BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 07:17 PM

Hard for a believer to even explain himself in here, the nastiness drowns out all.

("You call this nasty?"

Says the assailant to the assailed.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 05:45 PM

As in "So help me, I'm going to kill that two faced bastard." Or "So help me, I could murder a curry."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:57 PM

T o get back to the phrase in question, it's often abreviated to "So help me!" in normal use. Or "Swelp me!"

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:16 PM

Every once in a while, my room mate gets to vibrating to where I darn near need ear protection. More often she just makes funny vibrating noises that sorta crack me up.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:09 PM

They appear to just be lying there, Midchuck, but in truth they are simply vibrating at an extremely reduced level. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:09 PM

Uh-huh; either your word is good, or it isn't; if it isn't, you'll have no compunction putting your paw on something to "prove" that it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 03:04 PM

"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
—Matthew 5:33-37.

Therefore (it seems to me) Bible-believing Christians ought to object to the oath as strongly as anyone.

(Not that I'm a Bible-believing Christian. I only quote that to show that Christians of all stripes obey what they want to obey and ignore what they want to ignore.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:58 AM

And a few people, of either gender, lie about 'most everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:54 AM

Spirit is who you are before you drum up an identity to be.

It is emotional, and the seat of perception and intention, the postulates that makes our lives unfold and govern how the world seems.

It is the Thou of you, if you will.

That's the short version.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Midchuck
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:34 AM

Everything in the Universe seems to be founded upon oscillating waveforms of cyclical back and forth movement that are quite analagous to the breath, if you stop to think about it...and this is true right down to the atomic level. Everything vibrates or oscillates.

Almost everything, but not quite. Some women just lie there.

P.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 11:23 AM

Spirit is life, Mrrzy. (in my opinion) You are quite correct to connect it with the breath, because it is the breath, and the heartbeat, and the other cyclical repeating motions such as nerve impulses that indicate life in a living body.

Everything in the Universe seems to be founded upon oscillating waveforms of cyclical back and forth movement that are quite analagous to the breath, if you stop to think about it...and this is true right down to the atomic level. Everything vibrates or oscillates.

In a living biological creature like a human the very obvious vibrations of breath and heartbeat indicate the presence of life...and what is termed "Spirit" in the religious traditions. When the heartbeat ceases, the breathing ceases, and the nerve impulses cease, the Spirit is said to have departed the body....which is the same thing as to say: life has now left the body. The body is now lifeless.

So that's what Spirit is to me. It's life itself.

The fact that vibrations or oscillations are also found in non-biological things right down to atoms has led to some forms of spiritual philosophy that propound the theory that everything is "alive" in some sense...including all the inanimate objects. If that's the case, then they would be "alive" in a very different sense, of course, than an animal or a human or a plant is...and they probably would not possess much, if any, self-awareness or volitional capability.

They would, if so, be "alive" in a passive sense....but not as we are, in an active sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mr Happy
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 10:35 AM

Who?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 11:28 AM

OK, so, what is spirit? Is it the same thing as Self, or Core, in the sense of your inner feeling of who you really are? THen yes, since your feelings would be part of that there feeling, I agree with you. Will reread with that in mind, if that's what Spirit is.

Pedant alert: Spirit is literally Breath, as in, respire, etc. This is also where we get inspiration, with the metaphorical Breath of the inner Spirit, versus Perspiration, which is more the literal Breath going through the skin. I think the English phrase Holy Ghost is a slight mistranslation of the Hebrew / Greek Holy Breath / Spirit. So it had more to do with being alive, it was that which disappeared upon death, than to do with the emotions you were having while you were alive. Doesn't mean that's what it means now, though, just because that's what it meant then. Languages are alive and changing and living in New York City, right, as well as elsewhere?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:59 PM

Good god, yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:54 PM

Um, are emotions spiritual?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:35 PM

"Of course, I don't believe in spiritual matters."

See, here is where I have a problem following the discussion. What does it mean to me when I say I don't believe in "spiritual matters".

Spiritual means of the spirit. Love, whether romantic or familial or any of the other forms, is of the spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 01:31 PM

Um - it's one thing to talk to your invisible friends, it's another if they talk back, no? Isn't that what got St Francis in trouble, not that he talked to the animals, but that they talked back?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 09:21 AM

Re the difference between Canada and the U.S.: This is anecdotal, not proof of anything, but for what it's worth:

I grew up in very rural Minnesota, on a farm with little villages a few mile in each direction. In 1975-76 I spent a year a few miles above the Minnesota-Ontario border, pastoring a small rural church as internship for seminary. The church members promptly noted to me that there was a much lower percentage of church attendance in Canada, which I soon found to be true; I was a little surprised, as about the only other cultural differences I could see were "ayes", mild accents, and a craze for hockey instead of football. A few folk were staunch church people, just like a much higher percent back home. As I dropped in on other area residents, they were open and cordial, but just not interested in church attendance. I don't remember any of them professing atheism, but I don't think I ever asked directly.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 09 - 06:10 AM

THAT'S the phrase that encapsulates my thoughts on the subject, String.......PERSONAL and PRIVATE.

In point of fact I am, like Thomas Paine, a Deist (or Theist), though I DON'T diss atheism, simply regarding it as another alternative available to those who wish to choose it.

While I believe in a God (Supreme Entity, Creator, call it what you will), I am not sufficiently arrogant to believe that mine is the only possible truth.

Be that as it may, I communicate with MY God directly, and receive my responses the same way.

I neither need, nor want, a bevy of men in black frocks to interpret my requirements and intercede to persuade HIM to give ME what THEY think I should want.

Nor do I see a need for a massive building erected from the sweat and toil of working men, and paid for with money extorted from a population, most of whom might have felt, at the time, that they were forgotten by God.

These edifices were built more for the glorification of the builders and the clergy than for the glory of God.

If, and it's a very big if, I ever were to subscribe to one of these "religions", it would be Buddhism, simply because it is built on a premise of RESPECT, for life, for others, and for oneself.

DonT.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 03:39 PM

Don, I agree with you. I don't accept a god but I agree with just about everything else you said. Of course, I don't believe in spiritual matters.

You are so right about Israel. It is kind of a theocracy although many Israelis would deny that. Any country based on a religious persuasion is a theocracy. Theocracies create wars.

True of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, et. al.

I agree with your definition of politics.

I agree with your assessment of the intrusion of religion into secular matters historically.

Jefferson and Madison both wanted to protect religious beliefs by keeping them out of
government. That was a wise choice.



Even John Adams in the famous Treaty of Tripoli made it clear that the US was
a Christian nation.

Thomas Paine had a lot to say about this in "The Age of Reason". (Of course, he was a Deist and dissed atheism, but his book is still well worth the read).

I think that your view of religion is a lot healthier than stuff I've been reading on Mudcat about it. Your views keep religion personal and private as it should be in the US.

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 08:50 PM

So it seems rather clear that up to now there has been no Canadian PM who publicly stated he was an atheist.    Just as there has been no US president who asserted it.

It begins to look as if the claim that Canadians would elect an atheist is as valid as the claim that the US would elect a black president. About which there was considerable skepticism.

But of course the US did exactly that in 2008.

So maybe Canada will come through.

Someday.


However, perhaps now we won't hear quite so much about how vastly different Canada is from the US on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 06:01 PM

One thing I do admire, is the concept of separating religion from politics.

The function of politics is to govern men's everyday physical behaviour and make policy as to how one achieves a good standard of physical well being, by acting in the best interests of the population at large.

The function of religion is to take care of spiritual matters, and make every effort to preserve what we might refer to as men's souls.

There is no valid point of contact between these two objectives in the best organised of social systems, and in poorly organised systems religious input into political policy has inevitably proved disastrous.

It will, I'm afraid, be ever thus, unless we make it universally the case that priests stick to saving souls, and leave government to secular agencies.

This, if established about the time of the emergence of Christianity and Islam, would have prevented the massacres of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the annihilation of the Cathars, as well as forestalling the current belief that there is a Jewish Race.

Israel consists of a multitude of different nationalities who happen to follow the Jewish religion, along with a number of different nationalities who follow the Christian religion, and some Arabs and Palestinians, who espouse a variety of religions, including Christianity and Islam.

The permanent residents are Israeli by nationality, NOT Jewish. When they, and others in the area get to grips with this concept, THEN, and ONLY then, will there be progress toward peace.

IMHO, of course, for whatever that's worth.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:06 PM

It may be a lost cause, Don. But with new information available perhaps there can be influential pressure brought to bear on Dobson et. al.

There is a "religious war" of ideas out there. As Philip Pullman has stated in "The Golden Compass", it's a battle over "free will".

Stringsinger.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:42 PM

I'll go with that String. It should be a two way street.

Now, all we have to do is persuade the Fundies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:02 PM

I have no problem with anyone's beliefs as long as they don't foist them on others.
Getting back to the issue of this thread,"So help me god" does. It puts religion into politics.

Tolerance has to be a two-way street. The religious need to respect the non-believers as well. And keep religious preference out of government and public policy.

I think a respectful conversation can ensue without trashing each other personally.

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:43 AM

I've not visited this for some time, so forgive me if these comments hark back to more distant comment than the current posts.

I was intrigued by some of the posts re. free will, and the assertions that religion was somehow an expression of God's intention to have us exercise that freedom.

In my experience, the opposite is the case. Most, if not all, of the organised religions, command their followers to subjugate their free will, in part or in whole, to the exigencies of the particular agenda of the hierarchy.

The problem I always had was in getting across the idea that "faith" and "religion" are NOT synonymous.

It seems that those who have the most unshakeable faith are the fundamentalists who don't know the difference, and adhere like glue to the distortions of generations of religious leaders, almost all of whom had some personal agenda to pursue.

Faith in a creator is great, but we need to point out that even the finest products are often marketed by unscrupulous crooks.

We WOULD, in my opinion, be exercising our free will as God would wish, were we to say to our religious leaders, "IF YOU WANT MY LOYALTY, EARN IT BY SHOWING TOLERANCE, LOVE, AND UNDERSTANDING TO ALL THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOUR BELIEFS!........

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 07:56 PM

I think the world would be a different place if religion were investigated. I think that a lot of social problems such as world hunger, wars etc. could be put into proper perspective if we could look at the role that religion plays in these issues. Until now, religion has never really been questioned as to its validity in society. The hypothesis has not been questioned. That is changing. This question will have a bearing on how we view these issues. In the meantime,the more we see religion in politics in the US, the more backward we become as a nation.We deny Thomas Jefferson and Madison their point. (Keep religion out of politics). If religious people are threatened by this testing and criticism, their so-called faith can't be very strong.

That said, I would advocate that as an American citizen, we have the right to believe anything we want no matter how wacky it gets provided that it doesn't cause harm to society. When religion becomes tyrannical and it is forced down the throat (such as with taxpayers footing the bill for what they don't believe), then it needs to be examined. I think that this does impact on the poor being fed, ice floes melting, how we treat each other, war, the rise of militarism as a solution to problems, and how we regard ourselves.


Don't remember saying anything about mental illness being a socially defined condition.
I guess it's a matter of who's doing the defining.

I think that this is an important topic of discussion and Obama needs to hear from us non-believers more. Otherwise people will be swearing more at the bible than on it.

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:58 PM

So Stringslinger...mental illness is a socially defined condition? Hmmm? That would explain why FEMA identifies fundamentalist Christians as "terrorists". Maybe that is why Janet Reno felt justified in using the military to go in and slaughter men, women and children in that wacko-compound in Wacco. Thanks for clearing up that point. I fell better already.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 09:19 PM

What's the matter--didn't you enjoy my Cheney impression? I'll try to do better next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 09:16 PM

LH--

"silly prat"

Temper, temper little man.

I asked for the name of one Canadian PM who asserted he was an atheist. None was provided.

The proof of the pudding.....

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 03:31 PM

Stringsinger, I think you and I have, in part, been talking past each other.

You referred in a recent post to "real questions". Note lower case.

I've been referring to "Real Question(s)", as referred to in Logical Positivism.   "Real Questions" in my context is a term of art, not meaning "serious question" or "question which seems important to me" or "question which troubles me considerably" or something like that, but the philosophical questions or problems the answers to which (if any there might be) have no results in the outcome in the real world.

Thus, if the world could be proved to have been created by a god, would one's actual situation be any different than if it were proved not to be? Would one be handsomer, richer, stronger, either way? Would the poor be fed if it were so created, but starve if not? Would ice be heavier than water in one case and lighter than water (as it is) in the other.

If no real-world difference in results flows from such a question, either way, it is not a "Real Question".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 01:52 PM

This would be a benign discussion on deluded fantasies if they were not employed to
influence and manipulate opinions without being based on facts.

The trouble is we have Obama creating a larger role for "faith-based initiatives" which have been shown to be prejudiced in favor of believers and excluding non-believers.

Words are all we have to express ideas. If these ideas are not expressed, they are inherently unintelligible. Therefore, any "mystery" that can't be explained has no value.

Many mental institutions are peopled with those who claim access to "mysterious" ideas.

Someday, the Unified Field Theory of science will bring together those elements in nature that we don't understand but until then, we have to deal with Quantum Mechanics that defy every principle of physics that we know of. Einstein didn't want to grapple with it. Feynman says that those "who claim to understand quantum mechanics, don't understand quantum mechanics". It's the absurdity of nature.

In the meantime, there is no "theory of everything" available to us. This includes polytheism, monotheism or any speculation on how our universe functions.

Anyone can say that "in my experience" such and such happens and there is no dispute even when a mental patient claims that he really saw that rocket ship steal away his
brain.

Again, you can't prove a negative.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 08:12 PM

I love it when the argument gets to probabilities! Good old "standard deviations" and the "bell-shaped curve". I wonder what the odds are that our planet just happens to have a very active tectonic structure and that we are the right distance from the sun that water stays liquid for the most part. And how about that moon without which life as we know it, would not be possible...hangin' around out there at just the right distance! Have we reached 0.05% yet? When you go through all the "Goldilocks" factors our probability picture is mighty slim indeed. How many other similar planetary systems are there out there? Could be plenty...I don't know...odds are we will never know about them if the do exist.

I had an aunt that took a world cruise some years back. She flew to Japan to meet her tour group but she could locate no one. Finally she sat down in the Tokyo terminal to pray about the situation. She sat there a while then looked across the aisle and spotted an anglo appearing woman so she asked her if she spoke English. She certainly did she said in a slight Australian accent. She asked where she was from and the woman replied a little place in Australia named Wee Wah. My aunt thought she may have heard of the place before so she asked where the woman was from originally. The US she replied. Where? Oh an equally little town in Central California. I'm sure you have never heard of it...MacFarland?...to which my aunt replied "Your name is Clara Freer! The woman was astounded! How did you know that? "I'm Bob Carter's sister!"

This woman and her husband were my Dad's very close friends 20 years before they left to begin a cotton station Down Under. She had never met them but had heard all my Dad's fishing and hunting stories about them. So...out of all the billions of people in the world and the millions which pass through the Tokyo airport at any given time, what were the odds? 0.05? or less? I know many of you have similar stories and not just a few of them. What are the odds?

If you had a few quadrillion pots of water on an equal number of stoves all boiling right away, might one of them freeze solid because all the water molecules just happend to move in just the right way that they crystallized instead of continuing to boil? Probably not... and yet here is Earth, crawling with intelligent (theoretically) beings. What are the odds?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 05:51 PM

One may not yet know how to test a hypothesis. That doesn't mean it's untestable, it just means we don't know how to test it yet. That may change.

Strinsinger, yes...I suppose that the idea of the One is monotheistic. You could say it is. But don't people usually assume that monotheism places a distinct God amongst many other things...or outside of them...or above them...at any rate, apart from those other things?

I make no such assumption about the One. If the One exists at all, then it is inclusive of all that exists, and it is not apart from anything, otherwise it woudn't be the One any more. I think that's different from most people's concept of monotheism, as they tend to see "God" as set apart from various other things.

I'm not seeing it as a separate being or power that judges, rewards, punishes lesser beings, etc...I'm seeing it as the complete totality of all existence and consciousness itself. I'm seeing existence itself as a form of powerful intelligence in continual process and evolutionary change, rather than as a bunch of haphazard and therefore meaningless physical events and phenomena. I'm seeing existence as part and parcel with intelligent consciousness, right down to the subatomic level and up to the macro level (galaxies, universes, the dimension of time and space).

Is that monotheism? Well, if you wish to call it that, I don't object...but to me can be both monotheism and polythyism simultaneously, as well as neither of them.

In a word...it's inexpressible. You and I can talk about it all we want, but our words will never succeed in defining it, because they are only words, and words cannot ultimately describe what we are dealing with here. They are just second-hand mental symbols, nothing more...only a direct experience of something can fully convey what is not expressible in words about that something.

You know this as soon as you do directly experience anything, whether it be eating an apple, kissing someone you love, feeling true friendship, or having any other real and moving experience. Only by consciously living a reality in the moment of its happening can we know it. Words are simply not enough.

Thus our conversation here, entertaining as it is to the mind (which loves to chatter and debate and question and contradict), is not going to succeed in unravelling the ultimate truth about much of anything.

It'll just momentarily appease those hungry minds which think words are enough. And they'll soon find they are hungry again. And again. And again. Without letup. That's how the hungry mind works. It is incapable of anything more than the briefest satisfaction (in a moment of imagined victory), and it never rests except when it gets intoxicated or when it sleeps. It is the slavemaster, and most people are its helpless and unwitting slaves during 98% of their waking lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 05:05 PM

If it can't be tested, then by definition, it isn't a hypothesis. Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:31 PM

Dave, I disagree. There are those who claim this "measurable, repeatable and observable phenomena" as valid and they should be called to task. Let them back up their claim. As long asthere are those who use their hypotheses as a legitimate source of control and manipulation, these are "real questions".

Jefferson made his bible available whether it was published or not. You can find it easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:12 PM

Stringsinger, you said:

Dave O, Jefferson's bible has been made available in print.

"Has been made available in print" is not what the original statement was; it was that Jefferson published it, which is another matter.

Any hypothesis is testable. That's what science does.

Not so. In order to test a hypothesis, there must be measurable, repeatable, observable (by some natural means) phenomena. There is no way to test such hypotheses as "God created the heaven and the earth" or "God is omnipresent" or the like. And the "truth" or "falsity" of such statements makes no quantifiable or observable difference, either way; thus they are not "Real Questions".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 04:00 PM

L.H. The notion of a "One" is monotheistic.

Dave O, Jefferson's bible has been made available in print.

Any hypothesis is testable. That's what science does.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:17 PM

Now, now, you two, maintain dignity...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 12:51 AM

Ron, you are a silly prat in the grip of an obsessive-compulsive need of some kind. ;-) It's probably the need to be "right", which always requires that someone else be "wrong". Thus it seems important to you that I should do some online research which you have proposed, and thereby waste some of my own time on your obsession. This is what you keep asking people to do all the time when you disagree with them about anything, and I think it's hilarious. Has anyone been silly enough to take you up on it? If so, how foolish of them!

Well, no, I definitely don't want to do any of your research for you, because it only matters to you, not me, and I'm not going to do it for you, but I'll tell you how you can do it yourself...

Go to "google.ca" (that's the Canadian version of google) Then check the little button that does searches only in Canada. Then type out whatever the heck you can think of that you think will find you that piece of information. Good luck! ;-) I don't think you'll find it easily, you may never find it, but if you persist...you just may find something.

And then you will have wasted your time, and I won't have wasted mine.

Capiche?

And most of that stuff you seem to think that I think...as set out in your last post? Wrong, Ron. Almost entirely wrong. It must be somebody else you are referring to...not me, I guess, but the usual straw man that you erect in your imagination when you argue with people. The guy that says all the things you would like him to say so you could be "right" yet again and he could be "wrong".

I'm not that guy, Ron. He lives only in your head, and you're holding an imaginary dialogue with him right now...and scoring point after glorious point!...even as you hurriedly read through this post of mine and marshall your new armies of straw men to play the role of "Little Hawk".

It gets busy between your ears, doesn't it? I know what that's like. The mental dialogue inside one's head...and the other guy is always so clearly "wrong". It's sooooooo satisfying to the ego, yet a constant strain on the health and the nervous system. One day we die, and it finally stops. Hopefully. Got my fingers crossed here.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 08:59 PM

Well, it seems LH has not in fact found any Canadian PM's who declared they were atheists.

And in the time-honored manner of Mudcatters, seeks to explain this by saying it's not an important point.

Yet he is convinced--probably by his poll--that Canadians would in fact have no problem voting for an avowed atheist.



First of all, let me admit the truth of the idea that for Canadians, being right above the US is like being a college professor living in an apartment above a biker bar.

And let me also say that I'm not here to state that LH enjoys sitting up there making pronouncements about the mortals that dwell down below. Nor can I say that his attitude that there is no difference between US Democrats and Republicans is patently absurd.

I can't say that.

But it seems that based on the number of avowed atheists who have become Canadian Prime Ministers, the "more tolerant than thou" smugness of certain Canadians may not be justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 02:48 PM

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 04 Feb 09 - 02:47 PM

Until your last para, you made a lot of sense!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:38 PM

The idea of testing spiritual things that are not even part of this physical realm is rather ludicrous...because the tests can only be done IN this physical realm.

It would be akin to trying to test anything else that can't materially be pinned down....you cannot test something that is not possible to grasp or manipulate with any of the tools at hand.

For instance, scientists have hypothesized that there may be other dimensions of reality beyond the ones we are presently familiar with. And there may be. But how are we to test them if we can't GO there???? ;-) And if we did go there...we wouldn't be here any more. So no one would hear about it from us, would they?

If there are spiritual worlds, then the problem would be the same. If you can't go there physically then you can't test it, can you?

Look, I can go anywhere I want to in my mind, right? I can do that right now. And my thoughts are real...they're a real inner experience that I'm having in my mind....but they're not physical. You can't test them. You don't know what they are. They're forever invisible to you. That doesn't mean I am not thinking them, it just means that you can't do anything about it.

If there are spiritual realities in what amount to other dimensions of reality...and there may be...then you can't do anything about them either.

Religions generally assert that there are such realities...and there may be. If there were....you still would not be able to test them.

The fact you can't test something or sense it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist...it might exist. And you don't know, do you? But you'd sure like to imagine that you do...right? Well, that's an idea you like holding in your mind because it makes you feel in charge or something, but it's no arbiter of anyone else's reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 09:24 PM

It doesn't matter WHAT your concept of god is, anyway. They are all equally counter-productive and counter-factual. Many people say well, I don't believe god is a man in the sky, so you don't disbelieve in MY god. Well, yes, we do.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 06:19 PM

Stringsinger, you made a couple comments that I need to reply to:

I also respect the US Constitution written by Thomas Jefferson (who published his own version of the bible excising all the nasty stuff).

I may be wrong, but I don't think Jefferson every published his redaction of the Bible.   

I think that it's important for science to get involved and test these hypotheses that are made by religion. The idea of a god is a hypothesis. Let's test it.

I really don't think that the idea of a god--any god at all, you name it (him, her)--is testable. It is "Not a real question," in Logical Positivist terms.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 06:09 PM

"LH, apparently you believe in a monothesistic god rather than a pantheon of gods."

Hmm. Well, not necessarily. It's not that I believe in a monotheistic God so much as that I believe in a single Unity which manifests in an infinite number of aspects (and individuals). When people construct a pantheon of gods, all they are really doing is they are characterizing different aspects of existence and assigning them symbolic names. In India, for example, there are many gods and goddesses in their traditions, but it is clearly understood by adepts that those are simply symbols of the One, and that the One is transcendent and indescribable, but encompasses everything. It's different levels of symbolism, which is useful for people as long as they don't start worshipping the symbols blindly. The One is also described as a great Trinity in India...Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva...the Creator, the Preserver, the Destroyer. That's a description of the 3 basic forces we see in nature: creation of living forms, preservation of living forms, death and dissolution of living forms. We see those forces in play all the time through birth, maturing, survival, aging, and death.

But beyond those the Indians still see an indescribable One which supercedes them all and out of which they flow, so to speak, as archetypes or aspects.

What is this? It's philosophy. It's an attempt to understand one's place in an existence where we must deal with birth, survival issues, change, aging, and death. I have nothing against philosophy, and I approach spirituality on that basis, because having a philosophical outlook gives meaning to one's life.

I don't take the various "gods" literally. I take them as symbolic of different aspects of existence. It is existence itself which is sacred, seems to me, and it's too large to be contained within most people's concept of "God". So I would agree with Carl Sagan that, yes, their God is too small.

*****

Regarding prayer, I have seen it work in some very surprising ways. And I have seen it not work also. I think that may have had to do with the inner focus and clarity of the people involved, possibly, or it may have had to do with something else entirely, it may have had to do with actual need, but I have no final explanation for it...I just have seen it take powerful effect on a couple of occasions. There are a lot of prayers that would be better NOT answered, because people tend to ask for the most foolish things! ;-)

When it does work, it does not necessarily make me think that some kind of external God "out there" answered the prayer, by the way. Could be...but I have no definite opinion about that.

When people are praying for someone to survive an illness, how do they know that survival of that illness is the best thing that could happen to that person??? They don't! Death at that time may be a much better thing for that person than they imagine. How can they know it isn't better if they haven't been dead themselves yet? They are assuming that death is the complete destruction of the person. Maybe it isn't. They don't want to lose the person. That's understandable. But maybe the person is going into a continued spiritual life that they have no knowlege of and will be happier there than here. There is no way for someone here to know whether that is the case or not, so they assume whatever they assume about it, and they act on that basis. That's all any of us can do. We do the best we can, based on what we already know...or what we think we know.

I accept death. I've lost individuals whom I cared for, and I miss them, but I accept death when it comes...as it must.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 04:26 PM

Einstein had his own definition of god, something like Spinoza.

A teleological god like a watchmaker does not have to design all consciouness and existence. This process was observed by Charles Darwin who made the case that evolutionary biology was responsible for consciousness and existence.

If one supposed there was a god who designed all this, you would have to come to the conclusion that he made some serious errors.

Still, LH may be closer to the opinion expressed by Carl Sagan to some devout believers,
"Your god is too small."

Still when "faiths" collide, then the notion of faith as a value becomes suspect. Right now,
Philip Pullman illustrates the idea that two worlds are colliding and the war is over "free will".

The inalienable right to be-lieve or not to be-lieve, that is the question.

LH, apparently you believe in a monothesistic god rather than a pantheon of gods.
You seem to believe in a god that is not personal or caring for you individually.

You do seem to state that religion is a form of politics used as a control device to manipulate others.

Alaska Mike, there's a new saying out, "Nothing fails like prayer". Controlled experiments conducted by the Templeton Foundation show that prayer doesn't work.

I am on the fence about whether I consider religion harmful in all cases. I agree with Joseph Campbell that myths serve a function. I also respect the US Constitution written by Thomas Jefferson (who published his own version of the bible excising all the nasty stuff).
I'm not ready yet to condemn all believers but consider their actions separate from their belief system.

I think that it's important for science to get involved and test these hypotheses that are made by religion. The idea of a god is a hypothesis. Let's test it.

Strsngr

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 02:50 PM

I can well understand your reaction to that situation, Mike.

You see, I have no trouble at all understanding why people don't believe in certain well-known fundamentalist concepts of God. I don't believe in those either...despite the fact that I don't know for 100% certainty. But it seems just tremendously improbable to me that the God of fundamentalism could possibly exist as he is described by fundamentalists.

There are, however, many other ways of defining God. If a person is saying that he doesn't believe in the specific definition of "God" that pops into his own mind when he hears the word "God"...hey! I can understand that.

Only thing is, his definition may not be the be-all and end-all, and there may be 100,000 other definitions out there. Does he disbelieve in all of them categorically? Or has he never even given a moment's thought to most of them? I would think it's the latter case. If so....well, it's just silly to say you categorically disbelieve in something that you've never even really thought about in the first place.

I don't think of God as a separate anthropomorphic giant spiritual being of some sort who intervenes in human affairs, sets down rules, and rewards and punishes. I think of God as the total summation of all consciousness and all existence and all that is...as an ocean is the summation of all that it contains, for example...or as a planet is the summation of all that it encompasses...or as you are the summation of all the cells and consciousness and energy in your own body. The planet does not intervene deliberately in any single person's affairs, it doesn't take sides in our issues, but it definitely exists and it provides a field of possibility within which its inhabitants act out their lives...and they are all part of it and they are born out of it, therefore they are related to it.

Are you telling me that you disbelieve in all consciousness and existence? I don't think so. ;-) You'd have to disbelieve in your own life force and your own existence to disbelieve in the God I believe in.

Therefore you may say that you disbelieve in God, and I get what you mean...you disbelieve in a specific fundamentalist definition of "God", but you don't disbelieve in my definition of God. See?

Tip: My definition of God has very little to do with organized religion as most people know it, and I belong to no organized religion. Why the heck would I want to?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:20 AM

When my older brother, Pete, was 9 years old he became quite ill with pneumonia. My parents believed in a loving god who would heal his illness if they just prayed hard enough. So they prayed and Pete got sicker. They called in specialists from the church to help in their praying and Pete continued to decline. Never once did they think to get my brother the medical help which was available at the emergency room less than a mile away. Finally, despite all their prayers, Pete died.

From that point to now I have made the personal decision to NOT believe in any supreme being. I accept the responsibility and consequences of my own actions. I do not make a habit of espousing my beliefs in public, but I do not resort to silence if the subject comes up. Faith can be a comfort to some people, especially in troubled times. But I don't think anyone should "push" their personal faith upon anyone else, including their children. Just my 2 cents.

Mike