BS: New things about atheism

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 07 - 08:56 PM

Mythology as such is not a harm. Mrzzy. In fact, it is a very rich and human way of communicating complex views and ideals. I am thinking of the wonderful legacy, for example, of the tales of the Norse gods, or the myths of Minerva, Zeus, and and Hera at play in the fields of immortality. The harms arrive when an individual makes the mistake of asking the myths into the real world, and using them as answers in the wrong domain, or substitutes for seeing and dealing with real factors. In their own domain, good myths are priceless.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 May 07 - 08:51 PM

I am saying that mythology was an attempt by earlier people to make sense of the world in which they lived. In that way it is no different than history or scientific knowledge. Besides that, they are all subject to change. In fact, mythology seems to be more resistant to change than either history or science. - bingo - that is why it should now be discounted. Yes, before actual knowledge, we invented mythology. But now we have actual knowledge. It's time to give up mythology.

And why would freethinking children have any less of a sense of wonder? I *did* introduce all myths and religious ideas, AS myths and religious ideas. And as a parent, of course I don't allow them to choose their own belief system - I reared them, I did not let them grow up to be natural - they are civilized. They have manners. They make puns and tell jokes. And they are sensible atheists.

And mythology HAS been proven to be wrong. The marketplace of ideas, though, insists that saying that is disrespectful to those who insist on believing in SOME mythology, being monotheism, in the presence of counter-evidence, or in the absence of evidence, which is dogmatic by definition. I say, and many agree with me, that it's time to stop respecting something so obviously wrong, and start actually educating people.

I have said before - I have no objection to people who take faith on faith. What I mind is people deluded into believing that there is actual empirical evidence that supports their faith. And society supports that delusion, and I think it's too dangerous to allow any more. Take the idea that Bush is about to veto a law that would add homophobia to the list of hate crime motives, because that might interfere with religious bigotry.

It's the harm, it's the harm, it's the harm.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 07 - 07:56 PM

The error, though is not in the freedom to choose. "Obviously wrong" will prove itself in the marketplace of ideas. And there are safeguards against wrong action, and causing harm to others; but even if it were possible to put an electronic filter on someone's brain so he could only have "approved" beliefs, it would be deeply reprehensible to do so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 May 07 - 06:45 PM

"It is absolutely vital that individuals are allowed to select their own beliefs."


                And often, when they select beliefs that are obviously wrong, they become a threat to everybody on the face of the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: dianavan
Date: 04 May 07 - 06:37 PM

"Being female has nothing to do with the particular deity in which you place your faith" - Mrrzy

For me it does. If a male wants to believe in a Goddess, thats his choice and vice versa. What I am saying that is that the Goddess was a product of a Matriarchal society and that what remains of her in our myths and stories are vestiges of what was once a widely held belief system. As time changes and others come into power, the belief systems generally change as well. Because I am female, I can relate to a female diety easier than an all powerful, male diety.

"You are equating mythology with history and scientific knowledge?" - Mrrzy

No, I am saying that mythology was an attempt by earlier people to make sense of the world in which they lived. In that way it is no different than history or scientific knowledge. Besides that, they are all subject to change. In fact, mythology seems to be more resistant to change than either history or science. At least vestiges of old beliefs remain in the stories of today. Do you still believe that Indians are savages or that matter exists? If so, you are still stuck in a previous system of beliefs.

"The last thing I would want is for my twins to incorporate any myths into their knowledge base, as if they were reality." - Mrzzy

Are you saying that you deny them their sense of wonder? Isn't it better to introduce all myths and religious ideas and allow them to choose their own belief system? Not all people believe in dogma but they can still incorporate the mythology in their knowlege base. I think what you are afraid of is dogma. Dogma is to me, very ignorant, but I certainly understand those that need authoritarian guidance.

Children who have to live in a world of adult facts, science and history are living in deprivation as far as I'm concerned. Our world is much more colourful and diverse than that. Most of all, we need tolerance. Teach your children to be tolerant and respect the beliefs of others. Who knows, some of it may rub off and they might, in fact, be better for it. The worst you can do is try to control your children and the world they live in. Let them live their own lives. Allow them open their minds and explore all of the possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 07 - 05:30 PM

It is absolutely vital that individuals are allowed to select their own beliefs. There are always consequences to such selection, which is why engineers get paid better than peopel who write bad poetry or lead small religious cults. You takes your choices and chances. But the right to one's own sanity is a sovereign right. The notion that the space we seem to occupy is the absolute and common ruling domain of all belief is actually oppressive when it is enfiorced.

The whole point of civilization is not prevention of belief, but enabling the individual to choose them well, with discernment AND creativity, and perhaps even come up with new improved ones.

To enforce beliefs -- even ones that seem obvious to you -- is a slippery slope to hell. And also an unkind act. None of which gaqinsays the value of education on what epople have believed and why. But the choice must be left to the sovereign individual.




A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 May 07 - 05:04 PM

*sigh* Why on earth do people think I am against creativity, or that science can't address it?

We are absolutely not, as members of a society, entitled to choose what we believe. If people were entitled to choose what they believed, schooling would not be compulsory, and racism would not be discouraged. And if we were so entitled, then others in the society would be even more entitled -if not duty-bound- to tell us when what we believe is wrong or has been proven untrue.

The whole point of civilizing is to prevent people from believing stupid things that are bad for the civilization and to teach them smart things that are good for the society. It's also called rearing children.

And believing in mythology today, when there is no earthly reason to, is harmful to society and to its members, and should not be supported. It's the harm, people. It's the harm. I keep saying that but I keep reading arguments like If you have to deal with facts you stifle creativity. Puh-leeze. (Not just you, Dianavan, it keeps coming up. You just put it well *BG*.)

If you expect people to live in a world of facts and figures (history) you are asking that they believe in another set of lies that are also subject to change as time goes on. - excuse me? You are equating mythology with history and scientific knowledge? You have got to be kidding. Sure, history books are often written by the victors - but they aren't fairy tales. And look at American history books now - they aren't about how we inherited this land from a band of naked savages any more. We no longer allow that kind of slanted, pseudohistory (of course, in theocracies, that is exactly the kind of lies that get told - try checking out an Iranian "history" text) because we know better.

Well, we know better than to believe in fairy tales. (Or at least, we should.) And of course scientific knowledge changes - it's supposed to. That's how science advances. Just as history changes with greater knowledge of the present.

My kids have been taught all the common mythologies - norse, greek, hindu, egyptian, and monotheism (be it one god or one goddess). As a result, my kids actually think, rather than turning to authority for answers. They ask - but then they discuss, argue, and ask follow-up questions. They are great story tellers and they know the difference between a story and a fact. I wish I could say the same for all their schoolmates.

The last thing I would want is for my twins to incorporate any myths into their knowledge base, as if they were reality. And they argue theology with their friends - the ones who *think* stay their friends, and the unquestioning faithful don't, and that is fine with me too. Why would any intelligent person want to hang out with a sheep?

Being female has nothing to do with the particular deity in which you place your faith, and I think it surprisingly sexist of you to think it would. I know a lot of male Wiccans who would object to that characterization - and rightly so. Why not believe in your goddess because it makes sense to, instead? (Oops - that's right. It doesn't make sense, does it.)

And of course the God of Abraham, being mythological, didn't exist for Abraham. He (Abraham) may have thought it did, but that doesn't make it REAL. You actually believe that he believed in it, not that it *existed* for him - since you don't believe in it. Why aren't you willing to say so? Nobody here would be offended...

The idea of spirit in the sense of "more than /other than what we perceive" is quite alive and well in me, too. (I do not believe that inanimate objects perceive, nor that many other animals perceive their perceptions, which is what it takes to have Spirit in that sense. Maybe elephants, maybe dolphins - but not even the other great apes.) It just doesn't have anything to do with mythology. Inspiration is a mental process, and therefore is a brain process. It has nothing to do with mythology, any more than creativity does. It's a mental, human, ability. We evolved it, we can do it, and there are no gods or unicorns or leprechauns or goblins involved.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: dianavan
Date: 04 May 07 - 03:05 PM

Thanks, Amos. Thats it exactly. Of course neither reason or faith are finite. As science expands, so too, do our unanswered questions.

Mrrzy - "The videa of Christ is the myth that the One God of Abraham will have/has had a son by a human mother..."

I disagree. What you say is true about Jesus the Christ but the idea of Christ was present before the story of Jesus. There have been many Christs (maybe annually) and there is reason to believe that sacrifice was the ritualization of the concept. What made Jesus so popular was the written word.

Yes, the idea of a female diety is much older than the male myth. I didn't say they were simultaneous. Matriarchy preceded patriarchy because women held the secrets of life in their bodies. Christianity tried to incorporate the mother Goddess (Mary) with the philosopher/warrior/king myth (patriarchy) of the Jews and other wandering tribesman. Call it the messiah or the Christ or whatever. The living/dying, philosopher/warrior/king is the Christ concept that preceded Jesus and arose from poety, song and myth. You can't take that away from anyone.

As to denying humanity the right to think creatively, I think you're asking a bit too much. If you expect people to live in a world of facts and figures (history) you are asking that they believe in another set of lies that are also subject to change as time goes on.

I, too, do not believe that humans are greater than other living beings or that you have a right to ask for more than what you already have. I do believe in love, inspiration and creativity: none of which can be explained by science or history. To ask others to believe what you believe is no different than what Evangelicals
try to do everyday.

Let me try again. Once you conceive of an idea, you are able to give birth to the idea in a variety of ways. Birth follows conception. Whether or not the life is allowed to flourish, depends upon a number of factors but the power of the word certainly helps to disseminate the idea - so do icons. Belief is a choice and when a number of people begin to believe the same thing, others can control the masses by controlling ritual.

As to living in Virginia, for the sake of your children, help them to incorporate the beliefs of others into your own belief system.    Most kids just want to be like everyone else. Children do not appreciate parents that force them to become strong individuals before their time. Thats your issue, not theirs.

We are all individuals and so we are entitled to believe what we choose to believe. Allow your children to explore and discover the wonderful world of storytelling and turn your energy inward to find a belief system of your own. Nobody lives by bread alone.

I'm not an atheist, in fact, I believe that even inanimate objects contain a spirit. I also believe in a Goddess because I am female. Do I believe in Abraham's God? No. But I do believe he existed for Abraham. Whatever you want to call it, you cannot deny that the idea of spirit exists in the minds of most people. Its called inspiration.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 07 - 11:38 AM

I would prefer to say that it is a gradient condition: the less hard data you have, the more you depend on extrapolation and interpreted probabilities to fill in the missing data. As data approaches zero, interpretation expands exponentially. As this occurs, the number of opportunities to diverge into an alternate reality not particularly connected with this one also increase.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 May 07 - 10:39 AM

"That's probably true for folks who rely on faith, but science is always expanding so faith must be continually shrinking."

Well that's pretty silly. Neither faith nor science are forced into little finite boxes. Both can expand exponentiality.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 May 07 - 10:21 AM

"I also believe that where science ends, faith begins."


                That's probably true for folks who rely on faith, but science is always expanding so faith must be continually shrinking.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 May 07 - 09:47 AM

Dianavan, you can't call all rebirth myths "Christ" myths. The videa of Christ is the myth that the One God of Abraham will have/has had a son by a human mother - the idea that he was killed and rose again is the only part that was taken from the older rebirth myths. All temperate-climate religions have a rebirth myth - to explains the seasons to people who don't know they live on a tilted planet. Completely unnecessary now. But it's the other teachings of christianity (like the 7 deadly sins etc) that I was talking about when I said it was a perfect invention for slaves.

Your goddess, as with all mythological creatures, came from the minds of people. You can't seriously think that males invented monotheism with a male god and women invented monotheism with a female deity. The notion of the deity as female is much older than the idea of it being male, but women haven't been around longer than men (although Mitichondrial Eve is thousands of years older than y-chromosomal Adam, so...)

And there are lots of things that have definite presences in North America - like racism, anti-semitism, anti-Catholicism, mysogyny, homophobia - that is no excuse for putting up with them. And certainly no excuse for being friends with them. Thinking of mythology as reality as more dangerous to human society and enlightenment than the other nastiness I mention because it is supported by society. Racists pretty much have to pretend not to be racist nowadays, to succeed. I'd like to see faith in the supernatural relegated to the same shameful, beneath human dignity, box.

Of course children should learn the bible stories, just as they should learn the ancient greek myths - to provide cultural literacy. But they should be taught as mythology, not history.

Be here now, exactly! Not in some fairy-tale world where nature cares about humans more than other species, or can be petitioned by human voices.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: dianavan
Date: 04 May 07 - 06:04 AM

"...it arose out of something real, namely the preachings and activities of some Jewish prophet who eventually got crucified near Jerusalem." - LH

"Christianity was a great invention for the Roman slaves..."

You're both wrong. The Christ myth was around a long time before the Jews or the Romans. It is the myth of the dying and rising God of many ancient belief systems that coincided with seasonal cycles. Its older than agricultural societies and we know it also existed amongst wandering herdsmen and possibly before that.

Zoroastrianism may have arisen from a hunting and gathering stage. The ritual of jumping through the flames mimics the herding of animals between two fires to cleanse them of vermin when returning from pasture for winter. Its disputable but Judaism may have followed Zoraostrianism during the wandering herdsmen stage. Often the Christ figure(philosopher/warrior/king) was united with an Earth Goddess in a fertility belief system. This indicates that this belief system probably arose during the agricultural era. Any excuse for a festival or ritual to unite the tribe! Songs, stories and theater arose from the festivals as a form of entertainment.

Everything that came after was an attempt to control, through the power of the word (the book), various tribes of people throughout the world. Before there were Kings and Queens, etc. there were holy men, wizards, shamans etc. that actually were the most powerful people in any given tribe. The holy book made it possible to condense a belief system as a series of stories that were previously transmitted through oral language. It served to unite a great number of people by using a common belief system.

The questions that have been presented in this thread are the very same that humans have been asking since the beginning of time. What is it that makes the sun come up and go down. Why do seasons have cycles, etc. Why do the stars shine at night"

Who was the philosopher who said, "If you can conceive of God, God is born"? God began in the minds of men. The Goddess began in the minds of women.

I believe that babies are all-knowing beings and that growing is a process of forgetting. Does that make me an atheist or an agnostic?

I also believe that where science ends, faith begins.

Having said that, I actually believe that there is a good reason to teach children some of the stories in the Bible. Most of our literature is based on a basic understanding of references to the bible. If you don't know those stories, the literature is sometimes difficult to understand and very difficult to comprehend.

I, too, am disgusted when school children are forced to sing Christmas carols or when Christianity is presented as historical truth but maybe for different reasons. I think that its just plain boring for children who do not have the background knowlege.

Ex.- After returning from carolling with my predominately ESL class, I could see they had no idea what the singing was about. Next day I brought a little wooden nativity and got down on the carpet and started telling stories that explained the songs (I called Christ a great teacher). The English speaking students helped me with the story telling. It was very sweet and innocent but I was scared to death that a parent, a teacher or the principal would walk through the door. How would I explain myself? My students loved it and when we went carolling the next day, they gave me knowing smiles when they recognized a word. They were able to follow the story.

I'm not Christian. I just wanted the words to have some relevance for my students. If I had a choice, there would be no carolling in the halls but ... if it had to be, I was going to make the best of it.

That sort of sums up my relationship to Christ. Whether I believe it or not. He is definitely a presence in North America. I might as well be friends with him. He's not a bad guy but the Goddess has more relevence to me. I, too, would like to run up and down the aisles of a church proclaiming that it was all a big lie but thats psychotic and I'm not looking for trouble. (Be Here Now)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:42 PM

Sorry about the bolding again - I really should stick to the little stars instead!
And Little Hawk, I find it odd that you call my arguments straw men when so many times you've argued about what I was not saying, like all the ways you use the word "faith" when I've already delineated what I was talking about...
But yes, you speak of tolerance for people's supernatural beliefs. I speak of not tolerating it any more because of the harm it does - and then I give an example of the harm, which is extreme. Not the example - the harm.
I am trying to convince people that some beliefs should no longer BE tolerated.
And one can't be a freethinker from day 1 - try from the age of 6 or so, hee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:05 PM

I did not know Edgar F. well, but had a few encounters with him in more social settings around the early seventies. I think he only began to relax after spending several years in Nova Scotia. He had a small, lovely ultra modern home outside of Halifax. Grant you I was a sheltered rural girl, but his home was the first place I ever saw a microwave oven, a steel fronted fridge, hundred-year-old eggs, and various other interesting and unusual edibles. I was there for a winter weekend once, and watched the snow pile up against his glass doors. It was a lovely spot.

I read several of his books before ending up working with kids, and they certainly influenced my methods. An interesting man, and often dryly funny in person, in my limited experience.

And I'm way off topic, sorry guys.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:45 AM

LOL!! Bee, that is terribly funny. "What? There's a test? Which chapter is the basal metabolism in?" LOL!


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 08:41 PM

I once heard Edgar Friedenberg (education theorist) talk on Summerhill. I also audited, out of interest, a course he gave to education students back around 1971. He didn't have a lot of respect for them. I remember him intoning dryly "you people... could not pass... a basal metabolism test."

It was rather distressing to see some people writing it down in their notes, apparently thinking "Oh no! Another test!"

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 08:10 PM

Shades of A.S. Neal and Summerhill!! Did anyone ever do a follow up on that experiment?


Mrzzy, I like your spark!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 08:08 PM

Oh sure, they can VOICE them, absolutely. But the choice should not be theirs unless it's safe, which is why you offer children lots of choices.
Little Hawk, I'm not extreme. People *are* slaughtering people wholesale for believing in different mythologies.
I am not saying you are in favor of anything. eek gotta go conference call back ltr

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 07:32 PM

Jesus was no threat whatsoever to the Romans, Mrrzy. That is made quite clear in all the stories we have about him. He was a threat to the established Jewish church at the time, and they were the ones who wanted him dead. The Romans had no reason to be concerned about him or to take any particular note of his execution. There were many people being executed. He was just one more nobody, from the point of view of the Roman power structure.

Yes, I've read Lord of the Flies. It's a very dark book. It tells a story that might happen...or might not. It's a fictional story. Such stories are written for many different reasons.

No, I've not been a parent in this lifetime.

I believe it is best that parents give their children plenty of guidance and establish guidelines, but also take care to allow the children to voice their own likes and dislikes and take those strongly into account, and assist the child in finding constructive things to do that the child naturally has a liking for (and that means: providing those things are not harmful). Everything in life involves compromise.

I should not have to even state such simple and obvious things, but your standard arguing technique is to take any statement of mine and stretch it off to some horrible, negative extreme example to prove it must be wrong.

That is not a responsible or useful way of debating. Please stop doing it. If you cannot debate in anything but extremes, then we cannot discuss anthing in a fair or rational manner.

You're doing the old "straw man" thing on me over and over again...pretending that I am in favor of some very extreme thing which I am not in favor of at all. It would be convenient for you if I were that totally irrational...as to believe that even terrorists and murderers are covered under my wish that everyone should "do what they like"....but for Christ's (a cultural expression) sake!!!!   How could I be in favour of that???? How can you possibly read such an intention into my statement? Must I attach an itemized subscript to every statement, like a lawyer, which covers every possible exception which could occur and every possible extreme and abnormality that your mind can concoct to attack that statement?

I haven't the time to type that much verbiage and small print, and why should I?

It's un-fucking-believable. I speak in favour of tolerance and you think I want to tolerate terrorists and people who murder in the name of religion???????

I've been a freethinker all my life, Mrrzy. All my life. Ever since day 1.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:24 PM

Myths are usually based on something real. No, I think what you're thinking of is the legend, where a real person blows up into something mythicalesque. Myths are ways of explaining natural phenomena when you have no ken of the world beyond your senses but a burgeoning intelligence, as of a child who thinks that, because they have just realized that they are DOING things, conclude (it's called the personification fallacy, I think) all things that happen, are caused. Sounds familiar...

Also, the Romans actually kept very good written records, and we've uncovered tons of lists of executed and crucified people, and they never mentioned anything about anybody specially threatening...

Also, Christianity was a great invention for the Roman slaves - it made everything their masters did (that was forbidden to the slaves) into a SIN - gluttony, lust, homosexuality, all the stuff the Romans were big into - hey, it would have been totally popular if instead of resenting their lack of freedom they could feel all virtuous for their restraint!

What about the people who focus, instead, on something I like and believe in - some people like and believe in killing people who don't share their superstitions. So, no, I don't agree that If everyone did that, we'd all be a lot happier, wouldn't we. Islamic radicals have been slaughtering Americans wholesale overseas for decades, and recently here too. They've gone after infidels in the Pacific, the Far East, Europe. They're killing each other in the middle East and across North Africa. I'm not talking about the Crusades, here. I'm talking about current events. Christians are taking over medical decisions. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that the judicial branch has more say over a pregnancy than the medical profession.
As I keep saying, it's the harm, it's the harm. It is no longer reasonable to treat it as a viable alternative interpretation of reality. It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny and that fact should no longer be hushed out of "respect" for something that is fundementally silly anyway, no matter how precious it is to those of whom I speak, who do not accept reality.
I really feel that it is becoming the *duty* of freethinkers everywhere to stop pretending to respect silly statements of actual, adult, belief in the supernatural. Like the duty to vote. We can, and there are those who have died trying.
Little Hawk, have you ever been a parent? Whatever the child likes is fine with you? Ever read Lord of the Flies? It's the adults' job to make sure that children aren't allowed to follow their natural impulses. It's called civilization, or rearing, and yes, I'm being saracastic by now, but people who leave it up to the kids are seriously shirking their responsibility.
Although check out Deep Springs College, where the students do pick the curriculum and hire the faculty...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 03:56 PM

Thanks, Little Hawk. I also view anything that appears to benefit children learning and becoming more self confident as having at least some merit. I imagine it also depends on how any subject (be it history, archaeology, biology or religion) is approached, and to what end. I suppose in some schools BHM is just a rote listing of events, in which case it might not be very useful.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 03:23 PM

In its context, it is a good thing and has done much to raise the dignity of people who have had theirs stripped from them in many ways.

In the final analysis, I guess, it could be said to contribute in a way to the dichotomization which underlies prejudice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 03:07 PM

Bee, in light of your comments about the good effects you've seen from Black History Month in Nova Scotia...I withdraw my remark about it being a "racist" concept. I should not have been that judgemental. Sorry about that.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 02:59 PM

Yes, we all hate seeing something we really value dismissed out of hand. No doubt about that whatsoever. If children like something and value it, I would not be inclined to rain on their parade.

That goes for Black History Month, Bible stories, AND atheism. Whichever a child shows a natural liking for, that's fine with me. When I was a child I had a natural liking for dinosaurs, fossils, and stuff like that...which tended to lead strongly toward modern scientific views of the ancient past.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 02:27 PM

No doubt, but it pains me a little to see something that has proven in some small way good and useful dismissed out of hand. Perhaps you feel the same way about your spirituality, and you are an adult.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 02:18 PM

Yes, Bee, I thought that was how a lot of people would see it. That's why my reaction is not to oppose it in any way, but simply leave it to be enjoyed by those who find a good meaning in it...while I focus, instead, on something I like and believe in.

If everyone did that, we'd all be a lot happier, wouldn't we?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 02:12 PM

This is off topic, but both Mrrzy and Little Hawk have said they think Black History Month is a racist idea. I can, just, see how it can be construed that way, but I'd like to toss in my experience, in Nova Scotia, with BHM.

I worked nearly thirty years with children, more than half of them Black, many from inter racial families. Black people in Nova Scotia have had a long tough history, with some very notable bright spots in terms of remarkable individuals and remarkable communities. Children watch a lot of television, and what they see in terms of famous Black people tends to be sports heros, rap artists, and a few movie stars. That's a limited array of role models, and it is a fact that children tend to admire famous people who look like them, or to whom they can relate in some obvious manner. Children are also accustomed to schools presenting information in time limited 'themes' (you can argue this is wrong, but this is what children get right now), so a 'theme' around the history of Black people doesn't seem awkward to them, and as one white kid matter of factly remarked "every month is white history month, we're always learning stuff about the ancient(sic) white people".

I have seen kids get really enthusiastic about Black History Month, and seen them learn a lot about Black Nova Scotians who were opera stars, doctors, war heros, politicians, womens' rights workers, seamen, engineers, inventors, civil servants, and more. I've seen them amazed that their history in this province is traceable way back, that people who lived here 200 years ago and were real pioneers, have the same last names as they do. I've listened to them talk about what they might like to do when they grow up, and for sure, having a little buzz every year about Black history seems to me to have the effect of broadening their horizons as well as increasing everybody's knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 01:59 PM

Myths are usually based on something real. They arise out of something real and they soon get put into highly symbolic terms (probably so that the ordinary people in the street at the time can relate to them better).

Zeus, for instance, was a mythical figure who was symbolic of the planet Jupiter. As Jupiter is the largest planet, he was made "king of the gods". He was turned into a human-like figure because ordinary people in ancient Greece could probably relate to that a lot better than they could relate to a planet that is so far away that people can't really see it with the naked eye and realize what it is. They just see it as another "star". But the wise and learned men in Greece and ancient Egypt were well aware that the physical planets existed out there in space, and they named various of the "gods" after them...such as Mars, Jupiter (Zeus), Saturn, Venus, Mercury, Neptune, Pluto, etc...

Thus the "myth" that was adopted was a set of symbols, metaphors, and symbolic tales which arose out of some very observant people's awareness of something real. The symbolic tales were given to the common people.

The same is true in the case of Jesus and the entire Christian story...it arose out of something real, namely the preachings and activities of some Jewish prophet who eventually got crucified near Jerusalem. Evidently, his teachings were powerful enough that they stuck in the minds of some very motivated people at the time and they soon got turned into a new religion by those motivated people. You can disagree with the religion if you want to, but to say that the man the stories were based on never even existed is a leap of faith on your part that in my opinion equals the faith of the staunchest Bible thumper that ever walked or drew breath.

Religions don't arise out of nothing. They arise out of the lives and doings of very remarkable, charismatic individuals who had a huge effect on other people at the time when they were alive. Those other people then build a new religion around what they remember of the remarkable person who inspired them. The Bahai faith, for example, arose out of the teachings of Baha 'Ullah, a historical figure who was executed by the Islamic authorities in the 1800's. Same deal. You had to have the man Baha 'Ullah or it never would have happened. It's now a world religion. Without the man Jesus...the real, physical man, Christianity would never even have happened. I'm not saying he was "the Son of God", I'm just saying it wouldn't have happened had he never existed. Further religions will arise in the same fashion. It is still happening now. I mean RIGHT now. Some remarkable man or woman will give teachings, attract followers, and those followers will, after the death of that person, attempt to start another religion. If they fail to get very far with it then it will be known simply as "a cult", if it is known at all. If they succeed bigtime, however, it will soon be known officially as another religion. Live long enough, and you will see it happen. I guarantee it.

The same, I am sure, is true of Krishna, although Krishna lived in such an ancient time that we have no way of knowing much about those events now.

Why would you accept that Buddha was a real historical person, but not Jesus? Is it because you aren't engaged in a struggle against a surrounding society of Buddhists, but you are engaged in a struggle with Christians?

You are quite right that "the Christ" is a concept that can be seen (by many) to go beyond the man Jesus himself. Some religions feel that there have been a long series of "Christs", and that Buddha, Jesus, and Krishna were all incarnations of what can be termed "the Christ"...and further to that, that "the Christ Consciousness" is a quality that lies dormant in all human beings, waiting to awaken...therefore it is not limited to historical personages such as Jesus or Buddha.

That's what enlightenment is about: waking in yourself the Christ consciousness. You don't need to follow any particular religion in order to do that, nor do you have to believe any particular dogma or myth. You just have to totally still and then take control of your own mind...rather than letting it run wild like an untamed horse.

To start a calendar at any specific date (saying that "year 1" began on whatever...) is an arbitrary act that arise out of a cultural decision. The Japanese have their own unique ancient calendar. So do many other cultures. The Mayans had another one. So what? What difference does it make? It's all just been made up by someone.

Why do I talk about this stuff? Because I find it interesting. Period.


Strinsinger: I understand your points, but I think it very probable that Jesus the man did exist. I realize there is no confirming physical or Roman historical evidence. There is simply massive circumstantial evidence, namely, the religion that arose about him. You can't jumpstart a brand new religion on the basis of a nonexistent person. NO ONE would have cared enough at the time to bother doing so.

I've seen a number of small religious groups that coalesced around an inspiring teacher, and the pattern is always the same. First you have the actual person...their doings...their teachings...the unusual example that they set, which attracts others. Then you have the followers. The followers later build it into a religion. After the original person who inspired it dies, it tends to keep changing some. Eventually it may deviate far, far astray from what the original teacher ever intended...or it may stay quite close. Depends on a number of factors.

Some teachers, needless to say, have a better approach than others. Some are dangerous. Some are people of the highest and best character. One has to judge that for oneself.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 01:24 PM

L.H., just wanted to respond to one thing you said because I think it's important.
You said:
"And to them, it's not a myth. It's 100% real to them, and absolutely precious to them. So if you show lack of respect for what is sacred to them, they are definitely going to be disturbed and offended. And so would you be in their place."

I would argue that if they really believed in what they professed, they wouldn't allow any criticism to offend them. The same is true with most atheists I've met. They aren't offended by Christian attacks but they sort of laugh them off which I think is an appropriate reaction.

Bart Ehrman expresses the myth of Jesus in this way. No one was around to record anything of Jesus. Everything written about him was well after his death and much of it contradictory.

The Dead Sea Scrolls mention nothing about him. There is in fact no evidence that he ever existed. There is no written record available from the time that he was supposed to have lived that mentions him.

there is no point in going over this but it should be mentioned that certain assumptions are made that really need to be questioned. The existence of Jesus is one.

I recommend Bart Ehrman, professor of theology at NC, his books are informative.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 11:33 AM

(which I rationalize using by thinking well, 1,500,002,007 rounds quite nicely to 2007).

I've considered emigrating to a lot of more reasonable places - France in particular- but I like living in America, I like Charlottesville, and I'd rather stay here and fight for my RIGHT to be an atheist, and to raise freethinking children.


Applause on both points, Mrrz!! Even though I am contemplating France as a possible destination, it's not to avoid fighting for your right to be an atheist, a theist, a polytheist, an exo-theist or an endotheist.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 11:23 AM

And to them, it's not a myth. It's 100% real to them, and absolutely precious to them. So if you show lack of respect for what is sacred to them, they are definitely going to be disturbed and offended. And so would you be in their place.
That is exactly what I argue against - it IS a myth, and if you can't accept that reality, move to a theocracy or take a time machine to the Dark Ages. The harm done far outweighs any benefits. Not to mention that if people don't respect MY beliefs, since they (my beliefs) aren't based in faith, we can argue about them quite intelligently. It's not like I never learn anything new from people.

And Little Hawk, you missed the point about dating from Christ's birth - Christ is a mythical figure, and only "existed" according to Christian myth. The jews and moslems believe in the same god, they just don't think Christ has been born yet. That is why I objected - it was OVERT Christianity masquarading as reality. I *did* say that had they said the birth of Jesus, it wouldn't have been so objectionable. That would have simply been in keeping with the BCE / CE calendar (which I rationalize using by thinking well, 1,500,002,007 rounds quite nicely to 2007).

I've considered emigrating to a lot of more reasonable places - France in particular- but I like living in America, I like Charlottesville, and I'd rather stay here and fight for my RIGHT to be an atheist, and to raise freethinking children.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 11:09 AM

Shane who? Is he one of your flipping chimpanzees, you double-thumbed hoser? Sheeshe. Yeah, I talk like I write, but I write faster, because I don't have to smile and nod.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 11:02 AM

Do I talk like what? ;-) Give me an example.

Anyway, look, Amos, I've been wondering the same thing about you for years now...I've seen you come up with sentences that could choke a thesaurus and silence the Oracle of Delphi.

No, flipface! In real life I talk like Shane McBride. What did ya think, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 10:53 AM

I have to ask, LH -- do you talk like this in ordinary life? :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 10:48 AM

Yeah, you'd like Canada way better, Mrrzy. At least half the young people I grew up with here were atheists. Maybe more than half. Heck, I was an atheist then too. It's not at all unusual here, and it carries no stigma.

Look, you can't control other people in a society around you and make them as you would like them to be, so why be in combat with all this stuff? Why not just happily be what you are and ignore the stuff that you choose not to be?

(I do appreciate your concern about school pressure on your children, though....when I was about 6 my mother sent me off to the local Sunday school. We were atheists, but she is the kind of person who is quite insecure and deeply afraid that her neighbours might be offended if she doesn't do what everyone else is doing, and all the other kids were going to Sunday school, right? Heh! Well, I went, and I was shocked at the Bible stories they were telling, because it went totally against anything believable as far as I was concerned. I'd already read some scientific stuff, and I believed in evolution. So I went home and complained to my mother, "They're telling these incredible fairy tales about Bible stuff that can't possibly be real! I don't want to go there!" She never asked me to go there again.)

As for respecting other people's "myths"...well, yes, I think it would be wise to at least show outward respect for their myths in a general sense (depending on the situation). I do. That doesn't mean I subscribe to their myths, it just means that I respect their right to subscribe to those myths if they want to. If it makes them happy. I don't bother them about it.

If I cannot disprove a "myth", then I have no business hassling people about it.

And to them, it's not a myth. It's 100% real to them, and absolutely precious to them. So if you show lack of respect for what is sacred to them, they are definitely going to be disturbed and offended. And so would you be in their place.

If, on the other hand, you are teaching a science course...then I agree that (most) Bible stories are not appropriate for people to interject into the discussions there....they have no place in a science course.

I agree wholeheartedly that Black History Month is a racist concept. However, there are probably some people (black, white, or otherwise) who think it's a wonderfully progressive and terrific idea that helps black people. I can't change that. Neither can you. My reaction would be just not to pay any attention to it (shrug), and instead to focus on something I like.

Egypt, as you say, was civilized one hell of a long time before the Common Era. So was China. And India. The only reason our timelines are dated in reference to Jesus' birth is that a tremendously powerful Christian church arose in Rome and Byzantium. They were professing to represent Jesus' life and his teachings (A presumption on their part which I question!)...and that church dominated the culture and civilization out of which arose the European and English-speaking worlds...out of which North America as we know it now is an aftereffect.

So people are used to a calendar built around Jesus. It's a custom, a tradition. One that was put in place by the military and trade prowess of the European civilization over a period of a couple of thousand years. To try to alter that calendar habit now is to try to change the established mindset and unconsciously automatic habits of more than a billion people. Good luck. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 10:06 AM

Mrrzy:

There is a wide spread convention of dating things as before and after the Christian era -- BC and AD (the string of years of our lord). It is a silly, superstitious convention, but certainly well-established in the vernacular. Its use as a point of reference does not mean the writer is covertly promoting CHristianity.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:45 AM

Mrrzy, you should consider immigrating to Canada. While I talk religion and atheism on the internet, the subject never comes up in real life, except for scads of people (including the religious) who've noted that they find Steven Harper's 'God bless Canada' rather creepy ('course, Stevie's a little creepy anyway). Certainly employers would never ask, and people do not talk about religion at work, nor do they ordinarily assume you go to church.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:31 AM

When I tourist in moslem places, I wear a headscarf too. (Of course I wear hats anyway, but that's beside the point).
My example of unicorns was just an example - but to me, it is just plain silly to "respect" someone's belief in the supernatural - whether it be a unicorn or a deity. They are all myths. As various people have pointed out, nobody takes belief in Thor, or Ra, or Zeus, seriously. Why should belief in the monotheistic God of Abraham be any different?

In my city I run into things like, during Black History Month (now there's a racist concept), my kids coming home with literature that says This african civilization existed decades before the birth of Christ. Excuse me - Christ means the son of God, and is not a HISTORICAL figure. Even if they'd said the birth of Jesus I would have minded (but not so much) - why not say for millennia? Why relate it to Christianity at all - why not the birth of the Buddha, or Mohammed, when it's an historical date? Especially since I don't think that Egypt, for example, was only civilized "decades" before the Common Era.

Lessee - one of my kids is in the public school chorus - why are they singing Praise Jesus songs?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 12:21 AM

What city says that about unicorns, Mrrzy? Please use a real example of something a city says, and I can respond to it. The example about unicorns is unnecessarily odd and extreme, as you said, because no one believes in unicorns...at least, no one that I have spoken to yet, and I have spoken to many, many people. ;-)

In a general sense, I will go in accord with a household that I visit...or a community that I visit, if I know its rules. If I am in a Muslim town, I will not do things which would offend them. If I am aware that someone doesn't want to be called by any particular label...I won't call him or her by that label. When I am in my own house, I will do as I would normally do...but when I'm visiting in another, I will shape my behaviour as merits that setting...if I know what is considered proper there. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." This is a fairly good guide to human behaviour. There isn't one only right way of living. There are many right ways of living. Most of us agree that the more extreme choices (which might damage) are to be avoided.

I simply have a problem with chauvinism, as I said, and prefer the tolerance of many views. As such, I have studied most of the great religions, as well as having a good grounding in science, logic, and rationality, and I see no reason to draw battle lines between them.

One must remember in life that one can control oneself...and is wise to do so...but one surely will be disappointed again and again if one tries to control others...specially ALL others. I can't make everyone believe what I believe, and I don't wish to. It would make trouble for them, and the trouble would rebound on me.

There are no PERFECT answers. There are just better and worse approaches. I'd recommend a middle path between extremes.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:24 PM

So, back to the thread.
Little Hawk, you say you have a problem with chauvinism on the part of either toward the other and prefer a multiplicity of views living in harmony rather than a battle to achieve supremacy of one view over all others - would you say that if they were teaching in the cities that believing in unicorns was as rational as believing in horses? I just want to classify all mythologies, including the various forms of monotheism and paganism popular today, asmythologies. The unicorn is a mythical beast, wrote James Thurber, and nobody said in school Oh, we can't teach that, it might not be respectful of some people's beliefs.
I know, I know... (*BG*) here I go taking things to extremes again...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:22 PM

Little Hawk, smooth your feathers. Your remark simply reminded me of the fact that many men give the opinions of women less weight than they do that of men. I love the Mudcat, but I have seen that phenomenon in action here many times.

Of *course* I'm familiar with 'you go, girl' but you used it right after deriding the discussion.

For the record, I agree with you that Mrrzy's method(s) are unnecessarily confrontational. For instance, I don't go to church, don't belong to a church, don't know of any church with a stance I could support. This is true even though I work as secretary for a church. When the subject comes up, I simply - breezily - say that No, I don't go to church. I have NEVER been given grief about it. I don't, as some people do, remark that "the roof would fall in on any church if I walked through the door". That gives the subject far more importance than I allow it.

I must add, hwoever, that the American west and the American north have a very different take on the role of church in people's lives.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:19 PM

Little Hawk, don't blame the internet when you're caught with your pants down, metaphorically. It's a fair cop, whether you like it or not
But please, PLEASE, let's NOT digress into sexism. Both of you, and me too, take it outside.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:08 PM

Ebbie, have you not heard many, many women, including many women on this forum say "You go, girl!" to another woman as an encouragement? Is it intended to demean? They don't say, "You go, woman!" because it simply doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

You know me reasonably well by now, and I hope to God (or whatever.) that you realize I am not sexist. Fer Chrissake, I think women are on average more mature and responsible THAN most of their male counterparts. I have always thought so. I never went through that little boy thing where I thought girls were "icky" or had "cooties". I always respected them fully, and I admired them in a general sense more than I did males (not talking about sexual attraction type of admiration). The term "girl" is constantly used toward adult women in this society BY adult women as well as by men. More often by adult women, in fact (I guess they're not afraid of being taken the wrong way). The term "boy" is seldom used toward men by either gender, but sometimes it is in certain situations, and without offence. That depends on the situation, the tone of voice, the intent, etc.

This is just another example of the Internet setting people at each other's throats because it is such a lousy, indirect method of communication. It's one-sided isolation. That doesn't work well.

And why am I wasting my time hoping that my feeble efforts here can turn back the tide... (sigh)

Because it's an addiction, that's why. I need to either take a 12-step course to end my computer addiction or move somewhere where there is simply no Internet. Like the moon...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:55 PM

Say, that's the first time in my 57-year lifetime I have ever been accused by anyone of being "sexist". Holy shit. Quite a surprise.

I have to remember, though, that it happened on the Internet and the Internet is like an opium dream in bedlam on a bad day. If I had any real self-control, I would disconnect my computer from it and get on with something a whole lot healthier than this.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:55 PM

You know, Little Hawk, I regret having corrected you as to Mrrzy's sex. I've never thought of you as sexist - and still don't - but it's hard to imagine you would say 'You go to it, boy' or even, 'You go to it, young man'.

As I said, I don't think of you as sexist, but many men are, whether consciously so or not. Many a debate and argument has derailed because of it.

So, Mrrzy, I apologize.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:38 PM

No big deal at all, Donuel. I have no problem with people being either atheist or religious. I have a problem with chauvinism on the part of either toward the other. I would prefer a multiplicity of views living in harmony rather than a battle to achieve supremacy of one view over all others.

I have PM'd Mrrzy regarding (some of) her concerns.

The internet is a sad, sad place, and getting sadder. I think people are losing their minds out there sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:28 PM

oooo do I detect a sarcasm tantrum lh?

My dad used to go to atheist meetings. Whats the big deal?

..........................................

When my neighbor directly across the street told me his family was being attacked he got my attention.
I asked When who how!
He said the queers gays and faggots are attacking evangelicals.
Inside part of me was relieved and part of me revulsed.

When I told him that I thought that preaching that kind of hate was the limit of ignorance and needless hate.

He simmered for 3 weeks until he invited me in his foyer one day, told me to stand in one spot and not move while he blocked the door with has hand on the knob while lecturing me on the need to attack tolerence - the true enemy of God.

I did not challenge his holding me captive but let him relax a bit and then took my leave.

Its sad that perfectly good neighbors are soured by something as stupid as a gospel of hate.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:10 PM

Why do I mention my non-religion casually when they mention theirs? Why in the world wouldn't I?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 09:58 PM

Look, if you are not willing to even discuss someone else's chosen beliefs or interests, why expect them to be willing to discuss yours? - It wasn't a discussion and I wasn't talking about beliefs - it was a science class and I was explaining the facts of life. I was the professor and it wasn't a religion class. If they wanted to argue scientifically, fine - and there were those who did. But waste class time on whether it contradicted somebody's holy book? Not a chance. Not with so much actual material to cover.

And I have a great T-shirt that says Friendly Neighborhood Atheist I wear frequently. I also have a Freedom From Religion pin I wear almost daily. I usually get favorable comments, or none.

And Little Hawk, if I read another sexist crack like that from you, I will lose all respect for you. Which nothing in your opinions has caused me to do.

The issue is not to tell people where *I* stand. It is to remind - or tell- people that there are people who don't believe in their gods and they (the people, not the gods, of course!) should remember that.
And again, if you insist on using the word faith to mean things other than what I'm discussing, after several clarifications, don't blame me when you feel misunderstood. I only mean what I've said I meant. I am not arguing about trust, or fidelity, or anything other than what I've stated - faith being the one-syllable term for "belief without or in contradiction to evidence." If you want to argue side-issues, fine, but they are as the French would say hors-sujet. You could write the greatest essay and get 0/20 if you were hors-sujet.