BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)

Subject: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Scoville
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:32 AM

From "Defenders of the Faith: Why Europe's Muslims should be grateful for Europe's atheists", the New York Times, Sunday, March 12, 2006.

"During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis, Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the street with a dish full of fire in her right hand and a bowl full of water in her left hand. Asked why she carried the two bowls, she answered that with the fire she would burn up Paradise until nothing remained of it, and with the water she would put out the fires of Hell until nothing remained of them: 'Because I want no one to do good in order to receive the reward of Paradise, or from fear of Hell: but solely out of love for God.' Today, this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism.

Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favor; I do it because, if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence."




I keep trying to tell the Baptists here about this but none of them will listen to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM

"Och, it's our ain feelosofer David Hume," said Tom humanely.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: MaineDog
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:06 AM

Protestant Christians are supposed to receive Salvation by Grace, through Faith, no works needed, thank you! The need to do extravagant and often harmful or hateful works is due to a lack of Faith, not an excess of it.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Scoville
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:06 AM

(The full article is here, if you're curious, but I was really only interested in the one passage. I know the NYT has plenty of detractors but I hope we can avoid squabbling about the source.)



I live in Texas where you're either Christian or you're some degree of evil. My brother and I were pretty much what all parents say they want for their kids--well-behaved, never drank (and only a little bit after we turned 21), never tried drugs, worked hard in school, no tattoos, no body piercings, graduated from college, are gainfully employed, blah blah blah. My parents expected us not to do stupid things but weren't strict so we had no reason to rebel, and we never needed to act out to get attention. We're sort of a freakishly stable family.

Nevertheless, I had friends in school whose parents thought I was a bad kid because we were "Godless" (we're non-Christocentric, unprogrammed Quakers--my college boyfriend's father said that was sort of like being a Catholic from Saudi Arabia). My brother protested when our high school had a Baptist preacher give the [Bible-based] honor ceremony speech at our high school, which had a high Muslim and Hindu population. It had apparently never crossed the minds of the school authorities that 30% of the students they were honoring were not Christian.


I don't know how people in other parts of the U.S., or abroad, look at this. It's sort of a weird thing for me because I grew up in the South where Biblical mythology is pretty much inseparable from the longstanding culture. When I do something that somebody admires and they insist that, no matter what I say about my personal beliefs, I'm a "good Christian". I try to be patient because 1) I've pretty much become used to this attitude and 2) I know that, for a lot of people around here, "good Christian" is the best compliment they know how to give someone. I have to take this on a case-by-case basis, though, because some people--particularly older ladies--are just like that and it's not worth hurting their feelings to protest. Some, on the other hand, are trying to convert me.

The other side of it is that I [sometimes] consider this an attempt on their part to circumvent my wish to have my own beliefs respected, which hurts me. I feel like they're sticking their fingers in their ears and sing-songing to avoid hearing me ("La la la--she can say she doesn't believe but we know she's really a Christian--la la la"), or worse, they think I don't know myself well enough to tell the difference. I don't go around telling people they're "good Quakers" against their will when they do something non-violent or choose the vegetarian option. (Just kidding--I'm not a vegetarian, either.)

Thoughts?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Scoville
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:09 AM

I should add that--speaking as an American--I found it particularly interesting *now* in light of the seeming erosion of the "separation of church and state" thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:14 AM

When posting a snippit from an editorial or article, it is best to post a a full citation or a link to the entire work, so people can go examine the piece in its entirety.

Here is the link.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:17 AM

We cross posted, while I was looking up the citation. Thanks for going back and posting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Scoville
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:20 AM

Sorry it took me so long. Sometimes the NYT makes you buy an online subscription for that stuff and it took me a bit to find it.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:25 AM

Sounds like you would love Taoism or Buddhism, Scoville. In those, you do good deeds merely because it is the right (meaning most beneficial to all concerned) thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:30 AM

Scoville:

My own belief is that moral codes built on agreeing with others -- especially based on an authoritarian set of dicta -- is like putting out your eyes so you won't see the worng stuff in the world. For me, there is one genuine source of rational assessment of right action, and that is one's own informed sense of ethical choices. While people declaim, when they are confused, that situational ethics is somehow weak-willed or unprincipled, the turth is that no two situations are replicas of each other, and that principles are not details. Principles of ethics are precious when good, but moral dictates about conduct are a kind of willing blindness, making it easy to jerk your knees when the music plays, and very hard to see the rights of a situation that the knee-jerk isn't quite prepared for.


The Fourth Noble truth charts the method for attaining the end of suffering, known to Buddhists as the Noble Eightfold Path. The steps of the Noble Eightfold Path are Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. Moreover, there are three themes into which the Path is divided: good moral conduct (Understanding, Thought, Speech); meditation and mental development (Action, Livelihood, Effort), and wisdom or insight (Mindfulness and Concentration).

Note that none of these recommendations dictate the content of right or wrong decisions. The reason is that there is nothing enlightened about following a script unmindfully.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Scoville
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:52 AM

Luckily, although I intend to remain a Quaker for now, our particular branch allows me to experiment (obviously, or they would never have accepted my Godless family). Taoism and Buddhism are common overlaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM

Treat others as you would wish to be treated.
This is known as "The Golden Rule".
It is central to:Christianity
                Confucianism
                Buddhism
                Hinduism
                Islam
                Judaism
                Taoism
                Zoroastrianism
                Secular Humanism.
Not that many things all of these groups believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM

". . . and for the folk of evil I'm employed;
They let me go right away,
They were very paranoid."

BD

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 12:09 PM

well, SRS, the picture you paint of Texas is SO similar to Kansas...but from hearing you and others describe it, I don't think even Kansans made such a point of ostentatious "in your face" Christianity. Maybe it is just that I was isolated from a lot of it in a larger city and in college. I once had a chance to take a job in Texas, but I simply didn't think I could stomach the culture, and would likely have opened my mouth at the wrong time.

The funniest example I can remember of the prevailing religion being used to intimidate was when my ex-wife & I were in financial difficulties and behind on car payments, and two wide-necked 'collectors' showed up at the door and demanded we "pay up"...Explanations about "soon" and "food priorities" did no good, and they kept insisting, even as they began to walk away.....when suddenly, one turned and used the ultimated shameing tactic..."aren't you good Christians? Don't you read your Bible?"

As I gawked in disbelief, wondering why that was relevant, my wife just shouted back.."I read the Bible enough to remember the part where Jesus threw the money-lenders out of the temple!"

They stopped ,sputtered, and left without another word.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Scoville
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 12:27 PM

Whoa--never encountered that.

I don't go looking for it, certainly. I know better than to talk religion and politics here and that's generally OK by me since I'd rather talk about music or food or whatever anyway, but I'm always shocked when I encounter people who seem to be unable to understand and accept that I can act of my own free will and not as a "puppet of God" (my imagery, not theirs).

Don't get me wrong--Texas is a big state and there's room for a lot of different kinds of people (I imagine Kansas could be worse. I know Colorado has gotten worse since I left in 1990), and mostly I like it here. Except for the climate, of course, and the flying roaches. Most of these people are generally good people, which is one of the reasons I don't press the issue more. I'm not anti-Christian. I'm not even anti-Fundamentalist as long as they don't try to turn me into one, too (I guess this means that I am anti-Evangelical).

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 12:48 PM

I'm somewhat appalled by the current bunch of anti-drug ads on TV here (U.S.). They have some kid imagining a parent telling them to do appropriate things, such as giving a very pregnant woman a seat on a bus, saying "thank you," etc. Then they show other kids offering the kid drugs, and ending with the "If you never told him what he should do, how will he know?"

Duh... I mean, DUH?! This is just stupid, but it's the way religions and the religious people CAN look at things. You have to tell people exactly how to behave or what to think. It cripples another person if they believe they need to rely on others to judge right and wrong for them.

No, no, no, NO! You help people figure out HOW to think, and you help to give them the confidence that they can. How to evaluate situations and decide whether something is right or wrong for yourself. The bottom line is deciding if a personal action is right or not, based on everything you know, and then having the courage to do it. Beliefs figure into that, whether they're things you learned from religious teachings or from your parents or anyone else you respect. The ability to tell right from wrong is basically an individual's judgement skill, and that skill comes from everything a person has learned and experienced.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 01:05 PM

You said it right, Jeri....but teaching people HOW to think requires 1)teachers who KNOW how to teach that...and 2)a culture which values it and allows the teachers to do it.

Currently, I see large portions of the educational system finding it easier to teach 'what' than 'how'...(just got a kid out of HS and into college, where it is only a few % better).

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 01:07 PM

HEar, hear, Jeri!! Rant on!! Love it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Scoville
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 01:08 PM

We have a big head-in-the-sand problem here in those respects. Birth control is the other one (yeah, there--I said it). I went to high school with a particularly irritating girl who had a baby her junior year because birth control was "bad". I still don't understand how you can be too pious for birth control but not too pious for sex before marriage/committed relationship/whatever. Oh, no--if they had had a condom, it would have implied "intent". Somehow it's less bad if you just get carried away than if you have a kid that you can't support financially or emotionally (her parents adopted her daughter).

We had to sign a release form in science class saying we were learning evolution whether we liked it or not. My teacher, bless her, made it very clear that she was not telling us what to believe and that you cannot truly oppose something that you don't understand (and that she'd flunk us if we didn't answer the questions). I'm sure there were parental protests but nobody got out of it. This was 10+ years ago. I don't know if you could still do that. Luckily, our school district is conservative but also prides itself on its academic record and didn't cave in.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Scoville
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 01:10 PM

Amen, Bill D. We're sort of hard up for that these days. Thank goodness for my nerdy, overeducated, parents. I swear I learned nothing in school until 11th grade.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 10:42 AM

I think everybody damn well knows when they're doing something wrong.

I think everybody knows when they are committing an act of cruelty. I don't think you need any kind of Bible or creed to explain it to you. And its still an act of cruelty, just as odious and culpable -even if its sanctioned or even encouraged by your book of beliefs.

and if theres no afterlife, then its really important to get it right this time round. otherwise, you got it wrong.

In a way, if you're an atheist every day is a day of judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Pied Piper
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 11:51 AM

I'm not trying to muddy the waters here but there are a small percentage of people that never get the morality thing and seem incapable of empathy, which to me seems the only basis for morality.
I have just recently had the misfortune of dealing with one such and the encounter was an eye-opener.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 02:12 PM

Empathy is the key all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 03:43 PM

I guess this is especially for SRS and Bill D, but the rest may read as well:

The Kansas School Board announced early this week that they have passed (standard 6 to 4 vote) a new regulation.

Instead of parents being permitted to "opt out" of sex education for their kids if they didn't want their little darlin's being taught nasty stuff, now ALL PARENTS who want their kids to have sex education will be required to formally and individually request (*opt in) that their kids be given this filthy stuff.

So "We'll run the schools, but you have to bring a note from your mommy if you want to learn anything."

A day or two after this change was announced, they released the information that they intend to consider, and expect to pass, a new standard requiring that "sex education" be strictly limited to "abstinence only teaching."

So "We'll run the schools, but you have to bring a note from your mommy if you want to learn anything, but it won't matter anyway because we don't intend to allow teaching you anything."

* Reports say this makes Kansas the 4th state to adopt the "opt in" rule.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Deda
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 07:51 PM

Yikes, Kansas just gets weirder all the time.

Cicero was a stoic, and believed that the only possible way to be happy was to be moral; a person who did not act according to good morals could not be happy. That has always seemed like wisdom enough for me. And my husband has a pretty simple definition of moral: Do the right thing, and do it right. First principle, do no harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 08:02 PM

F*ck Kansas. Oops. Well, I guess I have to opt in first, before I can say that...

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 08:41 PM

This may come as one helluva surprise to some fundamentalist Christians, but morality and ethics were around long before Jesus was born. And long before Moses came schussing down from the mountain.

Modern analogs to early primates demonstrate empathy, and that's where it starts. So do other species. Ethics and morality start early and may even be buried in our genes somewhere. But some primative forms (including certain humans) do seem to be missing the requisite genes. Maybe they need the concepts of Heaven and Hell to keep them from running amok.

But obviously, even that doesn't work all the time (see the evening news).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 09:34 PM

The concepts of heaven and hell can also be used, quite cleverly, to cause people to run amok, Don... ;-) As often as not, I'd say.

I think the most vital thing to keep people from becoming violent is to not practice or sanction violence in the family when those people are chidren. Early impressions are vital in determining later patterns.

I never saw violence or drunkenness, that sort of thing, in my family when I was a child, and I accordingly never saw it as "normal" or appropriate in any way to adult life. It never occurred to me that punching another guy in the face was a legitimate way of pursuing an argument or that there could be any excuse for just up and hitting another person, let alone violence toward a woman.

If I'd grown up in a family where that sort of thing was common, well...then I might very well have taken it as "normal", mightn't I? And thus the patterns are repeated. This is why you are far more likely to find violence in a ghetto than in a middle class prosperous neighborhood.

My family were atheists. They demonstrated the same moral rules, mostly, that are laid out in the Bible. You don't have to be "religious" to get this stuff. You just have to be moderately intelligent, and start off on the right foot in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 09:38 PM

Exactly so!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Alice
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 09:44 AM

Scoville, your description of Texas immediately brought to mind the experience of my oldest sister. Up here in Montana there is a mix of religions that the homesteaders, miners, railroad workers and other settlers brought to the state, but above all, they were mostly INDEPENDENT people, so the culture here was live and let live for the most part. There are pockets of small religious settlements, like the Dutch Reformed in Amsterdam and Churchill, MT, and the Hutterites, but nothing like the bible belt of the south. Well, we were raised in an Irish Catholic immigrant family, and my oldest sister married a Texan in the late 1950's. She moved to Texas with her husband and found that the mother-in-law hates Catholics and ruled the family. The loathing that his family had for a Catholic non-Texan was so extreme she could not live with it. In her 70's, telling me about her abyss of depression at age 20, she said they didn't want her to raise her two children - the mother in law basically thought Catholics were evil, so they were divorced and she returned to Montana without her children. My sister is in her 70's now, and she is still pained by that experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 01:30 PM

wow...John..just when I think they have made it impossibly bad, they figger out how to make it worse!

"Opt in" huh? And it will do you precious little good TO opt in.
Have they started removing books with relevant information from the libraries yet? How about forcing kids who 'opt in' to wear armbands with a big S
for Sinner/Skeptic/Sucker? This will alert classmates, so they will know which dangerous kids to avoid.

Perhaps there could be a program to 'relocate' families who choose such extreme ideas of education. I'm sure transportation could be worked out at no cost.

Just trying to help, you understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 11:08 AM

Hey, Purple Foxx, you forgot us atheists. We like that one too.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 11:12 AM

Whilst all Secular Humanists are Atheists not all Atheists are Secular Humanists.
My error.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: ranger1
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 12:31 PM

LH - there is just as much violence in prosperous neighborhoods, they just hide it better and can afford better laywers.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 12:59 PM

... all Secular Humanists are Atheists

:~) Nope!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 01:06 PM

Ammendment 2 "All Secular Humanists are Atheists E&OE"
Commentary:Susan is one of the E&O who are E.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 01:30 PM

"Not all everybody is anything"
.....Bill D (just made it up)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 01:31 PM

"All generalizations are inaccurate"

think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 02:26 PM

I think there was some mention of violence up few posts ago. A rather *mild fundie lesson plan that I ran across by accident recently:

Lesson #7 Discipline: Loving Use of the Rod

"If it doesn't hurt, it doesn't work."


* Mild compared to some preaching hereabout.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 06:49 PM

The "lesson" John linked to emphasises the distintion between "chastisement" and abusive child beating, then goes on to say:

"The rod is a little branch of a tree, sometimes called a switch. Rulers break. They cost money. Switches have a nice swoosh sound. One can use it softly with a tinge of pain or rather strongly, depending on the situation. Get a switch that bends easily not an old hardened or heavy one. Using plastic tubing does the same job."

So apparently you need something more durable than a ruler to apply really effecive "chastisement".

MOTHERF**KERS....

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 07:13 PM

"there is just as much violence in prosperous neighborhoods, they just hide it better and can afford better laywers."

Uh-huh. If you believe that, Ranger1, then I think you should move to the worst ghetto-slum you can find for a year or two, say inner-city Los Angeles or Detroit...and then report back to me about the equivalent levels of violence there as in a middle-class neighborhood.   

I grew up in middle class neighborhoods in or near small towns as a kid. I never once saw a knife fight. Never once encountered a drug gang (or any gang, for that matter). Never once saw or heard of a shooting in my neighborhood. Never once saw a violent crime.

You know what drives most violent crime? Poverty, that's what. It's the engine of crime. Especially poverty in a country where there are great disparities between the haves and the have-nots, and few social protections (like free Medicare). Trinidad is a prime example. There is so much crime there now that people basically don't like to go out after dark if they can possibly help it. There are so many murders, break-ins and car thefts that who could bother to even keep count? Kidnapping is a favorite crime these days, the victims being children of wealthier people. The kidnappers demand a big ransom, and frequently kill the kidnapee even after the ransom has been paid. All that is mostly the result of extreme poverty, overpopulation, drug gangs, corrupt police, and corrupt politicians screwing around causing trouble between ethnic groups in order to get voting blocs on their side in the next election. The poverty and inequity is what makes it all so easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 08:22 PM

*sigh*...one of the memories of my early childhood that has lingered the longest is of being 'switched' for some offense...I was about 3½. I have no idea what I did, but I do remember being terribly offended and angry. When I was 9-10, it happened again to 'punish' me for hitting my brother when he had a sunburn. His discomfort ended quickly, as I hadn't really hit him hard, and left no marks. My legs were sore and striped for several days! I never quite forgave my mother for that instance of excessive force.

Fortunately, this was not a regular thing, as I was seldom even spanked, and as I grew up I vowed never to resort to using sticks, switches, rods or paddles on kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 08:26 PM

(one of my 'interesting' possessions is a leather-bound copy of Plain Facts, by Dr. Kellog, in which he advocates, amoung other things, tying children's hand to the bedpost at night to prevent "solitary vice".)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Naemanson
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 08:38 PM

I am horrified. I read through the whole thing. I can쳌ft believe these people are serious. No wonder there are so many screwed up people in this world. I read through it and wondered if it might be a joke. No such luck. I feel so bad for children raised this way.

Some comments:

쳌gThe rod works wonders by using pain to cause the child to restrain himself from expressing the desires that might offend another, i.e.: taking a toy that belongs to his friend.쳌h
This explains the willingness to condone torture by the Government.

쳌gPause for Reflection: How did your own father do? Did he carry out both discipline and instruction? Are you doing better than your own father? Explain.쳌h
My father beat me with his belt and with a switch regularly. I never raised a hand to my children. My children are moral and well disciplined. I am too. Hmm, could these good Christians be missing an opportunity?

쳌gIf it doesn't hurt, it doesn't work.쳌h
Huh? When my wife and I tried counseling to save our marriage way back in 1993-1994 I was shocked to learn my kids were afraid of me. Note, I never raised my hand but I did raise my voice. Imagine how they would have felt if I had chastised them regularly. Further note, I stopped raising my voice and mended my relationship with my kids. The marriage went down the tubes.

쳌gDo not hold back discipline from the child, although you beat him with the rod, he will not die. (Proverbs 23:13)쳌h
Not right away but later when s/he commits suicide while depressed and anxious about those beatings.

쳌gThose who train for the marathon severely discipline their bodies. Their bodies ache and groan.쳌h
Actually if you are in shape and accustomed to running you do NOT ache and groan. It is a very good feeling, almost a high, and you feel refreshed and fulfilled. The author has obviously limited his exercise to beating his kids.

쳌gNotice how the father is expected to discipline his child. Every father disciplined his sons. This includes the sense of chastisement. If the father neglected this duty, it would show that something is tragically wrong. We should unquestionably discipline our children.쳌h
Not the mother?

쳌gGod's higher purpose for us makes discipline ethical and necessary쳌h
God has a higher purpose for us? Who found that out? How do they know?

쳌gWithout chastisement no child can easily succeed in life without being wounded.쳌h
Huh? This author believes that beating the kid will protect him from being wounded in life? What rock does he live under? EVERYONE gets wounded. Love protects us. Knowing your parent loves you and will welcome you home to recuperate is one of the most valuable gifts you can give the child. Fear of chastisement keeps many kids out of the family home and away from the support they should expect from a tight knit family.

쳌gChastisement can be noisy! Neighbors sometimes get concerned when they hear your child screaming.쳌h
SCREAMING? What does he want to do to the kids? My God, when will he become civilized?

쳌gWe have trained our children, especially the loud criers, to cover their mouths when they cry.쳌h
쳌gChoose to discipline in private places that absorb sound. If you live in apartments, flats or condos, choose the room away from the halls and with more insulation like a rug. You might cover an air vent for the brief moment. Walk-in closets are great.쳌h
OMIGOD! Beat your kid in a closet? He can쳌ft really be saying this. He must be embarrassed by the noise and what his neighbors will think. Trust me, if this guy was my neighbor I would have the authorities in to investigate him for child abuse.

쳌gOther methods like time-out are ineffective. Many methods fail completely because they do not restore the relationship or the parent is trying to avoid using the rod. Chastisement is necessary to chase away the foolish and rebellious heart of the child. We can use other tactics like restriction of liberties, rebuking, distraction, and other things to work in conjunction with using the rod.쳌h
Timeout is completely effective and much better than beating your child with a stick.

쳌gThe rod is a little branch of a tree, sometimes called a switch. Rulers break. They cost money. Switches have a nice swoosh sound. One can use it softly with a tinge of pain or rather strongly, depending on the situation. Get a switch that bends easily not an old hardened or heavy one. Using plastic tubing does the same job.쳌h
쳌g쳌cnice swoosh sound쳌c쳌h 쳌gplastic tubing쳌h This guy isn쳌ft just ignorant, he쳌fs evil. It sounds like he enjoys the process!

쳌gThe rod is used for training as well as chastisement. When used for training, the switch helps make the child properly respond to the parent's Ôno.' Once the child makes the connection, the child will need much less chastisement. The initial fear is instilled in the child. In training, the rod is used immediately, but ever so softly with the tiny child. They are not usually being rebellious but just ignorant at what the parent wants. At 10 months our daughter would quite consistently listen to our Ôno' (if she wasn't distracted).쳌h
Did he just say he was beating an infant? AN INFANT?! He쳌fs a monster!

쳌gGod clearly sets the father in charge over the family. The fathers need to be responsible for the overall disciplining of their children. God, however, has called Mothers to be Dad's top assistant. She must carry out discipline through the day to be constant and effective.
At times, mothers get too emotionally involved in the child's feelings. If a father sees this, he should step in and finish carrying out the chastisement.쳌h
Ah, here is the answer to my earlier question. God has set the father to rule. Mothers are inadequate to the task. Any of you women have a problem with that?

쳌gMany parents today have a very poor understanding of how to parent the child.쳌h
And this guy leads the pack.

This is clearly as horrifying as those terrorists beheading people on TV. This is terrorism on the local scale. My children have to deal with these children only my children were not trained in family sponsored violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Naemanson
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 08:38 PM

Thank God I am an atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:09 AM

From a court record previously noted:

[quote]
When a man in *'s new congregation came to him for marital counseling, the pastor recommended a good beating for the wife. The man followed his spiritual guide's advice.

Later, he called the pastor to ask for bail: apparently separation of church and state didn't apply to assault and battery. * paid the confused Christian's bail, but stuck to his guns: a former members of the early ## community remembers the following Sunday Pastor * was fiery in his message that a good left hook makes for a right fine wife: "Brethren," preached *, "they can lock us up, but we'll still do what the Bible tells us to do. Either our wives are going to obey, or we're going to beat them!"
[end quote]

Althought the specific pastor cited is a well known "extremist," by most accounts, several persons have individually informed me of instances in which a number of "pastors" and/or "marriage counsellors" have given them exactly this same advice. It is quite common belief in my local area, and from what I can determine is not uncommon in other areas of the US.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Naemanson
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 08:26 AM

Does anyone know if the web site linked above is from an extremist group? Who are those people?

This has haunted me all day.

My sister has a bumper sticker that says "When religion ruled the world it was called the Dark Ages." I need one of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 10:22 AM

Naemanson -

You can check out their About Us section, but it doesn't really say much about who they are. They can't really be called "extremist," at least among "Conservative" religious groups in the US. They provide lots of "tracts" and some other "educational material" that appears from time to time in public almost anywhere.

When I was in Nagoya a few years back a group of us were waylaid on the street and one of the fellows in my group accepted a tract from some "evangelists" that I believe was one of theirs. (The evangelists were not Japanese natives.) I have found their literature left neatly in hotel/motel rooms in Chicago and Reno (some years ago) although I don't know if it was with management approval. It could have been just a cleaning person who thought it was a good idea. Their tracts appeared sporadically in aircraft factories where I've worked and/or visited (usually in rest rooms) in Kansas, Washington State, California, and Pennsylvania.

It appears that a number of churches, technically in a variety of denominations but mostly fairly "fundamentalist," at least occasionally use material from them in a variety of ways; but not being a member of one of the churches I know only what I've overheard in casual conversation.

The organization name, Foundations for Freedom, appears to be in line with numerous similar groups that are deliberately organized at least in part for the purpose of political activism. They, and others of their kind, are well past trying to persuade individuals and/or congregations. They intend to make their beliefs the LAW and to impose them on all of us. Their "lessons" are not mentioned specifically that I've noted, but their "philosphies" pop up weekly (almost daily) in TV sermons in my area.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM

This is rampant insanity in its most perverse and treacherous disguise.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 11:46 AM

Amos -

But it's a widespread insanity and the lunatics (no insult intended) are organized and intent on changing the law for us all. And they are succeeding, bit by bit across the entire US. (They are also popping up elsewhere in the world, on occasion.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 12:43 PM

Neither religion or empathy is required to do the right thing. Even people with Aspergers syndrome are fully capable of doing the right thing.

I have written many poems about the people who lie for a living. They may be or not be aware of the extortion they are subject to. But when they become a corporate lawyer, lobbyist, or a special appointee by a reactionary petroleum driven regieme, you can be damn sure they know what they are lieing about and for whom. There's money in them thar lies.

The great irony is that religion tends to take the long view in shaping society in the long run. Today most of the people who claim to be highly religious commit the most hienous crimes to prosper in the short run. When asked why they do it, they often exclaim that in the long run we are all dead anyway.
It should be clear to everyone that they don't buy into the salvation after life dogma at all, but the POF people of faith keep falling for them time and time again.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 01:38 PM

What I find most difficult is to explain to quiet, reasonable, gentle people of religious persuasion why many of us who are not religious are continuously complaining and struggling against what we see, and appearing to resent all religion in the process. What you read above is one clear reason.

We read every day now pleas for moderate Muslims to step forward and combat the extremism that leads to Jihad and violence, but we also need moderate Christians & others who do NOT espouse beatings and stern disipline to help combat these attempts to impose rules and beliefs on others.

   I can guarantee will bet that if Supreme Court rulings and Constitutional Amendments and State Laws start appearing which try to limit personal freedoms in favor of religious doctrine, it will divide this country in ways too scary to contemplate.

One more time..(#14, perhaps)
"Freedom OF religion, must necessarily include freedom FROM religion for those who wish it!"

If there were only 14 Christians in the country, they should be allowed to practice and believe as they wish, within the law. And likewise, a minority of agnostics or atheists, no matter HOW large or small, should be able to live and 'not' believe, freely and without restriction. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF MAJORITY RULE! And it is time for the Courts to make this principle a matter of Stare decisis ("settled law").

I do not want even more men to get, thru church doctrine, the idea that they 'own' their wives and can inflict any punishment they choose in order to be the Boss.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:46 PM

Absolutely, Bill. Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Scoville
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 11:28 AM

(Didn't mean to disappear--my father is rewiring the computer room and there isn't any power in there, so I can't use computers on the weekends right now.)

I'm glad I don't know anyone here who hates Catholics that much. (Seems ridiculous, actually, considering the Latino population around here, but maybe that just makes it worse for some of the less-enlightened people in our lives).

My father is getting a good laugh out of the Dubai-and-ports fiasco. Bush et al. have worked so hard to make us think Muslims are evil and now . . . oops. So much for that business deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM

Bill D-
"If there were only 14 Christians in the country, they should be allowed to practice and believe as they wish, within the law." That's OK, as long as the 14 Christians, or Jews, or Satanists or whatever don't get to make the law!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Scoville
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 11:56 AM

As one of our Friends put it, "The religious freedoms you're protecting may be your own."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 02:42 PM

I believe that religion has nothing to do with morality. Some religious people may be moral but so are aetheists and agnostics.
Also the converse is true.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 03:16 PM

Man of me very own stripe, Frank! :D

See, the thing is that the various moral codes are constructs, not abilities. When you buy one of these constructs, you empower it by putting your abilities into it. This makes you a conscientious observer of "X" codes and agreements. Or "Y", or you-name-it. But these are mere costumes of convenience layered over the outside of your own ability to choose and weigh futures, and to act in a way that makes things better. That ability is the innate power to predict and to be "ethical", and it exists in various degrees in any living critter. Various degrees from very high (a capacity for clear judgement toward the constructive) to very high inverted -- a wisdom for destruction and chaos -- and all points in between. This is why it is a good idea to choose your friends wisely. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Naemanson
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 05:34 PM

There is nothing new about using religion to justify war and atrocities. It runs through the history of almost every major religion. I am dismayed, however, at the fact that nobody seems to learn from history. We are in the middle of a conflict between Christians and Muslims. It is not the first time or even the second time. It may be just a scaled up period in a continuous run. I don't know if oil is the real reason or just an excuse anymore. All I know is that our fearless leaders loudly espouse Christian ideals and then break every one of the commandments except the one about worshiping other gods.

I've gotten to where I cannot bring myself to be interested in the news anymore. There is no need to write new reports on the international scene. Just keep recycling the old ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 06:20 PM

Thank God I don't believe in a God that sanctions the beating of children and the killing of people in the pursuit of some "higher purpose"! (I do believe in God...God being the living spirit and energy of life itself...)

Morality is the exclusive province of neither religious people nor non-religious people. It may be found in individuals of either type...or not...as the case may be.

Many religious people imagine a God that is a psychotic, authoritarian, blood-thirsty, vengeful monster who must be appeased by various forms of extreme behaviour. If so, they are only seeing the exaggerated mirror-image of something very dysfunctional in their own makeup, but depicted on a larger scale.

I had an atheist father who hit me and humiliated me a few thousand times in my childhood, none of which incidents were necessary or beneficial to my development as a healthy and sane human being. He did not seem to require belief in an insane God to motivate him to do it. On the contrary, what he believed in was science, technology, material things, and verifiable facts.

You see, it takes all kinds, doesn't it?

We all seem to spend the rest of our lives railing against whatever we were oppressed by when we were children. It would probably be better to come to terms with it, let go of the past, and move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 08:43 PM

I may have mentioned it on the Cat somewhere before but I was revolted by something that James Dobson, THE current religious/political Christian leader wrote in a book.

He was pontificating on discipline and he said that one can 'handle' a misbehaving child unobtrusively in a crowd by putting one's hand in a fatherly way on the child's neck. There is a point, he said, where a pinch stuns, if it doesn't immobilize, the child. One can walk the child, he said, out of the crowd into a more suitable place for chastisement.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 09:44 PM

Dobson may very well have been treated that way when he was a squirt. But in any case, he hasn't the foggiest idea about how to handle behavior problems. Resorting to inflicting physical pain shows a lack of smarts, and possibly even a cruel streak. Some people should not be allowed near children. Or even voice an opinion on the subject of children. They are too unqualified on many levels.

Once when I was in one of those drug stores where they sell everything from hardware to lawn furniture to microwave ovens to office supplies (and the actual pharmacy is in a little area about the size of a phone booth), I say a mother handle her child's misbehavior in what I thought was a most effective way—she got almost immediate results—without having to resort to corporal punishment, or anything physical.   

They were walking past the toy section and the young 'un spotted some action figures. He had to have some of them. His mother said no, not now, and bade him come along. He started yelling. Again, she told him no, and to come on. He revved up for a doozey of a tantrum and started screaming and kicking things. The woman looked at him for a moment, then turned around and simply walked away. When the kid saw she was leaving, the tantrum came to a sudden halt, and he ran after her, practically tears, yelling "Mommy, mommy!" She stopped, looked down at him, and said, "If you're going to behave like that, I don't want people to know that you're my child.   Now, come along."

From then on, good as gold. No more trouble.

No hitting, no yelling on the mother's part, no loss of control—and no Spock pinch. I don't know what a child psychologist would say, but it looked to me like she handled the situation pretty well, and the young 'un had a chance to see that that kind of behavior wasn't going to work on her.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 10:14 PM

That was a wise woman. She wasn't letting the child intimidate or control her (as some parents will), and she wasn't reacting by attacking the child either. People get physically violent with a child when they can't control their own emotions...their own fear and/or anger.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 10:19 PM

By the way, Ebbie, not all that many Christians regard James Dobson or his equally tight-lipped clones to be Christian/political leaders. Unfortunately, many seem to. But there is a large body of Christians out there who are more oriented toward Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics : Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, and those of like mind. There is a whole silent majority of liberal Christians who are getting sick and tired of people like Dobson and Robertson and their ilk arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Christians, and are beginning to realize that they had better start speaking up. And loudly.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 11:17 PM

Quite often when they were little I would have only one child with me when I was shopping. Either because only one had been born, or later because that one was in school and I had the youngest with me. I always enjoyed those one-on-one times together, and they did also.

A couple of things really drive me nuts now when I'm out shopping. Those fools who let their children bounce around in the cart--I've caught a couple before they pitched out onto concrete floors, but more often than not if you call an unsafe situation to a parent's attention, you get a rude argument back. Do they love their children less and themselves more, that they must defend stupid reckless behavior? The other thing that I really dislike are all of the parents rolling children around in carts, totally ignoring them as they chat on their cell phones. Hell, they have a captive audience, the best time they'll ever have for a one-on-one talk, and they're ignoring the child. You want to dopeslap those parents (too often it is mothers). My kids and I used to talk, sometimes we'd borrow a book from the toy section and read it as we shopped. The thing that was absolutely magical was when one of them would laugh that loud, totally childlike laugh that you've all heard at some time and known instantly. It's the laugh that has every adult head in the place perking up and every heart is a little lighter for hearing it.

We prepared for the eventuality of a tantrum by heading them off at the pass. One way was through reading about children who had tantrums (The Berenstain Bears, and other series cover it) and by talking about it when we heard other children doing it. "It sounds like someone is having a tantrum. What do you suppose they want?" and my two were always fine. Plan B, that we never had to use, was to simply leave everything there in the store an leave. I've seen mothers do it a time or two, and it works. (Oh, another thing, the parent who drags the over-tired toddler through the store--"take that child home and put him to bed!" There is no other satisfactory way to deal with that commotion. That child is so tired he's in pain.)

I can't say I never spanked my children, but it didn't happen very often. They got slaps when it was things that were really serious--I headed Caroline off once at the end of the driveway as she was running into the street at about age two or three--I popped her a good one on the butt and made it clear that she never should do that. She probably had pull-ups on, so hard to say how much she felt. . .but the noise and feel of the swat got through and got her attention because it was rare. Rule of thumb I tried to follow, if I was angry enough at my child that I wanted to hit one of them, they were put in their bed (or crib) and I walked away until I had calmed down. They could cry their heads off but they were safe (and usually went to sleep).

As to that earlier topic of "opting in" it's no surprise that they do it here in Texas. They opt into nothing, like in Kansas.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:08 AM

Coming late to this party, but anway...
The biggest difference I'm aware of between Judaism on the one hand and Christianity and Islam on the other is the absence of a concentration on the afterlife in Judaism. It is the ideal to be 'moral' because God says so, not because of any afterlife payback. I've seen a reference to a Chassidic rebbe who was joyful that he would not take part in the afterlife because he could be seen to do God's word purely because it was God's word.

(Of course 'moral' is defined as 'what God says').

Also, although the 'golden rule' does not occur in the Holy Scriptures, the famous Hillel rule as taught to me is:

"Don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."

which I think is better than the positive statement, but explains some of the attitudinal difference between Christians and Jews.

A few years back I was driving through the Southwest and stopped to ask directions. A very nice elderly lady helped us out and paused, asking: "Are you Christian people?" I felt she was about to give us some benediction or nice going away sentiment, and I was touched not so much by her obvious kind wishes, but by her taking the trouble to ascertain that they would be well received. So I answered right away, "I'm a PRE Christian" and got a nice elbow in the ribs from my Christian girlfriend. But we got our benediction and went merrily (if somewhat painfully) on our way.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Naemanson
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:29 PM

The most important thing to remember is that children learn from experience. They learn that it is all right to hit people if they are hit themselves. They learn to lie if they are lied to. They learn to be intolerant if people ignore their needs. They learn to ignore the pain in others if they do not receive attention to their pain.

These are the people the so-called Christian right are bringing into the world. And our children have to learn how to deal with them.

It is interesting to look at the world of animals and compare their behavior to humans. Animals are concerned only with themselves and their immediate family members. We have wild chickens here. The alpha male rules the flock with two smaller roosters to help him protect it. He controls all behavior within the flock. If you toss food to the flock there is a scramble where each flock member goes for themselves to the exclusion of the others. If there is an outside threat the flock flees in different directions leaving the oldest and slowest to fend for itself. No other rooster than the alpha male can have sex within the flock. If he catches a lesser rooster getting a little on the side a furious chase ensues.

Humans act the same way. We are capable of looking beyond our flock and seeing the big picture. That's what makes us human and supposedly a step higher than animals. But that doesn't mean that we actually do it. There are many people in this world who act just like these chickens. Each out for number one and willing to follow an alpha male if they can fit into a flock and get what they think they deserve. And each willing to sacrifice the others in their drive to survive.

I live for a day when human type people outnumber animal type people.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: GUEST,Tom the Enchanter
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:29 PM

I apologize for thread necromancy, but...

What a bunch of hogwash. This entire thread involves nothing but strawman bashing as Christian evangelicals--myself being one of them--are falsely portrayed as abusive fundamentalists who want nothing more than to control the way other people live their lives.

Quite frankly, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Christian conservatives are controlling the government. Rather, we are moving toward an age where secular humanism reigns and evangelical Christianity--not other religions, mind you--is scorned and ridiculed.

I'd like to ask you this:

There is a fellow from my graduating class who absolutely hates Christians. He despises us. He's ripped up and spit on Bibles; he mocks us. Now, would you like it if I equated all atheists to this guy? Would you like it if I described all atheists as arrogant, hate-filled bigots who wanted to do nothing more than destroy Christianity?

I'm betting not.

I have absolutely no desire to force my religion on anyone. Do I think that Christ is the one way to heaven, that there is one true God (Yahweh Elohim), that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God? Absolutely. Do I base my beliefs off of the Bible? Absolutely. Would it make me happy if everyone became a Christian and was thus ensured a place in heaven? Absolutely. Will I condemn, spurn, or disdain anyone because he or she is not a Christian?

Absolutely not. The Christian message--the true one--is love. Yes, the Judeo-Christian God is just, and He is a God of discipline, but He also sacrificed His Son to save every man and woman that was and is and is to come.

I see that someone mentioned Asperger's syndrome earlier in the thread. I happen to have this, and I find empathy extremely difficult. However, that does not prevent me from doing what I believe is right. I find that, to compensate for my ability to empathize, it is my job to sit quietly and listen rather than talk. Good works can be done without empathy, just as evil works can be done with empathy.

As an aside, anyone condoning the beating of a man's wife by the standards of the Bible is purposely misinterpreting the Scriptures and perverting them for his own sick desires, and he will have to answer God for his sins.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Midchuck
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:57 PM

This entire thread involves nothing but strawman bashing as Christian evangelicals--myself being one of them--are falsely portrayed as abusive fundamentalists who want nothing more than to control the way other people live their lives.

I'm a lawyer. So I'm assumed to be a lying, cynical, money-grubber. I don't lie except when it's the kind thing to do, and if I'm a money-grubber, I do a damn poor job of it. I am a cynic sometimes, but not in that sense. But I have to live with the fact that I'm assumed to be that type because I'm a lawyer and enough lawyers are that type that the stereotype is burned into people's minds.

You're an evangelical Christian. You are going to be assumed to be an abusive fundamentalist who wants nothing more than to control the way other people live their lives, because enough evangelical Christians are like that, that the stereotype is burned into people's minds.

Live with it. Or try to change the evangelical Christians whose behavior creates the stereotype.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:14 PM

"This entire thread involves nothing but strawman bashing as Christian evangelicals--myself being one of them--are falsely portrayed as abusive fundamentalists who want nothing more than to control the way other people live their lives."

No, Tom..most of us who made negative comments about religion and/or religious practices were NOT "strawman bashing". I, personally, am quite aware that many fundamentalist Christians do not press their religion on others....but I am equally aware that many do....or try to. There are evangelical/fundamentalist clergy out there preaching that the only "right" way to live is the Christian way, and that almost any method which will advance that cause is just and fair!

We now have Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, one of the MOST conservative politicians around, planning to run for president. If you read his comments and platforms for the last few years, you will see that if someone like him should become president, people like me would be in deep trouble!

I'm sorry, but there ARE many, many fundamentalists who feel that because they are *right*, that anything that deviates from their position is *wrong*, and that religious principles should be not only be taught, but also codified in laws and enforced. That means things like abortion laws, marriage laws, bio-medical research laws, and a host of other things that should not BE a matter of "majority vote".

People like me are faced with the dilemma of wishing to provide freedom of speech and belief and worship to those who choose religious paths, but knowing that many of those same people would not grant the same privilege to me!...no, this is NOT a straw man construction...I lived in Kansas for many years, and have seen it personally, as well as followed the changing political scene for many years and watched this process unfold.

If you, Tom, are not guilty of this sort of demanding that others follow your path, fine....but ask among your friends and read the easily searchable internet rants of those who DO think that way...then ask yourself why some of us are wary of conservative Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:15 PM

Then there are the standard assumptions people make about chimps!

"They're dirty and smelly and they have fleas. They're sex maniacs and they throw feces around. They're violent, noisy, and hysterical."

Boy, and you think you lawyers and Christians have got it bad! You're livin' in a fool's paradise.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 05:02 PM

If god is the "energy of life" then what was s/he/it god of before there was life? Or was there no god till a particular molecule formed somewhere in some star/planet system, at which point suddenly there was also god who is the god of us here in the solar system? I have a hard time with that one. Sounds like atheism is becoming the love that dare not speak its name.
Why not call energy energy and not god?
Chongo - be a bonobo [pygmy chimp], and people will just LOVE you!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Willie-O
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 05:49 PM

Wow, it took a whole eight months for a web-wandering professional Christian (not a mudcatter, I checked) to show up in this thread and make himself the victim, and an atheist the bad guy...surprised he didn't mention the war on Christmas (language advisory, but this is pretty funny if you're crude like me).

They're slipping....must have all been too busy praying for GWB to get a brain in his head or something equally unlikely.

Oh dear, am I stereotyping? C'est la vie.   

I believe one of Dobson's first big-selling books was "Dare to Discipline". C'mon, be brave and hit your kids.

W-O

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:21 PM

Maindog said:

Protestant Christians are supposed to receive Salvation by Grace, through Faith, no works needed, thank you!

Some Protestant Christians take that tack, but some are on the "works" bandwagon. Don't project what your own sect promotes onto everybody else, please.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:30 PM

I don't follow your point at all, Mrrzy...

If god is the "energy of life" then what was s/he/it god of before there was life?

Huh? What makes you think that there was a time "before there was life"? What gives you any assurance about that? Do you think life is limited only to this one little planet we live on? Do you think life is limited only to the people, animals, plants, insects, and micro-organisms that we have succeeded in observing on this one little planet? I seriously doubt that. What if atoms themselves are alive? Ever consider that? What if everything is alive in some way?

Or was there no god till a particular molecule formed somewhere in some star/planet system, at which point suddenly there was also god who is the god of us here in the solar system? I have a hard time with that one.

Ha! Yeah, I would have a hard time with that one too. Talk about a silly idea! Look, God is understood in most more advanced spiritual systems to be both "the manifest" and "the unmanifest", meaning that which you can observe as a separate phenomenon, and that which you cannot observe, because it is the totality of all phenomena and all further possibilities, both manifest and not yet manifest.

You're jousting with the idea of a limited God, and that is simply a silly idea in the first place, though it is an idea found in many, many religions. How can that which is symbolic of the infinite BE limited? It can't. The infinite is all things, by definition.

Sounds like atheism is becoming the love that dare not speak its name.

Aw, gee...that's tough, isn't it? Do you walk in fear? Don't worry, no one is going to come and burn you at the stake for not believing in some silly little limited definition of God that you or someone else made up. At least, I'm not going to, anyway. You are 100% safe in my town as an atheist. ;-)

Why not call energy energy and not god?

Why not call it both? What difference does it make? How does it hurt anyone to call energy "God"?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:03 PM

"What difference does it make? How does it hurt anyone to call energy "God"?"

Because, as I have said about 127 times, the language one uses to describe a phenomenon affects your conceptual notions of the metaphysical nature involved. Using culturally 'loaded' terminology causes changes in what is visualized and in the values assigned to the idea.

If one means a personal, Supreme Being who 'cares', then say "God", as that is the standard nomenclature...if one means some abstract principle about the nature of matter, or wishes to posit some vague form of energy called 'spirit', then it needs more than a sweeping declaration that "all is one".

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:20 PM

I gather, Bill, that you had the experience of growing up around people who use the word "God" specifically to mean "a personal, Supreme Being who 'cares'", and I suppose that is why you have a problem with it.

Well, if you had grown up in a community of Buddhists, that would not have been the case. They have a very different concept from that. So do the Hindus. So do many spiritually-minded people.

I do not think of God as some sort of superhuman, larger-than-us, separate being who judges everyone and rewards some and punishes others. That concept of God stems largely from the big 3 religions that came out of the Middle East: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They all grew out of the same root, and they posit a very human-like God. I think of God as an active principle and intelligence that is within all things and of which they are energetically constructed, and which is the life force within them all.

I have plenty of company in thinking that, and to me that is not an inappropriate use of the word "God" at all, though it may seem unusual in a predominantly Christian conservative small town in Iowa or somewhere...

There's a huge community of spiritual people out there, Bill, who do not think "God" is some kind of huge judge with a long beard sitting on a throne and dispensing rewards and punishments.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:52 PM

You still persist in missing the point, Little Hawk. I have no problem with various "spiritual people" believing various things about the nature of reality...even though I don't necessarily agree with them. Maybe they are right....they still need to have some precision in their nomenclature!

I am specifically arguing that personal, subjective ways of using the language distorts and undermines any attempt to understand and debate the issue! I do not CARE if a lot of people mean by 'God', some abstract notion of Pantheistic Universality....they are still in the minority and are hijacking a handy word which is 'mostly' used for the more 'personal' concept of a Supreme Being. (very much like 'folk')

One-more-time....any use of language which tries to cover everything with some all-encompassing terminology dilutes the ideas they are trying to convey until they have meaning only within some bit of circular definition, and an argument can be made that they have no real notion of the substance of their own referents. It is linguistic "smoke & mirrors" used to express a 'feeling' among themselves....poetry of sorts.

If a point can't be made without serious ambiguity, it can't be debated....it can only be used, like Cockney 'rhythming slang' as a 'code' for those who already speak the dialect.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:49 PM

How do you know they're "in the minority", Bill? Maybe not. There are a hell of a lot of Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, mystics of various sorts, agnostics, and New Age people in this world, Bill. Do you know how many people believe in reincarnation these days? A whole lot of people. I consider doctrinaire by-the-book Christians to be a minority these days, although maybe not in certain parts of rural America.

I think what you are kicking about all the time is merely this: I don't make the same assumptions about words like "God" as you do. Well, I am not alone.

What I am ALWAYS trying to point out in these discussions is this: It is the very fact that people DO put a very narrow interpretation on words like "God" or "life" that causes them to completely fail to understand other people, to fight with them uselessly, and to glibly assume that those other people are idiots (or are going to "hell")...and they fail to realize that they and those other people have a great deal of common ground in most areas of life and are getting hung up on empty arguing about semantics and minutiae.

By the way, to return to the original subject of this thread...I believe that knowing something is the right thing to do is all the reason anyone needs for doing it. So I do not require a belief in a rewarding or punishing God in order to want to do what is right. But I still believe in God anyway.... ;-) (my definition of God, that is, maybe not someone else's)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:22 PM

It is not a matter of 'narrow' definition....it is a matter of clear & precise definition!...And it makes no real difference whether 25%, 37%, 58% or 81% consider 'God' to be personal or pantheistic. "A whole lot of people" still need to have some idea what they are talking about! And I still maintain that the # of people who treat (not necessarily 'believe')the word "God" or "Allah" or "Yahweh" etc., as a personal Supreme Being do are in the majority. The problem is, even if I were wrong, or 2 billion change their minds overnight, the issue remains the same....you can't equivocate about it and still have much of a discussion! At least the 'personal God' concept can come 'close' to being a workable concept(though "3 persons in one" is still a bit fuzzy")...the pantheistic one is a will-o-the-wisp. "God is everything"...gee, how helpful...now what?

Since the key concept is "belief" (No one can show that ANY definition of "god" is right or wrong...we ONLY 'believe'), to be able to discuss what "god" might be, we have to agree linguistically on something or we are just mouthing words.

My point is, the pantheistic view USING the word 'God' is simply muddying the waters with a 'loaded' word which means something very different to too many people, whether over or under 50%.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:39 PM

Bill, here is the sad truth about life: most people do NOT really know what other people are talking about most of the time, regardless of what words they use, and you know why?

Because they're so busy thinking of the next brilliant thing they are going to say that they don't really listen to other people when they talk.

Reality IS a will-o-the-wisp, Bill. Ever has been and ever will be. I broaden the definitions of words to broaden people's thinking, not to obfuscate it. I do it to get them to consider things from a fresh new angle, rather than simply falling back on tired old, knee-jerk prejudices. My concept of "God" is one that is equally kind to both atheists and believers, because I don't think God wants anything from people or demands anything from them, but I think God is love to all people, regardless of their beliefs. I am trying to increase tolerance. Don't you get that?

My God is Life itself. And that is a gift to all beings. Every religion is a glimpse of various parts/aspects of life. Every atheistic position is too. And that's okay!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:33 AM

Have you ever noticed that there are few discussions on Mudcat involving religion that don't end up including God in the thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:46 AM

Yeah... Strange, eh? What is stranger yet is how rarely people mention Winona Ryder on those same threads. Or William Shatner.

The mind boggles, as Batman used to say to Robin when things were not quite going as planned.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:10 PM

"...how rarely people mention Winona Ryder on those same threads. Or William Shatner."

oh, indeed! I guess it depends on what you worship, huh? Have you ever considered building a little church ...The Sanctified Chapel of Bill & Winona...and holding services? Might start a movement!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: GUEST,Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:27 PM

Little Hawk, I'm going by the idea that the natural world formed the way science has demonstrated - there was matter before there was life. Life is matter capable of self-replication; that took time to evolve. If atoms are "alive" then the word loses meaning, as does the word god if you want to say it's everything.
Meanwhile I am *not* safe as an atheist in my town in Central Virginia. Not that people will beat me up, but I have had parents refuse to let their kids play with mine because my family is non-theistic.
I am looking forward to the days like those in the Go God Go episodes of South Park, where one can snicker hee hee, you believe in a supernatural being!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:24 PM

It is interesting to me that most conventionally religious (and many who are NOT particularly religious) people will pull a long face and assert that the Ten Commandments is the great fount of morality for our civilization. That set of precepts is NOT all about morality. Indeed, only half are directly about morality, four are about trying to maintain religious control, and one is a mixed case.

Like so:

Morality:
Don't swear falsely (note that's not about lying, but about perjury)
Don't steal
Don't kill
Don't covet what isn't yours
Don't commit adultery

Mixed case:
Honor your Father and mother is a mixed case of morality and pressure to conform to the weight of traditional teachings, it seems to me

Religious control:
Worship only the approved god
Don't take that god's name in vain (thus diminishing the god's standing)
Make no idols
Observe the seventh-day taboo

The sabbath taboo may indeed be a good idea, regardless of its religious control aspect, but it's not about morality.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:34 PM

"Meanwhile I am *not* safe as an atheist in my town in Central Virginia. Not that people will beat me up, but I have had parents refuse to let their kids play with mine because my family is non-theistic."

Geez. Is that right, Mrzzy? Well, I'm thinking you should move to Canada. You can be an atheist here, and people won't bug you about it. At least very, very few people will, from what I've seen. This is not what you'd call a very fundamentalist society.

" I'm going by the idea that the natural world formed the way science has demonstrated - there was matter before there was life."

I'd agree with that as regards this planet, and if you mean biological life in the usual sense of the word. For sure. However, I suspect there are many inhabited planets out there, and that biological life is to be found all over the Universe. Just my theory, mind you...

And I also think that living intelligence created matter out of itself, but that's another whole discussion.

As long as you go with the conventional view of Earth-based life, I'm in agreement with your scientific approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:38 PM

But that was a serious remark about God always appearing in threads about religions. Interesting, and something that is so 'obvious' I have never noticed it before.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:44 PM

I think that's because the word "religion" in this society is always connected in people's minds with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic cosmology...all of which are built around a very humanistic Father-God figure.

Why could God not be female? If God were a Universal principle, He/She/It would absolutely HAVE to be female as well as male...equally so in fact. The fact that Judeo-Christians-Muslims can't see that really boggles my mind, but they just believe what they are used to, that's all.

If they were (intelligent) frogs instead, they'd see God as a male frog, I'm sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:52 PM

It works for me, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:58 PM

Very pretty!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: GUEST,Scoville at Dad's
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:03 PM

Personally, I'm OK with the idea that life is just atoms. Even if I think it's something more and I'm wrong, so what? Let my little atomic self live in ignorance and be happy. Or let me know it and not care. Really, it's just one fewer things to worry about in the long run.

And no, atheists are often not particularly safe, or at least welcome. They definitely don't inspire warm fuzzy feelings in Texas. It doesn't change my stance as an atheist, but come down here and try to convince the average Baptist that atheists aren't out to destroy the world order. Really, I'd just like myself and my allegedly-separated-church-and-state to be left alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists & morality (from the NY Times)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:04 PM

Like I say, consider moving to Canada... ;-)