I agree entirely with her motive as to why she speaks out, ...

an obligation to others who have doubts about religion but cannot seem to get themselves clear of its cultural pull without some outside clarity.

Of course the fideists, those who holds faith above reason as a superior path to the truth, cannot be helped. Reason never brought them to religion, and it surely will not pull them away. This is why religion is likely to remain for a very, very long time.

Philosophically I see ALL sensory stimulation, in whatever form, needing to be cognitively mapped out. We must both trust all our sensory stimuli as real (if only at the personal level) but not accept them de facto as proof of reality.

Thanks for the read.

I think I should read her book. But....

Well I must say that I agree with the major failings of Religion which she has pointed out.

But what frustrates me when debating with Atheists is that they often use religion as a reason to discredit the existence of god. That is a fallacy.

While I'm not a follower of any major religion, I am a believer in a higher power. In fact as of now, if you take science to it's very limits in the various forms of physics... the existence of a higher power is the only reasonable conclusion.

I believe Atheists in general are just too caught up in the external world of Religion and Science as combative political forces and have not spent the necessary time to deeply ponder their own mind and soul and seek their own answers.

As Robert M. Pirsig once said, the same Buddha that is in the motorcycle is in your mind as well.

Just my opinion

A good sceptic

I good, thorough sceptic questions all dogmas, including atheism.

I see few good sceptics in the fundamentalist atheist movement.

But of course...

"..even the humanist-secularist-atheist crowd is subject to that old problem of blindness when it comes to women's accomplishments. "

Nah, you couldn't expect that, since they don't know the Goddess either. The fault of the 'monotheistic' religions is not that they are religions, for that isn't really the case, but that even the religions they purport to be are truncated so as to have removed one whole half of their features, namely the feminine aspect. But then again, that is not true either, for they have stuff like holy virgins and satanic verses all over the map. This is what makes this whole issue so difficult to discuss rationally: we are looking at some Russian doll of lies and pretenses and hypocrisies, one within the other. Nobody is who or what they claim to be. A 'religion' which occupies itself with the doings or the supposed worth and legitimacy of people not following it is no religion at-all, but just another kind of fascism, dressed up as something finer. Of the three middle-east-generated sets of claimed revelations, Judaism has gone some way towards redeeming itself and now acts in important ways as a true religion. It does not now have ugly names or defined punishments for non-adherents who break its rules. The other two need to clean up their act or pack it in.

For decent religion, look to the really old, usually moronically filed under 'New age'. You need to find a balance between male and female, Heaven and Earth, summer and winter, and all the other important pairings, and proper respect for all life, including our living planet. You cannot claim to be religious and leave your gum-wrappers and paper-cups all over the place, not to mention going trophy-hunting.

"Religion", "atheism", blah, blah, blah.

People get hung up on labels and set their hair on fire about their selected targets for their ire. Yippee, they conjure up "a cause".
I suggest, instead of focusing on labels, try focusing on what the REAL problem in our society is: A lack of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

From The Masses:

How is a higher power a "reasonable conclusion?" Sure, physics can't explain the universe now, but the whole point of science is that it is a never-ending endeavour. A few hundred years ago we didn't understand how species came to exist, but science managed to come up with a pretty darn good explanation.

The current lack of scientific explanations does not make belief in a higher power any more reasonable - it just means we haven't figured something out yet. Frankly, as a scientist, I view it as a cop-out... the real story is always much more interesting than "oh, that was God."

There was an older form...

of belief (note, I did not say religion) that included women as fully half of society, in every way. Gnosticism. A small part of whose writings the bible has been taken from. Very selected parts at that.

One only has to read the Book of Thomas to see where the books Mathew, Mark and Luke came from...yet Thomas was never included in the Bible. Too liberal and too equalizing maybe?

Religion was not created by God for Man - religion was created by Man for Man...and in the process they niftily dropped all positive references to females as having any worth other than cooking, cleaning and spreading their legs when it was demanded of them.

Destroying religion is a good idea, its purpose was never to serve God...but to keep all of us under universal control. Some more than others. Only then might people actually begin to look inside themselves for answers to the questions religion cannot, or will never, answer.

What frustrates me...

... about debating with 'believers' is one cannot reason with faith.

"She points to the Bishop of

"She points to the Bishop of Phoenix stripping St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix Arizona of its Catholic designation in December, preventing the hospital saying mass in its chapel because doctors performed an abortion to save a mother's life."

Good. I'm always happy to see the Church of Rome driving its remaining members away

re: Velox

Science is fantastic, and as a scientist I think you would really enjoy reading "13 Things that Don't Make Sense" by Michael Brooks.

The issue isn't "oh that was God." It's that some of the discoveries that leading scientists and physicists are making are so precise, intricate and interrelated that creative design seems a more reasonable conclusion than sheer chaos.

Live & Let Live

I'm an atheist who believes in religious freedom, and I say that there cannot be true religious freedom unless you have separation of church & state. Many religious people know this to be true as well. e.g. http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/07/07/baptists-urged-to-fight-for-church-state-separation/

Atheism

I am an atheist but believe in creative design NOT by GOD but by Alien beings who have an advanced scientific biological technology, that mankind has not yet achieved. Earth is just one of their scientific experiments, in the universe, which they visit from time to time to see how their experiment is progressing. Through science, mankind will discover all the mysteries of existence. Religion keeps man shackled by fear and the sword to man-made fantasies, fairytales and non-sensical ancient rituals. Religion runners do not want to give up political and mind control of the masses. Too bad our governments are so afraid of progress, intelligence and knowledge.

to discredit the existence

to discredit the existence of god.
======

Where is your proof? You say a 'god' exists (which one btw?) so prove it?

Dan the socialist

That's exactly the problem Dan. You can't have someone prove the existence of god for you. It's something you have to do for yourself.

But let me flip the question back on its head to show you just how far it gets us. Where is your proof that God doesn't exist?

You may be able to disprove factual claims espoused in religious texts, but as I stated before, Science and Belief and not a dichotomy.

*are not

*are not

Hitchens and the Flying Spaghetti Monsters

FromTheMasses--Do you believe in flying spaghetti monsters?

If not, please prove to me that they don't exist.

Or perhaps you prefer not to waste your time debating nonsense with fools?

Ism/ology and the Self-righteous

The article asks:

Quote:

"Why would God favour men?"

There is absolutely no evidence of this....scientific or otherwise.

If you have this rarest of info, please give your 'Source'. ;-)

Quote:

"As noisy rhetoric from the god squad escalated and religious debates began replacing political discourse, she noticed a growing number of attacks on women in the name of religion."

Sorry, but there is no greater religion than politics.

Quote:

"Benson agrees with her opponents that religion's strong suit is that it creates a sense of community, but she argues there's no reason that a community has to be built around religion. A lot of good people do good things in the name of religion, but they could be doing good things through other institutions."

Perhaps, Ms. Benson, it's 'the institutionalization' of belief
systems....and non-belief belief systems, that is the real problem.

Quote:

"He said, 'I thought was the only one,'" Benson remembers. "I think it is your obligation [as a citizen] in public discourse and in writing to talk about this so others know they are not alone."

I know the feeling.

Last year when commenting on a thread here about atheism....a few of us with differing views from the general atheist trend of the thread were about to be loaded on to trains to be deported into 'resettlement camps to the east'.

For 're-training'.

It was an illuminating experience to say the least....

It's time we all took 'the ism' out of 'all' of our isms....

The religion of atheism, of belief in non-belief, has all the same pitfalls, contains all the same vanities of certainty... and the same potential for becoming a self-righteous controlling tyranny as any other religion.

the vanities of certainty...

I like that, Lynn. There are those who believe that religion is the problem... or that feminism is the problem...or that politics are the problem. In a nutshell, I think it is those "vanities of certainty" that are the problem.

It seems that humans coalesce around ideas and ideology, or theology (thealogy, perhaps) for reasons of comfort; the comfort found in communties of like-minded people, I suppose. I say I suppose because I really don't understand it - for me the most interesting communities are always the most varied. The mind-numbing boredom of the 'fifties suburb ideal is my version of hell (for Dorothy, hel). And I can't quite call myself an atheist, although I am comfortable enough with agnostic - because for me, agnostic describes the kind of open-minded approach that leads to a sense of wonder and the joys of mystery in life. But without a doubt, I must reject all forms of organized (as you say,Lynn, 'institutionalized' may be a better word) religion, for it must be a private thing for each person to decide upon their views and values in relation to the spiritual. Anything less is intellectually dishonest...atheism must certainly count as one of those choices which others are free to make; the more these matters are openly discussed the less hold the tyranny of any belief will have.

Thoughts

"A belief is not true because it is useful" ~ Henri Federic Amiel 1821-1881
-------------------

I am prepared to admit any well-established result of science, not as certainly true, but as sufficiently probable to afford a basis for rational action ...

The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction. ...

Consequently people fight for and against quite irrelevant measures, while the few who have a rational opinion are not listened to because they do not minister to any one's passions.

From Bertrand RUSSELL's The Value of Scepticism

"and delight to Reason join'd"

Thank you, VivianLea:

"and I can't quite call myself an atheist, although I am comfortable enough with agnostic - because for me, agnostic describes the kind of open-minded approach that leads to a sense of wonder and the joys of mystery in life. "

I understand this well. As I grow older, I am more and more aware of how the sand constantly shifts mysteriously under one's feet...but it does teach you how to dance. ;-)

samuidave:

Are reason and passion necessarily antagonistic to each other? In discord? Perhaps, they are complementary to each other in a harmonious unity....existing for, and, because of one another, each strengthened because of that most reasoned and delightful co-existence. Neither being sacrificed for the other...."and delight to Reason join'd".

lynn

"Are reason and passion necessarily antagonistic to each other?"

No, and I do not think Russell is striking out at passion; his point is that opinion takes on more passion as the reason supporting it wanes, to the point where the opinion becomes wholly passionate and devoid of reason.

Consider claims of esotericism by the religious community, as though they have some special insight or knowledge of the truth. Now, certainly from a skeptical stance, they just might. But since there is no proof of this knowledge other than heresay or personal sensation, let's just say one man's claim of esoteric insight is another woman's claim of a delusion.

Fideism is one way of taking in life; rationalism is another. I'm more comfortable with the latter, but there is no lock on the truth. But some things are likely closer to the real truth than others ;)

"We do not know what we do not know"

samuidave

I had to google fideism. ;-)

"No, and I do not think Russell is striking out at passion; his point is that opinion takes on more passion as the reason supporting it wanes, to the point where the opinion becomes wholly passionate and devoid of reason."

I don't think Russell's assumption is necessarily true. There is much evidence here on these threads of posters who post here passionately, precisely because they have found growing evidence/reasons to support their opinion eg. that this province is in 'deep doo-doo' ( a wholly scientific term ;-). Is there anyone more passionate than you, samuidave, about the need for independent candidates? Certainly, your passion is because of the many reasons that you find support your opinion. If you had less reasons to support your opinion, would you be as passionate about this issue? I don't think so.

Isn't this what Wikileaks is revealing all over the world?...where an increase in informed opinion, based on evidence supplied....is resulting in an increase in passionate opinion/response to that info. Those disclosures of information, are resulting in reason and passion joining hands which to me, at least, is indicative of the highest kind of critical thought in its reasoned and passionate expression of life itself... of the vivacity of life itself....

The necessary integration of reason and passion as a survival response against oppression is the greatest weapon we have against the walking dead now ruling this world.

God, Nature, Men and Women...

"Why would God favour men?"

There is absolutely no evidence of this....scientific or otherwise." from Lynn.

Indeed. I know of no men actually, who feel they are favoured by God... or Nature for that matter. (Which is not to say there are not.)Indeed, given the often fatal attraction to danger of males, often dressed up as "adventure", the friggin' chances we too often take in our lives, again often fatally or otherwise to our detriment, and the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs that even in the age of "equality" are still pretty much done by men, I have often said that God views us in fact as the expendable gender. More, we were created to take risks and be expendable.

And that is only a quick skim of the surface on the argument. :-)

As for atheism.... I am an atheist, firm and sure, and I frequently argue the issue with religious folks. By and large though, I trust "professional" atheists only slightly, a teensy-weensy bit more than priests and clerics.

We are all of the flesh and subject to weakness and temptation... atheists no less than clerics. :-) Women, perhaps, for better sense, only perhaps, some less than men... to keep them out of danger again. As for we men, again, the Gods and the forces of Nature, to say nothing of women :-), are conspired against us. We are and were meant to be expendable.

And Beyond Humankind...

Oh, by the by, it's the testosterone that does that to us, draws us towards embracing with danger. That which makes us horny and "useful" to procreation and the fair sex, is also what too often... kills us.

Not only in the human species either. Consider almost any other animal you might care to.

my yin for your yang, lynn

lynn ~ There is much evidence here on these threads of posters who post here passionately, precisely because they have found growing evidence/reasons to support their opinion.

I am not saying they, passion and reason, must be mutually exclusive. Certainly passion and reason work to sell or convey the message. But a well-reasoned argument can stand passion-free and say exactly the same thing. A weak argument, without passion, would reasonably fail: it needs passion to be convincingly conveyed, and the weaker the argument, the stronger the need for passion to sell it.

lynn ~ Is there anyone more passionate than you, samuidave, about the need for independent candidates?

passionate? omg, I would not call my thinking about 'Independents' passionate. It simply is what it is, relatively obvious upon inspection of the facts. I propagandize the point, hoping to plant a few seeds in the analysis/thinking of others, but I am not shouting it out nor deriding others personally (though I do attack the argument or thinking) because they do not see it.

lynn ~ Certainly, your passion is because of the many reasons that you find support your opinion. If you had less reasons to support your opinion, would you be as passionate about this issue? I don't think so.

If I had less reasons supporting the 'Independents' position, I hope I would refrain from judgment and have little or nothing to say on the matter. But if I was forced to plead the matter like a defense lawyer, I'd be doing my damnedest to appeal emotionally and with as many half-truths as I could dig up.

lynn ~ Those disclosures of information, are resulting in reason and passion joining hands which to me, at least, is indicative of the highest kind of critical thought in its reasoned and passionate expression of life itself... of the vivacity of life itself.

If I understand you correctly, I would have to disagree with the "highest kind of critical thought" idea. It is certainly the most persuasive form of conveying the thinking, but the 'critical' part can be divorced from the argument.

Having said that, I almost immediately disagree with myself in one aspect: one must have a passion about investigation, pursuing the 'truth', itself. But it is an undercurrent separate from the argument.

(cont)

yin for yang, con't

lynn ~ The necessary integration of reason and passion as a survival response against oppression is the greatest weapon we have against the walking dead now ruling this world.

I would not say 'integration' myself, but I agree there has to be some sort of coupling of the forces -- outward passion with the sound, linear reasoning void of passion (but for the 'under-current of investigative passion that permeates a mindset') -- to maximize the energy.

Hmm, what is more passionate than warfare, where millions are willing to murder others indiscriminately because they believe they are right?

Thanks for your thoughts; you are a passionate and reasoned woman. ;)

Fii & VivianLea Doubt

It appears to be a shackle on free thinking.

Quotes:

The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation. (Elizabeth Cady Stanton)

It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible. (George W. Foote)

The bible teaches that women brought sin and death into the world. I don't believe that any man ever talked with god. The bible was written by man out of his love of domination. (Elizabeth Cady Stanton)

The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence of a lunatic asylum in Jerusalem. (Havelock Ellis)

140 Proof

These discussions always come down to the 'there is no proof God exists (atheists) -- you cannot prove God does not exist (believers)' impasse.

To which the believers often add 'do not try using logic to make your case because that is futile since you cannot prove a negative - i.e. you cannot prove God does not exist...

Which is really just another way of saying 'I am going to believe what I want to believe no matter what.

I found this short piece by an expert in Logic that lays it all out:

You Can Prove A Negative

RickOshea

I will go read the article out of interest, but I will argue right now you cannot prove anything. No matter the issue, at some point in reductive reasoning we all hit the wall and must accept something to be true without proof.

This is what sustains the entire theological 'investigation (of nothing)'. In the end, either God 'always was' or the Cosmos 'always was'. I opt for it being the Cosmos, given the choice, because I can more completely sense the Cosmos. But I have many folks very dear to me who choose God. The question is. does it even matter at that level?

Of course religion(s) resets the game and makes its God absurd.

A pragmatic offering

My country of birth had this proverb among its treasures: "every man will be saved by his own faith".

Ain't that the truth of it. The trouble really only arises, when some parties have the audacity to insist that others swerve and bend around their mental turnpikes, in order to keep their fragile faith propped. I don't care what church/temple/synagogue/mosque my neighbor frequents, as long as he has no problem with my stone pile in they yard, where I pour out mead and commune with my ancestral Gods. Each to his own - and let us keep the Frith as we go.

And another thing...

I thought at first that it would not need saying, but after sampling the author's 'blunt prose', I realize I must insert the qualifier, that I have no problem with people's religion, no matter how kooky, kept inside their own walls, but I consider NOTHING acceptable in the name of religion, which would otherwise break the laws of the land. And the land is Canada. And the law is our constitution, read without facetiousness and loophole-hunting. If we don't have that, we have nothing.