Co-founder, American Learning Institute for Muslims
Sherman A. Jackson is a professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, a visiting professor of law, and a professor of Afro-American Studies at the University of Michigan , Ann Arbor . He has served as Executive Director for the Center of Arabic Study Abroad (CASA) in Cairo , Egypt , is a member of the U.S.-Muslim World Advisory Committee of the U.S. Institute of Peace , and a co-founder of the American Learning Institute for Muslims (ALIM). The “On Faith” panelist is also a former member of the Fiqh Council of North America , past president of the Sharî‘ah Scholars' Association of North America (SSANA) and a past trustee of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).
In addition to numerous articles on Islamic law, theology and history, Jackson is the author of Islamic Law and the State: The Constitutional Jurisprudence of Shihâb al-Dîn al-Qarâfî , On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abû Hâmid al-Ghazâlî's Faysal al-Tafriqa and, most recently, the controversial Islam and Blackamerican: Looking Towards the Third Resurrection . Jackson has lectured throughout the US and in numerous countries abroad. He has also taught at the University of Texas at Austin , Indiana University, Wayne State University and was recently offered a full-professorship at Stanford University , which he declined.
Close.
Sherman Jackson
Co-founder, American Learning Institute for Muslims
Sherman A. Jackson is a professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, a visiting professor of law, and a professor of Afro-American Studies at the University of Michigan , Ann Arbor . He has served as Executive Director for the Center of Arabic Study Abroad (CASA) in Cairo , Egypt , is a member of the U.S.-Muslim World Advisory Committee of the U.S. Institute of Peace , and a co-founder of the American Learning Institute for Muslims (ALIM).
more »
This must be the most significant question to ask whether or not there could be common ground? We must remember the typical natural behaviors of humans before Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. We also must remember the individual and societal transformation that occurred when every one of the great religions were established.
Before any known religion was established on Earth, based upon paleontology fossil evidence and other discoveries suggests that early humans acted mainly upon instinct and emotional impulses. Some of the most questionable behaviors of people in our times resemble the same behaviors of our distant ancestors when religion wasn't present including, vengeance, anger, fear, and desire. Early humans actively engaged into four principal activities in life; fighting, feeding, fleeing and mating.
Once the great religions and other philosophical viewpoints of the sacred emerged, the most paradoxical event in Earth's natural history has commenced. For the first time ever, a living species has transformed their basic behavioral patterns and introduced a new way of life, which includes but is not limited to restraint, extended love beyond the immediate family, charity, loyalty, devotion, pluralism, atonement, etc.
What's even more fascinating is that despite at least 2,000,000 living species on Earth today and at least 100,000,000,000 different life forms that emerged and gone extinct throughout Earth's history since the Precambrian Times that ranged between 4.5 billion to 600 million years ago; we're the only living inhabitants of Earth who've transformed our principal behavior, which ultimately introduced symbols, writing, mathematics, art, and a formal legal system.
What we must understand is that science showed how unique we really are. We're an unprecedented living exception of Earth's long history.
Although we've as a species has accomplished the impossible, we've also developed various traits of behavior over the course of a very long time and they're still with us today. Unfortunately, we don't have to search long to detect such emotional, reactionary, vengeful, and instinctive behaviors showed often in the media.
Our best solution in finding common ground is that almost every human being agrees to call this planet Earth. I'm confident, that we all agree that all 6,000,000,000+ people on Earth are members of the same species. If anyone disagrees, then we have a serious social problem. Once we've reach that goal then we must understand the ruthless aspect of our nature is as real as our enormous potential, diverse virtues and extensive accomplishments that continue on to triumph throughout this day and hopefully far and far beyond.
For every mistake or misjudgment we make we'll sometimes say that we're just human. It is a principal explanation but we shouldn't use it as a common excuse. We should also discover that diversity is the next great gift we'll receive as we learn from other cultures and viewpoints; we'll have an opportunity to expand our minds by learning the full extent of the human variation.
Although we often perceive ourselves in troubling times, maybe we should think about the immanent opportunities that wait for anyone brave enough to search beyond their limited perceptions.
"The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders." — Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson
and
"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees." — Universal Jewish Encyclopedia
If the Bible is the cornerstone of Judaism, then the Talmud is the central pillar, soaring up from the foundations and supporting the entire spiritual and intellectual edifice. In many ways the Talmud is the most important book in Jewish culture, the backbone of creativity and of national life. No other work has had a comparable influence on the theory and practice of Jewish life, shaping spiritual content and serving as a guide to conduct.
— Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (6)
For Jews, the belief that God can be human
is the ultimate heresy.
— Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, on Christianity (7)
In terms of common ground it's no simply to claim that "Jews, Christians, and Muslims" have common ground. Only the Muslims share common ground with Jews and Christians. The Jews would definetly not like to share much ground with Christians, nor do Christians appear to be on much common ground, historically or theologically with the Jews. Open dialogue is not ment to be used to present a superior attitude, as Mr. Jackson stated. Each person lay down their own facts of their spirituality, and not be-little each others.
An Islamic, Jewish, or Christian scholar should stick to their own "guns" whe engaged in interfaith diolauge.
"I hate to sound rude but the religious only do good to get in good with their God. To gain leverage to get their souls into heaven. Whether their 'good' is actually good for humanity or whether the recipients of their 'good' actually asked for it, are secondary issues."
That is not rude. Simply ignorant. It is good to get it out where it can be examined. There are billions of religious people. They are extremely diverse.
"Child murder is condoned in Psalms 137:9 "Happy will be the man who dashes your little ones against the stones". In Leviticus 27:29 human sacrifice is condoned. Deuteronomy 12:30 directly condones the killing of those of other faiths. Rape, incest, animal cruelty, genocide, maiming petty revenge, child cruelty its all there and fully approved of by the religious dogma. These dangerous and insane versus can't be passed off as being taken out of context or the mores of the times."
It is simpler than that. You are misreading the texts out of ignorance. You could start by looking at the entire paraqraphs and not trying to paraphrase them in English. That would still put you nowhere in terms of Judaism because you are ignoring the Oral Torah, which was also given at Sinai and is essential.
Dr. Jackson hits the nail right on the head. There's not much I can add besides saying that I agree completely. I'll read the comments to see what I can add.
i really enjoyed mr jacksons comments and dint see any improvement on his ideas in these posts- but i did see that it initiated alot of very genteel interaction so it is valuable in the respect that it accomplished a respectful base that we all could bounce our individual ideas off-
finding a common ground is a beneficial endeavor-
listening to others and valuing thieir experiences helps atheists and hindus alike to grow-
look what happens in insular societies where only one party line is espoused- intolerance blossoms-
buddhists can be aggressive and muslims can be pacific- its a fact
prejudging by such superficial standards shuts intelligent minds off from exploration and growth
we all want our opinions to be respected and nobody likes being insulted whether directly or implicitly- and often in the 'competition' of provong one is right- implicit spiritual oneupsmanship does take place
i call it the GOD LOVES ME MORE THAN YOU SYNDROME
when atheists do it it is the YOURE INTELLECTUALLY INFERIOR AND WEAKER THAN ME BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING EMPIRICALLY UNPROVABLE
although, disbelief in something unprovable (god)
seems like the other side of the coin to me
not every spiritual person is so one dimensional as to only do good like a greedy child waiting for reward
atheists - i hope you are not feeling attacked by that it wasnt my intention but respect must be mutual and humility doesnt seem to always be a big
driving force in atheist-deist dialogue altho my atheist friend richard in common ground posts is so humble and everyone is different arent they when you try to shove everyone in preconceived boxes you limit your ability to listen with openness which of course religious people are also guilty of
im talking too much-i think everyone can find common ground in that statement!!
peace
ps ill wear my headscarf with pride and gentle friendliness and god help ( i dont know the atheist equivalent to that) anyone who tries to oppress me by saying i cant because its conscious CHOICE!!
I reserve the right to own my choices and let others own theirs
Servant of God and Disciple of Jesus, the Messiah:
Jesus is not even the man's real name, or original name for that matter. Jesus (or as Hispanics would pronounce "Heysoos") is an English rendering of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is a Greek rendering of his original name in Aramaic--which is according to both secular and religious scholars--Yeshua'. Jesus spoke the Aramaic tongue, a Semitic language, related to both Arabic and Hebrew, but closer to the former. The Arabs, in their Semitic dialect, knew him as 'Isaa. In the ancient times, all Semitic peoples traced their lineage through the father, and not the mother, since sociologically and genetically this is more accurate. Therefore, since Jesus was born into this world without a physical or biological father, he was not considered of that particular people or tribe, which in his case were the Hebrew people, practicing the distorted Mosaic Law of the time, and calling themselves "the descendants or children of Israel (and people of the previous Kingdom of Israel, established by King David)," or Israelites. Israel was the title of Jacob who fathered the 12 tribes. One of his many sons had the name of Judah. So the Israelites of Jesus' time and region also called themselves "descendants of Judah, (and people from the previous Kingdom of Judaea)" or Yahudis/Yehudis/Judaeans, now known as Jews. Jesus was not a Jew (since he had no biological father from that particular people), but he was a correct practitioner and authoritative scholar (Rabbi) of the undistorted Mosaic Law, established for the Israelites by the Hebrew Prophet Moses. The Jews called their scholars Rabbis, because "Rabb" means "Lord/Divine," and was applied to kings, landlords, learned men, and God Himself--since "Lord" has the connotation of a sustainer (one who provides for you basic necessities like food, drink, clothing, shelter, life, immunity, etc.). So in this last sense, just mentioned, he was a Jew, and he was also a Hebrew--only to the exent that his pure mother was a Hebrew and Israelite. Secularists and atheists are correct in maintaining that the Anglo-Saxon blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus is a definite myth or fiction. Intelligent and faithful religious people are also correct in asserting the historical Middle-Eastern man, dark-haired, ruddy, and from the land traditionally known as Palestine. For brevity's sake, Jesus is the son of God, figuratively or metaphorically speaking, since he was a great lover of wisdom or philosopher ("philo" in Greek meaning "love," and "sophia" meaning "wisdom"), just like Socrates and Plato were in ancient Greece. One of God's attributive-names in the Arabic language is Al-Hakeem or "The Most-Wise." He who loves wisdom, loves God, and the attribute of wisdom is the golden mean between being a genius and a fool, both being extremes and abnormalities. All the ancient Biblical Prophets of God were great lovers of wisdom or philosophers, and in different places and times they were called by different titles, befittingly in those different languages. In India, we have "Buddhas" or "Enlightened Ones," and one of their major prophets sent to the Northern Indian people was Siddhartha Gautama, known to us as the "Buddha." They all preached and taught against atheism and polytheism--the two main roots of all social injustices and personal psychological problems, and specifically taught monotheism. Allaah is God is Deus is Brahma is Tao/Dao is Gott and etc. Furthermore, they all "submitted and surrendered" to the will of the Father to achieve "peace," as a state of mind and as a political state. In other words they submitted their limited intellects and physical abilities to the All-Knowing, All-Powerful, and Almighty, the great spiritual and active force--Tao--of the cosmos, to become "whole and complete," which gives "peace," spiritually and politically. In the Arabic tongue, the concept of "submitting or surrendering to the will of God, in order to attain peace, psychologically and socially" is denoted by the term "Islaam," and a Muslim is "one (male or female) who submits to the will of God to achieve peace." All the messengers of the world, throughout history preached and taught this same very sublime concept (Lao Tsi the Wise Sage, Socrates the Great Philosopher, Confucius the Wise Sage, Plato the Philospher, Moses the Interlocuter, Joshua the Just Warrior, Isaiah the Visionary Prophet, Daniel the Wise Dream-Interpreter, Abraham the Great Patriarch, Jesus the Christ, John the Baptist, Siddhartha Gautama the Great Buddha, and Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets, and the many many more that are not mentioned or known to us from the Scandinavian lands, of Germanic origin, from the Black tribes of Africa, from the Native or Indigenous Americans, and etc.). Peace and blessings be upon all of the messengers and prophets of God, and especially peace be upon our beloved Prophet Jesus the logos or word of God, and His spirit, and the Messiah (or in Greek "Christos") of the Israelites, and even more so peace and blessings be upon the final messenger and prophet of God, who was an Arab, ethnically, but who was the only one sent to all of humanity, for all succeeding generations until the end of this worldly life for humanity. For God's sake why don't you people understand--is it that difficult? You only have one life, and you all shall die one day, either in young age or old age. Wake up to reality, wake up to the truth. "Don't judge the religion by man, but judge man by the religion" (Imaam al-Ghazzaali, classical Muslim theologian, may God have mercy on his soul). Religion is nothing other than the outward aspect of a spiritual tradition. Reason and Science go hand-in-hand with God's true religion--Islaam--as is historically and academically documented, when Muslims were true Muslims by the actual definition of the word as explained above, and acted according to the universal ethical laws, expressed in its most perfect sense in the spiritual tradition and religion of Islam.
A person can have morals, ethics and values without having god in their life. Just as a Godloving/fearing person can be unethical and immoral etc.
I can only speak for myself but I grew up in a Christian background, one that I questioned very early in my life. Many things did not make sense to me even at a young age and when I questioned those things, I never got a straight answer. Lest I forget, I was also chastized for questioning.
I hazard to guess that many of us did have a background in some religion, so its not like we do not have any educational and or enviornmental background on the subject. So I think when the attitude of the atheists here appears to seem like they are more intelligent, it may have to do with the fact that we have been on your side of the fence but freely chose to jump over to the other side into what we see as reality based not fiction.
I personally choose to not turn my life over to what I consider to be an imaginary savior of sorts. If I screw up along the way I ask forgivess from whomever I have offended if anyone, if not I learn from it either way. If something good comes my way, its because it did. Or because another human helped with it. And that is who I would thank for it.
Again, I speak for myself. I have no desire to force someone into giving up their belief system, I only ask that their belief system is not forced on me. I can't remember the last time an atheist knocked on my door wanting to discuss the truth with me.
I can deal with the outside religious expressions. Prayer before sports events, In God we trust on my paper bills, etc. Its easy enough for me to ignore. I have a real problem though when the subject of religion is posed at me and I state I am an atheist and all of a sudden you would think I just grew horns and was breathing fire. And these sort of attitudes come from people I have associated with, say at work, for years, and this sort of discussion never came up before but now that it did, suddenly they have forgotten the person I have been all of this time pryor and it would seem now I am some sort of threat. Even though they are the ones that brought the subject up.
I personally have no desire to pretend to know the truth for all. I just know what the truth is for myself. And would very much appreciate that the others (religious) would stop their desire in wanting to *save* me.
Which brings me to another point. I keep my personal non belief system to myself for the most part, not because of shame or embarassment, or any other reason except for the sheer tiresomeness of people finding it their personal crusade to *save* me. Because,I have found that a once friendly relationship can turn ugly when the subject of religion or lack there of becomes the focus point. It makes a good person (me) have to tell another good person (them) to back the @#%& off, eventually.
I think you miss the piont of anonymous's aliens. If they existed than there is no magic God or after life just some advanced species in our reality.
They would not be just Gods with different faces they are just advanced clock makers much like ourselves. God and the after life are dead. Worshiping gets you nothing and faith no longer offers any comfort. Then the only way forward to be "good" is the good atheist way.
Without the after life to trouble your real life you would again love your life and that of others as much as the good atheist.
Also "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." could also be translated into just "wishful thinking". That also is hardly benign as it sounds as people kill to establish their wishful thinking over others. Why not just deal with reality and love real life.
Brett, your statement that the religious only do good to get in good with their God is a very broad and bigotted statement, IMNSHO.
As anon. asks, and I agree, no matter what I might "learn" in the future, my lifestyle would probably not change much.
Our actions very often follow how we have been taught, what we have gleaned from life events, our heritage -- all sorts of things.
As a person of faith, I might believe my actions are supported and flow from a strength I receive from God. But again, I can't prove it to anyone else.
As for the aliens -- I might decide that God "looked" a bit different than I imagined... or that He/She had taken an "alien form"...
Who knows?
A verse that I like from the NT Bible describes faith to my liking: "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Even so, I believe "what we hope for" can change and that "what we do not see" could be something "unseeable" or simply unknown.
Let me ask a simple question -- if tomorrow you found out that without a doubt your existing belief in a diety was wrong [some aliens show up and can demonstrate they were the ones who made all of us after all -- some horrible high school chemistry experiment that got out of hand] -- how would you change your behavior? Would you still care for your fellow man? Would you still follow the golden rule?
Those of us who don't believe in a diety try to develop our belief of right and wrong and do well by our fellow man -- probably the same way you would if you didn't have faith.
I hate to sound rude but the religious only do good to get in good with their God. To gain leverage to get their souls into heaven. Whether their 'good' is actually good for humanity or whether the recipients of their 'good' actually asked for it, are secondary issues.
Missionaires are driven by 'good' to convert other people but in doing so they attack these people's cultures. What right have you to do such things? It is not about 'good' but being unable to ever see you are wrong.
Atheism is simple: we do not believe in any supernatural beings. We are quite aware of the 6 billion people in the world, and we are aware that most of these people live in infinitely poorer and more desperate circumstances than do we. Since each human has the same inherent dignity and deserves the same respect and opportunity, we do what we can to assist our fellow human. We do it because it is the right thing to do - for us and for those we assist, not to please some supernatural being.
Atheists are mostly not proselytizers. We accept that you believe differently. Our only issue is the attempt of so many religious people to impose their religion on us. About that, we are militant and hostile - there is no common ground to be had in that area. You either believe in religious freedom or you don't.
Why Hinduism is not included in this discussion, I wonder. Is it because you have been brain washed good enough to believe that it is a religion of multiple gods, all kinds of beliefs without a single book and such non-sense?
As a person familiar with Hinduism I can tell you that this religion offers more freedom than any other religion to find the truth for yourself. By the way Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism.
I think most of those definitions leave a lot to be desired and some are completely contrived and biased. You can't just say here are the definitions I like, now discuss. You don't get to frame the discussion this way unless you are Fox News.
The definition of Consciousness could equally be the human head. That is a mental space in which one thinks. Saying something has a 'psychological context' does not mean much and ignores physical brain activity.
The definition of sin ignores who is throwing around the term, usually the faithful. It is a value judgement nothing more. One man's intellectual error is another man's intellectual good.
The most dishonest definition is that of truth. Truth is limited to your perception and can be fleeting. The cloud outside my window is beautiful and a reality and hence a truth. In a couple of minutes its gone though. That definition is skewered toward the religious who think they and the object of their faith is eternal.
Also Atheism is not belief in any context.They simply deal with what is real and feel no need or gain no comfort in believing in things that have no reality. Your definition is once again a religious interpretation so as to reduce the argument to choice of beliefs and, of course, an infinite (but wholly non-existent) God can't lose on that one, can he.
There seems to be a lot of disagreement on the question of definitions. Here are some definitions I might use for debate to see if common ground can be reached.
Agnosticism – This applies to all things on which man has not yet been able to run an experiment to prove or disprove.
Atheism – A belief that ‘Gods’ do not exist. Atheism can be defined as a ‘religion’ when it applies only to the God of Abraham.
Belief – Something about which one is agnostic. For example, one can believe that some horses like music.
Certainty - Uncertainty is the only certainty there is.
Consciousness – The mental space in which one thinks. The psychological context in which thoughts exist.
Death – The permanent cessation of consciousness.
Doctrine – A code of beliefs. For example the doctrine of self defense incorporates a code of beliefs about the circumstances under which a person or a nation may defend itself with the use of force.
Dogma – A statement of principles defining a Faith. Dogma is the established doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.
Doubt – Uncertainty about an idea.
Eternal Time – The continuousness of time from the past to the future.
Eternity – The moment of ‘now’ which is forever unchangeable.
Experiment – Something conducted in the physical or metaphysical world to prove a truth.
Faith – A belief about which one claims not to be agnostic and that one ‘knows’ is ‘true’. For example, in the discipline of mathematics one has faith that 2+2 equals 4 i.e. one claims to ‘know’ that this is ‘true’. Many people have faith that God exists or alternatively does not exist i.e. they claim to ‘know’ that their belief is ‘true’.
Ideas – The content of consciousness.
Judgmental – Relating ideas using reasoning that is only absolute, ‘either/or’ instead of ‘either/or and ‘both/and’; relating ideas using reasoning that employs only ‘hierarchical’ relationships (better/worse) instead of ‘hierarchical relationships’ and ‘equality of relationships’.
Knowledge – Knowledge is present when the phrase “I know” is consistent with what is ‘true’. All knowledge is relational. We know what we know only in relation to everything else that we know.
Myth – The use of symbols or imagery to understand metaphysical phenomenon such as the nature of love or the joy of laughter. (‘Myth’ in the common vernacular is unfortunately wrongly understood as something that ‘can’t happen’ or isn’t ‘true’ in contrast to the word ‘ model’ which in the common vernacular is often understood as something that ‘can happen’ or is ‘true’. However, use of the word ‘myth’, by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false.)
Mythos – A collection of myths (in the scholarly sense). A story or set of stories relevant or having a significant truth or meaning to a particular culture, religion, society, group, etc. Anything delivered by word of mouth, word, speech, conversation; a story, tale or legend, especially a poetic tale. Mythos is a silent, intuitive way of discovering truth – it comes into play when one discovers a truth through a work of art, a piece of poetry, a musical composition etc.
Ontology - The study of being or existence.
Orthodox - From the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching'). That skin cancer is caused by sunlight is an orthodox model while models for a bacterial cause of skin cancer are considered heterodox. In the scientific world models considered ‘orthodox’ can be subjected to tests of proof. In the metaphysical world myths can not be subjected to such tests yet beliefs are always held to be orthodox by ‘the believers’ and those who hold other beliefs are considered ‘heretical’.
Perception - The process of acquiring, interpreting, selecting, and organizing sensory information.
Problem – A decision waiting to be made.
Reasoning – The process of relating ideas to reach a belief about which one is agnostic. Proving a belief by experiment leads to the attainment of a truth about which one is no longer agnostic.
Religion – A system of social coherence based on a common group of spiritual beliefs held about any topic and which contains codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such a system of thought. Most commonly understood as a socially coherent group holding a belief that ‘divine spirits’ do or do not exist. [Under this definition atheism can be discussed as a religion.]
Sacrament – A finite, physical, visible mediator of something sacred. For example, wedding vows can be considered as sacred and the wedding ceremony is then the sacrament, or visible mediator, of the exchanging of the vows.
Sacred - From Latin, sacer, "untouchable”. Deserving of veneration. Of utmost importance. The bible can be said to be sacred as can Newton’s Principia Mathematica and the poetry of Keats.
Salvation – Being in correct accordance with truth and thus in no danger of coming to harm from acting on this truth. Holding as truth that the world is flat when in actuality it is round would mean one is in need of ‘salvation’ and that one is living in ‘sin’.
Separation - Man's habit of separating everything into categories. ‘You’, ‘me’, ‘us’, ‘them’, that represent different categories of objects and ideas.
Sin – Intellectual error (Greek - hamartia). A belief that all horses like music is not ‘sinful’ while having ‘faith’ that they do like music might be ‘sinful’.
Soul – In first century Greek, the word ‘soul’ meant the totality of the mind i.e. the totality of one’s psychological self.
Spirit – ‘Spirit’ is the Latin translation of the Greek word ‘soul’.
Spiritual – Matters associated with the inner person, e.g. love, happiness, curiosity etc. [In the common vernacular spiritual is often mistakenly confused with ‘religious’].
Temple – A sacred place. The Lincoln Memorial can be thought of as a temple.
Theology – The interpretation of a received tradition in the present cultural context. (The word ‘theology’ is derived from Hellenistic Greek, but its meaning has changed significantly through its use in the European Christian thought of the Middle Ages and Enlightenment. The term ‘theologia’ is used in Classical Greek Literature with the meaning ‘discourse on the gods or cosmology’. Cosmology, from the Greek root is the study of the Universe in its totality, scientifically and spiritually, and by extension, humanity’s place in it.
Thoughts – The juxtaposition of ideas in consciousness.
Truth – Something that is the same for everyone, everywhere, and for eternity.
For an atheist consensus about a spiritual component is irrevelvent unless there is some (any) physical proof. If you look at someone dying there is no indication of a soul seeping out nor if you observe someone being born do we have any sign of a soul seeping in.
We may want that and our brains that are hardwired to keep us alive will attempt to create scenarios where our individuality transcends death. But that is not the same as knowing there is no soul, as deep done I beleive we all do. It is just comfort you are seeking and desperately holding on to.
There is not the slightest real world evidence of a soul so you can't have it both ways. Either a soul exists or it does not, there is no middle ground. If you an antheist and can see no real world proof than the soul does not exist. Agnostics are just atheist want-to-bes that are to frightened to let ago of their safety blanket. They accept the worst compromise and can only spin in circles.
Recognizing death and knowing you are mortal are two very different things.
Most mammals have the same range of emotions as we do. They also know what death is. If they are a carnivore then ascertaining when your prey is dead is very important lest it lashes out and harms them. They also have to be aware when their young die etc. I personally have seen dogs grieve their dead owners.
But all that is not the same as knowing that you were born to die. That requires an intellect to grasp. You have to be able to visualise the entire span of your life. It also requires advanced communication skills and probably a culture.
Animals don't live inside their heads like that they live in a continuous now. They can develop and retain skills and certain knowledge but they can't manipulate the abstract. Hence, no animal but Man is burdened with this one truth.
Have people ever considered this: What if we just don't care. I am an atheist, and I really don't care about what happens after I die. If there exists an immortal soul (and everyone has the right opinion on the existence of one, I know: they've all told me) then there is a place for mine. If not, I will never know. I really don't care. What I do care about is having other people's beliefs rammed down my throat; at social functions, on TV, on billboards, before games, before meals. I am a member of the last group that it is acceptable to discriminate against. Ironically, I don't have much love for the atheists that are practically militant in their defense of their non-belief.
As for common ground: why do we need it? Why does there need to be common ground between what you believe and what I believe? Is it because you try to ram your beliefs down my throat and we have to agree on what beliefs are acceptable to ram down my throat? How about none. Maybe it is because some people are so frightened by other people's freedoms: thier charisma, their sexuality, their happiness, thier spirit; that the former group needs to control the latter by forcing them to conform to their set of beliefs.
If we could learn to live and let live, all this necessary "common ground" on belief would become a moot point.
>However, the conclusion I must arrive at based upon the overwhelming number of anti-religious posts >on this site is that many atheists (most? I don't know...somebody tell me) would more often than not >enter the conversation with the intention of conquest, not understanding. In fact, the whole tenor feels >more like a soon coming crusade of secular humanism than a call for common ground and >understanding. Sad.
Sigh. Speaking for myself, as an atheist, I came for intellectual debate, for putting my ideas to the test and hoping to see them well tested. I didn't think people would be too sensitive to hear strong arguments and strong opinions.
The truth matters, and good ideas should prevail while bad ideas should fade away. Is there really much point in a non-committal, unenthusiastic discussion on this topic? What's the point if the goal here is not to find the truth? "Mutual respect and understanding" is a given; we're not barbarians, and we're not in kindergarten. We don't need to tie down our brains and pour water on our enthusiasm in order to be nice to one another. In fact, it shows a great deal of respect to hold people to high intellectual standards on an intellectual forum like this one.
I think one of the very problems with the present state of dialogue on religion is that people are too hypersensitive about having their beliefs challenged. If we atheists seem "undersensitive" it may be because we have our ideas implicitly challenged everywhere we go, so we're used to it. But we're also made better by it. So I hope the religious people here don't take it as a "crusade" when we make high intellectual demands of them. We just know that it's worked for us.
"But there is one piece of common ground that all humans share ... something only our species knows and a product not of enlightenment or revelation but an accidental byproduct of the slow evolution of our brains. In comparison to this one truth every other aspect of reality is rendered subjective ... We are going to die and we know it.
"Believers think they can sneak around this truth into a godly after life, Agnostics being unsure whether they are mortal or immortal barely exist alive or dead, but atheists, true atheists, know that death is the end."
I digress briefly, but -- though we may certainly quibble about whether they have an priori knowledge -- at least elephants, porpoises and whales do in fact appear to comprehend the concept of death. It goes to illustrate the chanciness of making assumptions based either on our alleged evolutionary superiority, or our purported divine mandate to rule over the earth and all its creatures.
The common ground is not precisely "We are going to die and we know it". With all due respect, before we can claim this as common ground, don't we first have to agree that we are "going to die"? Does your definition of "die" conform to mine?
We concede that without exception, our physical bodies eventually cease to function. We lack universal consensus as to whether each of us possesses a spiritual component which is the source of our mind/consciousness (as contrasted to our brain). We further lack consensus as to whether, if it exists, this spirit survives the death of the body.
So I could reframe the common-ground statement as "We don't know what happens to our consciousness when our physical bodies cease to function; and our innate fear of the dissolution of our consciousness leads us to explore all other possibilities" ;-)
Funny how this common ground seems to be the very territory that the agnostics are exploring -- agnostics reviled by fundamentalist believers and fundamentalist atheists alike!
By Jove, I think those wishy-washy agnostics might be onto something ... at least when it comes to lambs and lions being able to lie down together, which is what this "common ground" discussion is all about, isn't it?
"Do unto others as you would have done to you" does you no good then.
We see the problem with his axiom everyday. An ambitous man may drive himself to work a 100 hour week. He will regard that as acceptable to reach his desired goals and probably sacrifices a great deal more. The problem is he will regard his 100 week as his standard and the standard he expects of others. Others though are not like him and may wish to spend some of that 100 hours in other ways. Unless he can totally accept that his goals aren't shared by all than his good intentions, that is, to give others a chance to reach the goals he find most desirable, are turned bad.
This high and mighty statement which may also have good intentions then becomes an excuse to enslave others and yourself. You can't live by axioms as all morals and ethics have their context.
We all regard not murdering one another as one the highest morals but we allow the police and soldiers to murder people to defend us. Of course we don't use the word 'murder', we use 'defend', 'patriotism' etc, yet call it what you like, if you set out with an apriori plan to kill someone its murder whatever the motivation.
This isn't a paradox to sweep under the carpet so you can feel good about yourself or a weakened moral it is a strengthened moral that needs to faced squarely as it precicely defines when murder is used in the service of Man.
If something as obvious as murder has a context then no axiom, commandment, or pithy saying is absolute. They all have their context.
And that is what a search for common ground on moral and ethical issues should be about. Not a contest to determine what is the highest moral but a dialogue to determine the context of all morals.
Whereas 'Belief' and 'Disbelief' have no common ground humans do.
Agnosticism is the most pathetic compromise. They refuse to worship but can't rule out the possibilty of a God. What other things with no real world reality can't they rule out. Flying Pigs. Men with ten heads. If there is no God then they run in cirles unable to eliminate the trillions of unreal things that could exist. If there is a God then I think there is a special place in hell for them far below the atheist as they believed (even if it is a pathetically tiny belief) and decided to live in denial. Spit in the face of God, if you like.
But there is one piece of common ground that all humans share, believer or otherwise. It is something only our species knows and a product not of enlightenment or revelation but an accidental byproduct of the slow evolution of our brains. In comparison to this one truth every other aspect of reality is rendered subjective and what is already subjective withers into mere conjecture.
We are going to die and we know it.
Believers think they can sneak around this truth into a godly after life, Agnostics being unsure whether they are mortal or immortal barely exist alive or dead, but atheists, true atheists, know that death is the end. Stop.
Unlike the others though, the atheist will not experience the horror of death, that is, being ripped away from everything he knows and loves, as the only thing he will experience is the last moments of his life. And life is nothing to fear. His death like his birth is none of his business.
Simple, the common ground should be do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Unfortunately, for many religious believers this is not enough, often because accepting either that others have no belief or even differing belief about the same god (how weird is that) appears to threaten their own belief structure. Yet the moderates at least claim that their particular religion is one of peace and love. Yet all the evidence to date is largely the opposite, at least when applied to those of non or different beliefs.
Thus if atheists have an agenda it is that no individual's belief should impinge on others beyond the doctrine of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I.e. believe what you want on a personal level however irrational or nonsensical others might think it but don't try to impose those beliefs on others or use it to control their lives. Unfortunately, the more fundamentalist wings, and not always only the fundamentalist, of the major religions seem intent on taking us back pre-renaissance to the dark ages. Many atheists seeing more and more of this have now decided that tolerating the intolerable is no longer an option. So we have gone on the vocal offensive, unlike the very real physical offensive often used by the so called religious, as the only means available to highlight our concerns and to try and stem the tide of intellectual darkness brought about by what we see as irrationality.
And while the moderates of the various religions endlessly debate apparently nothing much, their more militant elements aim for more political influence, either through the pulpit come ballot box or at the end of a gun or bomb and in the process through their methods refute all that their more moderate fellow travellers claim for their religion.
"In sum, common ground can be useful and perhaps sometimes necessary; but it can also be problematic and indeed counterproductive. In such light, we should not be seduced into seeing common ground as the guarantor of meaningful communication. Rather, we should recognize the value of communication itself and from here recognize that sometimes the existence or quest for common ground can promote conversation, and sometimes the existence or quest for common ground can hamper this. And God knows best."
This is the kind of stupid jibberish that gives religous people such a bad rap among the educated. Although I must admit I agree with you Sherman, there's unfortunately no point in discussing it with you.
In repsonse to Randy:
"but this attitude is not going to help your cause (unless you are a double agent). It's only going to make people defensive and more certain that non-religious people are closed-minded"
---
That perception, is very untrue... I can assure you. We need to somehow remove ourselves from what we know - or think we know... and create a knowledge of Faith based upon reasonable understandings. The bible (or any other published words in God's name), are nothing more than the same. If something happened to YOU today, and you wrote about it 30-60 years from now, how would your perspective change? What would you write about? What would be the most important features in your write? Not to mention, how would you recount a historical record without incorporating your own thoughts, feelings, and lessons learned within that same timeframe? The human element is undeniable... only a fool could take such a text literally. Yet, many (understanding that very thought) DO so... because they can.
If I could sit in front of you, and convince you that blue was really purple - and for that knowledge, convince you that I deserved your money... to further my cause... IF enough people BUY IN to such BS, why would I stop?
My life, is a far cry from such lies.
The value here, is in making the point that it happens. Bottom line is - it should not.
Linda,
I only knew of a couple good examples off-hand, but a google search ("famous atheists") found many more. Of course, it depends on your definitions, but here are a few that popped out to me and seem pretty clear (and influential, not just famous):
Albert Einstein
Andrew Carnegie
Ernest Hemingway
Charles Darwin
Samuel Clemens
Susan B. Anthony
Randy,
I hesitate to dignify this with a response, but this attitude is not going to help your cause (unless you are a double agent). It's only going to make people defensive and more certain that non-religious people are closed-minded. Just because you claim _loudly_ to be right doesn't make your point any more convincing...probably less. If you are right, then your evidence and reasoning should stand well enough on its own without the need for insulting the other side.
Neither God nor the non-existence thereof can be proved.
That is what fait is about -- and this website is "On Faith"...
I'm sure there are many examples (and I am confessing here that I know very little about atheism), but what are some examples of athiests who have contributed to our world?
I think I would be able to take a conversation about those things more seriously than simply being told that anyone who believes in God is just "wrong"...
There is no god.
WHy is it that EVERY SINGLE piece of data, of scientific evidence prooves all of you religionists to be wrong?
I'll tell you why...
because you are wrong. You are all so wrong that it is an afront to reason.
Grow up and stop playing with your imaginary friend.
There's a very real world of discovery out there and YOU people are the ones who are holding the rest of the human race back.
Yes, it could be. I do know several people who would call themselves "religious" but not "faithful". My impression is that they are the minority, though, and that they are using "religious" to describe their general sense of wonder and awe of nature, not their association with an organized religion. I think I just have weird friends.
Here's a question, though: can you be a Christian, Jew, or a Muslim without using faith? What would that look like? It seems that, at a minimum, you have to believe in that the relevant scripture is the inspired word of God (more so than any other book, anyway). Can one believe that without some amount of faith?
Brett, I wasn't talking about the bible. I could have gone into a generalized history of all the religions. I chose islam because Serman put it on a pedestal.
Religion has caused much of the horror in the world. It's a tribal institution made by people.
Clearly you do not read your bible well enough. Google "Bible atrocity" and the relevent versus will be shown (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html lists 857 such passages) Why Joshua alone committed multiple genocides on the Gibeonites, the Makkedah, the Libnahites, the Lachish, the Eglonites, the Hebronites and the Debirites.
Child murder is condoned in Psalms 137:9 "Happy will be the man who dashes your little ones against the stones". In Leviticus 27:29 human sacrifice is condoned. Deuteronomy 12:30 directly condones the killing of those of other faiths. Rape, incest, animal cruelty, genocide, maiming petty revenge, child cruelty its all there and fully approved of by the religious dogma. These dangerous and insane versus can't be passed off as being taken out of context or the mores of the times.
This is why you can't be a fundamentalist as that makes you wedded to the good and the bad in your dogma. I think most religious people are good people and hence emphasis and live by the positive sections of their dogmas. But the horrid and insane bits are still there (the old testament is still gospel) and can be pointed and to and acted upon by someone who equally regards themselves a believer in the faith.
This is the ultimate irony in that it is the religious and their doctrines that are morally relative not the good atheist.
Allen Cutler: "Personal dress is not a religious symbol unless it contains the scripture out front. There is nothing wrong with allowing cultural dress. It only becomes a problem if it prosthlesises".
Interesting statement. Let me ask: what if personal dress is so closely identified with repressive, genocidal, religious dogma that forces women into humiliating circumstances such as a whip on the bare ankle in front of their peers and that dress is worn 'voluntarily' in a country whose populace rejects the idea of wearing clothes that are of a religious nature.
We've all seen them on the streets. By my question, you know where I stand. I rarely say this but, Vive La France!
I'm really gladdened by the general tone of conversation on this particular forum, and that there are some really articulate people here that seem relatively open-minded. I think we can probably have a good conversation.
I'm one of the atheists who is more interested in finding mutual understanding than in winning a debate. Shall we discuss some points of contention?
To start (not that we have to start here, but just as a suggestion), I'll put out there that I feel that I can understand and respect a lot of what is included in religion. However, where I have a hard time is letting myself believe anything "on faith". Surely, you could argue that there are degrees of faith involved in all belief, but it seems to me that when a religious person says "I believe X on faith", they mean that as a way of distinguishing those beliefs from others that they presumably don't feel require faith enough to call it out. So, whatever one means when they say that - I have a really hard time seeing the value in doing that (and I do see dangers). I'd love to read some of your perspectives on this.
All Comments (68)
This must be the most significant question to ask whether or not there could be common ground? We must remember the typical natural behaviors of humans before Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. We also must remember the individual and societal transformation that occurred when every one of the great religions were established.
Before any known religion was established on Earth, based upon paleontology fossil evidence and other discoveries suggests that early humans acted mainly upon instinct and emotional impulses. Some of the most questionable behaviors of people in our times resemble the same behaviors of our distant ancestors when religion wasn't present including, vengeance, anger, fear, and desire. Early humans actively engaged into four principal activities in life; fighting, feeding, fleeing and mating.
Once the great religions and other philosophical viewpoints of the sacred emerged, the most paradoxical event in Earth's natural history has commenced. For the first time ever, a living species has transformed their basic behavioral patterns and introduced a new way of life, which includes but is not limited to restraint, extended love beyond the immediate family, charity, loyalty, devotion, pluralism, atonement, etc.
What's even more fascinating is that despite at least 2,000,000 living species on Earth today and at least 100,000,000,000 different life forms that emerged and gone extinct throughout Earth's history since the Precambrian Times that ranged between 4.5 billion to 600 million years ago; we're the only living inhabitants of Earth who've transformed our principal behavior, which ultimately introduced symbols, writing, mathematics, art, and a formal legal system.
What we must understand is that science showed how unique we really are. We're an unprecedented living exception of Earth's long history.
Although we've as a species has accomplished the impossible, we've also developed various traits of behavior over the course of a very long time and they're still with us today. Unfortunately, we don't have to search long to detect such emotional, reactionary, vengeful, and instinctive behaviors showed often in the media.
Our best solution in finding common ground is that almost every human being agrees to call this planet Earth. I'm confident, that we all agree that all 6,000,000,000+ people on Earth are members of the same species. If anyone disagrees, then we have a serious social problem. Once we've reach that goal then we must understand the ruthless aspect of our nature is as real as our enormous potential, diverse virtues and extensive accomplishments that continue on to triumph throughout this day and hopefully far and far beyond.
For every mistake or misjudgment we make we'll sometimes say that we're just human. It is a principal explanation but we shouldn't use it as a common excuse. We should also discover that diversity is the next great gift we'll receive as we learn from other cultures and viewpoints; we'll have an opportunity to expand our minds by learning the full extent of the human variation.
Although we often perceive ourselves in troubling times, maybe we should think about the immanent opportunities that wait for anyone brave enough to search beyond their limited perceptions.
August 6, 2007 11:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 6, 2007 23:49
120412249
June 4, 2007 5:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 05:14
http://www.303876133.com
June 4, 2007 5:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 05:14
[url=http://www.1292316378.com]1292316378[/url]
June 4, 2007 5:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 05:14
120412249
June 4, 2007 5:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 05:12
[url=http://www.1292316378.com]1292316378[/url]
June 4, 2007 5:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 05:12
http://www.303876133.com
June 4, 2007 5:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 05:12
429123569
June 4, 2007 5:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 05:12
"The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders." — Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson
and
"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees." — Universal Jewish Encyclopedia
If the Bible is the cornerstone of Judaism, then the Talmud is the central pillar, soaring up from the foundations and supporting the entire spiritual and intellectual edifice. In many ways the Talmud is the most important book in Jewish culture, the backbone of creativity and of national life. No other work has had a comparable influence on the theory and practice of Jewish life, shaping spiritual content and serving as a guide to conduct.
— Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (6)
For Jews, the belief that God can be human
is the ultimate heresy.
— Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, on Christianity (7)
May 11, 2007 10:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2007 10:54
In terms of common ground it's no simply to claim that "Jews, Christians, and Muslims" have common ground. Only the Muslims share common ground with Jews and Christians. The Jews would definetly not like to share much ground with Christians, nor do Christians appear to be on much common ground, historically or theologically with the Jews. Open dialogue is not ment to be used to present a superior attitude, as Mr. Jackson stated. Each person lay down their own facts of their spirituality, and not be-little each others.
An Islamic, Jewish, or Christian scholar should stick to their own "guns" whe engaged in interfaith diolauge.
March 20, 2007 3:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 20, 2007 15:41
"I hate to sound rude but the religious only do good to get in good with their God. To gain leverage to get their souls into heaven. Whether their 'good' is actually good for humanity or whether the recipients of their 'good' actually asked for it, are secondary issues."
That is not rude. Simply ignorant. It is good to get it out where it can be examined. There are billions of religious people. They are extremely diverse.
March 10, 2007 5:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 10, 2007 17:34
"Child murder is condoned in Psalms 137:9 "Happy will be the man who dashes your little ones against the stones". In Leviticus 27:29 human sacrifice is condoned. Deuteronomy 12:30 directly condones the killing of those of other faiths. Rape, incest, animal cruelty, genocide, maiming petty revenge, child cruelty its all there and fully approved of by the religious dogma. These dangerous and insane versus can't be passed off as being taken out of context or the mores of the times."
It is simpler than that. You are misreading the texts out of ignorance. You could start by looking at the entire paraqraphs and not trying to paraphrase them in English. That would still put you nowhere in terms of Judaism because you are ignoring the Oral Torah, which was also given at Sinai and is essential.
March 10, 2007 5:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 10, 2007 17:30
Dr. Jackson hits the nail right on the head. There's not much I can add besides saying that I agree completely. I'll read the comments to see what I can add.
February 2, 2007 1:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 2, 2007 13:45
i really enjoyed mr jacksons comments and dint see any improvement on his ideas in these posts- but i did see that it initiated alot of very genteel interaction so it is valuable in the respect that it accomplished a respectful base that we all could bounce our individual ideas off-
finding a common ground is a beneficial endeavor-
listening to others and valuing thieir experiences helps atheists and hindus alike to grow-
look what happens in insular societies where only one party line is espoused- intolerance blossoms-
buddhists can be aggressive and muslims can be pacific- its a fact
prejudging by such superficial standards shuts intelligent minds off from exploration and growth
we all want our opinions to be respected and nobody likes being insulted whether directly or implicitly- and often in the 'competition' of provong one is right- implicit spiritual oneupsmanship does take place
i call it the GOD LOVES ME MORE THAN YOU SYNDROME
when atheists do it it is the YOURE INTELLECTUALLY INFERIOR AND WEAKER THAN ME BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING EMPIRICALLY UNPROVABLE
although, disbelief in something unprovable (god)
seems like the other side of the coin to me
not every spiritual person is so one dimensional as to only do good like a greedy child waiting for reward
atheists - i hope you are not feeling attacked by that it wasnt my intention but respect must be mutual and humility doesnt seem to always be a big
driving force in atheist-deist dialogue altho my atheist friend richard in common ground posts is so humble and everyone is different arent they when you try to shove everyone in preconceived boxes you limit your ability to listen with openness which of course religious people are also guilty of
im talking too much-i think everyone can find common ground in that statement!!
peace
ps ill wear my headscarf with pride and gentle friendliness and god help ( i dont know the atheist equivalent to that) anyone who tries to oppress me by saying i cant because its conscious CHOICE!!
I reserve the right to own my choices and let others own theirs
December 21, 2006 8:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 21, 2006 20:54
Jesus is not even the man's real name, or original name for that matter. Jesus (or as Hispanics would pronounce "Heysoos") is an English rendering of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is a Greek rendering of his original name in Aramaic--which is according to both secular and religious scholars--Yeshua'. Jesus spoke the Aramaic tongue, a Semitic language, related to both Arabic and Hebrew, but closer to the former. The Arabs, in their Semitic dialect, knew him as 'Isaa. In the ancient times, all Semitic peoples traced their lineage through the father, and not the mother, since sociologically and genetically this is more accurate. Therefore, since Jesus was born into this world without a physical or biological father, he was not considered of that particular people or tribe, which in his case were the Hebrew people, practicing the distorted Mosaic Law of the time, and calling themselves "the descendants or children of Israel (and people of the previous Kingdom of Israel, established by King David)," or Israelites. Israel was the title of Jacob who fathered the 12 tribes. One of his many sons had the name of Judah. So the Israelites of Jesus' time and region also called themselves "descendants of Judah, (and people from the previous Kingdom of Judaea)" or Yahudis/Yehudis/Judaeans, now known as Jews. Jesus was not a Jew (since he had no biological father from that particular people), but he was a correct practitioner and authoritative scholar (Rabbi) of the undistorted Mosaic Law, established for the Israelites by the Hebrew Prophet Moses. The Jews called their scholars Rabbis, because "Rabb" means "Lord/Divine," and was applied to kings, landlords, learned men, and God Himself--since "Lord" has the connotation of a sustainer (one who provides for you basic necessities like food, drink, clothing, shelter, life, immunity, etc.). So in this last sense, just mentioned, he was a Jew, and he was also a Hebrew--only to the exent that his pure mother was a Hebrew and Israelite. Secularists and atheists are correct in maintaining that the Anglo-Saxon blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus is a definite myth or fiction. Intelligent and faithful religious people are also correct in asserting the historical Middle-Eastern man, dark-haired, ruddy, and from the land traditionally known as Palestine. For brevity's sake, Jesus is the son of God, figuratively or metaphorically speaking, since he was a great lover of wisdom or philosopher ("philo" in Greek meaning "love," and "sophia" meaning "wisdom"), just like Socrates and Plato were in ancient Greece. One of God's attributive-names in the Arabic language is Al-Hakeem or "The Most-Wise." He who loves wisdom, loves God, and the attribute of wisdom is the golden mean between being a genius and a fool, both being extremes and abnormalities. All the ancient Biblical Prophets of God were great lovers of wisdom or philosophers, and in different places and times they were called by different titles, befittingly in those different languages. In India, we have "Buddhas" or "Enlightened Ones," and one of their major prophets sent to the Northern Indian people was Siddhartha Gautama, known to us as the "Buddha." They all preached and taught against atheism and polytheism--the two main roots of all social injustices and personal psychological problems, and specifically taught monotheism. Allaah is God is Deus is Brahma is Tao/Dao is Gott and etc. Furthermore, they all "submitted and surrendered" to the will of the Father to achieve "peace," as a state of mind and as a political state. In other words they submitted their limited intellects and physical abilities to the All-Knowing, All-Powerful, and Almighty, the great spiritual and active force--Tao--of the cosmos, to become "whole and complete," which gives "peace," spiritually and politically. In the Arabic tongue, the concept of "submitting or surrendering to the will of God, in order to attain peace, psychologically and socially" is denoted by the term "Islaam," and a Muslim is "one (male or female) who submits to the will of God to achieve peace." All the messengers of the world, throughout history preached and taught this same very sublime concept (Lao Tsi the Wise Sage, Socrates the Great Philosopher, Confucius the Wise Sage, Plato the Philospher, Moses the Interlocuter, Joshua the Just Warrior, Isaiah the Visionary Prophet, Daniel the Wise Dream-Interpreter, Abraham the Great Patriarch, Jesus the Christ, John the Baptist, Siddhartha Gautama the Great Buddha, and Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets, and the many many more that are not mentioned or known to us from the Scandinavian lands, of Germanic origin, from the Black tribes of Africa, from the Native or Indigenous Americans, and etc.). Peace and blessings be upon all of the messengers and prophets of God, and especially peace be upon our beloved Prophet Jesus the logos or word of God, and His spirit, and the Messiah (or in Greek "Christos") of the Israelites, and even more so peace and blessings be upon the final messenger and prophet of God, who was an Arab, ethnically, but who was the only one sent to all of humanity, for all succeeding generations until the end of this worldly life for humanity. For God's sake why don't you people understand--is it that difficult? You only have one life, and you all shall die one day, either in young age or old age. Wake up to reality, wake up to the truth. "Don't judge the religion by man, but judge man by the religion" (Imaam al-Ghazzaali, classical Muslim theologian, may God have mercy on his soul). Religion is nothing other than the outward aspect of a spiritual tradition. Reason and Science go hand-in-hand with God's true religion--Islaam--as is historically and academically documented, when Muslims were true Muslims by the actual definition of the word as explained above, and acted according to the universal ethical laws, expressed in its most perfect sense in the spiritual tradition and religion of Islam.
December 20, 2006 6:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 20, 2006 18:31
Linda
A person can have morals, ethics and values without having god in their life. Just as a Godloving/fearing person can be unethical and immoral etc.
I can only speak for myself but I grew up in a Christian background, one that I questioned very early in my life. Many things did not make sense to me even at a young age and when I questioned those things, I never got a straight answer. Lest I forget, I was also chastized for questioning.
I hazard to guess that many of us did have a background in some religion, so its not like we do not have any educational and or enviornmental background on the subject. So I think when the attitude of the atheists here appears to seem like they are more intelligent, it may have to do with the fact that we have been on your side of the fence but freely chose to jump over to the other side into what we see as reality based not fiction.
I personally choose to not turn my life over to what I consider to be an imaginary savior of sorts. If I screw up along the way I ask forgivess from whomever I have offended if anyone, if not I learn from it either way. If something good comes my way, its because it did. Or because another human helped with it. And that is who I would thank for it.
Again, I speak for myself. I have no desire to force someone into giving up their belief system, I only ask that their belief system is not forced on me. I can't remember the last time an atheist knocked on my door wanting to discuss the truth with me.
I can deal with the outside religious expressions. Prayer before sports events, In God we trust on my paper bills, etc. Its easy enough for me to ignore. I have a real problem though when the subject of religion is posed at me and I state I am an atheist and all of a sudden you would think I just grew horns and was breathing fire. And these sort of attitudes come from people I have associated with, say at work, for years, and this sort of discussion never came up before but now that it did, suddenly they have forgotten the person I have been all of this time pryor and it would seem now I am some sort of threat. Even though they are the ones that brought the subject up.
I personally have no desire to pretend to know the truth for all. I just know what the truth is for myself. And would very much appreciate that the others (religious) would stop their desire in wanting to *save* me.
Which brings me to another point. I keep my personal non belief system to myself for the most part, not because of shame or embarassment, or any other reason except for the sheer tiresomeness of people finding it their personal crusade to *save* me. Because,I have found that a once friendly relationship can turn ugly when the subject of religion or lack there of becomes the focus point. It makes a good person (me) have to tell another good person (them) to back the @#%& off, eventually.
Take care
November 22, 2006 5:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 05:21
An absolutely concise and beautiful response. Thank you for bringing mental clarity to this discussion in an honest and insightful way.
November 22, 2006 2:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 02:10
Linda Marie,
I think you miss the piont of anonymous's aliens. If they existed than there is no magic God or after life just some advanced species in our reality.
They would not be just Gods with different faces they are just advanced clock makers much like ourselves. God and the after life are dead. Worshiping gets you nothing and faith no longer offers any comfort. Then the only way forward to be "good" is the good atheist way.
Without the after life to trouble your real life you would again love your life and that of others as much as the good atheist.
Also "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." could also be translated into just "wishful thinking". That also is hardly benign as it sounds as people kill to establish their wishful thinking over others. Why not just deal with reality and love real life.
November 21, 2006 10:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 22:15
Brett, your statement that the religious only do good to get in good with their God is a very broad and bigotted statement, IMNSHO.
As anon. asks, and I agree, no matter what I might "learn" in the future, my lifestyle would probably not change much.
Our actions very often follow how we have been taught, what we have gleaned from life events, our heritage -- all sorts of things.
As a person of faith, I might believe my actions are supported and flow from a strength I receive from God. But again, I can't prove it to anyone else.
As for the aliens -- I might decide that God "looked" a bit different than I imagined... or that He/She had taken an "alien form"...
Who knows?
A verse that I like from the NT Bible describes faith to my liking: "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Even so, I believe "what we hope for" can change and that "what we do not see" could be something "unseeable" or simply unknown.
linda marie
November 21, 2006 11:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 11:54
Linda Marie:
Let me ask a simple question -- if tomorrow you found out that without a doubt your existing belief in a diety was wrong [some aliens show up and can demonstrate they were the ones who made all of us after all -- some horrible high school chemistry experiment that got out of hand] -- how would you change your behavior? Would you still care for your fellow man? Would you still follow the golden rule?
Those of us who don't believe in a diety try to develop our belief of right and wrong and do well by our fellow man -- probably the same way you would if you didn't have faith.
November 21, 2006 11:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 11:25
I hate to sound rude but the religious only do good to get in good with their God. To gain leverage to get their souls into heaven. Whether their 'good' is actually good for humanity or whether the recipients of their 'good' actually asked for it, are secondary issues.
Missionaires are driven by 'good' to convert other people but in doing so they attack these people's cultures. What right have you to do such things? It is not about 'good' but being unable to ever see you are wrong.
November 20, 2006 10:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 22:55
Atheism is simple: we do not believe in any supernatural beings. We are quite aware of the 6 billion people in the world, and we are aware that most of these people live in infinitely poorer and more desperate circumstances than do we. Since each human has the same inherent dignity and deserves the same respect and opportunity, we do what we can to assist our fellow human. We do it because it is the right thing to do - for us and for those we assist, not to please some supernatural being.
Atheists are mostly not proselytizers. We accept that you believe differently. Our only issue is the attempt of so many religious people to impose their religion on us. About that, we are militant and hostile - there is no common ground to be had in that area. You either believe in religious freedom or you don't.
November 20, 2006 1:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 13:50
Thank you for the list, Godma...
I also found a list on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists
Evidently one does not have to believe in God to do good in the world. You who are atheists, would you mind sharing what motivates you to do good?
The reason I ask -- I'm wondering if "believers" and "non-believers" could at least find some "common ground" in their desire for "good"...
(I know that's broad, but it's a bit less broad than "we are all human", don't you think?)
linda marie
November 20, 2006 12:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 12:14
Why Hinduism is not included in this discussion, I wonder. Is it because you have been brain washed good enough to believe that it is a religion of multiple gods, all kinds of beliefs without a single book and such non-sense?
As a person familiar with Hinduism I can tell you that this religion offers more freedom than any other religion to find the truth for yourself. By the way Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism.
November 19, 2006 10:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 22:45
Michael N. Hull:
I think most of those definitions leave a lot to be desired and some are completely contrived and biased. You can't just say here are the definitions I like, now discuss. You don't get to frame the discussion this way unless you are Fox News.
The definition of Consciousness could equally be the human head. That is a mental space in which one thinks. Saying something has a 'psychological context' does not mean much and ignores physical brain activity.
The definition of sin ignores who is throwing around the term, usually the faithful. It is a value judgement nothing more. One man's intellectual error is another man's intellectual good.
The most dishonest definition is that of truth. Truth is limited to your perception and can be fleeting. The cloud outside my window is beautiful and a reality and hence a truth. In a couple of minutes its gone though. That definition is skewered toward the religious who think they and the object of their faith is eternal.
Also Atheism is not belief in any context.They simply deal with what is real and feel no need or gain no comfort in believing in things that have no reality. Your definition is once again a religious interpretation so as to reduce the argument to choice of beliefs and, of course, an infinite (but wholly non-existent) God can't lose on that one, can he.
I reject your frame.
November 19, 2006 10:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 22:31
There seems to be a lot of disagreement on the question of definitions. Here are some definitions I might use for debate to see if common ground can be reached.
Agnosticism – This applies to all things on which man has not yet been able to run an experiment to prove or disprove.
Atheism – A belief that ‘Gods’ do not exist. Atheism can be defined as a ‘religion’ when it applies only to the God of Abraham.
Belief – Something about which one is agnostic. For example, one can believe that some horses like music.
Certainty - Uncertainty is the only certainty there is.
Consciousness – The mental space in which one thinks. The psychological context in which thoughts exist.
Death – The permanent cessation of consciousness.
Doctrine – A code of beliefs. For example the doctrine of self defense incorporates a code of beliefs about the circumstances under which a person or a nation may defend itself with the use of force.
Dogma – A statement of principles defining a Faith. Dogma is the established doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.
Doubt – Uncertainty about an idea.
Eternal Time – The continuousness of time from the past to the future.
Eternity – The moment of ‘now’ which is forever unchangeable.
Experiment – Something conducted in the physical or metaphysical world to prove a truth.
Faith – A belief about which one claims not to be agnostic and that one ‘knows’ is ‘true’. For example, in the discipline of mathematics one has faith that 2+2 equals 4 i.e. one claims to ‘know’ that this is ‘true’. Many people have faith that God exists or alternatively does not exist i.e. they claim to ‘know’ that their belief is ‘true’.
Ideas – The content of consciousness.
Judgmental – Relating ideas using reasoning that is only absolute, ‘either/or’ instead of ‘either/or and ‘both/and’; relating ideas using reasoning that employs only ‘hierarchical’ relationships (better/worse) instead of ‘hierarchical relationships’ and ‘equality of relationships’.
Knowledge – Knowledge is present when the phrase “I know” is consistent with what is ‘true’. All knowledge is relational. We know what we know only in relation to everything else that we know.
Myth – The use of symbols or imagery to understand metaphysical phenomenon such as the nature of love or the joy of laughter. (‘Myth’ in the common vernacular is unfortunately wrongly understood as something that ‘can’t happen’ or isn’t ‘true’ in contrast to the word ‘ model’ which in the common vernacular is often understood as something that ‘can happen’ or is ‘true’. However, use of the word ‘myth’, by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false.)
Mythos – A collection of myths (in the scholarly sense). A story or set of stories relevant or having a significant truth or meaning to a particular culture, religion, society, group, etc. Anything delivered by word of mouth, word, speech, conversation; a story, tale or legend, especially a poetic tale. Mythos is a silent, intuitive way of discovering truth – it comes into play when one discovers a truth through a work of art, a piece of poetry, a musical composition etc.
Ontology - The study of being or existence.
Orthodox - From the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching'). That skin cancer is caused by sunlight is an orthodox model while models for a bacterial cause of skin cancer are considered heterodox. In the scientific world models considered ‘orthodox’ can be subjected to tests of proof. In the metaphysical world myths can not be subjected to such tests yet beliefs are always held to be orthodox by ‘the believers’ and those who hold other beliefs are considered ‘heretical’.
Perception - The process of acquiring, interpreting, selecting, and organizing sensory information.
Problem – A decision waiting to be made.
Reasoning – The process of relating ideas to reach a belief about which one is agnostic. Proving a belief by experiment leads to the attainment of a truth about which one is no longer agnostic.
Religion – A system of social coherence based on a common group of spiritual beliefs held about any topic and which contains codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such a system of thought. Most commonly understood as a socially coherent group holding a belief that ‘divine spirits’ do or do not exist. [Under this definition atheism can be discussed as a religion.]
Sacrament – A finite, physical, visible mediator of something sacred. For example, wedding vows can be considered as sacred and the wedding ceremony is then the sacrament, or visible mediator, of the exchanging of the vows.
Sacred - From Latin, sacer, "untouchable”. Deserving of veneration. Of utmost importance. The bible can be said to be sacred as can Newton’s Principia Mathematica and the poetry of Keats.
Salvation – Being in correct accordance with truth and thus in no danger of coming to harm from acting on this truth. Holding as truth that the world is flat when in actuality it is round would mean one is in need of ‘salvation’ and that one is living in ‘sin’.
Separation - Man's habit of separating everything into categories. ‘You’, ‘me’, ‘us’, ‘them’, that represent different categories of objects and ideas.
Sin – Intellectual error (Greek - hamartia). A belief that all horses like music is not ‘sinful’ while having ‘faith’ that they do like music might be ‘sinful’.
Soul – In first century Greek, the word ‘soul’ meant the totality of the mind i.e. the totality of one’s psychological self.
Spirit – ‘Spirit’ is the Latin translation of the Greek word ‘soul’.
Spiritual – Matters associated with the inner person, e.g. love, happiness, curiosity etc. [In the common vernacular spiritual is often mistakenly confused with ‘religious’].
Temple – A sacred place. The Lincoln Memorial can be thought of as a temple.
Theology – The interpretation of a received tradition in the present cultural context. (The word ‘theology’ is derived from Hellenistic Greek, but its meaning has changed significantly through its use in the European Christian thought of the Middle Ages and Enlightenment. The term ‘theologia’ is used in Classical Greek Literature with the meaning ‘discourse on the gods or cosmology’. Cosmology, from the Greek root is the study of the Universe in its totality, scientifically and spiritually, and by extension, humanity’s place in it.
Thoughts – The juxtaposition of ideas in consciousness.
Truth – Something that is the same for everyone, everywhere, and for eternity.
November 19, 2006 9:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 21:06
Loco Moc:
For an atheist consensus about a spiritual component is irrevelvent unless there is some (any) physical proof. If you look at someone dying there is no indication of a soul seeping out nor if you observe someone being born do we have any sign of a soul seeping in.
We may want that and our brains that are hardwired to keep us alive will attempt to create scenarios where our individuality transcends death. But that is not the same as knowing there is no soul, as deep done I beleive we all do. It is just comfort you are seeking and desperately holding on to.
There is not the slightest real world evidence of a soul so you can't have it both ways. Either a soul exists or it does not, there is no middle ground. If you an antheist and can see no real world proof than the soul does not exist. Agnostics are just atheist want-to-bes that are to frightened to let ago of their safety blanket. They accept the worst compromise and can only spin in circles.
November 19, 2006 8:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 20:03
Loco_Moco:
Recognizing death and knowing you are mortal are two very different things.
Most mammals have the same range of emotions as we do. They also know what death is. If they are a carnivore then ascertaining when your prey is dead is very important lest it lashes out and harms them. They also have to be aware when their young die etc. I personally have seen dogs grieve their dead owners.
But all that is not the same as knowing that you were born to die. That requires an intellect to grasp. You have to be able to visualise the entire span of your life. It also requires advanced communication skills and probably a culture.
Animals don't live inside their heads like that they live in a continuous now. They can develop and retain skills and certain knowledge but they can't manipulate the abstract. Hence, no animal but Man is burdened with this one truth.
November 19, 2006 7:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 19:44
Have people ever considered this: What if we just don't care. I am an atheist, and I really don't care about what happens after I die. If there exists an immortal soul (and everyone has the right opinion on the existence of one, I know: they've all told me) then there is a place for mine. If not, I will never know. I really don't care. What I do care about is having other people's beliefs rammed down my throat; at social functions, on TV, on billboards, before games, before meals. I am a member of the last group that it is acceptable to discriminate against. Ironically, I don't have much love for the atheists that are practically militant in their defense of their non-belief.
As for common ground: why do we need it? Why does there need to be common ground between what you believe and what I believe? Is it because you try to ram your beliefs down my throat and we have to agree on what beliefs are acceptable to ram down my throat? How about none. Maybe it is because some people are so frightened by other people's freedoms: thier charisma, their sexuality, their happiness, thier spirit; that the former group needs to control the latter by forcing them to conform to their set of beliefs.
If we could learn to live and let live, all this necessary "common ground" on belief would become a moot point.
November 19, 2006 4:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 16:16
PC said:
>However, the conclusion I must arrive at based upon the overwhelming number of anti-religious posts >on this site is that many atheists (most? I don't know...somebody tell me) would more often than not >enter the conversation with the intention of conquest, not understanding. In fact, the whole tenor feels >more like a soon coming crusade of secular humanism than a call for common ground and >understanding. Sad.
Sigh. Speaking for myself, as an atheist, I came for intellectual debate, for putting my ideas to the test and hoping to see them well tested. I didn't think people would be too sensitive to hear strong arguments and strong opinions.
The truth matters, and good ideas should prevail while bad ideas should fade away. Is there really much point in a non-committal, unenthusiastic discussion on this topic? What's the point if the goal here is not to find the truth? "Mutual respect and understanding" is a given; we're not barbarians, and we're not in kindergarten. We don't need to tie down our brains and pour water on our enthusiasm in order to be nice to one another. In fact, it shows a great deal of respect to hold people to high intellectual standards on an intellectual forum like this one.
I think one of the very problems with the present state of dialogue on religion is that people are too hypersensitive about having their beliefs challenged. If we atheists seem "undersensitive" it may be because we have our ideas implicitly challenged everywhere we go, so we're used to it. But we're also made better by it. So I hope the religious people here don't take it as a "crusade" when we make high intellectual demands of them. We just know that it's worked for us.
November 19, 2006 1:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 13:18
"But there is one piece of common ground that all humans share ... something only our species knows and a product not of enlightenment or revelation but an accidental byproduct of the slow evolution of our brains. In comparison to this one truth every other aspect of reality is rendered subjective ... We are going to die and we know it.
"Believers think they can sneak around this truth into a godly after life, Agnostics being unsure whether they are mortal or immortal barely exist alive or dead, but atheists, true atheists, know that death is the end."
I digress briefly, but -- though we may certainly quibble about whether they have an priori knowledge -- at least elephants, porpoises and whales do in fact appear to comprehend the concept of death. It goes to illustrate the chanciness of making assumptions based either on our alleged evolutionary superiority, or our purported divine mandate to rule over the earth and all its creatures.
The common ground is not precisely "We are going to die and we know it". With all due respect, before we can claim this as common ground, don't we first have to agree that we are "going to die"? Does your definition of "die" conform to mine?
We concede that without exception, our physical bodies eventually cease to function. We lack universal consensus as to whether each of us possesses a spiritual component which is the source of our mind/consciousness (as contrasted to our brain). We further lack consensus as to whether, if it exists, this spirit survives the death of the body.
So I could reframe the common-ground statement as "We don't know what happens to our consciousness when our physical bodies cease to function; and our innate fear of the dissolution of our consciousness leads us to explore all other possibilities" ;-)
Funny how this common ground seems to be the very territory that the agnostics are exploring -- agnostics reviled by fundamentalist believers and fundamentalist atheists alike!
By Jove, I think those wishy-washy agnostics might be onto something ... at least when it comes to lambs and lions being able to lie down together, which is what this "common ground" discussion is all about, isn't it?
November 19, 2006 10:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 10:53
John Phillips:
What if you hate yourself?
"Do unto others as you would have done to you" does you no good then.
We see the problem with his axiom everyday. An ambitous man may drive himself to work a 100 hour week. He will regard that as acceptable to reach his desired goals and probably sacrifices a great deal more. The problem is he will regard his 100 week as his standard and the standard he expects of others. Others though are not like him and may wish to spend some of that 100 hours in other ways. Unless he can totally accept that his goals aren't shared by all than his good intentions, that is, to give others a chance to reach the goals he find most desirable, are turned bad.
This high and mighty statement which may also have good intentions then becomes an excuse to enslave others and yourself. You can't live by axioms as all morals and ethics have their context.
We all regard not murdering one another as one the highest morals but we allow the police and soldiers to murder people to defend us. Of course we don't use the word 'murder', we use 'defend', 'patriotism' etc, yet call it what you like, if you set out with an apriori plan to kill someone its murder whatever the motivation.
This isn't a paradox to sweep under the carpet so you can feel good about yourself or a weakened moral it is a strengthened moral that needs to faced squarely as it precicely defines when murder is used in the service of Man.
If something as obvious as murder has a context then no axiom, commandment, or pithy saying is absolute. They all have their context.
And that is what a search for common ground on moral and ethical issues should be about. Not a contest to determine what is the highest moral but a dialogue to determine the context of all morals.
November 19, 2006 1:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 01:01
Whereas 'Belief' and 'Disbelief' have no common ground humans do.
Agnosticism is the most pathetic compromise. They refuse to worship but can't rule out the possibilty of a God. What other things with no real world reality can't they rule out. Flying Pigs. Men with ten heads. If there is no God then they run in cirles unable to eliminate the trillions of unreal things that could exist. If there is a God then I think there is a special place in hell for them far below the atheist as they believed (even if it is a pathetically tiny belief) and decided to live in denial. Spit in the face of God, if you like.
But there is one piece of common ground that all humans share, believer or otherwise. It is something only our species knows and a product not of enlightenment or revelation but an accidental byproduct of the slow evolution of our brains. In comparison to this one truth every other aspect of reality is rendered subjective and what is already subjective withers into mere conjecture.
We are going to die and we know it.
Believers think they can sneak around this truth into a godly after life, Agnostics being unsure whether they are mortal or immortal barely exist alive or dead, but atheists, true atheists, know that death is the end. Stop.
Unlike the others though, the atheist will not experience the horror of death, that is, being ripped away from everything he knows and loves, as the only thing he will experience is the last moments of his life. And life is nothing to fear. His death like his birth is none of his business.
November 19, 2006 12:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 00:25
Simple, the common ground should be do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Unfortunately, for many religious believers this is not enough, often because accepting either that others have no belief or even differing belief about the same god (how weird is that) appears to threaten their own belief structure. Yet the moderates at least claim that their particular religion is one of peace and love. Yet all the evidence to date is largely the opposite, at least when applied to those of non or different beliefs.
Thus if atheists have an agenda it is that no individual's belief should impinge on others beyond the doctrine of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I.e. believe what you want on a personal level however irrational or nonsensical others might think it but don't try to impose those beliefs on others or use it to control their lives. Unfortunately, the more fundamentalist wings, and not always only the fundamentalist, of the major religions seem intent on taking us back pre-renaissance to the dark ages. Many atheists seeing more and more of this have now decided that tolerating the intolerable is no longer an option. So we have gone on the vocal offensive, unlike the very real physical offensive often used by the so called religious, as the only means available to highlight our concerns and to try and stem the tide of intellectual darkness brought about by what we see as irrationality.
And while the moderates of the various religions endlessly debate apparently nothing much, their more militant elements aim for more political influence, either through the pulpit come ballot box or at the end of a gun or bomb and in the process through their methods refute all that their more moderate fellow travellers claim for their religion.
November 18, 2006 10:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 22:34
"In sum, common ground can be useful and perhaps sometimes necessary; but it can also be problematic and indeed counterproductive. In such light, we should not be seduced into seeing common ground as the guarantor of meaningful communication. Rather, we should recognize the value of communication itself and from here recognize that sometimes the existence or quest for common ground can promote conversation, and sometimes the existence or quest for common ground can hamper this. And God knows best."
This is the kind of stupid jibberish that gives religous people such a bad rap among the educated. Although I must admit I agree with you Sherman, there's unfortunately no point in discussing it with you.
Thanks for the insight,
Bob
November 18, 2006 9:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 21:17
In repsonse to Randy:
"but this attitude is not going to help your cause (unless you are a double agent). It's only going to make people defensive and more certain that non-religious people are closed-minded"
---
That perception, is very untrue... I can assure you. We need to somehow remove ourselves from what we know - or think we know... and create a knowledge of Faith based upon reasonable understandings. The bible (or any other published words in God's name), are nothing more than the same. If something happened to YOU today, and you wrote about it 30-60 years from now, how would your perspective change? What would you write about? What would be the most important features in your write? Not to mention, how would you recount a historical record without incorporating your own thoughts, feelings, and lessons learned within that same timeframe? The human element is undeniable... only a fool could take such a text literally. Yet, many (understanding that very thought) DO so... because they can.
If I could sit in front of you, and convince you that blue was really purple - and for that knowledge, convince you that I deserved your money... to further my cause... IF enough people BUY IN to such BS, why would I stop?
My life, is a far cry from such lies.
The value here, is in making the point that it happens. Bottom line is - it should not.
November 18, 2006 8:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 20:57
Linda,
I only knew of a couple good examples off-hand, but a google search ("famous atheists") found many more. Of course, it depends on your definitions, but here are a few that popped out to me and seem pretty clear (and influential, not just famous):
Albert Einstein
Andrew Carnegie
Ernest Hemingway
Charles Darwin
Samuel Clemens
Susan B. Anthony
November 18, 2006 5:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 17:18
Randy,
I hesitate to dignify this with a response, but this attitude is not going to help your cause (unless you are a double agent). It's only going to make people defensive and more certain that non-religious people are closed-minded. Just because you claim _loudly_ to be right doesn't make your point any more convincing...probably less. If you are right, then your evidence and reasoning should stand well enough on its own without the need for insulting the other side.
November 18, 2006 5:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 17:03
Randy,
You miss the point.
Neither God nor the non-existence thereof can be proved.
That is what fait is about -- and this website is "On Faith"...
I'm sure there are many examples (and I am confessing here that I know very little about atheism), but what are some examples of athiests who have contributed to our world?
I think I would be able to take a conversation about those things more seriously than simply being told that anyone who believes in God is just "wrong"...
linda marie
November 18, 2006 4:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 16:53
There is no god.
WHy is it that EVERY SINGLE piece of data, of scientific evidence prooves all of you religionists to be wrong?
I'll tell you why...
because you are wrong. You are all so wrong that it is an afront to reason.
Grow up and stop playing with your imaginary friend.
There's a very real world of discovery out there and YOU people are the ones who are holding the rest of the human race back.
November 18, 2006 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 16:07
Yes, it could be. I do know several people who would call themselves "religious" but not "faithful". My impression is that they are the minority, though, and that they are using "religious" to describe their general sense of wonder and awe of nature, not their association with an organized religion. I think I just have weird friends.
Here's a question, though: can you be a Christian, Jew, or a Muslim without using faith? What would that look like? It seems that, at a minimum, you have to believe in that the relevant scripture is the inspired word of God (more so than any other book, anyway). Can one believe that without some amount of faith?
November 18, 2006 12:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 12:24
Could it be that faith and religion are two separate things?
And could it be that all the "noise" we're hearing is from people of religion, rather than people of faith?
(Not trying to sound "superior" in my thoughts -- just throwing out questions that have come to my mind...)
linda marie
November 18, 2006 10:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 10:16
Brett, I wasn't talking about the bible. I could have gone into a generalized history of all the religions. I chose islam because Serman put it on a pedestal.
Religion has caused much of the horror in the world. It's a tribal institution made by people.
November 18, 2006 3:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 03:17
Real:
Clearly you do not read your bible well enough. Google "Bible atrocity" and the relevent versus will be shown (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html lists 857 such passages) Why Joshua alone committed multiple genocides on the Gibeonites, the Makkedah, the Libnahites, the Lachish, the Eglonites, the Hebronites and the Debirites.
Child murder is condoned in Psalms 137:9 "Happy will be the man who dashes your little ones against the stones". In Leviticus 27:29 human sacrifice is condoned. Deuteronomy 12:30 directly condones the killing of those of other faiths. Rape, incest, animal cruelty, genocide, maiming petty revenge, child cruelty its all there and fully approved of by the religious dogma. These dangerous and insane versus can't be passed off as being taken out of context or the mores of the times.
This is why you can't be a fundamentalist as that makes you wedded to the good and the bad in your dogma. I think most religious people are good people and hence emphasis and live by the positive sections of their dogmas. But the horrid and insane bits are still there (the old testament is still gospel) and can be pointed and to and acted upon by someone who equally regards themselves a believer in the faith.
This is the ultimate irony in that it is the religious and their doctrines that are morally relative not the good atheist.
November 18, 2006 1:49 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 01:49
I think you've layed out the foundation of what needs to happen most. In trust, and without boast.
Well written. Communicated with honesty, in real terms. I agree completely.
November 18, 2006 1:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 01:44
Regarding Muslims and Buddhists having an easier discussion - Of course any religionists discussion with a buddhist would be easy.
Buddhists essentially believe in extinguishment of all desire, delusion and ignorance.
Muslims on the other hand can believe in Allah and still Buddhists just don't care.
It's hard to argue if one of the parties refuses to.
November 18, 2006 1:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 01:20
Allen Cutler: "Personal dress is not a religious symbol unless it contains the scripture out front. There is nothing wrong with allowing cultural dress. It only becomes a problem if it prosthlesises".
Interesting statement. Let me ask: what if personal dress is so closely identified with repressive, genocidal, religious dogma that forces women into humiliating circumstances such as a whip on the bare ankle in front of their peers and that dress is worn 'voluntarily' in a country whose populace rejects the idea of wearing clothes that are of a religious nature.
We've all seen them on the streets. By my question, you know where I stand. I rarely say this but, Vive La France!
November 17, 2006 11:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2006 23:29
I'm really gladdened by the general tone of conversation on this particular forum, and that there are some really articulate people here that seem relatively open-minded. I think we can probably have a good conversation.
I'm one of the atheists who is more interested in finding mutual understanding than in winning a debate. Shall we discuss some points of contention?
To start (not that we have to start here, but just as a suggestion), I'll put out there that I feel that I can understand and respect a lot of what is included in religion. However, where I have a hard time is letting myself believe anything "on faith". Surely, you could argue that there are degrees of faith involved in all belief, but it seems to me that when a religious person says "I believe X on faith", they mean that as a way of distinguishing those beliefs from others that they presumably don't feel require faith enough to call it out. So, whatever one means when they say that - I have a really hard time seeing the value in doing that (and I do see dangers). I'd love to read some of your perspectives on this.
November 17, 2006 11:15 PM | Report Offensive Co