The Scarlet Letter For Politicians

CCNL,

A Wiki link ain't a qualification.

So, ancient Israel had a cultural context...

And?

Your thunder squeaks.

daniel12,
no doubt the washington area is a great place to live - except for the traffic. luckily, i work from home...and schedule my meeting around traffic. also, i'd like a bit more snow in the winters, but otherwise it's great.

"The corpus

The laws are formulated as case laws; they start with a condition, and a ruling follows, e.g. "If anyone tears off the ear of a male or female slave, he shall pay 3 shekels of silver". The laws show an aversion to the death penalty, the usual penalty for serious offenses being enslavement to forced labour. They are preserved on two separate tablets, each with approximately 200 clauses, the first categorised as being ‘of a man’; the second ‘of a vine’; a third set may have existed.

The laws may be categorised into eight groups of similar clauses. These are separated for the most part by two types of seemingly orphaned clauses: Sacral or incantatory clauses, and afterthoughts.

These eight main groups of laws were:

I Aggression and assault: Clauses 1 - 24

II Marital relationships: Clauses 26 - 38

III Obligations and service - TUKUL: Clauses 39 - 56

IV Assaults on property and theft: Clauses 57 - 144

V Contracts and prices: Clauses 145 - 161

VI Sacral matters: Clauses 162 - 173

VII Contracts and tariffs: Clauses 176 - 186

VIII Sexual relationships - HURKEL:
Clauses 187 - 200

The Hittite laws were kept in use for some 500 years, and many copies show that, other than changes in grammar, what might be called the 'original edition' with its apparent disorder, was copied slavishly; no attempt was made to 'tidy up' by placing even obvious afterthoughts in a more appropriate position.

Changes were apparently made to penalties at least twice: firstly, the kara – kinuna changes, which generally reduced the penalties found in a former, but apparently unpreserved, 'proto-edition'; and secondly, the ‘Late Period’ changes to penalties in the already-modified Old Hittite version."

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

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

To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document."

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

Daniel12, you write to Walter:

"For some peculiar reason no matter how much effort I put into writing I make errors a third grader would avoid."

Not so, Daniel12. I've seen "could care less" more times than I care to count in the writing of folks with excellent formal educations. Here is a notable quotable:

"I shall express myself as I am." James Joyce

"As I am," Dan12.

Onofrio:

You to ccnl1: "You have at times demanded that other posters refrain from discussion unless they have a PhD."

Say it ain't so, Onofrio. Say it ain't so.

Onofrio,

Thanks for the elegant reply. The thing is every day cannot be Thermopylae. This I have learned from experience. Sometimes, too, the powerful must be treated like children. One must suspend criticism for a while, and praise the good they attempt to do, even when their commendable efforts may not be all that one might want. I empathize with Reese; in the interest of my sanity and that of those close to me, I've been trying to try his(?) way for a while. Can't always manage it, though. :0

CCNL,

Hittite laws, eh? Tell us more.

You have at times demanded that other posters refrain from discussion unless they have a PhD.

So where did you undertake Anatolian studies? Adept at Hittite hieroglyphs, are you? And cuneiform? Akkadian? Hurrian? Luwian?

?

What do you really know of the lists you parrot?

So where did the NT scribes get their mythical Jesus "Christ"??

A punctuational tribute to ccnl1:???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ON Jesus, CCNL1's imaginary friend, see the following for an introduction, longer bib to follow. (For the occasion of this posting, see my comment below.)

Btw., on the 1.5 million, whom ccnl1 now qualifies with "many," he has no evidence and is again demonstrating his problems with "honesty," let us say, to be charitable; he is bearing false witness, but what is new. (Boring)

Barker, Dan, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist [Madison, Wisconsin: Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1992)

Doherty, Earl, The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? (Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999)

Edelen, William, Toward the Mystery (Boise, Idaho: Joslyn & Morris, Inc., no publication date)

Harpur, Tom. The Pagan Jesus

Parsons, Keith M., Why I Am Not A Christian [Atlanta, Georgia: Freethought Press, 2000]

Templeton, Charles, Farewell to God: My reasons for rejecting the Christian faith [Toronto, Ontario, Canada: McClelland & Stewart, Inc., 1996)

Wells, G.A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1988)

Wilson, Ian, Jesus: The Evidence [San Francisco, California: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1984)

Moderate:

FYI: Posted by: ccnl1 | July 8, 2009 5:34 AM

You need not respond, since it seems you don't want to know where I'm coming from--But, bibliography to follow.

Farnaz,

Thee, re Reese:
"He is where he is and wishes to support that which he can, without mentioning the less desirable things that might make some Vatican initiatives appear hypocritical. Does that make Reese a hypocrite? (I'm not being rhetorical.)"

No more hypocritical than any functionary within the monster machine that feeds and oppresses us all. Subtle compromises ever swing between prudence and hypocrisy. Betimes they cease to be subtle; betimes there's a tipping point, a moment for the taking of stands, a Thermopylae of the soul. Betimes even Proteus must fix his form.

Ain't no one clean...

To Walter in Falls Church--we can come to terms. I have no problem with what you wrote. And yes of course the bit with the word "only" was from Fleetwood Mac. Your Walter in Falls Church. I am Dan in Falls Church. If you were to state where you are I could walk there. I love Falls Church and I Read in the Wash. Post we (Northern Virginia and parts of Maryland on the other side of the beltway) are number one in the nation for job opportunities. I work a lot--would work seven days if given the chance, and do work seven days pretty often. In this economy I try to keep ahead of things. Keep up morale. Nice talking to you. And I think I should start saying "I could not care less" from now on. It does seem wise to communicate as most do--not be too eccentric. And it does make more sense to say "could not care less" than "could care less". For some peculiar reason no matter how much effort I put into writing I make errors a third grader would avoid. The endless strangeness of the human mind! Nice talking to you. See you on next thread.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"

Violated almost everyday on this blog?????

Then there is the issue of history:

Many to include 1.5 million contemporary Conservative Jews and their rabbis believe that Moses never existed.

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

http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=books&id=766

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_07.html

So where did the Jewish scribes who wrote Exodus get their laws/commandments??

Assyrian laws / Code of the Assura
Babylonian laws (see Code of Hammurabi)
Code of Hammurabi
Code of the Nesilim
Code of Urukagina
Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC)
Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).[1].
Cuneiform law
The Gentoo Code
Gortyn code
The Draconian constitution
Hittite laws
Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) [2].

(as listed in Wikipedia)

UNWRITTEN (PASSED ON ORALLY)

Thou shalt not act in a manner deemed scandalous in times when scandal mongering replaces journalism in the media.

Exodus 20

1And God spake all these words, saying,
2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Continued
12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

13Thou shalt not kill.

14Thou SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.

15Thou shalt not steal.

16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

18And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.

19And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

20And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

21And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

22And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

23Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.

24An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

25And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

Again, back to the topic:

Governor Sanford also apparently coveted his wife's riches (Skil Corporation)/(neighbor's goods) and thereby also violated the Tenth Commandment. Said "goods" allowed him to live the "rich and famous" life style with all the amendities of mistresses, yachts, country clubs, huge political funding and exclusive island beach homes i.e. Sanford is a low-life "Six, Nine and Ten". Time for the "millstone"!!!!!

"Perhaps it would be different if Thomas Baum were Pope."

Yes, indeed. :)

PS. I seem to find myself liking Reese although I know he's playing games. He is where he is and wishes to support that which he can, without mentioning the less desirable things that might make some Vatican initiatives appear hypocritical. Does that make Reese a hypocrite? (I'm not being rhetorical.)

He's been outspoken on many issues for which many Catholics have taken him to task. On the other hand, often when he supports the Vatican, nonCatholics have a go at him although this time, some members of his own flock have taken the offensive, too.

Farnaz,

Yes, I did.

As Fr Reese reports it, lots of exemplary ideals in Caritas in veritate. Melodious sounds...yet marred by the rustle of gorgeous stoles and by the mysterium tremendum of the Vatican Bank.

Perhaps it would be different if Thomas Baum were Pope.

Onofrio,

Tom Reese wrote a decent essay, as he often does. Have you read it?

Moderate,

"And then we get our drop-in whiner who contributes a moan. Dunno...."

Better than bigotry... Eh?
==============================
I would think so. Does this mean you plan to stop being a bigot? Could you wait it out and come back when the mission has been accomplished?
You did say you wouldn't be blogging here anymore....

"Theologically, questions could be raised that illuminate the DIFFERENCES among religions, etc."

Where is PaganPlace when we need her? She might point out that the People of the Book are fundamentally bigoted against others.

QQ

"And then we get our drop-in whiner who contributes a moan. Dunno...."

Better than bigotry... Eh?

Onofrio,

Thanks for the reply! Agreed on all counts. I have no doubt, moreover, that the faulty coverage of the Iran elections will either never be addressed at all or given a news mag treatment at some future date, thus again deluding us into believing that the truth does out in America.

As for OnFaith, it obediently followed the media vis a vis the elections, beginning with sloganeering, then deftly moving on to the urgent matters of the burqa, Michael Jacokson, and now, Sanford's Biblical pleading.

And then we get our drop-in whiner who contributes a moan. Dunno....

There are big ongoing questions that OnFaith could address and still be true to its...ahm..."mission." I, for one, would like to see a serious dialogue on "Faith-based Funding," tax exempt status for organized religions, etc, "separation of church and state." Theologically, questions could be raised that illuminate the DIFFERENCES among religions, etc.

Oh, well. Q

And yes, Michael Jackson is dead. It is all over the news. And after the third day, resurrection seems increasingly unlikely. This they call "news".

Onofria,

"Bless me! A sniffy gripe from Your Pomposity! I'm stunned you deem us worthy."

Unlike you, I have a day job that keeps me busy sometimes. Still, you must admit this blog has gotten pissant of late.

The Moderate,

Bless me! A sniffy gripe from Your Pomposity! I'm stunned you deem us worthy.

You need not have deigned.

I hope the stain washes out.

Farnaz,

Thee:
"gossip, disguised as national news"

Infotainment ever sells better...and it will ever be so. We sell our birthright for a mess of reportage.

The second death of a cadaverous pop star; the feet-of-clay of yet-another-evangelical-blowhard - these individualised dramas captivate us because they reflect our self-obsession. They're really all about *me*. As for wars, catastrophe, rapine, massacre, festering injustice - these are all statistics that happen to the Other. If they do qualify as *News*, they are presented in a way that keeps them safely Other, contained, while offering the illusion of involvement, participation, witness.

I like to think that good reportage builds understanding, empathy, reveals the truth, and may even be a catalyst for positive change. The shadow side - that it serves merely to keep that sudden Otherness at bay.

Susan:

"Hello? Peaceful demonstrators were murdered in Iran last week. In Iraq, terrorist bombings abounded. The U.S.unemployment rate is expected to rise above10 percent by the end of summer."

On point. It is dismaying how trivial the On Faith topics are. This whole blog has become trivial. I see no discussions really related to faith at all really. Some grousing about the theft of Judaic scriptures by the Christians, some gossip, a few desultory comments on the boring principals of the scandal, a little insipid sniping back and forth.

No discussions of the big issues of theology, sectarian contentions among Pagans, Atheists, Christians, Moslems, and Jews.

Even the stupid poetry was more amusing.

Too bad.

daniel12,
a series of silly pedantic points here, but, sometimes i'm pedantic. i still think in the context you used it, it should have been "could not care less". otherwise you're kind of undermining your point. this kind of incorrect usage bothers me, therefore i could care less about it.

on the "only" thing: that old thaunder/rain saw (and fleetwood mac lyric) is just false. thunder happens all the time with out rain. reminds me of another one: "where there's smoke there's fire." that's plainly not always true.

semi-seriously yours,

John Tierney, the NYT science writer wrote a piece called “Politicians are primates too” which pretty much sums it up. The sexual urge is endemic. We should stop being surprised when people give in to it.

There was an old political adage that getting caught is a sex scandal was a death knell for Republicans while getting caught in a financial scandal was the problem for Democrats.

While the former is true, the latter is no longer. Ask Senators Dodd and Inouye among others.

Onofrio,

The problem with Givhan's distressing piece is that it's part of a larger decline in WaPo "opining" and reporting. Another unfortunate contribution took the form of an "interview" of sorts with Va. Senator Jim Webb. He deserved better. Then we have an article by Samuelson "explaining" why economists failed to predict the meltdown, yet, surely, Krugman, Schiller, and Roubini, who sounded the alarms endlessly, are economists of note.

And, now, let us look at WaPo's take on the Iran elections. Here we are in July, reading WaPo's first report on provable/disprovable election irregularites, amply demonstrating that all the rest of what they'd printed from "reporting" to editorializing was bloviation at best, manipulation, at wost. MOreover, their belated "disclosures," all taken from Mousavi's web site, none of them suggest Moussavi would have been declared the winner sans the misdeeds.

The internet may, in the long run, prove salutary in our war against media interest, incompetence, immorality. Very literate threaders question, contextualize, correct erroneous content, gather evidence that has been ignored.

Maybe that old Plato was right, after all, about writing.:0 If so, the internet may be our best opportunity yet to speak back and be heard.

To Walter from Daniel on the "care less" discussion. I know what you mean about it being proper to say "I could not care less", but then again, how do you or anyone else know that you really could not care less? It seems to me proper to say "I could care less" because one can always care a little bit less than one thinks. Unless, of course, one is so furious, so frustrated, so certain one cannot care less. But when most people say I could not care less they are more bored than anything else, they are not at that deep level of really being unable to care less. In other words, they can care less.

There are all sorts of problems with casual usage such as that--such as with the word "only". Take for example someone saying "thunder only happens when it's raining". Everyone knows the meaning of that sentence, but what the person is actually saying here--what the person has written--to really get at the sentence structure, is that all that thunder does is happen when it rains--or that only thunder happens when it's raining. To make sense--to convey the meaning intended--the sentence should read that thunder happens only when it's raining--in other words, one must move the position of the word "only". Another example of the incorrect use of the word "only" which everyone makes: "Players only love you when they're playing". What the person has written is that all players do when they're playing is love you--or that only players love you when they're playing. what the writer should have written to convey the meaning intended is "players love you only when they're playing". See what I mean?

DITLD writes:
"In my opinion, he is a tragic and hopeless case."

There are so many of them, perhaps, symptomatic of our cultural worship of false idols. Last year, I listened to an interview with Robert McNamara, stunned throughout by the man's unquestionable genius (NB: Daniel12). Only once before had I been taken by the sharpness of mind that was continually evident in his speech. But look where that brilliance led him and our country.

There is, afoot, a kind of intellectual surrender, that WaPo, in its nonreporting daily evidences. It is an old trend. The paucity, indeed lack of journalistic evidence in both its reporting and editorializing on Iran speak eloquently to this, as does its decline in simple journalistic literacy, which bloggers protest daily. WaPo, needless to say, stands not alone.

Sanford's religious populism is bad enough; that he and his wife should be daily fare for gossip, disguised as national news may be worse. However, there is in all this a real issue, which goes to the values that Sanford's religious pleading speaks to, and that is the attempt of pols and the media corps. to manipulate the public with this or that discourse. Otherwise, as Susan asks, "Who cares?"

Politicians who reference God in their apologies for sexual misconduct are either disingenuous or else show a primitive and shallow religious belief.

This belief is first founded on the necesity for sexual repression, and then on the premise that sinners must be punished by a loving but just God, and then on the contorted reasoning on how this all applies to "everyone else" but how somehow, they have mitigating circumstances that they can explain to God, so that he will make an exception for them.

"Condemn, condemn, condemn THEM, but Oh Lord, FORGIVE ME!"

Basically, these are primitive religious beliefs, which they have not bothered to analyze, which do not match up to or relate to human nature as we all expereince it, and then they seek to wiggle out of their own religious inconsistencies, when their own human natures turn out so different and contrary to what they had been led to believe, and what they say they do believe.

And finally, they must invoke God in their apologies, in order in some way to appeal to voters whom they think may "speak that language" so that they can maintain their positions of political power.

On another train of thought, I am from Virginia. Therefore, this Southern This "idiom of God-Speak" is familiar to me. Governor Mark Sanford is a "type" which is easily recongnizable in the South, a type which I recognize well. The native people of the South call it "being eat up with Jesus."

In my opinion, he is a tragic and hopeless case. The damage he has done to himself with this toxic "Southern Religion" cannot be undone, even by the "discovery" at this late date, of love. Because, even though this religion is centered around the mystical word "love," it has actually devolved pretty far from anything resembling REAL love.

Yes, Farnaz, I could get to the article, just not the comments. But I followed your advice about loading, and got through at last. Cracked a rueful grin at your and JaxMax's satire. Would love to contribute, but would pale redundant beside what is already there.

As for the Givhan opus, my reaction - as for many other commenters - was a bit WTF. Is't tongue-in-cheek grown stuck? Spawn of writer's block and a savage deadline? Cryptography? I am at a loss...

I wish I could smugly opine *only-in-America*, but we have our very own brands of petty obsession down here among the gumtrees, yea.

Hi Onofrio,

Glad to see you back, and thanks for your reply. Am I correct that you were able to access the article? I, too, have had problems getting to the comments. Sometimes, clicking on the toolbar "Stop Loading" and reload icons works.

If you weren't able to access the article, you can by just using WaPo search. If you can't get to the comments, I'll try to cut and paste that of JadMax.

Farnaz Q

Persiflage, ColinNick, Et Al

For me, this an extraordinary web site focusing on research involving Zen and mind plasticity. Zen masters actually work with scientists to design experiments. I just finished listening to Zen Mind 4, which details research investigating brain and "mental" states.

http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/news.html

Farnaz,

"HOwever, ccnl1's religion involves the foundational theft of Judaism. Ergo, he is bereft of principle as a romp through the history of his forebears shows could not have been otherwise."

The purity of your hostility remains unalloyed. Always it is you who are the accuser. So sensitive to the faults of others. Yet bereft of insight into your own. Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth.

As always I remain,

Your Affectionate uncle

Farnaz,

"Hi Onofrio,
Farnaz Q"

Hi, divine Ms Q.

Thankx for the link to the Givhan couture critique.

I tried to link to comments, but the little circle of dots just keeps turning, with no download. Shall persist; I could do with a laugh.

Please forgive my tardy reply. I plead Austral time difference, not in-difference.

This hack jongleur is currently tangled in the wreck of his aspirations, thus the WAPO hiatus. Severely verve-and-nerve-lacking, moi, these days. Yet could not resist a swipe at the eel-avenge-ical smuggery of Counterww...

I was delighted to find your quotation of Homer-on-Phoebus below, and to read your account of your *Southern* encounters - I was there, gobsmacked in the eatery.

Nongod bless your splendid brown self. :)

daniel12, you said,
"You can call that God or not--I could care less." and earlier, you said, "i could care less" about something else.

i believe you mean "i could NOT care less." if you say "i could care less", it means there is a level of care less than your level. i think what you mean to say is that your level of care about the subject is so low that it could NOT be any less.

;-)

Persiflage,

You to ColinNick:

"Stilling the restless mind probably defines and describes the general purpose of meditation and contemplative exercises wherever found."

Yes, even at this point, and my "practice" is far from disciplined, I can see the difference. One can "see," experience, certain automatic thought processes, witness the mind's "automatic" movement, which frees one from identifying with it, perhaps acting on what it suggests. It aids with clarity....

Hi Persiflage,

Thanks for the reply and link. I do know that the number of books, etc., on meditation could fill a few libraries--It's your thought that interests me, that I would like to read--whenever you have time, of course.

Farnaz

Colinnicholas,

Stilling the restless mind probably defines and describes the general purpose of meditation and contemplative exercises wherever found.

The website article below provides a pretty good general overview - disregard the New Age ambiance. The description itself is simple but accurate.

regards, Persiflege

http://www.successconsciousness.com/index_00007d.htm

daniel12,
i have not figured out what your "religion" is. but, i have not assumed it's christian fundamentalism either.

not sure if you were referring to me when you said, "someone said society does not need a God behind existence to strike fear into people, to get them to act morally--that society can act morally without God."

but, that's not really what i said. i've said here and elsewhere that though i am atheist, i'm not sure society is ready for atheism. i think most DO need the "stick" (promise of god's punishment, or at least god's displeasure) to behave. i'm just saying that's not really morality. that's just self-interested obsequiousness.

Please everyone, ignore my previous post a couple posts back--my reply to people today. I was rushed and made mistakes of clarity, etc. Below is the post which should be considered.

To everyone getting distressed about my observations, please pull your heads out of your obvious groupthink. Everyone here responds to my criticisms of atheists as if I simply must be a right wing Christian fundamentalist or something. Sorry, you are way off the mark. What I am is man who renders his own verdict regardless of which group gets offended. In my criticisms of atheists here I am not defending this God or that--in other words I could care less about the God of the Bible or Koran or whichever. I simply ask what would the world look like with no ultimate goodness behind existence-no ultimates in general behind existence. You can call that God or not--I could care less. And I answered to the best of my logic this question.

Answering now one of the assertions in response to me, someone said society does not need a God behind existence to strike fear into people, to get them to act morally--that society can act morally without God. Perhaps we do not need a God behind existence to get people to act morally, but this is certain: without God the only chance the human race has for success is for the individual--no matter how freely allowed to develop--to sacrifice himself to the group, because individuals die and without God there is no eternal life, only the group can have some semblance of immortality. And when there is no ultimate good behind existence (again God) the group (people) will have to tyrannize one another to make sure the group goes on, does not flag in the face of perpetual evil (because without God evil is perpetual), for if the group flags that is all she wrote for the human race. In other words, the demands of the group without God (supposing the group is being rigorous with itself, really honest about the consequences of atheism) are more difficult to fulfill than religious injunctions, a world in which God exists. Religions simply ask that one more or less behave to go to heaven (monotheistic religions and like of course). Religions for all sacrificing of the individual to the group have no stress in the atheistic sense that if the group fails there is no hope for individuals. The group without God asks that everyone toe a rather difficult line to make sure the group goes on. No rigorous discipline for the group and the group does not go on. But virtually in every discussion with atheists one finds that their conception of a world without God is one of much more freedom allowed, a relaxing of discipline, etc.! It seems atheists really need to reflect better on what will come of the group without God (in the long run of course. In the short run the consequences of atheism are not well seen. In the short run one thinks more of the advantages derived from the collapse of religion than anything else).

Thanks for the conversation people.

Persiflage;

Thanks for your comments and the links, which I checked out and bookmarked.
Interesting. Yes, I remember the assumption of the course I was taking was that we are asleep most of the time, and becoming 'awake' was best achieved through the aforementioned self-awareness exercises.

But isn't that kind of thing central to most meditative practices? Buddhism among them?
Just love that word aforementioned.

To everyone getting distressed about my observations, please pull your heads out of your obvious groupthink. Everyone here responds to my criticisms of atheists as if I simply must be a right wing Christian fundamentalist or something. Sorry, you are way off the mark. What I am is man who renders his own verdict regardless of which group gets offended. In my criticisms of atheists here I am not defending this God or that--in other words I could care less about the God of the Bible or Koran or whichever. I simply ask what would the world look like with no ultimate goodness behind existence-no ultimates in general behind existence. You can call that God or not--I could care less. And I answered to the best of my logic this question.

Answering now one of the assertions in response to me, someone said society does not need a God behind existence to strike fear into people, to get them to act morally. Perhaps not, but this is certain: without God the only chance the human race has for success is for the individual--no matter how freely allowed to develop--to sacrifice himself to the group, because individuals die and there is no eternal life, only the group can have some semblance of immortality. And when there is no ultimate good behind existence the group (people) will have to tyrannize one another to make sure the group goes on, does not flag in the face of perpetual evil, for if the group flags that is all she wrote for the human race. In other words, the demands of the group (supposing the group is being rigorous with itself) are more difficult to fulfill than religious injunctions. Religions simply ask that one more or less behave to go to heaven (monotheistic religions and like of course). The group without God asks that everyone to a rather difficult line to make sure the group goes on. No rigorous discipline for the group and the group does not go on.

Thanks for the conversation people.

colinnicholas,
thanks for the comments. i don't consider what you suggested "butting into my life". heck, i put that stuff up on this comment thread, so, i asked for it. my wife knows i'm atheist, i just don't bash religious people (to her or my daughter) every time i hear religious people say something laughably ridiculous (except maybe in the relative safety of these threads) or point out any of the many logical flaws in god's "plan."

Walter, that last one was meant for you.

I had no right to butt into your life with my somewhat extremist position on religion.
You seem to be doing just fine without my input. You are quite a guy, and your wife and daughter are lucky to have such a dad and husband.
I enjoyed reading of your wife asking whether you were trying to steal her faith away from her, and your reaction to it. I'm sure Darwin's wife said something similar to him when she began feeling uncomfortable with what his discoveries were telling him about how life evolved. I must look it up. I'm sure I read somewhere that Mrs Darwin said something like that to Charles. Apparently, like you, he didn't have the heart to tell her the extent of his disbelief. What an all around wonderful chap Darwin must have been.
A great oaf like me would have said something like - "hey honey you know that god you keep praying to? Well he ain't real. No really hun - there is no god. It says so in this book. It's just a big scam. Everything we thought was true is a lie. And you know that stuff about going to heaven, well that's a load of BS too. When we are dead we just rot like all the other animals and stay dead forever and ever.Can you believe that honey? All that praying - for nothing!

Compared to which - your approach is pure class.

daniel12, you said,
"Strange, this conflicts with what is probably the favorite proof of atheists that there is no God: That there is evil in existence and if God existed there would be no evil."

the existence of evil only disproves a god who is good (ALL good, that is). it turn out that god is, not coincidentally, just like us - somethimes good and sometimes bad.

you say atheism implies that the evil in the world can never be overcome. well, maybe that's the case. but you're not looking at the other side of the coin: who can deny the existence of good in the world. neither "good" nor "evil" have anything to do with god or atheism. good and evil are philosophical concerns. atheism is just not having found a believable description of god.

sdomewhere you also implied that atheists think religion "hijacked" previously moral a-religious societies. i don't know of any atheist who thinks that. every atheist would say that for just about all of human history, humans have been religious. atheism only gained traction around the renaissance and enlightenment - and look at what's happened to our morals since then. i'd say they've unquestionably improved. out are slavery and theocracy, in are tolerance and equality.

you take the existential realisation that we made up god, and his morals, to mean that our made-up morals are worthless. hardly. we earned these morals. they are the built-up wisdom of the ages. just because something's made up doesn't mean it's worthless. consider the can-opener. we made it up, and it's very useful to have. humanist morals have been invented in the same way, but that doesn't make them worthless.

what you may be getting at is the idea of god-as-policeman. if we don't fear god punishing us, we won't be nice to each other. there may be some truth to that. like a brother won't apologize to a sister for hitting her without the parent's insistence. but can this "forced apology" really be called morals? i'd say commiting a sin under threat of eternal damnation is insane, not immoral. morality is between humans - it's what you do when god's not looking.

daniel12, you said,
"the human dilemma of being potentially faced with meaninglessness and certainly faced with immense problems concerning good and evil and the proper direction to take in life"

indeed. this is the depths of dispair for new existence-ialists. philosophers have dealt with this for years. but, like with your parents, you can't choose your reality (and still have "your reality" have any relationship to objective reality).

daniel12, you said,
"...will morality remain at the most positive level it has achieved under the concept of God..."

what is so great about the morality god taught us? seems to me it's mainly "believe in me and it'll be ok" - at least per judeochrislam. most of the "laws" - even the 10 commandments - are not relevant, morally. how many gods? how/when/to whom to pray? those aren't moral issues. it's just god (ancient priests, actually) being a self-centered, insecure attention-craver.

the real "morals" - "do unto others" and love your neighbor" and "judge not" etc... - are HUMANIST thoughts.

you also said,
"Why the atheists would place much stock in animal observations to support their view is quite peculiar..."

it's because we ARE animals. - fancy, really smart animals, but still animals. read my post below re: cultural chromasomes stamped, "July 3, 2009 2:12 PM".

Counterww, you said,
"I am evangelical, but I don't go along with the so called literal Christians that think the earth is 6000 years old....I think the flood happened."

why do you think that? when do you think it happened? was it global or local, in your opinion?

there is absolutely no physical evidence for a global flood at any time in man's history. there is plenty of evidence for lots of local floods around mesopotamia and all around the world at various times. there is also evidence for a genetic "bottleneck" around 70,000 years ago, i believe it is. they think human population got down to a few thousand (but not 8 as per noah's ark. is this the flood? scientists think it was some kind of quick climate change, maybe a big volcanic eruption.

on larger time scales (10s to 100s of millions or years), there have been several mass extinctions of other animals and plants recorded in the geologic column. the plants and animals (including us) are descendents of the ones who made it through these extinctions. i suppose in this sense noah's ark is "true".

you also said,
"It is more about what happened when Christ came. You go to church but do you get the message of the gospel? About the fact you are a sinner or not? what Jesus did on the cross? His resurrection?
Dude, if you reject Christ, you are in trouble. That I will say. that is bottom line."

yes i understand that you think i'm "in trouble" - i get that part of the message - the "good news"(?!). i just don't believe it. and, i can't take pascal's wager. pascal's wager is intellectually and morally bankrupt. and i can't force myself to believe. apparently god has hardened my heart. thanks a bunch, god.

Daniel12 wrote:

"Furthermore, in this universe of no God man will love his fellow man and work toward the betterment of society? Perhaps in the short term, but the long term, when atheism is really thought about, really thought through?

"When the fact hits home--really sinks into the populace--that without God evil is perpetual and society cannot possibly continually progress because there is no ultimate goodness--God--which is the aim and end of progression, we can hardly expect man to be concerned about his fellow man and society."

Oh please! Society has advanced quite nicely, thank you very much, without the help of the non-existent god of the OT and NT.

To set you straight, very few athiests, including myself, are willing to say there is NO god. We say, instead, that it is the god described in the OT/NT that is an impossibility, that is self-contradictory in his many personality 'traits' and behaviors. It is THAT god which atheists deny. Your perception of atheists/atheism, propounded as it is by christers, is way off target from reality.

Counterww, you said,
"You sound like a miserable guy- your elitist, supposedly superior intellect is somehow compromised by your love for your family, so you do along."

i don't understand "miserable". do you mean my life must be miserable because i put up with all this "belief" in my house?

or do you mean i'm miserable because i'm being a hypocrite in compromising for love? if that's you charge, well, then, guilty. my church's (and family's) religious beliefs are not dangerous to anyone. they don't bomb abortion clinics or try to regulate birth control. a great thing about this crazy church is they're not political. they understand how that waters down religion. (thank god they're not muslim - then i'd be worried. i'd have explain how "slay the idolators" doesn't mean "slay the idolaters" on so on...)

as far as the "elitist" comment, i don't mind beinmg called "elitist". why should that be an insult? i admire elite people and thoughts. we study hard in school to be elite. "regular" people certainly have value and deserve respect and all that, but when their beliefs are not reality-based, well, i see no need for exaltaion.

you also said,
"The same love you have for your family, my new friend, is sourced from the same god you refuse to believe in."

of course you think this, but i would say your god is "sourced from" the same place as my love of my family...

colinnicholas, you said,
"I suggest you let your daughter know how you really feel. The older she gets and the longer she carries the belief of God into adulthood, the more difficult it will be for her to rearrange her mind to evict God and live without him."

well, i'm introducing this idea to her slowly. i have told her that not all christians believe everything "word-for-word" in the bible, and have emphasized the goodness in people who aren't christian. when asked why i don't "take communion" i've told her i don't believe everything they do, so i don't want to "disrespect" the people who are "taking communion".

as far as her "evicting god", well, i'm not sure that's necessary. while i don't have god in my life (as anything other than a cartoon god talked about in church), i don't require that she not have him in her life. she'll find out in time the extent of my atheism. it's more important to me that she be a happy good person.

i used to discuss philosophical/religiuos things with my wife, openly displaying my distain for belief in religios unreason over rationalism, and she said, "are you trying to steal my faith?" well, that floored me. shes the nicest person i know... and she puts up with me... i don't want to steal anything form her. she was a fallen catholic when we married, with a vague sort of fuzzy belief in god.

once our daughter was old enough we started going to this local (crazy) church (and associated private school - that has great academics excepting the crazy science). the people are so loving and nurturing toward my daughter. i figure that's important for a young child. next year she's going to public school, but we'll still go to church.

Back to the topic- Governor Sanford also apparently coveted his wife's riches (Skil Corporation)/(neighbor's goods) and thereby also violated the Tenth Commandment. Said "goods" allowed him to live the "rich and famous" life style with all the amendities of mistresses, yachts, country clubs, huge political funding and exclusive island beach homes i.e. Sanford is a low-life "Six, Nine and Ten". Time for the "millstone"!!!!!

"What's you view of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff?"

Colinnicholas,

I have several of their books. Self-remembering as a method of personal development is central to the Gurdjeiffian 4th Way system. By all accounts, a difficult discipline to master.

Gurdjeiff employed (sufi-inspired) dancing as a method of meditation and was said to achieve remarkable results. Gurdjeiff's metaphysical system was complex and was based on the insight that humans develop according to a hierarchical system of levels.

Mechanical man (almost everyone) generally stops at the 4th level of development - highly conditioned behavior without the exercise of true free will, is the hallmark of this nearly universal level, although a good many never reach even this level of attainment.

Then there is level 5-7.....rare individuals that reach these higher levels experience ever-greater autonomy and personal power, with 7 being the ultra-rare perfected man who is possessed of vast powers and complete freedom of will through the development of deep esoteric knowledge and insight.

That Gurdjeiff himself possesed considerable personal power and magnetism has been attested to by numerous followers and admirers, including Ouspensky.

His swings between an alternating selflessness and manifest need for total control of his followers was eventually alienating. Later on, this vast narcissism and a self-indulgent life of every kind of excess drove a good many of his followers away. Even then, he maintained a coteree of admirers and devotees.

There are still enclaves of extant Gurdjeiff inspired style 'communities' here and there - I ran into one about 10 years ago in Portland, OR.

regards, Persiflege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._D._Ouspensky

Persiflage;

What's you view of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff?
I took some courses in their philosophy many years ago in London.
It was all about becoming 'aware'. Practicing becoming aware of self through certain exercises, with the goal of stopping all thought. No student at this level ever managed to actually stop thought, not even for a moment.But the trying to was an interesting exercise.

The exercise went like this; I would first try to become aware of the weight of my body on the chair, then the weight of the feet on the floor, then become aware of the head on my shoulders, then aware of the position and weight of the hands and so on until one was aware of all parts of the body,then one became aware of the immediate environment and all sounds, and then aware of one's position geographically, and even cosmologically.
Then one would try to stop all thought.

I never managed to stop thought, of course, but practicing the exercise from time to time, was very useful in composing oneself before important meetings, or exams and such.
Ever hear of these guys, Gurdjieff and Ouspensky?

Walter in falls church.

I suggest you let your daughter know how you really feel. The older she gets and the longer she carries the belief of God into adulthood, the more difficult it will be for her to rearrange her mind to evict God and live without him.

I honestly believe she'd appreciate it, even if her initial reaction is anger.
If nothing else - you could at least let her know that you have some doubts about the God hypothesis, and it shouldn't all be taken literally. Doubt is fine, doubt is healthy. At least show her it's ok to doubt.

Cheers Walter.

Farnaz,

Per your request - texts on meditation and various schools of yoga could fill more than a few library shelves. Here's a brief description for interested viewers.

The Zen view is quite simple, with the focus on awareness while remaining unattached to sensory input and internal/ external events - particularly a detached witnessing of the random flow of thoughts.

The Tang master Huang Po maintained that the elimination of thought allows realization to dawn spontaneously - eventually over time and with sufficient practice this can happen.

More on this at a later time......

http://www.answers.com/topic/meditation

Daniel12,

I don't know if you simply believe in God or subscribe to some branch of Christianity. If the latter, read Christopher Hitchens' book on Mother Theresa to see what one religion did to a human being or allowed her to become, that human subsequently sainted.

Friends had told me about her while she was alive, friends who knew her and whom I trusted, and yet I was shocked, nearly speechless at points. I'm not, typically, a fan of Hitchens but this was work well done. Should be required reading in all colleges across the country. It's on my recommended list for two courses in the Fall.

Onofrio and All,

Would you like to have some scribal fun? An almost inexpressibly bad essay on Jenny Sanford has made its way to WaPo: "In Hubby's Time Of Trouble, She Can't Be Bothered" by Robin Givhans, who btw. is a Pulitzer winner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/03/AR2009070300083_Comments.html

More than half the threaders were so distracted by the incomprehensibly poor writing that they could not comment on Ms. Sanford. At all events, things took a turn for the creative when one blogger, JadMax. wrote a very amusing travesty of the piece.

Yours truly followed "suit," applying Givhan's conceit to another recent event. To grasp the significance of the quotation marks, read the piece and weep, laugh, stare, etc.

I've decided that Robin Givhan has not only provided us with a way out of Sanford Bible speak but with a whole new discourse into understanding politics great and small. :)

Apologies to Ms. Givhan, and best wishes for her speedy recovery, which, I suspect, would be all the more rapid if she found employment with a "media corporation" that had some journalistic integrity, should one still exist.

Daniel12,

I was impressed with Harris's low-key and thoughtful performance during the debate I watched. He's complex, interested in the sacred and in spirituality, which is not to say he believes we have a mobile soul.

Sam Harris...I have a rather low opinion of him. He wrote that man not only does not need God to be in awe of the universe but that no God is needed to love one's fellow man and work for the betterment of society.

Strange, this conflicts with what is probably the favorite proof of atheists that there is no God: That there is evil in existence and if God existed there would be no evil.

Where exactly does Sam Harris contradict himself here? Simple: without God we have the fundamental fact that not only does evil exist in the world but that it can never be overcome--never be overcome because there is no ultimate goodness behind existence, no God.

This means, once really thought about, that the universe without God is not so much awe inspiring as horrifying--horrifying because the horror of evil can never be overcome.

Furthermore, in this universe of no God man will love his fellow man and work toward the betterment of society? Perhaps in the short term, but the long term, when atheism is really thought about, really thought through?

When the fact hits home--really sinks into the populace--that without God evil is perpetual and society cannot possibly continually progress because there is no ultimate goodness--God--which is the aim and end of progression, we can hardly expect man to be concerned about his fellow man and society.

In fact anguish will be the prominent emotion, the horrible fact ever before the mind that for all betterment of society it will eventually grow worse, and in fact sink to who knows what depths...Anguish, despair, futility. Ah, yes, but the universe is "awe inspiring", biology--the concentration on the minutia of such--is "so rewarding". Man will be living "wonderfully" without the "delusion" of God.

And we will find so much meaning without God, enjoy struggling to make society better only to see it grow worse, and then struggle again to make it better, only to see it grow worse again, and again, and again. Society never ever able to really overcome evil--in fact not even sure of being able to keep above the worst evil--because there is no God, no hope of ever ending evil--no hope of ending evil in the ultimate goodness of God.

For those interested in the whys and ways of the historic Jesus and the documentation supporting his at least one-time existence, see:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/r_albert_mohler_jr/2009/07/a_governor_a_king_and_the_tragedy_of_adultery.html

Hi Onofrio,

Farnaz Q

Counterww,

Thee to Walter:
"The same love you have for your family, my new friend, is sourced from the same god you refuse to believe in."

Au contraire, O Auto(dog)matist,

The love he has for his family has been misappropriated by you to advertise your perichoretic-all-male-threesome-Gaylord-in-denial. A thief of love, you.

Father and Son, but no Mrs, nor Daughter, just a Holy (effin) Ghost - what cauchemar!

THIN AIR!

How can there be divine love and life sans la femme?

Thee:
"You sound like a miserable guy- your elitist, supposedly superior intellect is somehow compromised by your love for your family, so you do along."

Better an *elitist* than a triumphalist who endorses the endless torture of those that don't confect sufficient *belief* in The Big Story.

That's how you're lookin', "dude".

"Do along" now...

Walter-

So you go to church, and your spouse is obviously a believer or you would not go along with this.

You sound like a miserable guy- your elitist, supposedly superior intellect is somehow compromised by your love for your family, so you do along.

Sounds like your love for your family drives you to just do what you have to.

The same love you have for your family, my new friend, is sourced from the same god you refuse to believe in.

How ironic.

Perhaps, CCNL1, using the web site I gave him (sans crediting yours truly) will give us said web site's take on Jesus "Christ"?

A punctuational tribute to ccnl1:???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ON Jesus, CCNL1's imaginary friend, see the following for an introduction, longer bib to follow:

Barker, Dan, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist [Madison, Wisconsin: Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1992)

Doherty, Earl, The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? (Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999)

Edelen, William, Toward the Mystery (Boise, Idaho: Joslyn & Morris, Inc., no publication date)

Harpur, Tom. The Pagan Jesus

Parsons, Keith M., Why I Am Not A Christian [Atlanta, Georgia: Freethought Press, 2000]

Templeton, Charles, Farewell to God: My reasons for rejecting the Christian faith [Toronto, Ontario, Canada: McClelland & Stewart, Inc., 1996)

Wells, G.A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1988)

Wilson, Ian, Jesus: The Evidence [San Francisco, California: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1984)

One does not contact R. Wolpe for "a deeper 'take,'' one reads him, in his entirety. Since CCNL has told us very often what R.Wolpe thinks of Exodus, albeit in ways that have nothing to do with R.Wolpe, we have expected CCNL1 to edify us on his complex theology regarding David.

Why does not CCNL1 go chase his Q Gospel in the sky, use his retirement funds to hire an airplane, and leave the rest of us alone?

Perhaps, you could apply to NASA for a grant.

For those interested in a deeper "take" on Judaism from an OT Jewish exegete, contact Rabbi Wolpe (an On Faith panelist) at info@sinaitemple.org .

Before writing, you might want to read the information at:

The Forgery of the Old Testament by
Joseph McCabe
Added information: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_07.html

Excerpts:
"The Forgery of the Old Testament
Contents
How We Detect the Forgery
The Priestly Forgers
The Mistakes of Moses
The Mythical History of the Jews
The Truth About the Prophets
Pious Fiction

"The main point is that practically all the experts assure you that in scores of material points the Old Testament history has been discredited, and has only been confirmed in a few unimportant incidental statements; and that the books are a tissue of inventions, expansions, conflations, or recensions dating centuries after the events."

colinnicholas, persiflage,
this ("letting" my daughter "be religious" even though i think it's a bunch of hooey) has been the source of lots of angst for me.

i don't know if i'm doing the right thing. i DO NOT take communion with all the other adults, and i DO answer her questions about dinosaurs and "millions of years" honestly. i've come to the point where i'm often saying something like "scientists, many of whom are christian, do not believe adam and eve lived with dinosaurs" and "i think scientists are right when they say the appalachian mountains were formed 300,000,000 years ago."

i'm not sure if i'm confusing her or what. i suppose i think that if she doesn't "get" religion as a child, she'll never get it. i mean, what adult could "swallow" the jonah-in-the-belly-of-a-big-fish" story as an adult? anyway, i guess i think she'll have plenty of time to learn the truth about geology, biology, astronomy, etc... when she's older.

she has recently found out the truth about the tooth fairy, easter bunny and santa claus.... maybe god's next.... she's 12 now, so i suppose soon she may be ready to hear about why i don't partake in the crazy communion ritual.

again, i don't know if i'm handling this properly.

angstfully yours,
walter.

Just finished listening to a debate with Sam Harris, smarter and thoughtier than I had thought.

He again raised the problem with the word "athiest," likening it, amusingly, to "nonastrologer."

For awhile, we toyed on this thread with "infidels." "Rationalists" or "empiricists" suggest themselves. Among the fundamental problems is that religion answers questions that is hasn't the apparatus to address or makes claims it cannot support with what we accept, in all other domains, as evidence.

With this and whatever else one can deem relevant, can anyone come up with a better word for "atheist" or for "agnostic"?

Onofrio has been absent for a fortnight I believe.
AND WHERE IS PSEUDO?

Hi Persiflage,

Back on topic. Could you, at some point, give a brief overview of the different types of meditative practices, perhaps recommending one for Mark Sanford? :)

What is your own practice?

Farnaz

CCNL1 is quite correct. THOU SHALT NOT COVET. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, your neighbor's anything. Likewise steal. HOwever, ccnl1's religion involves the foundational theft of Judaism. Ergo, he is bereft of principle as a romp through the history of his forebears shows could not have been otherwise.

CCNL,

"Tis" strange that "Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife" is not mentioned once in 86 comments.

Are not all such religious aphorisms flawed? And are they not corrupting to right thinking humans with a proper Wille zur Macht? So why even raise them from the dustbin of history where they reside? We thought better of you.

Your Affectionate Uncle

CCNL sez:

"Tis" strange that "Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife" is not mentioned once in 86 comments.

I would have mentioned it but my neighbor doesn't have a wife - I'm apparently committing the lesser sin of coveting my neighbor.

She's a beauty, but we go to different churches.

Daniel,

Given that you admire smart people, here are some smart people that recognized man's plight, pretty much as you define it - life sans meaning. What this implies is vast freedom, looked at in a certain way.

Like all things human, meaning is also a human construct as near as anyone can tell - but what's wrong with that? That way, there's no one else telling us what to do or when to do it, or why we have to do it - except for other humans of course.

Admittedly, this is a major challenge - but what choice do we have? In my view, human conditioning is the source of most of our problems, because it limits originality, creativity, problem solving capacity, and most of all, free will.

Conditioning, rather than whether one believes in God, is the real problem.......

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

Part one.

One of the more interesting arguments by atheists is that if man dispenses with the concept of God not only will morality remain at the most positive level it has achieved under the concept of God, but be improved, stand out clearly, in a realm of excellence which never could have been achieved under religion.

Evidence for this interesting assertion typically revolves around speculations concerning animal life, and the life of man extending backwards into ancient and even prehistoric times. To be clearer, the modern biological, evolutionary view is superimposed on the raw material of animal life and not only on the raw material of man's history, but superimposed on his prehistory, which of course (the latter) is not a superimposition at all but an application of concept in pure speculative fashion--an opinion--with no evidence.

So we arrive at--and taking animal life first--at assertions such as animals demonstrate morality and they do not believe in God therefore man does not need God to act morally. Why the atheists would place much stock in animal observations to support their view is quite peculiar when we reflect that for all animal morality (supposing we are not being anthropomorphic and reading into animals our morality) animals are not aware of what they are doing, they are being instinctive, and most important of all, being instinctive they are obviously not only not aware of the difficulties in determining the difference in actions in a much expanded realm of good and evil (the human, which has a much more complex good and evil world than the animal) they do not anticipate their deaths and understand potential meaninglessness--the meaninglessness and suffering of human existence which has led humans into the dilemma of whether to worship or not worship a God.

Part one and a half.

It is not that animals do not believe in God and yet act morally but that animals are not conscious enough to be plunged into the human dilemma of being potentially faced with meaninglessness and certainly faced with immense problems concerning good and evil and the proper direction to take in life. To say that if humans eliminate the concept of God no problems morally--not to mention problems concerning human meaning--will arise, and in fact that the opposite will occur, humans will be better off, is about one of the most profound misunderstandings imaginable, and clearly calls into question the much boasted of atheist intelligence over "the religious deluded mind". If anyone reading this still thinks man without God will not only be as moral as he ever was under a belief in God but act with even greater moral certitude--and especially with the ease of animals "which demonstrate morality and they do not believe in God"--I suggest a jackass be approached and asked why it does not believe in God and whether it has ever felt meaningless and what was the last difficult moral decision it made. No doubt the atheist will find perfect English (unless it's a Spanish or other jackass) in its braying and a quite intelligable conversation.

Part two.

Abrupt change of direction, moving away from jackasses atheist and otherwise, we have the observation by atheists that human societies over all of history--and in prehistory as well--must have forged rules so individuals within the group would get along, and the societies that did not forge such rules died out. In other words, what we have here is an atheist attempt to superimpose a biological, evolutionary interpretation on man's moral development after the fact of his actual path of development. This is not to say man has not been subject to the pressures of evolution--in fact I am quite a believer in evolution--but that atheists in this regard (their defense of a quite possible morality without God) superimpose the biological, evolutionary view as if religion never occurred at all, or if occurred occurred quite recently in human history and in fact "hijacked societies which were already moral without a belief in God". Dear atheists, there is zero evidence that human societies had atheistic trends otherwise than in quite recent times--which is to say so far as we know atheistic trends did not exist prior to about two or three thousand years ago. In fact the evidence supports the opposite, that man, no matter what culture, was long religious before he had any notion of atheism. Any jackass can enlighten atheists about the myths which existed in all societies the more they were removed from the modern. I suggest atheists once again visit the barn where our friend the jackass stands and ask him about his myths. Give him some oats and I am quite sure he will bray one out.

Conclusion: atheists seem to operate in human society as if there are no moral complications, questions of meaninglessness without God, etc. They seem to think that human society not only does not need God but did not have God over most of its history--that humans just looked at one another and forged rules in a rationalistic sense, no divine authority spoken of or even considered necessary. Furthermore atheists think even animal life supports their position, that animals have morality but do not believe in God so man has no need of God either. Meanwhile the jackass brays in the barn.

Back to the topic-

"Tis" strange that "Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife" is not mentioned once in 86 comments.

'Your own scholarly acumen is most impessive and inspiring! Thanks for the words of encouragement.'

....and also most impressive!

Hi Walter - I can easily understand how young children might enjoy the mythic tales and outlandish stories to be found in religion - even to the point of taking the literally rendered biblical fiction that you mention as real.....nothing matches the vividness of a child's imagination. Allegory is for adults.

On the other hand, when adults persist in this same naive and child-like literalist vein it becomes nonsense, a case of willfully arrested development. How else to explain it?? It takes a village....

Aphorisms such as .....'being like little children' and 'seeing with the eyes of a child' surely has a more subtle meaning for adults - charming though the wee tykes may be.

I'm with colinnicholas - you're an extraordinary and easy going guy for going along with it, but I have atheist friends that send their kids to church and bible school, so it's not completely unheard of -particularly in the USA, where getting along means going along, at least for awhile.

regards, Persiflege

Counterww,
yes, it's an enjoyable conversation. indeed, i'm "married to the church". i get the message, but can't see it as being anything other than man-made.

persiflage,
thanks for the readership...

you said,
"This is quaint from a distance, but downright absurd up close..."

it is absurd. i'll be sitting in church and these seemingly sane" people will be contemplating god's awesomeness in literally flooding the whole world while giving 500-yr-old noah 100 years to build an ark for ALL the animals on earth. it's like i'm in a twilight zone episode...

walter-in-fallschurch

Hi Walt. I admire your easy-going tolerance, and your willingness to bend anywhichway to be a good dad and husband. You are a helluva guy. And I really do admire you. But living in a different country, I did it differently.

I raised five atheists, and I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. One difference is I wasn't raising them in the US. I raised them in the UK and Canada, where nonbelief doesn't raise eyebrows.

I didn't set out to raise atheists (of course). I just didn't tell them fairy tales about a Sky God and Heaven and Hell. And they didn't have to go to church, though my daughter went a few times with her friends when she was about ten or eleven.
If asked about gods I would tell them that some folks believe this, and other folks believe that, but i believe it's all nonsense - but I could be wrong. I always
stressed that I could be wrong. Because, of course, I could be.

I wouldn't have wanted to raise children to believe a supernatural fairy tale about a great Sky God who watches over us and fights some guy named Satan up there in the cosmos. I wanted to save them from that, and a lifetime of gibberishness.

But who knows, had I lived where you live - I might have done it your way. America is a very religious place, the pressure to conform enormous.

Cheers

Farnaz,

Your own scholarly acumen is most impessive and inspiring! Thanks for the words of encouragement.

Persiflege

Hi Persiflage,

For awhile, I taught at a major Jesuit university, in which their dwelt a remarkable comparative religionist, a brilliant scholar and inspiring teacher.

One day, one of my students, a Latina, a devout Catholic, came to see me for a conference on her research paper proposal for my Eng. 101 (Composition I) course. She wished to investigate a branch of Chasidic Judaism. Now, I had already discovered that this young woman was brilliant, creative, adventurous, but still....?

It was her comparative religion course. The prof, btw, was also Catholic. Surely, there is a four-year or community college near where you live. You could change lives.

Hi Faraz - I'm glad to hear of your continuing interest and thanks again for your kind comments. My writing style appears to me to be from the 'droll and pedantic' school and I haven't been in a classroom in about 30 years - but teaching does have a certain appeal as a second career.

On the other hand, there may not be much demand for comparative religionists in these here parts. I'm from Michigan originally, where there is far less religious solidarity - and way too much snow!

As both you and Walter have commented, there are many good folks down here, but it's best to avoid the topics of God, prayer, evolution, and religion in general if you hope to get on with your neighbors as a non-believer.

I tried having a religiously oriented discussion with a deeply devoted Jehovah's Witness just the other day at work - an otherwise gorgeous, intelligent woman who truly believes some very strange things, in my view. We didn't get very far.

If Sanford had more than 18 months left in his present term, I believe he'd be pushed toward retirement most vigorously by his own party, but he is refusing to consider it at the present moment. We'll see....

Of course he will land on his feet at a fairly youthful 49....and his wife is already rich, so maybe he'll keep most of his money too. It isn't as though the mighty have fallen, as you commented elsewhere. Just another disposable politician with feet made of clay.

You might enjoy Goswami's book, although he gets off track toward the end of the book, where his philosophy of monistic idealism begins to sound more like philosophical humanism - which is possibly where the 'God Particle' reviewer saw the book take a negative/unscientific turn.

On the other hand, what exactly will proof of the Higgs boson (particle) actually accomplish, other than providing a conspicuously missing basis for mass in the universe - although most people assume that such a fundamental foundation for our material reality must already exist!

'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' by science writer Gary Zukav has been around for awhile, but you might enjoy it.

My personal view is that a wide variety of mystics over the millenia have proven the primacy of consciousness/awareness over and over again - our physical reality is in fact contained within a boundless consciousness - another symbolic rendering for Onofrio's universal Ouroboros!

Where will consciousness take us next on it's timeless journery??

As ever, Persiflege

Walter- nice discourse. I am evangelical, but I don't go along with the so called literal Christians that think the earth is 6000 years old. I do think there is reconciliation between the Bible and science. I think its possible that Adam and Eve were the results of macro evolution. Not sure if this is true, but it is possible. I think the flood happened. How it worked out with the all species staying intact I don't know. But I don't think it matters in the bigs scheme of things. It is more about what happened when Christ came. You go to church but do you get the message of the gospel? About the fact you are a sinner or not? what Jesus did on the cross? His resurrection?

You must be married to a believer, don't mention much about that.

I don't know if God hid evidence of macro evolution or not. Nor does it matter. The old testament and the theory- not fact, theory- of macro evolution are reconcilable. But no way it happened without a intelligence behind it .

Dude, if you reject Christ, you are in trouble. That I will say. that is bottom line.

Hi Persiflage,

In answer to your question about Buddhism, the answer is no, if anything, my interest grows apace. My interest in Quantum physics goes to its possible link with Buddhism, in fact.

Thanks for your explanations and postings. You are a gifted teacher, Persiflage. I do so wish you would teach a course part-time. It would nourish you and I can't even imagine the potential benefits for your student.

In the meantime, as should be evident, you have eager students on this blog, yours truly, among the foremost.

As for Sanford, I doubt that this is his last Tango as he has, from what we hear, had numerous partners over the years. Here in New York, we've had a string of dancers. Giuliani, who married his paramour, Spitzer, and our current governor, Paterson. King David, however, was spared by them. The Sanford thing, does, to an extent, highlight the continuing North/South divide. IMO, the South has not yet recovered from slavery and Reconstruction, and religionism, religionistos, are symptomatic of this.

You know, I'm very fond of the South, and I have travelled South several times. I still recall my first adventure with my now husband. I was certain that we would be victims of some sort of Deliverance scenario. With our New York license plates and brown Jewish me, I thought, all things considered, we should go to Philadelphia. However, we did not, and I'm glad of it.

Inevitably, wherever we went in the South, people were kind to us, gentle, sweet. There are a couple of events that still tickle me when I recall them, and here is one.

I am quite tall, about 5'9", slim, and it is hard for me to fade into the woodwork. Once, a few years ago, we were in Georgia. I was not feeling well, so while my husband and daughter were out parking the car, I walked into the restaurant where we were going to have lunch. As I stood, just past the doorway, trying to get my bearings, the room went quiet, and men seated at tables, male waiters were staring at me, were smiling as if in a religious trance.

I got very scared and was about to leave, when a young woman came up to me and asked if she could help me. She brought me to a table, and soon, my husband and daughter joined me. I didn't mention to them what had just occurred, but I did manage to get the female maitre d' aside to ask her what had happened. In typical "Southern polite," she tried to explain it to this unsubtle New Yorker.

"Exotic?" I finally managed to ask.

She was embarrassed, but I reassured her. I cannot explain it, Persiflage, but this remains among the sweetest memories I have of the South. There are many others--very violet sweet.

Farnaz

Walter - I always enjoy your posts about being surrounded by crazy church people - living in South Carolina as I do, the general population consists of a good many crazy church people of the biblical literalist persuasion....with new churches under construction along every highway and biway, and no exaggeration. You see plenty of this in Virginia, I'm sure.

This is quaint from a distance, but downright absurd up close, when you're trying to have an intelligent conversation - since I encounter my church people at work, in a federal facility. At least if I encountered them in church I'd know they belonged there and I didn't.....at work, it can be baffling and even disconcerting.

The folks with advanced degrees and responsible jobs ... and biblical beliefs, are in apparent violation of your law of three's - but it is, after all, South Carolina.....homeland of GOP governor Mark Sanford. Educated, rational (at times) and a biblical funamentalist, just like many of his (former) political constituents.

Go figure...

Limbo has been abolished recently, talking about eternal religious truths.

Two questions: If it is abolished now, what guys introduced it to start with? Either it is eternal, or it is abolishable.

If it has been abolished, what part of the "eternal" Christian creed will be abolished next?

Counterww,
i go to church for my family. i suppose i'm not ready for my daughter to think i'm going to hell. maybe when she's older.

the pastor and i have a great relationship - one where i can call him "crazy" and he understands why i think that. he doesn't take it as an insult. he just thinks i'm one of the many people deluded by the theory of evil-ution.

the people at this church are generally intelligent - they're just (intentionally) ignorant about biology, geology, astronomy and so on. they think the earth is 6000 years old. they would think the sky is red if the bible said the sky is red - no questions asked. to me - that's weird. they are extremely loving caring people - but...crazy.

the idea that "god has hidden enough evidence to make people depend on their faith" is weird to me too. a variation of this that is popular at church is that god has made it appear as if evolution occured to trick people like me. again, that's weird.

people at the church are literalists. i contend that it is impossible today to be rational, educated and a biblical literalist. pick any two, but you can't be all three.

happy 4th.

Again, the topic is???

So Walter, why do you bother to go to church?

What is the point? You obviously don't believe in what the pastor does, so why are you there? Agnostic or atheist, you sound like a strange guy , wanting to go to a place (church) that people believe things you don't.... what is the point?

You would insult a stranger? You hang out with a guy- but you are friends- that sounds cool. At least you are listening to what he has to say... my point is that you would not start to insult someone until you got to know they personally a bit better. Sure don't know why you are in a church you don't agree with. That is plain weird IMO.

BTW- I believe the flood happened to, and there are many INTELLIGENT people that do. Does not mean the earth is 6000 years old(impossible) but I do think the flood happened. How it happened, and how the different species came out of it intact, not sure, but still believe it occurred.

What I find interesting about science and scientific oriented people that are cynics- and you qualify- is that you want EVERYTHING explained. You can't explain everything, and some things you just have to choose to believe or not. I don't think it makes a difference really. I believe God has hidden enough evidence to make people depend on their faith. Faith, hope, and love are the keys to life, not scientific knowledge.

Colin is worse than you. Makes that stupid comment about how the existence of God would make things boring to him.

Bottom line? I really believe as Rick Warren does that people that don't want to or don't believe God exists just want to be left alone to think and do what they want, and don't want to be held accountable for anything they do in their lives. I don't care about atheists most of the time, but the militant ones need to be confronted for their bigotry and hatred for us poor "religionists". It's just an excuse to rude and elitist from my perspective. Civil discourse IS possible without insults, at least that is the way I was brought up.

Farnaz - just below, a pretty concise description of the discoveries of quantum mechanics and how various physicists have tried to explain the wave function aspect of particles and Heisenberg's uncertainty rule e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation.

This is still the predominent view of physics, followed by the many worlds interpretation. It's fair to say that some version of quantum mechanics is the correct view of how physical reality comes about.

So it appears that there is no material 'ground floor' to physical reality, beyond completely invisible and hidden forces and fields of interaction.

Physicists for the most part admit that the concept/construct of 'particles' is a convenient way to explain how the world works. Of course string theorists substitute strings for particles and they swear they are real.

The actual stuff of the universe seems pretty elusive, all things considered.

PS. Have you lost your interest in Buddhism?

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

Farnaz - haven't read The God Particle yet, but it's on my list. The review link clearly doesn't think much of Goswami's book by comparison (written in 1994).

Various proponents of the primacy of consciousness, including Goswami, certainly present their science in a way that supports their view - so the work is geared toward making and supporting what many would consider a distinctly subjective metaphysical view - but so be it.

In the link you provided (and elsewhere), each and every quantum physicist does the same with their pet theory, although many wouldn't take the implications of the 'observer effect' to the extremes that Goswami and a few others are prone to.

I suspect what discredits them in the minds of some is their attempts to link Eastern thought with the discoveries of quantum mechanics. This started some time back with the publication of 'The Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra more than 25 years ago.

Daniel Dennett, for example, is clearly not in the 'a prioi' consciousness camp and has criticized this view at length elsewhere - being an avowed material realist.

Everyone has a slightly or dramatically different take on the role of 'intentionality' as it relates to consciousness, but one must at least link the conscious will to act and self-awareness. What that means in the abstract construction of the brain-bound world that we live in, differs depending on who you ask.

Otherwise what you have is 'subliminal' conscousness without awareness. Unconsciousness is yet another aspect of mind. Whether or not these subtle brain-mind mechanisms are purely dependent on chemistry and neurons is still unsettled.

Believing that consciousness is purely organic would certainly be the prevailing view in much of the science community and elsewhere.

And now for that old fuddy duddy grandmother CCNL and his TOPIC obsession - I'm pleased to be reporting to you directly from Columbia, SC where our illustrious governor is experiencing his last Tango on this July 4th - thank you for listening.

And a Happy 4th of July to all!!!

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

Counterww wrote:

"Oh- and by the way- many are "awed by nature"
and the fact all this beauty and complexity must have been created."

Indeed. And that is what evolution is all about...creation and creativity.

Persiflage,

A friend recommended both Goswami and Lederman's "The God Particle." Are you familiar with it?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0618711686/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

And the topic is????

'I select, therefore I am'
=============
I am socioculturally selected, therefore I am. There is no apriori synthetic knowledge including 2 times 2.

If you want to draw--what else--a chair, you must see how it, as an object, presents, itself, to you. You cannot draw a chair without bracketing its chairness.

Persiflage,

How can they be fundamentally different other than scale?

==============
But I think they can be. Quantity determines quality for some phenomena of nature, e.g, number of cells in a living organism. Or am I way outside the bounds of your point?

Persiflage,

Thanks for your reply! This is from the link to the web site I just posted, and it is what I do not get:

This is a key aspect of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics - it's not just that the scientist doesn't know which state it's in, but it's rather that the physical reality is not determined until the act of measurement takes place. In some unknown way, the very act of observation is what solidifies the situation into one state or another ... until that observation takes place, the physical reality is split between all possibilities.

Farnaz,

I've seen that Hawking quote before - brilliance and black holes aside, I don't think Hawking escapes material realism any more easily than Einstein! Pragmatism prevails for most scientists - at least when it comes to science.

The point is that facts established in the micro-world must in some way also be true for the macro-world (even though the effects go largely unnoticed). How can they be fundamentally different other than scale? Nonlocality is something for you to take a look at. Disregard the math and look at the concept.

You've mentioned this before and it seems to me that the observations of phenomenology are not without considerable merit as we consider the primacy of consciousness and specifically, conscious awareness, as the catalyst for all human experience. When was it otherwise? You'll note that Daniel Dennett stands in opposition to the phenomenological view.

In his book, The Self-Aware Universe, physicist Amit Goswami reifies the Descartes axion 'I think therefore I am' to 'I select, therefore I am' - thereby linking intentionality, self-awareness and free will to the observed universe in an immediately direct way.

However, this instantaneous creative connection remains largely unconscious in most people, who can only perceive a secondary universe whose appearance has been conditioned by a 1/2 second lapse of neural transmission time. At the conclusion of the sensory transmission, we see what we expect to see - the same old deeply familiar world. Overcoming this limitation is one goal of meditation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlocality

colinnicholas,

I've only seen trailers for the film. I've looked through the books many times in bookstores, and I know what you mean about childhood. I've resisted buying them because we are overflowing with books, but I'll probably give in....

Farnaz

Persiflage,

Thanks so much for the explanation! I'm struggling on. What I don't yet get is how measurement at the atomic or subatomic level can introduce determinacy, dualist, that, at bottom, I probably am. At any rate, just found this on the S. cat--has a funny quote from Hawkings.

http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/schroedcat.htm

Counterww, you said,
"You would not dare say it to a Christian face to face , that is my bet."

that is a bet you would lose. my wife and daughter are members at a local church. i have told the pastor straight-up that i think he's CRAZY. i have used that word to his face. it just rolls off his back. he is seemingly reasonable person, but talk to him about science and he becomes an idiot... he believes noah's flood was a real historical event...what can i say. lovely people, but, crazy.

i have also told a contractor friend of mine that i think he's crazy. we still do business, love to talk politics and i've told him numerous time i think he's crazy. nonetheless, he comes to my house, after work, we try to solve world problems, great guy, but he's crazy.

Farnaz;

Yes I saw the movie. Persepolis. I think I liked the books better. Maybe because I enjoyed being able to gaze at length at the wonderful drawings - of a child's view of a society gone mad, and sort of dwell on the imagery, and have a toke and turn the pages slowly and concentrate on what this little girl was seeing and living and yelling about. Highly recommended.

I see ads around for new editions of Persepolis, both books in one edition. It was seeing the ad that reminded me of how much enjoyed them.

Hi Farnaz - great website! I really doubt I can say anything very intelligible about quantum ideas, but I do share the same birthday with Erwin Schroedinger - will that help, I wonder?

Anyway, Schroedinger's Cat sums up the problems inherent with quantum superpositions, uncertainly, the collapse of the quantum wave function, and the role of the observer as the probability wave is made to collapse into a single 'particle based' material reality.

This is more exactly termed 'measurement' since the observation or interference with the wave function doesn't have to be completed by a living being directly - a measuring device will do nicely, as long as an entanglement with the probability wave occurs. We still have to interact with the measuring device, however.

In short, all possibilities exist in potentia in an indeterminate wave form,
until a measurement of some kind occurs. At that point, the cat is either found alive or dead - at least in the single universe that we're aware of.

Some have it that there are an infinity of parallel universes where all possibilities exist in every imaginable combination. We happen to live in one of them. The cat is very probably both dead and alive, if that is truly the case - but not in the same universe.

Obviously the role of consciousness figures prominently in a number of these hypothetical schemes, because something has to interfere with the probability wave before a collapse (and a world) can occur.

This unseemly reliance on consciousness does offend some physicists, and they seek alternate explanations for the critical wave collapse in such ideas as quantum decoherence - a way around the observer effect.

Is there some part of the consciousness that is so intimately associated with brain function e.g. cognition, percepton, and self-awareness also in some way immaterial or transcendent to the material realm?

And exactly how could anything with a quality of non-materiality interact with an apparently material universe?

Some posit a quantum, nonlocal feature in the human brain that allows for entanglement with an apparently ineffable realm of probability that gives rise to our perceived material world.

Speaking of alive or dead, it seems as though Descartes isn't quite dead yet......

That website looks to be an excellent resource.

Collinnicholas:

Or at least he does in Marjane Satrapi's wonderful illustrated book about growing up in Iran, during the revolution.
=======================
Have you seen the animated version?

Hi Persiflage, ColinNick, and all,

Quantum theory? Have been perusing this:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

Maybe, Persiflage will speak on Schrodinger's cat, whom I have visited many times, unable to determine whether s/he is alive, dead, or somewhere in between.

Help, please, Persiflage.

Farnaz

walter-in-fallschurch

You write

"It amazes me that more people aren't in awe of nature. but, many need more...need "meaning"...need "purpose"..."

me;

Yep. Personally without a God in the picture - nature, the real world, the whole cosmos is so much more AWESOME and incredibly mysterious and interesting.
Plonk God down in the middle of everything and it becomes boring and unreal, and eventually absurd, and tells us nothing about anything. Christopher Hitchins says Religion poisons everything. I think it distorts everything.

Hi Farnaz;

Interesting comment. Don't know much about Marx and Engels, except Marx looks like God.
Or at least he does in Marjane Satrapi's wonderful illustrated book about growing up in Iran, during the revolution. I smile and shake my head just thinking about it.

That paragraph by Persiflage you selected for him to elaborate on, was the one that I had copypasted with a view to having Persi explain it a bit better. You beat me to it. Now that he's responded to your query, I must go study it.

cheers

Hi Walter - the trending away from materialism is central to a number of features found in quantum mechanics and quantum physics. I've posted a lot on this in the past and won't get carried away, but a material foundation for the material world is not proven out in the quantum mechanical discoveries of quantum uncertainty, nonlocality, and the virtually disappeared 'particle' that has been the basis for much scientific thinking - that doesn't mean Newton and Einstein don't count for something in the macro-world because of course they do.

If you're afflicted with philosophical inclinations as I am, then you're always looking for the outer limits of human thought and experience, and how that may translate to future discoveries. The future of science is to be found in the quantum world - that's my considered opinion. What those discoveries may be is anyone's guess.

In reading Brian Greene's recent book on the past and future of physics, this noted superstring theorist ended by hypothesizing that future developments in physics will inevitably involve the operational dynamics of holograms and holography.

There are other theorists that have paved the way for this thinking (see David Bohm), but the idea is that perceived objects may indeed be projected and re-directed (by unseen, hidden variables) from higher, more refined 'material' realms - Plato's archetypes re-visited!

I've never been one to discount the intuitive discoveries of the ancients....they may be speaking to us yet again in the future.

Oh- and by the way- many are "awed by nature"
and the fact all this beauty and complexity must have been created.

As far as macro evolution goes- not proven, but very possible- it could have never have happened by random movements of molecules. Or natural selection as you would want to call the invisible force that caused macro evolution to occur. It was guided by an intelligence, that is the only thing that makes sense.

Actually Colin and others that don't believe in a Creator-

I don't believe that atheists really have a grasp on reality if they can't see that a Creator exists. It's not that we can or have the ability provide proof- its that most people intrinsically understand God exists. any proof provided would be rejected anyway due to your self oriented natures .

As far Mr Walter says "having said all that, i DO wonder whether humans as a whole are "ready" to give up god-based morality. i DO think there is a benefit to society in having most people believe god will "catch them" sinning even if the police don't."

You atheists don't get it and probably never will. Most people are infused with a desire or knowledge not provable that tells them that God exists. It is not about being caught- it is about loving God and knowing that he solved the sin problem once and for all with the death and resurrection of Christ.

And when you use the mocking, it just illuistrated your elitism. I guess that is the internet. You would not dare say it to a Christian face to face , that is my bet.

Hi Farnaz - yes indeed. Unlike the dualism inherent in monotheistic religions, materialism is a monistic position that says everything reduces down to finer and finer matter, and that the cosmos and all life forms are simply a complex interaction of 'particles' and the related forces affecting those most rarified constituents of matter.

Consciousness is merely one epiphenomenon arising from the endless interaction of myriad lifeless particles engaged in highly particular physical processess.

Objects and all material phenomena are as they appear - relatively permanent, self-existing objects subject to the forces of cause and effect.

This was Newton's world (without his religious self), and practically speaking is still our world view as well....and in particular those pragmatists of a certain scientific bent. It does have lots of practical benefits and endless applications.

But I'm the other kind of monist.....who believes that matter with all it's limits, is supported by a limitless non-material base and is essentially not different than that base.

I see consciousness as having nonlocal quantum features that make it quite independent of our material world.......

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

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

Walter,

You noted: "you and i think we have free will for different reasons. you think god allows free will. i think there's no god to prevent it."

And indeed you might be correct. Note I did say "This falls correctly in line with two of God/nature's greatest interdependent gifts, i.e. Free Will and Future". "God or nature's greatest gifts" would be a clearer statement.

Hi Persiflage,

You write: "In my view, there is nothing whatsoever to differentiate the elements of our material reality - this ranges from black holes to innumerable galaxies, to human thought. It is all made of the same stuff....."

But, ontologically, isn't materialism monistic?

colinnicholas,
thanks. it amazes me that more people aren't in awe of nature. but, many need more...need "meaning"...need "purpose"...

i almost mentioned dewaal, e.o. wilson and so on, but figured my statements about non-human primate societies are not really controversial enough to require "proof". i think pretty much everyone knows about chimp altruism studies and so on. they just can't imagine the leap from that level of cooperation to humans' writing it all down happening (without god's intervention). it's like how they can't imagine that "macro-evolution" is just a LOT of "micro-evolution.

Hi ColinNick,

Yes, there appears to be altruism in primates. Interesting that Marx and Engels, but especially, the latter were students of "natural science," noticed the "dialectics" in nature. In a sense, Dawkins follows in their tradition. Or, they in his. Flexible memes.

walter-in-fallschurch

Hi Walter. About your comments on moderate Muslims, yeah, it's like Sam Harris says, the moderates actually enable the wackos by giving them cover, or a kind of credibility that they wouldn't otherwise have.
It should be considered laughable to believe in a great Sky God who watches over us, who listens to us when we shut our eyes and talk to our fingers,and who we don't get to see until after we're dead and buried. Like yeah sure. Some deal.
If only one person believed it - we'd think he was crazy. But as Sam says, because millions believe it - it says there's sanity in numbers. LOL.

Enjoyed your excellent response to the scary Daniel12.
Don't you love it when religious folk tell us how the world works and explain animal life in all it's wonders, without studying anything but the Wholly Babble?
I bet he's never even heard of Franz deWaal and his studies of reciprocal altruism in primates, which suggest that much of our moral behavior evolved too from our primate origins.

Cheers

ccnl1,
i meant to say "you quoted" (not "you said") that thing about god the puppeteer.

ccnl1, you said,
"otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings"

how do we know that's not the case? sounds more like wishful thinking or more projection of ourselves onto the gods we invent. you don't WANT god to be a puppet-master - it seems distasteful. and you don't want to be a puppet. who does? but, i mean, if there is a god, how do we know he's not up there pulling the strings?

you and i think we have free will for different reasons. you think god allows free will. i think there's no god to prevent it.

It is obvious from the excess verbiage of Daniel12 that he cannot find concrete proof of god's existence as he relies on the tired cliches of "omnipresent, omniscient et al".

With respect to this omniscient god, Daniel needs to read more from the famous contemporary theologian, Father Edward Schillebeeckx.

e.g. From his book, Church: The Human Story of God,

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings.

For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

And if God does not know the future, Mohammed, Jesus and Isaiah surely did not.

In two sentences of profound common sense, Schillibeeckx has reduced much of the OT, NT and Koran to the wishful thinking of many ancient scribes.

This falls correctly in line with two of God/nature's greatest interdependent gifts, i.e. Free Will and Future.

Pause and think about it!!!

daniel12, you said,
"All the games that open up if there is no God! We can pursue murder, rape, as arts such as chess, poker...we just have to elude the authorities which really have no authority if God does not exist. How is right right without God? By consensus? How long will that hold up as the nonexistence of God truly sinks in?"

theists always trot out this arguement - projecting their idea of a god-free anything-goes hedonism. you might be surprised to learn that i don't kill people. i don't even like hunting or fishing (but i love meat...). i don't kill people because i don't want to live in a society where people kill people. i don't want to be killed (and i don't want to get caught by the police). same for lying and stealing and so forth. it's the golden rule.

as far as "no other gods" and "pray this way" and "wear this" and "don't eat that", i really don't see any moral "heft" there. they seem kind of small-minded, but i guess that's for believers to judge. of course, my "human-based" morality tells me these are the kinds of rules it is immoral to impose on others.

having said all that, i DO wonder whether humans as a whole are "ready" to give up god-based morality. i DO think there is a benefit to society in having most people believe god will "catch them" sinning even if the police don't.

colinnicholas, you said,
"It doesn't help when those with a bomb believe that their god wants them to use it against infidels. As an infidel - this makes me very uncomfortable. And what great motivation for the believer."

me too. people say, "well, most muslims aren't like that." agreed, but it only takes a few. crazy "god-want-me-to-kill" beliefs used to be "manageable" when they used swords and spears...but WMD - omg!

who doesn't think if osama could detonate an atomic bomb on infidels he would?

daniel12, you said,
"The fact is animals operate by instinct--for all "morality" they demonstrate they are not aware of making moral decisions. Name one animal that has a code such as the ten commandments. The fact is animals are not aware of what they do, whether operating "morally" or not."

i'm not sure how you know animals are not aware of "moral" decisions they make. of course you can probably say that about a fish or an insect, but primate research has yielded all kinds of evidence for "codes of behavior" and the complexity of primate social structures. chimps who steal food are ostracized. sick or injured ones are taken care of.

as for why there's no animal "10 commandments", well, they can't write - at least not nearly as well as we can. it's our giant brains that give us morality. your distinction between animals and humans is false: we ARE animals. we are just the most moral (and immoral) of animals - because of our giant brains.

different "tribes" of primate have learned different tricks for gathering food etc... that they teach their children. we're the only animal that's smart enough to write (and read thousnads of years later) down what we learn. every generation of humans does not have to "start over". all this knowledge (and superstition and misinformation) is what i call our "cultural chromasome".

unlike our biological chromasomes, this one resides outside our bodies - in schools, libraries, the internet etc... the cultural chromasome evolves very quickly compared to our somatic chromasomes. it carries our religion gene and our morality gene. it includes things like "politeness" and "manners" too. it is all the things our ancestors learned (and mislearned) about everything. in the 1700s we added "separation of church and state" to our cultural chromasome. somewhere back in the distant past we added "geocentric universe" (physical and spiritual universe), and "honor killing" and "sacrifice a goat to god".

anyway, i think that because of our giant brains we are burdened with the knowledge of good and evil to a greater EXTENT than other animals. but it's just a matter of degree, not a yes/no humans-are-moral-and other-animals-aren't kind of thing.

Persiflage;

Just caught your last couple of comments.

Of course I agree with you; there are other dangers beside religious ones. And Korea scares the hell out of me. But Pakistan is what I probably had in mind, and the likelyhood that other Muslim countries will sooner or later also have 'the bomb'. It doesn't help when those with a bomb believe that their god wants them to use it against infidels. As an infidel - this makes me very uncomfortable. And what great motivation for the believer.
About Wales. I never did learn the Welsh tongue - living on the border with England, and in fact moved to Canada many years ago. But Wales is still a part of me, and I still read Dylan Thomas and his poems and stories of the fishing-boat-bobbing sea, and of his being green and golden under the apple boughs in the orchards of Swansea.

Cheers.

persiflage, what do you mean by

"science is trending away from the materialism that has defined modern science in the last 300 years"?

What has Mark Sanford's religion done for him? It has kept him sexually repressed, naive, and sheletered all the way up until middle age. Now he is in love, apparently for the first time. He is expereincing now what most shcol boys get out of their system. He is a mess, or as they say, a "hot mess."

This extreme sexual repression in Judaism, Christianity, and Isalm is what fuels homophobic hatred. But in fact, sexuality is a part of life. Governer Sanford is now learning the awful facts of life.

But it is his religious heritage that has lead him so astray thus far in his life.

Colinnicholas, you said:

'If somebody blows the world up one of these days, it will be somebody religious.'

Yes, we've seen the outcome of religious fanaticism first-hand, but who is going to supply them with the explosives to blow up the world? Decidedly non-religious political fanatics with an agenda, I would think......

Blatant displays of religion can be irritating and offensive, but at least you know where they're coming from....it's the politically driven ideologs behind the scenes that concern me more.

North Korea firing missiles toward Hawaii has nothing to do with religion, for example.....being completely nuts doesn't necessarily require religious beliefs.

At a personal level, I do hate it when my elected representatives mix politics and religion, but more disgusting is the fact that it gets them votes.....

Muckenfuss, I am not trying to prove God exists--but I will admit it would be nice to succeed at such. I doubt conclusive evidence about God ever will exist though. But I also would like to know if it can be proved God does not exist. But I doubt conclusive evidence for that is not forthcoming as well.

As for my arguments being unoriginal, "known for centuries" as you put it, please show me some sources. Even ask Jacoby to help you. I like to know whether I am wasting my time or not in tackling a problem (whether it has already been solved or not, etc.). I consider time and health the most important things a person can have in existence. And I apologize if you feel I have wasted your time. I always hope that I am broadening horizons, making life interesting for people.

You might find this strange, but I really am not that hostile to atheists. In fact I never go to church. The last time I went was to sneak in and play the piano. Super acoustics! Bach more Christ than Jesus? Dare I say that? In other words I am really not that religious. I just read a lot and think about things. And I like things clearly laid out, honesty on all sides about everything. I feel one will have to be honest eventually so better to just accept it instead of doing everything other than being honest.

Sorry if I offended you--I always seem to forget in tackling ideas I might be offending people. In fact it is difficult for me to be restrained, circumspect. I really should try to be a little less aggressive in approaching ideas. I seem to be calming down as I get older. But I can always do better in my manners. I suppose that is all too obvious!

Thanks for the conversation.

Part one.

One of the more interesting arguments of atheists is that not only is morality capable of existing without the concept of God, but that it will be improved without God.

A typical line of reasoning by atheists in this matter is that over all of human history (and presumably before recorded history) rules had to exist or human societies would have died out. The more successful societies were those that invented and adhered to rules. In other words, here atheists offer a biological, evolutionary explanation of morality to counter a morality explained by God.

Unfortunately there is a small problem with atheists' reasoning in this regard. Over all of human history (and presumably before recorded history) except in recent times man believed in God or Gods. Man, from his perspective, did not proceed according to the modern biological perspective of reasoning about rules, having rules clearly separate from divine authority. No, man believed in God or the Gods. The very same societies atheists try to say not only could have come into existence without a belief in God but did come into existence without such a belief, and by "rule considerations free of divine authority", actually did come into existence with a belief in God. Therefore all attempts by atheists to say that human societies can not only survive for an appreciable length of time without a belief in God but did do so over all of human history is null and void. Only now, very recently in human history, have we begun to consider whether morality can exist without God.

Another line of reasoning by atheists in this matter of whether morality can exist without God is that animals (many different species) "demonstrate morality" and they do not believe in God, therefore if humans eliminate the concept of God they will proceed morally as the animals. Dear reader, at this point I can only shake my head. The fact is animals operate by instinct--for all "morality" they demonstrate they are not aware of making moral decisions. Name one animal that has a code such as the ten commandments. The fact is animals are not aware of what they do, whether operating "morally" or not. And to say that humans, who are engrossed in moral dilemmas, will proceed with the clarity of "animal morality", which is actually instinct, if the concept of God is removed from human life, is at best irresponsibility and a mere theory and at worst a catastrophic piece of ignorance. In fact I have to laugh at atheists' reasoning in this regard. We all are aware, being human, of all the moral dilemmas in life. But atheists say remove the concept of God and we all will not only have a better morality but move through life with all the aplomb of an animal. Should I bray or should I moo?

Part two.

What makes it even more amusing, this attempt of atheists to say that man without God will move through life with the ease of "animal morality", is that these very same animals that live without a belief in God and yet have "morality" HAD IT ALL HAPPEN TO THEM--which is to say the more unconscious a creature is of having arrived at demonstrable morality the more the argument is bolstered that the morality came from God and not the animal! In other words, we have a nice little axiom here to the effect that the more unconscious a creature is the less it can claim responsibility for what morality it has and therefore morality must (there is a movement toward "must") have come from outside itself...God.--And vice versa: the more conscious a creature is and the more it strives to not only maintain but improve morality the more it has the right to say morality has come out of its own free decision and is not dependent on anything outside itself, not dependent on...God. But to a great degree the latter is what the religious have been saying for years: man has free choice, can choose either evil or the good--and the more freely man chooses the good the more right he is in the eyes of God...as if correctly having guessed what originated in God in the first place...And when man was largely instinctive, more an animal than man, morality if anywhere was outside of man, located with...God. Man can take morality upon himself all he wants--he is still faced with God.

Moving down the road...we arrive at the big atheist claim that individuals in human society and not believing in God will work toward the betterment of the group as humans mostly have through all human history. What a big claim this one, sheer hypothesis. Let me see, God not believed in and therefore nothing of ultimate goodness behind existence, no possibility of really being good...No possibility of really being good and therefore progress at best is only a going around in circles, making things better only to see them grow worse, but the individual in society will be goody two shoes and work as best he can for the benefit of the group!

Lord, where are you when reason is wanted? Oh, yes, I see: you exist in me lord, you move my tongue, you are my morality and reason. Would that it would be the reason of man and not just me, a strange kind of animal....

Daniel12:

I suspect it is apparent to nearly everyone that you have little to say that is logical, rational, and not self-serving.

My question is why you need so many words to say so little.

Once again you fail to prove the existence of god. And in doing so, you have offered no new insights or ideas that have not been known for centuries.

http://www.think-logically.co.uk/lt.htm

And google on closed world assumptions, and on presupposition failure.

Daniel,

"The theory of evolution shows that if there is any right it is the right of the fittest. Why not just wipe out the peoples--even races--that are lagging behind? Why be moral when all of evolution shows no such thing--"

So it does.

Yes, should not the strong subjugate the weak? Does it not benefit the simpering slaves to be ruled by the strong? On their own they can they survive without the help of a strong hand? Are not the Fasces simply the symbol of the right of the strong to wield discipline upon the lower orders?

Wisdom dawns.

Colinnicholas,

I sincerely appreciate your posts, and can only imagine the beauty of your part of the world - I don't know much about Welsh mythology, but remember reading at one time that the Basque language of northern Spain was closest to Welsh - although still an entirely unique language. Unfortunately my linguistic aspirations never took another step....

While I agree that primitive religious beliefs can be a hazard to our daily lives as you succinctly pointed out, religion is a vast part of the human heritage - you obviously know this.

All things considered, I'm not of the material realist school of thought - science is trending away from the materialism that has defined modern science in the last 300 years - and still continues to do so.

I suspect that this school of thought will also be debunked in the coming years - leaving atheism quite undefined and bereft, in it's current Dawkinsonian assumptions - but not in the sense of monotheism and/or dualistic thought, by any means!

In my view, there is nothing whatsoever to differentiate the elements of our material reality - this ranges from black holes to innumerable galaxies, to human thought. It is all made of the same stuff.....

We can't currently comprehend how this could possibly be so....but the seeds of this realization are there.

Best regards -

Persiflage;

Liked your comments. But when you say;

"Religion only matters if you're serious about it....."

I wasn't serious about it. But on 9/11 religion suddenly mattered to all of us, atheists too. It's not the passive loving thing of fairy tales . It is seriously disturbing, and most dangerous.
If somebody blows the world up one of these days, it will be somebody religious.

And in conclusion, The Big Bang and the Gib Gnab are a more logical explanation for creating, expanding and recyling of the Universe. And when we find those living exoplanets and we will, god will simply be discarded as another myth generated by humankind to explain the unknown.

And remember this Big Bang/Gib Gnab will destroy the Earth in about a billion years when the Sun starts its "death" expansion heating the Earth to an unliveable temperature. (assuming some meteor /asteroid does not finish the job before that).

On the other hand, there are some human beings who have transcended "the puny human mind" and have met God or have proven its existence and are waiting for its return as per Paul's imminent return prediction 2000 years ago. Talk about being late to a meeting!!!!

God have mercy that I should criticize atheists! It can only mean I am a diehard Christian fundamentalist! It cannot possibly be that I put pen to paper to truly get at existence, to find the truth! It cannot possibly be that I will call it like it is whether faced with conservative or liberal, the God fearing or the atheists! The problem with people when they criticize what I write is they do not understand how incredibly selfish I am, how I do not exist to prop up the position that someone else has but to examine all positions and render a verdict which cannot be moved by anyone or anything but my intelligence and conscience. In short, an attempt at intellectual integrity....

And so we have Muckenfuss saying atheists are not obliged to prove God does not exist--that it is the task of believers to make proofs toward proving God does exist. Meanwhile believers AND ATHEISTS work toward making life better, life which cannot possibly get better, cannot progress to true happiness and satisfaction, if there is no being of ultimate goodness behind existence. Thank you atheists for helping believers prove that God exists--for that is what you do with every positive step forward in existence. However, if it does upset you that you are helping prove the existence of God by making life better you can go ahead and make the world worse than it is to prove there is no ultimate goodness behind existence. Do so, but do not expect many to flock to the atheist side...

part one.

Atheism. All the challenges atheists make to the conception of God. Among these challenges we have 1) that the term "God" has no explanatory value, that we should discard the concept because it is no worthwhile concept at all, and delve deeper into the mystery of existence.

Perfectly logical this criticism by atheists. The problem is the concept of God does have great explanatory value. It explains the beginning and ending of things with respect to man no matter how incorrect many of the physical descriptions of nature by the God fearing have been. That the concept "God" has no explanatory value is a completely relative statement--"God" perhaps of no value to the scientist, but of great value to those called religious.

2) That all the attributes of God such as omniscience, omnipotence, absolute goodness are next to impossible (according to mathematical calculation, chance) individually, and taken together and compressed into one being which is divine for such utterly impossible. Again, perfectly logical. The problem is if the above is correct the human race must abandon the pursuit of perfection in any one of these qualities let alone the pursuit of all of them as if they can be compressed, synthesized into one being. In short, this perfectly logical argument by atheists strikes accurately against the concept of God, but at the price of working toward human futility.

Part two.

3) That if God truly existed and were truly good then the existence humans now live would not only be free of evil but be the best possible existence--and of course common sense tells us we are not living the best possible existence. Perfectly logical, but this argument leads to the same result of argument #2 in that it is a declaration of the futility of existence. In fact this argument depends on existence remaining futile, demands that atheists work toward making life worse and not better, because if atheists work toward making life better and continually succeed they ironically work toward demonstrating that a being of ultimate goodness lies behind existence. Every movement toward a better life is a movement toward proving the existence of God. Every movement toward a worse, more painful life, supports the atheists' position that there is no God.

4) That God, having such immense and incredible qualities, cannot be understood by the puny human mind--in fact, over all history we see demonstrated not only the most various conceptions of God (and his demands) but a clear difficulty in determining the direction to God,--which is to say attempts toward God have just as often resulted in what humans call the demonic as the good. Again, perfectly logical. The problem is if the above is the case, then how do we know whether we are using reason as the prefered path over religion or not? In other words, if an examination of religion over all of human history reveals conflicting interpretations of God's demands, then how can we not arrive in abolishing religion and moving toward reason at conflicting interpretations of reason?--especially because in discounting God by reason, discounting an ultimate good, we discount an absolute, perfect reason? Reason as the price of its success against God becomes perfectly relative...therefore how can we keep from arriving at a world which demonstrates more relativity in reason than it ever did as to God and religion?

Part three.

5) That God cannot exist because he cannot know for certain he is God--which is to say everything in the universe is uncertain about its own existence, cannot achieve certainty, perfect knowledge with respect to anything outside itself let alone itself. Again, perfectly logical, but at a terrible price: that humans are ultimately doomed to futility, uncertainty. We cannot become certain so why pursue certainty of knowledge at all? Furthermore, this gives the lie to argument #1, that God possesses no explanatory value. In comparison to argument #5, atheists' assertion that humans are doomed to uncertainty, of course God has explanatory value: our belief in him gives certainty to our existence. All may be uncertain but God, but the certainty of God is certainty in our existence.

6) That some of God's defining qualities such as being the purpose provider of existence cannot exist because, for example, we can find no purpose to existence. Do I first have to state that this is a perfectly relative argument, that for all evidence of no purpose to existence millions over the centuries (and no doubt over the centuries to come) have found purpose in God? Furthermore, if the atheists are correct here, that no purpose to existence can be found...well then what purpose do we have? Why not do anything we wish in the attempt to find purpose (such as murder, rape, etc.)? In fact if there truly is no purpose, then everything is allowed. How can a court prosecute someone when it is universally acknowledged there is no purpose to existence?

Conclusion: the argument of atheists against believers proceeds virtually in every instance in an either/or fashion as if, obviously (to most of us and especially the religious), the religious have a perfectly unassailable position, and less obviously (to most of us) as if the atheists can just trot out some arguments, demolish religion, and proceed with perfect equanimity, as if there are no tradeoffs, let alone clearly disturbing ones. It is this writer's contention that the evidence for and against God and the arguments pro and con reveal the argument will probably never end, which is to say there will always in human existence be atheists and believers. Which will win out in the end only God or nothing knows. But if nothing knows why give up a belief in God?

Just for the fun of it: I hear people talking about god "up there".

In the universe, there is no such thing as "up" and "down", the illustrative (and infantile) basis of the heaven and hell fairy. All we can observe is gravity. (Take a look at Google earth). So god is "down there" just as well - or isn't. How about "the devil up there in the heavens"? The all-knowing god in the bible never mentions gravity, we had to wait just a little for Newton and his fellows.

Social behavior, a.k.a. morals, Daniel 12, is ingrained in all sorts of animals just as well as in the human animal.

Educate yourself just a little more about recent research results about social, even highly "moral" behavior in all sorts of species as a necessary function within evolution.

No god required, unless you want to attribute to chimps some "faithful behavior" or the lack thereof.

Superstition is a transient proxy explanation of things difficult or impossible to understand. The creation of an artificial causality where there is non in reality. Atheists don't need it.

It seems to me that the supposed religious beliefs or lack thereof among recent American Presidents is secondary to the fact that people generally fear religion in the hands of a republican administration, and don't give religion a moment's thought when democrats are in charge.

In this example, it's always politics before religion, and for good and sufficient reason. Democrats typically believe unalterably in the separation of church and state without fail (although there may be a few that are vocally more feeble on the issue among the Blue Dogs).

Their GOP counterparts are mostly at the other end of the continuum with religion if you can believe what they say - but can you? A fair question.......

Clinton was sufficiently well versed in the Bible that he could easily have been a stellar Baptist preacher, but his convictions were no doubt those of a humanist rather than a religionist. He always knew how to move his crowd, and Obama shares that gift. Talking religion is merely throwing the crowd a bone.....

And in my view, Clinton didn't have a religiously contrite bone in his body for his offenses against marital fidelity and presidential decorum - no pun intended. Still, he could move audiences in the South with his gifted Southern-speak that generally included allusions to religion.

Bush on the other hand was a true believer, but a notoriously ungifted public speaker. Which of the two was the more disingenuous individual?

I live in South Carolina and the folks calling for Sanford's resignation are overwhelmingly republicans - and each one with a powerful church affiliation and/or specific political ambitions, I guarantee.

The other difference between Clinton and Sanford? One was in fact president, while the other was a wannabee that left his last best chance in Argentina....which was really no chance at all.

Religion only matters if you're serious about it.....

eport Offensive Comment

CCNL1 is correct.

Let us say it all for Gov. Sanford, who, according to WaPo has now confessed to several previous adulterous liaisons:

Mark 9:38-50

John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.

"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and to be thrown into hell.
=====================
Hopefully, someone near the Gov. is casting out demons. And then footless and handless will Sanford go. Alternatively, he could hang around, just concern himself with the secularly decent thing to do and resign. In this way, we would be spared these endless reports of his Biblical breast-beating.

Cheating politicians like Billy "No Self-Control" Clinton love NT passages like "Do not judge lest thy be judged". On the other hand, they never mention:

"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea. "

Halozcel, right you are Son-wise, and there are numerous other parallels. Nevertheless, Apollo surely exists and existed as his reality cannot be disproven.

Homeric Hymn to Apollo no. 3

"The lyre and the curved bow shall ever be dear to me, and I will declare to men the unfailing will of Zeus.”

So said Phoebus, the long-haired god who shoots afar and began to walk upon the wide-pathed earth; [135] and all the goddesses were amazed at him. Then with gold all Delos [was laden, beholding the child of Zeus and Leto, for joy because the god chose her above the islands and shore to make his dwelling in her: and she loved him yet more in her heart.] blossomed as does a mountain-top with woodland flowers.

[140] And you, O lord Apollo, god of the silver bow, shooting afar, now walked on craggy Cynthus, and now kept wandering about the islands and the people in them. Many are your temples and wooded groves, and all peaks and towering bluffs [145] of lofty mountains and rivers flowing to the sea are dear to you, Phoebus, yet in Delos do you most delight your heart; for there the long robed Ionians gather in your honor with their children and shy wives: with boxing and dancing and song, [150] mindful, they delight you so often as they hold their gathering. A man would say that they were deathless and unageing if he should then come upon the Ionians so met together. For he would see the graces of them all, and would be pleased in heart gazing at the men and well-girded women [155] with their swift ships and great wealth. And there is this great wonder besides —and its renown shall never perish —, the girls of Delos, hand-maidens of the Far-shooter; for when they have praised Apollo first, and also Leto and Artemis who delights in arrows, [160] they sing a strain telling of men and women of past days, and charm the tribes of men. Also they can imitate the tongues of all men and their clattering speech: each would say that he himself were singing, so close to truth is their sweet song.

[165] And now may Apollo be favorable and Artemis; and farewell all you maidens. Remember me in after time whenever any one of men on earth, a stranger who has seen and suffered much, comes here and asks of you: “Whom think ye, girls, is the sweetest singer that comes here, and in whom do you most delight?” [170] Then answer, each and all, with one voice: “He is a blind man, and dwells in rocky Chios: his lays are evermore supreme.” As for me, I will carry your renown as far as I roam over the earth [175] to the well-placed cities of man, and they will believe also; for indeed this thing is true. And I will never cease to praise far-shooting Apollo, god of the silver bow, whom rich-haired Leto bare.

Farnaz,

Apollo was,in the same time,Son of God Zeus.

Jupiter,in Roman Religion/Belief,was Father God/Optimus Maximus and King God of Sky.

Daniel12 wrote:

“All the games that open up if there is no God! We can pursue murder, rape, as arts such as chess, poker...we just have to elude the authorities which really have no authority if God does not exist.”

********************
Daniel12, who are the “we” that will pursue murder and rape if there is no God? Your “we” obviously includes yourself, but who else more? For sure not the people that are waiting a proof that God exist. For them God has never existed and still they don’t go into a wild pursue of murder and rape. And yes, we need the enforcing authorities to deter and stop religious and not-religious Homo Sapiens animals of committing crimes. Those that elude the authorities and get caught are punished, nothing new.

Daniel12, please do not stop believing in God; otherwise you will start playing monster games. Hope your plans are not to murder first and then rape, in that order. Creepy…

Daniel12 wrote:

"One of the most laughable things about atheists is that in order for them to prove God does not exist they have to strive to make the world worse than it is-"
=================================================
One of the OTHER most laughable things about believers is that they cannot DISprove that Apollo is the Sun God.

Daniel12 wrote:

"One of the most laughable things about atheists is that in order for them to prove God does not exist they have to strive to make the world worse than it is-"
=================================================
One of the most laughable things about believers is that they cannot prove that Apollo is the Sun God.

Why is an apology wrapped in religion better, or at least different, than one that isn’t?

Turn on the television. Most dramas introduce some form of infidelity into the plot and we, as a society, make excuses for it. It’s entertaining. Sex sells. Our apologies for following our voyeuristic natures sound half-hearted because they are. We become desensitized to the wrong-doing. It’s not really wrong, is it?

Some states have laws concerning adultery, but few even try to enforce them anymore. People are grownups. Who are we to criminalize this stuff? It’s just sex, unless of course somebody gets paid. That, at least for now, is still a crime in most places. Meanwhile we debate if that view isn’t an outdated relic of our past. And if we follow Europe’s lead in this, their politicians don’t apologize for their sexual indiscretions. Bordellos are often run by the state without apology. Sex outside of marriage, is just sex and nothing to apologize for.

So maybe a secular apology is only as sincere as society’s condemnation of the crime.

Religion makes no excuses for adultery. What’s wrong is wrong. Have you stopped to consider that perhaps by appealing for forgiveness from your harshest critic, the apology might be more sincere? I know this is not a given, but I for one am more likely to believe someone who apologizes to God for his adulterous ways than someone who apologizes to the French.

Colinnicholas wrote:

"They would love to believe there's a God up there, and love to believe they are never going to die."

Precisely! Prove to me that there is a god, and I'll sign up in a heartbeat. But there has never been proof of god. Quoting the bible proves nothing...it is the equivalent of proving the existence of Santa Clause by quoting from "The Night Before Christmas".

Daniel12;

I don't understand why you attack atheists the way you do. Atheists are just folks - like you perhaps, except they don't believe there's a God, (or anything supernatural).

What is wrong with that?

As an atheist I might prefer to believe in a God, but am not able. Lots of atheists are like that.(Not all atheists of course) They would love to believe there's a God up there, and love to believe they are never going to die.
That would be great if it were true. I would love it if it were true. But it simply does not have the ring of truth to it. Try as I may - I can never persuade myself that it is true. In fact the opposite feels more like the truth...that there are no gods. That seems more like the truth for all kinds of reasons; like nobody has ever seen one, and because it's just the kind of thing people would prefer to believe because it is comforting and consoling and removes the fear of death.

So an atheist is an atheist because he is unable to believe gods exist, and often becomes more confident that they don't exist the more he thinks about it. That's my experience anyway.
Its not about what kind of world we want, or what the repercussions would be if the world became atheist. If in fact there is no god, would anybody suggest that we should pretend that there is one? Come to think of it, that's what humans have done since time began, and it hasn't done much good, has it?

What does belief in God and/or the Bible have to do with governing a state, anyway? Does Jesus build roads and schools? Does the Holy Spirit collect taxes and issue license plates? All that I require from a governor is to take care of the people and the infrastructure of the state, have no tolerance for corruption, and keep the machinery of government running as efficiently as possible. No faith in a Higher Power necessary for that.

Daniel12 wrote:

"One of the most laughable things about atheists is that in order for them to prove God does not exist they have to strive to make the world worse than it is-"

As usual, you have it entirely backwards. Atheists do not need to prove that God does not exist. In fact, I know of no atheists who have ever bothered to prove it. It is the claim that God exists which must be defended and proven...and as usual, you can't prove that.

How old are you?

Why doesn't anyone realize that Sanford does not want to reconcile with his wife? Do you reconcile with someone you have told the world is your second choice? Not your soulmate? Why doesn't he just be a man, ask for a divorce and shut up? By the way has he actually ever apologized to his wife by name for his infidelity or has he been hiding behind the 'family apology'?

One of the most laughable things about atheists is that in order for them to prove God does not exist they have to strive to make the world worse than it is--in fact strive to make it as bad as possible--for if they do the opposite, if they say things like "life can get better", they are fulfilling hope, they are aiming exactly at what they say cannot exist, a being of ultimate goodness behind the universe. Every success of atheists to make the world better paradoxically proves them wrong, for the world cannot get better without a being of ultimate goodness behind it--it only goes around in circles, sometimes good sometimes bad. So atheists, will you work to make the world better than it is or worse? If better, thank God for people like you....

Part one.

When people feel penitent or feign penitence why do they use religious language? Why with reference to God?

In what other language to be penitent? If God does not exist why be penitent at all? Without God all one has to fear for doing wrong is other people finding out...and what argument do they have for doing right as opposed to wrong? That the world can be made better? How can the world be made better if it is a world in which a beautiful woman (Farrah) dies of cancer of the anus?

How can the world be made better when the theory of evolution according to natural selection (Mr. Dawkins) reveals that man has become what he is now by if any method one of incredible violence, incalculable numbers of protohumans wiped out by nature and something of their own kind...Talk about a whole new meaning to genocide.

How can the world be made better when one of the atheist's arguments is that it is virtually impossible (according to chance) that a being (God) could have all the qualities of being omnipotent, omniscient, etc.--In other words, all those qualities found in one being? Does this not mean that is it useless for humans to attempt a synthesis of the more admirable traits?

How can we know we are being reasonable, using reason, when one of the atheist's arguments is that God, if he exists, is so beyond us that we cannot determine what is God or not?--which is to say we are uncertain of the direction to God, cannot possibly be sure of the direction, and if uncertain of such uncertain of being reasonable. In fact we speak all too often of reason as if it exists in totality and this totality, reason is the path to more reason, more totality. But how can reason be a totality in the first place if God is a totality we can never be sure we are moving toward (never know for certain if we are moving toward good or evil)?

Part two.

All the games that open up if there is no God! We can pursue murder, rape, as arts such as chess, poker...we just have to elude the authorities which really have no authority if God does not exist. How is right right without God? By consensus? How long will that hold up as the nonexistence of God truly sinks in?

And what are we waiting for? The theory of evolution shows that if there is any right it is the right of the fittest. Why not just wipe out the peoples--even races--that are lagging behind? Why be moral when all of evolution shows no such thing--except in the mere foreground? The long view shows success by violence and nothing more. So much for the neanderthals. Why not so much for black people? Because that does not fit the liberal view? Because it is racist, wrong? How so? Because everyone deserves freedom and the pursuit of happiness, etc.?

What freedom and happiness when the world in the long view shows no such progress? Progress. Progress without God. Name one person that has really thought about what the word progress means without a belief in God. Why not help atheists prove God does not exist? Why not get guns and shoot atheists so the atheists can win the argument and say "if God existed such wicked things would not come to pass"?

You better believe humans at least have to feign penitence, have to at least act as if there is more to life than...no real reason not to be penitent. In fact perhaps an atheist can explain to us how exactly a human can be penitent without God. And if succeeding at such, how such could have come about without a belief in God first? But first attempt to succeed at such...

I am unrepentant in these words.

"How many words is this screed anyway?"

A tad more than 1,100; why do you ask?

Hello?

How many words is this screed anyway?

So, I see. We (those us with the XY chromosome) are all sinners and bad boys and thus such peccadillos don‘t really matter too much except to media trash like Inside Edition and WSJ, Reuters, AP, WaPo and the South Carolina newspapers. As for ‘we’, some of us weren’t a featured speaker at the Values Voters conference sponsored by the Family Research Council, at least until ‘we’ chose to fly down to Buenos Aires for six days, breaking contact with constituents, staff, spouse, children and our second in charge, in order to click the castanets. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sanford-frc-website/

Please ask non-soul mate Jenny to respond to following quotes from Mark “The heart wants, what the heart wants” Sanford. Jimminies, these words sound like they taken from a Harlequin Romance Novel written by Stuart Smalley, or from Gurgief:
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2009/06/30/D99592G80_us_sc_governor_quote_box/

The childish amount of attention devoted to this story is truly disquieting. Hello? Peaceful demonstrators were murdered in Iran last week. In Iraq, terrorist bombings abounded. The U.S.unemployment rate is expected to rise above10 percent by the end of summer. .A pastor in Kentucky urges his congregants to bring their guns to church as a show of support for the Second Amendment. ("Blessed are the gun-toters, for they shall see bullets....") North Korea is threatening to fire a Fourth of July missile in the direction of Hawaii. Who cares about the marital misadventures of the governor of South Carolina? More important, why does anyone care?
================================
Everyone cares. Foreign intereference in Iran, which is now, all but demonstrated, remains unaddressed, as do its long-term consequences, yet OnFaith posts on the burqa. The media obsession with Sanford has led to complaints from numerous bloggers.

Who is to blame, here, Susan? Who is dumbing down America?

Jacoby is absolutely right, but its ironic that its a journalist that is wondering why there is such emphasis on titillation when it is in fact mostly the media that is not able to restraint themselves from sensationalizing basic human nature and playing gotcha politics. The shame and blame is on the Fifth Estate.