There is No God - and You Know It

[Midwest_Doc]

There is no God (and you know it)

COLUMN By SAM HARRIS
First published Oct 7, 2005

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to "never doubt the existence of God" should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

Consider: the city of New Orleans was recently destroyed by hurricane Katrina. At least a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and over a million have been displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their lives in the company of an imaginary friend.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[WahooJunkie]

1. Great Read

Thanks.

[papau]

141. This is an excerpt from An Atheist Manifesto, to be published at www.truth

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051007/cm_huffpost/008459;_ylt=AkfAsbbDKuk4wfxuRv6a_kSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

This is an excerpt from An Atheist Manifesto, to be published at www.truthdig.com in December.

[vi5]

2. Excellent piece...I'm sure the responses will be...

cries of "religion bashing!!" without much mention of the logical and contextual argument being made or any attempt to you know...actually refut points made and such.

[Stockholm]

3. kick n/t

[fasttense]

4. Ah, the contradiction of the existence of an all powerful,

all knowing and all loving god. How can this god exist if he allows evil to flourish. Perhaps he cannot stop evil, well than he is not all powerful. Perhaps he can't imagine a world without evil, than he is not all knowing. Perhaps we deserve this evil, than he is not all loving. The arguments go around and around and the only conclusion is there is no all powerful, all knowing, all loving god. But perhaps there is a god or creator that is not all knowing, all powerful and all loving. If so, is this god worthy of our worship?

Sam Harris argues this same point only in a more eloquent manner.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

7. Well, if you had to choose 2 out of 3

It's plain that all three cannot logically coexist in one being, given the evidence of our world. The big question is which you would drop out of the equation.

Me, I would gladly settle for an all-knowing and all-loving God, even if he wasn't all-powerful. It just means he tries his best like the rest of us, and I expect he weeps at his own failures.

[Generarth]

115. Quite obviously you need to drop all three

as none of them stack up. I really agree with the writer here and fail to understand how anybody can still believe in God.

[zonmoy]

221. perhaps god is in fact malevolent rather than all loving.

[Cactus44]

5. Pretty much sums up where I've been for quite a while. Thanks. n/m

.

[mikita]

10. ditto here n/t

[Geoff R. Casavant]

6. A wiser man than I once said

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

[Midwest_Doc]

8. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Author: Mark Twain

[Geoff R. Casavant]

13. Thanks!

I couldn't remember the original author, but I seem to recall it being a 20th century humorist -- possibly whoever I'm thinking of got it from Mr. Clemens.

[papau]

9. "Atheism, a religion dedicated to its own sense of smug superiority."

and evil in the world proves the atheist correct?

The quote by the way is from the TV hit "THE DAILY SHOW" - one of my favoriyes.

[Midwest_Doc]

11. Correct!

Atheists feel superior for denying the existence of god for the same reason that Galileo felt superior for understanding that the earth revolved around the sun. Understanding truth makes one feel superior to those who deny it.

[papau]

14. So what is your creation myth? - or do you ignore the questions that

require "God"

Indeed when science proves bits of the Bible to be Historical Truth -

say the Flood and the discovery recently of a great flood as the Med overfilled

or the Thera event and the physics that showed how this parted the Red Sea

or the Historical Jesus being a real person http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=291&topic_id=2379&mesg_id=2379 "In 1995 a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum. For the first time it was pointed out that Josephus' description of Jesus showed an unusual similarity with another early description of Jesus. It was established statistically that the similarity was too close to have appeared by chance. Further study showed that Josephus' description was not derived from this other text, but rather that both were based on a Jewish-Christian "gospel" that has since been lost.For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator Reference: "The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke", G. J. Goldberg, The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995) pp. 59-77. http://www.shef-ac-press.co.uk /"


Do these science discoveries threated your faith in atheism?

[Midwest_Doc]

16. What does this have to do with the existence of a god? n/t

[K-W]

21. Mount Olympus exists, how dare you not believe in Zeus!

It may suprise you to learn that athiests do not deny the existance of floods, human beings, or seas. They deny the existance of the magical being who supposedly regulates them.

[WahooJunkie]

49. All this says to me..

Is that all the occurances in the bible attributed to a divine being are just due to limitations of understanding of the natural world at the time of writing.

The burning bush has since been explained as well - there is a bush that catches itself on fire as way to clear out space surrounding the bush for the seeds that survive to sprout new bushes.

[papau]

55. Faith in Science solving all, answering all - Beautiful to see faith and

belief that is so strong that it ignores folks that tell you that Science, by definition, can not answer all questions.

[Stuckinthebush]

184. But it can answer a hell of a lot more

than faith can.

In fact, faith can't answer a single question. It can provide a sense of comfort to the faithful, but there are no answers in it. The goal of science is to seek answers in a systematic manner. I trust the answers derived from the scientific method much more so than those derived from faithful introspection.

[drm604]

207. Who here has claimed that science can answer all questions?

You're attacking a strawman.

[leeroysphitz]

142. OMG your right!

I've been such a fool! The possibility that Jesus might not be an entirely fictional character clearly PROVES that there is an all powerful magic man way up in the sky and that if I'm REAL good and follow all his arbitrary, contradictory, made-up rules he might not cast me into a LAKE OF FIRE to burn in agony for all eternity!

Thank you for opening my eyes.

[unblock]

209. science does not "prove bits of the bible to be historical truth"

rather, science sheds light on the reality of the world around us, including what really happened.

the fact that there are some elements of some stories in the bible that are found to have some relationship to what really happened only proves that the bible isn't entirely fictional. it proves nothing more.

it doesn't prove that god exists, it doesn't prove the entire story to be true just because one element of it bears some similarity with what actually happened, and it doesn't prove that other stories in the bible are true.

the fact that stories have elements that actually happened is very unsurprising. people often base stories, whether fiction or non-fiction, on real-world happenings.

the fact that the civil war actually happened doesn't mean that "gone with the wind" is the truth.

the fact that tornados exist doesn't prove that glenda, the good witch of the north actually exists.

perhaps red sea might have actually parted, for reasons that science can readily explain, and someone wrote a story about it. and not appreciating the scientific cause of this phenomenon, the authoer attributed it to a god. nothing very exciting in this. and hardly proof that the explanation was correct, just because it was old and written.

[doubleplusgood]

216. the Trojan War happened, too

About 3000+ years ago, based on archaelogical evidence...does that mean that the gods & godesses mentioned in Homer's Iliad were real ? The stories of the Bible are no different than the Iliad: they take some historical events (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, wars, plagues, etc.) & augment them with supernatural embellishments. So, Jesus existed ? So what ? So did Caesar, by Jove.

[shrike]

43. Do you have proof?

Of no God. Seems to me Galileo backed up his claims quite well.

[papau]

50. As science proves the Bible truthful, do Atheist's lose their faith?

As science finds it impossible to explain creation, do atheist's stop allowing questions about creation from being asked?

Why does an atheist pretend certainty about uncertain things - do they fear God and use the denial to buck up their spirits?

[K-W]

58. Does the fact that Homer's Illiad...

has been shown to be largely based on real historical facts prove the existance of Athena?

[papau]

164. The statements in the Bible as to Jesus are dumped on by those that

say he never existed.

The link I gave seems to put that to rest - others - "unbiased" others - make reference to Jesus - and the reference was not forged years later.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whopis01]

208. There is more than one Jesus in the Bible actually

Jesus Barabus... the one that Pilate turned free. Clearly it wasn't a unique name.

[PurityOfEssence]

73. Noah's flood is a complete impossibility

It is impossible for that much swelling of the oceans. Unless the purest religious dream (the magical suspension of reality) happened, that much of an increase in the water level simply isn't possible. There's not that much water no matter how you parse it.

All religion can be explained in this one phrase "this one goes to eleven".

Science is disproving the Bible at a steady rate.

Religions are political institutions. They spring from many human impulses, but they prey upon hopes and fears and virtually all devolve into power structures to dominate the fearful.

Jesus probably would have lived to a ripe old age if he hadn't fucked with Religion, Incorporated. Once he messed with the money-changers' hustle, he was a dead man.

[papau]

166. Read the last 3 yrs of research on the Med Flood and Noah's flood

A world wide flood - no

But the Med overflowing natural barriers - it looks like that was very real.

[muriel_volestrangler]

186. Do you mean the Black Sea, rather than the Mediterranean? (n/t)

[papau]

188. The underwater structures are about the Black Sea - yes

:-)

The process was the Med rising.

[muriel_volestrangler]

191. As far as I can tell, the proposal is a maximum rate of six inches per day

in the level of the Black Sea, with major flooding lasting up to two tears, if an earth dam in the Straits of Bosporus gave way extremely quickly. What I can't tell is what the evidence is for the dam being washed away very fast, rather than just a relatively gradual influx of water through the straits as the Mediterranean rose. Do you know what that is (and how big the hypothesised dam was)?

I'd say that a sea-level rise of six inches per day doesn't exactly mark the biblical story as 'historic' - people would be able to flee it on foot. And there's the matter of the biblical flood receeding - which sounds more like a flood of a river valley which later returns to normal than a rise in sea level which has never reversed.

[papau]

195. It has been a while since I read the details - but if memory serves - and

it often doesn't in my old age - the posit was for not a man-made dam - but the sudden collapse of a natural fill area that block the entrance - and that were indeed indications of such an area and of such collapse in the geo review that was done.

That collapse would normally happen quickly.

Indeed there are now a few books out now that suggest the south east asia myth for a large flood is from the same flood.

All interesting - plausible - but having proved nothing in the surviving earth suggests any other explanation does not make it "truth" - it is just the latest "science".

[nvliberal]

219. Yes, it could have happened. But it's really neither here nor there.

Recall how much people back then knew about their world. A flood could have happened, and those who recorded it probably believed "the world" was flooded.

The Bible has been so distorted by people with their own axes to grind. Atheists are probably as guilty of it as the most wild-eyed fundies.

[nvliberal]

218. Noah's flood is an impossibility if you buy into the idea it is a literal

event.

The Bible is full of allegory. The problem is with some who misinterpret it.

Science ISN'T disproving the Bible or any religion, because science and religion are two separate entities.

There is NO contradiction between the two, for one attempts to explain HOW we got here while the other attempts to explain WHY we are here.

Only dishonest people of whatever religious bent or none want to claim there's a contradiction because that serves their own purposes.

[K-W]

51. Except that there is no burden of proof on athiests,

Those who claim that God does exist have the burden of proof on them.

Lets pretend for a moment that Galileo had no observations to support his theory. What if he had simply claimed that the Earth rotated around the Sun because he saw it in a dream? Would it have been up to other scientists to prove that he was wrong?

Of course not. Disbelieving something that hasnt been proved requires no evidence.

[papau]

54. Why is there no burden of proof if you are certain that my God does

not exist.

Or are you the new agnostic atheist that dumps on those that believe, and then says I have no reason to not believe, I just do.

But your God may exist

LOL

it makes the first part - the dump - look silly.

But the atheist does not seem to mind.

[K-W]

61. The same reason I dont need to prove that Unicorns dont exist. nt

[papau]

79. Now that was not coherrent - but I did not expect a different post!

:-)

[K-W]

84. Not coherent? It was a pretty simple statement.

Im not sure where you got lost.

If God exists until he is disproven, then so does everything else.

[progressoid]

185. Ding ding ding. K-W wins the microwave oven for

bestest response!

[shrike]

56. Well, the poster was comparing himself to Galileo

And Galileo had evidence. I would never compare myself to Galileo and would never claim that I have proof.

[K-W]

63. He wasnt comparing thier burden of proof,

And Galileo had evidence.

Right, because he had the burden of proof on him. Thus, he needed to have, and did have evidence. In this case, the burden of proof is on those claiming god does exist, do they have evidence like Galileo did?

[shrike]

69. No, we don't

We're not claiming we do. But as I said, the comparison was between Galileo and the poster. Hence, I'd assume that anyone who puts himself in Galileo's category would also take up his burden.

The individual was comparing his certainty to Galileo's certainty. Galileo had evidence. He doesn't, I assume.

[K-W]

74. That isnt how comparisons work.

But as I said, the comparison was between Galileo and the poster. Hence, I'd assume that anyone who puts himself in Galileo's category would also take up his burden.

Except that a comparison is not an equivelency. The comparsion was to a specific aspect of Galileo, not to Galileo as a whole. Your assumption is unfounded. The category that he put himself in with Galileo had nothing to do with burden of proof.

The individual was comparing his certainty to Galileo's certainty. Galileo had evidence. He doesn't, I assume.

Not true. He never compared thier certainties.

In fact Athiests have a much stronger case that thiests have not provided evidence for God's existance than Galileo did to support his theory.

In Galileo's case, actually, the burden of proof was on both sides. The christians who believed the sun circled the earth had the same burden of proof on them that Galileo had on him. Since the evidence supported Galileo, he had the stronger theory.

In this case, we are not talking about competing theories. We are talking about a theory, God, and those who dont think that theory holds water. The people who dont think the theory is good have absolutely no burden of proof.

The athiests case rests entirely on the thiests ability to prove God's existance. Athiesm isnt an ideology, it is just a word to describe people who reject theistic claims.

[shrike]

111. Yes, he did

He said he had certainty the way Galileo had certainty. Galileo had evidence. He doesn't.

[K-W]

116. No, he didn't, here is the quote:

Atheists feel superior for denying the existence of god for the same reason that Galileo felt superior for understanding that the earth revolved around the sun. Understanding truth makes one feel superior to those who deny it.

The only comparison he makes between himself and Galileo is that both felt superior because both understood the truth. That is the ONLY comparison made.

Galileo had evidence. He doesn't.

Galileo needed evidence because he was proposing a theory.

Athiests are NOT proposing a theory, they are rejecting a theory. They dont need any evidence, they simply need to show that thiests lack evidence.

[shrike]

152. I read the quote

And Galileo is a bad comparison. Galileo was a scientist with evidence. The poster is a guy with an opinion. How do I know his opinion is the truth when he has no evidence. After all, he claims to know the truth ...

[papau]

168. No need to say they are convinced is true - but rejection is also an

opinion - and the basis for that opinion is what?

[papau]

95. You never answer the questions - what is the atheisat creator myth and

when science proves yet another part of the Bible true (at least quite plausible) do you not find your faith in atheism shaken?

[K-W]

99. I can provide answers.

For what it is worth.


what is the atheisat creator myth

There is no such thing as an athiest creator myth.

when science proves yet another part of the Bible true (at least quite plausible) do you not find your faith in atheism shaken?

I dont have any faith in athiesm, I'm not even sure what that means.

It depends which part of the bible is proven true.

If the existance of god were proven true, I would cease to be an athiest, having been shown the existance of a God.

As for all of the things in the bible that dont claim the existance of God, whether or not they are proven true has no bearing on whether or not God exists.

[papau]

100. So you can not answer the creation question - and refuse to admit

that you can not answer?

I do like the truth of Bible, and did Jesus really exist questions no longer being important to the atheist -

Good to see science has not shaken your faith in your being "correct" about this topic that apparently defines you.

[K-W]

104. Actually I did answer your question so what are you talking about?

There is no athiest creation myth. That is your answer. Such a myth does not exist.

I do like the truth of Bible, and did Jesus really exist questions no longer being important to the atheist -

While some athiests may be interested in the subject of Jesus's existance as a human being, it has no bearing whatsoever on the existance of god.

[txaslftist]

107. No you didn't. Not precisely. You dodged the question as expected.

What is the atheist creation myth is his way of asking, "How does the atheist believe creation occurred?"

And a response about quarks and black holes and probabilities and scientific whatsits and whosits doesn't get the job done. Because it's like the world supported by turtles on the back of other turtles. Eventually you run out of turtles and have to ask where the first turtle came from.

That is the question the theist has an answer for and you don't.

[K-W]

118. So because he wrote the question wrong, I was dodging it?

I answered the question he asked. I didnt answer the question you claim he meant to ask.

"How does the atheist believe creation occurred?"

Athiesm isnt a belief system it refers ONLY to the lack of a belief in god(s). That is the only opinion that can be generalized to all athiests.

And a response about quarks and black holes and probabilities and scientific whatsits and whosits doesn't get the job done.

Doesnt get what job done?

Because it's like the world supported by turtles on the back of other turtles. Eventually you run out of turtles and have to ask where the first turtle came from.

Except you just described creation myths, not science. Id like to see you reference a scientific theory that behaves in the manner of the turtle myth.

That is the question the theist has an answer for and you don't.

Its easy to have answers if you dont care whether the answer is true or not. Science aknowledges the limits of human knowledge and understanding. That is one of its strengths.

[papau]

121. What you are saying is that you can not be an atheist if you expect an

answer to the question of creation.

indeed atheism must be defined so that that question is not asked.

Like "not having the burden of proof", the atheist maintains their faith by avoiding asking questions that might make them question it.

Interesting.

[K-W]

132. No, that isnt what I said, that is what YOU said.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

What you are saying is that you can not be an atheist if you expect an answer to the question of creation.

I said nothing of the sort.

indeed atheism must be defined so that that question is not asked.

Huh?

Which definition of athiest are you referring to exactly?

Like "not having the burden of proof", the atheist maintains their faith by avoiding asking questions that might make them question it.

Except that this is a figment of your imagination. The burden of the proof is rather obviously on the person claiming that something exists, not on the person who doesnt believe them.

[txaslftist]

129. No. Science acknowledges the limits of Science's knowledge and ...

...understanding. It has nothing to do with the limits of human knowledge and understanding.

You have the ability to reason and to rationalize. You have the ability to think philosophically about cause and effect, about the deeper meanings of things.

You have the ability to see unmeasurable things, things like love and honor. Just because you can't grow them in a dish or weigh them does not mean they do not exist.

And even the much vaunted and expected Unified Field Theory when it comes some day, will not answer the why of existence. And it is turtles on the back of turtles, because it had to start somewhere. The turtle myth was never real, by the way, it is an illustration used by rationalists to belittle religion. When the religious belittle the rationalist with it in turn, it's not fair?

As for the definition of atheism, that's a moving target. It is de rigour to claim to be an atheist when one is an agnostic these days. If you don't know something and you don't believe something, it's okay to say, "I don't know" rather than "it's on you to prove it to me."

So perhaps the question should be made clearer. How does the atheist explain creation in the absence of the divine? How does the atheist think creation occurred? It's okay to simply say I don't know.

[K-W]

137. Right. You believe in things that cant be shown to exist.

I dont.

Love and honor exist because they are words describing things we can observe. They have nothing to do with this discussion.

You assume there is an answer to why we exist. You assume that the world functions like something created by a human. I dont.

And it is turtles on the back of turtles, because it had to start somewhere. The turtle myth was never real, by the way, it is an illustration used by rationalists to belittle religion. When the religious belittle the rationalist with it in turn, it's not fair?

It has nothing to do with fairness.

Scientific theories dont work like the turtle example. That is why your argument is bogus. As I said, please present a scientific theory that resembles this turtle example.

As for the definition of atheism, that's a moving target. It is de rigour to claim to be an atheist when one is an agnostic these days. If you don't know something and you don't believe something, it's okay to say, "I don't know" rather than "it's on you to prove it to me."

Actually athiesm has a very simple and unchanging definition, so I dont know what you are referring to.

And god forbid I expect people to show evidence to support thier claims. How unreasonable of me.

So perhaps the question should be made clearer. How does the atheist explain creation in the absence of the divine? How does the atheist think creation occurred? It's okay to simply say I don't know.

Again. Athiests are people who dont believe in the devine. That is the ONLY thing that they have in common. They do not share an explenation of creation, so your question is on its face bogus.

And yes, for people who respect science it is ok to say "I don't know". I have already explained that one of the keys of science is recognizing that human knowledge is limited.

I dont have the luxery of just saying "God did it"

[papau]

140. You believe you need not answer the question because of your faith

in science one day being able to answer.

The current "don't know" will be replaced by the new sacred knowledge of why we are here and how did we get created, how the universe got created, and all that stuff - brought to you by science.

It is good to have faith.

[leeroysphitz]

143. You seem to make less sense with every rebutal... n/t

You assume that there is an overwhelming NEED to know how the universe came into existence. This question seems to be your focus. As if not knowing the answer NOW or maybe EVER is somehow so unacceptable that if science cannot provide the "ultimate answer" right this minute or ever you need to leap into the first world view you can find that provides a story of "how it all began".

You project this need to have your "ultimate answer" on to "atheists"
as though we were part of an organized group with a rigid universal belief structure!! ha and then try to use the lack of an "atheist creation myth" as some sort of attack on disbelief.

None of that makes any sense. If you need to attack my disbelief in your gOD then you are proselytizing, trying to convert people. Why?
Your own mythology advises you to "shake the dust off your feet" in such situations.

Why argue? Even as a devout Christian you can not PROVE the existence of your gOD to me, ever and as an atheist I have no obligation to DISPROVE it to you.

[papau]

163. You may have missed the point - atheism avoids the question by

rejecting the answer.

The proseltizing at DU is by the atheist trying to get others to agree they have found the right, correct, true, reality, sane path.

The no obligation to "disprove" is indeed a path open to the atheist - but it again avoids the creation question.

[Chan790]

204. This is disingenuous

Stepping back from the religion debate...I'd like to point some things out that have been irking me the entire time I've read this as a logician and an amateur student of metaphysics.

"God"(replace with love or the future or any other thing that cannot be empirically proven) is a postulate. That is something that has not or cannot be proven or disproven.

Logically, it is impossible to prove <not postulate> as it is impossible to define the nature of a postulate. Alternatively may be possible to disprove a postulate, but that doesn't negate the object of the postulate merely the posited theory of it.

Basically, the applicable result is that might be possible to disprove the existence of "God", but not to prove the existence of "no God", if that parsing of words makes sense. Alternately, you could say there is a gap between disproving there is a "God" and proving there is no "God". Or that you can't prove a negative. There is a better way to explain it but not in less than 10,000 words.
_________

The limitation of science and religion to explain creation are both unprovable for what would most easily expressed as "informational (or data) decay". That is the farther one gets from an event the less evidence there is of an event by which to recreate an accurate description of the event.

This decay occurs at an asymptotic constant rate approaching infinity as you regress toward the origin of time (zero-moment). Simply put, regardless of whether there is a God or not, we will NEVER know the origin of creation (also expressible as zero-moment) as too much information (asymptoticly approaching all information) of creation has decayed with every passing second since at a constant rate and will continue to do so at a constant rate until all information has been lost at the end of time. Scientifically this decay can be observed as subsequent to entropy.

[papau]

169. Indeed the quark/black hole/zero energy/bane folks admit they

can't get the job done.

The contradictions of zero energy, and banes not showing up in experiments, are blowing "reality" explanations of existence away.

[papau]

167. Not proven may require no evidence - disbelief is by definition a belief

:-)

[ikri]

59. Do YOU have proof

That there's no dragon living in my garage?

Absence of evidence to the contrary does not make an argument correct.

[shrike]

70. Nope

But, as I've said, I'm not the one who put myself in the same category as Galileo.

[papau]

170. If you say there is no dragon in your garage, why are you afraid to open

the garage door?

Why are the atheiest afraid to ask the questiuon of creation?

[ikri]

181. It's a pet Dragon, quite friendly

So opening the door wouldn't be an issue.

And I have never met an atheist afraid to talk about creation. Of course they're probably more interested in what actually happened and less interested in some vague ethereal being who managed to create the universe.

Why does the creation of the universe require a guiding hand?

It's the universe for $deity's sake. It's amazing enough already without requiring supernatural forces.

[papau]

189. Glad it is a pet! :-) The curious and interesting point on the creation

question is the inability of science to posit a plausible way for it to happen.

Indeed I doubt science ever will suggest a plausible - coming from science - way for it to happen.

And that is not bad. No one said that science must answer all questions.

I am only saying atheism does not answer the question - and good answer or not, faith and belief in God does answer it.

[K-W]

23. Athiesm is religion like Intelligent Design is science. EOM

[shrike]

42. I saw that

I enjoyed "this week in God" because Colbert poked fun at everybody. Colbert's Catholic, BTW. According to a statement he made on NPR, he has no problem pointing out religion's hypocrises and weaknesses. He also remarked that the Daily Show staff has no shortage of religious people, in addition to seculars and non-believers.

[txaslftist]

86. The Shakers...what went wrong?

Hilarious.

[shrike]

112. I love "This Week in God"

Lewis Black got in some good licks too, on that show.

[papau]

171. It was a great show!

:-)

[DIKB]

161. "If Athiesm

is a religion, then Bald is a Hair Color."

It is the ABSENCE of faith. A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, put into action. I have none, thank you. I merely have ideas, however none do I give credence to. I merely take an arrogant view with Sammael however, you might know him as God, the Yahweh demon. Read up on the Gnostics if you want to know what I'm talking about.

Could there be SOMETHING out there ? I don't know, just as equally there is the possibility for nothing.

[papau]

172. Gnostics has a thousand variations - indeed the earliest riots were over

the Holy Spirit being part of the 3 in one.

But I agree "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer.

And if all "atheist" folks used that we would simply agree to disagree - and not have much of a discussion. :-)

[txaslftist]

12. Are we still reprinting this?

How many times does this article have to get re-posted before it gets tired?

Can't we just petition to have it permanently placed on the front page of the site so we don't have to keep reposting it?

I mean, if "there is no god" is going to be a permanent part of the platform on this website, why not just make it official policy?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txaslftist]

17. Hey, good morning Papau!

Nice to hear from you again!

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. What violations of the rules? (n/t)

[txaslftist]

31. Well, it's been posted before and is therefore a duplicate...

...it would be more appropriately placed in the religion forum...

...and it's been posted before and is a duplicate.

...and it's been posted before and is a duplicate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Can't find it anywhere in Editorials and Other Articles (n/t)

[shrike]

41. This piece had a very long life in the R&T forum

Surprised to see it posted again in EOA. No doubt it will draw the same responses as before. Round and round with nothing resolved.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. But I still haven't heard about a rule violation

There was an accusation that a rule has been violated, but that because an atheist did it, the moderators are ignoring it. So far I haven't been told about any violation, let alone the evidence that the moderators are using favouritism.

[shrike]

48. Have no idea if the rules have been violated

Just pointing out that the piece had a long run in another forum.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. A claim without any evidence on your part

while I can point to a recent post from an atheist that got moved from GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5080354

So, you continue to say the moderators are biased, do you?

You still haven't backed up your accusation of a violation of the rules; a moderator decision to move a discussion to a different forum does not mena it was a violation.

[papau]

75. God forbid that an atheist think you were saying it was a violation or a

behavior correction - or even confrontational - if this thread was moved to "Religion".

[struggle4progress]

145. It was posted in religion about two weeks ago, got over 350 responses, ..

.. and the thread was finally locked as flame bait.

[muriel_volestrangler]

149. It was locked as a 'flame-war' - and 54 replies were from a troll

including many in the contentious sub-threads. The troll was banned from DU shortly afterwards. That doesn't mean the OP was flame bait.

Anyway, the post claiming that posting this here was a violation of the rules has now been deleted, ironically, so it's a moot point.

[struggle4progress]

151. No, post #12 is still there. eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

154. I was thinking of post #15

Post #12 just said they were tired of the article - a perfectly valid point to make. It was the reply to that post (#15) that talked about putting it here being a rule violation, and also said the moderators were biased.

[struggle4progress]

155. Sorry. Never saw #15. Thought all were replying to #12. eom

[papau]

173. That is ironic - isn't it.

:-)

[400Years]

24. first time I've seen it, so I'm glad it was posted

[K-W]

27. Plenty of articles get reposted on this site all the time.

I guess athiests arent allowed to make the same reposting mistakes made by other DU'rs with other articles all the time or they must be accused of trying to take over the site.

[yurbud]

18. we can't fight the right if we patronize religious belief

Don't attack people, but don't give them a pass on stupid ideas because they put them in the religion zone.

Any position must be defended using evidence accessible by our five senses. That sounds so obvious, I'm almost embarrassed to type it, and yet it's not a rule of our political discourse.

[shrike]

47. Trouble with that

Is that there are religious people on the right side of things. Also, you can't get non-Democrats on board for such bread-and-butter issues as poverty, economics, if you insist they defend their beliefs before signing on.

I understand your point of view on things, but there is such a thing as pragmatism.

[papau]

57. Indeed it stops being a "fight the right" board and becomes the atheist

board.

[yurbud]

134. religious left can defend their positions on other grounds

[Larkspur]

19. Christianity inspried Rev. Martin Luther King Jr to lead a non-violent

movement against oppression. He followed the path of Jesus, who defended the oppressed and ostracized.

The Pat Robertson Christians follow the path of Ceasar, who implements oppression so that the Haves can keep their horde and suck more from the Have-nots.

Religion and god can be used to justify the Powerful's abuse of the powerless and it can also inspire the powerless to demand honest justice from the Powerful. The former is idolatry and the latter is active spiritualism. Rev. King himself said that the Robertson religion is an empty religion in need of new blood.

Religion is a man-made institution that is susceptable to corruption. God/Goddess is the elusive spirit that inspiries humans to live up to our divine potential.

[Midwest_Doc]

20. "..God/Goddess is the elusive spirit that inspiries humans.."

Where is the evidence that supports that statement?

[Larkspur]

26. Religion and spirituality are not science and true believers don't pretend

to attack or misuse science to further their beliefs.

I noticed that you did not attack Rev. King and those like him whose religion urged them to attack oppression. Why?

[txaslftist]

113. Your post.

Is evidence.

For some reason you typed it. If nothing moved you to type it, why did you do so?

[400Years]

25. so then did god also have him murdered?

[Larkspur]

28. No, he was murdered by a human being

just like Jesus was.

[txaslftist]

30. I'm afraid you don't understand, Larkspur.

Some of the atheists on DU are as closed-minded and stubborn as the Falwellian fundamentalists. They are also as dedicated to the advancement of their atheism as any door to door Jehovah's Witness. They talk tolerance and practice ridicule.

After a while you have to learn to just ignore them, like you have to ignore the weird guys with shaved heads and robes who used to hang out in the airports passing out literature and asking for donations.

For me, I'm secure in my faith in God because I don't have to look any farther than my child's eyes to see proof of eternity. How one can reconcile the existence of one's own soul with the idea that we're just clockwork pieces designed by chance with no tomorrows beyond death escapes me completely.

But that's just my silly, naive opinion, as you will shortly read.

[K-W]

33. Apparently you need to fabricate an athiest boogeyman

to be secure in your faith.

[txaslftist]

34. I don't have to fabricate shit.

I can read.

[K-W]

35. Then what prompted it?

I never challenged your literacy, just your self-serving caricature of atheists.

[txaslftist]

36. Try it yourself.

Post a farcical (since you apparently are an atheist) piece in defense of religion in the religious issues forum, where this piece ought to be. Read the cut and paste responses. Then tell me I'm delusional.

[K-W]

38. So you want me to bait athiests.

Yah, that will sure prove your strawman true.

[txaslftist]

39. Atheists demand proof. I'm just offering you proof.

[K-W]

46. Telling me to bait some athiests isnt proof. EOM

[papau]

60. I love the strength of the atheist faith - despite the lack of proof that

they are correct - they brush aside proof needs by saying they do not need to prove anything.

Such faith and belief is beautiful to watch in action.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. That's a nice group attack on DUers you've got there

You are calling many DUers 'closed-minded' - not because of anything they've said on DU, but because of their position on gods. You say this applies to all atheist DUers. You also accuse us all of ridiculing people, advancing atheism fanatically, and you think we must all be ignored.

Why do you use such a broad brush? Why do you think that any atheist on DU should be ignored? Do you want to turn it into a Christian board?

[txaslftist]

45. You are correct. I apologize.

I should not have lumped all atheists on DU into my post. That was unfair and I have edited my post to say "some of the atheists on DU".

Mea culpa, mea culpa.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. Thank you

:thumbsup:

[papau]

62. A Christain versus an Atheist Board - is that our choice. smug put downs

by Atheists of believers in every forum -

or what would Jesus do questions?

Let me think about that and get back to you.

[400Years]

66. For anyone to claim they don't believe is an insult to those who do

In other words, it's okay for religious people to go around loudly proclaiming thier undying faith in god or whatever, but for a person
to go around stating their disbelief is an affront to those who do.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, imho.
You have every right to go around believing in god and I have
every right to proclaim I don't and state the reasons why.

[papau]

72. When did Editorials become the place to declare the Atheist faith?

You indeed have every right to proclaim that you don't believe and state the reasons why.

But could we keep the focus at DU on politics - secular politics - and not a war on belivers?

[400Years]

77. how is this a "war on believers"?

Feeling persecuted just because someone publicly states their non-belief ?

That is exactly what I was talking about.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[400Years]

81. calm down

[txaslftist]

85. You don't think Papau should be emphatic?

I've watched the guy post, day after day, and get blasted by atheist zealots who cannot even define their own belief system. The comments range from responsible reply to inane diatribes to downright insulting comments on his credulity for having faith. Which is all well and good when it takes place in the Religious persecution forum. This is not that forum.

The gun rights people get regularly banished to the gungeon for posting opinions on that issue, but the atheists get a pass to post wherever they want. As do the 'aren't those religious people wacky' posts.

He has a right to be p.o.d, and frankly handles himself with a great deal more dignity than those he regularly contends with.

[papau]

88. Thanks - this will all work out in time - DU is too important to be lost

over the ego's of the atheist crowd.

[Midwest_Doc]

89. My Belief System is that of Aristotle

A is A

[txaslftist]

91. Well goody for you.

Where'd A come from, anyway?

The Big Bang-A?

Where'd the Big Bang-A come from?

Where'd the inside of you come from? Not the body, but the thing housed in the body? Is there something else in the house besides the lights and the tv and the stereo? Is someone home behind the windows of your eyes? If there isn't, why do you care about any of this?

And if someone IS home, where'd HE come from? And where is he going? And when the house fails, does he die with the house?

Perhaps you can reconcile oblivion with your own consciousness, but that goes a long damn way from A is A.

A is A means diddly.

[papau]

92. Said by a man who has no clue what Aristotle said, despite my posting it

here for him to read Aristotles discussion of God and soul.

WOW - I thought freeper logic only existed on FR.

[400Years]

93. refusal to believe in fairy tales does not equal a belief system

now as far as the persecution complex, sorry I can't help you there.

[papau]

102. Transference and other psych problem you may have are indeed

a problem - but they are your problem.

I hope you are cured.

[400Years]

105. whatever dude, it's your baggage not mine

[papau]

122. No Dude - you carry the baggage of being illogical and afraid to ask

yourself the question of creation.

But if it helps you maintain your faith in atheism, God Bless.

:-)

And if it is a symptom of mental illness, I do hope you are curred.

[usafguy99]

193. I disagree completly...

I have no clue how the universe was created. Sure I have pondered it from time to time but nothing yet has come along that I would rationally accept as the truth. Big Bang? Got me.

I am agnostic... if that even means anything anymore. I have never seen anything that makes me say to myself "That must have been the work of God". Just because something is complex doesn't mean there has to have been divine intervention.

I require proof to believe something. Does god exist? I have absolutly no idea. I don't state he doesn't exist since I can't show proof of that either.

Simply saying "god did it" cuts off any further research into why we exist and I don't think that is in our best interest.

Calling aethists irrational simply because they don't have "the answer" to "the question" is simply pointless.

[txaslftist]

109. Atheism is a refusal to believe in more than fairy tales.

It is a refusal to believe the existence of the divine. That's all well and good, but leaves the atheist with some stark problems.

First, if there is no power beyond what we can see, measure, feel, theorize about and daily encounter, what agency created the universe? For it certainly was created.

Secondly, if there is nothing divine about us, and we all face ultimate oblivion, what is the reason for our existence? Why should we bother about acclaim, acheivement, our legacy, our species' survival if it is all ultimately going into the cosmic entropy crapper without so much as a goodbye flush?

Atheism is simply skepticism/cynicism writ large, appealing in the same way libertarianism is appealing. A lot of logical principles that balk at reality and have no application in their purest forms.

In the end, for the atheist, life means nothing. Suffering and pleasure come in meaningless measure, and life is nothing but a meaningless series of tragedies and near escapes. Because if nothing exists beyond the mechanical universe, there is no reason for us to exist, or to suffer, or to strive.

"Everyone needs something to believe in; I believe I'll have another beer." -anonymous.

[400Years]

114. uh, hello

do you have freinds and family that you love and love you? well, that right there is enough of a reason to live.

do you enjoy the food you eat, do you enjoy a walk in the great outdoors, do you enjoy the great variety of life on this planet? well, that right there is enough of a reason to live.

so the stupid claim that life is empty unless you believe in some made up gobbledygook is pretty weak.

[txaslftist]

123. "love"?

Oh come on. You surely cannot believe in "love" and cram that under your skeptic's rubric, can you? I think you meant "enlightened self-interest".

As for the rest of it, that's an epicurean justification for existence, which any behavioralist will tell you is just a mechanical and chemical response to stimuli. Surely you cannot find a reason for existence in the mere mechanics of existence.

That's like saying your car exists because it's fun to drive.

You can dig a little deeper than that.

[400Years]

128. so you don't think love exists unless I believe in your ideology

you've got some serious problems.

A car exists because it was made by a person not because some mystery agent magically made it.

what a bunch of horseshit.

[papau]

124. Not answering the question of creation is a good way to maintain

your atheist faith.

As is denying that you have the "burden of proof"

as is pretending that when science proves the history of the Bible true/plausible, you do not care.

I admire the great faith and strong belief systems of the atheists on this board.

God Bless you all!

:toast:

:-)

[400Years]

130. what the hell are you talking about?

If I walked up to you and said the purple monkey created us all and if you don't believe me you have to prove I am wrong.
What kind of fucked up logic is that?

Have a good day I've got better things to do than argue with someone with such fucked up logic skills.

[txaslftist]

131. Godspeed.

[papau]

125. Not answering the question of creation is a good way to maintain

your atheist faith.

As is denying that you have the "burden of proof"

as is pretending that when science proves the history of the Bible true/plausible, you do not care.

I admire the great faith and strong belief systems of the atheists on this board.

God Bless you all!

:toast:

:-)

[The2ndWheel]

162. That it is

"First, if there is no power beyond what we can see, measure, feel, theorize about and daily encounter, what agency created the universe? For it certainly was created."

Nobody knows. I do enjoy thinking about the question though. But just because I can't/haven't come up with an answer doesn't mean I'll just chalk it up to God.

"Secondly, if there is nothing divine about us, and we all face ultimate oblivion, what is the reason for our existence?"

Exactly. Not just going to give that one to God either.

"Why should we bother about acclaim, acheivement, our legacy, our species' survival if it is all ultimately going into the cosmic entropy crapper without so much as a goodbye flush?"

Because that's what life does(outside of things like achievement or legacy, those are human constructs). Tigers don't believe in God, but they continue their species as best they can. Same with turtles. Fish work the same way. One celled organisms do that too.

"Atheism is simply skepticism/cynicism writ large, appealing in the same way libertarianism is appealing. A lot of logical principles that balk at reality and have no application in their purest forms."

Balk at reality? What group follows a book "written"(or divinely inspired) by a big guy in the sky 2000 years ago, that speaks of many a supernatural events happening? The whole resurrection thing? That's reality?

"In the end, for the atheist, life means nothing."

Part right. In the grand scheme of things, to this atheist, life is pointless.

However, there are plenty of things that make the day worthwhile. None of which have anything to do with a belief in God(for me anyway); unless you think God made the sunset, or any of that other sentimental stuff.

Whatever gets people through the day though. As long as they(athiest or religious alike) don't force their way on anyone else, go for it. Believe in God, or don't. You believe God made the sunset, go give Him praise. If you don't believe that, go enjoy the sunset for what it is.

[papau]

176. A very nice post :-)

:-)

[papau]

175. Proseltizing at DU by the atheist is not politics-it is atheist egos being

made "happy"

[Midwest_Doc]

87. Because ....

The original post is an EDITORIAL

[400Years]

94. stop it, you are making too much sense

[papau]

138. Why lie and pretend the original post was an editorial? or is YAHOO lying?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051007/cm_huffpost/008459;_ylt=AkfAsbbDKuk4wfxuRv6a_kSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

This is an excerpt from An Atheist Manifesto, to be published at www.truthdig.com in December.

[txaslftist]

80. Yep. In the religion and theology forum.

Where this endless debate belongs.

[txaslftist]

106. 'there is no god and you know it'

is not a personal claim of non-belief. It is an insult to religious people. It is saying, "you know that there is no god but you continue to pretend". Not to put too fine a point on it, it is saying that religious people are liars.

You call a cowboy a liar in a Louis L'amour novel, you'd better be reaching for your gun.

How can that title be construed as anything but an insult?

[The Magistrate]

158. If There Is Not, Sir, A Sort Of 'Godwin's Law'

Applying to cowboys and six-guns, there really ought to be.

It is evident to anyone who reads these wrangles that the people on either side of them have very little understanding of one another. Both sides view the world in very different ways, and understand it in very different ways.

You have offered reasons why you believe in eternity and diety that seem sufficient to you, but that convey nothing whatever to anyone but yourself, necessarily. The look in a child's eyes does not suffice to convince me of anything, except that the world is a wonderment to those who have as yet encountered very little of it, and are in a position where they must trust creatures much larger than themselves while they try and sort it out and pin it down.

It does not trouble me in the slightest that there are questions for which there do not seem to be as yet any answers, and for which there may never be any answers. All systems of measurement, all systems of understanding, have inherent limitations, and that there are limits to human ability to comprehend the universe is only to be expected, for the human mind is a system of measurement and understanding, at bottom, and must share in that limiting characteristic.

But such a lack of answer cannot, and does not, constitute evidence for the factual accuracy of some answer someone proposes, out of a mind limited by the same restrictions as any other. It is by no means self-evident that the universe was created, as a purposeful act, by some entity existing before it did. Nor, if that is viewed as a serious hypothesis, is that a proposition that could be proved or disproved by any concievable evidence. Examination of it and inquiry into it can never be more than word-play, and so will necessarily remain a matter of taste in words and the manner in which they are used: certain formulae will appeal to some, and certain formulae will appeal to some others.

Religious formulations, however, that stake a claim to production of moral behavior in their adherents, and that stake a claim to action of a diety in history, open themselves to lines of attack beyond word-play. These formulations put themselves at hazard of external checks involving real and quantifiable evidence. It is child's play to collect examples of grotesquely cruel and abominable behavior by adherents of any particular creed; they are like the stars in the sky in quantity. It is no more difficult to find instances of tales of divine actions in history that are clearly false to fact, that are obviously mere concoctions by people who clearly had no idea what the facts were. Some people are so constructed that such exercises suffice to convince them the systems of thought so proposed, containing as they do these obvious flaws in regard to verifiable fact, cannot be viewed as true. It will do no good to say those who behaved badly did not "really" adhere to the creed, any more than it will do any good to say the stories are "really" symbolic representations not to be taken literally: there is no reason whatever to suppose those who behaved badly were not zealous and sincere in their adherence to the creed, and no grounds in the tales to see them as anything but the representations of fact they claim themselves to be.

[papau]

177. Excellent - I have missed your wise posts, Magistrate :-)

Very well written and very true.

:toast:

:-)

[papau]

174. You are correct, txaslftist, but these folks do not admit the only

proseltizing at DU is by the atheist trying to get others to agree they have found the right, correct, true, reality, sane path.

[K-W]

29. MLK was also a humanist.

Something far more correlated to progressiveness than religiosity.

[Larkspur]

32. And he was a Christian preacher, so it proves that Christians can be

humanist and spiritual at the same time. King never forsook his religion. He criticized those of his faith who followed Ceasar's ways and not Jesus'.

BTW, I'm Pagan and like Gandi, I respect Jesus as a wise and holy man.

[Midwest_Doc]

53. What does "holy" mean? n/t

[txaslftist]

76. HOLY:

1. Of, derived from, or associated with a divine power; sacred. 2. Regarded with or worthy of worship or veneration; revered. 3. Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly. 4. Specified or set aside for religious purposes. 5. Solemnly undertaken; sacrosanct. 6. Regarded with or deserving special respect or reverence.... -The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Edition.

You gotta get one of these. They're great!

[Nightwing]

65. I respect everyones belief system

And just ask that you do the same for me.

[Midwest_Doc]

68. Respect?

Why should I respect superstitions that have been the major cause of human suffering for the past 2,000 years?

[papau]

71. DU should move from deFacto to direct statement that non-atheist

posters should not expect respect for their beliefs on DU.


That will be respectful of other posters, now, won't it.

[txaslftist]

82. You mean you don't find it respectful...

...when your deeply held beliefs are compared to belief in a flying spaghetti monster?

It bothers you to be called "superstitious"?

When you are told that your dead ancestors are just worm food, get over it?

When you are told, as in the title of this editorial, "THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU KNOW IT", meaning, in essence, that you are deliberately lying to others when you say you have faith?

Gee. You are so sensitive.

[indigo32]

120. I have not been part of this conversation

and I will avoid it for the most part... but I hope you understand that such "sensitivity" goes two ways.

I don't know what your beliefs are on the concept of hell... but stop and think for a minute what that looks like to non-believers. IMHO it tops the nothingness that comes with being worm food.

My own mother, who doesn't really believe any more than I do, has told me to be quiet about my non-belief. Being born when I was I've had to be quiet about many things for most my life and it galls me.

I am also a lesbian... imagine where that leads (again, I'm not speaking for your personal belief on this issue).

[txaslftist]

133. My beef is not with those who don't believe in heaven or hell.

Or with lesbianism for that matter. Your personal life is none of my business, and in fact I approve.

Let me ask you this, however, since you are the moderator. If you see a title of a thread that says, "Lesbianism is a choice and you know it", would you not find that somewhat insulting? Even if not insulting, wouldn't your first impression be that the person posting that was ignorant or poorly informed? Especially if the post was followed by an essay and a number of responses that essentially put the onus for all of the ills of the world on lesbianism?

Might you also think that the topic might better be moved to the GLBT forum for those reasons? Especially if you knew the moderator of that forum had seen the identical essay there before and dealt with it?

There is a huge difference, IMO, between people who haven't seen enough evidence of the divine to have a firm belief one way or another and people who emphatically state a belief that there is no such thing. The hyper-rationalist who insists he must have evidence of something before he will even consider its possibility; and then belittles those who do believe in it is, in some ways, a bigot.

And I, as a person of faith, do not ask anyone to believe what I do, but I can't sit by and watch what I believe in being insulted, either. I will cry foul when I see a foul.

[indigo32]

135. I would indeed find it insulting

which is why I refrain from posting such things, I'll leave it at that. I only meant to explain that there is plenty of hurt to go around, often times taken out on people who don't necessarily deserve it.

I will not discuss procedures regarding moving posts here. Such things are to be brought to the admin.

[papau]

139. A free and down and dirty if desired discussion on the Religion forum

is appropriate for this original post -

but not in "editorial"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051007/cm_huffpost/008459;_ylt=AkfAsbbDKuk4wfxuRv6a_kSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

This is an excerpt from An Atheist Manifesto, to be published at www.truthdig.com in December.

[Midwest_Doc]

83. I cannot speak for all ...

but I bear you no personal animus. I respect you as an individual. I do not respect what you believe.

[papau]

90. I also bear you no animus - but your pile of shit logic is really tiring

but no hard feelings.

I just do not respect your ability with either logic or facts -

much less faith.

[txaslftist]

96. Heh.

[Midwest_Doc]

97. Please help me understand ....

.... the facts of your faith.

[papau]

101. My dear friend - why do you let the illogic of atheism define you?

Please help me understand your need to convert others to the belief that one need not ask about creation.

[txaslftist]

103. I can't speak for Papau.

But I can say a few things about faith. This is non-denominational, non-sectarian stuff, so it should not offend.

I do believe in Darwin's general theories about evolution, and although many of the specifics in Origin of Species have been debunked, the general notion that we evolved biologically poses no problems for me, despite the fact that it runs contrary to the creation mythology of the Old Testament.

I also believe that there is more to my body than skin and bone, muscle and blood. I beieve that there is more to my mind than synapses and axions and dendrites and other brain tissues/components. My body is a house for my spirit. "I think, therefore I am." holds no logical terror for me. The mechanics of my brain exist to house something that goes beyond it. That's a leap of faith on my part, but the alternative to taking that leap of faith is to accept that oblivion is my fate, the fate of everyone I know, and the ultimate fate of the universe.

Fine and dandy, but then, what is the purpose of anything? Why should I care about your welfare or that of others? So I can suffer less during this life because we all live and let live and follow the golden rule? What good is not suffering if all I am to do will end in nothing? And if I should not care about my own suffering, why should I care about the suffering of others? Why should I give a shit about Katrina, if we're all going to end in oblivion anyway?

If you can't make the initial leap of faith that there exists more to you than just the house of your body, no faith will make sense to you. But if you take that initial leap of faith, then you must follow it to it's conclusion, which is that there is more to the universe than the mechanics of the universe. Just as there is more to you than the mechanics of you. There is at least this much, your consciousness, that exists beyond proof but certainly exists.

If there is more to the universe than its mechanics, then it has purpose. If it has purpose, some THING engaged, created, enacted or directed that purpose. If you believe there is such a THING, you are not an atheist. How you further define your belief in that THING is a matter of theology, philosophy and faith; not science. But if you acknowledge the existence of something beyond the mechanics of the universe and beyond the mechanics of you, you have acknowledge the existence of God.

How I further define God in my life is my affair, and certainly not something I want to push onto others (besides those whose faith I bear responsibility for) unwilling.

If you do not believe there exists anything beyond the mechanics of the universe, then you must still either answer, confront or ignore one simple question. That question is one Papau has asked a number of times without any rational answer beyond "I don't know, it can't be known, nobody knows, or there is no purpose." That question is, "What is the purpose of existence, then?"

And if your answer is "I don't know, it can't be known, or nobody knows", don't you think you ought to try and find out? If you don't think that's your obligation, then why do YOU exist? And why should anyone give a tinker's dam about your existence or anyone elses?

[Midwest_Doc]

108. Thank you for your thoughtful post

I respect the importance you place upon the purpose of existence. I, however, am unconcerned with the reason we are here. This is where we differ.

I appreciate the tone of your post, you have elevated the level of discourse on this topic.

[txaslftist]

110. Ah yes, I forgot that answer. "I don't care why we are here".

It isn't really a rebuttal, though, is it?

[papau]

126. Excellent - well said

:toast:

:-)

[Midwest_Doc]

159. To the Defenders of Relgion, An Observation ...

Borrowing from Shakespeare,

"You protest too much."

If you are so secure in your faith, our "atheist rantings" should be, at most, amusing.

We take your daily the barage of god-worship with a grain-of-salt. Why are you getting so upset?

[papau]

179. Proseltizing at DU is by the atheist trying to get others to agree- I see

very little proseltizing at DU by believers.

So the question really is "Why are you getting so upset that posts in Editorials rather than Religion are needed?"

[TreasonousBastard]

160. I was going to lock this thread until I saw this post...

and realized that there might be something of value in this big fight after all.

Misreading Aristotle, the God of the Gaps fallacy, the dilemmas of the naure of God... Enough nonsense in here for a month of migraines.

We humans have always known that we are not like the other creatures on the planet. We not only have this great toolmaking ability, but we have language, a sense of time, and the ability to think abstractly and ask "why?"

Religion and philosphical inquiry can never really be separated-- they are two sides of the same coin. Religion simply adds an outside intelligence to any answers to the question "Why?" And we have been asking about the meaning of life, the universe, and everything else since we became sentient. This has nothing to do with science except that it asks why scientific truths exist.

Not that many people seriously investigate these questions, and most are happy to go on with their lives accepting some answers and ignoring others, often depending on where these answers come from. Many simply ignore the questions, and live perfectly full lives without dealing with them at all.

But, for some of us, we just can't let go. Many of us realize that we will never have adequate answers, but the paths we take are probably more important to us than whatever may lie at the end of the journey.

So, we read of the crises of faith of Siddhartha, of Augustine. We see Aquinas, then Spinoza, Voltaire, and Rousseau attempt reason in an age of faith. We go back to Aristotle and his Prime Mover, and then forward to Nietzsche and the death of God. And Sartre asking some very embarassing questions. And we understand tht much of what we are told, and even what we believe, is myth, but the point behind the myth is what keeps us going.

But, the one thing we should NOT do is proclaim that whatever path we have taken is the right one.

A path is simply a path-- it is neither right nor wrong.

[papau]

180. Very true - a very nice post :-)

Proseltizing as to the correct path is not needed at DU.

:toast:

:-)

[txaslftist]

183. Very thoughtful, excellent post

:toast:

You got it goin' on buddy.

[Nightwing]

178. For the record

Just to explain myself further than the brief blurb I posted. The ONLY thing I am saying is that EVERYONE has a right to believe as they wish. You choose not to beleive in God and I can understand and respect your belief. In return I'm asking that you respect my belief that there is a God. Nothing more and nothing less.

Be it Buddha, Mohammed, God or atheism I have the utmost respect for all beleivers as well as non believers. This is America and we all have that right.

In no way, shape or form would I ever try to convert anyone to my faith simply because everyone has a right to belief as they wish. All I ask is for atheists to be respectful as well.

[txaslftist]

98. There is flamebait - And you know it.

When you post it.

[neverforget]

117. I believe in God and what I find so interesting about this thread is

how persecuted both sides feel. What happened to turning the other cheek?

[txaslftist]

136. No you don't.

Didn't you read the title of the post? ..there is no god (and you know it).

[neverforget]

157. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs even if you find them offensive.

[0rganism]

119. Author is absolutely incorrect in his dilemma

Unanswered prayers of the faithful do NOT eliminate the possibility of a deity.

They may eliminate the possibility of the generically omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate deity, depending on what manner of divine compassion is implicit. We can pretty much say with certainty that if a divine omnipotent and omniscient being exists, it doesn't view death -- even of the most violent and disturbing varieties -- as a matter of direct concern requiring immediate intervention in all cases. As the author correctly observes, the material world as we know it is incompatible with such an entity.

But what we cannot eliminate from his observation of cruelty and unanswered prayer is the possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent, uncaring or malevolent deity. Or a pantheon of variously caring, competing deities struggling for supremacy. Or a capricious and fickle deity that rewards the faithful one day and destroys them the next. Or one or more demigods with limited powers. I could continue the list of exceptions ad nauseum.

An atheism that discounts only one type of divine being (omniscient, omnipotent, and compassionate) while leaving the doors wide open for all the rest is no atheism at all.

[papau]

127. Well said - very wise - wish I could write so nicely! :-)

:toast:

:-)

[skids]

187. Nor the probability.

Belief that consciousness can only emerge in a small scale system composed of neurons requires too much faith for me.

But that's not what a lot of self-identifying "atheists" believe either. The vast majority of them are not "hard atheists."

Which makes me wonder why they spend so much time and effort on making broad sweeping statements like "there is no God" when in fact the only case they really believe themselves is that the "God" worshipped by many people cannot exist as the worshippers portray.

[merkins]

144. The Church of Reality ~ If it's real - we believe in it! ~

Do Drop In:

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/

The Church of Reality is a religion based on the practice of Realism, believing in everything that is real. Our motto is, "If it's real, we believe in it." Since no one knows all of reality, the Church of Reality is about the pursuit of reality the way it really is. We commit to being intellectually honest with ourselves and with others so that we can cut through the mythology. We want to know about the way things really are in the real world.

The Church of Reality provides a religious identity for people who have made a personal commitment in their lives to pursue reality the way it really is. The pursuit of reality is something that is a shared process. It's something we do together as a church, as a community, and as the human race.

We have got word from the IRS that the 501(C)3 tax exempt status of the Church of Reality has been approved.

[papau]

147. I really do like Marc Perkel ! :-) disagree with him of course, but he is

a realy good guy!

:toast:

:-)

The Church of Reality's 501c3 status is easy to get - $500 and do a bit of paperwork - but congrats Marc! :toast:

However I do look forward to all the good Marc's 501c3 will do beyond paying for his Church "educational" website and his travel expenses :-) (I wonder if old Bartcop donations are now deductible?)

Marc Perkel, a very nice geek, owns the software company called
Computer Tyme and a second company called Computer Tyme Hosting - the sponsor of one of my favorite sites -Bartcop - and several other political sites including American Politics Journal, Political Strikes, and Faux News Channel. Indeed Marc put Bartcop on the Internet way back in 1996 and keeps Bartcop online today. www.bartcop.com.

He has been a friend of progressives and liberals for many years (despite being cranky and adamant about his atheism - and obviously not hiding it), and is smart as a whip.

He is just wrong about belief, faith, and God. But that is OK. :-)

[struggle4progress]

146. "Only an atheist can be a good Christian. This title is not merely ..

.. an attention-getting device. It came out of an exchange between the atheist philosopher Ernst Bloch, who had a profound interest in the influence of the biblical message on the history of hope, and the Christian theologian Jürgen Moltmann, who was trying to uncover the core of hope in biblical revelation. Bloch said, "Only an atheist can be a good Christian," to which Moltmann replied, "But only a Christian can be a good atheist." ...

Neither belief in God nor the strength of that faith constitutes any guarantee. In truth, the important thing is precisely in which God we believe, or the object of that faith. It is also significant that the early Christians were accused of being atheists and were judged and condemned as such for refusing to believe in the ruling gods of their society ...

... When someone says, then, "I don't believe in God because I believe in humanity" or "I don't believe in God because I believe in justice," I must respond that I don't believe in that God either! Only a passionate atheist to those gods can be a true Christian.

http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/atheisms/miguezb.html

[papau]

148. Jürgen Moltmann is a wise Christian - but from your link the spin is

a bit different - - "Bloch's statement is correct--only an atheist can be a good Christian. That is, only the person who denies certain "gods" can have faith in the real God. Therefore let us stop for a moment to consider atheism. Why is someone an atheist? What arguments do we give to someone who refuses to believe in God? ...... When someone says, then, "I don't believe in God because I believe in humanity" or "I don't believe in God because I believe in justice," I must respond that I don't believe in that God either! Only a passionate atheist to those gods can be a true Christian."

Yet Bloch influence greatly Moltmann in his book Theology of Hope (Moltman converted while a prisoner of war and credited "hope" with a lot in the saving of his life).

Moltmann should probable have his own DU group as he pushed and still pushes liberation theology (the relationship between Christian theology and political activism in social justice, civil and human rights).

[struggle4progress]

150. In part -- that atheism is a proper attitude towards idols. And further ..

the observation that much of what is considered religious is often nothing but idolatry. Or perhaps that faith should have the courage to abandon a certain vacuous "idealism" and to exhibit a materialist commitment to the concrete world, in its present suffering.



When Bloch Pointed to the Cages Outside the Cathedral

One afternoon Ernst Bloch and Johannes Baptist Metz were walking the streets of the city of Münster. As their conversation turned to political theology, Bloch pointed to the three iron cages that still hang outside the Saint Lamberti Cathedral. Heretics of the Radical Reformation were executed in those cages and their bodies and bones remained on public display as a warning to dissenters and witness to the triumph of imperial Christendom. "One must do theology from there," Bloch said to the Baptist.

Although Bloch's declaration was driven by important political concerns, pragmatic considerations would also lead one to conclude that if theology is to continue as a mode of reflection at the end of this century, it must be conceived after Christendom in creative spaces outside the Cathedral. Both modern statisticians and postmodern theorists agree: the grand temple of Western Christendom can no longer seduce and satisfy the religious imagination nor can its old Constantinian heresy provide an interesting or instructive vision of God in the world. God is dead or eclipsed or exiled. <snip>

http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1046

[The Traveler]

153. Two things

1) There is a god/goddess/higher power/whatever

2) I'm not it, and neither are you.

Your statement does not prove the non-existance of God, nor the superiority of your thinking on the matter. What it does prove is that you will accept no higher power that does not behave in the manner you think appropriate for a divine being. You demand a interventionist, Big Daddy god miraculously manifesting to protect us from ever harm and rushing to us with celestial bandaides whenever we scrape our knees.

This, of course, is your perogative. You may define God in any manner you choose, and of course blame God for not remaining confined to the box into which you would place him/her/it/whatever.

However, you may find the following Hebrew mishram of interest. This mishram defines God thusly: "God is that One who suffered the pain of division, that it might come to know the joy of Union."

Another advises: "Hold two thoughts, one in each pocket. 'The Universe was created for me', and, 'I am dust'."

On a different line, both Ayn Rand and Marx were aetheists. One sought to justify the accumulation of power, the other to achieve an elevation of the overall human condition. Clearly aetheism does not invariably lead to the development of compassion. Martin Luther King and Pat Robertson both believe in Jesus ... one was a liberator, the other a would be tyrant of the human heart and soul. Clearly, faith does not invariably lead to the development of morally elevated doctrines.

On another line: We debate big questions in threads like these, and we can find our own answers but can never deliver a definite conclusion. Perhaps we are simply, as a species, incapable of understanding the answers, or asking the right questions ... as Rilke observed, sometimes you have to be merely content to love the questions.

[shrike]

206. I always wondered ...

Why people bother with these "there is a God/there isn't" questions? I suppose semantically it's fun. But, if there is a higher power, he/she/it isn't human. Ergo, why would he/she/it behave in ways that conform to human logic?

Religion is another matter, since I suppose ultimately religion is man's attempt to understand the infinite. And, those who try to prove, by way of proofs, etc., that there is no God, are doing the same thing, albeit from the opposite direction. The concept of God, proposed by man, does not make sense to their way of thinking, so they use that way of thinking to poke holes into what does not make sense to them.

I might do the same thing, if I were them.

Most people who believe in God (and it's not just a fantasy, as another poster insinuated), do so on emotion, intuition, gut feelings -- although some HAVE been taught to believe, I'll readily admit that. Such matters are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. However, they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

I read comments recently by a forensic investigator. While firmly grounded in the natural world (i.e., science), he warns his students not to dismiss intuition, hunches, gut feelings, etc. The scientific method -- form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis -- may be vital to forensics. But hunches, guesses, even when there's no apparent earthly reason for them, can sometimes lead to the truth. (Sometimes is the operative word, which is why an investigator also has to trained as a scientist, in his opinion.)

Intuition does not perform well i.e., the scientific method. Which is as good a reason as any to keep religion OUT of the hard sciences, period.

[The Traveler]

211. Modes of thought

Study physics, and you will fall into what appears to be paradox. I know from personal experience (BS, Physics, Ga Tech, 1977, followed by graduate studies in physics and mechanical engineering.) Goedel's theorem tells us something important ... that no formal system (like an algebra) can be both complete and consistent.

Hard science has its value. It is one way of looking at our experience of the Universe, and it yields definite results. There are other ways of regarding experience, and they also yield results. Yet, to bow before one is to lose sight of the others. Best, then, to merely accept each as a way of seeing a Whole that we can never completely comprehend. But I can get a grip on small pieces of it ...

[shrike]

217. A very elegant way of putting it

And a completely fair one, too. And, I must say, anyone who can comprehend mathematics (and physics and engineering) earns awe from me. It's all I can do to balance my checkbook.

[Blue_Tires]

156. kicked/recommended

wow!!! never seen a 155+ post thread in Op/Ed before!

[thinkingwoman]

165. Oh goody, another pissing contest

between militant atheists and anyone who dares to believe there is something besides themselves and this lifetime and feels the need to respond to these periodic shots across the bow.

Wowie. :boring:

Fundies and militant atheists have more in common than they care to admit--both feel compelled to berate and belittle anyone who doesn't believe exactly the same as they do.

I do have to take a moment to thank the OP for the good laugh I got from the subject line, which sounds a lot like something my teens yell through the house...

"that's dumb AND YOU KNOW IT!

You know it. What's next? I know you are but what am I? :eyes:


P.S. Yes, dear OP, I do realize that the subject line echoed the title of the article you posted. I can read.

[arwalden]

190. I See A Nerve Has Been Touched.

[thinkingwoman]

192. you apparently see

what you want to see.

[arwalden]

194. Silly Me... I Forgot

... that people only respond in that tone, and using those adjectives, to threads and topics in which they have absolutely no interest. How could I have been so blind.

Of course you're so right. I'm just seeing "what I want to see".

[thinkingwoman]

199. If you wanted to know what I thought

beyond tone, etc., you could simply have asked.

I notice you didn't, which leads me to believe that you weren't interested in the facts.

One fact that should be noted, however, is that this thread is a bit out of place, indicating that the OP wants comments from people who normally do not seek out or respond to such topics.

I offered comments--in a tone indicating that I felt the OP was trying to start a pissing contest. Silly me...I thought this was a discussion board.

[arwalden]

201. Interesting...

<< I notice you didn't, which leads me to believe that you weren't interested in the facts. >>

Ah, okay. -- I see. So you use tone and negatively-charged phrases like "militant atheist" because you *don't* have strong negative feelings on the topic? (These are... what?... decoy words?) And in order for others to find out how you actually feel (beyond the decoy clues you provide) then people should ask to make certain? Is that about right?

When I see a hear a dog that's growling, or when I see a cat that's bearing it's teeth an arching it's back... there are some logical assumptions that can be made about that animal's disposition, mood, temperament, etc--without having to investigate further and get confirmation or clarification from the dog or cat. --- Similarly, there are types of observations are made about people. One of the clues that we use are in the words they choose. Unless they are purposely trying to deceive, their language and tone convey their temperament as well. Your post left little doubt about how you felt on the subject and this thread. I merely took notice of it and commented on it. Your bristled reaction to my original observation only serves to convince me that I was correct. -- I find it difficult to believe any attempt to deny that my observations were accurate.

But... if it will make you happy, since I'm not a mind-reader, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your denials that you had no strong feelings one way or the other on that subject, and that a nerve had not been struck.

<< One fact that should be noted, however, is that this thread is a bit out of place, >>

Well, it certainly sounded like an editorial to me. I'm not certain that every single topic can be neatly compartmentalized. There are gray areas and overlaps throughout almost all the forums.

<< indicating that the OP wants comments from people who normally do not seek out or respond to such topics.>>

What's wrong with that? This is a discussion board after all.

<< Silly me...I thought this was a discussion board. >>

Indeed... as did the original poster. Hmmm.

[thinkingwoman]

202. ok, whatever issues

you have, are yours alone to deal with.

Your posts are talking in circles. Actions of the OP are apparently saintly and anyone questioning or disagreeing or, heaven forbid (pun intended) commenting, are, um, less than saintly?

Whatever. Enjoy your day.

[arwalden]

205. Actually...

<< ok, whatever issues you have, are yours alone to deal with. >>

I'm not sure I understand exactly what that means. But it seems to be evasive. And that's fine. It appears that we've reached an impasse anyway.

<< Your posts are talking in circles. >>

I'm sorry that you do not understand my posts. Clearly we have a communication problem.

<< Actions of the OP are apparently saintly and anyone questioning or disagreeing or, heaven forbid (pun intended) commenting, are, um, less than saintly? >>

Well, actually I've made no such personal value judgment about you or anyone--saintly, unsaintly, or otherwise.

I think that whatever motives someone might imagine that the original poster had, are irrelevant to the actual topic (article) that was posted. I think any comments that attempt to dismiss the topic by questioning the motives, or the sincerity of the original poster might be able to be interpreted as a personal attack. (That's usually the case whenever comments or value-judgments are made about the messenger instead of the message.)

<< Whatever. Enjoy your day. >>

Okay. Thanks, you do the same. :hi:

[ms liberty]

182. This is a serious subject, worthy of attention, but...

Every time I see the title I hear that phrase "There is no God...and you know it" sung to the tune in the chorus of "It's the End of the World" by REM. I just can't help it, it starts running thru my head...

[bloom]

196. It's too bad that most posters

seem to only respond to the title.

Or seem to want to get the thread deleted.

It's an interesting article.

The article DOES seem to mostly address the concept of an omnipotent, active, God...

"Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs."

That is something I will never be able to accept.

"It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines...

The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.."

This thread makes me wonder - is "God" stronger if everyone believes? The Quakers believe that "god" is in all of us. More like a collective. There may be some things that could be accomplished by the sheer act of everyone being on the same page, everyone in the world respecting everyone else in the world.

Unfortunately - everyone ever being on the same page about anything (and all respecting each other) seems very unlikely. It makes a nice dream, though.

And what if everyone were convinced there is no "God" - that this life is all there is? Would people be more or less selfish? more or less respectful of each other?

In the area where I grew up - a lot of "Christians" were really atheists. They just liked going to church - or maybe they felt compelled to do the socially acceptable thing - or try to be on other people's page. Something like that.

I think it is an added stress in life to be, "out of touch with the fantasy life of his (ones) neighbors". It's the kind of thing that atheists deal with as part of life. (I don't assume that anyone really believes in the fantasy, though I know some do - or try to).

Anyway - if atheist DUers want to be in touch with other reality-loving people - the respectable that Christians might do is to try to have a reasonable discussion instead of just trying to get the thread locked.

[Nightjock]

197. Here is something new.........

What if we all currently reside in pergatory?

This world is actually an afterlife.

I heard that one in philosophy class. Sometimes it makes alot of sense. Flame away!

BTW-I believe in God and love him or her and no one will EVER shake my faith.

[bloom]

198. "God protect us!" ran the headline Friday in a local newspaper, Quequi."

Hurricane Wilma Slams Into Mexico

CANCUN, Mexico - "The fearsome core of Hurricane Wilma slammed into the island of Cozumel on Friday, starting a long, grinding march across Mexico's resort-studded coastline, where thousands of stranded tourists hunkered down in shelters and hotel ballrooms."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051021/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/hurricane_wilma;_ylt=Av5V2.PiNScMgjICNGJcWXqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

People's last hope...

[roguevalley]

200. they say that religion is hard wired into the human brain. given that

to be true, which I think it is since we have always had some form of deity no matter what part of human history you can find -the Neanderthal buried their dead which indicates some belief in the next step- I personally think its a vague memory from our life before this one. I believe the soul survives death and goes some place, perhaps the oversoul that someone once told me about in a class on philosophy. I think the working out of a formal religious belief system is a vague tie in to the faint memory of life before birth some place where your soul resided. I believe in reincarnation and going toward Wicca from Christianity -due to the bullshit Christianity is drowning in now- I find comfort in thinking that there is a place to go to after this one.

I believe in a continuity. I don't believe that God, no matter how you perceive him/her is an interventionist being. I believe God is the place your soul goes to when you die, to rest and learn and get ready for the next round, the next rebirth. Nothing will change that for me. and I also believe that all roads lead to the same home, that all the different beliefs and views of God lead to him/her.

[unblock]

210. religiosity is genetic. but it is not common among all humans

or at a minimum, there are varying degrees of religiosity. they have shown this to be genetic by looking at twins separated at birth. apparently the religiosity of one is a very good predictor of the religiosity of the other. WHICH religion appears to be a function of environment, but how "into" religion you are appears to be genetic.

but at the other end, there are plenty of people who have zero sense of sprituality and zero desire or need to have explanations for the things for which we have no answers.

[undergroundpanther]

212. people look to imaginary friends

when humans fail to be good to each other,when humans fail to care,to help,to comfort.People look to a god when they cannot cope and no one defends them,they look to imaginary friends when sociopaths are called victims and are given more consideration than the hurt or the people fighting abusers as if the victim is a problem.Too many people identify with the powerful,the rich,the strong,the dominant to be honest enough to admit this is WHY we have victims.THe idea of an all powerful god buddy does not make this kind of honesty about the human condition any easier to face.

Mass human failure to EMPATHIZE with others who are not related,strangers who are different ,and failure to face the secret shames, the recreated,inherited re-inflicting of traumas and abuses given from family and peers and society,,bullshit coercion people inflict on each other, the mind games people play to avoid honesty and vulnerability and uncertainty it all taints social justice,And the greed and elitism and systems of power and inequality have created pain in the vulnerable,the overwhelmed and the helpless .That the desire for a god to make it better will exist even when it isn't better.Because feeling powerless hurts. This is I think because too many humans lack the maturity to face powerlessness,they lack ethical character,the honesty,they don't walk their talk,they lie , they lack integrity,sanity,respect,wisdom and emotional genuineness and love in relationships to other living beings enough to be human beings.
So a good fantasy for some is better than a bad reality that you yourself can not fix or feel safe in.

[Skittles]

213. I find the idea that anying "ominipotent" oversees this mess a bit sick

I could not respect such a being

[Neil Lisst]

214. I believe in God, but that doesn't mean believing God controls all

The article originally posted makes good points, but as with any attempt to argue against something, it relies on the author to pose the issue as he sees fit.

Many who believe in God do not believe God controls events of human existence, like deciding who gets raped and who gets rescued, for example. Maybe most who believe in God think he is micromanaging human existence, but I'm not one of them. I think of god, him, her, it, as inseparable from human existence, a cosmic resource that exists on a level we don't yet understand.

God is everything we haven't figured out yet, and it's some kind of positive force in our make-up, but beyond that, I can't adequately describe it.

It's not some old guy in a robe sending angels to destroy cities, or help you catch a football pass. I address that concept in my comic strip, right here.

[Midwest_Doc]

215. ".....God is everything we haven't figured out yet"

This statement is true. Historically, god has been the sun, fire, thunder, and lightning. After we understood the sun, fire, thunder, and lightning - they were no longer god. The same is true today - a modern god is worshiped because we do not YET fully understand death.

[genieroze]

220. Oh yeah, YOU are wrong!!!!!!! LOL READ THIS, What God *Really* Told Bush

What God *Really* Told Bush
Apparently, it wasn't just "invade Iraq and Afghanistan in my name." A special report

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Wednesday, October 12, 2005


*

Mark Morford
Archives
Subscribe to Notes & Errata


Scene: White House private residence, night, not long ago. President Bush present in his most favoritest guns 'n' bunnies PJs. Laura asleep, knocked out by a combination of too much Good Housekeeping and excessive hair-spray fumes. Suddenly, a burst of black smoke. A deep, resonant voice speaks:

"Psst! George! God here, taking a break from supervising the well-being of eight billion troubled souls along with infinite galaxies of unimaginable vastness to speak with you directly one more time because, well, you're special, aren't you, George? Yes you are! Yes you are! OK, stop giggling. I have more commands. Get off the damn hobbyhorse, George, and get a pen and a notepad. No, not a crayon. I don't care if blue is your favori-- George! Get a pen! OK? Good. Here we go:

"As you know, I'm not quite what everyone thinks. I am not all benevolence and love and light. In fact, I have a downright dark side, mean and nasty and cunning, and I want you, George, to continue to be my special right-hand man. My special little guy. In fact, you shall help enact my wrath, Dubya. Doesn't that sound fun?

"There are three things I love, George: war, revenge, suffering. Oh, and smiting the heathens. OK, four things. And kickboxing. Five things. There are five things I love, Dubya. You with me? And you and your demon monkeys are enacting the first four admirably, George. Don't be shy, go ahead and tell those Palestinian officials you were commanded by God to "restore peace" in the Middle East by bombing nearly defenseless, pip-squeak Iraq and Afghanistan to smithereens. They love that stuff.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/10/12/notes101205.DTL