BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:02 AM

It's just that saying "I don't know" when your uncertainty is less than 0.000000000000000000000...(many more zeroes)...001 is kinda specious, just because it's isn't actually EQUAL to zero. So many of us have stopped saying we don't know, and admit the absobloodylutely overwhelming evidence for natural causes with no divine intervention as sufficient evidence.
In most rigorous sciences, you're allowed to think you know when your uncertainty falls below 0.05! We allow so much, much more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 01:49 AM

Oh, hey...let me add to that list Dylan, Elvis, and Sinatra. ;-) Three more charismatic individuals who wrought great change...but they did it (primarily) in the field of pop music, not religion or politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 01:32 AM

By the way, about what you said: "asks that a 'faith' be substantiated by reason and fact and empirical proof"....

Well, yeah! All human beings have a very strong desire to substantiate anything and everything they are interested in by their reason (they all attempt it to the best of their ability), by facts (they all appreciate finding out facts if they can), and by empirical proof (ditto)...but there is much in life that we are normally quite unable to secure ANY facts or empirical proof of...though we all hope to...so that's where faith comes in...to cover what we don't yet have confirmation of in an empirical sense.

Faith is what is applied to anything that one has not yet been able to substantiate through the perfectly natural processes of direct observation and accumulation of facts and empirical evidence.

For example:

It is a matter of faith to believe that Jesus (the man) actually existed. It is equally a matter of faith to believe that he didn't. We don't have much (if anything) in the way of empirical evidence to prove the validity of either one of those articles of faith.

To think, however, that he probably existed...or that he probably didn't...is a matter of subjective opinion, based on a host of subjective impressions that vary from one person to another, but it's not based on empirical evidence. Neither is it faith. It's merely a conjecture....a "best guess" based on what one thinks of as probabilities.

I think he probably existed and I think it for one very simple reason:

I've seen exactly how a religion (or any religious group) starts, and I've read about how a great many of them have started, and they virtually always, if not absolutely ALWAYS, start because of one unusual or remarkable human being, someone with a LOT of charisma, and someone who many people are VERY impressed by when they're around him (or her).

That's how religions start. They don't start with a book. They don't start with a committee. They don't start with an organization.

They start with one charismatic person, and the books and committees and churches and rules and organizations all come later, in reaction to the remarkable accomplishments and personality and example of that one original charismatic person. That's why I think Jesus probably existed. If he had not existed, the whole darned thing never would have gotten launched in the first place. Something else would have happened...or not...depending on who else was around at the time with that sort of charisma (and there were others too). There are usually some people like that around here and there...though they are quite rare amongst the general populace. Some start major religions. Others start minor ones. Others start new political movements. Others start cults and secret orders. Others become pop stars. But it always starts with a very charismatic person who inspires other people...and they become followers, fans, party members, whatever.

Some of these charismatic people are seen as heroes by posterity. Some are seen as villains. Some remain obscure. Others become enduring legends and their lives change the world, for better or for worse.

Buddha. Zoroaster. Jesus. Mao. Hitler. Martin Luther. Gandhi. Mohammed. Abraham. Moses. Lao-Tse. Churchill. Mussolini. Alexander the Great. Caesar. And many, many more. You find one of them at the heart of every new religion, every new political creed, etc.

They are not all spiritually minded, and they're not all found in religious life, but they all have one thing in common: they inspire tremendous faith in their followers and this has a tremendous effect on many people.

To believe that there was no Jesus (the man) is a bit like believing that a tidal wave or a landslide happened, and yet there was no cause for it. No original motive force to kick it off and get the ball rolling. I doubt that. My reason tells me that that is highly unlikely, because there is always an original motive force behind any new movement (physical or social). There has to be. Simple cause and effect. Elementary, my dear whoever. ;-)

If the writers of the New Testament ALL wanted to start up a new religion (and they clearly did) they would never have even gotten the idea to do that if not for the prior example set by one charismatic individual. That's how these things happen.

I am making no other-worldly religious claims regarding Jesus or what he may have done. None at all. I'm simply saying he...a single charismatic individual...had to be there as the original most significant motive cause that got the whole ball rolling....just as Mohammed or Buddha or Hitler or Mao had to be there. In Jesus' case, he'd probably be more than a bit perturbed if he saw just where that ball has rolled in the last 2,000 years! I'm betting that he would be quite upset about it. That's my "best guess".

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 11:47 PM

You would understand what I meant quite easily if you wanted to, Strinsinger. ;-)

I am suggesting that an open-minded admission of the fact that one simply doesn't know indicates greater wisdom (and far greater humility) than either a dogmatic assertion of religious fundamentalism or a similarly dogmatic atheistic claim that God doesn't exist.

I'm suggesting that people are in no position to make such dogmatic claims, period, and if they weren't so insecure and competitive in their own petty little ego structure, they wouldn't make such claims....because they would realize that they simply don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 07:36 PM

LH There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist as there is no fundamentalist
atheism. Every atheist has their own non-belief. Getting atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats. All that atheism has ever meant is non-belief. There is no belief system
attached to that at all.

The religious person attempts to project their belief in a system onto atheists by claiming a fundamentalism where there is no faith or belief at all. That is religious propaganda. Scientific inquiry as to the nature of the belief system of a religion is not a blind faith at all. It is no faith at all but it asks that a "faith" be substantiated by reason and fact and empirical proof.

StSngr

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 01:17 PM

Whether or not someone believes that Jesus (the man) ever existed, the New Testament was written some time after the incidents in his life that it purports to describe, and it was written by a number of different people, each one of them with his own particular concerns and his own political "axe to grind", so to speak. They were all telling their favorite version of the story, and they were probably all doing it with religio-political purposes in mind. That being the case, it is hardly surprising that some of the messages in there seem to be contradictory at times, and there is no guarantee of any sort that any specific account is accurate or that anything Jesus is reputed to have said in it is accurate. It might be. It might not.

Furthermore, if you take all the things that have been said by ANY human being during the course of a few tumultuous years...things overheard by others around him...and you repeat them later as best you recall them...then you are going to get contradictory statements, things that don't seem to make sense, things that will be misunderstood because the reader is not aware of the original context they were said in, etc.

All of that should be reasonably obvious, yes?

The only thing that will prevent a person from being open-minded and considering such possibilities is blind faith. Blind faith of 2 opposite varieties.

1. The first: It's all the Word of God and without flaw.

2. The second: None of it ever happened and there was not even any such man as Jesus.

The first is the blind faith of the fundamentalist religious person, and it's motivated by emotion, not reason. The believer loves his religion for its own sake, regardless of reason. He gets satisfaction from believing in it completely.

The second is the blind faith of the fundamentalist atheist, and it's motivated by emotion, not reason. The believer hates religion for its own sake, regardless of reason. He gets satisfaction from denying it completely.

That kind of blind faith will tell you a lot about the emotional history of the above 2 believers (who are both fanatics), but it probably won't tell you anything useful at all about Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 12:46 PM

I agree LH. He would have been at the mercy of Jesus' injunction that if he didn't believe he would "wither and die". Little schizzy there.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 04:55 PM

Churchill was quite a bastard too. ;-) He must have appreciated the Old Testament God's characteristics in that respect to the utmost.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 04:29 PM

Hi Slag,

Although I believe christ to be a myth, some interpretations of myths are useful for the betterment of society in my opinion. The gentle jesus who exhorts the flock to non-violence is a constructive myth that points the way to a better world. The other jesus that states that if one doesn't believe in him, they will "wither and die" seems dictatorial and less useful.

I think that Thomas Jefferson's bible was useful as he excised all the parts that promulgated
violence and religious dictatorship.

I am reminded of Winston Churchill's comment after reading the bible. He slapped his thigh in laughter and said "That god was quite a bastard."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 05:51 PM

You know Stringsinger, I have to agree with you. I've been done dirt in my life and cheated by some but some of the worst has come form those who purported to be my "brethren"! So much so that I came up with the phrase "Beware the Brethren!" Not all that goes by the name "Christian" IS Christian---not by a long shot. And that, more than anything, is why the name of Christ and His house are clobbered in the public arena.

When you don't take a stand for anything much, I guess not much is expected of you. You screw up and the common opinion is that well, you're only human. But when one takes the name of Christ you are supposed to live by a higher standard. We are ALL human and Christian and non-Christian alike have failings and short-comings but most of us on either side of the demarcation do try to live honestly and meet our own standards at least. Those who use Christianity as a cloak or a key into the group for their own ends are lowest of the low.

When one takes the name of Christ, asserts that he is a follower of Christ, that is a kind of oath and that is why he is watched differently and more closely than those who don't. That's just the way life is, I suppose. Cynics jeer and hope he stumbles because they do not believe it. To them, the whole thing is a sham or some mental aberration. Some don't care but there are those who watch and wait to see if there really is a difference in the believer's life. The same holds true for other religions and religionists too. I admire and respect someone who is true and honest to their beliefs, especially if those beliefs promote the good things and bring the best out of Man. I even hold a grudging respect for those who are adversely opposed to my rights and beliefs. At least they are true to what they believe.

An oath is many things to different folks but it does say one thing; I have take on this undertaking and I will do all that I can to remain true to it and accomplish what I have set out to do or at least you will know why!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM

Dave O, the fallacy is that a minority have determined what "the people want" and they employ methods to achieve that by painting a picture of their view of democracy. Case in point, GW Bush.

The majority is not always acting in their own best interest. They are often wrong and as Riginslinger says, easily manipulated.

The governed will inevitably have to get what they need in government to survive.
But some governments will suppress and subject the governed to needless cruelty,
bureaucracy, and lies.

For example, Wall Street controls the bailout. A rich minority dictates "what the people want" by exploiting them.

One way to control the public is to suppress information and dissent. Keeping the populace happy is not like treating people like Orwell's "Proles". That is a controlling mechanism and not a true expression of democracy.

A true democracy needs to have a discussion of different points of view and a consensus on how best to winnow through these ideas for the betterment of society. Religion is
counter-intuitive to this with its emphasis on authoritarian solutions.

Stsngr

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 08:50 AM

One element about the majority that shouldn't be overlooked is, with modern media and a large advertising or propaganda budgets, a few well placed individuals can get the majority to do things they otherwise might not do.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM

Stringsinger, you said in part:

And as to the logical fallacy of the wishes of the majority, this is why the world is in economic meltdown today.

There are two (as far as I can see) views about the wishes of the majority. One is your "logical fallacy", the idea that the majority is right, or is likely to be right. "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong," as they used to say.

The other is what I consider the soundest basis for democracy, and that is that the governed should get what they want in government, thus hopefully keeping the populace happy and making for peace all around. Since there won't be unanimity among the governed, the minority necessarily get overruled. This idea may be arguable, but it's not a fallacy.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 04:39 PM

MD the majority of Americans can be wrong. They were about Bush. They were about slavery at one time. Women's rights? The list goes on.

As for trustworthiness, I would trust an atheist more than I would most Christians. Reason?
Many Christians are hypocrites. But again, the caveat has to be not applicable to everyone.

And as to the logical fallacy of the wishes of the majority, this is why the world is in economic meltdown today.

All I'm saying is respect the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote the thing and he didn't cotton to all this goddy stuff.

I don't thank god for atheists or anything else.

I thank the Constitution for allowing the Separation.

Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Sslag
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 02:55 PM

I'm in favor of the ennui myself. Don't forget the anchovies.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 01:54 PM

Ron....I haven't looked it up because I simply am not that motivated or interested in proving you either right or wrong about this that I would bother to! ;-) I basically don't care. The mere chance of scoring some kind of tiny argumentative point vis a vis your argument vs mine is simply not enough motivation to get me to do it.

Do you follow?

Look, man, I need some kind of actual motivation here. If you really want me to devote some of my personal time to overcoming my total ennui and lack of interest in the fact that you appear to disagree with me and verbally sparring with you over things that don't matter to me anyway...then send me some money, and I might do it. Maybe. If it's enough money.

Heh! Heh! Heh!

Man, I just shake my head in wonder at it all, I really do...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 07:49 AM

LH--

You say the question of religious belief does not come up in Canadian campaigns. My point exactly. Canadians are quite tolerant--if you don't flaunt your religious beliefs--or lack thereof--in their faces. Your 2006 survey alleges a majority of Canadians say they "would be quite happy to vote for an atheist."

Interesting, then, that it has never happened. You have provided no names of atheist PM's.

So, regarding your survey: in the words of my favorite political analyst, Shania Twain--surely you're familiar with her work?---that don't impress me much.

It seems that as long as the subject doesn't come up, everybody is happy. If the candidate were to declare it, the outcome might well be different. Some of the atheists on Mudcat, as PM candidates, would prove the point.

And I'm sure you know people can--and do--tell a pollster anything. There are also many questions regarding such a poll. How many refused to answer the question? Lies, damned lies, and......

I think the vaunted Canadian tolerance on this issue has never been tested. Or perhaps has been tested--and that's why there has never been an atheist PM. Perhaps an avowed atheist would never collect enough support to even be a plausible candidate.

If I'm incorrect, I'm sure you can supply the names of some atheist PM's.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 03:46 PM

That would be just downright silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 03:00 PM

At least you aren't blaming God for their demise.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 11:10 AM

Our last cat died several years ago. It was 'interesting' to realize that one of my considerations about getting a kitten was the possibility it might outlive ME!

I do miss the purring at the foot of the bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 11:05 PM

I bet. Heh!

I'm sad to say that one of the little guys here died too, early this month. He is missed.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:56 PM

My old Dachshund died and I got a Weimerwaner. It's like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM

If only my Dachshund could reach that realization! It would be so much quieter around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:48 PM

It's not worth the wear & tear on my blood pressure to get wound up!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:42 PM

The point is, Georgiansilver and others: we skeptics are not making any claims...YOU are, when you say "God made you". We are just saying we don't accept such claims on the evidence usually presented.

The burden of proof is on those who MAKE assertions. There is a reason why we say "believe in a God." Belief is what is required when no 'proof' is possible.

Otherwise, we just agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:17 PM

True, Dave, there is no way of proving something like that or disproving it. You cannot prove the actions of the Unmanifest upon the manifest...nor of the Infinite upon the finite. Nor can you disprove them.

The Infinite cannot be objectively observed at all, because the observer himself cannot get outside of it in order to take a look at it! ;-) We can only observe the many other things which are, like ourselves, finite....in other words, they have a perceivable beginning and a perceivable end. This is true of another person, a plant, an animal, a planet, a sun, even a galaxy or a succession of galaxies. We can observe all of them in themselves, but we cannot observe that which contains all of them...and is implicit within all of them.

We can experience it in some way, perhaps, by feeling that we are in a state of conscious unity with it...but we cannot objectively observe it, because to do so we would have to establish that it is either separate from us...or one separate part of us that is within us...or limited to certain defined paramaters...and it isn't. ;-) It is, I think, unmanifest and unlimited, but by the same token it is implicit within everything that is manifest.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:02 PM

Quoth Georgiansilver:


God made you!!!! prove otherwise.....

Georgiansilver, I don't have to prove otherwise, because I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. You, on the other hand, appear to be trying to convince others here (including me) of your first three words.

Actually, even if I were trying to do that, I know I couldn't prove it, because it's not a "Real Question". That is, no "Real" or practical results would flow from either answer, yea or nay. I have my opinion, just as you have yours, and that's fine.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:59 PM

Not me. ;-) I'm going to leave it to Rig and a couple of others here to get wound up about it....so help me God!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:45 PM

So who got wound up by that then????? eh?????

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:41 PM

God made you!!!! prove otherwise..... no good saying your parents made you because He made them too....... Procreation was Gods invention..........

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM

"I'd deliberately say it just to bug the lot of you! ;-)"


                   Which is exactly why Roberts and Obama did it!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 03:46 PM

I think that all the phrase "so help me God" means in common usage when most people us it is this: "I want to particularly stress and emphasize in the deepest seriousness that I DID mean what I just said."

So lighten up, guys. It's not a big deal. If I was taking the presidential oath, I'd deliberately say it just to bug the lot of you! ;-) (but not because I am one bit worried about God's part in the whole thing)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 02:39 PM

Dave, I take your point which is for the purposes of communication. I choose, however, not to refer to the capitalization because it gives the concept too much weight. I also have a problem calling people reverend because I don't revere them personally or what they may believe.

To the issue of "so help me god", I believe that it is a recent addition along with the 1954 "in god we trust" on coins and "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

There is too much "goddy stuff" in the government today and in speeches that are intended for the general public by sycophantic politicians.

Stsngr

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 12:14 PM

Or as "so help me god!"

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 10:26 PM

??? That makes as much sense as "Holy FLIP! "

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 09:41 PM

I'll be ready to back the candidate that repeats after the cheif justice, "So Help Me Flying Spaghetti Monster."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:52 PM

Holy FLIP!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:13 PM

226 posts? Good God!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:10 PM

Stringsinger said:

Dave O, none of these gods really existed. They were myths.

Exactly. You and I can agree that they never "physically" (or metaphysically) existed, and I didn't say that Mazda, Jupiter, Krishna, Friga, YHWH, and their ilk actually exist(ed). But the ideas represented by those names were and in some cases are real enough to those who believe(d); their belief and influence exist(ed). And that's what a god is. They had their own sort of reality in the cultures involved.

And that's what my recent post was mainly about: I find it meaningful to go along with our culture in capitalizing "God" when it is used in our culture to refer to the Judaeo-Christian god as a name substitute, and not when that three-letter word refers merely to one of the class of ideational "objects".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:12 PM

Sensible comments, Strinsinger. I would disagree on one point, though, where you say: "There is no belief system at all in atheism."

To the contrary, everyone holds a great variety of their own unique belief systems...regarding almost every aspect of their own lives, their cultural makeup, their family, their emotional life, their philosophical viewpoints, etc. That is to say, life isn't just a question of what you know on a factual basis. That's part of life, to be sure, but life is also a great deal more than that for any living being which can think, and experience emotion. In addition to the known and verifiable facts which can be physically proven, everyone holds a vast number of implicit beliefs and assumptions about themselves, others, and life, assumptions which cannot be...or at least have not yet been...physically proven. This is also true of atheists. Atheists, like other people, assume a great deal, they do not simply catalog verifiable facts (as a machine would), they also then extrapolate further assumptions and beliefs on top of those facts. They all, in my opinion, are wedded to their own mythologies...those which support their general attitude...but they often take those mythologies to be entirely real. Freudian or Jungian psychology could shed some light on that, I'm sure. Atheists also can and do fantasize about a great variety of things, but their fantasies will not allow or accept the premise of a "god", that's all. ;-)

Consider, for example, the political/social fantasies that Pol Pot's administration engaged in, or Stalin's, or Mao Tse-Tung's...and they were all diehard atheists. Heh!

"I flippin' rest my case!" (to quote my old buddy Shane...) Mythology is NOT limited to god-based religions.

Furthermore, agnosticism is NOT "an attempt to not come to grips with the issue", it is an indication that a person has enough humility to admit that he doesn't know for sure...

I think such humility is very commendable, because most people definitely do not know enough to know for sure about the greater questions of existence itself or even the burning practical issues of their own time. There's a great deal they don't know for sure and they ought to just admit it for a change, instead of pretending they do know. I think it is their own insecurity that makes so many people dogmatically pretend to have absolute certainty about this or that great subject when in fact they usually know only a few fragments of what there is to know about it. They are the largely ignorant yet apparently confident, those with just enough superficial knowledge and experience to give them the confidence to be arrogant and lofty, pretending desperately to be "in the know" in order to convince themselves and others that their position is unassailable and they are fully in control of it...when it's actually anything but. ;-)

This is true of a great many atheists, it's also true of a great many religious people, and the more insecure they are the less tolerant they will be of anyone holding a differing view...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 11:13 AM

Dave O, none of these gods really existed. They were myths. Well, OK myths exist but
they are not reality-based or scientifically verifiable. They were stories, parables, metaphors but not physical entities. Of course what I meant is that these myths are unsupportable by science as being real entities as in flesh and blood or physical properties.

Myths do serve a function in society as Joseph Campbell has pointed out. But they are not physically real entities and as a result function as ideas, metaphors, instructions, parables etc.

I also understand Campbell when he says that society needs "our myths". I can go along with the need for some of them.

Religion per se has come to mean an institutional body that supports churches, synagogues, mosques etc. I personally see no difference between any of the major religions and the "cults" that are often mentioned.

There is a cultural aspect to religion and this may be separate from actual belief in any religion.

Atheism mean no belief in a god. That's all it means in spite of some attempts to define it as a fundamentalist belief system. There is no belief system at all in atheism.
Agnosticism is an attempt to not come to grips with the issue.

There is a growing branch of what I would call Anti-theism which characterizes the criticism by Christopher Hitchens. I think Anti-theism is not supportable by the nature of the US Constitution which allows flat-earth societies and moon-made-of-green-cheese cults. Anti-theism goes aggressively after religion and arises from it's dictates which attempts to make non-believers "wrong". Atheism in my opinion is consistent with the First Amendment.

It's fine for me if people want to have a personal belief in whatever as long as 1. They don't insist on cramming it down other's throats and 2. It's their personal thing like their sex lives. Personally, I am not interested in other people's religion or their sex lives unless it enters the realm of scientific or historical study.

I don't care to capitalize on od by capitalizing the word. I prefer the generic lower-case god to describe all of the myths pervaded by a religious populous.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:03 PM

Yes indeed. Your description of the oaths in the Torah is fascinating...and in the case of the scrotum-grabbing oath...amusing!

To simply give one's word (a simple "yes" or "no") should be enough among honest people....and if one is not honest, then what possible good can it do to go through the outer exercise of a ritualized oath of some kind? (It will only end up being broken regardless, in all probability.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM

Right on LH. You have to get outside yourself to see or even begin to see yourself. Unfortunately a lot that goes by the name "Christian" does not see this. To me, that goes under the heading "...in name only."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:38 PM

And speaking of oaths:

In the Torah there are at least three main types of oaths. There was one known as the "Salt Covenant". Salt was a scarce commodity in that day and one can not live without it. Those folks carried their salt in a little leather pouch usually worn like a necklace. If a salt covenant was made the two men (only men could make an oath) would take and mingle their salt together and then reapportion it and say something like "until you can separate your salt from mine our pact stays in effect". Pretty neat, eh?

Another most solemn and irreversible oath was the "Blood Covenant" which involved the sacrifice of an animal and halving it and passing between the halves. It is rather involved and heavy with symbolism and theology which I'd rather not get involved with at this point. Needless to say it was very permanently binding.

There are others but the third one I wanted to mention can be seen in Jacob's final blessing of his children. The KJV has it that they grasped each others thighs but what it really involved was each participant would take hold of each others scrotum and swear by the "sack of life". You may laugh but the practice was quite widespread in the day and for most of history in Greece and the Middle Eastern environs. It is where we get our word "testimony" from, the testicles. Why couldn't the presidential oath of office involve something like that? Attendance would be WAY up!

In the Book of Mathew, chapter 5, verse 33 and on Jesus is saying, "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 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."

So there! I agree with the atheists. Skip the "...so help me God." Unless the person is truly seeking God's help. And if that IS the case, she or he doesn't need to make a public spectacle of it. They can seek out God in the privacy of their own hearts, away from the camera and the crowds.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:10 PM

You're quite right, Slag, that the basic error most "rationalists" make is that they assume that human reason is superior to all things. Their faith in that concept is adamant and unshakeable. The god they worship is rationality itself, their god is the human mind....themselves, in effect, at the level of their own mind.

That's the most common error made by human beings, and it is the crux of how the ego functions (the ego being that which says: "I am separate from everything else around me.") (It also implicitly says: "I'm the most important one here, and my needs come first." although it may not always openly admit to that. It may pretend to be quite impartial.) The objective of most Eastern religions is to free human beings finally from the tyrranny of their own separated ego, the self-ruling endlessly chattering mind, and to attain oneness with something much greater, something that can be termed "the One" or "God" or "Life" or "existence" or "pure being" or "enlightenment" or "Self-realization". In that state one loves others as oneself and without prejudice...one does not engage in egotistical preferences or competitive ego games...and a careful study of the New Testament reveals that that is what Jesus was demonstrating and teaching.

It is, however, totally futile talking about this with anyone who still believes in the power of the mind above all else and wants to work only on the level of his mind...because he'll think you are talking complete nonsense about something unreal...and you'll think the same of him! ;-)

Therefore, why worry about it? Let those who wish to work on the level of their mind only enjoy themselves doing so, and don't dispute with them about it. It only leads to a lot of arguing, ego jousting, and verbal battles for supremacy, not to mention hurt feelings...and no one ends up thinking any differently than they did when it started. They just end up hating each other. ;-)

Bill D and I have been going through that for years on this forum, and I know how profitless it is to fall into the temptation of beating the old dead horse one more time...just to "prove" that you're right and someone else is "wrong".

They'll never believe you. You'll never believe them.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:03 PM

Stringsinger said,

Dave, the notion that there is a specific or unspecific god is equally unsupportable.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the above assertion, but Jupiter was a god (whether one thinks he actually existed as an entity or not), Thor was a god on the same basis, Baal was a god ditto, and Jehovah was (or "is", if that's what you want to think) a god ditto. (Lower case g, a member of the class "god").   Thus the Greeks and Romans and Norse had gods, even though I don't believe there is/was a referent entity for any of those god-names. And YHWH is a god on that same basis, I think.

In our culture, generally when one uses that monosyllable one is referring in short form to that god in Judaeo-Christian belief, Jehovah or Yahweh or YHWH, both for brevity and because our tradition commands the avoidance of pronouncing or writing the sacred name, and the ordinary class-noun "god" becomes in effect a name-substitute, a proper noun, and is rendered as "God", capitalized to show that we're referring to THAT god. But God, capitalized, is not a name, it's proper noun, though we habitually handle it as if it were a name. It's conventionally capitalized, just as the words "Him" and "He" are capitalized in referring to that putative deity, for the same reason.

If I, as an avowed atheist, have reason to refer in print to the Judaeo-Christian deity with that monosyllable, I will capitalize it, "God", not subscribing to "His" existence, but so that you and I and Charlie's Uncle know that I'm referring to that specific (though unbelieved-in) deity. If I refer to "a god", lower case, you are given to know that I'm referring to a member of the general class.

An atheist is one who doesn't believe in the actual existence of a god--ANY god, whether Zeus, Thor, Mazda, Krishna, Bella, Friga, or Jehovah, et al.

On a somewhat related subject, the Islamic reference to their believed-in one-and-only deity, "Allah", is etymologically "the god", as I understand it--thus, "The one and only member of the class, god", but it's a reference or description, not a name as such. Can't remember where I learned that.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 05:03 PM

When we suffer from lack of intellect and abandon logic we turn to other things, opiates, alcohol, religion... The list is endless.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 04:45 PM

Well, I was going to be flip and just post "No atheists, so help me God!" But then read Virginia Tam's message near the beginning and it prompted me to add this from a Christian perspective:

Atheist and agnostics take the same position that human reason is superior to all things. If God cannot be "proved" either He doesn't exist or the jury is still out on the question. If God can be attained to or discovered via reason, via human logic, then only the brilliant minded, the "rational", the elite, would know God. The average Joe would be tough out of luck. The knowledge of God comes after "faith" in God. It is antecedent. It is revelation and NOT perception. Most folks who do come to a knowledge of God do so only after they have exhausted all human resources in their desperate quest. They find Him because they have come to understand their NEED for Him. We Christians are a needy lot. We have sought relief from sin and guilt, from futility and death. We have come to the end of ourselves and turned in the aforementioned desperation, to the One whom we hope will be able to save us. And joy of all joys, He didn't strike us down but lifted us up, cleaned us off and gave us new life that will never end. The Christian faith and experience goes far beyond what simple, inadequate logic can do for us.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 04:43 PM

Of course Communism was a religion...just not a God-based religion, that's all. It was (and is) a political religion. The same can be said of Naziism, Fascism, and that nebulous set of grand expectations called "the American Way". ;-) They are all political religions, complete with a set of sacred historical figures for inspiration, some sacred documents, and some sacred symbols for the worshipful masses to focus upon and defend with their lives.

Whether or not "God" enters into the picture can vary. You can base a political religion on "God"...or on atheism...or on the profit motive...or on sheer pragmatism...or on anything else that provides a powerful motivator.

The notion that there is...or is not...a god cannot be proven or disproven, it is a matter of subjective opinion. The same is true of the notion of romantic love. Does it exist? Or is it a fantasy? The answer is a purely subjective matter and cannot be proven or disproven in any empirical fashion.

Why? Because the idea of god and the idea of romantic love both concern inner perceptions...not outwardly objective phenomena that can be measured. One man's inner perception may be another man's sheer fantasy, but that doesn't mean the inner perception isn't real....it's just not a physically observable phenomenon, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists: No 'so help me God'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:09 PM

Ebbie, it's interesting to note that Warren is a true man of Fraud. And a homophobe.

Fraud blessed America with the recent bailout. A-women!

Dave, the notion that there is a specific or unspecific god is equally unsupportable.

Ron Davies, the problem is that unbelievers are not given the credibility that is proffered to the sanctimonious. The other aspect is that science is now coming around to test the validity of the theory that there is a god. So far, it looks like science is showing that the notion of traditional "gods" may not hold empirically.

You also can't prove inconclusively that there is no Santa Claus. (The logical fallacy here is that you can't prove a negative.)

Dave O, I think that atheists pretty much disagree on everything and it's like herding cats.
For example, I believe the Communism was a religion under Stalin and in today in China.
I think any political "cult" can be interpreted as religious with fanatical followers defining it.

Reason's Greetings to all.

Ssngr