The "war on Christmas" flap is getting old

frederic2

Me too.

I mean, you have made a very good and interesting point. Is Daniel12 out there, reading his?

I have made the point before, that there are two aspects of religion:

1 seeking to know or understand
2 promoting a cultural or political agenda

What you said, is not exactly the same, but similar. I understand, at least, what you are getting at.

We may have to look at religion, or belief in god, from two entirely different angles.

One is the urge to have "faith" in something, to cultivate a religious feeling or mood, or atmosphere, or transcendental emotion, whatever you want to call it, which we generate in our brains for some reason (difficult to know; research pending). We substitute “god” for the (ever changing) vacuum of our knowledge. This is a genuine feeling, not a delusion. I can even empathize with such a feeling; as a matter of fact, I have it myself in exquisite moments of watching some “miracles” that Mother Nature has in stock for us, or in moments of tearing up in some musical sensations. That is, being an atheist, I know what "religion" FEELS like.

The second is the question of content, of fact, of the provable existence of actual entities, of a god, of the bible fairy tales etc. Now, most religious folks hang this above mentioned “urge” on the hook of the religion they were taught. Its actual content, e.g. the historical teachings of Christianity and other religions, of course, is factual nonsense, but it is being used and may be useful for a person as a nucleus of crystallization for those feelings, similar to the tiny dust particles necessary for a raindrop or a snowflake to be formed.

If Thomas Baum “knows” he met god, of course, it is his imagination (which I can even empathize with), but his TRUTH is not any observable or communicable FACT: It is simply the “truth” of his imagination (which indeed may be true.)

Thus, we have two truths: One is the real truth of the urge, the desire, the imagination, even hallucination; the other is the complete lack of factual truth. The two are constantly being mixed up. Now, if somebody (e.g. we atheists) debunks the FACTUAL “truth” as an irrational, even infantile delusion, these people get utterly angry. They don’t have any hook anymore where to hang the hat of their religion. And since not every hat fits every hook, religious wars are fought.

Thomas The Hallucinator:

"Truth is truth, it is not dependent on whether or not anyone believes it."

Prove it is the truth. Evidence and clear logic will decide how valuable one "truth" is when compared with another.

persiflage

I am not a "scholar" nor an "academic", I am just a simple person.

As it says, "I will send the simple to confound the wise", I suppose it is just too simple for some to comprehend.

While, at least it seems, so many people were out "looking" for God, I was "looking" for forgiveness and God came into my heart, go figure.

I do not look at "Judaism" nor "Christianity" as religions, many do.

I look at Judaism as a relationship between God and a people and as it says, "Where is the bill of divorce...", the Jews were/are the Chosen People, for the simple reason that God chose and formed them.

I look at Christianity as a relationship between God and a person, there are many such "persons" and they have many different "labels".

God's Plan which God has had since before creation, since before time, will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Perisflage

Are we still posting on this thread?

Most Christians that I have ever met and spoken with believe in "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" as THREE separate things, and they think that is the Trinity.

This is especially true of Protestants. Catholics seem a little more comfortable with the "3 in 1" phrase, but they also do not really seem to understand it, and they do not care to understand it, since they think they already know what it means.

So? what kind of a religion is so complicated that only specially educated people can even grasp what it means?

Most Christians do not grasp the idea of the Trinity, and they do not realize that there is something they are missing.

Farnaz1Mansouri1

You wrote, "This is one of the great failings of Christianity, stemming, I think from its incarnationalism. It does not recognize idolatry when it sees it."

You have heard that Jesus was accused of "blasphemy", haven't you?

If you have heard, I imagine you also heard what that "blaphemy" was, haven't you?

Since you have stated that you are an atheist, there is no way that you could ever believe that God became Incarnate since you do not believe there is a God to begin with, is that correct?

As it says, "God works in mysterious ways".

Do you think that God needs our permission to be God if we believe in God?

Do you think that God needs our permission to be God if we do not believe in God?

God becoming One of us is what "Christianity" is about, just as God choosing and forming a people and revealing Himself in various ways and to various people is what the Tanakh or OT is about.

Considering that you do not seem to believe in what is in the Tanakh, why do you seem to be so selfish with it?

As it says, "Salvation comes thru the Jews", Jesus was born, lived and died a Jew, His Mom was also a Jew.

Truth is truth, it is not dependent on whether or not anyone believes it.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas The Hallucinator:

"God rewarded my "belief" with "proof"."

Since you cannot prove that you have "met" god, you can only believe it. I choose not to join you in your delusion.

T. Baum - Christianity borrowed heavily from other earlier traditions...the bible is full of many such concepts, including the idea of Logos - or the incarnation of the Word of God in Catholic metaphysics.

See below - scholars and academics realize that there is nothing new under the sun with regard to religion and religious symbols, although the faithful are always convinced that their way is the best, most unique, and most original way. This is rarely ever true......if one religion has it right, why not all religions??

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

persiflage

You wrote, "Martin Luther thought it high time that the 'truth' of the bible supercede arbitrary Church doctrines, and take it's rightful place at the head of the table as the Word of God, and we have the Reformation. Nevertheless, we still have the Trinity as a central or core concept of Christianity both East and West."

Isn't it something that some speak of the bible as the "Word of God" when in the bible, itself, it clearly states, "The Word became Flesh".

Whether or not one believes this, it clearly points out, in the bible, that the "Word of God" is not merely a collection of "words" but a definite "Being".

As I have said before, Jesus said, "Come follow Me", He did not say, 'follow what is written about Me'.

Someone once said, "Ignorance of the scriptures, is ignorance of God", I think it was St. Augustine but don't hold me to that but I for one disagree with this statement for the simple fact that there are some that know the bible cover to cover and seem to know nothing else about God except for His Name.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Schaum

You wrote, "Thomas The Hallucinator:

As I think of it, you should probably direct your questions about proof and belief to St. Augustine, who evidently found it necessary to support his belief by constructing proofs."

First off, I am not St. Augustine.

Second, I do not need to "support my belief by constructing proofs" for the simple reason that God rewarded my "belief" with "proof".

Third, as I have said before, I am not here to "prove" that God Is, God will do that in due time, God's Time.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Schaum

You wrote, "PRECISELY! Which is why I have previously distinguished between "belief" and "knowledge"."

And that is why I have said that I stopped "believing" in God when I met God, now I "know" that God Is.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Daniel12:

“Why not just admit that no matter the logic I use, no matter citations from this thinker and that, no matter the books used, no matter how much is stated that any good university professor agrees with, the atheists here will not give an inch, will not allow any flaw or problem to be pointed out in their view, must have in their minds the perception that their view is without flaw, just as the religious do the same with their own view.”

Why not just admit that your distortions, inconsistencies, illogic and superstitious delusions just don’t work here? Why not just admit that you and your “thoughts” are discredited by everyone who posts here – even those which you “borrow” from whatever book you are currently reading, and claim as original thinking on your part? Why not just admit that you fool no-one but yourself? Why not just admit that you are a “genius” in your own mind alone, notwithstanding the dubious IQ which you claim for yourself? Why not just admit that you are largely regarded as a waste of space? Why not just admit that you redefine words and phrases to assume whatever meaning you currently need to have supported, without regard to fact or reality? Why not just admit that you never say anything original or new, that you merely repeat your tired litany in the hope that one day it will come true if you say it often enough? Why not just admit that you are a delusional narcissist? Everyone else knows these things about you.

Farnaz:

"Also, Spidermean is back!"

Hmmmm....wonder if he is unemployed again?

1.

Parmenides, a Greek philosopher-poet who lived about 500 years BCE, said that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist; i.e., there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. These concepts violate the most fundamental law of logic -- law of noncontradiction -- which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.

"No one can prove an unrestricted (universal) negative." This is the response with which those who claim that science can prove that god does not exist are usually met. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. No one can can exhaustively examine every place in the universe and therefore, the argument goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.

Yet, the principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in a nutshell, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. Carried to its logical conclusion, this argument must say that if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. If no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then logically it is possible to prove an unrestricted negative. The claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false.

Proving that god does not exist requires only that one demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Theism traditionally defines god as a supreme being -- a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm said. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 both can and cannot be added to it, and that is a logical impossibility. The idea of a supreme being is just as impossible as the notion of a supreme number.

2.

The assertion that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just is logically inconsistent. If he is perfectly just, he must make certain that everyone gets exactly what's coming to him; but if he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off the hook. Yet, he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being is internally inconsistent.

In the traditional concept of god, there are many such inconsistencies. A fairly complete survey of those inconsistencies was compiled by Theodore Drange ("Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" in Philo (Fall/Winter 1998)).

Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there are no contradictions. Can they be right? Is it logically possible for the god of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist?

No. In order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is a logically impossible -- one need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything.

Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.

3.

The luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan, are theoretical entities that were posited in order to explain various phenomena. Luminiferous ether was posited to explain the propagation of light waves through empty space, and Vulcan was posited to explain the disturbance of motion, course, and arrangements in the orbit of Mercury. Science has shown, however, that these phenomena can be explained without invoking these entities. By demonstrating that these entities are not needed to explain anything, science has proven that they do not exist.

god is a theoretical entity. It has been postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of god. When the French physicist Pierre Simon de Laplace explained his theory of the universe to Napoleon, Napoleon is said to have asked, "Where does God fit into your theory?" to which Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis of god. By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God.

Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. To say that “God did it” is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.

The worth of any explanation is determined by how much understanding it produces, and the amount of understanding produced by an explanation is determined by how well it systematizes and unifies our knowledge. The extent to which an explanation systematizes and unifies our knowledge can be measured by various criteria of adequacy such as simplicity (the number of assumptions made), scope (the types of phenomena explained), conservatism (fit with existing theory), and fruitfulness (ability to make successful novel predictions).

4.

Supernatural explanations are inherently inferior to natural ones because they are inadequate without the introduction of an assumed existence of at least one additional entity. They usually have less scope because they don't explain how the phenomena in question are produced and thus they raise more questions than they answer. They are usually less conservative because they imply that certain natural laws have been violated. And they are usually less fruitful because they don't make any novel predictions. That is why scientists avoid them.

The realization that the traditional god-belief of theism is not needed to explain anything – because, simply, there is nothing for him to do -- has led many theologians, such as Episcopal Bishop John Spong, to call for the rejection of this notion of god. In “Why Christianity Must Change or Die,” the Reverend Dr. Spong argues that the traditional theistic perception of God must be replaced by one grounded in human relationships and concerns. Stephen J. Gould says, rightly, that religion should not be in the business of trying to explain the world.

If there was no plausible natural explanation for some phenomena, would that justify the claim that god caused it? Hardly. Our inability to provide natural explanations may simply be due to our ignorance of the operative natural forces. Many phenomena that were once attributed to supernatural beings such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and disease can now be explained in purely natural terms. As St. Augustine recognized, apparent miracles are not contrary to nature but contrary to our knowledge of nature.

Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations and the incompleteness of our knowledge, theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon ONLY where they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation. In other words, to undermine the scientific proof for the non-existence of god, theists have to prove an unrestricted negative, namely, that no natural explanation of a phenomenon will be found.

Once again, Daniel12 is debunked and exposed.

Complete lack of intellectual integrity of Onofrio below. He cherry picks the piece of writing in which I explicitly stated religious views of the world are deficient as to logic to arrive at something I said which agrees with what Peter Huff--the devout Christer--said to paint me as defending religion and deflect any criticism of atheism. Exactly the strategy religious people use. Deflect deflect deflect from criticism of one's own position and keep attacking the "hostile" "enemy" position. BUT IF HUFF INDEED SAID WHAT I SAID BELOW, HE IS JUST STATING THE OBVIOUS ANY FOOL CAN KNOW, THAT WITHOUT GOD MORALS ARE RELATIVE,--NOTHING NEW ABOUT THAT AT ALL. OR IS HUFF WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING HE SAYS? I SUPPOSE, GOD FORBID THAT A RELIGIOUS PERSON WOULD BE RIGHT ABOUT ANYTHING.

"Daniel12,
"ATHEISM IS ATHEISTS TELLING US ALL ABOUT GREATER PROGRESS, REASON, MORALITY, WHEN THEIR VERY VIEW DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ANY FOUNDATION FOR SUCH IN THE ABSOLUTE SENSE,"
= Pure Peter Huff"

Why not just admit that no matter the logic I use, no matter citations from this thinker and that, no matter the books used, no matter how much is stated that any good university professor agrees with, the atheists here will not give an inch, will not allow any flaw or problem to be pointed out in their view, must have in their minds the perception that their view is without flaw, just as the religious do the same with their own view. And what makes it all the more repellent is that the atheists here constantly boast of being more open-minded than the religious, more capable of handling ambiguity, are more capable of truth. Nonsense! What hypocrisy! Tomorrow will bring just more of the same--a twisting this way and that trying to shore up their position as if their view makes perfect sense while the religious view is sheer nonsense. The atheists here no different than the dogmatic religious, no difference at all.

Where are ColinNicholas and Pamsm?

Miss Schwinn,

Many thanks.

New one is Perfect,Perfect.

Tous les Gens,

You must take a look at the Kirby thread. Intense doins', some of them highly literate and hilarious, literally.

Great stuff! Would like to invite some of these bloggers on board. Also, Spidermean is back!

Farnaz,

"But these are not such images as would interest an artist, are they?"

Don't see why not.

Onofrio,

I guess they do enthrall since they held you. I've felt much the same way when looking at ancient lettering on tombstones. Feel this way when reading Deborah, so ancient, so patterned, so mysterious. I dream of prophets sitting under olive trees.

And then there are MOses, Zipporah, and the circumcision. She knows, but he does not. I once asked a poet I know to write about this, but she declined.

Better, perhaps, to write about Deborah, Deborah and "the people."

Onofrio:
I still recall how twenty years ago, as a callow young Christer, I was wandering in Rookwood Necropolis, and was felled by Hebrew. Over a slight rise, the rays of the westering sun fell upon the ranks of Jewish gravestones, and set afire all their golden inscriptions. They were only dimmed where my narrow shadow fell.

Such moments seize the tiller, shift the course.
---------------------------
Interesting! But these are not such images as would interest an artist, are they? Yet, Heine, felt later on that they do....

I do believe that there are such things as we cannot explain. How one knows some things that others do not, for example. How one knows that this or that person will die very soon, or more trivial things.

We may never know the answers to these questions. I cannot envision how science will tell us how one person, not a seer, suddenly knows that which others do not. Or why this or that person has an overwhelming feeling of dread about taking this or that train and the train crashes.

Is that God? I wonder what people mean when they say God. For most, it means the God of their religions.

That is why one can never get anywhere with them. That is why sexual diversity among animals is a much more fruitful topic to explore. (Also, not multi-partal)

Farnaz,

"the images of Christianity had seduced his artist self into converting."

It's the images that worked on me too, idolater that I am.

"Later, he saw that the abstraction of Judaism is just as powerful a presence, just as musial in its own way."

I still recall how twenty years ago, as a callow young Christer, I was wandering in Rookwood Necropolis, and was felled by Hebrew. Over a slight rise, the rays of the westering sun fell upon the ranks of Jewish gravestones, and set afire all their golden inscriptions. They were only dimmed where my narrow shadow fell.

Such moments seize the tiller, shift the course.

Amun:
The primordial one, the hidden one beyond identity, whose image is not depicted in the writings, whose true form no one knows, whose true name, should it be uttered, causes the speaker to drop dead instantly...
------------------
Sounds familiar. Although I don't know about the drop dead instantly part....

Don't think so. Simply cannot be named since to name is to limit and the deity is unlimited.

Prefer meditating, myself. It's not multi-partal, for one thing. :0

Farnaz,

"At any rate, Amun (sp?), Egyptian god, monatheistic belief, no?"

Amun:
The primordial one, the hidden one beyond identity, whose image is not depicted in the writings, whose true form no one knows, whose true name, should it be uttered, causes the speaker to drop dead instantly...

Onofrio:
"A toast to Donne, the delight of Phoebus and each muse, a versifier on Triune Gods."

Idolatry has its consolations ;^)
--------------------
Indeed it has, and they are not to be scoffed at. Dennett worries over the loss to art that the end of religion might mean.

Heine wrote very passionately on how the images of Christianity had seduced his artist self into converting. Later, he saw that the abstraction of Judaism is just as powerful a presence, just as musial in its own way.

But it is a different way, is it not. Dunno. The Heine passage is very beautiful, sad, but raises many questions, answers none.

Farnaz,

"A toast to Donne, the delight of Phoebus and each muse, a versifier on Triune Gods."

Idolatry has its consolations ;^)

I believe no one shall protest if I point out, irrelevantly, that John Donne wrote a mean sonnet.

Onofrio:
Farnaz, aren't you supposed to be at a koala party?

Why still vexing yourself with the benighted?
-------------------
Quite right, I should be, but, alas, I have no beverage to bring to the feast. (I really would like to meet a koala, though.)

Personally, and I mean no offense to D12, I cannot understand the point of all this multi-partedness. But, hey, that's me.

At any rate, Amun (sp?), Egyptian god, monatheistic belief, no?

Ever read Rosenzweig? Very interesting on Christianity. Did you ever get to reading Levinas?

Daniel12,

"ATHEISM IS ATHEISTS TELLING US ALL ABOUT GREATER PROGRESS, REASON, MORALITY, WHEN THEIR VERY VIEW DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ANY FOUNDATION FOR SUCH IN THE ABSOLUTE SENSE,"

= Pure Peter Huff

A toast to Donne, the delight of Phoebus and each muse, a versifier on Triune Gods.

Holy Sonnet No. 74

BATTER my heart, three person'd God; for, you
As yet but knocke, breathe, shine, and seeke to mend;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow mee,'and bend
Your force, to breake, blowe, burn and make me new.
I, like an usurpt towne, to'another due, 5
Labour to'admit you, but Oh, to no end,
Reason your viceroy in mee, mee should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weake or untrue.
Yet dearely'I love you,'and would be loved faine,
But am betroth'd unto your enemie: 10
Divorce mee,'untie, or breake that knot againe;
Take mee to you, imprison mee, for I
Except you'enthrall mee, never shall be free,
Nor ever chast, except you ravish mee.

Farnaz,

"(Help)"

Farnaz, aren't you supposed to be at a koala party?

Why still vexing yourself with the benighted?

I like Buber. Book was titled "I and You," not Thou. (Ugh)

Franz Rosenzweig, "Star of the Redemption," was the fountain from which they all drank. Buber, Levinas, et al.

Levinas, now there's a bloke worth reading.

IMO, one place wherein the ancient Hebs outshined the Greeks, who were wrestling with monotheism, themselves, was in respect to idolatry. Yes, the Greeks bacame slightly embarrassed by the Olympians and probably sought oneness. But they never overcame essentialism and with it idols.

For the Hebs, limited essentialism. Very limited. Aspects abound in the Kabbalah, but that is another matter surely.

Egypt--Amun (sp?) perhaps, a monotheistic interlude.

As Christian/Catholic scholars have said, time and again, Chistianity was a throwback to earlier times.

I just cannot believe it. Honestly. I just cannot believe it. Onofrio just wrote that I am identical to the devoutly religious and certainly dogmatic and equivocating Peter Huff.

This is stone cold proof of what I mean about all the atheists here believing I just have to be religious and against them if I am criticizing their position. Either one is for the atheists or against them--and religious. The atheists here keep deflecting my criticisms as if I must be religious so they can direct the argument to shortcomings of religion as if this saves their position. They are exactly as the religious they criticize, not giving an inch if a flaw in system is pointed out.

BUT I HAVE REPEATED OVER AND OVER THAT THE RELIGIOUS VIEW OF THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY FLAWED. I HAVE REPEATED OVER AND OVER SUCH RELIGIOUS NONSENSE OF GOD BEING GOOD WHEN EVIL IS SO OBVIOUSLY EVIDENT IN THE WORLD. TRYING TO PAINT ME AS RELIGIOUS TO SHORE UP ATHEIST SHORTCOMINGS WILL NOT WORK. BOTH THE RELIGIOUS AND ATHEISTIC VIEWS OF THE WORLD ARE LOGICALLY DEFICIENT AND/OR PROBLEMATIC IN SOME FASHION.

I HAVE POINTED OUT A LOGICAL SHORTCOMING OF RELIGION ABOVE. AND A LOGICAL SHORTCOMING OF ATHEISM IS ATHEISTS TELLING US ALL ABOUT GREATER PROGRESS, REASON, MORALITY, WHEN THEIR VERY VIEW DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ANY FOUNDATION FOR SUCH IN THE ABSOLUTE SENSE, THAT ALL IS ACTUALLY RELATIVE, AND FURTHERMORE THAT MAN IS IN A UNIVERSE WHICH OFFERS NO SALVATION, MEANING FOR ALL INTERPRETATIONS OF SUCCESS BY MAN HE IS DOOMED TO FAIL IN THE END. JUST BASIC LOGIC HERE PEOPLE. NEITHER THE RELIGIOUS NOR ATHEISTIC VIEWS ARE REALLY SATISFACTORY.

Part One Hundred Thousand Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty-three and One Half.

HHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!

(Help)

DITLD - and you're right about the complexity of the trinitarian concept. I doubt if many have a grasp of the idea as put forth by Aquinas.

If you're familiar with modern theologian Paul Tillich, you'll know that he thought highly of Meister Eckhart's idea of Godhead (another link) - and was also greatly influenced by Jewish thinker Martin Buber. Not all notable Christian thinkers buy equally into the idea of the Trinity.

http://www.metodista.br/ppc/correlatio/correlatio07/tillichs-appropriation-of-meister-eckhart-an-appreciative-critique/

Part one.

I like your stuff Lion's Den, but you do get into some intellectual problems such as below:

"Believing in God or believing in an Intelligent Designer does not make the universe more purposeful than non-belief. How does it? How do you know more about the purpose or meaning of life, or of the meaning of the existence of the universe, simply by believing in God? What additional knowledge does this belief get you?"

That is a mind bogglingly problematic paragraph. It is just basic fact religion is what we call a total world view, one describing the totality of reality and giving an explanation. Religion most certainly has provided purpose to man. Man interpreted the world--both in East and West--to be something amenable to one's moral actions. Proper behavior and one is saved by God or saved by escaping rebirth and achieving nibbana.

Part one.

Eliminate religion and the why of morals falls into a completely different world. Morality gains one nothing--no salvation--without religion unless one means the betterment of society. But that is called into question by the same elimination of religion--in fact every human action and thought must radically reorient itself to an existence which says man came from really nothing and is heading nowhere in particular, and besides, all his achievements are doomed in the end. That last sentence is the description of the world without religion, by the way, if one needs greater clarity.

Most certainly the question of purpose arises when religion is eliminated. Man has to devise a totally new purpose for himself. Atheists typically say concentrate on bettering society and ordering man in more sensible fashion to his environment--and personally I think this makes great sense--but still all these new, or perhaps in cases, strengthened purposes (which did exist in the religious world view) are surrounded on all sides by the view that man is fundamentally meaningless and doomed to futility.

Part three.

Furthermore it is a hell of a thing for you to say that the atheistic world is no less purposeful than the religious view--or if you prefer, that the religious view offers a greater sense of purpose. Precisely the question of purpose has arisen as a consequence of atheism. Furthermore we have no great evidence for the assertion that the atheistic world is at least as purposeful as the religious world--unless you want to bring up the political entities which have declared themselves atheistic in the past such as the Soviet Union and China. What purpose did they have? Answer: pure economic purpose--Marxism. Their answer to purpose without religion was a mad rush on reality to cough up its goods so all would be happy in the perfect Marxist state beyond religion, all the economic unfairness of the West, etc. They rushed ahead and tried to devise utopia on earth as the response to collapse of purpose by religion.

And we all know about their utopia--Gulag Archipelago, rights virtually non-existent in the Soviet Union. Mao's great leap forward which was the murder of millions all in the name of the new man and society. The most hostile reactions to any people, nation, entity which wanted to preserve its culture, religion, language, etc. A massive dislocation of mind and purpose. paranoia, grandiose plans and power. The attempt at purpose without God.

Why you cannot see this Lion's Den--and why everyone else here cannot see it--is due, I strongly suspect, to all of us living in our Western civilization of today with its economic successes which gratifies us, does not make us think as much about the problems of atheism and religion. In short, we have been coddled by our own economic security, we have prefered this security to freedom in the widest sense, which is not just the arrival at physical freedom, but the knowledge of where man truly stands dependent on this view and that. But it behooves us to be wary, because economic success might not last.

Part four.

Ironically it seems in the West we have arrived at in superior fashion what the Soviet Union and China tried to achieve: Man largely indifferent to this or that national heritage and/or culture, man largely indifferent to difficulties of both religion and atheism. And we have done so by following a different economic plan--although it must be said economics in the West had to become more socialistic for this to occur. In short we live in something of utopia on earth which makes us think we have satisfactorily arrived at purpose without God.

But we are nothing more than satiated animals and no amount of economic success in the long run can make us look away from the fundamental world born of dispensing with religion. Sooner or later we must accept that for all our progress we are really in something of an illusion, utopia, which is doomed to fail before the naturalistic view of the world by science strengthened to the point of pure atheism.

We might think religion has been completely debunked, but we cannot despite all our economic success hide the fundamental fact of a world without religion, that man is just drifting prisoner of entropy, the horrors of evolution--a pocket of order in a fundamentally hostile universe which is hostile precisely because there is no salvation. The question of purpose most certainly does come up when we dispense with God.

Farnaz,

"Not triune, as it were"

Indeed, hence the TANGLED web :^) . Yet if the tri-hards had set the oneness of the One utterly at naught, they would not have begun to spin...

The notion of divine Oneness casts a potent spell. It weighed on Egypt. The Hellenised pagans (from whom the Christians sprang) were susceptible, enamoured. Islam is both crowned and maddened with it.

For my tuppence, the only (N)One is the Many.

DITLD:

'Of course, it is still on the books of official theology.'

It's fundamental to Christianity and is why I submitted the link on theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century expositor of Catholic metaphysics and trinitarian doctrine for the Catholic Church. Aquinas was no lightweight thinker by any standard.

If you study doctrinal development in the early Catholic Church forward to modern times, you'll find a self-confirming consistency and cohesiveness as official Church dogma emerges. This development takes centuries of course.

Martin Luther thought it high time that the 'truth' of the bible supercede arbitrary Church doctrines, and take it's rightful place at the head of the table as the Word of God, and we have the Reformation. Nevertheless, we still have the Trinity as a central or core concept of Christianity both East and West.

DITLD:

'Of course, it is still on the books of official theology.'

It's fundamental to Christianity and is why I submitted the link on theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century expositor of Catholic metaphysics and trinitarian doctrine for the Catholic Church. Aquinas was no lightweight thinker by any standard.

If you study doctrinal development in the early Catholic Church forward to modern times, you'll find a self-confirming consistency and cohesiveness as official Church dogma emerges. This development takes centuries of course.

Martin Luther thought it high time that the 'truth' of the bible supercede arbitrary Church doctrines, and take it's rightful place at the head of the table as the Word of God, and we have the Reformation. Nevertheless, we still have the Trinity as a central or core concept of Christianity both East and West.

Anyway, there's a koala party down the block for gay, straight, lesbian, queer, transgendered people and animals.

I'm off. Would invite all, but this is an atheists only to-do.

Onofrio:
What impelled the trinitarians to weave their tangled homoousiac web was their unwillingness to depart from the "OT"/Tanakh dictum "God is One"
----------------
Ah, but that is it--ONE, UNO, Une, EINS. "Hear O Israel, the Lord. The Lord is O.N.E."

Not triune, as it were, quite without godly inseminations of virgin ladies or anyone else, sans progeny.

NOT A PERSON. Oddly, the Christians know nothing of that which they have variously fulfilled and replaced. Recently, there was an article in the Post about Saint MOses, he whose statue adorns the Justice Department and elsewhere. Christians took offense (!) asking how the author would like it if statues of "Saint" Mommie Dearest Theresa were ubiquitous in the capital. It was the "Saint" word that offended.

Though I tried (did not mention Mommie D's Duvalier doin's and worse), fasted, wept, tried again, I could not make myself understood to said Christers. The author was not bragging, but bemoaning. A statue of Moses? The pre-eminent anti-idolator. From a J point of view? Nauseating. Repulsive.

This is one of the great failings of Christianity, stemming, I think from its incarnationalism. It does not recognize idolatry when it sees it.

Nor does it know what to do with injustice, but that is another matter.

Daniel12 = Peter Huff, in spirit and in truth.

Part(icle) .0000000000001111111

Intelligent design, aka the Argument from Design, was shot dead in the air, at least one hundred years ago. Why some humans continue to cannibalize the corpse, I cannot fathom.

I would think said believers would be more interested in lesbian Koals, and gayness among critters. (See my earlier posts.)

On watchmakers, stones, order, disorder, and "design":

http://www.skepdic.com/design.html

Danielinthelionsden,

Thee:
"I believe that the concept of the "trinity" was created as a political expediency."

Yet non-trinitarian views were in fact "politically expedient" in the decades after Nicaea. Despite the *homoousios* consensus of the Nicene council, Constantine - the self-styled "thirteenth apostle" - had second thoughts and vacillated about the wording of the creed. For much of his reign, he actually subscribed to a semi-Arian position, whereby Christ was *homoiousios* - of "like substance" - to God the Father. Constantius II stubbornly persisted with this addendum. Refusal to tow the imperially endorsed party line was what got Athanasius - the trinitarians' prize pugilist - exiled five times. If the Christian bishops en masse had been interested only in political expediency, semi-Arianism would have become orthodoxy.

What impelled the trinitarians to weave their tangled homoousiac web was their unwillingness to depart from the "OT"/Tanakh dictum "God is One". Although semi-Arianism was conceptually simpler than trinitarianism, it was open to the charge of polytheism, with its *God plus God too* concept. By ostensibly holding to a high view of God's oneness, the trinitarians made their convoluted and paradoxical formulas seem more faithful to the Jewish monotheistic trajectory, which Christianity claimed to "fulfil". In this they were shaped by genuine conviction as much as purely political pressures. Whatever we make of these developments, "political expediency" is too simple a catch-all to characterise them, and these days may itself function as a politically expedient cliché.

Part the XXI

On homosexuality in the animal kingdom:

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

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | December 14, 2009 8:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yup, there is homosexuality among animals. Frankly, the last time I socialized with a Koala, I thought she seemed a little too friendly, if you get my drift. : >

On lesbian activity among Koalas, from the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/strewth-australia-rocked-by-lesbian-koala-revelation-437806.html

Part one.

There is one thing unequivocally certain: The atheists here say the religious will deny any piece of evidence, any form of logic, which demonstrates that the religious view is unsound. For example, the religious will devise this way and that a plausible answer to the question of how God can be good if evil is in the world.

The atheists here are exactly the same as the religious. They just cannot accept that their position might have some shortcoming, they keep dogmatically asserting the perfect logic and evidence of their position. They are exactly like the religious when they are questioned.

In fact the atheists here constantly say I am trying to prove God exists or something, as if pointing out problems with their position just has to mean I am on the side of the religious. They are exactly like the religious in that the religious believe one is either for them or against them.

Part two.

Never mind that I have repeated over and over that both positions--religious and atheistic--have significant flaws. Atheists can twist this way and that, trying to shore this up here, shore that up there, but it is stone cold fact of Western civilization supposing one knows its intellectual history at all, that eliminating the religious view in the West depends on debunking it as a world view.

And the primary strategy has been to point out all the negatives of existence to demonstrate there is no God. This culminates in the famous/notorious naturalistic view of existence which has man just here, no particularly special beginning and no particularly special end. This is not to say science is identical to holding this view, but it is the view of atheists based on their interpretation of scientific evidence.

Atheists give us a view in which man is in a universe which offers no salvation, a world in which all hopes and achievements eventually perish. In the twentieth century two notorious political systems--fascism and communism--were to a great degree reactions to this world view. Fascist believed the only viable political response was to gain more and more power--this their naked response to a fundamentally futile existence (according to atheists, and based on their interpretation of scientific finding).

part three.

Communists, avowedly atheistic, strove frantically to create the perfectly fair economic state--a naked attempt at utopia--in the face of their very own findings and beliefs, that the universe is fundamentally futile and man must fend for himself. It is just a basic fact of Western civilization that in dispensing with religion one finds oneself in the dilemma of somehow trying to reconcile one's beliefs in progress, morality, reason, with the view of the world with no God, which again is the naturalistic view, that all goods are transient and that man is doomed eventually to fail--because of course there is no salvation.

That I have to keep repeating this, basic fact of philosophy, sociology, political science, science itself which is uncomfortable with its findings such as entropy, the nastiness of evolution, quantum indeterminism because they underscore the fundamental futility of man not to mention all his political achievements, only says that the atheists here are incredibly dogmatic, in fact preposterously so, for this has been perhaps the basic dilemma born of dispensing with religion.

To say it again, with the decline in the belief in God we are left with only man in a fundamentally hostile world--a world which for all good has these goods as only pockets of order within a fundamentally disordered universe,--or if one prefers to say ordered universe despite all the evidence of ultimate futility for man, a universe ordered as if by a madman, a design guaranteed no matter how much success one has to leave one with nothing.

Part four.

When religion is gone atheists have left us in the dilemma of trying to reconcile their assertions life will be better, that reason and morality will improve, that standard of living will improve, in the very implacable and hostile universe they have given us after eliminating belief in God. That is just basic intellectual fact. And I am tired of hearing that I am trying to prove God exists.

Have some intellectual courage and honesty. The truth is the positions of both religious and atheistic are deficient world views. Each has problems it tries to dismiss to no avail. Religion is no perfect world view impregnable to attack. Neither is the atheistic view. So stop being so ridiculous. Evidentally no atheist here knows the history of his own view and its implications.

The truth is the atheists here apparently have not thought through anything. Their atheism is simply the statement that they will not go to church and wish religion were eliminated for good. That is their atheism. Just something of the rebellious schoolboy and nothing more. No real thought of what atheism is, the problems it faces as an intellectual idea.

But simple reading in the intellectual history of Western civilization will supply the answers. Just begin reading. I am not saying anything original or even new here. This is what makes it so embarrassing. If Jacoby is reading this she must be cringing. You people her bright atheist hope? Right. Open a book. Read.

Intelligent design, aka the Argument from Design, was shot dead in the air, at least one hundred years ago. Why some humans continue to cannibalize the corpse, I cannot fathom.

I would think said believers would be more interested in lesbian Koals, and gayness among critters. (See my earlier posts.)

On watchmakers, stones, order, disorder, and "design":

http://www.skepdic.com/design.html

Perisflage

I believe that the concept of the "trinity" was created as a political expediency. And I do not believe that political expediency is a good reason to believe anything.

Even more, the concept of the trinity is pretty sophisticated, and I would be willing to bet that most Christians, in their folk religion, could not explain what it means, and if pressed, would indicate that they do not even understand it well enough to believe in it.

Of course, it is still on the books of official theology.

Schaum,

Thee:
"We have it on the authority of the god-belief organizations that "original sin" is the reason death, disease, and other unpleasantnesses afflict the human race.
I'm wondering what it was that members of the animal kingdom did to invite such things on themselves, from their creator
Any clues?"

They subscribed to Darwinian evolution?

More for or about Daniel 12

How do you know if something is true or not? How do you know the things you believe to be true, are true?

As far as science and scientific consensus is concerned, how do we know any of that is true? After all, science is said to be based on verifiable and reproducible experiments, ultimately tracable to our sensory perceptions. But most of us don't do the experiments, and none of does all of them. So, why should we believe anything about science, that we do not personally prove ourselves?

There is nothing that specifically defines scientific consensus. And once there is a general scientific consensus on some matter, there is no legal registration or approval of this consensus. And there is no legal requirement of belief; no one has to believe what scientists say.

Part of being a modern man (or human) is a basic understanding of science and how it works, and how to regard the credibility of science as opposed to other kinds of speculation. But there is no requirement for anybody to be modern, nor to understand these things.

It is a requirement, however, for anyone seeking knowledge and truth, seeking to put together an image of the world that is true.

Knowing how to acquire knowledge is an art, to be studied and practiced. And some people have a talent for this greater than other people.

If scientific consensus conflicts with religous theology, one way to solve the conflict is to reject science, and that is what alot of people do. Inventing an opposing "Intelligent Designer" who has intelligently desinged everything is a counter-argument to science.

Who knows? Maybe there is an intelligent designer. I have an inkling of something like that in my own mind. But you can't write a book on it, or design a whole semester of study on it, because it is just a single sentence or two, to justify the rejection of scientific consensus.

Intelligent Design is based on the assumption of natural law. But that is merely a philsophical assumption, that has no substantial reality, definition, or proof. Intelligent Design is not based on anything but a feeling. And that is fine. No one is required to agree with scientific consensus.

Believing in God or believing in an Intelligent Designer does not make the universe more purposeful than non-belief. How does it? How do you know more about the purpose or meaning of life, or of the meaning of the existence of the universe, simply by believing in God? What additional knowledge does this belief get you?

None. Not any.

If you think it seems true that there is a God, then that is your belief. But what is your belief does not seem true to everybody.

What did Christians believe before they believed in the Trinity?

From wiki:

'.......while Arianism continued to dominate for several decades even within the family of the Emperor, the Imperial nobility and higher-ranking clergy, in the end it was Trinitarianism which prevailed in the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century.

Arianism, which had been taught by the Arian missionary Ulfilas to the Germanic tribes, was dominant for some centuries among several Germanic tribes in western Europe, especially Goths and Lombards (and significantly for the late Empire, the Vandals), but ceased to be the mainstream belief by the 8th century.

Trinitarianism remained the dominant doctrine in all major branches of the Eastern and Western Church and later within Protestantism, although there have been several anti-Trinitarian movements, some of which acknowledge various similarities to classical Arianism.'
__________________

I suppose with the aid of first-hand testamony (such as we have here) the Church might have arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity sooner than the 4th century CE.....coincidentally, this particular doctrine was needed to bolster the idea of Jesus as a divinity.

Church doctrines fit together one after another, like so many pieces of a puzzle, until the Church had finally built the complete picture - from the resurrection to the infallibility of the pope, and all doctrinal points in between.

Why this all sounds like something political animals seeking total theocratic control might cook up over several centuries, is nothing but wild apostate conjecture and an idea completely without merit - it was in fact entirely the work of the Holy Spirit - I don't know how, but I just know it....and that's that.

There can be absolutely no room for doubt. And the infallible Pope even said so......

On homosexuality in the animal kingdom:

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

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Yup, there is homosexuality among animals. Frankly, the last time I socialized with a Koala, I thought she seemed a little too friendly, if you get my drift. : >

On lesbian activity among Koalas, from the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/strewth-australia-rocked-by-lesbian-koala-revelation-437806.html

Onofrio:

We have it on the authority of the god-belief organizations that "original sin" is the reason death, disease, and other unpleasantnesses afflict the human race.

I'm wondering what it was that members of the animal kingdom did to invite such things on themselves, from their creator?

Any clues?

Thomas The Hallucinator:

As I think of it, you should probably direct your questions about proof and belief to St. Augustine, who evidently found it necessary to support his belief by constructing proofs.

Farnaz, thanks for the Maimonides link.
I've bookmarked it!

Schaum, re koalas and AIDS:

News to me. I was aware that their wild populations are being terminally thinned by chlamydia and deforestation.

Actually, when not saintly-sick in the presence of sentimental journalists, koalas spend much of their time in a sort of eucalyptus-induced stupor. In encounter with humans they are feisty, ill-tempered little f***ers, as you would expect from a wild animal. I assure you - healthy, viable koalas in their native habitat are NOT CUDDLY.

If we're mourning marsupials on the brink of extinction, spare a tear for the Tasmanian devil, whose wild populations are being devastated by a sort of oral cancer. Not as ostensibly *cute* as koalas, but nongod's creatures nevertheless.

My favourite Austral beast is the quoll.

frederic2

You wrote, "Thomas Baum: "I don't have a clue WHAT it is, but I KNOW it is true"!"

This is not what I wrote,.

Then you replied, "This is what an adult person is supposed to hatch."

I suppose this is in reference to me saying that I met the Trinity but would not even attempt to explain it, is it?

God being a Trinity and yet One is no more explainable by me than the Fact that God is a Being of Pure Love and yet that is the way it is.

Love being a Being, rather than an attribute or a feeling or an emotion or an attraction or whatever, is beyond my comprehension and I imagine everyone else's comprehension and yet is True.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

A professor at Auburn University was giving a lecture on ’Involuntary Muscular Contractions' to his first year medical students. Realizing this was not the most riveting subject, the professor decided to lighten the mood slightly. He pointed to a young woman in the front row and said, 'Do you know what your azzhole is doing while you're having an orgasm?' She replied, 'probably deer hunting with his buddies.'

Thomas The Hallucinator:

"If one were to "prove" God's existence then it would follow that one would not have a "belief" but a "proof", does it not?"

PRECISELY! Which is why I have previously distinguished between "belief" and "knowledge".

Schaum

You wrote, "The Atheist's Logical Argument

1) I am willing to believe in god if you can prove his existence."

This is kind of an absurd statement, is it not?

If one were to "prove" God's existence then it would follow that one would not have a "belief" but a "proof", does it not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Danielinthelionsden,

Thee to D12:
"You tell me please, what do these words mean. These are more questions that need to be answered before we can get to the
bottom of things, as you put it."

Getting to the bottom...

If Dan-le-Douze got some bot, perhaps the Jacobytes would be spared his ejaculations.

Pray to nongod that "the knowledge that puffeth up" might soon find meet meat for release.

Athena

Another suggestion:

How about, Christmas every four years, like the Olympics?

How about a National Festivus Pole on the Mall, where the people can gather to air their grievances? And then we'll have Feats of Strength!

Festivus... for the rest of us.

I do not think Daniel 12 gets science or what is it to be a scientist.

Mainly, the most common misconception about science, is that it is not a philosphy about the world.

Science is a refinement upon refinement of the impressions of order that we get from the world, transmitted to us by way of our senses. Our senses cannot function properly, that is, we cannot navigate in the world, without an assumption that our impressions of order come from an orderly world. This assumption is closer to animal instinct, than it is to faith, or philosophical belief, since, even animals have this instinct that their senses operate to transmit impressions of order from an orderly world.

Therefore, science is based more on a built in instinct that we have regarding the way that the world works and how it is put together. As far as the operation of science goes, any philosphy will do, but none is also just as good.

Of course, politicians, economists, historians, theologians, and philosophers all put their own spin on science, and seek to justify or explain science. Even such basic things as speculation on the existence of natural laws is not science so much as philosphical thought, motivated by science.

There is no real job called scientist. It is an over-arching definition of many different jobs. People with scientific jobs may be called scientist. But, what they are mainly doing, as scientists, is a job. They are doing their jobs for money, and without being paid, they would not do their jobs. So, there, alone, they are like all the rest of us.

Scientists also may have a wide range of philosophical thoughts on life, and they may also have a wide range of religious views. Scientist may also get themselves all tangled up in complicated personal troubles, like Tiger Woods, (though probably not so extreme).

If there is anything that science is, it is consensus of opionion on matters of science. Other than that, science is not anything really, except a very broad, decentralized, nebulous system of methodological investigaiton.

Daniel 12

In your discussions, you say the word "random" alot.

So here are more words for you to consider: chaos, unpredictability, and I will also thrown in "disorder."

You tell me please, what do these words mean. These are more questions that need to be answered before we can get to the bottom of things, as you put it.

DITLD:

"Science exploits this assumed order in the universe in order to map out patterns. But science does not hope for things as Daniel 12 says; it does not work for political or religious goals, as he implies. It does not have any point of view, nor any moods."

Well stated.

Daniel 12

When Galileo said that he had seen the moons of Jupiter through a telescope, and that he believed this to be other worlds like our own, the Catholic Church threatend him with torture, until he took it back ... which he did. I do not think this was really a very science-friendly environment.

Daniel 12

Your argument is "there must be a God, because how can there not be a God?"

This is no proof at all. If it were a proof, then atheists would believe on God.

Belief is what seems true. And proof is demonstrating what seems true. Therefore, by definition of the word proof, atheists would believe in God if you had proof of God's existence.

Yet when you ask them "How could there not be a God?" they continue to be atheisits, indicating that you have not proven anything to them.

You can say that not believing in God means a malignent universe full of chaos, disorder, and negative order. But so what? That does not persuade anyone that the existence of God seems true.

More on Daniel 12

Daniel does not really get what it is to be an atheist.

What makes an atheist an atheist is the sense, feeling, or belief that God or gods do not exist.

How an atheist may claim to lead a moral life, or how an atheist may explain the existence of the universe is a secondary question, which varies widely from person to person, including the feeling, probably, of most people, that they simply do not care.

Science is atheistic only in the sense that it is a methodolgy that does not consider God, just as football is atheistic, or interior decoration is atheistic; God-talk simply does not come up in these fields. Yet a scientist may believe in God, just as a football player may believe in God, just as an interior decorator may believe in God.

Atheists, who think there is no God, know very well that the world exists, that they exist, that by the very defintion of "all things," that all things exist. So there is no point to keep asking them how did all things come to exist without God?

Obviouly, they do not have the answer any more than the religious people. The Pope doesn't have the answer; and the Grand Imperial Leader of Iran doesn't have the answer, and Daniel 12 doesn't have the answer, either.

Why are atheists expected to know how the world was created? In saying that they do not believe in God, they are not saying that they know how the world was created. Religious people certainly don't have any good ideas on how the world was created, on how God created life, and where God came from or lives; their speculations are not known by anyone to be true.

Believing in God does not make the universe any more understandable or purposeful than not believing in God.

More on Daniel 12

I am the one who first brought up the topic of "order." I was expressing my personal opinions and beliefs. I said that people say they know many things which they do not know; the only thing that we can say we know is that we have impressions of order.

I went on to explain what I meant by that. We get impressions of order from our senses. Therefore, it is my observation of fact that the universe is orderly, and it is this orderliness that enables science to operate.

And I went on to say that our sense of an orderly universe is not really based on any kind of faith, such as many religious people claim. Our sense of an orderly universe is really a requirement that enables our senses to work, more like instinct than faith.

Science exploits this assumed order in the universe in order to map out patterns. But science does not hope for things as Daniel 12 says; it does not work for political or religious goals, as he implies. It does not have any point of view, nor any moods.

It is a methodology for collecting information about the patterns of order in the universe, and it is also a body of collected knowledge.

Onofrio:

I am made bold to ask: are Koalas homosexual?

I ask this because we have the assurance of a number of leaders of the god-belief organizations in the US that AIDS is god's judgement on homosexuals.

What is the take on this in Australia?

Regarding Daniel 12

Instead of making a long thing divided up into parts, and copied and pasted back, maybe I will just throw out a few brief comments.

Daniel 12 is using Albert Einstein's comments on God and the universe to support his philosophical thoughts. He is appealing to Albert Einstein because Einstein is regarded as a very intelligent man, and an acclaimed scientist. But on matters of philosophy and religion, Einstein had no more insight, knowledge, or credibility than anyone else. No sciencist does. Merely being a scientst does not give a person special powers of knmowledge, except possibly in their own scientific field. In this sense, scientists are often given credit for knowing things that they do not. Scienctist are just people, just men and women; Albert Einstein was just a man, stuck with these same problems that we all have.

Albert Einsteins's opinions on philosophy and on God may be interesting, because he was an interesting and colorful person, but his thoughts on these subjects contributed little and solved nothing. Citing him does not prove anyone's argument.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/13/australia.koalas/index.html

Onofrio, say it isn't so! I've just read that there is a form of AIDS that strikes Koalas!

Thomas Baum,

While I appreciate your lengthy response, you should understand that your frequent and knowledgeable references to the triune nature of God would probably make Thomas Aquinas either envious - or doubtful.

You will see the great lengths that he went to in order to decipher and explicate the nature of the Trinity for ordinary mortals. He would categorize your experience as a direct (supernatural)revelation, as you will see in the link under revelations.

He was apparently not so fortunate as to experience this for himself. Nevertheless, he's considered the ultimate Church authority on such matters.

Further on, you will see the link to Meister Eckart, a Dominican contemporary and mystic that was still on trial for heresy when he died....he had experiences that were apparently denied Aquinas.

While he never denied the triune nature of God, he propounded the idea of Godhead, which was the true Absolute, and which he believed himself to have experienced. In a sense, he was replicating the ideas of Gnosticism, and this got him branded a heretic.

The idea of Godhead is much more sympathetic with the experience of mystics from other religious traditions, including those of Judaism, Islam, and of course the various non-theistic traditions. In all cases, the idea of the Absolute is beyond categorization and is neither three nor one.

There are no individuals that are said to have been a human incarnation of the Absolute - unless all such humans can be classified as such.

In any event, your experience is yours to define as you will, but there are reasons to wonder about the authenticity of your prophetic authority to describe the Trinity, Satan, and the divinity of Jesus.

Pure love is an unknown quantity, whether divine or otherwise. It seems likely to many observers that the human race will continue evolving as it has for the last 100,000 years - and for better or worse.

Religions will come and go......and as we've been saying right along, there's no good reason to believe otherwise.

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

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

regards, Persiflage

Thomas Baum: "I don't have a clue WHAT it is, but I KNOW it is true"!

This is what an adult person is supposed to hatch.

D12's assertion that atheists start from the standpoint that existence is evil is nothing but a dirty lie, or at best a projections of his own insecurity.

No, he mixes up atheism with Christianity: No atheist I know is as stupid as to think that everything is "malignant" or "evil". it is the religious who do exactly that! It is they who invented the atrocious paranoia of hereditary sin for nothing else than to exert power, it is they who poisoned the self-esteem of generations of their mental slaves. The Christians, not the atheists invented the notion that since we are all bad we must be "saved".

I am really, really happy that I am completely saved from superstitious hallucinations, fortunately already in an early stage of life, after having to drink quite a few portions of the mind poison our priests distributed to us youngsters.

Daniel12 Argues for God

1) I think atheism is stupid, even though I actually have no clue what atheism means, but I think it's stupid.

2) The Bible doesn't talk about DNA

3)Therefore God exists

The Atheist's Logical Argument

1) I am willing to believe in god if you can prove his existence.

2) You can't prove his existence?

3) I see no reason to believe in god.

Thomas The Hallucinator's Argument for God

1)Theists say that everyone needs God.

2) I need god

3) Therefore, God exists

Logical Argument According to Daniel12

1)I forgot to take my meds.

2) [inane quote from whatever book he is currently reading]

3) Therefore, GOD EXISTS
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

persiflage

You wrote, "As soon as folks begin to interpret inner experiences via well-established religious dogma, red flags go up among the non-faithful who have studied religion and religious experience extensively."

Do these "red flags" also blind people to what some of these "folks" have to say beyond their so-called "mystical" experience/s?

I have noticed that there are some who call themself "atheist" on these postings that actually read what I write and seem to think about what I write, may not agree with what I write but are "open" enough to at least read what I write rather than what they read into it and then there are others that seem to be "open-minded" as long as someone else's "open-mindedness" totally concurs with their "open-mindedness", kind of a strange way to be "open-minded", don't you think?

By the way, I have never studied religion nor religious experiences extensively by any stretch but I have been one to listen to other people.

You then wrote, "Solitary noumenal experiences will always remain solitary by necessity, regardless of the follow-up message conveyed to the outer world."

I agree. You have probably heard the statement, "God works in mysterious ways", how true.

Lots of people, here and in person, do NOT want to hear that God's Plan is for everyone to be in the Kingdom.

I find it really sad that so many, at least those honest enough to admit it, that don't seem to really care as long as they and their "loved ones" get to the "good place".

Don't some of these realize or at least think about the fact that EVERYONE is someone else's loved one?

Thanks for chatting and one more thing, not just for you but for anyone else that may read this, does anyone think that God asked us to be more forgiving than God?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas The Hallucinator wrote:

"We will ALL be judged, no matter what "label" we put on ourself."

And that is your own spinsanity, Tommy. Prove what you say, or go back to your pointless prayers.

Thomas The Hallucinator wrote:

"As should be pretty obvious, even those that don't believe in God seem to have a "conception" of God."

Well, duh! Pretty hard to avoid a conception of "god", given the definitions that are crammed down everyone's throat by god-belief organizations! Nice try, TTH. But no points.

Schaum

You wrote, "Interestingly, the same christers who so strongly oppose abortion seem to be the same christers who insist that god has (according to Rick Warren) mapped out each day of our lives even before we were born.

If this is true, then it was “god” who “mapped out” that day on which each woman who has ever had an abortion actually went and got one. Clearly, therefore, “god” approves of, and plans for, abortion."

I don't know what Rick Warren says about what you say he says or if you even know what exactly he means by what he says, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other but there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between knowing what one will do and being a "puppet master" as your "conception" of God seems to be.

As should be pretty obvious, even those that don't believe in God seem to have a "conception" of God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

persiflag

You wrote, "Thomas Baum, the fact that you continue to adhere to traditional Trinitarian dogma with the person of Jesus as a manifestation of God casts serious doubt on the essence/substance of your mystical experiences....along with your declared meeting with the devil, etc. No doubt you understand this."

I have not said that Jesus is a "manifestation" of God but that Jesus is God 100% and Man 100% and to put it in a "biological" way, we are 100% from our Dad and 100% from our Mom which makes us 100% not 200%.

Putting aside whether one believes it or not, it does not make much sense from a purely human point of view for God to become One of us and let Himself be treated as Jesus was treated, does it?

I don't consider it a "mystical" experience just an experience that I have had and that apparently others have not.

As far as casting "serious doubt", as you put it, this makes no sense at all, it either happened and is True or it happened and is not true or it didn't happen at all.

Have you ever thought that the "traditional Trinitarian dogma" Is God?

The word "Trinity" might never appear in the bible but if you remember near the beginning of the bible it says, "Let Us...", also God speaks of Himself, for lack of a better pronoun, as One.

I have met the Trinity, that does not mean I can explain the Trinity, I just know that it is True.

You then wrote, "The idea of universal love is certainly not a bad thing, but exactly what meaning can that have universally, so to speak?"

I have not spoken of "universal love" per se, I have said that God is a Being of Pure Love, in that Love is not an attribute of God but is God's Very Being.

I may not be able to put this into words all that well but judgement is not the "warm and fuzzy" as some seem to think but seeing oneself and one's wrongdoings and the ramifications of one's wrongdoings in the Light of Pure Love.

We are asked to forgive but we are also told POINT BLANK that if we don't forgive than the forgiven we have been given is forfeited.

We will ALL be judged, no matter what "label" we put on ourself.

It may be hard to believe, listening to both those that call themself Christian and those that do not, but Christianity is NOT about picking up a "get out of hell" card but is about being an "active participant" in God's Plan for the Salvation of absolutely everyone.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Persiflage:

"These types are impossible to converse with, given the level of self-absorption - a real waste of breath."

Indeed. Daniel12’s spinsanity would agree with Martin Luther: “Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God.”

What a darkened and isolated soul D12 is.

Schaum, you're right. D12 suffers from a profound and willful lack of understanding, although I'm betting he is extremely fond of re-reading every inane and exessively muddled thing that he has 'composed for posterity' - no doubt obsessing over said compositions for hours at a time.

In his own way, as peculiar as CCNL and his obsessive preoccupations....but without the organizational skills.

These types are impossible to converse with, given the level of self-absorption - a real waste of breath.

Frederic2:

"D12: "... the march against the belief in God depends on existence painted as malignantly as possible"...

What disingenuous rubbish!"

Yes, well, D12 is widely known for his inability to deal with, or even locate, facts.

A new word to describe Daniel12's lunacies:

spinsanity

2.

Any claim for the existence of the supernatural would, if true, overthrows much of what we know about nature. Claims for the existence of things invisible and undetectable, if proven, would invalidate our trust in our senses and our scientific instruments. This is why we call such claims extraordinary.

The discovery of a new species of slugs would not challenge what we know, and would, in fact, be something most of us would expect. We still need to work to verify this claim, though. If it were claimed that this species of slugs wrote words with its slime trails, this claim would invite much scrutiny, but would not be beyond physical possibility. However, if it were claimed that the slug moves from here to there instantly, with no detectable means of transportation, we would rightly doubt this claim right off the bat because it seems to contradict what we know to be physically possible. Even if the claim was somehow true, the one making the claim has some work to do in convincing the rest of us that it is true.

The most reasonable approach is to demand proofs for any claim and to demand extraordinary proofs for extraordinary claims. What we presently know and can verify about nature is the result of centuries of hard work, diligent thought, and tedious experiment. All scientific work is published so it can be examined and cross-examined by other scientists. When new evidence demonstrates that we have been mistaken about something, science abandons the old idea without remorse.

Since atheism makes no claims and theism tends to make extraordinary claims, claims that contradict the known limits of nature, the reasonable presumption is atheism — until theism backs up its extraordinary claims with lots of solid evidence. And unfortunately for the god-believers, there is no evidence.

1.

The atheist makes no claims about gods, but simply observes what is observable and detects what is detectable. It is the theist who makes an existential claim (a claim that the thing described, a god, actually exists). The atheist makes no such claim, but maintains the default position: “I don’t see any gods” (or, “I don’t detect any gods”; or, “I don’t conceive that gods exist”). “One cannot prove a negative, nor is that demanded in [the theistic] system of logic. Since negative is not susceptible to proof, the person posting the positive assertion has the burden of maintaining the assertion.” For this reason, it is the theist — not the atheist — who is responsible for backing up her or his claim. Though many atheists are able to provide very strong arguments for the nonexistence of a deity, it is not the atheist’s job to make any case whatsoever. The reason for this is simple: Nobody can prove that a thing does not exist unless it cannot possibly exist (such as a square circle).

It is reasonable policy to doubt claims that are extraordinary, and to insist on strong evidence. An extraordinary claim would require that the listener give up some common-sense understanding of reality in order to believe the claim. A claim that President Bill Clinton cheated on his wife would require no such change; Clinton is known to have done this before. This does not mean we should simply take this claim at face value the first time we hear it.

However, to believe a claim )that Pope John Paul II cheated on his wife would require that we change our current understanding of Roman Catholic policy forbidding popes to marry. Such a claim would require a more thorough explanation and justification than the same claim about President Clinton.

Although truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, this does not mean we should believe something simply because it is unlikely. Some Christian leaders, however, have used this very line of reasoning to justify faith. Douglas E. Krueger says, “In the second century C.E., the Christian Tertullian, in his De Carne Christi (On Christ’s Flesh), said of Christianity that ‘it is certain because it is impossible.’ He was suggesting that Christianity is to be believed because it is so absurd. No one could make up a lie this crazy. Another Christian, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), famous for his wager, implied that some people may have to take steps to dull their reasoning faculties in order to become Christians. Martin Luther said that reason should be destroyed in all Christians.”

D12: "... the march against the belief in God depends on existence painted as malignantly as possible"...

What disingenuous rubbish!

How can anybody with halfway clear senses (???) allege that you need a superstitious religion in order to make your life worth living!

If there were such a thing as a god, I wouldn't even exist: He would not tolerate his "malignant", "pervert" denier, to use D12's sad jargon!

If there were such a god, he would not tolerate a "liberal dumb ass atheist" individual to have a loving surrounding, a successful career, a lot of wonderful friends, a bunch of internationally successful students. God would crush me instead - if he existed.

Here we finally arrive at the core of D12's problems: He cannot imagine real freedom of thought. All he can tolerate is the thought police of religion, represented exemplarily by the undereducated right fringe Republican crowd of bigots.

Maybe he should read something else?

And again, lead by his desperate mental delusions, Daniel12 now turns for support to a 65-year old book, written by a man who got his training a hundred years ago, and who was lost in his love for 18th century history! Fortunately, science has progressed a thousand fold since that time, and we know there are no proofs for the existence of god. Without proof, only a wild-eyed, fanatical fool believes. That would be you, Daniel12.

Daniel12 rants, in his illness:

"they hold a view of the universe which is fundamentally malignant, disordered and on the other hand speak of the improvement of reason, etc.?"

No, you slobbering idiot. This is what YOU say atheists say...and again, you offer no proof. Only your distorted, fearful views. You are more insignificant each day.

Schaum, a miracle, you almost understood. You said indeed that the universe according to science is fundamentally disordered, that the order we see is pockets of order in a fundamentally disordered universe (entropy, horrors of evolution, quantum indeterminism, etc.). Then you said I am saying that the pockets of order is proof of God! No, Schaum no! I clearly stated both the religious and atheistic views have problems as to logic. The religious say for example God is good when evil obviously exists. Atheists have the position concerning the universe that you finally seem to have grasped, that only pockets of order exist, then turn right around and say life will be so much better without a belief in God! That morality will improve! That we will have greater reason! That progress will occur! When according to the very view you finally seem to have grasped these things they boast of can only be transient, ephemeral. A clear problem here. How do atheists expect any sense to exist in the psyche of man in the coming centuries when on one hand they hold a view of the universe which is fundamentally malignant, disordered and on the other hand speak of the improvement of reason, etc.? Imagine millions of school children having this fundamental contradiction, problem drummed into their heads in the triumphant over religion atheistic world! Now is it becoming clearer!? You promise a better life at the same time you are telling us that the good things are fundamentally transient! How difficult is that to grasp? A serious problem.

d12,
you yelled,
"BUT THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT BY ATHEISTS AGAINST THE BELIEF IN GOD WAS FIRST FOUNDED ON EXISTENCE BEING IRREPARABLY EVIL..."

this doesn't make sense. "evil" is a value judgement. if the universe were "evil" it might imply a creator. i mean, what if god's "bad"?

the atheist position is that the universe is "indifferent" - it's not good OR evil...it just is...

Part one.

By coincidence a book I just started reading explicates exactly what I have been trying to say here--although it is not really coincidence because I constantly read and it becomes no surprise to see the obvious in still another book.

The book is by Carl Becker and called freedom and responsibility in the American way of life. It was written at the end of the second world war--65 years ago. I have read only the introduction by another man on Becker, and again, everything I have been trying to say here is clearly laid out.

Part two.

First religion offering hope of fundamental order of society, that progress indeed exists--there is a definite place to be arrived at. Salvation is possible, existence is not fundamentally malignant. This faith--yes faith--carried through in the enlightenment even as religion became less and less believed in. Science starting to replace religion but with faith--yes, faith--in continual progress.

Then the naturalistic view of the world became more and more emphasized, this naturalistic view saying that for all human progress, morality and reason life is fundamentally futile because there in no God behind existence. This is the atheist's view of the world if any clarification is needed.

This view strengthened by entropy, evolution (the horrific process of such), quantum indeterminism. And in the 19th century certain reactions to this increasing development (even though entropy, evolution and quantum theory had of course not yet been explicated) such as Hegel insisting on a world spirit which realizes itself in history and leads not to futility.

Part three.

Nietzche clearly recognizing the problem and saying if the naturalistic view--read atheist--is true all we have is the will to power against an implacable existence. Nietzche trying to make this situation as positive as possible by postulating his famous "eternal recurrance", that there is no God and life just repeats itself over and over--the very same life we live over and over.

The Twentieth century trying to be optimistic about democracy succeeding even though science with its naturalistic view--atheist--saying eventually everything comes to naught. Fascism, communism trying to deal with this in their own ways, struggling to deal with this fate.

And so on. No games at all played here by me. None at all. Common knowledge. Except apparently not to too many religious people and most atheists. Common stinking knowledge that God equals possibility of positive development through history, possibility of order not at all malignant, let alone disorder, randomness. The naturalistic view saying all is fundamentally futile, that the positives of life are just transience on a fundamentally malignant universe.

Part four.

Science continues to hope despite the naturalistic view that life is not in vain, that discoveries can continue to be made which combat such views as entropy and the horrors of evolution--and quantum indeterminism. But atheists depend on the latter to clinch their argument of no God.

Not at all difficult to see that the march against the belief in God depends on existence painted as malignantly as possible--that it could not have been created by God (see Voltaire, Candide where he mocks this "best of all possible existences"). But this march against God begging the question of how we really expect reason, morals, progress to exist in a world which is fundamentally malignant, was not created by God and holds no salvation. The modern coward, lying, dodging of obvious issues, smug atheist saying no problem exists here at all, no contradiction, no dilemma at all.

But no games at all played here. Read a damn book. Read the introduction of the book I am now reading. 65 years ago this was stated--and in books before then. These are basic problems Westerners have faced for years. Except by the modern liberal dumb ass atheist.

2.

I have no problem with people believing that gods exist. However, when they go around teaching that science says this or that (attempting to make science justify their god belief) when, in fact, science does not say anything of the sort, I will make a strong denunciation of those people. It's one thing to believe, privately, that a god exists; it's another altogether to spread falsehood in an attempt to convince others to agree. There is where I draw the line between private religion, public menace, and the delusions of mental illness.

1.

Daniel12: “Order exists.”
Schaum: “Prove it.”
Daniel12: “It has rained for 12 days. That is my proof.”

Having offered no description/definition of “order”, all of D12’s proofs are as invalid as this one is absurd.

It is not necessary to attempt to explain any "underlying order in the universe" because the universe is almost complete randomness. Here and there exist tiny, tiny (very tiny) pockets of order, which is exactly what one would expect in a constantly expanding universe. But the universe, for the most part, is cold and chaotic and almost completely random.

We live in one of those tiny pockets of order, so I can understand why people would think the universe is highly ordered. Human senses are tuned to see only the order. But when we take measurements with instruments, we detect massive disorder with hardly any order at all. This is, I think, exactly what we could expect from an explosion that occurred naturally, that did not have any creative force behind it.

This is what is so frustrating about dealing with theists who try to force the findings of science in such as way that it appears to validate their faith. People are perfectly justified in believing whatever suits their fancy, but when theists start lying about what science has found, asserting that science says something that science does not, in fact, say, I will offer a stern rebuke: Stop misrepresenting science! This will get you nowhere with us, except to show us your disrespect for the truth and to prompt us to reject any other claims you may make in the future!

Daniel12 presupposes that a god exists and then points to what he calls “order” to prove the existence of that god. I prefer to open my eyes and look and then acknowledge what I do see and detect, and either suspend judgment or flat-out reject any ideas for lack of sufficient reason to give assent. The god idea lacks sufficient force to warrant any assent. It is dishonest for people to twist and misrepresent the specific findings of specific branches of science in order to try to justify giving assent to the god idea.

On almost all occasions, the dispute arises when the attempt is made to posit "God" to explain a given mystery; this is especially so when a “mystery” can be shown to have a natural, non-god cause. The people who dispute these naturalistic findings tend to assent to the processes of experimentation and calculation which led to the conclusion that the former mystery has a natural cause, but they refuse to apply the processes to the particular question of “creation”.

Superstitious people just don't want to give up their gods, that's all.

Mimi,

Please,change it.

Interested In: Men ? It's not Good Answer.
You are a Diamond.They should look for your friendship.
And,illogical.600 of your 696 friends are Women/Girls(except your brothers and relatives)

D12 sez:

'Again, Einstein is a prime example of this understanding. He said God does not play dice with the universe in objecting to quantum theory. For him obviously orderliness is equated with God, the disorderliness (fundamental) of quantum theory is no God--'
_______________________

Daniel really needs to read more. Einstein himself opened the door to further quantum discoveries through his EPR experiments (known as the EPR paradox). This in turn led to the proofs of non-locality, etc.

There's much available on the EPR experiments but this link easily leads one to additional pertinent and related information.

Einstein actually determined some very strange things to be true - matter, energy, light, space, time, & gravity - are all inter-related and inseparable....what an imagination!!

And yet, he doubted the results of his own (EPR) experiment, which led Bell to posit his own theorem on non-locality - later proven in 1982 by Alain Aspect.

Both the limits proposed for sub-atomic matter in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the later EPR discovery of non-local relationships between entangled particles that shared information instantly (defying light speed limits) are what led Einstein to make his comments about God, dice, and spookiness at a distance. He had become a quantum physicist by default, but refused to acknowledge this fact.

He never bought into quantum mechanics, and yet quantum formulations have never been proven wrong in their predictive power to date. It's the most accurate measuring tool in the physics arsenal.

http://www.halexandria.org/dward148.htm

"D12’s orderliness is badly deficient: He establishes a straw man and then bashes the straw. (“Atheists depend on existence being fundamentally perverse, disordered, malign to clinch their argument of no God, then speak of all the good things as if they are as permanent as the very God they destroyed.”) What a warped logic!"

Daniel12 is, of course, insane. His "original" "thinking", not unlike the original thinking that gave us such misguided theories as that the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth, is the product of what he has repeatedly assured us is his "genius." He assures us that he is an intellectual. Like all his assertions and "thoughts", the evidence suggests otherwise!

The profoundly sad thing is that he has chosen to be ignorant...a "writer" who merely mangles his sentences and paragraphs; a "poet" with no ability; a security guard who uses his down-time at work to "reflect". It seems much more likely that he uses his extra time to use -- and possibly to sell -- crack. Would this account for his inability to construct logical argument, to reason, to perceive? Or are these shortcomings the product of his limbic brain? Knowing nothing of science, mathematics, logic, or religion, he offers opinions and theories about all, excusing his ignorance with the claim that his "thinking" is "original" and, therefore, does not need proof, support or validation. Such is the power of his great genius! He thinks that if he repeats often enough the rantings of his deluded mind, they will magically gain the status of truth.

D12 is, in short, a puppy who has chosen to be sick.

Fortunately, he is insignificant.

Order, even as represented by beautiful patterns, does not need any god superstition.
In fractal geometry, you get the most astounding order patterns using an exclusively mathematical algorithm, no religion and no moral being necessary. (cf. the Mandelbrot figures. Nobel Prize winner physicist and chemist Manfred Eigen has shown in his works about “games” (“Das Spiel”, “Self organization of matter and the evolution of biological macro molecules”) that leaf structures, as an example, follow similar mathematical algorithms. These functions are neither good nor bad; they just ARE, independent of the fact that we might find them beautiful or not. (I find them beautiful!)

Of course reading D12’s nebulous exclamations, I am not even sure that he doesn’t need god to establish that 2x2=4. If that is the case, the discussion (and maybe his monologues) end.

D12’s orderliness is badly deficient: He establishes a straw man and then bashes the straw. (“Atheists depend on existence being fundamentally perverse, disordered, malign to clinch their argument of no God, then speak of all the good things as if they are as permanent as the very God they destroyed.”) What a warped logic!

The epithet “perverse”, for instance, is no description or definition of anything; it is a human judgment describing only a preference of the describer. Thus, I am “perverse” only in D12’s eyes. The “perversity” is with D12. Logically, it does not describe me or any trait of me.

Is Mars or a galaxy a million light years away “good” or “bad”? It just IS. Good and bad are epithets humans distribute to natural phenomena, using exactly the same mechanism that created religions: It is always a human invention or projection and changes nothing (except the humans themselves, unfortunately, as shown all through history, and of which process D12 is a convincing example..

Hi Persiflage,

Thanks for the link on Origen. Yes, I agree the early Church desert fathers tease the imagination. I wonder if Philo has influenced Chistian typology even more than Origen, however, at least for the average believer. A great deal of allegory still abounds.

I first came across Origen in Auerbach's "Mimesis" and from him returned to Philo, who also influenced Judaism quite a bit.

Speaking of which, and, perhaps, for after the holidays, if you feel so inclined, here is a link to A Guide for the Perplexed.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp003.htm

Part one.

Atheists. The constant assertions by them that the order of the universe (positive order of course, not malign patterns definitely harmful to humanity) can be explained without any reference to God--to be specific, God is not needed to explain order. But the entire--yes entire--history of science demonstrates that the concept of order in science (not to mention the possibility of continuing to discover patterns in nature) arose primarily because of the singular aspect in Western civilization of religion constantly speaking of God's order, God's plan. Contrast this with religion in the East which has concepts such as all we see being illusion (maya) and something we must get away from, must awaken from. It has repeatedly been pointed out in books of the history of science how the religion in the West fosters scientific development while religion in the East does not.

To be absolutely clear, order=God in Western thinking scientific or otherwise, and disorder or non-order or malign order equals no God. Again, Einstein is a prime example of this understanding. He said God does not play dice with the universe in objecting to quantum theory. For him obviously orderliness is equated with God, the disorderliness (fundamental) of quantum theory is no God--and yes, I say disorderliness because a throw of the dice is chance, no fundamental order. Not at all complex to see what I mean.

Part two.

Furthermore we have the habit to this very day in Richard Dawkins of associating no order, malign order, etc. with no God. When Dawkins is asked if he thinks God exists he says no, and that evolution supports him. Evolution for all pattern is a horribly cruel process, and that it leads to anywhere that humans might desire is a hope and nothing more. This order so monstrous, which at bottom is tacit assumption of non-order because it is cruel and leads nowhere in particular (chance) is given as proof of no God.

Quite simply order in any positive sense is associated with God and order in negative sense which might as well be disorder is associated with no God. I have just given examples from first the last super genius in science and second from one the most vocal and scientific atheists of our time. What exactly is it you want me to say more?

How about this: first Dawkins using evolution to debunk the notion of God, which is a stronger argument of the famous "if God is good why evil" argument. In other words, ugliness, disorder, malign order pointed out as proof of no God. Then the utter contradiction of saying atheism is compatible with morals, reason, etc.--and that such can exist without God--when obviously if it is true the horrors of evolution are proof of no God then all the positives pointed out such as morality, reason, etc. are so many brief and quite irrelevant moments stuck in the fundamental and ugly background of evolution. No real progress in the positive sense is possible. What it comes down to is atheists cannot say on one hand this and that ordering is proof of no God then on the other speak of the positive things of being proof good things can exist without God. The process of first pointing out all the negatives about life destroys any possibility of the good things being anything more than pieces of transience. This is just basic logic people.

Part three.

Religious people certainly understand. When it is pointed out to them evil exists and they are asked how this can be reconciled to a belief that God is good they try to explain things away because if it is indeed true God created evil then the existence we live in is a fundamentally perverse, malign, disordered universe. They instinctively see that all the negatives upset any notion of beautiful positive order. Even atheists know this--which is why they constantly throw the negatives of existence in religious people's faces. Atheists throw the religious in doubt BY UPSETTING ORDER.

Then when it comes to the question if this does not mean a futile existence for man, atheists do a complete about face and say reason can exist without God, that morals can exist, that if we dispense with religion we will have even greater progress. BUT THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT BY ATHEISTS AGAINST THE BELIEF IN GOD WAS FIRST FOUNDED ON EXISTENCE BEING IRREPARABLY EVIL, DISORDERED, MALIGN--THAT NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS AT THE BEGINNING OF THINGS AND NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN AT THE ENDING.

Part four.

Not at all difficult to see the problem of logic here. Atheists say existence is bad and toss God out then turn right around and speak of the good things in life as if they are not transient, as if they can in fact triumph over the negatives of life. That God is not needed to explain the good things and that the good things are indeed good, which is to say capable of being permanent. Why I have to keep explaining this I have no idea. This is just basic logic. How much clearer do I have to present this fundamental contradiction?

Atheists depend on existence being fundamentally perverse, disordered, malign to clinch their argument of no God, then speak of all the good things as if they are as permanent as the very God they destroyed. That cannot be logically. The good things in life in the atheist world are essentially as nothing because they exist on a background of fundamental nonsense. The good things in life ironically become as the illusion of maya in the East. In the East existence is supposed to be illusion and the good things lead to ultimate goodness beyond maya. In the atheist world existence is painted bad which leaves the good things mere illusion. Why I have to keep pointing out this basic contradiction every which way I have no idea. I can only conclude that the people I am speaking with here are being deliberately perverse, or perhaps half of you are actually computer intelligences incapable of understanding human understanding (it would not surprise me at all if labs worldwide routinely have computers speaking to people on the net in experiment with the purpose of seeing if machines can fool people, etc. etc.). But if anyone wants a further explanation I suppose I can just keep explaining things over and over in different wording. Tell me if you do not understand.

Schaum, I doubt if they observe this custom - they're not even very observant Catholics (although this sounds like more fun than midnight mass). She was in Ecuador for the holidays a couple of years ago and never mentioned this event.

I'll have to ask. Of course I'm invited to Ecuador, but there is the Spanish issue to contend with. I'm interested in seeing Quito, so I may have to bite the bullet one of these days.

I believe there's still a strong shamanistic tradition going on in the rural areas and closer to the Amazon basin.....now that does interest me. As luck would have it, her aged father is not a village shaman!

The tradition that you mention clearly has pre-Christian mestizo roots. I suppose this year they might burn their new president in effigy, for his allegience with Chavas.

http://south-american-customs-holidays.suite101.com/article.cfm/new_years_celebrations_in_ecuador

Bobinhouston:

"I think it's time to watch this again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ"

Halfway through this, a knock on my door: two Mormons. Is that an omen or what! I am swearing off weiners and kraut!

Bobinhouston:

"I think it's time to watch this again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

Persiflage:

I've read that, after the Christmas festivities Ecuadorians (or am I thinking of Peruvians?) create effigies or dolls stuffed with hay and fireworks. These figures are representations of disliked people, national or local officials, famous people or olkloric characters and will be ignited on New Year's Eve, at the Fiesta de Año Viejo. Sounds like a charming custom -- almost voodoo-like! Does your girlfriend and her family observe it?

'Ich denke, jeder hat Deutsch in der Schule, außer mir. Jetzt studiere ich bin es, die Vorbereitung, nach Österreich zu bewegen im nächsten Jahr.'

Yes, German was a common choice as a second language back in the 1960's. I had a German girlfriend back then, so became fluent in a very limited sort of way - but that faded with my fraulein's departure decades ago.

I think you'll obviously do very well - you've got the incentive and the IQ, as D12 would likely say (musicians are no doubt advantaged linguistically ear-wise, as I'm sure Farnaz would agree). I'm a guitar picker my self.

Hispanics do much better here if they have a strong command of English and academic credentials - my girlfriend has neither, and won't work at it, despite my supportive efforts over the last several years. She did get her citizenship.

She insists on speaking Spanish whenever possible! Understandable, but unfortunately self-defeating. And apparently my former facility with language stayed faded - it takes a lot of love!

There's as much social/cultural stratification among Hispanics as with any other ethnic group - but as for community spirit, I've also seen more successful Hispanic folk helping the less advantaged to a commendable degree.

I've been to gatherings with a dozen different Central/S.American countries represented - boy, take about sticking out like a sore thumb! And I can't tango or merengue either.....

Persiflage:

Ich denke, jeder hat Deutsch in der Schule, außer mir. Jetzt studiere ich bin es, die Vorbereitung, nach Österreich zu bewegen im nächsten Jahr.

Thats interesting...you with an Ecuadorian girlfriend in SC. Is she well treated by the natives? When I was a child, my parents owned a time-share in Hilton Head. I remember going there in summers, and I remember South Carolina as not the most tolerant of places. Leaving at the end of summer never bothered me.

Schaum, my daughter and her family are in Michigan and I'm here in S. Carolina with an Ecuadorian girlfriend and her assorted family members......why did I take German in school, rather than Spanish?

It really ought to be mandatory as a second language, starting in the first grade. Imagine the outcry from the purist right! Oh well, lots of things should happen that won't......

Yours sounds like a full and enjoyable schedule! I stopped travelling north at this time of the year awhile back.....

I think it's time to watch this again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

Persiflage:

"I'm afraid D12 would never put back all the pieces, had he tangled with that gentleman!"

Can you imagine what it would have been like to have him as a student! Especially in a discipline as demanding of rigid logic as systems analysis! Oy veh, Maria! That I was spared such an eventuality points to a well-ordered universe, in my opinion.

Big plans for the holidays? Lots of family for you to be with? Yesterday, we were having 10 here for Christmas Day. Now its 14! Four Hispanic guys two condos down, with no family, will join us. Only two speak English. I've got to get two more ducks. This will be a big holiday here. Then to Georgia for New Years. Seems the only time I travel the US is when Christian is here, and I'm showing the country to him.

Daniel 12

Science has no conscious or purposeful conflict with religion. If scientific findings are sometimes in conflict with traditional religious belief and doctrine, then that is a matter for religious people to figure out. Since science is not religion, this is not a problem for science.

Evolution does not comment on God. It is about how life evolved. If people say it is "beautiful," I think they are referring to a realization of truth, and an addition to our body of knowledge, which was formerly left blank, on this subject, filled in only with religious speculation.

The elaboration of the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God, as a general, and undefined concept. If you happen to believe that God created the world and all living things in seven days, then there is definitley a conflict. But this is not a conflict that science has purposefully posed to religion; it is really just the opposite, the conflict is in the persistence of religious dogma that is contrary to science.

One way to settle the conflict is to reject science, and that is what alot of people do. But it is not a good settlement. What if you believe Evolution is true, and no amount of mental gymnastics will allow thinking that is not true? Then if religious doctrine will not give, it will lose out to such people.

You are bothered because atheists say they are good or can be good, as moral and good as religious people. But this is not really a central point of atheism; it is a reaction to religous accusations that atheists must, by definitions, be bad and immoral, and must be liars, and murderers, and even, that many relgious people often wonder in puzzled bemusemnt, why atheists aren't all murderers.

But atheists are not automatically immoral murderers. And they do not need to justify why they are not to religious people, since many religeous people are themsevelves deeply immoral.

Schaum:

'I am impressed with your knowledge of early ecclesiastical matters. Are you/were you a cleric?'

Thanks, and no, fortunately not - just an old altar boy/fallen Catholic with an ancient degree in Comparative Religions. My actual knowledge of the bible is abysmally limited (mostly due to an ongoing lack of interest). On this thread, it seems to take an old Protestant to quote actual chapter and verse off the top of their head!

Here I'm recalling the redoubtable and most impressive Mr. Mark from a few years back - first rate mind and ex-christer that seemed to know the bible backward and forward. I'm afraid D12 would never put back all the pieces, had he tangled with that gentleman!

Back in the day, Catholics were far more doctrinally oriented, with actual bible studies being almost non-existent beyond the Sunday gospel and occasional catechism indoctrination. I'm far more interested in gnosticism as far as Christianity goes -and other esoteric areas of religion in general.

However, the early Church fathers, Desert fathers, etc. are a pretty interesting lot......

Daniel12

You talk about 'order' in the universe not being possible without god. Where do you get this idea? What are your facts? What 'order' are you talking about? I am an atheist and I see perfect order in the universe without god.

Also you claim atheists say many things, but I have never heard atheists say any of these things. Again, where do you get your informatin? What are your facts? I think you make these things up and then try to make arguments about them.

Persiflage:

I am impressed with your knowledge of early ecclesiastical matters. Are you/were you a cleric?

THOUGHT PROCESS: A PRIMER FOR SECURITY GUARDS

NEVER CONFUSE “THINKING” WITH “REACTING” It's easy for your mind to lead you up the garden path when it comes to critical thinking. Avoid making foolish statements.
CLEAR YOUR MIND Judgements can often be based on a piece of information you have recently read, regardless of the fact that it is irrelevant. For example, confusing IQ with cognitive ability and skill.
DON'T RELY ON SPIN It is a mistake to be strongly influenced by the way a problem is framed.
DON'T LET YOUR EMOTIONS GET IN THE WAY They often interfere with cognitive evaluation processes.
BE FACT BASED Don't allow delusional beliefs and opinions to cloud your analysis.
CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF MAGICAL THINKING Talk to someone who is an expert in the area about which you are thinking.
LOOK BEYOND THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION Don't accept the first thing that pops into your head. Again: AVOID MAKING FOOLISH STATEMENTS THAT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED WITH FACTS AND GOOD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

6.
Atheism offers happiness.
The last, and probably best, practical reason for atheism is that it makes possible a life of happiness and contentment. Despite the never-ending barrage of magical thinking from the theists who claim atheism offers nothing but darkness and misery, the truth is exactly the opposite. The process of deconversion, from the fear, delusions and superstitions of theism to the light and intellectual freedom of Atheism, is often difficult and emotionally wrenching for people who have had a strong religious upbringing. Nevertheless, the other side of this transition exposes the intellect to clear air and freedom, and the promise of a peaceful life where all strife, confusion, and struggle with the insoluble questions of god-belief have finally ceased. Atheists understand the basis for morality, that simple compassion is a better reason to do what is right than ten thousand commands from a non-existent god. Atheists understand their relationship to the rest of the universe and the awe-inspiring cosmic processes that brought us into being here. Atheists appreciate the beauty of the world and the reasons why it must be preserved. As stated earlier, atheists possess the exhilarating freedom to determine their own destinies, chart their own heading in life, and make up their minds for themselves. Atheists know reward of a mind free to travel and explore wherever it wishes. And atheists can live lives of purpose, meaning and deep, genuine fulfillment and inner happiness, just as well as any theist can.

There is nothing to fear about atheism, and much that it has to offer. Sadly, despite all the reasons to do otherwise, the human race seems poised to continue on its religious path into the foreseeable future, and the associated prejudices, injustices, and futile delusional beliefs in the unseen will almost certainly continue as well. However, a time may come when humankind finally grasps the necessity of atheism, when it will wake from its religious delusions, embrace mental health, and at last see the world as it truly is. Then, perhaps, we can finally leave all the old fears and struggles behind and step into the light for all time. Then, man will at last be free superstition.

Farnaz, thanks for the links! Here's one you might like in return. Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls and did not subscribe to the idea of the resurrection of physical bodies on Judgement Day - consequently he was branded a heretic. He was clearly deeply influenced by Plato, as was Augustine after him.

I gather it was impossible for these early Christian thinkers to consider non-anthropic spiritual realities apart from entities, beings, supreme being, etc. but Origen at least comprehended the allegorical nature of biblical mythology to a greater degree than most.

http://www.dacb.org/stories/egypt/origen_.html

Practical Reasons For The Truth Of Atheism

5.

Atheism has no need to defend the indefensible.
Atheism releases man from the perpetual need to prop up tired, false beliefs with equally threadbare apologetics. Atheists have no need to make excuses for why they allow the millennia-old writings of primitive and superstitious people to direct every aspect of their lives. Atheists have no need to justify why they follow the moral advice of books that approve of slavery, inequality, war, or genocide in the name of God. Atheists do not need to make excuses for why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity never takes any clear action to help human beings who need it. Atheists have no need to devote mental effort to belief in absurd myths of talking snakes, people walking on water, or men being swallowed by giant fish and surviving -- when rational people know such things do not happen in the reality. Reality is the key phrase: atheists, in short, believe only what is real, verifiable, and provable, and focus their energies on dealing with the world in which they live, rather than bending their minds, and endangering their mental health, by belief in the god-world of fantasy and miracle.

Daniel12 obviously has a tin ear when it comes to this whole business of atheism - despite heroic efforts by Schaum to lay out the case for atheism...in addition to some good posts by DITLD.

D12 seems to be considering atheism strictly from the modern and distinctively Western logical positivist viewpoint often attributed to science/scientists, and that disputes any real evidence supporting theism....with good and sufficient reasons.

The other consideration being that no one is trying to disprove the existence of the supreme creator as found at the core of theism. There is simply no proof or factual evidence, therefore the process of disproving the theist assertion is dead in the water - has no traction and no takers. Atheists in the West say, 'show me the beef - we're still waiting'. That's all.

What D12 conspicuously ignores is the countless millions of non-theists in the East, who have never had occasion to believe in a supreme creator of any kind. Here we have an idea simply absent from these various culutural milieus, and highly resistent to missionary efforts over the centuries that had hoped to convert these heathen masses to the whole idea of sin and salvation - by Christ!

Nope, they weren't having any, thank you. So in the larger historical context, atheism is a tempest in a teapot and only a big deal in the philosophically stultified, theist-enamored West.

D12 has only to crack a few more books, and he will no doubt arrive at his own solution to the God problem - thereby sparing everyone from having to do his work for him. That seems fair to me.

Persiflage:

Careful! You'll make Daniel12 angry!!! He doesn't like his lack of critical thinking skills to be exposed. He thinks that is a very "angry" thing to do!

Practical Reasons For The Truth Of Atheism

4.

Atheism offers the freedom to make up your own mind.
In line with the last point, most who are deluded into believing in “god” put limitations not on just how their believers may act, but what and how they may think. Ancient texts and their modern interpreters in the church hierarchies strictly prescribe how their followers are allowed to view the world, what topics they must approve or disapprove of, and often, what questions they are not allowed to ask. Some religions go as far as to command their followers not to expose themselves to certain knowledge deemed "dangerous". To name an especially egregious example, the one-billion-member roman catholic corporation only several decades ago abolished its Index of Forbidden Books, which for centuries threatened with excommunication any Catholic who read any titles on the list without special permission.
In contrast to this barrage of prohibition, atheism offers the freedom to think, believe, question and form opinions as one sees fit. To an atheist, there is no forbidden knowledge, there are no prohibited books, and there are no questions that may not be asked. Where the religious mind sees a mental landscape bristling with bars and locks, the atheist sees a wide-open horizon, where nothing is off-limits and the inquiring mind may travel wherever it pleases. Atheists are entirely free to study all perspectives on any topic and decide for themselves what they believe.

Daniel12 must be wetting himself again.

'You will find that they are usually between five six and six feet tall, slender, graceful--and intelligent. Examples: Hendrix, Townsend, Richards, Allman, Page, Van Halen, Santana, Gallagher, Beck, Mclaughlin, Zappa, Fripp, Blackmore, Schenker, Young, Perry, Iommi, Slash, May,-'

And I'm willing to bet all were/are political liberals - must be why D12 left Ted Nugent off the list LOL!

It's fair to say that accomplished musicians across the board, even from the exclusively ear-trained school, are reasonably intelligent....and says absolutely zero about judgement, character, habits, or life expectancy (which may be foreshortened in many cases because of chronic high risk behavior -see the above list).

As far as adding to the gene pool - procreative activities were/are no doubt frequently practiced, but hopefully with limited reproductive results.....

PS. Many far greater and more accomplished players from the jazz and classical idioms (see also female classical guitarists) were omitted from the D12 short list....... and big hands are a plus.

Schaum, would you like proof of my knowledge and intelligence? Well here it is friend. You are the nasty guy or the guy talking about dogs. The guy putting up the extensive defense of atheism--all the long, well thought out passages--is not you. The thoughts are not original and the style is markedly different than the nasty boy. Are you Schizophrenic? I doubt it. More like you at best paraphrased something you read, and at worst flat out plagiarized. Certainly we have here two men. Which one is you? I say the nasty man. Is the other you? Then why not let him live and kill the nasty man? What exactly is going on here Schaum? Explain it to us. I particularly enjoy the well thought out, reasonable, calm passage followed by the angry rant against Daniel. I fail to understand how the well thought out passage can be reconciled with you spitting and saying everything I write is nonsense, so absolute. I think I know the truth. What was it you said about me? A smattering of learning as if I took a bit of this and that from books and misunderstood and turned into my own words misunderstanding, something like that? The way you write Schaum, this one moment rabid dog next moment calm, writerly person betrays that fundamentally you are no reasoner, writer,--rather you have strapped such an identity on the real Schaum, the angry man, and try to tell us the reasonable man is the real Schaum--when not a single idea, or even the style is truly your own. How do I know this Schaum? Because I am a reader, writer, thinker. I am these words and every word I write. I do not paraphrase let alone plagiarize. I read and have all the experience of such combined with original reasoning and style.

Lion's Den, here is a typical example of atheist thinking: We have atheists when questioned whether God exists saying things like science, the theory of evolution, demonstrates no God exists. Evolution shows incredible cruelty, so many harmful mutations, etc. A good God cannot possibly be reconciled with evolution. In other words, here we have evolution if spoken of as order, a form of order which might as well have been created by a monster. Furthermore this order seems to come from nowhere and head nowhere. It seems there is a trend toward intelligence--all has been building up to man--but the evolutionist, Dawkins, for example, will say, hardly...A process so cruel with some magical, benevolent ending? Maybe. Good luck.

But then when reason is mentioned, morality, all the goodness of life, well then the atheist says--you guessed it!--evolution is remarkable, beautiful, splendid,--no God is necessary at all to explain such wonderful things.

In other words, first all the negatives about life are pointed out as proof of no God. Then when that is done, the remainder of goodness is--taken as proof such can exist with no God! Do I at all have to point out the slyness of such logic?

Do I have to point out how patterns are used to first debunk the notion of God, then in an about face are celebrated as examples of goodness without God? To help you see what I mean, take a religious person approaching the same phenomena. The religious person will say so much about life is beautiful, look at all the pretty patterns, all evidence of God! Then when evil is pointed out, no that is not God, as if one can cut out the evil when God is all around in the good things.

Atheists say all is crap--there is no God--then say concerning the good things, that they can exist without God. Religious people take the good things as God, then brush the evil under the rug. Neither atheist nor religious man demonstrating any integrity whatsoever. All sly strategy to prop up pet position.

The truth is it seems every person must have an explanation of everything--some sort of system which he defends. I have no system. I acknowledge that all grand explanations fall flat. An atheist would call me someone trying to prove God exists. If I were to speak as I write here to religious people, they would instantly recognize me as no friend. That I am an intellectual automatically puts me at odds with the religious. So I am alone. But as God supposedly said looking down on things: it is good. But I did like your last post. Reasoned extremely well. I am just a suspicious man. Hard to get me to accept something. A great sax, trumpet, piano, guitar, violin passage yes, Scarlett Johansson, yes, but when it comes to thoughts, not so easy.

Frederic2:

As we see repeatedly proven in the delusional rantings of Daniel12 (whose claimed IQ is highly dubious) the more important things in the question of "intelligence" are the ability to think critically, logically, and rationally. The cognitive faculties that Daniel12 lacks go beyond intelligence - they are essential tools of rational thinking.

Practical Reasons For The Truth Of Atheism

3.
Atheism offers respite from feelings of worthlessness, guilt and fear.
Many theistic organizations teach that human beings are all sinners, stained and worthless in God's eyes and fully deserving of his punishment and wrath. Others teach that there is a huge number of elaborate and arbitrary rules which people must strictly follow at all times, and that if they transgress they are "dirty" until they subject themselves to rituals of cleansing and absolution. Still others teach that a person's worth is entirely dependent on whether they believe the delusions of the god myth. All such teachings are likely to produce in their adherents feelings of perpetual guilt, shame and self-loathing and unhappiness. Atheism, by contrast, does not teach any of these things. In fact, it actively denies them. Combined with a humanist philosophy that respects the inherent dignity and worth of each person, it offers a powerful antidote to feelings of worthlessness.
For many who have been drawn into the delusions of god-belief, following their religion is a life of constant paranoia and fear: fear that the world is conspiring against them, fear that they are constantly under attack by evil spirits, fear that a wrathful god is watching them and will condemn them to hell if they “sin”, fear that the world may end at any moment, fear that they will be excommunicated or ostracized by their church community if they put a foot wrong, fear that their friends and loved ones who believe differently will be damned. Atheism merficully offers release from these delusional, superstitious and mentally destructive fears, and in their place offers a credo of hope: there are no supernatural powers arrayed against us, nor must we live in constant fear of judgment. We are human beings, alive and free, and our destiny is in our own hands. We are our own masters, and chart our own courses.

Your logic:
All guitarists have a high I.Q. Therefore, all intelligent people are guitarists.

I.Q. has nothing to do with sane judgment, q.e.d.

On I.Q...The multiple intelligence thing has been determined to be nonsense. If a person has a profound gift for music or logic or math, etc. I.Q. is 120 or above. A person might have some sort of talent with a lower I.Q. but I.Q. has to be up there for marked manifestation. The only gift which seems to need no high I.Q. is athletic ability, and that makes perfect sense as animals with no great intelligence show often even greater physical gifts than humans. As an example of music and I.Q. please name a stupid great lead guitarist. Here is a list of great lead guitarists. You will find that they are usually between five six and six feet tall, slender, graceful--and intelligent. Examples: Hendrix, Townsend, Richards, Allman, Page, Van Halen, Santana, Gallagher, Beck, Mclaughlin, Zappa, Fripp, Blackmore, Schenker, Young, Perry, Iommi, Slash, May,--the list goes on, as well as any number of blues guitarists who strangely do not fit the physical pattern but are undeniably intelligent: the three Kings, Guy, Sumlin, Rush, not to mention the Mississippi Deltas. A stupid great lead guitarist? Look high and low. Invariably they are articulate, somewhat nervous, often alternating between cockiness and insecurity, typically the rock hard foundation of their band (songwriter, studio equipment knowledge, etc.). The notion of a noticeable talent without high intelligence is absurd. In fact we have examples of great talent with no intelligence--idiot savants. Are they creative in any real sense? At best we have the calculating boy. The real math talent shows up early, as in the calculating boy and sadly ends at around forty, but genuine work is done. And the mathematician is invariably intelligent. And so on.

Kenarme:

Yes, the theist superstitions have caused a lot of damage in the world. The mad delusions of belief in that for which there is no scientific basis is madness indeed.

His Holiness the Poop, I read, is "distressed" about the evil activities and doings of the catholic corporation's priests in Ireland. I hope the "distress" will not prove too great for him.

Frederic2:

If I'm prying, where do you live?

I live in Blacksburg, Virginia -- you know, where 32 students were shot to death a couple of years ago. I was in DC, where I had my own chamber ensemble, and often played with Washington Sinfonia. Chamber music is my thing.

Schaum: Yes all!

Frederic2:

Do I correctly understand that you are a cellist? I play harpsichord and organ, and build both.

Are you a professional? Do you teach?

I.Q. measures what the creators of I.Q. tests established as a criterion for intelligence. The I.Q. philosophy, btw, is completely out of date, after Gardener's and others' research of the different kinds of intelligence (social, spatial, musical etc.). So just to call "I.Q." a reference for someone being right or wrong is stupid, infantile, out of date, lacking any judgment, retarded. One can be utterly infantile, superstitious (or brutal or or...) and still have a high "operational" I.Q. - q.e.d.

As an example: The once seriously treated question how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin can be discussed with a huge amount of operational intelligence, while being as dumb as one can imagine.

So, Daniel12, I am afraid you have not done yourself a big favor distributing I.Q. numbers to yourself and others... You have only shown that your judgment ability is zero, which casts a light on the rest of your superstitious rants.

Persiflage,

Thanks for your post! I envy you your proximity to the natural world. I live near a large park, but it is, well, a park. Urbanization has wrought many discontents, has it not.

I do not know Origin well, but have found his writings breathtaking:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0412.htm

The tragedy is what typology has wrought, how it has crippled the morality, imagination, and thinking of so many millions for so many centuries, a hideous thing, IMHO.

At any rate, here is an interesting apolitical analysis, probably redundant for you:

http://www.pitts.emory.edu/hmpec/secdocs/Martens_Origen_SBL_04.pdf

Farnaz

In the first sentence, I meant to say:

"It is possible for a person to have a faith in SCIENCE which is like religious faith, but that is not science. Most scientists do not think of science in this way."

Part I to Daniel 12

Science is not religion or philosophy.

Religion is not science or philosophy.

Philosophy is not science or reliigion.

It is possible for a person to have a faith in religion which is like religious faith, but that is not science. Most scientists do not think of science in this way.

The faith that scientists have in science is nothing like religious faith. In order to suppose that science can operate, a scientist has faith that the five senses receive impressions of order from the universe. But this is not really faith at all, compared to religious faith. This a BIG mistake that many religious people make, to put what they call "scientific belief" on the same level as their religious belief.

Faith that ones senses actually give us impressions of the world is actually part of the mechanism of perception; it is more of an assumption or a requirement for ones senses to work. It is really more akin to instinct, than to faith. Even animals have this assumed requirement that their senses give them impressions of the world. But no one could suppose that animals have anything like religious faith.

Also, an orderly universe is the reality in which we all find ourselves and that is not questioned by atheism, nor by anybody else. You infer that atheists believe that there is disorder at the bottom of things. But why would you assume that? And what do you mean by the bottom of things? In fact, there is no bottom; everywhere is all the same part of the orderly universe.

Part II to Daniel 12

You speak of randomness as being the opposite of intelligent design. But what is random and what is randomness?

If we cannot perceive patterns in a phenomenon, then we call it random. But all that means is that whatever order may cause this phenomenon is unknown to us. In fact, there is also order in randomness and in chaos. Therefore, you are using this word, random, in a not quite modern and up-to-date way.

The God of Abraham which has been handed to several religions of the current day was never thought of as meaning "order in the universe." And modern people who believe in this God, likewise, do not think of this God as order. Intelligent Design has been invented to try and bolster up arguments for belief in this God, but it is not really what Christians, Moslems, and Jews believe about this God.

People do not merely believe in an orderly universe; it is a required assumption for life to exist, and for any of us to operate and navigate in the world. Not believing in God has no bearing on the fact of an orderly existence. Atheists are not seeking to prove that there is no order in the universe. I am not sure where you have gotten this idea.

And finally, belief in God does not assure anything necessarily better or more orderly about the unvierse than not believing in God. It just causes the believer to stop thinking about this problem. But the problem is not solved. And if you cannot stop thinking about it, then that is where doubts begin to sculpt out an outlook on life that is at variance with inherited and traditional religious belief.

A lot of religions contain morally unacceptable teachings about the inequality of women, homosexuals, minorities, and other societal groups and classes. Many others also contain teachings about how some people are closer to or more favored by God than others, while the rest are lesser in some way. I don’t know any Atheists who have these pervasive prejudices, instead they realize that we are all human beings, alike in dignity. But even beyond this, many religions offer a dire view of the world where many of the people you meet and interact with every day are destined for an eternity of unimaginable suffering in Hell, and where it is every believer's job to convert these people if possible, where the primary purpose of every relationship with a nonbeliever must ultimately be an attempt to "save" them. But it is impossible to have a real relationship with someone you view as a mere target for conversion rather than a human being, and so this belief will lead to frustration, loneliness, and unhappiness. Atheism lifts this psychological burden by allowing you to accept other people for who they are without feeling that you need to change them.

Practical Reasons For The Truth Of Atheism

2.

Atheism is an education in critical thinking.
For obvious reasons, most god-belief organizations discourage their followers from the principles of skepticism and critical thinking, preferring instead to convey the message that unquestioning faith is a virtue. This way of viewing and approaching the world has serious repercussions in other areas, not the least of which is mental health. Theists who are taught that evidence is irrelevant and that truth is determined by the strength of one's “belief” are more likely to be deceived by false or fraudulent claims made about god-belief. By contrast, an atheist accustomed to being skeptical of extraordinary claims, and experienced in detecting common errors of reasoning, already has a mental toolkit that will help him see through the impostures, spurious claims, and deliberate manipulations that characterize god-belief..

Practical Reasons For The Truth Of Atheism

1..

Atheism offers the freedom to live your life as you see fit.
Most who are tied to the superstitions and delusions of god-belief subscribe to a strict, tightly conscribed view of what constitutes acceptable behavior. They set restrictions on what sorts of activities their fellow theists are supposed to prefer or reject, what their purpose and goals in life should be, whom they should obey, and from what they should derive meaning and satisfaction. There are long lists of things which theists, in order to “fit in”, must do or refrain from doing; sometimes there are restrictions on how they dress, eat, speak and even vote. This effect is especially pronounced in conservative and fundamentalist god-belief communities where the life of each theist is planned out in advance, with little if any regard for what those people themselves may want. We have seen this taken to extremes in the various Christ cults which attempt to control literally every moment of their members' lives – and not infrequently, their deaths.

Atheism, by contrast, is free of this confinement. Atheism has no hierarchy of authority or immutable scripture that forces its followers to live any approved, prescribed way: the essence of atheism is the free choice of the individual. This does not mean that an atheist can behave in any way he wishes, without regard for others. No one is exempt from the principles of morality. But it does mean that an atheist has the freedom to choose his own purpose, select his own path, and decide for himself what values and principles make his life meaningful and worthwhile to him. The feeling of deep inner satisfaction that comes from living a fearlessly self-directed life can only be imagined by those deluded by theism and forced into the narrow and shallow paths of conventional “religion”.

A big difference between the problem of racism and the battle between the religious and atheistic--between the religious and homosexuals as well. We accept a person cannot change his race, but atheists, the religious and homosexuals believe their nemesis to able to learn to be different, to be able to change his nature. But homosexuals constantly tell us they cannot change who they are. The religious say the same--and atheists apparently agree the religious cannot change because atheists constantly say that the religious cannot be swayed no matter the evidence against them, that they act absolutely. And atheists too say they cannot be changed, that they are who they are--Lion's Den is a perfect example of that here, saying it is useless to try to get atheists to believe in God.

So can any of these types actually learn to be different or is a murderous instinct raging in all of them? A really good topic for an essay. One which I will address in the future. Which can really change and which cannot? Certainly we can see each attempts to destroy the other without really examining if change is possible. Atheists and most homosexuals apparently want to destroy religion regardless of whether religious people can change their ways. Religious people apparently feel the same although they insist atheists and homosexuals can change their ways.

Fortunately we can probably say homosexuals and the religious can be reconciled by religion accepting homosexuality--then neither expects the other to change. The same probably between homosexuality and atheism. But between religion and atheism? There the insistence the other can change is greatest--has to be greatest because otherwise there is no reconciliation. So are the religious and atheistic both murderous or is one of them right the other can change? Or are they both right? Or are they both wrong the other can change? Important questions.

Moral Reasons For The Truth Of Atheism

7.

Many god-belief organizations display institutional corruption and hypocrisy which it is morally incumbent upon us not to support.
In addition to the evil actions discussed in the last point, it is sadly the case that many organized religions do not follow even the good teachings their canons contain. Many religions whose texts preach the virtues of poverty and generosity have leaders who enjoy extravagant riches and luxuriant lifestyles made possible by donations from their followers, many of whom are desperately poor themselves; others whose texts extol peace, compassion and nonviolence have repeatedly engaged in war and terrorism with the excuse that it is justified by God's will. Others that preach about the necessity of fidelity and monogamy have leaders that have engaged in extramarital affairs or divorced and remarried numerous times. Still others have corrupt hierarchies that have tried to cover up sex abuse and other crimes committed by members of the clergy. (The Roman Catholic church is the most visible, though not the only, recent example.) Morality demands that we refrain from supporting such corrupt and hypocritical institutions until and unless they put an end to these transgressions and provide solid proof of their having done so.

Also Schaum, since you seem to be so concerned with what harms man, what retards progress, so enthusiastic about debunking religious man upon whom rests the brief life yet of scientific man, perhaps you can can tell us why exactly it is homosexuality is necessary. Explain why homosexuality is more necessary than religion to be specific. Explain to us why exactly it is if no more homosexuals exist man will be irrepareably harmed. To help you, I point out that obviously, according to the theory of evolution, homosexuality like religion must serve some purpose. So you do have some ground to stand on. But explain how it is superior to religion, why it deserves to exist but not religion. After all, if we are going to be debunking age old institutions it behooves us to have some defense of all the practices we say deserve to go on. That makes some obvious sense I think you will agree.

I have a decent suggestion which will enable us to compare assertions here, to find which of us are the intelligent and which less so: Own up to one's I.Q. Schaum, what is your I.Q.? I guess at best 115-20. I guess Farnaz 125-30. Jacoby 125-40. But unfortunately for Schaum, he is so petty and full of rage, so incapable of honestly giving an idea its due, his I.Q. is effectively 100 at best, and probably around only 95. I am the complete opposite of Schaum emotionally. I can listen to someone spitting in my face, and if he makes sense make note of that. I am the complete opposite of a person that needs to be flattered this way and that before he accepts an idea. So people, what are your I.Q.'s? This is also a nice test of one's honesty. Of course I.Q. is not everything--in fact people with very high I.Q.'s have been pointed out as deficient in creativity, but I.Q.'s says a lot. It has been demonstrated that the higher the I.Q. the more one can teach oneself and so on. I.Q.'s please. Thank you very much.

Part one.

Basic logic.

If one is an atheist one believes that despite all order fundamentally at bottom there is no order--no intelligent design in their very words. This means at best atheists believe in an unintelligent design behind things--which no one could possibly take in any sense other than to call it disorder. What is the most unintelligent design other than disorder?

Part two.

Einstein yet again: God does not play dice with the universe--meaning God is about order. Dice with the universe is the world with no God--the atheist's world. But of course atheists try to say all order--intelligent or otherwise (if otherwise can be called order)--is compatible with a belief in no God. Never mind they turn right around and say they do not believe in an intelligent design.

Contradictions contradictions. And for the thousandth time I need no belief in God to see right before my eyes ridiculous reasoning. My I.Q. is 134, which means I am within the top 2% of the population. As for reading I have worked as a security guard on the night shift all my life and therefore all my time has been to myself to read, write and of course first, reflect.

There is absolutely no explanation of order in as somone here said "the material sense without any need for God". Scientists rather have pointed out patterns--they have not given method by which such patterns have come into being. All the patterns science has given just begin, they hang in space, as it were, with no beginning and no end. Just patterns superimposed on the mystery of existence. No explanation of order without God exists at all. That in fact is a holy grail--that amounts to knowing solidly if a God is behind this or that. Obviously we do not know that.

Part three.

How human intelligence, order, have come into being without God is an open question. So open that atheists have often prefered, again, to just say no intelligent design is behind things--not to mention the age old route of atheists in challenging the belief in God is TO POINT OUT NEGATIVES ABOUT EXISTENCE RATHER THAN EXPLAIN POSITIVES EXISTING WITHOUT GOD.

And Schaum, in all your arguments for atheism over religion you might want to remember first a favorite theory of atheists, namely the theory of evolution, which is to say if man could have he would have done without religion all those millenia you speak of which in your words retarded progress. According to the theory of evolution man obviously needed all that religion--it was an advantage. Maybe man no longer needs religion, but for you to say it was never necessary is like you saying such and such an animal never needed that adaptation to survive which of course is a ridiculous statement--as if you know rather than nature what a creature needs to survive. Biologically man needed religion. If he could have evolved without it he would have. So all those statements of yours describing religion as purely negative in past tense are nil. Negatives no doubt existed and still exist. But obviously there was some need for it or biologically it would have never existed. Furthermore all those years of religion set the stage for reasoning man today. That is stone cold fact--unless you want to deviate from your very own celebrated science.

Counterwww:

"you would never have the balls to confront believers about this face to face in society."

Hmmm....I infer from your veiled threats that you resort to violence when your mental illness is brought into public discussion.

Click on this site to read a discussion on the link between mental illness and violence.

content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/20/2064

Counterwww:

You are having another delusion: you don't "call" anybody "out" for anything. You don't have that power.

And you are mentally ill.

Oh, and Schaum-

Like I said before, when someone calls me "mentally ill" I do call them out on such crapola.

Also, you would never have the balls to confront believers about this face to face in society.

The Internet lets you be all high and mighty, and feel superior to others.

There is only one superior being who is high and mighty, and ironically, loves us all beyond comprehension.

How much time does someone have on their hands to argue this stuff?

Kind of strange to see all the typing going on here , must not have much going in your lives.

Shaum-

Still in your frenzy, heh?

Posted dozens of times, and think I am the one worried about what you think?

I have better things to do , this is why I don't post up here, especially with bitter old guys like you.

From the first post-

Jesus is the reason for the season. Deal with it.

Moral Reasons For The Truth Of Atheism

6.

Many god-belief organizations accumulate vast and unnecessary amounts of wealth and material possessions, a practice which it is morally incumbent upon us not to support in view of the enormous masses of sick, tired, hungry, homeless, hopeless people in the world.
Since time began, god-belief organizations worldwide have developed the most effective tools –usually involving emotional/psychological blackmail-- for extracting the maximum possible amount of money from their followers. A common practice in Western religions is tithing - the church's calling on its members to hand over a stunning ten percent of their income each year. In churches with millions of followers, even if only a small percentage choose to tithe, the amount of wealth that is thereby accumulated is enormous. Similarly, in many Eastern countries past and present, all of society is expected to labor to support the religious upper classes of monks and priests. The practices that god-belief organizations use to keep the money flowing in are endless - the collection plates passed around at each sermon, the sale of indulgences and prayers, the promise of worldly benefits in return, the unceasing cries of persecution that inspire believers who feel their god-belief is threatened to give generously in support of it.
Were riches gained in this way used to genuinely good ends, there would be little reason to object. But very often they are not. Instead, many god-belief organizatinos simply accumulate countless millions of dollars in assets, including vast amounts of property, huge and lavish buildings, and unceasing luxury for their leaders - this although virtually all religions teach that excessive wealth is a barrier to salvation. God-belief groups' control over society enables them to pass laws exempting themselves from outside scrutiny, so that they need not account to anyone how they spend the money they make. While most god-beliefs engage in at least some charity, the amount of good they actually strive to accomplish is small compared to what could be achieved if they put their full resources into the effort; In any case god-belief charity often comes at a price.
Morality demands that we not support this. The amount of suffering and injustice in this world is so great that it is a pressing moral obligation for us to use our resources to combat it in the most effective way possible, rather than simply handing them over to further enrich already wealthy and powerful god-belief hierarchies. Atheism, and giving the money thereby saved to genuine charitable groups, is an effective way to achieve this goal.

Moral Reasons For The Truth Of Atheism

5.
In general, god-belief serves as an excuse for the few to impose their will upon the many; it is morally imperative that we refuse to support this.
Although a very few religions teach - and, more importantly, put into practice - the belief that all people are equal in the sight of “god” and that all people have equal access to “god”, the opposite condition is by far more common. The absolutist theocracies, repressive caste systems and divine-right monarchies that have been so common throughout history and persist even today show how readily god-belief can be used as a tool of oppression and control, how easily it can justify inequality and unfair systems of rule. There is no major world religion that has not at some point been used to excuse such unjust institutions; even purportedly peaceful Eastern faiths such as Buddhism have given rise to tyrannical theocracies.
By contrast, history has shown us that democratic governments which abide by the principle of separation of church and state are far more efficient, more advanced, and more respectful of human rights. There is therefore strong moral reason to support atheism and democratic god-free government. The best basis for doing so is to be an atheist, since atheists have solid reason to reject the claim that some people are more favored by “god” than others.

...make that Origen of Alexandria.

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

Thomas Baum, the fact that you continue to adhere to traditional Trinitarian dogma with the person of Jesus as a manifestation of God casts serious doubt on the essence/substance of your mystical experiences....along with your declared meeting with the devil, etc. No doubt you understand this.

The idea of universal love is certainly not a bad thing, but exactly what meaning can that have universally, so to speak?

As soon as folks begin to interpret inner experiences via well-established religious dogma, red flags go up among the non-faithful who have studied religion and religious experience extensively.

Solitary noumenal experiences will always remain solitary by necessity, regardless of the follow-up message conveyed to the outer world.

Although he never recanted, the reknowned Dominican priest/mystic of the 14th century, Meister Eckert, was nearly branded a heretic because of his undoctrinaire views/interpretations of his own mystical experiences....they were not even remotely textbook approved renderings.....unlike Teresa of Avila, for example, whose ecstatic experiences were definitely x-rated, had they not been with the 'divine'. Some questioned whether or not she had actually been ravished by Satan himself.

The great early Church father Origin of Alexandria, was in fact branded a heretic long years after his death because of his contrary views on certain Church teachings.

Conventional religious wisdom will always be open to doubt and debate, so when religionists are treated as though their beliefs have less than equal standing with established facts - one must realize that comes with the territory.

regards, Persiflage

While many christians, for example, are strongly pro-life, their position finds no explicit support in scripture: although it goes into great detail about other sex-related sins, the Bible never even mentions abortion.

Interestingly, the same christers who so strongly oppose abortion seem to be the same christers who insist that god has (according to Rick Warren) mapped out each day of our lives even before we were born.

If this is true, then it was “god” who “mapped out” that day on which each woman who has ever had an abortion actually went and got one. Clearly, therefore, “god” approves of, and plans for, abortion.

christers can’t have it both ways.

Persiflage:

"Schaum, your well written extemporizing on the atheist vs theist issue is good reading!"

Thanks, guy...nice of you to say. The nice thing is that I don't have to make any of it up -- the facts are already there to quote!

Moral Reasons For The Truth Of Atheism

4.

In general, theistic belief is a force for stagnation and stands in opposition to progress; thus it is morally incumbent upon us not to support this.
Throughout history, religion has been used to promote stagnation and the status quo, acting as a barrier to human advancement both intellectually and morally. It has had this effect for several reasons. First, and not least important, is the amount of resources that have been spent on religion. Notwithstanding the wealth most churches accumulate, theism has encouraged many otherwise-intelligent people to spend their lives debating pointless and irresolvable theological disputes or evangelizing other cultures, when their minds and their ability could much more usefully be spent doing something of benefit to humanity.
Second is the frequent religious opposition to new knowledge. There was a time when men of science were persecuted, tortured and imprisoned by inquisitions, and even today religious opposition to science and its truths is widespread and strong. Creationists seek to prevent scientific theories that offend them from being taught in school, and theist apologists try to prevent natural phenomena from being studied by labeling them miracles, in an example of “God of the Gaps” reasoning.
Third is the use of religion to justify the current state of society and denounce efforts for change. History is filled with examples of churches that have denounced societal progress and worked hand-in-hand with the ruling elite to oppress the poor and the disenfranchised, usually by teaching them that they will be rewarded in the next life for unquestioning obedience and passivity in this one.
Finally, religion encourages fatalism, the mentally unhealthy belief that whatever happens is God's will and we should not seek to change it.
It is the fearless willingness to investigate the world and follow wherever the evidence leads that has brought about every improvement in the human condition ever achieved. Religion, although not always or in every case, very frequently works against this, and on balance it has been a force for stagnation and even regression, rather than progress. Intelligent people of conscience should therefore reject it on these grounds.

Moral Reasons For The Truth Of Atheism

3.

God-based religions have superstitious and psychologically unhealthy – to say nothing of scientifically unsound -- doctrines which it is morally incumbent upon rational beings to resist.

Most religions have doctrines which, if believed in, are likely to cause mental suffering, anguish and illness both to the believers and to those around them. Among these superstitious beliefs are that life is a constant source of pain and sorrow and this cannot be changed; that suffering and persecution are desirable and bring people closer to God; that all people are worthless sinners fully deserving of damnation; that it is forbidden to associate with or speak to those who believe differently; that there are vast conspiracies aligned against the true believers; and that human beings are constantly under siege by malignant demons or other evil supernatural powers.

The first two of these superstitious beliefs are likely to cause believers to accept and even seek out suffering and rejection, rather than making an effort to ease human suffering and tolerate others; in the worst case it may lead them to actively inflict pain on others. The third superstition leads to feelings of guilt, worthlessness and self-hatred, as well as disdain for the efforts of others to improve the general welfare, while the fourth breaks up relationships and drives apart people who could otherwise be happy together. There have even been instances wherein the last two superstitions cause the mentally ill to forego the medical treatment they need in favor of ineffective measures like prayer and exorcism, which not only will not cure their condition but may even drive them deeper into it. In all cases, the harm caused by these superstitious beliefs should be unacceptable to people of conscience, and should lead these people to reject any god-belief system that teaches them.

As I have said before, having a "holier than thou" attitude is not confined to those that believe in God.

The many different ways that people look down upon their fellow human beings is most definitely not limited by a belief or non-belief in something or Someone greater than themself.

The "dark" side of man (mankind) comes thru loud and clear from some people no matter what "label" they apply to themself.

Whether or not anyone on here is trying to disparage another "label" by claiming that "label" as their own is immaterial, it is deceitful, what it is doing is bringing out the "true colors" of whoever is doing it.

God cares for us, God wants us to care for each other.

So many seem to think that it is about "Faith" when it should be so obvious that it is about "LOVE".

See you all in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Schaum, your well written extemporizing on the atheist vs theist issue is good reading! I think you and Frederik would create some classy music - harsichord and cello, as I recall. Bach anyone?

I said, the St. Peter Principle? Nope, St. Murphy's Law......when heaven becomes hell per your observation!

Someone said that humans have a penchant for imagining that 'entities' and 'beings' are responsible for everything, up to and including God.

I really do believe it's hard for many folks to get beyond this fundamental misconstruel of cause and effect and on to other possibilities, despite a stunning lack of evidence for the supernatural. The human psyche just can't deal with it on an emotional level....

Homo religiousus remains viable for primarily this reason, in my view.

"Funny stuff! Missed it the first time around.........imagine arriving in heaven only to find that D12 would be your celestial suitemate for all eternity."

That would certainly obviate any need for hell.

Persiflage:

Consider the atheist and the theist. Ask each what it would take to convince him that he was mistaken and the other was correct. In the vast majority of cases, you'll only get an answer from one, and it won't be the theist.

I have been a non-believer for years, and I have never encountered an atheist who has said anything like, "Nothing could convince me that there is a god. I have faith in my atheism; I believe in my heart that there is no higher power." No atheist I have ever known has ever said anything even remotely resembling this, and it is just as well - one can easily imagine how the theists would respond if they did. But now reverse that statement: "Nothing could convince me that there is no god. I have faith in his existence; I believe in my heart that there is a higher power." Does that sound familiar?

Simply phrased, the difference between the atheist and the theist is that, in most cases, atheists are willing to be convinced IF the proper evidence is supplied. Theists, in most cases, are not, and it is precisely this that proves beyond a doubt that theists, not atheists, are the ones whose minds are closed.

Farnaz:

'Even more, it might be commendable. Suppose, for instance, there was a D1 in first-century Judea.

To spare humankind, eternal suffering the deity sacrificed himself, thinking that D1 would follow.

HOever, D1 was too busy scribing to notice and therefore perpetuated himself.

That the sacrifice should not have been in vein, the deity gave mankind scrolling.'
________________

Funny stuff! Missed it the first time around.........imagine arriving in heaven only to find that D12 would be your celestial suitemate for all eternity.

The St. Peter principle?

Farnaz, thanks for the I.B. Singer tale - I can relate, having a great affinity for birds and spiders....which live outside, for the most part. I'm always buying 50lb bags of bird seed.

Remember the 'Birdman of Alcatraz' with Burt Lancaster? I'm sure that if Francis of Assisi had been born in China instead of Italy, he could have avoided sainthood and all that politically inspired Church nonsense.

He would have no doubt gone down in history as a wandering mendicant at one with the Tao, who freely enjoyed talking to birds, wolves, etc. without all the religious implications!

I have to agree with Schaum e.g. Daniel12 not comprehending what folks say to him, or apparently what he reads either. With a little independent research, he could find an assortment of alternate explanations for material reality and order that supercede the God theory, and actually leave room for advancing knowledge.

There's something about a belief in God that causes cognitive arrest among a large class of believers, who then begin to parrot religoius doctrines, make dogmatic assertions and pronouncements that couldn't possibly be true under any circumstances.

If one person does this, they are diagnosed as insane but if a million do it, it goes unquestioned as the gospel truth. This should be contrued as a warning sign to all religious fence sitters.

And if there be a God, it is indeed the God of Spinoza.....

regards, Persiflage

2. (concluded)

Although the more liberal and moderate members of such god-faiths may be repulsed by such actions and may categorically disavow them, this does not alter the fact that the extremists still use the same holy book, believe in the same god, and worship in the same way as their less conservative brethren -- the difference being that they have different interpretations of a few verses of their sacred texts. Nor does it change the fact that this violence and hatred is not confined to a few isolated events, but permeates the history of virtually every god-belief system ever invented by humans. The only moral response to this is a full and complete dissociation from these hate-mongers, and the way to do that is by refusing to subscribe to the same belief system as they.
Some theists will no doubt protest that the ethical believers should not be condemned for the crimes of the misguided ones. And I agree that the morally good believers do not bear blame for the actions of the evil ones, so long as they have not defended or supported such actions. Nevertheless, when the entire structure of the god-belief system is marred by violence and unacceptable doctrine, the moral thing to do is to dissociate oneself from it, in order to make it clear that such practices will not be tolerated or supported.

Moral Reasons For The Truth Of Atheism

2.

God-based religions have histories of violence and hatred which it is morally incumbent upon us to dissociate from.
The history of god-based religion on this planet is a history written in blood. As far back as records exist, people have been fighting, torturing and killing each other in the name of the gods. Essentially the only religions that have never engaged in warfare and bloodshed are those that have been so consistently oppressed throughout their history that they have never had the power to do so. The only ethical response for people of conscience, when presented with these facts, is to dissociate themselves from the religions that have been responsible for them. As Jesus is reported to have said, "Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.... by their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:17-20, NIV translation).
There are examples of this from every major religious tradition. In Judaism, the Old Testament contains many instances of the Israelites waging warfare and carrying out programs of genocide purportedly under divine sanction, and today there are still far-right Israeli nationalists who believe it is the Jewish people's God-given right to own the entire Fertile Crescent, driving out the other inhabitants by violence if necessary. The crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts carried out by the various medieval Christian churches linger in memory, and today Christianity still has its share of racists and fundamentalists who murder gays, bomb abortion clinics, and picket the funerals of AIDS victims while gleefully proclaiming the departed's eternal damnation. The terrorists and tyrants of Islam are too obvious to need enumeration. Even members of Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have been known to form murderous mobs that go on the rampage against people of other belief systems. The Buddhist kingdom of Tibet prior to the Chinese conquest, presenting a sharp contrast with the current Dalai Lama's rhetoric about democracy and human rights, was a brutal theocracy where the lay population was forced through torture and imprisonment to support the monasteries.

Moral Reasons For Belief In Atheism

1. (concluded)

Morality demands that we refrain from supporting such beliefs, and so the only moral course of action upon encountering a religion that teaches one or more of them is to refuse to be a member of it. Even if a religion was true and the god it described actually existed, if it advocated immoral or evil doctrines the only ethical thing to do would be to refuse to follow it. If there are such beings as gods, they are bound by morality's principles as surely as humans are; neither the certain existence nor the great power wielded by Adolf Hitler, for example, made obedience to him a moral imperative in any way. Fortunately, we do not seem to be in any comparable dilemma, as there are strong evidential reasons, apart from any moral considerations, to believe that no form of theism is true. However, this and other moral arguments against religion give additional reason to be an atheist.

Moral Reasons For Belief In Atheism

1.

Most god-based religions have cruel, dangerous or repressive doctrines which it is morally incumbent upon us not to support.
The first and most obvious moral reason to dissociate oneself from god-based religion is the existence of cruel or otherwise unacceptable doctrines commonly associated with it. Though the specific nature of these doctrines varies from one belief system to another, virtually every form of theism so far conceived has at least a few. One that is very common is the belief that women are in some way inferior or subordinate to men. Such a belief shows up, for example, in the Old Testament's valuation of women as worth half as much as men; in the Christian Bible's command that women keep silent in church and submissively obey men; or in Islam's permitting men to marry multiple wives but never wives to marry multiple husbands, or forcing women to wear stifling black garb in public. Another immoral religious doctrine is the belief that God will one day soon destroy the world and save only his own, and that it is desirable that this happen. This belief has led in many instances to believers taking no action to remedy evils such as terrorism or environmental destruction, on the grounds that it will all soon come to an end anyway - or worse, causing violence themselves in an effort to bring about the hoped-for apocalypse.
In addition to these pernicious beliefs, there are others, including the advocacy of death and torture as a punishment for even minor transgressions; the support of racism, caste systems and slavery; the opposition to the use of birth control even in already desperately overcrowded regions of the planet; the belief that God has granted us a divine mandate to ravage the planet in any way we wish; the belief that absolution is free and there is therefore no incentive to refrain from committing evil acts; the support of monarchies and theocracies; the belief that medicine should be withheld from the sick in favor of prayer; prejudice against homosexuals and other minority groups; and many, many more. In fact, any crime, injustice or evil deed can be excused by claiming "God is on my side", and such justifications have been offered for countless wrongs committed throughout history.

"I did quantify Schaum, I acted on the second definition and said scientists meaning all scientists. "

You QUANTIFIED nothing. "...scientists" does not mean ALL scientists. Except, of course, in your self-serving use of language. You are an idiot. You will always be an idiot.

"It is completely beyond me that people like Daniel12 cannot live without the idea that there must be something “behind” our ever so miraculous reality, reality which he chooses to call "order""

It has been proven repeatedly by myself and others on this blog that D12 knows nothing about biology, evolution, chemistry, math, physics....nothing. He reads a book and then begins to spout off using catch phrases and technical terms that he has picked up, assigning to them whatever meaning and purpose suits his agenda. He is a complete idiot, and imagines that he fools others here. I've had enough of him and will waste no more time or effort in playing cat and mouse with his profound ignorance.

Frederic2:

"As a musician, I feel that the final punishment is boredom."

EXACTLY! And what kind of musician are you, btw?

"Schaum, in your own words, quantify, show me proof for this statement."

I have already given you reasons and proofs that the universe does not need "god" to exist or survive. You need no more.

It is you who demands, in the throes of your mental illness, that there must be a god. It is up to you to prove that. You make a positive claim. Only positives can be proved. In the absence of proof for your positive claim, the negative can be logically inferred.

But logic and reason are not elements with which you are either comfortable or familiar. You rant. You rave. You prove nothing.

You are an angry, ill, petulant child. I will waste no more time on you. You and your distorted views simply are not significant. If others want to waste time and energy on you, let them. I've finished with you and your ignorance.

It is completely beyond me that people like Daniel12 cannot live without the idea that there must be something “behind” our ever so miraculous reality, reality which he chooses to call "order". His concept of order, btw, being rather unorderly and absent of any clear thought, no matter how many years he spent mulling over it. The fact that something exists is not an argument for its order, only for its possibility to exist.

Ok, let’s simply call order "god" or "universe" or "qwertzu" or "all that exists" or whatever; it boils down to a meaningless semantic game about the fact that logically there is no way to prove a negative (cf. tea pot or unicorn etc.). We humans have always tried to blow some smoke or incense into the vacuum of our limited knowledge.

The fact that people desperately try to braid some of their neurons into a pattern that makes us feel happy (faith in Jesus, or the flat earth, or the hell the others will go into) is a weak argument for the existence of anything, including god (or tea pot etc.).

But just to play the faith game: Is god limited to his own "order"? Does he simultaneously manipulate all cosmic atoms (or strings, depending on your last reading), and listen to a football player’s prayer, here and at a possible planet a billion light years away?

Does he destroy his own "order" from time to time by wielding miracles like a guy walking on water or, more graciously, transubstantiate water into wine, or, more brutally, asking us to morph into cannibals who really ("hoc EST") drink his blood 2000 years later?

As a musician, I feel that the final punishment is boredom. Just to imagine having to go to heaven – what will I do after, say, the first 100000 years? It will be hell. I would desperately pray to St. Darwin for evolution or St. Dawkins to stop eternity.

Inevitably, when I.B. Singer gave talks, someone would ask, "Mr. Singer, is there a God?"

And whoever asked always prefaced the question with "Mr. Singer." I love that.

At all events, Singer always began in the same way, with his answer, after everyone stopped laughing.

"Whether there is or there isn't, I think we must behave as if there is."

By this, however, he meant God. Not the Christian trinity.

He did not adhere to Judaism although he was highly educted in it. He did believe in Justice. And in his own kind of God.

He also thought there were supernatural creatures everywhere, many of whom hid his belongings. Once his passport disappeared for a year, and he seriously considered hiring a spiritualist. Happily, the passport showed up.

Spinozaistically, he thought the deity was present in everything, and would not kill anything. An interviewer reports being at his home. HIs wife attempted to kill a bug and the interviewer stepped on it. From afar, she heard a voice yell out, "Murderers"

One day, a bird flew into the Singers' apartment in Manhattan and settled there. Soon, other birds came. One interviewer, unaware of the aerial activity, remarked on the zooming overhead.

Every time a bird passed away, he grieved for months. Ultimately, his wife put screens in the window, and forbid anymore feathery tenants, since she couldn't bear Singer's suffering.

Irrelevantly, he was notorious for getting lost and not being troubled by dislocation. He took a university post and showed up hours late for class because he could never find his way. Ultimately, the provost arranged to have a limousine pick him up at his door, bring him to class, and return him.

A man in Arizona, not Jewish, saw a ten-foot wall. An artist, he thought, I could cover this wall with Isaac Singer panels. And he did. Singer had a remarkable face and presence. The mural is magnificent.

Schaum with his cosmological knowledge declaring no designer is necessary to explain the order of the universe. Schaum, in your own words, quantify, show me proof for this statement. Explain how it is you know no designer created such. Please enlighten us how it is you know, by what method you have arrived at, at the truly staggering piece of genius which is the knowledge when and when not a designer is behind a piece of order. What is this secret you have of looking at a piece of order and determining whether a designer was behind it or not? Or rather, how is it you have managed to determine there is no designer behind certain pieces of order? And if no designer behind certain pieces of order, does this mean humans will never be able to create these forms of order? You should be able to answer that last question, knowing as you do whether a designer is behind a piece of order. You should be able to state for us levels of complexity knowing as you do whether a designer is behind things. You know I presume, that no designer created plants. Therefore you should have some knowledge of how difficult it might be for a person to create a plant. Or is it one can know whether a designer is behind something without knowing how complex with respect to man the thing is? I would like some answers to these questions.

Quantum mechanics deals with both uncertainty and order via various theoretical constructs. Here's an article on measurement, decoherence and the establishment of order for Daniel12. There is of course much more where this came from.

As Schaum said, if God was provable, it would have happened by now - God would have ensured it. Being beyond proof does not negate a possibility, but makes it worthless as a consideration, for all practical purposes.

All the idea of God accomplishes is to provide some kind of psychological closure for the open-endedness of reality, and is a stop-gap measure at best.

The religious faithful are bouyed up by the tacit support of countless like-minded believers, but if you don't need the emotional security, why bother?

I personally don't put any stock in people who claim to have met God. God should provide introductions all around, or such claims mean less than nothing.

http://samvak.tripod.com/deco.html

Schaum:

"Which raises the question: If the deity should commit -cide, after reading D12's post, would that be first or second degree?"

Neither. It would be an act of supererogation, and entirely forgivable.
-------------------
Even more, it might be commendable. Suppose, for instance, there was a D1 in first-century Judea.

To spare humankind, eternal suffering the deity sacrificed himself, thinking that D1 would follow.

HOever, D1 was too busy scribing to notice and therefore perpetuated himself.

That the sacrifice should not have been in vein, the deity gave mankind scrolling.

Me:

"But people for ages have meant by order "God" and disorder "no God". Furthermore scientists clearly recognize this, they have not been able to separate orderliness from God and have an orderly existence without God. The best they have achieved is reducing God as much as possible while attempting to save order behind things."

Schaum:

Please quantify and offer proof for these three statements.

Quantify Schaum?

quan·ti·fy (kwnt-f)
tr.v. quan·ti·fied, quan·ti·fy·ing, quan·ti·fies
1. To determine or express the quantity of.
2. Logic To limit the variables of (a proposition) by prefixing an operator such as all or some.

I did quantify Schaum, I acted on the second definition and said scientists meaning all scientists. But perhaps you have a different definition of quantify. Or is it you want me to explain myself in quantities?

Are you sure quantify is the word you wanted to use? Are you sure you are not the one defining words as he wishes?

As for the rest basic history of religion and science. Religion believing order is behind things, an intelligent design. Scientists having faith in a design behind things--separating such faith from religion but still faith in a design. Atheists in their very words do not believe in an intelligent design. They believe in no design. Or if they want to say an unintelligent design no one would confuse that with anything but no design. Atheists quite simply do not believe in any order worth speaking of behind the universe. Einstein once again: God does not play dice with the universe--meaning God is about order. Playing dice with the universe is not compatible with a belief in God. However it is compatible with atheism.

Farnaz:

"Which raises the question: If the deity should commit -cide, after reading D12's post, would that be first or second degree?"

Neither. It would be an act of supererogation, and entirely forgivable.

Does the universe requires a supernatural "designer" or do cosmological theories explain the reality of the “order” around us?

The standard model of cosmology, in which a tiny piece of inflating "false vacuum" decays into a fireball, and stars and galaxies congeal out of the cooling debris, has passed many tests. But where did the false vacuum come from in the first place? And how do the supposedly numerous quantum convulsions of our current vacuum manage to cancel out to almost - but not exactly - zero, leaving behind a piddling "dark energy" that lies in the tiny range of values that allow life to exist?

Physics and cosmology alone have the answers. Combine eternal inflation, in which the primordial false vacuum continuously grows and decays, with string theory and you end up with a multiverse - a vast collection of universes, each of which has a different amount of dark energy. We find ourselves in one which contains just the right value for stars, planets and life because... well, we couldn't find ourselves anywhere else.

Another cosmological model that has emerged from string theory has our universe living on the surface of a "brane" floating in a higher-dimensional space. Our brane collides with a nearby brane over and over again for eternity, triggering an endless sequence of big bangs. This cyclic model seems to home in on the exact value of the dark energy we measure.

The model doesn't require a beginning, and some scientists suspect that eternal inflation may not either. Certainly, neither requires a designer. Cosmology still has a lot to figure out, of course, but it is in good –and orderly—shape, without a need for a god or an “intelligent designer”.

Schaum:
""God is about order."
How, then, does He feel about your posts?"

It being the christmas season and all, I should imagine he is hanging wreathes of garlic.
---------------------
As I started reading your post, I thought you had written, "I should imagine he is hanging himself."

Which raises the question: If the deity should commit -cide, after reading D12's post, would that be first or second degree?

Farnaz:

""God is about order."
How, then, does He feel about your posts?"

It being the christmas season and all, I should imagine he is hanging wreathes of garlic.

D12,

"God is about order."

How, then, does He feel about your posts?

D12,

Stopping now would be advisable. There is only so much genieyoss we can absorb at one time.

Part one.

To Lion's Den.

Science is a form of faith not at all far removed from religion. Science has a different method and purpose than religion but has faith existence is orderly, that a design behind things can be discovered. Such a design--faith in such--has been the stock in trade of religion for millenia.

There is no question the method of religion is questionable so far as acquiring knowledge is concerned. In fact religion was not so much concerned about knowledge in the scientific sense as establishing morality. Religion has a moral understanding of the universe. One is not saved by this or that knowledge in the scientific sense but saved by how one acts. God demands particular acts. Not at all difficult to understand.

Part two.

When one moves to the scientific view the belief in an orderly universe in the religious sense is preserved. This belief is incompatible with atheism, for atheism holds--yes, all atheists with any understanding of their own position--that existence is fundamentally not orderly. Trying to say atheism is compatible with an orderly universe is nothing more than a trick to prop it up securely against religion, to sever "orderliness" from religion so religion can be discounted once and for all.

But any atheist can tell you he does not subscribe to INTELLIGENT DESIGN which means an orderly universe...No less an authority than Einstein weighs in on such. Einstein for all discounting of religion still believed in an intelligent design, orderliness. He was appalled by quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics supports the atheistic position of no fundemantal order behind things. Einstein said God does not play dice with the universe--meaning God has nothing to do with randomness, God is about order. Which means Einstein was protesting quantum mechanics saying essentially there is no God.

So much for referenda. There is a real blogger, Onepirlgirl, a white supremacist, who blogs where one would expect.

Not hard to find. I suspect ours was a phony. But, again, who knows. Many people are looking for certainty, simple explanations for the evil they see around them. Some become the evil in the process.

As for moi, I'm working on the Atheists' nonBible. Could use a little help.

:

Part three.

If the universe is indeed random at bottom then there is no God. But every bit of evidence of order sways the argument to God because GOD=ORDER. No trick, no sleight of hand of removing the concept "order" from religion and assigning it to atheism can work. That is exactly what you are trying to do Lion's Den. At least have the courage to admit the obvious.

I have no desire to criticize specifically how you are going about trying to associate fundamental order behind the universe with atheism, and it is not necessary I do so. We both know what you are trying to do--and sorry it does not work.

Religion can be wiped from the world and the scientific view can reign solidly. But science will always--yes always--preserve the link to religion so long as it has faith order is behind things and that it can successfully learn how the universe operates.

Part four.

Atheism has no such faith. Even Schaum can tell you according to his extensive defense of atheism recently that atheism goes by evidence, it does not say it has faith in an order behind things. In fact atheists (why I have to repeat myself I have no idea) say there is no intelligent design--they militantly work against any concept of order behind things even though they do not have conclusive proof there is no order behind things.

It really is not that difficult to see. If order was compatible with the view of atheism then of course atheism would be the solid view--logically sound. But then again, perhaps it is difficult for you to see. In fact, I should address a particular line of reasoning you offer.

You obviously have said science persists no matter the type of belief of the scientist--that the scientist works on the understanding of order regardless of whether religious or an atheist. You seem along with trying to associate order with atheism to have science intact no matter the type of belief of the scientist.

Part five.

But science rests on the faith there is order behind things. FAITH. One is not absolutely certain of order behind things. In fact that is why quantum mechanics has been so shocking philosophically. It seems to demonstrate there is no order behind things--THUS UPSETTING HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC FAITH IN ORDER.

Particular ways of seeing apart from evidence gathering are important to science. If scientist's faith in order behind things is challenged that can wreck the whole scientific enterprise by throwing men in despair. Scientists in fact have been working since quantum mechanics on the assumption that it might be wrong about things fundamentally disordered. Scientists despite evidence the universe is not orderly still work in the hope that it might be--THAT IS AS CLEAR A DESCRIPTION OF FAITH ONE CAN HAVE.

In short, despite proof of a disorderly, atheistic universe, scientists still have faith in order and strive to discover such. I hope that should be clear enough for you. At least I think we can agree that I am defending the concept "order" as a concept incompatible with atheism while you are trying to say it is compatible with atheism. At the least each of us should be honest about what he is trying to do.

Part six.

IN FACT I WILL STATE CLEARLY NOW THAT FAR FROM ME BEING RELIGIOUS, I WOULD CLEARLY GO OVER TO THE POSITION OF ATHEIST IF SOMEHOW THE CONCEPT OF ORDER CAN BE RECONCILED WITH ATHEISM. SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE ME AN ATHEIST THEN DEMONSTRATE TO ME HOW ORDER CAN BE RECONCILED WITH ATHEISM. I CANNOT BE MORE HONEST AND FAIR THAN THAT. ALL MY CRITICISMS OF ATHEISM HINGE ON THIS POINT. YOU SHOULD BE GIVEN CREDIT LION'S DEN FOR AT LEAST INTUITING THIS STICKING POINT.

I should end here so the last paragraph really sinks in and everyone knows now as clear as can be how to go about convincing me, that we need no arguments as to grammar or definitions or whatever. Just show me how order behind the universe can be reconciled with atheism. And I should add that I have been honest as hell in trying to figure it out myself. Why on earth would I want to live with reflecting that on one hand religious people are ridiculous for saying God is good when so much evil exists and on the other atheists are ridiculous for championing such things as reason when according to their very view there is no intelligent design behind things by which reason in the first place could have been created, let alone that existence can lend itself to reason?

People here seem to think that I have just popped up to attack them. I have been reflecting in such fashion for years. In fact I have known for years there is not the slightest bit of help I can offer religiously, philosophically, metaphysically,--however you want to phrase it--until I get things right first in my own mind. I DO THIS FOR MYSELF, THAT IT MIGHT HELP OTHERS IS ONLY A BONUS. I hope that makes things clear for you

Evidential, Moral and Practical Reasons for the Necessity of Atheism
Reason 10 (my final Evidential Proof that Atheism trumps theism.)
There is no clear evidence of the existence of any gods, as atheists know full well.
Not only are there no obvious miracles, human beings do not possess any clear communication from God even in ways that are not obviously supernatural, such as the simple, basic ways we relate to each other. Nor does God perform any activities in our daily lives, not even simple, ordinary activities, in a way that can be reliably attributed to him. Although most religions assure us it is well within God's power to disclose his existence and speak to us and interact with us in such a way that we could be sure that the message was genuine, this does not happen. Instead, believers claim to be assured of God's existence based on mere inward conviction -- not a reliable guide to the nature of reality regardless of how strong it is -- and on documents written, interpreted and approved by human beings.
Any clear communication or activity from God would obviously be a death blow for atheism, but no such thing has happened. On the other hand, because atheism is true, we can fully expect that this would be the case. We can fully expect that believers would rely solely on subjectively acquired feelings inaccessible to outside verification, and that apologists and evangelists would go around telling each other that they have discovered the truth about God, although every single source the various factions cite would, ultimately, be a human source. We can fully expect that, although theists claim that "God is love", he will never appear and show that love to us in the way a parent shows love to his children. We can expect that careful and painstaking examination of every aspect of the world will reveal a grand web of cause and effect, but not the slightest trace of influence of a Power that stands above it all.

Evidential, Moral and Practical Reasons for the Necessity of Atheism
Reason 9
Arguments for God's existence suffer from irreparable logical flaws – no surprise to atheists, but a big shock to theists.
Since forever, theologians and philosophers have attempted to devise rational proofs of God's existence; and without exception, all such efforts have fallen short. Not only do these arguments ultimately fail, many of them are actually premised on fundamental logical fallacies. For example, the classic pro-theistic argument known as the ontological argument suffers from circularity, while the cosmological argument is built on special pleading, and the argument from design is really just a disguised argument from ignorance. The moral argument for God's existence has been dogged for centuries by the insoluble Euthyphro rebuttal, while the more recent presuppositional arguments rely on the fallacy of the false dilemma
Granted, it is possible for God to exist and for there also to be no irrefutable arguments proving that fact. However, this outcome is still less surprising under atheism than theism. If theism is true, it is not at all unreasonable to expect that God might have structured the universe so that reason would enable us to detect that fact. On the other hand, with the truth of atheism, the ultimate failure of all pro-theistic arguments is the only possible outcome, assuming – pay attention here, Daniel12 -- that logic does bear some correspondence to reality. Certainly the failure of intelligent people throughout the centuries to conclusively prove the existence of God should tell us something.

Makes me think of that horrible business, "mental reservations," on which ColinNIck posted awhile ago.

Really, atheism is best. No deity, no statues, nada. Just nous and our pets.

Schaum,

I'm not sure what Onepirl is. There is such a blogger, a white supremacist. Maybe, it is Christian. Doesn't like "negroid's" (sic).

Who knows.
----------
MOre importantly, what is third degree suicide?

Persiflage:

Would department stores have sales on National InCredulity Day?'

Could bolster sales and be celebrated at least monthly - facilitated by constant and redundant media releases of no consequence....the Tiger Woods trilogy should be good for a solid month of sales!

Oprah, the celebrity maven of all time, could be appointed by Congress as the Secretary of Congeniality immediately after her retirement from TV - retired but for a day, of course. Another steller news story!

What could be more important than that??
__________________
Perfect. It all comes together as part of the nonSacred Atheist text.

I'm working on the nonGospell for how Sebastian became a symbol for the Atheists, some three hundred years ago. (That would be Sebastian's ancestor, or, at any rate, a dog.)

Found on another blog:

- - - - - - - -

"If a man throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades, is this suicide?

Yes, Catholic theology say that is second degree suicide and he will suffer in purgatory for it as it went against the natural action of the destructiveness of the grenade.

Here are the Military Facts for those who give their lives in service: If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payment its come to a screeching halt.

So you better double check your insurance policy coverage before you jump on a grenade. No, not everyone values suicide as a worthy cause!"

Second degree suicide?

'I stayed in a Ramana Inn once.'

Did you notice the constant low humming sound? It liked to have drove me crazy!

'Would department stores have sales on National InCredulity Day?'

Could bolster sales and be celebrated at least monthly - facilitated by constant and redundant media releases of no consequence....the Tiger Woods trilogy should be good for a solid month of sales!

Oprah, the celebrity maven of all time, could be appointed by Congress as the Secretary of Congeniality immediately after her retirement from TV - retired but for a day, of course. Another steller news story!

What could be more important than that??

Farnaz:

"Are you onepirl?"

Me? Not a chance!

Persiflage:

"The great modern Indian mystic Maharshi Ramana was very fond of animals, especially his cow Lakshmi."

I stayed in a Ramana Inn once.

well, Valkyrie has got to be the worst movie I've ever seen! It should have been done in German with English subtitles. The acting is abysmal.

NonFruit cake? The birth of the FSM's son via virgin ziti?

Would department stores have sales on National InCredulity Day?

Persiflage,

"How Much Is That Doggy in the Window?"

Just kidding! There must be something more in keeping with Sebastian's temperament, as we comprehend it via Schaum.

I wonder if the Obama's will celebrate our national holiday.

Should we also celebrate Darwin's Birthday?
Susan Jacoby's? Declare Steven Jay Gould Day?

Don't we need something like a nonTree?

Farnaz:

'As for Onepirl....A Paki who attended a school in which English was the medium of instruction might well know Wanker.'

Reading back through the progressively escalating posts, I can see that strong possibility - you were clearly a target, and then the Swiss minaret remark, Palestine, etc. And I agree - I don't see MC as the purveyor. This was an uncommonly nasty assault.

As for dog symbols...no problem with that either. Man's best friend and all. But then that will call for a new theme song (perhaps with some whistling). Oh well, it gets complicated.

I agree that the Darwin fish is pretty much a non-Christian symbol, of American origin. But I'm not sure that it's generically atheist by implication. Atheist symbols are going to be defined and understood by what they're not, it would seem. Dogs are a fine choice.

It should be revealing to theists that animals are by nature non-theist. The great modern Indian mystic Maharshi Ramana was very fond of animals, especially his cow Lakshmi.

At the moment of her death, he declared that she was fully enlightened...

To Any and All,
The USA was created BY and FOR Christians. If you don't like this FACT - LEAVE.
Get OUT.
GO.
Posted by: onepirlgirl

Not on your life - this is MY country as much as anyone else's. I am willing to share it with you as long as you play nicely.

From the front page of WaPo, we learn that Oprah is having a "White House Special." One sees her posing with the cleavaged Michelle and the skinny prez.

(I am ashamed to be nauseated, feels scrooge-like.)

Also, we learn that Tiger Woods is going to take time off to repair his marriage.

I am sick at heart and mind. I am distraught. I think we have lost the war. It's over.

Antisemitism pales before this. Orwell would take two aspirin and go to bed.

The Darwin fish will work, but there are problems - I don't know that it has a universal application, but serves the purpose for non-religious atheists....and was it (cleverly) adapted from the original Jesus fish?
-------------
I believe you mean nonChristian atheists. I think the Christian iconography obtains in this case.

We might have to explain for some. An alternative is Schaum's doggie, Sebastian. If necessary, I would vote for him sight unseen, taking Schaum's word that Sebastian is a nontheist.

As for Onepirl....A Paki who attended a school in which English was the medium of instruction might well know Wanker.
---------------------
The Irish contingent would not say that Jesus wasn't a Jew.

Are you onepirl?

Schaum,

That's not when s/he disappeared. You could be right, though.

The Darwin fish will work, but there are problems - I don't know that it has a universal application, but serves the purpose for non-religious atheists....and was it (cleverly) adapted from the original Jesus fish?

If so, then it's really a protest symbol in one sense, but does that matter??

Under pressure and with severe time constraints, I guess I can vote for the Darwin fish. With more time, maybe what is really needed is an adaptation of the mythical Manfish......walking fish.

I still think she/he is a poser, but just maybe onepirlgirl is a genuine Limey nazi afterall...I'd hate to think she/he was the slimey underside of a semi-legitimate sweet-natured Catholic girl/boy during the day, and a nasty racist troglodyte at night, but it could be....

Well, if Jesus wasn't a Jew, then what? Not that there's any convincing evidence that he even existed - but why spoil the fiction with all this antisemitic ranting and raving?

Now I know I'm not going to Midnight Mass for sure...

Ah well...dinner, and a movie. Cruiz, in "Valkyrie". I hear its a dog, but I rented it anyway.

Farnaz,

As soon as I read Onepirlgirl's first post I was hoping you'd show up. My money would be on you if the bookies would take any bets. As it is, instead of Armeggedon it's like watching the USS Nimitz going after a garbage scow.

"There is one Catholic possibility. But I think not."

That would have been my guess, and I'm not entirely convinced otherwise. Interesting that the psychotic disappeared after being called on the use of the word 'wanker'...

There is one Catholic possibility. But I think not.

Onepirlgirl is a Muslim, in all likelihood, Pakistani. That is, if she isn't a phony. I'm betting either Pakistani or of Pakistani descent.

The other possibility is an ordinary Muslim who's been reading about Pakistan/India. That narrows the field quite a bit.

I know most of the Muslim racists around here.

Yeah, I'd say lack of knowledge. At least in my case.

Why did everyone take onepirlgirl at its word re its being Christian? Political correctness?
Lack of knowledge?

Schaum,

Okay, maybe Wiccan will explain what she meant.
Wonder where Mohameduck went....?

Oh, the empty post? I hit submit when I meant to use the mouse to click on paste. Mistake.

Schaum,

Wiccan's post and your reply.

Wiccan:

"

Posted by: Schaum | December 11, 2009 7:29 PM

Not clear about what you want explained, Farnaz...

Wiccan, Schaum,

Explain, please:

Hey, Schaum, looks like we've got front rows seats for the Armeggedon. I'll pop for the beer if you cover the munchies.

(By the Lady, I thought Daniel12 suffered from verbal diarrhea...)

Posted by: wiccan | December 11, 2009 7:26 PM

Wiccan:

"(By the Lady, I thought Daniel12 suffered from verbal diarrhea...)"

He does. But he doesn't know enough about English to write this well.

Making popcorn and slicing cheese as we speak.

Schaum,

Glad to oblige! There are only a few whom this could be, two, in fact. Otherwise, it's either someone new or someone who thinks this is funny.

Any educated Christian knows the relevant passages, even if s/he's not a racist. The same is true of anyone literate in Quoran.

This blogger is a Muslim.

Wiccan:

"

Hey, Schaum, looks like we've got front rows seats for the Armeggedon. I'll pop for the beer if you cover the munchies.

(By the Lady, I thought Daniel12 suffered from verbal diarrhea...)

"Salami AlaiKunt"

Jeez, Farnaz...you're turning me on!

I did say "among other god beliefs"...

Actually, I am grateful for Onepiggirl's presence here. She merely affirms my contention that christianity, among other god-beliefs, is a mental illness.
-------------------
Not Christian, now way, no how.

Oh, and Musselman (it, thing, whatever),

You're a very poor Christian impersonator. You're a simple Queeranic pig. A Mohamedickface, child-molesting penis wannabe.

Just the other day two young boys put three of yours in the hospital. Two of ours, of course.

The thing is the doctors couldn't treat feces, so they flushed them.

That is why our beloved president is sending troops out, to lay out a sewage system to suck you all in. India will help.

Everyone will help. Better explode now.

Salami AlaiKunt

Actually, I am grateful for Onepiggirl's presence here. She merely affirms my contention that christianity, among other god-beliefs, is a mental illness.

Merry Christmas, all you christians. So you're all a bunch of gullible suckers for believing this crap .. what the hell, you can get just as drunk as the nonbelievers and have just as good a time, can't you?

try not to ruin it for the rest of us, just this once, ok? Keep your jesus BS to yourself.

Farnaz:

"Mohamedike."

Hahahah! You go!

Not at all, MOhamedike, but I notice that you still stink.

Take it back to Pakistan, where it won't be noticed. If you can distinguish your parents from the abounding feces, ask them to help you explode your self (so to speak).

Onepiggirl:

"wanker"

Interesting. Last person I ever heard use this word was Irish.

Schaum,

Note: I did suggest departing for a few whilst I deal with Dickfacepirl, Mohamedike. (It has identity defusion, understandably.)

Won't be held responsible for damage, should there be any.

Mohamadickfacepirl,

Shove it up your hole with your prophet, stop buggering your children, blow your self up underground, and stuff your Queeran down the toilet.

First, wipe yourself. It's disgusting. Use the Hadiths.

The Argument from Locality can be posited as follows: that no rational deity would create a religion with a single point of origin. Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period.

Any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - it would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. There are several good reasons to believe this. And any religion which did have only a single point of origin cannot possibly be true. In short: The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, points strongly to their being the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation.

The Argument from can be defended, for the following reasons:

-- any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation;

-- if there is a reward for believing, it is fundamentally unfair that some would receive more and more reliable evidence than others;

-- if there is a punishment for not believing, it is fundamentally unfair that some would receive less evidence than others, or no evidence at all;

-- a religion which strongly reflects the beliefs of its time is more likely to be a product of its time than of revelation.

Consider what is necessary to the Argument from Locality. We could have found ourselves living in a world with only one religion, spread throughout the globe, with prophets from among every people. We could have found that, when we first contacted isolated native tribes, their religion was identical to one that already existed rather than being entirely their own. We could have found religions that bore no resemblance to the culture of their time and place of origin, in possession of advanced scientific knowledge or advanced ethical principles totally unlike what was commonly believed at the time. These are reasonable things to expect if there really was a god genuinely interested in revealing itself to humanity and being worshipped.

But in reality, we find none of these things. What we find are numerous contradictory and conflicting religions, some with specific "chosen" races or ethnicities, and the further separated they are in time and space, the more their beliefs clash. When we encounter previously isolated tribes, their religions are always new and unique. When we examine the ethical codes and scientific knowledge of religions, they always bear strong resemblances to the times and places where those religions originated. In the truth of atheism, this is precisely what we should expect.

ONepirl,

For any Christian of the Jew-hating persuasion, reeling off the relevant NT passages would take approximately 1.75 seconds. It would not require research either with text or net.

What then, Christian you, is holding things up?

Onepirlgirl,

I suppose I shouldn't bring this up, but you do know that Jesus was a Jew? I mean, if you believe the Bible, God was OK with Jesus being a Jew.

ONepirl,

The NT passages? Talmud? See my posts.

Onepirl,

Could you please quote the relevant passages from the Babylonian Talmud? (Aramaic is fine, but English is all right, if necessary.)

ONepirlgirl,

Far be from me to slander you. You say you are a Christian. Where, in the NT, do you find evidence for your assertions? Chapter and verse, if you don't mind. (It's easy.)

Schaum,

I think Sebastian would stand an excellent chance if we could see him. We'll take your word that he is an atheist.

At any rate, we're tied now btw. the FSM and Darwin's Fish.

So, I say, go for it.

Farnaz:

Ok. I give in. Obviously scotties are not going to get it, so I'll vote for the Darwin fish.

Well, if onepirl is real, she knows who's here now.

The thing is the rest of you will have to leave. My alter will come out. No one and nothing will be spared. Think Kali.

I think Schaum may be voting for Sebastian, atheistic symbol-wise.

Referendum results thus far: Three Yes

(I don't know if that is a quorum.)

'I also am assuming that this some sort of parody. But it is sometimes hard to tell.'

DITLD - Indeed, onepirlgirl is a very bad actor & the figment of someone's over-ripe imagination - maybe a shut-in suffering from seasonal affective disorder.

I'd say she was really unreal - even the Spidermean of old was not as stupidly venomous on purpose, try as he might. Not only that, but the genuine article would be a much better speller, don't you think?

All in all, onepirlgirl is not exactly a poster child for the peace, love, equanimity & benevolence we hope to see at this time of the year from our Christian brothers and sisters. Maybe casting that image was the underlying goal.....

Oneburlygirl

There is ONE, and only ONE word to describe your comments:

BALONIE!

No, no, not balonie; that's not it.

It's BABBLE! That's it.

No, that's not it.

It's ... it's DREK!

No, not drek.

It's atrocious.

It's dark and foul and dank.

No, that's not right; that's three words.

It's Spam. No, it's lies.

It's the Grinch's dirty socks.

No, it's just awful.

Okay for you Miss Pearly-Girly, I hope you're satisfied. Because if you were tying to ruin my day, well, then you have certainly succeeded.

As proclaimed by US conscience:

*** NATIONAL ATHEIST DAY ***

APRIL 1rst
-------------------
Persiflage has suggested great music, but I think we are still tied symbol-wise btw. FSM and Darwin's fish, no?

Thomas Baum,.

Hello. Re: your post. Limits are put on the lengths of posts all the time. Freedom of speech places limits on the Federal government, not blogs, newspapers, etc. Certainly, not posts.

I'm taking care, but not ready.

Farnaz

Well, Farnaz1Mansuri1, using a wee search engine we can judge how many times the buzz word for contemporary anti-Semitism (Zionist/Zionism) has been mentioned here. And the answer is (not counting this message:

0!! That is
None
or
Nothing, none, nowhere

‘Jews’ have been mentioned 8 times almost always in the context of ancient Romans, Jews, etc.

So you can see that all the hatred you are intent on finding exists without anyone saying the hate words! Of course, you can probably intuit or using some kind of extrasensory powers find what you are looking for. But for lesser mortals confined to what is actually said, well, we can't find any because there aren't any!

Posted by: Mary_Cunningham | December 11, 2009 6:24 AM
-------------------------
There is a point...? (What is it?)

Onegirlpeal

Oh, don't be such a gloomy Gus; things can't be as bad as all that.

Onepirlgirl

How are you? Are you ok?

You seemed a little disturbed.

Are you really a girl?

Your posts seem to have alot of testosterone in them.

Why is that, I wonder?

How old are you?

Just a teenager?

Have you ever been institutionalized?

Does your mother know what you're doing?

You know, this kind of behaviour could reflect poorly on her, as the person who raised you.

I hope you think about that the next time you try to pull a stunt like this.

Evidential, Moral and Practical Reasons for the Necessity of Atheism
Reason 8
Religions are fragmented into sects that cannot agree on key issues of doctrine or ethics, as atheists know all too well.
Continuing the previous point, even within any particular belief system where all the members agree on the same basic theological principles and teachings, there is a vast diversity of opinion on how to interpret those teachings. The spectrum of interpretations within any given religion runs from extreme liberal to extreme conservative, from figurative to literal, from wide-open ecumenicalism to ardent fundamentalism. As stated, the debates between the various points of view within a given religion have in most cases been going on since that religion existed, with the same arguments repeated endlessly by both sides, and with no resolution in sight. Though all participants in such a debate usually agree that they want to follow God's will and are continually asking him to reveal to them what that will is, they are rarely if ever able to reach agreement.
Atheism anticipates, and answers, this conflict. If there is no supernatural deity that reliably informs seekers of what was actually meant by a given teaching, it is no surprise that different people cannot agree on what those meanings are, nor is it surprising that these irresolvable arguments continue to lead to the fragmentation of existing religions and the formation of new sects. On the other hand, if there is a god that guides his followers, it is unexpected that this process would be allowed to continue. Why would God not clearly inform all believers what a disputed verse was intended to mean, particularly if holding a correct interpretation of that verse was a requirement for the “redemption” of one’s soul?

Onepirlgirl

Yids?

Onepiggirl's is an example of the kind of mental illness that results from embracing the delusions of god and religion.

She is more to be pitied than censured. The roman catholic corporation has inspired two thousand years of mental illness. Still does. Alas.

"Onepiggirl"

Rarely do you see such an apt name.

Onepiggirl:

"Let's talk about the contents of the Talmud, i.e. The Satanic Bible."

Lets talk about unhappy Irish living in England.

Onepiggirl:

You are right. A person in possession of an IQ of about 50 points, would plainly see that the USA was founded by and FOR Christians.

Thomas The Hallucinator:

"Freedom of speech is not up for "REFERENDUM" in America."

Freedom of speech is not the issue.

Take care. Be ready.

Evidential, Moral and Practical Reasons for the Necessity of Atheism
Reason 7
There is a vast amount of religious confusion and disagreement between many different god-belief systems: no surprise to atheists!
Among human cultures both past and present, there is an enormous number of different and incompatible religions. Virtually every society from every era and every region of the planet has had its own pantheons of deities, its own mythologies about the origin of the world and humanity, its own set of rules for how the gods expect us to behave, and its own views about the nature of the afterlife and the fate of the universe. While some of these belief systems bear some resemblance to each other, in general their similarities are far outweighed by their profound differences; and the further separated by time and space they are, the more different they tend to be. Apologists for these various belief systems have been arguing over which is the correct one for millennia, and yet the dispute is not nearing resolution; there is no end in sight. If anything, many of these belief systems are drawing further and further away from each other rather than nearing a point of unification.
Because atheism is correct, this is to be expected - if religions spring from human creativity and imagination rather than a common wellspring of revelation, it is hardly surprising that people from a diverse variety of different cultures, times and places have created many different ones. It would be extraordinarily unlikely for many different people who had no contact with each other to independently invent the exact same belief set. On the other hand, if there is a god, it is strange and unexpected that there would be so much religious confusion among humanity. Why would God, if such a being exists, not dispense his message to all people equally? This is nothing more than a god-believer’s cosmic shell game.

Farnaz1Mansouri1

Concerning your "REFERENDUM".

Freedom of speech is not up for "REFERENDUM" in America.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Dan12,

Do you also believe in magic elves, fairies, warlocks, wizards, ghosts, goblins, vampires, gnomes and trolls?

There is just as much evidence for their existence as there is for any of the gods, including yours.

Precisely none.

If you don't believe in any of those things then we're both atheists, you just believe in one more god than I do.

I thought Susan Jacoby was Catholic before she was an atheist. You can never be sure with names.

I once knew a Bapist Preacher who was named Irving Finklegoldbergenrubensteisenmanfrancken. Everybody thought he was was Irish because of his white skin, but he was really an albino Negro from the Congo. He had to flee the Congo, because it is a national custom to eat Albinos, so he came to Ameriica and enrolled in Preacher College and he been very successful in the Preacher Profession in Alabama, for the past few years.

Onepirlgirl

Are you talking about nation-states?

Because if you are, they did not exist 2,000 years ago,

The barest, most modest beginnings of the modern nation-state began to emeger after the Peace of Wesphalia ended the Thirty-Years' War in 1648.

But the real system of nation-states that exists now really began to form in earnest after 1850 with the consolidation of central governments in the United Staes, Canada, Germany, and Italy, and was nearing its present in the middle of the twentieth century as the French and British Empires split up into facsimiles of European nation-states. So, I am not exactly sure what data you are referring to.

But, let's not dwell on it.

Onepirlgirl

Well, well, well.

Mmmmmmmmmm.

What to make of this?

Weird, isn't it?

I wonder ... mmmmmmmmm ...

I guess it takes all kinds to make a world.

Strange, gonings-on.

How can this be?

"What a world ... what a world ... who would have dreamed that a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness."

Onepirlgirl

I also am assuming that this some sort of parody. But it is sometimes hard to tell.

Evidential, Moral and Practical Reasons for the Necessity of Atheism
Reason 6
Religious societies reflect the prejudices of their time, a fact which does not surprise atheists.
If a religion was inspired by a consistent and unchanging god not limited by what human beings believed at any particular time, it is reasonable to expect that that religion would not merely mirror the changing beliefs of the cultures it passed down through, but would stay essentially the same through time. However, this is not what we find.
For example, slavery. Today, this practice is widely recognized as immoral and universally condemned by Western nations of the Judeo-Christian tradition. However, the Jewish and Christian scriptures, written in a time in which slavery was common, do not condemn it, but rather accept it and even work it into their teachings as though it were the most normal thing in the world; and for many centuries the societies that relied on these scriptures accepted it without question. However, with the rise of the abolition movement, these religions' beliefs on the morality of slavery underwent a huge and dramatic shift. Similar reversals have occurred throughout history in many religions regarding many different issues.
This is not to say that no church or religious individual has ever been at the forefront of movements for social change. But rather than being a unanimous voice for moral progress, religious groups often sustain immoral practices for decades or centuries until the push for reform begins, and even then tend to be deeply split by such disputes. Atheists would, of course, expect this to be true of religion.

onepiggirl:

Christians are not persecuted, they are exposed.

onepirlgirl,
oh, nevermind, i get it. #110 is when we expel those so-and-sos from u.s. christian soil.

ha! that's great. still laughing about it! "Jews are not "persecuted" - they are CAUGHT." ain't it true? classic. thanks again. see ya around.

onepirlgirl,
ha! you're funny! the sad thing is some people really think like that. i got most of the references in your parody, but what's expulsion #110?

RE: Atheist symbols - the symbol used by the Veterans Administration for the headstones of atheist veterans is the atom. Humanists have a different symbol - a stylized "H" that looks like a person's arms and legs, with a head in the middle. I would imagine that an atheist would be happy with either one.

http://www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp

Schaum said

"Nor does belief in any particular religion seem to improve human beings' sense of morality ... "

Yes, this has been my point.

The history and reputation of Christian Europe is not any the better for being Christian. Under the Christian Emperors of Rome, more people were thrown to the lions than under the Pagan Emperors.

So? Was it really any big improvement?

Walter-in-Fallschurch

I think in a by-gone era, the custom of gift-giving was good.

But now, it is all tangled up and wrapped up in the acquisition and accounting of material wealth. It is a high-pressured trek through a land-mine. To my suprise, everyone in my little group agreed on this.

This custom is like a strait-jacket, because you can't get out of it. If you say that you are going to bow out this year, everyone else who dislikes it as much as you, calls you a scrooge. (Thank you very much, Charles Dickens). Bowing out only works if everyone bows out together, but that is not likely to happen.

And in addition to all of these complications, each family and social clique has varying customs and expectations, and they overlap in confusion, with family and in-laws from other families, and from neighbors and co-workers, everybody has slightly different set of feeling abut this custom.

I know this is really negative. And I know that many people, maybe even most people do not really care what they get for Christmas. The real pressure is the pressure we each put on ourselves, to let other people know, by the kind of gifts we give, how much we love them, or at least the degree of our fondness for them.

In previous times, you could give some rare but accessible commodity, like candy. But now everyone is either fat, or fighting the fat, and candy does not seem like a good gift. In a world of abundance, wealth, and plenty, nothing seems gift-worthy.

Maybe a donation to charity ...

Evidential, Moral and Practical Reasons for the Necessity of Atheism
Reason 5
Many religions have cruel or morally unacceptable doctrines, and this fact is less surprising under atheism than theism.
The vast majority of religions postulate that the power that created the universe is benevolent and good, morally worthy of humans' worship and devotion. In light of this, it is surprising that almost all of these religions also claim that this power has on various occasions commanded, condoned, or directly caused acts of terrible cruelty, violence, and evil. Foremost among these is the doctrine of Hell, which states that those who fail to worship the creator as he commands will, upon their death, be cast into a realm of agonizing, never-ending suffering. This idea is a vicious and evil absurdity, particularly because it is so often claimed that a merciful and loving god created such a place and desires to send some people there: infinite punishment for finite sins. However, this is not by any means the only morally unacceptable doctrine put forth by some religions. As another example, many holy books contain approving records of past genocidal wars waged by the various self-proclaimed chosen people against their enemies. Many others set cruel and disproportionate punishments for the most trifling crimes, or acts that are not crimes at all. The bible is, in fact, a Book of Blood.
If these religions truly were inspired by a moral deity, it is bizarre that they contain so many stories approving of bloodshed, violence and torture. Such an outcome is too implausible to believe. On the other hand, if these books were written by human beings alone, in an era in which humanity's understanding of morality was primitive and poorly developed, it is not surprising at all that they contain verses that we today know to be completely unacceptable.

Reason 4
Many religions have histories of intolerance and violence, and this fact is less surprising under atheism than theism.
Throughout history, religion has been used as a justification for countless crimes against humanity. Some of the most readily recalled examples include the medieval Crusades that pitted Christians against Muslims in bloody combat; the witch hunts that led to the torture and unjust execution of thousands of innocents; the Holocaust (Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles that said "God With Us"); the ongoing acts of terrorism waged by Muslim fundamentalists; the creation of tyrannical divine-right monarchies and theocratic regimes throughout Europe, Asia and Africa; the long-enduring oppression and unequal treatment of women; and the trans-Atlantic slave trade that persisted for centuries, whose painful legacy of racism and bigotry persists to some extent even today. Although religions usually plead for tolerance and freedom of conscience when in the minority, given the chance those same religions often attempt to gain civil power, force the public to support them and oppress or wage war on other faiths.
This pattern is far less surprising under atheism than theism. Religious apologists will usually claim that the actions of sinful humans are not evidence against the existence of God, but an atheist can reply that if there was such a being, we would have every right to expect him to prevent such things, or at least clearly show that they were in contradiction to his will. But neither has happened. Nor does belief in any particular religion seem to improve human beings' sense of morality enough to keep them from committing such atrocities. If religions are composed solely of human beings, lacking divine moral guidance, this is to be expected.

DITLD:

My christmas shopping/gift giving usually extends to buying two cases of a very nice wine, and giving individual bottles as gifts. Works out to about $25-30 a gift. Fortunately, everybody I know, except nieces and nephews who are too young (and to whom I give money!), enjoy wine. I don't know what I would give, if I knew anyone who didn't enjoy it. Tubes of toothpaste, perhaps.

DITLD,
you said,
"the customs of Christmas are enjoyable and alot of fun, all but one, that is: the custom of exchanging gifts."

it does seem contrived and pressured, but don't you agree the idea of gift-giving is somehow "good"?

maybe we should all walk around with a bag of semi-random gifts and maybe give them out to people at appropriate times. when we see an old man slip on the ice, we could help him up, then offer him the "ice-tread-booties" from our bag. i guess gifts would tend to become smaller and lighter... i'm still working this all out.

After a discussion with a group of friends, prompted by this thread (I admit it, I brought up the subject) it was pretty much agreed upon by all, that the customs of Christmas are enjoyable and alot of fun, all but one, that is: the custom of exchanging gifts.

Who should you give gifts to? Will someone that you missed feel left out? How much should you spend? Should you try to spend the exact same amount on each gift? Or should a gift's value be determined by something other than money? Should you give people what they want, or what they should want, or what they need? What about people who are ill-tempered and never satisifed with any gift?, or what about greedy people who want more than you can give?

And this is just the preliminary thinking, before even going into a store. The traffic, the parking, the crowded stores, frazzled store employees, who have limited patience, and then, paying for all the stuff that you do not really want to buy but feel compelled to give.

In a former time, the custom of giving gifts meant more, when people were poor and did not have so many things and people appreciated small token gifts, or even gifts made at home, instead of imported from China.

But now, there is stuff, stuff, stuff everywhere, and at Christmas time, we all give and receive even more stuff. This custom has become dysfunctional in a society of great wealth and plenty. But it is hard to stop it.

I was talking to Daniel12 and I forgot to put his name at the top.

Silly me.

Wiccan:

Thank you! It just so happens that I have some Holly logs, which I will use at christmas, and use ash at New Years. Thanks for the information about saving the ashes. What a charming custom.

Schaum:

You may use any wood for the Yule log.

Ash -- brings protection, prosperity, and health

Aspen -- invokes understanding of the grand design

Birch -- signifies new beginnings

Holly -- inspires visions and reveals past lives

Oak -- brings healing, strength, and wisdom

Pine -- signifies prosperity and growth

Willow -- invokes the Goddess to achieve desires

Traditionlly you save the charred remnants of the log to start the fire for next year's Yule.

Excellent explanation of why belief in god is a delusion!

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/your-delusion.htm

WalterIFC:

Thanks for the links. Fantastic!

"..This fact is far less surprising under the assumption of atheism than under the assumption of theism." This will the the premise I use in writing a number of these reasons for being an atheist, in answer to the delusional religionists. Really, god-belief is a delusion and therefore a mental health issue!

schaum, you said,
"...This fact is far less surprising under the assumption of atheism than under the assumption of theism."

have you seen this?
website: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

video:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/video10.htm

it's hilarious. the guys poses 10 difficult questions for christians, like "why won't god heal amputees?" he goes through all the difficult quandries exposed and excuses christians must make for "why is there hunger?" and so on. he concludes that ALL these difficult god question can be EASILY answered if we assume god is imaginary.

Evidential, Moral and Practical Reasons for the Necessity of Atheism
Reason 3
Many religions attempt to suppress outside examination and criticism, and this fact is less surprising under atheism than theism.
Not only do most religions command their own followers not to put their beliefs to the test, many have gone further in taking action even against outsiders who attempt to critically investigate or speak out against them. The medieval European inquisitions that attempted to crush other faiths and silence scientists whose findings ran contrary to church dogma are the most obvious example, but there are many others as well: for example, many Muslim countries today are repressive theocracies where censorship is pervasive and sentences of exile and death are routinely issued against authors whose works are deemed to be blasphemous against Islam. Even in the United States of America, the deluge of threats of impeachment, boycott and even physical harm that instantly and predictably springs up in response to any opinion that is perceived to differ from the prevailing dogma has resulted in few if any nonbelievers being given a platform by major public institutions. Evidently, there are a vast number of religious believers who see nothing wrong with silencing speech whose content they disagree with.
As in the first example I have written, this is to be expected if atheism is true. The church establishments that have accumulated vast amounts of money, power and influence have a vested interest in protecting those assets, and if their beliefs are not in fact true and cannot withstand criticism and investigation, it is to be expected that they would attempt to stifle such criticism if they feel it may be a serious threat. On the other hand, any belief system that is true should have nothing to fear from even the most searching outside examination, and should welcome scrutiny accordingly. This would be doubly true if there did in fact exist a god who would ensure his chosen people triumphed over all adversity. If God is truly on their side, what are so many faiths so afraid of?

Evidential, Moral and Practical Reasons for the Necessity of Atheism
Reason 2
Science is a very effective means of gaining knowledge whereas revelation/scriptural study is not, and this fact is less surprising under atheism than theism.
Throughout human history, people have believed a great many ideas that in retrospect turned out to be wrong. However, what is most striking is the source of many of these incorrect ideas: with few exceptions, they ultimately emanated from religious scripture. The geocentric theory of the solar system; the Noachian deluge as an explanation for the geological record; the age of the Earth estimated as 6000 years old; the separate ancestry and simultaneous appearance of all species; the belief in epidemic diseases as caused by human sin rather than poor hygiene; the intellectual inferiority of non-European races; all these and many more mistaken ideas trace their origins to religious beliefs arrived at through faith without testing (see the previous item). There is not one single fact about the world that has been proven true in the long run and that is both non-trivial and non-obvious for which we ultimately owe credit to religious scripture rather than painstaking empirical examination.
Of course, this is not to say that people following the scientific method have not made mistakes as well. Science is primarily a way of studying the world, not an infallible oracle for gaining knowledge. However, science's self-correcting nature enables us to discover these mistakes and correct them, whereas the nature of religious dogma offers no comparable way to correct error. The result is that all the major advances in our knowledge over the past few hundred years are owed primarily to scientific study of the world; on the other hand, beliefs which were first arrived at through mysticism or faith almost always turn out to be wrong.
If any particular religion were true, this is not what we would expect. The effectiveness of science can be explained regardless of whether there is a god or not. However, if there was a being that had a role in creating the natural laws of the universe, and if some religious belief system was an effective way to contact and communicate with that being, it is reasonable to expect that revelation, either through written texts or personal experience, might occasionally provide genuinely new knowledge. But this does not happen. This fact is far less surprising under the assumption of atheism than under the assumption of theism.

Evidential, Moral and Practical Reasons for the Necessity of Atheism
Reason 1
Religions demand faith and discourage attempts to verify their claims through test and experiment, and this fact is less surprising under atheism than theism.
Rarely, if ever, do religious evangelists win converts by presenting the evidence for their faith in a rational manner. Instead, they largely appeal to emotion and the bandwagon, encouraging others to join their belief system because it feels good to do so, regardless of whether it is supported by the facts. New members are then taught to maintain their belief not through continual testing, but through faith, which can be defined as belief in a proposition without sufficient justifying evidence. Indeed, not only are believers not encouraged to test their faith, but they are generally taught that it is outright wrong to do so - that it is a sin to carry out an experiment whose results would enable them to distinguish whether their belief was true or untrue. Such activities are generally grouped under the label "putting God to the test", and most holy books carry stern warnings against attempting it. Some religions go even further by commanding their followers not to read arguments critical of the faith or have any contact with people who were once members but have since left the church.
If a particular religion was true, this is not what we would expect. On the contrary, a belief that was true would obviously pass any test it was subjected to, and therefore would have every reason to welcome people to test it so that they could see this for themselves. A belief that was true could be defended purely by recourse to the facts, without demanding its adherents believe in something of which they have no experience. A belief that was true would not need to fear its followers investigating opposing viewpoints for themselves. On the other hand, a belief system that was false, in order to protect itself, would most likely want to discourage its followers from doing things that would lead to them finding that out. Therefore, the anti-empirical attitude of most religions is less surprising under atheism than theism, and thus gives us reason to believe that atheism is more likely to be correct.

*** NATIONAL ATHEIST DAY ***

APRIL 1rst

re atheist symbols:
of those presented on that page, i'd have to go with the "empty set" symbol. i think the atheist symbol should be a blob of "protoplasm".

as much as i love the "snark" of the darwin fish, atheists don't worship darwin. i mean, sure, he's great and all, but...

the more i think about it the more i like "empty set" for atheism.

if the symbol is for "humanism", i would think a good symbol would be that davinci star-man-in-a-circle drawing.

People say that they know many things which they do not know. But all we do know for certain is that we have impressions of order. So, the orderliness of the universe is not what we are discussing as far as belief or nonbelief in God is concerned. We know the universe is orderly. It enables our consciousness to operate, and in this operation, we are compelled to wonder why. Wondering why the universe is orderly, as it is, is not the same question as "does God exist?"

Also, many scientists believe in God, in a general Deistic sense. But also, many scientists believe in God in many cultural and traditional senses. There is a wide variation of religious belief among scientists. The validity of science persists, no matter what any individual scientist believes about God. In fact, the religious beliefs of individual scientist, even of atheists, is irrelevant to science.
Philosophical inferences derived from science are not the same as science.

When I say that you are engaged in a political argument, I mean an argument between factions. When you use the phrase "elimination of God," that is a political statement, that is not relevant to any true elimination of God. All of the political tactics that the many factions may use to win the argument is not relevant to the fact of an orderly universe, nor whether God does really exists, or not.

Mary_Cunningham:

"'Catholic' has 84 matches. Many downright abusive..."

Possibly this results from a rejection of the catholic corporation's teaching that there is infinite punishment for man's finite sins....

Persiflage:

"Possible live mascots to appear at the upcoming atheist Darwin Fish rally,..."

Ferrets would be another option.

Daniel12:

"But people for ages have meant by order "God" and disorder "no God". Furthermore scientists clearly recognize this, they have not been able to separate orderliness from God and have an orderly existence without God. The best they have achieved is reducing God as much as possible while attempting to save order behind things."

Please quantify and offer proof for these three statements.

"Such a view is called deism where God is reduced as much as possible but existence has an orderly process about it."

Deism, you festering baboon, is a belief in god based only on reason and nature.

If you absolutely must continue writing your lunacies, could you use words AS THEY ARE DEFINED, rather than redefining them to suit your own insane agenda and arguments?

Daniel12:

Your "poetry" suggests that your parents were related by more than marriage.

Please stop.

Farnaz:

Re: referendum.

Yes, I agree. Long overdue.

Possible live mascots to appear at the upcoming atheist Darwin Fish rally, along with a pretty good theme song. Taj Mahal or Dylan to do the opening song - Obama, fresh from Oslo, the featured speaker?

Will need water available for mascots.....

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

http://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/Talking_Fishing_Blues.htm

PS, 'Catholic' has 84 matches. Many downright abusive (see Onofrio and CounterWW).

Well, Farnaz1Mansuri1, using a wee search engine we can judge how many times the buzz word for contemporary anti-Semitism (Zionist/Zionism) has been mentioned here. And the answer is (not counting this message:

0!! That is
None
or
Nothing, none, nowhere

‘Jews’ have been mentioned 8 times almost always in the context of ancient Romans, Jews, etc.

So you can see that all the hatred you are intent on finding exists without anyone saying the hate words! Of course, you can probably intuit or using some kind of extrasensory powers find what you are looking for. But for lesser mortals confined to what is actually said, well, we can't find any because there aren't any!

Arowana fish
twists as if any space
can be expanded

slips through the night
as if a ray of light

breathes the breath
of dragons long ago.

An eel perhaps can have
its accuracy.

Barracuda the jaws
of the beast.

But neither has its fancy
and neither comes from the East
the Far East
beyond even Japan
where the sun has a hand
in everything.

Something once long ago
said evidentally
"Let there be light!"

For we have an echo
of that in fish
and fishlike body.

But not just any fish.

Arowana fish.

Which smokes the stream
of night

invents the moon

twists as if parameter
of universe

leaps and lies dead
on ground

the only being to escape
death by silverlight body.

Whiskers tell the rest.
Hush of fire in the night.

Might as well write some poetry--I do get my last meal, right?

Free will?
A vicious world
A glass of wine tipped
slowly over on the table
A love that lives
one night only
A feeling one gets
yet evidence says
there is no tomorrow
A world turns
The mind spins
It was just a dream
old words
old knowledge
Some say a bird lives
yet we all know
a dead sparrow
Free will?
Without resistence
that concept would not even
be ahead
We would just be at rest
or forever (slowly?) moving
First law of motion
Never believe in the end

Thanks for your "fair" vote Onofrio. You will be glad to know that everyone will join you. Then we can have fragments of poetry. A statement here. A statement there. Nothing said really. Idle conversatiion. Certainly nothing original and memorable. A test: Can anyone remember anything original and memorable apart from what I have written (I must be automatically discounted of course)? Please use your memories everyone and show us for old times sake all your highlight moments. We can put together a little book. Wait, not we--I of course cannot have a say in it. Ahh, fairness, gotta love it! All the years of my hearing that word! And not once have I heard anyone questioning really if he knows what it means. So fair--and obvious!

I know one thing is certain: Jacoby is a hell of a lot braver than her readers. She can put an end to things with a snap of her fingers. She can take the Farnaz road, the Schaum road et al. and dismiss what offends her. She has not so far. And I would not blame her if she now did. I can see--it is evident to anyone--that she can tolerate things far beyond her readers. Her readers were gnashing their teeth so long ago...How long? From the beginning? Can they even remember? They should be able tell from how much teeth they have left after all the gnashing. Whoops! An original and witty statement. I apologize for not offering a tasty cliche.

Please vote by midnight for obvious reasons--to have the majority silence the minority, to celebrate sheer demagoguary, to reduce the passionate attempt to reason no matter how long and to what pains it takes to short soundbite statements. The political passion of the common. Also vote by midnight for a different view: the celebration of the minority no matter how much it hurts the masses, just so long as the minority is not endorsing child molestation or some such practice. Force everyone to write complete essays at least four or five parts long so ideas are plainly laid out and people can really determine what a person is thinking--caliber of thought etc. No more people posing as thinkers when all they have really done is write a nasty four sentence statement or a one line witticism anyone can find in a book of epigrams. Vote now. Decide whether you are courageous or just what most people unfortunately are: cowardly, afraid to deviate from the mass. Vote for man, the animal that can step out from his kind--be an individual apart from the mass--or vote for the animal in man, the herd instinct as stupid as swimming fish, the bane of our world. Vote now. Choose your side. Demonstrate conclusively who and what you are. I know who I am and where I stand. I vote for man. Not the animal in man.

Seems fair to me, Farnaz. I vote *yes*.

DEAR FELLOW HUMANS:

REFERENDUM

NO BLOGGER ON SUSAN JACOBY'S THREAD MAY PUT UP A POST LONGER THAN TWO PARTS, AND NO BLOGGER MAY PUT UP MORE THAN ONE (1) TWO-PART POST IN ANY GIVEN 24-HOUR PERIOD, SAID PERIOD HAVING BEGUN WITH THIS (MY) POST.

PLEASE VOTE BY MIDNIGHT TOMORROW FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

Part one.

Lion's Den, apart from other differences between us (you somehow construe everything I say to be overtly political when I am not even considering subtle political implications) we have a problem between us which can be described as you believing the universe can be fundamentally orderly without God, that one can discard God yet have existence not be fundamentally random at bottom.

But people for ages have meant by order "God" and disorder "no God". Furthermore scientists clearly recognize this, they have not been able to separate orderliness from God and have an orderly existence without God. The best they have achieved is reducing God as much as possible while attempting to save order behind things. Such a view is called deism where God is reduced as much as possible but existence has an orderly process about it.

And this is why quantum mechanics has been so shattering a scientific view--why Einstein protested it. Quantum mechanics says existence at bottom is not orderly, that all is indeterministic, etc. Einstein protested this by saying God does not play dice with the universe. In other words Einstein for all his removal from religion still believed in fundamental order and connected this with God. God playing dice with the universe is essentially no God.

Part two.

Atheists will be pleased that quantum mechanics supports their position for it holds that no particular order exists behind things (although the religious can say we have not gone deep enough, order, God, might still be behind things). But atheists in winning the argument have won a Pyrrhic victory because an existence without order fundamentally has no reason, morality, anything of the like behind it.

Trying to eliminate the concept "God" as you do while saving the concept "order" as if it is compatible with atheism is impossible. One can only reduce God as much as possible. Order if it exists after this reduction is still "God world" and not an atheistic world. The atheistic world is the world of no fundamental order, and if atheists disagree with this they simply do understand their own position. Their position does not allow for fundamental order, design behind things.

So when they declare there is no God they are essentially saying the very reason by which they make this determination does not fundamentally exist, for no reason can exist without fundamental order rather than disorder behind things. Atheists call the religious deluded but they themselves by their own position have sacrificed the possibility of reason behind things. That really has been all I have been trying to say.

And rest assured that even though I am taking issue with you here, you, Pam, Onofrio and the like are still more sensible overall than people like me and Schaum are. Schaum and I are a bit nuts.

Part one.

The brightness of Schaum...Where to begin? How about Schaum pointing out the irrationality of the religious for believing in things which are not there--that the religious have no evidence for what they believe in? A good place to start. Unfortunately that happens to be a quite familiar argument, one which even the religious understand, which is why they say they have faith in God, that they believe in God. They prefer to believe despite no evidence of God. We even say "a person of faith" or that when one has religion one has faith. Obvious. The religious are not entirely stupid. They know they have no evidence of God. Or rather I should say most of them do. Some no doubt believe they have evidence. But the majority just have faith and know what faith means.

But what religious people do have regardless of whether they merely have faith or believe they have absolute evidence of God is the operation of logic. A universe without God is a universe with nothing fundamentally good or intelligent behind things. Quite simply there is nothing behind existence if one does not believe in God. Patterns such as evolution are mere transient regularities upon a background of fundamental irregularity.

Therefore the very reason atheists use against the religious cannot even be said definitively to be reason--hell, cannot be reason at all--if nothing is behind existence. How can one possibly know whether one is reasoning correctly when all existence is fundamentally random, susceptible to the second law of thermodynamics, has no intelligence or morality behind things?

Atheists are fond of saying the religious have no proof of God, but the atheists have absolutely no intellectual integrity because they are unwilling to examine the consequences of their own position. Their position does not allow for any morality except what this man or that says. Their position does not allow for reason except what this man or that says. And one cannot take seriously what is said because there is nothing behind existence, nothing from which morality or sense might come from.

Perhaps the religious have no evidence of God, but it is also true the position of atheist has problems of logic which cannot be denied, in fact are quite obvious. Essentially we have Schaum saying he does not believe in anything for which there is no evidence, but his vaunted reason cannot even be taken seriously in an examination of evidence because according to him there is nothing behind existence, no fundamental reason by which one might come to know the true from false.

Part two.

Furthermore, we can even ask without getting into the problem of religion and atheism at all if Schaum is capable of evaluating whether this or that piece of imagination is more likely to exist. Schaum says he does not believe in dragons or unicorns. But neither of these imaginary creatures possesses anything like the mind of man--such creatures are more probable than man. A unicorn is a horse with a horn. No difficulty really that such a thing might exist. There are plenty of horned creatures--of different types I might add. A horse with a horn is more plausible than man. There is definitely only one creature with a brain, and that is man. But plenty of horned creatures--whales, lizards, terrestrial mammals, plants (thorns). As for dragons, creatures exactly as probable as dragons have existed. We call them dinosaurs. The only problem is the notion of dragons expelling fire from the mouth. But in a world in which we have creatures able to discharge electricity (eel) or create their own light (firefly)? Yes it takes no great feat to imagine unicorns and dragons can exist.

Where I agree with Schaum is aliens might exist. In fact they probably do. I suspect in fact we will find earthlike planets before the end of our lives. So many planets have already been discovered. But the main thing I want to say is that I am not particularly religious and I am tired of being taken as such for pointing out the problems atheism has as to logic. Everyone--yes everyone--seems to take me as religious for criticizing atheists as if one must be religious or clearly an atheist and one cannot point out the problems of both positions.

Part three.

The religious say dumb things like God can only be good when it is obvious to all evil exists in the world. Atheists say dumb things like one can only become more reasonable for disbelieving in God when the absence of God makes for an irrational existence in which one cannot possibly take seriously one's reason--if such a thing can exist at all. Both positions have problems as to logic. There is no clearly satisfactory metaphysical view--which is why philosophers will continue to be produced, why new religions will be created if the present ones die, why clearly madmen with their own view of existence will continue to exist. Everyone guesses at reality and has no definite answer. The only thing we can do it seems is continue to gather evidence and make the most logical, plausible answer. Schaum says religious people have to create this and that makeshift--like a house of cards--to support their view. Guess what? All our ultimate beliefs are as houses of cards. The trick is to just be patient somehow and hope one is building the correct house. Man might build actual houses which pass as well built, but he really knows nothing of building a house of thought. All his houses of thought have holes in them. And perhaps a house of thought without holes cannot be built. In which case the atheists are correct there is no fundamental sense behind things. But if that is the case it hardly does for reason to say one has concluded no perfect house can be built because if no perfect house can be built that is identical to saying that fundamentally there is no reason. If a perfect house of thought can be built then indeed we certainly have reason--but that also means existence is fundamentally intelligible, which is to say there is a purpose and design about it. If a perfect house of thought cannot be built, that is identical to saying we acknowledge that fundamentally there is no reason.

So far--and to make it extremely simple--we have the religious believing they have the answer to existence, that they have the perfect house of cards. But problems with the position of religion are obvious. And then we have the atheists saying they are making perfect reason God does not exist. But how can that be perfect reason when the result is an existence in which there is really no reason behind things (no God)? Or are atheists saying existence is unreasonable, therefore there is no God? But no, they do not say that. They say there is no God and say they are making sense. They somehow have sense existing without God when it cannot exist because without God existence is fundamentally unreasonable. And so on. Really not that difficult to see.

Daniel 12

What you keep describing is a political struggle between some atheists and some religious people. But this political struggle is not relevant to the actual belief in God or non-belief in God. Whether a person believes in God or not has no relevance to the fact of the orderly nature of the universe.

Answering that the orderliness of the universe is accomplished through the design of a God does not really answer anything or explain anything. And saying that there is a God does not give a purpose to life any more meaningful than saying that there is no God, since the orderliness of the universe is the same, with or without a belief in God.

All is, as it is, with or without belief or nonbelief. That is the point that I keep trying to make to you, which you do not seem to understand. What order there is in the universe is independent of human curiousity about it, and it is independent of human struggle to prove which opinion about God is more correct.

Atheists do not believe in God because the existence of God does not seem true to them. Whatever that might imply about the purposefulness of life or the meaningless of life is irrelevant and beside the point. All of those musings come AFTER the resolution in ones mind about God's existence. For that is what they are musings.

It is as though you are saying, "God must exist because, how could God not exist?"

An atheist can simply reply, "God doesn't exist, that's how."

Existence resonates with orderliness. Science does not seek to explain the nature of this orderliness, nor the origins of this orderliness, nor the purpose or this orderliness. Science is merely a process that exploits this orderliness to map out the patterns of this orderliness. But science does not even prove the existence of natural laws, but merely notes patterns, and exploits these patterns to explain how the mechanisms and phenomena of this world function.

Schaum,

"Can I vote for a scottie?"

I can't see why not, providing you can certify that he meets the atheist symbol standards, known largely by atheistic intuition (yours, in the present case). However, in fairness, I think everyone should have the opportunity to vote for said Scottie.

Maybe you could send his picture to the web site? They're on the lookout for new symbols. Or could you post it somewhere else? (Maybe Susan Jacoby might have a suggestion.)

For information on the correlation between irrational beliefs and non-psychotic mental health problems, go here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/lpqu1mrygyv0xnxv/

Wiccan:

We are having 10 people here Christmas Day. I want to burn a Yule log in the fireplace. Wiill ANY log do, or is there a special kind I should look for? Can they be bought somewhere? I can't find much help online.

Farnaz:

Can I vote for a scottie?

1.

Unless your are Homer Simpson, a christer, or Daniel12, you know it is irrational to believe in things for which there is no evidence at all. I am willing to concede an exception for extra-terrestrial life or space aliens. Since the universe is very large and very old and we know contains a vast number of galaxies, there exists a plausible argument that life, even intelligent life, could exist elsewhere in the universe that we are unaware of.

But believing in other things, such as that dragons and unicorns and the like are roaming in some secret regions of the Earth, or that there is some kind of god who is In Control Of Things, is irrational because to retain such beliefs requires one to create very complicated and implausible scenarios to explain the absence of any evidence in favor of them.

Similarly, the idea that that there exists an afterlife is also irrational because having that belief requires one to construct a whole superstructure of auxiliary beliefs in order to sustain that belief. These auxiliary beliefs are themselves implausible and not supported by evidence and also depend on some kind of willful attempt at concealment of evidence, so one ends up building a whole house of cards of implausible theories just in order to sustain that one belief.

And what about belief in god? Is that rational or irrational? Some have argued that it is no harder to believe in a god than that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, since both have no convincing evidence in support of the belief.

2.

But with god, the kinds of explanations for the absence of evidence that can rescue intelligent extra-terrestrial life and place it in the realm of rationality no longer apply. The problem is caused by the very qualities that religious people ascribe to god. With intelligent extra-terrestrial life, we assume that they, like us, are limited by space and time and the laws of nature. In particular, they cannot travel faster than the speed of light, which puts a real crimp on being able to get around this vast universe. After all, even if their technology was so advanced that they could travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, it would still generally take years for them to reach even the nearest neighboring star, so exploring beyond their our own galaxy becomes an enormously time consuming activity. So believing that there exists intelligent life in some remote part of the universe that is so far inaccessible to us is not an outlandish belief because the auxiliary beliefs that are necessary to sustain it (such as a very large universe and limits to travel) are supported by evidence. So Raelians actually have a more plausible belief structure than mainstream religions.

If (hypothetically) the universe was quite small and could be traversed in a brief time, and people started invoking ideas like that extraterrestrial life existed but they were deliberately and cleverly hiding from us, then that belief starts becoming irrational.

But in the case of god, he/she is not supposed to be limited by space and time. He/she can be everywhere all the time and has infinite powers to boot. So there is no reason at all why god should not be able to provide us with the kind of convincing evidence that I stated earlier would remove all doubts once and for all.

In order to overcome this problem, religious believers have to construct auxiliary hypotheses, similar to the ones that become necessary to sustain a belief in the afterlife. It is postulated that god does not want to be seen by us and has the ability to stay hidden, choosing to be seen in highly selective situations, although those situations seem to be becoming increasingly trivialized and bizarre, such as appearing in grilled cheese sandwiches, damp spots in highway overpasses, and the like.

3.

In such situations, the absence of convincing evidence casts serious doubts on god's existence and lifts the belief in god into the realm of irrationality. However, the faithful continue to remain devout. It does not seem that they wonder why god goes to all that trouble to provide just tantalizing glimpses. Those who do wonder about this have to, at this point and as a last resort, invoke the inscrutability argument: We cannot presume to understand why god does these things, we just have to believe that there is a good reason that is being hidden for us.

I think that this could be used as a test as to whether a belief that is sustained in the absence of evidence is rational or irrational:

A. For a belief to be irrational, in order to sustain it one must argue for the existence of something that is in principle unknowable and also requires a deliberate scheme to conceal evidence of existence.

B. For a belief to be rational it needs to be something that is unknown only in practice due to limitations of time or technology, but may become known in the future, and the absence of evidence is not due to willful deception by the very entity whose existence we seek.

This is not how most people seem to view rationality. People tend to consider a belief to be rational simply because a large number of people believe in it, and if it has been around for a long time they think that strengthens their “argument”. But those two arguments really have no merit since it is quite possible for large numbers of people to believe false things for a long time.

But numbers and time seem to be the only thing that belief in god has going for it.

Daniel12, everything you have written suggests that you are one of the most insanely idiotic drones on the internet. At no point in your rambling, incoherent “thoughts” were you even close to anything that could be considered rational logic. Everyone on this thread is now dumber for having given you the time it takes to read your repetitive lunacy. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Daniel12,

Thee to Wiccan:
"Your so called brevity does not exist at all in the publishing world."

This is a blog, Daniel12. If you want to air your big, heavy musings, this ain't the context. Clearly, your scope and sweep are too vast for this dumbling puddle. Get the notes in shape and go find a publisher who appreciates your genius. Then, who knows, by and by the more enlightened among us will be able to cite your multi-voluminous thoughts, chapter and verse, to clinch our quibblings.

Go on, publish! You are wasting your time here.

DEAR FELLOW ATHEISTS:

Vote thus far: Two for the Darwin Fish, two for the FSM.

Please participate and make your voice count!

Part one.

Wiccan, your so called brevity is not anything which would get accepted by anyone much less an atheist. Things have to be addressed now this way and then that, repeated in different wording over and over to get people to understand. People write entire books on such problems--in fact an entire book is demanded, no one gets away with such problems posed briefly in the sense of essays much less your brevity. Your so called brevity does not exist at all in the publishing world. If you think so then point out some books I should read which have dozens upon dozens of profound thoughts condensed as you say. Good luck. They are virtually nonexistent. The ones that are in existence are justly celebrated, like Rochefoucald or Lichtenberg, to give some old examples. I am as brief as it is possible to be. Furthermore your so called brevity on this thought would not have been possible without me first addressing the problem. This thought has never crossed your mind before. I know this because you did not even express it correctly. You have not understood even though I have repeated now this way and then that. In other words, your so called brevity is actually misunderstanding.

You say SOME atheists say the religious are deluded because they cannot face the END of existence without God. Bullsh*t wiccan, you have modified the thought I expressed to suit you, probably because you cannot face it at all. The fact is atheists--all of them of any importance--think the religious deluded, that science is not observed, basic evidence gathering, and that the religious are incapable of facing existence period, not the end of existence. Your change of the thought expressed is a subtle and sneaky way of keeping existence somehow fine according to the atheists (fundamentally good) and that only the end is bad. What a dirty trick. You did not express my thought. You tried to get out of it by interpreting it as it suits you. The truth is atheists think the religious deluded for believing in God, that the atheists are stronger and more capable of facing existence, which means existence at bottom is no sound thing--existence is something which a person must stand.

Part two.

Next section of yours you have SOME of the religious believe an absolute standard or morality, etc. etc and that otherwise there no purpose to existence. Another interpretation of what I said to suit you. Religion by all religious people that have ever existed, pagan or otherwise (but perhaps not in your BS wiccan) has it that existence has something behind it which has created it, and this something is the source of intelligence, morals etc. Without this something existence can only be random, no real progress because all eventually fails, etc. That is just basic fact of religion which the atheists themselves honor by saying the religious cannot face existence without God, meaning existence is not fundamentally good without God, meaning it is difficult and there is no real answer behind things.

And you continue twisting things to suit you in the third section--you really have not, or perhaps have and are just dodging things, understood at all what I wrote. You turn things to atheists do not believe in God and therefore have no standard of morality and therefore nothing to live for. No wiccan, atheists do not believe in God therefore no real morality, reason or anything behind existence, therefore the very REASON they celebrate over the religious cannot possibly exist. There is no reason at the base of existence according to their very view. Therefore they have no leg to stand on to declare the religious deluded. Simple and obvious.

Then you twist it to the atheists think the religious are insane but the religious know the atheists are insane. No Wiccan, merely the atheists call the religious insane but the atheists have no ground of sanity to stand on...The religious are not calling the atheists insane--show me an example of that. The religious are actually quite stupid because the atheist's positions are so full of holes but the religious do not point it out. The religious far from calling the atheists insane do not even see the weakness of atheists on this point.

Do you at all see now what I am getting at? No, of course not.

Farnaz,

"Atheists can't have sigils, I'm afraid."

Who says? (:^U

"Did you look at that site?"

But of course! The evolved ichthus is clever, I grant.

Onofrio,

Atheists can't have sigils, I'm afraid. I don't know if you can vote or not. I'll have to check with the powers that aren't.

Did you look at that site? I'm not hawking votes or anything :0, but what about the Darwin Fish? (Sorry, Wiccan).

I love that fish. That fish walks, for nongawd's sake.

Re the symbol,

My deux centimes - I'm ill at ease with such glyphic militancy. I prefer my sigils teeming.

All the same, I lean towards the FSM. Not that it counts - as a nonAmerican I am not enfranchised for this matter.

All the best with it. And beware the ofermode of banners :^)

Daniel12,

Great Goddess, man! I don't think I could diagram any of your sentences, much less try to follow any line of reasoning contained in them.

Let's try this:

Some atheists believe that the religious cannot face the END of existence with the "delusion" of God.

Some of the religious believe that there must be an absolute standard of morality (God), or there is no purpose to existence.

Since the atheists do not believe in God, they have no absolute standard of morality. They are amoral, and therefore have no purpose to exist for.

Therefore, atheists believe the religious are insane because they believe in God, but the religious know the atheists are insane because there is a God.

Five sentences, complete with punctuation, to express the content of your last post. Brevity. Beautiful. Blessed Be.

Re: My previous post (what we are voting for)

We are voting for the national atheist symbol. Of course, we do not comprise the sum total of the nation's atheists. Admittedly, this could pose a problem later on, but, as atheists, we should be open to new developments, IMO.

Daniel12:

" means that the religious are actually the most sensible of all for rejecting a fundamentally meaningless existence--and sensible not least because in the world as atheists describe it sanity cannot possibly exist because according to their very criticism of the religious existence has nothing behind it as the religious would like there to be--which means there is nothing at the base of existence which gives any reason for believing reason to be exactly that, reason."

It is only a matter of time until you are institutionalized. In the meantime, calm down. You'll only wet yourself again.

DEAR FELLOW FREE THINKERS,

SECOND NOTICE

Kindly select a symbol from the link below. That which receives the greatest number of votes will be forwarded to the Obama White House to be used for all Atheist (non)Holidays, said (non)holidays to be determined.

http://symboldictionary.net/?p=2087

Thus far, we have two votes for the Darwin Fish, one for the FSM.

All votes must be in by midnight, December 12th. (I'm not sure why; uncertainty is a mark of free thinking,though. :])

Wiccan,

Thanks for the Noodly good wishes!

Yes, Farnaz, I think I would vote for the fish as well.

Brevity? Here is brevity for you. Atheists say the religious are deluded and incapable of facing existence. This can only mean that atheists are saying existence has nothing of what the religious consider to be at its source. Which can only mean that existence has no design, morals or purpose behind it. Which is to say an amoral universe. Which means that the religious are actually the most sensible of all for rejecting a fundamentally meaningless existence--and sensible not least because in the world as atheists describe it sanity cannot possibly exist because according to their very criticism of the religious existence has nothing behind it as the religious would like there to be--which means there is nothing at the base of existence which gives any reason for believing reason to be exactly that, reason. The atheists call the religious deluded at the price of declaring that we all are fundamentally insane because existence according to them is not fundamentally anything equivalent to sanity. Existence according to the atheists is something we must stand, that people such as the religious try to escape from, which means that there is nothing unambiguously good about it, which means that nothing unambiguously good can be built on it, which means not fundamentally sound, which means...You get the picture. Not at all difficult to understand what I mean. Atheists have gotten themselves in a contradiction here--one which takes no real feat of intellect to see. They remove God then declare that is a feat of reason when the world they arrive at by the removal of God cannot possibly sustain reason for being a world with no fundamental good behind it--no morals, intelligence, nothing behind it. At least some atheists realize that morals become relative without God--which is to say morals are not absolute and can change from age to age or even person to person. But that is fundamentally no morality at all! Now put reason in the place of morals! Not at all difficult to see. Basic philosophy.

Oh, dear, Farnaz, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been part of my pantheon for years. I hope that doesn't disqualify him. May you forever be Touched by His Noodly Appendage. Ramen!

Schaum, forgive me if I have doubts about your capacity to evaluate whether a person is reasoning correctly or not--and therefore your capacity to reason in general insofar as we become worthwhile reasoners only by constantly learning and comparing and contrasting our thoughts with others. You cannot even evaluate emotional states in people. You have most recently Pam considered hysterical when she never has been anything of the sort. You have me a bitter old man who knows he is nothing--and so on. The truth is you seem nothing more than a mean spirited queer, more concerned with any perceived slights than anything else, and all too willing to destroy the source of such perceived slights regardless of any other positive qualities from the source. You look for hatred and respond with hatred. If I were a psychologist I would diagnose you as a homosexual who has learned to perceive the environment as hostile to himself whether hostility exists there or not. You have failed to orient yourself correctly toward existence and I personally do not care whether it is yours or another's fault. The rabid dog is rejected whether the rabies came by his own fault or not. All I know for certain is your attempts to put me down are laughable because I know exactly who I am--weaknesses and strengths--and I am far from one of those insecure people that have their perception of themselves changing depending on what others see them as being (which is different from taking constructive criticism from people). What you are is quite simply one not invited to dinner because you cannot help but be rude--in fact rude to the point of delusion. No doubt if I were to pass you the bread at the table my gesture would be taken as a piece of hostility to be responded to in kind. It is so evident Schaum that a person like you can only be friendless because eventually you tear in to anyone. Evidently anyone close to you has to put up with you. A person must see exactly like you or else. A petty tyrant and nothing more. Waste no more time trying to criticize me Schaum. You are far from an able critic.

Re: My earlier post

I vote for the Darwin Fish.

Standard Atheist Symbols

Fellow free thinkers:

Kindly select a symbol from the link below. That which receives the greatest number of votes will be forwarded to the Obama White House to be used for all Atheist (non)Holidays, said (non)holidays to be determined.

http://symboldictionary.net/?p=2087

Daniel12:

They are your moronic fantasies, boyo...you explain them!

You know, opposites attract. Maybe you will meet someone who is evolved and intellectually adequate. At least, maybe, someone who knows something about grammar and syntax.

Daniel2,

It took you four posts of extremely random reasoning (if it may be called that) to say, "If I'm insane then you are too! Nyahh, Nyahh!".

Brevity has a beauty all of its own. I strongly recommend it to you. Blessed Be.

Schaum, with your superior reasoning skills you might want to help freestinker. Here is what he says: "Existence isn't random without gods, it's order comes from a process called evolution which is by no means random. On the contrary, evolution is very selective. It is simply based on natural selection rather than supernatural but evolution is anything but random.

Where on earth did you get such a misconception? Evidently, you learned biology in Sunday school as opposed to a Science class."

He seems to think existence is identical to the process called evolution and is ordered like evolution when any biologist can tell you that the naturalistic view of existence is that scientific laws such as evolution do exist, but that they are equivalent to accidental orderings such as throwing four or five sixes in a row at dice, and that at bottom existence shows no order (reinforced all the more by quantum physics). Furthermore any biologist can tell you evolution does not seem headed anywhere in particular even though there seems a progression on earth to greater intelligence. Any biologist, in other words, will tell you evolution is not teleological. Explain this to freestinker.

Part one.

1) Atheists call the religious deluded for believing in God. Atheists say believing in God is a form of mental illness, an unwillingness to face reality.--That the religious have to posit a savior because they are incapable of facing the ambiguity of existence, that the religious have to have reality fundamentally clear, explained and cannot stand the truth of an existence without God.

2) Quite logically, if we take this criticism of atheists seriously, what the atheists are saying is that existence has nothing behind it which makes it clearly good, that existence is something difficult to bear because it is fundamentally ambiguous, THAT ONE HAS TO STAND THE TRUTH OF REALITY WHICH MEANS ACCEPT SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY GOOD, OTHERWISE ONE WOULD NOT MENTION SUCH IN THE FIRST PLACE, WOULD NOT CONTRAST SUCH WITH THE ESCAPISM OF THE RELIGIOUS.

3) We can see from the criticism of atheists toward the religious that the atheists are clearly contrasting with the religious an outlook which declares existence is fundamentally random, not fundamentally ordered in any positive sense. Such a positive sense would be God and the atheists reject that. Furthermore a theory such as evolution according to the atheists shows order in only a surface sense, that for all the order, regularity evolution shows, at bottom it rests in a universe which is random. This take on evolution is not at all hard to explain as it is merely the famous naturalistic version of the theory of evolution--which is to say according to the naturalistic view evolution is both random and ordered, that order, direction, in such clearly exists, but fundamentally all order eventually peters out in randomness, failure of order (see second law of thermodynamics which is often brought up in conjunction with this).

Part two.

4) If atheists are serious about this line of reasoning their very alternative to believing in God, reason, is a delusion because reason in such a world as they subscribe to can only peter out eventually in randomness, THAT THERE IS NO PROGRESSIVE LINE TOWARD INCREASED UNDERSTANDING OF ORDER TO THE POINT THAT WE ARRIVE AT SOME GRAND DESIGN BEHIND THE UNIVERSE. To be absolutely clear, the atheists are deluded because they believe in reason in a world where such cannot possibly exist because at bottom existence is fundamentally random, that there is no meaning behind things to be discovered. Reason is akin to evolution--a surface phenomenon only, something which seems to exist but is actually a brief piece of accidental order in a fundamentally disordered universe.

5) The atheists subscribe to reason and are fundamentally like the religious because their very view otherwise means that humans are fundamentally insane, cannot possibly be saved by God or reason. If no God exists, then existence is fundamentally disordered, that for all order eventually order peters out in randomness--which means for all reason, all mind, it eventually peters out in randomness, which means fundamentally we all are insane. In order to escape from an insane existence we posit God or reason--GOODS AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL RANDOMNESS OF THE UNIVERSE.

Part three.

6) Atheists, if they are right there is no God, are as deluded as the religious. Furthermore delusion is superior to the recognition of truth, because truth is that existence is fundamentally random and we all are insane. We ironically are either deluded or insane--if there really is no God. But the religious choose to believe, know they are making a choice which is not clearly there, they know they are making a leap of faith. But the atheists are more deluded than the religious because the atheists take themselves as certainly reasonable--in a world which according to them cannot possibly be reasonable at foundation. Atheists try to have it both ways, eliminate the concept God and have reason instead, but in eliminating the concept God we are eliminating any notion that behind existence is fundamental good, order, morality, reason, etc. Not at all difficult to see--unless you are as mad and escapist as the atheistic. So which is it atheists, are we all fundamentally mad because there is nothing behind existence which can clearly build up sanity, or is there something behind existence by which we can clearly become sane? If the choice chosen is no God then we can only be insane because we are accepting existence is fundamentally disordered and sanity is fundamentally impossible in such a world or we are deluded because we believe reason is possible in such a world--which is to say we are insane either way.

Part four.

7) We believe God exists just like we believe sanity exists. We have no absolute standard for sanity just like we have no absolute understanding of God. But we believe both exist--unless we of course happen to be atheists in which case we deny God exists but try to say not only sanity exists but that we are more sane without God. But this is just as delusional and escapist as any religious type of thought. The atheists cannot face the consequences of their own argument. They say God does not exist then somehow arrive at reason existing when dismissing God is identical to saying one dismisses any order, morality, sense, design behind the universe. But again, atheists try to have it both ways. They try to eliminate the religion they despise without arriving at the logical consequences of such an elimination--which according to their very view is REAL EXISTENCE, THAT WHICH THE RELIGIOUS CANNOT FACE, WHICH CAN ONLY MEAN A FUNDAMENTALLY AMBIGUOUS EXISTENCE, ONE WHICH HAS NO ULTIMATE GOOD, ORDER, REASON BEHIND IT. On one hand the atheists say the religious cannot stand real existence and on the other they put up a notion called reason like a pup tent when of course this reason is not based on any fundamental reason behind things and like a put tent is susceptible to the wind--unless like a good atheist one puts down as many stakes as possible to keep the tent from blowing away, then declares reason fundamentally exists and there is no God...but one is just in a pup tent all the same. The atheists are as deluded as the religious--worse, even more cowardly because being absolutely certain they are given to reason when reason cannot exist according to their very view. The religious on the other hand have faith God exists, are by no means certain he exists but believe in him nevertheless. The atheists are more cowardly, delusional and escapist than the religious. Or are they going to be courageous and admit that according to their very view one cannot be certain reason exists but that it is believed in nevertheless? If the latter, join the club of faith. In fact one either has faith or is mad and/or a nihilist.

... and another thing ...

I think that Barak Obama is the best President we have had since President Bush, and if has a Gigantic Italian antique creche in the White House, then that is A-O-K with me.

Schaum

You could be right about DrZimmer; I was just guessing.

Daniel12

I think you have not posed your question very well. But I think I understand what you are getting at.

"From whence comes the order of the unverse?"

My thoughts.

The universe is orderly. Why do I say that? Because I get impressions of order from my five senses. And I also infer order from the very existence of my senses, on which this order is impressed, and from the consciousness of my mind, which knows order, and also from the very operation of my consiousness which has been enabled to operate by this order.

From whence comes the order of this universe? Some people answer this question with the single word, "God."

Technically, this is an answer. But it does not really explain anything. After you have heard this answer, you do not really know anymore about the answer to this question than before.

Other people do not answer this question that way, and they are the ones called atheists. Neither of them know the answer, and neither of them have any way to explain it away.

DITLD:

"I would be willing to bet that DrZimmer was born and raised a Catholic."

Interesting take. I would bet he was born and raised in rigid fundamentalism. Maybe Southern Baptist.

DITLD:

"It really shows a sense of religious confusion"

It shows an obsessive willingness to embrace superstitions. All religions are superstitious, and therefore offensive to me. The roman catholic corporation is particularly steeped in superstitions, and I find it particularly offensive.

As a non-Catholic, I notice alot of things about the Catholic church to criticize. But to be fair, I do not think that the Catholic Church really recognizes the validty of religious images appearing in oil stains on the road, or in scorch patterns on potato chips. And I don't think the Catholic Church teaches people to pray to statues.

These practices would fall more into the category of folk Catholicism, things that Catholics do, because they think that they are supposed to. It really shows a sense of religious confusion, which Catholic teaching may promote in some people in the first place. It think that telling people to stop praying to statues would be more fruitful than telling them how terrible gay people are.

I would be willing to bet that DrZimmer was born and raised a Catholic. And I think that Schaum already said that he used to be Catholic. And Susan Jacoby has also said that she used to be Catholic.

The people that hate the Catholic Church the most seem to be people who were born and raised Catholic. I know alot of them, myself, and to be honest, I ALWAYS try to steer the conversation away from anything Catholic because their constant anti-Catholicism gets on my nerves, a little.

But this is not the same as being anti-Catholic. This is more like a dissension within Catholicism. You have on this side people that are "Catholic and lovin' it" and over here on the other side, people who are "Catholic and hatin' it."

Isn't this just one more of the many, many, many problems of Catholicism, that the people that hate them the most are the people that are among them?

Instead of screaming about Catholic-bashing, I wonder why the Catholic Church doesn't try to find out why so many Catholics grow to loathe and hate the Catholic Church as they do. There ought to be a way that Catholics can express some sort of dissenting view, without being branded an ex-communicant heretical apostate. I think this Catholic attitude of disrespect for opinions that are not stictly Catholic is part of the problem.

Counterwww:

Heres the deal: offer proof of your "god's" existence, and I will happily join you in worshipping him/her/it.

No proof???? Well, there's a surprise...

Counterww:

"It is all now very amusing to see you get all up in frenzy about this topic."

Hahahaha! It is you in the frenzy, boob. You come to preach to a group of atheists, and get your panties all in a wad when you get slapped down. How stupid are you?

(That was a rhetorical question.)

More bunk from Schaum-

"

Counterwww:

One of the requisites for emotional health is acceptance of ambiguity and uncertainty. Your divinity-oriented religiosity is the unhealthiest state imaginable: its prime reason for being is to enable the religionist to believe in god-commanded certainty, because of his inability to accept the ambiguities, uncertainties and vagaries of life. This inability is the reason you are mentally ill."

Are you kidding? You think there is certainty in believing in God? Certainty that he exists, but we are all prone to vagaries and uncertainty. We don't know if we will die tomorrow, or get cancer, or if we will be promoted at work, or if our kids will be affected by something. God does not guarantee any of that, for the believer or the non believer.

I am glad that you called me mentally ill though. It illustrates your bigotry and prejudice against, oh, about 90% of the population. Most psychologists disagree with you, I imagine.

I remember another radical atheist like you on the old NYtimes board....that called Christians mentally ill. Bitter guy just like you. May be you are the same person? Still wallowing in this?

Why are you so bitter? what happened in your life that made you this way.

I would bet that you don't talk to believers this way straight to their face, only the anonymous internet can enable you to be so bold.

It is all now very amusing to see you get all up in frenzy about this topic.

The Catholic church is based upon TRADITIONS and not upon the Bible. Even by twisting the Bible out of context, it's still impossible for Catholics to justify their ridiculous religion. For example: Exodus 20:4,5 commands us to never create any type of image to bow down to. Catholics bow to statues (images) of many different saints to worship God. This is idolatry. You simply CANNOT justify this type of wickedness with the Bible. God's Word clearly forbids us from bowing down to ANY graven image. Worse yet, every faithful Catholic prays to the "Mother Mary," bowing in worship. Though they claim that they are not worshipping Mary, they are violating the Bible by even bowing to her (and they certainly are worshipping her). To reverence and adore the "Mother Mary" is to commit idolatry. There is NOT one single verse in the entire Bible where Jesus told anyone to recognize Mary in any special way. Catholics use the reasoning that Mary was with Jesus all the time, which simply is NOT true, and there are no Scriptures to indicate such foolish conjecturing. Jesus was NO momma's boy. Why should we be led to believe by Catholics that Mary is more understanding than the very prophets who God used to author the Bible? What about Jesus' half brothers and sisters? It is dangerous to add things to the Bible that it does NOT teach. Any doctrine which cannot be supported with Biblical references is a manmade doctrine.

Obviously, Mary did NOT remain a virgin (so why do Catholics continually refer to her as such?). Mary was a hell-deserving sinner just like any afflicted person lying in the gutter on the street. Do I respect Mary?...yes, but no more than I respect any other godly woman. There is no Biblical record of Mary ever winning anyone to the Lord. Catherine Booth (wife of William Booth, who founded the Salvation Army) was an aggressive soul winner and speaker for the gospel of Jesus Christ. I respect her much more than Jesus' mother, only because I know that she was very active for the Lord. I'm sure Mary was a very friendly and sweet woman, but she was a sinner just like anyone else. Also, the absurd teaching of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is heresy straight from hell. Good luck trying to prove that from the Bible. Why are people so foolish as to trust their soul's destiny to the lying words of some priest?

The devil is a master counterfeiter, do you really think he wastes his time hanging out at the Church of Satan? Of course not, it's already obvious to everyone that members of the Church of Satan are clearly the children of the devil. Do you know where Satan roams? The devil lurks within our churches, in the heart of heretics like Billy Graham (who has done more damage than anyone, trying to unequally yoke the Satanic Catholic religion with Christian churches). The Bible commands us NOT to be UNEQUALLY yoked with the heathen. No church should EVER participate in any type of event that is sponsored by a false religion or wayward "church." One healthy person plus one sick person equals two sick people. No healthy person ever made a sick person better by being around them, but the opposite happens every day. The Bible teaches separation, including ecclesiastical separation. Satan wants God's children to associate with his children in an unholy alliance -Don't do it! Billy Graham has caused millions of people to see no harm in the Catholic religion. I tell you, the Catholic religion is straight from hell.

The Pope NEVER spoke of being "born-again." The Pope NEVER made any public profession of faith ALONE in Jesus Christ. On the contrary, Pope John Paul II placed his faith in the traditions and manmade doctrines of the Catholic religion. There is NOTHING in the King James Bible (or the Catholic Bible) about keeping the Seven Sacraments to get to heaven...nothing! There is NOTHING in the Word of God about the Immaculate Conception of Mary. There is NOTHING in the Bible about the Rosary or praying to God through Mary. There's NOTHING in the Bible about digesting Jesus' flesh and blood. Roman Catholics literally believe that they're eating Jesus. There is nothing in the Bible about priests being celibate. There is NOTHING in the Bible about purgatory. Matthew 23:9 outright forbids calling any priest "Father." So why do Catholics do it?...because they are being taught the commandments of men...

"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." -Mark 7:6-9)

The Catholic religion is straight out of the pits of hell. I do not call Catholicism a "church" because it is NOT a church, it is a FALSE religion. How can you have a "church" when heathen people gather in the name of false doctrine? You cannot! Jesus clearly made a direct correlation between worship and doctrine in Mark 6:6-9. The Catholic “church” is a blood sacrifice Church of Satan.

"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." -mark 7:6-9

If you are following the doctrines of men, then you are worshipping God in vain. John 4:24 declares that the ONLY way to worship God is in spirit and truth. This means that a person MUST first become a born-again believer before they can fellowship with God. How can a man's dead spirit communicate with the Holy Spirit of God? It is impossible according to 1st Corinthians 2:14-17. Also, you MUST worship God in TRUTH, not heresy and false religion. The world is FILLED with an unbelievable amount of lies, false religion, and doctrines of devils. Only through the Holy Spirit of God and the King James Bible can we "rightly divide the Word of Truth," navigating through the minefields of heresy.

When I was about 12 years old I had a lot of fun inventing stories.
I “founded a religion” complete with ghosts, angels, kings, gods, dwarfs, giants, rewards, punishments, monsters, I gave them names, described them in details and I told some younger children (7-9) that all these terror figures were upstairs in our attic, and that they also are in his family’s attic, all he had to do is speak some magic syllables in order to meet them.

The next day my father went after me screaming at me how I could tell such nonsense to small children: One little boy’s father had come to my father furious because his youngster was muttering funny syllables, didn’t get enough sleep and seemed completely out of his wits.

Sound familiar?

Athena4:

"Mmm.... lamb... Just make sure to add lots of garlic!"

Well, of course! Is there any other way to roast lamb?

"Actually, roast lamb of god sounds great to me."

Mmm.... lamb... Just make sure to add lots of garlic!

"If there is no God existence is pure randomness with only semblance of order, regularity is a fiction within a fundamentally random existence. "

---------

Dan12,

Existence isn't random without gods, it's order comes from a process called evolution which is by no means random. On the contrary, evolution is very selective. It is simply based on natural selection rather than supernatural but evolution is anything but random.

Where on earth did you get such a misconception? Evidently, you learned biology in Sunday school as opposed to a Science class.

Daniel12:

Inasmuch as your writing suggests that critical thinking is not one of your strong suits, I've made a little checklist for you to use. I sincerely hope that it will be useful to you.

CRITICAL THINKING 101 FOR DANIEL12

1. DEFINE THE PROBLEM
a. What are the facts
b. What exactly is the situation
c. What have you/others done
d. What has worked/not worked
e. What are the bottom-lilne realities
f. What are the/my resources

2. CONSIDER ALL THE POSSIBILITIES
a. What are all the possibilities
b. What might work
c. What other ways are there to look at this
d. What do the data imply
e. What are the connections to other issues/people
f. What are the patterns in the facts

3. WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES OF EACH COURSE OF ACTION
a. What are the pros/cons of each option
b. What are the logical consequences of each option
c. Is this reasonable
d. What are the consequences of not acting
e. What impact would this have on my other priorities

4. WEIGH THE ALTERNATIVES LOOKING AT THE IMPACT
a. How does ech alternative fit in with my values
b. How will the people concerned be affected
c. How will each option contribute to harmony
d. How will I support people with this decision

5. MAKE A FINAL DECISION

6. DO IT

7. EVALUATE THE DECISION
a. Was it a good one
b. Did you consider all facts, possibilities, impacts, consequences
c. Does new information change the decision
d. Do unforeseen consequences change the decision
e. Do changed/expanded values change the decision

Farnaz:

Good morning.

What a pity we cannot have a conversation.

Biblical infallibility is another dangerous superstition of the roman catholic corporation; there are in fact over a thousand recognised errors in the New Testament (not accounting for translational errors) ranging from Luke’s Geographical mistakes to contradictions over the conception, birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The bible should be read with caution and interpreted with logic and reason. One must remember that it was written and re-written by people who, like Daniel12, had relatively little understanding of the world around them and people who had an anti-semitic, anti-gnostic, trinitarian or other political agenda! The bible that we know today is a tenth or even fifteenth generation transcript and translation of ancient textx; the original new testament manuscripts, bar a few fragments, have long since been destroyed in favour of the redacted versions. Most of the New Testament has been subjected to numerous redactions, selectively assembled, and many of the books included have been amended in various ways Take a look at “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart D. Ehrman and “The Unauthorised Version” by Robin Lane-Fox. In the fourth century following the council of Nicaea, at least 300 Gospels were burned and it was made a penal offence to possess an unauthorised Gospel.

Thus were the superstitions preserved intact and unchallenged.

Schaum,

Guess what, Dannyboy... "dog" is god spelled backward! Wow!!! Think about THAT for a while!!!
-------------
Better not give Sebastian more ideas!

Btw., reading this thread together with the last, I am taken by the two Christian/Catholic hatreds so far noted that have persisted among faithful, viz., hatred for Jews and gays.

Hmmm....Now, let's see. What are the others?

Daniel12:

Guess what, Dannyboy... "dog" is god spelled backward! Wow!!! Think about THAT for a while!!!

Daniel12 sez:

'But the religious believe in God and the atheists believe in reason--delusions entertained to ironically escape insanity. Either God exists or we must admit that we are fundamentally insane, for having been formed by a random existence. In such a world perhaps the religious are the most sane, or is it the atheists? Who cares? If God does not exist we are all fundamentally insane--and most sane ironically for believing in the delusion God or reason.'

Speaking of logic and reason, how does any of this make sense? Daniel12 has once again failed to define his terms. We assume that he speaks of theists vs atheists (non-theists) - not only are there vast differences between and among these broad classifications of people, but they all employ powers of inductive and deductive reasoning in order to survive in the material world....just not necessarily where the tenets of theology apply e.g the god-dominated non-material world.

Whether you're a theist or non-theist, it's very hard to escape your own personal internal reality - which completely influences what you project as your external reality. Beliefs are completely secondary to this ongoing process, because all are equally afflicted with this universal condition - consciousness.

How that might relate to sanity or insanity is a completely different matter -but it's fair to say that religious mania/schizophrenia is rampant only among the religous, and religious theists in particular. God fantasies just make some folks crazy (and dangerous).

You don't find crazy people nearly as often among the ranks of atheist scientists, philosophers, Taoists, Zennists, Vedantists, Jains, Shinto, etc.

Or just plain ordinary atheist folk.....

Onofrio:

"Mary Cunningham,

As a good Catholic:

Do you agree...:

Careful. You will cause The Other Virgin to have an identity crisis.

Mary_Cunningham:

"No, the answer is human . We see patterns in clouds, shadows ,ink blots and-- mirabile dictu water stains on walls. But Schaum would use this universal tendency to indulge his anti-Catholic paranoia."

The superstitious are the first to scream when their superstitions are challenged. Not paranoia, my dear: loathing. Simple enough for you to distinguish?

"For the poor, and the lonely, and the homeless, it's the worse time of the year, and some terrible things will happen.

And the weather won't help."

Ah, a Lesser Teaching from Colinnicholas, who takes time out from his interests in little boys to remind us of what we have all known forever.

Question of the day for atheists: If atheists are indeed correct God does not exist, that evidence from, say evolution, favors a purely naturalistic world, which is to say evolution is taken to be a law within an existence which fundamentally has no laws--which is to say evolution is akin to merely coincidentally rolling sixes four or five times in a row--then how can it possibly be humans are sane? How can reason, sanity, exist within a fundamentally random existence? How can sanity be determined from insanity? Sanity is identical to law, order and the continuance of it is predicated on existence fundamentally being ordered, lawful, designed, not random. If God is eliminated so is any possibility of being fundamentally sane. It may be true God does not exist, that we humans are just within something which moves any which way, careless of life. But if so then we cannot be sane. So does God exist? Or are we deluded in believing in him in a fundamentally random existence? If God does not exist and we are deluded in believing in him, then non-delusion is acceptance of existence being fundamentally random which means non-delusion is identical to accepting that we not only have no way of determining whether we are sane, we cannot possibly be sane for existence is random...our sanity is merely a coincidental rolling of sixes four or five times in a row. Dice anyone?

Atheists speak of the religious being deluded, incapable of facing reality, that religion is akin to mental illness. The truth is if there is no God then atheists are as deluded as the religious, as mentally ill in exactly the same way as the religious, perhaps even more so--and the reason why is simple: If there is no God existence is pure randomness with only semblance of order, regularity is a fiction within a fundamentally random existence. Atheists are at least identical to the religious because they believe in something they call reason which is somehow compatible with this fundamentally random existence--in fact the atheists are more deluded than the religious because they believe this reason exists in themselves by their own effort despite the fact they know existence is fundamentally random. If existence is fundamentally random with only illusions of order then no one can be fundamentally sane--all of us are formed by exactly randomness and sanity cannot really exist on such a foundation. But the religious believe in God and the atheists believe in reason--delusions entertained to ironically escape insanity. Either God exists or we must admit that we are fundamentally insane, for having been formed by a random existence. In such a world perhaps the religious are the most sane, or is it the atheists? Who cares? If God does not exist we are all fundamentally insane--and most sane ironically for believing in the delusion God or reason.

Mary Cunningham,

Oh, and do you endorse self-flagellation and cilice in the discipline of mortification?

Mary Cunningham,

As a good Catholic:

Do you agree with the Theodosian Code on burning catamites?

Do you agree with Justinian that homosexuality provokes God to destroy cities?

Do you agree with Pope Innocent III that heresy is "treason against Christ" and a capital crime?

Do you agree that Pope Alexander IV was binding and loosing rightly when he authorised the Inquisition to use torture in cases of heresy?

Do you agree with Boniface VII that every human creature should be subject to the Roman Pontiff?

ZZim:

Huge amounts of early Christian material were preserved by the monks of Western Europe--for example all the sermons of St Augustine of Hippo up to the Council of Carthage or thereabouts--the problem is in translating the originals..

Said Schaum:

"The question is “How dumb do you have to be to see a fictional virgin in water marks on a wall?” and the answer is “Catholic.”"

No, the answer is human . We see patterns in clouds, shadows ,ink blots and-- mirabile dictu water stains on walls. But Schaum would use this universal tendency to indulge his anti-Catholic paranoia.

(Tells you more about Schaum than it does about anything else.)

"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George H.W. Bush, (R) as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27

Christianity fosters, encourages and celebrates bigotry, hatred and discrimation. It's amazing how its followers pretend otherwise as if the rest of the world was too stupid to see it for what it is - the greatest force for evil in the history of the world.

"It is necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Pope Boniface VII

Don't know if this is the most wonderful time of the year. Check the stats on domestic violence, suicides and murders, after Christmas. They'll be a lot higher than usual if previous Christmases are anything to go by.

For the poor, and the lonely, and the homeless, it's the worse time of the year, and some terrible things will happen.

And the weather won't help.

Schaum,

"Lets not be putting ideas into his head!"

I daresay they're already there, Schaum.

Sorry about the heavy-handed irony.

Farnaz:

"Glad Sebastian is better. I myself am partial to puppies who see one as more than a meal ticket "

Oh, he and I are CLOSE buddies. I may have created a monster by not doing anything to make him think that there is a master-dog relationship here. He doesn't think of himself as different from me, I believe. I gave him some shredded steak and chicken a couple of months ago. Now he won't touch dog food. But he is very dear to me. And he's wonderfully vocal! He talks all the time. I've never had a dog so vocal.

Onofrio!!!

"Time to get some of that ol' time Christian lawmaking on the statute books...and burn those gays, with their God-provoking ways."

Good non-god, man! You are talking to someone who is mentally unstable. Lets not be putting ideas into his head!

Counterww,

More jurisprudential Christmongery:

A Greek (Novella 77) addition to the Justinian Code in 538 stipulated that homosexual acts would:

"incur the just anger of God, and bring about the destruction of cities and their inhabitants."

"Therefore We [the emperor] order all men to avoid such offences, to have the fear of God in their hearts, and to imitate the example of those who live in piety; for as crimes of this description cause famine, earthquake, and pestilence, it is on this account, and in order that men may not lose their souls, that We admonish them to abstain from the perpetration of the illegal acts above mentioned."

There you go, Counterww. God lays waste to cities because of gays. Do you think the pious Justinian was on the right track there? In case you want to disown him, and leave him back in the "Dark Ages", note that his "Code" remained the basis of law in the Byzantine empire up to the seizure of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. And subsequent to the revival of Roman Law in the 12th century (beginning at the universty of Bologna), Justinian's Code shaped the legal traditions of Italy, France, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, and, ultimately, Calvinist Scotland. It remained a powerful force in Western European juridical process right up to the time of Napoleon.

Time to get some of that ol' time Christian lawmaking on the statute books...and burn those gays, with their God-provoking ways.

Counterww,

Some godly jurisprudence from Christian lawmakers of the good old days:

"All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man's body, acting the part of a woman, to the sufferance of an alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women) shall expiate the crime of this kind in avenging flames in the sight of the people."
- Theodosian Code, AD 438.

i.e. the *passive* partner in male homosexual couplings is to be executed by incineration.

Before you disown Theodosius, he was a fully orthodox trinitarian Christian, who was instrumental in stamping pagan worship in the Roman empire (it didn't just "die out").

In the Justinian code, both *active* and *passive* homosexual partners were to be punished. The historian John Malalas (491-578) a contemporary of Justinian wrote:

"At this time, bishops of divers provinces were prosecuted for the lustful act of sleeping with males. Among them were bishops Isaiah of Rhodes....and Alexander of Diospolis in Thrace. After they were brought to Constantinople by an edict of the emperor they were examined by the prefect of the city, stripped of their rank, and punished. After he had suffered severe torture, Isaiah was sent into exile. Alexander, on the other hand, had his male organ cut off, and was placed in a litter as a spectacle to the people. Shortly after the emperor passed a law that the crime of sex with males should be punished by castration. And at that time many homosexuals were seized and their genitals cut off."

CONT'D

Counterww,

Thee, to Scahum:
"You sound like someone I would not want in a position in power in any state- as the Christian would probably be rounded up and thrown in jail."

And you, no doubt, would prefer to have a state run by those like the Ugandan Anglican bishops, who want to make homosexuality a capital crime. Rick Warren seesm to find no fault in their holy zeal.

Let's see, now, that would have precedents going all the way back to those goodly Christian emperors Theodosius and Justinian - august lawmakers par excellence.

CONT'D

Counterww,

Thee, re your Christian friends:
"All the people I know have plenty of well formed identities and are rational, good people."

I know plenty such folk who are NOT CHRISTIAN. According to your dogma, unless they join your sect, all their well formed, rational goodness means nothing to your God; they are hellbound. He will torment them for aeons of aeons.

So let's not have any patronising nonsense about how nice and reasonable your Christian friends are. Such virtues are mere "filthy rags", are they not? In the economy of salvation, they are of no account to your absolutising God; all that counts is whether one has a personalrelationshipwithjesusasmylordandsaviour.

Merely human niceness, goodness, and reason be damned!

Counterwww:

One of the requisites for emotional health is acceptance of ambiguity and uncertainty. Your divinity-oriented religiosity is the unhealthiest state imaginable: its prime reason for being is to enable the religionist to believe in god-commanded certainty, because of his inability to accept the ambiguities, uncertainties and vagaries of life. This inability is the reason you are mentally ill.

"It is necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Pope Boniface VII.

Any objections? If so, you go to Hell.

Hi Schaum,

Re: Christianity, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, etc.

A lot has been written since Renan. Interesting how many mystery religions haf the bread/flesh, blood/wind ceremony.

Judaism, of course, did not. At all events, I'm sure Onofrio and many others know more about this than I.

Hyam Macoby, of the Jesus Seminar adduced evidence that Paul was always Paul, never Saul, not a Jew. I don't know. There is much in the NT that is decidedly unJewish, far, far from Judaic doctrine.

Most interesting to me is the tampering with the Isaiah passage so that it "foretells" Jesus. In fact, there is nothing in Tanakh that does.

Let the games continue....

Farnaz :)

Btw. Glad Sebastian is better. I myself am partial to puppies who see one as more than a meal ticket (ditto humans).

"I like your Christ. Christians, not so much." - Mahatma Gandhi

Ender,

Thanks very much for the reference! I would think Archaeology Today must be archived somewhere. I'm going to check the NYC research library.

Farnaz

Counterwww:

Yet more aimless ranting, and again...no proof.

Schaum

You could have Jesus come in human form and speak to you , and you still would not believe.

Proof? You really want proof?

What this really comes down to is radical atheism that hates religion, hates its influence on society, and wants to do whatever you do, whenever you want to.

Gnostic gospels? Really? rejected due to the fact that their philosophical bent and theology were opposite and contrary to what the disciples preached, and what Paul knew to be the truth about Jesus.

For someone that has done so much research, you avoid the truth of the gospels and what Jesus has done for you , kicking and screaming.

I know when you use the terms you use - and the asinine words- your quote follows-

"Diety-inspired religionists, such as Patricksarsfield, tend to sacrifice human love for godly love (agape) and to withdraw into monastic and holy affairs at the expense of intimate interpersonal relationships."

We do not such thing! How would you know? Did you know patrick intimately? I have known very loving couples that have intimate relationships with both God and their wives. They are loving, caring people that give to the poor, help others in need, and have done good for society.

You sound like a very bitter, warped, and venomous person that can't stand the thought that others have had a successful life living as those "awful" religionists that are also "delusional" and "don't have mental health" etc ad nauseam . All the people I know have plenty of well formed identities and are rational, good people.

As far as your harrington site, I dismiss people like Bruno Bauer and Joseph Wheless out of hand. Even the liberal Jesus Seminar believed Jesus existed, and of course I know you don't believe in miracles.

You sound like someone I would not want in a position in power in any state- as the Christian would probably be rounded up and thrown in jail. Thank god you are only on the internet where you can do no harm.

I believe that the rise of Catholic political power and wealth after the year 1,000, with the subsequent Reformation rebellion, and bloody civil wars that followed, have fatally corrupted Christianity. And that now, Christianity is tainted and can never be thought of by good people, as good and pure, as it may have once been regarded.

Always, to be known as a Christian carries some kind of stigma that goes back to those bloody days, which have never really been explained away. I wish Christians would be more humble about their Christian project, instead of always being so in-your-face, finger-in-the eye, chip-on-the-shoulder about everything.

Sure, it says so in the book, to love your neighbor, but those are just words that are not nearly as loud as their contrary actions.

DanielintheLionsDen

Thank you! That kind of satire really does make me laugh!

Thanks again.

Schaum

Once on "Mad TV" they did a spoof on an hispanic woman (whom we all would assume to be Catholic) who was convicted of manslaughter for leaving her infant child locked in a car on a hot day, where he suffocated, while she spent several hours in a rapturous crowd, looking at the image of the Virgin Mary that had appeared, miraculously, in the ice crystals inside the icecream freezer of the "Seven-Eleven."

Wiccan:

The keyboard is in the mail.

Thank you, the dog is doing well. Back to normal, I think. Yes, scotties have strong personalities. This is my 4th. He is the strongest-willed of all of them. He is also unusual: he likes everybody! Most scotties are 1-2 man dogs, and are aloof from others outside the immediate family circle. Sebastian is in love with people, and he doesn't discriminate. He is also unusually needy. He doesn't let me out of his sight, whereas my others were content to be left entirely alone, showing up for breakfast and for dinner, and disappearing between meals.

Schaum:

"...hate the superstitions, love the superstitious?"

Dammit, sir, you owe me a new keyboard! (Talk about your "spit takes"!)

I hope your Scottie is doing well. They are definitely dogs with strong personalities. When I was a kid, the neighbors across the street had a Scottie named Duncan. One day he showed up with a little orange tabby kitten, who was afterwards known as "D.C.", for Duncan's Cat. D.C. even had a leash so he could go on walks with Duncan. Cutest (and funniest) thing you ever saw.

Yes, as a matter of fact the entire Nag Hammadi library is available at :

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Freestinker

The Secret Gospel of Thomas, as most if not all of the Gnostics are, is available online:

http://www.12-12-12.org/gospel.htm

Elaine Pagels: "Beyond Belief - The Secret Gospel of Thomas" and "The Gospel of Thomas" are also very illuminating.

I must warn you not to go there though if you are overly attached to the Nicene Creed. The Gospel of Thomas describes a very diffrent Jesus than the one you learned about in Sunday school.

In fact, this Jesus is much cooler than previously advertised!

BPAI:

"This reveals the true character of Christianity"

I would agree with you if you said "organized" Christianity. Real Christianity...the philosophies, teachings and examples of the mythical Jesus...have almost nothing to do with what is called christianity today. Again, I recommend the book on the Gnostic gospels. You get a very different take on "jesus".

The purpose of religion is to claim divine sanction for personal hatreds and biases, so the so-called War Against Xmas is great for the haters known as the Christian Right. Notice how they get more passionate when they are indignant/angry than they ever do about something positive? This reveals the true character of Christianity, one of the most divisive forces in human history.

ZZIM:

Recommend "The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels.

The now (tragically)defunct magizine Archeaology Today published and article more than 25 yrs ago giving very credible evidence that the christ myth was a group think creation of mystical Greeks(Oracle cults?), mystic Jews, freethinking Romans and Zoroastrians. This was meant to be an all inclusive and progressive religion but then Constantine got ahold of it all went to heck. I have searched the web for years and never found another article that presented as much historical evidence one way or another about early christendom.
Posted by: ender2 | December 9, 2009 3:13 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Awesome magazine.

Unfortunately much of the surviving manuscripts of early Christianity were destroyed in the Muslim invasions. I’ve often wondered what incredible insight we might have had into the early years of Christianity if that hadn’t happened.

BTW I unfortunately cannot find that article either. I would gladly pay well for that issue.

ender2:

You pique my interest! Do you have any information about that article that would help me find it on the net?

Thanks

Farnaz and Schaum,
The now (tragically)defunct magizine Archeaology Today published and article more than 25 yrs ago giving very credible evidence that the christ myth was a group think creation of mystical Greeks(Oracle cults?), mystic Jews, freethinking Romans and Zoroastrians. This was meant to be an all inclusive and progressive religion but then Constantine got ahold of it all went to heck. I have searched the web for years and never found another article that presented as much historical evidence one way or another about early christendom.

Jeepers, let the Obamas practice their own darn religion in their own darn house.

What a silly and oppressive tempest in a teapot.

Volkmere:

"celebration of his berth.."

You "celebrate" his bed?? What kind of perv are you?

Freestinker:

"If you believed a fairytale for all your life, you would probably be sad also when you discover your favorite story has no basis in fact."

I agree with you. You have to teach religion to people when they are VERY young. Adult, rational human beings, if exposed to that crap for the first time as adults, would never believe it otherwise!

"Gotta wonder why theists come to an atheist thread, spread their idiocy via posts, and then start to cry when an atheist slaps em down...."

----------

Because applying reason to fairy tales exposes these stories for what they really are, complete fairy tales.

If you believed a fairytale for all your life, you would probably be sad also when you discover your favorite story has no basis in fact.

Depending on how resilient you are, it could be absolutely devastating.

Tojby

You said:
“No one, neither then nor now, has any real idea when the little man from Galilee was actually born.”

The exact date is not relevant; the celebration of his berth is what Christmas is all about. In any case, a detailed study of the bible and other literature of the time clearly places the birth in the spring.

Who cares what the early Christians, Romans, Jews (ect) did. What we are doing now is what we are talking about.

On another note:
Why would you call the son of God “the little man”?
Was that relay necessary?
Had anyone called you names of belittled you lately?

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Gotta wonder why theists come to an atheist thread, spread their idiocy via posts, and then start to cry when an atheist slaps em down....

Patrick:

"No amount of recasting the remark changes the fact that Schaum said what he said."

Recasting? Another idiotic jump in your logic. Far from recasting, I'll say catholicism is both STUPID and EVIL. Does that sound like dancing on a pin?

DanielintheLionsDen

Patrick likes to apply the word "hate" to any point of view that is different from his. Another catholic trait, I've noticed.

Patrick, for your own purposes and to further your own agenda, you have confused hatred of catholicism (which I do) with hatred of catholics (which I don't). Your obfuscations change nothing.
Go ahead. Run.

Schaum continues to try to "dance on the head of a pin" with this effort to avoid the fact that he has shown an ugly hatred for Catholics with his stereotyping of them as dumb:

"Sorry, Patrick. You lose again. Far from avoiding your accusation, I have proven that it is another of your delusions. Your paranoid rants do nothing to alter the truth. I hate supersition. If I find superstitions in catholicism -- and I do -- I hate them too. Hmmmm....how shall I phrase it for you...hate the superstitions, love the superstitious?"

We have been back and forth about this several times now. Schaum definitely called all Catholics dumb when he wrote the following:

"The question is “How dumb do you have to be to see a fictional virgin in water marks on a wall?” and the answer is “Catholic.”"

No amount of recasting the remark changes the fact that Schaum said what he said. He is a hater plain and simple. I am going to drop out of this very unproductive exchange going forward.

Patricksarsfield

Well, just to be clear a Christmas Carol is a Christian Christmas Hymn, like Silent Night, Oh Come All Ye Faithful, Noel, Oh Little Town of Bethlehem, Away in a Manger (songs like that) and they are the best of the best.

Las Vegas-style lounge music about "the Hap-Hap-Happiest Time of the Year" would not be, by anyone's consideration, a Christmas Carol, and NO! Susan did not say she hates Christmas carols. I do not know, but I imagine that if you were to ask her, she would probably say that she likes them.

Patricksarsfield:

""The question is “How dumb do you have to be to see a fictional virgin in water marks on a wall?” and the answer is “Catholic.”"

Patrick, you have not offered a better answer.

Patricksarsfield:

"Schaum tries to avoid my observation that he hates Catholics with this:..."

Sorry, Patrick. You lose again. Far from avoiding your accusation, I have proven that it is another of your delusions. Your paranoid rants do nothing to alter the truth. I hate supersition. If I find superstitions in catholicism -- and I do -- I hate them too. Hmmmm....how shall I phrase it for you...hate the superstitions, love the superstitious?

Now that he has been called out for his hatred of Catholics, Schaum has started a rapid fire barrage of defensive posts that try to take the focus off the ugly stereotype he wrote. To repeat, Schaum wrote this clearly hate-filled attack on Catholics:
""The question is “How dumb do you have to be to see a fictional virgin in water marks on a wall?” and the answer is “Catholic.”""

Schaum tries to avoid my observation that he hates Catholics with this:

"More paranoid ranting. Hate catholics? I was one. I have recovered. I pity them. Yet I certainly acknowledge their right to their delusions. They are nonetheless stupid for holding them. "

I noted that he hated Catholics because of this remark:

"The question is “How dumb do you have to be to see a fictional virgin in water marks on a wall?” and the answer is “Catholic.”"

Thus, Schaum stereotyped all Catholics as people "dumb" enough to "see a fictional virgin in water marks on a wall...." That kind of stereotyping is the kind of hate-filled generalization that is inconsistent with the reality that many Catholics would not necessarily see a fictional virgin in water marks on a wall. To a hater like Schaum, ex-Catholic though he may be, it is important to tar all of the hated class with disdain,though.

Patricsarsfield:

"can only be justifiable when one hates deeply."

Hate is ever justifiable? Is that a catholic teaching, Patrick? It would be another one I would have to disagree with.

Catholic bashing? I think not. The truth is the truth...and sometimes that is not a pleasant reality to receive.

As someone said, live with it.

More paranoid ranting. Hate catholics? I was one. I have recovered. I pity them. Yet I certainly acknowledge their right to their delusions. They are nonetheless stupid for holding them.
The truth shall set you free.

Oh, and to be entirely clear, I -- an atheist -- also enjoy christmas. I put up a tree. I listen (as I am even now) to the choristers of Kings College Cambridge singing exquisite carols and chants appropriate to advent and christmas. Its beautiful.

It is also a delusion. I realize that. It does not prevent me from enjoying the man-created beauty of the season. You have no proprietary interest in beauty, music, fun -- or anything, except your religions delusions -- Patrick.

Schaum writes:

"The question is “How dumb do you have to be to see a fictional virgin in water marks on a wall?” and the answer is “Catholic.”"

A vicious unsupportable stereotype like this can only be justifiable when one hates deeply. Apparently, Schaum hates Catholics very deeply.

Patricksarsfield:

"To insist, as several commmentors on this board would, that we Christians should not enjoy our holiday ..."

Interesting paranoid rant. I've not heard anyone say christers should not have their holiday. I have seen several say that it is a holiday devoted to superstitions taken from earlier religions and having nothing to do with reality...but nobody has said that you should be deprived of your delusions.

The South Pacific nation of Samoa recently switched from driving on the right to driving on the left. Since that has absolutely nothing at all to do with non-existent virgin mothers of fictional deities, people in Samoa who are afflicted with ridiculous religious delusions therefore believe that an obvious water stain on the wall of a local church is an Apparition of The Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with Perfectly Intact Virginal Hymen. A so-called Marian Apparition, a message from Jeebus’ Mommy, saying, “Oy! watch out with that car, dodo head.” Or maybe it means that her son can see you masturbating. Or it could be just mineral deposits left behind by rainwater, but that’s just a guess that is consistent with the available facts.

The question is “How dumb do you have to be to see a fictional virgin in water marks on a wall?” and the answer is “Catholic.”

We are used to hearing these silly stories from Mexico, Texas, and other areas with a high concentration of people exposed to Mexican culture and superstitions. This is the first case to reach our attention from a Pacific island nation.

Danielin the lionsden writes:

"Christmas is a mass social phenomenon, which many people wish they could avoid, but which almost everyone goes along with. All of its many threads are woven tightly into our culture. If someone loves Christmas, why gloat about it, to people who do not?"

My point all along has been that while some do not like Christmas (including several on this board), many more of us do love it. That is why the Christmas Carol is so pervasive at this time of Year. To point that out is not to "gloat" but to be realistic. To insist, as several commmentors on this board would, that we Christians should not enjoy our holiday and proclaim it to all is censorious in the extreme. I would not force anyone to enjoy Christmas, but I insist equally on my right to note just how joyful it is and to reject the attacks on it. I simply won't let the Scrooges of the World get away with dictating how Christmas will be celebrated.

Diety-inspired religionists, such as Patricksarsfield, tend to sacrifice human love for godly love (agape) and to withdraw into monastic and holy affairs at the expense of intimate interpersonal relationships. They frequently are deficient in social competence. They spend immense amounts of time, effort, and money on establishments, and in online rants professing their great faith, rather than on social welfare. They foment religious fights, feuds, wars, and terrorism. They encourage charity that is highly parochial and that is linked to god's glory more than to the alleviation of human suffering. Their “altruism” is highly alloyed with egotistically proving to god how great and glorious they can be as human benefactors.

These are, of course delusions. A delusion is defined as a false personal belief based on incorrect inference about external reality and firmly sustained despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary (DSM-IV, p. 765).

Ah, the “truth” of christ and his “virgin” birth! A working definition of 'true' is 'can be
used to produce real results. Of those who can use truth to produce results, most don’t.
Of those who can and do, most don't do it very well.
Think about Newton's Laws. Are they true? They can be proven. The “truth” of christ and the “virgin” birth? Afraid not, Patrick.

Schaum writes:

"again, I sincerely hope that you and yours will fully enjoy your seasonal delusion. By the way, you might ask Santa Claus to bring you “Arcanum” is a fantasy role-playing game, which makes extensive use of the magical thinking at which you excel. I think you would find it calming. Certainly it is cheaper than the therapy for which you have a profound need."

So what Schaum seems to be saying is that when he (or she) gets off the Opinion Blogs, he spends some of the rest of his time checking out computer games with titles like "Arcanum." How arcane and mystical.

Is this another proof of G.K Chesterton's famous observation that when people stop believing in God, the problem is that " they do not start to believe in nothing, they start to believe in anything"?

Patricksarsfield

Since when is "It's the Hap-Hap-Happiest Time of the Year" a Christmas carol?

This whole conversation is very weird.

I think that most adult people, who have experienced many Christmas's are a little weary of it. And I think that people of all ages who do not have enough money to live, or barely enough money to live, feel a little overwhelmed and anxious at Christmas time, like there is a big party that they are not in on.

People who have any physical limitations have a more difficult time during Christmas season, when there are more and bigger traffic james, and the stores are more crowded and busier, the post offices are gridlocked.

People who come from unhappy families are often depressed at Christmas time.

There are alot of people who find this time of year to be burdensome. And it has nothing to do with believers and non-believers.

Christmas is a mass social phenomenon, which many people wish they could avoid, but which almost everyone goes along with. All of its many threads are woven tightly into our culture. If someone loves Christmas, why gloat about it, to people who do not?

What is so terrible about saying "Happy Holidays" to strangers who you do not even know, and who may be Jewish, atheistic, non-religious, or just not very much into Christmas? "Happy Holidays" was a common Christmas greeting as far back as I can remember, in the 1950's. It is not some new, anti-Christmas plot.

And for people who are religous, there is lots of religion still to be found in Christmas. LOTS OF IT, if you care to participate. I think that "Oh Come All Ye Faithful" is ten-thousand times more beautiful than "It's the Hap-Hap-Happiest Time of the Year."

"T. Jefferson was hardly prophetic in claiming that belief in the Virgin Birth would have disappeared by now"

And to keep your distortions straight, neither T Jefferson nor I predicted that the superstition of virgin birth would have disappeared by now. christers just can't tell the truth.

patricksarsfield:

Ah, yes, midnight mass. You will begin your celebration of the birth of your baby by consuming flesh and blood at an altar.

Gruesome, bloodthirsty "religion".

patricksarsfield:

again, I sincerely hope that you and yours will fully enjoy your seasonal delusion. By the way, you might ask Santa Claus to bring you “Arcanum” is a fantasy role-playing game, which makes extensive use of the magical thinking at which you excel. I think you would find it calming. Certainly it is cheaper than the therapy for which you have a profound need.

Schaum writes to me in response to my post that noted that T. Jefferson was hardly prophetic in claiming that belief in the Virgin Birth would have disappeared by now since it still is believed by millions, even billions throughout the World:

"Schizophrenics create their own religion/fantasy world to live in. The only difference between religious people and schizophrenics is that religious people share the same delusions and schizophrenics have original delusions. Schizophrenics are just more original and creative than religious people but not any less in touch with reality than the religious delusionals. They are both living in another reality. It is the same disorder in thinking. No reality testing. No critical thinking. Belief without reason."

Ah,finally we have found something Schaum believes in: "original and creative" schizophrenia!

Seriously, could it be that Schaum is one of those people I mentioned in my last post who will spend Christmas in front of their computers proclaiming their own superiority for NOT believing in Christmas? If so, Season's Greetings, Schaum! As for me, I will enjoy the Most Wonderful Day of the Year beginning with Christmas Midnight Mass at St. Patrick's and then the rest of the day visiting with loved ones. God is Good. If that seems worse than schizophrenic to Schaum, he doesn't know what he is missing. Feliz Navidad!!

Schaum,

You're welcome. The similarities, borrowings of Christianity from Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, were I believe first uncovered by Ernst Renan, The Origins of Christianity.
Since then, despite the views of nonChristian scholars, everything possible to refute, deny, and thwart this work has been done.

Still, it has persisted. The fake Isaiah prophecy is generally accepted. There are many who believe it was intentional. The original Hebrew is quite different.

There are many more sites on this. Will post more later.

People have celebrated solstice long before Christmas, nor was it exclusive to Europe.

The solstice itself may have been a special moment of the annual cycle of the year even during neolithic times. Astronomical events, which during ancient times controlled the mating of animals, sowing of crops and metering of winter reserves between harvests, show how various cultural mythologies and traditions have arisen. (See New Grange, for example.)

Dōngzhì Festival
Inti Raymi
Maruaroa o Takurua
Shab-e Chelleh, Yaldā (2,000 BCE)
Soyal
We Tripantu

People have a lot of various reasons to celebrate, but this time of year has already had a wealth of festivities. One person's reason for the season is not necessarily someone else's reason.

Looks like SHAUM has Christian mythology on the proverbial ropes!

Farnaz:

Thanks for the link. Fascinating reading.

Volkmare:

The DSM-IV describes a mental disorder of group delusion.

A bunch of people wasting their precious Sundays gathering to support each other in such a delusion, is sad behavior, but is it harmful? (Those who, unwaveringly and defensively believe in the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, his reanimation after proved death, that he will come again after the world blows up, that gays are sinners, that talking to your children about condoms is bad, etc..)

Aside from Dawkins' claim that those who believe in Armageddon, even wish for it, are potentially harmful to the world, which puts those types in the same class of the mentally ill as suicide bombers, I think,-- is, believing something as absurd as the virgin birth or people coming back to life after being mutilated to death, harmful to that person, alone?

I think, yes, that such beliefs cause a schism in self and world concept--leading to, a profound, insecurity and a dependence on the body of persons (churches which advocate such delusions) to substitute for a missing, well-formed identity, and a lack of confidence and individualism needed for mental health.

Always seek the truth, Mark.

Patricksarsfield:

Schizophrenics create their own religion/fantasy world to live in. The only difference between religious people and schizophrenics is that religious people share the same delusions and schizophrenics have original delusions. Schizophrenics are just more original and creative than religious people but not any less in touch with reality than the religious delusionals. They are both living in another reality. It is the same disorder in thinking. No reality testing. No critical thinking. Belief without reason.

I sincerely hope that you and yours enjoy your seasonal delusions.

Mithraism and Christianity

http://sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch70.htm

I think this includes the mistranslation (many think deliberate) of the famous Isaiah passage.

"We are in the Christmas season and the vast majority of this nation is celebrating the birth of Christ.
Like I said before to Susan, deal with it.
Mark"
Always seek the truth.

Posted by: volkmare

volkmare, I am distinctly in the "outsider" and "none of the above" categories, yet I'm spending my day off today printing out the cards I designed, wrapping gifts and baking cookies.

Christmas is for many a secular celebration of tradition, family and fun. In the dark of winter, most cultures come up with some reason to celebrate. That's the truth, deal with it:-)

Schaum writes:
"As Thomas Jefferson prophetically wrote,-as is being verified: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"!"

Prophetically? Hardly. Belief in the Virgin Birth remains strong 183 years AFTER Thomas went to his death. Surely, there were skeptics then and Jefferson was one of them. There are skeptics now, too but the lovely words of a carol written in TJ's own days echo down through the Years until this very day: "Round yon virgin, Mother and Child. Sleep in Heavenly Peace...."

On Dec. 25, there will, of course, be some people who sit down in front of their computers proclaiming their own superiority for NOT believing in Christmas, but the great bulk of us Americans will be enjoying the sweet memorial of the Birth of Gesu Bambino. I am very happy to be among that larger, more joyful group.

Virgin birth is only ever mentioned in two of the four gospels, and that the Apostle Paul, whose writings make up the earliest Christian text we have, had never heard the story, which we know because he describes Jesus as "born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3) meaning that he thought Joseph was Jesus’ biological father.

The author of Mathew was looking for Old Testament prophecy to which he could fit the life of Christ, and came across the a prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, which he read as predicting that the Messiah would be born of a Virgin, and would be called Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us, and since he was Greek, and writing in and for a Greco-Roman context, in which everyone of any note, from Hercules, to Perseus to Mercury to Romulus to Dionysius was born of the virgin, simply decided to kill two birds with one stone, at once fulfilling a prophecy and making Jesus more impressive to his Hellenic country men - by have Jesus born of a Virgin. We know this because the author wrote, after describing Jesus' divine conception that:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Mathew 1:22 -23)

All this would be bad, and cynical and crooked enough, but what makes it not just a lie, but an incompetent and obvious lie is that he gets the prophecy wrong. The important word here is the word virgin, which in the Hebrew version of Isaiah is rendered as Alma, a word which, according to the catholic encyclopedia, and the Oxford Hebrew lexicon, and the Oxford Companion to the bible, simply signifies a "young woman", unmarried as well as married, and is thus distinct from bethulah, "a virgin" And thus carries no implication of virginity.

As Thomas Jefferson prophetically wrote,-as is being verified: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"!

Go here to read how the priest who forged the Gospel of Matthew came up with the virgin birth crap:
http://www.harrington-sites.com/terms.htm

Lepidopterix:

Re peanuts/peanutbutter...

Thats what the vet at the clinic told me. So, I looked it up on the net, and this is what I found:

"This is one of those "yes and no" answers.

On one hand, most dogs absolutely adore peanut butter and it can make a great training aid when given from a spoon. If you do give peanut butter, it's best to use a salt and sugar free variety because salt and sugar can cause issues in dogs. Obviously, it's also very high in fats so the intake should be limited. Feed it as an "every so often" treat, NOT as a daily meal ingredient.

On the other hand, actual peanuts aren't that healthy for dogs.

There are some types of nuts that are toxic to dogs, such as macadamia nuts and walnuts. Those should never be fed. Then there are types of nuts like peanuts and cashews, that aren't necessarily toxic but that have been linked to health problems, specifically bladder stones.

So when it comes to peanuts, it's peanut BUTTER yes, peanuts raw (or salted), no."

Thanks for your concern. I think he's all better now.

1.

I reject the Virgin Birth as Biblically related. It is merely another superstition that the church uses to make money from the gullible.

That Jesus was an impostor has been conclusively proven by others. As I am not concerned with his imposture, I will not bother with that element of his deception. I am concerned with his illegitimacy; christmas is nothing more than a coverup of a Jewish family scandal. I quote the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Chapter 1, Verse 18. 18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The inference here is so clear that even a dullard like Daniel12 can understand. A young girl is betrothed to a young man. Mind you, not to a "holy ghost"; not to something intangible and unseen, but to a young man, virile and in possession of all his faculties. "Before they came together," which needs no certainly needs no explanation, the girl was found to be "with child." The writer of this narrative was fully aware of the fact that before a child is born it is necessary for a man and a woman to "come together."

Laying aside the pertinence of a child asking an explanation of what is meant by "coming together," we see the necessary male adjunct of this union by the introduction of the Holy Ghost. In claiming that it was the Holy Ghost who cohabited with Mary and was the father of Jesus, Elbert Hubbard thought it was the greatest compliment ever paid to man.

If all the acts of adultery and unfaithfulness could be blamed upon the Holy Ghost and accepted as such by the injured party, a great deal of misery and sorrow of the world would be avoided. Men are so jealous of their loved ones, that if they find them liberal even with their glances and smiles to other men, a situation hard to overcome presents itself. What, I pray you, would be the result of the situation in which we find Mary, the espoused of Joseph and mother of Jesus? I am sure the Holy Ghost story would not hold water. I am sure the young man would say: "If you are unfaithful to me before we are married, what can I expect after we are wedded?" I am inclined to think the young man would say that he was "finished with her" and would demand the return of his diamond ring. More than one proposed marriage has been broken for a far less cause than that of finding the espoused "with child."

2.

Men are very adverse to supporting other men's children. As each man, in a situation of this kind, is a law unto himself, consider the story as it concerns Joseph.

St. Matthew, Chapter 1, Verse 19. 19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Bully for Joseph! His act is commendable. Surely worthy of our praise. But why "put her away privily"? And why was he not willing "to make her a public example"? Why was he not jubilant that God complimented him to such an extent that he chose his sweetheart to bear his son and Savior of the world?

It is clear from the narrative that Joseph bore a great love for Mary and was willing to marry her despite the fact that she had been sleeping around even after her betrothal to him.

And although it is claimed by some that Pandora, a "good for nothing" neighbor, was responsible for Mary's condition, the time is far too distant for the production of any credible evidence regarding the affair, as evidence in such cases is considered the most difficult to secure. "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily," is sufficient evidence alone to brand Mary's condition with the stamp of unfaithfulness.

No doubt Mary’s parents, to avoid having a public scandal pleaded with Joseph to take Mary to a place where they were unknown until after the delivery of the child. (If Islam had existed then, they would simply have killed her as an “honor” killing.) No doubt Mary herself was anxious to repent, and in her pleadings with Joseph must have promised him -- faithfully -- that she would never again stray from the path of virtue and rectitude. Joseph evidently believed with Shakespeare, "that love is not love that alters when it alteration finds," and so he overlooked the slight "alteration" he found in Mary. If the angel of the Lord could tell Joseph about the Holy Ghost, he could surely inform him what Shakespeare was to write more than 1,500 years after the fact.

But despite his great love for Mary and despite her "slight alteration" Joseph began to have his doubts about the Holy Ghost version of her condition as the narrative continues.

4.

Though it is not my intention to enter into controversy on subjects of this kind, but to confine myself to show that the Bible is spurious, and thus, by taking away the foundation, to overthrow at once the whole structure of superstition raised thereon, I will, however, stop a moment to expose the fallacious application of this passage.

Whether Isaiah was playing a trick with Ahaz, king of Judah, to whom this passage is spoken, is no business of mine; I mean only to show the misapplication of the passage, and that it has no more reference to Christ and his mother than it has to me and my mother. The story is simply this: The king of Syria and the king of Israel, (I have already mentioned that the Jews were split into two nations, one of which was called Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem, and the other Israel), made war jointly against Ahaz, king of Judah, and marched their armies toward Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed, and the account says, verse 2, "And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind."

In this situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord (the cant phrase of all the prophets) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to satisfy Ahaz that this should be the case, tells him to ask a sign. This, the account says, Ahaz declined doing, giving as a reason that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who is the speaker, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son"; and the 16th verse says, "For before this child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest, (or dreadest, meaning Syria and the kingdom of Israel) shall be forsaken of both her kings." Here then was the sign, and the time limited for the completion of the assurance or promise, namely, before this child should know to refuse the evil and choose the good.

Isaiah having committed himself thus far, it became necessary to him, in order to avoid the imputation of being a false prophet and the consequence thereof, to take measures to make this sign appear. It certainly was not a difficult thing, in any time of the world, to find a girl with child, or to make her so, and perhaps Isaiah knew of one beforehand; for I do not suppose that the prophets of that day were any more to be trusted than the priests of this. Be that, however, as it may, he says in the next chapter, ver. 2, "And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, and I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son."

3.

St. Matthew, Chapter 1, Verse 20. 20. “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”

This quote proves that Joseph did not believe that the child conceived by Mary was of the Holy Ghost. Joseph gave the matter serious consideration. And if Joseph, who was on the scene and acquainted with all the facts of the deed, did not believe the "ghost story" how can anyone, after nearly two thousand years have elapsed, accept it? As for having the truth revealed to him in a dream by an angel, that is too laughable for mention. Truly that is "such stuff as dreams are made of." This also qualifies as “magical thinking”.

That the story of Christ and his so-called virgin birth is a fabrication cum superstition, and was invented by the deluded and superstitious believers of that time, is attested to by the following verses of the narrative. It was an attempt on the part of some to "contest or reinterpret" the "first will" or Old Testament, in an endeavor that they might become the favored ones of God. The text proves unequivocally that it was not the miraculous birth of Christ that was of so much concern; the supreme importance was the fulfillment of the so-called prophecy that "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son"; as the following text proves.

St. Matthew, Chapter 1, Verses 21-25. 21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

5.

Here, then, is the whole story, foolish as it is, of this child and this virgin; and it is upon the barefaced perversion of this story, that the book of Matthew, and the impudence and sordid interests of priests in later times, have founded a theory which they call the Gospel; and have applied this story to signify the person they call Jesus Christ, begotten, they say, by a ghost, whom they call holy, on the body of a woman, engaged in marriage, and afterward married, whom they call a virgin, 700 years after this foolish story was told; a theory which is as fabulous and as false as the superstition of God.

But to show the imposition and falsehood of Isaiah, we have only to read the sequel of this story, which, though it is passed over in silence in the book of Isaiah, is related in the 28th chapter of the second Chronicles, and which is, that instead of these two kings failing in their attempt against Ahaz, king of Judah, as Isaiah had pretended to foretell in the name of the Lord, they succeeded; Ahaz was defeated and destroyed, a hundred and twenty thousand of his people were slaughtered, Jerusalem was plundered, and two hundred thousand women, and sons and daughters, carried into captivity. Thus much for this lying prophet and imposter, Isaiah, and the book of falsehoods that bears his name.

In the 14th verse of the 7th chapter, it is said that the child should be called Immanuel; but this name was not given to either of the children otherwise than as a character which the word signifies. That of the prophetess was called Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and that of Mary was called Jesus.

I challenge any christer to prove that god and jesus exist now, or existed then. Holy Ghost? Give me a break.

Schaum, are you sure about the poisonous nature of peanuts for dogs, and that's it's not just that your dog is allergic? One of the vets I used to work for used to hide pills for dogs in gobs of peanut butter, and it's how I medicate my dogs as well - have done so for years, and never had a problem.

Anyway, glad he's feeling better.

Onofrio:

"Cheap. Disingenuous. Condescending. Sanctimonious. Smug. etc etc etc..."

.,..and a superstition that is without any proof or reality. There is not, and has never been, a god -- and there is no son of god.

Counterwww:

"Will you disdain them until the end?"

There is no "end". That is another christer delusion. You have not found christ, you have found a way to avoid confronting the fact that you are alone in the universe, yet you are connected to everything in the universe. You are delusional.

I have repeatedly asked you for proofs of your god, and you can never offer them. Why should anyone want to join you in your condition?

Susan Jacoby (echoed by several commentors) opines:
" This annual battle over Christmas is becoming as tiresome as that awful, ubiquitous ditty, "It's the most wonderful time of the year...." If I had to choose between getting rid of that headache-inducing song and getting rid of the White House manger, I'd choose to ban the song."

This is probably just a case of Christmas Envy. The truth is, Christmastide is called "The Most Wonderful Time of the Year" because it is for the overwhelming number of us Americans and Westerners.

Unquestionably, Christmas is the most powerful holiday of the Year in the US, despite concerted governmental and commercial efforts to set up other dates as secular holidays. From either a cultural or commercial pov, it outshines the Fourth of July, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving and New Year's Day combined. The day after Thanksgiving is not called "Black" (profitable) Friday because of spending associated with Thanksgiving but because it is the day off closest to Christmas when shoppers are free to concentrate on Christmas shopping.

Why have we Christians shopped for Christmas since before Television and Radio? Because gift giving has always been a way to share the joy in the Risen Savior, Mary's Boy Child Jesus Christ Who was born on Christmas Day!! I myself have always particularly loved sharing the Story of the events that went on around the Creche with my children because of the close connection they have to the Christ Child.

The "Mexicanization" of America is bringing a new level of joy to the Christmas Season with their love for the Mother of God that is expressed so well in the Dec. 12 Feast of Our Lady of Guadelupe. Some of the same excitement that brings millions to the Mexico City Basilica every Dec. 12 is now communicated by Mexican communities throughout the US that are increasingly bringing celebrations in honor of Nuestra Senora de Guadelupe to the general attention of "Anglos" such as myself.

And Ms. Jacoby may not like Christmas carols much, but hers is clearly a minority view. Christmas carols are played as much as they are because most people love them. To the extent people on this board do not, that should be put down to a case of "de gustibus non disputandum...."

Now obviously, there has been great corruption of Christmas caused by the commercialization of the Feast, but that is "Mr. Macy and Mr. Gimbel's" (and Hollywood's) fault primarily. The fact remains that most of us love Christmas and look forward to it every Year. To the extent any of you don't: be of Good Cheer anyway. So: Seasons' Greetings to all of you who wish it that way, even though "Joyeux Noel" "Feliz Navidad" and "Merry Christmas" are much more full-spirited greetings that I otherwise would wish you.

Counterww,

Thee to Schaum:
"Those that focus on eternal damnation (I don't) must realize- we everything to gain by coming to God through Christ.

I did my job, and told you about it."

Potty trained, too? Bravo! Now Daddy just needs to learn you how to wipe your ar*e proper after poopsies.

Sleep tight, little bunny...

Counterww,

"No one is happy to see anyone reject Christ.
If I sound like I am happy that people do this, my apologies."

Aw, a lachrymose christocroc mouthing a crock of s**t. How unnovel.

You want Hell, you need Hell, you can't live without Hell. And neither can your incompetent God, who creates only to incinerate.

"This does not mean that I should not present the gospel- that God loves us through the Lord and savior Jesus Christ, and that love, joy, peace gentleness etc etc is available to all through him"

Etc etc indeed - a litany rendered trite and irksome by its manifest unfulfilment.

Cheap. Disingenuous. Condescending. Sanctimonious. Smug. etc etc etc...

ONOFRIO

No one is happy to see anyone reject Christ.

If I sound like I am happy that people do this, my apologies.

This does not mean that I should not present the gospel- that God loves us through the Lord and savior Jesus Christ, and that love, joy, peace gentleness etc etc is available to all through him

Sorry SSCHAUM.. I found Christ, and this is the ultimate thing any person can find.

I have lost myself and gained Christ, just as Paul spoke of in his letters.

This is about losing an argument, sir, it is about gaining love, joy peace , gentleness, etc etc.

You gain love and gain freedom in Christ.

Those that focus on eternal damnation (I don't) must realize- we everything to gain by coming to God through Christ.

I did my job, and told you about it.

Others will too. Will you disdain them until the end?

tojby_2000,

Ernst Renan, yes? The Origins of Christianity. First to introduce parallels btw. Mithraism and Christianity?

Resurrection, cave, bread and wine, etc. Can you say more?

Did Politically Correct Pam go on strike? Its been 2-3 days since we've had a Great Teaching. I'm beginning to feel neglected.

Farnaz:

Actually, I had three pet raccoons. It is no longer legal, but years ago you could buy raccoons from breeders of domesticated "exotic" animals. I bought three. They were a lot of fun, and a lot of work, for many many years.

"Jesus is the reason for the season." is ahistorical clap-trap. The early Jesus worshipers, eager to distinguish themselves from the Jews who had become anathema to Caesar since the Jewish Wars (70-73CE), selected for themselves the same holiday season the Romans used for the Saturnalia. And a very good choice it was. The Saturnalia occasioned lots of gift giving and the 25th of December was the birthday of the popular god, Mithras, who also resurrected after his death. Assigning another risen-from-the-dead deity the b'day of a well known god made these Christian/Jews less weird. It worked.
No one, neither then nor now, has any real idea when the little man from Galilee was actually born.

HEY EVERYBODY!

Turn on Comedy Central NOW and watch South Park. It is the second part of a two part episode.

Eric was so anxious for the new veriosn of Ntendo Wii that he froze himself in the wilderness so he could be thawed out next week so the time would go faster. But he stayed frozen until the year 2500, where the cartoon animation is a little clearer. In that time, there is a war raging between the major world powers, the Atheist League and the Atheist Alliance.

In the meantime, back in the current year, Richard Dawkins has been hired to teach evolution at the South Park school, and he is having an affair with the teacher who is transgendered.

Now the next part begins.

Daniel ITLD Thank you! I will continue asking as questions arise.

Right now, just let me say that if I had a christmas tableau, you would be one of the wise men.

You know it is the same with our school, They no longer have Christmas concerts which is a shame.

Discount Tires Online
Vermont Maple Syrup
Webmaster Forum

Schaum,

Poor puppy! And poor puppy owner! But, as you say, he seems to know you didn't mean it, probably understood how hard you tried to save him, your distress, etc. Dogs are intuitive, are they not?

"Except for a raccoon with pancreatic cancer. He was pretty sick."

You had a pet raccoon?

Onofrio:

"Methinks it were Made in China"

I suppose thats where all the plastic dashboard jesuses, so dear to the rcc, come from.

Well, I'm going to surf the net and see what evil the Islamic killing cult has done in the world today.

For anyone interested in a non-confessional study of the historicity of Jesus see Earl Doherty's recently revised, expanded and updated book "The Jesus Puzzle", linked below.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

Schaum,

Re "Jesus is the reason for the season."

Methinks it were Made in China by battery five-year-olds, along with all the plastic Santas.

Onofrio:

"Hellmonger...with extra dollops of sinner-giblet pâté and lashings of Lamb's blood chutney!"

Actually, roast lamb of god sounds great to me.

Counterww,

Thee to Schaum:

"Outside of that, I have nothing to lose. I get joy, peace, love, all the fruits of the spirit.
You get - skepticism, disdain, doubt, etc etc.
Then when I die, nothing happens if I am wrong.
On the other hand, if you are wrong, its going to be a sad day for you on the other side.
I pity you sir."

Won't it be great when the 98% of humanity God has predestined to Hell finally get what's a-comin' ! And you finally get to enjoy your nyah-nyah triumphalism forever! Ah, the Lord's Big BBQ - happy days!

Happy Smug B*stardry to you too, Hellmonger...with extra dollops of sinner-giblet pâté and lashings of Lamb's blood chutney!

Onofrio:

"Jesus is the reason for the season."

You are a poet. How long do you reckon it took to develop this gem? Or where it originated? My bet would be around East Douchebag, Alabama.

From a babe in a manger, born to a woman who never had sex with her husband, to a corpse hanging on a roman torture device ... do you christians realize just how barbaric you are?

How many invocatins of moronity do you have to maintain, 24 hours a day, just to believe this crap?

Oh, and a merry christmas to you.

Volkmare,

O female horse of the Teutons,

Thee:
"Jesus is the reason for the season."

He is indeed; Christmongery's agelong OPEN SEASON on pagans, dissenters, GLBT folk, colonial subjects, and (especially) Jews.

You CAN'T DEAL with that, clearly.

Might sully your retail binge and your stolen solar cult.

Happy Smug B*stardry!

Just had him out, in the rain, for a walk. Ran into the couple next door who tell me their dog is in the animal hospital -- with flu! No idea dogs could get flu. I've never had a sick animal. Except for a raccoon with pancreatic cancer. He was pretty sick. But this is the first experience I've had with dogs being ill.

Farnaz:

Allergic? Well, turns out that peanuts are really poisonous for dogs. I didn't know that. We were eating dry roasted peanuts last night while talking, he wanted some, so I kept feeding them to him. About 2:30 this morning he got really VIOLENTLY ill...almost projectile-like vomiting. Got him to the 24-hour animal hospital in Roanoke, by which time he'd stopped vomiting, and after Q&A about what he'd been eating, they tell me I've just about killed him. So... He seems ok now, still a little down-tailed. But he's following me around, so I guess he's forgiven me.

Schaum:

Scotties are alergic to peanuts, eh? What did he eat? What happened to him?

Also, have you seen B.B. King perform live with Bobbie Blue Bland? (I know they won't be live in heaven, so I'm just askin'.)

Farnaz:

"I also don't know WTF you mean by "girly." You need to get out more."

Nah, Farnaz, it isn't getting OUT more that he needs! Oh, yeah...he was a social worker. That means he spent a lot of time with vulnerable children....I wonder....

Colin:
What parent would not be disappointed with the awful truth; their son is not really a boy at all, but a girly boy. The disappointment must have been crushing for dad.
---------------------------------
Guess what, Colin, old friend, I'm disappointed. I understand your upset over Schaum's behavior to Pam. One among several good things that I can say about Pam is that she would never go where you just did, not in a million years. If Schaum called you an "idiot," that is unfortunate. He could have done worse.

I also don't know WTF you mean by "girly." You need to get out more.

Colinnicholas:

My bet would be that 'disappointment' is a word your wife uses a lot. I guess you are not getting any tension relief from the Cialis, huh? Too bad. Still, you can putter around the garden and mutter around the house. I doubt your wife is really missing much anyway.

Pamsm;

I just got home from my therapy sessions. I was rushed there early this morning, in a kind of emergency. Schbum tore into me earlier and actually called me a terrible name leaving me limp and distraught. Dare I repeat what this slick wordsmith called me? It was very original - inspired even. He called me an idiot, and I was immediately crushed. I spent all day talking to my therapist about it, and he reassured me that I will get over it, just to give it time. Then he gave me a copy of a book by someone named Dostoyevsky, called The Idiot. I flipped through the book and realized that Schbum might actually have been complimenting me. It's a funny old world isn't it?

You might want to check the previous blog. I followed your chat with Schbum from the beginning, and it is very interesting. Seems like the word 'disappointed' blew him out of the water. It's no doubt a word he's heard most of his life, especially in his youth. What parent would not be disappointed with the awful truth; their son is not really a boy at all, but a girly boy. The disappointment must have been crushing for dad. And for GB too.Might want to avoid that particular word when chatting with him. He becomes enraged whenever anyone uses that bad word in his prescence. Weirdly though, other words enrage him too. Like 'altruism' and 'clarity' and 'goodness' too. So avoid those terms. He is, of course, emotionally disturbed, even though he may be a bright. He may be. Frankly I have my doubts.

The sadistic streak is understandable when you consider his background. Attacking your sexuality was very clever, wasn't it? I wonder where he got that amazing idea? A bit below the belt though - I would say, but effective. It's not a tactic I would use, of course. Not even with a queer. It's just not done.

Farnaz:

(from the other thread) "a lot of outside help that they didn't really need, apologies to B.B. King."

Ah! Are you also a BB King fan? I considered naming my previous scottie Lucille. Then settled on Leah.

Apropos of scotties: I've always known that things like garlic and chocolate are poisonous for dogs. I never knew that peanuts were. Now I do. Very early morning trip to an emergency vet clinic in Roanoke! Today I got to wash out the interior of the car.

Probably, if there is a heaven, the first several non-hours post-mortal will feature
B. B. King with Bobby Blue Bland.

CounterWW:
Then when I die, nothing happens if I am wrong.
On the other hand, if you are wrong, its going to be a sad day for you on the other side.

Pascal's wager is incomplete, as it posits only two possibilities.
What if you discover when you die that there is one and only one god, but it's not JHWH, and he/she/it is royally p-o'd about your lack of faith. You'll be just as screwed as you consider all us non-Christians to be.
Christianity is not an iron-clad afterlife insurance policy.

Counterwww:

You resort to the bible to prove your point? Thats called self-referencing. Logically, it doesn't wash. Sorry. You lose again.

The Origins of Christmas

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/12/07/world/1207-IRAN_index.html

No : Counterww

what you find about Jesus in the text by Josephus ? Has been agreed that it was inserted later . Josephus did not write it , but some later scribe who wanted to make it seem that the claim of Jesus was ligitmate.

there were 9 historians living at the time supposedly Jesus did and not one wrote of him.

Odd considering the crime before the Romans of treason would have been a headliner. sedition. ( not to mention that the story of Barabbas ? could not have happened ever.. Rome never released prisoners via a public vote or choice. ever. )

as for the Resurrection ? no proof there either. Many christians claim it was witnessed by many yet not one word written of something that would have been a headliner.

fact .. deal with it.

HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE !

Jesus isn't the reason for the season ! He, if indeed existed , is pointed to be born in spring ! remember ,, there is zero proof Jesus in the biblical writings as stated existed. Fact. sorry.

More than likely it's a character based on an amalgamation of various myths ,stories , people and teachers of the time.

yet so many claim fact because Jerusalem exists or some other lame argument. Heck , London exists that doesn't make Harry Potter real.

AND not to forget Jesus didn't fulfill the prophesy to be considered a messiah anyway ( despite the churches twisting of said prophesy ) and as well as the charecter of Jesus says 3 different times NOT to preach to gentiles !! at all. Like any Jew of the day would have thought gentiles were dogs.

fyi - I'm a former christian who actually learned the history and not just swallowed what was preached to me. Beliefs are not facts. personal experience is not fact.

deal with it Mark.

Typical Schaum.

There are plenty of historical references not only in the NT, but you discount that right away. Josephus was another source.

Outside of that, I have nothing to lose. I get joy, peace, love, all the fruits of the spirit.

You get - skepticism, disdain, doubt, etc etc.

Then when I die, nothing happens if I am wrong.

On the other hand, if you are wrong, its going to be a sad day for you on the other side.

I pity you sir.

Dear EFavorite

You can ask me anything you want. Maybe "Providence" is just a word, a place-holder, in my mind to take up the empty spot, that I do not understand. I do not pretend that it is any more than that.

Also, I do believe that all of the rock-solid Christians posting here about their belief in Jesus Christ as the reason for Christmas (deal with it), and the Islamic extremists who would blow you up if you disagreed with them, that they have that same empty spot, also, of uncertainty in their minds, which they seek to deny with their plaintive cries of certainty. I am not convinced that they really do believe as solidly as they claim to.

Efavorite

No, I do not believe in the supernatural. I do not believe in magic, fortune-telling, seances, mediums, ghosts, demonic posessions, excorcisms, reading tea-leaves, nor in finding secret messages in the Book of Revelations.

What I call Providence is part of the real world. But it is unknowable to us. When I say "us," I mean the human species; there are no exceptions for "gifted" people with special abilities to know of a super-natural world.

Not one Christian here is being honest with what simple observation would tell you. And Christians have no one to blame but themselves;

MONEY IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON.

THIS IS THE CELEBRATION OF THAT MOST INFLUENTIAL OF AMERICAN RELIGIONS, CAPITALISM!

Tis' the time to keep the wheels of commerce greased with false claims of religiousity and the myth of the little baby jeebus.

Halleluyah! Can I get an Amen?

"Jesus was here and rose again.

Deal with it now, or deal with it on the other side. It is your choice."

-----------

That's a False choice.

There is very little proof that Jesus ever existed historically and absolutely no evidence that he or anyone else ever rose from the dead at all. And in all likelihood, there is no "other side" either so your choice is completely false.

Given that your story is so full of so many unexplainable holes, I would suggest that you believers have a hell of lot more to "deal with" "now" than we do.

Khote:

"Christians in gay apparel..."

Have you taken a look at the poop in his long white dresses and ermine shawls? Looks like gay apparel to me.

"don we now our gay appar-el ... fal flalalal"

yeah, right. Christians in gay apparel, you know I always knew there was something funny about how much they say they hate the gays.

WICCAN:

Thanks for the descriptions and the link.

Sounds much like my plans for Christmas day lunch, except I'm going to roast a duck, which Christian has never had, instead of a turkey.

Evidently the christers have left no religion/culture unstripped in the effort to establish christeranity.

Now where can I get a yule log...

Merry Meet, Schaum!

If you strip all things relating to Jesus from Christmas, you've pretty much got Yule.

"WINTER SOLSTICE

The night of the Winter Solstice is the longest night of the year. Now darkness triumphs; and yet, gives way and changes into light. The breath of nature is suspended. All wait while within the cauldron, the Dark King is transformed into the infant light. We watch for the coming dawn, when the Great Mother gives birth to the divine Child Sun, who is the promise of the summer. We call the Sun from the womb of the night. Our Blessed Lady carries in her young womb - the womb which has birthed all things into being. Our Lady turns the wheel once more. Since it is a solar festival, it is celebrated by fire and the use of the Yule log. It is a time to let go of all fears, all doubts, all outworn ideas, all projects finished - anything in our lives that holds us away from the new beginnings that will lead to new growth. It is a time to let go of the past and walk toward the light. Some witches light a gold candle in the cauldron and jump the cauldron of rebirth making a wish for her to be a better person in the coming year. On this longest night, we renew and rebirth our bodies and spirit self. This is when we plant our seeds of change, whether it be truth, love, friendship, etc.

Candle Colors: Red, green, white and especially silver and gold. You can have scented candles of Yule incense or pine, bayberry or holiday potpourri. Incense: Cinnamon, myrrh, cloves, jasmine, aloe wood and frankincense, which are predominantly solar mixture of scents. Bayberry, cedar, pine and rosemary.

Gemstones: Cat's eye and ruby

Foods: Roasted turkey, nuts, fruitcakes, caraway, eggnog and mulled wine."

The above is from Hecate's Cauldron.

Remembering that there are as many ways to celebrate Yule as there are pagans, this site gives a decent overview:

http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/yulethelongestnight/a/About_Yule.htm

Counterww:

"Jesus was here and rose again."

Prove it, or deal with your failure.

Thomas Moses Paul Baum

You are right.

Schaum- INCORRECT.

Jesus was here and rose again.

Deal with it now, or deal with it on the other side. It is your choice.

KHOTE:

"This worship of a corpse on a stick just makes me sick."

Thats funny!

It is interesting that in the roman catholic corporation, the emphasis is on the dead/dying Christ. Their crucifixes always show a dead/dying human form. At least in Protestant denominations, especially Lutheran and Anglican, the emphasis is on the RISEN christ, who, having defeated death, is superimposed over the crucifix as a living being. Seems more consistent with the supposed miracle of 'resurrection'. Ah, if only god and resurrection could be proved. I'd believe in a minute.

If only there were a war on Christmas. Do these christian fools think there actually is such a war?

This worship of a corpse on a stick just makes me sick.

How the Obamas decorate their living quarters isn't my concern. I don't care if they put up a creche, a menorah, mistletoe, or a picture of Carl Sagan.
I do think the AFA is hilarious in their practically p1$$ing themselves praising Old Navy's ad with the ice-skating mannequins gushing about their great deals on fleece hoodies and then chorusing "Merry Christmas" as promoting Christian values. Cuz Jesus was all about bargains on fleece hoodies.

As someone who's not a Christian, the decorations don't matter to me. The Obamas live in the White House and are Christian, so why is it a problem if they choose to decorate for their holiday? It's not establishing a national religion.

Which brings me to my point. I would much rather focus on the attempts to create public policy based on someone's religious beliefs than a display in the White House. And perhaps to stop some of the more militant Christians from trying to force their beliefs down everyone's throats. There's more important issues if you're looking at religion in this country.

Here in New York, the Sun King is icumen in!
Happy December 8th!

Thomas Moses Paul Baum:

"Actually since Jesus is God-Incarnate, Jesus is the "reason for the season" because if God did not create the world there would be no season to have a reason for."

There is no god; jesus, if he existed at all, was probably a homeless schizophrenic...and the season would, thanks to much earlier pagan religions, exist and flourish, as it does now. In fact, Christmas is the reason for outrageous spending, and nothing else.

Norrie, Merry Meet!

Did you catch the link to http://humanlight.org/ on Herb Silverman's thread? Don't know if Madison, Wisc. is close to you, but it sounds like a grand time.

Wiccan:

"Yule is still being celebrated as the Sun King's birth and the Return of the Light, and that's the truth. Deal with it, and Blessed Be."

Yule sounds like a delightful celebration. Can you give details?

remielcrow

You wrote, "Actually, the winter solstice is the original reason for the season. All other festivals from Christmas through Saturnalia came afterward. Jesus is the reason for Christmas."

Actually since Jesus is God-Incarnate, Jesus is the "reason for the season" because if God did not create the world there would be no season to have a reason for.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Volkmare wrote:

"Jesus is the reason for the season.
Deal with it."

No, Volkmare, the Return of the Sun and the winter solstice is the reason for the season.

How about you deal with it?

"Remielcrow
The world celebrates Christmas TODAY to celebrate the birth of Christ.
We all know he was actually born in the spring, and that Christmas replaced a pagan holiday.
We are in the Christmas season and the vast majority of this nation is celebrating the birth of Christ.
Like I said before to Susan, deal with it.
Mark
Always seek the truth."

Mark,

Christmas didn't replace a pagan holiday. Yule is still being celebrated as the Sun King's birth and the Return of the Light, and that's the truth. Deal with it, and Blessed Be.

Gee. Christmas. Exciting. Heavy debates about signs and symbols.

We ought to propose an acceptable humanist symbol for public display. I'm serious.

As for health care, I'm concerned about the Christian Science business. I'm concerned about the Vaticanization of health care, considering the fact that I did not elect the Vatican to represent me in Congress. (No one did.)

Remielcrow

The world celebrates Christmas TODAY to celebrate the birth of Christ.

We all know he was actually born in the spring, and that Christmas replaced a pagan holiday.

We are in the Christmas season and the vast majority of this nation is celebrating the birth of Christ.

Like I said before to Susan, deal with it.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Mark,

Actually, the winter solstice is the original reason for the season. All other festivals from Christmas through Saturnalia came afterward. Jesus is the reason for Christmas.

Susan, I couldn't agree more. This is a tempest in a teapot that just won't go away. If there really is a "war on Christmas," then I don't see any evidence of it. Instead, I see lights, bells, bows, "Merry Christmas" signs and banners, and nativity scenes everywhere (and by the way, thanks for getting that insufferable song stuck in my head!), and, as far as I know, Christmas is still a United States federal holiday (one of three American federal holidays based on Christian tradition, by the way).

If people want to wish me a Merry Christmas instead of a Happy Holiday, I wish them a Merry Christmas right back. As a non-theist, I think it would be really rude of me to rain on their parade and cast disrespect on their beliefs during a time of year they believe is holy.

It would be nice if they granted the same respect to people who celebrate different holidays at this time of year, or don't celebrate at all. Seems to me this would be an ideal place to start modeling "peace on earth and good will" to all.

Susan,

Jesus is the reason for the season.

Deal with it.

Mark
Always seek the truth.