Misogyny or Mammalian - Cont.

Misogyny - Beliefnet

So please revise your view that misogyny wasn't relevant until 110 years ago.

Women died because of its relevance to all women across time.
Kwinters

"I don't argue that feminism did not exist prior to 20th cen. In fact there is good speculation that the Yahwist was a woman in the court of Rheoboam. There were many women in history who made a big difference, but notice most were not moms. Control of fecundity is necessary for feminism.

As noted in the beginning of the post women died frequently from childbirth complications throughout history, not from misogyny but from the nature of mammalian reproduction and not incidentally the Godawful design (if God did design humans) of the female pelvis for the huge head of a human baby. Not to mention the Godawful design of a human infant to be totally dependent on herm mother for the first two years of herm life. Not just for food but for everything else including transportation and socialization. The human species would never have survived had this biological fact been largely practiced. Not misogyny just reality.

The only place misogyny was important was in churches which were the natural venue for women to gather. And for the most part they could basically ignore it, if they shut up among men. They never did on their side of the church. Not hard as religion was basically about war and hate. Not too useful for moms."

Misogyny or Mammalian

Misogyny - Beliefnet:

"The other consideration is that until the beginning of the 20th century infant and maternal mortality made it necessary for women to have a baby a year until she died in childbirth, and spend the rest of her time caring for and socializing the surviving children. If she was lucky the oldest daughter could take over when she died. This didn't leave much time for the important male stuff of killing one another and to a lesser extent, maintaining the food animals. Agriculture and clothing was women's work since they could do it while pregnant and the older children could help as part of the socialization. When the men were not busy killing each other, they created Gods to help the women grow the crops and children, and keep the men from intra-tribal warfare.

It could be argued that misogyny was really not relevant until the 20th century, when women got control over their reproduction system, and could participate in activities outside the home. Since they are smarter and more socially adept than the testosterone poisoned men, men have to figure out a way to maintain their 'privileged' position. It will be interesting to find out how long God will be able to help the men."

Are you saved or accountable?

“There’s probably no God.- Beliefnet

People have not realized that when it appears as if they are getting away with atrocities because they have not been caught by other people, they are actually not getting away freely. They need to know this. We all need to know this. All of us will inescapably answer to God who sees everything and has the right and power to deliver commensurate justice.
Truthprecepts

"Most people do not commit atrocities not because they are accountable to some probably non-existent god after they die, but they are accountable to their friends and family and ultimately to their own conscience and self image in the here and now. As Nixon so famously said 'I am not a crook.' He was not pleading with God, or even the people of the US, he was trying to justify his behavior to himself.

By the way, are you "saved?" If you are you can get away with any atrocity you want to, because as a sinner you can do no other. Christ will save you. I am not saved so I have to be very careful. Not only am I accountable to my family, friends, and myself, but in the unlikely event that something happens after death I will be accountable not for what I believed but how I lived. A just God can do no other."

I am always amused by despicable sinners who have their Christ to save them no matter what telling me that if I don't buy Christ I will become a hellion just like they are, but will have to pay later. Much later in eternity. Whoop de do. If only they could see the hell they are creating for themselves now.

Worship or Beauty - Take your pick

The harmful aspects of religion - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community

You do not believe in god. Fine. What do you replace that 'worship' with and how does it drive your imagination? Or not. Maybe you replace the god belief with nothing.
We can measure our imagination effectors at the end of the day. We can report how we spent our Sundays. OK?
Godman

J'C: "I resemble that remark! (Thanks Garfield) As I never indulged in God worship, I feel no need to replace it with anything. In fact I think worship is a perversion of a natural human tendency to appreciate beauty, wherever it can be found. Whether it is natural, man made, man enhanced as APOD one stops everything, thinking, moving, worrying, believing, and just enjoys the moment however long that moment is. One such moment was nearly an hour long when I first heard Uchida play Beethoven's Third. There have been others.

Maybe a theist can get into that moment when the pastor says lets all butcher this hymn of praise to God. But I will take the real thing. It probably won't necessarily be Sunday morning except possibly early when I pull the days APOD first thing on Sunday just like every other day. But if I visit a friend like Abner1 with original art on the walls I might have several such moments.

More frequently for me it will be music, as that is my genre. I have been known to pull over on a freeway to listen. Once a friend said we can't stop now. I said OK you drive. I will listen to the Pie Jesu without you. I try to fit as many of these moments into my day as possible. They cannot be forced however, but I am always open to them. The best thing is for many of them there is no plate. Like Abner I have commissioned art, and happily pay for live performances that may have potential. But if you keep your eyes and ears open they happen frequently, payment optional."

One of the best things about NYC was that some of the best artists were in the parks. I always tried to throw something in the instrument case if I could but it was almost impossible to walk in a park on a sunny weekend day without several opportunities. There is something about a live performance that connects people in away that cannot be duplicated.

Carbon as God.

Circumstantial evidence for God - Beliefnet

I don't believe that the order, complexity and information content of even a single-celled bacterium, let alone you and me, is the result of chance, no matter how long it might have taken (and that turns out to be a very narrow window anyway, some 130 million years).
stardustpilgrim

J'C: "22,000,000 to 1 Odds happen every week in the various lottos. The structure of the carbon atom guarantees that every weird chemical structure in the liquid water world will be generated frequently. (You might have a better argument that God created Carbon. In Herm own image by the way, ever changing, impossible to pin down in anything from a buckytube to a diamond to a human.) That one of those weird chemical structures found a way to hide in a lipid balloon and make copies of itself seems to me inevitable and indeed seems to have happened several times a few billion years ago. That one of them, DNA, was so stable that it ate everything else in sight is the way evolution works.

It isn't really chance, carbon's theory as well as evolution's is try everything. Most of it won't work but who cares.

To try and fail, is at least to learn, To fail to try is to suffer the inestimable loss of what might have been.
Chester Bernard

Please excuse the anthropomorphizing of carbon and evolution. They don't care but it makes a better story."

Ridge Runner - The Game.

At one point I had a very nice car that handled like a dream and for its day was very fast. I would occasionally drive from Charlotte NC to NYC and for some reason always ended up on the Blue Ridge Parkway. A beautiful WPA project to bring happiness to fast drivers. The first time I drove it I was lucky and saw the cops. The next time I decided I needed to build responsibility into my fun, and so added some rules. Pedestrians, animals, and bicycles had to be passed at 25mph. Parked cars at the speed limit, pass at no more than 10 over. Other than that, time from one end to the other was the score. Oops. If I screwed up I needed to subtract 30 minutes from the time at the next ranger station for the safety lecture. It really did improve my driving skills, as I had to consider sight lines, and braking distance in everything I was doing.

ONG was that a nice car! '76 Celica.

Living as Driving

A Horse of a Different Color - Beliefnet

Try to think of your life as if you are driving a car....any glances in the rear view mirror should be very brief and not prolonged or you might miss something in front of you that could cause an accident...try to look forward out of the windshield as much as you can.
exploringinside

J'C: "I used to drive time/distance rallies and found the experience useful in life. Of course you have to know where you are going and be aware of any impediments that might get in the way, the rear view mirror was just for potential issues, but generally if you are going to be successful you must be totally involved in the now of driving. How fast am I going, how fast should I be going. How do I prepare for the curve ahead, and how am I and the car performing? Are we ready for anything the road might throw at us?. The past is behind us but if we screwed up on one of the turns we have to figure out what to do about it. We can't go back and do it over, we have to fix it now. I say we advisedly, back then the navigator was an integral part of the team, and could make suggestions and help of course but I had to drive the car.

I still drive cars that way. 100% in the now of driving. I try to live that way as well. I know where I am going, I know where I have been, but the important thing is how do I get from where I have been to where I want to go? There are a lot of "we's" to help but I am responsible for me [and to a lesser extent all of the we's]. That means pay attention to now."

I have been thinking a lot recently about that responsibility for the other "We's." I know where it begins. It begins with those closest to me, and extends at least to the monkeysphere. Probably also to those anonymous readers of this blog and the letters I write to newspapers etc, It certainly extends to the audiences I perform for. But does it extend to the bigots who are trying to change my laws, or only those who will be affected by those laws. Am I responsible for the Shiites and the Sunnis, or should I be content to let them bomb themselves out of existence with perhaps a little help from the Israelis

Or Haiti? Or New Orleans. If they do not have the resources through their own mismanagement/misgovernment to rebuild or even succor the injured do I have any responsibility to help? I'm thinking the answer is no. Humans are evolving, and in evolution the winners don't help the losers. They are too busy helping themselves. I have limited resources, and even if I didn't, the buck at Radio Shack for Haiti will be used for much more worthwhile causes.

Accountable to Everything

Individual or Collective Accountability - Beliefnet

The notion is this, or at least this is my interpretation of it. Consider your dependence on the community around you. Include your parents and their parents. Include other human beings ... not just immediate acquaintances, but those who provide services, grow food, print Bibles, whatever. Include all the organisms essential for making sure you have oxygen, clean water, agricultural products, building materials, and so on. Okay ... you are not an independent being. You are an extension of all that came before you, all that surrounds you, and all that will follow you. So, basically, if you harm anyone or anything, you harm yourself. This is where morality and ethics come from. Murder someone, you are murdering yourself. Steal from someone, you steal from yourself. Pollute the water, you are polluting yourself. Cut down a healthy tree for frivolous reasons, you cut down yourself for frivolous reasons. I think you get the picture. Morality and ethics—the sort the vast majority of people agree are 'good' practices—emerge from recognition that we are all interdependent ... all as in not only humans, but all living organisms. And it does not require a god, God, or anything beyond the observable natural world. In a nutshell, WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO OURSELVES, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE EVERYTHING.
Wiscidea

Relevant to Belonging to Life

Jamel Oeser-Sweat

Jamel Oeser-Sweat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "As a youth, Oeser-Sweat’s family was homeless. After spending two years fighting homelessness and living in welfare hotels and shelters, Oeser-Sweat’s family moved into public housing.... However, despite an upbringing filled with homelessness, poverty and challenges, he has managed to evolve into one of his generation’s rising young stars."

It was at one of the worst of the welfare hotels that All Souls Unitarian Church found Jamel as a core participant in a Boy Scout troop created from residents of that hotel. He was one of the quiet leaders of the troop and his drive to take advantage of his opportunities was apparent to all of us involved in the project. I would like to think that we provided some of the social stability that allowed him to launch himself into what he is now. Watching him grow was one of the rewards of all the work we put into the troop. I lost track of him when I left New York, and recently remembered enough of his last name to succeed with a Google. As I noted on his Facebook: Wow! and Congratulations.

Absolutely relevant I just stole it from his facebook profile:

If you are not a King or a Queen...Act like one...that way..when you become a King or a Queen, you know how to act. Nothing magical will happen to show you the way..You must work to evolve yourself, one habit and trait at a time..
-Jamel Oeser-Sweat

Belonging to Life

Please tell me what 'belonging to life' means to you as it means nothing to me, so far.

“Love is not everything but we are less than nothing without Love.”
Exploringinside

I think for me the realization of what 'belonging to life' meant was during the birth of my first child. I had no idea what I was in for the moment labor began. I had prepared for natural child birth, knew what physically was expected, but nothing prepared me for the 'force' that took over my body and mind. It was the most POWERFUL force I have ever experienced! It is LIFE that births us and it is LIFE that ages us and eventually takes our breath away. IMHO, it is life that owns us.
Wendyness from beliefnet

Thank you

I understand what you mean and I agree in the sense that we are biological, living beings, first and foremost. I understand it as 'membership' rather than 'ownership' -

The Buddhist says to the Hot Dog Vendor, 'Make me one with everything.'

This is my personal vision –

May I be one with every other living entity, that is to say, let it be that I become a member of the unity of all living things; may my life also be a positive contribution to all other living things, both while I am alive and on into the future through the efforts spurred by my legacy.”
Exploringinside

From a PM response to Wendyness, with permission.

I have frequently noted that I am from from a long, long line of organisms that made enough difference in the life of at least one other organism and the environment that supported them to "say" lets make more of us. In most cases this was a purposeful choice, if only the prettiest hindquarters, but generally something more important than that, some evidence of something that would make the "more of us" a little better than either of us with a little nicer place to live in. That was the easy and fun part. Then came the fulfillment part to "more of us" the care, the feeding, the final "you are on your own now, carry on."

The fact that uncountable ancestors did just that is why I am here, and the drive to "carry on" is what makes me part of everything, or as Wendyness said owns me. The carrying on is much more interesting for humans, as they (and their dogs if Jon Franklin is correct.)have in a real sense taken control over their environment to the extent that the legacy scope is huge. We have domesticated our food sources, and to a lesser extent our social and intellectual resources. But it is in the social and intellectual areas where the drive to carry on has the most impact and most responsibility. It is no longer enough just to make "more of us." It is necessary to make the environment they are going to live in amenable to fulfilled living.

Religion may have been the earliest attempt to domesticate our social environment, and seems to have been dominant for most of the Holocene human history. It also seemed to be responsible for the human intellectual legacy and the suppression of same. The separation of the intellectual legacy from the religious was the next great change. The invasion of the intellectual institutions into the social area is perhaps the current challenge for those driven to preserve the human legacy. Whether we like it or not it seems that being one with life or with everything is now contingent on humans solving their social problems.

I frankly don't think religion is up to the challenge, and will be relegated to keeping the majority content with their lot in life. Those with the intellectual capability to remake the human social structure into the necessary cosmopolitan paradigm are now responsible for the human legacy.

Overpopulation Solution

The harmful aspects of religion - Beliefnet

And what do you propose we do about all those overpopulated areas of the earth? Haiti is a perfect example. It has a population density of 10 or 11 times the USA. Please help us poor theists know what is right. Should we send them more food, medicine and cash to help them 'rebuild' their country? What does science tell us is right?
Godman

J'C: "The dismal science: Economics, says food, medicine and cash, without rebuilding or building the infrastructure, will simply make the problems worse. The men, now fed and healthy will continue to rape their wives or women according to the dictates of their God whenever they are not pregnant, whether or not the men have the resources to support the resulting children.

The real solution is to carpet bomb the areas with contraceptive sponges with native language instruction on how to use them. Condoms would help as a supplement and for disease prevention, but you would have to teach the women how to put them on the men without their consent. (With their teeth, no man can resist a blow job.) But the key is to give women control over their fecundity. The sponge won't come out until the woman can afford the next child. 'Hey, prick, if you want to be a father, fork over the support.'"

This has been a hot button since a news article about an Imam telling people it is all right to rape your wives if they do not consent to more children. And the Pope saying no contraception under any circumstances. Sure a lot of American and European Catholics tell the Pope where he can jerk off and do whatever makes sense to them, but the poorer Catholic nations don't have that luxury. The math is simple 1+1=2 or 2.2 to be exact. Any more than that and you doom your country to poverty and the next natural disaster or war will cure it. It is a dismal science but if you can't do the math you lose.

Facts Truths and Half-truths

The Unification of Science and Religion - Beliefnet

What! No blocks to creativity?? That means you doubt the relevance of facts. Extraordinary. I thought it was only those like Whitehead who were aware of this

'There are no whole truths; all truths are half- truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil.' -- Alfred North Whitehead
2bme

J'C: "Nice argument from incredulity there. Then you go on to tell me how I think. Cool.

I never was a big fan of Whitehead. I found his ideas muddy and confused filled with statements like the above. Categorical half-truths treated as whole truths. I got a half-truth to sell you, but don't worry I will sell it at full price.

Just for the record I do not doubt the relevance of facts. I have never encountered truth. Half or whole. Certain ideas stimulate the truth centers in my mind, so I accept them, but always provisionally. Not that they are half-truths, just that they are provisional truths. That is true unless something comes along to modify or falsify them."

An interesting confusion here between facts, half-assed-facts, and truth. Facts are verifiable by investigation and are generally agreed to be factual by those willing to investigate them. Half-assed-facts are urban legends, myths, rumors, and stories that sound like they might be verifiable, and may in fact be so. Or why Snopes.com exists. Half-assed-facts are usually presented solemnly as fact and generally expected to be accepted as such.

Truth is a statement that is evaluated by an individual as being irrefutable. Identifying truth seems to be an innate function of the human mind/brain. It starts with the truths learned at mother's knee, and goes on to those presented by authority figures particularly authority figures in positions of power or speaking for God. There is no such thing as a half-truth as Whitehead claims. The mind/brain does not work that way. It may be that Whitehead is speaking of provisional truth in his statement, I am not familiar with the context, but either the mind/brain accepts the statement as true, that is usable without thought or qualm, or it is not. The mind/brain does not accept maybes in its truth function. Even a provisional truth in a skeptical mind is nonetheless a truth. It is apparent in hard skeptics who are happy to assert the truth that eg. ESP cannot exist, or God is a myth. Truth is an intensely personal evaluation. Where people get in deep trouble is asserting a personal truth as general. Especially with respect to God. Existence of God is as personal an issue as sex, and should be treated as such in any discussion.

Pre Existing Condition

Thanks
Tony Auth

Secret of Life: Death

Quality of Life - Beliefnet

"The Greatest Secret in life is the sure, certainty of death...it causes us to strive to leave our mark upon the Earth." If one is convinced that striving to improve one's life, the lives of their family and the lives of humans in general is futile, for any reason, one might attempt to 'opt out' of 'This Life' in preference for some promised 'better life,' somewhere other than the Earth. (I include in that group of 'alternatives' Heaven, Nirvana, 'Enlightenment' (of several different flavors, etc.)
exploringinside "

As Forrest Church would point out the secret of leaving our mark is the quality of our love. Not just for those closest to us, but for all we choose to include as "our society." Back when I was a UU that was supposed to mean "All people" but that was dispiriting as one cannot leave ones mark on "All People." It is much too easy to turn away from leaving ones mark to less worthy activities like group hugs without love of AIDS walks or kicking in a few excess bucks to UUSC and be done with it.

When Forrest ended a sermon it was always "Amen. I love you!" Who did he really love? I can't speak for him and cannot ask, and frankly I thought it was a little hokey until I read "Love and Death." But when I interpreted it (my interpretation not Forrest's) as I love those who will pay attention, be affected by my thinking, and pass forward the message and "Amen. I love you!" not from Forrest but from themselves it makes "the mark" make sense. We affect those we love, whether they are those nearest and dearest to us or those we may not even think of who love us and are affected by what we do and say if and only if we love them.
Amen. I love you!

What is a Human?

The Human Condition, - Beliefnet

Can you make a reasoned argument as to what is Man? No.
2bme

J'C: "It is obvious you are speaking for yourself in answering this question. I have no problem with a reasoned argument as to what is a human. First of all your use of 'Man' is the major part of your problem. People come in two sexes, and as KW would point out also two genders. Any reasoned argument about humans must take those facts into account. A human is a social, sexual, reasoning animal. The primary evolutionary advantage of humans was their abstract and symbolic reasoning capability which allowed them to pass up predation and gathering for herding and farming. This lead to large social groupings that needed complex interaction rules that is morality to allow the groups to function and accomplish all of the chores necessary for the society to grow and prosper. Many of the chores consisted of preserving the lore and knowledge of not only the tools and techniques, but the socializing and educating of the tribe. Another function was the integrity of the society, both in protecting it from intrusions and from internal sedition. All of this taxed the abstract and symbolic reasoning capability of the people to the utmost and some found ways to delegate the most difficult of these chores to tribal leaders, shamans, and ultimately to God.

Gender roles were dictated by biology for much of human history, women were in charge of the education and nurturing of the children and social cohesion. They were tied to the hearth by biology and their substantial economic contribution was home based. Clothing and tool manufacturing especially. The social cohesion provided by the casual conversation at the water source, the marketplace and the church.

Men were less tied to the hearth and frankly less valuable to the community so were assigned the dangerous chores of herding and predator control including the smartest and most dangerous predator, other humans. If things were going well men had time to think about more abstract things like why things were as they were, and how to understand their world so that they could make it better. Some were unable to participate in this intellectual activity and 'built the Cathedral' by sweeping the floor. Or protected the village by fighting on the periphery.

All changed radically when medicine and hygiene made fecundity of women perhaps an undesirable feature, and women were able to limit family size and have a decent chance of one child equaling one productive adult. The world is still shaking this major evolutionary change out."

The usefulness of God and religion was in keeping the floor sweepers and cannon fodder focused on the glorious afterlife. Valhalla, Asgard , Heaven, all with pie in the sky after you die, particularly if you died in the service of God. Please note that this is of need only for males who are taught from infancy to serve God and the shaman in any way they could, and if they could do nothing else do what the shaman says and God will take care of them in the afterlife. They were given strict rules to keep them under the shaman's control, and internalized their worthlessness relative to the shaman and God. This works very well for those that are unable to deal with the human male condition of subservience and worthlessness. The streets of heaven are paved with gold, and the whole universe is a playpen. God only knows how they would learn to play in that playpen, but they never think about that. And as for all the beautiful virgins without the necessary physical equipment you can't even jerk off.

We will see how it all shakes out. The God guys are out-breeding their resources, with significant help from the Pope, although the Pope is also insuring that AIDS will help with the population problem. Those controlling their breeding also control most of the resources. It will be interesting to see what they do with them. The main resource being intellectual of course, China, parts of India, Europe, and parts of the US are using those intellectual resources very effectively. How they will "share" will probably be ugly.

Problem with Pascal's wager

Problem with Pascal's wager - Beliefnet

J'C: "If Pascal had a delete button he would have used it for this brain fart.

As I noted in the other thread even if I were guaranteed an eternity of bliss worshiping the glory of God, it is still a bad bet. Even if I bet on the right God. And spent the right amount of time learning how to worship the glory of God. What do I win? An eternity of more of the same. Talk about SSDD."

It is high time fler0002 made the blog.

fler0002 1/15/2004 11:15 PM

And we also discover that only those who believed in God and gave their lives to Him will enter into heaven and those who didn't will go to the torment of hell... what then??

What is it that you find to love in a deity that threatens you with eternal torment if you make one wrong decision?

Does a perfect deity sound like one who feels that it is just to torment you forever because of a choice you made based on the limited knowledge, and some erroneous knowledge, that you had when you made the choice?

Or does it sound like a shell game designed to play upon your fears in order to persuade you to believe?

Does it sound like a policy that benefits the church more than it benefits the believer?

Does it sound like a plan to intimidate the uncertain by depicting their 'loving' deity as one that is bigger, stronger, and incomparably more vicious?

Does it sound like a plan that not only creates fears of what happens after death, but also creates in humanity fears of each other? Fears of any tolerance for anything other than what is sanctified by the church. Fears that turn into hatreds. Fears that turn into witch hunts. Fears that turn into jihads, crusades, and terrorism. Fears that turn into sexual abuse.

You are welcome to indulge yourself in all those fears. I for one have chosen to use reason to dispell them. I don't have to live with those fears, and consider Pascal to be a coward.

Wingnuts: Carpe Diem

Optimism - Beliefnet

Your implied strategy seems to be hope for the best and suddenly die, though a little more information would have saved your life. Is this what God wants? Don't worry about hazards, don't worry about disease, don't worry about your food supply ... live for today and, if you die tomorrow—though it could have been easily or not-so-easily prevented—so be it?
Wiscidea

J'C: "Nothing implied about it. This is the real strategy of the religious wingnuts. I am all for it. I just wish God would collect them sooner rather than later."

The trick will be to not be caught in the snares God uses to catch them. The most dangerous is the nuclear solution to the problem of Islam. It won't be the US, but I wonder how long China will put up with the flies before they swat them. The US wingnuts will eliminate themselves with obesity and despair from loss of economic support for their merry-go-round. The banks they won't regulate will foreclose on their homes, Wallmarts, and churches, and Jim Jones is always around the corner. Unfortunately the universe is blind, pitiless, and indifferent. So is God.

Optimism - The world is predictable, therefore I am.

Optimism - Beliefnet

The dissonance arises in that you cannot really answer, 'Why is the world predictable?' The world is predictable, therefore I am.
Godman

J'C: "You just answered it. The world has natural laws. The world exists in a certain position relative to its major energy source. This insures that the observed fact of carbon based life is highly probable, and once started life gets more mobile and smarter until therefore I am. It was not inevitable, the bears or the cetaceans, might still win as humans kill themselves off, and there will always be cockroaches."

Talk about the blind squirrel.

What is the Calling of a Minister?

Active Christian Ministers who are also Atheists - Beliefnet

In respect to the ministers, they are teaching to have faith in God. They preach to come from a place of truth. They are not following their advice. I am not judging them, just an observation. I find it iteresting that the reasons in the video -financial, alienation, a built history are exactly the reasons that this philosophy would say they would continue to stay in this situation. My view is more New Agey , but there are similar Christian views that say essentially the same. Actually these reason from the video/this philosophy are common human conditions that call for much compassion.
Myownpath

J'C: "I wonder if ministers are called to have faith in God and preach from the truth, or if they are called to minister to those that call them using God and the truth as tools. When I was wondering whether I was called to the ministry, I had no God nor truth to sell, and I didn't have enough charlatan in me to expect to get rich. But I did think I could help people get past the difficult issues in their lives. (hence the arrogant preachyness. Ever hear of the boy scout who frog-marched the LoL across the street to get his merit badge.) I wondered if I could do it without God. My HS MMPI said I should be a circuit preacher. Fortunately, I had different wrong ideas for myself, and made my own mistakes not the shrink's.

I have the same wonder about the new age gurus. Are they really just trying to make a quick buck off the gullible, or are they really doing what they can to help those who have been failed by their Preachers. People send me new age stuff as if they are doing me a favor then wish me to repay it by reading the crap and discussing it with them.

I am sure some are happy with the bucks (as I am, I sold Deepak a BMW) but I find many of them a necessary bridge to a less faith based, and more self-reliant religion. And like it or not we all have a religion. We cannot live in society without one. We have to know why we are alive, why we try to stay that way, and why our friends should. It also helps to have a pretty good handle on death, others and our own."

Atheist Christian Ministers.

Active Christian Ministers who are also Atheists - Beliefnet

I think a brief way to understand this view is that in order to live a full and self-actualized life it is important to not allow your decisions to be made from a position of fear and limitation -to have 'faith' all will turn out well and you will handle any struggles that arise, even if this means giving up the safer road of shutting up.
Myownpath

J'C: "Spoken like a true convert. I don't say that disparagingly. It is an important first step. The next step as EI points out is holding your tongue not out of fear and limitation but out of compassion for the other in the conversation.

If you are secure enough in your thinking and beliefs, you should not need to wear them on your sleeve but allow them to give you the inner strength to reach out to others of different ways of thinking, even perhaps your old faith although that is the most difficult, on their terms without compromising your own beliefs. When a fundie expresses their dependence on God, if they are not proselytizing, but merely expressing their immersion in God thinking, I feel no need to correct their thinking, it affects mine not a whit. I can even say 'God bless you' and mean it without compromising my atheism. A very long time ago, a friend who was a devout Catholic, with whom I had had many spirited discussions about religion, had a major tragedy in his life. Without even thinking I told him I would pray for him. He looked surprised for just a moment and then said 'Thank you. God listens even more carefully to atheists.'

I can understand a Clergyperson, who once had a strong belief system who lost faith in God but not the major tenets of the belief system could in fact be an empathetic and effective spiritual leader in spite of herm different interpretation of the word 'God.'"

J'C: When I was considering the ministry, I was actually thinking about a "Real" religion, leaning toward Episcopal, rather than my atheistic Unitarian milk church. Jesuits would have been a consideration except for the celibacy issue. Had I gone down that path I probably would have copped out as a UU but I look at Bishop Spong and wonder...

Connections

My puzzle over "something larger than ourselves" - Beliefnet

To me, you're connected to society just by being born into it and growing up a part of it; what kind of society it is, is immaterial.
BlackWingBlueSky

J'C: "It used to be that way. And still is in many places. One of the major changes in modern society is that the most intelligent leave their home society to attend the University. At the University they are forced to assemble a totally new society that may have little resemblance to the one they grew up in. There are of course some established social values but they may be quite different from home. And there is more choice. The geeks, the athletes, the social clubs, and they may overlap considerably for those so inclined. The social changes continue after graduation. People seldom go home again. Again the choices are limitless, but must be limited. But the key for many is they choose their society in which they wish to be connected. Liberating, but in most cases God stays home and can't help."

Yes this is certainly a change in which new connections are formed. Yet I somehow feel it is still superficial compared to deep connections that one could potentially feel. A loss of a loved one, deep love, profound beauty... tend to move me more.
Myownpath: followup

J'C: "The new connections are certainly not the only connections. Selected ones remain and are an integral part of the new society. As noted elsewhere the "J" in J'Carlin comes from a childhood nickname that I abandoned, lock stock and barrel, when I went away to school. And yet the people who call me J'Carlin because they can't won't think of me as Carlin are some of the most cherished people in my life. Many of them taught me of deep love, profound beauty, the love of the infinite universe. I can trace most of my most special moments to one or another person who uses J'Carlin or used to. At my age many are no longer physically able to reinforce them, but I can still live their moments in my living memory. Any time I want to I can hear my sister play the Rachmaninoff C#Minor Prelude. If I am angry, it is the violent version and once she gets to the second theme beautifully life is once again good.

Transcendence

My puzzle over "something larger than ourselves"- Beliefnet :
J'C: "As a minister once said 'Sometimes I just need to walk in the redwoods.' My avatar is a 100 meter ring of over a hundred redwood trees all of the same age. When I first came upon it many years ago it was a transcendent experience. I rounded the bend in the trail and stood stunned by the beauty, the symmetry, the sunlight playing on the trees. I knew about the way redwoods formed rings but this was not a dozen trees but a hundred. Then it occurred to me that the forest was logged 80 years ago, and the loggers found a gift of a third generation ring of 30 or so trees which they cut opening light for the hundreds of burl shoots around the outside of the ring. The fact that this redwood cathedral was man-made (sort of) nature helped a lot, in no way diminishes its wonder and beauty."

Where is the hope?

Where is the hope for the non-believer? - Beliefnet

But, I only believe in an undefined higher power some of the time, and I'm not really feeling it right now. Where do I find hope? How can I sit here and convince myself to not give up on her when I have no God to turn to?
Rteachj

J'C: "Thank you all for the round TUIT. I have been meaning to respond, as you are articulating an important issue for atheists. Where do you find hope? If there is no where for the cat to go if she has died, or grandma for that matter, how do you justify your love? I think Forrest Church's Love and Death is relevant here as I sense the issue is larger than your cat. Forrest is a Universalist deist and would, I think, have been comfortable with your undefined higher power. He was dying when he wrote the book and knew it. It is a short book, and I won't attempt to summarize it here, but it is an important book for all who have no God to turn to when death happens. Even to us."

As noted on other posts the issue of death and dying is the elephant in the atheist's living room. Until one comes to terms with the idea that this life is "All she wrote," I don't think one can really live without God. It was while I was studying the Et Expecto text that I finally realized No, I don't Expecto, that I also came to grips that this life was all I had to work with and I had damn well better do as much as humanly possible with it. Note that humanly possible has definite limits, and pushing those limits is part of being human. I will push them by loving and caring as much as I can until it is no longer possible. Then will "I lay me down with a will" and others will have to cherish my space. If I have loved enough they will find my space easy to make better.

Aesthetics and God.

Science and Beauty - Beliefnet

Science cannot verify this relationship nor can it explain the reason for the emotional response to beauty completely unnecessary for animal life.
2bme

J'C: "I am not sure what science you have been studying, but the human emotional response to beauty is not only well studied but the neurochemical reward mechanisms are well documented.

The appreciation of beauty in art and music among other things, patterns in clouds for example, begins at a very young age. One only has to watch the infant in the crib laughing as the rocking crib moves the hanging toys. It isn't until much later that the priest, shaman, or Sunday School teacher starts to impose God as the source of all that beauty. Yet another instance where God is a Johnny come lately, trying to make up for lost time. Morality, love, empathy, compassion and many others are all the property of children until God takes the candy from the baby and says "That is mine." If you are good I might let you have a taste."

J'C: This is probably my biggest beef with God. Kids do just fine in all social and aesthetic activities until someone needs to pound some God into them. Then their fine tuned morality they learned in kindergarten if they weren't corrupted before, is chopped up and parsed out by the God mediators and weird additions needed for sin are added. By the time they get to confirmation they are so screwed up that they don't know right from wrong and must pray to be saved from their sinfulness. Oh, yeah, throw a whole bunch of money in the plate so the mediator can help you find enough sins to keep the church in SUVs and Caddy's. But don't worry no hypocrisy there the mediator will be sinning right along with you.

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World | The Onion - America's Finest News Source: "Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.
...
'I do not understand,' reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. 'A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass.'

'Everything is here already,' the pictograph continues. 'We do not need more stars.'
...
According to the cuneiform tablets, Sumerians found God's most puzzling act to be the creation from dust of the first two human beings.

'These two people made in his image do not know how to communicate, lack skills in both mathematics and farming, and have the intellectual capacity of an infant,' one Sumerian philosopher wrote. 'They must be the creation of a complete idiot.'"

Chosing One's Society

My puzzle over "something larger than ourselves" - Beliefnet

To me, you're connected to society just by being born into it and growing up a part of it; what kind of society it is, is immaterial.
BlackWingBlueSky

J'C: "It used to be that way. And still is in many places. One of the major changes in modern society is that the most intelligent leave their home society to attend the University. At the University they are forced to assemble a totally new society that may have little resemblance to the one they grew up in. There are of course some established social values but they may be quite different from home. And there is more choice. The geeks, the athletes, the social clubs, and they may overlap considerably for those so inclined. The social changes continue after graduation. People seldom go home again. Again the choices are limitless, but must be limited. But the key for many is they choose their society in which they wish to be connected. Liberating, but in most cases God stays home and can't help."

J'C I wonder if this is simply evolution in action. Certainly the ones that choose their society and values as adults, have a real leg up on those that are stuck in their milk society. Some will of course make the wrong choices, but that is part of being human. But enough will make the right choices that a cosmopolitan, knowledge based society will become dominant.

The humanitarian in me cries for those that will be left by the wayside, and they won't all be third world, but I see no way to change the blind, pitiless workings of the evolutionary process. My hope is that the de facto leaders, they won't be politicians, will find a way to provide for those that cannot keep up. Perhaps we are seeing it now with meaning free entertainment and sterile social networking. But I wonder. Are the overweight people serving and eating at "MacFriendly's" and selling and shopping at WalMart inexorably weeding themselves out of the gene pool? Will God help them? If so how?

Dinnertime rituals?

What's your dinnertime ritual?- Beliefnet

I personally have a desire to teach my daughter gratitude, but am not interested in typical God prayers. I think maybe reading a different poem each night might be nice, and a conversation starter... I dont know...
Sasham

J'C: "A nice pre-dinner ritual I was recently introduced to is to go around the table and each person says 'Today, I thank ...' and 'Today, I learned...' Talk about conversation starters!"

I checked with Nick Manfred who introduced me to it. It turns out I missed part and added the thanks.

Someone starts. They describe the favorite part of their day and may talk about it as much as they want. Others may ask questions but can't take over the spotlight. The same someone then says something they learned during the day. Others may ask questions but can't take over the spotlight. Once the second part is exhausted, the someone can then "pass" to another person of their choice and that new person repeats the story telling.

It's simple and it seems to get kids talking about what was important for them in their day without the non-starter "What did you do today?" question. It also gets the adults to listen to what is important for the kids. It also allows adults to bring adult themes into the dinner conversation which kids can learn from. My friend Dave Chappel in Penyrn taught me this dinnner deal.

Just a wonderful ritual. Thanks Nick and Dave.

The Value of Nonbelief.

What Does Atheism Have To Offer To You? - Beliefnet

Yes, I do doubt there's a benefit. Is there a benefit to a Jew who doubts Jesus? Is there a benefit to a Muslim who doubts Buddha? Doubting something in itself has no value, in my opinion. What can be valuable is a belief system, and I don't think atheism is a belief system - at least to me anyway.
rgr075

The problem with belief systems is that the package the belief system comes in may contain a whole lot of dysfunctional crap along with the valuable stuff. It is certainly possible to weed out the dysfunctional crap, but I find it much more useful to find the valuable stuff and incorporate in my life. It is much easier to do without belief, as the valuable stuff is well highlighted typically.

The other value of nonbelief is that valuable stuff can be found in sources of wisdom that don't require belief. A good novel, a work of art, a piece of music, all can provide valuable stuff, no belief required. The value of atheism is that all of the traditional belief systems can be taken without any need to consider the God basis of the belief system. Without God the good is readily apparent and the crap easily disposed of."

If atheism offers anything, it's a clean slate for which to base rational values. But it's the values themselves that seem of use to me, not necessarily the lack of belief in something supernatural.
rgr075 (followup)

J'C: "The problem with supernatural beliefs is the rational values which are admittedly plentiful, are so distorted by God that the disbelief in God can be a useful touchstone in the sorting process. Religions have a lot of good things to say about dealing with death for example, but you have to get God on Herm Great White Throne or little porcelain throne completely out of the picture to discover them. Ironclad disbelief is really helpful in sorting all the threads in the tapestry into something useful. The disbelieving mind can make the God threads go away to reveal whatever is left.

The Mass and reality.

Outward and Inward Man - Beliefnet

I can't speak for others, but religion is not about reciting the mass and feeling all warm and fuzzy in the arms of God for me. It's a journey, and a journey that sometimes takes us to the darkest parts of ourselves, where I can assure you it isn't all warm and fuzzy.

There is sacredness to life.
Wendyness

J'C: "I never implied differently. But those who have never 'Dragged the mass into the lab' probably have less appreciation for the either the warm fuzzies or the 'darkest parts of ourselves.' Especially the question of Death. I have (as an atheist, spent countless hours with the Et Expecto, and the Dies Irae of the requiem. I have tried to figure out what this meant to believers and by extension what it could mean to me. I do not believe in life after death, and yet the lab tells me that both of these sections are teaching a powerful lesson. Have you considered those lessons? The question is rhetorical. many have most have not. And yet the mass as a whole whether sung or chanted by a bored priest is a work of art that can be appreciated for itself without analysis or picking apart, but like a rainbow understanding the 'physics' of it adds to not subtracts from the wonder and beauty."

Art and Reality

Outward and Inward Man - Beliefnet Community

I suppose you think Mozart and Picasso should have been dragged 'back to the lab.'
Christianlib

J'C: "Neither Mozart nor Picasso loses anything at all by being dragged back to the lab. Indeed appreciating how both manipulate reality to create transcendent art only makes their genius, their art and the lessons they teach more meaningful and closer to what rings true. I suspect that I have a much better understanding of religion's meaning than those who have recited the mass all their lives feeling all warm and fuzzy in the arms of God, and never even trying to relate it to what is real in their lives or anybody else's."

A disciplined imagination.

Outward and Inward Man - Religion and the Human Mind - Beliefnet Community

A 'disciplined' imagination just doesn't seem very imaginative, or productive, to me. If your thoughts only go where you want them to go, I'll bet you VERY seldom experience a EUREKA! flash.
Christianlib

J'C: "You seem to be confusing discipline with control or repression. A disciplined imagination can go wherever it wants but knows the difference between imagination and reality. It can go to the farthest borders of fantasy, and can even suspend disbelief as needed, but the tether to reality stays in place and the fantasy is never confused with what is. This is not to say that one can not learn from fantasy, the eureka moments are common and useful. But finally they get pulled 'back to the lab' to be tested against what really is."

Imagination and reality.

Outward and Inward Man - Beliefnet

It doesn't mean that everything imagined will take you some place. A great deal of imagination is mental masturbation.
F1fan

J'C: "That really depends on how disciplined your imagination is. Much of what people deal with in reality is reality masturbation.

Almost everything we deal with in the real world is abstraction. Give a person 10 bucks or worse, charge 10 bucks on a credit card, for a latte and you have exchanged an abstraction for a frothy concoction that you abstract as a latte. If it is a low fat decaf latte you have nothing but an abstraction. As Kurt Vonnegut pointed out 'There was a soft drink bottle on the windowsill. Its label boasted that it contained no nourishment whatsoever.'"

J'C: The beginning of a conversation. To be continued

Can Injustice and violence be condoned?

Dawkins' Trashy Tract - Beliefnet

How long should injustice be tolerated? Should we condone or accept violence done to any human for any 'reason?' ...
exploringinside

J'C: "Injustice and violence cannot be tolerated. But frequently cannot be prevented. Nutjobs whether individuals or nations or political movements, will be nutjobs. Can you tolerate them? No. Can you do whatever you can to combat them in phone banks, internet movements, knocking on neighbor doors to gain support for opposing them. It is the only real choice you have short of grabbing an AK47 and becoming a nutjob."

Do you remeber Sidney Poitier's speech concerning racism and interracial marriage to his 'father' in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? [I paraphrase] 'It's going to take until your whole generation up and dies for the rest of us to be free of your prejudice.' I ask you....how many generations of Theists and Atheists must continue to live at arms length for fear of stirring up the ancient hatreds and inciting a violent outburst?...
exploringinside

J'C: "I don't remember Sidney's speech, I read the book. But bringing a person of color, a gay couple, a muslim in a chador to your church or bowling league will do more than combating those ancient hatreds with words, or that AK47."

Both sides must change their attitudes for there to arise a chance of 'co-existence.' That can only occur person-to-person, one pair at a time, outside the institutional doors that lock us into and out of human communion. Beliefnet Forums are not the answer, either; these Boards are all too often 'playpens for the bored.'
exploringinside

J'C: "Don't tell it to me. Tell it to the Shiites and the Sunnis. Tell it to the Israelis and the Palestinians. But it is no accident that China is blocking Google at the cost of its internet. And don't underestimate the power of the chat rooms and the blogs, even beliefnet. Just in the time I have been here I have seen several fundamentalist nutjobs become before our eyes more reasonable and better people. I know of several more who never posted even once. Yes we are in playpens, but as you and Fulghum know the playpen is where we learn to live."

Dawkins - Literary prize winner or bigot or both.

Dawkins' Trashy Tract - Beliefnet

You've done a mostly decent job of trashing the man's book, but what of the author, himself?
exploringinside

J'C: "I have 5 books by Dr. Dawkins on my shelf which I think are excellent interpretations of evolutionary science for the reader of average or higher intelligence. I bought The God Delusion without reading reviews based on the rest of his books. As an evolutionary scientist and popularizer of his field I think he is exemplary. As an atheist I think he is a bigot. As a responsible person I feel a necessity to combat bigotry from whatever corner it comes from. As a responsible atheist I resent the fact that his bigotry is giving ordinarily responsible theists a hobby horse to ride roughshod over atheism and atheists.

Just as I hold responsible Christians accountable for speaking out against the bigotry of the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelps of the Christian world. I think that responsible atheists are on the front line for combating atheist fundamentalism and bigotry. We are a small and politically marginal minority, and have to work intelligently under the radar to achieve the changes that are necessary. Strident hate, bigotry, and mindless fundamentalism does great damage to the cause of rationality and humanistic values in todays polarized world. Someone must pay attention."

As I noted on the eSKEPTIC blog promoting Dawkins for the Noble Prize

Polemics are not literature. If Dawkins could somehow get the brain fart of “The God Delusion” out of his bibliography he might have a chance. Unfortunately it is stinking up his name if not the excellent work he has done in explaining a difficult science to a skeptical world.

Transcendence = Mama's Smile.

Science vs. Faith - Beliefnet

How does one know when they have 'experienced' the transcendent?
Ithinkfree

J'C: "Supernatural transcendence or natural transcendence is experienced by a feeling of truth or rightness, which cannot be justified rationally in any way. It might be a work of art that the only possible comment is 'Wow' or whatever one uses for the religious expression 'Oh My God.' My opinion is that this is a natural function of the brain and the attribution to a supernatural entity is a conditioned response. In other words I can't explain it therefore Goddidit.

I am quite comfortable with the thought that I can't explain it, therefore a resonance in the entire brain, conscious and unconscious is responsible. It may be that in the deep recesses of my brain a similar thing was associated with mama's smile, and therefore it was beautiful and true. Mama is no longer available to ask, but given the right incentive and time, I could probably trace any transcendent experience to the one that triggered that smile. Probably for a theist God triggered that smile."

J'C: I suspect that this is the reason childhood religious conditioning is so hard to shake. In a religious household God and mama's smile were so frequently associated that one became the other. If the baby does something right mama smiles and says "God bless you." Or even worse baby does something wrong and mama frowns and says "Sin." When I think of how hard some early conditioning was to break, see Too Big for a Fork? That was a transcendent experience of "wrong."

Defining Atheism and Transcendence

Identifying The One True Religion Beliefnet

How do you define Atheist?
Marcion

The definition of atheist I use is 'Without God.' This is a literal translation of the conventional use of 'a-.' I do not quibble at all about the reasons for being without God in one's life. As long as morality, meaning, purpose, spirituality, and even transcendence* are not attributed to God but considered natural human responses one is an atheist. Whether God exists or not is a belief not an argument, and I don't do belief or faith. Many atheists do indulge in both, but as long as God is not one of their indulgences I have no problem with them calling themselves atheists.

*'Transcendence' is a concept I refuse to cede to supernaturalists. For me it means true or beautiful but unverifiable by natural reasoning or cognition. It is the 'Aha' moment in science when the scientist knows hesh has the answer to an insurmountable (by reason) problem. It is a natural function of the human mind, or brain if you prefer but the insight was not achieved by the usual rational cognitive processes. No dualism, Blü, the mind is purely human, but complex beyond human understanding. Since the human mind created God in a transcendent error, it is even to complex for God to understand."

Note minor corrections 1/12

Religion as a Bridge to Hell

Nick A:

This is it in a nutshell. The essence of religion which leads to man becoming Man is diminished, secularized, and becomes a tool of ego concerns telling people what to do. The trouble is the human condition where the teachings of Jesus can degenerate into the spanish Inquisition. What is Man and why does this happen. It doesn't make sense but it is what happens. The logical question is what is man's nature to explain it?

People always argue about what to do or if god exists but the reality that holds us in this madness is the human condition. Arguing just perpetuates the human condition. I believe that Christians, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc could come to agree that the real problem within ourselves and in the world today is the human condition that denies the conscious perspective necessary for us to become truly human.
The more we come to know the human condition within ourselves the more atheism and religion become related much like science and the essence of religion. I say "essence of religion" to distinguish it from religious perversion.

What knowledge from your perceptions in your opinion is responsible for your perspective? For example I must be wary of you because you are guided completely by the knowledge of perceptions and logic.
Unfortunately there is no logical reason for you not to kill me or anyone else that could serve as an annoyance. It makes perfect sense to eliminate what is undesirable providing that you don't get caught.
The only reason you wouldn't kill me is from the fear of getting caught or some societal conditioned morality which is not logical so should be ignored.
So I guess your philosophy should be to kill first if in the clear and ask questions later. It is the logical thing to do when tormented by a nuisance. am I right?

Man is an exception, whatever else he is. If he is not the image of God, then he is a disease of the dust. If it is not true that a divine being fell, then we can only say that one of the animals went entirely off its head.
Chesterton

As we are we are just performing mechanical necessities in response to universal laws. Organic life on earth including Man is just performing a mechanical necessity in its life cycles. However we have the potential to serve a conscious purpose beyond our normal reactive mechanical purpose which is uniquely human. We have the potential for conscious ACTION along with our natural inclination towards blind REACTION

The human condition is that we are hypocrites, We are both capable of compassion and atrocity depending upon which way the wind is blowing.

Evil doesn't refer to societal actions but rather what we ARE in relation to human conscious potential: inner unity.
It is the same concept as in Christianity. We avoid sincere discussion of the "human condition" but without being open to its experience, what understanding can we possibly have to build a realistic foundation leading towards ontological understanding?

Regardless of God, we are what we are. Once we admit it then the question of morality can be put into a more realistic light rather than fighting over whether atheism or theism is more moral.
Since we are as we ARE, everything is as it is. How then can either science or religion affect what we ARE to become more naturally human rather than arguing over respective idolatries?

J'C: The above is one person's apologetic for the need for God to keep humans from being "As we ARE." Unfortunately this is a common apologetic that religions use to keep believers in abject fear of their fellow humans, which of course leads to hate and bigotry.

We are the world's sweet chosen few.
The rest of you be damned.
There's room enough in Hell for you;
We won't have Heaven crammed.

This is a necessary result of the sinfulness of all people, believers or not. Believers of course can achieve salvation by the proper rituals, even for acting out "As we ARE." But beware of the non-believers they are dangerous and evil as they might entice a believer to Hell. Of course they might do all sorts of other things to keep the believer cowering in church praying frantically to "Lead us not into temptation." "We are as we ARE" and temptation is a constant companion and danger.

The hooker and it is huge and sharp is that this belief that "We are as we ARE" is universal creates a living Hell on earth that all the pie in the sky after we die even if it existed cannot compensate for.

I do not choose to live this way. I choose to observe that almost all people including religious assholes, are basically compassionate, socially desirable neighbors. The exceptions quickly reveal themselves and can be dealt with as the exceptions they are.

Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate — and quickly.
Robert A. Heinlein

[Edit] To leave on a lighter note paraphrasing the late Forrest Church "This is the day [and the neighbors] we are given. Rejoice and be glad in [them!]"

Intelligent Responses to Stimuli

Nick A:

The question then becomes if Man is capable of more than just blind reaction and its expressions of associative thought? Simone and much of esoteric thought says we are. As we are we are just performing mechanical necessities in response to universal laws.

J'C: Your last statement is just flat wrong. Once a stimulus is presented to the mind it is evaluated and integrated into the complex reality of the self, and the response is conditioned not only by the needs of the self but the evaluation of the situation presented. There are internal stimuli from the more primitive parts of the brain, but the mind is capable of overriding even basic instinctive responses. We might sweat a bit but neither fight or flee.

This intelligent reaction to all stimuli is the birthright of all humans, and most higher animals. There is no esoteric input needed from God or Guru, unless of course the individual is conditioned like a dog to obey the smarter and more powerful Alpha. This conditioning is common and perhaps instinctual as a transferal of parental obedience to others as the child matures, but it is subject to manipulation by the mind as are all instinctual responses. If, as the Jesuits claim, a child is conditioned to transfer this parental obedience by the time hesh is 10 it is fixed for life. Not strictly true, but the loss of the parental surrogate is traumatic. Simone had to reject religion entirely and become an atheist before she could transfer the surrogacy to God. Others may stop at nihilism when God dies, others may proceed to a rational atheism. Some may attempt to find a more esoteric path to the Alpha. A few never get the conditioning in the first place and take their place in their society as a rational purposeful, moral contributor. No external controls are necessary as the internal controls are built in which are, as Fulghum via Exploringinside showed us elsewhere, learned and reinforced in kindergarten. God plays in the same sandbox which is why Herm rules are generally similar except for the Alpha dominance rules.

Compassion and atrocity

Nick A:

We create programming. It explains why we can be simultaneously capable of compassion and atrocity.

J'C: Humans as social animals are incapable of atrocity without some higher level programming to cause them to counter their social imperative to respect other humans. Normally this higher programming comes from God, but insanity, nation, or even a charismatic leader can program people to go against their social values and commit atrocities.

The Wolf in the Parlor

Facebook | Home: "I just finished The Wolf in the Parlor by Jon Franklin. Ostensibly about people and dogs. He does that well with a radical theory about the relationship. But it is really an autobiography of a science journalist with Pulitzers and how he thinks.

Science these days is really the study of trees or maybe even the branches or leaves. Thanks to the journalists like Jon for exploring the forest. Highly recommended."

His radical theory is that humans and dogs are a natural symbiote that enabled both to survive the early Holocene megafauna extinction at the end of the last ice age. The humans supplied the intelligent control mechanisms and the dogs the basic emotional instincts. His speculation, even he does not call it a theory, is the symbiosis atrophied the cerebrum of the dogs, as humans did the thinking better, and atrophied the emotional centers in the humans, as humans allowed the dogs to distinguish friend from foe, provide the alerts for things that go bump in the night so the humans can deal with them, among other important emotionally based activities. He speculates that this is the cause of a 20% loss of brain mass in dogs, they no longer needed to know how to hunt, think or control their emotions, humans were much better at that, and the cause of 10% loss of brain mass in humans, as dogs were better at handling the emotional pack management issues.

An amusing hint at the end of the book: Zoloft or a dog, take your pick.

Science as a Bridge to God

The blue roads of thinking: The Human Condition:

To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing.
Simone Weil

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

J'C: So we come full circle. To restore to science its destiny as a bridge leading toward God it must be purged of that religious view of humans as God's failure to create, at the very least, a species with no need for a re-birth mediated by religion but fully capable of themselves awakening the supernatural connection to God. All scientists I know who have made this connection, and they are many as I tend to live in a science dominated world, see their mission in science not as saving their souls, but to discover the world God has created with themselves as an integral part of it along with all other humans. They have purged themselves of the need for consolation or salvation of their religion and have made that direct empowering connection to God. Most Christian scientists have done this by a return to the Synoptics and the empowering first Commandment "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." [Emphasis mine.] There is no room in that commandment for consolation or salvation.

The Purpose of Life

The blue roads of thinking: Is atheism compatible with God?: Comments: December 28, 2009 5:17 PM

J'C; ...Plus 5 for Fulghum, and 5 more for All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.
I haven't found a God that can help any more than that.

EI: The 'points' should be yours; yours is the brilliant mind that recognized the value of Fulgham's ideas and pointed me toward him; I was just following your lead.

Thank You,

J'C: Fulghum is one of those rare people who speak profoundly in words we all can understand, and even get a chuckle out of if we can restrain ourselves from ROFL.

I get no points for having been introduced to his work, or introducing others. It is simply a necessity in the purpose of my life.

The Human Condition

The blue roads of thinking: Is atheism compatible with God?:

The human condition is such that we are incapable without the help of grace of coming to objectively experience the human condition in order to reconcile it. Our defense mechanisms are too strong.
Nick A

J'C: Perhaps a good Apologetic, but certainly not a general statement about the human condition. Many humans think of the East Asians as an example do very will objectively experiencing the human condition without Grace. Some use various forms of meditation as a way to focus on the human condition, and rid themselves of the defense mechanisms but it is done without external help. Many well educated westerners particularly those without a strong indoctrination for dependence on God are able to experience the human condition, objectively, subjectively, or spiritually without the need for grace from God or other. I am well studied in the human condition, not because grace showed me the way, but because I was indoctrinated to be aware of it from my earliest conscious moments.

Each religion is alone true.

The blue roads of thinking: Materialism and God:

Each religion is alone true, that is to say, that at the moment we are thinking of it we must bring as much attention to bear on it as if there were nothing else...A 'synthesis' of religion implies a lower quality of attention.
Simone Weil

C'J: In a long lifetime of studying, and learning from religions, it is necessary to suspend disbelief to this extent to get anything from them. When I am singing a Mass it it impossible to do it right or learn from the experience if there are any reservations about God or the belief set you are singing about.
One of the reasons I do not attempt to build a coherent whole from what I learn is that not only are they alone true, they are also alone false. I suspect that if any had been true in the sense of having a true connection to God, I would have by now found God. Unlike Simone, the fact that all religions are alone false led me not to God but to a cosmopolitan understanding of morality, meaning and purpose in life.

What is Science?

If science is based on process and obscured with unfamiliar words, it nonetheless grew out of a fundamentally human, childlike curiosity. What makes the sky blue, why does ice float, what is "blood," how does the mind work? What child fails to ask those questions? What child fails to draw what she sees, or sing what he knows.
Jon Franklin, The Wolf in the Parlor, 2009. p.3.

In fifty-eight words he has explained to everyone what scientists have been trying to tell as long as scientists have been doing science, and everybody else has been asking WTF are you guys doing? Just brilliant.

Is atheism compatible with God?

The blue roads of thinking: Materialism and God:

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Nick A.: This is far easier for me to accept since I've experienced a bit of this transition. Yet I am interested how you and other atheists would react to her observation.

Is it difficult for an atheist to be open to the possibility that something has not opened in them as of yet to experience the real meaning of the essence of religion? Does it seem too elitist to consider? Yet IMO the atheist is quite right to react to the imagination of those who call themselves religious. Atheism then is a necessary purification."

J'C: Perhaps the purification Weil is talking about is the purification from the religious intercession between believers and God. A major cause of atheism is really paying attention to the religious teachings of the major religions and then committing the mortal sin of thinking about them. At that point the only thing left for those needing God is a direct personal relationship with God unmediated by religion. I think this is what Weil is talking about.

There are many people who are overwhelmed by the challenges of life and find the need for God either directly as the mystics strive for, or mediated by religions. Others of us see the challenges as just that, obstacles to overcome. Including the huge challenge of inevitable death. If an individual is unable to cope, that yearning for God gives an escape. I suspect most atheists are past that. I know I have examined many of the religious avenues of escape and found none including direct relationship with God that worked for me. This is not a rejection of religion. I have learned much about living and dying from religion. It is just a celebration of my human yearning for interdependence only with other humans. There is no part of my life that I feel a need to cede to God.

Timshel

Is atheism a belief system? - Beliefnet

I have no beliefs. Belief gets in the way of learning.
Lazarus Long: Time Enough For Love, Robert A Heinlein, 1973 p20.

J'C "This policy has served me well since I adopted it shortly after the book came out."

MANY People of VARIOUS 'Faith' Communities
endorse/embrace one or more
'Sacred Texts' ...
teilhard

J'C: "I will readily admit I have learned more about living from avowedly fictional texts 'This is a work of fiction, any resemblance to actual persons or places is purely coincidental' usually by atheist authors than I have ever learned from 'Sacred Texts' or Liturgies or Creeds which I have studied extensively. The quote itself makes the thought of Time Enough For Love or any other fiction as something to believe in an oxymoron."

J'C: I think the difference is, from another of my fictional reread texts East of Eden, Steinbeck, is that Sacred Texts say "Thou Must" and the fiction says "Thou Mayest." Steinbeck was wrestling with the story of Cain and God's command "Timshel" usually translated as Thou Shalt (triumph over sin,) occasionally as "Thou must." "Timshel" take control over your behavior, take responsibility for your actions, especially your sins, and you may become a better person because of the learning experience and triumph over the mistakes you have made.

Materialism and God

God and Consciousness - Beliefnet

Reality is anchored by a principle known as The Primacy of Existence; “Something that has objective existence in Reality exists independent of any observation.” This is quite obviously a materialistic notion and I also believe this idea is the key to most objections to Materialism. The wish that things having subjective existence could somehow be or become things having objective existence is one of the mantras of the “A-Materialist.”
exploringinside

J'C: "The only problem I have with materialism and the Primacy of Existence is, as I told Blü on a different thread, that it is boring. I have no interest at all in the subjective having an objective existence. I am quite happy with it being subjective. Art, music, fiction, myths, gods, and rituals all mean exactly nothing to the materialist since they admittedly exist only in the minds of those that can understand them. Each understanding of the subjective entity is subtly or grossly different, but people can agree on some of the important features of the entity. God may be supernatural, natural, imaginary, or a delusion in rare cases, but it is at the very least something that someone, lets call them a believer, finds to be important in their lives. One can argue all night that God has no material existence. (Not with me. I stipulate it in the first few seconds and everybody gets pissed. The materialists go off and rub the belly of the material Buddha, and the Buddhists go off in another corner to discuss the issue of non-material suffering. I go read a novel.) I find it much more interesting to find out why an intelligent, rational person can and does find God to be important in their lives."

A tree falls in the forest. Who cares whether or not the compression waves in the atmosphere qualify as noise or not. It just doesn't matter. I think this was ultimately my problem with Chemistry which was my boyhood choice of a career that lasted through my Sophomore year in college. I just couldn't get worked up about how a rocket went up. It was much more fun to deal with the absolutely subjective and political issues of getting someone to buy it so it could go up. If a car salesman thinks hesh is selling a material object, hesh had better find a job in a factory building cars. What heah is selling is prestige, practicality, social status, or political correctness. They all work to move the iron. Some of the worst salespeople are materialists, they try to sell the technology, the intercooler, and the V4. They might as well try to sell the frame. It does not work.

The Creation of Eve

The birth of Eve - Beliefnet:

"Agnostic wrote:

You're absolutely right. Clearly Eve was a divine creation, separate from Adam. Eve was created in the divine image of God Herself. In contrast, Adam evolved from primates with lower intelligence. It should be obvious that women are innately superior to males.

The Bible shows this. The very name for 'the Lord' is Yahvah. Eve in Hebrew is Chavah. If you look at the original Hebrew letters, they are even more nearly identical.

Each time a female is born, it is another divine creation. Males, on the other hand, bear far too much similarity to apes of lesser intelligence. It should be obvious.

The Genesis story shows God leading the animals and beasts to Adam for a potential mate, because Adam was just an animal. Adam almost chose a dog for a mate. But God, in Her infinite wisdom, realized Adam was not capable of living without divine help, so God gave a replica of Herself to watch over Adam.

This is clear from the Hebrew word, usually translated as 'help mate' It is 'Ezer,' a word which does mean help. But in the Bible, it only appears as a term for God Herself, or for Eve. David says, 'God is my Help (Ezer)' Eve, the Woman, was Adam's Help (Ezer). It was Adam who needed help, divine assistance. Eve was provided. She did not evolve. She had a separate divine creation.

Scientists generally are correct. Adam evolved. But religion is also correct, Eve was a Divine Creation. All the violence is the world is caused by men, who have barely evolved past their lower primate origins. Even with divine assistance from women, they often are unable to advance beyond their atavistic nature."

J'C: In light of Harold Bloom's theory that "J" was a woman, the irony in Genesis 2 is, with this post, beautifully explained.

Procreative vs recreational sex

Gender roles, family, God and Atheism - Beliefnet

Do you think there might be a biological advantage to having two parents that actually 'make love'? As opposed a family where the woman gets raped on a weekly basis? [...]I have six children. And we would have had more if I were up to it. [...] This happened because I sacrificed my life for my family and children.
Now does it bother me that they [atheists] much prefer recreational sex to procreational sex. [...]
Godman

J'C: "It would seem that parents that make love is almost a evolutionary necessity for a stable family and properly nurtured children. Which is why I object to the common religious edict that sex should not be making love it should be making children. The number of children resulting from that lovemaking should be a choice not chance, as you point out. You sacrificed your life for your family, which is a reasonable choice that I respect if your wife agreed with sacrificing her non-family contribution to society, I assume she did not work other than at home and family, and your sacrifice was the entire material support for the family.

Others may make a different choice, considering the overpopulation of the planet, that would be to combine recreational sex (I certainly hope you didn't deprive your wife of that when conception was not intended) with reproductive sex only for replacement levels. 2.3 kids, usually 2 to make up for those who choose more and both parents contribute to the economic and nurturing health of the family. I sacrificed my career several times to the needs of the family and my wife's career, and we shared the home duties equally with both doing more than our share so that the children would get the support and socialization that they needed. It worked out for the children which is most important."