58 Comments

1. Paul:

The reason atheists appear angry is that most of them are leftists who are in general an angry bunch.

Robert Godwin has a great essay about envy as the root of leftist thought.

http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/united-93-no-heroic-deed-goes.html

As to how we got to this sorry state in America, Eric Raymond has a very compelling explanation in this must read post.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260

Apr 29, 2006 - 8:48 am 2. ricpic:

If you don’t believe in God what’s so terrible about admitting it. I’m an athiest. For the life of me I don’t see how that equates to being a BAD person,

Apr 29, 2006 - 9:22 am 3. Godzilla:

At the risk of starting up another wild and wooly thread, I’d say that I’m not an athiest or agnostic, but do wish that science forges ahead with the intelligent design theory, to see where it leads.

I’m not angry. More like incredulous. I live in a little Pacific Northwest bible belt town known as Bremerton, WA. And I cannot drive ten miles without seeing roadside signs which either profess thanks to God or exhort people to go to church.

I have read the Bible two times, and am now into my third go through, just finishing up Deuteronomy (just about to read verse 32, in fact, after I post this, which begins the finale of the chapter, which consisted of Moses’s final exhortations to the Jews before he sees the promised land and dies).

I have also read the Pseudapigrapha, the spiritual books that did not make it into the canon, for obvious reasons, if you’ve ever read it.

It is very apparent to me that the entire groundwork of the bible, AND Christianity, is based on a work that itself is a hybrid of Greek Mythology.

This is sad. Very very sad. What a sorry mess this world is in.

The other day I hypothesized about killing the young Hitler.

Well, if I had my druthers, it would have been Abraham that I would kill, if I could only pick one person in history to get rid of.

There would have been no Jewish religion, no Islam. By now Greek Mythology would have been known for what it is – fanciful bullshit.

And there would be a single dichotomy, Buddhimsm on the one hand, and serious scientific inquiry on the other…which included and focussed on finding the answer to what created us.

Apr 29, 2006 - 10:36 am 4. Godzilla:

Just so there is no misconstruement, when I said I would have killed Abraham, that did not mean that my goal was to kill off the Jews. It was to nip of the roots of Judaism. The Jews would have assimilated into the middle eastern tribes. Moses had all he could do to keep his people from assimilating on their own accord. Don’t go on my heresay, read the bible with an open mind. It trully is a great read, and it does explain, to a large extent, why we are in such a mess. But you have to interpret it for yourself. You can rely on the institutions that have made the bible their lifesblood, either for or against.

Apr 29, 2006 - 10:44 am 5. Godzilla:

That’s can’t rely.

Apr 29, 2006 - 10:45 am 6. Godzilla:

That’s Chapter 32 in Deuteronomy that I meant, not verse 32.

Apr 29, 2006 - 11:06 am 7. dclydew:

I think its laughable. We’ve found lots of evidence that indicates that the Bible as we understand may not be wholly relaible (in fact, it may not be at all reliable). The Hebrew scriptures have numerous errors as to time of writing and some of the claims For example, there exists no evidence to support the idea the the Jews were slaves in Egypt. Archeologists have scoured the land of Goshen and have yet to turn up any evidence that might be semetic in origin, from 1500 BC or earlier. There might someday be some evidence, but as of now there is none.

The Gospel accounts, most bible scholars agree were not written by their namesakes, but were likely written after their death, based on the oral teachings. As to their facts or div ine inspiration, there seems no reason to consider that they were divine.

However, and this is, in my view the most important point.

It appears that the human mind tends to adopt a belief system that allows an individual to fit in with their ‘tribe’. Humans devoid of supernatual beliefs tend to adopt other beliefs, particularly ones about the Scientific method and the theories based on such methods. In any of these paradigms, it appears that the human benefits from their beliefs. It helps them get through the day. It helps them find strength to face challenges, either through reliance on a deity, or reliance on a set of ideas. So, I think Christians should believe whatever they find true for themselves. I think the same should be said for Agnostics, Atheists, Buddahists, Muslims, Otherkin, Otakukin, Wiccans, Thelemics, and those poor deluded Rationalists.

Your beliefs may seem ill-founded to me, they may, on deep inspection be found wanting… but if they help someone get through their day, then I support their irrational beliefs. The only thing I find unacceptable, is when someone decides that everyone should live by their irrational beliefs, or when they rail against the irrational beliefs of another.

Like what you like, Enjoy what you enjoy, believe whatever the hell you want to believe and don’t give each other crap.

Apr 29, 2006 - 11:10 am 8. mrp:

Roger typed -

even after reading St. Thomas – about the Big Question …

Aquinas?

Apr 29, 2006 - 11:13 am 9. Peter:

Simon, I thought the Rabbi was really quite gentle and kind, and I can’t see why you say you angry. With what?
I felt he was only trying to help, which is his job.
Peter

Apr 29, 2006 - 11:22 am 10. Godzilla:

“I would ask for forgiveness from the angry atheists who write to me if I thought it would help.”

A Freudian slip? I can’t really disagree with him here, though for a different reason!

Apr 29, 2006 - 11:38 am 11. Godzilla:

Never mind that last post, I mistook “from” for “for”. I was skimming the article faster than my mind could comprehend it.

Apr 29, 2006 - 11:40 am 12. Godzilla:

Now this:

“I can humbly ask whether my atheist brothers and sisters really believe that their lives are better, richer and more hopeful by clinging to Camus’s existential despair: ìThe purpose of life is that it ends.”"

Is that what athiests really believe? Their purpose is to die? That is kind of gloomy. Better to come up with a different purpose for their lives, if you ask me.

Many of them, in fact, if you listen to them, live for the purpose of “world peace”.

Many of them, in fact, live for “equality for all”.

Many of them, in fact, live for “equal pay for equal work.”

And the list goes on.

And the seconds keep ticking away. My advice: march only to the sound of your own drumbeats. Don’t get caught up in the hoopla.

Apr 29, 2006 - 11:54 am 13. mikem:

I don’t see it, Roger. I especially don’t see you or agnostics/atheists as a picked on minority.
How many TV shows, plays, movies etc. portray your group in derisive fashion, as believers are quite often? How often do people publicly protest against your beliefs, often using mocking mimicry to do so.
Your protest seems childish and, frankly, dishonest.

Apr 29, 2006 - 12:36 pm 14. Godzilla:

Okay, just one more thought (what can I say, this is another one of those topics that has me thinking, where one thought treads into another).

About this:

“Camus’s existential despair: ìThe purpose of life is that it ends.”"

I like Plato’s take on this, where he equates form and function with “virtue”. In the Euthyphro, Euthyphro, at Socrates’s prodding, never really comes up with an all encompassing articulation of what virtue is. The only real definition arrived at is tautological: when a thing is functioning according to its form (i.e. inaccordance with what it is), then it is virtuous.

Again self-referentially, for a thing to be virtuous, it must function in accordance with its form. So tautologically, virtue is that by which things are virtuous.

THAT much is agreed upon, but in no instance does any ONE thing ever contain the all encompassing things that are virtuous.

This is profound, and I believe this. Basically, what we need to do is discover our own best potential (i.e. purpose), to learn what it is that we are exceedingly good at, and what gives us pleasure, and than do that.

In the absence of any absolute higher truth, this is the best we can do.

Apr 29, 2006 - 12:40 pm 15. Godzilla:

One last thing, profound things don’t have to be complicated! Since the purpose I just mentioned in my last comment seems self-evident, even rediculously so.

Apr 29, 2006 - 12:45 pm 16. Godzilla:

Roger, this is way off topic. I just noticed on the PJ blog that you have incorporated a random blog link at the top left of the blog. I don’t know if you ever read my suggestions about the PJ site, but several of them involved a “grab-bag” link like that, that would randomly take users to various blogs. I even ginned up an example web page, with all the code available when “view source” was selected on the View menu, and posted the link in several posts (it took a few tries to make it compatible to both IE and Netscape.

I must say, it was a very good idea, and was suprised when you didn’t immediately take it up. I supposed that you never saw my comments, and for all I know it was somebody else’s idea that finally got your attention. Smart move, either way.

Apr 29, 2006 - 1:15 pm 17. Assistant Village Idiot:

I don’t think that atheists necessarily have to be angry. I just find that many are. It’s not a good sample, of course, because it may be that the angry ones are more likely to make themselves noticed, or more likely to approach me after learning I’m a Christian. The non-angry ones may just go about their day.

I can see lots of reasons to be an atheist. I’m just puzzled by how often people get insultingly angry, or have to keep returning to sneer and condescend. That does strike me as indicative of some personal issue that hasn’t been worked out.

The traditional response of (those) atheists is to claim some variety of you-hit-me-first. Self-righteous people telling you what to do with your life is of course annoying. But I don’t get it with the feeling attacked by billboards and radio stations, or even when reading articles about someone who thinks you are doomed. Why would you care? Also, I have watched gentle people be turned upon and accused of self-righteousness when none was apparent, even upon review and reflection.

It is doubly puzzling because the believers in even bizarre religions at least think they are trying to give you something valuable. What boon does the atheist think he is providing? A chance to be as free and clear-thinking as he is? Ahem.

I don’t think all atheists “have issues,” but some clearly do. I make some effort to rein in Christians who I think are moving from preaching to condemning. So you rein in yours. Or maybe record yourself to play back later.

Apr 29, 2006 - 2:02 pm 18. pastorius:

Minorities?

There are two types of atheists, Roger. There are

1) atheists who say they don’t believe in God

and

2) atheists who say there is no God.

You’ve heard those types, I’m sure.

The thing is, anyone who understands a bit about logic knows that to say there is no such thing as God is illogical.

You can’t prove a negative.

Therefore, I think it is reasonable to conclude that that type of atheist who insists there is no God is probably betraying some sort of negative psychological fixation, considering that he is willing to hold on so hard to an illogical idea.

I think anger is a pretty good guess at what motivates there belligerence.

If you think about it, if a person doesn’t believe in God, wouldn’t it be reasonable that one wouldn’t discuss the idea of God, unless asked. And yet, we know there are some atheists who have to tell everyone that there is no God. They are like to kid who has to tell everyone there is no Santa Claus. There interest is not in enlightenment, but is, instead, in making sure that everyone feels the same letdown they experienced.

Apr 29, 2006 - 2:24 pm 19. TomTom:

Better explain yourself, Roger. You’re leaving the impression you are coming off the rails. “Self-satisfied pontificators picking on minorities”? Rabbi Gellman is who you mean?
The Left hasn’t left you, it seems.

Apr 29, 2006 - 2:33 pm 20. Piraticalbob:

New commenter, Roger. I enjoy your blog.

About your agnosticism, I found an organization that suits my own doubts almost perfectly; I’m not a joiner, but I think that their philosophy mirrors my own:

http://www.universist.org/

Kind Regards.

Apr 29, 2006 - 3:02 pm 21. mrp:

I love Rabbi Gellman. What a great spirit. He seems happy and joyful and for some strange reason he wants other people to experience the same sentiments. He’s a lover not a hater and that really seems to torque some folks, especially the grumps.

Of all the things and people in this wicked world to get “angry” about. I bet if Roger invited Rabbi Gellman over for dinner, everyone would have a great time.

Apr 29, 2006 - 3:36 pm 22. Roger:

TomTom, to me making the generalization that atheists are “angry” is pontificating. I know plenty who aren’t. Also, I don’t see what that has to do with right-left, unless it’s because there are left-wing atheists. There are also a number of libertarian atheists, etc. So what?

mikem, I didn’t say I was being “picked on” for being an agnostic. I was being wry about it. I don’t feel picked on about it all. But I would add the obvious – picking on atheists for their beliefs is as reprehensible as picking on Evangelical Christians for theirs.

And Gozilla, off topic,yes, I was aware of your suggestion and told others. So you influenced us. Thank you. More changes to PJ coming up too. We’re trying to improve – that’s all I can say.

Apr 29, 2006 - 3:36 pm 23. Kevin Peters:

Godzilla:
You seem to be happy where you are and I am not trying to convert you. This is just a hint that you are free to ignore. If you are responding to an article that claims that atheists are angry it’s not the best debate tactic to talk about Abraham being worse than Hitler and if you could go back in history you would kill him. It may be your sincere belief but it tends to play into the Rabbi’s argument. I could be wrong, I wish you well.

Apr 29, 2006 - 3:48 pm 24. Kevin Peters:

Godzilla:
Before Abraham the world was a violent, messy place. I believe you when you say that you don’t want the Jews killed but when you point to Judaism as to the main reason “we are in such a mess”, thus if you could have “nipped” Judaism in the bud by killing Abraham you have a lot of fans among those who do want to kill all the Jews who also beleive Judaism is the root of all evil. Once again I believe that you don’t want to kill all,or any, Jews. But man has been killing each other since the cave man days. If there was no Abraham man would have figured something else to fight about

Also, we do have an example of two large societies that saw religion as you do, who raised several generations on the scientific, logical assumption that religion is the opiate of the people and if it can be rooted out of a society the perfectability of man will come closer to happening. No religion, science and logic only. The Soviet Union was a splendid place. This doesn’t mean all atheists want the Soviet Union but it does say something about the nature of man and Lennon’s utopia of “Imagine” will not happen and you may be suprised that Man will always find reasons to be horrid to each other, no matter what they believe.

Apr 29, 2006 - 5:03 pm 25. Godzilla:

Kevin, by the time I wrote that about Abraham, I had already tacked off into a new direction. As I originally said, anger is not an issue with me.

In fact, if I had to go into battle, and had to choose between someone who believed that he was fighting God’s fight, and someone who thought that “the purpose of life was to die”, I’d go with the religious person everytime…as long as he wasn’t into martyrdom.

Apr 29, 2006 - 5:10 pm 26. Godzilla:

Kevin, out of consideration, I didn’t elaborate completely. One unmentioned assumption, that I have, is that the canaanite customs, such as “passing their seed through the fire” (a cute little euphism for infanticide) would have been stamped out now. Intelligent people, sooner or later, are going to stop believing in moon and sun gods.

Apr 29, 2006 - 5:14 pm 27. Godzilla:

Kevin, to completely explain my theory about Judaism being an offshoot of Greek Mythology, I would have to literally post snippets from The Illiad, The Odyssey, the Psuedopigrapha, and the Bible, and then draw the parallels. I’ve done it, and my books are peppered with post-it notes all over the place. But it is a torturous thread, weaving here and there. For anyone with an open mind, really curious, I would gladly take the time to actually go through some of the branches.

Abraham has been dead a long long time. I have enough propriety not to make the same sort of remark about people living today.

Apr 29, 2006 - 5:19 pm 28. Godzilla:

Kevin, I don’t think that you can just say that Communism and Socialism and Nazism comes about purely because they are innately Godless. It’s just a different form of worship, the state substituting for God.

Communism, in fact, the roots of it, I think can be laid squarely on Plato’s Republic.

Apr 29, 2006 - 5:30 pm 29. Kevin Peters:

Godzilla:
I wasn’t making a comment on your Greek Mythology theory. I was making a comment on your notion that if one could nip Judaism in the bud somehow the world would be a better place. Man has been making the “if we could only not have this (fill in the blanks) all this terrible “mess” we are in would not have occurred” argument for centuries and it is an impossible theory to proove so this has nothing to do with being “curious.”. You are correct that the specific Islam vs. Jew problem would not be there but truct me,or don’t, man would have figured out something else just as nasty to take it’s place, even in a Godless world. It might be socialists vs. communists. It might be capatilist vs. socialist. It might be Beatles vs. the Stones. It’s about man’s nature. I have no problem with science or logic or reason. You and I have different takes on it. You and I probably wouldn’t start World War Three, although I can’t really say that because neither one of us has the power and if we did we have no idea what we would do with it.

Apr 29, 2006 - 5:41 pm 30. Godzilla:

Kevin, when I said that if Abraham was killed would lead to a dichotomy of Buddhists of and Scientific Enquirers (a tripartite, including the Hindus), I realize that I was arguing the fallacy of the slippery slope. (The key thing, for me, is that I realize it…but I make the conjecture, nevertheless, because if we don’t imagine what might have been, we’ll never get off our present track, which, if you ask me, is Armageddon.

That is also a slippery slope fallacy.

Here’s another one being bandied about today:

We must fight global warning now, because if we don’t, then the ice caps will melt. The oceans will rise and the people living along the coasts will be flooded inland. An ice age will also result, and the people living in the polar regions will have to migrate toward the equator, which will cause congestion and fighting, and civilization will be destroyed.

A conclusion based on faulty, untested, steps. Some slippery slopes are crazier than others, but it’s okay to slide down them as long as you realize that they may not be true.

Apr 29, 2006 - 6:18 pm 31. Patrick Tyson:

I can humbly ask whether my atheist brothers and sisters really believe that their lives are better, richer and more hopeful by clinging to Camus’s existential despair: “The purpose of life is that it ends.”

The Rabbi seems to have confused Albert Camus with Agent Smith in Matrix: Revolutions.

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosopny, Camus as I know him:

Even readers not closely acquainted with Camus’ works are aware of his reputation as the philosophical expositor, anatomist, and poet-apostle of the absurd. Indeed as even sit-com writers and stand-up comics apparently understand (odd fact: Camus has been used to explain episodes of Seinfeld and The Simpsons), it is largely through the thought and writings of the French-Algerian author that the concept of absurdity has become a part not only of world literature and twentieth-century philosophy, but of modern popular culture as well.

What then is meant by the notion of the absurd? Contrary to the view conveyed by popular culture, the absurd, (at least in Camus’ terms) does not simply refer to some vague perception that modern life is fraught with paradoxes, incongruities, and intellectual confusion. (Although that perception is certainly consistent with his formula.) Instead, as he himself emphasizes and tries to make clear, the absurd expresses a fundamental disharmony, a tragic incompatibility, in our existence. In effect, he argues that the absurd is the product of a collision or confrontation between our human desire for order, meaning, and purpose in life and the blank, indifferent “silence of the universe.” (”The absurd is not in man nor in the world,” Camus explains, “but in their presence together. . . it is the only bond uniting them.”)

So here we are: poor creatures desperately seeking hope and meaning in a hopeless, meaningless world. Sartre, in his essay-review of The Stranger provides an additional gloss on the idea: “The absurd, to be sure, resides neither in man nor in the world, if you consider each separately. But since man’s dominant characteristic is ‘being in the world,’ the absurd is, in the end, an inseparable part of the human condition.” The absurd, then, presents itself in the form of an existential opposition. It arises from the human demand for clarity and transcendence on the one hand and a cosmos that offers nothing of the kind on the other. Such is our fate: we inhabit a world that is indifferent to our sufferings and deaf to our protests.

In Camus’ view there are three possible philosophical responses to this predicament. Two of these he condemns as evasions; the other he puts forward as a proper solution.

Our first choice is blunt and simple: physical suicide. If we decide that a life without some essential purpose or meaning is not worth living, we can simply choose to kill ourselves. Camus rejects this choice as cowardly. In his terms it is a repudiation or renunciation of life, not a true revolt.

Choice two is the religious solution of positing a transcendent world of solace and meaning beyond the Absurd. Camus calls this solution “philosophical suicide” and rejects it as transparently evasive and fraudulent. To adopt a supernatural solution to the problem of the absurd (for example, through some type of mysticism or leap of faith) is to annihilate reason, which in Camus’ view is as fatal and self-destructive as physical suicide. In effect, instead of removing himself from the absurd confrontation of self and world like the physical suicide, the religious believer simply removes the offending world, replacing it, via a kind of metaphysical abracadabra, with a more agreeable alternative.

Choice three (in Camus’ view the only authentic and valid solution) is simply to accept absurdity, or better yet to embrace it, and to continue living. Since the absurd in his view is an unavoidable, indeed defining, characteristic of the human condition, the only proper response to it is full, unflinching, courageous acceptance. Life, he says, can “be lived all the better if it has no meaning.”

The example par excellence of this option of spiritual courage and metaphysical revolt is the mythical Sisyphus of Camus’ philosophical essay. Doomed to eternal labor at his rock, fully conscious of the essential hopelessness of his plight, Sisyphus nevertheless pushes on. In doing so he becomes for Camus a superb icon of the spirit of revolt and of the human condition. To rise each day to fight a battle you know you cannot win, and to do this with wit, grace, compassion for others, and even a sense of mission, is to face the Absurd in a spirit of true heroism.

Agent Smith (dialogue credited to The Wachowski Brothers):

I really should thank you after all. It was, after all, it was your life that taught me the purpose of all life. The purpose of life is to end.

…or something like that.

It will probably seem to you that I am getting very excited about a small matter. Then let me, for once, speak in my own name. The world I live in is loathsome to me, but I feel one with the men who suffer in it. There are ambitions that are not mine, and I should not feel at ease if I had to make my way by relying on the paltry privileges granted to those who adapt themselves to this world. But it seems to me that there is another ambition that ought to belong to all writers: to bear witness and shout aloud, every time it is possible, insofar as our talent allows, for those who are enslaved as we are. That is the very ambition you questioned in your article, and I shall consistently refuse you the right to question it so long as the murder of a man angers you only when that man shares your ideas.

‚ÄîAlbert Camus, “Why Spain?”, Combat, December 1948

Apr 29, 2006 - 7:22 pm 32. Kevin Peters:

Godzilla:
The reason I brought up Communism was to show that people who did not believe in God, who based their system on logic, reason and science are very capable of producing awful results. The fact that they replaced religion with the state does not change that they came up with the state using your building blocks for a better world. Science can be wonderfull and it can produce tradegy. I am not arguing against science. When Einstein and his fellow good scientists created the bomb they only had the best scientific, logical, and rational motives. Yet they produced the one thing that can bring about armageddon in a non-religous sense. Oh, by the way, religous peopel pray for world peace too.
What was your theoretical solution for many of the worlds problems? To go back in time, kill someone, and eliminate a way of thinking. I believe you are proposing that with the best intentions. Yet the fact that your solution was murder shows that you reached for violence to produce a better world, and you wanted to kill someone that much of the world thinks is a great man. And that is how wars and strife start.

Apr 29, 2006 - 7:24 pm 33. flicka47:

am not a “religious” person by any stretch,although belief in God is not a question for me. But I’m afraid Roger is proving that atheists are “religious” and angry…..

Roger finishes with…

“…I am “angry.” I’m particularly angry at self-satisfied pontificators who pick on minorities.”

But,not one of the blogs you chose to list at PJ “answered” in any way other that to fling insults,kind of like “self-satisfied pontificators”.

And who in their wisdom granted atheists the special status of “minority”,so as to be in need of being protected from being “picked on?”

Godzilla says,

“Better to come up with a different purpose for their lives, if you ask me.

Many of them, in fact, if you listen to them, live for the purpose of “world peace”.

Many of them, in fact, live for “equality for all”.

Many of them, in fact, live for “equal pay for equal work.”

And the list goes on.”

So Godzilla thinks that atheists have a better,”different purpose for their lives”.

So even without being “angry”,he wants to insult the “morals” of believers,claiming that atheists are “better people”…..

I too would like to know why atheists are angry that theists believe.

It does not necessarily follow that believing denigrates not believing,so why are they angry?

Apr 29, 2006 - 7:45 pm 34. Yehudit:

“One unmentioned assumption, that I have, is that the canaanite customs, such as “passing their seed through the fire” (a cute little euphism for infanticide) would have been stamped out now.”

Um, Judaism actually spoke against infanticide. That’s a subtext of the (attempted) sacrifice of Isaac story.

And also the prophets’ exhortations against Baal and Moloch.

If you read the Torah cover to cover you know we also promoted taking care of vulnerable people in society, fair measures in business, unbiased judges, being kind to strangers, respecting your elders, etc.

Did you ever read Thos. Cahill’s “The Gifts of the Jews”?

Apr 29, 2006 - 7:49 pm 35. Charlie (Colorado):

Before Abraham the world was a violent, messy place.

As opposed to?

The reason I brought up Communism was to show that people who did not believe in God, who based their system on logic, reason and science are very capable of producing awful results.

See above.

Apr 29, 2006 - 7:58 pm 36. Bill Quick:

The reason I brought up Communism was to show that people who did not believe in God, who based their system on logic, reason and science are very capable of producing awful results.

Communism is based on none of the above. It’s as big a fairy tale as any other religion.

Apr 29, 2006 - 10:10 pm 37. Kevin Peters:

Bill Quick:
I am not trying to sell communism. What I am saying is that people who claimed that religion is for fools and that claim that they only use logic and reason are just as capable of hurting their fellow man as any man of faith. Some atheists seem to think it’s religion that leads man to war. Some also think that you can’t have logic and reason and believe in God at the same time. Many people who defended Communism to the bitter end also prided themselves on their abscense of those delusional religous notions and their embrace of logic and reason and scientific thinking. Many of the elites of academia,not all, examined Communism and proclaimed it the only rational political system for a thinking man to adopt. And one it’s selling points was that it let go of the opiate of the people. My point is that anyone who thinks that if religion goes away war will end and Man will become less likely to commit horrible acts is buying into their own fairy tale.

Logic and reason can lead some to God, for some it leads them away. When Anthony Few was a leading atheist he was admired for his brilliant thoughts. Before he died he proclaimed that using logic and reason he had become a theist. Logic and reason is not the property of the non religous.

Apr 29, 2006 - 11:20 pm 38. Paul:

“My point is that anyone who thinks that if religion goes away war will end and Man will become less likely to commit horrible acts is buying into their own fairy tale.”

I can think of one religion that, were it to go away, would result in, if not no war, a whole hell of a lot less of it.

Apr 30, 2006 - 1:15 am 39. Kevin Peters:

Paul:
I agree.

Apr 30, 2006 - 9:21 am 40. Godzilla:

flicka47, If you think I was saying one’s life (purpose AND action…i.e. their meaning in life) should revolve around believing, as a substitute for religion, in

“world peace”, “equality for all”, and “equal pay for equal work”, then you missed my point altogether.

And I mean not just a little bit.

Apr 30, 2006 - 9:43 am 41. Godzilla:

Yehudit, yes, I know that infanticide was a canaanite custom. I’m familiar with Leviticus 18:21.

That custom, among others, was one of the reasons why Moses did not let his people assimilate.

I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that I thought it was an official Jewish custom.

Some Jews did partake of it, but they were effectively smacked down. The time frame I’m referencing here is in Moses’s time, and do not want to get into Solomon’s deviation.

Within the context of the earlier comment about Jewish assimilation, I’m assuming that the “passing the seed through the fire” sacrifice would eventually come to an end.

Apr 30, 2006 - 10:05 am 42. Godzilla:

Kevin, you are focussed on the word “kill” that I used to start my conjecture. THAT was not my focus at all.

I’ll ammend it to “If Abraham had never been”

Thats a better way to put it, and eliminates the distraction.

Apr 30, 2006 - 10:07 am 43. Godzilla:

Yehudit, what I think is that, in Moses’s time, his law was better than the surrounding nations, but I am also cognizant of the savagery that still existed in it.

For example, take a look at Leviticus, verse 20 and 21, regarding a man taking his uncle’s wife, and a man taking his brother’s wife, that

“they shall remain childless”.

This innoculous litte phrase has ominous overtones. What do you suppose happened to the offspring of these unions?

And then there were stonings for other infractions. You know that I’m sure. What’s that phrase? All that glitters is not gold?

The more inhumane practices eventually ended. At some point in time, so did the canaanite customs end.

Apr 30, 2006 - 10:26 am 44. Godzilla:

Yehudit, I only read about half of the Torah. At one time I was reading from all three bibles, The Torah, The Duay-Reims Bible, and the King James Bible.

It was too much, because I’m not focussed exclusively on religion, but also on philosopy, mathematics, and history. There’s only so much time in the day.

Apr 30, 2006 - 10:31 am 45. Godzilla:

Yehudit, regarding:

“For example, take a look at Leviticus, verse 20 and 21, regarding a man taking his uncle’s wife, and a man taking his brother’s wife, that

“they shall remain childless”.”

I was referring to chapter 20.

Apr 30, 2006 - 10:46 am 46. Godzilla:

Paul said:
“My point is that anyone who thinks that if religion goes away war will end and Man will become less likely to commit horrible acts is buying into their own fairy tale.”

I can think of one religion that, were it to go away, would result in, if not no war, a whole hell of a lot less of it.

Kevin said:
Paul:
I agree.

And I say, grinning,

That was my whole point!

Apr 30, 2006 - 10:50 am 47. Godzilla:

Regarding:

“Paul said:
“My point is that anyone who thinks that if religion goes away war will end and Man will become less likely to commit horrible acts is buying into their own fairy tale.”

I can think of one religion that, were it to go away, would result in, if not no war, a whole hell of a lot less of it.

Kevin said:
Paul:
I agree.

And I say, grinning,

That was my whole point!”

I retract that. The whole above seems to apply that the thing to do is to cherry pick out the offending religion and discard it. Unfortunately, that WILL invole quite a lot of killing, and my entire conjecture was to avoid that.

Apr 30, 2006 - 10:59 am 48. Kevin Peters:

Godzilla:
If you see no difference between modern day Christendom and modern day Islam you are right. If you see no difference between modern day Judaism and modern day Islam then you are right.If you see no difference between the current governments and governing philosophies of Israel and Iran you are right.This is the bedrock philosophy of the “cycle of violence” logic. But what about the Crusades! What about the Salem Witch trials? What about Pat Robertson?
My faith teaches me that Man will never be completly free of his base nature. My sins did not end with my Baptism. I don’t pretend that Christians are not free from making the mistakes of the past again. But Judaism, and much later Christianity, were able to grow past the desire to force people to submit to their faith through violence. And they have, on the whole, read their Bible enough to realize that anyone forced to believe will not and the man of faith who violently forces someone to convert is not following what he has been taught. And we also believe that their isn’t going to be “peace on earth” until the Lord ordains it. That doesn’t mean we don’t pray for peace and try our best to avoid war, just as we always strive for perfection of ourselves even though we know perfection on earth is impossible.
Someday Islam may be reformed(and I have met many fine Muslims) but that does not seem to be in the cards at this time. In fact, the desire for world domination through forced submission is making a large comeback in the Islamic world. And of course some people who have abadoned the notion of God have shown that they have their own version of forced submission.
I have no problem with Atheists, Christians, Jews,Libertarians, Anarchists, Muslims, Bhuddists, Jains, Hindu’s,Capitalist, Socialists, and Communists and every other religion, philosophy, and economic model duking it out in the marketplace of ideas. I don’t mind someone saying “Mine is the best and will lead to a better world.” I don’t mind someone saying “Yours is the worst.” I do mind those who start out defending their opinion by claiming they own logic and reason. I disagree with you completely but I believe that you came to your way of thinking by curiosity, logic and reason.You think I am wrong. I think you are wrong. As far as Islam is concerned they have some structural situations that make reform very difficult. Christians are told to spread the good word, they are told in advance that many will reject the truth and we can’t make anyone believe and the fact that we do have faith is not a basis for us to boast,or try to carry out God’s judgement ourselves,it is not a basis for us to claim individual superiority. It is not because of our goodness or brilliance that we came to the light.

Apr 30, 2006 - 11:36 am 49. Godzilla:

Kevin, I have no doubt that you don’t agree with me, but I’m not sure if you got my whole point.

First off, before we can get on to Christians or Muslims, you would first have to convince me how it was right to amend God’s law, as told to Moses.

You just can’t amend God’s law. That is just so rediculous.

Now, I can think from within Christianity. I am a Roman Catholic, went to an elementary Catholic school, have all my sacraments.

In fact, I could argue that every living Christian who is not a Catholic is a descendant of heritics.

That would be a purely abstract argument, and I would make it by going back to the Law of Moses. Yes, I’m glad the law was amended, but if you are going to believe in its validity, then it should not have been amended. To disregard the law while professing belief in its originator is simply illogical.

As far as our nature goes, I do believe that nature did us no favors in ginning up two genders.

Also, at a root level, it is nearly impossible to get away from tautological beliefs.

Faith is tautological. A person believes because he has faith, and he has faith so he believes. It’s sort of like “I believe but can’t explain why, and if you don’t understand I can’t explain”

This sort of foundation is wholly unsatisfactory.

I have a tautological belief also. I mentioned it one of the other comments, and it involves Plato’s views on virtue: a thing is virtuous when it functions in accordance with its form (in accordance with what it is).

The tautology is: virtue is that by which a thing is virtuous, and the virtuous are those things that possess virtue.

So, from that viewpoint, a person’s purpose should be to discover what it is best at, or its potential, so to speak, that gives pleasure, and then to do that.

I am my own living experiment, testing out that hypothesis, and the beautiful aspect of this tautology is that a person becomes his own agent of function, because nowhere in this tautology is that demanded an allegiane to an external influence.

Apr 30, 2006 - 12:18 pm 50. Bacon Eating Atheist Jew:

I wasn’t angry until I read the Rabbi’s comments. Now I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.

In fact, I’m so mad, I wrote about it on my blog.

Apr 30, 2006 - 12:18 pm 51. bkochba:

“Kevin, to completely explain my theory about Judaism being an offshoot of Greek Mythology, I would have to literally post snippets from The Illiad, The Odyssey, the Psuedopigrapha, and the Bible, and then draw the parallels.”

The Old Testament was written long before the Greeks were an influence.

Apr 30, 2006 - 12:21 pm 52. Godzilla:

bkochba, The timefram that The Illiad covers is around 1200 BC, about the same time of the Exodus. In the Illiad there are scores of references to earlier times.

Apr 30, 2006 - 12:33 pm 53. Godzilla:

bkochba, here’s what I mean (key passages in bold, my comments in italics):

Genesis Chapter 6:
1 And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. The stories in the Illiad of gods and goddesses mating with humans are too numerous. I’m assuming you realize this. This passage is a modification, where only gods get to have sex with mortals, but goddesses do not (in fact there are no goddesses). 3 And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. 4 Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.Ditto the previous comment

From the Psuedepigrapha. 1 Enoch, Chapter 6:

In those days, when the children of man multiplied, it happened that there were born unto them handsome and beautiful daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw them and desired them; and they said to one another, “Come, let us choose wives for ourselves from among the daugters of man and beget us children.” And Semyaz, being their leader, said unto them, “I fear that perhaps you will not consent that this deed should be done, and I alone will become responsible for this great sin. But they responded to him. “Let us swear an oath and bind everyone…..

It goes on but I’m tired of typing. I’m sure you can see the simiarity to the greek cosmology of gods and mortals mating. The Enoch here is the great grandfather of Noah.

Apr 30, 2006 - 12:54 pm 54. Godzilla:

bkochba, forgot to make another point,

regarding:

4 Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Achilles would be the Greek’s mighty men of old. He was the son of the sea goddess Thetis and the mortal man Peleus. Achilles was the prototype of the might men of renown.

Apr 30, 2006 - 12:59 pm 55. Kevin Peters:

Godzilla:
As far as historical references to previous writings the Syrian story of Gilgamish has better and older links to the Hebrew Bible then the Illiad. Homer is believed to be written the Illiad around 850 to 750 B.C. As far as what God can do,he can ammend, or change it, he is not limited by your thinking.. That’s the debating point. Whether Christ was the Messiah and whether he fulfilled the prophecies. Christians don’t believe that humans changed God’s law. They believed that Jesus was the fullfilment of God’s law and gave us a New Covenant. And the old nasty human practice of killing and harrassing Jews has been shown to be a pervsion of the New Testament, not the logical outcome.And the great, atheist, scientific experiments of Communism have found that foul practice handy also. Man, as he did while Christ was alive and continues to this day, twisted Jesus’s words to suit their earthly purposes. As far a s Luther and the reformation the Catholic church has dropped, while not stopping the effort to strive for unification, the need to press the heresy issue and if the Pope and the Church has come to, while not buying into the reformation, the desire to prosecute the heirs of Luther I think you can too.

As far as the battle of your tautology and my tautology the way you presented Christian tautology is not correct. Yes, faith is part of Christianity and their have been volumes of logical work explaining the basis of that faith that is far more sophisticated the your version of “I can’t explain why.” A human admitting that he is not the equal of God and can’t understand God’s glory completely is a sign of wisdom amd humility, but it does not limit his explanation of his faith to “i dunno.” You may not agree, but Christian Scholars have explained “Why I believe, Why I have faith” for centuries so your dumbed down version of faith is more your take on it, which is your right to have, and not theirs.

Apr 30, 2006 - 1:41 pm 56. Godzilla:

Kevin, yes, Gilgamesh is another outstanding source, although it is very fragmentary and less all encompassing.

Well, I’m sure that we have a different idea of what logic is, and from my background, I’m not all unfamiliar with the “logic” of faith. I have read much of it, and still do on a daily basis. It is very very tortured.

Apr 30, 2006 - 1:53 pm 57. Godzilla:

Kevin, here’s an example of that tortured logic that I’m talking about:

Example of tortured logic

Now, this was the first hit on my search using the keywords: “the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men”

I don’t know what the credentials of this author are, but he obviously as devoted much research to this subject, hypothesizing who the “sons of men” were.

Well, it would be pretty clear who the sons of god were if he had read his 1 Enoch Chapter 6, that they were angels.

Now I grant you that if you gather up all the materials on this matter that you can find, you will probably not see my theory (regarding the Greek Mythology roots of the bible) in any of them. I didn’t when I looked, and frankly that astounded me.

I don’t subscribe that you need to have many people on your side to be right in an argument. If you notice, in our debate here, that I’m not calling forth anyone’s opinion but my own.

Apr 30, 2006 - 2:14 pm 58. Godzilla:

regarding: “I don’t know what the credentials of this author are, but he obviously as devoted much research to this subject, hypothesizing who the “sons of men” were.”

That should be “sons of God”

One of these days I’ll start using preview.

Apr 30, 2006 - 2:16 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: