Gods and Dogs

I submit that you're mistaking a side effect of Duverger's law as being significantly more objective than it is. That's the tail wagging the god.

Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Fox Circe "Tail wagging the god."

That is perhaps the most appropriate typo I've typed.

Like · Reply · 2 · 1 hr

Jonathan Korman I will be stealing that typo in conversations to come, count on it.

Like · Reply · 1 · 30 mins

Carlin Black No real difference. Gods and dogs will do anything you want them to do if you praise them and give them treats.

Wisdom From Imaginary Entities

beliefnet. 

You may have knowledge of Donald Duck but can Donald Duck give you knowledge and wisdom? Answer: no, therefore Donald Duck has no objective existence he is just a cartoon character.willieHindu

Even imaginary beings can impart knowledge and wisdom.  For many children in the early days of television, the cartoons provided many of their moral and social skills.  As well as an introduction to classical music.  Please note that the script writers were anonymous at least as far as the kids are concerned.  It was the characters that provided the message.  Don't bother with a rant about the bad messages, although discussion of the messages would be welcome, the beauty of fictional wisdom is that one can choose that which seems wise and reject the garbage.

I prefer to get my history from fiction rather than from the biased "historians."  A successful fiction writer will be in tune with the ethos of herm time or hesh will not not sell.  I suspect mining wisdom from the remainder shelves is about as useful as mining it from the history shelves.  One must account for the bias evident in the story, a good story is inevitably biased, but given the bias the wisdom supporting the bias is useful data.   Incidentally the perceived bias of the author is irrelevant.  Creators are telling stories to the culture which will sell.  If their own dysfunctional bias becomes too prominent the story will not sell.   


Humans are story learning creatures, and whether the story has an identifiable author or is simply part of the culture it is always a good story, with unequivocal morals. Also note that stories can take many forms, verbal are the most common including those using music as a mnemonic, but some art and recently visual stories are threatening to become the dominant story telling form.  Visual stories are not new it is just that technology has made them easier to produce and distribute.    

There are two additional fictional sources of wisdom: Fable and Scripture. Both are specifically collections of folk or tribal wisdom, frequently by identifiable authors who happen to be great story tellers.  Most of the Pentateuch stories that everybody can recite from memory and frequently used as lessons are from the Yahwist.  The main difference between fable and scripture is that one is expected to find and learn the wisdom from fable while scripture is generally expected to be taken whole as wisdom.  In some religions scripture is TRUTH™ and for a particular translation every word is accepted as reflecting the will of God.  "God" capitalized is universally used as the god created by Abram or possibly his tribe and adopted under many names or symbols by the many religions and sects and cults that accept Abram as the founding patriarch. 

If one treats scripture as fable that is some wisdom and some garbage it becomes a valuable source of wisdom about our friends and adversaries that are believers. 
 

The Incels are Restless

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/04/1427765/-The-Shootings-are-not-Senseless?detail=email#

Today a growing segment of young adult males will not achieve the material and social success necessary to be attractive mates and form households. By way of comparison, a generation ago in his mid-20s my father had a house, a wife, two kids and a stable job things I was unable to achieve until my ’30s. ...  Today Increased economic opportunity and higher educational attainment for women has removed the economic need to be tied down to undesirable dudes. This is a good thing for almost everyone. But for those on the outside, however, it turns social awkwardness and the tail end of the achievement bell curve into a prison planet of isolation. And that generates rage.

 note: "Incel" a name they call themselves, meaning "involuntary celibate."

Perhaps the rage comes from the tail end of the curve.  The more concerning issue is that the middle of the curve for males is incel. (This may not be a new phenomenon.)  Women now have control not only of not only who they will have a baby with but who they will fuck.  Women it seems have little incentive to have sex per se, hence scriptural admonitions to "pleasure" their husband once a week. 

The cost of sex historically has been disproportionally high for women.  Instinctively, killing a baby is not an option, and abortion was never socially acceptable and the cost both physically and monetarily was high.  So perhaps the sin of Eve was discovering the "apple" method of contraception:  Place an apple between your thighs and hold it there.  That is a woman can choose not to have sex.  This apparently worked fine in Eden, that is a stable agricultural or hunter gatherer society.  Women could choose successful men to father their children, and space them naturally using the apple method until the child was weaned and productive.  Much of this is speculative as stable agricultural and hunter gatherer societies by definition balance consumption and production, with not much left over for kings, priests, and exploitation.  Thus they are easily victimized by kings, priests, and despots with plenty of warriors. Therefore few remain to study and all we have is oral history.  

The invention of exploitive societies demanded a ready supply of warriors.  That is incels who substitute male bonding, possibly with voluntary or involuntary homosexual sex, and killing for sex.  Men get used up rapidly in traditional warfare. In order to produce the required warrior/incels it was necessary exploit women as baby factories.  Women became the property of successful men that is those who were not used up in war or those powerful enough to not have to go to war. Women's choice in such a society was to breed or starve. Encouraged both by social and religious pressure.    
In the west exploitive societies seem to have been invented by Abram's tribe, or perhaps his invention of God as the underlying justification for exploitation was the most successful.  It has certainly been successful and threatens to take over the entire globe.  However it has run out of people and things to exploit, and revolts by those exploited have begun to be successful.  

The most successful revolt has been enabled by contraception, which allows a woman to choose between being a breeder of incels/warriors for a successful man or pursue some other path to social success which may or may not include reproduction. Note that prior to reliable female contraception career paths for women involved avoiding sex as they did not pay enough to support a family: Teaching, nannying, and other service occupations.  

WWII used up enough men that women were introduced to "real" work to produce the war machinery, famously by Rosie the Riveter.  Their success enabled different aspirations for some girls, who could prepare for careers other than the traditional service occupations and many chose to do so.  Boys were still being conditioned for warrior/unskilled labor and generally discouraged from pursuing the "college track" except as athletes.  Which leads us back to the incels perhaps as a majority in most of the west.  The demand for warriors has dropped significantly recently, and unskilled labor no longer supports a family even the current norm of one or two children so the support for sex trade-off no longer works for a large segment of the male population.   

Three Levels of Reality.

beliefnet

Sep 6, 2015 -- 9:52PM,  wrote:

In the same respects since our very first example of something that is true and certain is our self/self-awareness.     By what logic would I hop to accept anything else as being more certain or true?

I think this is important because when we attempt to measure our self/self-awareness.   It cannot be found,  it holds no weight and with heavy scrutiny it doesn't even exist.Utiltheo

Cogito, ergo sum. That the external world can influence my thinking is strong evidence that it exists as observed.  The fact that I can affect the external world is additional evidence that I exist if needed.  Solipsism ultimately fails as the external world can affect my thoughts in unpredictable ways and my effects can also be contrary to my intent. 

The external world can be thought of as consisting of three levels of reality that can affect thinking. 

Objective or sentient reality, that which can be observed, measured, and manipulated with physical tools but not directly with the mind with the exception that the mind controls most physical tools that manipulate sentient reality beginning in humans with the hand.   

Mythical reality consists of memes generally consistently understood across cultures and languages.  Mythical memes can strongly dominate thinking if they are introduced early enough in a person's life.  Note that most mythical memes are fairy tales and folklore in language that can be understood by small children and generally are one dimensional good vs. evil, obedience vs. sin, etc.  Nuance and interpretation may come later in life but generally that interpretation only reinforces the meme. Mythical reality is ultimately the creation of humans for the regulation of their cultures(s.) God(s) are frequent memes in mythical reality but all are created by humans commonly in their own image writ large.   

Fictional reality is a tool for manipulating minds, mythical reality and occasionally sentient reality but is more limited than mythical reality in that it is language and culture specific, although the best are translatable across languages and cultures.  Fictional reality normally has an identifiable creator, and includes art and music as well as the written word.  The memes generated by fictional reality can approach mythical memes in power and utility. 

Good and Evil and One God.

beliefnet

If they are athiest murders they are clearly INSANE.

If they are christian murders its the religion's fault, - RCCU

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg

  Good people which are the overwhelming majority of humans will behave well that is they will conform to the prevailing ethos of their community.  There will be a few sociopaths sane or insane that will violate the norms of the community, but normally they will be removed quickly by the good people in the community. 

It takes a strong belief in the doctrines of a "god" to change the prevailing ethos of the community to promote or tolerate evil.  The religion may be secular in that the "god" is human but it takes a well buttressed belief system in something or someone promoting that something to allow good people to partition off the evil in their minds.  

Miniver Cheevy

A group of people no matter how committed can never accomplish anything.  History shows that on any scale, large or small it is always a single committed individual that for good or usually for not so good can feel the prevailing needs of a large group of followers and provide a focus for their beliefs. Whether it is a genetic imperative as some argue, or a conditioned belief like the major religions, without a committed leader nothing happens.  The leader may be supernatural, which is the power of religions, or human, but H. Sap. need to believe in something or someone to do anything.

Meme Theory vs. Concepts

beliefnet

So, I'll ask you again: Can you think of any new insight gained from calling it the 'God meme' than we had when we called it the 'God concept?'freespirit

Meme theory focusus on the transmission mechanisms:  The hooks that embed the meme in the brain.  The concept being embedded is relatively unimportant.  It is not necessary to know much about God to understand how the vuvuzelas get their version of God to become a strongly buttressed belief system in the brain.  It works whether the God concept is God, Allah, YHVH, or Cthulhu.

The God concept is impossible to deal with rationally, as the characteristics of the concept must be defined before you can even talk about it.  Most believers don't even know what the God they believe in is. 

How to Sing a Prayer.

beliefnet

The hard part for theists is admitting they have become the moral source they wanted to worship. In fact, they are now in a position to condemn their god as immoral based on secular principles of human rights. Kwinters

lt is not hard at all.  I know some Catholics and many Jews that for all intents and purposes are atheists.  It was a good Catholic that told me that the "Thy God" of the First Great Commandment is whatever you want Herm to be.  She describes her God as an inner voice that she can converse with as a friend to help her decide what to do in difficult situations.  It is easier to call it "Mary" than Raggedy Ann, because Raggedy Ann actually has a form.  (I did ask.)  Her indoctrination makes Mary the mother of all good things, and as a mother it is easy to transfer that voice inside her head from mom to Mary.

For many of the Jews I know, (a biased sample) God is an ancient guide no longer relavent to the modern world, and is nothing but a word in a prayer.  Comfort food for inner peace.  The Shema, commonly the Deuteronomy 6:4-9, is a centering ritual where G-d and "God's Kingdom" is whatever you want to make of your life. 

I have sung the Shema and Ave Marias, reverently as is mandatory to convey the meaning to believers, and using the interpretation of God from my friends I have no problem as an atheist attaching my own personal meaning to the word.  Mostly Pantheist, APOD is my worship focus, although in the Sierra, the "Range of Light" dominates.  If this makes me a believer, so be it.  I am in good company. 

Us vs. Them Dogma

beliefnet

Perhaps some modern versions of Christian, Muslim and Jewish have reinterpreted the "us vs. them" teachings of their God, but historically particularly their earliest traditions they have that teaching as an integral part.  You look at the parts of the world where Christianity and Islam are dominant and the fate of the indigenous religions (they are essentially destroyed) the truth of the above assertion is obvious.  

That they learned it from the stories of Moses is also undeniable.  God led the Hebrews out of out of Egypt,  to the promised land of Canaan where God "delivered up to them" the indigenous people, destroyed the indigenous religions and gave the Israelites their promised land.  At least for a while. 

The Hebrews apparently originated in the the fertile agricultural community of Ur which they left for unknown reasons for Haram in Turkey another agricultural community.    Their original leader Abraham (Abram) was led by God to Canaan, another agricultural community which God promised to Abraham and all his seed,  Why the Hebrews left Ur, and Haram for Canaan is not clear, but from what little we know about Abraham, he was not a particularly nice person although rich and exploitive.  There is no accounting for the taste of Gods.

Atheism on God

Beliefnet

Atheists just don't care about God. 

If someone wants to believe in God that is their problem not mine.  It boils down to responsibility for actions.  Blü seems to be right that do what you are told to do is the default human condition.  It doesn't matter much who or what tells you what to do. When you do it it is their fault not yours if it turns out badly.  Even the vuvuzelas favorite dodge when they are caught with their dresses up is that "It was God's will."  In other words it is not my fault.

That is why theists want God to exist.  

Atheists, once they become adult realize that it is their fault.  Life is finite and what they do with it is their responsibility.

"Live a life worth dying for." Forrest Church

Or the thought attributed to Cherokee traditions:

"When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced,  Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice."

There is no one to blame if you don't live your life, and if the world doesn't cry the failure is yours.  It is not necessarily a comfortable way to live, but at least you live.  As El Cid says on another thread if you believe in God you are dead when you are born, a puppet while you are alive, and thrown away when you die.  Maybe the dumpster will be comfortable or maybe not.  You will never find out.    

Authority, Love, and God.

beliefnet
I suspect that the "Presence within" is part of the deference to authority genetic basic moral imperative you argue for.  
 
As noted that starts with do what mama tells you as she is a "loving presence" and generalizes as we get older to family and mentors.  If indoctrination starts early enough "Jesus loves me, this I know for the Bible tells me so." that loving presence may get confused with authority.  The secret of Christianity is that it confuses the loving, merciful Jesus with the misanthropist in the sky who is the authority figure, and things go downhill rapidly from there.  

If you can limit the authority figures to those have earned respect if not love the confusion with mama is less important.  This is where atheists have a major advantage over theists.  We are able to pick our mentors without the help of the vuvuzelas.

Meaningful Living

beliefnet
Whether or not there is a God, meaningful living is all there is to being human.  We all die, and return to the stardust from which we are made. Recycled in myriad ways, ideas, memes, genes, etc.  Perhaps promoting the God meme makes life meaningful for some.  But enjoy it while you can.  All available evidence shows that after death God does nothing for anybody. Atheist, theist, fundy, or Pope: all dead and recycled. 

Objective Evidence for God.

beliefnet ff.

God, god(s), and goddesses (henceforth referred to as God) is defined as an imaginary creation of a human mind or a group of human minds that has some powers over a defied group or tribe that persist essentially unchanged through several generations of the group or tribe.  These powers are mediated and interpreted by a group of specialized members of the group, priests, or infrequently priestesses (henceforth referred to as priests) who have been given the power by the group to determine from the tradition what it is that God wants for and from the group. 

God is endowed with powers, usually supernatural, to affect the lives of the defined group or tribe by enforcing moral precepts in this life or after death; protecting the tribe or group from "enemies" by granting exceptional skills or immunity to an individual or group of individuals in contact with the enemy; is normally in the form of an idealized human; is associated with certain rituals of worship which recognize the importance of God to the people; and is frequently identified as the creator of the group or of all humans.

Gods may be examined by scientific methods by observing the group rituals associated with group solidarity, moral teaching, and the protection of the group from predation, either natural, (unusual weather, e.g.) or other groups of humans.  If the rituals identify an imaginary being or group of beings that imaginary entity is by definition God.  The properties of God can be identified from the rituals defining the God. 

If the group rituals are naturally centered or human centered it can be determined by scientific observation that the group has no God.  

In short God is an imaginary entity, interpreted by priests from tradition, that determine the mores of and protects a defined group of humans. 

The objective existence of God for Catholics is rationally observed in the Mass, in particular the Credo.  The Credo describes what God is: One God, the omnipotent father, who created everything, and the Son who is one with God who came down from heaven and became a real person by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.  (No hanky-panky by God, just magic and apparently a little help from Joseph and/or David, and/or God's eternal sperm bank.) 

It describes what he did: Was sacrificed to expiate the sins of all men and was resurrected to once again become one God.

It tells why: so all will be resurected to enjoy eternal life. 

Then comes the hook: God will judge all, and only those baptized for the forgiveness of sin will get the goodies. 

There is nothing imaginary or unreal in that for Catholics.  God is more important for them than Blü, J'Carlin, or any other person with the possible exception of the parish priest.

Jul 20, 2015 -- 1:01PM,  wrote:

The objective existence of God for Catholics is rationally observed in the Mass, in particular the Credo. J'Carlin

"objective existence" ... "for Catholics"
Do you even understand the meanings of words you use? Rev atheist

I speak English very well. (First place in Ohio English state scholarship tests, 800 verbal SAT.  A long time ago but I have practiced consistently since.)

A mental pattern may be objectively observed by noting consistent behavioral changes in those with the pattern.  If a chimpanzee shares food with a companion who is unfairly denied a food reward by the experimenter we can objectively observe empathy and social concern on the part of the sharing chimp.  We can also objectively observe that the experimenter is an asshole.  (Even a chimp can observe that.)  When this behavior is observed consistently among Chimps we can determine objectively that Chimps have the qualities of empathy and social concern. 

All believing Catholics when they enter a holy space, will genuflect to recognize the presence of God in the space, and once again when they enter the pew for worship recognizing the presence of God in that space as well.  How can an objective observer determine that God is not there to be recognized?  Do we like the experimenter above deny them respect by claiming that they do not experience the presence of God or that the presence is a delusion?  How do you objectively observe that?  I have recognized a vague "presence" when I genuflect with a believing Catholic when I join them in worship.   I cannot tell you what that "presence" was just like Dawkins couldn't identify the presence he recognized under the God Helmet experiment.  My friend said it is God.  I am not an asshole. 

A believing Catholic also recognizes the presence of God (Jesus aspect) tangibly in the communion service.  They also spend significant time confessing their sins, and doing appropriate penance so that the forgivness of sin promised in the Credo will take place and that the Judging personna of God Jesus aspect) will listen to His merciful mother and remit the sins of the believer.  Again objective evidence of the existence of God for a believing Catholic.  Please present your objective evidence that God does not exist for these fine people.  Remember I speak English very well "objective" means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

God of the Credo

beliefnet

Blü:

Yes, gods don't have objective existence.

The objective existence of God for Catholics is rationally observed in the Mass, in particular the Credo.  The Credo describes what God is: One God, the omnipotent father, who created everything, and the Son who is one with God who came down from heaven and became a real person by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.  (No hanky-panky by God, just magic and apparently a little help from Joseph and/or David, and/or God's eternal sperm bank.) 

It describes what he did: Was sacrificed to expiate the sins of all men and was resurrected to once again become one God.

It tells why: so all will be resurected to enjoy eternal life. 

Then comes the hook: God will judge all, and only those baptized for the forgiveness of sin will get the goodies. 

There is nothing imaginary or unreal in that for Catholics.  God is more important for them than Blü, J'Carlin, or any other person with the possible exception of the parish priest.

Reinterpreting Jesus as God

beliefnet

Jul 15, 2015 -- 9:50PM, Blü wrote:

Which brings us to this thread, where we consider a being who, the story says, lives in heaven but was incarnated on earth to proclaim the imminent Kingdom - yet knew nothing more about reality than his time and place did. The report (or tale, as the case may be) matches human tendencies perfectly.

Interesting thought.  Let me take it a bit further.  Imagine this multi-omni God created by men but somehow having some sort of numinous existence after a couple of thousand years watching the creators botch things up miserably, decides to go fix things. 

Hesh assumes a human male form and teaches that the priests are the ones botching things up, and shows a few people how to heal, feed the poor and the needy, love everybody even the Samaritans that had just refused hospitality on a hot day, preached that the meek and the poor in spirit (atheists?) would inherit the earth and the kingdom of heaven respectively. 

Pretty good morality. Depending what he taught about healing; maybe the difference between viral diseases and pathogens which needed to be healed differently, and He gets a few people on the right path.   What happens?  They kill him.  The priests and wanna be priests exterminate his cults, and bastardize his teachings to give every Tom, Dick, and Harry the Kingdom of Heaven if they only believe and do what the priests tell them to do. 

Three days after they kill him he goes back to Herm numinous existence to watch the priests and their money-bags continue to screw things up.  So instead of trying to do things single handedly Hesh picks out a few bright rational people teaches them science and humanism and lets the message spread itself, underground at first, but with a few nudges in the right direction to the right people occasionally.  In a couple of more thousand years as predicted and lot of nudges to a lot of people Hesh gets us on the right path to create the promised land on earth that the priests and the rich took away from those that were in it to begin with. 

Maybe the priests and their money-bags will defeat Herm again, they certainly are trying hard enough. But they seem to be losing ground rapidly around the world, winning a few battles here and there, but overall the rationalists, scientists, and humanists seem to be taking over. 

Goo to Zoo to You Redux.

beliefnet

Again, I challenge you to take a look at just what the DNA Information coding and non-coding system is.  The signature of Yahweh is there in every single "jot and tittle" of that three dimensional CODE-SYSTEM.  Codes DON'T evolve!  You need to deal with that FACT! --YEC

Sorry, Yahweh, God or whoever that misanthropist was that Moses invented to control his people, was not around a few billion years ago when that first twisted strand of goo found a lipid bubble to live in and start the process of divide and conquer that resulted in the zoo, originally one celled replicating organisms that found out that cooperation beat fending alone in the difficult environment of the early earth.  Those cooperating organisms made their DNA better and more efficient at eating goo and replicating, until eventually Moses, Yahweh, Blü and I evolved. 

God probably doesn't even have or know about DNA, since Moses didn't know enough about it to invent it when he invented God. 

Pure Thought

beliefnet Jun 21, 2015 -- 10:54AM, Blü wrote: And can you offer a testable (hence falsifiable) hypothesis about the manner in which thought on its own could exist, could be informed, could change, could remember, could reason, could formulate and articulate (or otherwise communicate) information (&c)? If so I'd be delighted to pursue your question. Another way to detect thought is through EEG. The thoughts produced and measured by MRI admittedly a physical process can be observed to be synchronized by mirror neurons, musical expression, and synchrony of movements in animals and people.  These thought patterns can control computers, prosthetics, etc. and the computer interface can process the information to incorporate feedback to refine control like being able to pick up a raw egg.   Is it not possible that another brain can process, change, remember and reason on, and store the information of this synchronized information?   The information must be physically created originally by a brain, but is the result not observably "pure thought?"   My observation is that God is nothing more than repeated and memorized fictional reality data created over time by people and incorporated into religious ritual and dogma.

Catholic Experience of God through the Eyes of an Atheist.

Beliefnet
In my experience, mainly with Catholics, I have found that for them God is a real construct of the historical collective consciousness of the parishioners of the particular church or cathedral.  When several very good friends genuflect to acknowledging the presence of God, they get a clear and real image of God as present in the space that is unique to the space.  That is raiment and ethnicity is different in each space.  The overall concept is in accord with the Credo, but the dominant Jesus expression is local.  The blond, straight nosed palefaced Jesus depicted in all the traditional images is pretty much what they "see" except in ethnic spaces.   A very good friend is Italian and is somewhat put off by the image he gets at St. Pats.

I have actually tried myself but all I get is a vague "presence" feeling as described in the God Helmet experiment.  But the genuflect does trigger it.  The human mind is a weird and wonderful thing. 

God and BS - Is there a Distinction

beliefnet

Ancient history but worth preserving

	jcarlinbn 2/2/2004 1:52 AM	1 out of 26
	Tr1nity, TheRaUch, Mas, and other advocates of BS (Belief System(s), thanks Acira and TheRaUch.). First. I have no doubt that God exists for you. I have no doubt that for tr1nity Christ lives. Second. When I open a mass I have no doubt that Kyrie is there to Eleison and that Christe is right behind Herm to help. Indeed it is proven each time it happens, as neither will strike dead the soprano with the atrocious vibrato that is destroying the beauty of the music. They are also able to make the believers in the audience, and yes, even the believers singing, not hear it. Just as they help believers not see the atrocious art in some of the crucifixes they have on their walls and around their necks. Belief in God can be empowering. However, many threads on this board have been presenting a powerful demonstration of one of the greatest dangers of belief. They are trying to convince a rather skeptical group that a belief in God can be transferred to a BS that defies all reason, and then circularly use the BS to find God. Mediators for God have exhorted people that if they believe, God will be real for them. Even though they must ignore the evidence of their senses, and must not expect rational evidence to believe. So far, so good. If one stops with God advising and helping to manage one's life, and one trusts only God to sort out which parts of the BS that are being thrown at them are true, the chances are excellent that they will have a spiritually rewarding life. Then the trouble starts. The mediator says God inspires ME, Believe Me. This is easy to do, especially if God does inspire the mediator. Unfortunately, this is also semantically equivalent to the classic con man's "trust me." At this point it is critical to understand that it is the mediator's interpretation of God's inspiration that hesh is preaching. A believer must check that interpretation with God directly before transferring belief to the mediator. By the way this is where most atheists and agnostics part company with believers. It may be reasonable to ignore sensual and rational evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient entity, especially when the entity cares about everyone. It is definitely not reasonable to ignore sensual and rational evidence to believe a guy in a fancy dress, no matter how impressive the pulpit is. Ultimately the balcony of the Vatican is no more persuasive if God (or the evidence) says bad BS than the dirty top of the cardboard box with three bent cards on it. Please note that neither is necessarily unpersuasive for some who wish to believe. But once belief in an omnipotent, omniscient entity that cares about everyone is transferred to real people whose BS may have personal agendas that conflict the best interests of others, a BS can and does get real ugly. Some threads here are advocating some really ugly BS. No God I have ever had occasion to believe in would approve anything about them. It is clear to me that some mediators behind them are pushing extremely antisocial BS. I find the motives to be pretty transparent: To acquire political power and bling-bling to impress the flock. The three-card monte dealer is at least honest about herm scam. J'Carlin AciraZade 2/2/2004 12:44 PM 3 out of 26 In regards to BS, this needs to be credited to Robert Anton Wilson, who was the first I ever read use it in regards to Belief Systems. It's SUPPOSED to register in your mind as bullsh**... :P Actually, I could go on and on for many posts explaining the mindset and perspective behind BS and why RAW uses that acronym, and why I happily adopted it, but it would be easier to just refer you to any RAW works. If you're interested, let me know, and I'll get you a title.

A Female Jahwist?

According to Harold Bloom in the Book of J the Jahwist was a high class educated women in Solomon's or Rehoboam's court tasked with preserving the traditional lore, and instead wrote ironic tales highlighting the misogyny and ineptness of God.  After reading Rosenbloom's modern translation and going back to my favorite Bibles to reread the stories there, I have concluded that J was indeed female and some of the stories are downright satirical.  But for believers too much is never enough and they turned this inept misogynist into God to be worshiped as without fault.   Then the Christians came along and turned those stories into the literal word of God.  Oh. My. God.

Why Create?

beliefnet

May 12, 2015 -- 4:35PM, JCarlin wrote:

"So that is how God does it!" is essentially not conceptually different from "That is how it works!"  I am not sure anyone could find a scientist in any field that could prove that the Higgs is not indeed the God boson.

Response:  As Laplace rightly said, the 'God' hypothesis is simply unnecessary.

There is simply no good reason to advance the baroque assumption that there is a God, let alone ask "how" the supposed entity did anything.

A quip attributed to Edison suggests that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.  If a believer attributes the inspiration to God might that not provide a strong incentive to provide the 99% perspiration to prove to the world that God knows what Hesh is doing? Praying for a solution to an intractable problem at least focuses the mind on the problem.  Does it really make any difference whether the mind or God comes up with a way to the solution? 

One might argue that material rewards are enough of an incentive for the secular genius, but those same rewards are available to anyone who solves the problem.

The human mind is almost uniquely capable of going beyond the basic needs of food shelter and reproduction.  An important question is the incentive to do so.  Is to glorify God somehow inferior to The Game of Thrones is boring?

At the risk of creating a centipede dilemma, just why do you as an atheist leave the Game of Thrones or beliefnet to create something beautiful or useful for your neighbor?