Donald Davidson, who held a chair in philosophy at UCBerkeley until his death just a few years ago, was widely recognized as one of America’s most outstanding 20th Century analytic philosophers. He put the issue of belief classically and succinctly when he wrote to the effect that, if you want to know what the words someone uses mean, you must know what they believe. Unfortunately, but inescapably, in order to know what they believe, you must know what their words mean. Yes, it’s a Catch 22.

If you want to know his solution, you will need to read his wonderfully clear thinking. Hint: he says communication is a constant process of negotiation; we need to keep checking back and forth with each other to see if we can manage some degree of communication.

Hence the statement “I believe in God” only begins the process, as it is not an answer in itself but only an invitation. What occurs to me often when someone repeats that phrase is the Beatles’ “You never give me your number, You only give me your funny paper.” Even when it is said with a perfectly straight face, as it usually is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author writes:

"With the advent of science, supernatural claims were put to the test. It became obvious fairly quickly that nobody was able to demonstrate an act of actual magic, psychic ability (without "natural" information or fraud), or to forecast the future (better than at random or through natural reason). In 1735, the British passed a new witchcraft law. This time it treated the people who claimed to have such powers as con artists and reduced the penalty accordingly."

In the above paragraph, we see our intrepid analyst falling prey to belief that is not backed by FACT. The facts are otherwise. Journalist Deborah Blum writes:

"A hundred years ago, one of the most ambitious of research projects was launched, a study that linked scholars and mediums on three continents. Its purpose was to discover whether living humans could talk to dead ones. [...]

"For many, the dismissal of such Victorian research represents a triumph of modern science over superstition. But -- and I admit that this is an unusual position for a mainstream science writer -- I believe that it may instead represent a missed opportunity, a lost chance to better understand ourselves and our world. [...]

"[T]he Victorian scholars ran an international survey of reported ghost sightings, particularly those tied to the death of a relative or friend. Tens of thousands of people in multiple countries were interviewed; hundreds of volunteers sifted through the reports, rejecting those that lacked independent witnesses or documentation. They concluded that "death visitants'' occurred more than 400 times above chance."

Deborah Blum is a Pulitzer Prize-winning science author who was asked to write about this early scientific research by her editor. Considering her background, she was initially very skeptical and thought that she would find little basis for serious belief in mediums, telepathy, or telekinesis. But Blum was profoundly changed by her investigation. She is no longer "as smug or as positive of my rightness" (her words). The documentation by these psychic researchers points to something real and mysterious that cannot easily be explained away. Even Blum was convinced of this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author seems to be confused by the word belief.

There is a huge difference between believing that when you turn the ignition key in your car or drive across a bridge and belief in magic / god is the same thing. Its not, yes they can both be called belief but the roots are vastly different. When you turn the ignition key in your car you are starting a process that is fully known and understood, everything that happens from turning the key to the engine starting is a sequence of physical and chemical reactions that are demonstrable. When you drive across the bridge it is a construction that has been built using science that knows the loads the bridge will be expected to carry and is engineered to meet those requirements (and actually supersede them by a good margin). Yes things can go wrong, the battery could be flat or the bridge could have suffered from a lack of maintenance but we understand that and can explain in rational scientific terms why things have gone wrong.

God and Magic however are completely different, there is no underlying understanding there is nothing provable. Everything has to be taken on faith.

The person turning the ignition key might not understand exactly how that corresponds to the engine starting, but that is irrelevant because the person who designed the system does.

The only common "belief" that Atheists have with Religious people are the gods and other mythical things they don't believe in, its just that atheists take it a step further to not "believe" in any god(s).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saying the sky isn't blue because it's just waves interpreted by our brains is just playing semantics. It's like saying people don't exist because we're just bundles of molecules. We are bundles of molecules and we are human. The sun does rise and set each day. The sky is blue.

People with faith beleive in something indefinable. Atheists tend to only believe in that which can be measured or reasonably theorized.

Still, comparing the two sets of beliefs is a mistake. Comparing atheism to religion will always put the atheist on the defensive. We all have individual beliefs. Why not leave it at that? Why do we try to create a catchall definition for the millions of individual beliefs we guide our lives by?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The scientific attitude one should take to any subject is whether or not it is true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In order to prove that something does not exist, one would have to examine and document everything, and no one has the ability to do that. Therefore, it is a moot point whether something does not exist. One may infer, based on incomplete data, that something does not exist, but such an inference of non-existence, no matter how likely to be true it may seem, is speculative at best.

In that sense, for an atheist to proclaim that there is no god is no less an expression of faith than it is for a theist to proclaim that there is a god. Neither one can prove their position, so their declarations are statements of faith, assertions of some state of being that they personally believe in (for their own reasons).

Better, perhaps, to say, "I don't know, and I don't think you know, either."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In my own religion, which I made up for my own purposes and which serves me quite well, thank you, everyone (and everything) is god because there is nothing else to be. This belief is quite liberating. It places the responsibility for being happy, and for making one's life into what one would have it be, squarely upon the self.

In my religion, the nature of reality is that we all exist, and as we say it, so it is for us, individually and collectively. That's what I believe, and it works for me. I say it works the same for everyone regardless of anything else.

I know it may sound like just a lot of airy-fairy nonsense, but I contend it is physics, though I can't prove it to you because we do not have scientific instrumentation sensitive enough to detect the electromagnetic nature of thought and emotion. Someday, maybe.

You can prove it to yourself, though, by trying it out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YoTheist; there is an invisible pink unicorn orbiting the earth".
Atheist: "Why do you believe that?
Theist: " I believe it and you should also."
Atheist :" give me a reason to believe it."
Theist :" Ya just gotta believe- it makes your life easier and nicer."
Atheist: I see no reason to believe it."
Theist: " go ahead and believe, anyway; no one can prove it's not out there"
Me: " sorry, pal, the onus is on you. you are advocating an action( if Belief can be considered an action) show me some proof that it's there"' I don't need to disprove it. I'm just not convinced. the fact of your belief only proves your gullability, not the accuracy of your belief."

Which position makes the most sense? there is obviously a big difference between the theist (belief) position, and tghe Atheist( unconvinced) positiion. That's the difference between Theism( belief) and atheism( unbelief).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yet the vast majority of the population of the World still believe that he did exist - even if they don't consider themselves Christian and believe in another religion.

The reasons I don't believe Christ actually existed is that none of the historians of the time actually mentioned anything about him. Yet society 2,000 years ago was very well developed and documented.

Objective historical research reveals that the entire story of Christ has been endemic in human culture for many thousands of years before Christ was supposedly born.

The story which is based on observation of the Sun, The Earth and the Stars was always symbolic - and in a sense demonstrably true.

I personally rejected the Catholic religion I was indoctrinated from birth at the age of 15, however I do appreciate the moral code it instilled in me - even if it did involve suffering mental torture until I was free of it.

Whilst it is arguable that religion is responsible for more war, division and human suffering than any other invention, it may actually be basic tribalism rather than religion that is the real source of human misery.

Religion undoubtedly does have some major positive effects particularly in desperately poor people living their lives on the brink of survival.

Many atheists exhibit similar behaviours that religious people demonstrate on a regular basis and some are arguably for more "Christian" towards their fellow men regardless of their race, colour or religion.

Whilst atheists may deny God as defined by Religions, they may well experience very similar human feelings and emotions that religious people perceive as being spiritual or God like.

I have never defined myself as an atheist and am perfectly content to accept my own version of God and to discuss God with anyone interested. The vast majority of people believe in some form of God, and I find denial counter-productive to communication.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Belief in God might be the most important of all 'beliefs' in spite of being the most unlikely. Its so pervasive that it is self evident in a Darwinian sense that it must have conferred a huge survival advantage to our God-fearing and murderous ancestors. Infidels, atheists, and unbelievers were and are put to death in a great many societies - rightly so - how else do you unite a nation as one to rise up and eliminate the competition in a limited world, flipping the communal software effortlessly into 'kill' mode when many of your fellows would normally engage with the humanity of a stranger? Its all there in our recorded past - the fate of the Amalekites, Canaanites, heretics, Cherokees, Armenians, Jews, Gypsies, Shiites, -'Gott mit uns' -as if the whole planet was created as some vast abattoir for the 'enemies of God.' One small schism away from the true faith can be enough to see you in your box.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There’s always an information gap between ourselves and certainty.

I am not a religious person myself, but it has always seemed to me that many religious people do not allow for this information gap. They are absolutely certain, not just about the existence of God but about many questions. They are trained to have faith, to take things on faith and they apply this habit of thinking widely.

The notion that there is always a gap between ourselves and certainty is a notion that comes out of an entirely different tradition than the religious tradition. I would call it the habit of rational thinking.

Saying that atheists hold their atheism as a religious belief seems to be too simple a statement because not all atheists think the same. There no doubt are atheists who come out of a religious background, who maintain a religious habit of thought and who are absolutely certain that there is no God. However, there are certainly other atheists who have the more nuanced view that there is always some uncertainty in our conclusions (and maybe also of our definitions). For these people there is not a significant distinction between atheism and agnosticism.

Since I am not certain of my conclusion (or my definitions), let me end by posing a question. Might the fundamental difference between the politically left and right be the distinction of having either a religious or a rational habit of thought?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is from The Demon-Haunted World. When I read things like this by scientists, I'm often struck by the fact that science is used to put the religious in their place, but it's not necessarily a scientist doing so.

"There is no necessary conflict between science and religion. On one level, they share similar and consonant roles, and each needs the other." He then differentiates between sects, something it is crucial to do if any dialogue is to have importance.

"The religious traditions are often so rich and multivariate that they offer ample opportunity for renewal and revision, again, especially when their sacred books can be interpreted metaphorically and allegorically." Again, he discerns between religions, seeing the human need (WHY do we need renewal and revision?) while not lumping all together.

Even when he's dealing with people whose belief he has no respect for, he is respectful of the person:

"In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the skeptics, are tying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped."

It's almost like drawing out a great set of New Year's Resolutions, the way he is able to frame this subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's say I don't believe that the world is a flat clod of dirt slathered on the back of a giant griffin. That means (in upside-down world) my lack of belief in a fantasy magically makes me a fanatical believer as nutty as any fundamentalist.

If everything is 'religion,' then nothing is 'religion,' a meaningless concept fit only for wordy sophists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From another viewpoint, there are many who believe that every prayer is answered, it's just that we don't perceive or understand the answer, not consciously at least.

And as for belief, I've seen no mention here of faith, which is an essential component as it allows believers in the apparently non-demonstrable to believe.

Just trying to broaden the discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you'd get hissed and sneered at for being an atheist. Except for Kansas City and St Louis, Christian fundamentalism is so thoroughly engraved in the brainwashed masses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

scientifically speaking, we have no proof that a god doesn't exist, so there just might be one. at the same time, all the bogus holy kool aid writ concocted by some dudes in the past to ascertain the existence of any god definitely offers no proof of any heavenly entities. I'll stick to science for now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have no more respect for atheists than I do xtians or moonies or scientologists or whomever. If you are going make pronouncements about the true state of things based on some shadows of shadows of shadows, well, I think you're a fool. But it is kind of amusing whenever these arguments are trotted out to watch the "faithful" flailing about like some fish out of water, grasping for any configuration of words that allows them to cling to their circular lameness.

In yoga philosophy they teach that yes, there is a God thing, but it is so deeply and abstractly removed from this tiny mote we call the universe, that it isn't even vaguely aware of our existence. While there may in fact be layers and layers of onion skins between us and it, and we may interact with those, and receive a strong and valid impression of their involvement in our day to day reality, any of them that tell you they are the god of all things is just hustling you.

Do I take this is as fact? No, i take it as a very conjectural, tentative way to see things, and i do not cling to it, and if anyone has a better suggestion, I'll listen. None of them are getting etched in stone.

Information cannot self-authenticate. Your experience of reality tells you about nothing whatsoever except your experience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unbelieving Atheist Do Not Want to Accept Reality:

INTRODUCTION:

Unbelieving atheist and agnostics will go to any extremes to deny reality when the facts per John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV) clearly show they are in error. They will vehemently reject logic such as presented by myself in articles such as " mine at,

http://jude3.proboards92.com/

And my many others at,

http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Master Baiter of the Universe. We are His issue, and we have learned from Him how to master bait.

Blessed be the Master and blessed be the Bait.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"God" is such a tired and useless topic that I am amazed we give it so much lip service today. Unless you are an Israeli or a Muslim, who wants to use the term to justify genocide/fratricide/homocide, or an American fundamentalist Jesusperson who wants to promote dullness, conformity and an absence of thinking, it serves little purpose, any longer. And "belief" and the prayers that may accompany it, are just self-placating efforts to absolve one's un-examined existence of any self-responsibility or to avoid ethical decisions and/or actions. It all conveniently puts the reponsibility for living an authentic life onto someone or something else, other than yourself, and lets you go on to Wal-Mart, unfettered.

This author is apparently so full of all of it that he proposes to write an entire series about it, rather than just be content to make us miserable with just one essay. Pardon the phrase, but "God help us".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the image of man was created God. Reading the Bible seems to convey an ethnocentric viewpoint by the writers for God seems obsessed solely with the fidelity and conduct of their particular group. Has anyone thought about the absurdity of God granting infidels military victory over wayward believers? Yet these kinds of incidences are there in addition to Jesus' teachings that such behavior by God is totally illogical.
IF there is only one true God and if God is no respecter of persons as claimed by Jesus, then how could God possibly condone murder and other abuses for the benefit of one over the other of his people? Yet, passages like this abound in the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran to justify one group's inequity towards others.
Using religion as the basis for evil has to be the most heinous of sins. There is much mention of "false gods" in religious texts. I posit that those false gods are a part of the pursuit of wealth, influence, social status and political power that corrupt all good people into the abuse of others - no matter what name they call God. Is it any wonder that Jesus and Paul continually warn against the use of religion to justify oneself over others? This can not - by definition - be the will of a just and loving God who must love all of his creations equally.
Of course, my belief in a just and loving god may be totally wrong. However, if I am wrong I will be more at harmony with others in my world than adherents of the "correct" religion. And living in the here and now is what religious discipline should be about anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know that George W Bus and the Rethugnicans stole the Y2K election, Cheney should be in jail for a whole litany of offenses, Sen. Mitch McConnell is a closet case (oops!), that global warming is real, that Darwin was right and Intelligent design is a fairy tale for the reality challenged, that Gay Marriage should be a no-brainer and that good sex beats chocolate every time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You will have to do better than that. Bible quotes and religious hyperlinks do not prove anything other than that you know how to use a text editor. This is nothing more than the usual religious “argument by authority”. Just because your Bible says something and your entire religious congregation believes it does NOT mean it’s true.

One other thing. Please get all the Muslims and Jews to accept your god before you get all condescending to atheists. The other monotheistic religious believe you are completely wrong, too. I think you should be talking to them. How can you expect atheists to believe in God when you can’t agree about God among yourselves?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But I left a can of 5% strength beer outside my house a few nights ago and it is frozen solid.

Whilst I have experienced such cold weather in the past - I was 10 years old at the time - and living over 200 miles North of here at much higher altitude.

However I don't want to offend the Global Warmers - especially the NASA Muppet

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article reminds me of the types of discussions I'd have years ago with my friends when we were about 3 hours into a depraved cocaine binge topped off by hits from a gigantic novelty bong every 15 minutes.

The author took 3 pages of rambling bullshit to support this very simple point made at the end of the article.

"If we are going to work on the assumption that God is a false belief, we still have to acknowledge that it has a special status in the world of false beliefs. It is not only broader and more profound, it is stronger and has a special hold on people."

That's like, pretty deep dude.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is when one group tries to force their beliefs on another group or when they try to take away the rights of other groups.
Which is exactly what organized religion does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are believers and there are THINKERS. There's a world of difference between the two. One group is responsible for some of the most savage cruelty, wars, pogroms, and poisonous intolerence. The other group has given us liberty from most of mankind's oldest scourges, electricty, a better understanding of the glories of Nature, longer, healthier lives, and a hope for a better future. One group has a set of core beliefs, and a way of "thinking" that NO amount of contradictory evidence can budge; the other will readily admit its mistake, given the same evidence. One bases its "philosophy" on a foregone conclusion; the other hypothesises, puts the hypothesis to the test of factual knowlege, and formulates a working theory, based on reproducable experimentation, then invites others to partake in the experiment. Only after several others come up with the same result, will the former hypothesis become a working theory. This method, called scientific method is responsible for most, if not all, advances and discoveries, the fruits of which, are enjoyed by most of us. One group is incurious; the other has an insatiable curiousity. One group will invariably try to frame any dicsussion of its beliefs into an "I believe this,and you believe that" mode, as if belief and scientific fact are co-equal, when, in fact, they're not. One of the better examples of this is the creation myth. "Well, you believe in evolution, and I believe in creation", is how it's usually stated. If the believer had the slighest curiousity, he/she would see what the FACTS say. The FACT of evolution is supported by a mountain of readily available evidence. One group has been a millstone around the neck of mankind. The other may well save us from our follies. Guess which is which?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The facts cited above about the relation of color to electromagnetic waves doesn't mean that color is not real. They just explain the nature of color.

This leads into the notion of Cartesian Doubt: How does one know that one's life isn't a giant [literal] dream or hallucination? My answer is to contemplate experiences like the following: you hear an interesting news story on the radio, and then a friend brings it up before you do; you send someone a letter, and get a reply a few days later; you make plans to meet someone at a coffee shop, and she shows up as planned. Even though these experiences sometimes happen in dreams, they don't happen at all there compared to the extent that they happen in real life. It's the sum total of all such experiences, as opposed to any one of them in isolation, that demonstrates the reality of the world.

With this point in mind, the fact that visual sensations are caused by electromagnetic waves acting on our eyes is neither here nor there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article was awful. What kind of writer uses words like "getable?" Is that even a word? How about "attainable?" That sounds so much better.

Also, this guy is talking about quantumn mechanics and quoting Einstein, but when he talks about gravity, he mentions Newton, and doesn't say anything about how Einstein's Theories completely changed the concept of gravity?

Also, someone does not really "believe" their car is going to start so much as they assume it will, as it usually does. Although, technically, this could be called belief, to use it this way in a discussion about religion is just to confuse and waste time...mine!

Now, if you want to read a truly mind-opening book on the subject of belief, and how the mind works as "the thinker"- who believes and the "prover"- who proves whatever beliefs are held by the thinker. In other words, if you believe something, the mind tends to take in or notice information that corroborates one's beliefs (held by the thinker)and to block out data that would conflict with the held belief..and this part of the brain is "the prover" and Robert Anton Wilson shows how our minds work in this way, because humans are designed to seek out, find and discover "meaning." It's in our nature to do so. We feel more alive when we "believe" in "meaning." The name of the book is "Prometheus Rising." Check it out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have a psychological mechanism that bridges the gap between the knowledge we don’t have and the need to feel certain enough to act: belief.

You believe the car will work. And that your driving ability is sufficient to cope with the trials and tribulations that stand between you and Nancy Reagan Elementary School, where -- you believe -- your 7-year-old will soon be ready for pickup.

I wouldn't say that it's belief, but more a suspension of my giving attention to what could go wrong. I don't "believe" the car will work... it either will or won't and I'll have to adapt on the fly accordingly. Likewise I don't "believe" in my driving ability, I rely on my skills and understand that they may or may not be good enough come what may.

And my 9 year old at the local elementary school may or may not be there at pickup time. It doesn't matter, pickup time is pickup time. If he's there when I arrive, great, if not, I know where to find him (in the principal's office because he probably quoted Michael Franti and pissed off his über Republikaaner teacher again).

It's a great piece but I just don't buy the premise. Language matters. "belief" isn't the bridge. Suspension of attention, on worst-case or any other potential outcome, is the bridge.

The difference between most atheists I know, myself included, and the god-squad is that we see this crucial distinction between suspension of attention and belief. We split hairs more accurately and don't cover that up with phony hoohah and magic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Buddha taught that one should not believe what he is told, even if it is the Buddha who has told you. One should see for oneself.
The Buddha also teaches that there is no difference between subject and object; the cause and effect occur together – exactly as QM finds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Giordano Bruno(1548-1600) aka the Nolan after Nola,the town of his birth, was a Dominican monk,priest, philosopher, cosmologist, memory expert, playwright and poet who was tried and condemned by the Roman Inquisition in 1592.Imprisoned and tortured for eight years, Bruno refused to recant his views,arrived at without benefit of a telescope,that the earth was not the "center of the universe" and positing that there could be life on other planets. His opinions subverted the Church teaching that the earth was God's unique creation and the only object of Redemption by God's sacrificing of Jesus, God's Son and the second "person" of the Trinity.

Giordano Bruno was burned alive in February of 1600 in Rome's chief marketplace, the Campo dei Fiori.

Forty years later,Galileo's "friend", Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, Bruno's Inquisition Prosecutor,convinced Galileo to recant and avoid Bruno's fate.

Galileo was silenced and lived out his days under virtual house-arrest while Bellarmine was rewarded by the Catholic Church with sainthood. A statue representing Giordano stands in the Campo dei Fiori where freethinkers gather every February to honor him. The Vatican has "rehabilitated" Galileo but remained silent about his predecessor.

To be "fair" and factual--the Inquisition didn't burn heretics, their rules forbade "shedding of blood" so compliant civil governments in Italy, Spain,etc. carried out the sentences. No record exists of the Roman government EVER pardoning or commuting the Church's death decrees. The reason is obvious: they would have been denounced and incinerated.

Daer Mi, self-described religious expert-scholar (posting on the 1st article of this series) says the real problem is not religions power, but governments using religion "to control the People's opinion" ignoring the historic use of government by organized religion to further the goal of religion to control society, science, literature, art, sexual expression and every human endeavor.

That is why the Founders, well-educated in history, embedded separation of Church and State so deeply in the Constitution. No matter how loudly the true believers deny and decry it, we breach the "wall" between government and religion at our peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is intresting is that when religion comes to your door step in the form of "Holy rollers" or what ever they call themselves, no one wants to listen,and its tolerated. But if some one came to their door to tell ing them there is no God, these people would try to form a lynch mob to hang them from the nearest tree.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent article! Very thought provoking and well explained.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Have Had a Fucking Great Time

Instead of reading about ancient literature about not having sex and persecuting those that do

I have not only been able to enjoy a wank

I have also been able to make friends with girls and fall in love with them

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You see, I've become so engulfed in giving back [WORK] that I only wish to make it to the portal of a kind of communed intertwining with others.

If someone could just tell me how I might become included with humanity instead of excluded from others by their rhetoric of their perceived purpose or mission.

What really troubles me is that I feel like I stand as an American today IN THIS BIZARRE KIND OF NIGHTMARE. Must I put aside the pettiness of exclusion and hope and pray and plead to all inclusion as the only way I will ever make it?

If only someone out there could tell me...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DETROIT — Ron Asheton, the guitarist for the Stooges whose raw sound helped inspire the first generation of punk musicians, has died. He was 60.

Asheton was found at his Ann Arbor home early Tuesday morning by police officers after they were called by an associate who had not heard from him in several days, said city police Sgt. Brad Hill.

There were no signs of foul play, and the death appeared to be of natural causes, Hill said.

Asheton was a founding member of the Stooges, the influential protopunk band formed in Ann Arbor in 1967, along with his brother, Scott.

Lead singer Iggy Pop called Asheton "my best friend" in a statement Tuesday, and the band expressed shock at his death.

"For all that knew him behind the facade of Mr. Cool & Quirky, he was a kind-hearted, genuine, warm person who always believed that people meant well even if they did not," the band said in a written statement. "As a musician Ron was The Guitar God, idol to follow and inspire others. That is how he will be remembered by people who had a great pleasure to work with him, learn from him and share good and bad times with him."

Asheton's powerful, distorted guitar on songs like "I Wanna Be Your Dog" and "T.V. Eye" was a hallmark of the group's sound. His "technically adept but also beautifully raw" style was heavily influenced by free jazz and created "beauty out of noise," said Brian Cogan, a punk-music historian at Molloy College on New York's Long Island.

"He invents the template for punk-rock guitar," Cogan said. "He's the one who allows Johnny Ramone and the guys in the Dictators to play the way they do."

When he was named the 29th greatest guitarist of all time in 2003 by Rolling Stone, the magazine described Asheton as "the Detroit punk who made the Stooges' music reek like a puddle of week-old biker sweat."

After recording three albums in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Stooges split and Iggy Pop went on to a successful solo career. Asheton played guitar for bands including the New Order, New Race, Destroy All Monsters and Dark Carnival.

In 2003, Asheston reunited with the rest of the Stooges and a new album, "The Weirdness," was released in 2007.

Russ Gibb, who owned Detroit's legendary Grande Ballroom and gave the Stooges their first major show there in 1968, said Asheton was a gentleman in all of their dealings.

"Wherever he is today, it's a better place because he's there," Gibb said Tuesday. "He was a gentleman musician. The musicland that you and I live in has lost something today and wherever musicians go, they're better today because he's there."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I went outside for a smoke about an hour ago - an I had half a can of beer.

I return to smoke the remaining half of my cigarette and my remaining half a can of beer has frozen solid

Well I thought I am not going to open another

So I currently have 2 FROZEN Beer Cans - both containing about half a pint of beer - in front of my Coal Effect FIRE Powered by Clean North Sea Gas

And The Californian Green Evangelists Are Still Saying That CO2 Causes Global Warming

I say well I don't know about California

But Its Fucking FREEZING Here

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey, this history lesson is really getting drilled into me. I may eventually start thinking like Dwight. If he cuts and pastes it a couple dozen more times, that is...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who in the world (in the name of God?) is Dwight Baker and why does he talk so much? And doesn't he get it that we heard him the first eight times he posted that comment?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A titanic struggle Mr Beinart wages: one may leif he succeeds!!

What Is Ought to Be; what Ought to be Is.

And, yes, perhaps Mr Beinart or someone soon can make Janus face One Way!! After all, we now have so much Technology!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MOTIVATIONS for belief -- why are there no comments regarding this? I find 3 huge human characteristics at play here, which could be applied equally well to religious or anti-religious belief, and wonder how any discussion can be rigorous without them.

One, my biggest, is this. We tend to feel incomplete in ourselves, deep down, unconsciously, empty and needy,in fact, and we try to meet these needs with comfort from outside ourselves. We are psychologically and emotionally needy and "empty", and I suspect this phenomenon is encouraged in most world cultures, as it most certainly is in our American cultures, so we are being raised to be this way. Further, we avoid getting our needs fulfilled realistically, because for one thing, that empty needy place is emotionally guarded and no access is allowed, and for another, our culture tends to thoroughly avoid the reality of such deep needs, and provides little if any focused help, even in the mental health profession. That place is actually not empty at all, but instead filled with deep pain that we must avoid at all costs. Modern therapy tends to be sadly ineffective at dealing with this.

Two, how about that ego thing about annihilation? We don't want to accept the thought of our lives coming to an end, and we will desperately search, again, outside ourselves, for salvation from that scary concept. And you will find that most religions, including new age or hindi or zen or buddhist or native american, etc, have that aspect in their dogma. They're saying, don't worry, you will go to God, or you are God, or some other version that will assuage the fears of death.

Third, how about this human thing about being right? Don't we all have it, and doesn't it effect our ability to not only converse with others, but to see the arguments objectively? It seems to me, what good is it to have a position if it's 90% fueled by this rightness characteristic?

As for me, I avoid any label for my positions, but I certainly try hard to be not religious, and have little or no remaining suspicions that there is a God at work, at least not the kind anyone is telling me is there. As for the mysteries of life and humanhood and the beauties of nature and love and relationships and family and the powerful draws of connection and inspiration, yes, yes, yes, I believe in all of that, and I don't feel capable of explaining it all. It's too much for me to explain. Though I'll always keep trying.

I got the number one characteristic, that deep unconscious need for healing, handled in myself to a huge degree in therapy of the type that Wilhelm Reich developed, enough so that I suddenly no longer needed to look outside myself for salvation. It was clear it all happens on the inside, with personal psychic material. And it became increasingly easier for me to see these underlying, unspoken motivations in myself and in others and in the race in general.

Unfortunately there are not many true reichian therapists now, but I was lucky to find one. No, two.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1st, wikipedia is not a solid reference.

2nd, if i could give you less than a 1 one your posts, i would.

You have been posting and posting and posting the same thing the same thing the same thing, not in anyway apart of a conversation which requires one to give attention as well as take.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MR. BAKER...Your judgments be damned. You are only an arrogant Right wing Christist of the dominion philosophy, hell bent on world wide Christian domination. You propound "Belief" in your purpoted "God","Jesus Christ" as the only way humanity will be "saved". First off...Belief is the lowest form of human understanding. One who believes is taking a position bereft of the depths of true inquiry and fundamental scientific methodology to aquire relative truth. I advise anyone seeking understanding of the depths of the motives of the Christian right's attempts to undermind our government, our schools and our political system, to go to the yurica report.com to read up on the Dominionist movement. You will be scared shitless. Dwight Baker is a dominionist. May his creedo be unveiled as the conspiracy it tries so hard to hide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of the greatest shortcomings by people seeking historic and scientific proof of Jesus, is that they immediately discount the Bible as a reliable source. But in reality, the Bible shows itself to be among the most reliable on record when compared with other old historical coverage of people and events.

For instance, historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only EIGHT known copies of his work.

By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages. So there’s much more documented evidence of what happened during those early years surrounding Jesus’ life and those of His followers and writers.

So if you want to totally discount any writings about Jesus, outside the Bible, there are other historians who have added written evidence that Jesus was an actual person who lived and died during those years that are contained in the Bible.

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) was considered the greatest historian of ancient Rome. He wrote of Nero who "punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus [Christ], the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originiated, but through the city of Rome also."

Also, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, (A.D. 38-100+) wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities, saying that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, that Jesus was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected

The existence of Jesus Christ is recorded not only by Josephus and Tacitus, but also by ancient writers such as Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian. And from the Jewish Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God.”

Looking at those “Christ-followers” who wrote about Jesus, one can evaluate their honesty and authenticity when describing what they saw and recorded about Jesus by weighing their reasoning and statements about Jesus – there and then when it was actually taking place.
If we are objective in our approach, we can safely assume there are a few widely accepted rules for proving the credibility of older documents.:
One – was the writer of the document an eyewitness to the events he records or was he at least a contemporary that lived in the same area of the events?
Two --were there other independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence?
Three – did those witnesses continue to maintain their testimonies until death—even to the jeopardy of their lives?
Four – were there also hostile witnesses who would have reason not to believe the evidence but still say the events occurred?
If all of these four factors are in solid evidence, then reliability becomes very acceptable. With the New Testament documents, we have all four evidences in a firm position for credibility if you take the time to check out all the available writings on various sites and see for yourselves, because it’s too long for me to show all those writings.
(I'll give a little more information in
my following comment -- too long for this one)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The fool, Dwight Baker, is the one who mythically (and not with pure intent) INVENTS the story of "the atheist creating a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover holy days".
Atheists have more sense than to forego a holiday.
We don't care what you do on those days (well, Dwight, what DO you do?).
We chill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is trite, even for you, Dwight. Get some new material.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IF you do not believe in a supreme being that rules the roost, and have the courage to say so - THEN you will be ostracised, vilified and shunned.
I believe that is the MAIN reason so many apparently rational, intelligent, thinking people say a vague YES when asked if they believe in - WHATEVER.

"Just Say Yes" has become their way of avoiding a social embarrassment which has a very poor chance of resolution (you're not dealing with logic when you talk religion to most folks).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dwight Baker wrote: Good kind and sensible folks need advocacy instead having to step back or cower down to the ones who have lacks in common sense/ reason and a obvious disregard for their fellow man demonstrated in their words toward actions.

As a manager and editor do you understand that people seldom do as expected but perform much better when their words and deeds done are inspected? Would it be wise then, for you to make a personal evaluation of what is getting posted and by whom? Therefore, is it ---ALL at Alter Net duty to execute and perform their best in the light of the mission statement purposes and mandates?

It's just barely coherent, but that's comedy! Precisely what "mission statement purposes and mandates" are you suggesting the staff at AlterNet are failing to execute? Do they need to advocate for their readers and commenters who were repeatedly attacked in your own posts? Who in this thread has shown an obvious disregard for their fellow man, and who is demonstrating a lack of reason and common sense?

You'd do well to re-read Matthew 7:5, Dwight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Give it a rest, brother.

If you can show where I've ever advocated for anything remotely resembling anarchy or revolution, I'll admit you're right and never post here again. Otherwise, face the fact that you're simply flailing wildly in the dark, desperate to attract some more attention, the last of which you'll get from me is this post.

Dwight, you must be a very lonely person. Commmenters here have tried to engage you in actual dialogue and you respond with righteous indignation, name-calling and pious posturing. I can't imagine what a face-to-face conversation with you must be like.

Naturally, you didn't see fit to respond to the direct questions I posed to you. It's a shame you can't or won't endeavor to some self-reflection to understand why others on this forum seem to have turned away from you. Your posts, instead of life, could very well be the subject of Macbeth's rueful rant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

if you enjoy his books, his movies & this article...

you'll love last night's podcast

The Jeff Farias Show - Thurs..8.Jan.08

Hour 1: Rabbi Michael Lerner is an American rabbi, political activist, the editor of Tikkun, a progressive Jewish and interfaith magazine based in Berkeley, California, and the rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue of San Francisco. He penned this article for Tikkun. http://files.tikkun.org/current/article … 2124321774

Hour 2: Larry Beinhart author of Salvation Boulevard is a page-turning thriller in the tradition of John Grisham and Richard Condon that grapples with the ecstatic and entropic nature of religious faith in contemporary America. http://www.larrybeinhart.com

Hour 3: Judy Rebick is the CAW-Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy at Ryerson University in Toronto. Judy was the founding publisher of Rabble.ca - Canada’s most popular progressive online publication. She is the author of several books, the most recent of which is Ten Thousand Roses: The Making of a Feminist Revolution. For most the 1990s, Judy was the host of a national TV show on CBC Newsworld. Previously, she was president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Canada’s largest women’s group. She returns with a report on her recent arrest at a protest occupation of the Toronto Israeli Consulate.

We also spoke with Professor Neve Gordon chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, and the author of Israel’s Occupation. His latest article for The Guardian newspaper is titled ‘The Dire Cost of Domestic Rivalries’ “This first complete history of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip allows us to see beyond the smokescreen of politics in order to make sense of the dramatic changes on the ground that have developed over the past four decades. Looking at a wide range of topics from control of water and electricity to healthcare and education, as well as surveillance and torture, Neve Gordon’s panoramic account reveals a fundamental shift from a reliance on a politics of life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you afraid I didn't catch this the first 9 times you pasted it? Fear not-- I dutifully read all your responses to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Or are you just one of the NO NAMES of the diminishing few in the CRAZED CROWD that will go away sooner than you expect to have access to serious dialog."

Dwight, pelicanbeak ASKED you for a "serious dialog" [sic] many times and you evaded.

"But maybe someday soon some one or group will come along that has ways to go to the source of this idiocy and put a stop. "

Wow, Dwight-- that sounds vaguely like a threat! I hope you don't get banned for violating the rules of decorum. Luckily you phrased it hypothetically.

"My take is that their connections to one another are in some illicit sub-culture that is obscene. "

Yep, that's it. It couldn't possibly be that we each individually wanted to engage in an actual dialogue or just have some fun with a guy whose sense of self-importance is immeasurable.

Dwight's on to us, guys. Shut down "Operation Harangue the Crackpot."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: "Within the nucleus of the CRAZED CROWD there is a ringleader----- as in all efforts by [mortal man only] some one must be in Charge. "

Dwight, you're not important enough to deserve a ringleader. Quit patting yourself on the back so hard. No one is in charge.

We're all just a bunch of smalltime independent freelancers, looking for wisdom from someone who knows, and meanwhile wasting our time with you. Any supposed organized effort on our part is simply a product of your own feelings of grandiosity.

How does it feel to be the guy who chose the One True God? That makes you even bigger than God himself, because you chose Him! It must be hard living with the amount of hubris you shoulder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just want a simple question answered, Dwight, because you cite the Bible as truth so much.

Why have you chosen to put your faith in the Bible's truth?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everything you've said makes me feel alienated and excluded from society, Dwight.

Why is it so important that only those who share your beliefs are correct?
Why do you claim those who don't share your beliefs are excluded?

Why do you hold the faith you do with such fervency, Dwight?
Why do you refuse to share any reasons?

If you have good reasons why others should accept God as you have, which you're not sharing, you are an agent for EXCLUSION AGAINST GOD, and NOT one who seeks INCLUSION UNDER GOD FOR ALL PEOPLE.

Why do you seek to divide other people this way, Dwight?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would hope you don't include me in the CRAZED RAT PACK CROWD whose opaqueness loss has you concerned.

My efforts are all about maintaining the opaqueness.
I'm on your side regarding this one, Dwight.

Opaqueness must be maintained!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Between 1/14 and 1/15, all of his posts here were removed.

Only the responses to his posts remain.

Ironic that he was the one trying to get other people's posts removed.

I still love you, Dwight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]