blood told as blood will.
The prince was getting tired.
He began to feel like a shoe salesman.
But he gave it one last try.
This time Cinderella fit into the shoe
like a love letter into its envelope.

At the wedding ceremony
the two sisters came to curry favor
and the white dove pecked their eyes out.
Two hollow spots were left
like soup spoons.

Cinderella and the prince
lived, they say, happily ever after,
like two dolls in a museum case
never bothered by diapers or dust,
never arguing over the timing of an egg,
never telling the same story twice,
never getting a middle-aged spread,
their darling smiles pasted on for eternity.
Regular Bobbsey Twins.
That story.

-- Anne Sexton

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

But wait, I have cast a spell on Gerry. He has disappeared.

But you shouldn't. I get the power to cast a spell only on those who believe in me. You don't want me to cast a spell on you, do you? I'm sure Gerry doesn't.

But you do exist Wiccan. I believe in you.

Gerry, which Anonymous did you mean? It couldn't have been me because I don't exit. :-)

To Anonymous: That's what I thought. Anonymity can wipe out anybody who fakes individuality :))

Anon,

Whose head? What X Y Z, and what are you talking about? What poor CCNL?

No, no I didn't post - Huh? Now it is like poor CCNL having his posts posted by someone else.

Remember to get your head examined.

X, Y, Z & Co, what about being good boys and never posting again. That is the kind of magic I like.

Huh?

X, Y, Z & Co, what about being good boys and never posting again. That is the kind of magic I like.

Anon,

Lucky for you, I'm in a good mood. (Not bad, CCNL, but you could have done better.)

Anon,

Here is where both atheists and "believers" are such a damned disappointment. You want magic? We've done the staff and serpent trick, the Kid walked on water, and now we've done CCNL. (Actually, We're not responsible for him. He has free will, but We did announce his post.)

So here is what we will do. We will not post tomorrow. Do as you have done today, and watch for CCNL.

When you "confirm" what I have already told you, I will expect something from you.

May I also point out that you do not have eternal life, and if you are going to stay up tomorrow to "confirm" what I have told you, you might want to consider a better use of your time?

If not, scroll down.

Y Guy :(

So very, very sad to see the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist fall so quickly after showing so much promise in escaping her Islamic brainwashing and its intrinsic "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench). Note how believers in Reality don't have such problems.

Once again, the "fems" of Islam:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty, gay(?) Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3 That Shiites are less than human or Sunnis are less than human depending on what Islamic cult you belong to.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

O Islam, O Islam, violent Islam,
Sunnis of hate, Shiites of late,
Even Pretty Wingie Thingies cannot
Save us from Islam's hate.

Save us from these Islamic FEMs,
Flaws, Errors, Muck and Stench,
They ooze from the rocks of earth,
Worms wreaking in wrenched death.

Born, Bred, and Brainwashed too,
Whatever, whatever to do?

Truth, Truth, History and Truth,
Let it Ring True, Freedom, Freedom
Freedom at Last and much left to do!!!

Anonymouses, My Children,

Never, not even post-apocalyptically, would I post such nonsense. In fact, I'm only posting at all because a couple of post mortems are using this thread to chat for a bit.

Allow me certain knowledge. CCNL, son of ?, seeks each day to be the last person to post. He had a hard time yesterday, because, like to day, other blogging continued throughout the night. HOWEVER, he was warned. Scroll down. The Kid and I are going out for breakfast.

CCNL: Post when read, your list, HIGHLY ABBREVIATED, WE TRUST.

YC+2
J. Christ M+1
Moses B0S

PS. Anonymi, and then We're outta here: I wrote to Mr. Waters on behalf of mankind. When CCNL appeared responsive, the Kid emailed said Waters and requested We drop the matter, mentioning that we had not been alone in Our complaints. The Kid felt CCNL made Him look like an idiot, which is what pissed him off. We're done for the time being. The rest is up to you.

Gerry, I don't exist. :)

Anonymous,

if you exist, please specify.

Gerry, that was trite, not even entertaining. You could do better than that, surely? ;)

JJ, it is you posing as sugar & milk or whatever now up to your old trick again of announcing CCNL only to post his old message yourself. Get your head examined.

CCNL, MY CHILD,

The Kid & I have decided to give you 1 (one) last chance, LAST. You got to Him yesterday, partly because we'd run out of joe, it's true. But, Concerned, it takes more than an empty coffee mug to piss him off. It takes
A Lot.

What to do. I convinced Him (!)to hear what Moses Black 0 sugar considered our proper conduct would be under these unique circumstances. Even for me, Y C + 2, this was a hell of a sacrifice. No entity is fonder of Moses than I, but his reticence is such that I had to describe it in writing. Not only that, but he's not one to socialize, even when speaking isn't required.

To complicate matters (more), like the Kid, he's no fan of yours. Lucky for Us, no one throws out the welcome mat like the Kid. Brewed Moses a thick cup of espresso BOS the minute he walked in, and he smiled, in a way.

Bottom line. No Go. M BOS supported the Kid all the way although I'm not sure J. Christ M+1 grasped all the arguments. I confess it was tough going.

In the end, though, I, Be-ing who I am, prevailed. How. Case law. Used Jonah. Could've done better, but the whole thing was beginning to wear on me since the three of us do have other things to do. (No offense.) I don't even know how convincing I was, since the Kid just sat there glumly, while Moses B0S stared (glared). But what could they say.

Plenty.

Moses B0S raised Jacob H20 (tap No bottles)and any number of other cases. I got a headache, and my neck got stiff. Verdict, more or less reached by consensus (less):

LAST CHANCE: Post your list, HIGHLY ABBREVIATED, I (WE) TRUST.

Yahweh C+2
J. Christ M+1
Moses B0S

E Favorite wrote:
I was thinking of religions I know about that involve belief in the supernatural. I don't know enough about Buddhism and Hinduism to make a case for them.

Having been a Buddhist and a Hindu of sorts also, I can say something about Buddhism and Hinduism. It would be nice to hear more comments from Buddhists and Hindus.

As far as religions go, Buddhism is pretty rational, but it depends on the Buddhist and on the sect - there are many many sects and they can be very different.

Buddhism has supernatural entities of various flavours and it doesn't have just one hell, there are (at least) nine of them, but you only get there if you really belong there, not for just believing or not believing in particular stories, and you get out if/when you no longer belong there. Most practising Buddhists believe that you can pray to various supernatural entities and ask them for favours. (It really isn't Buddhism, but it's what they practise).

Belief in supernatural worlds and entities is not essential to Buddhism, though. This is in stark contrast to Christianity, where, if you remove the superstition, there's very little left. A belief in the supernatural is pretty irrelevant to Zen for example.

Karma and reincarnation are pretty central to Buddhism. Reincarnation was something I always had a problem with as a Buddhist.

I once spent about half an hour trying to get an educated Buddhist monk to admit to believing in something supernatural, but I couldn't pin him down on anything. The way he explained karma was that actions have consequences and whatever you do, you (and others) have to suffer the consequences, good or bad. I couldn't argue with that. He did seem to believe that there were deeper meanings/patterns to life that most people were unaware of, but I couldn't pin him down on this.

His explanation of reincarnation was interesting. He explained that the supernatural idea that after you die you are re-born as somebody else was quite irrelevant and I shouldn't concern myself with that (though many Buddhists literally believe that). In Buddhism, there is no such thing as a soul (google "anatta"), so there is nothing to reincarnate. The idea is that the person you are this second is not the same person you were a second ago, very similar, but not the same. The similarity of your current self to your past self creates an illusion of continuity and permanence. This continuity is the essence of the Buddhist concept of reincarnation.

I really can't point to any glaring faults or inconsistencies in the core ideas of Buddhism. As an atheist, I have a great deal of respect for Buddhism.

Technically all Buddhists are atheists, but I once got taken to task by someone on this forum for making this claim because in practice, most Buddhists believe in supernatural entities who interfere in our lives as much as adherents of any other religion.

What turned me off Buddhism was the belief that the ultimate purpose of life is to achieve nirvana (google it). This is typically equated with achieving some level of moral purity. This struck me as not being consistent with reality. Nirvana is a state of being where you don't have any passions or cravings and you just cease to be because you no longer have any influence on the future. I doubted that that was the ultimate goal of life, and frankly it is extremely BORING! I like my passions. Hence my conversion to Taoism.

If you look realistically at the world around you, life doesn't seem to have any purpose, certainly nothing to do with reaching nirvana. As a human being, the meaning or purpose of life is whatever meaning or purpose you choose to give it.

What I like about Buddhism is that its morality is based on reason and compassion. Christian version: "Do as I say and believe what I tell you to, or you'll be tortured, forever!" Buddhist version: "If you have compassion for others, you will be happier and the world will be a better place." Which one is the healthier choice?

I could write a lot more about Buddhism, but I'll spare you. I didn't intend to write a long sermon, and I wanted to make some comments about Hinduism, but I'll save it for another post.

Anyway, in summary: technically you can be a Buddhist without any supernatural beliefs, but in practice, Buddhism typically comes packaged with a great deal of supernatural baggage.

Some great discussion going on here. With good points being made by believers and non-believers alike. That's the whole point of this forum isn't it? I wish I had more time to comment on other threads of conversation.

Regards,
Realist

Hello Gerry,

You write:

It is almost funny, how believers and even atheists (Farnaz) extend the meaning of this word to all imaginable features and values of the human mind, such as intelligence, education, morality, arrogance, success in life, wealth, politics (political success or its contrary), condescension, fundamentalism, "scientism" (a silly word creation to demean clear thinking), even to the abstruse allegation that atheists follow the "religion" of atheism.

Before I go on, I have to tell you that I woke up and realized the computer was on, was about to shut it off, but saw your post.

Can you explain to me what you're saying here? I do believe atheism is culturally embedded. Your Iranian atheist is nothing like your American or European atheist, I assure you.

Also, I stand by scientism as much as I do religionism. These are questions of definition. Your understanding of scientism may differ from mine. We may not disagree. If that's so, could we still chat, not now though!

At any rate, do explain, if you will.

Farnaz

The word "atheist" does not describe anything but the fact that someone does not believe in a god.

It is almost funny, how believers and even atheists (Farnaz) extend the meaning of this word to all imaginable features and values of the human mind, such as intelligence, education, morality, arrogance, success in life, wealth, politics (political success or its contrary), condescension, fundamentalism, "scientism" (a silly word creation to demean clear thinking), even to the abstruse allegation that atheists follow the "religion" of atheism.

In an honest discussion about the possibility or impossibility of god(s) I propose to stick to the basic definition of a-theism, as "not believing in a supernatural being", because nature already is enough, "super", awe-inspiring and inscrutable, yielding bits of knowledge to serious and strenuous, honest and persistent research through the ages.

Science, or rather honest and modest clear scientific thinking is work in progress and will always be. Religion connects (re-ligion, re- connection) facts with hope and imagination, in fact connects just about anything, as shown in the lengthy recent post of Jihadist, a tour d'horizon of partly trite, but mostly unconvincing, philosophically meaningless, but highly entertaining free associations. I like, though, her cultural and social approach, transcending sometimes (rarely) the limitations and the literalism of her religion.

Religion substitutes fantasy and hope for facts (illustrated by the most colorful fairy tales, some of them rather charming, just like Snow White etc., most of them unspeakably sadistic, with threats, anguish, hell, crucifixion, appealing to the lowest animal cruelties of the formerly mentioned "food chain".).

Religion, as has been pointed out before, simply substitutes the unknown for another unknown, explaining exactly nothing. It stems from the understandable fallacy of post hoc - propter hoc, creating a non-existing, virtual causality based on hope - the origin of superstition.

A little thought experiment, almost impossible to perform by believers, but someone might give it a try:

Supposed, for one minute only, there was no god. Now you invent a god, you might call it the "X" (evading a translation, since "x" is used in math all over the world for an unknown): Could there be anything or any event the mind can see or imagine which can NOT be attributed to "X" you invent for this one minute? No. EVERYTHING could be connected to the god you just invented. Well, god - every god of the thousands in existence and history - is a human invention, q.e.d.

Hello Merry Anonymous and Farnaz,

It is not late by EST for you? It’s 12 hours ahead here. I was just peeking in to see if Pam came by. I guess it’s late for her too.

The image God in Islam is abstract too as in Judaism. I am aware that Jewish belief and thought on God is as Merry Anonymous stated - “to stand in a relationship to the deity, by following the way, the path in living affecting one's behavior towards one fellow humans, the earth etc., to striving for a just world.” is similar to Islam.

The definition of God in On Faith threads, by virtue of the fact that most are American posters who are former or current Christians, certainly defined and spoke of God as in Christianity, including on salvation.

Yes, atheists do look at faith as – belief in the supernatural is illogical; all miracles can be proven or disproved by science; what we do not know, what can’t be proven, we don’t accept. I’m simplifying and generalising of course.

I can’t say atheists are really different from believers when it comes to certain aspects as in:

- have a non-belief (there is no God or the supernatural)

- relate experience of discovery of non-belief (how and when the epiphany of God not really existing came to light)

- read materials supporting and reinforcing the non-belief (from Dawkins to Harris to Hitchens and all the science journals on evolution)

- share information reinforcing non-belief (giving links and tips on where to get the latest on the selfish genes, the god genes, the ape genes.. )

- regard non-belief as truth as it can be proven and already proven (give explanation on how thunder and lightning works)

- share the truth of non-belief (as God is invisible, therefore God cannot exist)

- give evidence for non-belief (by asking for proof of God as a tangible being who make the Atlantic ocean sink and the Pacific ocean rise they can see with their own eyes and no CGI used)

- give quotes from gods of non-belief (Harris, Hitchens, Marx, Einstein)

- quote passages from the texts of gods of non-belief (The God Delusion, God is Not Great)

- assert non-belief is salvation for peace, love and happiness for all men (without supernatural belief in God, man will be free from fear, from oppression, from racism, from bigotry, from greed, from murder, from pillage and plunder)

- maintain that non-belief is the salvation for man (that it is the fear of God, hell, death, life that poisoning the minds of men)

- assert that science clarifies most thing in understanding humans and science and technology makes everything better (that science can explain what the left side of the brain do, how many cells are in the average human brain, how many cells dies everyday…)

………and which bring us to myths and legends of religions as often repeated by atheists.
Do most people really care and think about quantum physics, how a software is designed, how nuclear energy works, how the Neanderthal man simply died off, how dinosaurs died outside those in such areas?

If religion and belief in deity/deities can be exited from the public square and mind, what are all those burgeoning book sales by gurus of self-awareness, self-help, self-improvement, self-discovery, self-actualisation, self-centred and self-absorbed this and that telling us about humans?

Fictions also still outsells books on the sciences and facts such as history, biography, etc too in any given year . What does that tell us about human preference for myths, fantasies, escapisms?

Are facts only loved by the minority dorks, geeks, nerds? Are those who like science and into logic and reason really the minority group, the odd group in human history?

Myths and legends will never fade away. Or we won’t have “urban legends”. No one can prove it, but everyone said they have heard of it, or it happened to someone they knew….Why is this? What does it tells us? That we are gullible? That they are expressions of our subconscious? Of our fears?

Why do humans have so many phobias of the unknown, what is not understood, what is not grasped, what is different? Or bad personal experiences?

Regards and a good weekend to you both.
“J”

Farnaz,

Hmmm, atheist am I? Not quite. Still holding out for some kind of all powerful Singularity lurking in a black hole heaven.

The best I can glean from it all:

Think infinity and recycling with the Big Bang expansion followed by the shrinking reversal called the Gib Gnab by astrophysicists and recycling back to the Big Bang repeating the process on and on forever. Human life and Earth are simply a minute part of this chaotic, stochastic, expanding, shrinking process disappearing in five billion years with the burn out of the Sun and maybe returning in another five billion years with different life forms but still subject to the vagaries of its local star.

If this Singularity exists (a big if), it set us free via the endowment of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, this Singlarity is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered. Statistically, some of these requests might come true but it is simply the result of the variabiliy/randomness of Nature.

Rosaries and prayer beads, worshiping/revering cows and bowing to Mecca five times a day are a therefore a waste of time. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings. And lets all hope there indeed is a place called Heaven!!!

It's been nice chatting with you, too, Farnaz!
This is the second thread I've followed here, and I think I'll stick around for awhile.

Tonia

Hi Tonia,

Susan's thread always has the most bloggers by far, and I do mean by far!! I think it went up to almost eight hundred once, in the few months I've been blogging here.

A lot of times it's "atheists vs. 'religionists,'"
and reads like Bolsheviks vs. Mensheviks.
Some of just don't understand why others feel they have to convince people of their positions, rather than live, let live, and learn from one another.

In keeping with said argument, there's the seemingly eternal science vs. religion debate.

Not too long ago, there was a sort of poetry fest that was hilarious, and there are some really fine writers who post here. I confess that occasionally discussions get heated, political, angry, even bitter, but, I think, in the main, people are respectful of one another.

At any rate, welcome aboard! Sorry, but I'm fading fast! It's been nice chatting with you.

Farnaz

Hi Farnaz,

What you say about having a sense of humor is true for some Catholics, I know, too, including my uncle, whose a priest!

Of course, you're right. Why should Muslims be different from anyone else?

This is an interesting blog. It's amazing how many people have posted comments on Susan Jacoby's thread compared to the others.

Tonia

Hi Tonia,

I guess a lot of people aren't like what we read about!

Iranians tend to be pretty laid back, easy. They like to laugh and have fun. At least that is how I always experienced us. Like everyone else who practices religion, Iranian Muslims are all different. But some topics are generally off limits humor-wise for all religious adherents, as I'm sure you know.

My closest friend is a Pakistani Muslim, who reads the Qu'ran every Ramadan. She doesn't believe in an afterlife. Can quote verses from the Qu'ran at the drop of a hat. She also has her own idiosyncratic spiritual things going on, that have nothing to do with any religion she or I know of. She can be almost hysterically funny when it comes to the topic of religion, including her own.

I've seen the same among practicing Christians, Jews, et al.

It's not that unsual, I think.

Farnaz

Hi Farnaz,

Thanks for your reply. I was raised Catholic, but no longer practice Catholicism. Like you, I'm an atheist.

I've made some Muslim friends recently, who, like you, are from Iran. They've all been here for about seven or eight years. Anyway, what's interesting to me is that they're not very relgious at all, and feel no pressure about it, but they do believe in God, and follow certain practices.

They also joke pretty freely about things Islamic!
Not like you read about, at all!

Tonia

Hi Tonia,

I was born in Iran and came to this country almost eighteen years ago. I was raised Jewish, but not in a very serious way. My family was not very observant.

My mother saw that I was bookish, interested in languages, and started overseeing my education very seriously. The plan was for me to master ancient Hebrew and Aramaic (Arabic was easy since it is closely related to Farsi, my native language.) Then I was to learn Greek and Latin, finally the Romance languages. She was fluent in English, and English was the medium of instruction at the schools I attended, until discriminatory legislation started closing down all options for me.

AT any rate, as I studied, I became very interested in Judaism, but I don't know that I was ever an adherent in a conventional sense.

Farnaz

Farnaz:

You wrote that you are an atheist and then that you are Persian. Do you mean Iranian? Were you raised as a Muslim?

Are you an atheist, CCNL? You do not believe there is a deity, then?

And The Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist continues to regress. Such a pity!!

To wit:

She notes how the koran condemns charlatans. What??? One of the famous charlatans of all time was Mohammed with his stories of gay?, Gabe caves, pretty/ugly, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies and flying chariots and camels.

What this gal needs is good dose of atheism!!!!

Hi Jihadist :)

I started off my last post thinking I would reply to Merry, and then get out of the way so that you could have your say. AT any rate, I then wound up speaking to both of you, but didn't edit the final section. So....it reads as if it's addressed to him, but is addressed to both of you.

Where is Mary Cunningham when you need her? Mary, if you're out there, I think you will understand me when I write about scientism.

Well, now I hope to hear back from all, soon, I hope, since this Persian atheist is slipping out of wakefulness.

Regards,
Farnaz

Hi Merry, Hi Jihadist :)

Please forgive me for jumping in before Jihadist has a chance to respond to Merry, for, I, too, would like to hear Jihadist's reply.

I do think there is commonality in what you both post. I interpret Jihadist as making several points throughout her comment, the ones relevant to Merry's question culminating here:

Yes, well, I know science explain things too and make it clear for you in knowing. But not for me. I want to continue to know, to find, to seek, what we do not know as yet. Knowing what is known is such a warm fuzzy security blanket.

THEN you write:

But aren't there names we use to explain what we think we see, or know, often based on far more limited evidence? On a need for "explanation" of the social if not the physical world? And are these explanations any less "Reasonable" than God? Do we go actually ever begin with the assertion that what we read in the newspapers or on TV, that our limited experience of XYZ, is not true?

Or are we, let us say "atheists," simply seeking confirmation of "what we know" of what we "think is right," unable even to entertain another view,
whether economic, political, social, etc.? And if we are continually proving what we know(!), how atheistic are we? How...""Scientific"?

Speaking as an atheist, I must say the arrogance of fellow atheists, the sense of superiority, scares me almost as much as "religionism."

--------------
Well, I, too, am an atheist, but can't relate to most western atheists on their terms for precisely the reasons you give. On the last thread, you mentioned experiences in Pakistan, Israel, and was it Egypt? BTW, I witnessed something like the religion exchange you mention, but at Quaid-I-Azam University, a couple of years ago--more on that another time.

Both you and Jihadist historicize, contextualize.
You do not buy into Enlightenment telelogy of PROGRESS, naive scientism (redundant, I know), and I believe you both DOUBT, when it comes to the social/civic domain. You've said more than once, if I'm not mistaken, that Doubt was Descartes' most important gift to us, that single word. It is for this reason that you do not, I think, continually seek to confirm what you know, like medieval scholastics.

Who is interested in the truth of Pakistan? Of the persons struggling every day for democracy? The words of your host on this point were very moving. The orphans amidst the shelling in Israel and the surprise that we haven't heard about shelling in the media is beyond irony. Sudan, anyone? American/Chinese interests in Sudan, anyone?

Atheists, as much as religious adherents, if not more so, content themselves with highly mediated thinking that they believe has been determined by clear reasoning. Yet how dogmatic they are when it comes to the social world!

Doubt, questioning, wondering. Refusing to be taken in. Not true of most atheists I know because they have the answers, and this self-satisfaction extends beyond the natural world that we are in the process of vanquishing. Scientism makes this culture far more insular that it should be, than any culture should be, and ours is a nation of immigrants!

Atheists do not see that they are metaphysicians. They are, but they don't see it. If they did they would distrust the materiality around them beginning with "information." Often, I think when I speak to atheists, I'm back about fifty years in time, at the high point of modernism. Ironic, no?

You know, there are atheists in the Middle East and in Asia, but they don't quite think this way. Like religion, atheism is culturally embedded.

Warmest regards,

Farnaz

For Paul C

But how does the presence of God give us the answer to why does man exist? The quesiton remains unanswered, with God or without God.

And your answer to Pam about the nature of suffering was to say that this is the order of things. But how does that answer her question? She already knows that.

With or without God, this is the order of things.

Yoyo

I missed your question to me earlier. That is a problem I seem to have here, that I think I am reading all the posts, but I somehow, keep skipping.

I am mainly interested in philosophy, more than in religion, and of that, I am mainly interested in the nature of subjective consiousness, and what it means to know or to have knowledge of the world.

A book with the title "The God Hyposthesis" sounds interesting to me.

Paul C asks, "No one has given me a satisfactory answer to this question of why does Man exist in the absence of God. Can you?"

Evolution - that's where the evidence is. There's no evidence for God. It's only an ancient book written by humans that says our purpose is to serve god to hopefully live with him eternally.

Jihadist, re religion having all the answers - OK - I was thinking of religions I know about that involve belief in the supernatural. I don't know enough about Buddhism and Hinduism to make a case for them.

Jihadist,

Re: Your last post. I think there is some overlap with mine, particularly about proving what we "atheists" already know.

Would you mind scrolling down past Arminius' and having a looksee? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

BTW, I'm an atheist, as I've mentioned, raised as a Christian, but have studied, from a secular perspective, other religions. This image of God business is Judaic (Tanakh), somewhat mistranslated Hebrew into Greek, then English, with a meaning for Christians different from that of the people whose core text it is. For Jews, the meaning is abstract. What it means is something like to stand in a relationship to the deity, by following the way, the path in living affecting one's behavior towards one fellow humans, the earth etc., to striving for a just world.

M. Anonymous

The discoveries of science do not come out of the minds of scientists. Scientists do not create their discoveries. Scientific discoveries are discoveries about the world and the processes that cause the world to operate as it does. Some people say that an Intelligent Designer has the made this world that scientists discover; some say God made it; same say it is the product of Providence; some say it came to be processes, yet undiscovered. The point it, the world already exists, as it is, for scientists to figure out, and that is all that scientists do.

The bitterest recrimination I ever hear about science is regarding the invention of nuclear weapons, that by this invention, man has unleashed evil on the world, that will eventually destroy the world.

But man has not unleashed nuclear power upon the world. Nuclear power was always apart of the world, just unknown to man. Nuclear energy is what powers the stars, and the sun. When Jesus walked upon the earth, nuclear energy poured fourth from the sun and warmed his face. When Mohammed walked upon the earth, the same sun, powered by the same nuclear energy, warmed him also.

So, now we know, how the sun works, and where the unending power of its furnace comes from. But we did not make nuclear energy any more than we have made fire; we just figured out how it works. So, man has not unleashed nuclear power upon the world. But rather, man has merely discovered it, and has realized that nothing could be as it is withoug nuclear power, that without it, there woule be no stars, and no sun, and no matter such as we know it, and therefore, no material to form our bodies; without nuclear power, there would be no earth, and no mankind, to make discoveries.

These are philosophical musings, not about science, but about the world that science is revealing to us. Science is just a process of figuring things out; science nothing at all but that; the things that get figured out, on the other hand, are what we puzzle most about.

Hello Pam,

Ummmm….so much said and so little stated apart from frustration and exasperation and such in your post. I can do that too.

You : Well, no great surprise, none of the believers were able (nor even tried) to tell me why the benevolent creator god would include in his creation parasites that are specific to animals.

* I guess you are inferring to all this intelligent design thing to ask believers why God did not create perfect and disease free beings – both man and animals. We don’t do intelligent design vs evolution as much as in the US.

* Okay, you want a religious take, I’ll give it to you. I can’t say for other beliefs, but in Islam, in gist and simply, the Suras are explicit that the earth and animals are for the use of humans, but we to care for it too to ensure our survival, and the earth given to man for man. The Qur’an also stated that men is not perfect and we to care for the sick. It speaks of men of particular nature, and there are diseases.

* Nothing saying man is the perfect creation or in the image of God, who is the God is of “judgement/final determination” of how humans treat other humans and are not causes of and “cures” of human ills and natural disasters even though it spoke of God’s wrath upon man as in the plagues of Egypt.

* There is no tradition in Islam being rabidly anti-medicine. In fact, rather nasty towards magicians or charlatans and medicine women and men as being “shirk” deluding people with chicken entrails and ‘wonder water”. There is no hairs-splitting on stem cell research too.

* Nothing much said about sufferings in man or animals, but to counsel man to be patient, to have fortitude and to use all his abilities and resources to overcome them.

You : Bear in mind that the deer that I mentioned, afflicted with bot flies, often is so tortured that she's unable to eat, and slowly starves to death - and no human being ever lays eyes on her or witnesses her cruel torment and slow, agonizing death.

* Sorry to say something more that may offend your animal-loving sensibilities, but Islam is never ever sentimental on animals, thought there are Hadiths saying the Prophet loves cats, and keep dogs outside his home. We have several animal related diseases in Asia that affects Malaysia too, including the foot and mouth disease (cows) the JE (pigs) and avian flu (chickens). They were all killed without anyone protesting, except the breeders who lost millions and millions in income.

You : Jihadist rambled on about sacrificing animals to alleviate human suffering (huh?) and Paul C. admitted that it surpassed his understanding, but then offered that it was just part of the natural food chain. Well, *yeah*, Paul - that's the truth of the matter, but there's no god in that. If you believe that your god created everything, and you believe that he's omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then you don't get to cop out that way.

* Yes I did, to point to you the realities of life in Asia and Africa. Animals killed to feed starving humans. Animals killed to stop diseases affecting humans. Sorry to offend your sensibilities too, but only in the west do people have the luxury to love and care for animals. It cost more in a month to feed and care for a dog in the US than to feed an average rural family in Uttar Pradesh in any given African or Asian village.

* It has become a joke in Asia that as dolphins are cute, therefore they must be saved, but tuna is not, and can be eaten and we have such things as tuna-safe dolphins or something like that. It is also a joke by the English themselves that they love and show more affection to their horses and dogs.

* In Asia, some do eat dogs, whales, pythons etc too, and region also has the most vegetarians in the world. Animals are, well, animals, including my kids’ two cats and carps in the garden pond. We can only study them, or eat them or use them for any given reasons, including in sports.

* Just to point out different mindsets and attitudes here. And sometimes, the vet can't do anything to save animals as doctors can't to save humans afflicted with diseases.

You : Here's the deal - to believe in the tenets of almost *any* religion, you have to jump through so many mental hoops, turning, twisting, bending to reconcile the real world with the teachings of your faith that you end up as a mental pretzel.

* Ah, but no deal. These mental hoops and twists is by those and in the minds of those who regard all religions and actual practices are the same. Faith is different from believer to believer. The deal is, atheists likes neatness and easy conclusion of one sentences or one formula applicable for all. So, they do get really twisted in their minds, even on “suffering”. In Hinduism and Buddhism, suffering is slightly different from “suffering” in Christianity.

* Perhaps it is due to American atheists making specific to their former faith and culture – including Santa, unicorn, tooth fairy, salvation, being saved etc” .

* As for believers “turning, twisting, bending to reconcile the real world” with the teachings of our faith, the reality is that, the fact is, aren’t it atheists in On Faith turning, twisting, bending away from the all pervasive faith in the public square, and to reconcile with that reality in either calling for and ensuring separation of church and state, or to call for all supernatural belief to be gone forever? And logic and reason as the parameters?

You : There are contradictions galore that you have to find a way to reconcile in your mind, or you can take the lazy way out and just throw up your hands and say that it's just all about faith and you believe, even though you don't understand. After all, how could you be expected to, when you're a mere mortal, who cannot know the infinite mind of God?

* Umm, indeed life is full of contradictions and unpredictability. Lazy way out, eh? Where did you get the notion of “the infinite mind of God?”. God is eternal and infinite I’ve heard of.

You : I have friends like this. They won't even allow themselves to be exposed to anything that might cause them to examine their faith. Their heads are planted firmly in the sand. At least you're reading in this forum. Ten points for that.

* Thought of telling your friends what you think or get new friends if they are too much of those animals for you- ostriches. No point keeping exasperating company to continue being frustrated.

You : However, if we take a good look at what science has uncovered over lo, these many years, and we postulate a world based on these discoveries, without outside agency, *this* world, this universe, is exactly what we come up with - no twisting necessary. Occam's razor.

* Yes, well, I know science explain things too and make it clear for you in knowing. But not for me. I want to continue to know, to find, to seek, what we do not know as yet. Knowing what is known is such a warm fuzzy security blanket.

You : Oh, yeah, and Paul, as Mr. Mark admirably explained, when I spoke of the purpose of passing on genes, I was speaking of purpose from *nature's* point of view. We humans have the brainpower to decide what constitutes purpose for us - and most of us do just fine with that.

* Ah yes. We have the brains to decide what constitutes purpose for us. That is obvious and I agree for its obviousness. But some have lesser “ brainpower’ due to genes too? Which bring us to a whole new area of nurture vs nature.

* And whatever makes you think believers don’t use their, er, “brainpower” to decide on what constitutes their purpose? Osama’s decision on his purpose is fine for him but not to others. Eboo Patel’s decision on his purpose is fine not only for him but for many others.

What is your purpose for yourself and others? That is the question that is being asked in all history, now and forever, with or without belief in God.

Cheers

Soja,

And thanks to you, fellow pilgram, for your good words.

Yes, our American fundamentalists present a broad target that cannot be missed by the non-believers. In fact, I quite often send broadsides in their direction as well. They are a huge embarassment to any Christian who values the Gospels.

I find your history of the Christian church in India utterly fascinating. I have a lot of differences with the Catholics, but nothing serious enough to exclude them from the fold. Oddly, being Episcopal (American Anglican), I consider myself Catholic, just not Roman Catholic. We amuse ourselves by referring to the Pope as the Bishop of Rome.

Agreed, interdenominational work needs to be done, and based on the Two Great Commandments.

It is very gratifying to find a kindred spirit.

God bless,

Arminius

Wiccan, down on this thread, wrote about the varieties of religious experience. Nowhere, in any comment, do I see any definition of God. What I do see are continual references to organized religious systems.

What is God? The magician who didn't save a childhood friend? The creator, who created, came and left? A man-god sacrifice? A sense?

But aren't there names we use to explain what we think we see, or know, often based on far more limited evidence? On a need for "explanation" of the social if not the physical world? And are these explanations any less "Reasonable" than God? Do we go actually ever begin with the assertion that what we read in the newspapers or on TV, that our limited experience of XYZ, is not true?

Or are we, let us say "atheists," simply seeking confirmation of "what we know" of what we "think is right," unable even to entertain another view,
whether economic, political, social, etc.? And if we are continually proving what we know(!), how atheistic are we? How...""Scientific"?

Speaking as an atheist, I must say the arrogance of fellow atheists, the sense of superiority, scares me almost as much as "religionism."

Merry Anonymous

Pam:

I disagree your statement that to believe in God requires jumping through hoops. Instead I see the opposite. As an atheist, you have to believe that order came from disorder, without an intelligent agent to create that order. How is that consistent with any scientific observation ever made?

I am also disappointed that you would disregard my good faith effort to answer your question about suffering animals. What I proposed to you was that parasites are part of the food chain, which was part of God's plan for the world. You of course, not recognizing a God, can't see the wisdom in the balance of nature being set up by a supreme being. Nor can you recognize that we humans are too limited to understand all the intracacies of it. How many times have people wiped out species of animals or plants thinking them insignificant, only to find severe impacts in the food cycle. We (or at least you and I) just haven't learned the positive impacts of the parasites you identified in the overall plan.

By the way, one of the reasons I am writing In the ON Faith website is to learn about God. It is completely unfair for you to assume that all people who disagree with you aren't acting in the same Good Faith that you are. (although it is very clear that there are some that respond without a lot of thought)

As for Mr. Mark's response to me that we can define our own purpose. Its true, to the extent that we can decide our occupation, or how we act in various situations, or what we do in our spare time. But this shallow kind of purpose does nothing to explain the bigger philosophical and religious question of why does man exist or what is the meaning of life. I can personally understand the answers to these questions if the reason we exist is to serve God and each other and that life is a test to prove that we have the desire to do so eternally. No one has given me a satisfactory answer to this question of why does Man exist in the absence of God. Can you?

, no great surprise, none of the believers were able (nor even tried) to tell me why the benevolent creator god would include in his creation parasites that are specific to animals.

Bear in mind that the deer that I mentioned, afflicted with bot flies, often is so tortured that she's unable to eat, and slowly starves to death - and no human being ever lays eyes on her or witnesses her cruel torment and slow, agonizing death.

Jihadist rambled on about sacrificing animals to alleviate human suffering (huh?) and Paul C. admitted that it surpassed his understanding, but then offered that it was just part of the natural food chain. Well, *yeah*, Paul - that's the truth of the matter, but there's no god in that. If you believe that your god created everything, and you believe that he's omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then you don't get to cop out that way.

Here's the deal - to believe in the tenets of almost *any* religion, you have to jump through so many mental hoops, turning, twisting, bending to reconcile the real world with the teachings of your faith that you end up as a mental pretzel.

There are contradictions galore that you have to find a way to reconcile in your mind, or you can take the lazy way out and just throw up your hands and say that it's just all about faith and you believe, even though you don't understand. After all, how could you be expected to, when you're a mere mortal, who cannot know the infinite mind of God?

I have friends like this. They won't even allow themselves to be exposed to anything that might cause them to examine their faith. Their heads are planted firmly in the sand. At least you're reading in this forum. Ten points for that.

However, if we take a good look at what science has uncovered over lo, these many years, and we postulate a world based on these discoveries, without outside agency, *this* world, this universe, is exactly what we come up with - no twisting necessary. Occam's razor.

Oh, yeah, and Paul, as Mr. Mark admirably explained, when I spoke of the purpose of passing on genes, I was speaking of purpose from *nature's* point of view. We humans have the brainpower to decide what constitutes purpose for us - and most of us do just fine with tha
.

Arminius

Many thanks for your kind words. We are both fellow travelers on a lifelong journey in experiencing and understanding God.

As to what you mentioned about the emphasis on the OT and Book of Revelation by some Christians, I have sometimes wondered if it is a recent American phenomenon being exported to some parts of the world with success. When anti-theists focus all their attention on some of the worst stuff being propagated as Christianity, I cringe with embarrassment! In the world where I was raised and have lived, even Lutherans would be considered Johnny-come-lately, not in a positive sense at that, for old traditions are considered sacred! So all the anti-Catholism which I first encountered on this forum is completely foreign to my old world mentality. [On a personal note, I belong to an Eastern denomination, Syro-Malabar Catholic, the group of Christians in Kerala, India who were converted to Christianity in 52 AD by Apostle Thomas and came under the communion of the Roman Catholic Church only 400 years ago. Although I was baptised, received my first Holy Communion and Confirmation under the Syrian rite of the Syro-Malabar Church (which is autonomous within the Catholic Church and follows a Syrian Rite tradition), I have been attending the Roman Catholic Church exclusively since about the age of fifteen. There are not many Syro-Malabar Churches outside Kerala.]

I'm of the opinion that all Christian denominations, including the sacred old Catholic Church, should work very very hard on interdenominational understanding based on the *commandment* of Jesus Christ to love. We should not as Christians provide fodder to non-Christians to mock our religion.

The two thousand year old Titanic Catholic Church with a over a billion believers worldwide is not about to sink as many anti-Catholics hope. I'm glad you don't belong to the anti-Catholic camp, and your Christian faith is deep and broad enough to accept Catholics.

Soja

Yoyo;

I see where you're going with that.

Victor Stenger's "The God Hypothesis".

Daniel in TLD writes his God hypothesis.

So, are religious people interested in reading what a skeptical professor writes about God, (as a hypothesis); or only what other religious folk have to say on the matter.

It all depends what they are searching for; the truth or verification of what they already believe. I think it's fair to say that most religious people seem to prefer the verification over the truth, that's the impression I get from most of what I read here on these threads.

Its the ones who become atheists like me that are curious enough to look wherever the search ends up taking them.
To find God you just have to stand still and go in believe mode. Nothing to it. And I do mean nothing.

Hello Jihadist,

You: Positive atheists: ???

Point taken. There's nothing MORE positive than atheism, of course, but it is still a baby compared to the superstitious traditions that have developed as repositories of humanity's moral heritage (by intimidation and murder when necessary, but that's another story).

Tissue Tigers? It's from a song lyric - British, I think. Today I think I had the Tiger by the tail!

Regards,
Chris

Susan,

A tautology is a compound logical proposition which is true for all truth values of its constituent variables. For example suppose

B=A OR (NOT A)

B is TRUE if A is TRUE, and B is TRUE if A is FALSE. B is then said to be "tautology". If "mind-body connection" be a tautology, that would mean that it is always TRUE. Your grasp of logic seems as tenuous as your "grasp" of history.

Back to the corner and on with the Dunce Cap for you. Say hi to old Scotus.

Welcome back Pam. You're off to a flying start with a most grizzly post. Reality sucks.

Keep 'em coming. They're a pleasure to read, in a gory kinds way.

DanielITLD;

I see a book recommended by several posters called "The God Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger.

With a title like that I simply have to read it.

Does your curiosity stretch to that impulse? Or is your search for truth limited to just religious answers?

Really curious.

Well, no great surprise, none of the believers were able (nor even tried) to tell me why the benevolent creator god would include in his creation parasites that are specific to animals.

Bear in mind that the deer that I mentioned, afflicted with bot flies, often is so tortured that she's unable to eat, and slowly starves to death - and no human being ever lays eyes on her or witnesses her cruel torment and slow, agonizing death.

Jihadist rambled on about sacrificing animals to alleviate human suffering (huh?) and Paul C. admitted that it surpassed his understanding, but then offered that it was just part of the natural food chain. Well, *yeah*, Paul - that's the truth of the matter, but there's no god in that. If you believe that your god created everything, and you believe that he's omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then you don't get to cop out that way.

Here's the deal - to believe in the tenets of almost *any* religion, you have to jump through so many mental hoops, turning, twisting, bending to reconcile the real world with the teachings of your faith that you end up as a mental pretzel.

There are contradictions galore that you have to find a way to reconcile in your mind, or you can take the lazy way out and just throw up your hands and say that it's just all about faith and you believe, even though you don't understand. After all, how could you be expected to, when you're a mere mortal, who cannot know the infinite mind of God?

I have friends like this. They won't even allow themselves to be exposed to anything that might cause them to examine their faith. Their heads are planted firmly in the sand. At least you're reading in this forum. Ten points for that.

However, if we take a good look at what science has uncovered over lo, these many years, and we postulate a world based on these discoveries, without outside agency, *this* world, this universe, is exactly what we come up with - no twisting necessary. Occam's razor.

Oh, yeah, and Paul, as Mr. Mark admirably explained, when I spoke of the purpose of passing on genes, I was speaking of purpose from *nature's* point of view. We humans have the brainpower to decide what constitutes purpose for us - and most of us do just fine with that.

DanielITLD;

Nice essay. Your thoughts get more interesting the more you've been doing it here. You are everyone's favorite believer and that includes me. You also seem to be the only one who really understands where atheists are coming from.

However,you wrote this intriguing paragraph;

"And how does belief in God answer the questions about the meaning and purpose of life? Sure, a believer can post some intermediate answers, about how God created the Heavens and Earth, but then what? Where did God come from? This type of belief merely pushes back the mystery a step or two, but beyond is still a fog of infinite antiquity, which no one can fathom, comprehend, not scientist, nor atheist, nor believer."

Me;
Rather than "merely pushes back the mystery a step or two", I'm inclined to think the God hypothesis really complicates the picture bigtime. Because apart from all the mysteries that we have yet to uncover and figure out, we now have this whole new supernatural dimension of the invisible skygod.

The big answers won't come in our lifetime, if ever. But science will continue asking questions and searching for answers. I don't think religion has anything to offer in this search for the truth of things. A God sounds quite alien to the whole concept. But it is all so damn interesting and awesome, from a scientific point of view, why is a God even necessary?

Cheers...

As noted previously, slowly but surely the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist is seeing the light as orthodox Islam slowly oozes from her pores and is being washed away in a sea of Febreze.

Unfortunately she is having a bad day today as she slipped on some bad poetry and into a tirade about "no life" atheists (a T. Baum day??). Hopefully this is a passing situation and Reality will again take hold of her passions

Previous signs of reaching the realm of Reality:

1. The Jihadist no longer superstitious therefore she no longer believes in pretty/ugly, gay?, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies. i.e. a core tenet of Islam forming the support structure of the foundation of Islam has now been extracted from the Jihadist' neurons.

2. She previously noted "By the way, all organised and institutionalised religion is human and humanity based with flaws and all, just like humans are." And today reiterated this belief. So Islam is no longer an organized and institutionalized religion in The Jihadist's mind.

3. She does not support Islamic theocracies. Wow, that is so "anti-koranic"!! Way to go Jihadist.

4. Her interest in the "fems" of all contemporary religions continues to grow every day and the Realm of Reality started by the likes of the historic Jesus exegetes is enveloping The Jihadist's rationale as her commentary is becoming more like said exegetes.

Conclusion: The Jihadist is prepping a book in the style of Ali Hirsi's Infidel!!!! Wow!!!!!

Another victory for "Crossanization" i.e. gather the facts, review said facts, compare to current theology, and reveal your results.

And considering the topic, The Jihadist is so much healthier now by taking said steps to rid her brain and body of all those "cultish" ways and years of "imamic" mumbo jumbo and myth.

How does believing in God give a person more purpose in living, than not believing in God?

Part of our inner makeup is a survival instinct, which causes us to eat, and maintain shelter, and to think of ways to spend our days in safety, if not in comfort as well. That is something that is just inborn. It is what causes us to worry if our heart skips beats so that we may go to the doctor.

And everyone has a capacity for love, and for concern for others, and most people have dear ones, whom I call "loved ones" whom we wish to be safe and happy. Belief in God, or disbelief in God is not relevant, in consideration of any of these things.

Even if a person believes in God, and believes in an afterlife, surely no one believes that they will have the same house in Heaven that they have on Earth, and surely, no one believes they will have the same bank account, or the same wardrobe, or the same stock investments, or the same car, in Heaven. So, how does belief in God help motivate anyone to work and strive for all of these things, more than no belief in God?

And how does belief in God answer the questions about the meaning and purpose of life? Sure, a believer can post some intermediate answers, about how God created the Heavens and Earth, but then what? Where did God come from? This type of belief merely pushes back the mystery a step or two, but beyond is still a fog of infinite antiquity, which no one can fathom, comprehend, not scientist, nor atheist, nor believer.

you dont have to be an einstein to not believe in gods and angels and heaven and hell and all that stuff.
you don't need a degree in quantum mechanics or nuclear physics to observe that man loves gods and loves making them up and pretending they are real.
the evidence is in mythology, where all the ex-gods end up. yours will be there one day.

you don't need to be brilliant to see that its easy to brainwash children and have them believe whatever the local culture says they should believe; whether it's true or not.
you don't have to be smart to be skeptical and doubting of all the bizarre superstitions that are out there.
anyone can do it; and everyone should.

Soja,

Your posts have moved me. Especially, "When people do evil in the name of Christianity .... do check whether it is in accordance with what Jesus taught and how He lived."

YES! So few Christians live by the words of Jesus, immersed as they are in the knee-jerk rules of the OT and the strangeness of Revelation. It is pathetic.

Arminius

Aha! More interesting now here.

Oh, ye disbelievers! You have no idea? You are intellectually bankrupt?

If there is no God, there is no life
If there is no life, there is no living
If there is no purpose in life
What is the purpose of living?

What is so difficult to grasp this summary of belief and purpose in life?
Oh, it’s that God that don’t exist that puts this to rot, no?
There is no God? Bah!

There is no God, but God. Boo!
So there.

*************************************************

Hello Chris Everett:)

Uhhhh! He’s heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere!

Pain and suffering? An exercise in pure frustration bordering on infuriation? From merely reading posts? It ain't even the real pain and suffering of physical self-flaggelation! Real believers feels no pain and suffering in Thaipusam.

We believers knows that the clear and logical mind can't deal with randomness, inclarity, the intangible, the disorderly. It gives atheist a five day headache with two aspirins every hour to cure it.

Thanks for the term "tissue tiger". i know of only "paper tiger". And sayings such as "He who rides the tiger fear to dismount it."

I'm only too happy to have "bad faith" as a person "of faith" on posters who use multiple handles and multiple personas in On Faith threads.

Moral and intellectual corruption as is the real fruit of religion? What a relief it to hear religions have moral corruption what with all that accusations of religions being too moral, moralisitic and moralising.

What a relief to hear there is intellectual corruption of religions with all the accusations of religions being corrupted by previous or earlier beliefs. Not cross-fertilisation of ideas and beliefs from deities to notions of God? The Abrahmic faiths? Hinduism and Buddhism?

And religions being intellectually "corrupted" by classical Greek philosophy, and philosophy being intellectually corrupted by religions and Enlightenment thus too? And even atheism being intellectually "corrupted" too by religions in defining its thoughts on beliefs and religions.

Misrepresentation of "poses" (posts?) is slander? That is a new one. How about people who stole other people's handles to satirise them? What is that? I am asking you this as one who did promote ethical culture in On Faith threads before.

As for "the chasm between faith and reason", there have always been this line before. More of a western notion rather than of other areas in the world. One hear more of "reason for faith", and "faith in reason". The Pope came out with "reason in faith".

You : "Perhaps it's because medical understanding is still relatively sparse, and life so precious, that abundant opportunities and temptations exist to see God in any positive event, even if its within a sea of negative ones."

Positive believers : "Thank you God!" "Oh, I'm blessed, God" "God, I will help everyone I can can."

Tortured believers : "Oh God, why them, why not me?"

Suffering believers: "Oh God, why me?"

Positive atheists : ???

Negative atheists : Every religions and religionists is (........)

Tortured atheists : In On Faith threads

Suffering atheists : In On Faith threads

You : "Health is the canary in the superstition coalmine."

What does that mean? If a sound mind = a sound body, then believers live longer that atheists by some studies or no longer or shorter by other studies. Barring those who live in diseased areas with germs and viruses, or those who got some diseases due to tumour or hereditary diseases .

**************************************************

Hello E Favorite,

About this “suffering” thing, if On Faith has not posed a question on it, it should. It made me think about “sufferings” in religions. Hinduism and Buddhism have strong emphasis on “sufferings” in their texts and beliefs too.

As for, “Science doesn't have all the answers. It doesn't claim to. If it did, it would be out of business.” Here's my addition: In contrast, religion, which does claim to have all the answers, is slowly going out of business, at least in some parts of the world.”

I’m not too sure where this notion that “religion has all the answers” comes from.
I do tend to look at religions beyond the Abrahamic faiths too, thus always factoring in the other great living religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism. With hundreds of millions of adherents in Asia, I can’t and don’t ignore them in their impact on their respective adherents and societies.

So, let us leave aside deity/deities in religions for a bit on this “religions has all the answers” as Buddhism don’t, and look at whether the religion related texts really provides “all the answers”. It don’t, and more accurate to say religions provides solutions (legal, moral, ethical and spiritual) to the human condition and to elevate human state of being and living as individuals and groups.

These are, of course, not all encompassing solutions to everything, but mainly on man and his ethical and moral choices in life, at the very simplest and most basic – good vs evil in himself and externally. From the Bhagavad Gita to the Dhammapada to the Bible to Qur’an, the texts are full of discourses on human nature, human actions and choices and their consequences and stated “values” too. Agreeable or disagreeable to one’s taste is a whole discussion and contentions.

Religions don’t have all the answers. Only in giving some “solutions” for personal and group stability and peace for man to find the answers for himself in his life and what to do and how to do it without breaching ethics and values. Ethics and values are a whole different discussion and contentions too, and even affects the pursuit of science and technology.

Thanks and regards

“J”

PS Gerry, the merit of a religion (as taught by the founder) should be judged based on its benefits to human beings and society. Reforming the way religions have been practiced is integral to religions. There are eternal principles and there are translations of those principles. Strong believers who employ reason are able to distinguish the difference, and not throw the baby of religion out with the bathwater of bad practice.

Now I will leave you to continue your meaningful and productive conversations with Jihadist about how cultures influence religions and religions influence cultures. It *is* a very important topic.

Soja

Sorry! I was the Anonymous.

Gerry wrote:

if you read my post more carefully, you could find out that I did not compare religion to schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is approached when anything someone "can afford" becomes truth and "reality": It is the exit from reality - and one of the ugly sides of every religion: The beginning of brutal force to convert or kill - in order to restore the particular religion's particular "reality".

We had much more uplifting discussions when we agreed on the cultural roots of religions and the religious roots of cultures. My own life and profession as a classical musician, even as an honest and convinced atheist, is rooted in the Christian culture.

June 13, 2008 6:29 AM

Gerry wrote:

As mentioned before, the effect of communication is determined on the receiving end...

June 13, 2008 7:17 AM

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

Gerry

I googled 'turn the other cheek' and found the interpretation you posted in an essay by Marcus Borg titled 'The true meaning of turn the other cheek.' Other readers may be curious like me, hence the link:

http://dharmagates.com/other_cheek.htm

I think you misunderstood Jihadist and I misunderstood you. So by your logic if Jihadist was responsible for your misunderstanding, then you are responsible for mine. However I don't share your logic, I have my own. My explanation is that we understand as we can and not as we can't. Our perception is influenced by our conditioning too just our reasoning capacity and knowledge. So my understanding of what you wrote was influenced also by my conditioned opinions of the issues we are discussing.

In accusing religions of doing wrong things, it would be quite useful to go back to the life and teachings of the founder of the religion to do justice in understanding what the religion was meant to be. Free will which includes the freedom to do evil is a human reality. When people do evil in the name of Christianity (the culture in which you were born, raised and live), do check whether it is in accordance with what Jesus taught and how He lived.

I do admire good and honest atheists. I have always made it a point to emphasize that I appreciate goodness no matter where I see it and some of the most wonderful people I have known and admire have been atheists.

I can understand too that as a classical musician your perception of the world has less boundaries than most other people. I'm of the opinion artists, among some others, work at a level where boundaries are not possible. So divisions and violence based on religions must seem strange to you, and hence you probably opted for atheism. But from the tradition of Western classical music you also know that many musicians were deeply religious and composed most of their best music as an expression of their faith. So it is possible to do both you know.

The choice is always ours - to accept the fact that other people have the right to be different, as long as the difference doesn't violate the human rights and dignity of anyone else.

In the atheist-believer discussions here, if you are an honest atheist you would admit that some atheists who claim propagation of a religion constitutes abuse do not accept that insulting believers and propagating anti-theism as the only way to be in touch with "reality."

Whose reality is right or better?

The answer in your own words: "As mentioned before, the effect of communication is determined on the receiving end..."

Soja

Meg.

I shake my head at the slur that your earlier post was arrogant. I read it a few times and just couldn't see it. Most nonbelievers would see no arrogance in your post; just your take on things religious.(I almost typed things ridiculous)
I see the complaint as a kind of anger with you, that you had the nerve to confidently express a view that would suggest that goblins and gods and other supernatural thingies were absurd.
That hurts folks who believe these things are real.
It's fighting talk. It's like taking away a kid's Teddy Bear.
But of course you have a right like the rest of us to say what you want. That's what the OnFaith site is all about, getting one's opinion out there . And you're pretty good at that, so keep up the good work.

Hi Jihadist!

The name Jihadist has such a unique flavor, I wouldn't want you to change it. But if *you* feel the desire for a new name, go right ahead. The only downside is people will not attribute your new witty remarks to the ones you have posted under Jihadist. You are a good match for all the clever atheists on the forum. Keep up your good work!

Best wishes
Soja

Hannah Szenes wrote:

Soja,

Yes, I told you I'd died at twenty-three, and how I died. I posted some of my songs for you. I died as a Jew, a poet. I died as a partisan. The three were all one for me. I parachuted in to save others and I wasn't alone. I died with honor. Thank you for remembering.

Hannah

June 13, 2008 7:43 AM

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

Hannah

My bad, I hadn't really noticed you were dead. Of course I will remember you!

Soja

ENCORE

and now for something completely sensible.

"Blunt criticisms of religion's pretension to be taken seriously in twenty-first century Europe might focus on two further matters. The first is that religion is, frankly understood, organized superstition; and superstition is the residuum of mankind's infancy; when the forces of nature were personalized in a rudimentary effort to understand and control them. Then gods were pictured as invisible kings, living on mountains or in the sea; responsible for thunder, earthquakes, and everything else inexplicable. As the human mind matured, religion became sophisticated in self defence; dressing its primitive origins in the elaborations of theology, and dignifying its practices with great buildings and rich vestments. This latter is not true of fundamentalist versions, of course; but then their constituencies differ little in mindset from the first believers, for whom a streak of lightning was a spear thrown from the clouds."

ACGrayling. "The Form of Things" page119.

Meg,

Do not make the mistake of thinking that all people who believe base their belief on a dogma or a book. There are exceptions. I am one.

Arminius

Hi Wiccan.

OK I said...
"Yes the religious seem hypnotized and unable to play around with even the possibility that God could be just a hypothesis.
Religion is like that. Once one 'finds' God, one stops searching and doesn't try making sense anymore.
Its all about feeling good. Religion feels so good it must be true. And even if it ain't true, it still feels good. So who needs truth?"

You say..

"Meg, your post is pretty arrogant. Are you conversant with all faiths and their permutations? Are you intimately acquainted with each believer? If not, a little humility would be in order.

What you are saying here is that you are much more intelligent than any believer of any faith because you have no evidence supporting the existence of God. And if you haven't found it, surely no evidence exists. Never mind that there are as many definitions of God as there are people, which would expand the base for evidence.

What do you know about Wicca? What is your understanding of this faith's definition of the Divine? Is the Divine immanent or transcendant? What does the faith require from its believers? Now answer these questions for Sufism, Baha'i, Jainism, and Santeria. Please compare and contrast the precepts of Shintoism with those of Asatru.

And why wouldn't the truth feel good? Who's truth? Your truth? My truth? Who gets to decide what is the truth?

After all this, if you still think all believers in any form of the Divine are lazy idiots who refuse to make sense, at least we've served the function of giving you someone to feel superior to."

Me Again...Well Wiccan, I still say God IS a hypothesis, because, it seems to me, it is.
I really DO think that that the religious behave as if hypnotized, because few ever seem to critically examine the supernatural nonsense that they are required to believe.
It seems part of the religious deal - to have Faith and keep the faith regardless.

Of course I know nothing about wicca, anymore than I know anything about astrology or palm reading. What's to know? It would be perfectly ridiculous to have to study all forms of superstition before concluding that they are kinda silly. Should I get books on numerology and sorcery too? Puhlease. Gimme a break.

Where do I say that I am much more intelligent than believers...etcetra? Pure nonsense.
That is what you hear. I simply state my opinions. But because they are probably diametrically opposed to YOUR opinions...that makes me arrogant.

After reading your comments, I am more than happy to be diametrically opposed to your kind of make believe. As far as we know there are no gods.

If you are a knowledge hound fond of studying other ideas, you might want to check out "God; The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger, at your local library, now. It's a whole feast of ideas.
Though you might find it arrogant.

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

Thanks for the clarifications! Of course, there's an objective reality quite apart from what we think of it.

Best,

Chuck Cairns

To Chuck Cairns:

How I appreciate a blogger who signs his own name to a post!

I agree that the fallibility of human memory is a given--much as we would like to think otherwise. I didn't say that I became an atheist at age seven; what I said was that the sight of a child in an iron lung first impelled me to question what I had been taught about God. My mother, by the way, remembers this incident exactly as I do, because she was stunned, at the time, by my question about why God would let such a thing happen.

Actually, I did start keeping I diary when I was seven (though of course I no longer have it). But I certainly wrote about the iron lung that night. One could argue that I was already constructing a "narrative" out of an important event, but the act of writing something down on the day it happens is a powerful reinforcer of truth.

Although it is clear that some narratives bear little relation to reality, that is not true of every narrative. Had I said that I "became" an atheist at age seven, you would be right to question my memory. However, what I said was that this was one of the defining events of my childhood, and it started me on a road of skepticism from which there was no turning back.

As you may infer, I do not accept the postmodernist notion that there are only "narratives" and that there is no such thing as a fact or an objective truth.

E FAVORITE

You wrote, "Jihadist - Pam was just describing a situation, not suggesting a solution related to lack of belief in deities. Your solutions of electricity and running water sound fine and have nothing to do with God or atheism - just providing needed human and technological assistance."

This is where you are wrong, when Jesus, whether you believe He is God-Incarnate or not, was down here, He tried to teach us that while we are here we are to help one another, that is only part of what He became human for but that is one of the things He taught.

Granted, from some of the people that call themselves "christian", speaking out on some of these posts, you would find that hard to believe but God has left it in our hands to be His hands.

Arrogance knows no labels. God looks at the person not whatever label someone describes themself with or in some cases to denigrate or belittle others.

There are many, many opportunities to reach out to others both big and small, it is more important to God to reach out to others rather than trying to cram God, whatever your conception of God may be, down other's throats.

One of the things that is written, "I desire mercy not sacrifice", God is not the egomaniac that some that know His Name think that He is.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

DITLD,

Good definitions. You say "When a scientist discovers something, he is merely uncovering something alreay extant, pulling back a curtain, showing someting, that has always been, and always was, just unknown to man... So why is there so much anti-science among relious people? That is something that I cannot understand."

I think you answered your own question. Science pulls back curtains covering that which was previously unknown. But religion claims truth for itself, so the idea that knowledge can come from science is a direct threat to the authority of religion. Of course, if religion were actually true instead of being the collection of myths that it is, then science would be corroborative of religion. But as we know, such is not the case; instead, science gives lie after lie to religious mythology.

My experience with religious people is that religion satisfies a deep emotional need and has little or nothing to do with the truth, or even the intellectual coherence, of the tradition they fall into. It's either the tradition they've always known, or the tradition associated with whatever cathartic event hooked them. After that, it's "In for a penny, in for a pound."

Daniel ITLD

Excellent descriptions of the three concepts. It can’t be emphasized enough that science is a technique of learning about the world, not a belief system. I always find it amazing when people, both believers and non-believers can’t grasp this until I remember my own school days.

Daniel ITLD,

Nice definitions. I personally think there could well be a philosophy of science. As a matter of fact, I think there could be a philosophy of darn near anything. Also, philosophy and religion, when you consider the centuries both have been around, have been quite intertwined until the Renaissance.

It is my contention and experience that most Christians don't have a problem with science. I sure as hell don't. We just hear from the fundies, who are the loudest and most obnoxious part of Christianity. They are not the majority, even here in America, the Catholics still are (correct me if I'm wrong). The Catholics teach evolution in their schools, and have bought into the Big Bang.

Arminius

Some definitions:

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

PHILOSOPHY is the study, speculation, or musing on the abstract features of the world, and includes the nature of being, scope of knowledge, human behavior, the mind-body connection, logical patterns of thinking, emotional values, and government.

SCIENCE is reasoned-based analysis of sensation upon our awareness, in order to discover or understand how the physical world works with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding.

I pieced these definitions together from a few sources. Religion and phylosophy overlap, somewhat, but there are no rituals or prayer, or historical writings associated with philosophy, and people seem to be able to accept different philosophical ways of thinking better than different religious ways of thinking.

But science definitely is not a religion or a philosphy. It is not even, a search for truth. Science is just "figuring things out." And what does science figure out? The world. So, is it justified to blame scientists, for figuring out how things work? Or is it more justified to cast blame on the nature of the world, that waits in perpetual existence, for us to know about it?

When a scientist discovers something, he is merely uncovering something alreay extant, pulling back a curtain, showing someting, that has always been, and always was, just unknown to man.

So why is there so much anti-science among relious people? That is something that I cannot understand.

On the origins of Susan Jacoby's atheism -- Ms. Jacoby dates the origins of her atheism to a childhood event when she saw her playmate confined to an iron lung. I similarly have been dating the origins of my atheism to a childhood epiphany-inspiring event. However, I just finished reading Carol Tavris and Eliott Aronson's excellent book "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)," where the authors emphasize not only the fallibility of human memory, but also the almost certain counter-factual nature of the personal narratives we construct for ourselves. This is especially true of the stories we tell ourselves about the origins of elements of our belief systems in our childhood. That was a sobering read -- I have been forced to conclude that I really don't know at what point in my youth I became an atheist. Unless Ms. Jacoby started keeping a philosphical journal by the age of seven, I suspect that she's like me in this regard -- namely, highly susceptible to building false yet satisfying narratives of one's own life.

'I am familiar with Born agains, as an adult. A family member became born again and it's "hell" being around a group of them. I was once stuck at a wedding as the only non-born again and had numerous chances to find Jesus right there at the reception. True, they didn't threaten me with hell; I just got a lot of opportunities to be "saved." In fact, the usual introductory pleasantry was not "how are you?" it was "Are you saved?" or "When were you saved?" '

My favorite response to thatt question is always: 'Unlike you, I was never lost.'

The sputtering is quite amusing.

Dear A Good Neighbor & Arminius -

There's a Boy Scout Troop that regularly sets a table out in front of my local grocery. It's manned by parents who send their little scouts out with the alms cup to solicit donations.

They don't bother me anymore, because the first three times they approached me, I walked over to the parent's table (with Scoutie following me) and said, "I'd LOVE to contribute to the Scouts, but I don't feel that I can morally do that while it's the official policy of the BSA to openly discriminate against gays and atheists. As soon as the BSA changes their policy, I'll be happy to contribute...as long as they don't decide to discriminate against someone else."

Now, I could just say "no thanks," and walk away, but my experience with young kids is that they do not believe in discriminating against people. They abhor it. And it's my guess that 99% of Scouts have no idea that the BSA officially discriminates against gays and atheists. And it's also my guess that many of their parents don't know it either, or if they do, then these "upstanding" citizens are more than ready to tacitly approve of such discrimination against their fellow beings.

So, I feel it's my...er..."duty" to let them know why I won't donate to their cause. The BSA may well feel that cloaking clear discrimination in a cover of do-gooding and childish innocence is A-OK, but to me, that's just SOP for the way bigots have always operated.

Like I said, the Scouts no longer seem to approach me at the grocery.

Concerned, etc.:

Observer12 wrote to you:

"RE: The illiterate Jewish peasant

There was no peasant class at the time that said illiterate was among us."

As a historian, I can confirm this claim. As for the "tablet man," Moses, the tablets were not made by Moses, but by God. Therefore, accuracy requires that you list God as "tablet God" and come up with something more fitting for Moses.

"meg:
Yoyo

Loved your comment to Pam.

Yes the religious seem hypnotized and unable to play around with even the possibility that God could be just a hypothesis.

Religion is like that. Once one 'finds' God, one stops searching and doesn't try making sense anymore.

Its all about feeling good. Religion feels so good it must be true. And even if it ain't true, it still feels good. So who needs truth?"

Meg, your post is pretty arrogant. Are you conversant with all faiths and their permutations? Are you intimately acquainted with each believer? If not, a little humility would be in order.

What you are saying here is that you are much more intelligent than any believer of any faith because you have no evidence supporting the existence of God. And if you haven't found it, surely no evidence exists. Never mind that there are as many definitions of God as there are people, which would expand the base for evidence.

What do you know about Wicca? What is your understanding of this faith's definition of the Divine? Is the Divine immanent or transcendant? What does the faith require from its believers? Now answer these questions for Sufism, Baha'i, Jainism, and Santeria. Please compare and contrast the precepts of Shintoism with those of Asatru.

And why wouldn't the truth feel good? Who's truth? Your truth? My truth? Who gets to decide what is the truth?

After all this, if you still think all believers in any form of the Divine are lazy idiots who refuse to make sense, at least we've served the function of giving you someone to feel superior to.

Concerned, etc.:

RE: The illiterate Jewish peasant

There was no peasant class at the time that said illiterate was among us.

Rethink please. You mentioned that he did faith healing for free room and board.

Freeloader?

Best,

Observer12

Gerry,

I have heard the horror stories about nuns, first hand, from many sufferers. Your wife's experience may be the worst I have heard. I'm glad she had a remarkable mother, and escaped. I'm a believer, but not that kind of believer!

Anyway, here's a funny nun story that I heard on PBR. It was halloween, and a guy was talking about a childhood experience. He was Catholic, and went to one of their schools, replete with nuns armed with harsh words and rulers to smack wrists. (I understand that this has changed for the better now.) His parents asked him what kind of monster he wanted to trick-or-treat as. His answer: a nun! His parents were, of course, outraged, so he compromised on a Dracula costume. But he crafted it so that it could be rearranged, and when out of sight of his parents, fixed it so that he looked like a nun. I must have laughed for five minutes.

Good Neighbor;

Re my previous comment...If those religious twits were to come to my home with the setup you describe, I swear I would go after the mentor and yell him out of the neighborhood. I don't know if I could control myself.

Arminius;

Loved your dog story. I used to have an Akita years ago. It sure came in handy sometimes in situations not unlike the one you describe.

Whow Good Neighbor,

that was some scary experience you had last night.
It made very interesting reading.

Some religionists will stoop to any level to get their 'message' across.

What impressed, was the kid's puzzled moment when you said that you weren't interested in God. He probably never ever met anyone before who didn't believe in God. He must have figured you were some kind of weirdo for sure. What a life he has ahead of him.
Fully indoctrinated at six years old. It is outrageous and digusting, and makes me wanna cry my eyes out. No kidding. I'm all choked up with that story.
What a whacky world we live in.

As long as we're trading stories about fundie doorbell ringers, here's mine. Some years back, we had a wonderful Irish Setter, friendly as can be - unless somebody knocked on the door. He was very territorial. Well, somebody knocked on the door, and my dog did his usual barking routine. With my hand on his collar, I opened the door, discovering a young couple who wanted to talk about Jesus. My dog, bless him, went berserk and nearly tore the screen door down trying to get at them! They fled, and it was all I could do to keep from roaring with laughter.

When my wife was 9, she had nightmares, screaming in the middle of the night. Her mother asked her, what was the matter. My wife then told a fuzzy story her religion teacher, a nun, had told her about original sin and hell and repentance etc, which she even didn't know the meaning of. The next day, her mother rushed to the school, screamed at the principal to stop mentally abusing children (many years before Dawkins!) and took her out of religion class.

That was the happy end of the Christianisation of my wife.

Some idiot on this thread comes to mind who opined that if you stop "learning" about religion at nine, you go into life with the mindset of a nine years old.

Well, we can take the "Jesus quote" literally: "Unless you become like children", we have some difficulty to brainwash you...

Daniel ITLD, thanks for the clarification -- I recalled you referring to the "lake of fire" in another post, but in truth, did not check.

I am familiar with Born agains, as an adult. A family member became born again and it's "hell" being around a group of them. I was once stuck at a wedding as the only non-born again and had numerous chances to find Jesus right there at the reception. True, they didn't threaten me with hell; I just got a lot of opportunities to be "saved." In fact, the usual introductory pleasantry was not "how are you?" it was "Are you saved?" or "When were you saved?"

Last night, the doorbell rang at about 7PM....went to the door and here were three children between the ages of 6-7. The smallest little guy looked up and wanted to know if he could tell me a story about Jesus!? He stepped right up, without fear...he had a tale to tell ! And no Jehovah's Witness or Morman either - far too young he was, for that crowd.

Further up the road, I saw the adult in the group lurking in the outback, waiting for the tiny proselytizers to strike gold - perhaps a real evangelist with his miniature students? I was by turns taken by surprise and then disgust, imagining that adults would do this stuff to kids - but then you never know what you'll see in the Sunny Southland. I said 'thanks, but I don't care much about religion'.

He had kind of a quizzical look and said, 'you don't?' ... and lingered there, speechless for a moment, before racing off with the others to join their 'mentor'.

I'm hoping this isn't a new trend in the neighborhood.

E Favorite

More clarificaton:

I told you about the Born Again Christians at my bedside, when we thought I might be dying. I have already established that they were not unwelcomed strangers, interfereing; they were our friends.

This part needs clarificaton: they were not threatening me with Hell or the Lake of Fire unless I repented. They never mentioned "repent" or "Hell."

They were pleading with me to be "Born Again" so I could be sure to go to Heaven. Like I said before, their concern was so great, that it was almost like it was their problem, and not mine. If you were Catholic, then maybe you are not very familiar with "Born Again." It is as though they cannot breathe easily, until you acknowledge that you are "born again." So, let us just say, it was awkward, when it did not have to be.

My father did not like them to come and visit me, and trouble me with this stuff, but I wanted them to come. They were people I knew and liked.

and now for something completely sensible.

"Blunt criticisms of religion's pretension to be taken seriously in twenty-first century Europe might focus on two further matters. The first is that religion is, frankly understood, organized superstition; and superstition is the residuum of mankind's infancy; when the forces of nature were personalized in a rudimentary effort to understand and control them. Then gods were pictured as invisible kings, living on mountains or in the sea; responsible for thunder, earthquakes, and everything else inexplicable. As the human mind matured, religion became sophisticated in self defence; dressing its primitive origins in the elaborations of theology, and dignifying its practices with great buildings and rich vestments. This latter is not true of fundamentalist versions, of course; but then their constituencies differ little in mindset from the first believers, for whom a streak of lightning was a spear thrown from the clouds."

ACGrayling. "The Form of Things" page119.

Arminius - Ok, Got it - good

Daniel ITLD - A friend of mine was in several small accidents that landed him in the hospital when he was a kid and a young adult. Like you, he fondly remembers the kindness of people then and now always makes a point to visit people when they're sick. He says that's when you find out who your friends really are. BTW, He has been a non-believer since the age of 10.

Hello Chris E:

No, you're no tablet-man, no illiterate Jewish peasant either, I'd imagine. I left some kind words for you on another Dennett's thread, no irony intended. Cut and pasted a lot for you. Nothing to fear.

You can double check with Jesus MOS, or Yahweh CTS, if you don't believe me.

Best,

Observer

Thanks for the additional input, Daniel ITLD. I can’t really put myself in your place, but when I try to I get very frustrated seeing myself trapped in a bed, in dire pain, thinking I was dying, and coping with people who warned about the eternal lake of fire that was awaiting unless I repented.

I got my concept of the suffering Jesus from Catholic Sunday school and Church. It’s hard to miss the crucifix in the center of the altar – a larger-than-life nearly-naked Jesus on the cross with a crown of thorns and bloody holes in his hands and feet. Grotesque, when I think about it now. As George Carlin said – if Jesus had been executed in the 20th century, Christians would be wearing chains with little electric chairs hanging from them.

Sorry – I got carried away.

Meg, you said,
"Religion is like that. Once one 'finds' God, one stops searching and doesn't try making sense anymore."

My reply:
For many of the religious, that is true. For me, somewhat different. God found me, and I'm still trying to figure it out. It is a journey that will last the rest of my life. It has not always been easy.

Arminius

E Favorite,

I know well that Chris did not include me in the corrupt group. I tried to say that by answering him in what I thought was a somewhat humorous way. I certainly don't see Chris as 'corrupt'!

Yoyo

Loved your comment to Pam.

Yes the religious seem hypnotized and unable to play around with even the possibility that God could be just a hypothesis.

Religion is like that. Once one 'finds' God, one stops searching and doesn't try making sense anymore.

Its all about feeling good. Religion feels so good it must be true. And even if it ain't true, it still feels good. So who needs truth?

Cream + 2 - I take mine black, thanks.

But how about the dead writers? That's very cool ironic stuff - What happened to Berryman, Plath, Brautigan, Koestler, Inge, Hemingway, et al? What do you do with dead writers and poets when the suffering is over? I often wondered .... and now here's an opportunity to find out.

PS. You run a good show most of the time, but things do get out of hand occasionally. I probably don't have much time left myself, but my compliments, all the same.

On the "fallen-ness" of man:

I had an accident, and experienced alot worse suffering than the oft' threatened "Lake of Fire," a mere Lake of Fire...I wish.

But, in this suffering worse than a Lake of Fire, worse than anything that words can describe, I experienced hundreds of small kindnesses, from hundreds of strangers. Even though I had always had a good life up until then, I had never realized the goodness of people like I did in those days. That is one of my more profound memories, that so many strong hands reached out to me when I was weak. And now, I try to reach out my strong hands to others, when I can, as a kind of re-payment.

These experiences do not really square with the doctrine of the "fallen-ness of man;" man does not seem to be fundamentally evil and rotten to the core, as many Christian sects seem to believe. "Original sin" is too simple, and leaves out alot.

Jihadist says, “I don't understand rugby as to why everyone runs forward but throw the ball backwards. I don't understand the trooping of the colours, I don't understand Halloween”

But one thing I bet you do know about the above activities is that they don’t require belief in the supernatural, except maybe Halloween – and only as scary make-believe.

PS – no problem re the “suffering” thing

Arminus – Chris didn’t say YOU were “morally and intellectually corrupt,” he mentioned “…the moral and intellectual corruption that is the real fruit of religion.” Surely you can see the difference. Seriously, if you can’t, then I really do wonder what effect perceiving yourself as religious is having on you. It may not be making you “morally and intellectually corrupt,” but I am concerned that it’s clouding your thinking in some way.

Paul C – I don’t believe Pam said there was no purpose to life, but rather that the purpose was to pass on genes. Then you go on to say: “If there is no God and therefore no purpose in life, why is propagation of the species of any interest to anyone. Who cares about the future. There's no meaning to it any way, right?”

Sounds like you can’t think of purpose in anything but supernatural terms. The natural, biological world that we see around us everyday doesn’t seem to make sense to you the way that an invisible supernatural world does.

Later you say, “When you start recognizing that there's commonality and linkage between purposes, you need to start recognizing that there must be some kind of plan and then you need a planner.” I’m guessing your answer is “god” is the planner. I’d say that recognizing a “commonality and linkage between purposes” doesn’t presume a plan (unless perhaps you’re already convinced that there’s a supernatural being doing the planning and you have to figure how it fits in).

I’m anxious to hear Pam’s response to this – and am grateful for Chris E’s, especially this line: “Health is the canary in the superstition coalmine.”

I also like this one from Realist: “Science doesn't have all the answers. It doesn't claim to. If it did, it would be out of business.” Here's my addition: In contrast, religion, which does claim to have all the answers, is slowly going out of business, at least in some parts of the world.

J. Christ Milk 1 Sugar (MOS):

I take my Jesus black!

Chris E,

Indeed, Daniel ITLD is our resident philosopher. I relish his thoughts, even if I have trouble following them sometimes.

You ask good questions, for sure. I'll try to stumble forward to some kind of answer, fully aware that a can of worms is being opened. This is still, and will always be, a work in progress for me.

'Ghost in the machine' probably describes my belief best, since the basis is spiritual. It truly is another realm, unprovable. But I do see God's hand at work here. Again, unprovable.

As for science and religion/belief, they are not compatible in the sense that they dovetail. To me, they are parallel roads to the same goal, understanding the universe. Since I am not a fundie, I find no conflict. I did not get my belief from a book, and although I have bought into much of the NT, I am still a skeptic.

As Pilate said, "And what is truth?". Yikes. We could get into the old argument about 'objective' and 'subjective' truth. Anyway, of course I 'believe' in truth. Perhaps we might agree that any given truth ultimately relies on some unprovable base. The classical (and trivial) example is any proof of Euclid's geometry, since they all are ultimately based on his axioms, which, by definition, are unprovable. Logic works the same way.

The standard of the truth - my truth - of my belief: because of a spiritual event in my life, I know that God IS, and that He is with me. Call it an axiom.

I don't know if any of this makes sense to you, probably not. But I thank you for goading me into trying to put it into words.

Arminius

Dear Meg -

Thanks for the kind words.

I didn't mention Tinkerbell because the last I looked, she was a fairy, not a god.

That said, take a trip to Disneyland any day of the week and you'll see thousands of kids for whom Tink garners more gravitas than Jesus or any other god. I've thought about this a bit, and I've come to the conclusion that it's the absence of genocidal tendencies that draws kids to Tink, rather than a god. ;)

Arminius,

Obviously you are not in the BAD FAITH group. Nor is DITLD, whose posts on this thread have been nothing short of profound.

You said that it's irrational to reject the compatability of science and religion. I'd be interested to hear you elaborate. Specifically, if science is defined as a process of developing naturalistic explanations for perceived phenomena, where do you find room for religion? Are you willing to trace events (such as the splash of a raindrop) backwards in time using science, but only up to some point where it was miraculously willed into existence by a divine first mover? Or are you of the opinion that there is a spiritual realm that is fundamentally undetermined by physical reality, aka the ghost in the machine? In other words, if you're so sure of the compatibility between religion and science, please demonstrate it.

For me, philosophical naturalism is the direction that ALL the evidence points towards. In this thread, just every religionist is taking some kind of perverse comfort in "knowing" that their supernatural beliefs aren't amenable to silly scientific investigation. But that's dismissiveness, not compatibility. It's a wholesale rejection of science, and since science is just the careful application of common sense, it's a wholesale rejection of that, too.

So for you, where does science stop, and religion begin? What standard of truth do you require of your faith beliefs? How do you reconcile the diversity of religious "truth", especially compared to the unity of scientific truth. Do you even believe in truth?

I know you're still seeking, but what are your thoughts about these sorts of questions, however provisional? Remember that the atheists here understand the intrinsic provisionality of belief - we're not Tablet Men.

Hmmm, the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist is looking other monikers? Hmmm, Reality Challenged and Obfuscating fit quite nicely.

And once again for the newbies:

1. The Jihadist is no longer superstitious therefore she no longer believes in pretty/ugly, gay?, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies. i.e. a core tenet of Islam forming the support structure of the foundation of Islam has now been extracted from the Jihadist' neurons.

2. She previously noted "By the way, all organised and institutionalised religion is human and humanity based with flaws and all, just like humans are." And recently reiterated this belief. So Islam is no longer an organized and institutionalized religion in The Jihadist's mind. More progress!!!

3. She does not support Islamic theocracies. Wow, that is so "anti-koranic"!! Way to go Jihadist.

4. Her interest in the "fems" of all contemporary religions continues to grow every day and the Realm of Reality started by the likes of the historic Jesus exegetes is enveloping The Jihadist's rationale as her commentary is becoming more like said exegetes.

Conclusion: The Jihadist is prepping a book in the style of Ali Hirsi's Infidel!!!! Wow!!!!!

Another victory for "Crossanization" i.e. gather the facts, review said facts, compare to current theology, and reveal your results.

And considering the topic, The Jihadist is so much healthier now by taking said steps to rid her brain and body of all those "cultish" ways and years of "imamic" mumbo jumbo and myth.

This is one more for E Favorite

I re-read your question to me, earlier. You asked me did the Born Again Christian visitors, who came to me, when we thought I was dying, did they put the idea of the "suffering" Jesus in my mind?

The answer is, "no they did not."

First of all, who were these mysterious "Born Again" people who appeared at my "death bed" to plead with me to save my soul, before dying?

They were not strangers, in off the street; they were people I knew, friends of my parents, neighbors, even relatives. They were utterly and completely wrong in the way they treated me; but I would not turn them away; I liked for them to visit; I just nodded and agreed; but then, as now, my inner belief, is as it is, and cannot be turned on or off to suit other people's needs.

I think that I got the idea of the "suffering" Jesus from black people.

Mr Mark.

Good post.

For a minute I thought you were going to say
that there is no Tinkerbell so therefore there
is no purpose in life.

Phew! Don't scare me like that.

Paul C writes:

"If there is no God and therefore no purpose in life,"

A silly if typical statement. Which of these statements would you agree with, Paul:

"If there is no Jesus and therefore no purpose in life,"

"If there is no Zeus and therefore no purpose in life,"

"If there is no Apollo and therefore no purpose in life,"

"If there is no Odin and therefore no purpose in life,"

We as humans have the honor of defining our own purpose in life. It's an intellectual decision that - while a product of our biological evolution - allows us to rise above the basic instincts we retain from our history of evolving.

Requiring belief in a non-existent god to give one's life meaning is sorta sad, dontcha think?

Hi, Chris E,

I got a chuckle when I discovered from your post that I am 'morally and intellectually corrupt'!

Agreed that many of the religious types here present the usual bad arguments in defense of their belief. I am aware, and hope that I have made that clear here from time to time, that I have no proofs, no reasoning, to bolster my own belief. All I can do is try to describe what happened to me.

I fear that the gulf between believers and non-believers is unbridgeable. But sometimes it's fun to try - and instructive.

Arminius

A Closer Look:

Yahweh Cream 2 Sugars writes to you, "I don't suppose you've been brewing up the joe....?"

Ditto, and He's wasted, or else he would have mentioned me, as He almost always does when he speaks jamocha.

J. Christ MOS

a closer look:
I for one appreciate our resident master of the 'divine' if post-mortem soliloquy....we have a visiting pro amongst us. Damn good stuff!!

Better and funnier than Dante by a long shot...
----------------

If you are referring to Me, I am neither pre nor post mortem (you understand). On the other hand, if you'd like more mortuos posts, you've got my ear, which is no small feat, as is oft remarked.

I don't suppose you've been brewing up the joe....?

Yahweh Cream 2 Sugars

I agree with Chris Everett. Pam is sincere, at least that is my perception; Paul is spinning; at least he back-tracked just a tiny bit, to admit that he does not know; other "Christian" posters are flippant and mean-spirited; that term "bad faith" is a good way to describe it.

How can sincerity argue with bad faith?

Spiritual Mongrel,
Thanks for your kind words! It's nice to know that we atheists are at least appreciated by some religious folk. :-)

"I believe there is enough evidence, scientific and anecdotal to “suggest” that there certainly could be a God. To think that we may have all the answers on God and the universe is at either arrogant or childish."

I also don't like when people claim to have answers when they don't. I often come across people criticising science because it doesn't have all the answers, trying to imply that their particular religion does.

Science doesn't have all the answers. It doesn't claim to. If it did, it would be out of business. While science can't rule God out as a possibility, I have to disagree with you about any evidence for the existence of God. As far as I'm concerned, science has pretty conclusively shown that our sources of knowledge about God are unreliable and cannot be trusted. ... OK, call me "arrogant" if you wish, but not "childish", please. :-)

Sorry, but I have to agree with the "new atheists" that science has made the existence of God seem extremely unlikely. Gods have always lived where we can't find them. They lived on top of high mountains or in the sky, above the clouds. But as our knowledge has grown, the gods have run out of places to hide. The Gods that most intelligent believers believe in have become so abstract as to be almost meaningless, more of an ideal rather than something actually existing outside of people's heads.

To Realist (the other less realistic one):
That's exactly what happened to my God. As a child, I believed in the cartoon God described the Bible who takes a personal interest in what we do, who talks to people and heals people when he feels like it and smites them with floods and plagues when he gets upset. As I grew up, my God grew up also. He grew into an impersonal cosmic force like Brahman. He then became even more abstract as I became more philosophical. He disappeared into the nothingness of nirvana, and later re-emerged back into reality as the Tao. It was very gradual, but I eventually realised that my God had become so abstract that I honestly couldn't distinguish It from no god at all.

Unlike many of the "new atheists", I don't think of religion as an entirely evil force, whose sole purpose is to deceive and corrupt children, that should be wiped off the face of the earth. Religion is an important part of our many cultures and it plays an important role as a cohesive an motivating force in society. I love the rituals, the music, the art and the architecture that religion inspires. I still love Zen and Taoist philosophy and I don't mind attending the occasional Christian ritual.

Despite what fundamentalists think, religion is constantly changing. As the general level of knowledge of humanity increases, I think it is inevitable that superstition will wane, and as Christopher Hitchens so cleverly puts it, the number of gods that people believe in is approaching the correct number :-).

Spiritual Mongrel also wrote
"Life is all encompassing, we are all part of it, God or not. A grain of sand is only a grain of sand unless it helps make up the beach and then it is part of something larger than itself. Each human is a part of a larger thing called life or the universe."

So nicely put!

And Spiritual Mongrel also wrote:
"I believe one day science will prove we are more than our bodies and if God does exist science will eventually prove that (or not) as well."

I have to disagree with you there. I wanted so desperately to believe that for many years. I've read lots of books on astral travel, OBEs and NDEs all of that kind of stuff, and I've had several "out of body experiences", but there was no way I could do anything to *prove* that my mind was ever separate from my brain, and I don't think anyone else ever has either. If astral travel or remote viewing is possible it should be very easy to prove it, but I don't think it has never been (rigorously) done.

I don't know very much about TMI except it is not a "scientific research institute" it's a pseudo-scientific money making business. But I do use Holosync (not Hemi-Sync), and it seems to work for me.

Sorry for the lost post.
Realist

Jihadist,

Ah, so you didn't know who I was. That's okay. You don't have to know everyone and everything. Discovery, humility are also important. Memory is important.

No one will know that you didn't know me. Read my songs. People sing them, have recorded them. Jihadists like them, I'm told.

Hannah

Pam,

I feel your pain. Reading through these posts en masse is an exercise in pure frustration bordering on infuriation. Against your truly remarkable posts and those of Jed, Yoyo, E Favorite and others, we see religionist after religionist (I won't name names) deliberately misconstrue nearly everything said, so that they can tear down tissue tigers instead (which they usually fail to do anyway).

It amounts to nothing other than BAD FAITH from those OF FAITH. It shows, once again, the moral and intellectual corruption that is the real fruit of religion. Their misrepresentation of your poses is slander, and should be taken as such, regardless of any flowery obfusions. Their intellectual failings are simply a crying shame.

For whatever reason, the chasm between faith and reason has never been more clear than on this particular thread. Perhaps it's because medical understanding is still relatively sparse, and life so precious, that abundant opportunities and temptations exist to see God in any positive event, even if its within a sea of negative ones. Health is the canary in the superstition coalmine.

I for one appreciate our resident master of the 'divine' if post-mortem soliloquy....we have a visiting pro amongst us. Damn good stuff!!

Better and funnier than Dante by a long shot...

Oh, sorry,

E Favorite and Daniel in the Lion's Den,

Thanks for your clarification on Pam's post on "suffering". I had missed before and should have read your posts before responding to Pam's subsequent post to me re my post to her on this.

"Suffering" is not quite an important aspect of Islamic creed/theology. So, I do sometimes forget to read posts from a different perspective with regard to "suffering" to immediately grasp what the person is talking about. So, I was talking from a completely different perspective altogether.

Thank you both for your corrections and clarifications on what Pam said and meant.

Best regards

"J"

**************************************************

Pam,

My apologies. I misunderstood where you were coming from in your posts on why God let "suffering" happens.

Pam,
I love your post because it gets to the nub of several issues:

First you (in my mind) correctly state what must be true of all Atheist thought:
"It fits perfectly in a world where all life evolves with no ultimate purpose other than to pass on its genes." You are right. There can be no purpose to life if there wasn't something generating that purpose (which we call God). But then you qualify it with the statement, " other to pass on its genes." Isn't that a purpose? If there is no God and therefore no purpose in life, why is propagation of the species of any interest to anyone. Who cares about the future. There's no meaning to it any way, right?

To me, it is very hard to rationalize that there is no purpose to anything. You for instance, have a reason to post in this blog, whatever that may be. Once you start agreeing that there are reasons for things, you start having to extend that to where did that purpose come from. When you start recognizing that there's commonality and linkage between purposes, you need to start recognizing that there must be some kind of plan and then you need a planner.

Lets now go to your other issue, the one that started this whole thing off. Why would a good and benevelent god allow suffering. You already blew off my reason for suffering in humanity by saying that my response didn't extend to animals, presumably innocent creatures. You describe parasites causing extreme suffering in deer. Well, I'll readily admit that I don't understand all of God's plan, but what you describe is a simple extension of the food chain. We're all stuck together in this circle of life, with predators and food. Those predators come in all shapes and sizes, from microscopic organisms to the major pradators like lions. If one is removed from the chain, the balance shifts. Some prosper, some suffer. Perhaps you don't like the fact that there are carnivores and that a Good and loving God would never permit that. Well, all I can say is that there's a lot we don't understand.

Before declaring people who don't agree with you to be clinically isane, it might be a good idea to contemplate that different people have different viewpoints, both because their experience is different and because they process information in different ways. I see your compassion for animals and I appreciate your feelings. But I can't understand how you can be so passionate about something like that while simultaneously stating that nothing matters because there is no purpose to life. Educate me.

Hello "Hannah Szenes",

Yes, I do know who Hannah Szenes was/is.

I know what you are doing and why. The first time I saw the handle "Hannah Szenes" here, it occured to me someone may come in as "Anne Frank" and post extracts from "The Diary of a Young Girl".

And goodnight to you. My time zone.

Best regards
"J"

Jihadist,

Do you know who I was? You can follow Soja's links to find out, or you can scroll down.

Keep your name. It is a good name. I like to think that all Jihadists now and forever will like my songs and remember.

Soja remembers....

Hannah

Hello Gerry,

I also had a thing about people using handles as "Anonymous" to say some really interesting stuff or to vent. Not even to use a handle say, "Anti-Childish Believers" to distinguish from other "Anonymouses" or to have the courtesy to say, "Oops, I forgot to put my handle".

**************************************************

Hello Soja,

Is someone "channeling" Hannah Szenes?

We already have "Henry James", and sometimes "God" made an appearance too in On Faith threads.

Should I get a new handle? Say: ContraHarris? CounterHitchens? Boofspoof? Deludoid? Moroniac? Idiotoid? Gabrielite? Religionista?

Best regards
"J"

Soja,

Yes, I told you I'd died at twenty-three, and how I died. I posted some of my songs for you. I died as a Jew, a poet. I died as a partisan. The three were all one for me. I parachuted in to save others and I wasn't alone. I died with honor. Thank you for remembering.

Hannah

I was the Anonymous.

Hannah Szenes (or Chana Senesh) (Hebrew: חנה סנש‎) (July 17, 1921 – November 7, 1944

To you I say:

May your soul rest in peace!

It seems I was communicating with the ghost of Hannah Szenes, the Hungarian Jew who died aged twenty three on 7 November 1944.

Now that is something.

It seems I was communicating with the ghost of Hannah Szenes, the Hungarian Jew who died at the age of twenty on 7 November 1944! :) :) :)

http://www.hannahsenesh.org.il/documents/frameseteng.html

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

Jihadist,

if your sarcasms (or half-sarcasms?) escaped me, I apologize. As mentioned before, the effect of communication is determined on the receiving end...

Hello Gerry,

....and now for another "outburst".

That "outbursts" your refered to is deliberately sarcastic in response to the post by "Anonymous" on what s/he said on believers. I am only too happy to oblige.

Is that kind of post from "Anonymous" on believers worth defending by you and should warrant to be defended by you? Why not let him or her speak for himself/herself in reaction to my reaction to his/her post?

Come now. I did not call "Anonymous" moronic or stupid or idiotic or delusioned or any labellings or name-callings in reaction to my post to what "Anonymous" calls believers.

Are you saying it is all right for atheists to go on and about in name calling and labelling of believers as they want to just because they are exasperated and frustrated with believers? Is name callings and labellings not "childish"?

Anonymous himself/herself called for "objectivity". To be more wordy - on the principle of objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity.

Do we really want to waste time on this? If you want to, I can. And it would be a waste of space.

Best regards
"J"

Hannah,

I didn't have a choice to be born into the culture I was born into. But I did have a choice to see through the religious fogs it entailed - and I took up this choice: The only honest option for me was to become an atheist.

Gerry writes:

My own life and profession as a classical musician, even as an honest and convinced atheist, is rooted in the Christian culture.
---------------

End point of whatever I may have had to say, Jewishly speaking. Atheist, Christian, Catholic, etc. Christians are Christians, whether they "practice" or not.

The Christians have always said that we Jews are Jews whether we practice or not, whether we are now Catholics, Protestants or not. These are the terms of their argument. Logically, then, they are Christians, whether they practice or not.

But then they also offer empirical "synthetic" proof.

Farewell,
Hannah

Remember me, Soja

Soja,

if you read my post more carefully, you could find out that I did not compare religion to schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is approached when anything someone "can afford" becomes truth and "reality": It is the exit from reality - and one of the ugly sides of every religion: The beginning of brutal force to convert or kill - in order to restore the particular religion's particular "reality".

We had much more uplifting discussions when we agreed on the cultural roots of religions and the religious roots of cultures. My own life and profession as a classical musician, even as an honest and convinced atheist, is rooted in the Christian culture.

Anonymous writes:

Creams & Sugars even an idiot can see you announce CCNL and post his stuff yourself. Get your head examined.

I believe you are the idiot you claim to be.

Yahweh Cream 2 Sugars & Kid should take you at your word.

Hello Pam,

Thank you for your clarification.

You : Sorry, Jihadist, but you don't understand any better than Paul C. does. It's like talking to cement, sometimes.

* I should be saying sorry to you for the posts designed to get a rise for clarity in what you meant.

You : Just answer the one question - How do you justify the suffering of animals that is not at the hands of humans?

* I did understand your question posed in your original post was in the context of "suffering" and "original sin". If my reading of the Bible is correct, sin was and is specific to humans, not animals, and animals are in the care of or at disposal of humans.

* The faiths that are known to be specific about harming no life at all, including animals are Buddhism and Jainism. But even various strains of Buddhism have "flexibilities" in that they would would not slaughter animals, but would eat animals slaughtered by others (non-Buddhists). But seafood are not really considered as "animals", only those that are land animals. Things are now changing on Buddhists slaughering animals themselves too.

* The true and pure no harm at all to animals apart from being vegetarians, are the Jains. In years past, they would even put a mask over their faces lest they accidentally swallow a bug, and carries a broom to sweep ahead before them in case they accidentally kill any animal, even ants.

* Pertinent point as to why animals should sufferings of animals not at the hands of humans, but why the difference?

* Animals (both domesticated and in the wild), suffer as humans do in earthquakes, in flood, in drought, in wars. In situations like this, given between human suffering and animal suffering, it is animals sacrificed to alleviate human suffering.

* I really do not wish to bring up the fact that to alleviate human suffering through poverty and for income, large tracts of forest lands were cleared for logging, for agriculture reasons, for towns to cater to and lessen human suffering and increase human confort. I really do not wish to raise here how so many environmental groups protested the animal habitat sacrificed for human economic needs.

* The question that should be posed is - how can we alleviate human suffering without sacrificing animal suffering due to depletion of their natural habitat and competition with man for space and for resources without causing not animal suffering, but animal extinction.

You : For the record, I was never actually a believer. Oh, I got dragged to church, like most children, and my mother and other relatives did their level best to indoctrinate me. I went through the motions as long as I had to, but it just never "took" with me. I can't put a date on my disbelief - there was just never any real belief - it never made sense to me at all.

* Yes, I understand that you are never a believer for the reasons you gave above. I am not asking you, forcing you to believe what you can't due to your reasonings and reason.

You : I was early on an animal lover and interested in science, particularly biology. It was a natural progression.

* This part, this clarification in your post I now understand on your concern for animal sufferings. Noah's ark is a good cautionary tale to save animals to save ourselves in this interlinked world of man and nature.

You : Religion does fascinate me - like watching a particularly horrible science experiment - and I have read much about it, including the Bible and some of the Qur'an, but not one of its manifestations has ever tempted me to become an adherent.

* I am equally interested in knowing about peoples' personal beliefs and faiths.

You : Someone, possibly in this forum, once said something to the effect that to someone on the outside, any religion seems crazy. Well, I'm on the outside of all of them, and I'm here to tell you that truer words were never spoken (writ?)

* Yes, and so are other traditions, clubs, habits of others we don't understand. I don't understand rugby as to why everyone runs forward but throw the ball backwards. I don't understand the trooping of the colours, I don't understand Halloween.

You : So, sorry, Jihadist, but my disbelief isn't rooted in some childish frustration in not getting what I wanted out of God. Just in noticing that such a being was utterly nonsensical.

* This do clear it up on you and God. Thanks.

Anonymous:

Either you are truly an idiot or you are new to this thread.

PS Gerry

As an afterthought to turning the other cheek, since the can of worms, WW II and Hitler, has been opened: I do believe in *just* war. Hitler could *not* have been stopped with turning the other cheek, diplomacy or passive resistance of any kind. He was a man who could understand only force and could be stopped only with force.

And finally, to butt in unsolicited on your post to Jihadist regarding your comparison of schizophrenia with religious belief: even the director of a NervenKlinik would be considered foolish if he really told you that religion is classified as a mental disease in DSM IV.

Yoyo,
(Still can't sleep.) If you were to draw a circle and divide it in half and label the halves "mind matters" and "heart matters" then draw another circle (representing me or other "children") and divide it in thirds and label the other third (besides mind and heart) with "spirit matters", then perhaps you might begin to understand that just because you label that third "supernatural" or "superstition" makes it no less of a reality such that for someone like me, that third which you have dismissed is where there are as many sumptuous feasts as with the other two thirds, and it actually adds depth and richness to those other two thirds.

So why would I give that up, when my reality and experience says that the two-thirds left would be like eating "starvation rations"? Surely you jest. Keep your rations, I'll keep my feast.

Creams & Sugars even an idiot can see you announce CCNL and post his stuff yourself. Get your head examined.

PS Gerry

As an afterthought to turning the other cheek, since the can of worms WW II and Hitler has been raised: I do believe in just war. Hitler could have been stopped with turning the other cheek, diplomacy or passive resistance of any kind. He was a man who could understand only force.

And finally, to butt in unsolicited on your post to Jihadist regarding your comparison of schizophrenia with religious belief: even the director of a NervenKlinik would be considered foolish if he told you that religion is classified as a mental disease in DSM IV.

CONCERNED, NO CHILD OF MINE:

YOU HAVE DONE IT THIS TIME, AND IT REALLY DOES TAKE A LOT TO PISS ME OFF. A LOT.

YOU MANAGED IT. SORRY, YAHWEH CREAM 2 SUGARS.

I'M DONE. I INTERVENED ON YOUR BEHALF, CONCERNED, AND YOU MADE ME LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT. DON'T EVER CALL YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. YOUR POSTS MOCK ME. MR. WATERS, HERE I COME, AND I'M NOT GOING TO STOP TIL IT STOPS.

Eternally,

J. Christ Milk 1 Sugar

CCNL, MY CHILD,

DO NOT EVEN TRY IT. WE'RE WATCHING, OUTA HERE OR NOT.

Eternally,

Yahweh, Cream 2 Sugars
J. Christ, Milk 1 Sugar

Hannah, I can sense your deep and unresolved pain of WW II, although it ended sixty three years ago. I know too that millions of lives were changed forever as a result of it. I do NOT expect Jews as a people to forget WW II. It is part of your history, it will add to all your suffering as a people and shape your collective unconscious. Remember I love the Jews in a special way and can empathize with the pain although I may never really understand it. The logic of antisemitism is impossible to understand.

My special warm regards to you Hannah. May God grant you consolation and strength to come to terms with the painful past of your people and leave it behind to build a joyful present.

I have no power in my means to work towards reconciliation; I personally do not need to be reconciled to the Jews because I have never ever had any hard feelings about them and feel only a special sense of gratitude towards them. Do believe me when I say I do wish for reconciliation between Jews and non-Jews from the depth of my heart.

It is my earnest hope that all the interfaith dialogue that is coming to existence as a result of this forum and efforts by others who are working very hard for peace and reconciliation will one day bear the fruit you are longing for.

May God bless and keep you always Hannah!

Soja

CCNL, My Child,

You will note that in all my posts to you, I advised you to go ahead and POST YOUR LIST, HIGHLY ABBREVIATED, I TRUST.

Somehow, as has been the case with you in the past, you did not quite get it, and this is unfortunate since the Kid wrote to Mr. Waters telling him you'd been responsive to the appeals of other bloggers.

The Kid and I are pissed off, CCNL, and in light (as in "Let there be....") it's not good to piss us off.

Yahweh Cream 2 Sugars
J. Christ Milk 1 Sugar

Time for a Reality check:

The "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of the major religions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

The muck and stench in Judaism you ask?

Belief that that the Jews are god's chosen people and its resulting consequence i.e. Israel.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

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

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

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

The muck and stench of Catholicism you ask?

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

The muck and stench of non-Catholic Christian churches you ask?

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals, atonement theology and the Holocaust.

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The muck and stench of Islam you ask?

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering , womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."
The caste/laborer system and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

The muck and stench of Hinduism you ask?

The caste system and cow worship/reverence.

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, muck, stench and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Jihadist,

you really have amazingly contradicting sides. Your recent outburst can almost be called ........ (insert choice), as compared to the educated, civilized, reasonable, communicative posts like your last one to me.

But you also wrote:

* We can afford to have our own "truths" out in the markeplace as we have more adherents, more passion, more commitment, more power and more money.

* We can afford to have belief that makes us feel good mentally and physically.

* We can afford to see what is objective and what is not on any given opinion or fact. We can even afford to ignore facts without apparent detrimental effect in our daily lives, or our mental and physical health, including ignoring such things as evolution."

It reminds me of the ugly argument: "Eat sh*t, billions of flies can't err". And it reminds me of people like Rumsfeld, who maintain that facts should not interfere with the ideology of supremacy.

"We can afford": What a reason! Hitler could "afford" to kill millions, Bush could "afford" to wage an aggressive war, for which crime the Nazi leaders finally were executed.

This post has an effect on me as coming from a nine year old girl stamping her foot because Mama didn't give her enough pocket money to buy a bigger doll.

Are you really serious about the priority of "feeling good" to anything resembling facts and truth and reason and reality and responsibility? Insane asylums are full of such people. A friend of mine is the director of such an institution, and he can tell the most colorful stories of the huge fantasy of these patients. They call it schizophrenia. (There was a specimen in my wider family also).

CCNL, My Child,

Again, I speak only for the two of us. For the rest, living and dead, as you see, there is no accounting, at least, not by me. And the reason is not human free will. It's for partly for these reasons that they call me Yahweh CTS.

Eternally,

Yahweh CTS

Yoyo,
(The family dog woke me up, and now I can't sleep--not, mind you, for "worrying" about whether what I read today makes me any less "sure", but partly because I think I probably offended some people, and had a simplistic answer to a very complex question for which I think to answer at all is to be less than empathetic and compassionate about someone's very real pain.)

You view me as a "child", and I by the same token have had the same reaction to you and yours with the shoe on the other foot, "only on different subjects" but then I realize your reality is different than mine. Keep yours, and I'll keep mine.

Darian and Susan,
Humankind needs your compassion, empathy, depth of expression and wit, and ability to touch minds and hearts, and you're doing it every day, so though for you only human experiences by definition have moved you to "the front of the class," the world needs you profoundly and we are the better for gathering from the depths and heights of your writing or your everyday associations. Thank you.

CCNL, My Child,

Your moment has come. Click and post your list, highly abbreviated, I trust.

We're outa here for the time being.

Eternally,

Yahweh CTS

And then there were the Rumanians.

Soja, I must go now.

G-d bless you.

Hannah

Soja,

Many Polish Catholics turned Jews over to the Nazis. They'd been busy slaughtering Jews for centuries. Some Polish Catholics helped Jews, for a price. After the Holocaust, they literally slaughtered nearly a thousand. The Ukrainian Catholics were so brutal in there slaughter of Jews that the German Christians had to stop them since they were inefficient. Ditto the Lutherans/Latvians/Lithuanians, and Russians.

The French, Catholics, mainly, were busy rounding up Jews before the Nazis asked them to. The French fight against the nazis didn't last as long as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The Warsaw Ghetto was where the Nazis put the Polish Jews. How did they know who was Jewish? Mostly from collaborators.

MOstly from collaborators was how the the Nazis knew who was Jewish. What the Nazis did was give the other Christians the freedom to slaughter Jews.

You say the German Nazis were not Christians. They were not Hindus. This is an old and tired argument. Very old, very tired.

In Germany, they found out who was Jewish through baptismal records. Persons who never practiced Judaism, who knew less about it than you do were rounded up and slaughtered. Why? They had a Jewish grandparent, i.e., a grandparent who wasn't baptized.

You want to say they didn't practice Christianity so they weren't Christians!!! Well, then how did nonpracticing Jews get to be Jews.

Hard to follow.

As for the rest, the Italian Catholics who arrested PRimo Levi, the Polish Catholic Collaborators, Russian ORthodox, Hungarian Catholic, etc., etc., they were what they were.

There is no way out of it. It's that simple. Many Germans have come a long, long way since those horrible days. Much less so the other nationals I mention.

Of course, the Hungarians, Poles, Ukrainians, etc. were next on Hitler's list, but that didn't trouble them, and Hitler killed tens of millions of them.

Here is the thing I wish for you, Soja. Know the truth. THE TRUTH. Don't turn the cheeks of others. I, of course, am not a Christian. But those I know, whom I respect, do not flinch at what occurred or at contemporary antisemitism.

It does you no good, not to know, to deny. It is what has and will continue to prevent reconciliation and understanding.

There is something in you that wants to know. Don't push it away, I urge you. It cannot help you to do so.

May G-d bless and keep you.

Hannah

Hannah, just in case you should misunderstand me, I do NOT condone killing of any kind (even the logic of abortion is impossible for me to accept although I do agree it is justifiable to prevent the mother from putting her health and life at risk when non-trained non-medical persons perform the procedure). Genocide is genocide no matter who does it. We know about genocide of Australian and American Natives, genocide in the Soviet Union... to name only a few. The Nazi nightmare is unique in many ways of course and it remains a horror to contemplate. But it is not fair to hold Germans who have had no part in it responsible now and keep alive a past, a past they have apologized for in more ways than one. It is possible for me to love the Jews and Germans in a special way for different reasons.

I hope Hannah that I can finally take your leave without leaving anything unclear.

Jaxas:

Only the poor, oppressed and willfully ignorant put upon Hebrew slaves were innocent--except in their capacity to use their brains for something other than the expression of their own fears.
----------------------------

But you forget. Moses was only a stand-in, a type, for the far greater one to come: Jesus Christ, the Man-God himself.

That's how us Hebes got doomed forever, whether we fear or not. You need to study your DeMille and NT.
----------------------------

Akiva
Check me out. Google should do it.

Hannah, how silly of me not to mention that the most important book I read everyday, the Bible (both OT and NT), was written by Jews!

It is alleged that many German Nazis secretly practiced a form of neo-paganism as their religion. The Nazi regime was a German ethno-centric political ideology masterminded by a sick and evil man of Austrian descent. So it is not fair to equate it with the religion of Christianity, especially since the first country Nazis invaded was Poland with 95% Catholics. All European countries invaded by Nazis were Christian too. Not only Jews, but also Germans who opposed the regime (and there were quite a number of them, the SPD party was one of them), homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped... The Nazi nightmare should not be defined as a religious one.

We should let the Germans rest in peace about their Nazi past. I think they have done much to make amends and do not live in denial of the past. Yes, I feel a special love for the Germans because I know them. See, I do love those I know!

CCNL, My Child,

I know that you have been patiently waiting for all blogging to cease so that you can post your list, highly abbreviated, I trust.

The Kid and I are wasted, so we won't give you any trouble. Can't account for the rest, the living, or dead, but from us you'll hear no more this morning.

Eternally,

Yahweh CTS

Hannah

Briefly and finally to your post addressed to me
:

I'm more than fascinated with the Jews. I was deeply impressed with the only book I have read by a Jewish theologian, Pinchas Lapide. I would gladly sit at the feet of holy Jewish Rabbis in Israel and learn about Judaism from their perspective. I mean this with all my heart. Jesus lived the life of a Jew and taught in the Jewish temple and in synagogues.

That should answer your question about how I feel about Jews and Judaism.

I have not read much and my interest in the theories of religion is not that intense that I would take the time to read every book that is mentioned. I'm a long way even from practicing what I do know, hence the desire to read more is very low!

Soja John:

No, I have nothing against you or your people whoever they may be. But I cannot love a people I do not know except in intent. I hope you can accept that.

Again, I do not understand you. I cannot imagine a single Jew having asked that you "love" us as a people. Nor can I understand what you mean by "intent." Is there a "Jewish intent"?

If you know it, you do owe it to us to enlighten us. ONe does hear a lot these days about "Jewish intent," "Jewish interests."

Yet due to Christian intent, there are so few of us to intend.

Do return and enlighten us.

Good night, and G-d bless you.
Hannah

Hannah

Since I'm not God I don't really apologize for not knowing everyone, and am content to know only who have crossed the path of my life of less than fifty years living in three continents. I can say in all honesty that I do not hate people because they are different in terms of the number of pigment cells they have in their skin, the name by which they choose to call the only God there is, the food they eat, the clothes they wear or the language they speak. In fact for eight years I attended a national syllabus-school in India which consciously taught us about unity in diversity.

As to Jews, my ethnic origin puts me in a special relationship with them. In Kerala, India, there was a Jewish community long before the birth of Christ, Jews who came along the route of spice trade (especially pepper). Not a single Jew in Kerala was persecuted at any time.

For religious reasons, I feel a special affinity for the Jews. I am completely at a loss to understand the logic behind anti-Semitism for I feel deeply grateful to Jews as a people for giving me Jesus and my religion. Apostle Thomas who brought Christianity to my Hindu ancestors was a Jewish Christian.

No, I have nothing against you or your people whoever they may be. But I cannot love a people I do not know except in intent. I hope you can accept that.

Now I really must be gone. Wishing you and others on this blog much meaningful dialogue!

Hello, Soja John,

I cannot wait much longer for a reply to you, so I will say this. I don't like to use the word antisemitism for Barnhoeffer and should not have.
He was a supersessionist, conversionist, etc., needing for us to keep "the question of Christ open." He never accepted us for who we are.

But his fellow Lutherans and Catholics killed him anyway. They surely did. They killed a lot of people, including their own. They've been at it for a long time.

If there is a point to your inquiries, let me know. Let me know too about why, instead of being defensive, you don't consider me, who I am, who I was. Who Jews are, what Judaism is.

I have answered you as best I can. Now, perhaps you will answer me.

Have you read Primo Levi? Paul Celan? Miklos Radnotti? Me? Elie Wiesel? Do you know who Jan Korszak was? Have you read Martin Luther, "The Jews and Their Lies"?

Do you know who Farnaz is? She just posted on this thread. Do you know what Judaism is? Are you interested? Do you think we "believe in Yahweh"?

Are you at all interested in us and our self-understanding? If you are, that would be very good for me to hear.

Hannah

Hello, Soja John

Strange human logic indeed! Is it because he was a German or because he was a Christian who tried to convert even Jews to Christianity because of his religious fervor as a Christian theologian?

Quite literally, I don't know what you are talking about.

Are you asking me why I say he was antisemitic? Are you, then, not aware? If this is what you are asking, please say so, and I will explain.

Hannah

One of the safest and most comforting bigotries man has left to him is the prejudice against those who do not believe in the existence of God. Yet, when I ponder this question it occurs to me that the existence of a Superbeing who created all of the starstuff and all of the infinitely complex beings and elements that make up the known Cosmos, seems to be the most preposterous answer. The rational mind should be asking: What would be the nature and history of such a Being? Does this Being have a gender? We reflexively refer to it as "He". And why--given the infinitely complex differentiation of all other elements and beings in the universe, would there only be one? And above all, what would be the purpose of creating anything at all if this Being already predated all that is created. Where did "He" live and what did "He" do prior to all of this creation?

To my way of thinking, atheism is simply the most rational reaction to such a question. I am reminded of a line from the Cecil B. DeMille epic, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, wherein the Pharoah explained to Moses and his own Ministers that the priests and prophets had made these Gods out of their own fear and ignorance as he blared: "These things were ordered by themselves, and not by any God!" Yet, he was the villain in the story and Moses and the priests imploring the Pharoah were the villains. As it turns out, both men and Gods were villains. Only the poor, oppressed and willfully ignorant put upon Hebrew slaves were innocent--except in their capacity to use their brains for something other than the expression of their own fears.

Hello, Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia:

Here is a poem by a fellow Christian, of sorts. If you don't know about Babi Yar, you can google it. Ukrainian Catholics, Russian Orthodox, German Lutherans/Orthodox. Skip Wikepedia and go to a more credible source.

I guess you don't want to read stuff by us, learn who we are. Almost no Christians/Catholics do. It's part of the Christian condition--blindness, deafness, I guess. Bur Yevtushenko rose above it for awhile. He is not alone, Barnhoeffer notwithstanding.

Btw., I have no problem with Christians turning the other cheek although I've never seen a single one do it. Rather, they seem to think they can do/say whatever they'd like, and that those to whom they say and do should turn their cheeks. The logic escapes me, but then I'm not a Christian.

Other reading matter? Martin Luther, The Jews and Their Lies.

-------------------
BABI YAR

By Yevgeni Yevtushenko
Translated by Benjamin Okopnik, 10/96

No monument stands over Babi Yar.
A steep cliff only, like the rudest headstone.
I am afraid.
Today, I am as old
As the entire Jewish race itself.

I see myself an ancient Israelite.
I wander o'er the roads of ancient Egypt
And here, upon the cross, I perish, tortured
And even now, I bear the marks of nails.

It seems to me that Dreyfus is myself. *1*
The Philistines betrayed me - and now judge.
I'm in a cage. Surrounded and trapped,
I'm persecuted, spat on, slandered, and
The dainty dollies in their Brussels frills
Squeal, as they stab umbrellas at my face.

I see myself a boy in Belostok *2*
Blood spills, and runs upon the floors,
The chiefs of bar and pub rage unimpeded
And reek of vodka and of onion, half and half.

I'm thrown back by a boot, I have no strength left,
In vain I beg the rabble of pogrom,
To jeers of "Kill the Jews, and save our Russia!"
My mother's being beaten by a clerk.

O, Russia of my heart, I know that you
Are international, by inner nature.
But often those whose hands are steeped in filth
Abused your purest name, in name of hatred.

I know the kindness of my native land.
How vile, that without the slightest quiver
The antisemites have proclaimed themselves
The "Union of the Russian People!"

It seems to me that I am Anna Frank,
Transparent, as the thinnest branch in April,
And I'm in love, and have no need of phrases,
But only that we gaze into each other's eyes.
How little one can see, or even sense!
Leaves are forbidden, so is sky,
But much is still allowed - very gently
In darkened rooms each other to embrace.

-"They come!"

-"No, fear not - those are sounds
Of spring itself. She's coming soon.
Quickly, your lips!"

-"They break the door!"

-"No, river ice is breaking..."

Wild grasses rustle over Babi Yar,
The trees look sternly, as if passing judgement.
Here, silently, all screams, and, hat in hand,
I feel my hair changing shade to gray.

And I myself, like one long soundless scream
Above the thousands of thousands interred,
I'm every old man executed here,
As I am every child murdered here.

No fiber of my body will forget this.
May "Internationale" thunder and ring *3*
When, for all time, is buried and forgotten
The last of antisemites on this earth.

There is no Jewish blood that's blood of mine,
But, hated with a passion that's corrosive
Am I by antisemites like a Jew.
And that is why I call myself a Russian!

Peace.

Hannah

Hannah Szenes, you wrote:

Yes, I have read him, his biographies, the most recent revelations about him. I never lost hope for humans, but was intrigued by Barnhoeffer, that is, until, I learned he was an antisemite. And that famous quote attributed to him should have been attributed to his wife, whose words they were.

The "survivors" who lived long enough to find out were disappointed, but I wasn't. When you're dead, you don't get disappointed."

Even a German Christian who is hanged for opposing the very Nazi regime which killed Jews is accused of being an anti-Semite. Strange human logic indeed! Is it because he was a German or because he was a Christian who tried to convert even Jews to Christianity because of his religious fervor as a Christian theologian?

Must say goodbye now.

Yahweh cream two sugars;

Yeah thanks Yahweh. Powerful stuff. I'll spend a little more time with them later, and get back to you...but thanks again.
Got a few things to do first...

Pam
Your posts are a treat to read and arrive in the brain like fresh mountain air.
You are one smart cookie and I hope you keep commenting on this blog. The world needs all the sense it can get. Your kind of sense. And being able to see straight without delusions of the mind to interfere with your clear perception of things.

Way to go.

Hello, Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia:

Yes, I have read him, his biographies, the most recent revelations about him. I never lost hope for humans, but was intrigued by Barnhoeffer, that is, until, I learned he was an antisemite. And that famous quote attributed to him should have been attributed to his wife, whose words they were.

The "survivors" who lived long enough to find out were disappointed, but I wasn't. When you're dead, you don't get disappointed.

Have you read my poetry? Or Miklos Radnotti's? Or the magnificent Paul Celan's? Dan Pagis?
Have you read Primo Levi?

Hannah

Hannah Szenes

Have you read about Dietrich Bonhoeffer? He was a German Christian. The Nazis hanged him. He was only thirty nine years old.

Hello Yoyo,

What did you think of all the poems that were posted for you?

Y Guy

Pam;

I've really enjoyed your posts here today. Great sense plainly written.
Why don't they get it? Is it so difficult for the religious to even imagine for a moment that maybe there are no gods? Even for arguments sake?

Is the indoctrination process, and the whole religious groupthink thing so final that once infected - one can no longer even consider for a second that maybe the atheists have it right, and God is just made-up?

You would think that believers would at least be a teeny weeny bit skeptical about believing things that make no sense - that defy credibility.
Why such total acceptance? Why such unquestioning acceptance?

As an atheist I simply don't understand this. I think some of us are too curious and too questioning to settle for supernatural magic as an answer to the Big questions.

It's the opposite of an Einsteinian answer; it's a child's answer.

Yo, Christians/Catholics, Whatever

Keep me outa your comments. Don't want to hear about them later.

I don't know how the Y Guy stands reading this thread. Gotta tell you, I'm not up for it. Haven't been up for you for a couple of thousand years. I am seriously outahere.

J. Christ MOS

I was twenty-three when they executed me by firing squad. I had parachuted in to German Christian occupied territory, parachuted in as a partisan.

Eli, Eli ("My God, My God")

My God, My God, I pray that these things never end,
The sand and the sea,
The rustle of the waters,
Lightning of the Heavens,
The prayer of Man.
אלי, אלי, שלא יגמר לעולם
החול והים
רישרוש של המים
ברק השמים
תפילת האדם
The voice called, and I went.
------------------------------------
Blessed is the match consumed in kindling flame.
Blessed is the flame that burns in the secret fastness of the heart.
Blessed is the heart with strength to stop its beating for honor's sake.
Blessed is the match consumed in kindling flame.
-------------------------------------

One - two - three... eight feet long
Two strides across, the rest is dark...
Life is a fleeting question mark
One - two - three... maybe another week.
Or the next month may still find me here,
But death, I feel is very near.
I could have been 23 next July
I gambled on what mattered most, the dice were cast. I lost.

Lines scribbled the evening before they killed me.
------------------------------------

I wonder that all you Christians/Catholics etc., former or present, can't hear us, whether living or dead.

Don't worry about turning the other cheek. Worry about being blind and deaf without braille or hearing aids.

PAM you are the kind of anti-theist who provides real entertainment to serious believers who know what they believe and why.

Said PAM: "It just amazes me that you believers can think that there's an all-powerful and *loving* and *merciful* being out there who yet tortures the completely innocent. How on earth do you reconcile those things in your mind?? It sometimes makes me think that all of you fit the clinical definiton of insanity."

June 13, 2008 1:24 AM

It proves PAM is not a clinician. How terrible it would be for the medical profession if she was!

Jihadist:
"From my reading of what some atheists said when they were believers, they prayed hard to God, but God did not give them what they prayed for. Oh, selfish, cruel, unloving, unresponsive God and unworthy of worship and worthy of opposition in any and every way possible!"

Sorry, Jihadist, but you don't understand any better than Paul C. does. It's like talking to cement, sometimes.

Just answer the one question - How do you justify the suffering of animals that is not at the hands of humans?

For the record, I was never actually a believer. Oh, I got dragged to church, like most children, and my mother and other relatives did their level best to indoctrinate me. I went through the motions as long as I had to, but it just never "took" with me. I can't put a date on my disbelief - there was just never any real belief - it never made sense to me at all.

I was early on an animal lover and interested in science, particularly biology. It was a natural progression.

Religion does fascinate me - like watching a particularly horrible science experiment - and I have read much about it, including the Bible and some of the Qur'an, but not one of its manifestations has ever tempted me to become an adherent.

Someone, possibly in this forum, once said something to the effect that to someone on the outside, any religion seems crazy. Well, I'm on the outside of all of them, and I'm here to tell you that truer words were never spoken (writ?)

So, sorry, Jihadist, but my disbelief isn't rooted in some childish frustration in not getting what I wanted out of God. Just in noticing that such a being was utterly nonsensical.

For Yoyo, Horace Silver, and Charles Templeton:

I can't sleep due to this infernal coffee habit, so I thought I'd post this for you. It's better in the Italian, of course, and though a good poet, Primo was a prose writer, first. Survival in Auschwitz (If This Is a Man) is a masterpiece. Shema is a kind tribute and shows P's desperate wishes for humans.

Speaking about nationality, all joking aside,
I always wonder how serious Miklos is about being posthumously Hungarian, whether Primo has given becoming Italian real post-mortem thought. I should make a note of discussing the matter with them.

Shema


You who live secure
In your warm houses
Who return at evening to find
Hot food and friendly faces:

Consider whether this is a man,
Who labours in the mud
Who knows no peace
Who fights for a crust of bread
Who dies at a yes or a no.
Consider whether this is a woman,
Without hair or name
With no more strength to remember
Eyes empty and womb cold
As a frog in winter.

Consider that this has been:
I commend these words to you.
Engrave them on your hearts
When you are in your house, when you walk on your way,
When you go to bed, when you rise.
Repeat them to your children.
Or may your house crumble,
Disease render you powerless,
Your offspring avert their faces from you.

-Primo Levi

Pam and Bruno are right about the vermin. Got lice, etc., like the rest of the subhumans. Vermin infected with vermin, Camp-wise. Not as important as animals, but anyhoo.... Yahweh C/Ts packed it in, so I guess I will, too.

Posthumously,

Gert

Paul C. wrote:
"So you think everything in life should be roses and that there should be nothing negative. Well that would be heaven. Here on earth we are tested, both with the good and the bad. That's the nature of life. And why would an omnipotent, loving God permit evil? Because he allows free will and he challenges us in all kinds of ways to be the best that we can be. Sometimes those challenges involved pain and suffering. People rise above those challenges and inspire other people. Suffering can drive compassion in others and make them better people. "

Gee, way to completely miss the point, Paul! On purpose, maybe? Is it the "free will" of the animals that causes them to suffer? Why should *they* be made to suffer at *all*, with no hope of a waiting eternal reward (to your way of thinking)? Should the reindeer that has bot fly larvae hatching and burrowing painfully into the inside of his nose "rise above the challenge"?? Should he "inspire" the other deer?

If you can fall on bended knee and worship and praise someone who has the kind of mind that can dream up such exquisite tortures for the most innocent of his creations, then, Paul, you're sicker than your god.

Please don't think that I'm "angry" with God - the usual ridiculous religious response to such questions from me. I can't be angry with what doesn't exist.

I understand exactly why parasites are here, and why suffering exists - it's all perfectly natural and unavoidable. It fits perfectly in a world where all life evolves with no ultimate purpose other than to pass on its genes. It just amazes me that you believers can think that there's an all-powerful and *loving* and *merciful* being out there who yet tortures the completely innocent. How on earth do you reconcile those things in your mind?? It sometimes makes me think that all of you fit the clinical definiton of insanity.

Miklos, Jean:

Bruno and I are about to pack it in, or he is, at any rate. This damned caffeine always keeps me up at night. At any rate, Jean, don't cry for Miklos. I've cried enough for him and for you and for all the humans. And, after all, Miklos is BECOME A HUNGARIAN.

Check you out tomorrow.

Y Guy

Long time, no see, Miklos! Since you're hanging with Primo, I was wondering if you could put in a word for me. I know he got pissed off about some stupid things I said, which I still don't think were so stupid, but maybe they were.

The things he said to me weren't exactly kind. Also, he never was tortured as I was, and let me tell you that does make a difference. You know my essay, "Torture," (titles were never my strong suit) has been widely anthologized, but people have a hard time reading it. Whatever. I do have my admirers, and, of course, Primo has many more, I among them. I always rather liked Primo's oevre. You could remind him that I, too, was a resistance fighter. That's how they got me, and they tortured me to get information. I got demoted when they found out I was a Jew, in their sense.

Don't know if it would make a difference to Primo, but in case he doesn't know, you could mention that I met the Master aus Deutschland, the Black Forest Philosopher, der Heidegger, itself. Never told anybody about the talk we had, and as far as I know, only Yahweh, Cream/Two Sugars, knows anything about it.

The other thing is that like Primo, Paul, et al, I, of course was a suicide.

Miklos, sometimes, I cry for you still. They made you die at thirty-six. But I'm glad YOU ARE BECOME A HUNGARIAN, what with getting the Nobel Prize, way posthumously.

Anyway, I hope to get with you soon. Tell Primo, I'm sorry.

Posthumously,

Jean Amery

Gerry, I was the Anonymous.

Gerry, you wrote:

"There is an additional aspect in the right cheek slap example: (From Google, but I was told this interpretation years ago by a prominent Jewish researcher on Christianity):

At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite (left!) cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."

Thanks for your response Gerry, I found the interpretation of turning the other cheek interesting. It is a pity I can't find the author of that interpretation since Google doesn't yet have the facility to copy-paste such a lengthy passage and demand that it produce the name of the author. Maybe you'd like to share the name?

I found very meaningful Jewish cultural background interpretation to some of the words of Jesus in Pinchas Lapide's book, Ér predigte in ihren Synagoguen. As a Christian I do not agree with all of his ideas "of course." What you mentioned in relation to "turning the other cheek" seems to reflect the same kind of interpretation and makes a lot of sense. After all turning the other cheek in a masochistic way only gives more power to the abuser and encourages evil. Passive resistance as Gandhi taught is the ideal way. Gandhi was of the opinion that turning the other cheek by anyone who does not have the courage or means to break the jaws of the offender is meaningless and could be interpreted as cowardice. Enduring evil when one cannot successfully overcome it, is different from condoning evil because one does not have the courage to oppose it.

Thanks also for responding to the comments made by Jihadist in her post to me. I was happy to note that as an atheist *you* could bring yourself to agree at least with some thoughts put forward by a religionist. Jihadist is not an average Malaysian Muslim though because of her Dutch-Jew-Christian background on her mother's side and an Indonesian Muslim origin on her father's side.

And to your comment about the relationship between culture and religon: religions create cultures just as much as cultures influence religions.

Hey Bruno,

Thanks for the mention. You'll never guess. Got awarded the Nobel Prize and suddenly I AM BECOME A HUNGARIAN? Isn't it a gas?! (No pun intended.)

You know the hilarious part of it all is that like good old Primo (he says hi, btw), I never identified as a Jew, but always as a Hungarian. Even converted to Catholicism although I wasn't exactly what you would call "religiously minded." Well the Hungarians weren't buying it as you know. Atheist, Catholic, whatever, said the Hungo-Catholics, you're a Jew.

I guess none of this nation stuff never mattered two lice to you, but it still means something to Primo, so since you're hanging with the Y Guy (Cream, Two Sugars), could you ask him if Primo could get a Nobel Prize so's he could become Italian?

Speaking of whatever, you'll never guess whom I ran into, posthumously. You got it! Jan K.! He was sort of Polish for awhile, wasn't he? A major in the army, silver cross, etc. Oh, well. As the Y Guy says, "Sht happens."

Nobody told doctor, writer, soldier Jan to go hang with the doomed orphans anyhoo.

Found this, Bruno. Waddyathink? I'm heading up your way, and I'd like to talk about it with Yahweh (Cream, Two Sugars), so could you ask him to peruse it?

The Ghetto Prayer by Janusz Korczak.

Our Father who art in heaven. . .
This prayer was carved out of hunger and misery.
Our daily bread.
Bread.

Say hi to Y for me!

Postumously yours,

Miklos Radnotti

Gerry, you wrote:

"There is an additional aspect in the right cheek slap example: (From Google, but I was told this interpretation years ago by a prominent Jewish researcher on Christianity):

At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite (left!) cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."

Thanks for your response Gerry, I found the interpretation of turning the other cheek interesting. It is a pity I can't find the author of that interpretation since Google doesn't yet have the facility to copy-paste such a lengthy passage and demand that it produce the name of the author. Maybe you'd like to share the name?

I found very meaningful Jewish cultural background interpretation to some of the words of Jesus in Pinchas Lapide's book, Ér predigte in ihren Synagoguen. As a Christian I do not agree with all of his ideas "of course." What you mentioned in relation to "turning the other cheek" seems to reflect the same kind of interpretation and makes a lot of sense. After all turning the other cheek in a masochistic way only gives more power to the abuser and encourages evil. Passive resistance as Gandhi taught is the idea

Soja - I don't know that you're having trouble following MY train of thought, but it seems you're having trouble following your own train of thought. Just my opinion, based on your recent posts to me.

I was the Anonymous who Baaahed two posts ago.

Hi Jihadist!

Thanks for your sharing your insightful thoughts, which I admire as always. It is quite amazing that you got a hard-core atheist like Gerry to agree on all points.

My personal impression is that your multi-faith background gives you a real advantage when discussing religious matters. As a practicing Muslim who is open to the good in all religions, and not blind to the limitations in your own (at least as it is practiced by some), with a clear action plan to deal with the failings, you make an ideal candidate to lead interfaith dialogues in Malaysia, also in dialogues of Muslims from Malaysia with the Vatican.

Best wishes
Soja

Anonymous wrote:

"Face it. The religionists on this blog don't care about reason. They don't care about evidence. They think Francis Bacon is next to Jimmy Dean Sausage in the freezer section of the supermarket. They don't care whether something is true or false in any objective way whatsoever. They only care about how belief makes them feel. That's it, end of story. How they feel. They want to feel taken care of. They want to feel powerful. Christian, Jew, Pagan, Muslim. Every religionist poster. Every religionist post. No logic. No reason. No objective standards of any kind. No respect for truth. No interest in truth. It's clear as a bell. Read the posts. Any post. Childish, petulant, selfish. Life is real. Life is true. Religionists piss it all away. Shame. Athiests, scientists, sceptics, you're all wasting your breath. Bah."

June 12, 2008 5:26 PM

Believers have heard about the objective standards used by atheists for arriving at morality and how passionately they go about preach atheist morality to others with the intention of improving the human society. (Morality is something that religions teach as an essential part of their faith tradition by the way.) Baaaah.

For Pam,Jihadist, and Paul C

I would not defend the goodness of other people's suffering for them. But I would feel entitled to talk about my own suffering. It is hard for me to say that I would go through it all again because it made me a better person. But I must admit, that through suffereing, I understand life better.

I think that Pam was merely stating that she does not believe in God, because of all the suffering in the world. But she was not saying that by her disbelief, that she knew how to cure the suffering of the world. Whenever someone says that they do not believe in God, they are not challenging God that they could do better; how can they be challenging God, since they do not believe in God? Religious people do not seem to be able to get their head's around this, what not believing in God means. And atheists are not challenging the physical existence of the world, and have no plan to change the nature of physical existence, to dispel suffering from life. They just do not believe in God.

Some religious people try to put a spin on things to justify suffering, and even to defend it. I think that this minimizes the suffering of people, especially when it is other people you are talking about, and not yourself. Anyone can say that their own suffering has been good for them, but who would dare to say such a thing about others? Let each speak for himself.

I can accept it, but I cannot put a good spin on it. To me, it remains a mystery.

Hi E Favourite!

You wrote, "I’m lost and personally, I think you are too. I’m having trouble following this conversation."

I cannot speak for you, and I definitely would not recommend that you speak for me because *I* am not feeling lost or unable to follow your train of thought. The conversation you initiated is something I have had with atheists on this very forum (the only place in which I engage in such a discussion)times without number. So I hope you understand why I do not particularly look forward to having another round of exactly the *same* discussion, especially since all previous discussions are available on this forum for everyone to read.

Pam- you see suffering and reject God (end of story).

But where you see anatomy and physiology and say "that's it"- I see kinesiology and a world of potential and purpose.

Its true we are tested here on earth. But with faith and hope suffering is overcome by the human soul.

Please watch-

Clay Dyer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgYX_NaFv7Q

Horace Silver, Templeton Admirer,

What do you think of Paul Celan's poem, Pagis's?
Celan, like Levi, was a suicide.

Met Yahweh L. (cream, two sugars) awhile back on Croccodile Street before I was murdered. Anyway, a half hour ago, over a cuppa, he suggested we read this thread:

Here is part of a comment from Pam:

But what really seals the deal for me are the parasites that torture animals - fleas, lice, intestinal and heart worms, bot fly larvae, screw worms - sometimes causing such agony that animals cause their own deaths. The religious may tell you that original sin (or your own) caused human torment as retribution, but what did the animals do to deserve this?

As a subhuman whose sin originated with the Christians, I was certainly eligible for lice, but never made it to the camps. Gunned down by a Nazi competitor of my Nazi protector who liked my drawings. BUT SPEAKING OF ANIMALS INFECTED BY PARASITES, what about Primo Levi, Eli Wiesel, Olga Lengyel, Miklos Radnotti, Paul Celan, Jean Amery, Simon Wiesenthal, Sara Nomberg-Prztyk, Gertrude Kolmar ET AL.

All those vermin infected by vermin. What would Pam say? Creeps out the Y Guy. Amazed he's limited himself to coffee. Lesser Gods might have taken to drink.

Bruno

Hmmm, the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist calls herself a practicing Malaysian Muslim and sits in judgement of all that criticize her great Allah. But is she really a talking as a Muslim or one ready to give up these childish notions?

To wit:

1. She is no longer superstitious therefore she no longer believes in pretty/ugly, gay?, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies. i.e. a core tenet of Islam forming the support structure of the foundation of Islam has now been extracted from the Jihadist' neurons.

2. She previously noted "By the way, all organised and institutionalised religion is human and humanity based with flaws and all, just like humans are." And yesterday reiterated this belief. So Islam is no longer an organized and institutionalized religion in The Jihadist's mind.

3. She does not support Islamic theocracies. Wow, that is so "anti-koranic"!! Way to go Jihadist.

4. Her interest in the "fems" of all contemporary religions continues to grow every day and the Realm of Reality started by the likes of the historic Jesus exegetes is enveloping The Jihadist's rationale as her commentary is becoming more like said exegetes.

Conclusion: The Jihadist is prepping a book in the style of Ali Hirsi's Infidel!!!! Wow!!!!!

Another victory for "Crossanization" i.e. gather the facts, review said facts, compare to current theology, and reveal your results.

And considering the topic, The Jihadist is so much healthier now by taking said steps to rid her brain and body of all those "cultish" ways and years of "imamic" mumbo jumbo and myth.

Paul C - you say to pam :"So you think everything in life should be roses and that there should be nothing negative."

But that's not what she said at all. She described horrible painful diseases that people suffer - and you that this is a way that God challenges and inspires us? I wouldn't bother asking pam what kind of God she wants. She doesn't want a God. You do.

Jihadist - Pam was just describing a situation, not suggesting a solution related to lack of belief in deities. Your solutions of electricity and running water sound fine and have nothing to do with God or atheism - just providing needed human and technological assistance.

Paul C : "What would your ideal God be like? Would he give you everything you want? Would you want a God that serves you? How would that make you a better person? People grow and prosper when they are challenged."

From my reading of what some atheists said when they were believers, they prayed hard to God, but God did not give them what they prayed for. Oh, selfish, cruel, unloving, unresponsive God and unworthy of worship and worthy of opposition in any and every way possible!

Oh, wait, God is non-existent. How to oppose It then? By not praying and believing in It is one method of opposition I take it.

Cheers and out of here

"J"

Soja, It seems like you’re changing the subject again, from atheists who try to convince believers that “it takes an Einstein IQ to be an atheist” to it was just “hyperbole,” then to a survey that “supposedly concludes rate of atheism and IQ is directly proportional” and now “I do not consider it necessary or useful to go through thousands of posts to pick up all the comments to prove my point that believers have generally been looked down upon by most anti-theists participating in this forum.”

I’m lost and personally, I think you are too. I’m having trouble following this conversation. Maybe we’ll do better again sometime on another tupic.

Pam:
So you think everything in life should be roses and that there should be nothing negative. Well that would be heaven. Here on earth we are tested, both with the good and the bad. That's the nature of life. And why would an omnipotent, loving God permit evil? Because he allows free will and he challenges us in all kinds of ways to be the best that we can be. Sometimes those challenges involved pain and suffering. People rise above those challenges and inspire other people. Suffering can drive compassion in others and make them better people.

What would your ideal God be like? Would he give you everything you want? Would you want a God that serves you? How would that make you a better person? People grow and prosper when they are challenged.

Pam : "People in Africa go, perforce, to the river for water to drink and bathe in, and larvae enter their bodies from the water and migrate to their eyes, where they cause blindness. Happens to many children every day. Some sweet guy, that God, to think of that one, eh?"

Er, we did not have really viable programmes to bring in running water and electricity and health to the poor. The IBRD and IMF are Satan then with all their conditionalities for loans on this. So thinks the effete and incompetent governments in developing countries responsible for the development programmes for their people that need IBRD loans to do so.

So as it is believers' who think God cause all those diseases because of our "sins", what do atheists propose for both humans and animals' health? Non-belief in God will suddenly make running water, electricity and health clinics pop up as the miracle of miracles?

"How can a loving, omnipotent God permit - much less create - encephalitis, cerebral palsy, brain cancer, leprosy, Alzheimer's, and other incurable illnesses to afflict millions of men, women and children, most of whom are decent people?"

That ain't the half of it, Horace. What about river blindness? People in Africa go, perforce, to the river for water to drink and bathe in, and larvae enter their bodies from the water and migrate to their eyes, where they cause blindness. Happens to many children every day. Some sweet guy, that God, to think of that one, eh?

But what really seals the deal for me are the parasites that torture animals - fleas, lice, intestinal and heart worms, bot fly larvae, screw worms - sometimes causing such agony that animals cause their own deaths. The religious may tell you that original sin (or your own) caused human torment as retribution, but what did the animals do to deserve this?

Of course I know that these parasites are merely other life-forms, trying, without intentional malice, to make their own way in the world, just as the spider eats the fly and I have steak for dinner; but if I thought for one moment that there was some creator who was the author of all this, I would set myself to oppose him in every way I possibly could. Worship him??? Not hardly.

Hello Anonymous,

Religionists are petulant, childish and selfish?:)

You : Face it. The religionists on this blog don't care about reason. They don't care about evidence. They think Francis Bacon is next to Jimmy Dean Sausage in the freezer section of the supermarket.

* I certainly can't tell Francis Bacon from Jimmy Dean. Don't eat pork. Not kosher/halal. So, should I care for your reason and comparision on that as evidence of non-reason?

You : They (us religionists of course) don't care whether something is true or false in any objective way whatsoever. They only care about how belief makes them feel.

* We can afford to have our own "truths" out in the markeplace as we have more adherents, more passion, more commitment, more power and more money.

* We can afford to have belief that makes us feel good mentally and physically.

* We can afford to see what is objective and what is not on any given opinion or fact. We can even afford to ignore facts without apparent detrimental effect in our daily lives, or our mental and physical health, including ignoring such things as evolution.

You : That's it, end of story. How they feel. They want to feel taken care of. They want to feel powerful. Christian, Jew, Pagan, Muslim.

* Perhaps for you, but not for believers who started the story and tending to it throughout history. We are taking care of our own beliefs, we have the power to do that, we go after power to do that and we have been at it longer.

You : Every religionist poster. Every religionist post. No logic. No reason. No objective standards of any kind. No respect for truth. No interest in truth.

* We are only interested in our "truth", so no reason to lose your cool, no reason to rage if your "truth" is rather badly packaged in the marketplace. As some atheists did say they don't have to "respect" beliefs and "truths" of religionists, what kind of "truth" do you want religionists to be interested in, to respect and to have objective standards of?

* The kind of very short pre-set statements and questions with multiple choice answers as : true, false, all of the above, none of the above?

You : It's clear as a bell. Read the posts. Any post. Childish, petulant, selfish. Life is real. Life is true.

* I can't speak for other believers, but I can afford to be petulant and childish and selfish in my interests on life that is real and there is all these trafficking in women and children, spousal and child abuse, child labour, natural disasters and humanitarian assistance.....

You : Religionists piss it all away. Shame. Athiests, scientists, sceptics, you're all wasting your breath. Bah.

* Yes, I know. We piss away lots of money, pray and meditate all pray all the time, think of the afterlife all the time, while atheists, scientists, sceptics are saving us all from ourself and the world and losing their breadth in doing so, in cleaning up the global mess us religionists cause on human's mental and physical health, and that of the world's global, economic and social systems too. Shame on us believers. We will all go to hell for all eternity.

The poor believer is to be assisted, even if their beliefs are different from yours, you don't respect their beliefs and find their beliefs beyond reason.

The insufferable, arrogant, petulant, childish, selfish rich believer? Go ahead. Knock your socks off and give me your best shots. Leave the poor, illiterate believers barely eking out a decent living, and faced with all sorts of natural and man-made disasters alone. There are at least two billion of them from Latin America to Africa to Asia.

Cheers

Yoyo,

Re: Pagis poem

Just as often the line "son of adam" is translated "son of man." The word/name "adam" equals "human." "Eve" equals "mother."

Josh

John Devner said, "Life ain't nothin' but a funny, funny riddle."

I hear many atheists say that life is "absurd." I remember reading that from Jean-Paul Sartre. But I would not use that word, necessarily. I would rather say, that life is a curiousity.

We know little. We appear in a landscape of experiences that seems seamless and complete, but we are deceived, for the world that we perceive is not seamless and complete, but rather, full of disconnections and holes.

It turns out that the things that we seek are few, and common to us all. We want enough food to eat, and a calm place to sleep; we want to make it through to the end of the day with calm and peaceful heart. We want freedom from servitude, and we want someone who cares about us, to help us when we need help. And we want the ones we love most to be safe, and happy. All the rest is "extra."

And common to us all, also, is suffereing. We cannot control what happens to us. We think we choose our paths, but the paths take us far afield from where we thought we were going. Few of us can even dream of where this journey will take us.

Yoyo,

Along with Todesfugue, this is probably the most widely read and remarked poem by a Jewish "survivor."

"written in pencil in the sealed boxcar"

here in this carload
I am eve
with abel my son
if you see my older boy
cain son of adam
tell him that I

-Dan Pagis

Josh

Yoyo writes:

In fact the horror confirmed his belief that there is no god; as it would any aware, sensitive individual who was also had eyes to see with, and a brain to think with.
He was a hero, and I admire him greatly.
-------------------

Thanks for your reply. I take it you've read "Survival in Auschwitz" ("If This Is a Man").
As for "The Drowned and the Saved," wait until you get to Letters from Germans.

Here are words that have given me pause, as Levi was far from alone with respect to how his life closed:

"Primo Levi died at Auschwitz forty years later."
-Elie Wiesel

Levi would have recoiled at the "hero" word. They all did, the survivors. They attributed their survival to luck, mere chance. Levi deplored much of his own behavior at Auschwitz (Survival). As for "belief," it is true that Levi did not resort to prayer, but he lost faith in humanity in which he had believed. His Holocaust writings, his writings on other themes show this, along with his efforts to regain his lost trust in progress.

What is strength? I cannot judge Primo Levi or or Paul Celan or Simon Wiesenthal or Olga Lengyel or any of them:
-------------------------
Paul Celan - Deathfugue (Todesfugue)

Black milk of daybreak we drink it at evening
we drink it at midday and morning we drink it at night
we drink and we drink
we shovel a grave in the air there you won't lie too cramped
A man lives in the house he plays with his vipers he writes
he writes when it grows dark to Deutschland your golden hair Margareta
he writes it and steps out of doors and the stars are all sparkling, he whistles his hounds to come close
he whistles his Jews into rows has them shovel a grave in the ground
he commands us to play up for the dance.

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at morning and midday we drink you at evening
we drink and we drink
A man lives in the house he plays with his vipers he writes
he writes when it grows dark to Deutschland your golden hair Margareta
Your ashen hair Shulamith we shovel a grave in the air there you won't lie too cramped

He shouts jab the earth deeper you lot there you others sing up and play
he grabs for the rod in his belt he swings it his eyes are so blue
jab your spades deeper you lot there you others play on for the dancing

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at midday and morning we drink you at evening
we drink and we drink
a man lives in the house your goldenes Haar Margareta
your aschenes Haar Shulamith he plays his vipers
He shouts play death more sweetly this Death is a master from Deutschland
he shouts scrape your strings darker you'll rise then as smoke to the sky
you'll have a grave then in the clouds there you won't lie too cramped

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at midday Death is a master aus Deutschland
we drink you at evening and morning we drink and we drink
this Death is ein Meister aus Deutschland his eye it is blue
he shoots you with shot made of lead shoots you level and true
a man lives in the house your goldenes Haar Margarete
he looses his hounds on us grants us a grave in the air
he plays with his vipers and daydreams der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland

dein goldenes Haar Margarete
dein aschenes Haar Shulamith

(Übersetzung von John Felstiner, in: Paul Celan - Poet, Survivor, Jew. New Haven 1995.)

CCNL:

RE: Your post to Horace Silver

I'd be interested in your thoughts on Horace Silver's quotation regarding my "Y guy" group, Y guy ne "Yahweh Levine," cream, two sugars (Observer12.
-------
How can a loving Heavenly father create an endless Hell and, over the centuries, consign millions of people to it because they do not or cannot or will not accept certain religious beliefs? And, having done so, how could he torment them 'for ever'?"

To Jed and Horace:
Jed, there are many kinds of prayer, but this blog seems to have focused on "prayers for health." I don't look at prayer that way, much, although grateful for good personal health and that my daughter has an incredibly positive attitude and good health. Why wouldn't God use the workings of prayer--positive outlook and attitude, belief that activates antibodies and seratonin and so forth (I'm not saying prayer had to be used to do that, but it's a consistent methodology), to encourage us to live towards having better health? And as those of us who pray do so, if we're reflective we could realize such pertinent things as "if I'm honest with myself, I ought to exercise and get enough sleep and not over-eat and eat a balanced diet and take prescribed medications if they have a proven track record (I fortunately don't have that as a personal need)" to honestly believe that God could help our health improve. In other words, health prayers (or meditation) would help (if the person is honest with themselves) the person doing the praying to realize that 99% of the health outcome will be due to personal behavior that is absolutely born out by science, not "God's will".

Horace,
Not to demean, but a simplistic analogy would be that if you have a child, do you lock them in their house so they won't get exposed to the dangers in the world? Do you let them grow, despite the pains associated with that growth--real pains and heartaches? Do you "rejoice" when they seem to have experienced selflessness, compassion, love, wisdom, creativity--perhaps some of it mixed with painful experiences? Would you delete all pain from their life?

My world view says there is no "endless torment", so I won't go there. (That was humankind's interpretation and a fear-based oppressive system of belief.) We can have enough of heaven or its opposite right here and now based on the world we make for ourselves and our outlook, IMO.

Peace, all. We can all anjoy this wondrous world, amidst our differences of opinion and experience.

Hello Gerry,

Thank you for your post. It made me think about my grandparents.

Faith is personal. Religion is part of cultural defination and and component of individual and group identification. People with no belief in any religion define themselves by gender, race, political affiliations or nationalities. As do believers of course, but sans the "I'm Buddhist" or "I'm Hindu" etc as an aspect of groupd identification at the state and global level.

You : "Religion, thus, is culture, as condensed into metaphorical beliefs in god(s) and corresponding rituals. Fine. I can live with this, as long as nobody misunderstands the metaphers as reality, or worse, tries to force any particular religion down my throat and judge my personal "value" accordingly."

* I agree with that, but only when your "values" are contrary to any decent values of any society.

You : "Where I really just walk away is when people think the content of their particular religion is the only, final, absolute truth, and all others (including non-religionists) therefore must be either liars or idiots."

* I agree with this too. But sometimes walking away gives the impression that they are right and have "won" the argument on their "one" and only "truth" and continue to wallow in that.

What people said about atheists, Catholics, Jews and Muslims do make be blink sometimes because of my fluke background and heritage.

I do regard some atheists' dismisiveness of religions in human thought, civilisations and cultures as ignoring facts and reality and what it means for us at the personal and group level - why we believe or don't. Why we have faith or don't.

Religion can be seperated from the public square in seperation of church and state, but faith and religion is personal and a matter of personal belief, varying belief or non-belief. The key word here is "personal" and one wonders why some are "surprised" when what they said about religion is taken "personally".

I don't sometimes take too kindly to some posters saying faith or belief is a delusion when my maternal grandmother has no delusions as to why members of her family and friends were sent to concentration camps by the Nazis. And how she found strength in her faith to survive against the odds; faith in the decency and humanity of people to see the injustices and inhumaness of what was done to her people.

My paternal grandfather has no delusions why his family land was taken by coercion by some colonialists in murdering members of his family to make their point and to get what they want. My paternal grandfather finds the resolve and will in his faith to fight against those who murdered members of his family as examples to stop resistance in them taking lands and exerting their illegal control and activities against people. In his resolve and fight for justness and against oppression and for independence, he died for it.

My parents are indifferent to religion, perhaps because their parents did not really share with them what they went through in the thirties, forties and fifties to spare them their sorrows of what they went through and to look forward, not back. But they did share with us, their grandchildren much on their experiences.

Freethinkers, agnostics would describe my parents. Proud of the arts and cultures of their respective worlds and soaked us with that but not on religions, and are as enthusiastic as believers in celebrating festivities related to the faiths of their parents.

Reading On Faith threads is interesting for me in seeing anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-atheists posts. I do take on some posts against religions and belief in deity/deities. Perhaps because my parents, in spite of their being taken aback that their children "got religion" in their teens (from asking our paternal grandmother on her faith and taking it from there on our own) while they don't "get religion", never takes us to task on our belief in God and in finding expressions of our faith in Islam.

We are good children to our parents and love them much, but we have other ideas on faith, belief and religion, and they let us pursue our own Right Path as we see fit for us. We chose to, want to honour, acknowledge and respect the heritage of our grandparents and what they went through as lessons and reminders to us of the human ability to degrade and capability to demean fellow humans for being different.

They should not die in vain because of their race or religion, because of what they believe in. They do not want anyone to go through what they went through regardless of their race and religion. They made that clear to us by their words and actions.

Best regards
"J"

Josh;

Yes, I'm on your side...sorry if I was vague in that regard. I'm currently reading Levi's book, and jumped at the chance to share some of it with others on this thread, in particular, you.

I'm a compassionate atheist who has no time for religious nonsense, and believe it does much more harm than good.