Thoughts on Atheism

[MaryLupin]

Bravo! But you are attempting to debate with people who, I believe, cannot afford to lose. The salient questions to pose to those who cannot or will not imagine what it might be NOT to believe as they do, are

1) When and why did you choose to believe?

2) Could you personally survive without believing?

But you are unlikely to get an answer to 1) that is not circular, something like: I believe because it is true.

Good questions of anybody. Could you start a thread like this (in general chat?) where these questions are asked of believers, agnostics and atheists all? (Don't want to contravene the forum rules and get locked down by Logos. -- Hey Logos, how you doing?)

Mostly, I find the content of belief systems rather mundane. What fascinates me is the mind coming to grips with reality and how it orders, contains and limits what it perceives. This is the process that gets a chance to come to the fore with question # 1.

In question # 2 we face something else. Here I imagine a person under mental threat (i.e. his or her belief system and perceived personal safety is at risk by being a "lone believer" in a foreign camp.) So say, an atheist child in a fundamentalist grade school, or a fundamentalist child in an atheist school. What does the child do? As an adult, how do we cope with the same kind of situation?

Good things to think about.

[Logos]

-- Hey Logos, how you doing?)

heh...uhm...........oh...ok!...just warily peeking in here with eyes, fingers and toes crossed that people aren't being too nasty to each other!

Good questions of anybody. Could you start a thread like this (in general chat?) where these questions are asked of believers, agnostics and atheists all?

If The P.M. wants to starts a topic with those questions put forth in a manner that encourages everyone to participate (so maybe we can all learn a little and try to be more tolerant of each other around here) I guess I could make an exception to the recent rule change, because it would have to be in the Religious Texts forum, those Gen Chatters get antsy when Religion is brought up there . Maybe work the questions into a poll somehow?

[Redzeppelin]

But, Red, it is a part of human nature.

Human nature in the hands of something more powerful and sinister. We choose our behaviors, but the depths to which we will go - no, I cannot accept that that is being "human."

To differentiate between these is commonly human. What matters is where one puts the authority for the "oughts." I place it squarely on species survival. For example, if we want to survive then we need to live on a planet whose ecosystem can support our life form. We "ought" to manage our desires in such a way that we do not destroy that which is necessary for long-term species survival. Another example: If we want to live in a world where groups of people don't routinely slaughter other groups of people then we "ought" to teach ourselves and our children about our "animal" natures so that when rage/fear/greed/lust/etc hits we know how to manage to feelings.

Morality as social contract. Right - I'm familiar with that idea - it's SOP when discussing morality with those who don't accept Christianity. Social contract works - but it does not carry the sense of "oughtness" that objective morality provides via a transcendant source - i.e. "right" and "wrong" are merely group-validated conventions that could change depending upon social circumstances. What is "right" and "wrong" simply becomes a matter of what is legal - and not all that is legal is right. At some point, it could become beneficial for society to kill off those with mental retardation problems - would that make it right?

A pertinent aside: I taught in a part of Idaho for a few terms. The class did an assignment on teen pregnancy rates. What the data showed was that, by far, the highest rates of teen pregnancy occurred in schools that refused to teach sex education and instead preached celibacy. Ignorance of our "animal" nature does not make it go away. In fact it makes it more powerful.

Do you suppose the study would have had the same results 60-75 years ago? Are you ignoring the influence of culture? I think so. "Animal nature" has not always been allowed the long leash we give it - I think kids today have learned (wrongly) that their animal nature is beyond their control and ought to be appeased. That's culture telling them that - not their own carnality.

People have terrible feelings as well as ones of grace. Trying to convince people that the desire to cause mayhem is not intrinsically theirs but rather is like a kind of possession by some mystical being, is tantamount to preaching celibacy in the young. One results in pregnancy. The other in violence.

You're suggesting some sort of cause-effect relationship - based upon what? I would suggest that we've become more violent and more wreckless as secularism tells us that negative behaviors are not only created within us, but that they're "not our fault" - everything's a "disease" beyond my control - so I couldn't help what I did. Hardly. The problem with your argument is that the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies this suggestion that Christianity's vision of human behavior is incorrect. "Throwing off the shackles" of Christian morality has not brought about better behaved people.

I'll even go along with this if the panel includes witches, pantheists, jews, muslims, buddhists, animists, christians, jains, taoists, etc etc

Would you require a Christian on this pretend panel in, say, India? Would you require this sort of "diversity" in Japan? Iran? A witch in Jerusalem? Why would you do that? Why would you suggest that all "faiths" are inherently equal?

What pantheism lacks is the concept that it knows best. This is a good thing. Rather than answers (which Christianity tries to give) pantheism is structured to give pertinent questions. A thousand answers are far less valuable as a tool for growth than one good question.

Good philosophy doesn't always add up to practicality. Pantheism's "God" isn't worth worshipping or serving because he's incapable of guiding people - he has no morality and no personal interaction with his creatures. He just happens to be "what is" - but God must be beyond "what is" in order to be God.

I would rather enjoy a governing body that was more interested in the one good question than forcing me to live with (yet again) the consequences of their last 100 answers.

Care to explain what this means? What is Christianity "forcing" you to do?

It only feels like denigration because you see changeable as less valuable than absolute. Life is about change. Death is absolute. I prefer life and change and think it has greater value with respect to humanity. In this system the non-transcendent must be god and the transcendent cannot be god.

I see changeable as less valuable than absolute when I'm discussing God. I'm well aware of reality and how it works - but religions which make God into a creation make Him into something else besides God. Pantheism doesn't really want "God" - it wants some force to be in charge (because it knows that random chaos can't be in charge) but it doesn't want the troublesome morality and personal responsibility that comes with being a creature of God.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Human nature in the hands of something more powerful and sinister. We choose our behaviors, but the depths to which we will go - no, I cannot accept that that is being "human."

If you accept that we choose our behaviours, you really cannot cavil at whether or not we choose the extent of those behaviours.

Morality as social contract. Right - I'm familiar with that idea - it's SOP when discussing morality with those who don't accept Christianity. Social contract works - but it does not carry the sense of "oughtness" that objective morality provides via a transcendant source

What do you say then of professing Christians, Jews or Moslems who kill? Or abuse others?

I see changeable as less valuable than absolute when I'm discussing God.

Have you read Karen Armstrong's A History of God?

[Redzeppelin]

If you accept that we choose our behaviours, you really cannot cavil at whether or not we choose the extent of those behaviours.

My friend, I can "cavil" because Christian theology makes it clear that human beings' ability to exercise their will against evil can be degraded; in other words - we have a will that allows us to resist evil - or to "contain" it to a certain degree (kind of like the idea that people in decades past - even bad ones - tended to try and "protect" children from exposure to crime and such); that ability can be serverly compromised by continued sinful behavior. Just like an addict - continued exposure to the drug weakens the person's ability to say "no." Sin is no different. As such, the more we engage in it or allow our will to be compromised, the more helpless we can become in the face of Satan's "suggestions" (which is how he works - he doesn't "make" us do anything - he suggests, and we, based upon the strength of our will, say "yes" or "no").

What do you say then of professing Christians, Jews or Moslems who kill? Or abuse others?

1. Not all killing is forbidden or wrong.
2. Those who abuse have committed sin and ought to suffer the appropriate consequences. What did you think I was going to say? Excuse them? You must be kidding.

Have you read Karen Armstrong's A History of God?

No.

[PrinceMyshkin]

My friend, I can "cavil" because Christian theology makes it clear that human beings' ability to exercise their will against evil can be degraded; in other words - we have a will that allows us to resist evil - or to "contain" it to a certain degree (kind of like the idea that people in decades past - even bad ones - tended to try and "protect" children from exposure to crime and such); that ability can be serverly compromised by continued sinful behavior. Just like an addict - continued exposure to the drug weakens the person's ability to say "no." Sin is no different. As such, the more we engage in it or allow our will to be compromised, the more helpless we can become in the face of Satan's "suggestions" (which is how he works - he doesn't "make" us do anything - he suggests, and we, based upon the strength of our will, say "yes" or "no").

Well, there is Christian theology (of various sorts, not all of it in agreement), and there is plain human common sense. Obviously I cannot debate with you on the finer points of Christian thology - yours or whomever else's - but all I can say is that from a common sense point of view it seems that if we have the freedom to choose to do evil, there can be no restriction on the depth or kind of evil we can choose.

1. Not all killing is forbidden or wrong.
2. Those who abuse have committed sin and ought to suffer the appropriate consequences. What did you think I was going to say? Excuse them? You must be kidding.

No I was trying to deal with your point that only if there is a transcendent God, those who were obedient to him would not commit evil.


No.[/QUOTE]

Well, WOULD you consider reading Karen Armnstrong- or the Raul Hilberg I suggested earlier?

[MaryLupin]

Human nature in the hands of something more powerful and sinister. We choose our behaviors, but the depths to which we will go - no, I cannot accept that that is being "human."

As an imaginative game, over the next few years, you could try just 15 minutes a day, giving some mental room to the concept that what we do is a product of our evolved and lived experience and not a consequence of a pair of magical beings. Just as an exercise. I am not suggesting that you give up your faith, but rather see if you can get past the "I cannot accept" stance that makes of your house of argument a weak-footed thing.

Morality as social contract. Right - I'm familiar with that idea - it's SOP when discussing morality with those who don't accept Christianity. Social contract works - but it does not carry the sense of "oughtness" that objective morality provides via a transcendant source - i.e. "right" and "wrong" are merely group-validated conventions that could change depending upon social circumstances. What is "right" and "wrong" simply becomes a matter of what is legal - and not all that is legal is right. At some point, it could become beneficial for society to kill off those with mental retardation problems - would that make it right?

"Oughtness" is carried by human emotions. It doesn't matter if the cultural group has some form of single-magical sky-being as its titular head, or a multiple in-ground form. Our "oughtness" comes from the same place as our deep penchant to do what our "big dogs" tell us to do. The Milgram experiments are perhaps the best known example. We are coded to follow direction and want a leader. We are social primates and act (unbelievably in some cases) much like other social primates. (Spend a year or so reading and viewing primate studies and you'll see what I mean.) "Oughtness" is a function that is also coded into us. "Oughtness" rules all have to do with social group viability. I mean if you look at the 10 commandments, or Rabbi Hillel's golden rule all of these have to do with how to get along with others.

If "oughtness" were not an inherent human function, and a sense of "rightness" could only exist if there was an outside divine-force impelling it, then it should vanish in societies that do not have a transcendent being, or at least they should live in horrendous chaos and of course it doesn't and they don't. (Cultural anthropology has a whole bunch of studies showing how our "savage" friends are not at all "savage," in fact are rule-following, art-creating humans just like us.) "Oughtness" (a sense of morality) is an emergent function of our genetic drive to keep going as a species. After all, in all social species that use learning to transmit necessary survival information it is not enough to simply pop a baby out, one must also provide a relatively stable social environment long enough to pass on the "rules" by which the child can grow up, find sustaining work in the group, procure and keep a mate and produce and rear children on his/her own. To do this we require constant prodding, and "ought tos" do that.

Finally, they do that not because they were implanted by some magical sky-dude but because our oldest behavioral cattle-prod resides in those parts of the brain that generate feeling. The fact that we took those feelings, which by some miraculous circumstance (what we now know as genes) appeared pretty much the same in all human beings, and created a story to explain this wonder is quintessentially human.

So of course we would know that killing off all our neighbors that are assessed as "mentally retarded" would be wrong. But not because there is a god telling us that it is wrong, but because it is a profoundly unsocial, unneighborly act and this is precisely what our existence and emergence as social creatures has evolved us to fear (and deny through hell and high water when caught at it).

Note re eugenics (the body of theory that suggests killing off or forcibly sterilizing our mentally retarded neighbors [amongst other populations] is a good idea): It been well supported in the United States over the years. Dennis Durst made a bit of a study of it and has posted an article called Evangelical Engagements With Eugenics, 1900-1940 should you care to read it.

Do you suppose the study would have had the same results 60-75 years ago? Are you ignoring the influence of culture? I think so. "Animal nature" has not always been allowed the long leash we give it - I think kids today have learned (wrongly) that their animal nature is beyond their control and ought to be appeased. That's culture telling them that - not their own carnality.

This is a "golden age" argument. Teen pregnancy did not get created in the 1960s along side Vatican II. What a study 60-75 years ago might have shown would have been girls and boys "marrying" at the age of 16; girls routinely bearing slightly pre-term babies and then producing them one after the other without much thought and without much choice. I mean there is a reason my grandmother was one of 12 babies born. This hypothetical study, had it also looked at "disappearances" might have discovered that some girls just "vanished" from the society which birthed them. Had the researcher looked closer it might have found a whole series of "disowned" daughters (the one who got pregnant but not married)...and even closer might have found a correlation between the numbers of prostitutes in the streets of the surrounding towns/cities and the number of the "vanished." And then there are the abortion doctors...these are not creations of the post '60s either. The one difference today is that many of them actually have medical training, which in my opinion is a right and neighborly thing to provide for our female neighbors.

So it is not "animal nature" that was leashed. Sex has always been a potent force and will always remain so. What has changed is who is allowed to acknowledge its power. 60-75 years ago (and still today in many households) "boys will be boys" is still the rule with respect to permission to acknowledge sexual desire. The rules for a "good girl" are still potent, but at least the punishments are less severe, although there are still quite a goodly number of the "vanished" on our streets.

You're suggesting some sort of cause-effect relationship - based upon what? I would suggest that we've become more violent and more wreckless as secularism tells us that negative behaviors are not only created within us, but that they're "not our fault" - everything's a "disease" beyond my control - so I couldn't help what I did. Hardly. The problem with your argument is that the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies this suggestion that Christianity's vision of human behavior is incorrect. "Throwing off the shackles" of Christian morality has not brought about better behaved people.

Well yes. If the only method a group uses to prevent pregnancy is celibacy it does in fact cause a rise in pregnancy. There are a number of sociological studies available in the literature should you care to research the point. Free information and technologies provided to women, in case after case, reduces pregnancy rates. Interestingly, there are some studies that show the best way to reduce birth rates (especially in cultures, or parts of cultures, where women do not have equal access to the economy) is to provide women a way to earn their own living. The freedom of choice this provides (along with birth control) works wonders for the power to say "no."

But as to your other point...the increase in violence...in comparison to what? The war in Korea during the "golden age of American righteousness"? WWI and WWII? The Armenian genocide of 1915-17? The Paraguayan War of 1864-70? The 78 European wars of the 17th century? The 118 European wars of the 16th century? The 50 European wars of the 15th century? The wars, economic devastation and plagues of the 13th century?...All the way back to the first cities, the first permanent military and the first permanent religious specialists supported by the political establishment.

We fight, commit atrocities and assorted horrors. That is not different now. There was no golden age where we didn't do this kind of thing. What differs now is our access to information and the power of our weapons.

Would you require a Christian on this pretend panel in, say, India? Would you require this sort of "diversity" in Japan? Iran? A witch in Jerusalem? Why would you do that? Why would you suggest that all "faiths" are inherently equal?

Well yes. If we are going to have a religious NATO then it had better represent the various belief systems of its subjects. I would suggest that all faiths are inherently equal because your belief in your god is no more powerful than Osama's belief in his, or a Buddhists belief in the power of a buddha, or a witch's belief in the goddess, or...etc.etc. If we must allow tolerance then we (all) (including the Jerry Falwell types) must allow tolerance. If we disallow one then this is not tolerance but religious-based fascism.

Good philosophy doesn't always add up to practicality. Pantheism's "God" isn't worth worshipping or serving because he's incapable of guiding people - he has no morality and no personal interaction with his creatures. He just happens to be "what is" - but God must be beyond "what is" in order to be God.

Depends on how you define "good" and "philosophy." It is clear that your definition of good is dependent upon it being grounded in a transcendent, unchanging force. This is, of course, not my definition. Mine has to do with promoting social and species long-term success.

With respect to the meaning of "philosophy," it can mean several things as the page of definitions linked here shows. It can, in fact, mean "a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." It can also mean "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct" but in this case basing such an investigation on something inherently unknowable and therefore an act of faith makes the whole house that is built on an unknowable void a little tottery.

Care to explain what this means? What is Christianity "forcing" you to do?

Just a couple of incidents:

1. live in a world where a young woman died of septicemia because she was denied medical help because "if god had wanted her to live he would have saved her."

2. having to re-catalogue a school library (so the school could become accredited to teach our little children) because the nice Christian woman who worked and taught there had thrown away anything newer than Dick and Jane, had kept one picture book on evolution and cataloged it with "myths," and had put the bible (her favorite version) in with the other "science" books. But that was not the real problem...it was that nobody thought it was funny.

That's what the real problem is...people take this kind of idiocy seriously.

I see changeable as less valuable than absolute when I'm discussing God. I'm well aware of reality and how it works - but religions which make God into a creation make Him into something else besides God. Pantheism doesn't really want "God" - it wants some force to be in charge (because it knows that random chaos can't be in charge) but it doesn't want the troublesome morality and personal responsibility that comes with being a creature of God.

"troublesome morality?" "personal responsibility?"

Please. Are you really saying that pantheists do not act morally and are devoid of personal responsibility?

Any pantheists out there that can give a definitive reply to this charge?

[Redzeppelin]

As an imaginative game, over the next few years, you could try just 15 minutes a day, giving some mental room to the concept that what we do is a product of our evolved and lived experience and not a consequence of a pair of magical beings. Just as an exercise. I am not suggesting that you give up your faith, but rather see if you can get past the "I cannot accept" stance that makes of your house of argument a weak-footed thing.

Let's establish something right up front: your reference to God and Satan as "magical" beings shows me two things:

1. You don't understand much about God; God has nothing to do with "magic."

2. I find your usage condescending - as condescending as you might take my comment about your tarot thread as "silly card tricks."

Spare me your "exercises." This is the arrogance of the non-believer who assumes that because someone has a firm opinion that he must not think much about it, for if he did he would certainly change his mind. Please. I wouldn't mind half of the misconceptions non-believers spout off about Christians if they would simply drop the patronizing attitude that my position is due to being close-minded, and that if I would do your little exercises that I would be a more enlightened person. Have you noticed that I don't give you any advice in terms of how you think, how you see the world? Why is it that non-believers think it's OK to condescend to Christians? I don't recall "preaching" at you about how you should confess your sins, give your life to Jesus and join me on the road to heaven and how this would change your life. Why don't you lay off your own secular proselytizing while you're at it?

"Oughtness" is carried by human emotions. It doesn't matter if the cultural group has some form of single-magical sky-being as its titular head, or a multiple in-ground form. Our "oughtness" comes from the same place as our deep penchant to do what our "big dogs" tell us to do. The Milgram experiments are perhaps the best known example. We are coded to follow direction and want a leader. We are social primates and act (unbelievably in some cases) much like other social primates. (Spend a year or so reading and viewing primate studies and you'll see what I mean.) "Oughtness" is a function that is also coded into us. "Oughtness" rules all have to do with social group viability. I mean if you look at the 10 commandments, or Rabbi Hillel's golden rule all of these have to do with how to get along with others.

You got one thing right: morality is encoded in us by God. It's inherently human because God programed it into us. That's where guilt comes from - because social convention cannot really instill guilt as a feeling.

I'm not responding to all your lengthy paragraphs because all that would amount to is me saying the same thing: I believe that the Guy who created the compter (our brain) also loaded it with software (morality). I understand that you believe it is something else - of course you do - you have to do so if you don't acknowledge the existence of God. Why should you and I go round and round on this issue? You seem to believe that there are psycho/biological reasons for morality to exist: OK, but I disagree.

This is a "golden age" argument. Teen pregnancy did not get created in the 1960s along side Vatican II.

Please don't patronize me. It makes me less interested in responding to anything you say.

What a study 60-75 years ago might have shown would have been girls and boys "marrying" at the age of 16; girls routinely bearing slightly pre-term babies and then producing them one after the other without much thought and without much choice. I mean there is a reason my grandmother was one of 12 babies born. This hypothetical study, had it also looked at "disappearances" might have discovered that some girls just "vanished" from the society which birthed them. Had the researcher looked closer it might have found a whole series of "disowned" daughters (the one who got pregnant but not married)...and even closer might have found a correlation between the numbers of prostitutes in the streets of the surrounding towns/cities and the number of the "vanished." And then there are the abortion doctors...these are not creations of the post '60s either. The one difference today is that many of them actually have medical training, which in my opinion is a right and neighborly thing to provide for our female neighbors.

So it is not "animal nature" that was leashed. Sex has always been a potent force and will always remain so. What has changed is who is allowed to acknowledge its power. 60-75 years ago (and still today in many households) "boys will be boys" is still the rule with respect to permission to acknowledge sexual desire. The rules for a "good girl" are still potent, but at least the punishments are less severe, although there are still quite a goodly number of the "vanished" on our streets.

The validity of your points does not diminish the reality that morality has relaxed considerably in the area of sexuality - mainly since the 60s. You cannot argue away the fact that sex has ceased to be something generally reserved for marriage into a recreational sport. That kind of thinking reduces the need to control our animal selves because society (which once frowned on sex as sport) now gives its tacit approval. I'm hard pressed to see how you can argue around that reality. Abortions, teen-pregnancies, STDs, broken families et al are up since the early part of this century. Kids don't see the need to control themselves - society, the media and (unfortunately) their parents have shown them that they don't need to restrain themselves.

Well yes. If the only method a group uses to prevent pregnancy is celibacy it does in fact cause a rise in pregnancy. There are a number of sociological studies available in the literature should you care to research the point. Free information and technologies provided to women, in case after case, reduces pregnancy rates. Interestingly, there are some studies that show the best way to reduce birth rates (especially in cultures, or parts of cultures, where women do not have equal access to the economy) is to provide women a way to earn their own living. The freedom of choice this provides (along with birth control) works wonders for the power to say "no."

Fine for adults - not for children. Telling children to have "safe sex" is telling them it's OK to have sex. It is tacit approval. Period.

But as to your other point...the increase in violence...in comparison to what? The war in Korea during the "golden age of American righteousness"? WWI and WWII? The Armenian genocide of 1915-17? The Paraguayan War of 1864-70? The 78 European wars of the 17th century? The 118 European wars of the 16th century? The 50 European wars of the 15th century? The wars, economic devastation and plagues of the 13th century?...All the way back to the first cities, the first permanent military and the first permanent religious specialists supported by the political establishment.

Strawman. On a large-scale country-to-coutry war level of course you have a point. I'm speaking of the day-to-day "violence" that occurs between us - the robberies, the muggings, the rapes, the road rages, the casual betrayal of each other, the atmosphere of disrespect at all levels of society (from the third grader mouthing off at his teacher to the political candidates flat-out insulting each other on network TV), the snatching of children off the streets, the back-biting ugliness that we see in our media - I'm not talking about tanks and machine guns - I'm talking about violence on the streets, in our families and on our TVs.

We fight, commit atrocities and assorted horrors. That is not different now. There was no golden age where we didn't do this kind of thing. What differs now is our access to information and the power of our weapons.

I never suggested a "golden age" - I suggested a clear difference in the atitudes towards sex, morality, duty and respect that is evident everywhere in culture. No student of history or culture could miss the change.

Well yes. If we are going to have a religious NATO then it had better represent the various belief systems of its subjects. I would suggest that all faiths are inherently equal because your belief in your god is no more powerful than Osama's belief in his, or a Buddhists belief in the power of a buddha, or a witch's belief in the goddess, or...etc.etc. If we must allow tolerance then we (all) (including the Jerry Falwell types) must allow tolerance. If we disallow one then this is not tolerance but religious-based fascism.

My point is that a "religious NATO" is absurd; India would laugh off such an idea as having a Christian on some consulting board in its country due to the high numbers of Hindus there. They would say "Why should we have on our council one whose beliefs directly contradict ours?" I was speaking of local matters - not National level.

Secondly, all faiths are not equal. Since faiths are generally exculsive (they all claim to know the way) they cannot be equal because all of them cannot be right - that is a contradiction of logic of the first degree. Either one is right, or all are wrong. Tolerance doesn't mean "equal representation." It means that people who believe differently than I have a right to believe so unmolested by me.

Just a couple of incidents:

1. live in a world where a young woman died of septicemia because she was denied medical help because "if god had wanted her to live he would have saved her."

You also live in a world where numerous other terrible things happen that Christians had no say or hand in - so? That was this girl's choice - an unwise one in my opinion. But nothing here has been "forced" upon you more than any other bad thing that the news shows you (Christian enacted or not.) She's as free to make this choice as the distraught drug addict who takes his own life. Nothing has been "forced" upon you.

2. having to re-catalogue a school library (so the school could become accredited to teach our little children) because the nice Christian woman who worked and taught there had thrown away anything newer than Dick and Jane, had kept one picture book on evolution and cataloged it with "myths," and had put the bible (her favorite version) in with the other "science" books. But that was not the real problem...it was that nobody thought it was funny.

Is this the best you can do in terms of being "forced" to live with the "consequences of Christianity's last 100 answers"? As far as I can see, you have little to complain about.

That's what the real problem is...people take this kind of idiocy seriously.

Aha - now we're name-calling. I don't recall calling Naturalism or atheism "idiocy." Nice. What you call "idiocy" is often a very deeply meaningful spiritual experience to many people - but I guess only those beliefs which you see as valid get respect - not very tolerant of you, Mary.

"troublesome morality?" "personal responsibility?"

Please. Are you really saying that pantheists do not act morally and are devoid of personal responsibility?

Any pantheists out there that can give a definitive reply to this charge?

Nope - I'm not saying that at all. I'm suggesting that views of God which strip Him of a moral/intellectual will tend to reduce the moral force of God's existence and to - as such - require less out of the individual in terms of expectation of behavior. If God is impersonal and has no moral will, then I am free to approach life as I wish (a bad idea, considering the state of human nature). Please read my posts carefully before sounding some alarm and calling in the troops.

[MaryLupin]

Spare me your "exercises." This is the arrogance of the non-believer who assumes that because someone has a firm opinion that he must not think much about it, for if he did he would certainly change his mind.

This is the difference between us. I have been willing to spend years on this exercise, except mine involves allowing myself to accept the reality of such a divine being as is written about in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, and a host of other sacred texts and follow through with learning the terminology, the methodologies of interpretation and the resultant belief systems. My opinions come from such "exercises" in acceptance.

Have you noticed that I don't give you any advice in terms of how you think, how you see the world? Why is it that non-believers think it's OK to condescend to Christians? I don't recall "preaching" at you about how you should confess your sins, give your life to Jesus and join me on the road to heaven and how this would change your life. Why don't you lay off your own secular proselytizing while you're at it?

No advice, except to "lay off" my "secular proselytizing?"

You got one thing right: morality is encoded in us by God. It's inherently human because God programed it into us. That's where guilt comes from - because social convention cannot really instill guilt as a feeling.

I didn't say that. I said morality is inherent in us because of our biology.

The validity of your points does not diminish the reality that morality has relaxed considerably in the area of sexuality - mainly since the 60s.

Compared to what? Reading Euripides alone should be enough to tell you that there is plenty of culturally sanctioned licentious behavior throughout human history. Concepts of proper sexual behavior fluctuate through history as do concepts of proper feminine and masculine dress and occupations.

You cannot argue away the fact that sex has ceased to be something generally reserved for marriage into a recreational sport.

Sex has never been something reserved for marriage. There are rules about who should sleep with whom but they are almost never followed throughout any particular person's life, and certainly aren't followed by society (current or past) at large. Not even in the most strictly devout households and cultures. Evidence of this abounds in biography and history. What changes is who gets punished when caught.

Abortions, teen-pregnancies, STDs, broken families et al are up since the early part of this century.

This is at least in part true. However, the implication is that all of these things have the same root cause. Broken families, for example, have less to do with sexual than economic freedom. The divorce rate started to climb when women started to become an economic force on their own. Two things of note that have declined are the numbers of children abandoned in orphanages and the number of girls and women who die of botched abortions.

Fine for adults - not for children. Telling children to have "safe sex" is telling them it's OK to have sex. It is tacit approval. Period.

And telling them not to doesn't work. And you are assuming they need or want your (not you personally) permission. I suspect, having once been a teen, that the decision to have or not have sex had far more to do with things other than what adults felt I should or should not do. In fact, I doubt it plays much of a role in most teens' minds at the moment of choice - as it were. Now that would be an interesting poll.

Strawman. On a large-scale country-to-coutry war level of course you have a point. I'm speaking of the day-to-day "violence" that occurs between us - the robberies, the muggings, the rapes, the road rages, the casual betrayal of each other, the atmosphere of disrespect at all levels of society (from the third grader mouthing off at his teacher to the political candidates flat-out insulting each other on network TV), the snatching of children off the streets, the back-biting ugliness that we see in our media - I'm not talking about tanks and machine guns - I'm talking about violence on the streets, in our families and on our TVs.

You said in your earlier post: "The problem with your argument is that the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies this suggestion that Christianity's vision of human behavior is incorrect."

I responded with evidence based on an interpretation of "our society" as human society. Your interpretation of "our society" is "on the streets, in our families and on our TVs." Ok. So again, compared to what. Let me give you just two examples: Rape is not a new crime nor has it likely increased but actually probably decreased (as a statistical percentage of the populations) since there is so much more recourse for women in law now. Rape just used to be something one put up with in the home and it still is in many homes. In the case of murder and assault, a woman is most likely to be killed or beaten by her spouse or significant other. Again this is an old thing, that while still going strong at least has legal recourse today. If anything, I would say that our homes are safer because the violence is talked about on our TVs.

And by the way that was not a strawman type of argument. You made a categorical statement (that violence is increasing) and I gave evidence that this is not true. What happened is that what you mean by, and what I mean by, "our society" differed. Consequently, I adapted and have now given you evidence that your claim that violence is increasing in this new form of "our society" is also probably not true.

A strawman argument is defined as "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted."
You, not I, set up the terms of the argument by saying "the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies..." All I did is show that your assumption "the increasing violence and lawlessness" was incorrect.

[Redzeppelin]

This is the difference between us. I have been willing to spend years on this exercise, except mine involves allowing myself to accept the reality of such a divine being as is written about in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, and a host of other sacred texts and follow through with learning the terminology, the methodologies of interpretation and the resultant belief systems. My opinions come from such "exercises" in acceptance.

1. The difference between us is that I don't assume you're in need of some "enlightenment exercise" simply because I think your vision of reality is incorrect, too narrow, etc. I don't offer my non-believing opponents such, but a number of them have been quite happy to give me advice in terms of being more "open minded" like they are (although "open minded" doesn't seem to be "open" enough to accept the reality of God). Again - that is arrogance of the first order to assume such.

2. The Bible, the Koran and "other sacred texts" contradict each other in terms of who God is; you may have amassed some book knowledge or theoretical understanding of God, but those accounts collectively cancel each other out.

I didn't say that. I said morality is inherent in us because of our biology.

Right - the part I was agreeing with you about was the word "inherent" - sorry for not being clear. Biology cannot make us feel guilty.

Compared to what? Reading Euripides alone should be enough to tell you that there is plenty of culturally sanctioned licentious behavior throughout human history. Concepts of proper sexual behavior fluctuate through history as do concepts of proper feminine and masculine dress and occupations.

Civilizations have "arcs" which they travel through in their trajectory; stick with America's civilization and examine its "arc." I'm aware that other civilizations throughout history have indicated problems like ours - but are you so sure that what Euripides is complaining about is equal to ours?

Sex has never been something reserved for marriage.

According to whom?

There are rules about who should sleep with whom but they are almost never followed throughout any particular person's life, and certainly aren't followed by society (current or past) at large. Not even in the most strictly devout households and cultures. Evidence of this abounds in biography and history. What changes is who gets punished when caught.

That's largely why our relationships are in such a mess. "Liberating" sex from marriage has not given us happier, more fulfilling relationships.

This is at least in part true. However, the implication is that all of these things have the same root cause. Broken families, for example, have less to do with sexual than economic freedom. The divorce rate started to climb when women started to become an economic force on their own. Two things of note that have declined are the numbers of children abandoned in orphanages and the number of girls and women who die of botched abortions.

Not all broken families are due to the economic advantages women now enjoy; plenty of them are due to a warped idea about "love" and the sexual baggage we carry into our marriages; having sex before marriage contaminates our hearts - God did not design us to have sex with multiple people - that's why in Genesis it says that a man and woman "become one" when they have sex - and that's not merely metaphoric IMO - I believe that spiritually, the man and woman bind together; that's why divorce or breaking off a relationship with a person you've slept with is so incredibly painful - why divorced couples stay angry and hurt for years after the separation.

And telling them not to doesn't work.

Because our culture has told them (since the 60s and as you just did above) that sex isn't just reserved for marriage. If kids were taught that by their culture and their media, I think you might find it much easier for them to control their "animal selves."

And you are assuming they need or want your (not you personally) permission. I suspect, having once been a teen, that the decision to have or not have sex had far more to do with things other than what adults felt I should or should not do. In fact, I doubt it plays much of a role in most teens' minds at the moment of choice - as it were. Now that would be an interesting poll.

You are correct - but just because a teen wants something doesn't mean s/he gets it. You speak as if teens are some sort of independent law unto themselves; they're not - but because we refuse to hold them accountable, they - in a way - have actually become their own law. Teens don't have a right to sex - nobody has a right to sex.

You said in your earlier post: "The problem with your argument is that the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies this suggestion that Christianity's vision of human behavior is incorrect."

I responded with evidence based on an interpretation of "our society" as human society. Your interpretation of "our society" is "on the streets, in our families and on our TVs." Ok. So again, compared to what. Let me give you just two examples: Rape is not a new crime nor has it likely increased but actually probably decreased (as a statistical percentage of the populations) since there is so much more recourse for women in law now. Rape just used to be something one put up with in the home and it still is in many homes. In the case of murder and assault, a woman is most likely to be killed or beaten by her spouse or significant other. Again this is an old thing, that while still going strong at least has legal recourse today. If anything, I would say that our homes are safer because the violence is talked about on our TVs.

And by the way that was not a strawman type of argument. You made a categorical statement (that violence is increasing) and I gave evidence that this is not true. What happened is that what you mean by, and what I mean by, "our society" differed. Consequently, I adapted and have now given you evidence that your claim that violence is increasing in this new form of "our society" is also probably not true.

A strawman argument is defined as "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted."
You, not I, set up the terms of the argument by saying "the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies..." All I did is show that your assumption "the increasing violence and lawlessness" was incorrect.

I retract my strawman comment; I did not use accurate terminology and tried to ding you. My apologies.

[MaryLupin]

Let's establish something right up front: your reference to God and Satan as "magical" beings shows me two things:

1. You don't understand much about God; God has nothing to do with "magic."

2. I find your usage condescending - as condescending as you might take my comment about your tarot thread as "silly card tricks."

Magic can be defined as

c.1384, "art of influencing events and producing marvels," from O.Fr. magique, from L. magice "sorcery, magic," from Gk. magike (presumably with tekhne "art"), fem. of magikos "magical," from magos "one of the members of the learned and priestly class," from O.Pers. magush, possibly from PIE *magh- "to be able, to have power" (see machine). Displaced O.E. wiccecræft (see witch); also drycræft, from dry "magician," from Ir. drui "priest, magician" (see druid). Transferred sense of "legerdemain, optical illusion, etc." is from 1811. Magic carpet first attested 1909. Magic Marker (1956) is a reg. trademark (U.S.) by Speedry Products, Inc., Richmond Hill, N.Y. Magic lantern "optical instrument whereby a magnified image is thrown upon a wall or screen" is 1696, from Mod.L. laterna magica.

The production of marvels is exactly what god (and Jesus) did and as such is exactly magical. I understand that you find this offensive...comparing the loaves and fishes to other productions of marvel. But there it is. By definition god is magical.

And I am not at all offended by your attitude toward tarot.

[MaryLupin]

Biology cannot make us feel guilty.

Sure it can and in exactly the same way it makes us feel lust and adoration.

According to whom?

According to the statistics and reports on illegitimacy, adultery and "miscegenation" throughout the ages.

Civilizations have "arcs" which they travel through in their trajectory; stick with America's civilization...

with respect to culturally sanctioned licentious behavior in the USA then...I will cite President Jefferson's relationship with his (owned human being) Sally Hemings while married to Martha Wayles Jefferson. Also there is some indication that Sally and Martha were half-sisters. If you want more recent examples then a perusal of recent presidents' lives will be a good start, followed by a perusal of recent evangelical preachers and their behavior with respect to women not their wives. In fact pick any period in American history and look at the behavior of men in power, you will find the same.

[Redzeppelin]

Magic can be defined as

c.1384, "art of influencing events and producing marvels," from O.Fr. magique, from L. magice "sorcery, magic," from Gk. magike (presumably with tekhne "art"), fem. of magikos "magical," from magos "one of the members of the learned and priestly class," from O.Pers. magush, possibly from PIE *magh- "to be able, to have power" (see machine). Displaced O.E. wiccecræft (see witch); also drycræft, from dry "magician," from Ir. drui "priest, magician" (see druid). Transferred sense of "legerdemain, optical illusion, etc." is from 1811. Magic carpet first attested 1909. Magic Marker (1956) is a reg. trademark (U.S.) by Speedry Products, Inc., Richmond Hill, N.Y. Magic lantern "optical instrument whereby a magnified image is thrown upon a wall or screen" is 1696, from Mod.L. laterna magica.

The production of marvels is exactly what god (and Jesus) did and as such is exactly magical. I understand that you find this offensive...comparing the loaves and fishes to other productions of marvel. But there it is. By definition god is magical.

And I am not at all offended by your attitude toward tarot.

1. Magic is about illusion - about making something appear to be true that is not. Magicians cannot really do what they appear to do; God commands reality and therefore what He does is not magic. The magician only appears to change something from one thing to another; God actually can change one thing to another. That is an important difference.

2. The "attitude towards tarot" was a hypothetical remark; I would never post something like that in such terms because I think it disrespectful to insult something that people find meaningful.

Sure it can and in exactly the same way it makes us feel lust and adoration.

I disagree, but I'm not really interested in going down this road - I've already had this discussion with others; that we have chemical reactions that accompany certain feelings does not necessarily mean to me that they cause the feeling. They may cause the feeling, but how do we know? Just because two things happen simultaneously does not necessarily mean they share a cause-effect relationship.

According to the statistics and reports on illegitimacy, adultery and "miscegenation" throughout the ages.

Those statistics suggest that we sexually misbehave - they do not authoritatively tell us that "Sex has never been something reserved for marriage." In fact, the reality that the behaviors you've listed are generally frowned upon by society tells me that sex indeed is supposed to be reserved for marriage.

with respect to culturally sanctioned licentious behavior in the USA then...I will cite President Jefferson's relationship with his (owned human being) Sally Hemings while married to Martha Wayles Jefferson. Also there is some indication that Sally and Martha were half-sisters. If you want more recent examples then a perusal of recent presidents' lives will be a good start, followed by a perusal of recent evangelical preachers and their behavior with respect to women not their wives. In fact pick any period in American history and look at the behavior of men in power, you will find the same.

Individual examples are not the same as a cultural trend. We may have always sexually misbehaved, but the cultural attitude towards such misbehavior has not stayed constant - that has altered, and in our case, "relaxed" to a degree to where people - instead of being contrite about their misbehaviors, are defiant and entitled about them. Such attitudes speak to the change in morality - especially sexual.

[MaryLupin]

1. Magic is about illusion - about making something appear to be true that is not. Magicians cannot really do what they appear to do; God commands reality and therefore what He does is not magic. The magician only appears to change something from one thing to another; God actually can change one thing to another. That is an important difference.

Magic can be defined as "creating and illusion." But it also carries the meaning, the "art of influencing events and producing marvels." The first comes from a belief that magic is not real and the first (the older meaning, by the way) comes from the belief that magic is indeed real. In this sense, god does magic. The wonder of words is that they carry multiple meaning and it is a disservice to them to ignore aspects of their meaning because it does not agree with how you have always used it.

[MaryLupin]

They may cause the feeling, but how do we know? Just because two things happen simultaneously does not necessarily mean they share a cause-effect relationship.

We can know through experimentation...cognitive science has made strong inroads into understanding the relationship between feeling and cerebral event.