You Are Not Your Brain

[Frediano]

The Bush 43 Administration, for the first time in our history, introduced legislation regarding 'churches' explicitly. How that is done without attempting to define 'religion' is a deft act of politico art, but let's not draw too fine a box around this turd; it is entirely consistent with the Bush/Rove realpolitik campaign, payback to a pandered to interest group, for votes, for power, requiring the necessary quid pro quo, Constitution be damned.

Actual billboard on I476(turnpike NE extension, north of Lehighton, PA) : Big white letters on dark blue background: "God's Country" Small letters "Bush 2004".

The less said, the better; fill in your own meaning. A time tested formula by politicos like Rove and Carville, with his own "Heeeeits the economy, stoopit!"

We are that nation.

Proud moments.

regards,

Fred

[Brant Gaede]

People who believe they have no sclermak tend to behave as if they don't.

Now, that is funny, without even the slightest insinuation denigrating those who believe they have no sclermak.

A belief in having a sclermak, would demand an act of faith, because after all, there is no such thing as a sclermak-meter, and we can't be presented with a '5.3' on the meter as evidence of actually having a sclermak.

A sclermak, after all, is a totally made up, unreal thing with no evidence that it exists that requires an act of faith, whereas a soul is a non-made up real thing that requires an act of faith to believe it exists.

It reminds me of the mirth surrounding what are allowable and unallowable gods in public schools. The gods of football, regularly prayed to in huddles before the inevitable hail Marys, as well as the gods of theater, with its sacred space and sermons delivered to folks from the altar while they sit in pews, are totally embraced in public schools, because on our God-O-Meters, they are clearly not 'real' supernatural gods, whereas the paraphernalia associated with the God of Abraham is not allowed in public schools because that is a 'real' supernatural God. How do we know that one set of gods are not real supernatural gods, and the other is a real supernatural god? I have no idea; clearly, I must have faith, its a mystery, and so on.

Which reminds me of the bigger conundrum; the definition of 'religion' in our state. We have a first Amendment that prohibits not only a state 'establishment of religion' (even more restrictive than a prohibition to the establishment of 'a' religion), but also prohibits any infringement of the free exercise thereof-- without any qualification of where or when that undefinable religion can be freely practiced. And so, to me, if nobody else, a conundrum: how is it possible, for atheists or anyone else, to petition our government for 'protection' from the practice of freely practicable and undefinable by the state religion, without the state having the means to define what is and what is not 'religion?'

Surely, with all the definitions in the US Code, there is a line somewhere that starts off 'the term religion shall mean:' Nope-- not with a ten foot pole. Not even in IRS statute, whose rules for non-profits nowhere define 'religion' because the state is explicitly prohibited from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion. That does not mean, prohibited from passing a law saying that the church building on 3rd and main is a mighty fine example of architecture. It means: an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Anywhere, without exclusion.

So if I or anyone petition the government for 'protection' from gods I don't believe are real -- such as, the gods of theater, or the gods of football -- does the state have any means to deny my petition on the basis that those are not 'real' supernatural gods, or 'real' religions? How so? Does the state maintain a list of 'real' and 'unreal' gods or religions? Isn't that exactly the act that our state is prohibited from ever doing?

And how so? Would a God-O-Meter of some kind be involved, to distinguish 'real' supernatural gods from 'unreal' supernatural gods-- such as, the God of Tuna?

Isn't the states selective 'protection' -- ie, for the curious goal of prohibiting the free exercise thereof -- an explicit elevation of some religions as 'real' religions? I'm with Thomas Jefferson on this one; let them all arrive on The Lawn at his public university, each to make their case, so that the sunshine and open air can ameliorate their asperities, and so on. The freedom of religion amendment in the VA bill of rights made the original intent of the times much more explicit as to what 'religious freedom' meant in a recognized majority Christian nation; not only complete freedom of religion, but with it, an obligation for a majority Christian nation to practice 'Christian forebearance' -- a tolerance of other's belief or non-belief. The tradition of 'religious tolerance' is the very essence of American freedom. The FF were brilliant in this realization, even as members of their faith.

FLash ahead a few hundred years of imperfect abuse of this idea. Is there today any precedent that would support an appeal of 'protection' from Gods that I don't believe are real, or from religions that I am not a member of? Especially for the curious goal of prohibiting the free exercise thereof anywhere in America, in any context?

When i claim that theater is a religion, with its self proclaimed 'sacred space' and its gods of the theater, is the state in any position to check its list of permitted and not permitted religions and tell me what is and what is not 'religion' in this nation, and so, deny my petition for 'protection' from gods and religions that I neither believe in nor am a member of?

Then, what of Scott Nearing and his "Social Religion." There is a treatise that defines a religion explicitely as 'religion.' It is, in essence, the Progressive playbook. "Progress" was Christian Scott Nearing's precise argument in the early 1900s, when he published 'Social Religion' twice; the first time as a crusading Christian who was frustrated at the slow pace of 'progress' of Jesus' mission here on earth, and who argued for a more politically aggressive use of our state to carry out Jesus' mission here on earth; feed the hungry, fight poverty, and so on. All great and wonderful reasons to court a theocracy.

Can some 'religion' be blatantly injected into our machinery of state, as long as we keep out the iconry-- the Ten Commandment tablets, the crosses, the sleeping Jesus in the mangers and so on-- all the really dangerous things? Whereas, the forced association, replace compassion and benevolence with politicos pointing state guns freedom eating elements of religion run amok are acceptable over-runs of religion in our machinery of state, because after all, the Scott Nearings were frustrated with their faith and were doing only what God was screaming into their ears at night when the voices came, and so on?

In response to the very first petition for 'protection' from religions and Gods that someone didn't even believe in, our state's only legal response should have been "Religion? God? What is that? You live in a nation of complete religious freedom, with an obligation as a citizen for tolerance of the religion of others."

Remember being 'forced' to pray as a child in school? Neither do I. What I was mumbling every morning, and who I was mumbling it to, is a complete mystery and hardly consequential.

Remember being forced to take social studies and study sociology and take your indoctrination about "S"ociety, and so on? Now, that I distinctly remember; it continued long past public schooling, well into the Seminaries of Social Scientology we call 'the Ivies.'

But we have our hair on fire only about the plastic crosses and stone tablets and christmas trees and baby Jesuses, in the name of defending freedom. Sure we do.

regards,

Fred

My Mother was a friend of Scott Nearing's son, John Scott, who directly worked for Henry Luce at Time for a long time.

So professionally done. Congratulations.

--Brant

[Frediano]

VA Bill of Rights:

Is among the only state statute anywhere to even attempt a definition of the term 'religion;'

Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

...without providing an emperor to define either 'our Creator' or the manner of 'discharging that duty'

Such a statement of principle embraces 'the universe, as it is' as 'our Creator' in a perfectly symmetric, peer based definition of religious freedom within the context of a majority Christian nation; the VA BoR acknowledges the fact of a majority Christian nation, and at the same time, tempers that fact with no only 'love and charity' but 'forebearance;' patient self-control, restraint and tolerance-- a withholding of the urge to act upon the fact of that majority status in enforcing their views in a free nation. An explicit abdication of the advantage of simple majority status, an acknowledgment of acting only as peers in this regard, not leglifters or speakers for their God.

IOW, in the context of American freedom...brilliant thinkers who attempted to propel mankind beyond the chains of the Dark Ages-- a conflict that rages today in plain view.

regards,

Fred

[Frediano]

People who believe they have no sclermak tend to behave as if they don't.

Now, that is funny, without even the slightest insinuation denigrating those who believe they have no sclermak.

A belief in having a sclermak, would demand an act of faith, because after all, there is no such thing as a sclermak-meter, and we can't be presented with a '5.3' on the meter as evidence of actually having a sclermak.

A sclermak, after all, is a totally made up, unreal thing with no evidence that it exists that requires an act of faith, whereas a soul is a non-made up real thing that requires an act of faith to believe it exists.

It reminds me of the mirth surrounding what are allowable and unallowable gods in public schools. The gods of football, regularly prayed to in huddles before the inevitable hail Marys, as well as the gods of theater, with its sacred space and sermons delivered to folks from the altar while they sit in pews, are totally embraced in public schools, because on our God-O-Meters, they are clearly not 'real' supernatural gods, whereas the paraphernalia associated with the God of Abraham is not allowed in public schools because that is a 'real' supernatural God. How do we know that one set of gods are not real supernatural gods, and the other is a real supernatural god? I have no idea; clearly, I must have faith, its a mystery, and so on.

Which reminds me of the bigger conundrum; the definition of 'religion' in our state. We have a first Amendment that prohibits not only a state 'establishment of religion' (even more restrictive than a prohibition to the establishment of 'a' religion), but also prohibits any infringement of the free exercise thereof-- without any qualification of where or when that undefinable religion can be freely practiced. And so, to me, if nobody else, a conundrum: how is it possible, for atheists or anyone else, to petition our government for 'protection' from the practice of freely practicable and undefinable by the state religion, without the state having the means to define what is and what is not 'religion?'

Surely, with all the definitions in the US Code, there is a line somewhere that starts off 'the term religion shall mean:' Nope-- not with a ten foot pole. Not even in IRS statute, whose rules for non-profits nowhere define 'religion' because the state is explicitly prohibited from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion. That does not mean, prohibited from passing a law saying that the church building on 3rd and main is a mighty fine example of architecture. It means: an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Anywhere, without exclusion.

So if I or anyone petition the government for 'protection' from gods I don't believe are real -- such as, the gods of theater, or the gods of football -- does the state have any means to deny my petition on the basis that those are not 'real' supernatural gods, or 'real' religions? How so? Does the state maintain a list of 'real' and 'unreal' gods or religions? Isn't that exactly the act that our state is prohibited from ever doing?

And how so? Would a God-O-Meter of some kind be involved, to distinguish 'real' supernatural gods from 'unreal' supernatural gods-- such as, the God of Tuna?

Isn't the states selective 'protection' -- ie, for the curious goal of prohibiting the free exercise thereof -- an explicit elevation of some religions as 'real' religions? I'm with Thomas Jefferson on this one; let them all arrive on The Lawn at his public university, each to make their case, so that the sunshine and open air can ameliorate their asperities, and so on. The freedom of religion amendment in the VA bill of rights made the original intent of the times much more explicit as to what 'religious freedom' meant in a recognized majority Christian nation; not only complete freedom of religion, but with it, an obligation for a majority Christian nation to practice 'Christian forebearance' -- a tolerance of other's belief or non-belief. The tradition of 'religious tolerance' is the very essence of American freedom. The FF were brilliant in this realization, even as members of their faith.

FLash ahead a few hundred years of imperfect abuse of this idea. Is there today any precedent that would support an appeal of 'protection' from Gods that I don't believe are real, or from religions that I am not a member of? Especially for the curious goal of prohibiting the free exercise thereof anywhere in America, in any context?

When i claim that theater is a religion, with its self proclaimed 'sacred space' and its gods of the theater, is the state in any position to check its list of permitted and not permitted religions and tell me what is and what is not 'religion' in this nation, and so, deny my petition for 'protection' from gods and religions that I neither believe in nor am a member of?

Then, what of Scott Nearing and his "Social Religion." There is a treatise that defines a religion explicitely as 'religion.' It is, in essence, the Progressive playbook. "Progress" was Christian Scott Nearing's precise argument in the early 1900s, when he published 'Social Religion' twice; the first time as a crusading Christian who was frustrated at the slow pace of 'progress' of Jesus' mission here on earth, and who argued for a more politically aggressive use of our state to carry out Jesus' mission here on earth; feed the hungry, fight poverty, and so on. All great and wonderful reasons to court a theocracy.

Can some 'religion' be blatantly injected into our machinery of state, as long as we keep out the iconry-- the Ten Commandment tablets, the crosses, the sleeping Jesus in the mangers and so on-- all the really dangerous things? Whereas, the forced association, replace compassion and benevolence with politicos pointing state guns freedom eating elements of religion run amok are acceptable over-runs of religion in our machinery of state, because after all, the Scott Nearings were frustrated with their faith and were doing only what God was screaming into their ears at night when the voices came, and so on?

In response to the very first petition for 'protection' from religions and Gods that someone didn't even believe in, our state's only legal response should have been "Religion? God? What is that? You live in a nation of complete religious freedom, with an obligation as a citizen for tolerance of the religion of others."

Remember being 'forced' to pray as a child in school? Neither do I. What I was mumbling every morning, and who I was mumbling it to, is a complete mystery and hardly consequential.

Remember being forced to take social studies and study sociology and take your indoctrination about "S"ociety, and so on? Now, that I distinctly remember; it continued long past public schooling, well into the Seminaries of Social Scientology we call 'the Ivies.'

But we have our hair on fire only about the plastic crosses and stone tablets and christmas trees and baby Jesuses, in the name of defending freedom. Sure we do.

regards,

Fred

My Mother was a friend of Scott Nearing's son, John Scott, who directly worked for Henry Luce at Time for a long time.

So professionally done. Congratulations.

--Brant

Brant:

He was an interesting and complex figure. The first time he published 'Social Religion', he did so as a crusading Christian. The second time he published 'Social Religion' just a few years later, he did so as a crusading Socialist. Same book. Same religion.

regards,

Fred

[Frediano]

Social Scientology: "S"ociety is God, and the state is its proper church.

Now, there is a religion running unimpeded in the machinery of our state. Do we wonder why such a religion, with such a belief system, would find a friendly landing zone in our machinery of state?

[moralist]

This can be reduced or simplified to faith and non-faith.

Non-faith is just faith that something is not-so.

Greg

No. It means that's where you--not I--end up: a world of faith. That's because that's where you start out. It's foundational. You will thus say that I have "faith" in reason, but that's a blatant contradiction. Reason comes straight out of an axiomatic (Objectivist) principle. There is no room within such an axiom for anything but reason. You can't put faith in there without pushing reason out. That would be a self refuting fallacy. You cannot apprehend reality with faith. All you can do is rationalize your own beliefs. If you use reason layered on top of your faith--there's no other place to put this kind of reason--and you don't end up with rationalization, then you are ignoring your "faith," not reason. This means you can't win an argument qua argument for faith gives you no facts to argue with. It also means I can't win for arguing with you for it takes two to tango. So if you don't break it off--and you have--I will--which I have.

--Brant

You're falling in to your old pattern again. Brant. And it's because you're operating on a flawed premise. God is not a matter of faith for me.

I know God exists.

You're trying to argue as if it was. Arguing against a false premise can only end in frustration. You may as well go find a windmill to tilt at Quixote.

Incidentally, I know where there's a windmill, if you want to have a go at one.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Then what you "know" is. Either that or God is an axiom.

--Brant

[Frediano]

Greg:

Then, God your Creator has given you special access to knowledge within your religion that he has not granted to others within the context of their own. You should feel blessed.

Speaking only for me, my Creator -- whoever or whatever that was, including, the Universe as it is, with me in it, -- has granted me only doubt on the subject of the supernatural, ever since my Creator sent me a message with that glowing log along the river when i was 14, and my half a day of absolute certainty on the subject of the supernatural. Our Creators, it is said, work in mysterious ways, and so on. I suppose it is within reason that such Creators send different messages to each of us; that would totally be within the job description of Creator, even as I barely understand the job description.

As for my Creator, I know, with certainty, that the Universe, as it is, exists. I feel blessed by my Creator, as well. A total win-win.

Fortunately, this nation, unique among many, has tribally arranged things so that it is totally unnecessary for either of us to enter a leglifting 'the True Creator war', nor to worship a singular religion, nor to define for each other the duty that each of us owes to our Creator, as we see fit, within our own conscience.

regards,

Fred

[Frediano]

Brant:

I of course only 'know' of Scott Nearing by reading about him and his own works; he was of a different age. But he was clearly an intelligent, motivated, energetic, charismatic, and effective seller of ideas that he passionately believed in, with well meaning. The essence of his (early) thought was that , dammit, Jesus nearly 1900 yr old (then) mission on earth was stalling, and apparently little closer to being achieved than when it started; classical religion, especially in a wealthy nation like the USA, was ineffective in advancing Jesus mission fast enough as it could without the impediment of separation of church and state, and so, to Hell with the separation of church and state, Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war....

Because he(and many like him at that point in history) was so passionate about the righteousness of his vision, of his sense of mission, he argued strongly for a more aggressive form of religion that was not afraid to take on and use the state to advance that mission. To use the implicit and explicit force of the state to achieve more 'progress' and move Jesus' mission ahead here on earth. THe very essence of what remains today as 'The Progressive' movement, a stealth religion-- even if it has since been formed of a confluence of similar interests; there were all kinds of global movements afoot at the turn of the last century-- Social Scientology being a new, modern, 'secular' science-not-religion, even though it was and is clearly a religion("S"ociety is God/the state is its proper church.)

His intent was not evil. Many would readily admit it was even 'good.' I don't think his intent was anything other than to achieve what he sincerely believed was 'good.'

And, God protect us all from someone so licensed, unfettered as they are from the unforeseen consequences of their actions. Because in balance -- even in the context of achieving Jesus' mission here on earth -- has the consequences of negating voluntary charity and compassion and benevolence and replacing them -- supplanting them -- with state force, really had the effect envisioned? Or has the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' reared its ugly head, and in spite of Scott Nearing's et. al. unimpeachable intentions, has the result of their campaign to over-run the machinery of our state with an unfettering -- even for a good cause -- been a net loss in the desired outcome?

I suspect the latter. I suspect that the original visions of our FF were more clearly on target in terms of realizing broad peace and prosperity and opportunities in this world, as it is, and that our impatience at the imperfect realization was insufficient reason to sell out freedom.

The quote in Wikipedia is an interesting one:

The tension between the dissident individual and the group was an unenviable one, Nearing believed. In the conflict between the solitary individual and the community, Nearing saw only three possible outcomes:

"(1) The individual may win out and impose himself and his ideas upon the group. The normal consequence of such an outcome is a personal dictatorship or the imposition upon the community of an oligarchy in which the dissident individual or individuals play a prominent role. (2) The division of the community into factions, one of which upholds the dissident individual, with a stalemate leading to feuding, rebellion, civil war. (3) The group wins out, imposes its will and eliminates the non-conformist. Such conflict sequences have occurred repeatedly in contemporary and in earlier history."^[56]

.

regards,

Fred

[william.scherk]

Somebody has to come up with a replacement for "Atheist".

There are plenty of words that share meaning with "Atheist." But I don't see why the word itself needs a replacement. "Theist" similarly has many cognate terms, but its meaning is readily apparent.

I am atheist. I have no faith in the supernatural. I have never accepted that there is a supreme spirit 'god.' Do you require another term to understand what I mean? I don't think so.

'Without God' is meaningless, in itself, and probably a stolen concept. It lends significance to that which has been renounced.

Well, I disagree entirely. The word roots merely bring you back to the same thing/concept.**

I liked the way that (agnostic/atheist) Karl Rove was purported to have said: "I am not blessed by faith."

-- if you need a new word or phrase to adequately express your beliefs or lack of beliefs, I'd say don't get bogged down in scholasticism or pettifogging. I suggest not fussing with words to gain a perfect neologism. It doesn't pay any dividends in conversation, in my opinion.

What is the godless state of mind 'With'? What does it stand 'For'?

"Godless" implies that the person does not practice any religion. It also implies that the person has no religious beliefs.

It's a cousinly cognate to 'atheist' but it can have slightly different meanings. It is generally either a stand-alone epithet or joined to other words in a phrase: godless atheist, for example.

Godless also adequately mirrors 'without god' in straightforward English. So, Tony, the challenge is for you as much as any other atheist here: What is your 'godless state of mind? What does your 'godless state of mind' stand for? Why are you asking non-attentive others to do what you can do easily?

Looked at sideways and objectively, WG is (or should be) the automatic default position.

Nope. You better ought "show your work" and provide to your readers the actual reasoning that resulted in this confusing conclusion.

The default position of ... well, what? Your sentence is relativelyt devoid of an active subject. Looked at sideways by whom? The default position for whom?

Rewritten to make clear the subject and object: "'Without God' is [my/Tony's] automatic default position [statement of faith/non-faith]. [i/Tony] looked at the phrase sideways and objectively."

Your arguments would be better understood, I think, if you considered the reader, and that occasionally there is a missing actor in your sentences. You could say with more economy and precision just what your opinion is.

Your choice: to stay as you are, or to join any religion and believe in God.

Do you mean that every child starts out 'without god'? -- that at least in infancy, and before any parent or guardian begins to instruct the child in the family's religion, there is a child Without God?

If so, I do agree. But you have not made clear what age or what context this 'choice' is to be made.

Perhaps you are talking about your own process or history in dealing with the concept god.

(Or to be "Agnostic". 'Without knowledge', waiting for Divine intervention or upon final scientific disproof)...

This seems to say something like this (with subjects and objects made clear): "William, you had/have a choice to be atheist or to believe in god. You can also choose to be agnostic -- which means that you know nothing."

I don't and didn't make a conscious choice ... I do not find the alternatives you note to be operative in my real world.

-- I suggest that it will be easier for you to use the common term 'atheist' for those do not believe in god or gods. In this sense, even Christian believer Greg can be affirmed to be an atheist. Greg does not ascribe supernatural reality to Thor, Mithra, Jupiter or other gods in the pantheon.

(interesting is Greg's fussiness about faith, belief and knowledge. I think that he claims 'gnosis' rather than faith. But this is just a poor man's scholasticism, a libertine feminized argument for sure)

___________________________

** if you trace the etymology of the word 'atheist' you will find that it was borrowed from French with its roots in the Greek word 'atheos' -- and that its meaning is 'without god.' In other words, godless == atheist == without god.

So, if you are 'a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods,' then I can honestly and truthfully refer to you as an atheist.

However, if you dislike using this common word and have misgivings about its common meaning, then there is a buffet of choice for you of synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, pagan, skeptic, heathen, infidel, freethinker, irreligionist.

Edited December 28, 2014 by william.scherk

[Xray]

I know God exists.

moralist:

What exactly is it that makes you so certain?

[anthony]

'Without God' is meaningless, in itself, and probably a stolen concept. It lends significance to that which has been renounced.

Well, I disagree entirely. The word roots merely bring you back to the same thing/concept.**

I liked the way that (agnostic/atheist) Karl Rove was purported to have said: "I am not blessed by faith."

-- if you need a new word or phrase to adequately express your beliefs or lack of beliefs, I'd say don't get bogged down in scholasticism or pettifogging. I suggest not fussing with words to gain a perfect neologism. It doesn't pay any dividends in conversation, in my opinion.

What is the godless state of mind 'With'? What does it stand 'For'?

"Godless" implies that the person does not practice any religion. It also implies that the person has no religious beliefs.

It's a cousinly cognate to 'atheist' but it can have slightly different meanings. It is generally either a stand-alone epithet or joined to other words in a phrase: godless atheist, for example.

However, if you dislike using this common word and have misgivings about its common meaning, then there is a buffet of choice for you of synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, pagan, sleptic, heathen, infidel, freethinker, irreligionist.

Thanks for recalling the word, it sums up all your above: "pettifoggery" and nitpicking.

Do you know the fallacy I mentioned, William?

--"The 'stolen concept' fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying

the validity of its genetic roots i.e., of an earlier concept on which it logically depends".

So: a-theism - and irreligionist - and non-believer, also.

They all contain and acknowledge the idea which one is refuting. Which allows the idea credence and destroys or weakens one's position. "I am not a believer in God" implies God may still exist, but I don't believe in him.

Further, most alternatives are not sufficiently and accurately self-identifying - positively, not negatively - for a person living by reason, in reality.

Rationalist, realist: they perhaps come closer, but have ambiguity.

And obviously, as admitted atheists, we know full well that nobody is actually born theists and believers; however, we are born 'into' our parents faiths which most usually follow..

See the distinction? That's the default position.

As for 'agnostic', if that is how anybody defines themselves, he/she will have to accept its definition.

And if one chooses to live "without knowledge", who is supposed to provide the knowledge, except for science... or God, Himself?

Thank you for your suggestions. Nothing I haven't considered. Atheist it will have to stay.

[william.scherk]

Then what you "know" is. Either that or God is an axiom.

Greg, with a helping from feminized libertine logic, merely swaps a word in to deflect. His pretense of 'knowingness' is the same empty verbal gymnastics I expect from the left feminist archives: "Different ways of knowing." It is postmodernist praxis to swap out words or equivocate on their meaning. Knowledge, in this feminized logically-libertine cul de sac, is something one proclaims, but not something that can be shared. This is such a weak, feminized, anti-science superstition wrapped up in a trite pink bow.

Greg has quite a progressive left feminized relativist habit of proclaiming his discussion partners of belonging to the devil's party. Not for him the robust masculine knowledge that has been tested, tempered, and found strongly in accordance with reality. No, he prefers a solipsist inner wind of feminized superego. Why does he so easily fall into the female thought pattern of needing a spirit?

Perhaps equivocating on knowledge, aping a feminist historian of science such as Sandra Harding, he can subtly position himself as an expert guide to the ineffable.

All anti-rational bullshit, all with the same end. Anti-knowledge, anti-Man, anti-reason. Such a soft, weak, limpwristed, feminized passive travesty of hard-won knowledge.

Edited December 28, 2014 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Quick skin and bones of a Tony/William understanding:

Somebody has to come up with a replacement for "Atheist".

I don't see why the word itself needs a replacement. ...

I am atheist. I have no faith in the supernatural. I have never accepted that there is a supreme spirit 'god.' Do you require another term to understand what I mean? I don't think so.

Not the focus of Tony's response, but so what? Here he answers the essential objection in brief.

-- if you need a new word or phrase to adequately express your beliefs or lack of beliefs, I'd say don't get bogged down in scholasticism or pettifogging. I suggest not fussing with words to gain a perfect neologism. It doesn't pay any dividends in conversation, in my opinion.

Thank you for your suggestions. Nothing I haven't considered. Atheist it will have to stay.

So, points given for saying we must have a new word for Atheist/ism, points given for objections, and points given for a rational response.

Everyone gets prizes.

[caroljane]

Then what you "know" is. Either that or God is an axiom.

Greg, with a helping from feminized libertine logic, merely swaps a word in to deflect. His pretense of 'knowingness' is the same empty verbal gymnastics I expect from the left feminist archives: "Different ways of knowing." It is postmodernist praxis to swap out words or equivocate on their meaning. Knowledge, in this feminized logically-libertine cul de sac, is something one proclaims, but not something that can be shared. This is such a weak, feminized, anti-science superstition wrapped up in a trite pink bow.

Greg has quite a progressive left feminized relativist habit of proclaiming his discussion partners of belonging to the devil's party. Not for him the robust masculine knowledge that has been tested, tempered, and found strongly in accordance with reality. No, he prefers a solipsist inner wind of feminized superego. Why does he so easily fall into the female thought pattern of needing a spirit?

Perhaps equivocating on knowledge, aping a feminist historian of science such as Sandra Harding, he can subtly position himself as an expert guide to the ineffable.

All anti-rational bullshit, all with the same end. Anti-knowledge, anti-Man, anti-reason. Such a soft, weak, limpwristed, feminized passive travesty of hard-won knowledge.

.

Bravo. I see you even know your Fay Weldon.. As philosophical in her way as AR, more prolific and much more entertaining.

You write what I knew I knew but too hazily and lazily . Ah, still Just My Bill.

la Vache qui Rit

[moralist]

Then what you "know" is. Either that or God is an axiom.

--Brant

God is as obvious as reality.

Greg

[moralist]

I know God exists.

moralist:

What exactly is it that makes you so certain?

My own direct personal experience.

Greg

[moralist]

Greg:

Then, God your Creator has given you special access to knowledge within your religion that he has not granted to others within the context of their own.

That's because it's not intellectual knowledge like you "think" it is. It's experience... and is as simple as this:

"Be still and know that I Am God."

Problem is, almost no one is ever still. Most peoples' intellects rattle on like a tin can with a rock in it!

You should feel blessed.

I don't just feel blessed. I am blessed.

And would you like know how its done?

Anyone can do it... but not everyone wants to do it.

"The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who really loves Me; and whoever really loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I too will love him and will reveal Myself to him. I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him."

(John 14:21)

There's the answer, Fred... sitting right in front of your freaking face.

Anyone who loves what's morally right enough to actually do it... will know God. This is because loving what's morally right enough to do it is loving God.

Greg

[anthony]

I've noticed often that it seems many atheists consider it such an accomplishment to arrive at atheism/agnosticism that they rest on their laurels, thereafter, absorbing other ideologies unquestioned. But if it is man's default position, atheism is only a beginning, a place to start thinking as an independent being, not an end in itself.

(btw, I take nothing away from the fact that some people had a bitter time within their religions, or then that many had a tough time transitioning to atheism. I didn't experience either, but readily see what an achievement it may be to many).

However, atheism-as-default simply reflects what reality is and the reality of man is. In itself, it has no answers to 'the meaning of life', or the purpose and morality a man can live by.

Religion was as metaphysically man-made an ideology, as Statism-progressivism is - and both, in some manner and to some degree, are artificial interventions in one's life.

At least it could be argued that the edicts of a religion, as man's early philosophy, had necessity for his tribal survival, and the invention of God for his understanding of existence. At least, one can leave one's family religion; at least there is separation of church and state (in the West).

Not so for statist-progressivism. It would seem that modern secularists borrowed from religion its god (the State) and its morality (service and responsibilty to fellow men) And their 'religion' is far harder to escape.

(But after all, god bless those parents, who did the best they could with what they knew).

[Brant Gaede]

Greg:

Then, God your Creator has given you special access to knowledge within your religion that he has not granted to others within the context of their own.

That's because it's not intellectual knowledge like you "think" it is. It's experience... and is as simple as this:

"Be still and know that I Am God."

Problem is, almost no one is ever still. Most peoples' intellects rattle on like a tin can with a rock in it!

You should feel blessed.

I don't just feel blessed. I am blessed.

And would you like know how its done?

Anyone can do it... but not everyone wants to do it.

"The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who really loves Me; and whoever really loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I too will love him and will reveal Myself to him. I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him."

(John 14:21)

There's the answer, Fred... sitting right in front of your freaking face.

Anyone who loves what's morally right enough to actually do it... will know God. This is because loving what's morally right enough to do it is loving God.

Greg

~

The problem is there is no "God" for which evidence can be adduced. There is reality. By using "God" instead of "Reality" you get more rhetorical punch plus you can cherry pick the Christian accouterments you are most emotionally attached to to bitch-slap atheists with your happy face, all without any necessary rationality. It's a great have your cake and eat your cake world for you. And if worse comes to worse, you'll always have a friend in Jesus.

--Brant

[Selene]

(But after all, god bless those parents, who did the best they could with what they knew).

Excellent point Tony.

When I was teaching at the college, I was 20 and my students were anywhere from 18 to 20 years old.

They would come in bitching and moaning about how their parents were _________________[fill in the ugliest words you can think of].

And I looked them in the eyes and asked them a direct question which was, "Did you ever ________ consider that your parents had parents also?"

Secondly, I suggested that they grow up and stop looking for folks to blame.

Finally, I suggested reading Anthem, The Fountainhead and/or Atlas Shrugged.

Happy and safe New Year to you Tony and your friends and family.

A...

[Jules Troy]

As a young man I no longer felt guilty for spankin ma ? on Sunday!!

???

[moralist]

The problem is there is no "God" for which evidence can be adduced.

BINGO

Spot on, Brant.

Personal experience is not transferable to others. It's not your job to try to believe what someone else says. That's just plain stupid. All that's necessary is to do what's morally right, then it's God's job to fulfill His promise to reveal Himself to you out of your love for what's right. It's not your job to try to "find" Him.

See how people have this process ass backwards?...and that's why it'll never work that way for them. They just end up bitter and angry and hating and negating their silly made up idea of God because what they're hating and negating is NOT REAL.

Honestly, I've read some of the most imbecilic fantasies people make up to describe the God they negate... and the funny part is that I don't believe in their infantile nonsense any more than they do!

One person succinctly summed up the personal experience of knowing God a long time ago, and it's the best words I've heard that describe it accurately.

"...and I saw a new Heaven and a new Earth..."

...and it was because he was looking through new eyes.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Greg, in olden days you'd be confined to the basement with the upstairers hoping they won't hear your rantings. They won't kill you because they love you, but the food comes down a chute.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Then what you "know" is. Either that or God is an axiom.

--Brant

God is as obvious as reality.

Greg

You are right. The physical universe is God