Is it time to think about the return of God and Jesus for the End Times Judgement Day?
God created Life on Earth and made Humans as the Caretakers of this Life. How have we done with out Caretaking? We have polluted land, sea, and air, We have trash dumps and oil spills on land and sea. We have nuclear bombs on land and sea.
What belief system taught us to Kill God's creation?
When God/Father of Life on Earth, and Jesus return in the End Times, what will they find has happened to their Balanced Creation?
Is it Time to start housecleaning our dirty Home, and get ready for visitors from Space?
But like all her sort she never goes to islamic countries.
She just whines, moans and insults the FREE country she is in while taking and benefitting from all the benefits.
Victoria, for a time I lived in Saudi Arabia. You know the place. The land of the holy mosques. Sharia rules the day. You'd know what everyone around you believed. You'd love it. You wouldn't have to wonder how all those non-believers form their ethical decisions because nobody in Saudi Arabia would dare to admit they don't believe. You could even go to the town center on Friday to watch poor third country national guest workers get their hands chopped off. There's a nice country for you. Ah, the joy.
Victoria, you've never had an atheist respond to your what do atheists believe question because being an atheist is not a belief system. There are no core atheist beliefs, no atheist dogma. Atheists are simply people who don't believe in god. That's all. That's the only thing that unites them/us. Your question is like saying what do people who don't like green beans eat for dinner. You won't get one answer. You'll get as many answers as there are non green bean eaters.
Your posts usually seem pretty intelligent. Do you really not get this?
---if they all believe different things there can be no cohesion of intention to bring any of these things about----
Sounds like the many fractured Muslim elements actually.
Fractures that lead to one lot of Muslims hacking off the heads of other Muslims and dumping them on Baghdad streets.
ok betty- so taking that a step further-
how do they propose to do these things?
except for the rejection of the authoritarian belief there is no difference in this philosophy and islam as it is written-
so where do you go from there?
heraclitus- i would submit religious have no monopoly on mans ability and tendency to be self righteous- and being religious does not mean always being dogmatic at all- or having an aversion to truth- for me its an exercise in finding the universal truths that all people are prone to-
so what then? the how?
if they all believe different things there can be no cohesion of intention to bring any of these things about- they remain in the realm of ideals-
i hope you all understand that i am not criticizing- i have just never had the opportunity to ask these questions and i ask them with respect and curiosity
peace
Contains ALL the good things any Religion believes
and NONE of the BAD things
(kinning for Christ,killing the infidels,
we will go to heaven and you will go to hell, the self righteousness that many religious people exhibit, the reliance on Faith that ignores plain evidence, the inevitable tendency of Religions to foster an Authoritarian Power structure that is dogmatic, and averse to Truth)
Granting that THEY ALL BELIEVE different things
and
THEY have NO DOGMA
here is a cogent statement of what Humanists believe, in general and with out dogmatism.
Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.
well im glad i asked because i got some very satisfying answers-
i just wanted to give folks a chance to define themselves as i didnt want to assume anything-
possibly i was too blunt?
if i want to know i just come out and ask-
no superiority or inferiority ws implied
just curiosity-
people express alot what they DONT believe- but thats not the same as knowing what they do believe-
i dont want to pigeonhole anyone so i use the catchall atheist- although i know not everyone is -
ashley- if i asked for stupid answers THAT would be a slur- the implication being that was all people were capable of-
i liked james spiritual definitions there- and i think the humanist affirmations are pretty timeless (but they sound the same as my relgion to me) but thats probably a good thing-
i mean they always have- but thats me
thanks all!
and no- im not ee cummings- i draw my inspiration from archy the cockroach- a vers libre poet reincarnated into the body of a cockroach
peace
I STILL THINK THAT RELIGOUS PREFERENCES SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC VOLUNTARILY DURING A CANDIDATES DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY, THE SAME AS FOR THEIR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES. FURTHER DISCUSSION SHOULD BE PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES AT HAND, AND SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO BECOME AN ISSUE ITSELF. WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS AND VERY DIFFICULT OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME. WE DO NOT NEED TO BE WASTING PRECIOUS TIME ON EMOTIVE WEDGE ISSUES THAT HAVE NO PLACE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA. AGAIN, WHO STARTED THIS CRAPPY PIMPING OF THE CHURCH FOR VOTES? I NOW QUOTE FROM EARLIER STATEMENTS CAPTURED IN A DISCUSSION FORUM AT THE WASHINGTON POST REGARDING BARRY GOLDWATER:
Revisionism? Yes, and you are full of it zjr78xva Goldwater would have kicked Neo-Con butt, unlike far too many of the rear-end kissing pseudo conservatives of today. QUOTE By the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president and the growing involvement of the religious right in conservative politics, Goldwater's libertarian views on personal issues were revealed, which he believed were an integral part of true conservativism. Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention. In fact, his own daughter Joanne chose to have an abortion before her first marriage at the age of 20, and he supported her decision. He was also not against homosexuals in the military. As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties. In his 1980 Senate reelection campaign, Goldwater won support from religious conservatives but in his final term voted consistently to uphold legalized abortion.[citation needed] Goldwater also disagreed with the Reagan administration on certain aspects of foreign policy (e.g. he opposed the decision to mine Nicaraguan harbors). Notwithstanding his prior differences with Dwight Eisenhower, Goldwater in a 1986 interview rated him the best of the seven Presidents with whom he had served. After his retirement in 1987, Goldwater described the conservative Arizona Governor Evan Mecham as “hardheaded” and called on him to resign, and two years later stated that the Republican Party had been taken over by a “bunch of kooks”. In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator said, When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. Some of Goldwater's statements in the 1990s aggravated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals: “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.” He also said, “You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.” In 1996 he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: “We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?” In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, “Every good Christian should be concerned,” Goldwater retorted: “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.” UNQUOTE Yes, I have little doubt that Goldwater would have kicked GWB right in the ass too.
HOPE THAT DIDN'T OFFEND, BUT I THINK IT IS PERTINENT IN ASSESSING WHERE WE ARE, AND HOW WE GOT HERE. GOD BLESS YOU AND KEEP YOU IN LIGHT, LOVE, AND PEACE.
I accept a High Tech Science translation of the Christian Bible. I was a Christian, but now am a Child of Life. I am not religious anymore, but I have Faith in the people called Man Gods in religion, that Colonized Earth, 'in the beginning'. We are in their human image.
I accept the Creation story is the Colonization of Earth by High Tech. The 'Gods' and Angels that looked like humans, were High Tech Science Pure-bred Humans. We are getting back up to the knowledge of Colonizing a planet, and reproducing by High Tech Science.
The Perfect people at the Colonization were Equal Sharing Caretakers of the Resources of Earth Earth. Earth is a spaceship with all resources aboard to be Shared with all Life as on a spaceship, not stored up by a few. The Original Sin was falling from High Tech Science Pure-bred reproduction to Heterosexual Body Birth reproduction that made Defective Genetic Mispbred Humans, that started Killing their Brothers/Sisters of Life like Cain killed Abel.
The rest of religious writing is about how Fallen Man became Killers of all Life on Earth and of their Eco System. And how they set up religions about the Life before the Fall of our High Tech Ancestors and their Equal Lifestyle. This became Heaven in religion. All the teachings of Heaven is about an Equal Sharing Lifestyle with no killing, starvation, homelessness, inequality or death.
There was another Soceity before ours that also had a High Tech Science and population explosion. It was the Noah/Atlantis Society, that caused the Planetary Flood, with their pollution and weapons of massive destruction. The Flood lasted over one year, and Man had to restart over again, up to our High Tech Science today.
Now we have our Ozone Canopy about destroyed and we have our Planet covered with nuclear bombs planted on land and sea, and are setting up the 'Arm'ageddon of the Last Days, and the Judgement Day Fire with our waste dumps, pollution. Our nuclear waste is on land and in the ocean.
Jesus, was regenerated to a Pure-bred Body by the Angel in the tomb. and he did go up into Space with our High Tech Ancestors, and they will return before the Judgement Day Fire to 'regenerate' those that are left to Pure-bred Bodies and take them to a new planet they are Colonizing, with the hope that they will not 'fall' to Body Birth and ruin that planet. This is all in the Christian Bible with a High Tech translation.
Our High Tech Ancestors are not the Killing God of the Bible. When we translate the Bible with High Tech, the Killing verses of a God that flew in the air, was the history of the Noah/Atlantis Society. We need to see if we can separate out the Old Testament of all kinds of writings from before and after the Flood. And separate out all the God verses of our High Tech Ancestors and the Noah/Atlantis Society.
Our Ancestors do not Kill and gave the Commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill. Jesus also taught not to kill and turn the other cheek. What would happen if all people that say they Love Jesus and aay they follow him, would give up Killing and War today?
I hope this happens before GWB takes us into Iran, as it sound like they are finding reasons to do so, and prophecy is getting closer to the Big Power Nation in the End Times, falling from power.
A person with a sincere faith in a reasonably legitimate religion wouldn't take an oath of office to uphold etc. the Constitution and then do something else.
If a person has some other agenda they are not supposed to run or take the oath of office, or are supposed to be removed if they violate their oath of office.
It should be concluded that it is necessary to know what is going on in both religion and in the political arena to have an understanding of what our country is up against. Knowing one side of the equation doesn't seem to impart much significant knowledge.
This column is one of the more sloppy and irrelevant on this site.
This fellow above said:
"In the end, you can’t really separate faith from politics, because our faith doesn’t mean anything unless it influences everything we do, including our political decisions."
In the end, people who can't separate irrational thinking (faith based on nothing) from the process of government (politics) shouldn't be given an unopposed voice in the public sector.
Winning is more important than anything else to people who know they are losers. Like this chap.
oh jesus pleeze bill press i always loved you on tv but really you must know that all those hokus/pokus religions are run by homophobic money grabbing ministers/preachers!
its all a scam. there is no there, there! RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE ANSWER! for all of my 71 years on this earth i have done without that crap and am still happy and going strong.
90% of all scientist are non-believers i have more faith in them than the falwell/robertson/dodson ripoff crowd!
The GHW Bush and Barbara Bush family is a political family and will use any ploy to get their way politically. Even by using their phony cries of personal faith. They couldn't have spawned the faithless actions of the breed they have if there had been any sense of the existence of faith in GHW Bush and/or Barbara Bush to begin with. Having no faith they couldn't pass it on to their progeny. And that is exactly where we are. Iraq and New Orleans for just two examples. russell
"i keep hoping to hear atheists define themselves or tell us what they believe- but it never happens-
ok- we get it- you dont like relgion- but what DO you believe in?"
--------
No, you don't get it, which is sad considering how actively you post on these boards. You write copiously, but don't seem to have any interest in understanding what others say.
I'll try one final time, though I suspect it's a waste. Atheism is not the dislike of religion. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less, no matter how you wish to characterize it.
--------
"arent there any non-relgious who have something intelligent and compelling to introduce to the forum?"
--------
Nice slur, and evidence that you haven't read these forums in detail, or made any effort to communicate with others. For instance, Ba'al consistently makes insightful and lucid posts. He also displays respect for others by writing in complete sentences, something you still can't be bothered to do. You're not E.E. Cummings, you know.
--------
"surely if youve defined what you dont like- youve taken it a step further and started to elucidate what it is that you DO want as far as ethics and morality and living with humans?"
--------
Again, atheists lack belief in gods. Dislike of religion is not atheism, it is dislike of religion.
My personal ethical standards are pretty much those of Humanism, which I find much superior to the mostly incoherent ramblings of Islam, Christianity, Hindu and other cults based on the mythology of bronze-age goat herders.
I believe in striving for the things I want, and letting others do the same, as long as we are not tangibly harming one another.
Has it occurred to you that you hold atheism to a differnt standard than you not hold religious belief? That is, you seem to expect atheism to completely define a person's world view, and cry foul when it does not. But I doubt you do the same when it comes to believers. I mean, if a person says she's Methodist, that does not tell you how she votes, or her opinion on global warming, or if she's a dog person. But that doesn't seem to concern you. Why the hypocrisy?
---------
"i have never had an atheist respond to this oft posted question..."
---------
Many, many have responded. You just weren't listening.
Someone asked for atheists to define themselves earlier and I'm curious what was meant by the comment . So I guess if I can't offer a quick explanation I will be damned by the voices of dogma and dragged along the streets lined with gold . The best way to define an athiest in my opinion would be to say he/she is someone who doesnt believe in supernaturalism , god(s) , ghosts, or spirits of another world . Perhaps because we've never seen any to note . So I guess the only alternative explanation would be to look at things in a reasonable, rational manner . I try and let realism be my guide to dealing with answers to questions that concern me. I use the laws of science to embrace understanding of topics and I don't rely on the highly irrational explanations from books like the bible, the koran and the book of morman to name a few . They are all full of ideology that make little or no sense . As for wisdom , I suppose bits of wisdom can be found in all of the ancient writings . That's where it appears Christ found most of his . ( Middle eastern religion )Those writings are strikingly similar to that of hinduism and others Though this is just a thumbnail sketch of understanding atheism I hope it gives the questioner some insight and allows him to fall deeper into the subject . May I suggest he enter the term humanism into his browser also atheism will work . That is of course if he wasnt just being sarcastic .
I'm agnostic (I can't see how anyone can be so sure of him/herself as to be an atheist). Here's my ethics, if you're interested:
a. The US Constitution and the rule of law is a good place to start.
b. Add in the Golden Rule (treat others as you want to be treated).
Where does my morality come from if not from the fear that god will burn me in hellfire after I die? From the recognition that I'm not any more important than anyone else, and that this would be a pretty poor world, and no fun to live in, if we don't respect each other.
I agree with Hermit and Betty.
The Humanist values of Kurtz that Hermit directs us to are the highest values on the moral/ethical scale.
As far as Spirituality goes, here is a list of Elements of Spirituality that I, an atheist, used in teaching a course called
"Searching for God in Classical Music."
These are all values I hold, and NONE REQUIRES a belief in God (in fact, in some cases belief in God might hurt).
Elements of Spirituality
• A sense of the meaning of life (and death)
• A sense of relation to something greater than yourself (nature, the universe, God, gods)
• An inner moral sense of right action towards others and towards nature
• Sympathy for the lives, and suffering, of other living beings, (and for yourself!).
• A reverence for creation, both natural and human, and a nurturing of the creative imagination
• Comprehensive self-knowledge and understanding.
• A developed, cultivated and broad-based
appreciation of beauty (an understanding beyond your own prejudices and experience)
• Rich experiences outside the realm of the senses
(e.g. dreams, imagination)
"i keep hoping to hear atheists define themselves or tell us what they believe- but it never happens-
ok- we get it- you dont like relgion- but what DO you believe in?"
The term atheist simply means "without god(s)", so it's not reasonable to expect anyone to define their beliefs in terms of atheism alone. Just as there are all kinds of theists (those who believe in god[s])there are all kinds of atheists (those who believe in no god[s]).
For myself, as a Humanist, I believe in all kinds of good things; in love, in beauty, justice, the commonality of our hopes and dreams as human beings.
I don't belong to any formal secular organization, and I don't want anyone to take this as a kind of "Humanist dogma", but I have found lots to agree with in the principles of Paul Kurz's Affirmations of Humanism:
"We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality."
"We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings."
I'm not an atheist but I do consider myself to be "non-religious."
To answer your question, after several decades of pondering these questions, I believe that the essential ethics of Buddhism are the best precepts to follow in life.
I have no use for the oriental cultural baggage that has encrusted traditional Buddhism and which makes it so hard for Westerners to penetrate to the core of of Buddhist thought.
I'm also agnostic as to the traditional Buddhist cosmology: the Bardo, reincarnation, infinite- eternal-steady-state universes, six planes of samsaric existence, numberless Buddhas, and so on.
But I do believe you can't do better than Buddhism's essentical ethics.
*********
P.S.: As I recall, it was adherents of Islam who blew up the ancient statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan shortly before the American invasion.
If a moral imperative cannot be universal, then it is invalid. That means all moral codes are relatively the same. A moral principle cannot be self condratictory....
HA! So Victoria thinks that unless you believe in a totally unproven supernatural entity you don't know how to act towards your fellow man!?
That you have no decency!?
Morals, ethics and knowing right from wrong are all present and correct in people who don't believe in superstitious garbage thank you very much.
Sure, there are immoral, bigotted and nasty people who do not believe in 'a God', but the difference is.....THEY CAN'T DEFEND THAT IMMORALITY, PREJUDICE AND NASTINESS AS THE SUPPOSED WORD OF A SUPPOSED GOD AND SAY IT'S OKAY!!
I don't need a GOD to know that theft, rape and murder are wrong.
But I've heard of plenty of believers (in whatever supposed one true God) state that theft, rape and murder are RIGHT... BECAUSE they scream that God says they are!
i keep hoping to hear atheists define themselves or tell us what they believe- but it never happens-
ok- we get it- you dont like relgion- but what DO you believe in?
arent there any non-relgious who have something intelligent and compelling to introduce to the forum?
surely if youve defined what you dont like- youve taken it a step further and started to elucidate what it is that you DO want as far as ethics and morality and living with humans?
You wrote; "...it will be a long time before an atheist or non-believer can get elected to any office higher than local sewer board."
Oh, really.
Ever heard of Bernie Sanders, Vermont's new Senator?
Apropos of that, and by way of explanation of Bernie's election, here's my post to another "On Faith" comment thread:
"Up here in northern New England, it's considered bad form, inappropriate, and reprehensible for a political candidate to talk about his religious affiliation and religious beliefs. Any candidate who does talk about them is almost certain to lose more votes than he gains.
There are good reasons for this Yankee disparagement of religion-talk by politicians.
First, political campaigns are supposed to be about public political issues, not theology.
Second, whatever a candidate's religious beliefs or affiliation, knowing them will tell the voter nothing about how the candidate will deal with particular issues, and so that knowledge is irrelevant to an evaluation of his candidacy.
Third, a candidate's mentioning his religious beliefs or affiliation turns the discussion away from public issues and to a debate on the merits of various religions. The candidate is basically saying. "Vote for me, I'm a (for example) Catholic, not one of those (for example) Blue-nosed Protestants."
Instead of debating the best way to fix potholes, the debate becomes "Which ethnic or social group do you identify and feel more comfortable with?" This is not good for politics, as centuries of religious warfare have shown. Not to mention that fixing potholes never gets discussed.
Fourth, just as patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, religiosity is the last refuge of scoundrel politicians.
I'll never vote for any politician who voluntarily starts talking about his religion. Fortunately most of the people in northern New England feel the same way.
Let the clap-trap of political religion-talk stay in the Bible-belt."
*******
By the way, Bill, I've lived in northern New England for several decades, and I've never heard any candidate talk about his religious beliefs or affiliation. Voters here aren't interested in them and positively DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THEM!
I don't have any religious affiliation and I got elected to our legislature five times, every time running against a "believer". So there!
Paradoxically, of course, where I live is "God's Country."
As christians we are told there's a place called heaven and a guy named God. We are told there's a place called hell and another guy called the Devil.
We are told there are beings called angels...they fly around playing harps.
Believers say it's all true...you just gotta believe.
Force yourself.Have Faith.Close your eyes and BELIEVE.
Sorry.No can do.
To have faith in such nonsense is beyond me.
In fact I find it hard to respect anyone who has does have faith. Its just too much of a stretch,here in the 21st century.
I'll take reality thanks.
You're right Jack. If faith were called by what it really is -- delusional nonsense -- who would claim it? Can you imagine rightwing Republicans talking about "people of delusion" rather than "people of faith"?
Faith has no place in politics. People should not judge politicians by their faith or lack thereof, they should be judged by their policies and actions.
I do not trust anyone who bases their decisions on faith. Descisions should be based on facts and consideration of the consequences, NOT FAITH!
Sincere faith makes for better political decision, IF AND ONLY IF that FAITH is fully translated into ACTION! But, since humans are endowed with free agency, faith's translation into action can always be altered.. depending on the weight of pressure or influence posed before it! Therefore just "mere sincere faith" might not be enough. What we need is kinda "unfaltering faith all throughout"!
I disagree with Mr. Press -- faith is no requirement or even an advantage in governing well. Mr. Press' view is an example of the danger of mixing faith and government -- one's biases will result in policies that discriminate against those whose views differ from ours. Religion has no place in a democratic government that has a Bill of Rights to protect inalienable rights.
I understand. But "wanting to win" implies a stupid electorate driven by the irrationalism of widespread religious nonsense. So how could the "wanting to win" among us possibly be considered anything more than greedy, sick, odd fellows who need "to win"?
We need no more analytical evidence than simply understanding the motivation of those who engage the process of "winning". The assumption is "great men" have to pander to the stupid masses to gain power to do "great things".
This is a dangerous joke, and we all know it.
Every president since John Kennedy (not to exclude him) has proved to be psychologically unfit for any public office. We can all do the math: Johnson, half-crazy, a self destructing bully pretending to equal Roosevelt. Nixon, a sick meglomaniac, (Ford is the only clueless exception, way too dumb to actually get elected); Carter, a self-delusional man who still believes in "the Holy Land". Reagan, an irresponsible, grandiose, murderous clown. Bush I, a jerk, a minion to his economic class. Clinton, a goofy, jerk-off with no self control, willing to pander to get over with anyone, anytime. Bush 2, a raving born-again alcoholic. Murderously stupid, the most dangerous president in history. . . These are the worst imaginable leaders a democracy might conjure, and why? Because they "wanted to win" enough to do anything it takes to "win," and we have evoled a corporate process that only the lower end of corporate class would wish to lead, and helplessly needy morons would gleefully follow.
We all lose in the process, don't we? That's why most of us don't bother to vote.
Betty,
Would it suprise you that I had the same crisis of faith? I grew up Catholic because my family was, but fell away from the church in HS and college because something was missing. For many years I had little faith of any kind. Sure I did the Christmas and Easter services but it was more a formality than any real faith. It was not until later that I began to rediscover what had been missing. I tried several different churches and denominations without success they never filled the void I was feeling. It was not until I went to a small non-demoninational church that my faith was re-awakened. It's true that part of your faith system is dependent on your parents and where you live. But it's still your choice. Nobody is forcing you to choose this faith or that one. Keep looking you'll find the answers you need...
Bud
I have no faith.
Not in the supernatural
and not in a god.
A person needs faith when what they believe
makes no sense.
If it made sense people wouldn't need faith.
I think faith is kinda like hope.
One hopes there's somebody up there,
and many structure their lives around
such hopes. And feel snuggly and warm doing it.
Whatever gets them through the day is ok.
whatever gets them through the night is alright.
Just include me out.
That candidates have to demonstrated that they are "people of faith" in some sense, is to set up "faith" as a religious qualification for office that is obviously unconstitutional. Some how, conservative religious believers have been very successful in embedding the notions of "people of faith", "faith based communities" and "initiatives" into our political rhetoric. They have done so to the point where "faith" has achieved a privileged position, unassailable from debate and elevating "people of faith" into some degree of moral paragons. And this we know is false. Like any other organization, religion has its share--perhaps more than its share--of hypocrits, cover ups, liars, deceiters, etc. This is rhetoric we need to be rid of so we can focus on the real ethical and moral questions of domestic and foreign policy.
I would claim that to be human is to be a "person of faith" and what we are talking about are beliefs. I could care less if someone believed in unicorns,God, UFO's, Allah, Jehovah, the Indian pantheon, etc. What I do care about are (1)the consequences of that person's belief for the "common good" of our country, (2) the organizations whose rhetoric is being used to express those beliefs and (3) whether those beliefs are open for debate. I'm talking here about the ethics of belief. "Sincerity" as regards belief is a sop. The depth of belief has little to do with the character of the belief itself. Nazies were certainly "sincere" as were the terrorists who flew plans into the trade towers. So let's get rid of that criteria and focus on the affirmative fact that we are all "people of faith" (that's how we get up in the morning) and we are all "people of belief" (that's how we get things done) and on the consequences of having gotten up-- on the things we do as a result of having gotten up. I would like to see a discussion of the "ethics of belief" and a conversation on the difference between "belief" and "faith."
Mr. Press,I agree that an agnostic or an atheist cannot now be elected in the US. It is the "great flaw" today--blacks, Hispanics -- all of the rainbow can be elected today. A known gay person cannot be elected to the office of the President of the US but can be elected above your "Board of Sewers". As can a female (that other once insurmountable flaw).
Religions are flawed. Because no god created A Religion; people created religionS. And they created them mostly for political gain and economic power. (And to try to explain the unexplained natural events people saw around them.) Christianity certainly was not mainly created for the salvation of souls--the desire to escape repression, the desire for political power and wealth drove it. In every faith, we are well advised: Follow the money!
Americans embrace the greatest of all flaws when we elect leaders who adopt the axiom: God Is in Charge Here. That is the greatest of all exuses for poor performance of duties. After all, how could God let his disciple fail? It is God's will that one bull-headed man can have created such misery in the world. What nonsense!
Which is the silliest? "The Devil made me do it." Or, "God told me to do it." Reason and logic, that hard master, was given no place in the chambers of the world's most powerful man.
And the costly errors mount. And more and more are slaughtered.
Oh, Thomas Jefferson! How we need you!
We who are agnostic and atheistic have the same burden borne by all once fatally flawed candidates: The large balance of the rest of Americans haven't a clue about us or know what those two words mean.
One might start to learn about the words by considering this: Atheists and agnostics are not born, anymore than Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or other beliefs are born in us. We are all converts, too; not suddenly, as Saul on the road to Damascus, but slowly, often painfully.
Years ago when I was a serious, young adult Methodist (I was truly trying to believe and live as the Methodist Church instructed me.) I was made very angry by a young agnostic who told me, "You are a Methodist by accident of circumstance. The church your family attends is the one closest to your neighborhood. If you had been born in Boston, you'd probably be a Catholic! If you had been born in the Orient, a Buddhist."
I could not get his ringing words out of my head.
I began a long journey. First, I needed to learn something about other faiths. Later, when I had the good fortune to work for a professor who taught comparitive religions, I began to observe how various practitioners conducted themselves in their relationships with others (and with their professed gods).
It was impossible not to question my own beliefs.
I had to face the fact that I simply could not ignore the hypocrisy among many of the "religiously enlightened"; nor could I longer justify the notion that Christianity is the "one true faith".
I agree that religious faith certainly does help some people to get through life's vagaries--it has just not ever helped me through. It comforts and sustains some believers through grief, but it has not comforted me--even when I truly believed that it would. Once, I thought that that was because I was weak; I didn't believe enough.
When used as a core of inner strength, religlion can be awesome. My favorite example of someone who bore horrible grief and who was borne up by her faith: Rose Kennedy.
Learning that I am unable to achieve Rose Kennedy's grace, or anything approaching it, I realized that I was agnostic. I no longer believed in a "Participating God". I still do not know whether there is a GOD, but man's religions have failed to define GOD, for me at least. And I do not view any of them as the path to enlightenment.
Agnosticism and atheism are hard to practice. They continually confront us with really difficult choices. Sometimes, I admit, I envy those who believe. But once religious belief falls away, it is not easily reassumed.
Faith has become a publicized condition of value in the last 20 years because those that have the "bully pulpit", no pun intended, have made it thier collective mission to make it an issue. These are the "Conservative Christians" that have the media's attention, through one means or another.
In my opinion, faith, not religion, has been a part of all the good, strong and decent leaders, presidents especially, that the US has had in our history. It takes reading thier respective writings to see and understand that they all had a faith in a "higher" power and they went to that faith for their respective guidance, in some way, and in most cases solace. And they, for the most part, did it without being required to make public either thier faith or religious affiliation.
Will we ever have a president that is outside of the mainstream when it comes to his or her faith? Not as long as we, as a society, make it necessary to profess your faith as a condition of election. As a practicing Christian, I am afraid that those with the "bully pulpit" have made professing faith somewhat of a fashion statement. By that I mean, you must profess the "right" faith and belief in order to gain the support you need. Much like you need to wear the right clothing style in order to be seen as a valid candidate.
All Comments (76)
The dirty girl cam.
June 22, 2007 12:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 22, 2007 12:59
The dirty girl cam.
June 22, 2007 12:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 22, 2007 12:59
The dirty girl cam.
June 22, 2007 12:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 22, 2007 12:58
The young girl in bath.
June 21, 2007 10:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 21, 2007 10:42
The young girl in bath.
June 21, 2007 10:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 21, 2007 10:42
The young girl in bath.
June 21, 2007 10:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 21, 2007 10:42
The young girl in bath.
June 21, 2007 10:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 21, 2007 10:41
http://babesxsexy4.info i
June 18, 2007 7:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 18, 2007 07:14
http://babesxsexy4.info i
June 18, 2007 7:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 18, 2007 07:14
http://babesxsexy4.info i
June 18, 2007 7:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 18, 2007 07:14
jnvaqodf qsahk xbwl gjix jszpr kmtsf kzmb
May 30, 2007 4:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 30, 2007 04:36
jnvaqodf qsahk xbwl gjix jszpr kmtsf kzmb
May 30, 2007 4:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 30, 2007 04:35
jnvaqodf qsahk xbwl gjix jszpr kmtsf kzmb
May 30, 2007 4:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 30, 2007 04:34
Is it time to think about the return of God and Jesus for the End Times Judgement Day?
God created Life on Earth and made Humans as the Caretakers of this Life. How have we done with out Caretaking? We have polluted land, sea, and air, We have trash dumps and oil spills on land and sea. We have nuclear bombs on land and sea.
What belief system taught us to Kill God's creation?
When God/Father of Life on Earth, and Jesus return in the End Times, what will they find has happened to their Balanced Creation?
Is it Time to start housecleaning our dirty Home, and get ready for visitors from Space?
Peace.
February 3, 2007 5:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 3, 2007 17:10
----There's a nice country for you---
But like all her sort she never goes to islamic countries.
She just whines, moans and insults the FREE country she is in while taking and benefitting from all the benefits.
February 1, 2007 4:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 1, 2007 16:53
Victoria, for a time I lived in Saudi Arabia. You know the place. The land of the holy mosques. Sharia rules the day. You'd know what everyone around you believed. You'd love it. You wouldn't have to wonder how all those non-believers form their ethical decisions because nobody in Saudi Arabia would dare to admit they don't believe. You could even go to the town center on Friday to watch poor third country national guest workers get their hands chopped off. There's a nice country for you. Ah, the joy.
January 31, 2007 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 31, 2007 16:07
Victoria, you've never had an atheist respond to your what do atheists believe question because being an atheist is not a belief system. There are no core atheist beliefs, no atheist dogma. Atheists are simply people who don't believe in god. That's all. That's the only thing that unites them/us. Your question is like saying what do people who don't like green beans eat for dinner. You won't get one answer. You'll get as many answers as there are non green bean eaters.
Your posts usually seem pretty intelligent. Do you really not get this?
January 31, 2007 3:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 31, 2007 15:50
---if they all believe different things there can be no cohesion of intention to bring any of these things about----
Sounds like the many fractured Muslim elements actually.
Fractures that lead to one lot of Muslims hacking off the heads of other Muslims and dumping them on Baghdad streets.
I don't think you can criticise anyone else then.
January 31, 2007 1:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 31, 2007 13:23
ok betty- so taking that a step further-
how do they propose to do these things?
except for the rejection of the authoritarian belief there is no difference in this philosophy and islam as it is written-
so where do you go from there?
heraclitus- i would submit religious have no monopoly on mans ability and tendency to be self righteous- and being religious does not mean always being dogmatic at all- or having an aversion to truth- for me its an exercise in finding the universal truths that all people are prone to-
so what then? the how?
if they all believe different things there can be no cohesion of intention to bring any of these things about- they remain in the realm of ideals-
i hope you all understand that i am not criticizing- i have just never had the opportunity to ask these questions and i ask them with respect and curiosity
peace
January 31, 2007 11:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 31, 2007 11:13
Humanist Belief vs Religious Belief
In reading over the Humanist values Betty quotes
we must note that this Value Statement
Contains ALL the good things any Religion believes
and NONE of the BAD things
(kinning for Christ,killing the infidels,
we will go to heaven and you will go to hell, the self righteousness that many religious people exhibit, the reliance on Faith that ignores plain evidence, the inevitable tendency of Religions to foster an Authoritarian Power structure that is dogmatic, and averse to Truth)
January 31, 2007 10:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 31, 2007 10:33
Sincere Faith Makes BAD POLITICAL DECISIONS
in general,and more often than not.
esp compared to "reality-based" reason and human feeling and sympathy.
Do we all agree with my Dogma?
No dissenters please. :-)
January 31, 2007 10:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 31, 2007 10:25
What Secular Atheists Believe
Granting that THEY ALL BELIEVE different things
and
THEY have NO DOGMA
here is a cogent statement of what Humanists believe, in general and with out dogmatism.
Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.
January 31, 2007 10:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 31, 2007 10:23
FRAN- Hi that was me that asked the question-
well im glad i asked because i got some very satisfying answers-
i just wanted to give folks a chance to define themselves as i didnt want to assume anything-
possibly i was too blunt?
if i want to know i just come out and ask-
no superiority or inferiority ws implied
just curiosity-
people express alot what they DONT believe- but thats not the same as knowing what they do believe-
i dont want to pigeonhole anyone so i use the catchall atheist- although i know not everyone is -
ashley- if i asked for stupid answers THAT would be a slur- the implication being that was all people were capable of-
i liked james spiritual definitions there- and i think the humanist affirmations are pretty timeless (but they sound the same as my relgion to me) but thats probably a good thing-
i mean they always have- but thats me
thanks all!
and no- im not ee cummings- i draw my inspiration from archy the cockroach- a vers libre poet reincarnated into the body of a cockroach
peace
January 31, 2007 6:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 31, 2007 06:41
FRAN- what i meant whe i asked the question was that i see people vociferously reacting against organized religions - but these are still reactions-
there was no implication of superiority or inferiority-
i dont think anyone could accuse me of not believing something- it really annoys some people how much i believe what i do-
but since i have no lack of expressing it- its something STRONG in me- it doesnt matter if it springs from a source that is palatable-
so reactions are dissatisfying to me-
ifi asked what moves people- what they Do believe in- its because im interested-
being interested in my fellow humans is the best thing to me- to try and understand what people think- how they mold their consciences-
i really am interested in how people have developd their own ethics outside of the realm of religion-
i appreciate some of the answers and am glad i asked because if i didnt ask- i wouldnt have gotten the answers.
peace
January 31, 2007 6:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 31, 2007 06:11
I STILL THINK THAT RELIGOUS PREFERENCES SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC VOLUNTARILY DURING A CANDIDATES DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY, THE SAME AS FOR THEIR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES. FURTHER DISCUSSION SHOULD BE PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES AT HAND, AND SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO BECOME AN ISSUE ITSELF. WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS AND VERY DIFFICULT OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME. WE DO NOT NEED TO BE WASTING PRECIOUS TIME ON EMOTIVE WEDGE ISSUES THAT HAVE NO PLACE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA. AGAIN, WHO STARTED THIS CRAPPY PIMPING OF THE CHURCH FOR VOTES? I NOW QUOTE FROM EARLIER STATEMENTS CAPTURED IN A DISCUSSION FORUM AT THE WASHINGTON POST REGARDING BARRY GOLDWATER:
Revisionism? Yes, and you are full of it zjr78xva Goldwater would have kicked Neo-Con butt, unlike far too many of the rear-end kissing pseudo conservatives of today. QUOTE By the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president and the growing involvement of the religious right in conservative politics, Goldwater's libertarian views on personal issues were revealed, which he believed were an integral part of true conservativism. Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention. In fact, his own daughter Joanne chose to have an abortion before her first marriage at the age of 20, and he supported her decision. He was also not against homosexuals in the military. As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties. In his 1980 Senate reelection campaign, Goldwater won support from religious conservatives but in his final term voted consistently to uphold legalized abortion.[citation needed] Goldwater also disagreed with the Reagan administration on certain aspects of foreign policy (e.g. he opposed the decision to mine Nicaraguan harbors). Notwithstanding his prior differences with Dwight Eisenhower, Goldwater in a 1986 interview rated him the best of the seven Presidents with whom he had served. After his retirement in 1987, Goldwater described the conservative Arizona Governor Evan Mecham as “hardheaded” and called on him to resign, and two years later stated that the Republican Party had been taken over by a “bunch of kooks”. In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator said, When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. Some of Goldwater's statements in the 1990s aggravated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals: “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.” He also said, “You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.” In 1996 he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: “We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?” In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, “Every good Christian should be concerned,” Goldwater retorted: “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.” UNQUOTE Yes, I have little doubt that Goldwater would have kicked GWB right in the ass too.
HOPE THAT DIDN'T OFFEND, BUT I THINK IT IS PERTINENT IN ASSESSING WHERE WE ARE, AND HOW WE GOT HERE. GOD BLESS YOU AND KEEP YOU IN LIGHT, LOVE, AND PEACE.
January 30, 2007 11:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 23:25
I accept a High Tech Science translation of the Christian Bible. I was a Christian, but now am a Child of Life. I am not religious anymore, but I have Faith in the people called Man Gods in religion, that Colonized Earth, 'in the beginning'. We are in their human image.
I accept the Creation story is the Colonization of Earth by High Tech. The 'Gods' and Angels that looked like humans, were High Tech Science Pure-bred Humans. We are getting back up to the knowledge of Colonizing a planet, and reproducing by High Tech Science.
The Perfect people at the Colonization were Equal Sharing Caretakers of the Resources of Earth Earth. Earth is a spaceship with all resources aboard to be Shared with all Life as on a spaceship, not stored up by a few. The Original Sin was falling from High Tech Science Pure-bred reproduction to Heterosexual Body Birth reproduction that made Defective Genetic Mispbred Humans, that started Killing their Brothers/Sisters of Life like Cain killed Abel.
The rest of religious writing is about how Fallen Man became Killers of all Life on Earth and of their Eco System. And how they set up religions about the Life before the Fall of our High Tech Ancestors and their Equal Lifestyle. This became Heaven in religion. All the teachings of Heaven is about an Equal Sharing Lifestyle with no killing, starvation, homelessness, inequality or death.
There was another Soceity before ours that also had a High Tech Science and population explosion. It was the Noah/Atlantis Society, that caused the Planetary Flood, with their pollution and weapons of massive destruction. The Flood lasted over one year, and Man had to restart over again, up to our High Tech Science today.
Now we have our Ozone Canopy about destroyed and we have our Planet covered with nuclear bombs planted on land and sea, and are setting up the 'Arm'ageddon of the Last Days, and the Judgement Day Fire with our waste dumps, pollution. Our nuclear waste is on land and in the ocean.
Jesus, was regenerated to a Pure-bred Body by the Angel in the tomb. and he did go up into Space with our High Tech Ancestors, and they will return before the Judgement Day Fire to 'regenerate' those that are left to Pure-bred Bodies and take them to a new planet they are Colonizing, with the hope that they will not 'fall' to Body Birth and ruin that planet. This is all in the Christian Bible with a High Tech translation.
Our High Tech Ancestors are not the Killing God of the Bible. When we translate the Bible with High Tech, the Killing verses of a God that flew in the air, was the history of the Noah/Atlantis Society. We need to see if we can separate out the Old Testament of all kinds of writings from before and after the Flood. And separate out all the God verses of our High Tech Ancestors and the Noah/Atlantis Society.
Our Ancestors do not Kill and gave the Commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill. Jesus also taught not to kill and turn the other cheek. What would happen if all people that say they Love Jesus and aay they follow him, would give up Killing and War today?
I hope this happens before GWB takes us into Iran, as it sound like they are finding reasons to do so, and prophecy is getting closer to the Big Power Nation in the End Times, falling from power.
To anyone interested my web site:
http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/home.html
January 30, 2007 11:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 23:19
A person with a sincere faith in a reasonably legitimate religion wouldn't take an oath of office to uphold etc. the Constitution and then do something else.
If a person has some other agenda they are not supposed to run or take the oath of office, or are supposed to be removed if they violate their oath of office.
It should be concluded that it is necessary to know what is going on in both religion and in the political arena to have an understanding of what our country is up against. Knowing one side of the equation doesn't seem to impart much significant knowledge.
January 30, 2007 10:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 22:05
This column is one of the more sloppy and irrelevant on this site.
This fellow above said:
"In the end, you can’t really separate faith from politics, because our faith doesn’t mean anything unless it influences everything we do, including our political decisions."
In the end, people who can't separate irrational thinking (faith based on nothing) from the process of government (politics) shouldn't be given an unopposed voice in the public sector.
Winning is more important than anything else to people who know they are losers. Like this chap.
Thank you.
January 30, 2007 9:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 21:12
oh jesus pleeze bill press i always loved you on tv but really you must know that all those hokus/pokus religions are run by homophobic money grabbing ministers/preachers!
its all a scam. there is no there, there! RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE ANSWER! for all of my 71 years on this earth i have done without that crap and am still happy and going strong.
90% of all scientist are non-believers i have more faith in them than the falwell/robertson/dodson ripoff crowd!
January 30, 2007 7:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 19:44
The GHW Bush and Barbara Bush family is a political family and will use any ploy to get their way politically. Even by using their phony cries of personal faith. They couldn't have spawned the faithless actions of the breed they have if there had been any sense of the existence of faith in GHW Bush and/or Barbara Bush to begin with. Having no faith they couldn't pass it on to their progeny. And that is exactly where we are. Iraq and New Orleans for just two examples. russell
January 30, 2007 7:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 19:11
Victoria, you said:
"i keep hoping to hear atheists define themselves or tell us what they believe- but it never happens-
ok- we get it- you dont like relgion- but what DO you believe in?"
--------
No, you don't get it, which is sad considering how actively you post on these boards. You write copiously, but don't seem to have any interest in understanding what others say.
I'll try one final time, though I suspect it's a waste. Atheism is not the dislike of religion. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less, no matter how you wish to characterize it.
--------
"arent there any non-relgious who have something intelligent and compelling to introduce to the forum?"
--------
Nice slur, and evidence that you haven't read these forums in detail, or made any effort to communicate with others. For instance, Ba'al consistently makes insightful and lucid posts. He also displays respect for others by writing in complete sentences, something you still can't be bothered to do. You're not E.E. Cummings, you know.
--------
"surely if youve defined what you dont like- youve taken it a step further and started to elucidate what it is that you DO want as far as ethics and morality and living with humans?"
--------
Again, atheists lack belief in gods. Dislike of religion is not atheism, it is dislike of religion.
My personal ethical standards are pretty much those of Humanism, which I find much superior to the mostly incoherent ramblings of Islam, Christianity, Hindu and other cults based on the mythology of bronze-age goat herders.
I believe in striving for the things I want, and letting others do the same, as long as we are not tangibly harming one another.
Has it occurred to you that you hold atheism to a differnt standard than you not hold religious belief? That is, you seem to expect atheism to completely define a person's world view, and cry foul when it does not. But I doubt you do the same when it comes to believers. I mean, if a person says she's Methodist, that does not tell you how she votes, or her opinion on global warming, or if she's a dog person. But that doesn't seem to concern you. Why the hypocrisy?
---------
"i have never had an atheist respond to this oft posted question..."
---------
Many, many have responded. You just weren't listening.
January 30, 2007 5:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 17:41
Buddhist Ethics Best in World
I second Norrie's conclusion above.
Buddhists, who do NOT believe in any kind of God theists would recognize
have the most highly developed ethics
AND
the most highly developed Spiritual Practices
of any religious or cultural tradition in the world.
January 30, 2007 4:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 16:19
Someone asked for atheists to define themselves earlier and I'm curious what was meant by the comment . So I guess if I can't offer a quick explanation I will be damned by the voices of dogma and dragged along the streets lined with gold . The best way to define an athiest in my opinion would be to say he/she is someone who doesnt believe in supernaturalism , god(s) , ghosts, or spirits of another world . Perhaps because we've never seen any to note . So I guess the only alternative explanation would be to look at things in a reasonable, rational manner . I try and let realism be my guide to dealing with answers to questions that concern me. I use the laws of science to embrace understanding of topics and I don't rely on the highly irrational explanations from books like the bible, the koran and the book of morman to name a few . They are all full of ideology that make little or no sense . As for wisdom , I suppose bits of wisdom can be found in all of the ancient writings . That's where it appears Christ found most of his . ( Middle eastern religion )Those writings are strikingly similar to that of hinduism and others Though this is just a thumbnail sketch of understanding atheism I hope it gives the questioner some insight and allows him to fall deeper into the subject . May I suggest he enter the term humanism into his browser also atheism will work . That is of course if he wasnt just being sarcastic .
January 30, 2007 4:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 16:14
Morality DOES NOT Come From God
FAITH Does NOT lead to better Political Decisions
Cabin John is dead right.
All the evidence shows it.
Bush has relied on
Faith to make the worst foreign policy blunder
in American History.
January 30, 2007 4:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 16:05
I'm agnostic (I can't see how anyone can be so sure of him/herself as to be an atheist). Here's my ethics, if you're interested:
a. The US Constitution and the rule of law is a good place to start.
b. Add in the Golden Rule (treat others as you want to be treated).
Where does my morality come from if not from the fear that god will burn me in hellfire after I die? From the recognition that I'm not any more important than anyone else, and that this would be a pretty poor world, and no fun to live in, if we don't respect each other.
January 30, 2007 3:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 15:54
Humanist Values vs. Religious Values
I agree with Hermit and Betty.
The Humanist values of Kurtz that Hermit directs us to are the highest values on the moral/ethical scale.
As far as Spirituality goes, here is a list of Elements of Spirituality that I, an atheist, used in teaching a course called
"Searching for God in Classical Music."
These are all values I hold, and NONE REQUIRES a belief in God (in fact, in some cases belief in God might hurt).
Elements of Spirituality
• A sense of the meaning of life (and death)
• A sense of relation to something greater than yourself (nature, the universe, God, gods)
• An inner moral sense of right action towards others and towards nature
• Sympathy for the lives, and suffering, of other living beings, (and for yourself!).
• A reverence for creation, both natural and human, and a nurturing of the creative imagination
• Comprehensive self-knowledge and understanding.
• A developed, cultivated and broad-based
appreciation of beauty (an understanding beyond your own prejudices and experience)
• Rich experiences outside the realm of the senses
(e.g. dreams, imagination)
• A sense of the “One-ness” of all things
January 30, 2007 3:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 15:17
Hermit Affirms Humanistic Beliefs
It is so uninformed to say
Atheists
have no values.
What gives any of you the right to say you are more moral or ethical or spiritually developed than i am
because YOU believe in God
and I do not.
You have NO such right.
And you have NO evidence.
All you have is Faith, in this case, Faith in YOURSELF.
January 30, 2007 3:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 15:13
Atheists are AT LEAST AS MORAL as Believers
Faith DOES NOT help anyone make better moral decisions.
There is TONS of research that demonstrates this.
Google Peter Singer, our most prominent ethicist.
Read "The Science of Good and Evil"
read Harvard Prof March Hauser's 'Moral Minds"
this is becoming a "Dark Ages"belief around the rest of the developed world.
we need to WAKE UP to this fact in the US of A.
January 30, 2007 3:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 15:10
Atheists are AT LE
January 30, 2007 3:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 15:07
victoria:
"i keep hoping to hear atheists define themselves or tell us what they believe- but it never happens-
ok- we get it- you dont like relgion- but what DO you believe in?"
The term atheist simply means "without god(s)", so it's not reasonable to expect anyone to define their beliefs in terms of atheism alone. Just as there are all kinds of theists (those who believe in god[s])there are all kinds of atheists (those who believe in no god[s]).
For myself, as a Humanist, I believe in all kinds of good things; in love, in beauty, justice, the commonality of our hopes and dreams as human beings.
I don't belong to any formal secular organization, and I don't want anyone to take this as a kind of "Humanist dogma", but I have found lots to agree with in the principles of Paul Kurz's Affirmations of Humanism:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations
I particularly like statements like these:
"We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality."
"We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings."
Regards
A Hermit
January 30, 2007 2:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 14:36
Victoria,
I'm not an atheist but I do consider myself to be "non-religious."
To answer your question, after several decades of pondering these questions, I believe that the essential ethics of Buddhism are the best precepts to follow in life.
I have no use for the oriental cultural baggage that has encrusted traditional Buddhism and which makes it so hard for Westerners to penetrate to the core of of Buddhist thought.
I'm also agnostic as to the traditional Buddhist cosmology: the Bardo, reincarnation, infinite- eternal-steady-state universes, six planes of samsaric existence, numberless Buddhas, and so on.
But I do believe you can't do better than Buddhism's essentical ethics.
*********
P.S.: As I recall, it was adherents of Islam who blew up the ancient statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan shortly before the American invasion.
January 30, 2007 2:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 14:31
If a moral imperative cannot be universal, then it is invalid. That means all moral codes are relatively the same. A moral principle cannot be self condratictory....
January 30, 2007 2:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 14:04
HA! So Victoria thinks that unless you believe in a totally unproven supernatural entity you don't know how to act towards your fellow man!?
That you have no decency!?
Morals, ethics and knowing right from wrong are all present and correct in people who don't believe in superstitious garbage thank you very much.
Sure, there are immoral, bigotted and nasty people who do not believe in 'a God', but the difference is.....THEY CAN'T DEFEND THAT IMMORALITY, PREJUDICE AND NASTINESS AS THE SUPPOSED WORD OF A SUPPOSED GOD AND SAY IT'S OKAY!!
I don't need a GOD to know that theft, rape and murder are wrong.
But I've heard of plenty of believers (in whatever supposed one true God) state that theft, rape and murder are RIGHT... BECAUSE they scream that God says they are!
January 30, 2007 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 13:52
I'm not an atheist, but I'm not religious either.
Ethics is not religion.
It exists without it.
When religion is practiced without ethics, like the current administration, things fall apart.
(& I learned how to use apostrophes in Catholic school!)
January 30, 2007 12:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2007 12:29
i have never had an atheist respond to this oft posted question...
January 29, 2007 12:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 29, 2007 12:09
i keep hoping to hear atheists define themselves or tell us what they believe- but it never happens-
ok- we get it- you dont like relgion- but what DO you believe in?
arent there any non-relgious who have something intelligent and compelling to introduce to the forum?
surely if youve defined what you dont like- youve taken it a step further and started to elucidate what it is that you DO want as far as ethics and morality and living with humans?
January 29, 2007 2:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 29, 2007 02:47
Bill,
You wrote; "...it will be a long time before an atheist or non-believer can get elected to any office higher than local sewer board."
Oh, really.
Ever heard of Bernie Sanders, Vermont's new Senator?
Apropos of that, and by way of explanation of Bernie's election, here's my post to another "On Faith" comment thread:
"Up here in northern New England, it's considered bad form, inappropriate, and reprehensible for a political candidate to talk about his religious affiliation and religious beliefs. Any candidate who does talk about them is almost certain to lose more votes than he gains.
There are good reasons for this Yankee disparagement of religion-talk by politicians.
First, political campaigns are supposed to be about public political issues, not theology.
Second, whatever a candidate's religious beliefs or affiliation, knowing them will tell the voter nothing about how the candidate will deal with particular issues, and so that knowledge is irrelevant to an evaluation of his candidacy.
Third, a candidate's mentioning his religious beliefs or affiliation turns the discussion away from public issues and to a debate on the merits of various religions. The candidate is basically saying. "Vote for me, I'm a (for example) Catholic, not one of those (for example) Blue-nosed Protestants."
Instead of debating the best way to fix potholes, the debate becomes "Which ethnic or social group do you identify and feel more comfortable with?" This is not good for politics, as centuries of religious warfare have shown. Not to mention that fixing potholes never gets discussed.
Fourth, just as patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, religiosity is the last refuge of scoundrel politicians.
I'll never vote for any politician who voluntarily starts talking about his religion. Fortunately most of the people in northern New England feel the same way.
Let the clap-trap of political religion-talk stay in the Bible-belt."
*******
By the way, Bill, I've lived in northern New England for several decades, and I've never heard any candidate talk about his religious beliefs or affiliation. Voters here aren't interested in them and positively DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THEM!
I don't have any religious affiliation and I got elected to our legislature five times, every time running against a "believer". So there!
Paradoxically, of course, where I live is "God's Country."
January 27, 2007 10:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 27, 2007 22:37
As christians we are told there's a place called heaven and a guy named God. We are told there's a place called hell and another guy called the Devil.
We are told there are beings called angels...they fly around playing harps.
Believers say it's all true...you just gotta believe.
Force yourself.Have Faith.Close your eyes and BELIEVE.
Sorry.No can do.
To have faith in such nonsense is beyond me.
In fact I find it hard to respect anyone who has does have faith. Its just too much of a stretch,here in the 21st century.
I'll take reality thanks.
January 26, 2007 11:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 26, 2007 11:33
You're right Jack. If faith were called by what it really is -- delusional nonsense -- who would claim it? Can you imagine rightwing Republicans talking about "people of delusion" rather than "people of faith"?
January 26, 2007 9:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 26, 2007 09:50
I find that most people who claim faith refuse to accept that it's just a fantasy.
January 26, 2007 9:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 26, 2007 09:23
Faith has no place in politics. People should not judge politicians by their faith or lack thereof, they should be judged by their policies and actions.
I do not trust anyone who bases their decisions on faith. Descisions should be based on facts and consideration of the consequences, NOT FAITH!
January 26, 2007 5:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 26, 2007 05:53
Sincere Faith Makes For Better Political Decisions?
Sure it does. Just ask Hitler.
January 26, 2007 3:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 26, 2007 03:39
Sincere faith makes for better political decision, IF AND ONLY IF that FAITH is fully translated into ACTION! But, since humans are endowed with free agency, faith's translation into action can always be altered.. depending on the weight of pressure or influence posed before it! Therefore just "mere sincere faith" might not be enough. What we need is kinda "unfaltering faith all throughout"!
January 26, 2007 3:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 26, 2007 03:12
I disagree with Mr. Press -- faith is no requirement or even an advantage in governing well. Mr. Press' view is an example of the danger of mixing faith and government -- one's biases will result in policies that discriminate against those whose views differ from ours. Religion has no place in a democratic government that has a Bill of Rights to protect inalienable rights.
January 25, 2007 11:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 25, 2007 23:43
I understand. But "wanting to win" implies a stupid electorate driven by the irrationalism of widespread religious nonsense. So how could the "wanting to win" among us possibly be considered anything more than greedy, sick, odd fellows who need "to win"?
We need no more analytical evidence than simply understanding the motivation of those who engage the process of "winning". The assumption is "great men" have to pander to the stupid masses to gain power to do "great things".
This is a dangerous joke, and we all know it.
Every president since John Kennedy (not to exclude him) has proved to be psychologically unfit for any public office. We can all do the math: Johnson, half-crazy, a self destructing bully pretending to equal Roosevelt. Nixon, a sick meglomaniac, (Ford is the only clueless exception, way too dumb to actually get elected); Carter, a self-delusional man who still believes in "the Holy Land". Reagan, an irresponsible, grandiose, murderous clown. Bush I, a jerk, a minion to his economic class. Clinton, a goofy, jerk-off with no self control, willing to pander to get over with anyone, anytime. Bush 2, a raving born-again alcoholic. Murderously stupid, the most dangerous president in history. . . These are the worst imaginable leaders a democracy might conjure, and why? Because they "wanted to win" enough to do anything it takes to "win," and we have evoled a corporate process that only the lower end of corporate class would wish to lead, and helplessly needy morons would gleefully follow.
We all lose in the process, don't we? That's why most of us don't bother to vote.
Thank you.
January 25, 2007 10:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 25, 2007 22:50
Betty,
Would it suprise you that I had the same crisis of faith? I grew up Catholic because my family was, but fell away from the church in HS and college because something was missing. For many years I had little faith of any kind. Sure I did the Christmas and Easter services but it was more a formality than any real faith. It was not until later that I began to rediscover what had been missing. I tried several different churches and denominations without success they never filled the void I was feeling. It was not until I went to a small non-demoninational church that my faith was re-awakened. It's true that part of your faith system is dependent on your parents and where you live. But it's still your choice. Nobody is forcing you to choose this faith or that one. Keep looking you'll find the answers you need...
January 25, 2007 7:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 25, 2007 19:01
Bud
I have no faith.
Not in the supernatural
and not in a god.
A person needs faith when what they believe
makes no sense.
If it made sense people wouldn't need faith.
I think faith is kinda like hope.
One hopes there's somebody up there,
and many structure their lives around
such hopes. And feel snuggly and warm doing it.
Whatever gets them through the day is ok.
whatever gets them through the night is alright.
Just include me out.
January 25, 2007 3:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 25, 2007 15:56
That candidates have to demonstrated that they are "people of faith" in some sense, is to set up "faith" as a religious qualification for office that is obviously unconstitutional. Some how, conservative religious believers have been very successful in embedding the notions of "people of faith", "faith based communities" and "initiatives" into our political rhetoric. They have done so to the point where "faith" has achieved a privileged position, unassailable from debate and elevating "people of faith" into some degree of moral paragons. And this we know is false. Like any other organization, religion has its share--perhaps more than its share--of hypocrits, cover ups, liars, deceiters, etc. This is rhetoric we need to be rid of so we can focus on the real ethical and moral questions of domestic and foreign policy.
I would claim that to be human is to be a "person of faith" and what we are talking about are beliefs. I could care less if someone believed in unicorns,God, UFO's, Allah, Jehovah, the Indian pantheon, etc. What I do care about are (1)the consequences of that person's belief for the "common good" of our country, (2) the organizations whose rhetoric is being used to express those beliefs and (3) whether those beliefs are open for debate. I'm talking here about the ethics of belief. "Sincerity" as regards belief is a sop. The depth of belief has little to do with the character of the belief itself. Nazies were certainly "sincere" as were the terrorists who flew plans into the trade towers. So let's get rid of that criteria and focus on the affirmative fact that we are all "people of faith" (that's how we get up in the morning) and we are all "people of belief" (that's how we get things done) and on the consequences of having gotten up-- on the things we do as a result of having gotten up. I would like to see a discussion of the "ethics of belief" and a conversation on the difference between "belief" and "faith."
January 25, 2007 2:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 25, 2007 14:55
Mr. Press,I agree that an agnostic or an atheist cannot now be elected in the US. It is the "great flaw" today--blacks, Hispanics -- all of the rainbow can be elected today. A known gay person cannot be elected to the office of the President of the US but can be elected above your "Board of Sewers". As can a female (that other once insurmountable flaw).
Religions are flawed. Because no god created A Religion; people created religionS. And they created them mostly for political gain and economic power. (And to try to explain the unexplained natural events people saw around them.) Christianity certainly was not mainly created for the salvation of souls--the desire to escape repression, the desire for political power and wealth drove it. In every faith, we are well advised: Follow the money!
Americans embrace the greatest of all flaws when we elect leaders who adopt the axiom: God Is in Charge Here. That is the greatest of all exuses for poor performance of duties. After all, how could God let his disciple fail? It is God's will that one bull-headed man can have created such misery in the world. What nonsense!
Which is the silliest? "The Devil made me do it." Or, "God told me to do it." Reason and logic, that hard master, was given no place in the chambers of the world's most powerful man.
And the costly errors mount. And more and more are slaughtered.
Oh, Thomas Jefferson! How we need you!
We who are agnostic and atheistic have the same burden borne by all once fatally flawed candidates: The large balance of the rest of Americans haven't a clue about us or know what those two words mean.
One might start to learn about the words by considering this: Atheists and agnostics are not born, anymore than Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or other beliefs are born in us. We are all converts, too; not suddenly, as Saul on the road to Damascus, but slowly, often painfully.
Years ago when I was a serious, young adult Methodist (I was truly trying to believe and live as the Methodist Church instructed me.) I was made very angry by a young agnostic who told me, "You are a Methodist by accident of circumstance. The church your family attends is the one closest to your neighborhood. If you had been born in Boston, you'd probably be a Catholic! If you had been born in the Orient, a Buddhist."
I could not get his ringing words out of my head.
I began a long journey. First, I needed to learn something about other faiths. Later, when I had the good fortune to work for a professor who taught comparitive religions, I began to observe how various practitioners conducted themselves in their relationships with others (and with their professed gods).
It was impossible not to question my own beliefs.
I had to face the fact that I simply could not ignore the hypocrisy among many of the "religiously enlightened"; nor could I longer justify the notion that Christianity is the "one true faith".
I agree that religious faith certainly does help some people to get through life's vagaries--it has just not ever helped me through. It comforts and sustains some believers through grief, but it has not comforted me--even when I truly believed that it would. Once, I thought that that was because I was weak; I didn't believe enough.
When used as a core of inner strength, religlion can be awesome. My favorite example of someone who bore horrible grief and who was borne up by her faith: Rose Kennedy.
Learning that I am unable to achieve Rose Kennedy's grace, or anything approaching it, I realized that I was agnostic. I no longer believed in a "Participating God". I still do not know whether there is a GOD, but man's religions have failed to define GOD, for me at least. And I do not view any of them as the path to enlightenment.
Agnosticism and atheism are hard to practice. They continually confront us with really difficult choices. Sometimes, I admit, I envy those who believe. But once religious belief falls away, it is not easily reassumed.
January 25, 2007 2:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 25, 2007 14:43
Faith has become a publicized condition of value in the last 20 years because those that have the "bully pulpit", no pun intended, have made it thier collective mission to make it an issue. These are the "Conservative Christians" that have the media's attention, through one means or another.
In my opinion, faith, not religion, has been a part of all the good, strong and decent leaders, presidents especially, that the US has had in our history. It takes reading thier respective writings to see and understand that they all had a faith in a "higher" power and they went to that faith for their respective guidance, in some way, and in most cases solace. And they, for the most part, did it without being required to make public either thier faith or religious affiliation.
Will we ever have a president that is outside of the mainstream when it comes to his or her faith? Not as long as we, as a society, make it necessary to profess your faith as a condition of election. As a practicing Christian, I am afraid that those with the "bully pulpit" have made professing faith somewhat of a fashion statement. By that I mean, you must profess the "right" faith and belief in order to gain the support you need. Much like you need to wear the right clothing style in order to be seen as a valid candidate.
January 25, 2007 1:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 25, 2007 13:42
“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.” -Arthur C Clarke
January 25, 2007 12:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 25, 2007 12:39