Evolution of War

Aug 16, 2015 -- 12:35PM, onefreespirit wrote:

When the popes led their faithful to war, they didn't do it by changing human nature to suit their purpose. Warlike behavior satisfies the human need to prove ourselves superior to others.

A totally unsupported and probably false assumption.  Nothing in human evolution indicates warlike behavior.  See aforementioned fragile skull.  Humans evolved by cunning not force.  Selecting agricultural crops so they were not dependent on dangerous foraging, domesticating food animals rather than hunting dangerous game, coopting follower wolves for predator warnings, (not exclusive to humans by the way)  breeding aggressive "sheepdogs" to protect the herds and domesticated small feline predators to control small rodents that domesticated themselves. 

The only significant predators were anti-social exploitive humans who raped, pillaged and burned those who had a sustainable agricultural society.  Even those sustainable societies used aggressive war as a last resort preferring to expend extensive resources on defensive structures to protect their cultures.  See the Great Wall of China, and Castles atop sheer cliffs. A few defenders with projectile weapons spears, rocks and fireworks (another cunning invention to avoid proving ones tribe superior.) could hold off invading hordes almost indefinitely. 

It took Abram, the God he created in his own image, and baby factories to make war and pillage a viable cultural strategy.    

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. 

War Poster Boys

beliefnet
Lets not draw cave men BS conclusions from a Christian BS study.  Women's taste in male appearance changes like hemlines.  If Putz was really interested in evolution he would look at cross cultural traits rather than the misogynist Penn State Christian/football violent culture.  Probably at least half the men in the world do not have big muscles, heavy facial hair, square jaws, teeth that clench to take facial violence, (he forgot that one) deep voices, and a propensity to violence.

East Asians, South Asians, Africans, and what we know of indigenous people all lack most of those features, and women and men are generally the same size and shape. Lithe, flexible, versitile muscles good for other things than wielding clubs.  Dexterity in both genders.  A generally small face to make room for a bigger brain, in short a body and face designed by evolution for versatility, adaptability and cooperation.  Their fighting style (when forced to fight) is not strength but adaptability and expending as many men as necessary to overwhelm the enemy and not incidentally protect the women and children.  A few planes with Kamikaze pilots can destroy a battleship and a whole bunch of square jawed, heavily muscled, violence loving men.   

Three millennia of war and violence in the Middle East and Europe have changed not so much women's preferences, but which man got the harems, and ownership of the baby factories to make more men with big muscles, heavy facial hair, square jaws and teeth that clench to mitigate blows to the face (the only exposed area for armored men) and a propensity to violence.  The fact that they are an evolutionary minority speaks volumes about the propensity to violence in spite of their high birth rate. 

War. Nature or Nurture

beliefnet
I certainly can deny our warlike nature.  All evidence is that before Abram came along and invented God, humans were agricultural - herding communities or hunter - gatherers where the ecology permitted it.  Their gods (if any) were generally earth/fertility oriented and community sustainability was an important moral imperative. 

War was rare although not non-existent, as there were tribal leaders that for one reason or another usually outgrowing their resource base could try to take what they wanted by warfare.  Usually settled communities could defend themselves and the marauders failed usually when the dysfunctional leader was killed. 

Abram's genius was inventing a leader that couldn't be killed because it didn't really exist, and who divided all the world simply into us and them.  Them just didn't count.  This was a successful concept, as poor young men could be convinced that it was "their" fault they were poor and horny and run off to battle for plunder, and women. 

As for the people who created the mythology, whether or not they were inspired by God is moot, as they believed in God, and codified the mythology based on that assumption.  My belief or lack thereof in God has nothing to do with what others believe.  I also do not think that 50+% of the population that believe in Christianity and Islam and at least pretend to read and abide by Scripture is "only a fraction."

Bible as the Source of Misogyny

beliefnet

Since Torah establishes the moral context of the relationship of husband, mainly in Deuteronomy 24 but throughout the Pentateuch we can clearly state that Kristi's statement is logically airtight with respect to the Bible which claims most of Torah as Scripture. 

When talking about the Bible, Torah, or Qur'an as Scripture it is necessary to assume God exists, as all clearly state that He does.  Whether or not the men who wrote scripture were divinely inspired (another possibly false assumption: one author may have been a woman documenting the God inspired Hebrew culture but probably not directly inspired by God.) The culture documented in Scripture was dominated by God's laws, morals, mores, and whims. Therefore the people documenting the culture whether inspired by God or not were reflecting one God's Culture.  Other cultures may have had entirely different laws, morals, mores and even different Gods. There are other Gods mentioned in Scripture.

From Scripture we only know about one culture, which was dominated by God.  We have no documentation of negative attitudes about women in any culture which preceded or co-existed with the culture of Scripture.  Data from aboriginal cultures and agricultural cultures generally show that women were at least equal if not specially respected and protected for their ability to perpetuate the species. 

Violent Men and Evolution.

beliefnet

Yes this is what I think about. And you can go further than 'culture'. Science says men evolved to be violent. And our closest relatives in the trees are in male dominant hierarchy. So religion didn't create these things. Biology did.  Curious

Neither premise is clearly supported by "Science."  See Bonobos which are our closest simian relatives. 

If Homo Sapiens evolved to be violent we would look more like Neanderthals and Klingons.  The human skull is evolved to avoid violence.  The brain is easily concussed and if violence is anticipated some sort of a helmet is needed to avoid damage to the fragile skull.  Note that the Neanderthals were bigger, stronger, smarter and had a protected brain but still lost out to Sapiens, they could rape Sapiens women, but we couldn't rape theirs.  (No Neanderthal mDNA in humans,)

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.

Humanists With Children

beliefnet

Your thesis then, is "the very existence of religion is an affront to womens' progress", correct? IronLDS

Talk about misinterpreting a post and fighting a strawman! But to respond to the strawman, religious influence in Western society is an affront to women's progress, as it is the source of the property status of women and the concept that women should STFU and stay home.  All the talk of separate but equal roles is just more religious BS to justify keeping women barefoot, uneducated and pregnant. 

As noted earlier humanist men support women in all roles totally ignoring their haughty status as made in the image of God.  I even know of humanist men who assume the role of househusband to provide their children with proper nurturing while their wives work full+ time at their economic comparative advantage role in society.  She may well be a better mom than he is but her overall worth to society is higher as a medical professional e.g. than his as contract laborer.  More commonly they share both roles usually to the detriment of their careers, more so for the woman, due to the fact that she is working above her station, but both chose children and careers, rather than not having children.  Which by the way is a common choice for humanists as their service to their society as full+ time professionals may be more important to them than raising cannon fodder.  Their legacy is their social service rather than another mouth for the world to feed.

Imaginary Reality

beliefnet

But until we have good evidence of their existence, they don't exist for us. The best an example can be is in the 'probably real' subset of the set of 'imaginary things'.

Thus for any specific candidate, like a real Donald Duck, a real teapot in orbit beyond Mars, a real Higgs boson or (if only we knew what a god is) a real god, it doesn't exist until we have good evidence of its existence. Blü

I would as usual include in the existence category any imaginary thing that is consistently describable by any rational human who has been exposed to the imaginary concept.  Donald Duck is an imaginary thing that is a charicature of a duck, which wears a naval themed vest and hat and speaks aphorisms of determinable levels of satirical, ironic, and metaphorical truth.  Therefore, Donald Duck objectively exists.   The teapot was not adequately described even by Russell to be consistently describable by any rational human and therefore remains in the set of imaginary things with no real existence. 

A real God may exist for a group of people but generally the description is about as defined as Russell's teapot so that for the rational human must remain in the category of imaginary thing.  As an example Zeus may be considered a real God for the ancient Greeks.  Uniformly describable as a charicature of a human man, wielding lightning bolts as a weapon, and speaking aphorisms of determinable levels of satirical, ironic, and metaphorical truth.  He was even clearly described enough to be made into statues recognizable by any rational Greek as Zeus.  

The problem with God in the thread title, is that all believers describe Herm differently if they describe Herm at all in recognizable terms, and therefore the rational human has no consistent evidence to determine any sort of existence even as an imaginary thing. 

On Transcendence

beliefnet

(And I'm leery of that word 'transcending' - it's too often an attempt to smuggle nonsense into conversations.) Blü

I find transcendence to be a perfectly good word for the natural ability of the mind to focus on a single task.  Normally physical, athletes and musicians call it the zone, but can be purely mental. The mental state is harder to achieve but can be trained just as the physical state is trained.  The problem is that it can be focused just as well on imaginary things as real ones, so it is important to recognize explicitly the focus of the transcendent state.  The Transcendentalists focused it inward, to discover what it is to live meaningfully as a human, and atheists should acknowledge our debt to their efforts.  

A Life Worth Dying For

Aug 13, 2015 -- 1:45AM, Kwinters wrote:

The fear of death and loss are enough to turn some people's brains off and stop them from questioning the pure nonsense that religion spouts.

If from birth it is drummed into your brain that nothing you can do in this life is important to God: that everything you do including those things that are natural and necessary for the survival of the species is sinful and must be expiated by a vuvuzela; and that even after death you will be judged not by what you have done but what you have done that is forgiven; it is little wonder that people are "tired of living, and feared of dying." 

If from birth it is drummed into your brain that your mission in life is to improve the lives of your neighbors and the environment in which they live so that all children can look forward to better lives; and that you only get one shot at doing so; it is easy to "live a life worth dying for" (Forrest Church).  Some do a little, others do a lot, but what you do is more important than how much:  A little girl, Alex Scott, was a victim of childhood cancer. She decided to do what she could to help other victims of childhood cancer.  She couldn't do much, but at 4 years old she convinced her family to help her set up a lemonade stand and donated the proceeds to her hospital "for research."  Sure a few bucks wouldn't do much research, but others noticed her determination and set up their own Alex's Lemonade stand, By the time she died at 8 she and her friends had raised millions.  You might still see an Alex's Lemonade Stand, if you do stop and cool off and remember a little girl whose life was worth dying for.  

Men that are Supportive of Women

beliefnet

It might be helpful to some of us if you could illustrate what you mean by 'really supporting women'.....JewOne

Christine probably has met only one, as such men are extremely rare in any society and practically non-existent in Western Religions.  First and most important such a man will view all women as potential partners in making society better for all people.  This means using his male privilege to help them achieve whatever goals they choose to aspire to. 

If he is better at STEM e.g. he will spend his educational years helping women who aspire to STEM success learn his skills rather than merely honing his own skills for a better chance at success for himself.  (This is not entirely selfless as mentoring is one of the best skill honing techniques known.)

At work he will use his male privilege to mentor and promote women and other minorities to their Peter Principle level in the organization, even at the expense of his own advancement.  (It will affect his advancement as most organizations are paternalistic and "Privilege hath its Rank.")

He will choose a wife based on her potential to make a better society rather than her ability to improve his own position in society, and will sacrifice his career goals if necessary to give her the opportunity to achieve hers.  This means changing diapers, doing housework, cooking more than his share of the meals, taking the kids to piano lessons, doctors, and emergency rooms even if it means leaving a board meeting, even managing the middle of the night feeding, (when the kid cries he gets up, brings the kid to mom, hangs herm on the teat (mom won't really wake up), changes the diaper and sings herm back to sleep.) 

NB this does not necessarily mean choosing a business career woman.  Many of the opportunities especially for women to make a better society are volunteer activities, but done properly take as much time as a full time job.

Just the tip of the iceberg for a man really supporting women. Some will guess the rest. 
Most won't give a damn.

Biological Destiny for Women

beliefnet

So, let's discuss.  How does a woman's biological makeup contribute to the actual physical requirements placed upon them?

In other words, there are two fountains in a village.  Both men and women are free to drink from either fountain. One fountain is easily accessible and within the village center. The other fountain is at some distance away, though the walk is pleasant and scenic.  In practice, most of people drink from the nearer fountain but more men than women travel to the far fountain, though both men and women drink from both. Jewsha

Biological differences from a to z women gestate and nurture children.  Women will do this no matter what their social status is.  It is called survival of the species.  Rape dolls or rich man's arm and bed candy children are born and raised.  

Raising children is a time and labor intensive activity.  If women's social status is that they not only raise the children but feed and clean up after the men tracking mud in from the beautiful, inspiring distant fountain, chances are good that they will choose the nearby less inspiring fountain.  And if the men need lots of man-children to defend the inspiring distant fountain from the heathen, spacing children naturally will be a forgotten dream from an earlier age.  She will pleasure her man once a week when fertile whether she feels up to the next child or not.  This is of course a free choice like the nearby fountain as the option is being the rape doll.  If he is a real Mensch he will say please.    

Feminists Hate Moms?

beliefnet

I find it ironic that feminism is supposed to be about women being able to choose their lives, yet so many actual feminists get mad when women make choices that the feminists don't like.IronLDS

I suppose it would be ironic if that is what they did.  While there are probably extremists who will personify their attack on the system that supports this choice and indeed forces it on many women.  But they are really mad about the system that in some influential religions conditions women from birth into the brood mare role, and justifies higher pay for men because "they have to support their brood mare."

These days being a brood mare for a "financially secure man" is a cushy job at least until he is unable or unwilling to support his family, or decides that a more attractive brood mare will advance his career. 

At that point his brood mare becomes a "welfare queen" as she tries to support his kids with no help from him, and no educational tools to support anything but minimum wage service jobs which in most states are inadequate to support a family without government assistance and in any event do not give her the time necessary to raise her kids to be anything besides cannon fodder in one war or another: the war on drugs or a foreign war if she has the connections to get her kids into the military. 

It is the system that is broken, not the women who are brought up to exploit it if they are fortunate. 

To the extent that it stays within the church culture and the church culture takes care of its own failures I have no real issue with the system.  It is just another business model.  Mormons and to a lesser extent Jews and Catholics are business cultures more than churches, and as such have the right to compete in the larger society just like any other group.  I think eliminating half their population from productive work in a technological society is a losing business model, but that is a testable hypothesis which may or may not prove to be true. 

Human Worth

beliefnet

I could suggest that such feelings of moral outrage offer survival value, which is why we have them; in which case they offer no insight into "the value of the human." My point, which was about the inconsistency between an evolutionary point of view and ascribing worth to humans, remains unanswered.Thoughtfultheist

Apologies for missing that.  The evolutionary point of view is ultimately the survival of the species.  Blather about selfish genes and selfishness notwithstanding.  For social animals like humans the welfare and worth of the group is paramount.  A group that breaks up leaving the weak (unworthy) to predators soon has no one left to defend the group.  In evolutionary terms extinction.  In human terms "First they came for the unbelieving humans. No one spoke up.  Then they came for idolatrous humans.  No one spoke up.  Then they came for believing humans.  No one spoke up."  What is the worth of humans?  

Cain, Abel and Yahweh.

beliefnet

People have hypothesized that perhaps the issue wasn't the offerings of Cain and Abel themselves so much as the conditions thereof and the intent behind them. IronLDS

The Yahwistic view of God is clearly the stories of marauders in the desert subsisting on their sheep that they move from one fertile area to another after destroying the earlier ones by overgrazing. 

The Elohim created a beautiful productive earth for humans, men and women created in the image of the Gods. Yahweh didn't like this place it was too nice and easy to live in, and most important men and women had an equal place in it.  A place where men and women worked together to maintain and sustain this paradise.  Note that childbirth was a natural and painless process something else that Yahweh didn't like. 

So Yahweh trumped up some BS about women knowing too much and kicked His Chosen People people out of this agricultural paradise into a hostile environment where life would be difficult, childbirth painful, and agriculture nearly impossible.

Just to make His intentions clear, He rejected Cain's hard won agricultural offering, and blessed Abel's exploitive herding.  Cain wandered off to join his farming brethren and was never heard of again. 

Adam and Eve's other children learned the lesson well, and gave up agriculture entirely as they could count on Yahweh to deliver unto them agricultural communities for plunder, rape and pillage, the plunder being the stored food and seed grain needed for a sustainable community in an arable space.   Oops, my bad, it wasn't rape it was the provision of wives for the conquerors to replace the poor young men lost in the battle.  Not for the poor young men on the front lines, they were all killed for the glory of Yahweh.  Just for the harems of the blessed leaders that directed the war from behind the lines.  

Although the conquered women tried to introduce sustainability into the culture by introducing agriculture timing holidays into the Yahwistic culture, they never really succeeded in creating one.  Speculation on why will be left to the reader. 

This plunder, rape and pillage life style proved to be quite successful, and religions based on the Yahwistic traditions have continued with varying levels of success to this day.   

I don't blame the Yahwist for this life style.  She tried to show in every case what an asshole this God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel was, but apparantly men like assholes that let, yea demand, that they plunder, rape and pillage since it is easier than trying to do something useful for the good of the society.  

Women in Prehistory Agriculture

Most studies of aboriginal tribes give lie to this assertion.  Women have equal value in agricultural settlements which predated the Hebrews by 6 or 7 millennia.  The men did the muscle work of preparing the land (breeding season for the herds or prey animals), the women planted, tended the crops and harvested, while the men provided the meat either by herding or hunting.

Bible Study

beliefnet

No, it does not. Only the most superficial and facile reading ( and one which leaves out most of the narrative)  would support your contention.  rocketJew

Because you are used to, as are all believers, a heavily interpreted reading variously known as Apologetics, Commentary, Bible Study, or Lessons.  This consists of taking a small bit of Scripture, at most a few verses, studying the opinions of all that "explain" what it means and then claiming to understand what it says.  The verses are chosen carefully to teach what the Rabbi, Priest, Pastor, or other vuvuzela wants to teach about the religion. 

One of the many paths to rejecting the God of Scripture, quite common among women, is to sneak a copy of one's Scripture "under the covers" and read whole stories in context.  Sometimes even, God forbid, the whole thing.  It is amusing to read the stories of the Yahwist in one sitting as a novelette about God. I recommend Rosenberg's translation for English speakers.  It is short, but surprisingly contains most of the stories in the Bible that everybody remembers.  Whether or not as Bloom suggests in The Book of J the Yahwist was a highly educated female courtesan, the misogyny of God is laid on so thickly that only a man can believe it is actually the word of God.  But then again, for male believers "Too much is never enough." 

Almost as good is reading the 613 "commandments" straight up, no interpretation, in any language in one sitting.  Any woman who can make it through that, will need intensive therepy by a Rabbi, Priest, Pastor, or other vuvuzela to avoid running, kicking and screaming, from the God that spake them.  It is little wonder that women and girls were not permitted to even have their own copy of their Scripture to read unsupervised and were never permitted to study scripture without the associated "teachings" even then only in tiny slices of the original.  

Marauding and Misogyny

beliefnet

Something of great significance happened early on in the history the Middle East. Some life altering event left an indelible mark on the world view of the inhabitants as conditions went from very good to very bad. A pessimistic, hostile, anti-women and anti-nature world view emerged. Unlike any worldview the world has ever seen."
christine3

Archeological climate studies suggest that a major drought in the Levant beginning just before 2000 BCE with attendant famine, plagues, and cultural stress especially in agricultural communities (and in other fertile areas at different times) opened the way for marauding nomads to plunder the surviving stressed farming communities.  Hmmm, rivers turning to mud or blood, locusts, death of first born and other children, frogs leaving the wetlands.... sound familiar?

What is a necessary resource for marauders? Lots and lots of poor young men to die in battle.  How do you get lots and lots of poor young men?  Take the women out of the economic production cycle of planting and reaping, either by farming or gathering, and turn them into property as breeders of warfare assets, that is poor young men. 

If you can get God to consider those dumb farmers as lesser beings to be plundered, humanism that is treating all people, men, women and children as worthy of respect is simply weakness. 

Is it just a story that God refused Cain's offering of produce?  Cain who then killed his herding brother and became an object of derision for all time?  I think not.  Note that Cain used superior weaponry to kill the herder.  This is a fable for all time.  The only way to deal with marauders is with superior weapons.  So much for peaceful coexistence. 

Jewish Misogyny

beliefnet

Kristi, it's interesting that you claim to be oh-so-rational - yet when I make a simple comment disagreeing with your tactics, you come out with all the emotional and exaggerated phrases.JewOne

Kristi does not pretend to be rational at least as I read her posts.  She is an advocate for women's rights in religion, and in combating belief systems rationality is useless.  The fact that you have to argue about tactics is an indication that your strategic position is precarious to say the least. 

While Judaism has arguably made more progress in women's rights historically as well as currently, perhaps you will admit that rational arguments carry no weight at all with the majority of Jewish men.  They have to be shamed and emotional arguments are the only way to get through to them. 

Believe it or not, Kristi is working for you and Shusha and all Jewish women as well as all victims of religious misogyny.  I tend to agree with her that the Abrahamic God is the problem for women in religions, and all the commentary in the world may not be enough to salvage the God of Abraham even for the Jews. 

Paul was no piker in reinforcing the message, but then again he was trying to salvage his version of  Judaism from the ravages of Jesus and perhaps Hillel both of whom IMO essentially rejected the God of the Torah for a more personal user friendly deity.    

George Carlin, Rudeness, Mockery and Ridicule

No one who engages in rudeness, mockery, and ridicule to try to affect oppression is doing so for personal gain of any sort, let alone an elevated personal opinion in the eyes of the oppressors or even the oppressed. 

What it achieves is getting people to think; even if only to think hateful thoughts.  Getting people to think about their beliefs in any way is the only way to change them. 

While you are correct that it rarely achieves an immediate positive change longer term it will make a difference.  I hold that rude, mocker and ridiculer George Carlin responsible for the fact that atheists can at least check that box on a poll without fear of reprisal at least in some countries and parts of the US, Fort Wayne excepted.

Thinking About Beliefs.

beliefnet

I think at this point the only thing being achieved with this thread is "people from various backgrounds coming together to tell the OP that their methods are unnecessarily offensive."LDS

The OP got your attention, that is at least progress.

Progress towards what?Jewsha

Progress towards thinking about the prevailing misogyny in religion that spills over into the society dominated by those misogynic religions.

Even the attacks, diversions, and lies, make people "see the smoke" most people will simply rubberneck, a few will figure out there is a fire, one or two will try to do something to put out the fire, and as many if not more will scream "Let it burn!"

But just seeing the smoke makes people think about their belief about the cause of the fire.  And that thinking is inside the conceptual blocks that protect the belief.  Thinking inside the blocks is a disaster for beliefs.

Positive Religious Memes

beliefnet
The guy most of the positive religious memes came from was executed in a joint effort of religious and secular authorities.  Most of those positive religious memes were buried for most of two millennia by religion many literally at Nag Hammadi.

Empathy and compassion are evolved human traits normally ruthlessly suppressed by religious and political authorities.  It is necessary to get rid of both religion and power politics to create humanistic society. 

Art Music and Beliefs

beliefnet

Opinions on art and music are subjective. You tell me that your taste is better and criticize mine and I will treat you like something that just slithered out from under a rock.

Beliefs are not subjective. They are either true or false. If you criticise one of my beliefs, and do it respectfully, we can have an interesting debate. And, if you were persuasive, you might even change my mind. However, if your idea of debate is to ridicule my beliefs, then I'll treat you like something that just slithered out from under a rock. freespirit

Obviously you don't follow art or music criticism.  There are real standards of what constitutes art and music that are educated opinions that are not subjective at all.  Like beliefs these educated opinions can and do change as new forms get past the shock stage.  But art and music still matter, and only the new forms that comply with the human goals of art and music to educate, stimulate, and move people.   

Opinions about beliefs change more slowly as they are indoctrinated earlier and more intensively than opinions on art and music but change they do.  Sometimes it takes generations to do so as beliefs occupy a more important area of the mind than esthetics.  Social compliance with beliefs is frequently a matter of survival.  Esthetics is more like manners; a group identifier rather than a coercive believe or die.

beliefnet
 
I communicate very clearly and insure that what I write means exactly what I want it to mean.  The fact that what I write cannot get through your conceptual blocks says more about your belief system than my writing. 

beliefnet

I was a Boy Scout and an atheist and a Scoutmaster and an atheist.  Most of my ancestors that I know their religious inclinations were atheists or at least made fun of their clergy.  It is rumored that an ancestor that left England circa 1611 for Virginia was given the choice emigrate or die by his bishop.

Nonetheless, I grew up in a religious society and being an out atheist was neither important nor safe.  The Scouts provided a great experience for little money and my parents weren't wealthy enough for secular camps. So it was "Trustworthy, loyal, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, thrifty, brave, clean, irreverent" for me.  I was interested in religions by that time so going to church was no problem.  I even went to a Pontifical Mass at a Boy Scout Jamboree, certainly a first for an atheist. I could sing dominos with the best of them.

The scoutmaster was a different story.  My UU church wanted to sponsor a Boy Scout troop at a welfare hotel, the worst in NYC.  They forgot to tell the Scouts that I was an atheist so I became one of the scoutmasters.  A successful troop, as those things go.  One of our scouts was quite successful and had a nice Wiki write up courtesy of the Scouts until the church quit Scouts due to discrimination and founded the Navigators, a scouting experience for everybody.  The two troops they had, one in the South Bronx and one in Manhattan, became the first chapters in the Navigators.  I think BSA were relieved, as the scouts were generally the wrong skin color as well as not too loyal to God and the Republicans. 

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. 

Meaningful Living

beliefnet
There are many ways gays can have biological offspring if they want them.  Others may adopt which is just as beneficial for the species.  Others, heterosexuals as well as homosexuals may choose other ways to benefit the species, without contributing to the overpopulation problem by breeding.  Teaching of various kinds, Medicine, and even art and music to pass on the lore of the society are all meaningful choices for living.

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.

Give me the child until 7 ...

Beliefnet
The cerebral cortex, that which makes humans sapient, isn't fully developed until two and is overdeveloped at that point until about 8yo.  It is extremely plastic in those years and much of what is necessary for social living is learned in those years.  The mores of the tribe via the family are essentially set by 8.  Or why the Jesuit's mantra is "Give me the boy until he is 7 and I will give you the man."
The "Whys" begin at two and the answers will largely determine the mold the brain of the child will conform to.  Authoritarian answers: "Because I said so," or "Because God says so," will condition the child to expect to be told what to do and not think for hermself.  Social conforming answers: "Because people expect you to do that,"  "Jesus will love you if you do that,"  "Our family or tribe does it that way" will condition the child to be aware of social cues to behavior but allow for some flexibility as social cues are seldom consistent.  Child centered answers: "Because you will be happier if you do it that way," "Because it is good for you," "You will have more friends if you do it that way" will condition the child to take responsibility for herm actions and consider the effects on self and others of behavior. 

These are but points on a continuum with lots of overlap generally centering on social conformance.  We are after all a social animal.  There are of course outliers on both ends, extreme self-dependence, and fundamentalism but most will be socially conforming. 

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.

Nyah Wynne on UBI

Nyah Wynne

3 hrs · 

Thoughts on the value of a Universal Basic Income

The biggest reason I support UBI(Universal Basic Income) has nothing to do with our possible automated future, as labor becomes less essential, or at least as we need much less of it, though that's a great reason to support it. It's not even about eliminating poverty or making the unemployment rate a non-issue, though those are very good reasons too.

The reason I want a UBI is to make work at least -technically- optional. I want this because so long as work is not optional, so long as it is mandatory, it is coercive. I want UBI so that every low wage worker whose boss screws them on hours, who reprimands them for taking sick days, who asks them to work too fast in unsafe conditions(see the current fast-food lawsuit), every young employee whose boss secretly grabs their ass while no one is looking, who's constantly making lewd comments, or racist comments, or any other sort of hateful bullshit... So that every employee who finds themselves trapped in the fiefdom of some petty little tyrant of a boss, which is actually The Majority Of Low End Workers, so that they can say:

"TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT"

So that they can really, truly, meaningfully walk the fuck away. And not have it mean they end up on the streets or their kids starve or they find themselves turning tricks to keep the water running and the lights on. Or for that matter just ending up in yet another job with a slightly different petty tyrant. And they can do this, deal with this, without having to deal with lawyers or Union Reps, who though are better than -not- having them it'd be nicer to just be able to do it ourselves. Because if -enough- of them(us) say 'NO' to this petty fucking bullshit, then firms will be forced to stop letting the petty bullshit happen(those who fail to will simply not get workers), and work in general will end up less awful for everyone.

Because the ability to say 'NO' to someone who's actively abusing you... that should be pretty high on the list of 'Liberties' worth defending. In my mind.

Religious CV

I do not need to defend my knowledge of religions of all cultures including the dominant ones of the cultures I have lived in.  My bookshelf, the opinion of Priests, Rabbi's, Ministers, and university scholars in many religions I have studied at that level give lie to your bigotry.  Not to mention several thousand posts here on beliefnet discussing religion. Including hosting (one of several experienced beliefnet forum hosts) a forum on Paul and Jesus in support of a Peter Jennings ABC documentary on the topic at the request of the beliefnet forum managers who knew I was host of the Atheism Debate board.

Atheism or Anti-Theism?

beliefnet

Perhaps we can get around to actually discussing atheism?
rockyJew

We are discussing atheism that is: why we are not a believer in the various gods, God or G-d that we are respectfully asked to learn more about, distainfully demanded to learn more about, proselytized to believe in, forced to believe in, or forced to pretend to believe in to avoid ostracism at best.  Historically, non-belief is punishable by torture and death. Whether that continues today is, shall we say, arguable.   

Torah Myth as Allegory

beliefnet

Which do you imagine are 'critical stories' in the Torah texts?

As you are well aware, JC, one of the Jewish principles of Biblical interpretation is that the farther back in time the narrative covers, the less 'historical' and the more allegorical the account is seen as being. JewOne

I am an atheist.  I see nothing in any fable religious or secular that is anything but allegorical or occasionally ironic.  Allegory must teach something of value that bears some relationship to the details of the story or it would not persist as a part of the lore of at least a tribe or subset of humanity.  It is not necessary to believe that the wolf in Little Red Riding hood was anything but allegorical to understand that young women should be wary of strangers.  Even strange women.  Female wolves are as predatory as the males. 

The critical stories in the Torah texts are the ones everybody remembers. Most were written by the Yahwist as hesh was by far the best storyteller in the Torah, and herm stories translate well as they deal with universal human issues in any language.  Whether they are translated by a Jew, an unknown Aramaic scholar, or various Roman and Christian translators.  They all say about the same thing.  Believe in and do what God tells you to do or else.  We can argue about the details of "what else" other than the fact that it isn't good.

Some of the later stories incorporate the mediators for God as authoritative interpreters of the B_b drone of "Believe in and do what God tells you to do or else."  

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. 

Born Good Learn Bad

Social animals are born socially responsible at least within their species.  That is they are born good.  Socialization begins at birth and in general reinforces good social behavior.  Play well with others, share, be empathetic, respect authority, and don't hurt others.  The good and bad news is that the socialization is exclusively within the tribe.  Belief Systems (BS) are not generally important at this stage.  I place the break at about Kindergarten, where children begin to be exposed to those outside the tribe.  At that point BS about "them" enters the socialization process and depending on the BS reinforced in Religious Education, and BS group formation in school, bad habits and prejudice may come into play in the social conditioning process. 

Human Worth

beliefnet

If you have one, what is your standard for measuring human worth?
OFS

How well a person embraces the UU First Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Not every white male; not every Christian (almost an oxymoron, as Christian theology teaches all are sinners;) not every Buddhist; not every civilized person;  but every person.  

Note that this principle does not embrace bad behavior just that the bad behavior is not a result of being a bad person.  That rogue cop, or despot, or exploitive capitalist is not a bad person, hesh has just embraced a bad belief system that leads them to ignore the first principle.  If somehow one could change the belief system the inherent worth would emerge and the conscience (since this is OFS' thread) would repair the bad behavior. 

Changing belief systems is an extremely difficult task.  The brain builds blocks to information contrary to strongly held beliefs, so that contrary data is not even processed by the brain.  Not impossible, Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates come to mind as examples from the capitalist belief system.  Possibly, it is early yet, but some have even attacked their own belief systems to bring them more in line with the First Principle, Pope Francis and Bishop Spong come to mind

In order to embrace the first principle it is necessary to be aware of and resist the brain's inherent tendency to create beliefs about other people.  That is to generalize from behavior to the person.  Currently, all Muslims are terrorists is a common belief that leads to terms like Islamist which reinforces the belief system to make it for practical purposes unassailable.

Even atheists can fall victim to beliefs based on belief systems: All Christians are bigots.  Theists aren't reasonable. 

Hillel, Jesus and the Decalogue

beliefnet

christine3 wrote:

"These are our highest most honesty-keeping rules and should be considered sacred. If you follow these rules you will not be cut off, you will live in the world to come." For the Commandments were written with the foreknowledge that there was going to be a world to come.

Neither the Hebrew nor the OT Commandments were written with salvation or a world to come.  There was a hint of a world to come in Isaiah but the life after death, sin, and salvation were all invented by Paul. The Decalogue is simply a sacred rulebook as you note.  
I do find it interesting that in the Hebrew Decalogue the social rules are mashed into 2 verses.  In your version the 10 could be contained in 3.  1 through 8 condensed into ""These are our highest most honesty-keeping rules and should be considered sacred."  I can see where Hillel the Elder got his one foot Torah.  And Jesus found his Two Commandments: 1-8 condensed into Love the Lord thy God, and the rules condensed into Love thy neighbor as thyself.

I know why my Jewish friends liked to talk about Hillel the Elder.  I didn't really notice that God was missing from our discussions.  I have no doubt that God was assumed by Hillel and my friends as the originator of the social rules, but the overemphasis on worship and obedience to "I am the Lord Thy God" was clearly missing.  No wonder atheism is compatible with Judaism.  If the rules, all 613 of them were the result of a tradition that worked there is no reason to add God to the tradition except to establish a supernatural cop that would punish transgressors. Moses was for some reason having trouble governing his tribe, and perhaps thought that a supernatural supercop was just the thing he needed. It sure did work.  A few thousand years of working.

The Church Across the Street

In the UU RE Curriculum there is a unit called the Church Across the Street.  A Sunday School class and teacher from a neighbor church, synagogue, or mosque if available is invited for the children's part of the service and join their cohort in RE to discuss, comment and compare.  The next weekend the roles are reversed with the neighboring church, synagogue or mosque hosting the UUs.  When an exchange cannot be arranged the class discusses what they have learned in the previous exchanges.  I can't speak for the exchange RE programs but the tolerance, respect, and humanism learned by the UU kids is incredible.  "They are just like us!"

Critical Thinking in Religion

In some religious traditions, Jews and Jesuits come immediately to mind, critical thinking about religion is encouraged post puberty.  But by that time the belief mental blocks are firmly in place.  Even the critically thinking Jesuits seem to understand this: Give me the child, and I will give you the adult.  OK the quote is boy and man, but it works with girls and women as well. 
As Michael Shermer discusses in The Believing Brain belief blocks even skeptical belief blocks are unassailable.  Contrary information isn't even processed by the brain.  The la, la, la, la, I can't hear you! is real, not metaphorical.   

Outside the belief blocks critical thinking can be encouraged and taught, although it is generally considered dangerous by the more dogmatic religions for fear that it will spill into faith thinking.  

Belief Genetics

I doubt that the belief gene has been identified. (And probably won't be, people have been burned at the stake for less.)  But according to Shermer it exists in a large segment of the population.  Not always religious, but politics and religion are the most common expressions.  Probably tribe membership or authority related from an evolutionary viewpoint. 
But look around you.  Believers beget believers.  It would be hard to separate out nature vs nurture, but believers occasionally beget people who can actually read the Bible and the newspapers, or actually think about what they watch on the boob tube (for them.) One might think of them as deficient in the belief gene as the occasional green-eyed redhead is deficient in the melanin gene. 

But non-believers also beget non-believers.  I come from a family that goes back to the earliest colonists for which "He would have been mayor except he pissed off the preacher." was their characterization of most of the famous members.  "He" was usually run out of town as the original settler was run out of England. An ancestor was a General in Washington's army, but was run out of Virginia (and America) to Ohio.  

They also perhaps necessarily marry non-believers weeding out the belief gene.  My great grandmother married into the family but was an atheist, free thinker and feminist.  (late 19th Cen.)

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.

Ritual, Belief, and Understanding

beliefnet
I use ritual as a shorthand for important belief sets for any religion.  If you learn them early enough and repeat them offen enough they become part of your identity as a member of the "tribe" (the general sense of the term.) The Pledge of Allegiance is an identity ritual of the Tribe of Ammerruhcuns.

Understanding is quite different from belief.  I understand the Credo as fundamental to Catholicism, and can respect and interpret it musically in my case to reinforce it in the minds of believers even though I do not believe any of it myself.  The Church paid big money to composers to create memorable Masses to indoctrinate believers in an enjoyable format.  Part of the compensation was for setting the Mass to reinforce the dogma.

J neat.

beliefnet

Argumentative Jew wrote:

I don't know of a 'Jahwist' faith community - so I'm not sure at all what you're talking about there.

As far as I know Scripture is recognized as having many authors one of which was the Yahwist, Jahwist, or J even by Jewish scholarship.  Hesh wrote all of the memorable stories that many people in many faiths who have adopted the Pentateuch as fundamental, whatever they call it, think of as "Scripture."  Adam and Eve, Noah, Abram, Lot, Moses, of course God or YHWH from whom hesh derives the moniker and many other protagonists male and female. The stories about them attributed to J are what people remember.

When I say J "neat" I am referring to reading those stories as a coherent whole without all of the Priestly context. I first read them that way in a new translation from the Hebrew by David Rosenbloom.  I have no way of criticizing the translation as I know nothing of Hebrew but the collection was a great read, and sent me back to the other Bibles on the shelf to reread those stories as a coherent whole.  I must admit that I knew most of them well.  And very little of what I skipped.