majority of people in the USA living in the world of myth, superstition,
and unreason, with imaginary supernatural beings.
Children have to be carefully taught.
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/5561/ifriendsk8.gif
God: generic term for any of 2,500+ imaginary supernatural beings in
human history. Note: the majority of voters in the United States
believe in imaginary supernatural beings and expect their elected
leaders to do the same. No agnostics or atheists (god-free rationalists)
need apply. I want my leaders to live in the world of reason where
evidence is required for belief. In the world of faith, NO evidence is
required for belief in imaginary supernatural beings. Faith-based
policies start with the conclusions, then "fit the facts" around the a
priori policies. For instance, the earth is 6,000 years old...or Iraq
has WMD...or only the "right" kind of Christians are acceptable for
public office. In all of human history there has not been a shred of
evidence for anything supernatural. All the gods were created by man and
too often are accepted as real with no evidence, leaving the believers
living in the world of myth, superstition and imaginary supernatural beings.
--C Hamilton
One of my favorite gods: Lord Ganesh
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/1073/ganeshyb5.jpg
Ganesha, the elephant-headed son of Shiva and Parvati, is widely worshipped
as the supreme god of wisdom, prosperity and good fortune.
One nation, under god...
http://yfrog.com/2qonenationundergodmed8uig
===================
The God of Intellectuals
8/3/2011
by Margret Aldrich
http://www.utne.com/The-Sweet-Pursuit/The-God-of-Intellectuals.aspx#ixzz1UhOz6D9D
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9117/supernaturalev.jpg
When Albert Einstein turned 50 in 1929,
an interviewer asked him point-blank
Do you believe in God?
Big Questions Online, a publication of the John
Templeton Foundation,recounts his answer:
"I am not an atheist," he began. "The problem involved is too vast for our
limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge
library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must
have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the
languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious
order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it
seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward
God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but
only dimly understand these laws."
In a recent video posted on The Browser, Jonathan Pararajasingham, a medical
doctor based in the UK, collects footage of 50 renowned academics talking
about God. The speakers come from philosophical and scientific fields like
physics, chemistry, astronomy, and anthropology and include Noam Chomsky,
Steven Hawking, Richard Feynman, and Peter Singer, among others-all atheist
or temperately agnostic in their views. ("Most scientists don't think about
God enough to know whether they believe in him or not," says physicist
Lawrence Krauss.)
The similarities between many of the academics' thoughts-ranging from
evidence-based belief to a focus on human suffering and justice to vague
disinterest-are striking. What is also striking, though, is the homogeneity
of the speakers. Would the discussion change if more female or culturally
diverse academics were represented? How would it transform if it expanded to
include individuals in the fields of art, literature, and music? What would
Mozart, whose "Requiem Mass in D Minor" accompanies part of the film, tell
us about God?
50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God
http://youtu.be/s47ArcQL-XQ
http://thebrowser.com/videos/50-renowned-academics-speak-about-god
http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/einstein%E2%80%99s-god
=======================
Good without God?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-31-atheism-morality-evolution-religion_n.htm
Francis Mortyn writes:
humanists@lists.uua.org
August 02, 2011
The assertion that we can be "good without 'God' " troubles me and I would
never argue either for or against such a claim.
That is not because I accept the converse, the claim that one needs a "God"
in order to avoid doing evil things. That's the belief of Mitya in
conversation with Aloysha in "Brothers Karamazov"
I just don't know what it means. "Being good" is pretty well studied from
Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" through Bentham and Mill to Ayn Rand's "The
Virtue of Selfishness" and John Dietrich's Humanism. So far, no final answer
has emerged - but intelligent discussion is ongoing.
Not so with the "God" thing. What does that *mean*? I do not ask what some
people think it means *to them* nor how many they are. I want
*evidence*that the metaphysical question of the existence of X can be
the subject of meaningful discourse when "X" stands for Yahweh or his boy.
I want reasoned Jesuitical arguments, and logical syllogisms invoking
evidence - not just hayseed assertions of what they think you are supposed
to conclude by cherrypicking a few words here and there from one of the
world's many sacred books.
Meaningful discourse requires that all parties to the discussion are on the
same page - they must agree on a unique meaning for this any every other
term used, otherwise they will only talk past each other. Contra principia
negantem non est disputandum *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_principia_negantem_non_est_disputandum
*Without agreement on language, there's no dialogue.
Agreement may be only temporary by stipulation, but agreement on meaning of
terms used is absolutely indispensable if discourse is to proceed.
Wittgenstein says something like this: When there's nothing to talk about,
it makes no sense to talk about it.
So before I can consider Greg Epstein's book-title thesis about people being
good without "God," or this USA TODAY headline claim, first I would need to
know exactly what Greg means by the G-word. Congress and the UN have never
yet told us that only one definition of this creature is the valid one.
If we can indeed be good without "X," then why should "X" mean only an
imaginary deity? I think "X" may stand for unicorns. So we can announce an
amazing assertion: Breaking news! We can be good without unicorns! Wow, I
was so worried, I thought that without unicorns everybody would be robbing
and pillaging and raping their grandmothers.
Now, what about those leprechauns and fairies? Mermaids? And Santa Claus's
elves? Can we be good without them? Oh, this is such a worrisome issue.
No, no, no. Beliefs are worth less than the diploma you got from the back of
your cereal box. What matters is NOT what you believe - it's what you DO.
Human *behavior* matters.
Beliefs are seldom interesting unless we can trace *actions* to beliefs -
and even then, let's deal with the acts, and leave alone at least the
harmless among the beliefs. Believe or disbelieve as you choose - what I
will be watching is *behavior.*
If some ignorant fundie wants to tell you that the G-word refers exclusively
to his invisible friend. and no other person's invisible friend, fine. If it
works for him, tell him to have a ball.
I like the play "Harvey." In the film version, Elwood Dowd is acted by
James Stewart. His invisible friend is Harvey, the rabbit or *pooka,* much
bigger and more powerful than all other rabbits. And Elwood believes in
Harvey and has accepted Harvey into his heart.
His life is now lived with the giant invisible rabbit that walks with him
and talks with him and tells him he's not alone, Elwood is a pretty decent
guy and harmless. A psychiatrist (or Nurse Ratched) may want to "cure" him,
but a taxi driver is wiser - it's better to let it be.
So if some bible-grasping hayseed wallows in his blind faith, all I want to
know is: Who is being harmed? How? And *cui bono*?
If a fundie wants to talk to you about "God," never respond by contradicting
him. If you say "God doesn't exist" or "I don't believe in God" you are
implicitly conceding that "God" is a word that has *meaning,* that it *could
* refer to something and so this "God" *could* exist.
Far better to respond to his question with a question - like a Talmudic
scholar. Ask him first "What do you *mean* by 'God?' " then "Why?" and
"Why?" and Why?" and watch him squirm.
http://beauty-truth-and-goodness.wikispaces.com/
=================
"But just what is the core of (the atheist or god-free) radical message?
Well, it goes something like this: If you claim that something is true, I
will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no
evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a
foolish and gullible person for believing it so."
--Dan Gardner
FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge,
of things without parallel.
--The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce
Religion, n.
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the
Unknowable.
Encyclopedia of Gods: Over 2,500 Deities of the World
http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Gods-Over-Deities-World/dp/0816029091
http://www.godchecker.com/
Faith= belief with NO evidence
Reason: evidence required for belief
Evolution =natural selection
Intelligent design = supernatural selection
Did your favorite imaginary supernatural being attend the intelligent design
planning meetings?
http://snurl.com/id_meeting
The ultimate god FAQ
After centuries of study, a compilation of everything which is known about
god has been compiled in this ultimate god FAQ:
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/index.html
That means there is no demonstrable cognitive evidence.
If you have better information, report it here: collect a million dollars
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
In all of human history there has never been a shred of evidence for
anything supernatural.
Which religion is god?
The premise is that a philosopher scientist specializing in theological
anthropology is visiting Earth from another galaxy, and is asking questions
and fortunately came in contact with a secular humanist living in the world
of reason:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7660/galaxy8nv.jpg
"The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in
something because one wishes it to be so."
--Louis Pasteur
==============
C Hamilton
a moderator of
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-continuum/
adult humor/opinion/pictures
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.
No comments:
Post a Comment