BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:15 PM

Rain happens. It comes from clouds.

I'm not saying any teacher should say God doesn't exist. I'm saying, when what the teacher is trying to teach contradicts someone's superstitions, even those of the majority, the teacher should still be teaching whatever they are supposed to be teaching. It's exactly that feeling of small children against the teacher that I worry about.

Are you American, Nickhere? Where do you live?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:12 PM

'Reality' is already being taught even if it contradicts some religions. The important question is how far do you want to go with that? Personally I feel it's ok for a tecaher to explain all about earth's 4-billion year timeframe etc., even if some Christians say it sin't so (I beg to differ with them on that one). I do not think it's ok for any teacher to say God doesn't exist, as that is something that cannot know; moreover if they insist on empiricism for their world model, they should also realise there is no empirical evidence to prove their belief.

I once had a teacher who dismissed the Holy Spirit as a pigeon (He's represented as a dove in old paintings). Now there's no way she can say for certain there is no such thing as the Holy Spirit, but she was presenting her belief (however well-founded) as fact. Moreover, she was missing the point - the Holy Spirit is a spirit, not a pigeon. This is only a representation in art, a symbol. I felt like standing up in class and saying "Miss, you're right - and the United Nations is just a bunch of leaves and wood!" (maybe I wasn't too far wrong either!) But being a small boy against the 'might' of the teacher and realising from her tone it wouldn't have gone down well, I kept silent.

And where did the rain come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:09 PM

I am trying to live in a democracy, here. If the majority of Americans wanted slavery back, would that make it OK? I think not. This is no different.

And they ARE insisting that my kids be taught religion, which would be OK with me if it were in a philosophy class, but it's not. It's in SCIENCE classes, and that is wrong, and unfair to my children AND to other children, religious or not, who by virtue of having been born American (or brought here by others) have the right to a decent education.

We already, I believe, prevent the Christian Scientists from letting their children die from appendicitis, or other easily-fixed-by-medical-skills problems. Is that wrong, in your book? Would it be less wrong if more Americans were in favor of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:01 PM

"But not in my kids' - or any other kids' - science class"

And what if the majority of parents WANT their kids taught that in science class? Have you ever heard of democracy, Mrr? They could get in a special teacher to teach it, so that an atheistic teacher wouldn't be obliged to teach it against their beliefs.

The 'any other kids' extends your reach over the chilldren of other parents. Suppose I insisted your kids be taught religion? You can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:01 PM

I'm asking that religion not be taught as if it were reality. I am asking that reality be taught even if it contradicts some religions.

I am not saying make religion illegal. I'm saying, it's OK to find it silly. I am saying that there is nothing disrespectful in laughing at silliness. Or, that there is nothing to respect in the silly attitude that reality can't be true if it contradicts prior, unfounded (on reality) beliefs.

The wet comes from rain.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:58 AM

"Evolution... from a pile of stones to a slightly wetter pile of stones..."

Nice, but meaningless metaphor. And where did the wet come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:57 AM

Bee, Mrrzzy, you guys still seem to be missing your own point. You describe yourselves as atheists and actively promote a pluralistic society as part of your worldview. In one of her recent posts Bee lamented the fact that the majority of the US population are fuzzy-headed believers who would teach creationism in schools. What kind of pluralism is it that wants to silence the MAJORITY of its population? Are you saying you want the views of 20 percent (your figures) of the US' population imposed over the other 80 percent?

And sure, why not teach all various creation myths as you call them? It could be done in comparative religion class, or similar.

And yes, Bee, I have already commented on Huckabee - I said I'm not like him (at least from what I hear of him). "Our brains fall out"? So, we do need to be at least a bit close-minded, afterall?

"You keep trying to make out that Mrrzy would make it illegal for you to teach your children your religion, when all she asks is that you NOT teach it to ALL school children. Do as you like at home"

Mrrzzy's words speak for themselves. That was not all she asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:48 AM

And churches are welcome to. But not in my kids' - or any other kids' - science class.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:42 AM

Both? Surely if you are going to teach one creation myth, you've got to teach them all.

Some churches do, as a matter of fact.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:38 AM

Nick:

Your remark indicates you have a weak grasp of the nature of evolution.

Your question would be better phrased, "What's the difference between a house with one window missing and the same houose with the window in place?". Evolution does not go from a pile of stones to anything but -- possibly -- a slightly wetter pile of stones, or a fallen pile.
THere's no inconceivable change involved.

May I recommend, for as further explanation of this, "The Blind Watchmaker".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:29 AM

Nickhere

Why not teach the children both theories (e.g the Big Bang AND creationism)

Both? Surely if you are going to teach one creation myth, you've got to teach them all. Here's a few to be going on with.

It's not an issue here, no one wants to teach creationism.

I'm not sure where "here" is for you, but if its the UK, have a look at this.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:27 AM

Nick, it is not atheist politicians who are calling for changing the US constitution to bring it in line with the Bible, disregarding the millions of citizens who don't believe in the Bible at all. Have you no comment on Huckabee's speech, which I posted about in this thread earlier? You keep trying to make out that Mrrzy would make it illegal for you to teach your children your religion, when all she asks is that you NOT teach it to ALL school children. Do as you like at home.

You say: "Why not teach the children both theories (e.g the Big Bang AND creationism) and let them make their minds up for themselves? If creationists are wrong and the kids hear both accounts, reason should triumph. Wouldn't that be the most open-minded thing to do?"

There are many, many creation myths. Should they all be taught as alternate theories in a school science class? Teaching creationism as a theory on the same plane of reality as evolution is tantamount to opening your mind enough to let your brains fall out.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:17 AM

Back to the facile God comments, Amos?

What's the difference between a pile of stones and a house?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:01 AM

There's no reason why intelligent design couldn't have guided the initial steps that led us to where we are today.

God rolled the dice, and left the casino?

Where's the payoff?

Or did he see it was a losing roll and walk out?

Interesting argument -- it pushes the God factor back behind the Big Bang, where it can't be evaluated. A perfectly good creation myth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:54 AM

"And I repeat, repeat, repeat, I am not arguing against faith"

That's not what it sounded like before, as I mentioned.

"at least not exploited women sexually ? What do you call sewing them shut?"

A horrible, dreadful violence. But is this the result of religion or of a chauvanistic society? What do you call getting a women hooked on heroin and then forcing her into prostitution or porn flicks?

"Why can't people just believe that their god created the world the way it actually is? Then all this demonstrated reality wouldn't have to be denied, it could be just a test of faith"

I do believe God created the world the way it actually is - He got the ball rolling and nature and evolution both took their course. There's no reason why intelligent design couldn't have guided the initial steps that led us to where we are today. I just don't believe the world is 6,000 years old etc. That flies in the face of geology, and so on.

When you talk of the duty of a pluralistic society, have you forgotten that 'pluralism' means a variety of viewpoints and voices - precsiely what'd be lacking in your model where the wsihes of parents are overriden? What you are trying to create is a monolithic society.

And who is this impersonal 'society' that has a duty to kids? Are their parents not members of society too?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:38 AM

at least not exploited women sexually ? What do you call sewing them shut?

And I repeat, repeat, repeat, I am not arguing against faith. I am arguing against denying reality when it contradicts your faith.

Why can't people just believe that their god created the world the way it actually is? Then all this demonstrated reality wouldn't have to be denied, it could be just a test of faith.

And even a pluralistic society should have a DUTY towards the children in it to give them an actual education, even if said education includes demonstrable facts that contradict their parents' superstitions. It is to me a cruelty to the kids to kowtow to their parents' religious beliefs (those that contradict demonstrable reality) in the name of "respect" those demonstrably-false beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:26 AM

It's not an issue here, no one wants to teach creationism. But it seems that that's not the case in the USA. So maybe, in a pluralistic society, a way can be found to accomodate everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:23 AM

Ringslinger - freedom of speech, freedom of choice. All the things you atheists profess to believe in. I disagree with atheists on many points as well, but I don't want to silence them. 'The truth will always out' as they say. It doesn't need censorship to help it.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:20 AM

Mrrzzy: "I meant that the Christian and Moslem treatment of nd attitude towards women is disgraceful. Judaism isn't much better but at least they can work"

Last time I checked, Christian women are allowed to work too. Though 'sexual exploitation' encompasses 'disgraceful treatment' the reverse is not necessarily the case. All three monotheisms you speak of have at least not exploited women sexually as is openly done in our 'civilise' western society. Sometimes I get so fed up of it I am tempted to write to the big companies and TV stations and tell them specifically I will NOT buy any products they advertise using gratuitous images of women. Of course they'd probably write me off as a 'fundamentalist' or a 'killjoy'.

You seem mostly to have Islam in mind in your comments on women. While you say the problem of sexual exploitation in the secular west is a social problem, you don't seem to realise the status of women in middle eastern societies is also a social issue. While it's true (as far as I know) that the Koran says women should obey men etc., it's unlikely men would have taken this religious justification much further unless it served some use. When you scrach the surface it has less to do with religion than chauvanism. All through history, in religious and secular societies, there has been a tendency by men to treat women as sex objects and exploit their physically weaker nature.

You also overlook the tireless work done by many religious, pastors, priests and nuns in saving women from exploitation, such as being sold into sexual slavery, kidnapped etc., (as M.Ted noted in China). They often risk their lives to do so, and act both from rational human compassion and the belief - based in their religion - that all human life is sacred and God-given.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:19 AM

Nick - If you know creationism not to be true, why would you want to teach it to children in science classes?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:08 AM

Bee: Mrrrzy: "…And I don't think it a kindness anymore to allow people their insistence on refusing reality…
Mrrzy is one atheist, and I doubt she means what you seem to be implying"

Whether it was an unguarded comment or intentional, (the most charitable) meaning is clear - 'up to now atheists have been indulgently tolerant of the self-harming foolishness of 'believers'. But the time has come to be more forceful and 'believers' must no longer be allowed to carry on as they have'. And if that's the patriarchal tone on an internet forum, I can only quake at what would happen should such a person gain responsiblity for the legislature.

Mrrzzy may be only one atheist, but I have found the same tone emanating from many others (on and off mudcat). The comments on education are a drift in the same direction. In essence, they say 'children must not be educated by 'believers'. This would be their detriment. Education should be in the hands of secularists or even better, atheists'

Only BillD has sounded a note of caution over this approach, every other atheist seems happy to go along with it unquestioningly. The result will be, as usual, either Totalitarianism A or Totalitarianism B. Why not teach the children both theories (e.g the Big Bang AND creationism) and let them make their minds up for themselves? If creationists are wrong and the kids hear both accounts, reason should triumph. Wouldn't that be the most open-minded thing to do?

BTW, I myself am not a creationist as in 'the world is 6,000 years old; dinosaur fossils were put ther by satan' etc etc

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:56 AM

I meant that the Christian and Moslem treatment of nd attitude towards women is disgraceful. Judaism isn't much better but at least they can work.

The women in the old Star Trek episode were happy with their freedom to wear the skimpiest outfits... I can understand Christian and Moslem women being shocked, but reasonable thinkers? Why would they mind?

And teaching children the realities of the natural world as demonstrable through science and observation, which is becoming forbidden in this country (US) when it contradicts some people's Scripture, cannot be termed indoctrination without a terrible misuse of the term. The term indoctrination, I mean.

Are we having fun yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 09:30 PM

Nickhere said: "Bee: "I don't think there are many atheists who want to stop people from worshipping however they like"

Mrrrzy: "…And I don't think it a kindness anymore to allow people their insistence on refusing reality…"


And

Mrrzzy: "Oh, I don't know, sexual exploitation of women is alive and well and living in both Christianity and Islam, if not elsewhere in religions..."

For example? Maybe you're thinking of how secular western society exploits women in the form of pornography, lap dancing etc., and above all in the way in which almost any product or newspaper you care to name is sold utilising sexually suggestive images of women. Then there is the pressure on women to present themselves sexually (read John Berger's "Ways of Seeing") I think you underestimate the extent to which Muslim women, and many Christian women, regard such a humiliating degradation of their sexuality with horror. The freedom to be made a spectacle of for commercial gain doesn't seem like much of a freedom. A bit like having the freedom to be beaten up or something. "

Mrrzy is one atheist, and I doubt she means what you seem to be implying.

Speaking for myself, I think it's unfortunate, and does a disservice to children, when they are taught only the misperceptions of reality fed them by a variety of religions.

As for the secular use of sexuality for commercial gain, that is something that demands social change, not religious prohibitions surrounding how women comport themselves.

Outside of religion, women have the freedom to work themselves toward changing society any way they feel is good. Within religion, women are told variously: don't preach, don't speak, don't uncover your head/legs/arms/torso/face, don't speak to men outside your church/family, don't try to become educated. They are told men will lead them, protect them, and speak for them - and we all know how grand a job religious men have made of that.

Time after time we find religion exploiting women, using their labour without compensation and without granting them power in accordance, hiding the sexual misbehaviour of the men who are supposed to protect them, punishing them for their sexuality, preventing them from acheiving full lives on an equal footing with men. Just because some Christian Protestant churches espouse full gender equality, and other Western churches at least don't have the power to control women as they once did, does not mean that the vast majority of religious organisations in the world are not acting just as they always have, holding women to be inferior to men.

You needn't look outside Christianity for the vestiges and unpleasant remnants of these beliefs: Promise Keepers and their cult of the male, the many churches which still disallow women to preach or become priests, the Amish and others like them who hide the sexual crimes committed against women in their communities, various Evangelicals with their odd moralities surrounding pants and skirts...

Go over to christianforums.com and hang out for a while: it is a huge forum with thousands of contributors of all Christian denominations, a scattering of other religious, and a few atheists. A frightening number of people there interpret Paul directly and believe women are to be ruled by men.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 08:06 PM

BillD - "the atheist/skeptic side to be very careful what WE teach and claim"
Indeed.....

eg:

Bee: "I don't think there are many atheists who want to stop people from worshipping however they like"

Mrrrzy: "…And I don't think it a kindness anymore to allow people their insistence on refusing reality…"


And

Mrrzzy: "Oh, I don't know, sexual exploitation of women is alive and well and living in both Christianity and Islam, if not elsewhere in religions..."

For example? Maybe you're thinking of how secular western society exploits women in the form of pornography, lap dancing etc., and above all in the way in which almost any product or newspaper you care to name is sold utilising sexually suggestive images of women. Then there is the pressure on women to present themselves sexually (read John Berger's "Ways of Seeing") I think you underestimate the extent to which Muslim women, and many Christian women, regard such a humiliating degradation of their sexuality with horror. The freedom to be made a spectacle of for commercial gain doesn't seem like much of a freedom. A bit like having the freedom to be beaten up or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 07:30 PM

Still, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be teaching buffoonery to children.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 07:08 PM

ah, be fair, Mrrzy...one man's education is another man's indoctrination .

This debate has two sides, and it requires us on the atheist/skeptic side to be very careful what WE teach and claim, lest we be guilty of the same logical errors common with many on the other side.

It ain't easy........

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 06:35 PM

Ah, but, M.Ted, it's religion that is keeping us from educating our children!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 06:29 PM

It's kind of like the NRA. If you let them take your Sherman Tank, the next thing they'll want is your Weatherby Rifle.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 06:16 PM

Actually, Buddhism is the only one of the major religions that doesn't cause a person to backslide into an authoritarian, other-defined world-view, but to find their own center and spiritual nature by their own experience. This places it miles ahead of what passes for religion most places. So-- do you call it back-sliding because it doesn't get them to realize how apathetic and hopeless life as a collection of molecules has to be?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 02:08 PM

It's sad to see them backslide that way!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 01:23 PM

According to Business Week magazine Buddism is growing among the young urban professionals of China. The story is called China's Spiritual Awakening

Read here

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 11:02 AM

You're welcome, Amos....I meant it in the best way possible.
Your remark falls into the same class of aphorisms as

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
and
"It all depends on whose ox is being gored"

But the phrasing could use a wee bit of polishing to achieve 'timeless classic' status... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:45 PM

On the other hand, Noam Chomsky is hard to read too, but if you stay with it long enough, he kind of makes sense in the end. Would he even bother to comment?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:20 PM

BillD:

Well, thanks, I think. Sometimes you just gotta say it as best you can and let the chips fall where they may, kinda like ole Bucky Fuller. Impossible to read, but he always at least seemed brilliant.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 09:29 PM

It would require a massive state-by-state consensus, and would not happen lightly. But stranger things have happened -- the experiment with Abolition, the election of GW Bush, and the effort to impeach Bill Clinton come to mind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:52 PM

I followed that link from Pharyngula at ScienceBlogs, to Raw Story, just to verify - I can't view the video, but I assume Huckabee indeed said that.

BillD said "Oh, good grief! Just what we need... a quiet, reasonable, personable fellow who flatly can't CONCEIVE of separating church & state!"

Exactly - I've seen the man speak a few times (American politics is inescapable in Canada, pretty much) and could easily see having him over for dinner and pleasant conversation.

I imagine in reality it would be fairly difficult to legally revamp the American Constitution in such a gargantuan fashion?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:37 PM

Clearly, being unprepared to defend the Constitution, he is not qualified to take office.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:20 PM

The man is being a lickspittle to his base; it makes him dangerous. More dangerous than McCain? I dunno.


Between wanting to wreak havoc using the power of the Almighty and wanting to wreak havoc using the power of the U.S. Marines is six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. In both cases insanity and woe will ensue.

Someone should tell him "All your bases are belong to US!!"

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:02 PM

The fact that a nice, bright guy like this could have graduated from college without learning either science or civics is a damning indictment of our educational system.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 06:46 PM

"....I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Does he REALLY not see the problems with that assumption that everyone would just shrug and 'see' the virtues of "the living god"??!!??

How can a serious presidential candidate be so oblivious to the affront he is giving to non-"Christian" folks?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 06:37 PM

Oh, good grief! Just what we need... a quiet, reasonable, personable fellow who flatly can't CONCEIVE of separating church & state!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 05:50 PM

This is the kind of news story about the country next door that worries me:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 05:28 PM

I meant to say "population growth", and everything that follows the blue clicky is a quote from--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 05:26 PM

China is an avowedly atheistic nation, which embraces rational, scientific solutions to problems like population growty. Though I could blame atheism and population control advocates for the female infanticide, and the related boom in kidnapping and slave-trading of women, that have resulted from their "one family/one child" I don't--

This problem, and others like it, result when monolithic power structures control human society--it doesn't matter whether the power structures are nominally religious or atheistic, the
results are the same.

Gendercide:Female Infanticide

in September 1997, the World Health Organization's Regional Committee for the Western Pacific issued a report claiming that "more than 50 million women were estimated to be 'missing' in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing's population control program that limits parents to one child." (See Joseph Farah, "Cover-up of China's gender-cide", Western Journalism Center/FreeRepublic, September 29, 1997.) Farah referred to the gendercide as "the biggest single holocaust in human history."

According to Peter Stockland, "Years of population engineering, including virtual extermination of 'surplus' baby girls, has created a nightmarish imbalance in China's male and female populations." (Stockland, "China's baby-slaughter overlooked," The Calgary Sun, June 11, 1997.) In 1999, Jonathan Manthorpe reported a study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, claiming that "the imbalance between the sexes is now so distorted that there are 111 million men in China -- more than three times the population of Canada -- who will not be able to find a wife." As a result, the kidnapping and slave-trading of women has increased: "Since 1990, say official Chinese figures, 64,000 women -- 8,000 a year on average -- have been rescued by authorities from forced 'marriages'. The number who have not been saved can only be guessed at. ... The thirst for women is so acute that the slave trader gangs are even reaching outside China to find merchandise. There are regular reports of women being abducted in such places as northern Vietnam to feed the demand in China." (Jonathan Manthorpe, "China battles slave trading in women: Female infanticide fuels a brisk trade in wives," The Vancouver Sun, January 11, 1999.)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 12:19 PM

Amos...I just read that about 6 times, and about time 4 I was working on a translation that would remain succinct, yet convey the overwhelming significance of the observation.
   I'm not there yet....but I do remember a story from long ago about a girl in a Catholic school who wanted to do a report on a book that was on the forbidden list.
She asked (a priest?) why she couldn't, and was told "We have already read certain books and determined that they are not suitable or necessary for students." (paraphrased)

She replied, "Why not let US read them and see why they are not suitable?" (again, paraphrased)

anyway...I offer my corollary to your observation..."If you rely mostly on authority, you will inherit all the problems stemming from any flaws, dishonesty or incompetence embedded IN that authority."

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:50 AM

Mrzy:

Exactly my point; these things are turned on individual sensibility.

In fact, I suspect that belonging to an agreement-cluster centered around some arbitrary power-icon can actually damage one's moral clarity, because one has to filter one's data to keep it consistent with the mythology, rather than focusing clearly on what one has seen or experienced directly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:41 AM

Oh, I don't know, sexual exploitation of women is alive and well and living in both Christianity and Islam, if not elsewhere in religions...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:37 AM

As Ted points out handily, clear, courageous moral judgement is sometimes present, sometimes lacking in religious groups.

Oddly enough, but what I expect would be comparable porportions, clear and courageous moral judgement is sometimes present, sometimes lacking, in the population at large who are indifferenty to religious standards.

My tentative conclusion from this is that moral courage and clarity come from within, and are independent of which set of icons, precepts and myths one does or does not espouse.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:14 AM

It is a nice thought, but not really true. In fact, one of the most common, and, to my way of thinking, most valid criticisms of both religious groups and individuals, is that they often fail to apply any moral judgement to either themselves or to the world around them.

Some random xamples include failure of many religious groups to oppose the invasion of Iraq and Pope Pius XII's public indiference to the holocaust. Also in the fact that leadership in morality based issues, like physical and sexual abuse of children, drunk driving, public smoking, sexual exploitation of women, involuntary servitude, not to mention environmental activism, tends to come from outside, rather than within religious movements.

Given that, there are many religious groups and religious people who have taken and take courageous stands on these and other important moral issues. There should be way more, though--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 09:23 AM

And also: attempts to introduce secular atheistic societies [have]left nothing but human misery in their wake - You are talking about attempts to IMPOSE atheism upon societies. Totalitarianism is not a good form of government, whether theistic or not. None of us "radical" atheists want atheism imposed - we just want religion to be UN-imposed.

I'll get to your misapprehensions about abortion later. I wish I had more time!