Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 26, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






The Sixth Extinction
War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar
Coal River

Coal River

By Michael Shnayerson
$16.50

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Atheists Know More About Religion Than the Pious

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Sep 28, 2010
James Jacques Joseph Tissot

Well, this is awkward. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life undertook a study in which nonbelievers correctly answered more religious knowledge questions than the devout. Mormons and Jews also scored well and, like atheists, know more about Christianity than Christians.

Here are some of Pew’s surprising findings:

More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ. About half of Protestants (53%) cannot correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation, which made their religion a separate branch of Christianity. Roughly four-in-ten Jews (43%) do not recognize that Maimonides, one of the most venerated rabbis in history, was Jewish.

In addition, fewer than half of Americans (47%) know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist. Fewer than four-in-ten (38%) correctly associate Vishnu and Shiva with Hinduism. And only about a quarter of all Americans (27%) correctly answer that most people in Indonesia—the country with the world’s largest Muslim population—are Muslims.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, April 1, 2012 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment

Sounds like ‘faith’ has been systematically stamped out… I opine by design. 

I have heard much of the same from people who’ve passed through a seminary education and their faith was more shattered and dismantled than affirmed or put into action ( feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, clothing the naked ).

Report this

By Dr. George W. Barclay Jr., March 30, 2012 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have spent 20 years of my retirement searching for truth of the world’s religious faiths and comparative religions.  In my opinion Doctrinal Seminaries are obsolete, absurb, and boring. The Hebrew Creation story and the myth of the resurrection form the “truths” on which Roman Catholic doctrines were invented.  Protestant churches in Christendom are Reformed Roman Catholics.  All ministers and priest are liars.  The same thinking and conclusions apply to Judism, Islam, Hinduism , Buddhism, and Shinto.  The priest and ministers know little of theology and history and the flockers even less.  Faith does not make facts.  If the mysteries of mythology were fact, then they would be recorded history. They are fiction!  Thanks. Dr. George W. Barclay Jr.  auhor of THE REALITY OF FAITH and THE BARCLAY BIBLE FIRST EDITION.  GWBJ

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, February 2, 2012 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment

To the latter of your recent response, She:

Perhaps God’s essence and how all things within that nature function in pattern and by design, authored in simplicity and some profundity in what is compiled as the bible, has been now described in other terms of whose principles are being found by scientific discovery and laboratory test: order and laws and what we have, see and perceive on this plain is surely a poor rendition of the ethereal and what the study of neutrinos is rendering, as that scientist mentions in that documentary I posted.

What I am sure is that even today many scientists stand in awe and are completely dumb-founded at how vast and still unknown is the planet, the inhabitants and the invisible in between… not to mention the yet to be traversed stellar expanse… maybe man can better explore himself and his immediate surroundings before arrogantly tramping onto the rest of creation.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, February 2, 2012 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment

And isn’t in interesting how people can create and destroy ‘things’ but cannot create nor destroy energy… but simply be a means / conduit of transference.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 2, 2012 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment

You are right, Napolean DoneHisPart, it comes from the laws of
thermodynamics which says energy cannot be destroyed nor created. 
Thermodynamics or a thermodynamic system is a strictly defined
macroscopic scale of objects or processes that are measurable, often
observable without mechanical aids, i.e., the world as we perceive it.
The first law states that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from
one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.  The second
law defines the concept of thermodynamic entropy, meaning the
entropy of an isolated system always increases or remains constant
and heat always moves in the direction of lower temperature regions,
heat moves into cold spaces.  Generally speaking, there is an inverse
relation in that the total entropy of any system will not decrease other
than by increasing the entropy of some other system.  Because these
processes reduce the state of order of the initial systems, entropy is
also considered an expression of disorder or randomness.  Chaos is
what some call it.  I think the feature of a random behavior of energy is
responsible for particles accidentally bumping into one another.  If a fit
occurs, other consequences strictly following physical laws takes place
and that is what accounts for all materials bodies. 

If those laws are true, there would actually be a stasis of energy, neither
being able to be created nor destroyed, what exactly would be a deity’s
(or deities’) point, just to have trillions of human “souls” (which I read as
“mind”) to do what, just be there in eternity?  107,602,707,791 is the
estimated number of people who have been born on the earth.  That is
107+ trillion!  It would be kind of a crowded heaven, no?  What pleasures
would there be?  Or if heaven is the perfect place to be, then nothing is
needed, no good coffee, no yummy punkin’pie!  It sounds so awfully
boring.  I can’t imagine that if there were a god it would have a gender
since it would not need to procreate, nor would it have a human body,
for why would it?  Therefore it would not have to have any idea of human
pleasures.  What fun in that would there be?  Wouldn’t we be like that
brain in a vat?  I have a million questions!

What could God’s doorstep look like?  Or Its door?  Would the laws of
thermodynamics work in heaven?  Why devise such a fable?  I do not find
the idea of an eternal heaven appealing.  Carpe vitam cum passione, tu
solus magister est.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, February 2, 2012 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

Thanks and you’re welcomed, She.

I have no idea who that guy is, I was just watching the documentary on the boob tube and looked up the video when I heard this guy state what he did… I found it quite profound to hear those words coming from that side of the thinking field.

To some of your response; even with talk of decay, there is the reality ( scientifically evident through and through ) that energy never dies… only transforms and transcends one form to another. 

Will science lead to God’s doorstep where the disbelieving scientist / thinker will perceive a door mat reading: “Welcome to Heaven” ?

8^)

If only the study of the minute within the massive would show such a ‘sign.’

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 2, 2012 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

Dr. Gorham’s work is certainly impressive, (thank you for the link)
but his conclusion that the neutrino provides him an ambience of
supernaturalism should give one who is steeped in science, who
moves around the domain of science, much pause for skepticism. 
It might be a sign of overwork. I am reminded of Einstein’s view of
science fiction: “Lest it distort pure science and give people the false
illusion of scientific understanding,” he recommended complete
abstinence from any type of science fiction. “I never think of the future.
It comes soon enough.”  There is some reasonable “natural” explanation.

http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html

Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive
decay, the process by which an atomic nucleus of an unstable atom
loses energy by emitting ionizing particles (ionizing radiation), or
nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the Sun, in nuclear
reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms. The emission is spontaneous,
in that the atom decays without any physical interaction with another
particle from outside the atom. Usually, radioactive decay happens
due to a process confined to the nucleus of the unstable atom, but,
on occasion (as with the different processes of electron capture and
internal conversion), an inner electron of the radioactive atom is also
necessary to the process. There are three types, or “flavors”, of
neutrinos: electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos. 
Each type also has a corresponding antiparticle, called an antineutrino
with an opposite asymmetric impossibility to superimpose it on its
mirror image.

Radioactive decay is a stochastic, that is, a process at the level of single
atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict
when a given atom will decay.  In other words, accident or an unexpected
event without a deliberate supernatural plan or cause plays a huge part
in decay of a particle.

Herzog’s cinematography is breathtakingly beautiful, but I see no reason
to fall into the same old habit of humans, since prehistoric times, of
explaining phenomena as “spirituality” or from a divine plan or intention
even when it is a scientist retreating into such explanations. The Carl
Sagan (one of the world’s greatest scientists), book,  “The Demon-
Haunted World - Science:  As a candle in the dark,” talks about spirit
and its use in explaining features of the universe.  Derived from the Latin
word meaning to breathe, what is breathed is called air, and air, is matter
in spite of how thin it is.  Regardless of its common linkage with the
supernatural, spiritual has a sound linkage to the materiality of our
objective world.  Science is completely compatible with the idea of
spirituality.  He gives an elegant explanation, “When we recognize our
place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we
grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined,” that, he says, “is surely
spiritual.”  Human emotions gives rise to spirituality in the presence of
greatness, that has not yet been given a rational explanation, whether
natural or man-made.

A few sites that might be of interest:
http://www.particleadventure.org/fundamental.html

http://www.westegg.com/einstein/

http://tinyurl.com/7yoxa2x

http://tinyurl.com/6q4yz7e

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, February 1, 2012 at 5:02 pm Link to this comment

Interesting what this physicist says about science from running time 4:50 to 6:46.

Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPflDXoSBaQ&feature=related

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, February 1, 2012 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment

A comparative religions course at a community college would do
wonders for those who care about their beliefs.  Or the text, 
Comparative Religion: A History is an excellent propaedeutic for
those who are autodidactic ( a those who can learn on their own.  One
of the first and best lines is from Zenopahanes, “no one knows, or can
know, anything about the nature of the gods: all is a matter of opinion.” 
Also from one fragment that illustrates his views of attributing human
form or behavior to a deity, an animal (as in fables), etc.:

“Men create the gods in their own image,” and “If oxen and horses and
lions had hands and were able to draw with their hands and do the same
things as men, horses would draw the shapes of gods to look like horses
and oxen to look like oxen, and each would make the gods’ bodies have
the same shape as they themselves had.”

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, February 1, 2012 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

Correct Travis, Moses didn’t come up with it, he simply forwarded the facts… it is interesting the patterns in life, isn’t it?

Report this

By Travis, February 1, 2012 at 8:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How many people know that Moses didn’t even come up
with an Original story at Mount Sinai. He borrowed from
the book of the dead who got it from the Babylonian’s
who got it from the Sumerian’s and just like the child
game telephone some of the story changes.

Report this

By Quiescentmind, August 31, 2011 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have no interest in other religions only christianity. http://Quiescentmind.com

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 30, 2010 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

Verena, you are absolutely correct in your summation.

And yes, the general public knows little about religion, their own and that of others.

And if you read just a few posts herein, you’ll see that stark reality.

Report this

By Verena, December 29, 2010 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s irritating (I haven’t read all comments so my apologies if this has already been pointed out) that the writer is misrepresenting the original research by saying it is the “devout” that know little about their own religion when in fact the original investigators say those who read scripture at least weekly knew more than those who didn’t.  Calling oneself a “Catholic” “Jew” or “Mormon” is no measure of one’s devotion.  Self-reporting is notoriously inaccurate.  I think the real story here is that the general public knows little about religion.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 23, 2010 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

My inclination is to distrust the word hero, for it seems only used to manipulate in most cases, and abused in many other cases. For instance McCain is no hero in my book. Now the nameless emergency folks and probably many many others who died in 911 may be real hero’s.

When one talks of self loathness, I return to Eric Hoffers reason for belief and causes.

Bill Foster comment;

“I personally think it a pity that it was thought necessary to make Christianity into a formalized Religion.”  Me thinks it has something to do with seeing the light and of course power!

Happy Holidays folks! Santa is!

Report this

By billFoster, December 22, 2010 at 10:26 pm Link to this comment

Hardly a surprising result, because to know about Christianity you have to read widely, not just the Bible.  Much of Christianity as we know it today is a creation of Paul the Apostle, and also the Roman Emperor Constantine, who regarded Christianity as a means of uniting the Roman Empire.  It was I believe largely Constantine, who was responsible for the Nicene creed, drawn up at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, presided over by Constantine.
I personally think it a pity that it was thought necessary to make Christianity into a formalized Religion

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 14, 2010 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

I don’t disagree with you Napoleon DHP.  Truth is the gateway to
freedom.  What we do with truth and freedom is what counts in the
end.  I still have a residual horror when I think about humans being
hung because of their color or shot or burned or tortured because of
their beliefs. But I also have nauseating abhorrence for those who
behead otherwise innocent non-believers.  It also seems we need
much dialogue about all of these actions.  It is not only the white
race that does injustices.  That needs to be understood clearly as
well.  We can’t tilt the reality to satisfy perceived righteousness. 

Non-Hispanic white America is a little more than 64% with an amazing
projection of 46% in 40 more years.  Hispanics will go from 16% to 30%
and African Americans from nearly 13% remaining the same.  Asian
Americans are calculated to go from 5% to 8%.  So the demographics
with respect to race in America is definitely changing.  Racism is not in
the sole province of whites.  Some of the racism of others could be in
reaction to white racists through history.  But not all.  Racism is found
in all societies that promote a nationalism however it is manifested. 
And bigotry is found within all cultures as well that have a stratification
of classes based on wealth and perceived imperious heritage.

It seems to me that ridding societies of the superiority of the large
national scene and the microcosmic level of individuals towards other
individuals is the path to human unification.  Not that pride in one’s
ethnicity is to be diminished but that can be expressed in many healthy
ways, in the arts and sciences.  Many wonderful traditions are residing
in ethnic histories that can be traded so that other people may learn to
appreciate them.

Let us work together towards creating a better world.  One way relevant
to this forum is if atheists and religionists could respectfully bridge the
speculative gap?

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 14, 2010 at 10:52 am Link to this comment

Thanks She,

Been wanting to point out how deep racism and the prejudice is in story of the Amerikan Dream and how the constitution was written to protect the interests of those planted here prior to immigrant hordes ( look at the division between 1st generation English and their Irish ‘dogs’ in New England and the influx of Irish immigrants and how they were ACTUALLY treated.

Lack of clear historical references and clear paradigm views also carry over into religious beliefs / dogmas… so that’s why I wanted to point out how inaccurate historical findings in ‘school books’ adds to the disunity among people of the same country, religion, neighborhood, etc.

Same could be said today with the racism against immigrants, protecting the ‘white’ Amerika built by the media propaganda of ‘white is right’ and ‘only black folks go to prison’ as is a theme found on television, mainly expounded in that show ‘COPS.’  A higher proportion of blacks are edited and broadcast getting in trouble with the law than stats show… thus reinforcing stigmas… aside from history books capturing reality, our media writes IT’S OWN HISTORY everyday on tv and radio..

So details are VERY IMPORTANT.

Much like, how Loewen points out, the ‘theme’ from the 1800’s after blacks gained their liberty( only partially in law but NOT in public / society ) that the ‘theme’ from early black politicians was a ‘failure’ and thus we learn that it wasn’t until later in the 1900’s the first black baseball player was ‘allowed’ to play ball ( Jackie Robinson ), yet that is false.  There existed black major league players prior, but a wave of racism and lynchings sprouted up via propaganda and the ‘establishment’ protecting their capital and position in society.

All this IS STILL RAMPANT TODAY…

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 14, 2010 at 1:56 am Link to this comment

Not sure Napoleon DHP, what your post has to do with this forum,
but I am an academic and one long involved in educating teachers. 
I am always interested in what is said about the profession.

Loewen’s “vivid” book has been around for about 15 years.  It’s a
polemic of secondary school American history text books.  And on
the surface he does have some valid criticisms.  However, it is not
unique as a critique of American’s secondary school textbooks, as a
criticism of literature was published by Sandra Stotsky also in 1995. 
F. A. Swarts in 1994 gave a similar critique in biology textbooks. 
Seems 1994-95 were bumper crop years for such negative expositions. 
Criticism of school textbooks is good as revision is necessary to give
students a more lucid grasp of the subject they are expected to learn
and to nullify the intentions of publishers who have political reasons to
expurgate what students learn.  Regarding history books per se, a
timeline of critiques of textbooks go back as far as the laste 19th
century!  See http://tinyurl.com/34uy6c3

However, some criticism is warranted of Loewen, a teacher of sociology.
He doesn’t appear to understand what high-school history classes are
about. The objective isn’t really to teach high-school students
everything concerning American history. There simply is much too
much to include. It would seem that the primary purpose of history
classes should be to give students a sufficient knowledge of the vast
breadth of American history.  It isn’t so important if students retain the
precise dates of everything, or the particulars of every single president’s
administration. They need to know why the American Revolution
happened, and how.  And it does seem pertinent that they know
approximately when the Civil War happened and something about
why.  The truth of Custer’s Last Stand.  They need basic knowledge and
a foundation for future study. In addition, American history should
demonstrate how the American constitutional system has worked over
time and offered as a complement to the usually offered government
classes. The aim is to give students the historical knowledge they need
to be good citizens. History is not about teaching self-esteem. 

While it is true as Loewen points out history shouldn’t be purified so
that the truth is not recognized; but, on the other hand, there is no
force of circumstance to dwell on every historical sin America
committed.  And yes, it is true that some American heroes have
blemished character; but it is also true that most heroes of every age
and every country does.  I dare anyone to nominate one that doesn’t. 
To linger on those details by dragging every hero’s name through the
mud is destructive.  Loewen is also right about the truth of others who
ought to be named as heroes, but often are omitted.  Although the
negative actions in American history should not be eliminated it seems
the goal of history classes are better served by emphasizing the
positive.  Loewen, in this book, seemed intent, though, on substituting
something akin to an angry self-loathing.  To follow his ideas about the
content of American history, would surely be to teach the students to
hate America!  Seems like that is antithetical to the function of an
American school; rather while recognizing and hating its faults, it would
be finer to teach students to honor it for what is praiseworthy.

But back on topic, those who are not religionists might find the
following website contains something for them for this coming holiday.
http://m.chortle.co.uk/index.php?id_news=12252

You ought to get it right, Talyn Juice.  You only show your ignorance.  It
is Maimonides, who was a prominent and distinguished Jewish
philosopher.  Googling his name won’t hurt.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 13, 2010 at 2:01 am Link to this comment

Anyone here ever read “Lies My Teacher Told Me” by James Loewen?  A great correction the revisionists of U.S. history, the cowards.

For folks who ‘see’ or believe, this book adds to the paradigm shift and the AdMINI$tration’s attempt to continue as a dominant force much akin to empires of old. 

Continuity of Government was what the coup was called on Sept. 11th.

It is NOT the book for racist conservatives concerned only with wealth and position having their capital resources further subduing the immigrant labor force, both domestic and abroad.

Sins of omission this book is, an enjoyment and tough truth pill to swallow at the same time.

“You take the red pill, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 12, 2010 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

It is true children are not born to any particular religion, nor are
they born atheists. They are born neutral and have no beliefs and cannot say that they have this or that or no belief. But children are
born into tribes of humans who have certain beliefs and feel the right
to indoctrinate their offspring into their beliefs or the tribes.  We all
belong to one tribe or another. To stop the prostitution of children
into or victims of violence in the service of religion, or atheism, or
politics, or nationalism, the world’s adults have to come to a level of
wisdom that appears to be a very long way off.  In the meantime,
tranquil dialogue about why one should believe claims would go a
long way towards eliminating the exploitation of children.  Imagine
then what the adult world could be like if that were the case.

Report this

By Talyn Juice, December 12, 2010 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

mmm…I was confirmed as Lutheran, and duh of course I know that Martin Luther led the Reformation and all that.. But where does King Henry VIII play into all this? Probably before his time, right ? :/

And of course I know that Vishnu and Shiva are asociated with Buddhism..I did not know for certain that the Dalai Lama was Buddhist.. I had a feeling, but I was like, no, he’s Daoist or something..

And I have many friends from Indonesia on FaceBook, and all of their religious views hae Islam or muslim..

And who in the hell is Maimoidies (or whatever) ?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 11, 2010 at 4:33 am Link to this comment

Indoctrinations of childern seems like child abuse, when the indoctrination is one of hate even more so!

Growing up I heard the N word used regularly by my father, lucky for me I was able to perceive the bigotry for what it was, though I may be an exception?

The Nazis did this, I suspect they have a similar Indoctrination program in North Korea and places even here in the United States, like Utah, Texas and Oklahoma come to mind.  So politics and religion seem important bedfellows when it comes to indoctrinations and hate.

Thanks Balaron, the video conjures up many disappointments in humanity for me. Indoctrnations of fear and hate are not new to either politics or religion.  Their seems also some other factors like peer pressure.

Report this

By Balaron, December 11, 2010 at 12:37 am Link to this comment

I agree that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed.  It’s the indoctrination of Children that really gets me going.  I mean, how can you say that a child is a Christian or Muslim, or Democrat or Republican???  You can’t.  They don’t understand, considering the majority of their parents don’t even understand the religion they are preaching to their Children.  I found this video that really shows that message…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxylSXDOpnw

I think it’s pretty powerful….

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, November 16, 2010 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

Love you too Mr. Lee.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 15, 2010 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

Napoleon whats his name! Me needs to take a nap and chew on the profoundness of your post, for I find it hurts me head right now!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, November 15, 2010 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

Man has used religion as the means to exploit and subdue his fellow man…

God’s not at fault ( nor the faith in God ).

Yet, we do see the blind leading the blind.

Be sure you are SURE in what you believe and why.

My jewish friend ( who’s family does NOT believe in a God ) does, for evidence in their life points to an author of life…

Coincidence is a word made up to explain things purposed and happening serendipitously in our lives… yet it takes a belief outside ourselves to see life work this way.

We are ALL connected beyond what we can imagine or comprehend.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, November 15, 2010 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

For some strange reason this is a topic I feel needs airing, blindness and ignorance so rampart should be called to the table of reality.

If I know something about Harry Potter as a fantasy story, and someone else says they knows more than me why would I care and bother to doubt it?

Who knows more than the Pope or the Mormons or the Methodists, I suppose any one of the hundreds of other Christians religions out there in fantastical land; as they all feel they know more than the others?

For some reason I have always wondered why non Christians find a need to know anything about Christianity, possibly to understand how flocks of people can believe nonsensical stories? Seeing such simplicity turned into belief called faith without any facts, where reality is not ever being allowed in the room makes one pause and wonder.

If Atheists do not believe god exists,  why do they even care if others do?

Well probably may have something to do with Religions blatant history of power and control. Religious manipulations over peoples minds, even allowing them to burn people at the stake by proclamations and peer pressure maybe?

In my case I feel religions is a business and should pay taxes and the Catholic church should pay a special pedophilia tax!

Report this

By jimwv, November 12, 2010 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i doubt it very very much Atheists Know More About Religion Than the Christians - just another idle written theory

Report this

By JDD, November 12, 2010 at 6:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mormonism is a denomination within Christianity, so it’s not surprising that they
would know a lot about Christianity. What is surprising is how little other
Christian denominations apparently know about their own faith…

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 25, 2010 at 3:48 am Link to this comment

LeeFeller, cheers.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 23, 2010 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

Napolian hides it in his pants;

My complements for a post over done, me hopes and best wishes and one cane only believe the hang over was worth it. Articulation proffered by a drunk sometimes may be amusing, most times annoying like religion!

Ever since I had the accident with a bowling ball, my comprehension problem surfaces whenever I drive by a church or hear the slightest religious pandering, though I have always had this problem, it seems to have accelerated since the accident.

Programed reality?... Means watching Fox News? ... Back in the days when I had a television, my preference was only watching the commercials, for I found them eminently more entertaining.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 22, 2010 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Come on now Leef, I can’t go POW! at the end of my silly ‘sermons’ and diatribe ‘dissertations’ of my most ridiculously humorlessness and vain logical attempts at separating myself from our conditioned and programmed reality ( whose attempt is supposed to some only notches below every other person’s only because I haven’t wasted my time following mindless chatterboxes extolling their own inferences ).

So I’m comical and childish for writing those three at the end…  Yet you’re allowed your dissertation to further liberate by libation your liver?

Some find it humorous, some sad and pathetic.

I’ve used ‘I love you,’ and that only further has you spouting your fairy tale slogans, my friend.

How about my favorite?

Kung-POW Chicken!?

Had some last night, while supporting my local privately owned and managed business owner / buddy who feeds me in exchange for the fiat, on occasion.  We have great talks, we’re bonding… not over beer or babes… but over the brunt reality of life on the street, in the city and the move out to where folks are comfortably numbed, the yet untouched and unadulterated ‘country.’

We reflect on Babylon, and how folks haven’t the faintest idea.. but he does, he sees it and lives it everyday.

The gig us up; the ploy of plundering the populous by chicanery in baiting them the carrot ( fiat ), and later stripping them of their God-given rights ( or rights beyond the natural tolerance of man type rights and freedoms, not their limitations and NOT the taking of life as our wars and capital justice is justified somehow, and blamed on religion… but it is the NON believer who condemns to death, or the ridiculously religious, not those who follow Righteousness, although looking like fools to the public at times* ).

* Exhibit A: Napolean HasYetToGo

KungPOW!

You Chicken!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 22, 2010 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

Napoleon whats his name, nice story!

Yeah history is interesting so are stories and dreams, history may be powerful but more so is reality, it would be nice if some people lived in it. 

How old are you Napoleon, this Pow thing sounds…. comic bookish?

How does one know the difference between history and fables?.... I find the history of Paul Bunyan and his blue Ox interesting, now that is a real part of history I believe in.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 22, 2010 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

“Alexander The Great” (REIGN 336-323 B.C.) “ALEXANDER THE GREAT GOES TO JERUSALEM”

Secular history teaches that Alexander sent an epistle to the Jewish High Priest Jaddua, asking him to side with Alexander instead of the Persians. This offer was rejected by the High Priest.

Alexander was furious and said that he will make an example of this High Priest ( for keeping oaths to the Persians ). When Alexander had taken Gaza and made haste to go up to Jerusalem, Jaddua heard this and he was in agony and under terror. Jaddua ordained the people should make supplication, and should join him in offering sacrifices to God to protect the people from the coming army.

Secular History teaches that God warned him in a Dream which came to him after the sacrifices were offered.
That he should take courage and adorn the city and open the gates; that the rest appear in white garments and that he and the priest should meet the King Alexander, without fear of any harm from them because God would protect them.

When Jaddua woke up from his sleep he greatly rejoiced at the vision from God, and did everything God told him to do.
When Jaddua heard that Alexander was not far from the city he went out in procession. They reached a place called Sapha, when Alexander saw the multitude at a distance and the people dressed in white garments, while the priests stood in fine linen and the High Priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his miter on his head having the golden plate on which the name of God was engraved, Alexander adored that Name and saluted the High Priest, the Jews altogether saluted Alexander and encompassed him; then the Kings of Syria and the rest were surprised at what Alexander had done.

Parmenio alone went up to him, and asked him what happened with him and the High Priest that Alexander had adored the High Priest.

Alexander said that he did not adore the High Priest but God who made him High priest, and said that when he was at Dios, in Macedonia, he saw that very same person in a dream, when “I (Alexander) was considering how to take over Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; and now seeing this person who was in it, and remembering that vision and the exhortation which I had in it, I believe that I bring this army under divine conduct, and shall conquer Darius and the power of the Persians and that all will succeed according to my own mind.”

And when Alexander had said this to Parmenio and had given the High Priest his right hand they all came to Jerusalem; and when Alexander went up into the Temple he offered sacrifice to God, according to the High Priest’s direction. And the priests showed Alexander the book of Daniel 7:6, Daniel 8:3-8, Daniel 8:20-22, Daniel 11:2-4.
(Daniel 8:20-21. The two-horned ram that you saw represents the Kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat is the King of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first King.)(Daniel is 550 B.C.)

That one of the Greeks should destroy the Kingdom of the Persians, Alexander knew it was talking about himself, and he was glad. Alexander told the Jews that they have total freedom to worship God under his rein, the Jews had it so good under Alexander that the Samaritans were trying to pass themselves off as Jews.

Also many Jews joined Alexanders army so that they could participate in the fulfillment of Bible Prophecy.

POW!  History is pretty fantastic, isn’t it?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 22, 2010 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

Ah, She….That Godless demon, Sigmund Freud!

Thanks for the chuckle and the supporting reference.

“I have a sports car in my garage!”  Loved it!

There was a poster few years ago that claimed to be in his 60s, had multiple multi-degree black belts, could lift the FRONT end of a car, and other such stuff on the order of leaping tall buildings in a single bound and being faster than a speeding bullet.

I assumed what he was super at was….fantasy (actually, not so super at it).

It’s fundamental to our criminal law that you don’t have to prove a negative: You can’t say “Prove you didn’t rape anyone ever” or “Prove you’re not a terrorist” (the latter unfortunately is near to happening).

Report this

By elisalouisa, October 22, 2010 at 10:00 am Link to this comment

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:?
The soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,
?Hath had elsewhere its setting,
?And cometh from afar . . .
               
                          Wordsworth

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
         
                  ——T.S. Eliot

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 22, 2010 at 7:01 am Link to this comment

When all else fails, try psychoanalysis.  Sigmund Freud wrote in
The Future of an Illusion, ”Some philosophers and religionists
stretch the meaning of words until they retain scarcely anything of
their original sense; by calling “God” some vague abstraction which
they have created for themselves, they pose as deists, as believers,
before the world; they may even pride themselves on having attained
a higher and purer idea of God, although their God is nothing but an
insubstantial shadow and no longer the mighty personality of religious
doctrine.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 22, 2010 at 6:59 am Link to this comment

Just to help, ITW, this might give further credence to your argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Also from Wiki, the Argument from Ignorance, also known as
argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal
logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because
it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of
false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient
data and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or
false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to attempt
to shift the burden of proof.  There is more talk needed on this topic
as it is the favorite argument by intransigent religionists.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 22, 2010 at 6:42 am Link to this comment

Consider this:  The skeptic has the burden of proving the gospels are NOT true.
**************

WHAT??????  Are you outta your gourd? 

I believe the Great Pumpkin rises up every year on Halloween and flies around the world giving candy to boys and girls.  Prove it’s not true.

I believe that Santa Claus is good friends with Leefeller and LOVES having his picture taken. Prove it’s not true.

I believe that science has come up with billions more useful answers to practical everyday problems in just the last week than all the religions have done since humans evolved.  Prove it’s not true.

You accept the Gospels of Jesus on faith.  Faith is the very contradiction of proof—acceptance without proof. If you had proof they were valid, you would not need faith.

That Jesus is purported to have said it’s better to believe without proof than with proof is, to me, one of the most immoral and evilest ideas ever put forth.  It is the demand of every tyrant from Sargon and the Pharaohs to Kim Jong Ill and Robert Mugabe.

If anything demonstrates that the Gospels selected in c.300 AD are false and not the TRUE ones (assuming Jesus is, as you believe, the Anointed One) it is that one statement of pure evil that gave to the early church ABSOLUTE power over the actions of all men and women, as they intended.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 21, 2010 at 7:44 pm Link to this comment

To believe or NOT to believe…. I believe THAT is the question…..hmmm?

Consider this:  The skeptic has the burden of proving the gospels are NOT true.

For blessed is he who does not see yet believes.

POW!

Have a nice day.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 21, 2010 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment

Did anyone out there read about the ANCIENT: 5,000-Year Old Door Discovered In Switzerland?  It had a sign over it which read “Christ Slept here”! Isn’t this very mysterious, it sort of proves some things I do not understand!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 21, 2010 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment

Maani:

How many people walk out during your sermons?

It’s as simple as that. If everybody walked out as soon as you began, would you continue to make sermons?  If they started walking out and the place was nearly empty by the time you finished would you be OK or hurt by it?  If you tell me you wouldn’t be hurt, I’d say you’re either lying or are in the wrong field.

So….what does this mean?

A sermon is, by definition, a judgment of behavior of others.

I stand by every assessment I’ve made.  I think you are fooling yourself that you are not living with a sense of entitlement and a right to tell other people how to live.

Why make a sermon if you don’t think somebody should listen to it?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 21, 2010 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

When I tell people I believe in the existence of Santo Claus, they raise their eyebrows and show very little humility and almost never try to be civil, for some reason they never attempt to refrain from circumcision, condensation, distillation, mocking and disembodiment.

Even after I show skeptics my extensive wallet collection of pictures with me and Santa Claus! And when I remind everyone where he lives, about his sleigh and the elves and reindeer and the seven dwarfs. I have discussed Santa at great length with the Great Unyun my ditty of choice and she usually asks concerned with ditty empathy…...“you are not out of Tequila are you”?

Report this

By Maani, October 21, 2010 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

ITW:

“Do you preach your sermons to the wind? Of course not. You preach them to people and you EXPECT them to listen to them, and maybe, maybe abide by them. When you preach to people you hope they’ll listen because YOU THINK you have something to say. But a sermon isn’t a dialogue, so it is implicit in the idea of a sermon that you are entitled to the other person’s attention without interruption.  Unlike a dialogue, where you are only entitled to take your turn at speaking, then the other person has a turn. But with a sermon there is no other person’s turn.”

Your logic is tortuous.  There may be “no other person’s turn,” but the people I am offering a sermon to are just as “entitled” to ignore me, walk out, or not attend the service at all as I am to offer the sermon.  So there is an “equality” here, not a one-sided “sense of entitlement,” a word you are still using incorrectly.

More importantly, you originally tied the idea of “entitlement” to “judgment” of people.  That was YOUR connection.  Yet just as Jesus did not judge those to whom He was offering sermons (whether or not they attended, or left early, or whatever), I do not judge the people to whom I am speaking when I offer a sermon.

So you have failed to make your cases that (i) there is some sense of “entitlement” in offering a sermon, or (ii) there is any connection whatsoever between offering a sermon and “judging” people.

She:

“There is no question, Maani, that I am equal to or more than equal to Nap, Joan or yourself in all ways except in your Christianity.  For that particular equality, I do not care a whit and would not go a centimeter to make any claim for such a description of myself.  Nor do I attain to have any Christ-like behavior.  But I would like you to show me where your and your comrades’ behavior is Christ-like.  I do believe you have placed yourself right square in the middle of hypocrisy, and I mean that in the original meaning of the word…”

Here is your original statement:

“I know no one nor never have known anyone who comes near to the character of the alleged Christ as described in the Christian holy book.  Do you put yourself up as a candidate, NapoleanDoesHisPart?  I am looking for someone for the comparison of which you speak.  And neither do I know anyone better than myself.  Equal mebee, but not better.  As you have noticed, humility is not one of my strong points.  Leastwise in terms of better or worse.”

Thus, it was you who did, in fact, speak to your own character specifically vis-a-vis that of Jesus.  If you have decided that, in retrosepct, that is not what you meant to do, fine.  But your statement above offers no “break” whatsoever between Jesus’ character and your own.

As well, re your attempt to semanticize the argument over “hypocrisy,” let’s take the word at its usual, most commonly used meaning; i.e., to say one thing and do another; i.e., not to “walk the talk.”

While Nap is correct that even the most devout Christians are “failed imitations” of Jesus’ perfection, we are still expected to “walk the talk” to the greatest degree possible within our human limitations.  You have now claimed that you have no interest or intention of being “Christ-like” in any way.  Fine.  But since you had originally made that comparison (as noted above), I simply pointed out that, based on your posts on this thread, you do not “walk the talk” nearly so closely as Nap, Joan and I do - even in our “weakness.”

Yet even setting that aside, you do not even “walk the talk” in your own estimation of yourself.  Because you can lack humility and still be civil, refraining from sarcasm, condescension, disdain, insult and dismissiveness.  However, you seem to revel in those behaviors as happily as you revel in your lack of humility.

Peace.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 19, 2010 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment

Maani:

Do you preach your sermons to the wind? Of course not. You preach them to people and you EXPECT them to listen to them, and maybe, maybe abide by them.

When you preach to people you hope they’ll listen because YOU THINK you have something to say.

But a sermon isn’t a dialogue, so it is implicit in the idea of a sermon that you are entitled to the other person’s attention without interruption.  Unlike a dialogue, where you are only entitled to take your turn at speaking, then the other person has a turn.

But with a sermon there is no other person’s turn.

BTW, one of the things I cannot stand about any religion is the priest/minister/rabbi/imam going up and giving a sermon.

Especially when they fuck up!  One rabbi, at one niece’s Bat Mitzvah, went on and on about the “Saint James Bible”.  Talk about ignorant!  Then there was the fundamentalist minister at a recent wedding who talked about how Solomon’s 3-stranded rope of marriage was a man, a woman and Jesus (although Solomon lived nearly a millennium before Christ).

How do even the faithful buy in when the sermon is full of such bullshit? If you KNOW that guy can’t tell an acorn from an egg-cream, why even listen after that?  Because HE thinks he’s ENTITLED to be listened to!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 19, 2010 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

The Christ was the definition of Love, Perfection and Goodness found on earth… fortunate were them who walked with Him.

We are failed imitations, flunky club full of flops of impersonators… meditating on His Words, trying to see the world as He would.. going about their daily lives and routine hoping to somehow resemble the Words he taught.

We can only all hope for such tomfoolery… for in our weaknesses… God reigns… and that scares some folks, yet edifies Him and others… and again reaffirms His Words and their obvious historical significance and fulfillment of prophecy.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 19, 2010 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

Ooops, the Chinese did not translate to the forum.  Funny it showed
up in the Preview so I thought it would show up in the real text. 
So weird!  Oh well, if you like to read Chinese just visit the site I provided and it is all there.  Now I don’t know if the Greek will
translate either, as it also showed up in the Preview, so if it doesn’t
and you like to read Greek, just go to the reference and there it will be.

Well Maani, I said I did not have much humility and do not attain to be
Christ-like, especially since for me no justification that there is a god
nor that the character Jesus was a Christ is provided by anyone.  I have
gone so far to say that if that justification was forthwithcoming, I would
reconsider my belief status as non-believer.  There is no question,
Maani, that I am equal to or more than equal to Nap, Joan or yourself
in all ways except in your Christianity.  For that particular equality, I do
not care a whit and would not go a centimeter to make any claim for
such a description of myself.  Nor do I attain to have any Christ-like
behavior.  But I would like you to show me where your and your
comrades’ behavior is Christ-like.  I do believe you have placed yourself
right square in the middle of hypocrisy, and I mean that in the original
meaning of the word, but I will provide an etymology just to puff out
your knowledge a bit, if you do not read Greek, just pass by those
words as all are translated within the citation:

The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ????????? (hypokrisis),
which means “play-acting”, “acting out”, “coward” or “dissembling”. The
word hypocrite is from the Greek word ????????? (hypokrites), the
agentive noun associated with ??????????? (hypokrinomai?????,
“judgement” »??????? (kritiki), “critics”) presumably because the
performance of a dramatic text by an actor was to involve a degree of
interpretation, or assessment, of that text.

Alternatively, the word is an amalgam of the Greek prefix hypo-,
meaning “under”, and the verb krinein, meaning “to sift or decide”.
Thus the original meaning implied a deficiency in the ability to sift or
decide. This deficiency, as it pertains to one’s own beliefs and feelings,
informs the word’s contemporary meaning.  My reference is from
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hypocrisy

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 19, 2010 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

If you enjoy it, you are going to love the references in Chinese!

Yes, ITW, Confucius also had a version of the ‘negativa’ of the
Golden Rule.  However, Babylonian predates Confucius.  George
Bernard Shaw was familiar to Confucius as seen in his play “Back
to Methuselah,” in Pt. III : The Thing Happens, where he quotes
Confucius, “There are no secrets except the secrets that keep
themselves.”  So it is highly likely he appropriated the sentimentally
negative version of the Golden Rule.  Sometimes scholarship yields a
most fascinating labyrinth of information.  The following are the places
in his Analects where the idea of reciprocity is addressed.  I refer you to
the Chinese Text Project http://ctext.org/analects
Analect V:  Gong Ye Chang verse 12
????“??????????????????”???“????????”
Zi Gong said, “What I do not wish men to do to me, I also wish not to
do to men.” The Master said, “Ci, you have not attained to that.”

Analect VI: Yong Ye verse 30 (it is too long in the Chinese to post here)
Zi Gong said, “Suppose the case of a man extensively conferring
benefits on the people, and able to assist all, what would you say of
him? Might he be called perfectly virtuous?” The Master said, “Why
speak only of virtue in connection with him? Must he not have the
qualities of a sage? Even Yao and Shun were still solicitous about this.
Now the man of perfect virtue, wishing to be established himself, seeks
also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he seeks also
to enlarge others. To be able to judge of others by what is nigh in
ourselves
- this may be called the art of virtue.” (my bolding)

Analect XV Wei Ling Gong verse 24 (two versions)
?????“?????????????”???“?????????????”
Zi Gong asked, saying,
1. “Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s
life?” The Master said, “Is not RECIPROCITY such a word? What you do
not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” (Chinese Text Project
translation)

2. “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. (as
translated by David Hinton)

The rule of reciprocity is seen to be highly regarded in Confucianism
and appears as noted above but also in various other texts than the
Analects, as in the works of Mencius #4 (Jin Xin I), The book of The
classic of Rites; also the Summary of the Rules of Propriety, Part 1(Wu Li
I); Confucius at home at leisure #4 (Kongzi Xian Ju; The State of
Equilibrium and Harmony #13 (Zhong Yong).  For the text in Chinese
and English translation for all citations, visit
http://ctext.org/confucianism?searchu=reciprocity
I love it when forums get into this kind of stuff.  I’m going to have
Chinese eggrolls tonight as all this Chinese has given me an appetite
for them.  LOL

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 19, 2010 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

Okay!......Spacey anal probes it is! ...A picture to behold! Now it seems we are finally getting someplace, it took a lot of doing, but the point has finally hit home!

All right Napoleon, I have been razzing you pretty hard, preaching does that to me, not just from you, from anyone, so being aware you are not alone, might be useful; after all help is in the wings, there is Maani the self proclaimed master of debats, Eloweeze the most Pious and Joan de arch, Philosophizer of objectivity. Yous guys are kicking me ass all over the place and I am supposed to enjoy it?

It has been loads of fun and I have lots more brain surgeon Harris stuff for Maanie parsing and Eloweeze New Athiest bashing and Joan with her well remembered Joanisms!

Peace O pie!

Report this

By Maani, October 19, 2010 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment

ITW:

“Oh, COME ON, Maani!  He delivers sermons.  Isn’t one even called ‘The Sermon On The Mount?’  EVERYONE who preaches a sermon must, by definition think he/she is entitled to stand in judgment of those around him/her. ‘You should do X. You should not do Y…,’ and, of course, be listened to.”

First, your definition of “entitlement” must be very different than those I have seen in the various dictionaries of the English language.  I have preached sermons, too, but I do not think that “entitled” me to anything at all, no matter what the subject of my sermon may be.

More importantly, Jesus (or anyone) suggesting that certain moralities and behaviors are better than others is not “judging.” Jesus states this clearly: “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.”

Your deeply ingrained resentment and anger is truly clouding your…judgment.

Peace.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 19, 2010 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

Maani, October 19 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

ITW:

“Even in the stories of Jesus he seems to think he’s entitled as well—to at least be listened to.”

Please provide support for this statement.
******************

Oh, COME ON, Maani!  He delivers sermons.  Isn’t one even called “The Sermon On The Mount”?  EVERYONE who preaches a sermon must, by definition think he/she is entitled to stand in judgment of those around him/her. “You should do X. You should not do Y….”, and, of course, be listened to.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 19, 2010 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

You are free to call it what you’d like.

That’s the beauty, or pitfall, of argument.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 19, 2010 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

More self righteousness dissertations empty of reality, seems cause for something but not hate, I see clearly disdain, but not hate Napoleon! (Actually I find it all most silly!)  Not sure some know the difference between disdain and hate? Actually it seems to me a Christian mind seems a closed mind and protracts a major problem in the comprehension department! Sorry not to disappoint you, it appears when reason is influenced as fantasy by the unbalance mind of the believer,  into what appears to be muddy dishwater,  reality never has a chance for the constant flooding of sanctimonious blindness appears as nothing more than a fantasy land of lunatics, to anyone as myself, who happens to voice disagreeables.

With very little twisting of my forelocks, I still maintain the religious would be most prudent if they held their spacey anal probes to themselves!

Possibly, defining the word hate would be helpful?

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 19, 2010 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

typo-

“even if I CAN’T hear you”

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 19, 2010 at 10:59 am Link to this comment

LeeFeller,

It is the hate in your words, bro.

It is ‘how’ they are written and the message the sequence tells, even if I can ‘hear’ your delivery… that sentiment still jumps off the page, believe THAT or not.

Much like when I read my past posts ANYWHERE.. I can see where my heart was at that moment through my words… and I’m embarrassed sometimes….

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 19, 2010 at 10:56 am Link to this comment

Wow, thanks Maani for including me… I know my pride is one of many stumbling blocks.. whew.

Peace to You!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 19, 2010 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

I gotta tell, I love it when you get mad.. because you get even funnier… hahahahah lol.

LOLOL 8^)

Report this

By Maani, October 19, 2010 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

ITW:

“Even in the stories of Jesus he seems to think he’s entitled as well—to at least be listened to.”

Please provide support for this statement.

She:

“I know no one nor never have known anyone who comes near to the character of the alleged Christ as described in the Christian holy book…And neither do I know anyone better than myself.  Equal mebee, but not better.  As you have noticed, humility is not one of my strong points.”

Given that one of the eleven main precepts of Jesus’ ministry was “humility,” your admitted lack thereof automatically disqualifies you as particularly “Christ-like.”  As well, given your penchant for sarcasm, impatience, disdain, arrogance, condescension and dismissiveness - all of which are antithetical to “Christ-like” behavior, and none of which Nap, Joan or myself have engaged in here - I would suggest that you have a way to go before you can claim to be “equal” to us in those particular departments of “Christ-like” behavior.

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 19, 2010 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

Napoleon wets his pants; not believing in something, is conjured up to become perceived as hate in the mind of the believer?

Yes I spend much of my time hating things which do not exist, as I suppose Christin’s spend their waking days and sleeping nights believing in fiction fables.

For instance I spend a lot of my time hating the nonexistence of those space aliens who capture unsuspecting people on lonely roads at night, beam them up to their space ships and give them anal probes. What really pisses me off, the stupid Aliens send the morons back to earth.  Returning to tell comprehensive details of their tail probing. I really hate hearing about it especially the story part!

After little forethought, I do hate a few things in this real world too! Opposed to hating unreal things out of this world, and I will share one.  I hate stepping on doggy doo, especially in my bare feet!..... After a few times of this, even a Christian should want to wear shoes?

Judging others as ones self seems to be a most Christian past time? Note I posed a question, for certainty would then really be an assumption, something else which seems most Christian!

Something is real in the mind of a Christian and something is not in the mind of an unbeliever, so to the Christian in a streak of unimaginative defense, grabbing once again from their little bag of delusions…. actually their ass,  unbelief is labeled to be hate!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 19, 2010 at 8:40 am Link to this comment

LeeFeller, what REALLY happened to you growing up buddy?

Abuse?

Religious fervor from hypocrites?

Were you beaten when you wouldn’t pray or something?

Not only can’t you understand my words or train of thought… you’re starting to not make sense anymore, but keep regurgitating your unbelief with different wordings…. and your goal is?

Much like a Christian who isn’t as spiritual as the next Christian should not be flogged for their failings…

Don’t you admire those atheists and unbelievers who write the next majestic blasphemy against the Living God… and don’t you just jump with glee when your head is further unscrambled by their new babbling which helps you further hate and deny your God?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 19, 2010 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

All this do unto others stuff is quite catchy,...... do unto others before they do unto you, the variations over time of the doing and others thing, has been reported to have taken a few minor turns in history, for instance as stated by grandma Chaney to little Dick and the Bush family also lived by the same doing to others thing. “Do unto to others, before they screw you” the addition   “people like being screwed”. Providently came from grandmaw Chaney and and was introduced by both grandmaws together during high tea and cooking sherry. Apparently both grandmaws; Bush and Chaney; were women of few words.

It seems people in high places have taken their Christin fallacies a bit further down the road then the Joe the Plumbers of the world.  After some neighbors flew airplanes into buildings as a religious way of making a point. Bush…. after reading “My Pet Goat”; (one of my favorites by the way) pulled out his bible and fretted until god told him what to do. Apparently god mumbled something about an eye for an eye and doing to your neighbors as they did to you, but Bush wasn’t about to fly an airplane into a musk or something,.... so he decided to be prudent with his life and send in the National Gard instead, because a building for a building needed to be taken to a much higher level. Bush being a patriot of disreputable conjecture decided to send in the National Gard for in his mind it was like he was gong to Iraq himself.

It seems the Christian mind is a most complete mind in the evolution of humans, especially in the mind of a Christian, simply because they can substantiate and conjure up anything they want as facts by reading a book of myths called the babble!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 19, 2010 at 6:46 am Link to this comment

SHE!!!

Your quote of scripture referring to the sum of all the law and prophets are inclusive in this:  Love the Lord Your God.. and Love your neighbor as yourself.

Now you understand my chicken scratch about that word Love and all the other words we have and use?

LOVE.

I love you!

Report this

By elisalouisa, October 19, 2010 at 6:07 am Link to this comment

“Sam Harris on the Reality of Islam”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 19, 2010 at 3:23 am Link to this comment

Nice explication, She, but I believe, the “Do Not” version dates back to Confucius (at least).

Shaw was brilliant and funny and had his own “take” on things, which is why “St. Joan” and “Mrs. Warren’s Profession” are two of my favorite plays, although “Heartbreak House” is close.

But there’s also Rodney Dangerfield’s take on some of this….naturally it was pretty raunchy! (and funny!)

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 19, 2010 at 1:41 am Link to this comment

The fallacy you have committed here is comparing the quality of
accuracy as applicable to “some” and “all.” It is the comparison
that is faulty.  Your statement about “Harris highlighting the extreme
views of a minority, which clearly is not “all” is the same as
saying “all Muslims are terrorists” is like saying the red skin of
a minority of apples is no more accurate a description of all apples
than saying all oranges are orange accurately depicts how all oranges
practice being oranges.  The two do not conflate logically.  The
fallacious jump is from a minority of Christians to all of Christianity
then claiming it is like an inaccuracy of saying all Muslims are terrorists
to the practice of all Muslims.  Nor did he, Harris, present “most”
Christians as believers in the biblical account of creation (or please
provide a citation) and any reference to Muslims, most, some, or all is
completely irrelevant.  You have set up a perfect strawman argument
then cutely attempt to knock Harris off.  Very clever and almost
undetectable unless a serious analysis was made.  Often when
committing fallacies, the one committing the fallacy is unaware of their
own stepping into the smarmy swamp of fallacies.  I suspect this is
what has happened to your fumbling attempt to discredit Harris. 

Furthermore, you have not cited where in all of Harris’s writings he
refers to “most” Christian’s beliefs about creation.  I’ve just spent time
reviewing every quote and every book citation and have not found it. 
So if you please, sil vous plait, provide the reference. 

Your critique of Harris is wholly with prejudice and un-Philosophical-
like.  You may think you have challenged Harris straightforwardly but it
is straight to the land of fallacies. 

Regarding the distinction between ethics and morality, it is an
important one particularly for philosophers, and especially those of the
analytic school (uh…you know, the one you say is your field), while it
might not be at all for the non-philosophic minded.  And you who
claim to be a ‘professional’ philosopher really ought to know this.  It
makes me wonder if the chauvinism you experienced in your philosophy
department you did not earn.  You have taken a very narrow and
plebian view of the common understanding of ethics, which all
philosophers worth their salt would know is unrefined due to an
ignorance of the axiological science of values.  Since axiology is
my special area, I am attentive to distinctions regarding ethics,
morals, and aesthetics for that matter.

You have claimed specifically that ”Harris is using these two words as I
described in all of his work” interchangeably, but you have not provided
one instance where he has.  Now you know, philosopher Joan, that real
philosophers are not such messy thinkers.

Harris said at Aspen: “Any person who dignifies Genesis as an account
of creation or even as informative, is essentially saying to someone like
Stephen Hawking, ‘Stephen, you’re a smart guy, and I see you have a lot
of equations over there, but you simply don’t know enough about
cosmology. You know it says here that God did this in 6 days and
rested on the 7th, and I don’t see how you’ve grappled with the nuances
of the biblical account’.”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 19, 2010 at 1:32 am Link to this comment

2.  And yeah, I am an AR type.
Regarding who said/who said what about the Golden Rule and
Christ.  What I said earlier was “The Golden Rule is not owned by
Christianity, and I do ?acknowledge that Joan did not explicitly say
it was,
but there was that ?implication.”

If Jesus did say “treat others as you want to be treated” you did not cite
exactly where he said that, and I highly doubt he said it as crudely as
you put it.  Such is your attribution to your Lord.  The exact citation,
which I point out an atheist is providing, not a religionist, and with all
the versions do see Matthew 7:12, take your pick:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (KJV)  BTW: The
American KJV version changes ye to you.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for
this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (NIV)

So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for
this is the Law and the Prophets. (ESV)

Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the
essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets. (NLT)

In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to
treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (NASB)

Therefore, whatever you want people to do for you, do the same for
them, because this summarizes the Law and the Prophets. (ISV)

Always do for other people everything you want them to do for you.
That is [the meaning of] Moses’ Teachings and the Prophets. (GWT)

All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you,
even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.
(ASV)

All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you,
do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets. (D-RB)

There are several other versions, but you get the big idea.  Now, Jesus
did not make this notion famous, it was already famous before he
reiterated the ancient Jewish command.  All Jews already knew this as
Jesus indicated it was the law of the prophets.  But as I already noted in
my history of the command, it began with the Babylonians as the
earliest recorded instance. 

ITW:  The version you cited: “Do not do unto others as you would that
they should do unto you.” Comes from G. B. Shaw, in his 1903, Maxims
for Revolutionists, and he finished it, as “Their tastes may not be the
same.”  Others such as Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell, in his Why I’m
Not a Christian,  and Friedrich Nietzsche, the arch anti-Christian,
humanist prophet and masterful critic, savages the idea of the Golden
Rule, characterising it in Ecce Homo as “depersonalisation” and
expressing his horror at the idea of “neighbour love” as a higher (or
even absolute value) calling it “addiction to the neighbour.”  Kant also
pointed out, the refined philosopher that he was, as not being sensitive
to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a
crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release
him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send
him to prison, so he should not do so to others.

I guess we are done here…about this. Well I am.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 18, 2010 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment

What?....  I am on?... Averag joe?  After Jones AA meeting? Bona fide excuses?......I better wait until minmorrow fore my Tequila gets a code!

Report this

By Joan, October 18, 2010 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment

ITW,

You can certainly define ethics any way you want to but in the academic discipline known as ethics your distinction is a strand of excruciating minutiae in the scary labyrinthine curvatures within the inner workings of ITW’s own unique mind, nothing more. 

I assure you that Harris is using these two words as I described in all of his works.

On a personal note, your recalcitrance tells me quite a bit about your open-mindedness in dialogue or lack thereof.

She,

Re: the Golden Rule, you and I have been down this road before.  I have never said Christ was the author of the Golden Rule. The precept was minimally circulated by rabbis who preceded Christ but Christ made it famous and the cornerstone of his morality and it was only then that that simple precept changed the world. So let’s give Christ a little credit when the credit is due him.  I have never said he invented the Golden Rule or that it originated with him.

You are a sloppy reader, too overly emotional to do a detached analysis on a given subject on which you are challenged and your addiction to imputing things to others that they did not say leaves you, hence, much of time arguing against strawmen of your own making, certainly not points I have made…a sloppy analyst as well. 

*****************************************************

General comments …Being rational, reasoning through a problem, does not mean that which is rational or well reasoned is restricted to that with which you agree and/or that those who challenge you are, by definition, irrational   simply because their position differs from your position.

Mocking people, being clueless about the challenger’s actual position, clinging to arcane definitions in the face of bona fide expertise… is not reasoned analysis. 

I said it a few days ago. Several A/A’s (atheists/agnostics) on this thread cling to their myths with the same religious fervor as the average joe. 

All right, Leefeller…you’re on…

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

Did I say something?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 18, 2010 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

Oh, well, another thread down the crapper. Just as well, I’m already clicking to page 4 and 5 is just around the corner.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 18, 2010 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment

And ignorance is bliss especially for those whose point happens to
jut out from the top of their head.  Why Nappie my deah, you just
can’t keep up, is that right?  Your fatuous comment lacks any real
substance.  Maybe you don’t reread what you write?  “Isn’t language
and words only the attempt to verbalize so another can understand…
you love them?”
  Well you have put the entire science of linguistics
into one rather vapid sentence that shows a shortage of sufficient
comprehension of exactly what language is and what humans had to
do to get it.  That is scary.  Yeah, I know it, Halloween is coming. 
You do realize don’t you that here on TD you have stuck yourself
into a medium that uses only words.  Hmmm velly intahrrresting.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 18, 2010 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment

Taking other peoples words of alleged wisdom and claiming them as ones own is covered by the word pauperism, I mean plagiarism, well anyway one more ism to annoy me!

It may have been Harris who mentioned the copy cat opportunists and the telephone, where Alexander Gram Bells developed the telephone at the same time as others, only Bell received all the credit because he had a much better sales pitch and was a good marketing person. Irish call it the gift of blarney!

Makes one think and could even have a point!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

Isn’t language and words only the attempt to verbalize so another can understand… you love them?

And isn’t the whole of all languages and the continued dialogue of man only the product of the pursuit of this ‘LOVE?’.... and the byproduct of Love being ALL THE OTHER words?

Any other points?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 18, 2010 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment

To put a stop to at least one instance of piety here.  The rule of
reciprocity or zee Golden Rule, or do unto others what you would
have others do unto you, is way much older than Christianity
(ala Jesus’s treat others the way you want treated), that any well-
seasoned professional philosopher would know this.  It is only in
the service of thralldom to the religion that a usurpation of the
principle that it is commandeered for that religion’s namesake.
How silly.  Philosophers are supposed to be objective and not take
subjectively what is a universal principle.  We will go back as far as
ancient Babylonia or pre-Greek, for their original version in the Code of
Hammurabi, the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and associated laws in
a one-to-one ratio of reciprocity.  Of the 282 Laws, specifically 196. If a
man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. 197. If
he break another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken. 200. If a man
knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out. 235. If
a shipbuilder build a boat for some one, and do not make it tight, if
during that same year that boat is sent away and suffers injury, the
shipbuilder shall take the boat apart and put it together tight at his
own expense. The tight boat he shall give to the boat owner.  Please
check out Gabriele Bartz and Eberhard König, ( Arts and Architecture),
Könemann, Köln.  The laws were based with scaled punishments,
adjusting “an eye for an eye” depending on social status. 

In ancient Egypt, c. 2040–1650 BCE, the Rule is found in the story
noted in Jasnow’s, Late Period Kieratic Wisdom, “The Eloquent Peasant.” 
This is a cute agrarian story about an ass, or donkey if telling it to
children,  and the rule of reciprocity.  Which reminds me of something
unrelated, but amusing, Apuleius’s Golden Ass, since I am talkng about
golden rules and asses.

Now let’s see…in my usual habit of giving educational information, here
are a few more early civilization occurrences of zee Golden Rule, or as
Joan likes to call it, Jesus’s Rule:  From Greek philosophy, we have
Pitticus: “Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him,”
uh…about c. 640–568 BCE.  Why even our dear Socrates said, “One
should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how
one has been mistreated by him,” (see the Crito, at 49c.) 

Oh yeah, we do not want to forget these lofty gentlemen:  Epicurus, “It
is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and
justly agreeing neither to harm nor be harmed.” And, the so-called first
Greek philosopher, Thales, “Avoid doing what you would blame others
for doing.”  Isocrates gave us, “Do not do to others what would anger
you if done to you by others.”  and his Greek compatriot Epictetus,
“What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others.”
And last but not least, good old Sextus, we simply cannot leave him
out…#179 “What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it
yourself either.” http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/sent.html

FYI: The Golden Rule is not owned by Christianity, and I do
acknowledge that Joan did not explicitly say it was, but there was that
implication.  It is in all its moral glory a universal, and was declared so
in 1993 by the Parliament of the World’s Religions to be the central
principle for many religions that predate Christianity as well as were
hatched after it.  Besides Christianity, Bahá’í, Buddhism, Hinduism,
Confucianism, and Islam, particular the Suras 59, and 83 of the Qur’an
as well as Hadith 13.  Judaism which predates Christianity, but most
likely Jesus knew the Torah since he was a Jew, take a look at Leviticus
19:18 and 19:34.  The Tao The Ching has Ch.49 as its Golden Rule
entry.  Hmmm Shall we just swipe it away from Jesus’s sole ownership? 
5 Yups.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 18, 2010 at 12:13 pm Link to this comment

Joan:

First off, ethics by themselves are merely the means to applying morals and are not interchangeable with morals. Morality reaches right into the core of your being, of who you are and what you think you are “entitled to” (if anything). Even in the stories of Jesus he seems to think he’s entitled as well—to at least be listened to.  Others believe in their hearts of hearts they are entitled to whatever they can get their hands on, by any means.

Did Jesus say Treat others as you want to be treated, or do NOT treat others as you do NOT want to be treated?  My understanding (open to correction) is that it was the latter.  Of course, Confucius said the same thing 500 years earlier.  The two statements are NOT equivalent.

The inferences you draw from each are very different.  You treat me as you want to be treated.  You want Christmas trees everywhere so you force them on me whether I want them or not.

I do not treat you as I do not want to be treated.  I don’t go putting menorahs all over and getting in your face if you don’t want them on your church lawn.

So this imperative and it’s accuracy of rendition takes us ALL the way back to the beginning and goes from being esoteric and theoretical to being concrete and real and how we interact.

So the idea of “do NOT unto others what you would NOT have them do unto you.” is far more powerful and morally imperative than the other version.

Report this

By Joan, October 18, 2010 at 11:12 am Link to this comment

ITW,

Let me clarify. I am a professional philosopher who has studied and taught many theories in ethics proposed by Western philosophers. I am also sort of a Christian, Yahwehist, mainly… a little bit Taoist and Buddhist but mainly Judeo/ Christian in my morality.

That being said, I have never said all ethics flows from God alone.  Man has proposed theories in ethics throughout history. The question each of us must answer is…Which system of ethics is most beneficial to man? I reviewed any number of moral systems proposed by man. They were incomplete or fraught with difficulties when one tries to apply them.  Jesus’ idea of how to behave seems very simple…treat others the way you want to be treated. 

I hope that helps.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

So glad you articulated that Joan and I totally agree…

It was ridiculous trying to read what these learned men of old were trying to say… because I could never follow the POINT!

lol.

Thanks so much.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 18, 2010 at 10:55 am Link to this comment

I know no one nor never have known anyone who comes near to the
character of the alleged Christ as described in the Christian holy book. 
Do you put yourself up as a candidate, NapoleanDoesHisPart?  I am
looking for someone for the comparison of which you speak.  And
neither do I know anyone better than myself.  Equal mebee, but not
better.  As you have noticed, humility is not one of my strong points. 
Leastwise in terms of better or worse.  Only sinners do that!

Report this

By Joan, October 18, 2010 at 10:55 am Link to this comment

She,

Joan: “Harris highlighting the extreme views of a minority of Christians
regarding creation is no more accurate a rendition of Christianity than
saying all Muslims are terrorists is an accurate depiction of how
Muslims practice Islam.”


She’s response: “It is no less accurate either.  He makes a rigorous point of saying he is
not saying all Muslims are terrorists.  It is you who doesn’t know
her derriere from hole in the ground or what Harris said. I only mock
what pretends to be a serious challenge”


She, your analysis with respect to my comment is incorrect. I did not argue that Harris claims that most Muslims are terrorists.  By inspection, we know that to be false.  I argued that it is as inaccurate for Harris to present most Christians as believers in the biblical account of creation as it is to make the very obviously false claim that most Muslims are terrorists. Before you try to refute one’s position, you ought to know what the stated position is. 

Philosophy departments differ in what they prefer to emphasize. Mine emphasized language analysis/ analytic philosophy as opposed to another branch of philosophy that is widespread, existentialism.  Hence, when doing a critique, the language style in analytic philosophy tends to be succinct, straightforward without flourish and poetry or passion.  That is the manner in which I have been critiquing Harris. I cannot see how those on this thread who continuously carry on about the preferred status of reason as the superior way to truth can gripe about my straightforward challenges to Harris’ conclusions.  As Spock would lament,  ”That’s not logical.”

I will not dispute that your philosophy department made a distinction between the words “ethics” and “morality”.  Philosophy departments are apt to do things like that but the distinction is subtle not qualitative or widespread.  Other than that the word ”ethics” is used to refer to the specific branch of philosophy that analyzes how man ought to behave as opposed to the word “morality”, the words are used interchangeably in philosophical discourse. A person’s code of ethics and a person’s morality refers to the same set off moral precepts that that person invokes in a given circumstance.  Hence, the words are used interchangeably.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

It all comes down to RACE and that man-made slogan “whoever dies with the most toys wins.” 

Yale, and all their fancy alphabet costumed caricatures can call it quits… and stop worshiping at the house of the earthly temple made by man’s hands of things we deem valuable, like a thing you can’t eat ( gold ), with the fiat being the carrot for the masses to peddle for their earthly pedigreed lineage of nobodies, dusty names of an old boast.. and stop believing a man can be a god… for THAT man already made is mark in history… and his Essence has Permeated every living thing we know and yet KNOW NOTHING of His Essence.

A man, nor group of veiled men, can stand against the TRUTH of God, the LIGHT of history, nor the REALITY of our point in time… they can only shutter in their boots in amazement as they watch the Truth unfold.

That ‘man’ will return, and he’ll be asking: Luke 18:8

“I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”

The earth is STILL God’s possession, albeit trampled by one sicker than us all, calling it ‘his dominion’.. which, as every other thing that comes out of that one’s mouth… is a lie.

Much like our monetary system.. is a lie.

The fiat, is not money as we’ve been taught money to be ( a store of value ) for that value has been stripped, stolen, ShangHied, kabish?

So many are prevalent in our modern society, the empire of illusions and empire still alive and propagated by dark hearted men… to further enslave people via their mind.

Christ showed the way to true Freedom, not by currency nor capital nor obedience to Caesar…. but to God.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.

POW!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 18, 2010 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

My adversity to happy faces is only superseded by clowns and Sara Palin!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

Ahhh a moment of clarity!

Thanks for that admittance SheSaysSomething wink

“Thank you for opening that door to the not so long ago past, ITW it was fun to think about what I don’t think about too often anymore.  There is so much to think about these days, doesn’t your brain seem to get a bit overcrowded?”

And it is when we are not only reminded of our past experience, and now older and wiser, being able to better decipher the world and your place in it then, and being able to CORRECT your young perceptions as your own adult self NOW conscientiously correcting your younger person’s challenges.

Yet notice the need of allowing oneself the humility to consider others equal or like Christ suggested “better than yourselves” can then maybe one LEARN from the experiences, points of view and paradigms of someone COMPLETELY different from themselves.

Case in point>  EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL found herein… even the several identity folk, and the only ‘working here’ brand.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 18, 2010 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

Yeah, Cage was part of the minimalist crowd and they intended to
be boring.  Well, interestingly boring.  As they eliminated all but the
skeleton of whatever art they were attending to or performing, and
sometime even left that at home, if they had a home.  I would think
that minimalists wouldn’t have a home,maybe a pup tent or sumthin.
More the experimental musician/composer I always found his writing
and painting…uh while some of it is innovative, such as his plexi-
grams (the new media of plexiglas which doesn’t seem nuevo these
days but he sort of invented it as anart medium), most of it is, how
shall I put it, less interesting.  My taste though is my own.  However his
power was in introducing extraordinary aspects of music as an art form
and the kinds of noises that actually exist even when you think it is
completely silent (think of the sound your heart relentlessly makes
regardless if how silent the rest of the world is) and using those
serendipitous sounds as part and parcel of music pieces.  It was a
captivating concept and did ignited the entire music field at that time. 
But like anything else, the new gets old and we get used to it, adapt to
whatever we experience.  He was neat in his own unique way.  As he
aged, his work diminished in forcefulness, but that is a normal course
of events.  And the minimalists did gain much recognition as we
witness the rise in stature of the likes of Phillip Glass whose once very
odd repetitive music now is assimilated into our culture and now it
sounds very normal even used in movies and commercials, and I love
Glass’s powerful works.  So life, I think, is somewhat like a boomerang
in that what goes around more or less comes around, or as more
academics would say, history repeats itself.

Thank you for opening that door to the not so long ago past, ITW it
was fun to think about what I don’t think about too often anymore. 
There is so much to think about these days, doesn’t your brain seem to
get a bit overcrowded?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 18, 2010 at 9:42 am Link to this comment

Napo;

No!..... But when grandmaw was not making glug, she said something about Don Rickles being a long lost uncle on my other brother Clydes side of the family!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 18, 2010 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

I saw Cage perform once. The opener was SO dull—a guy with a sine wave generator and a canoe and a mike and he’d go all around the canoe so you’d hear the harmonics of how the sound changed. If it had be 5 minutes it would have been OK, but after 45 minutes of this painful crap (it wasn’t A-440, but much higher pitched) 3/4 of the audience were…gone.  And Cage sat there with a beatific smile on his face! (maybe he was wearing earplugs?)

I hardly remember his piece (I was in college and that’s nearly 40 years ago) but at least that I enjoyed Cage’s work, tho I don’t remember what it was.  It was NOT 4’33” or Concerto for Prepared Piano.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

LeeFeller.. do you do any stand-up?

You should!

You’re funny!

Very witty.

Really, check it out.

Report this

By garth, October 18, 2010 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

I saw Sam Harris at the U. of Texas, Austin Book Festival on C-SPAN2 yesterday, Sunday.  He was describing his moral landscape idea.  He began by setting up an X-coordinate:  In extremis was the worst of all possible worlds, total misery.  From there he lost me.  He kept jumping from using material arguements to re-enforce spiritual ones to fuzzy spritual arguments to re-enforce his own theory.  (In other words, in childlike wishful thinking, Wouldn’t it ne nice if…..)

He went from denouning the Koran and its logical connection for terrorism to Catholicism and its placing defense of sexual abusers ahead of its original Church tenets.

Sounds like he wants to create an undercurrent of disestablishment and agitate a hornet’s nest as he seems to have done here.

I am glad Shenonymous and Maani found each other.  It makes for interesting, informative and instructive reading.  At this point, however, name-calling and intellectual jabs are side bars. 

I missed a lot of Joan, but I caught her last comment.  It was tres interesante, as my sister used to say.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 18, 2010 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

Napoleon wets his pants; has developed a long list of demands, most recent being not called Pious. While his meandering posts go on with Pious consistency. The Napoleon list of demands seems extensive, there are several others, which I have already forgotten. For I have trouble keeping up with my many aliases as foretold and written with the absolutist certitude by Napoleon the requested UN-pious

As for points, making them or wearing them under ones hat, seems to depend on ones propensity to comprehend reality.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 18, 2010 at 8:45 am Link to this comment

Love it, ITW.  And he sat at a piano for 4 minutes and 33 seconds
without playing it, then walked off the stage!  Oh that guy!

The cacophony continues on this forum.  I play my part! LOL.
Hey, maybe I should change my id name to
Shenonymous…PlaysHerPart I especially like ellipses ‘cause it means
there is more there than meets the eye.  More LOL

Speaking of the pious, time for more Sam Harris!  “Of course, people
of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for
human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is
both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time
for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem
of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists,
either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he
does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious
readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be
judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human
standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish
God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern
himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which
he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If he exists,
the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of
creation; he is unworthy even of man.

There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most
reasonable and least odious: The biblical God is a fiction. As Richard
Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and
Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different.
Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the
profundity of the world’s suffering at face value. It is terrible that we
all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many
human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this
suffering can be directly attributed to religion—to religious hatreds,
religious wars, religious delusions and religious diversions of scarce
resources—is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It
is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of
society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears
shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.”
- Atheist Manifesto

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 18, 2010 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

“I have nothing to say
and I am saying it.
And that is poetry.”

—John Cage

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

And please, I’d rather you referring to me as a sinner or worse, not as pious…. for that’s simply unfitting…

I’m not better than you folks… even if you are all the same person simply posting through other aliases… as is common on TD.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 18, 2010 at 8:03 am Link to this comment

Maybe we do and maybe we don’t have a point, and it is hilarious there
has developed a minor argument about it. Nevertheless, it seems to me
Leefeller’s point is crystal clear.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

I believe, some have yet to… and some will choose not to.

That’s my point.. do I have to be lambasted for it?

Answer to that rhetorical> YES, for that is written also.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 18, 2010 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

We are supposed to have a point????

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

And your point?  Lol

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 18, 2010 at 2:39 am Link to this comment

Napoleon whats his pants, I am giving up on the javelins and reaching for the harpoon!

“LeeFeller, you may not understand what others can read perfectly clear and easy… for the simple fact you may simply ‘choose’ to see things ‘your’ way or whichever way is more convenient for you at this point in time.”

Watching the most pious fellows of Christianity attacking Gill for being a Phd and belittling him for his profession, as I see things, hypocrisy has been consistently apparent, as clear and easy then as now and I would guesstimate for the future.

Judging others must be a convenient Christian past time right next to the ever constant proselytizing,.... 3000 years of selling a Pig-in-a-poke!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 17, 2010 at 9:12 pm Link to this comment

LeeFeller,

Your example of Iran to what I said is a good attempt, if only Iran was predominantly Christian and their law was Judeo-Christian in semblance as what is resembled over here.

The relationship between Christ and his church is akin to a husband and his wife… and there are many passages with reference to this: Ephesians 5:22-33.

In the same way, I see the initial intention of our Constitutional government built on principles of noble intention, born out of LOVE…. as best described as ‘laying your life down for your friend’ as Christ prescribed as part of ‘living life to the fullest.’

It is when one steps outside the boundaries of convention does one experience the stretching of your experience of life and living… that takes ‘faith’ yet people call it many things today, like ‘I made a decision and have stuck to it’ or ‘just started thinking that way and there I went’ or something like ‘for some reason, I just saw it a different way that day, and by golly, I had it licked ever since.’

The feeling is mutual for anyone who’s ever broken a record, or set a new one… or has achieved something no one within 1,000 miles of them have… or in their family, or city, etc….

THAT’s what Faith is like.

LeeFeller, you may not understand what others can read perfectly clear and easy… for the simple fact you may simply ‘choose’ to see things ‘your’ way or whichever way is more convenient for you at this point in time.

Not mad at you, but no need to throw me into the fiery pit with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego by the lovely use of your English grammar… if you don’t agree, you don’t have to throw a typo-ed javelin at me.

A simple: ‘Nap, I don’t agree’ would suffice.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 17, 2010 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

Napoleon, not sure what your point was, but from the meanderings, I believe this was the gist of the comment; “for the church will be stepped on when married to the state”. Me thinks history may disagree and today one only need point to Iran.

Me also thinks one should think twice before driving or composting posts after partaking in the spirits, most especially never at the same time!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 17, 2010 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

Joan,

Please don’t take this question the wrong way—It’s an honest question:

If you do NOT believe that morals and the execution of them (ethics) flows from God and Jesus, then why are you a Christian?  I am TRULY baffled by this, and intend no insult.  If morals and ethics are NOT from God then they derive elsewhere.  Thus the idea of God as Perfect and Good gets lost somewhere…

Report this

Page 1 of 7 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.