Two points. The minor point: Atheism as a religion .... I noticed in here somewhere mention that the court referred to secular humanism, and other atheistic ideas in a manner that gives them religious status. Well ... are you going to tell me that it's against the law to not believe in God? In that sense, the choice to not believe in God must be protected by the Constitution: What is your religion protected by the First Amendment? "I have no religion, since I don't believe in God." So your beliefs are not protected by the First Amendment? "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." (Geddy Lee, in the most recent form I've heard this.) And so the religious people, seeing the courts regard atheism and atheistic thought as religious for constitutional purposes, apparently believe that science is the same. Thus, atheism is now a religion, and science is now as subjective as any claim about what God is, might be, or whether or not God exists. Like I always say: I can show you gravity. Wow, and that was the minor point. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! * * * * * The major point is my accusation of bigotry against atheism. I'll start with a quote from Caleb's 9/27 post (7.28 pm) in Religion is for Fools: The only way the above assertions are true, and thus the statistical inquiries, would be if atheism and morality had no discernable connection. Frankly, I don't get what this assumption is that religion=morality. Hitler? Hitler was superstitious to the point of paranoia. I mean, Caleb seems to be overlooking the idea that his standard for decency and right has utterly nothing to do with the standards of the person committing the perceived wrong. (Disclaimer: Caleb ... it's nothing personal. Yours happened to be the nearest comment to me when I decided I had to drag this up. Really, this is a long-running, growing issue with me.) I mean, we know that this or that action is wrong, but take a look at how perceptions affect that: in three words, Irish Republican Army. We know that terrorism is "wrong" (I'm addressing from an utterly subjective perspective here, thus the quotes.) We know that murder is "wrong". We condemn the IRA as being "wrong" because they're terrorists, yet consider the individual's point of view before committing an "atrocity": Your "enemy" has starved, beaten, raped, and stolen your nation; as a government, your "enemy" has discriminated, destroyed, stolen, raped, and beaten your neighbors. Your "enemy" relies on its merit as a respected member of the world community to ensure that no sanctions are ever enacted against it. Your "enemy" kills your neighbors without remorse. If we stick with the last century and a half of Irish history, when were the Irish not entitled, as a people, to their independence? Did they not deserve independence while the British landlords fostered disaster in 1847? Did they not deserve independence when they won it on a legitimate battlefield in 1922? What was it about Bloody Sunday, or the Guilford convictions, or Drumcree that was so "right"? We, the world, recoiled at IRA atrocities arbitrarily. Or is it more forgiveable when an endorsed government deliberately commits atrocities? I have no problem extending my idea of "right" to include the actions of extremists who know no other alternative than violence. It doesn't mean I want violence anywhere. But the world is horrified, and I'm wondering why--it's not like we couldn't see these bombings coming from a hundred years away. And in that one person's mind, the act of murder may be "right", because it is an act of war. And this conflict of "doing anything they want" finds its permissiveness not in atheism, but in Roman Catholic and Anglican Protestant religious ideas; that is, the permissiveness comes from Christian justifications. So I'm wondering ... if atheism allows people to do anything they want, what's so different between atheistic moralism and Christian moralism? That God says you can misbehave? So what is the assumption that moral restraint is only vested in religion? Morality is pretty damn straightforward, and if believing in God or not has any bearing on morality, I would assert that believing in God allows greater justification for misdeeds, and I think history will back me on that. The only difference I can see between atheistic morality and religious morality is that atheism cuts out the middleman, bases its standards on observable nature, and never gets to use "God" as an excuse to not be responsible for one's actions. If I look at murder with an atheistic eye toward moralism, I see any number of reasons not to kill someone which play out through logical arguments. Murder is bad for any number of reasons, in an atheistic view. But the religious--that is, the monotheistic--perspective says murder is wrong simply because God says so. Hence, Thou shalt not kill, lest God first tells you to destroy the ____, their homes, their animals, their wives, and their children. Are you a human being? Do you choose to live in human society? Now ... how is murder right, profitable, or beneficial in that human society? Answer: it's not. The bottom line is that once it's right for you to commit, someone else is right in murdering you. It is possible to wound the survival capability of the species by murdering, if you're an atheist. If you're a theist, your primary worry is offending God, and that's easily enough talked around. Okay? We see that people do dumb things. We see that atheists and theists alike are capable of hideous atrocities. But if people are going to continue to espouse that atheism allows one to behave in any manner they choose, I need them to first establish that it's true, and then establish how that's different from any theistic idea in the world. What happens if the many rooms are in the Father's glass house? But the assertion that atheism justifies immorality by allowing the atheist to behave any way they see fit is balderdash, and its best purpose in any argument that I can see is that it deflects the primary issues. It reminds me of something Alderian wrote, once, in relation to people with opinions different from his; something about noting the source and accounting for its bias. If one assumes atheism to be so bad as to openly justify massacres and genocide, what obligation does a theist have to listen to the response? After all, they're just justifying themselves, right? Any argument, then, can be derailed by pointing out the inherent "immorality" of atheism. Please ... if we're going to bash atheism for its standards, ought not we consider what those standards are, and what they're based on? I mean, heck, if I was religious and obsessed with other people's private behavior because God told me to be, of course the first thing I would think upon hearing a rejection of God would be a rejection of God's morality. In a sense that's true. Theistic morality appears to be a static standard designed to honor God through obedience. Atheistic morality is an organic standard, constantly redesigned as new data affects the perspective. The constant change of scenery is a nice thing about atheism, but it's no reason for theists to be jealous. We, too, have window seats on this journey. It's just that God apparently told some of us we can't look outside the airplane. But the first thing necessary to close the widening gap between theists and atheists is, at least from theistic history, for theists to stop antagonizing the atheists. One of the ways to accomplish this is to stop assuming that a lack of God means a lack of the things God forces the theists to believe. Especially when they're vital beliefs, such as survival of the species, of the community, of the society .... Having vomited, I must say that I do feel better ... So, if it makes sense, I think I've got my flame-proof cape on just in case it's a can of gasoline. If, however, I fail utterly to make any sense, please be comforted by the notions that, on the one hand, I'm never surprised when I don't make sense, and, to the other, I'm fully prepared at all times for circumstances under which I stop making sense. thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
Tiassa, Nice, you're a true defender of the faith, sorry couldn't resist. BTW are you of British descent? Lots of phrases you use sound very British. Cris [This message has been edited by Cris (edited October 04, 2000).]
Tiassa, For what it's worth (2 cents, at the moment, I believe) I'm in agreement with you. Chris, Hehe, yeah, but what faith? You say "the faith" like there's only one. Betcha dollars to donuts your faith & Tiassa's are different...! (Sorry Tiassa, couldn't resist)
Yes, everyone is a victim of personal convictions. It is very subjective. ------------------ It's all very large.
Based on my experiences in Oregon in 1992, I have come to the conclusion that Christians are bigoted murderers. Furthermore, I no longer have to give a damn what any Christian thinks, believes, or feels in the world, because, after all, he's just a bigoted murderer. It is my solemn conviction that it is my duty to refrain from endorsing or encouraging the murderous, bigoted activitites of Christians through recognition of the existence of Christian standards. Problem solved? thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
Fortunately for us, Christian morality has found it's way into our social law; otherwise, there would be little deterrence for those who don't know better. The world would be a dangerous place without it. ------------------ It's all very large.
MC, Now you know I was playing with words. Christians often refer to their 'FAITH' as if it is something special and is the only one around. It is nice to see someone (Tiassa) speak up for common sense and defend logic that doesn't require faith. Now I am well aware that tiassa has different views to me but on this issue I think we are in close agreement. I sincerely hope that there is nothing in my life that requires me to take on 'faith', which is something I believe is irrational. But I will create an hypothesis about something that is unknown in the search for answers but that doesn't mean I 'believe' the hypothesis. That would require evidence and proof. Christian faith is believing something without question without evidence or proof and against reason. At best the concept of God is no more than an hypothesis that is worth investigating. Now you might claim that I probably have faith in my doctor or dentist, but that is a misuse of the the word faith. In this instance I have 'trust' in their abilities based on the evidence given by their qualifications and experience. And, hey, hang loose, I am British and I do have a strange British sense of humor that is more often lost on other cultures, especially Americans. Have fun whatever Cris PS. Cris (note no H) is in fact my real name and correct spelling.
tiassa, I have come to see Christianity as a malignant cancer on human society that would be best removed and destroyed. But many individual Christians are really only dupes of that institution who could easily be healed (re-educated) once the cancer has been removed. Cris
"Fortunately for us, Christian morality has found it's way into our social law; otherwise, there would be little deterrence for those who don't know better. The world would be a dangerous place without it." - Bowser Actually, Christian "morality" has made the world a dangerous place. Pagans have never started a war over religious beliefs, nor have pagans murdered solely for "wrong" religious beliefs. Ah yes, I can hear the xians frothing at the mouth to bring up the early xian martyrs in Rome. Gee guess what, the first ones were not executed for being christian. They were executed for not rendering unto Ceaser that which was Ceaser's. As time went on, it was seen by the Romans that all members of this particular Jewish sect were continuing to commit this same crime, over and over. At that time, the Romans enacted what could be called a class action criminal trial. Thus it was assumed that the crimes of the earliest christians in Rome were being commited by all christians. Had any xians renounced these crimes and acted in accordance with known Roman law, they would not have been executed. [This message has been edited by Greenwood priest (edited October 04, 2000).]
You're going to have to demonstrate that assertion. While you're at it, would you care to comment on the following, taken from my topic post? (It seems relevant to your assertion): You see, Bowser, you're presently performing the assumptive act I object to. You're assuming that without the artifice of Christian morality, there would be no standard for morality whatsoever. At least, your comments reek of the sentiment, and I have yet to see anything to dispel this notion of mine. I mean, I've reviewed the crimes of Christians past many, many times. In my more bitter moments, I might summarize thus: Thank God for Christian morality; otherwise, we might have to decide what morality is for. Little deterrence .... Okay, Bowser. I watch another person steal my son's Easter eggs. Should I shoot the little rat-bastard? He's stealing from my family. Now ... I don't need God to tell me that shooting a child for taking Easter eggs from my kid is immorally excessive. (yes, a little melodramatic, but it's a starting point. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) I don't need God to tell me not to sleep with that married woman over there. All I need is the continued appearance of marriage as a charade, and I will want nothing to do with people I see engaging in that kind of pointless behavior. Mind you, someday I'll meet people who know what marriage is for, but I hardly need God to tell me the reasons not to hop in the sack with a married woman. I don't need God to tell me why I shouldn't steal from my neighbor. I don't need God to tell me why I shouldn't murder. Strangely, the only thing I get from the Ten Commandments that I didn't know before is that I can't have any other gods, that I can't use God's name unless I'm kissing his ass, and that God doesn't like having his picture taken, as such. Much of Christian morality reflects common sense. However, the inability to measure the damage caused by an arbitrary standard is something I see more exclusively in religions descended from Abraham. Thank God for Christian morality. If it weren't for Junipero Serra, we may never have discovered that indigenous Americans make terrible slaves because they're lazy, slothful beasts. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot [This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 04, 2000).]
Cris, Oop, sorry about the misspelled name. Didn't do it on purpose. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I was just pokin' at yer words too, no harm meant by it. Guess my sense of humor doesn't come across so well either, huh? For the record, the Christian brand of faith holds no interest for me either. Not my cup o'tea. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Cris-- Actually, I'm an American-born, west-coast, white-bred cultural mutt. Strangely, I'm generally antagonistic toward things British, but that has to do more with comparative principles than anything specifically cultural. I am, however, curious about what tipped you to ask ... (and please, please, please don't tell me I'm sounding Liverpool or Manchester. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) As to Christianity ... I'm unable to separate the institution from the individual from the crap. That wouldn't ordinarily be a problem, but neither the Democrats, Republicans, or Capitalists ever make the kind of salvationist assertions found in the Christian foundation. I thought I might tip you toward Elaine Pagels, in the meantime. I just picked up a copy of her Origin of Satan, which is part of a freaky coincidence I won't go into right now, but is also incredibly insightful not only about the development of ideas of the devil, but also the connection between Satan and gospel-seeded anti-Semitism. Pagels also wrote a book on the Gnostic Gospels, though I've never seen nor read it. But my initial impressions, considering what of Pagels I've absorbed, center around the idea that Christianity is not so much a cancer as it is a tragic farce. I'm not sure that anyone but the gospel authors and the Apostolic Fathers have ever had any real idea what it's about. In American legal issues, we talk about our "Founding Fathers", and what they intended. I'm getting the impression that what Christianity's Founding (Apostolic) Fathers intended revolves around ideas Christ himself might have found laughable. From Pagels examination of the Gospel of Mark, one starts to understand why the Christian Devil was, by tradition, a Jew. It really does appear that transparent. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
MoonCat, Hey no problem. I must remember to use the Message Icons more often, only way we have to send body language signals. Cris
tiassa, It was the word ‘balderdash’, but there were others that I can’t recall right now. I’ve never heard an American use that term before but it was a very British word from the 1960s – typically used by the ‘upper’ class. And as for things British – many British attitudes make me cringe. I doubt I’ll ever go back for any length of time. I’m now a permanent US resident – a few more years yet before citizenship and my 18-year-old daughter has no doubts – she is never going back. Thanks for the literature references. I’ll note them for now. Have you read anything on the historical work known as Q? That claims to have unmasked (inferred from other texts) the true writings of Jesus’ contemporaries and demonstrates that the gospels were primarily written as creative mythology. As for now: I like practical experimentation and I want to investigate spiritualism. So like my research into the Church Of Scientology earlier in the year, where I was nearly sucked in, I will do the same with spiritualism. I have already found what seems to be a respectable establishment in the SF Bay Area. And I have just discovered Transhumanism (last weekend) where there is a massive organization aimed at improving the human condition. That fits well with my outlook and I will probably adopt their philosophies, which are already near identical to my own. Have fun whatever. Cris
tiassa, A bit more on Q. The work appears to locate and date the creation of the miracle stories. The theory here is that in the early years there were no miracle stories but as the Christian religion was being developed and Jesus was taking on Godlike properties it was seen as an oversight to have a god that didn't 'do' miracles. Hence suitable stories were manufactured. These pre-date the first Gospel (Mark). The other gospels were then primarily derived from Mark with additional embelishments and imaginative additions. Cris
Cris-- Briefly ... I have heard of Q, but know nothing of it. I had, actually, assumed (several years ago) that it was sequential, before I knew what J, E, P, and D stood for in re: the Old Testament. A-code, B-Code, D-code, Q-code ... that sort of thing. I've been outside Christianity so long ... well, this last year is the first time I've stepped into Christian ideas without the assumption that I've made it to big-league academics. It's a very different picture. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, "balderdash" is a quirky thing with me that, for once, I can describe exactly. Balderdash was a board game for really bored adults, part of a 1980's rage that included Pictionary (the most respectable), Scruples (also known as the Divorce God), and a couple of others somehow inspired by the idea of Trivial Pursuit (specifically, rolling dice and then doing whatever a card tells you). I never played that game. But I did play a video game (for Atari 800 and C64, at least, maybe Apple 2c) called Boulderdash, which was exactly what it sounded like. I actually have, somewhere, a ROM adapter for it, and play it from time to time on a PC. But Boulderdash was ultimately cool when I was 12 or so. The last part of that is television ... probably M*A*S*H. Balderdash, I'm sure, came up a couple of times with Major Winchester. However, in the last two years, I've picked up a number of sayings I might have picked up from the show. (Yet another irrelevant note; MoonCat! are you there? You might enjoy this one, as well.) Perhaps you remember an episode of The Simpsons when Bart is thoroughly upset at Homer; I think it's the Pee-Wee Football episode. Anyway, Bart's mad at Homer, Marge understands why, and our Homer trudges off to the Kwik-E-Mart to drown his sorrows. He asks Apu for "Skittlebrau", and, in lieu of that, a six pack and a bag of Skittles. Anyway, last year I saw that episode in syndication, and a week later, or so, I caught an episode of MASH in which a nurse, reporting to Hawkeye a vastly improving situation, reports that, "Everything's beer and skittles." I'll be damned. It's moments like that .... Ah, look at me, wandering down Nostalgia Street. Anyway, sorry if I missed your stop, and thank you for riding Tiassa's Memory Bus Lines; do ride with us again, and have yourself a pleasant day. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx all, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
tiassa, Sorry for insulting you by implying you might be British. Winchester in MASH fits with the 50s/60s era doesn't it? Thanks for allowing the happy insights into your history. The beer and skittles coincidence I think is called synchronicity - the phenomenon of meaningful cooincidence, where two or more completely unrelated incidents reveal a near identical feature. It always makes me stop and think - OK so someone outside is trying to send me a message, so what is the message this time. I always laugh at myself for being so irrational but I love it when it happens. Stay cool Cris
Cris-- Nope, no insult at all. And I'm always happy to take a few moments and make people pay attention to my meandering insights. (It makes me feel special ....) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
Wow, this topic has been busy. It's too late to give a reply to all of the above, but I feel that I owe you something. "You're assuming that without the artifice of Christian morality, there would be no standard for morality whatsoever." I think that without guidance in morality, a person is capable of just about anything. Without the application of Christian morality, our society is capable of just about anything. Base human compulsions created the need for morality, not Christianity or any other religion. Morality filled a void and provided a foundation on which our society was built. "Actually, Christian "morality" has made the world a dangerous place. Pagans have never started a war over religious beliefs, nor have pagans murdered solely for "wrong" religious beliefs." Any religion can be perverted into a tool for those who have no moral purpose. I have no doubt that pagans have started war over religious beliefs and have murdered solely for "wrong" religious beliefs. "Theistic morality appears to be a static standard designed to honor God through obedience. Atheistic morality is an organic standard, constantly redesigned as new data affects the perspective." No shit. There is no new data. Human nature has been around longer than Theistic morality. We know what we are capable of doing, but what is there to stop us from doing it. Listen, Christian values are so deeply rooted in the soil of society and in the foundations of our lives that I would suggest that most of you probably harbor in your spiritual core the basic ideals of Christian beliefs. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> Anyway, it's late and I wasn't planning on riding this wave. Say a prayer for me. ------------------ It's all very large.
