Secularism: The New Taboo

DwYn5Y U cool ))

DwYn5Y U cool ))

DwYn5Y U cool ))

Susan: I saw your interview on Bill Moyer's show Friday night and was thrilled by how well you captured my feelings about the dumbing down of America. I grew up down the road from you in Okemos although we moved in separate circles. Your family was Catholic while mine was essentially secular humanist, although we never used the term. I pursued religion as an autodidact through my adolescence, trying out how I felt as a Christian Scientist, a Southern Baptist, a Quaker, and a Jew, but ended up pretty much where you seem to be today. I am not hostile to religion or religious thinkers -- my greatest moral teacher was Martin Luther King and I think of Bill Moyers as my pastoral teacher these days – but I do believe religion has caused more harm than good in our country in recent decades. How fascinating that we should start and end in such similar places. Please keep up the good fight.

great article. Secularism and science have become taboos in the past two decades and it's ruining this country. Secularist need to stand up for the constitution and stand up as patriots and beat back the theocrats vigorously on every level. If the religious right get their way they will ruin this country and ruin this world...they've already started.

TO GERRY:

You wrote, "Don't you ever have doubts, like the other Thomas,".

The other Thomas, also referred to as Doubting Thomas that you mentioned, after He voiced his doubts and Jesus also appeared to Him said in reply, "My Lord and My God" which is saying a whole lot more than calling Jesus the "Christ" which is a title.

People were expecting a Messiah or Christ to come [one being the Hebrew version, the other being the Greek version meaning the same thing] but who would have ever expected for God, Himself, to become one of us?

If you notice most if not all of the apostles doubted until Jesus appeared to them when Thomas was not present.

Did you ever wonder why Thomas is referred to as doubting and not the others?

Doubt can be a good thing and if you take an honest doubt to God with a open heart you may be surprised that God welcomes an honest doubt.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

For History:

Is this what you think has been censored? I don't get your point. They don't seem to censor anything, except maybe some "bad" word, but even if they did, so what? It's their website; the Constitution does not mention anything about censoring your own stuff.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/02/a_very_undead_christian_right.html

For History:

Is this what you think has been censored? I don't get your point. They don't seem to censor anything, except maybe some "bad" words, but even if they did, so what? It's their website; the Constitution does not mention anything about censoring your own stuff.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/02/a_very_undead_christian_right.html

some have said "Is Evil The Devil or Just Live Spelled Backwards?"

David wrote "Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked."

Solomon wrote "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate."

Solomon also wrote,
"These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:"

It is written in Genesis

And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.

Do you see "seven are an abomination unto him:"
"vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold" "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold" This is what is written in Matthew "Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." "Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

This is what your god said "Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." "And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice;"

Love thy Father "Ye that love the Lord, hate evil"
Fear thy Mother "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil"

"Is Evil The Devil" Ask yourself, are you the children of evil or the Devil.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord saying, Hear ye the words of this covenant, and speak unto the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; And say thou unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God: That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day. Then answered I, and said, So be it, O Lord. Then the Lord said unto me, Proclaim all these words in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, saying, Hear ye the words of this covenant, and do them. For I earnestly protested unto your fathers in the day that I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising early and protesting, saying, Obey my voice.

Look at the Words of Jeremiah “Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people” “to give them a land flowing with milk and honey” Rmember what Jeremiah said “The word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Gentiles;” He prophesied “The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the Gentiles is on his way; he is gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; and thy cities shall be laid waste, without an inhabitant.”

And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him. Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and inquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No. Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died. And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will shew thee the man whom thou seekest. And when he came into her tent, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the nail was in his temples. So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel. And the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.

Look “she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him” “took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary.” Do you see “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.”

Moreover the Hebrews that were with the Philistines before that time, which went up with them into the camp from the country round about, even they also turned to be with the Israelites that were with Saul and Jonathan. Likewise all the men of Israel which had hid themselves in mount Ephraim, when they heard that the Philistines fled, even they also followed hard after them in the battle. So the Lord saved Israel that day: and the battle passed over unto Bethaven. And the men of Israel were distressed that day: for Saul had adjured the people, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies. So none of the people tasted any food. And all they of the land came to a wood; and there was honey upon the ground. And when the people were come into the wood, behold, the honey dropped; but no man put his hand to his mouth: for the people feared the oath. But Jonathan heard not when his father charged the people with the oath: wherefore he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand, and dipped it in an honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth; and his eyes were enlightened. Then answered one of the people, and said, Thy father straitly charged the people with an oath, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food this day. And the people were faint. Then said Jonathan, My father hath troubled the land: see, I pray you, how mine eyes have been enlightened, because I tasted a little of this honey.

Look at the Words of Saul “Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies.” Do you see “come into the wood, behold, the honey dropped” Look “he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand, and dipped it in an honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth; and his eyes were enlightened.” the Words of Jeremiah “Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people” “to give them a land flowing with milk and honey” Look “Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions.” Do you not understand “in their death they were not divided”

Now look at the words of Paul/Saul to the Corinthians, “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.” “What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?” He said to the Romans “According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear” Look “smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary” “behold, the honey dropped” “he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand” Do you see “in their death they were not divided” “I have fed you with milk” “shall I come unto you with a rod” “Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies.” Do you see “I pray you, how mine eyes have been enlightened, because I tasted a little of this honey.”

“Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people” “to give them a land flowing with milk and honey” “they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions.” “The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the Gentiles is on his way”

And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.

“first beast was like a lion” “The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the Gentiles is on his way”

Behold, he is hid now in some pit, or in some other place: and it will come to pass, when some of them be overthrown at the first, that whosoever heareth it will say, There is a slaughter among the people that follow Absalom.
Then said Joab, I may not tarry thus with thee. And he took three darts in his hand, and thrust them through the heart of Absalom, while he was yet alive in the midst of the oak.

Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness. And the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the Lord shall be consumed. For they shall be ashamed of the oaks which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the gardens that ye have chosen. For ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth, and as a garden that hath no water.

“Absalom, while he was yet alive in the midst of the oak” “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” “the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the Lord shall be consumed. For they shall be ashamed of the oaks which ye have desired” “There is a slaughter among the people that follow Absalom”

“the second beast like a calf”
Look “she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him” “took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary.”

“I have fed you with milk” “he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand”

“the third beast had a face as a man”
And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
And Pharaoh said unto him, Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die.
Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

“for in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die.” “ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's” “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh”

“the fourth beast was like a flying eagle”
Herod the Great built Caesarea for Caesar. Jews did not consider Herod to be a true Jew. The Idumaean family, successors to the Edomites of the Hebrew Bible, settled in Idumea, formerly known as Edom, in southern Judea.

Early Christian mentions of Caesarea in the apostolic period follow the acts of Peter who established the church there when he baptized Cornelius the Centurion.

And David commanded to gather together the strangers that were in the land of Israel; and he set masons to hew wrought stones to build the house of God.
And David prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of the gates, and for the joinings; and brass in abundance without weight;

“nails for the doors of the gates” “Peter who established the church there when he baptized Cornelius the Centurion”

The Apostle Paul often sojourned there, and was imprisoned at Caesarea for two years before being taken to Rome.

And the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.
Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.

“the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners” “I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you”

Dear Thomas,

you say "I cannot prove that God is real" and then continue "but..." etc. etc. stating all the rest of your contentions as if they were proved facts.

Don't you ever have doubts, like the other Thomas, about what you love to consider as reality? Doubting is the precondition to development.

ARMINIUS,
or whatever:

NO, if you go to the jacobey archives you note, you will NOT find the screed about conversatives.

That's the whole point. It's the one WAPO had a headline for yesterday. Yesterday.

It has disappeared. But you know, it's not worth
talkng about such here. ON FAITH is a complete fraud. And everything else goes the way of GANDHI.

For truth in adversiting, needs an Israeli flag.

ARMINIUS,
or whatever:

NO, if you go to the jacobey archives you note, you will NOT find the screed about conversatives.

That's the whole point. It's the one WAPO had a headline for yesterday. Yesterday.

It has disappeared. But you know, it's not worth
taling about such here. ON FAITH is a complete fraud. And everything else goes the way of GANDHI.

For truth in adversiting, needs an Israeli flag.

TO GERRY:

You wrote, "Believers always think, as you (and I, formerly) that they have an advantage over non-believers. They don't have to prove anything. A huge advantage! Saves a lot of thinking.", doesn't this sound a lot like what some so-called 'non-believers' also say.

What I mean by that is people like to lump others together whereas we are all individual people.

Granted, I don't have to prove anything but what is it that you or anyone else have to prove?

I read a quote on one of the postings and it said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", something to think about.

I cannot prove that God is real but one day all will know that He is real.

God is a Trinity and He is Pure Love and as I have said before God is not a He, a She or an it even tho God-Incarnate was a Man, a Jewish Man.

As far as 'saves a lot of thinking' that sure does sound kind of condecending doesn't it considering that there are plenty of 'believers and non-believers alike' that let others do their thinking for them.

I happened to have met God and I will tell you that plenty of people that call themselves 'christian' know nothing about God except for His Name at least by what they speak or write.

God has a Plan and His Plan is for ALL of His people, humanity, to be with Him in His Kingdom one day.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Rachel,

thanks for you comment.

1. I know very well what it is like to be a believer. I was one, fervent. All life is development.

2. Believers always think, as you (and I, formerly) that they have an advantage over non-believers. They don't have to prove anything. A huge advantage! Saves a lot of thinking.

Gerry,

This response won't be long as I'm sitting in class right now and ought to be paying attention, and it will probably be my last response.

Faith is indeed all in the believer's head. How could it be otherwise? I want you to know that my faith has been and is scrutinized. I've felt the vertigo of those questions that don't have answers, I've explored the texture of a life where the divine is only man made. Believe me, I know what that feels like.

Gerry, to be perfectly honest, I feel like I have to advantage over you - I know what it's like to not have faith, but I don't know if the unbeliever could really understand the position of the believer. Perhaps this is hubris - it very well may be. But anyway, imagine the position of the believer. And if you find it unimaginable, then I remind you of your words: "Atheists, thus, are much more spiritual and modest and imaginative in front of the unimaginable"

Thanks for another glimpse into what it means to not believe. I feel like I've learned.

Dear CTCNL -

I took a look at your Wiki link, and it's a basic outline, not much more.

For instance, when discussing the mentions in Josephus of Jesus, the Wiki article notes that reasons to question the authenticity of the TF entry deal with stylistic points that suggest a later insertion. However, an equally compelling piece of evidence that this is a later addition is the fact that there is no mention of Jesus in the Table of Contents to Josepheus' "The Jewish Wars." As ancient histories went out of their way to list historic characters in the ToC, Jesus' absence in The Jewish Wars ToC is glaring.

This and more is covered in the RG Price site, but not in the Wiki entry.

TO HAROLD:

The pharisees of Jesus's day also were able to spew out the letter of the law, but was any of the spirit of the law in their hearts?

It was to them, that Jesus said a few things.

Have you ever noticed that this computer also knows the bible from cover to cover but does it have a heart, does it have feelings, does it care?

God made all of us, that makes all of us brothers and sisters, like it or not, so we are all in this together.

One of the things that I have noticed is that the bible can help lead someone to God but in many cases it just seems to reenforce some people's shortcomings.

We all have shortcomings.

Christianity is part of God's Plan, just like God choosing and forming the Jews is Part of God's Plan and God's Plan is unfolding as we speak and The Plan of The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God will come to Fruition.

God's Plan is for All.

We are all made in God's Image [LOVE].

I repeat: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

As I have also said before, God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Take care, be ready, night is coming but the dawning of the seventh day will surely arrive in God's Time.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Rachel,

you say:
"But the paradigm of the believer is that God reveals himself to the sincere and desirous believer. The paradigm of the believer is that God communicates, and thus makes himself knowable."

Of course, I completely agree. That is at the bottom of all: If you believe something intensely and long enough, (and from childhood early enough!) you end up regarding ANYTHING as a fact, of course. You are unable, then, to ask open questions which, maybe, have a completely unexpected answer or nor answer at all. So you substitute what has become your "fact". That is what I meant by lack of imagination.

The lack of imagination does not refer to anything resembling Harry Potter, but to the fact that you cannot imagine the limits of your imagination. You substitute your "facts", where there are imaginations thus acquired by "believing".

It's all in your head.

Just look at Harold cuffing Thomas around with all of his Bible quotes. See? It is just as I said; many Christians reserve their most severe scorn for each other. "Love thy neighbor?" They do not even love each other.

Just what all that was about, I could not even guess.

Mr Mark,

The Wikipedia review on the mythical/ non-mythical Jesus is actually easier to read than the RG Price one-sided article and as I noted has more references.

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

The Table of Contents,

1 History of the hypothesis
2 Early proponents
3 Recent proponents
4 Specific arguments of the hypothesis
4.1 Early non-Christian references to Jesus
4.1.1 Earliest recorded references
4.1.2 Apparent omissions in early records
4.2 The New Testament epistles
4.3 The influence of the Old Testament
4.4 Parallels with Mediterranean mystery religions
4.5 Historiography and methodology
5 Scholarly response
5.1 Specific criticisms
6 See also
7 Footnotes
8 Further reading
8.1 Supporting a Jesus-Myth theory
8.2 Supporting a historical Jesus
9 External links
9.1 Supporting a Jesus-Myth theory
9.2 Supporting a historical Jesus

ARMINIUS AND SCOTS AT LARGE:

It takes a real man to eat haggis, and a lot of scotch to get it down.

Congratulations on your nephew's placing second in the bagpipe contest.

I was just teasing about the pipes. They certainly martial the warrior spirit, and raise the spirits to new heights. Seen the movie "Amazing Grace?" The closing military tattoo makes the whole experience exhilarating. I love going to Highland games and watching manly men toss telephone poles and boulders about. I suppose you already know that the games are the result of England forbidding Scots to have weapons. Man, were those Brits surprised.

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

Some atheists and agnostics on these posts seem to want it both ways. First, they say God is a myth and the Bible is fiction, and then they say believers have no imagination.

For sake of argument, let's assume the Bible is fiction. That in and of itself kills the notion of a lack of imagination. Look what Cecil B. DeMille did with "The Ten Commandments."

Samson predated Tarzan by millenia, killing a lion by ripping its jaws apart (Kreega Bundulo, Tarzan kills!) He killed a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, smiting them hip and thigh. What special effects could do with that scene! Samson also predated Superman, and was the original supermensch.

Ezekiel the prophet saw a vehicle descend from heaven that puts flying saucers to shame. It had wheels that were awesome in height, with eyes before and behind. It was propelled by four living creatures with four faces and six wings...aw, go read it and tell me that lacks imagination. Oh, and let's not forget Elisha being carried up to heaven in a flaming chariot (space ship?).

Noah packed all the animals two by two into an ark that had the perfect ratio still employed by ship builders today, six times longer than wide. The only way he could get all those animals into the ark of specific dimension, was 1.) they were shrunk up to little miniatures that fit on a shelf or 2.) the Ark was a Tardis, long before Dr. Who had one. However he did it, the story certainly doesn't lack for imagination.

Dead men's bones rose from the earth and reconstituted into living men long before the first zombie stories were written.

A shower of boulders (meteors?) thrown down from heaven by God wipes out an army, and one angel kills 185,000 men in one night.

The witch of Endor could conjur up familiar spirits from the dead.

A flaming hand suddenly appears out of the void and writes on a stone wall.

Angels of all sorts -- archangels, seraphim, cherubim...

The earth opens up and swallows a huge crowd whole, along with all their possessions and livestock.

Prophets prophesying future events long before Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce or Jean Dixon.

A man is swallowed whole by a whale and lives after three days in its belly.

The book of Esther, the only book in the Bible that never once mentions God, rivals any story of romance and palace intrigue.

The story of Ruth and Naomi is a wonderful love story.

In all the world, there is no story of any man like the story of Jesus.

Ya got yer basic dragons, and four horsemen of the apocalypse, and warriors with teeth like lions riding horses with snakes for tails that sting like scorpions, and angels without number, and the wholesale destruction of man and the earth in a flaming finale.

Et cetera ad infinitum. You might not believe the Biblical stories because they are too incredible, but it can not be honestly said that they lack imagination.

As an unbeliever in college, I studied the Bible as literature, and it is at least as entertaining as any other piece of literature.

Thomas “so-called Moses” Baum said “Knowing God's Name is not some kind of magic ticket that some seem to think that it is.”

I will praise the Lord according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the Lord most high.
O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, Lord, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.
I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.

These are the Words of David , “I will praise the Lord” “sing praise to the name of the Lord most high.” Look “ how excellent is thy name in all the earth” “ who hast set thy glory above the heavens” That is the Spirit of the LORD which rises from Earth to Heaven. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens,” Do you not see “in the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens,” What does David say, “And they that know thy name” “ I will declare thy name unto my brethren” Do you not understand “Give unto the Lord the glory” “worship the Lord “

If we have forgotten the name of our God, or stretched out our hands to a strange God;
Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.
Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.

Look at the teachings of David “If we have forgotten the name of our God,” What is the name of the God of David. The Words are clear “ he knoweth the secrets of the heart” I ask you wise men, where is the heart of Moses. The prophecy was fulfilled “ for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter” Paul wrote “As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”

I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

David said “I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations” Does anybody other than Harold know the Name of the LORD. The Hand of the LORD wrote “Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.”

Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O Lord, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name.

I ask you wise creatures “that the enemy hath reproached” Who was the enemy of Israel at the time of the gospels and NT. “the foolish people have blasphemed thy name” Paul wrote in Romans “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,”

Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips.
Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.

David wrote “Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer” Who drinks the blood of the son of man, their own blood. You believe the son of man is lord of the sabbath. Do you see “Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.” Your father “ heathen”, his sons “the wicked” your gods spirit “thou hast put out their name for ever and ever”

David wrote, “In Judah is God known: his name is great in Israel.” The name is Moses, the name of the LORD is JUDAH. “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.” Look “And Moses said unto the Lord, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in my sight.” The Name of the LORD is JUDAH, The LORD knows the name of MOSES “ Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name”

And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Look at what the LORD said to MOSES, “And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up” “that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.” Right from the beginning “he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.” “In Judah is God known: his name is great in Israel.”

To Thomas “so-called Moses” Baum, “Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O Lord, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name.” “Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.” “Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.”

This is the God you worship, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” This is the spirit that goes downward, Solomon wrote “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” Do you see “the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth” “God created the heaven and the earth.” David said “Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.” Solomon's judgment “I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.”

My Words are clear “ the sons of men” “are beasts” “the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth” “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Thomas “so-called Moses” Baum, you are a heathen sinner creature.

Solomon wrote “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward” “in the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens,”
“he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.” “ Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name”

Moses wrote “Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.” “Because I will publish the name of the Lord” Who does Moses say give an ear heaven and earth, the spirit that goes downward, “I will speak”

Dear CTCNL -

I reference the RG Price site because it is written in a very accessible style, and while he doesn't necessarily present an original point of view, he has a good handle on how to boil down the more-extensive arguments of others and to make sense of them in a short space. In addition, he presents both sides of most arguments and - most importantly - he provides hyperlinks to other, more-noted authors, publications and credential-laden sources. Many of these hyperlinks appear in the body of his articles, rather than in the listing of source books given at the end of the articles. I find this very useful in being able to check his source and not just take his word for it.

I don't know anything more about the author than what you have found. Having said that, he certainly makes more sense to me in his uncredentialed way than do many of the highly credentialed columnists that post at On Faith.

Mr Mark,

You may have noted this information in the past but I have not seen it so please copy and paste it again i.e. who is RG Price??

I always like to check the background of the authors of referenced information. Your favorite web reference, Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ, http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm, was written by one RG Price. I can find very little information about Price other than he published his own book, Jesus, the Very Jewish Myth which apparently is republished in the referenced web site. RG Price does not reference the specific source of information in his web discourse but gives a number of books in a general biography references. References he apparently used but not cited are the studies of Earl Doherty.

Doherty has a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages, and he was introduced to the idea of a mythical origin of Jesus by the work of G. A. Wells, who has authored a number of books arguing a more moderate form of the "Christ myth" theory. Doherty claims to have used his language skills to have studied the original-language versions of the New Testament, and to have come to his views through a critical analysis of these texts. It does not appear that he is a Professor or what would be considered educationally as a NT exegete.

Price does cite the work of Robert M. Price in his general bibliography and appears to have borrowed a lot of Professor Price's conclusions.

Robert McNair Price (born July 7, 1954 in Mississippi) is a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary in Miami Gardens, Florida. He is a prominent religious skeptic, especially of orthodox Christian beliefs, a fellow of the controversial Jesus Seminar, and the author of many books and articles on religion. He has also written extensively about H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos and runs a user community for those interested in the history of Christianity.

Professor Price's credentials are much more impressive than Doherty's.

A better reference for your conclusion that Jesus was a myth would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesiswhich has many more specific references and general references to include RG Price's website.

And it also gives the pros and cons of the mythical arguments and the references to each.

Hi, Gerry,
I absolutely agree that reason and emotion are definitely not mutually exclusive. They are both compelling motivations for human behavior. In fact, I might even venture to say that reason ends up being a tool of emotion. Emotion, being a inherently personal experience, cannot be easily shared. Perhaps we could see reason as an attempt to communicate universally what we have felt personally. I've never felt that reason and imagination are conflicting.

You make an interesting distinction between knowing all the answers and having an answer. I think I need a few examples of the kinds of questions and answers that you have in mind. In general, people who believe in God believe in the existence of an answer to a question, even if we don't know the answer. But I think that belief is more a function of believing in a purpose-driven existence, don't you think?

I'm glad you speak of modesty. Sometimes when I get involved in these conversations, I forget about modesty and humility, so you'll have to remind me if I get carried away in hubris. We certainly need to be humble when confronted by the unknown.

I wouldn't say that atheists are generally more modest and spiritual before the unimaginable. You say that religionist "thinking and imagining ends with a human shaped god - for plausible reasons: That is all their imagination can produce and mostly has produced." You are making a great assumption here, one this as the heart of our disagreement. You perceive God as the result of thinking and imaging. I perceive our thinking and imagining as a result of God. If human populations were in a contest for creating the most imaginative representation of the unimaginable, then, yes, I suppose a god that looks just like me is not very imaginative. (Or, then again, maybe it is. I refer you to a medieval theologian, Pseudo-Dionysius, who speaks of dissimilar similarities as a way of describing God, the undescribable.) But the paradigm of the believer is that God reveals himself to the sincere and desirous believer. The paradigm of the believer is that God communicates, and thus makes himself knowable.

I'm sure that you are aware of this difference in paradigm. I maintain my paradigm because of personal experiences that I have had (and also because it would be really hard to rearrange my world view to fit another paradigm). Perhaps, in all humility, we can acknowledge the unknowability, the unimaginability of the personal experiences that people have that lead them to believe.

For a very interesting discussion of how believers come to believe, I recommend William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and "The Will to Believe."

TO GERRY:

You wrote, "In their paranoia, they believe "god" killed his son so they can continue to worship themselves, instead of asking honest questions about nature which maybe cannot find an answer.

The religionists always have an answer."

I would like to ask something, why do so many have to label others?

I do not consider myself a religionist but some might.

It has only been recently that I have even heard the, ["god" killed his son], even before I met God, I never thought of it that way.

I have mentioned before that I have met God and that God is a Being of Love not that He is a Loving God as in an attribute of His but that He is a Being of Love.

I have also mentioned that God is not a He, a She or an it, even tho God-Incarnate was a Man, a Jewish Man.

People can believe anything that they want but it is important what people do and why they do it and what they know.

God is not the egomaniac that some of the people that know His Name think that He is.

God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, and some people are in for quite a shock to put it mildly.

It does seem that some people are so religious and/or so spiritual that they have no room left for God, but only God can look into people's hearts.

If God was anything like, even remotely, what some of the people that know His Name present Him to be who would even want to be thankful to something like that, not me that's for sure.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Knowing God's Name is not some kind of magic ticket that some seem to think that it is.

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition and His Plan is for All Of His People to be with Him in His Kingdom.

All People are God's People.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Supplement: I hope, Rachel, you are not implying that logic and reason in a person precludes emotion? Again, all psychological research point to the fact that reason and emotion are correlated, not mutually exclusive human qualities.

I can get very emotional at logical nonsense.

Rachel,

I didn't say my atheism is limited by logic. I confronted the religionists - you - with their lack of imagination.

Logic certainly does not exclude imagination. I am a rather successful artist teaching my equally rather successful students to enhance their imagination by fully absorbing their logical abilities. Imagination and logic are correlated, not reciprocal abilities - a very common fallacy even among some artists, lol!

The religionist, of course, doesn't have all the answers, but he always has an answer, which certainly is not the same.

Humans simply feel comfortable with gods embued with human qualities. Atheists, thus, are much more spiritual and modest and imaginative in front of the unimaginable than religionists, whose thinking and imagining ends with a human shaped god - for plausible reasons: That is all their imagination can produce and mostly has produced.

The open questions are the productive questions. Georg Cantor, the famous mathematician: "Asking an important question has more merit than its answer". Honest science asks questions. Religion gives incorrectible answers, no matter how wrong they may be.

Terra,

"A young man, with long brown hair blowing in the wind...in a kilt leaning on a sheathed sword...."

I carry two images of the games, which I go to here in the Atlanta area when I can.

One: a huge man, dressed as a barbarian Scot, with an enormous claymore strapped to his back. My son and I stood and watch him walk by with jaws on the ground.

Two: seeing and hearing my nephew, a member of a pipe and drum band, compete in the piping contest. They came in second. Talk about clan pride! That is Clan Scott, for the record.

Arminius

Gerry,
This religionist doesn't have all the answers. But it's true that, as a religionist, I'll keep on looking for the answers. You very neatly summarize some of Hume's views on natural religion. Perhaps you are right that humans have a hard time accepting the possibility of an unimaginable God, but you yourself are taking a rather rational, limited-by-logic, dare I say unimaginative approach to the question, even while arguing that religion is limited by its inability to accept the unexplainable. My only point is that we each choose how to believe. Those beliefs can be argued from the point of logic and rationality, or from an emotional story that perhaps defies logic, but ultimately the belief precedes the arguments.

For Gerry

That is a good way of putting it, that God is beyond imagination. When you think of it that way, it is hard for anyone to argue you out of it, but of course, a proof is impossible.

Many modern day fundamentalists seem to have a religious belief almost like the Greek Gods of Mount Olympus, with God on High, rising up from his throne, to throw a spear of lightening down upon the earth at the wicked liberals and democrats, and all those bad people who live in San Francisco. I want to tell them "For crying out loud, this is the twenty-first century! not pre-Classical Greece!"

It is all about the incapability of humans to posit a non-personal, "non-human-resembling" source - a source really above their imagination. Therefore they make up "personal" gods, who mirror exactly their human traits, all the way down to the most abominable imaginable atrocities humans are capable of committing. In this manner, they erroneously hope to be able to deal with things beyond human grasp.

Gods are made up for lack of fantasy - the fantasy of the "not-imaginable". Since those entities commit the same atrocities as humans themselves, they are adored and worshiped. In positing gods, humans worship themselves, that is all there is to it.

In their paranoia, they believe "god" killed his son so they can continue to worship themselves, instead of asking honest questions about nature which maybe cannot find an answer.

The religionists always have an answer.

To the Scot in us all...

A number of years ago I went to a Highland Games here in Louisiana...there were two things I carried away from this experience.

I was sitting on bleachers listening to the band Smithfield Faire. Good band..I glanced across the area and there standing was an image I carry to this day...

A young man, with long brown hair blowing in the wind...in a kilt leaning on a sheathed sword.

and the best Oatmeal cookies I ever ate.

terra

I'm a republican, a faithful, very believing, Mormon (and Christian, by the way) republican at that, who is absolutely in favor of the separation of church and state. My reasons for this are more visceral than anything else - I just don't think that religious discourse in the public arena for the purpose of persuasion and forwarding personal agendas could lead anywhere but a bastardization of religion and the proliferation of propaganda. And besides, I can't bring myself to intellectually respect someone who doesn't acknowledge the reality of evolution. Religion is fundamentally a voluntary activity - participation in the government is not voluntary. How could those two endeavors really mesh? On the other hand, I think it is good and healthy to recognize the influence of religion on the American people. Take for example schools, an issue that the author raised. If religious schools are better than public schools, or suit the needs of the citizen better than the public school, by all means, let that person get a tax break (this would be state tax, of course, seeing as it's education)and use that money towards education in the way that they desire. But even this argument is better couched not in religious rhetoric, but in the debate over vouchers. That's another conversation altogether.

Dear Chris

When I thought I knew alot, and believed in many things, then, I did not believe in God.

But as I have come gradually to realize that I know less and less, and believe in less and less, almost to the point of nothing at all, then I believe more in God.

I think that this kind of discussion is tainted by fundamentalism, which confuses a sort of pychological defense mechanism with relgious belief, and which cause all manner of political upheaval and dissension, in which all of the many parties are always on edge, and ready to be offended, and ready to attack the other side.

Chris,

I applaud your description of Daniel ITLD. He and I seem to be similar in our view of God, and religion in general. But he is a lot more polite, compassionate, and informative than I am.

Odd that you feel like you are among aliens when you are around believers. Around fundies, yes - me, too. But I am quite comfortable around non-believers, probably because I was one for over three decades.

The reason you will never see belief reconciled with reason is that it is impossible to do so. I came back to belief in God because of a spiritual event in my life. Nothing of reason in it, and it utterly cannot be proven by any known logic.

Arminius

John Stephens,

Alas! Here we part ways. All the Celtic fury of my ancestors now comes to the surface. I reach for my claymore, because you have blasphemed against the Highland pipes!

On the eighth day, God created bagpipes.

Arminius
(LHAO)

Oh, yes, I do know about the migration from Ireland to Scotland. And also, your pub story was great - and true.

DITLD,

You're probably the sanest poster on this blog (your belief in god notwithstanding). The question you propose gets to the core of the issue. I would add (as I have in the past), if you believe in god, why? Personally, I'm at a total loss to understand how people are capable of belief that to me flies in the face of reality. For me it's plain as day that god is make-believe, and when I'm among believers I feel like I'm among aliens.

Of course, my question must be premised on your question of what kind of god do you believe in, since one can always retreat into the Spinoza god in order to maintain correspondence with reality. But for those with a personal god, with stories of revelations, miracles, supernatural eternal destinations and tribal affiliations, I have yet to see anyone anywhere reconcile these beliefs with reason. Instead, I see retreats into obscurantism and mystery and hear stories of heartbreak and catharsis. Maybe that's enough for some. Maybe for some people reality is grounded in feelings.

Alot of the misunderstanding regarding atheism is due to the fact that it is often conservative Christians and Muslims who define atheism. They say, for instance, that it is a religion, and is a firmly held belif.

But atheism is not a belief, it is "not-a-belief." Even Susan made a slight mistake when she said that atheists make a decision based on th preponderance of evidence (this is just my paraphrase). But often atheists don't do that, they just do not believe. They have not been convinced. I know atheists who are not fervent atheists, just atheists.

All of the people who post here regularly are interested in religious matters, not necessarily matters of faith; that is why they post here. But most people are not interested, not in particular. The reason why so many conservative and fundamentalst people make a quick stop here and throw their bombs, and then leave is because they are not particularly interested in religion, since they already know all there is to know. They may be interested in attending church or mosque regularly, and in praying regularly, but they are not intereted in the types of disucssions that we have here.

I also, have been all over the place on religion and belief in God. Currently, I do believe in God, but I could not even begin to think how I might prove it scientifically; I think that is just not going to happen; it would have already happened by now, if it were ever going to.

When a person says he believes in God, and when I say I believe in God, then maybe we are not even talking about the same thing. I do not believe in God as a great Creator, sitting on a Heavenly throne; I believe in some other kind of God. And I think that the Bible, as a resource, was most assuredl y written by men, and the basic assumption that its words are the words of God seems unbelievable to me.

Alot of the questions posted here seem engineered to promote controversy, and arguing, maybe to attract attention to this site, and some of the questions have been very successful at doing this. Whatever the motivation, alot of the quesitons here do not seem very good, or very intersting.

I think a good question for this forum would be, do you believe in God, and if not, why not, and if so, what to you picture God to be?

John Stephens,

Did Jesus actually read in his synagogue?

See Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

Also in his book, Professor Chilton develops the idea of Jesus as a mamzer; someone whose irregular birth circumstances result in their exclusion from full participation in the life of the community. He argues for the natural paternity of Joseph and finds no need for a miraculous conception. In his subsequent reconstruction of Jesus' life, Chilton suggests that this sustained personal experience of exclusion played a major role in Jesus' self-identity, his concept of God and his spiritual quest."

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

And do you really want to quote from the fictional OT??

And quoting from the words of the Prude Paul who significantly lowered his importance by ripping off the Gentiles with the second coming in his lifetime scenario? You have to give Paul credit though, he learned and put to great use the embellishing techniques of the Jewish scribes as he elevated the life of a simple preacher man to that of the supreme deity.

TO EACH AND EVERYONE:

It is so refreshing that civility has finally broken out in this thread. Let's do all we can to make it thrive.

Mose spoke to God face to face as a man speaks with his friend. "Moses was the most humble man on earth."

Contrary to popular misconception, the closer one gets to God the humbler one becomes because the difference is astounding and overwhelming. Daniel, one of the greatest of all the prophets, said, "All my comeliness was turned to corruption."

Like so many others here, I do not judge anyone on the basis of whether or not they are a believer. As is so often said, persons who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I once was an unbeliever, and how God will judge me is all in His estimation, not mine.

When Jesus came of age (30), he was invited to read in his synagogue, after which he reminded those assembled that there were many lepers in Israel in the days of the prophet Elisha, but to none of them did God come except to Naaman, the Syrian (Arab). The elders became enraged and tried to kill Jesus for daring to suggest that "their" God would deal kindly with anyone but the Jews.

God is not a genie you can cork in a bottle. He doesn't belong to anyone. He causes the rain to fall on the evil as well as the good. He blesses both the unbeliever and the believer. God is a Spirit. God is Love. Paul said, "In Him we both move and breathe and have life." He is the life force, freely given to us all.

Back to the subject of humility. I recall reading about a woman in Finland whose husband was being arrested by Nazis and shipped off to an internment camp. It was a bitter cold winter night. She served hot cocoa to the Nazis to ward off the chill. I'm never going to catch that lady, and I have seen such kindness and selflessness by persons who do not believe in God.

TERRY,

Thanks for the tips on Scottish guitarists.

As far as the bagpipes are concerned, everytime I hear them played I wonder who's stepping on the cat's tail. I think they only have one tune and call it something different each time they play it.

TERRY,

Jesus said the only sin that can never be forgiven is blasphemy.

I give you fair warning: Calling German beer "swill" is blasphemous.

Guinness, however...

ARMINIUS,
Useless trivia you already know: The Scots are from Ireland. They crossed the pond as a tribe called the Scots.

I lived in England my last two years of high school, as my dearly departed step-father was career Air Force. I was in a pub one night with some buddies when a man strolled in wearing a tartan kilt. He had a fine cut of the jib.

"Oh, you must be Scotch!" says my friend.

"Lad, Scotch is a drrrrink. A Scot is a man!" he bellowed.

About the reiterative posts of CTCNL:

"Concerned" has a big point when he passionately (some times so that competes with Jobez et al) request a "deflawing" of the old books.

Why? in my opinion because good, honest and well intentioned people join - or remain - in a religion without considering the whole content of the book.

Imagine that you are asked to join an organization that is based on a book that in one page says:

"Only a storm of hot passion can turn the destinies of peoples, and he alone can arouse passion who bears it within himself. It alone gives its chosen one the words which like hammer blows can open the gates to the heart of a people. But the man whom passion fails and whose lips are sealed- he has not been chosen by Heaven to proclaim its will".

This is really inspiring! It has some resemblance with verses of the Koran and the Bible.But the same book also states:

"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large scale".

Now all know that the book is "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler. Will you still join the organization based on this book if asked to? Most will answer no unless all "flaws" are taken out.

The comparison is a little bit unjust because the remaining good and beautiful verses of the sacred books will be considerable much extensive and profound than the few good or neutral phrases from the vile book.

But it is a valid metaphor to send a strong message about the inconsistency of the position of those who want to promote the three major religions. Keeping that religion for you and the like minded is OK. Trying to align the constitution and laws with the "un-deflawed" books you will always are going to encounter my most passionate opposition.

CTCNL, stick to the facts that you have compiled, keep the message going on.

Peace to all,

JAC

I'm not the center of the universe, but I am the centroid of my universe.

See, all you have to do is integrate the ... ah, nevermind.

Hi, E Fav!

You said, "What's so "humble" about believing in a creator god, especially considering that many believers think they have a personal relationship with him, and that this creator of the universe speaks to them inside their heads, answers their prayers, favors them over non-believers and gives them eternal life?"

OK, gotta speak as a Christian here. The humility comes from the relationship with the Creator, the awe of the glory of God, and knowing personally His love, and seeing the glory of His creation. Please note that humility is LIVING the Word, not shouting it on the street corners.

Now, speaking as me, the skeptic. As you may remember, I did not get my inspiration from a sermon delivered by burning shrubbery, so no voices inside my bewildered head. Does He answer my prayers? Dunno, but prayer is much more than offering a petition. Does He favor me over non-believers? Hell, no! Eternal life? Well, maybe I'll find out.

Meanwhile, I stumble up my chosen path.

With respect,

Arminius

DW: "I submit that those who believe in a Creator God are more motivated due to a characteristic of being humble, knowing they are not the center of the universe and all wisdom..."

What's so "humble" about believing in a creator god, especially considering that many believers think they have a personal relationship with him, and that this creator of the universe speaks to them inside their heads, answers their prayers, favors them over non-believers and gives them eternal life?

By the way - atheists don't believe they are the center of the universe - they don't think anyone is the center of the universe.

>>By all appearances, Christians are often motivated by shame to change their lives and to head them in a better direction.

As the phrase goes..appearances can be decieving.

In other words, with all due respect, Mr. Mark is deceived, but of his own volition.

I have to disagree. I beleive Christians are more often motivated by humility.

While both sides of the aisle, believer or atheist, have the human trait at times of questionable motives, I submit that those who believe in a Creator God are more motivated due to a characteristic of being humble, knowing they are not the center of the universe and all wisdom..and that can apply to the believer as well as the non-believer.

HL,

You say "Altogether there are about fifteen physical constants: the gravitational constant, the Planck constant, the masses of the elementary particles, the speed of light, etc. We can measure the values of these constants with extreme precision, but do not have any theory to predict them. The atheist says it all happens by chance."

I don't think so. The constants are the constants because they exist at the limit of our explanatory power, so we take them as given. That doesn't mean they "happened by chance." I agree wholeheartedly with Susan when she says "the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that there is no supreme being." When you look at what we DO know, it appears as it would appear IF THERE WAS NO GOD. What you are doing is just another take on the "god of the gaps." Your are retreating to the limit of explanation, where mystery exists - you are equating mystery with divinity and are taking the philosophical musings of the scientists who labor in this realm of mystery out of context to support your attempted sleight of hand.

You say, "For it does not take a lot of imagination and effort to say I don’t believe in what I don’t see and touch. It’s just a lazy way of rationalism."

I say that there's no reason to believe that an idea with NO BASIS in evidence has ANY objective truth value - it is SOLELY imagination. What is lazy is to choose not to subject your beliefs to the "tribunal of reason," as Jefferson called it. Are you recommending a more vigorous "way of rationalism," and if so, what is it? What are the rules, and how is it unambigous, so that it leads us to your particular religious beliefs as opposed to the religious beliefs of others like you who also claim that reason leades to THEIRS?

Secularism will march on because of the obvious flaws in the foundations of religion i.e.

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.
1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

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

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

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

4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

HL: "But the atheist still insists and says it all happened by chance."

Imagine a few scientists express their OPINIONS about God and atheists have the nerve not to hold the same opinion!

Please keep in mind that scientists are not worshipped or followed like religious leaders. They are respected and perceived as credible based on evidence for their findings.

Arminius, not at all. And even if you did think that it wouldn't offend me at all. I just find it fascinating that So many differences people perceive between themseles and others really come down to semantics and how individuals file experiences and information in their minds - what labels they stick on their mental file folders.

Pondering how atheists and agnostics became perceived as seperate camps always makes me go down these ponderous paths. The has almost nothing to do with actual differences and everything to do with the imprecision of language and how people choose to use it.

A lot of people describe themselves as spiritual. What does that really mean? Are they implying that there's something different between a spiritual and not-spiritual person, like they're attuned to spritiual experience that not everyone is privy to? What if there really is no difference? Even if the meaning isn't intended, it suggests that there is a difference. Why else make the distinction? I think really it means absolutely nothing. Without the ability to crawl inside other people's heads such distinctions are utterly meaningless, yet over time they cause these kinds of artificial tribes to emerge. Divergent useage of a word can eventually cause some kind of strange speciation event, but in label only. Human beings are silly creatures.

Cheers

Loco_Modo,

Did some more research. 'Nyabinghi' was an eye-opener,to be sure. But 'Frozen Chosen' got a huge laugh from me! That one I had never heard, but surely understand. Here in the South (Georgia and surrounding states), we Episcopalians are known as 'Whiskeypalians', because whenever you find four of us gathered together, you will always find a fifth (of whiskey).

Thanks for the education.

Arminius

Chip,

If I ever made the impression that I believe that atheists cannot have profound and transformative experiences, then please understand that I do NOT believe that.

The impression that atheists think they are 'know-it-alls' comes from the few that call us who are believers demented or worse. I am very much aware that these are in the minority, and I never judge any group by its strident minorities.

Arminius

Loco_Modo,

Thanks for the history. I absolutely love your comment, "Also, I can play as loud as I want and nobody ever calls the cops." As we say here in the South, YEEE_HAH! A good pipe organ played on full is truly an earth-shaking experience.

I've gotta look up some of the words you dropped in your post. I love getting to learn here.

Arminius

Arminius -- "Rastapiscopalian" is simply the best portmanteau word I've found to describe my erstwhile shamanic adventuring -- which coexists happily with the proverbial "smells and bells" of my favorite liturgy. ("Entheogenarian" also captures some of the flavor of my second childhood).

I consider myself a thawed-out member of the "Frozen Chosen" who finds joy in lifting face and arms skyward while chanting an ancient psalm or two, like my Nyabinghi brethren.

As for playing the organ, suffice it to say that just as the Sikhs love their gyrating dances, so too when I get both hands and feet going all at once. Pretty good soul aerobics!

Also, I can play as loud as I want and nobody ever calls the cops.

Loco_Moco,

I did some web research after puzzling about your description of yourself. Are you a Rastafarian, or former Rastafarian, playing the organ in an Episcopal church? Don't mean to pry, you don't have to answer.

Arminius

Who says that atheists don't have profound and transformative experiences? It's a great conceit of believers to think that they're privy to some special brand of experience or feeling that atheists are blind to. Could not the difference be only in how we choose to interpret our experiences? Perhaps atheists simply don't feel the need to jump to conclusions about them.

I've always found it ironic that the popular perception of atheists is that they're know-it-alls. I find that in many ways the opposite is true. Like every other human being I'm curious about the answers to the big questions. Why am I here? How did I get here? What does it all mean? How did the universe, life, and intelligence arise? To all of those questions I'm comfortable answering "I don't know." I get the sense that believers aren't comfortable with that, hence the reason god was born in the first place.

Now please pass me a scotch and a beer!

From "Natural Atheism" by David Eller:

"...Also, there may still be those who consider themselves 'Agnostics' only, who think they are not taking and do not need to take a 'religious position,' a 'belief position.' But agnosticism does not invite you to suspend judgment; it invites you to make judgment in full light of the facts and the logic and to stand by it. And, as the old adage goes, if you are not taking a position, then you are taking a position--a position against. If you are not actively a Theist, you are passively an Atheist. If you are waiting to believe, you are not believing now. God, if he exists, will not make the distinction.

"..Everyone is an Agnostic, or at least should be. Agnosticism, like reason, is the only method for threshing the true from the false. In reality, Agnosticism is simply another name for reason--and probably an unfortunate name, since people are led to think that it is a particular process in its own right. Agnosticism and reason are the road, and, if that road is followed carefully and fearlessly, then the only possible destination to which it can lead is Atheism."

Wow!

Loco_Moco,

I'm glad to hear there are more of us. My sabbatical from religion did give me rich experiences, especially the many types of people I met and worked with. This built a strong tolerance in me.

Wow, you play the pipe organ? Love 'em. When I was in college, I had the privilege of watching a large one (4000 pipes, IIRC) installed in the chapel. When it was finished, I used to go in at night and listen to organists practicing, because the acoustics were so much better when there were no people there. There is also a 54 bell carillon there. Fantastic.

Well, I am a greybeard, and an Episcopalian. Please explain 'Rastapiscopalian', lest I lose sleep wondering.....

Arminius

HL -

You make good points but in fact Stephen Hawking does not subscribe to the anthropic view - either the weak or strong version. He is an 'agnostic' when it comes the cosmic creation, and he makes that clear in the very book you mention. Freeman Dyson was, I believe, an early quantum theorist.

While he may have subscribed to the anthropic view, many (most) quantum physicists do not....on the other hand, there are some physicists that see consciousness (in it's undifferentiated form) as the primal element. See several works by Fred Alan Wolf (e.g. Parallel Universes) and also 'The Self-Aware Universe' by Amit Goswami.

Since quantum physics knows that the 'observer effect' is integral to the observed features of our material universe, the role of consciousness in physics, cosmology, and all of science must be considered. There is much to ponder before we can assume that the cosmos was either created or is in fact a material reality.

Fred Alan Wolf seems convinced of the Buddhist dictum that material reality is essentially mere appearance without an underlying independent existence. The Buddhists say that since we are of the same 'substance' as the entire material manifestation, we cannot in fact say what it is or what we are - there is no inside and no outside to reality and thus, no dualism. This is not inconsistent with the findings of quantum physics to date.

Something to consider.....

Finally, a topic worthy of debate! Beer!

I for one say that Guinness is the one true drink. And no just any Guinness, but Guinness Extra Stout, of the export variety, bottled.

I also made the very same grand circle route as John Stephens did, and ended up in a very similar place.

However, this doesn't mean my circuitous journey was a waste of years. On the contrary! It granted me a much broader and deeper perspective, a greatly enriched spiritual experience.

It certainly has made me much less dogmatic and more tolerant of different faith traditions. I've come to realize there's insight and wisdom to be gained from each of those traditions.

So why am I happy to be back in this particular place in my spiritual journey? Well, for a rather prosaic reason, I must confess. I like to play the pipe organ, and that does limit the options somewhat ;-)

But there are plenty of sincere people encamped all the way around the circle. And it seems to me that a "hands off" secularism that espouses personal liberty is therefore the best guarantee of freedom of belief for each of us, and thus the best policy for our government.

"A Greybeard Rastapiscopalian"

Terry,

Thanks for the compliment. If I remember correctly, Daniel ITLD could be included in the list.

I have no use for the current bishop of Rome either.

I, too, am a great Guinness fan. To be precise, though, it is stout, not beer. My all-time favorite fermented malt beverage, though, is, strangely enough, an American product: Arrogant Bastard Ale. Yes, that's the name; their motto is "You're Not Worthy". Hard to find, though.

Also, I am a huge fan of the Highland Pipes. One of my nephews is an excellent piper.

Arminius

John and Arminius -

I sincerely congratulate you both...very few have transformative experiences and were it more common we'd have a far better world.

Believe me, my objections to the structure of the Catholic church are undiminished and more so since the ascension of the present pope - who dissed my own preferred metaphysics by calling Buddhism 'mental masturbation' when he was a mere cardinal. Arrogance unbounded - he's got it in spades. Catholic popes have historically been among the most depraved psycho killers the world has ever seen.

As to single malt scotch, I once acquired the taste and since lost it - my Irish cousins have not. Give me a Guinness please - the best beer in the world....don't give me that German swill.

Celtic music is also the best in the world, and Scotsmen are among the world's best guitarists - there's never been a better British Isles balladeer/guitarist than Bert Jansch - although Martin Simpson ain't half bad. As far as heaving the kabar and pounding down the haggis, I leave that to better men.

I fear the Scots are gaining on the Irish.....

Suzan, you say:
“To all of you who are discussing the difference between atheism and agnosticism, I would like to say what Robert Ingersoll said in 1870: there is no difference.”

That’s not completely right. Huxley implied that he was agnostic and not atheist:

“When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with ANY of these denominations, except the LAST. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis"--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble…

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.”

He is saying that he is deferring judgment on the subject for lack of knowledge in contrast to the strong atheist who is firm in the conviction that no deity exists.

“… the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that there is no supreme being”. I disagree.

We are rational beings and if we believe the universe is not arbitrary, but is governed by definite laws and not just that but that we can understand and write them into equations; it is not farfetched then to reason that there is more to the universe than what we feel and touch.

Altogether there are about fifteen physical constants: the gravitational constant, the Planck constant, the masses of the elementary particles, the speed of light, etc. We can measure the values of these constants with extreme precision, but do not have any theory to predict them. The atheist says it all happens by chance.

Steven Hawking, in A Brief History of Time, goes even further and states: “it would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”

Also, physicist Freeman Dyson writes: “The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

But the atheist still insists and says it all happened by chance.

The Russian novelist Vasily Grossman wrote: “I have seen that it is not man who is impotent in the struggle against evil, but the power of evil that is impotent in the struggle against man. The powerlessness of kindness, of senseless kindness, is the secret of its immortality. It can never be conquered. The more stupid, the more senseless, the more helpless it may seem, the vaster it is. Evil is impotent before it. The prophets, religious teachers, reformers, social and political leaders are impotent before it. This dumb, blind love is man’s meaning.

Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil. It is a battle by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness. But if what is in human beings has not been destroyed even now, then evil will never conquer.”

Yes, we are more than flesh and bones; we are humans that sometimes show a behavior which goes above and beyond the hope of expecting reciprocal act or self preservation. Also, the following Sufi story told by Sister Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun, may serve as an illustration for this intrinsic “dumb, blind love”:

Once upon a time there was an old woman who used to meditate on the bank of the Ganges. One morning, finishing her meditation, she saw a scorpion floating helplessly in the strong current. As the scorpion was pulled closer, it got caught in roots that branched out far into the river. The scorpion struggled frantically to free itself but got more and more entangled. She immediately reached out to the drowning scorpion, which, as soon as she touched it, stung her. The old woman withdrew her hand but, having regained her balance, once again tried to save the creature. Every time she tried, however, the scorpion's tail stung her so badly that her hands became bloody and her face distorted with pain. A passerby who saw the old woman struggling with the scorpion shouted, "What's wrong with you, fool! Do you want to kill yourself to save that ugly thing?" Looking into the stranger's eyes, she answered, "Because it is the nature of the scorpion to sting, why should I deny my own nature to save it?

“This dumb, blind love” is a signpost, a calling card if you will, for something bigger than us. In conclusion we can safely say that “the preponderance of evidence” points to the existence of God and not the other way around.

For it does not take a lot of imagination and effort to say I don’t believe in what I don’t see and touch. It’s just a lazy way of rationalism.

John Stephens,

Such a snob you are! And with good reason - a decent single malt is true elixir of the gods. I can't, alas!, drink it any more because it ties my stomach into knots. Once or twice a year, I will slowly sip a small dram, just to remember....

Usquebaugh, by the way, is from the Irish. But it is problematic who invented it first. And have you heard the old saying, 'God created whiskey so that the Irish would not rule the world.'? Can be said of the Scots as well. I am of Scots-Irish background.

Arminius

I failed to mention the fact that I am Scottish on my mother's side. Her maiden name is Alford, from Alford, Scotland.

A SCOTTISH LAMENT

I'm half a Scot;
That's my lot.
The other half Brit
(Truth compels me to admit.)
Surely I did not plan
To be as I am,
A Scot, Aye!
And half a man.
But, far worse yet,
(I moan, I fret)
A Scot with no a clan.

CHEERS!

TERRY AND ARMINIUS:

You guys are such lightweights. I'm diving into a single malt scotch. Man! I love that stuff. The word whiskey comes from the Scottish Usquebach, which means water of life. Scots also invented golf. Knocking balls about and boozing, what a marvelous culture! How very strange that it didn't become a religion, although many are zealots of the lifestyle.

Terry, I NEVER go to church. It's none of my business, but my advice is to stay as far away from Catholicism as you can. I may seem orthodox, but I am not in the least.

Arminius, if you have found a church that makes you happy, I say God bless you and pass the scotch. I, too, had sublime experiences that verified for me the existence of God. It is sad in a way that we can't prove what we know, but even supernatural events are no proof to the unbelieving. Jesus performed miracles among some people who then ran him out of town. He marveled at their unbelief. The Pharisees decided to kill Jesus the day he raised Lazarus from the dead. Odd logic, that, to think to kill a man with power over death. Dude, we have received a gift we cannot always share.

Actually, I did encounter a church that I was very happy with many years ago, but I have lost touch with them in all my travels. They call themselves the Brethren, and are also known as the Holy Ghost People, but they are not a denomination, nor do they advertise, so you either know about them or you don't. They're sort of like the woman who fled into the wilderness.

CHIP:

Well written post above me. I agree about semantics. Maybe we'd all communicate better if we all shut up.

Chip,

Yup, the evolution of word meanings and connotations can be pretty wild. Interestingly, 'fundamentalist' is one such word. Not too long ago - specifically, before the religious right decided to get into politics - 'fundamentalist' was simply a Christian literalist. Now, of course, it tends to be used by atheists and agnostics, and liberal Christians such as myself, in a derogatory manner.

Yes, atheist does mean 'not a theist'. And agnostic means 'not knowing'.

Arminius

Terry writes " I do wonder if he might have been referring to a more ambivalent state of mind after all. Over the years I've always equated 'agnostic' with doubtful, whereas 'atheist' connotes firm unilateral conviction....well, probably hair splitting on what is really a scale of strength vs weakness."

Words tend to pick up connotations through usage that they don't inherently contain. Those connotation are often derogatory and are affixed to the word by those who have something against the people the word describes. The assertion that atheism is a faith would be a perfect example of that. I believe Huxley's intent was not so much to add further clarification but to try to avoid the stigma attached to the word atheist. I've always found it rather disingenuous and unnecessary.

Atheist simply means "not a theist." Nothing more and nothing less. To bring this back around to the thread topic, more modern examples would be the notions that secular is synonymous with anti-religious and that liberal is synonymous with communist. In both cases those additional connotations were created and are propagated by those who have something against secularism and liberalism and attempt to turn benign words into slurs.

It's unfortunate that so many people attempt to escape such mis-characterization through semantic sleight of hand rather than simply standing up to it. It makes me wonder how much of the evolution of language is driven by cowardice. If I ever meet an atheist who refers to themself as a "bright" I'll be more than happy to smack them upside the head.

Terry,

John is not the only one to come full circle and back to Christianity. My journey thru agnosticism lasted over 30 years, but was not nearly as interesting as John's! I came back because I had a spiritual experience that let me know that God IS, and He is with me. Proof to me, but it absolutely, positively cannot be proved or even communicated to another person. Impossible. I came back to Christianity after four readings of the Gospels, and finally going to church, where I realized that I had finally come home.

And finally, good advice about the beer. As soon as I send this, I'm off to the refrigerator!

Arminius

I do read the comments, although I only comment myself when they are particularly interesting (as the atheism vs. agnosticism discussion was) or particularly bigoted and stupid. I see that a lot of the close-minded bigots have left this thread, which makes me very happy. Let them comment on Chuck Colson's thread.

The reason I don't comment more frequently myself is not lack of interest, I assure you, but because I write for a living, and I have to ration my writing time. Spending too much time commenting would, alas, be like being a plumber who inspects pipes every time he or she visits a friend.

Thanks John - sounds like you've been there and done that. On the other hand, I wonder how you came full circle and returned to a pretty orthodox (if liberal) form of Christianity, at least from the sounds of your posts?

As a lapsed Catholic since age 17, I've never had the slightest inclination to return to church. Walking into a Catholic church these days feels altogether out of place - and something I've had occasion to do in the last couple of years.

Obviously we both know by now that books alone never get you to your higher goals, aside from the entertainment value. Sometimes I run out of steam and don't read for months - I'm kind of in one of those cycles at the moment.

For me these days it all comes down to good beer.....think I'll have one now.

regards -

TERRY:

I have read Aldous Huxley, with enthusiasm. Long before I came to believe in God, I read books such as Lost Horizon (Joseph Conrad), The Razor's Edge (William Somerset Maughm), Siddhartha (and all Hermann Hesse), the entire series by Carlos Castaneda, The Autobiography of a Yogi (Yogananda), Be Here Now, Be Here, all the mystical books I could get my hands on, like the Upanishads, The Rig Vedas, The Bhagavad Gita, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, etc. I've always been a hopelessly romantic seeker.

I figured that there had to be some old geezer like Gandalf sitting in a lotus position in a cave high in the Himalayas who had all the answers. I was always eager to read anyone who spoke of mysticism and nirvana.

I also tried all of the drugs you cited. I recommend psychotropic mushrooms for gentle highs with no withdrawal effects.

Thanks, Ms. Susan Jacoby, for monitoring and guiding these postings.

Kudos and accolades to you, both picked fresh this morning.

TERRY:

Right back atchya.

Obviously, you read bigger books than I do. I try to keep my reading down to one and one-half inches in width, max, five inches wide, eight inches tall. I do own some really big books, but only to impress my friends.

I have also read that since space is determined by time and matter, if a theoretical object were hurtling against the ultimate delineation of space, space would expand as the object continued on its trajectory, so space actually never ends.

I love to watch the documentaries about space on TV. It seems that there are things going on out there in the wide, wide yonder that baffle scientists. Man, when someone says some doodad is equal to a trillion billion times our sun, and puts out all the power of all the universe in milliseconds, my jaw drops.

Kind of reminds me of God as revealed by the Bible. He's a Spirit who has always existed; no beginning, no end. He's a Spirit who spoke light into existence.

Okay, I can express the last two concepts, but what do they really mean?

When one considers all the wonders of the universe, it rivals the very existence of God for awesomeness (is that a word?). Then, one turns around and goes inward to the infinitely small, and there's another universe that blows the mind.

A correction to the John Stephens post above -

Rather than space being flat, that should read.. the expanding material universe appears to be flat.

Susan attributes the word agnostic to biologist and first-hand Darwinian Thomas Huxley as a less alienating synonym for atheist. But I do wonder if he might have been referring to a more ambivilant state of mind after all. Over the years I've always equated 'agnostic' with doubtful, whereas 'atheist' connotes firm unilateral conviction....well, probably hair splitting on what is really a scale of strength vs weakness.

But his grandson Aldous, who departed the family fold of science for literature, was not only fascinated with religion (and hallucinogenic drugs) but famously wrote 'Brave New World', 'The Doors of Perception' and his anthology on mysticism East and West, 'The Perennial Philosophy'. I see this last work as being strongly equivilant to 'The Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James (and very probably the inspiration for Huxley's work). Certainly W. James viewed mysticism as a completely credible (if unordinary) state of mind.

A. Huxley had considerable experience with peyote, mescalin and finally LSD (which he took on his deathbed, as did Alan Watts). He seemed convinced based on his own experience, that drugs could open the doors to alternate realities and varietous experiences that were always available but not easily assessible.

In more recent years, LSD research was conducted extensively in a clinical setting by Dr. Stan Grof, psychiatrist and co-founder (with Abraham Maslow) of transpersonal psychology. See 'The
Ultimate Journey' for an encapsulation of his work.

By all means read Aldous Huxley - he's a fine writer & definitely sheds more light on the uncommon world of mystical experience.

John Stephens -

Thanks for your respones. I recommend looking into Inflation Theory as the current 'best' explanation for Big Bang dynamics.

In this view, fluctuations first appeared in the quantum vaccuum (the so-called nothingness of the initial conditions) quickly (very quickly) followed by the initial stages of expansion where according to this theory, cosmos inflation occurred at speeds far in excess of the speed of light (from a point smaller than a proton to a grapefruit sized cosmos in trillionths of a second - truly unimaginable other than by mathematical construct). For all intents and purposes, we could assume that the universe appeared instanteously. The entire contents of our present day universe were contained in that initial point (very Kaballah-like, where Kether/Aleph also known as the point, is the first supernal manifestation of the Great Unmanifest).

Expansion slows and the known laws of the universe establish themselves. Space appears to be perfectly flat, which is also in accord with this theorem.

And when all is said and done, one can reach a couple of possible conclusions from parsing out this paradigm: 1) the cosmos may have 'infinite' (no) boundries & it may also be conjectured that beyond the outer fringe of the known cosmos the universe could be expanding superluminally - beyond the speed of light. Space itself may expand at superluminal rates and is not necessarily subject to Einstein's famous limits (Hawking tells us that beyond the event horizon of black holes/singularities the known laws of physics cease and desist). 2) cosmic singularities like our own may be occurring on a regular basis throughout our infinite Metaverse 3) parallel universes are part and parcel of string theory and m-brane theory.

We could easily be co-existing with an infinite overlay of universes, some of which would have evolved life through sheer statistical probability - deferring to Chris Everett here.

I would agree that you can find God directly through mystical experience - whether you can then tell anyone what God is or isn't by virtue of that experience is very debatable. I would maintain that you cannot....this is purely an individual experience that transcends religion and it's known parameters, in my opinion.

best regards -

Arminus, that's a fair point, but the difference lies in the burden of proof. None is required to not believe. I thought Chris Everett expressed it excellently when he stated that rejecting someone else's unproven hypothesis doesn't equate to a positive affirmation of belief. Someone stating strongly and flatly that there is no god might be expressing a position of faith but in most cases I think you'd find that they're just being rhetorical for the sake of argument. I don't personally know any atheists who claim to have direct knowledge that there is no god or gods. The long and short of it is that it doesn't require any faith to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. As I said before, disbelief is the default position. A person has to come to belief. They are born without it.

Chip,

If I declared, without elaboration, 'There is a God', that strongly implies that I think I have proof. I don't, of course, even though I am a believer. But that statement would justifiably initiate the obvious response from many: 'Where is the proof?'. Would not the reverse, a blanket declaration of 'There is no God' also imply the presence of a supposed proof? I'm not trying to say that atheists are 'believers' in the classical sense of the word.

I agree with you - it is refreshing to have Susan reading our comments and commenting on them.

Arminius

"I will agree with that. But what about someone who strongly implies, or says outright, "There is no God." Does this not change the equation?"

Only if the person claims to have direct knowledge that there is no god. At that point they've entered the realm of faith since they're asserting as fact something they couldn't possibly know.

Susan, thanks for chiming in on the lack of difference between atheists and agnostics. That's always been a huge pet peeve of mine. I can forgive religious people for being confused by it. The blame belongs to self-described agnostics that claim a position seperate and distinct from atheism. I like to think of it as the "I'm not with those people" ploy. At least Huxley was honest about his intentions when he coined the term, but it's certainly muddied the waters. Also, thanks for reading and participating in your comments section. To my knowledge you're the only On Faith panelist who does so.

TERRY AND ARMINIUS, ET AL:

It's so very obvious that you are well educated, whether formally or not. Excellent posts!

Thank you, all you atheists who corrected my misconceptions about your beliefs...er, uh, unbeliefs.

To those who advocate the idea that the universe has always been unfolding and regenerating, that flies in the face of the scientific theory of the "big bang" theory.

Faith in the Judaic-Christian God can, in fact, be determined by scientific principle. "If you seek me with your whole heart, you will find me." Similarly, if one follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, one can attain to a knowledge of God. If you do, you will, if you don't, you won't. Discretion prohibits me from lauding my experiences with God, but I feel compelled to add that I have had sufficient experiences to confirm the existence of a personal God. I do not believe in blind faith. Blind faith is for fools and madmen.

I think that those in these and other posts who argue that one can be both secular and religious
is true, but in reference to the apparent dichotomy between secularism and religiousity, I suggest the following:

Let us accept for sake of argument that the United States is a Christian nation. Alrighty, then. The "Christians" have brought us religious intolerance and persecution; 300 years of Indian wars; 200 years of slavery; 100 years of Jim Crow laws; hegemonic Imperialism; and endless wars. Why not step aside for a while and let the secularists have a shot at it?

From what I've read and IMO, the agnostic is a skeptic who questions the existence of gods and perhaps believes the question can't be answered.

The atheist is more of a cynic who sees the question itself as a pointless waste of time.

These two "definitions" are separate and distinct from what the words may really mean, more acurately describing the people who give themselves these labels.

It appears the modern agnostic is more of a 'weak atheist' than any kind of weak believer, and so is in fact an a-theist by definition. Given the frenzy of some atheists we've seen perhaps the agnostic just doesn't want to be associated with that frenzy.

These are interesting questions. There is no overlap, no intersecting set where the agnostic + atheist share space with any of the human population describing itself as believers. You can't just add both sides and divide by 2 to get an average. It's like having 2.5 chilren.

Susan Jacoby,

You said, "Both the atheist and agnostic say, "I don't believe there's any evidence to support the existence of God." This is not a faith or a religion, but a withholding of faith in the absence of proof."

My reply:
I will agree with that. But what about someone who strongly implies, or says outright, "There is no God." Does this not change the equation?

I really enjoy your essays and the ensuing discussions.

Arminius

My bad! I can't believe I mad such a stupid mistake. It's not 1 in 2^26, it's 1 in 26 factorial or approximately 1 in 403291461000000000000000000. That's even stronger proof of the nonexistence of god!

Quick post - there's a difference between "ultimate knowledge" and unified theory. The term "unified theory" typically refers to attempts (like string theory) to reconcile the incompatibilities between gravity and the other forces. If achieved it will simply mean that physics rests on a single framework. That's different from the inherent limitation of the scientific method that relies on a set of fundamental constructs for which there is no explanation ("explanation" being the decomposition of phenomena into simpler, but more generalizable, constructs).

To all of you who are discussing the difference between atheism and agnosticism, I would like to say what Robert Ingersoll said in 1870: there is no difference. Agnosticism was simply a term coined by Thomas Huxley in the 1870s because the word sounded less abrasive than the much older "atheist."

Of course an atheist can't "prove" that there is no God. Those who call themselves atheists and those who call themselves agnostics have both concluded that the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that there is no supreme being. This is entirely different from the position of religious believers, who have concluded on the basis of no evidence that there is a God. Both the atheist and agnostic say, "I don't believe there's any evidence to support the existence of God." This is not a faith or a religion, but a withholding of faith in the absence of proof.

Atheists are agnostics, and agnostics are atheists (as Ingersoll said). We have nothing in common with religions based on propositions that contradict the laws of nature

Moody,

Your probability argument is akin to this:

"I have a book that says that the order of the letters of the English alphabet is abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. It also says there is no god."

Now, probability theory says that the probability of my book's alphabetical ordering being correct is 1 in 2^26, or 1 in 67,108,864. And yet it is. Astounding! With that kind of demonstrated accuracy I can reasonable conclude that the book isn't guesswork, but TRUE KNOWLEDGE, so I can reasonably conclude that it is correct about there being no god.

You ask for reason. Would you be so kind as to further defend your understanding of probability, or you assertion that there's something divine about the Koran referring to a round Earth when the Earth was known to be round for at least a thousand years prior to the Koran's compilation?

Arminius -

I agree if you mean we never get to the end of our search - in that knowledge/belief systems
always have logical limits. For example, Goedel's Incompleteness theorem, although applied to the logic of mathematical systems, has been used by cognitive theorists to imply that since the human brain and it's functions are finite, we will never arrive at 'final' or ultimate answers (e.g. a limit built into the 'design' as it were). I'd say the brain's capacity for theory-making and thought, while a very good thing for survival, prevents us from 'seeing directly' into unvarished reality 'as it is'. Pursuing this idea takes us far afield into the brain's similarities/differences with computers functions and so forth - another time and place!

Stephen Hawking, the astro-physicist seems to agree when he doubts that we'll ever discover a Grand Unified Theory of everything - same reason. He is not alone and shares this doubt with other physicists. We can wonder, along with the late lamented Carl Sagan, if ancient galactic civilizations far in advance of our fledging status as thinkers have arrived at a level of final/absolute knowledge, or are still swept along by the inexorable and changing tides of evolution?!

This is where my 'faith' enters in - the ability to transcend these inherent organic limits and to see 'directly' into reality as it is has been reiterated in the literature of various mystical traditions for many centuries. My particular favorite happens to be Zen, as part of the Buddhist tradition. There are methodologies for achieving a 'perception' of the absolute - viewing our own fundamental nature. To me this seems a most worthy goal - although Zennists deny that Zen is a religion, in spite of the various monasteries devoted to this arcane pursuit.

What all of this implies is the unbounded and potentially unlimited nature of consciousness as existing separately & independently from organic brain functions. This view states that consciousness is by no means an epiphenomenon, but is in fact the primary and universal element that enables life as we know it. Obviously there are at least two schools of thought on this matter - I come down on the non-materialist side.

There is a logical flaw in the assertion of an "atheistic belief": Whatever I say, is expressed in words. Every statement, therefore, can be described as "semantics". There are, however, two levels of semantics:
1. The fact of making a statement
2. the content of a statement.

If I say: I don't believe in the existence of god(s), the sophists cry: "That is a belief", because I say it.

The content, namely "there is no such thing as a god" is to be proved or disproved, and can at least be taken seriously on the level of content.

The mere fact that I say it, cannot be used as an argument for a "belief".

Chris Everett:

Could you be kind enough to reason rather than PERSONAL ATTACKS and bigotary.

Arminus,

I'm reposting due to confusing typos.

For me, atheism, even "hard" atheism, is a rejection of a particular category of belief, namely belief in the existence of a god (or gods). So it's not a POSITIVE assertion of a particular belief. It's a rejection of SOMEONE ELSE'S unsupported hypothesis. I have no burden of proof to show that no god(s) exists, because the whole notion of god isn't mine in the first place. I think it was Bertrand Russell who hypothesized the existence of a fine porcelain teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter, to demonstrate that it didn't take "faith" in order to not believe it, even though its absence couldn't be proved. The god hypothesis is no different from the teapot hypothesis (barring a special NASA mission anyway), nor is its rejection any more an act of faith.

As I said before, I prefer to stick with the term "preposterous" for belief in god because it avoids the notion of absolute certainty while also indicating that it flies in the face of the available evidence.

Also, I didn't mean to sound defensive in my last post. I used the exclamation point to emphasize how PREPOSTEROUS it would be if the rejection of other people's ideas was tantamount to having faith in something, that "something" being "not the other person's whacky idea."

Arminus,

For me, atheism, even "hard" atheism, a rejection of a particular category of belief, namely belief in the existence of a god (or gods). So it's not a POSITIVE assertion of a particular belief. It's a rejection of SOMEONE ELSE'S unsupported hypothesis. I have no burden of proof to show that no god(s) exists, because the whole notion of god isn't mine in the first place. I think it was Bertrand Russell who hypothesized the existence a fine porcelain teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter, in order to demonstrate that it didn't take "faith" in order to not believe it, even though its absence couldn't be proved. The existence of god(s) is no different from that of the teapot (barring a special NASA mission anyway).

As I said before, I prefer to stick with the term "preposterous" for belief in god because it avoids the notion of absolute certainty while also indicating that it flies in the face of the available evidence.

Also, I didn't mean to sound defensive in my last post. I used the exclamation point to emphasize how PREPOSTEROUS it would be if the rejection of other people's ideas was tantamount to having faith in something, that "something" being "not the other person's whacky idea."

E.Favorite,

I was not speaking of you or the regulars here...and I admit I get overly sensitive at time. The atheists that are on here are normally very fair...(I almost said and balanced)...there are always those that drive by and throw bombs, then go on their way.

terra

Chris,

Of course you are not religious. Good grief. All I did is set forth the one of the accepted definitions of faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. There is no proof that there is no God. Ergo, faith. QED. What is wrong with that? I accept and respect your position. It is not an accusation of anything.

Arminius

I second Chip. I am not made "religious" by the mere existence of other people's crackpot ideas!

Chip,

Much of what you say is well said. But in the long run we are arguing semantics. And that is a dead end. So let us agree to disagree about the final definitions of words. It is, in the long run, subjective.

Arminius

"It seems that atheists are religious, because they believe fervently that there is no god."

The default position on any truth claim is disbelief. It can't change into belief until there's sufficient justification. Atheists simply have a different threshold. It's not logical to call atheism a belief, else we'd all pop out of the womb with fervent beliefs about everything about which we are as yet unconvinced, which would have to include every possible thing of which someone might potentially become convinced at some point in their life. That list would be infinite. A more accurate way to put it would be that many atheists fervently believe that there's no reasonable justification for belief in a god or gods. The difference is perhaps subtle but I think it's an important distinction. We're all born atheists.

Chris,

One definition of faith, from the dictionary: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. An atheist is convinced that there is no god, because there is no proof. To bring up that horrendously trite expression - there is no proof that there is no god. Ergo, faith.

I believe in God. I have no proof. I don't give a damn about it either.

Arminius

My brief input: The idea of God is PREPOSTEROUS. For me this is the perfect word for characterizing assertions that have no evidentiary support whatsoever. And I belive it is the typical atheist position. The whole "atheism is religion" thing is bunk, generally put forward by people that simply can't conceive of a non-faith-based foundation for belief.

Terry,

Regarding John Stephens: seems that he condemned generalizations and then made one. There is a gray area between atheism and agnosticism, for sure. What he spoke of were the (few) atheists who say that we believers are stupidly wrong because we cannot draw God and label all parts, as it were. But, as the trite saying goes, lack of proof is not a disproof.

And you said, intriguingly: "...what you see is what you get. One could say that this position is completely free of metaphysics (although some would argue that science is ultimately a metaphysical system of knowledge)."

I submit (just my opinion) that if you push any field of science far enough, you will reach a point where, because you don't know, you must stop. If you have the courage to proceed, you are advancing into metaphysics.

Arminius

John Stephens -

I appreciate your well crafted posts and your love for good beer! In this instance, I perceive that you've made a rather stark, black and white statement concerning atheists than doesn't do justice to the subtlety of the issue.

You are perhaps thinking of the atheist that chooses to disregard and even disavow theistic propositions based on a lack of concrete evidence. They remain unconvinced of the possibility of God as presented in theistic doctrines as being true, and we must acknowledge that this position presents a compelling argument.

In this case, the atheist might say that the scientific standards of proof for the truth of something have not been met based on what we observe empirically in our material universe. So, what you see is what you get. One could say that this position is completely free of metaphysics (although some would argue that science is ultimately a metaphysical system of knowledge). The power of prediction and replication are what gives science and it's theories validity. so this is a reasonable position for an atheist to take - if agnostics tried harder, they might even arrive at the same conclusions.

Now think instead of Buddhist philosophy, which disavows a personal Creator of the universe - there are a lot of Buddhists, and none believe in God. Without going much further into the matter, there is a kind of metaphysics here that is fundamentally non-material in nature. For one thing, Buddhists don't believe the cosmos was ever really created ex nihilo - from nothing at a certain moment in time. What they believe is that the cosmos (there may be many such universes) continue to re-cycle without beginning or end....within this fundamental view, it becomes unnecessary to postulate a Creator.

I won't go further, except to say that where Muslims say there is no god but God, the Buddhists say there is nothing whatsoever but the One Reality - it's as though the one reality were trying to speak of the One Realilty. As the Dzogchen practitioners say, the Mother and Child essence are one.....if one has the eyes to see.

So yes, there are different brands of atheism and different brands of beer -

best regards -

"All theology is opinion," in Bertrand Russell's opinion.

I like what my college professor of logic said: "All generalizations are false."

It seems that atheists are religious, because they believe fervently that there is no god. They can no more prove that there is no god than religious persons can prove that there is a god. Both take their stand on faith.

Agnostics at least admit that they don't know.

One cannot learn until one knows what one does not know.

Animal Talk
Breaking the Codes of Animal Language

http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=25&pid=504405

Tim Friend is the one who originated that phrase (for the curious). I paraphrased a quote in Todd Tremlin's book where he quotes Tim Friend's book.

Mortifus:
"What are the 4 fundamental concerns of the mammal?
Sex, Real Estate, Who's Boss?, and What's for Dinner?"

Considering that real estate and who's boss have everything to do with sex, it really boils down to only two fundamental concerns. :)

Loco_Moco:
"Never mix ice cream and horse crap. It doesn't improve the horse crap, and it ruins the ice cream."

True enough, although I suspect we'd differ as to which is which. ;)

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Hmmm, checking your referenced site:( questions asked by non-Muslims who know something about Islam)

"1. QUR'AN IS THE HANDIWORK OF MUHAMMAD AND NOT THE WORD OF GOD ?
Question:

Is it not true that Qur'an is the handiwork of Muhammad and not the work of God ?

Answer:

Under Construction "

What kind of Answer is that?????

The rest of the answers are negated by the fact that the Mo never received anything from allah because allah's messenger, Gabe, the pretty thingie, is a fictional character borrowed from the superstitious ancients. Then there are the facts that Mo was illiterate and the historical verification that the koran's "few" militaristic passages were used as the reasons for the pludering and pillaging lands of non-believers.

Your attempt to obfuscate the flaws in the founder and foundations of Islam simply reinforces the words of that famous quote.

"NO ONE IS SAFE, UNTIL THE KORAN IS DEFLAWED!!!!"

MOODY,

I know you're a fanatic and there's no reason to argue with you, but you last post is one of the most ridiculous, ignorant things I've ever read! It's wrong on every count! I especially liked the probability discussions - you obviously don't know a thing about probability, and I can say that with a certainty of 100% (not the 50% that you think it should be).

Your understanding of science is equally pathetic. You say "The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation." One example you give is the round Earth. Don't you know that the ancient Egyptians knew the Earth was round? Didn't you know that the Greek scientist Eratosthenes accurately measured the circumference of the Earth in the third century BC? That's many centuries before Islam even existed. Ditto with moonlight - it's been known to be reflected light since antiquity. Haven't you ever heard of Ptolmey?

If I sound harsh it's because you should know better than to post this kind of rubbish. It is yet again another example of BAD FAITH from someone OF FAITH. You are trying to deceive people into belief. That, my friend, is evil.

Face it - you believe BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE. Pure and simple. You find it cathartic and meaningful to be a part of your religious community. If you were able to articulate the value of Islam from this perspective you would be worthy of respect. But you can't, or you won't, so you aren't.

If all this comes as a shock, if you actually believe the arguments in your post, then you are being deceived by those you trust most. Learn a little about probability and you'll soon see that you've been lied to. Learn a little about the history of science and you'll soon see that you've been lied to. Learn to think logically and you'll soon see that you;re being lied to. Open your mind, and maybe your heart will follow.

PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (SWT)TO AN ATHEIST
by Dr. Zakir Naik

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST

Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.

My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.

LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD

My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)

QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?

THEORY OF PROBABILITY

In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.

The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.

CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN

The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.

QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE

Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.

SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).

Surah Fussilat:

"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

[Al-Quran 41:53]

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Just some more recent Huckabee verbage, this time from good 'ol Texas Kenneth Copeland:

"Last November, Copeland hosted Gov. Huckabee on five of Copeland's televised programs. At the ministers' conference last month, Copeland effusively praised Huckabee and said that Huckabee had pledged to support him despite the Senate investigation."

"He [Huckabee] said, 'Kenneth Copeland, I will stand with you.' He said, 'You're trying to get prosperity to the people, and they're trying to take it away from 'em.' [Huckabee] said, 'I will stand with you, any time, anywhere, on any issue.' That settled that. I said, 'Yeah, that's my man. That's my man, right there.' "

"Copeland also quoted Gov. Huckabee as saying: "Why should I stand with them [Senate] and not stand with you? They only got 11 percent approval rating."

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/08/649745.aspx

There's that Reaganesque "government-is-the-problem-to-everyone's-ills" reference to the "they're" who are "trying to take it [insert whatever freedom, value, virtue you'd like here] away from 'em...

This man wants to represent America?

Terra – Of course what you said made sense - and it’s generated quite an interesting conversation. However, when you say, “Atheists have come on this forum and made statements that believing is stupid and those who believe are somehow less then intellectual,” it’s hard for me to respond without specific examples.

As I’ve said elsewhere, my own experience as a believer tells me that I’m no smarter or intellectual now than I was then. I am a lot more informed, though, and happier for it.

As a believer, albeit a sometimes impious one, I'd sum up my opinion on mingling religious faith and civil government with a rustic aphorism:

Never mix ice cream and horse crap. It doesn't improve the horse crap, and it ruins the ice cream.

Susan:

"We must find a way to rescue secularism, and the separation of church and state, from the denigration of both the religious right and the religious left."

You could start by suggesting that whenever church and state are mixed, the church is almost always reduced to serving the state.

Then you could say that it seems the state sponsored religions like the Church of England, and some others on the European Continent are much weakened by their association with the states, and by state funding.

I expect that you would hardly draw an argument with that from most religious folks, either right or left leaning.

I don't know a single religious person who agrees with Huckabee's comment about amending the Constitution to be consistent with his ideas of religion. You know why that sank without a trace? Because it got no to negative traction with the electorate in general. It hurt his campaign far more than it helped. In fact, I believe it contributed to his failure to break out into the mainstream of American politics. I doubt you will hear of it again.

Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.

The fool in his heart says there is no Tinkerbell

I got much of that from the book I suggested in that post.

Our species evolved into its present state some 100,000 years ago, with the same brain, neocortex and large memory capacity, the same language and interpretives structures we use today.

These were adaptive solutions to the survival pressures of their day, evolved from the more primitive versions possessed by our likely ancestors such as Habilis, Ergaster, and Erectus to name a few.

Culture is transmitted information, transmitted by language and ritual and myth etc. It appears to me that religion is a parasitic node in this stream, but I'm not sure I can describe what I mean exactly by that at this point. It does help the extant power structures to answer Who's Boss before the poor child is able to think for itself.

I would very much like to know what use religion is to us today? How is it a successful adaptation to the survival pressures of modern humanity?

It strikes me that it now is more like an appendix, something our genetic ancestors had use for but now does nothing beneficial itself. In fact it now only provides a location for a potentially fatal infection.

Dear DITL -

I'll go ahead and disagree with your take on Hitchens' writing being extremely hostile and over-wrought, but what else did you expect from me?

I will say this - in the past few years, I have taken to the practice of re-reading a book within a few months of its first reading. I find that I get more out of it as I come to the writer with an appreciation for her/his style, while approaching the book with a pretty good grasp of the salient points, looking to discover nuances and insight that I missed the first time around.

This practice has kept me in what I would term good stead. For instance, my initial read of Harris' "End of Faith" left me with the distinct impression that he condoned torture. The second time through, I was more attuned to the nuances of his argument and came away feeling less sure about his position.

Similarly, I was a bit off-put by Hitchens' all-out assault on Mother Teresa in "God is Not Great" the first time through. But that assault led me to do a bit of research on the subject, and by the time I got around to a second reading of GING, I realized that my impressions of MT had been shaped not by any knowledge, but by received opinion and a good PR campaign on her behalf. As one who constantly shakes their head at the incredulity of religionists confronted with facts that disabuse them of their beliefs, I was a bit surprised to find myself in the same position regarding MT. I just didn't want to believe the truth was the truth!

Go figure.

My long-winded point is that I have come to appreciate the directness of Hitchens' writing, even when I disagree with his positions. I will also say that even when I strongly disagree with his positions, he's worth the read, if for no other reason than the service he provides as an expander of a reader's vocabulary through his colorful and robust use of the language and his ability to make strong arguments in support of his positions.

oops, for my spelling errors, too numerous to mention.

I think that the comment by Mr. Mortiful is excellent.

It is a simpler way of saying what I have said before, that we have inherited our senses and the way we perceive the world from the animals, and they evolved in this way to navigate the world of order.

I have been thinking about a concept which I call "landscape." Landscape is that one tiny little part of the world which is local to an individual, which and individual gets to experience. The landscape of human beings is the same landscape as the animals. I am intrigued by this, because there is a disconnect between the capcity of our minds to think, and wonder, and the landscape, in which we actually dwell.

This kind of thinking is similar to what Mortifus was saying, only he said it alot easier than I have.

Well I won't become an apologist for Sam Harris, but he says what he says. It's a theoretical question that I believe he answers honestly for himself, at least, and probably reflects a lot of people's sentiments.

Personally, I have learned in my own life that I can never claim absolutes, and therefore cannot say I would never, under any circumstances, do this or that or condone this or that.

One would hope that they would never be faced with the predicament of torture for the sake of "good," as in our recent administration's revelation that torture "saved lives." I don't agree with that position.

However, if someone had my wife and son hostage, with a bomb tied to them both, and confessed that he/she knew how to stop them from dying, I just don't know what I'd be capable of doing personally.

In writing, Christopher Hitchens seems extremely hostile and over-wrought. But when I see him on TV, he is very interesting and a gentelman. I like him very much. When you see him in a dialogue with a surly and rude religeous person, it is easy to see where his hostility comes from.

Sam Harris writes:

"As nuclear and biological terrorism become increasingly possible, it is in everyone’s interest for men and women of goodwill to determine what should be done if a prisoner appears to have operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity (and may even claim to possess such knowledge), but won’t otherwise talk about it."

Here's where I part company with Mr Harris, that is, if he means to advocate for the use of torture.

In the past, it was the fear that witchcraft, apostasy and atheism were "becoming increasingly possible" that was used as an excuse to torture and kill. It was racial prejudice and fear that motivated genocide and made it acceptable for "civilized" nations to engage in the same.

Man will always find an excuse to save his own skin while intoning that he is actually saving the skins of countless others in the process, even if the methods he employs have been proven to be totally useless in saving said skins.

This is one case where religious language makes sense: those who will do anything to save their skins usually lose their souls in the process.

Jeff P, about your Sam Harris quote

I think that torture should be banned and outlawed. There can be no exceptions.

However, a law or a ban does not force people to do anything, nor prevent them from doing anything.

If an individual must engage in torture to save many lives, then a person can do that, just as a person can violate any law that has ever been written, and then work out all the consequences, later.

Sam Harris:

"I am not alone in thinking that there are potential circumstances in which the use of torture would be ethically justifiable. Liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find out the location of a ticking time bomb. Such “ticking-bomb” scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic. But realism is not the point of such thought experiments. The point is that unless you have an argument that rules out torture even in idealized cases, you don’t have a categorical argument against the use of torture. As nuclear and biological terrorism become increasingly possible, it is in everyone’s interest for men and women of goodwill to determine what should be done if a prisoner appears to have operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity (and may even claim to possess such knowledge), but won’t otherwise talk about it."

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

Dear DZ -

I allow no one slack on the issue of torture, including Hitchens.

But where has Hitchens ever come out as a supporter of torture? Quite the contrary, he wrote a striking column in The Guardian back in 2001 titled, "In case anyone's forgotten: torture doesn't work." (article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,,593078,00.html )

As an assiduous reader of Hitchens, I find it hard to believe that I've somehow missed a reversal of his stance on torture. Perhaps you are referring to Harris who, I believe, comes down on the side of torture in some cases in his book, "The End of Faith." IIRC, Harris makes the case that aerial bombing is a form of torture-from-afar, and if we are willing to engage in such torture, we should be able to engage in up-close-and-personal torture. If not, then we should stop the torture of aerial bombings as well.

Is Harris advocating torture, or is he saying we should cut the crap and stop finding situation-dependent euphemisms for torture?

If you can provide a citation for Hitchens' reversal on torture, I'd appreciate it.

DZ, I'd suggest you review Mr. Harris' take on this I think you'd at least see his point. I won't repeat it here, but it is well documented as having been given to him as a philosophical question of "the greater evil" type, whereby if torture of one individual could "save the world" would it be suggestable. He's taken a bunch of flack for that speculation but in no way have I seen Hitchens or Harris be supportive of this administration's approach to torture.

I've not seen Hitchens delight in the torture aspect of this war, but he seems to see the war as a way to rid the middle-east of theocracy, and the best chance to establish democracy in those areas. Be that as it may, as a humanist/freethinker I think we can agree that torture is abhorent, useless, and ultimately degrading to the condition of the human spirit of both the victim and the perpetrator.

To the degree that I could be directed to any legitimate source that suggested that Hitchens or Harris or any of the "new atheists" wholeheartedly and warmly support torture, I stand corrected.

Mr. Mark: OK, I can mostly live with that.

Mr. Mark and Jeff P: BUT, anyone who supports torture under any circumstances whatsoever and thereby undermines that which is fundamental to humankind is a piece of filth. I am, perhaps, much more absolutist on this issue than you, but i do not understand, having read many of your posts, how you can allow anyone any slack on this question.

Mr. Mark, google "Minds and Gods The Cognitive Foundations of Religion", by Todd Tremlin.

A fascinating look at hour our genetic ancestry provides us with specific cognitive mental structures which enable the particular human instance to believe this stuff ... to fall for it in my words.

Religion is generally a part of the cultural baggage handed to the child as it is initialized, it doesn't pay for the most part for that human to question the validity of his baggage - he has to worry about not getting eaten today.

What are the 4 fundamental concerns of the mammal?
Sex, Real Estate, Who's Boss?, and What's for Dinner?

Our modern culture has been existence for only a tiny percentage of the time our species has existed. The same brain and mental structures we possess today were for almost our entire history concerned only with those 4 mammalian principles for survival.

Maybe the next species will avoid the religion trap, it doesn't look like we're going to be able to rid ourselves of it.

Just received my copy of "The Portable Atheist." The only criticism I've read so far from atheists is that it didn't include any writings of Robert Ingersoll, considered one of history's greats as far as freethinkers, and documented well in Susan's book.

I've seen Hitchens and Harris speak (in recorded videos) for hours-on-end and I don't particularly find them hateful warmongers, as DZ has suggested. I do understand they have very intimate and personal relationships to people who have been given the "death sentence" by their religions, specifically Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and that they are passionate about the dangers that relions foster in their zealous branches. However to suggest that Sam Harris is a hate-mongering savage is to lose credibility, in my estimation--he's soft-spoken, respectful with his audiences, and intelligent.

Hitchens has said over and over that his prime passion is the protection of the 1st Amendment, and the separation of church and state as in "Jefferson, Build that Wall." Regardless of his personality or know-it-all appearances, he's brave to risk his life and that of his family for creating the dialogue. That's where I value him and Sam Harris and Dan Dennett (see his current posting) and Richard Dawkins. Yes these guys can be polemic. If they are to be criticized, criticize them on the basis of their arguments, not on their personalities. I personally wish Sam Harris would post more on On Faith.

Dear DZ -

Thanks for your comments.

I have made clear that I disagree with Hitchens' stand on the Iraq War. I'm also not in harmony with his opinion that one exterminates their enemies, rather than trying to find common ground and solutions to conflict.

I do not hope nor wish to agree with anybody 100% of the time. All I can say in Hitchens' defense is that it is clear that his opinions are never arrived at lightly. Hitchens has run the gamut from being an extreme leftist to whatever he is today. I respect the fact that he is open to learning new things and to changing his positions, even drastically if so moved. If the rest of us had such ability the world would be a better place.

As a writer, Hitchens is so far above Sam Harris and many others that comparisons just aren't fair. But on the subject of Harris, I don't find his arguments as compelling as those made by Hitchens or Dawkins or Bertrand Russell, for example.

I'm currently jumping to and fro in Hitchens' recently issued collection of atheistic writings (by others, not himself), "The Portable Atheist." I recommend the book highly.

I find Hitchens no more disgusting than any other frontline warrior in a cause. He's human, just like the rest of us. Is he so out of line that we need reject the message along with the messenger? That's probably a personal choice, wouldn't you say? Does one not leave a burning building simply because george bush is the one telling you to evacuate? Even a serial liar like bush might need to be heeded in certain situations.

I'm really enjoying the last two discussions on this thread. They are very civil and enlightening, and I'd like nothing better than a new Enlightenment.

Whoever said I'm not an evangelizing atheist is right. I care about the religious opinions of others only insofar as they attempt to impose their beliefs on society. That's one reason why I am so leery of the current influence of the evangelical religious left on the Democratic Party. I am most deeply concerned about anti-rationalism in American society. (My new book, "The Age of American Unreason," is being published by Pantheon this Tuesday, on the 199th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.) Once you start imposing faith-based rationales on public policy, you inevitably antagonize those whose faith leads them to an entirely different conclusion. I am opposed to the war in Iraq, for example, because it is not working and costs too much in blood (Iraqi and American) and treasure. I'm not opposed to it because Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." The religious right, after all, prefers the Jesus who said, "I have come not to bring peace but a sword."

Mr. Mark said that theology is opinion.

Yes. That is correct. It is often opinion; it is the opinion of the person who wrote it.

But sometimes, theology is not even opinion, when it is written by a committee, or by the government agents of a victorious king. Much of the originating theology of Christianity was pieced together in this way. Therefore, I know, that formal, "scientifically" organized theology cannot possibly be true, since it is not even anyone's opinion, but political expediency, or the imposition of military force.

Even amoung very progressive religions, such as the Episcopal Church, the underlying theology on which much rests is not credible, because it was not even written by anyone with a sincere opinion, but was the compromise of many political factions, devised so that Queen Elizabeth might rule legitimagely, yet not feel ompelled to persecute people of the "old faith."

Theology is just what other people tell you that you must believe. But if you do not, then that is that, you do not. I do not.

But I still believe something. What I am left with is what I puzzle out on my own. Probably, most people do not care enough, or are not interested enough, or do not have enough time with all of their busy secular things, to care or worry if the theology dictated to them is true or not, they just go along with it.

I feel pretty sure that most Christians are not familiar with, and do not even understand the theology that is the foundation of what they are supposed to believe; this includes Fundamentalist Christians, who seem so sure of themselves, in their pronouncements to others. For the most part, they do what I do; they work it out in their own minds.

Hahahah, gotcha, Mr. Mark!

Just wanted to see if how you'd resond.

An no, you have not been uncivil but you can come one strong. As can I.

Mr. Mark-

I have enjoyed your posts for months. I am an atheist, a hard or strong atheist if you understand the distinction (I believe you probably do), but Christopher Hitchgens is a disgusting hatemongering, warmongering, torture-supporting piece of filth. Same goes for Sam Harris. When we're outside the realm of theology and into practical policy and action, we need one standard applied uniformly and let the chips fall where they fall. Hitchens and Harris don't measure up.

Dear Gaby -

When have I ever been uncivil on this blog? You cut me to the quick!

I'm the first to admit that I am relentless in my bashing of religion, but I try to do it in a civil fashion. I treat my debating opponents as adults, not as children who need their hands held through some conditional embrace of socially accepted fantasies and lukewarm, feel-good responses.

I'll attempt to be more civil if you'll give me a few examples of my incivility to work on. Just realize that adjusting my debating style may result in throwing the Mr Mark baby out with the Mr Mark bath water. ;)

Susan, and all,

This has been a great thread so far, so I hope not to bring it down. I am a believer in God, raised Catholic, but now just an individual who sympathizes more with the secularist view and not at all happy with the evangelicals. Are secularists the polar opposites of evangelicals?

Susan, I will read your book "Freethinkers". What I get from posts on this site is that you are a secularist and Christopher Hitchens is not. You poke at the religious machinery, but seem respectful of individuals who belive. Mr. Hitchens pokes at the machinery, and seems dismissive of all believers. I would characterize Mr Hitchens as being evangelical in his atheistic beliefs.

We all try to convince others to our point of view, but I think this natural trait progresses to evangelism when we become so invested in our own beliefs that we stop listening and fail to stop talking.

Mr. Mark,

In a nutshell, it all comes back to Ben Franklin: "Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged: It is so. It is not so. It is so. It is not so."

Terra etal.,

I believe in something I can only describe as "The faith according to Gaby". I am not religiously aligned with anyone since I don't know anyone else who believes what I believe.

I think most atheists who are too outspoken when it comes to other peoples' religious beliefs, are uneasy because of the likes of the Canyon Shearers, Angelas, and Harolds of this world who would like nothing better than to force their dogma on the rest of us.

Admittedly, these people scare the "holy" daylight out of me. In turn, I respond rather harshly to them. I want them to go away, to shut up, like monsters under my bed.

Non fundies, like many of you are, do't threaten me at all. You, Arminius, Daniel ITLD, among others on this blog, and your civil atheist counterparts like E Fav, Mr. Mark (most of the time ;o)), Chris, among others, are fun to talk to and often have great viewpoints to share.

I think most comments that can be considered hurtful are made in the heat of the moment. I am a very impulsive person, although the older I get the more sedate I become. I have a tendency to pounce first and think later. Has gotten me into hot water a number of times. Maybe others here share that tendency.

You know what they normally say, religion and politics make bad conversation topics and tend to lead to heated discussions.

Now I hope that I made sense.

Also, I agree with you that if we all were to meet in person we would have a blast.

For all the screeds I post on this blog bashing religion, my personal belief about what religion "is" boils down to Bertrand Russell's statement that "all theology is opinion."

Science also has its opinions. These opinions are called hypotheses. Hypotheses are tested and proven to be true or not true, at which point the proven-as-true hypotheses are called theories. Theories is as close as science will come to terming something a fact.

By its very nature, theology/religion can not move beyond the stage of opinion. There are no legitimate proofs for religious beliefs, at least no proofs that would qualify as proof in any other field of human endeavor. Neither is there a way to test the opinions of religion to move them into the realm of scientific theory.

This is Russell's point - that theology never has and never will be able to rise above opinion into the loftier realms of theory and fact.

I have no problem with believers like Arminius who embrace this reality and accept that their beliefs are their opinions, irrational and non-fact based as they are. I do have a problem with religionists who dispute the established facts of science, or who advance fallacious histories, or who consider myth and legend to be equivalent to well-documented history, or who offer whole-cloth opinion as fact in an effort to raise proof for their religious claims to the standard of scientific proof. Why they just can't accept that religious "proof" is a much lower standard of proof than all other proofs and move on, I don't know. Perhaps it's because such an acceptance would mean that they'd have to stop using the word "proof" altogether in their arguments, for just as religionists often conflate belief with knowledge, they also conflate opinion with proof.

To my way of thinking, we owe it to humanity to shoot down these bogus "proofs" every time they rear their crackpot heads, just as bogus scientific claims are shot down ASAP by scientists themselves, and just as historians revise their histories as new evidence comes to light. But as few religionists are willing to attack the received opinion and dogma of other religionists (let alone their OWN dogmas), it's left up to the non-religious to state clearly that the religious emperor has no clothes.

Yes, I wish that the bogus claims of religion were being shot down by well-known public figures in broadly observed public forums, but outside of Christopher Hitchens and a few other brave souls, they aren't. At present, the best we can hope for is that the shots are being taken and continue to be taken in forums like On Faith. One must start somewhere, and starting in a blog that is read - at best - my people numbering in the high dozens is at least as start.

Granted, those of us doing the shooting down have great empathy for and identification with Sisyphus, even as we roll our boulder through the tempest inhabiting the On Faith teapot. But for the present, that's our lot in life. It may not be a lot, but it is our lot.

Great conversation.

Terra and others, I don't know much about the Wiccan beliefs but I've understood at least one definition to be that Wicca is of a variety of witchcraft founded on religious and magical concepts, with gods and goddesses as part of life-forces manifest in nature. Okay, no problem.

So I, like others here who have de-beliefed (mine from Christianity), would likely not attempt to particularly argue the point for the sake of argument. Personally the reason I like this site is because I can see a representation of leading "thinkers" in the realm of "faith," and understand how their beliefs lead their behaviors and in the area of politics, their policy.

"Anonymous" commented above (in a rather sarcastic way) that Susan "sweetie" may as well "get over it" and know that religion will never be conquered, so to speak. I think she misses the point with that criticism. Atheists understand most "believers" aren't crazy. We have the capacity as humans to segment our thinking into patterns that make sense to us, and maybe not to others. Some patterns are life-long.

The point of the Berlinerblau post is that in our political arena, someone's particular "belief system" has the potential to dictate policy for us all, and how various belief systems either support the politics or not.

In that sense, I think freethinkers can and will speak in ways that make sense for us all, as in-common secularists who will demand reason, empiricism and rational debate of issues instead of what's happened in the last 7 political years, perhaps much prior.

And as such, I think there will (hopefully) be more and more people engaged in the dialogue, demanding some baseline/secular understanding of the way our country should be governed, and that public dialogue can become more scrutinizing of real issues that plague our society, and less about Bible Thumping.

E Favorite,

"Pretty, wingie, talking, flying, fictional thingies" aka angels, fairies, tinkerbells are not gods.

And I am a "Crossanized" Catholic (some would say ex-Catholic) i.e. the embellished Jesus did exist but was/is not a god or a member of some trinity and he did not rise physically from the dead nor did he perform any miracles. As with Professor Crossan, I am still hoping there is some type of Singularity responsible for this complex, so far unique creation. Without some revelation to all hominids, no one will ever know.

Unlike Professor Crossan, I am still holding out for some type of afterlife.

It is too bad that the mere sound of the word "atheist" rings so bad in people's ears. I can be a completely spiritual admirer of the great nature that has produced me, my fellow humans, my ability to think and even to imagine gods, if I choose. In this admiration of nature I am pretty close to Pagans.

As humans, we have a desire to "personalize" phenomena (lightning is Zeus, my computer is also nothing but human when it collapses etc., god connected me with my wife etc...). It is a completely human attempt of understanding. For me and the other atheists, especially on these threads, the "personalization" urge has given way to an idea of non-personal forces, which, to me, produces even more awe and admiration than the reduction of the unknown to a more palpable human concept called god(s). Atheism is by no means equivalent with cheap materialism!

Yes, I think with Terra, Mr. Mark, Chris and others we could have a wonderful, edifying and peaceful conversation, without having to proselytize or convert or give up the frame to which we are used in our so often, and necessarily, metaphorical and symbolical thinking.

E. Favorite,
Thank you...

Oh no matter what is said my Gods can not be less then what they are... that is not what hurts...ok put it this way...
I have a young woman staying with me going to colledge. She asked me a question this evening that she needed answered for an assignment. What did I feel about Capitol Punishment, why, and where was my opinion formulated? I do not believe in capital punishment, I had to think about why I felt that way...and it came to me. And I realize that the same thing colors my view of almost everything.

Back when I was 6 my dad was in the Army Air Corp...what later came to be called Air Force. It was soon after ww2 and we were in North Africa, in Tripoli. One day we took a trip across the mountains and went to Tunis..to what had been a nazi POW camp. Dad took me into one of the long block buildings..on the walls were etched on the long walls huge naked ladies with tiny parachuters landing all over them. Also on the walls in rows were names, by each name were Stars of David or crosses. There were also bullet holes and dark rusty stains.
The dirt floor had soaked up blood and smells...it was horrible and caused me nightmares. But I am glad my Dad took me. I saw what is possible in the inhumanity of man to other men. It starts with words...Hitler made his speaches against jews...the inquisition made speaches against witches and burnt women, white men made speaches about black men while draped in sheets...and people died.

No, nothing can dim my faith or my gods, no more then words can dim the faith of a Christian, or Muslim, a jew or any other religion. But discrimination hurts, being marginalized hurts and can end in white block walls.

I think we have much we can learn from each other...wouldn't that be better then tradeing barbs?

Atheists have come on this forum and made statements that believeing is stupid and those who believe are somehow less then intelectional. It is what a faithful person sees the world through...sees the universe and how they fit into the scheme of things. You can not seperate who you are from how you believe. It's like telling a gay person, you can be a part of society but drop your gayness. Can not happen. My gods came to me..I did not look for them... you do not have any.. you do not need them. Maybe you are stronger then I, maybe there is something else I have been touched by..I don't know.

You do not believe, that is ok...I do, that also should be ok. I am not for religion in government, but you can not seperate my values from how I think.

Gods I hope this makes some kind of sence.

terra

Dear E
You are exactly right; no person can insult God; God is un-insultable.

In fact, the very concept that a person could insult God is absurd, if only people would just stop, and think it though, what this would mean.

And if God ever were insulted, I think we could all let him speak for himself.

Even if you sought intentionally to insult God, how would that work? But if you, as an atheist, do not believe in God, or make a rude remark about God, it is without any intent towards God, since you don't believe in him.

When people talk about insulting God, they really mean that they are insulted, and they just use God's feelings to stand for their own.

And when a person speaks of blaspehmy, they are really meaning that you are violating a rule or regulation, regarding what is or is not approved belief, all having nothing to do with God.

Arminius,
I thank you for the compliment! lol...I would hate to be known as a harmless old woman.

I had a fight with a young horse today...she is feeling her oats and learning some bad habits..rearing up and trying to bite. So we had a battle of wills today..I won. This time..; )
I have to make her think I am bigger and stronger...she is 11 months and already bigger and stronger. Her mother is huge and a handful. So I guess as long as I can come out ahead of two strong willed horses, I am not too old yet.

terra

Terra - I think we'd be friends in "real" life too.

In your reference to "Wingy" things, I assume you're referring to CCNL, is that right?

Anyone else? I really feel that when a strong statemment lie that is made, it should be specific.

BTW - I'm not sure CCNL would consider himself an atheist. Maybe he'll come on to say for himself.

You say, "you do not believe in any higher power... But I do and I am hurt each time it is made small and meaningless."

Seems to me that no non-believer could make your higher power small or meaningless. It's whatever it is to you. Non-believers have no influence on your deities, we just don't believe in them.

Hi, Chris,

Well, I've had a a beer or three myself.

Thanks for the compliment! You do have my respect, even if I get my feathers ruffled on occasion. Please note that Terra is hugely respectful too - unless her feathers are ruffled, then watch out! Also, I don't understand your 'hairy edge' comment either - I guess I missed something somewhere.

Arminius

Some atheists are not respectful, they are mean spirited. I do not say all Atheists are...just like most Christians are not Fundamentalists. I have a daughter who is Christain and a son and brother that are Atheists. lol..I love them all.

I care how we treat each other. It is easy to be mean to those different then ourselves, harder to make that connection to that other. Though I have found those with different views much more fun and interesting.

Oh and I am not hairy, though my hair is very long and like any self respecting Wiccan, red. And I really do not have much of an edge. I am slow I guess, I still do not get it...

terra

Terra,

I was referring to your comment about petty atheists. Earlier today I replied to Arminus in a way that to me was was deservedly respectful (Arminus is a paragon of civility) but also uncompromising, and I had been wondering how it would be received. And I've had a couple of beers.

Chris,
I am sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying.

terra

Terra,

I hope I fall just shy of your hairy edge.

Arminius,

I agree. I think that the Creator of Life...no matter Her/His name..lol..would care more about how we treat our siblings and the gifts of life given us.

We all begin at the same starting point..
We are given breath, this wondrous world and free will.

What are we doing with it? I bet one of my faces of God is weeping the Mother's tears of pain.

'They wanted the real mother, the blood mother, the great womb, mother of a
fierce compassion, a woman large enough to hold all the pain, to carry it
away. What we needed was someone who bled, someone deep and rich as a field,
a wide-hipped mother, awesome, immense, women like huge soft couches,
mothers coursing with blood, mothers big enough, wide enough, for us to hide
in, to sink down to the bottom of, mothers who would breathe for us when we
could not breathe anymore, who would fight for us, who would kill for us,
die for us.'

~Janet Fitch, White Oleander

Harold,

I hope you and Kumar make it to White Castle.

E Favorite,

My views are informed by my faith...my faith tells me that all religions are of value to those who profess them....and those who do not have a religious faith ..good on ya..that is not a problem to me.

I am tired of my Gods being called Wingy things...when they do not have wings. Those who do not understand any religion will look on them as what they look like on the surface...do I need to go into my religion in depth to have respect? Want some Wicca 101 classes?

I was raised a Christian...I understand their theology...I do not understand their meaness, which was not part of the faith of my parents.

I hold nothing against Christianity or any religion. There is great strength in all faiths, and great beauty. For those who do not hold a faith ...ok fine. But please stop with the belittling folks... you do not believe in any higher power... But I do and I am hurt each time it is made small and meaningless.

If you disagree with me or anyone that is of faith, then use your reason... and logic. Stop useing the same tactics that the fundies use to make Atheists and non Christians insignificant.

I like many of the Christians and Atheists on this forum, that includes you...I think we would be friends if we met in real time.

terra

Hi, E Fav,

I have seen a number of posts by atheists who say that anyone who 'believes' is either demented, dangerous, or ignorantly misinformed to the point of ridicule, or all of the above. I can't point to one offhand, and there are none on this particular thread. But I know you have seen them. Note they are not in the majority of non-believers. Yet they are the non-believer equivalent of fundies. You I respect. Them I do not respect.

Arminius

For a country that has professed separation of church and state, we are pecularly obsessed with religion, and the separation has never quite held. Presidents have consulted religious leaders on a variety of issues.

We would, I think, be a much healthier society if candidates' religious beliefs, or lack thereof, were left out of the mix.

Hi, Terra -- you say, "Some of the Atheists on here are just as petty and misinformed as the Fundi Christians."

Could you give a couple examples of this?

Well, we're apparently down to politics and religion, so here's a recent observation as a current resident of South Carolina....when Obama started preaching politics in black baptist churches he lost me permanently and forever - maybe that strategy made sense to his handlers at the time, but it carried political risks that will probably have consequences down the road.

Admittedly he's trying to pull off a coup against all odds, but the religion card is very tenuous and with a significant down side among democrats. He was pulling a Huckabee, and that did not go unnoticed. He clearly won the black vote nationally, but will he win the majority vote?? Time will tell -

I'm with Oort on this one - the less I see of religion in politics the more I like it, and I'm not crazy about any of the candidates - but will vote democratic as the lesser of two evils and because the party platform is what counts in the end. Be that as it may, I don't want to hear Obama's take on the interfaith movement in America - more political pandering. Yes, he's trying to clean up after Bush by offering big tent religion, but who needs it??

The (secular) governmental and societal issues have become so obscured by religious sucking up, that we have yet to hear a single viable solution to the problems plaguing us as a nation.

More religion will not save us from the repercussions of the (many) Bush administration fiascos - granted this will take ingenuity on many fronts, but less faith and more common sense (in the spirit of Thomas Payne) will take us where we need to go down the road.

As to atheists being religiously insensitive, this may have to do with the fall-out of the 'conversion' experience away from religion - as it seems to me that many atheists on these threads were once of a religious persuasion....it's almost like a republican suddenly seeing the light & becoming a democrat - when they realize the folly of republicanism.

Well, not exactly the same as losing your religion, but a close approximation all the same ...........

Terra,

And right you are. Secular in this context means the separation of church and state, not the rejection of religion. It puzzles me greatly that the fundies want to impose Christianity on America. Well, which particular denomination? Oh, the fundamentalists, of course? Er, ..... which branch of them? And when one branch of them is in control, who will protect the other branches, and, for that matter, the rest of us? Madness, utter madness.

Terra, ya win with me. You are one hugely decent person. And in my belief, that is really what matters in the eyes of the God that I worship.

Arminius

Listen folks...secular does not mean without religion-it means to be seperate from religion. We can be religious people in a secular nation.

I am religious..and if I had a book that set guidelines for me on how to live in peace with others, it would be the Constitution. I want a secular nation, we are all safe then, equal under the law...One Nation Under Law... I leave you alone in your beliefs and you leave me alone to believe.

Gods, we Pagans have to put up with being bashed by Christians for being non believers...and by Atheists for being believers.Ya just can not win.

Some of the Atheists on here are just as petty and misinformed as the Fundi Christians.

terra

Susan,

As far as Barack Obama and his education plan...
Experts Praise Barack Obama's Education Plan
http://www.forbes.com/businesswire/feeds/businesswire/2007/11/20/businesswire20071120005672r1.html

Obama:Faith and Politics
“But somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together,” Mr. Obama said. “Faith started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hijacked.”

He attributed this partly to “the so-called leaders of the Christian right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us.” Yet he said that in traveling around the country he had sensed an “awakening” of an interfaith movement of “progressives.”

~ and this was said in his Church~

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=6080

terra

why do the believers post that bible crap on these forums, who are they trying to convince, with what?

Blessed are the cheesemakers, and other manufacturers of dairy products.

Gerry said "In a recent discussion at a rather official dinner table the "original sin" issue came up"

Look
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

This is the word of God, "Behold" "I have given you every herb bearing seed" "in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed"

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This is the Word of the LORD "the Lord commanded" "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it"

The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of man.
Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.
Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.

Do you see "The Lord" "his eyes behold" "these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world" "Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked" This is the word of God, "Behold" "I have given you every herb bearing seed" "in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed" This is the Word of the LORD "the Lord commanded" "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it"

This is what the ungodly recieve from God, "I have given you every herb bearing seed"

The orginal sin, "the Lord commanded" God said, "I have given you every herb bearing seed"
A man is known by his fruit, Solomon said "She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her." "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise." "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded." "A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit."

Do you see "She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her" "he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded." "A wholesome tongue is a tree of life"

David said " Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." "Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord of truth."

Do you see "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." "Into thine hand I commit my spirit"

This the judgment of Solomon, "he that winneth souls is wise" "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life" "A wholesome tongue is a tree of life"

Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.

Do you see "plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance" "in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established." "Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you" “in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.”“she dwelt under the palm tree” do you see “The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree”

Chris and Mr Mark,

I would hope to be received in a civil manner at a dinner party of non-believers. I guess what was behind my fear is that I have read posts from atheists on these blogs that sound like the equivalent condemnation that you two receive from fundies. I hasten to add that neither of you two are in that category.

Yes, I believe. But my belief did not originate in that 'bronze age book'. I went back to that book, but read the Gospels. That is where I try to be. And of course I can't prove it. It is absurd to even think so.

With respect,

Arminius

Susan,

Fear not!

As Truth and Reality replace the religious mumbo jumbo of the last 6000 years, religions will converge into something like the Bill of Rights. The "pew sitters" and "bowers" of old are on the march to said secularism as they "deflaw" the founders and foundations of religions and find nothing of godly and "angelic" substance remains.

Arminus,

Zealous Dawkins followers? That sounds like just more religion! But seriously, I think that all people, everywhere, should be comfortable being themselves in any situation, and that people should first appreciate their shared humanity before they start quibbling over differences.

I appreciate the discomfort that a Christian at the Dawkins table might feel, and from the subjective viewpoint the two situations appear the same. However, at the risk of SOUNDING hypocritical (although not actually BEING hypocritical), the two situations are NOT the same. When an person says they're an atheist (a DAWKINS atheist, anyway) they are saying that knowledge OF the world comes FROM the world, and they see no evidence in support of any of the traditional god beliefs (I'm not talking about generalized Spinoza-style god-as-nature beliefs), nevermind choosing AMONG them. That's a totally rational position that is founded on our shared medium of experience, namely nature. It seems to me that even the most religious person should be able to acknowledge the reasonableness of the atheist postition, even if they disagree with it.

But when a person says they're Christian (of the heaven/hell variety anyway) they are saying that knowledge of the world comes mainly from one (of many) particular ancient bronze-age books, demonstrably false in many places, demonstrably self-contradictory in others, and that from that book they have learned that the most important aspects of existence are those that take place in totally unseen realms of bliss and torture for which there's absolutely no natural evidence whatsoever, that are overseen by a man who lived two millenia ago, and that we experience only after we are physically annihilated, and then forever. And the reason they believe the book is because they know it's true. By what mechanism is an atheist expected to acknowledge that kind of thinking?

So how to reconcile the two? I don't know. I guess we all just need to have the courage of our convictions, and let them be heard in the public square. That's relatively new for atheists - until very recently, in vitually all cultures, it meant death.

Susan, sweetie, you're going to just have to get over your religious bigotry and come to the realization that there is nothin' you can do or say that will get rid of religion or faith. Religion is the cornerstone to over 90% of people's lives, and it is part of human nature. It doesn't matter how stupid you may think people are for having faith, there is NOTHING you can do about it, so I suggest you stop crying about it. You look like a pathetic 3 year old who poo'ed in her diaper and, with your thumb in your mouth, you're screaming for your mommy. It is shown that the key to this year's political race is the conservative "religious" vote, so if I were you, if you can't bet 'em, join 'em! Trust me, your life will be A LOT less depressing and maybe, just maybe, you could become a nice person. I know that is a stretch for even you, but I firmly believe its possible.

Arminius -

Per your last comment, let me say that I strongly defend your right to believe whatever you will. However, that doesn't mean that I need to lie about it - and to insult your intelligence in the process - by averring that I think there's a shred of truth to your beliefs. I'd be lying and you'd know I was lying = loss of respect all around. That goes for your religious beliefs as well as your political beliefs, though I am in strong agreement with your political position.

How would you have fared at a party of "zealous Dawkins followers?" Well, Dawkins has no followers, but your is point taken: I believe you would have gotten a fair hearing, but that hearing would have eventually led to requests for you to provide proof for your beliefs. As soon as you pulled out your, "I know it's irrational, but I believe it anyhow" schtick, the religious conversation probably would have ended and the dialogue would have moved on to the Super Bowl.

Chris Everett,

I am Christian, proud of it - but please bear with me here.

First, I commend you on your decision to stand up for your principles. I support your right not to believe, and I would have defended you at that dinner party. As far as individual rights are concerned, the Bill of Rights beats the 10 commandments every damned time.

Next - I got to thinking. Yeah, I know, dangerous and painful! If those well-meaning but supercilious folks at that dinner party were of the conservative type, then I would have been in trouble too. I am a liberal/progressive Episcopalian, and support gay rights, stem cell research, etc. And I refuse to try to impose what I believe on anyone, even my own kids. So I, too, could have had a mob after me.

Then - more agonizing thinking! - what if... what if.... I was the lone religious person at a dinner party of zealous Dawkins followers. How would my views have been received by people who view religion as dangerous?

With respect,

Arminius

The democrats are as craven as the republicans in this issue, they are political animals and this is what they do.

Some of us secular-minded people, atheists even, are more libertarian than liberal. I would not be surprised if I am not alone in saying that I don't much care for the democrats either.

I see the republicans as being far more dangerous to my personal liberty than the democrats, but there is a back-door route for the thumpers to control through the democrats that I'd like to examine.

One of the complaints about Big Government Liberals is that they are that: Big Government. I accept that government has a part to play in our lives but I am not willing to allow anybody tell me how I am supposed to live, even if they are right.

They are trying to tax me off of any bad habits I might have (have a smoke anyone?), they are as guilty as the christians for prohibition, and they are just as willing to force me into the kumbaya crap they seem to think we all need to feel to get along with each other.

The Progressive's tendency to use government to control our behavior provides the mechanisms for that control to work. If the religious nuts take over the democrats too ... the mechanisms are already in place.

As far as I can tell the Progressives and the Conservatives are interchangeable. For the secular minded libertarian the only advantage we have with the Progressives is that they are generally spineless ... well, and so far they aren't claiming any gods are on their side.

By virtue of Romney's default today (and Huckabee close behind) I'm betting that McCain, although ever the suck-up, will scale back his posturing to the hard-core conservatives and evangelicals - as the undeclared GOP candidate, he just doesn't need to sell himself to the right wing any longer. For that bunch McCain is now the only game in town, like him or not. In my mind this defuses religion as a major agenda issue (and about time).

On the other hand, while McCain doesn't seem particularly pursuaded by religion at a personal level, I believe as president he'd be much too easily influenced by the allies of religion when it comes to Supreme Court nominations in particular (and depending on who in the GOP survives the national election in Congress). We can bet that republicans will still do quite well in the South and in a number of western states - the chances for the re-emergence of secularism in government will dramatically improve, but religion as a continuing influence will by no means disappear. A democratic president would surely have a powerful impact on how this plays out (and in particular with judicial nominations across the board).

Hillary and Obama seem to know in a general sort of way who their constituents are by now, so I believe the religious pandering that we saw early on will quickly dissipate among democrats - this was always a double-edged sword for them anyway.

Hopefully ALL remaining candidates may finally be free to seriously take up the growing number of secular issues and proposed solutions that should be their stock in trade.

The Bush anomalie (and I truly hope that's the case) is a cautionary tale to any thinking person that doubts the ability of religion to encroach on civil law and governmental policy. Voters should never forget that constitutional safeguards ensuring separation of church and state were duly ignored with the full complicity of the republican Congress -and unfortunately more than a few democrats went along for the ride.

In a recent discussion at a rather official dinner table the "original sin" issue came up, and I attacked it, describing it as a ring through the nose of fearful believers. I didn't realize that the person who sat opposite to me was an evangelical official. We got into a rather temperamental argument, and to my surprise the rest of the people at this table defended me! In the discussion, the religious official even had to step down from his creationist stance, to avoid being ridiculed. Of course, that was not in the US, so it may be easier in Europe. Still, you can lure people out of the closet by firmly, if politely, affirming your anti-superstition stance.

Chris:

The conversation where the group suggested
"well, at least it's SOMETHING."

This is an idea that I simply can't understand--perhaps never will. I wouldn't have understood it three years ago as an active member in a Lutheran congregation. But it seems to be abundantly present in this election cycle (as in prior cycles) as Romney suggested: "Americans want a 'believer' in office..."

It's premise is that just having ANY belief [in a supernatural existance] is immeasurably better than having NO belief [in a supernatural existance.] Never mind the general mutual exclusivity of beliefs among religious dogmas.

The only thing I can possibly understand about it is the "club" membership of understanding the world to have a Deist-concept supernatural component, but how is this an asset? How is it a tangible virtue?

By the way, Jacques Berlinerblau's book "Thumpin It" is an excellent read. The only thing I (as an unbeliever) didn't appreciate was the congratulatory tone that he took with those Bible Thumpers who essentially had mastered the techniques of "doing it right." There seemed to be a recipe of "just enough religion" to not be offensive, but adequate to capture the votes. Academically it makes sense to me, but in every other way it seems appalling.

I have clear memories of the acute discomfort I used to feel in social situations where the issue of my religion would crop up. The last time it happened was years ago at a social dinner where (seemingly) everyone was affirming the strength that their faith gave them. When they turned to me I chickened out and said I was Unitarian. Their initial repulsion was palpable, but quickly faded as they offered the olive branch of, "well, at least it's SOMETHING." That's when I learned that it was unacceptable to be a closet atheist - I had to be unapologetic and, indeed, PROUD to be an atheist.

This is the dynamic that I feel is at work in the political arena. Because religion is totalitarian by nature it is able to drive an absolute wedge between believers and non-believers in which the non-believers become "abominations." It becomes politically necessary to distance oneself from "abomination" as much a possible, and pandering to the religious fundamentalists is the surest way to do that.

But how is that different from accepting the "subhuman" status of Jews in Nazi Germany? Or the "as filthy as urine and feces" status of "infidels" in the parts of the Muslim world that the poster A. Kafir writes about?

Something has to be done, but politics is a craven enterprise and will not be the source of change. I think the change needs to occur at the grassroots, from people like me who are no longer apologetic about their lack of superstition. And who no longer grant religious belief the immunity from rational criticism that every other form of opinion receives. People like Dawkins, Dennett and Susan are doing an invaluable service by catalyzing a solidarity of non-belief that makes it a little easier to say "good for you, but I'm really not religious."

Susan -

I just finished you wonderful book, "Freethinkers". I apologize for not having read it sooner.

As you are too gracious a person to stoop to self promotion, allow me to recommend your book to any and all, most importantly, to the columnists who contribute to this blog.

By all appearances, Christians are often motivated by shame to change their lives and to head them in a better direction. I believe that a reading of your "Freethinkers" would provide a large dose of deserved shame to the many religionists who contribute to this blog who are willingly (and proudly) ignorant of the secular roots of this country, the secular foundation of our Constitution and the grand debates that were waged that ended in the REJECTION of the idea of founding the USA as a Xian nation and the EMBRACE of secularism as the core principle of our democracy.

Democracy is not a religious concept. The Rights of Man are not a religious concept. There are no votes in heaven, yet it's clear that most citizens of our American democracy yearn to toss off their hard-won democracy upon their deaths, so better to spend an eternity in a (hopefully) benign dictatorship.

Thanks for your book, Susan. I look forward to your new effort, and am preparing myself for it by first reading Paine's "Age of Reason" as a foundation and a basis for comparison.

;)

I share Susan's disappointment that the Democrats seem to have hopped on the religious pandering bandwagon, but I still have hope that despite that fact we're seeing the beginnings of a reversal of this trend.

The Bush presidency seems to be the culmination of the rise of Dominionist influence in government, and it's been such an unmitigated and amoral disaster that its done immense damage to their cause and future influence. The Christian Right is now synonymous with torture, profiteering, aggressive imperialism, xenophobia, disdain for multilateralism, disregard for the Constitution, and most importantly, failure.

For all the pain Bush has caused this nation, perhaps in a way he's done those of us who believe in the principles of the founders a huge favor. The aggressive overreach of the fundamentalist right has caused them to do greater damage to their own cause than secular liberals could have hoped to do in a generation. This election may not give us the candidate we wish we had, but it will no doubt be a strong repudiation of religious Republican rule.

I'll continue to dream of a truly secular president and government, but I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. Hopefully we're at the beginning of a trend that will continue to lead us away from religious influence in government.

I'm reading John Dean's "Broken Government." He's the Republican White House Counsel to the Nixon administration--got into trouble with Watergate. He knows the Republican party quite well, and emphasizes many of these same points made in Susan's post.

Goal of Republican Party: get rid of the central government. If that's impossible, rule it in a way that makes it dysfunctional. Process be damned, it's the policy that matters. Give all possible authority to the executive branch to complete that rule, and assign highly-partisan jurists to the Supreme Court to enable Republican executives to make the Congress non-representative and meaningless. Ruthlessly demonize anything that crosses your path, particularly anything with the words "progressive, secular, or liberal."

I would add that this coming election can begin some healing, or might significantly strain an already-damaged government. This is a vote for our kids' and grandkids' generation, and I hope the energy from the young voters catches on.

Politicians are scared of losing a vote so they must pander to religion. When religious figures have more say so in politics in this country then average citizens then we are already to far down the slippery slope. I think this country will have to go through the pain and suffering of religious tyranny before we finally see how destructive religion can be. I'm hoping the democrats win and rebuild the wall George Bush has tried to bring down.