The end result of closet atheism?

[Emproph]

Edit: BTW, when I say “closet-atheism,” in this instance I’m talking about the attitude that there is no god - therefore I’m going to exploit the belief in god – for my own benefit – with no fear of any consequences.

I'm NOT talking about people with an ethical standard to do good, I'm talking about the opposite -- the desire to do good only to one's self no matter what the consequences are to others.

Obviously I don't know that this is true of Falwell, but I am asking the question. Because the implications of the answer to that question reach well beyond Jerry Falwell. (end edit)

~~
Jerry Falwell: King of Pomp

Pride is the only legacy that man has left me.
http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven_deadly_sins/pride.html
~~


he said to me one day: I just love these gay demonstrators. Without them, I wouldn't get near the attention I get. If I didn't have them, I would have to invent them.
~~
Christopher Hitchens, not my favorite guy, but it seems he’s been holding out on us (more below):
COOPER: You don't believe that, I mean, in his reading of the Bible, you don't think he was sincere in his -- whether you agree or not with his reading of the Bible, you don't think he was sincere in what he spoke?

HITCHENS: No. I think he was a conscious charlatan and bully and fraud.

And I think, if he read the Bible at all -- and I would doubt that he could actually read any long book of -- at all -- that he did so only in the most hucksterish, as we say, Bible-pounding way.

I think this is why Hitchen’s has been so reserved. Is he not an atheist who understands the depth of corruption most of us are not even capable of comprehending?

Falwell especially comes to mind with this concept. Even Sharpton said he admired his ability to organize. What if he was so talented that he had the ability to “act” every moment of every day?

Every “soul” he saved? He also cemented the idea of anti-gay with the notion of that salvation. Even the legacy of his salvation is FUNDAMENTALLY corrupt.

This isn’t about Jerry Falwell per se, the question is about how likely it is that some if not many of our “Christian" leaders ‘wake up and pinch themselves daily thinking they got away with it again.’

I’m asking because I believe in God. I’m blind to this, yet I suspect it’s true. Why are you atheists not shouting this from the rooftops? (some of us theists WANT to be offended!) ;)

Take a listen:
YkAPaEMwyKU&eurl

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/15/acd.01.html


COOPER: Author and outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens is about as far from Jerry Falwell in his beliefs as one could get. Christian fundamentalists are a major target of his new book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." He joins me now from Raleigh, North Carolina.

Christopher, I'm not sure if you believe in heaven, but, if you do, do you think Jerry Falwell is in it?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "VANITY FAIR": No. And I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to.

COOPER: What is it about him that brings up such vitriol?

HITCHENS: The empty life of this ugly little charlatan

proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called reverend. Who would, even at your network, have invited on such a little toad to tell us that the attacks of September the 11th were the result of our sinfulness and were God's punishment if they hadn't got some kind of clerical qualification?

People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup. The whole consideration of this -- of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us who have some regard for truth and for morality, and who think that ethics do not require that lies be told to children by evil old men, that we're -- we're not told that people who believe like Falwell will be snatched up into heaven, where I'm glad to see he skipped the rapture, just found on the floor of his office, while the rest of us go to hell.

How dare they talk to children like this? How dare they raise money from credulous people on their huckster-like (INAUDIBLE) radio stations, and fly around in private jets, as he did, giggling and sniggering all the time at what he was getting away with?

Do you get an idea now of what I mean to say?

COOPER: Yes, no, I think -- I think you're making yourself very clear.

I mean, I...
(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: How dare he say, for example, that the Antichrist is already present among us and is an adult male Jew, while, all the time, fawning on the worst elements in Israel, with his other hand pumping anti-Semitic innuendoes into American politics, along with his friends Robertson and Graham?

COOPER: And, yet, there are...

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: ... encouraging -- encouraging -- encouraging the most extreme theocratic fanatics and maniacs on the West Bank and in Gaza not to give an inch of what he thought of was holy land to the people who already live there, undercutting and ruining every democratic and secularist in the Jewish state in the name of God?

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: This is -- this is -- he's done us an enormous, enormous disservice by this sort of demagogy.

COOPER: What do you think it says about America that -- and politics in America, that he was so successful in mobilizing huge swathes of the country to come out and vote?

HITCHENS: I'm not certain at all that he did deserve this reputation. And I... COOPER: You don't think he does?

HITCHENS: Well, I'm not certain that he was a mobilizer. He certainly hoped to be one.

Well, the fact is that the country suffers, to a considerable extent, from paying too much, by way of compliment, to anyone who can describe themselves as a person of faith, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Chaucerian frauds, people who are simply pickpockets, who -- and frauds -- who prey on the gullible and...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Do you believe he believed what he spoke?

HITCHENS: Of course not. He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again.

COOPER: You think he was a complete fraud, really?

HITCHENS: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: You don't believe that, I mean, in his reading of the Bible, you don't think he was sincere in his -- whether you agree or not with his reading of the Bible, you don't think he was sincere in what he spoke?

HITCHENS: No. I think he was a conscious charlatan and bully and fraud.

And I think, if he read the Bible at all -- and I would doubt that he could actually read any long book of -- at all -- that he did so only in the most hucksterish, as we say, Bible-pounding way.

I'm going to repeat what I said before about the Israeli question. It's very important. Jerry Falwell kept saying to his own crowd, yes, you have got to like the Jews, because they can make more money in 10 minutes than you can make in a lifetime. He was always full, as his friends Robertson and Graham are and were, of anti- Semitic innuendo.

Yet, in the most base and hypocritical way, he encouraged the worst elements among Jewry. He got Menachem Begin to give him the Jabotinsky Medal, celebrating an alliance between Christian fundamentalism and Jewish fanaticism that has ruined the chances for peace in the Middle East.

Lots of people are going to die and are already leading miserable lives because of the nonsense preached by this man, and because of the absurd way that we credit anyone who can say they're a person of faith.

Look, the president endangers us this way. He meets a KGB thug like Vladimir Putin, and, because he is wearing a crucifix around his neck, says, I'm dealing with a man of faith. He's a man of goodwill.

Look what Putin has done to American and European interests lately. What has the president said to take back this absurd remark? It's time to stop saying that, because someone preaches credulity and credulousness, and claims it as a matter of faith, that we should respect them.

The whole life of Falwell shows this is an actual danger to democracy, to culture, to civilization. That's what my book is all about.

COOPER: The book is "God Is Not Great."

Christopher Hitchens, appreciate you being on the program.

HITCHENS: Thanks for having me.
------------
Does anyone else get the impression that his cynicism has been/is due to 'the fact' that our Christian organizations may be/are run by ego-atheists?

As in, nut-bag-Christian = closeted-ego-atheist.

Does anyone else get that impression at all?

(and before I get pounced on, we're talking pure evil here folks, NOT anyone of the 'love thy neighbor' persuasion.) ;)

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I've heard Mel White talk about Falwell. Mel seemed to have genuine respect and sympathy for Falwell. I believe Mel really believes it when he says that Falwell was sincere, but also sincerely wrong.

One needs to be careful attributing "evil" to another human being. People, after all, brand us as "evil" and "demonic." Yes, here and there there seems to be individuals who are sociopathic and about as close to evil as one can get. But most bad things in the world are accomplished by well-meaning people who are terribly mistaken in some belief or other.

I think Mel seemed to recognize that Falwell was partly motivated by greed for wealth and power, and that he seemed to think attacking gay people was a legitimate way to enhance his wealth and power. But in the end he was badly deluded and self-deceived.

What Mel seemed to appreciate about Falwell was his abilities as a pastor--he did pastor a church. He wasn't all about television. He did care about and love the people of his congregation. The man was just horribly mistaken about gay people and he led millions of others down the same path.

Mel seemed to caution us that we too can be mistaken about what is really true. I think it would be a mistake to paint Falwell as totally evil.

On the other hand, I've always thought it was a good thing that folks like Falwell can't live forever. It's a sad thing that he is probably more remembered for the ugly things that he is done than any good he may have done. That is sad and tragic.

Both Gandhi and Jesus taught us to love our enemies. What does that mean in the case of Falwell, Dobson and D. James Kennedy? It's a tough thing to do.

I'm sorry Christopher Hitchens is reacting to Falwell's death the way that he is--I don't want to be associated with that attitude. I do appreciate that he is angry at Falwell, and don't blame him for that. But I'd rather see him "process" his anger a little differently.

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

I had considered your points Steven and had a whole companion piece to go with that post that came to me last night, fast and furious. I knew I should have written it down. God, I could kick myself. I over thunk it and now its been integrated into my mind.

Falwell's not the point, the phenomenon of the absence of conscience is. Falwell's just a perfect example of what the end result of that kind of thinking would look like. And there's nothing evil about recognizing the truth that he and his ilk exemplify the picture of evil.
---
These guys explain it way better than I could hope to, I was just hoping to to use the timeliness of what's been said of Falwell of late to put my 2¢ spin on it.

I've spent hours on this site going from one link to another. It's fascinating and I just love how succinct and organized it is.
http://www.pro-truth.net/b78-truth.html

It's mostly about the political scam of the anti-abortion industry but the tactics remain the same for the anti-gay industry. It focuses more on explaining the nature of the politics involved.

Also of note on that site:

Recognizing Evil - which includes the section: The Mark of a Master Con Artist:
http://www.pro-truth.net/70a-recognizing-evil.html#MasterConArtist

[Steven E. Webster]

Emproph,

I'm reacting to the way you seem to be labeling "the other side" "evil". How is it different from the way Bush branded "the axis of evil." Once you brand an adversary as simply "evil" what is left to do but to use every method to destroy them?

Many of us Christians have a much more subtle understanding of evil. No one is purely evil and no one is purely good. A proper spiritual attitude from this world view is to be on guard against blinding oneself to the evil that is within oneself. Bush was wrong to describe the "war on terror" as a struggle between those of us on "God's side" and those on the side of "Satan." We should not make the same mistake.

Having said that, I agree with you that there is a group of people, the "neo-conservatives" who are at the same time skeptical of religion AND eager to use religion to further their selfish aims to secure their own wealth and power. They mistakenly believe that religion (it could be any religion) is essential to the "proper" functioning of society while at the same time believing that a society's "elite" are "too smart" to really believe that religious bunk themselves. Religion is a useful tool for the elite to control the masses. These neoconservatives are sincere in their beliefs, but they are sincerely wrong. They are horribly mistaken. In pursuing what they believe to be good, they are committing great evil.

Wolfowitz is one of these neoconservatives. It seems to me that he had a very narrow and mistaken point of view that unfortunately was shared by a group of men (Cheney, Rumsfield etc.) who were masters at manipulating politics and the Washington bureaucracy to achieve their wrong-headed aims. They abused the system and where are they now? The Bush presidency is a failed presidency that is bringing us all no end of woe.

Some Evangelicals are aware that they have been taken for a ride and are no longer willing to follow the Republican party unquestioningly. Search for David Kuo on line for instance.

There is a tradition in Christian theology that suggests that everyone has "good intentions." However according to this view the trouble is that everyone is also liable to be mistaken or deceived. And everyone (more or less) is subject to selfish and shortsighted motives. The wisdom of the modern Enlightenment (17th & 18th centuries--think Thomas Jefferson and the Federalist Papers) is that the wisdom of a proper constitutional democracy is that it brings together different, competing points of view while not giving absolute power to anyone faction. The hope is that all of these fallible human beings will check one another and will cooperatively achieve the best possible outcome. Unfortunately we have had six years of unchecked executive power placed in the hands of a small group of neoconservatives.

The "dominionists" in the Christian Right don't believe in democracy, they believe in some form of theocracy. They also believe the struggle to achieve their ends justifies alliances with folks like the neoconservatives or whoever else will futher their power aims. They really think they are doing good and fighting evil--but they are deceived (and self-deceived).

So, I see some of the same things as you do, Emproph. I just believe it would be a mistake for us to do the same as some of our adversaries and simply divide the world into good and evil. Everyone and everything in this world is a confused mix of good and evil. We actually need our adversaries to sort it all out. The challenge is to open dialogue with our adversaries where we can actually cooperate to find (or move towards) the truth.

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

Emproph,

I'm reacting to the way you seem to be labeling "the other side" "evil". How is it different from the way Bush branded "the axis of evil." Once you brand an adversary as simply "evil" what is left to do but to use every method to destroy them?

[snip]

So, I see some of the same things as you do, Emproph. I just believe it would be a mistake for us to do the same as some of our adversaries and simply divide the world into good and evil. Everyone and everything in this world is a confused mix of good and evil. We actually need our adversaries to sort it all out. The challenge is to open dialogue with our adversaries where we can actually cooperate to find (or move towards) the truth.

Steven Webster
You rebut nothing.

Again:
http://www.pro-truth.net/b78-truth.html

[Zerbie]

I know he'll come back and speak for himself but in the meantime, I think Stephen means that "they" (whoever the "they" is) DO NOT "intend" evil - that they intend something good, and because of various distortions (incomplete understanding, selfishness, over-jealousness of an ideal) the end result gets all screwed up.

At least 90-95% of the time, I think that assessment is correct. Almost no one intends something to be evil.

[Steven E. Webster]

Emproph,

I refer you to this statement of Soulforce Principles:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/679

Notice, in particular #4.

"4. I believe that my adversary's motives are as pure as mine and of no relevance to our discussion."

What would we gain if we could prove Hitchen's claim that Falwell spent his entire waking life knowingly living a lie. First of all, I doubt we could prove it. (and I doubt it is true.) Secondly, whatever Falwell really believed or did not believe, the problem is that millions of people did believe and still believe what Falwell preached. Those people may well not change their minds about homosexuality just because they decided that Falwell was a phony.

The point is we need to take the focus off of fighting the man Falwell and put the focus on seeking the Truth. We do not advance the cause of truth by letting the discussion get bogged down in attacking personalities.

Maybe Hitchens is right about Falwell--the point of principle #4 (above) is that Falwell's motives are irrelevant to the issue. We have the very same problem whether Falwell's motives were pure or entirely corrupted. (The reality is that Falwell, like all of us, was likely a mixture of pure and corrupt motives.)

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

I know he'll come back and speak for himself but in the meantime, I think Stephen means that "they" (whoever the "they" is) DO NOT "intend" evil - that they intend something good, and because of various distortions (incomplete understanding, selfishness, over-jealousness of an ideal) the end result gets all screwed up.

At least 90-95% of the time, I think that assessment is correct. Almost no one intends something to be evil.

If they intend good then I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about people who have no conscience, intelligent people who have no concern for the harm they do to others, but most importantly, are consciously aware of this fact about themselves.

[Emproph]

The point is we need to take the focus off of fighting the man Falwell and put the focus on seeking the Truth. We do not advance the cause of truth by letting the discussion get bogged down in attacking personalities.

Maybe Hitchens is right about Falwell--the point of principle #4 (above) is that Falwell's motives are irrelevant to the issue.

Falwell's not the point, the phenomenon of the absence of conscience is.

We have the very same problem whether Falwell's motives were pure or entirely corrupted. (The reality is that Falwell, like all of us, was likely a mixture of pure and corrupt motives.)

No, I say we have a BIGGER problem if that is true. Look at the difficulty we are already having just discussing the concept of such a level of evil. I'm talking about Falwell as a potential example in order to illustrate the concept of a criminal mind that cannot be reckoned with, and you continue to dismiss this as less important than I am trying to present it.

Since this phenomenon of atheists without consciences is ALREADY OCCURRING, that means that they have already broken every rule in the book to ensure that they secure Theocracy USA. The difference is that it makes the situation that much more dire than we already think it is.

Which makes it not a matter of any Soulforce principle, but one of survival itself.

[Emproph]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/x9xgenx9x/fp4kew_th.gif

[Steven E. Webster]

Emproph,

Suppose Falwell was "an atheist without conscience"--a supposition I think to be highly unlikely. What then? Would somehow exposing that as fact change anything? Would all the Christian Evangelicals who practice spritual violence against gay people suddenly be converted into our allies?

I believe, as I suggested above, that some of the so-called "neoconservatives" are very close to the "atheists without conscience" that you describe and that Falwell was an ally or even a pawn for them even though Falwell was a true-believer in the Scholfield Reference Bible. Nevertheless, I believe that these neoconservatives, as corrupt as they are, may have "good intentions."

But all of that is irrelevant, really. It is the public at large that we must reach, and they seem to be beating us at that game (at least temporarily). We need to have a open dialogue about their ideas not their motives or the sincerity of their beliefs.

I'm also a little concerned by the phrase "atheists without conscience." We don't want to imply that all atheists are without conscience, do we? I believe that atheists may be every bit as ethical as theists--sometimes more so.

How about Dobson? Do you think he is an atheist? Or is he just terribly deluded about his knowledge of God? What is worse--being an atheist without conscience, or a devout believer who mistakenly believes that spiritual or physical violence against gay people is a good thing?

Dobson has amassed incredible power and wealth. I think he really believes this is God's reward for his good works. But one could also believe he just worships money and power and doesn't give a fig for God. Which is it? Is the question relevant?

Thanks for the sponge Bob. We do need to keep the discussion light.

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/x9xgenx9x/fp4kew_th.gif



You've gotta watch it while listening to this, you'll die.. :rofl:

http://gmanwonderful.ytmnd.com/

[Emproph]

Nevertheless, I believe that these neoconservatives, as corrupt as they are, may have "good intentions."


Then so do serial killers. It's just a different level of pathology. Same type, different level.

To take it to it's extreme and to be ultimately fair and non-judgemental would be to say that we all have it to some degree. As humans we are all capable of it. So be it. I understand this.

I suppose what I'm really asking is hardest question of all. What is the nature of non-violent violence?

When does one decide that having a conscience is better than not having one? Or better, when does one decide that it's infinitely worse to not have one. At what point does one define not caring about the difference between right and wrong as evil? When does it become unacceptable?

I'm in fear for my life, my livelihood, my safety and security and consistency. Electricity, Cable, fast food and videos on demand at my local blockbuster. I could accept it if it was just me, but the nihilists without consciences are attempting to secure the fate of the masses.

The same masses too afraid to admit these same fears, and thus make decisions based on not just ignorance, but the ignorance of fear.

I'm saying that we look at the depth of this fear so we can cinch it once and for all.

Children are sliced to pieces -- literally -- every single day in front of their mothers because of what these people do.

If they are intelligent enough to know how to run a multi-million dollar ministry, do you really think they aren't intelligent enough to understand the consequences of their actions?

[Zerbie]

No, I say we have a BIGGER problem if that is true.

a criminal mind that cannot be reckoned with,

The difference is that it makes the situation that much more dire than we already think it is.



I get it. You're right.

But Stephen's also right that we cannot for certain know their motives or intent to the extent that this supposes.

And he's right also that it cannot change the nature of our responses to the situation. It only makes it that much harder for us to resist the wrongs and injustices that are done. That much more complicated. But we must act on the assumption that their motives are pure, and if those motives are NOT pure, that will impact the struggle, but it is not a reason to "corrupt" our own responses. Those responses will just have to be so much purer and stronger and more relentless.

As a former atheist, I REALLY don't like you calling these people atheists with the implication that "evil" defines atheism. Find some other word.

[NathanATX]

I get it. You're right.

But Stephen's also right that we cannot for certain know their motives or intent to the extent that this supposes.

And he's right also that it cannot change the nature of our responses to the situation. It only makes it that much harder for us to resist the wrongs and injustices that are done. That much more complicated. But we must act on the assumption that their motives are pure, and if those motives are NOT pure, that will impact the struggle, but it is not a reason to "corrupt" our own responses. Those responses will just have to be so much purer and stronger and more relentless.

As a former atheist, I REALLY don't like you calling these people atheists with the implication that "evil" defines atheism. Find some other word.

I hear you... is there a word for a "person who only pretends to believe in order to gain power and wealth?" His lack of belief isn't the cause of the problem, it's his deception.

[Emproph]

And he's right also that it cannot change the nature of our responses to the situation. It only makes it that much harder for us to resist the wrongs and injustices that are done. That much more complicated. But we must act on the assumption that their motives are pure, and if those motives are NOT pure, that will impact the struggle, but it is not a reason to "corrupt" our own responses. Those responses will just have to be so much purer and stronger and more relentless.
I think that puts the challenge at hand quite well.

As a former atheist, I REALLY don't like you calling these people atheists with the implication that "evil" defines atheism. Find some other word.

You're right. Not that this was your point, but I realized that someone without a conscience could still believe in a god, and an eternal hell, and STILL not care.

Amoralists?

I still don't like that that begins with an a and ends with an ist though...

[andrewlittle]

As in "a large Praetorian bureaucracy filled with ambitious...and often sycophantic people makes work and makes trouble"- Arthur M.Schlesinger Jr.

Admittedly, it won't have a great deal of meaning for the masses but, at the same time, it doesn't have a pre-conceived meaning to negate and isn't easily co-opted.

It describes the absolute corruptability of a pseudo-religious political structure to a tee. That said, it may not be as catchy as "lying sacks of sh-t".

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I did not witness the Republican debates, but I've read plenty of commentary on it. The impression I got was that nearly all the candidates except McCain endorsed torture (sometimes called "enhanced interrogation techniques"). The crowd seemed to applaud the support of torture.

Assuming that torture is immoral--what's with these guys and the Republican crowd? Are they amoral? Have they no consciences? What about Mitt Romney who was pro-gay and pro-choice and is now anti-gay and anti-choice? Is he a Mormon with no conscience? Does he only believe what is convenient?

I think these are examples of the concern that Emproph is raising in this thread. Following the Soulforce principles we would have to assume that these folks are misinformed and/or self-deceived. Either that or they are wicked beings who say "Evil be thou my Good." I'm arguing for the Soulforce principle that they are just badly mistaken and misguided. They are in need of conversion to the Truth.

What's really troubling though is the reaction of the crowd. They, too, are participating in evil--in fact they make it possible. Those Republicans wouldn't be saying those things if it didn't draw a crowd and get votes. So the real problem, it seems to me, is how do we reach the crowd.

That was also the challenge of M.L. King and Gandhi--they had to reach the crowd. That means they believed the crowd was reachable and that ultimately there was a conscience to appeal to after all.

Even the awful neoconservatives are powerless without their success at controlling the masses. One could argue that the awful, endless war in the mideast is the result of Karl Rove's successful manipulation of homophobia and other prejudices of masses of Christians to gain and maintain power.

It is not people without consciences who put Bush in the White House, but Christians who sincerely believe in "family values."

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

“There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.” -- Edmund Burke
That is the theme of this thread that I am trying to get across.

Many more quotes of this theme here: http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm (http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm)

People who consciously accept their own amorality, are, and have been the most powerful people on the planet throughout history. (This is new to me, I'm not pontificating)

If I was one of them, lying about my (lack of) belief in good (or God) would seem to be the first order of business. Disguising my evil as good would be my first priority. What could be more effective than the exploitation of people's belief in good, and especially their fear of death?

Once you accept this potential for evil as a current and past reality, EVERYTHING that’s happened as a result of the Bush administration falls into place and there is one inescapable conclusion, barring a miracle, we’re doomed. If you don’t see the situation as this dire, we may as well just pack it up, because in order to fix a problem, one needs to know what the problem is first.

As I see it, the reason we are not seeing the problem as in need of immediate and herculean effort is because of our unwillingness to fully comprehend the nature of true evil, and the effect of those who subscribe to it.

People who are consciously amoral will naturally bubble up to the top positions of power. Good people can still attain those positions, but all things being equal, the amoral person will always be more powerful than the good person – because they have more options. They are not bound by the rules of ethics, morality, conscience, honesty etc.

My point is, they are already in charge and have been for a long time. Their worldview is that they are the most important person in the world, democracy and equality are the antithesis of this, their true enemy.

The people I’m talking about are not misguided, they know exactly what they are doing. They’ve developed and institutionalized all the power structures that exist. The energy companies, the corporations, the banks, etc.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

"A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Wendell Phillips

We have not been eternally vigilant, thus we have all but lost our republic. They learned from the Nazi holocaust which the Bush dynasty has ties to, they learned from the Vietnam era. This time they’re doing it the right way. The fact that they’re trying to take over is nothing new, what’s new is the fact that they are now so successful at doing so in plain sight. They have literally popularized the idea of totalitarianism.

Getting the amoral authoritarians of the religious right on board is the most brilliant and effective thing they’ve done. They’ve put the window dressing of morality on their depraved agenda to take over the world. The masses of the religious right are not only oblivious to what is going on they are oblivious to the fact that they are complicit. Who better to do your bidding than those who’s morality is based on the commitment to not question truth?

~~
The only thing left for the conscious amoralist to do is call themselves a Christian, and instantly all of their motives become moral. Anyone who objects is now anti-Christian, against God, and impeding on your religious freedom. It’s brilliant. And what liberal (as in liberty) want’s to be accused of that?

I use Jerry Falwell as an example to make a point and somehow it’s a “sin” to even suggest the possibility. They’ve even gotten inside our heads. It’s THAT brilliant. Jerry Falwell is responsible for these suspicions. It’s absurd that because these people say they are Christians, that somehow absolves them of any suspicion of culpability.

How do I know Jerry Falwell is sincere? Because Jerry Falwell says he is sincere. It’s circular logic, one of the most basic forms of logical fallacy there is. Actions speak louder than words.

Anyone can love their family, they’re apart of you. Anyone can love their congregation, they’re your power base. The mark of a true Christian is how they treat their enemies.

I’m using Jerry Falwell as an example because he’s not a concept that “might” be true. All the evidence is there to imagine that his belief in God was a lie.

The point is not to believe that about him personally, but to be able to imagine something so fundamentally offensive, as our current reality. Namely the reality we’ve found ourselves in with the Bush administration.

If you can see the existence of THAT level of evil, then you can see the magnitude of what I’m saying. The very first goal of evil is to disguise itself as good. Likewise, the goal of someone who is consciously amoral, would be to claim a belief in God.

Public people who are consciously amoral wouldn’t likely admit to being an atheist specifically because they would want to portray their evil deeds as morally motivated. Because I think that many on the religious right consider morality to be based on the belief in (their) God. All atheists to them are amoral, just and only because they assume that the desire to do right is based on a fear of after life consequences.

I pretty well gather that most anyone who admits to being an atheist understands this prejudice, and THUS-KNOWS-IT'S-UNTRUE. Who would admit to the belief in evil/amoralism if that’s what atheism really meant?

Just like admitting you are gay, coming out of the closet as we call it. If being gay REALLY meant all the things they say it does, anyone who was gay would consciously realize this about themselves and would never admit to being gay.

If Falwell was a sincere believer, then his sin is worse than that of the leader who is consciously amoral. For at least in practice and in magnitude, he and his ilk legitimize amorality. They are responsible for putting the face of good on evil for the masses who actually are misguided.

The “Father” of lies is the idea that the lie must appear as the truth. The first rule of evil is to appear as good.

Someone who was consciously amoral specifically because they don't believe in a god/after-life, would claim to be a Christian before admitting to being an atheist -- and THEN they'd accuse atheists of being immoral.

That's the level of immorality I'm talking about, but WITHOUT GUILT -- that's when it becomes amoral. The same exact tactics they use on us. The same arbitrary association with evil. But even more unfair when it comes to the demonization of atheists.

You may as well demonize everyone who admits not not having seen God, at least they can blame we gays for being "icky."

My point being, we need to start recognizing the characteristics of the "morality" of having no fear of the consequences (of wilfully lying), whether they claim to be Christian or not.

FALWELL: I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actually trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, you helped this happen.

COOPER: Reverend Falwell talking about the attacks on 9/11.

Pagan: a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions

I can see myself making charges of sweeping generalization like that about people like himself and his ilk in a moment of passion. But I would have later written and published an essay (or several), apologizing for the generalizations, and describing the specifics of them that I felt were true.

He’s too smart. He’s TOO smart to not know better. How is it possible that he was not aware that this (below) was the actual MEANING behind his words – that he stood by?

FALWELL: I really believe that the non-religious and Planned parenthood and the women’s equality movement and the gay and lesbian equality movement, who are actually trying to just live-in-peace, the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to liberate America, I point the finger in their face and say, you helped this happen.

COOPER: Reverend Falwell talking about the attacks on 9/11.

He made it a point to implicate everyone EVEN ASSOCIATED with the words. Misguided? He never retracted it. ONLY a person who was not afraid of the consequences of their actions would do these things. Amoral? YES.

I'm saying these leaders are too smart to not know of the consequences of their actions. If they believe in God and are this depraved, imagine the worldview built on this AND the idea that there is no after-life. Those are the people poised and ready to take over.

Can you see why I feel this way? Can you see why it's important to me to not only consider this possibility about people like Falwell, but also to do so for the sake of explaining the implications of it?

[Emproph]

Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor) (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor)

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Ockham's razor is usually understood.

I’m not talking about wrong or bad or evil or that we shouldn’t love them or respond non-violently, I’m trying to just talk about this point of fact.

I get the impression that there is a reluctance to consider this possibility (about Falwell and ilk) because such ugly thoughts as this could be considered non-loving, and therefore a violation of non-violence. So be it. I understand that and I accept it as a valid concern. But I am concerned that this is the result of our own authoritarianized thinking. A Soulforcian self-censorship of thought if you will.

I can maintain a distinction in my own mind between the seeming reality that Jerry Falwell did believe in God and was just misguided, and the imagining that he was a conscious fraud who lied about his belief in God.

It is a challenge to keep the emotions related to those two concepts separate. But for the sake of truth, I need to consider ALL possibilities. Even if that means the added burden of guilt. Guilt for having thought something I shouldn’t have, something un-loving.

The key to avoid that it seems is in recognizing that we’re not thinking “unlovingly.” We are thinking about what it MEANS to think “unlovingly.”

“There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.” -- Edmund Burke

Barring a miracle, I’ve come to the conclusion that a totalitarian government under the guise of theocracy is no longer a possibility, it's a certainty.

I have come to this conclusion precisely by “believing all possible evil of evil men.”
~~
Using the example of Falwell:

Hitchens’ words on Falwell only echo my own suspicions about he and his ilk and White also said somethings interesting:
WHITE: he said to me one day: I just love these gay demonstrators. Without them, I wouldn't get near the attention I get. If I didn't have them, I would have to invent them.

That to me says that the elimination of sin was not the goal, propping himself up (power) was. Is there another way to read that?

White also said:
WHITE: ...I just wanted so much for him to change and be able to say god loves gays, god created gays and god wants us to celebrate and accept our own intents -- our sexuality.

But he never said that....

KING: Did you ask him to say it?

WHITE: Oh, many, many times, yes. He just looked at me strangely...
I thought “strangely” was an odd choice of word. What would befuddle someone who makes a living from lying about their belief in God more so than one of your victims truly reaching out to you in forgiveness and love?

Yes, I realize that my interpretation of those quotes are speculation on my part, but to an outsider like me, I don’t think the suspicion is wildly off the mark, especially considering everything else he's said (and not retracted).

Reality of course is another story and I don't dismiss Mel White's perspective. Falwell and ilk very well may believe in God, but the depravity of their actions are a bullhorn compared to their soundbites of their words.

~~
People who are consciously amoral are and have been throughout history, the most powerful people in the world.

What easier and more effective way to direct the resources of the masses toward you than to capitalize on others’ belief in good via exploitation of their ultimate fear, the fear of death?

I can’t think of a better example than Falwell. It’s a scary thought, but my point isn’t Falwell, it’s the inability of most of us to consider the truth of this phenomenon.

Obviously it’s happening, and it is to our detriment to deny it for fear of speaking “ill will” of someone. Falwell and ilk are responsible themselves for this suspicion. They may deny it, but they’re not even capable of recognizing the extent to which they should deny it.

[Emproph]

This guy had to leave the country. Some brilliant stuff on his site.

Things are different this time, very different.

Yes, there have been periods of fascist repression in America before, but I can see some very fundamental differences between the crisis at hand and the historical periods of repression in America. And so I'll examine some of those periods, and why, unlike those times in the past, I do not believe that this time we will be able to turn the situation around without, in all likelihood, a violent revolution as advocated by Jefferson.

http://www.bidstrup.com/exile.htm

It's a decent read, but I present it (for him) in the context that the violence he suggests is that of defense.

It has come time that we need to decide and define the nature of justified violence. I am not suggesting to "be" violent, or even to "prepare" to be violent in any manner other than that of defense which we already understand as necessary.

I am however, suggesting that the only way to effectively determine how to avoid that scenario (en masse) is to fully consider what it means to prepare to be violent to protect our lives -- understanding that even our lives aren't important if it means a greater communication of the effectiveness of non-violence. That's the key, but that's what we have to be able to talk about without fear of being accused of suggesting violence itself. At that point, as I see it, non-violence itself has become an idol.

It doesn't help matters if we just lie down and die attitude in the name of non-violence. Resistence IS violence! It is violence to anyone who wants us to just lie down and die. That's the entire principle behind the unjust idea that we should be "tolerant" of their intolerance.

I say that if you're being tolerant of their intolerance and don't CONDEMN OUTRIGHT their claim that we should be tolerant of their intolernce, then you're doing violence to me.

This is beyond lgbt rights, this is human rights. If we can't conceive of the magnitude of the threat at hand, we can't conceive of how to avoid dealing with it non-violently.

The first step as I see it, is being able to think about and openly talk about when violence is appropriate -- specifically for the sake of learning how to avoid it!

How can we avoid violence if we can't talk about the magnitude of the effort required to avoid it?

And how can we talk about avoiding violence if we can't even talk about the need for it in regard to our own physical survival?

~~
I remember one time in LA, I was sitting on a bus stop park bench with another girl, late at night, she was very animated and talkative (This was back when I thought all physical violence was karmically evil).

She was relaying some story but all I recall from it was the line: "if it comes down to me, or a scum-bag like him, it's going to be me."

I'm not saying we need to justify violence in and of itself. But there may/will come a time when we can no longer communicate with each other effectively enough to explore the meaning of the difference between laying down your life for a cause and just plain being irresponsible for the sake of the "god" of non-violence.

We need to be able to discuss this openly and honesly and without fear. Lest we make the idea of harmony an idol.

And NO, NOT just jump to the conclusion that violence is necessary! If that's what you came away with, then please read that all again :pray:

[Emproph]

For those of us who've taken the time to face evil in the face, I salute you.

..in the only way I know how * † ‡ +

Vast - Free
MQW5sf7zPxo
lyrics (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Free-lyrics-VAST/051803E4A4D1BF0848256D5D002E8CF9)

And who wouldn't want to *take a picture* of the exact moment of that freedom?

oWrGcZ98zhg
lyrics (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/filter/take+a+picture_20053593.html)

[Zerbie]

I am however, suggesting that the only way to effectively determine how to avoid that scenario (en masse) is to fully consider what it means to prepare to be violent to protect our lives -- understanding that even our lives aren't important if it means a greater communication of the effectiveness of non-violence. That's the key, but that's what we have to be able to talk about without fear of being accused of suggesting violence itself. At that point, as I see it, non-violence itself has become an idol.

It doesn't help matters if we just lie down and die attitude in the name of non-violence. Resistence IS violence! It is violence to anyone who wants us to just lie down and die. That's the entire principle behind the unjust idea that we should be "tolerant" of their intolerance.

I say that if you're being tolerant of their intolerance and don't CONDEMN OUTRIGHT their claim that we should be tolerant of their intolernce, then you're doing violence to me.

This is beyond lgbt rights, this is human rights. If we can't conceive of the magnitude of the threat at hand, we can't conceive of how to avoid dealing with it non-violently.

The first step as I see it, is being able to think about and openly talk about when violence is appropriate -- specifically for the sake of learning how to avoid it!

How can we avoid violence if we can't talk about the magnitude of the effort required to avoid it?

And how can we talk about avoiding violence if we can't even talk about the need for it in regard to our own physical survival?

~~
I'm not saying we need to justify violence in and of itself. But there may/will come a time when we can no longer communicate with each other effectively enough to explore the meaning of the difference between laying down your life for a cause and just plain being irresponsible for the sake of the "god" of non-violence.

We need to be able to discuss this openly and honesly and without fear. Lest we make the idea of harmony an idol.

ay:

Ah so now I know where you were going.

Yes this is an important discussion. I remember a buddy on another forum (singers' forum) talking about this same sort of thing and he remarked that history is full of compassionate, non-violent people who were mowed over by tanks because they eschewed violence, and how he is not willing to become one of them.

What a fine, fine line between fool-hardy idealism and finding what actually gets results, versus the third alternative of knee-jerk violence and mirror-imaging what we oppose! The trouble with opposing something or someone all the time is, with all the energy thinking of and focusing on them, we start to become like them. We become like what we focus on. Just practice noticing that in yourself. Look, and you will see that you begin to resemble what it is you think about most.

The matter of non-violence is not an end in itself, though it can easily be made into one. It is a *process* and it is a scientific/psycho-social/spiritual process. It exists to give us a third focus that is neither our mere selfishness, nor "them and their violence," but the razor's edge path between and beyond all that. Non-violence as an activist's concept came from Gandhi. Gandhi was of the Indian tradition (DUH!:p) which means that he was familiar with yoga. Ahimsa (a= non, not) + (himsa=harming) is only the first limb of yoga - there are seven more which a yogi is also instructed to practice. These other seven also inform the yogi's understanding of ahimsa. Without these other seven, ahimsa is incompletely understood.

So there is a lot more to it than we sometimes think. Non-violence is not a product you can pick up off the grocery-store shelf, spray it at an anti-gay institution and Bingo! Transformation. It is an internal process. You can't have success just slapping it on like a bumper sticker because ahimsa is about how we are *being* not about what we are doing.

Sometimes one might find that not-harming means engaging in outward action to stop a harm in progress. Allowing oneself to be harmed needlessly is himsa. Likewise allowing another living being to be harmed needlessly is himsa. The challenge is developing the clarity to see what is going on, and developing the strength, tools, and discernment to be effective at doing something about it when it is our time and place to do so.

[sjbouza]

What is Atheism? I have always been taught, and I am sure incorrectly, that atheists are the equivalent to satanists. I am sure that you can know where those teachings came from. I have been more and more curious about what it really is beyond the rhetoric I have been taught.

Any info or websites that will give me a better understanding would be much appreciated. I have used ask.com and did some searching. However, I know there are a few of you in here and I just wanted to know of some "good" sites that you all would recommend.

Thanks tons,
Scott

[dewdrop_world]

As in many things, Buddhism has an important insight that is relevant -- namely, no matter how evil evil can be, it's always the result of delusion. Since there is no one who is not deluded, nobody can claim to be incapable of evil. The Falwells, Robertsons (and Cheneys) may differ from us in the depth of the delusion, and in the capacity to do damage on a larger scale, but the root motivation is something we can -- and must -- understand.

I think Emproph is on the same page with me here...

For me, the lust for power is the most striking thing about the new Christian fascism. (I think it's important to call this by its true name -- it's a fundamentally fascistic viewpoint, and I think we should not be shy about calling it fascism. How else is it going to sink slowly into people's heads that Christianity is turning into exactly what it says it opposes?) Underneath powerlust is fear, probably related to the delusion that one can be happy by controlling one's environment. If I can only hold onto what I love and keep away what I dislike, then I can be at peace... but nobody can achieve this! Reality, then, is a source of fear, because reality bursts the bubble.

I am reminded of my last few days/weeks on the United Methodist bulletin boards. I also thought of that experience when Keltic mentioned transactional psychology, because the nature of the transaction between myself and Pastor Steve became crystal clear to me toward the end. He was willing to talk to me as long as I was useful to him. Either I would convert to his way of thinking -- and he would retain his self-image as a powerful agent of God. Or, I would crumble, become hysterical and degenerate into insults and defensive mockery -- and he would retain his self-image of power, because he could expose my weakness. Either way, he would get to keep his ego-image and not confront the reality that, no matter how big we think we are, we're just mosquitoes on the back of God's hand. It became clear that he needed to see himself as a major player in God's plan, not as a humble servant.

When I realized this and committed myself to responding only with patience and love (but not acquiescence) -- when I would not give him the reinforcement he wanted -- I was no longer useful to him and he stopped responding altogether (except to break out the tired Biblical archaisms like "shaking the dust off my feet" that they always put on -- smoke and mirrors to "sound religious" while escaping the real meaning of religion).

Was he consciously evil? I don't think so... but he was also not able to recognize evil when he saw it in his ideological brethren.

I really hope to understand what drives the Christian fascists. I think I understand the ones who are unwitting dupes, but the architects of the perversion of Christ's teaching -- that is as yet beyond me. That depth of fear I have great difficulty comprehending. But, I don't think we can effectively fight it without working hard toward this understanding.

James

[Vortex]

1. Identify the enemy:

Since this phenomenon of atheists without consciences is ALREADY OCCURRING, that means that they have already broken every rule in the book to ensure that they secure Theocracy USA. The difference is that it makes the situation that much more dire than we already think it is.

Check

2. Label them as such:

As I see it, the reason we are not seeing the problem as in need of immediate and herculean effort is because of our unwillingness to fully comprehend the nature of true evil, and the effect of those who subscribe to it.

If you can see the existence of THAT level of evil, then you can see the magnitude of what I’m saying. The very first goal of evil is to disguise itself as good. Likewise, the goal of someone who is consciously amoral, would be to claim a belief in God.

(and before I get pounced on, we're talking pure evil here folks, NOT anyone of the 'love thy neighbor' persuasion.)

Check

3. Fear:

The same masses too afraid to admit these same fears, and thus make decisions based on not just ignorance, but the ignorance of fear.

I'm in fear for my life, my livelihood, my safety and security and consistency. Electricity, Cable, fast food and videos on demand at my local blockbuster. I could accept it if it was just me, but the nihilists without consciences are attempting to secure the fate of the masses.

Check

4. One final thing:

It has come time that we need to decide and define the nature of justified violence. I am not suggesting to "be" violent, or even to "prepare" to be violent in any manner other than that of defense which we already understand as necessary.

Check


I say this not to pounce on you E, but with the hope that in your quest to consider all possibilities, that you consider the possibility that the path to evil maybe the conscious crusade to define what is good.

With Love

Vortex

[Steven E. Webster]

As in many things, Buddhism has an important insight that is relevant -- namely, no matter how evil evil can be, it's always the result of delusion. Since there is no one who is not deluded, nobody can claim to be incapable of evil. The Falwells, Robertsons (and Cheneys) may differ from us in the depth of the delusion, and in the capacity to do damage on a larger scale, but the root motivation is something we can -- and must -- understand.


James and friends,
I think this is the Soulforce position--those whom Emproph believes to be "evil" are, in reality, deluded.

Remember, this thread began (I believe) with the assertion that Jerry Falwell was not a sincere premillenial dispensationalist Christian, but a conscious liar and deceiver. I don't think that is true. I believe Falwell was sincere, as I believe most (if not all) of our adversaries are sincere, but mistaken.

The trouble with branding our adversaries as "pure evil" is that it ultimately ends by justifying almost any evil on our part to oppose them. We begin to think like George W. Bush--heaven forbid! When we brand others as "pure evil" we blind ourselves to the bits of evil that cling to us. We may end in justifying to ourselves violent evil as bad or worse than our adversaries'.

The folks I think come the closest to fitting the description Emproph gives of our evil adversaries are the neoconservatives---religious skeptics who consciously embrace the manipulation of religion to achieve their political ends. But I do not believe that even they are evil or intend evil. They are self-deceived. They believe their objectives are good and necessary, but they are wrong.

Paul Wolfowitz is a good example of one of these neoconservatives--and the spectaculor failure of his (and Bush's) Iraq policy, and his exposure as a petty, narcissistic, nepotist at the World Bank has cut him down to size. Unfortunately, it looks like it will be a long while before we recover from the evil of Wolfowitz's war.

Remember, Bush led us into this war with rhetoric that was to convince us that Saddam and his regime were "pure evil" and we were on God's side. Saddam was a criminal, but so are some of those in the Bush administration responsible for the breaking of international law and the perversion of justice in our own country.

Steven Webster

[nmwolfboy]

Patrick, your posts make my brain hurt :headbang: and i love you for it! :love: :D

i've been reading & re-reading this thread, much of which seems beyond my understanding, and just have a few observations/questions.

i don't think what we're dealing with is a movement toward true theocracy so much as fascism that dons vestments and mouths religious-sounding platitudes when it serves a power-amassing purpose.

Are the 'evil' folks you refer to sincere but deluded in their beliefs, or venal demagogues interested in amassing power? In a practical day-by-day sense is there any real difference? Even if the Christianists are sincere in their beliefs, i'm perplexed because how they state their beliefs and the actions they take bear such little resemblance to how i understand the way of the Christ.

Do we make an idol of nonviolence? i suspect that's true sometimes, for some folks (myself included :eek:) We're humans. We appear to have a propensity for creating idols out of just about anything.

i have to confess that while i recognize that the policies and actions of large segments of our present socio-political leadership result in dire fruit indeed, i've been increasingly perceiving their regimes as having feet of clay.


I say that if you're being tolerant of their intolerance and don't CONDEMN OUTRIGHT their claim that we should be tolerant of their intolerance, then you're doing violence to me.

This is beyond lgbt rights, this is human rights. If we can't conceive of the magnitude of the threat at hand, we can't conceive of how to avoid dealing with it non-violently.

The first step as I see it, is being able to think about and openly talk about when violence is appropriate -- specifically for the sake of learning how to avoid it!

Agreed. :agree: Except that i would allow that hesitation in condemning tolerance of intolerance can result from delusion, confusion, etc. rather than a clear understanding of what's at stake or the consequences of buying into such mendacity. Some of the folks making that demand (i.e. tolerance for intolerance) have slick forked tongues. A talent for beguiling.

It's a wonderment to me that so many people i come into contact with are mulling over similar topics. i think that's why i'm drawn to this thread, even though i feel that i'm not grasping the meaning of much of what's been written. There's a nagging feeling that we're nearly talking about the same thing, but coming at it from such different perpectives and references. And languange, for all its amazing qualities just isn't enough. i wish we were face-to-face for this one.

Sorry to meander off on a tangent there.

The fire burning in my brain and gut about the Christianists, the fascists, the amoralists, the sociopaths, whatever you want to call them, involves a core idea/belief that i hold. We are all images of God. We reflect God to varying degrees, even over the course of our own lives. These 'evil' people are images of God, just as i am, just as you are, but i don't understand how. :headbang: The reflection they give forth is so twisted, i can't see God in them at all. Added to that they use the language of religion, and claim they're the only ones using it correctly. Yet they use it to oppress, condemn, spread hate.

Contemplating how i'm called to be in the world with them opens up pits of sadness, anger and yes, violence, in me. Yet i stop short of despair. There's still hope. As i said, i increasingly see that their movement(s) has/have feet of clay. Luckily, a committment to non-violence does not mean passivity. Speaking out, reaching out, defying injustice, those are acts of momentous importance, no matter how insignificant or ignored they may seem. Discussions like this, though they make my brain hurt :headbang: :D help a great deal.

Pax :dove:
scott

[dewdrop_world]

Today at lunch I was reading a review in the New Republic of a new book by Philip Zimbardo, architect of the Stanford prison experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/) in the 1970s. Very interesting synergy with the current topic, since the review discusses not only the "situational" view of evil held by Zimbardo (that is, the "normal" people put into the situation of running a fake prison turned into sadistic monsters in part because that was expected of them in that role), but also people's individual disposition toward a strong or weak internal moral compass and -- here's the cruncher -- the role of authority.

For long time, I thought the over-reliance on authority among Christian conservatives (this goes also for conservatives who are not fascist) was just an indication of being stuck on a lower rung of the Kohlberg scale (http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm) of moral development*, but I'm coming to realize that there is something much more sinister about it. In the hands of the worst of the lot, "obey God" turns into "your individual conscience is not to be trusted, and is a hindrance to following the word of the lord."

* Acknowledging that this theory does have methodological problems...

It's an attractive package -- if God is benevolent, what could possibly be wrong with God's commandments? Conveniently left out of the picture is the fact that the minister claims the role of speaking for God. I can't count how many times, on the United Methodist boards, I heard one of the conservative preachers say "your argument is not with me, it's with God."

Here lies the potential for atrocity. Unscrupulous, power hungry leaders, posing as agents of Christ, systematically erode their flocks' moral compasses so that they will be dependent on their pronouncements. They like it that way because they're in control, and the followers like it that way because they don't have to take responsibility for their decisions ("we're just following orders"). What, then, is to stop the minister from endorsing various forms of abuse, neatly packaged as God's will?

That's the big difference I see between a a spiritual teacher and a church leader. The teacher wants the individual to be in communion with God -- directly -- while church authorities often want the flock to be beholden to the institution (as if that is a substitute for the real thing).

Our great blessing is that, when our churches throw us out, we have to find our own way. We have an opening to find real communion -- and to teach others. That's what the Christian fascists fear most. If the people don't need the self-appointed proxies for God to tell them what God thinks, then the false prophets have nothing.

James

[Daniel]

For long time, I thought the over-reliance on authority among Christian conservatives (this goes also for conservatives who are not fascist) was just an indication of being stuck on a lower rung of the Kohlberg scale (http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm) of moral development*, but I'm coming to realize that there is something much more sinister about it. In the hands of the worst of the lot, "obey God" turns into "your individual conscience is not to be trusted, and is a hindrance to following the word of the lord."

James- You hit the nail on the head. I have always thougth the following song evokes the dynamic you point out.


http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/t/r/trstobey.htm


This song gives a simple, clear explanation of living the Christian life. The title expression was used in a testimony meeting, following an evan*gelistic crusade in Brockton, Massachusetts, by Dwight L. Moody. A young man stood to speak, and it soon be came clear he knew little Christian doctrine. But he finished by saying, “I’m not quite sure—but I’m going to trust, and I’m going to obey.” Daniel Towner, who was in the meeting, jotted down the words, and gave them to John Sammis, who developed the lyrics from them.


When we walk with the Lord in the light of His Word,
What a glory He sheds on our way!
While we do His good will, He abides with us still,
And with all who will trust and obey.

Refrain

Trust and obey, for there’s no other way
To be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.



I'm all for following the teachings of Jesus, but trusting and obeying doesn't seem to stop there: there are pleny of power hungry people who are ready to tell one how to do that. Funny how it always seems to involve money going into their pockets.

Maybe this is why the Buddha said just before his death: Rely on yourself.

And Jesus said: The Kingdom is Within.

[Emproph]

Yes this is an important discussion. I remember a buddy on another forum (singers' forum) talking about this same sort of thing and he remarked that history is full of compassionate, non-violent people who were mowed over by tanks because they eschewed violence, and how he is not willing to become one of them.

I was going further than that, which I'll get to later, but it may no longer be the point, thanks to all you purveyors of non-violence. ;) I’m focusing more on the problem and you guys are focusing more on the solution.

What a fine, fine line between fool-hardy idealism and finding what actually gets results, versus the third alternative of knee-jerk violence and mirror-imaging what we oppose! The trouble with opposing something or someone all the time is, with all the energy thinking of and focusing on them, we start to become like them. We become like what we focus on. Just practice noticing that in yourself. Look, and you will see that you begin to resemble what it is you think about most.

And I keep seeing that more and more in myself, at least the self-righteousness part. I can’t seem to get around the honesty part though, and so then I'm honest with myself, and every time I am I see my self-righteousness as the result of pride, the root of it all. Which brings me back to the conclusion that I am no better than them. The only reason they don’t see what I see is because I’m not loving them unconditionally enough to show them the reality of unconditional love. And to that extent, I'M part of the problem!

The matter of non-violence is not an end in itself, though it can easily be made into one. It is a *process* and it is a scientific/psycho-social/spiritual process. It exists to give us a third focus that is neither our mere selfishness, nor "them and their violence," but the razor's edge path between and beyond all that. Non-violence as an activist's concept came from Gandhi. Gandhi was of the Indian tradition (DUH!:p) which means that he was familiar with yoga. Ahimsa (a= non, not) + (himsa=harming) is only the first limb of yoga - there are seven more which a yogi is also instructed to practice. These other seven also inform the yogi's understanding of ahimsa. Without these other seven, ahimsa is incompletely understood.

That’s interesting (ahisma levels), and I just love “the razor’s edge path” part. I think that sentiment is indicative of the effort, as you explained, of the devotion to decide what is in the best interests/good of all, amidst the infinitely complex uncertainties of life.

So there is a lot more to it than we sometimes think. Non-violence is not a product you can pick up off the grocery-store shelf, spray it at an anti-gay institution and Bingo! Transformation. It is an internal process. You can't have success just slapping it on like a bumper sticker because ahimsa is about how we are *being* not about what we are doing.

One thing that’s occurred to me is that I know too much for my own good. Apparently that’s possible. I’ve suspected it of myself, but I finally figured out the how of it.

My philosophical understanding of the reality of Love/God (*being*) grew exponentially faster than my ability to apply it in real life (*doing*). To the point where they’re now practically two separate entities. I no longer have the ability to draw on the wealth of my understanding of God when it relates to challenges in life. It’s always an “either/or” situation with me because the information was never properly integrated.

What a relief, I finally know why I have such a propensity toward violence whilst believing in non-violent resolution.. :rolleyes: (and now so do all of you :D. But seriously :shifty:)

Sometimes one might find that not-harming means engaging in outward action to stop a harm in progress. Allowing oneself to be harmed needlessly is himsa. Likewise allowing another living being to be harmed needlessly is himsa. The challenge is developing the clarity to see what is going on, and developing the strength, tools, and discernment to be effective at doing something about it when it is our time and place to do so.

That last paragraph especially reminded me of Kung Fu. Isn’t that the whole concept behind the physical fighting portion of it? To wield power without actually harming your opponent, at least no more so than necessary?

If you come at me to hurt me, I’m going to use your weight and momentum to avoid being hurt, and if you happen to hit the wall in the process...

Now THAT might be what I mean by violently non-violent. That idea adds a whole new dimension to the physical defense part, but there’s got to be applications as far as political strategy goes as well – which I’m assuming is the essence of the physical part.

Much to think about, thank you Zerbie. :tup: :award:

[Emproph]

What is Atheism?
I didn't want to short change you on an answer or say "I'd get to it later," so I thought it would go better in this thread:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=29984#post29984

[Emproph]

I have too much, I thank you.
As in many things, Buddhism has an important insight that is relevant -- namely, no matter how evil evil can be, it's always the result of delusion. Since there is no one who is not deluded, nobody can claim to be incapable of evil. The Falwells, Robertsons (and Cheneys) may differ from us in the depth of the delusion, and in the capacity to do damage on a larger scale, but the root motivation is something we can -- and must -- understand.

I think Emproph is on the same page with me here...
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s41/noxiousfix/holyfuck.gif

Short answer, Yup.


For me, the lust for power is the most striking thing about the new Christian fascism. (I think it's important to call this by its true name -- it's a fundamentally fascistic viewpoint, and I think we should not be shy about calling it fascism. How else is it going to sink slowly into people's heads that Christianity is turning into exactly what it says it opposes?) Underneath powerlust is fear, probably related to the delusion that one can be happy by controlling one's environment. If I can only hold onto what I love and keep away what I dislike, then I can be at peace... but nobody can achieve this! Reality, then, is a source of fear, because reality bursts the bubble.

I am reminded of my last few days/weeks on the United Methodist bulletin boards. I also thought of that experience when Keltic mentioned transactional psychology, because the nature of the transaction between myself and Pastor Steve became crystal clear to me toward the end. He was willing to talk to me as long as I was useful to him. Either I would convert to his way of thinking -- and he would retain his self-image as a powerful agent of God. Or, I would crumble, become hysterical and degenerate into insults and defensive mockery -- and he would retain his self-image of power, because he could expose my weakness. Either way, he would get to keep his ego-image and not confront the reality that, no matter how big we think we are, we're just mosquitoes on the back of God's hand. It became clear that he needed to see himself as a major player in God's plan, not as a humble servant.

When I realized this and committed myself to responding only with patience and love (but not acquiescence) -- when I would not give him the reinforcement he wanted -- I was no longer useful to him and he stopped responding altogether (except to break out the tired Biblical archaisms like "shaking the dust off my feet" that they always put on -- smoke and mirrors to "sound religious" while escaping the real meaning of religion).

Was he consciously evil? I don't think so... but he was also not able to recognize evil when he saw it in his ideological brethren.

I really hope to understand what drives the Christian fascists. I think I understand the ones who are unwitting dupes, but the architects of the perversion of Christ's teaching -- that is as yet beyond me. That depth of fear I have great difficulty comprehending. But, I don't think we can effectively fight it without working hard toward this understanding.

James

[Emproph]

...to consider all possibilities, that you consider the possibility that the path to evil maybe the conscious crusade to define what is good.

Then ultimately the process is never ending. Eternal vigilance is the price of even liberty of mind.

There's no "one" answer ever. The first commandment of the Bible is ubiquitous throughout all creation, no matter what dimension or form. No idols before God, including the idea of God as "good."

Yes, that's much Bigger.


now if you'll excuse me, I have the rest of my brain to pick up off the wall...

[Emproph]

Rest assured though, it will go remembered...
The trouble with branding our adversaries as "pure evil" is that it ultimately ends by justifying almost any evil on our part to oppose them.

We begin to think like George W. Bush--heaven forbid!
Wow, you do have a sense of humor.

When we brand others as "pure evil" we blind ourselves to the bits of evil that cling to us. We may end in justifying to ourselves violent evil as bad or worse than our adversaries'.
This is what jumped out for me:

When we brand others as "pure evil" we bind ourselves to the bits of evil that cling to us.

The branding IS the bits.

By branding others as "pure evil," we bind ill will in spirit, and thus in behavior. Which then comes back to us after having been added to the mix (the human 'chain' of actions if you will).

That must be the whole goal of the relentlessness of non-violence, to break the cycle. It's the one thing that's unknown yet -- consistent safety.

[Emproph]

Ah so now I know where you were going.I was going further than that, which I'll get to later

This is where I was going with this:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1768

[Zerbie]

I was going further than that, which I'll get to later, but it may no longer be the point, thanks to all you purveyors of non-violence. ;) I’m focusing more on the problem and you guys are focusing more on the solution.



And I keep seeing that more and more in myself, at least the self-righteousness part. I can’t seem to get around the honesty part though, and so then I'm honest with myself, and every time I am I see my self-righteousness as the result of pride, the root of it all. Which brings me back to the conclusion that I am no better than them. The only reason they don’t see what I see is because I’m not loving them unconditionally enough to show them the reality of unconditional love. And to that extent, I'M part of the problem!



That’s interesting (ahisma levels), and I just love “the razor’s edge path” part. I think that sentiment is indicative of the effort, as you explained, of the devotion to decide what is in the best interests/good of all, amidst the infinitely complex uncertainties of life.



One thing that’s occurred to me is that I know too much for my own good. Apparently that’s possible. I’ve suspected it of myself, but I finally figured out the how of it.

My philosophical understanding of the reality of Love/God (*being*) grew exponentially faster than my ability to apply it in real life (*doing*). To the point where they’re now practically two separate entities. I no longer have the ability to draw on the wealth of my understanding of God when it relates to challenges in life. It’s always an “either/or” situation with me because the information was never properly integrated.

What a relief, I finally know why I have such a propensity toward violence whilst believing in non-violent resolution.. :rolleyes: (and now so do all of you :D. But seriously :shifty:)


:tup: :award:

I understand. :love: :love:

So what can you do in order to integrate your philosophical understanding with the rest of your selfhood (emotions, etc)? For me, it is the yoga practice (mine is very physical). Having been trapped in my head throughout young life, the asana practice was essential, for it taught me to think without words. To think with my entire being. Or perhaps, the understanding I have just begun to learn wouldn't properly be termed "thinking" at all, but apprehending.

Life is muckier than just ideas. How can you LIVE what your mind can grasp intellectually? Ideas alone are not the highest, yet those of us in activism can easily start to think so. And it's a trap. Steer clear. ;)

[ladyinred]

I guess I'll be honest and say I'm not dismayed by Jerry Falwells passing, of course who knows what will happen when he stands before God, but the thing is judge a man by his "fruits." Jesus said that by their fruits you shall know them. Was he a con? If so, he definitely wasn't a servant of God, but his own ego.

Ok, I'll ask because I only know some things about Falwell. Did the man accomplish any good (Well we all know he was definitely no Mother Theresa) Did he bring more meaning into people's lives? What harm did he do? Did he apologize to those he has wronged? What kind of life did he lead? What will he be best remembered for? Should make you stop and think, would you want to be remembered for the good you did or the bad? And if you were to face Christ , what do you think he might ask you about your life and what you accomplished?

I'm not going to say I wished the man to drop dead or that I actually hate him,(But I'm definitely not happy with what he stood for) but I cannot help but think about his hateful rhetoric and his anti-gay stance. Why was it he was so admantly against LGBT people, why could he not understand their struggles, their sorrows and their pain? I just don't understand people like that, I guess.

But the right spews so much hatred and contempt at anyone who counters their viewpoints, it's not like the end of Falwell will be the end of anti-gay rhetoric. I look at someone like Rosie O'Donnell who may have said some controversial things, and I might not always agree with her, but she had been the brunt of that hate by the likes of O' Reilly, who strikes me as stone cold as a human being. Like her or not, she has done alot of good and is helping poor families and children.

Another is Ann Coulter, who I also see as a cold human being, it just that these people have such contempt for anything outside their little box and I think that includes Falwell. And to think these people really believe they are doing God's work. But the bible says alot about the tongue being the root of evil and being set on fire by hell itself and that man should learn to control it, there does not seem to be alot of restraint on the religious rights part, I was shocked at what one man wrote when he was complaining ,of all things, about the minimum wage going up. Does he think that poor people don't deserve a break?

The more I read about the right I am astonished by their ideals and lack of compassion.. They may say they are pro family but alot of what they stand for is actually anti-family. There is nothing else I know to say. But I don't think Falwell will be fondly remembered in a positive light. Perhaps the negativity will overshadow the good he may have accomplished , but people often reap what they sow in word and deed and it come back to them.I've read on some forums and many of the things about Falwell were less than complimentary.Perhaps it is a tragedy that a waste of so much human potential that could've been used to accomplish good was wasted in the man's life.

[Emproph]

I understand. :love: :love:

So what can you do in order to integrate your philosophical understanding with the rest of your selfhood (emotions, etc)? For me, it is the yoga practice (mine is very physical). Having been trapped in my head throughout young life, the asana practice was essential, for it taught me to think without words. To think with my entire being. Or perhaps, the understanding I have just begun to learn wouldn't properly be termed "thinking" at all, but apprehending.

Life is muckier than just ideas. How can you LIVE what your mind can grasp intellectually? Ideas alone are not the highest, yet those of us in activism can easily start to think so. And it's a trap. Steer clear. ;)

Hey Zerbie,

I just wanted to let you know that I'm not blowing you off here, (in addition to having done so with your and Daniel's posts in the 'calling all atheists' thread ;)).

I've been thinking about what it would take for me to meet the intellectual/philosophical understanding of God/Love with physical-real-life-application. Some of it’s complicated enough to want to ensure a perfect post and some of it is very simple, yet very personal. I'd have to integrate both in my response.

I almost feel like it’s worthy of it’s own thread. It’s a simple question with a complicated answer. How to be loving when everything in you screams otherwise. Because my problems aren’t unique, nor do I think the mentality split of understanding vs application of it is unique.

Edit: this is the answer:
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3034 (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3034)

[Rick336]

Why are you atheists not shouting this from the rooftops?

Because most atheists are in the closet and afraid to express their opinions. Why? Because atheists are even more hated in America than LGBT people are.

Theists, including most Christians, hate atheists. The hate comes from fear. They fear that the atheists may be right, that there's no afterlife and no God to answer their prayers. This fear turns into anger which then becomes hate.

I have a straight friend who is an atheist but pretends he is a Christian. He is afraid to express his atheist views for fear of being shunned or rejected by his family and friends.

There are gay "Christians" who have experienced rejection for being gay who then reject and shun atheists in the exact same way. They are blind to their own hypocrisy.

Rick

[Zerbie]

Because most atheists are in the closet and afraid to express their opinions. Why? Because atheists are even more hated in America than LGBT people are.

Rick

You know? I just find that stunning.

Saw this discussed on a TV show a couple years ago and I was flabbergasted. It never would have occurred to me. I sometimes wonder if I'm a bit out of touch with the nature of the culture I live in.

[dsdrane]

Because most atheists are in the closet and afraid to express their opinions. Why? Because atheists are even more hated in America than LGBT people are.

This has not been my experience. In my particular corner of America, the reverse has been true. I came to theism via a very personal journey after an entire adulthood of agnosticism (if not outright atheism). When I spoke of this with longtime friends (not in a proselytizing way...I'm no evangelist), most were flabbergasted.

In fact, I recently had a sort of kerfluffle with one of my oldest friends when I took her to task for some pretty hateful anti-theistic stuff she passed along via e-mail. It didn't occur to me that there were atheists who were not content to live and let live but had to proselytize in exactly the same way that any orthodox theists do. They had something to prove: they were correct and other viewpoints are simply wrong/stupid/naive.

I told her that she and I both rely on faith, because neither of us could prove conclusively to the other that there was or wasn't a God. My faith in the existence of a God does not require her to have the same faith any more than hers requires me to agree.

I really wish faith -- whatever kind, or its absence -- could remain what it is: personal and non-transferable. I think we'd all be happier. And less annoying.

[Rick336]

It didn't occur to me that there were atheists who were not content to live and let live but had to proselytize in exactly the same way that any orthodox theists do. They had something to prove: they were correct and other viewpoints are simply wrong/stupid/naive.

The stereotype of atheists is that we are obnoxious, opinionated, self-righteous, pompous, and think anybody who believes in God are morons. Even though this is certainly not true of all non-believers, some do think that way.

Many of us atheists do believe we have it all figured out. But, so does everybody else. Fundamentalist Christians believe they have it all figured out. So do fundamentalist Muslims. Liberals believe they do. Conservatives believe they do. We all do.

But the truth is, none of us do.

But until we do I'm going to base my beliefs on evidence. I believe evidence is the best way to measure reality. However, if I can't come up with evidence of how something was created, I won't automatically believe it was created by magic.

Think about this. If somebody was to tell you that the story of the Wizard of Oz was inspired by God and that there really is a magical land over the rainbow with a yellow brick road that will lead you to the wizard who will grant you wishes but that an evil witch will try to deceive you, are you going to automatically say, "Well then, if you say it's real then it must be real?" Of course not. You're going to need some evidence.

That's how we atheists feel about all religious beliefs. Just show us the evidence and we'll believe you. If Jesus or angels or demons or miracles would just appear before us we'll go to church every Sunday.

But, we atheists don't have all the answers either. If you ask me what caused the big bang, I will tell you I have no idea. However, that just means I don't know. It doesn't mean that since I don't know then it must have been created by the Wizard.


Rick

[dsdrane]

But until we do I'm going to base my beliefs on evidence. I believe evidence is the best way to measure reality. However, if I can't come up with evidence of how something was created, I won't automatically believe it was created by magic.

This assumes that I, on the other hand, do not base my particular faith on evidence.

I do, in fact. And my evidence is my own, and it is wound up with intangibles, epiphanies, feelings, intuition and all sorts of other things that cannot necessarily be measured in some test tube or filmed by Michael Moore...or psychoanalyzed by Dr. Freud.

If someone wants to say "God is imaginary", I would respond "Atheists have no imagination".

What purpose would that serve other than to belittle the other side?

Frankly, I'll pass. I don't require you to see what I see or feel what I feel...all I want from you and others is, at bare minimum, recognition that you cannot possibly know my truth.

And I can't know yours.

So let's call the whole thing off.

Here's what I told my friend: if I die tomorrow and there is no God, well ok fine, no big woop...sure I'll be surprised and not a little disappointed, but then I'll be dead, so what's the big deal?

If, however, there is a God, you can rest assured that I know for a fact that s/he'll love your sorry ass anyway. ;)

Comforting, no? :cool:

[Rick336]

If someone wants to say "God is imaginary", I would respond "Atheists have no imagination".

What purpose would that serve other than to belittle the other side?

I don't think the statement "God is imaginary" belittles anybody. I think when some theists hear someone say "God is imaginary" what they're hearing is "People who believe in God are stupid," and so they become defensive. Saying "God is imaginary" is not name calling.

If somebody says, "Ghosts are imaginary," does this belittle people who believe in ghosts? Should we ask people who don't believe in ghosts to keep their opinions to themselves to avoid offending those who do believe in ghosts?

I don't require you to see what I see or feel what I feel...all I want from you and others is, at bare minimum, recognition that you cannot possibly know my truth.

And I can't know yours.

You're right. I don't know your truth. But as I've stated in other posts, if what you believe brings you happiness then that sounds like a damn good reason to keep believing.

So let's call the whole thing off.

Are you asking that we drop this subject? Last summer on this forum I voiced a concern that my atheists views might be inappropriate in this forum since there are so many Christians in this group. I said that since I really like this forum that maybe I had better cool it to avoid offending people.

Several people responded and said that I should feel free to express my views and not to hold my opinions back. So I felt more at ease in expressing my views.

Since then however, I've gone out of my way on several occasions to be supportive and friendly to several individuals on this forum. What I received from them was a very cold shoulder. Receiving a cold shoulder is the same as hearing, "I don't respect you enough to even give you the courtesy of a response."

But, I've been openly gay for 34 years and I've gotten a lot of cold shoulders over the years. It's something I've had to learn to live with.

Sorry. I got a little sidetracked. This wasn't directed towards you.

Rick

[Emproph]

Several people responded and said that I should feel free to express my views and not to hold my opinions back. So I felt more at ease in expressing my views.

Since then however, I've gone out of my way on several occasions to be supportive and friendly to several individuals on this forum. What I received from them was a very cold shoulder. Receiving a cold shoulder is the same as hearing, "I don't respect you enough to even give you the courtesy of a response."

I’m sorry for that, Rick. I’m grateful for your participation on this forum. I wish there were more nontheists who felt comfortable here.

Between this current thread, and a previous thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2903), my views about atheism and atheists have completely changed. The discussion was uncomfortable at times, but it forced me to take a deeper look at my own beliefs, and realize that belief in a deity, or an afterlife, or “reward” for one’s efforts, is not a necessary component for someone to live their lives according to the Golden Rule - Love.

I now have no doubt that there are many atheists who give their lives and their freedoms -- without thought -- every day for the betterment of others.

I’m not your orthodox believer in God. My understanding is that all energy is conscious, and all that is, is made of energy. So it’s not “God” I would intend to prove, but the consciousness that is the source of our own consciousness. Which I believe science will someday accomplish.

But even if that could be proven to your or any other atheist’s understanding, what would change?

Only the satisfaction of knowing that love lives on.

In love, in the conscious acceptance and adherence to the Golden Rule, God is already proven, whether or not one thinks of it as a deity, or results in the "reward" of an afterlife.

In my view, it is atheists who adhere to the Golden Rule without the promise of further reward who's faith in love is stronger than mine.

But for me, to put it simply, I feel that it is conscience itself that is evidence of the consciousness of “God,” at least on a personal level.

At some point I hope to put that in grand essay form, hopefully to the satisfaction of even atheists - at least for those who are interested in the matter.

But for right now, as far as I’m concerned, and from what I’ve learned from this and the other thread mentioned, we are unified in our desire to manifest the truth of love in this world.

And as a believer in the magic fairy in the sky…;) I feel that there is no higher goal.

-Patrick

[andrewlittle]

I don't think the statement "God is imaginary" belittles anybody. I think when some theists hear someone say "God is imaginary" what they're hearing is "People who believe in God are stupid," and so they become defensive. Saying "God is imaginary" is not name calling.

I agree thoroughly. Unless the insult is direct, as in "you're ignorant for believing in a God", the insult is imaginary. Even when it is direct, the insult comes from the words "ignorant" or "stupid" or whatever, not from the naysaying about God.

If one believes in God, is it not counter-intuitive to think that there is a need to protect God? Isn't God perfectly capable of self-defense? Even so, that is what a great many theists feel a need to do. I believe, for what it is worth, that is because many theists (Christians especially) are ill-equipped to "defend their faith", technically called an apologia, and so fall back to defending God by resorting to accusations of "blasphemy" or "heretic".

The perceived insult, I think, results from an insecurity stemming from being unable or uncomfortable with articulating our bases of faith. Many seem to have explaining their faith mixed up with convincing others they should have the same faith as they. If I cannot convince others, my faith is somehow inadequate. This, of course, just cannot be - it is a cognitive dissonance that cannot be reconciled - so, there must be something inherently wrong or evil about the person who will not accept my faith as their own. Otherwise, I FAIL.

We forget that certainty is the opposite of faith, not doubt.

You're right. I don't know your truth. But as I've stated in other posts, if what you believe brings you happiness then that sounds like a damn good reason to keep believing.

Amen! Amen! (Sorry, that just means "Truly! Truly")

Obviously, the ways atheists express their believes is as varied as the ways we theists express ours. Some at both ends of the spectrum are fire-breathing converters wanting to convince others that theirs is the only true way. Other show the grace to say what Rick did. If only more theists could say that, as well.

... Since then however, I've gone out of my way on several occasions to be supportive and friendly to several individuals on this forum. What I received from them was a very cold shoulder. Receiving a cold shoulder is the same as hearing, "I don't respect you enough to even give you the courtesy of a response."

Sorry. I got a little sidetracked. This wasn't directed towards you. Rick

I hope I am not one who has given you the cold-shoulder, Rick. My apologies, if I am.

I am reminded of one of my Christian Ethics professors who said something like, "The strongest outward expression of your faith, whatever it may happen to be, is how it prompts you to treat others - how it informs your own ethical decision-making."

I think I very much respect your ethics, Rick, because they are informed by and reflect your beliefs. Peace and grace to you.

[dsdrane]

I don't think the statement "God is imaginary" belittles anybody. I think when some theists hear someone say "God is imaginary" what they're hearing is "People who believe in God are stupid," and so they become defensive. Saying "God is imaginary" is not name calling.

Sorry...I meant to say "God is imaginary" (http://www.godisimaginary.com/) is an actual website -- the one my friend shared with me -- and it pretty much says theists are stupid/naive, etc.

I had never seen anything like it before, and it really got my goat. I think the thing that upset me the most was the fact that my friend and I are both open-minded people, and suddenly I discovered her taking a stance that I found belittling. Further, she was actually shocked to find out that someone -- me -- might find it offensive.

Kind of an important to thing to have left out...sorry.


Are you asking that we drop this subject?

No, not at all. My little Gershwin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5Hls) reference was an attempt to say: we're different...so what...let's just coexist. Or, as the song says towards the end: we'd better call the calling off off." ;)


What I received from them was a very cold shoulder. Receiving a cold shoulder is the same as hearing, "I don't respect you enough to even give you the courtesy of a response."

That's a shame, and it's exactly why I had a conversation with my friend; I wanted to explain to her that the site she found hilarious was something I saw as obnoxious and mean-spirited. It never occured to her she might be tarring me with the same brush. I explained that I'm totally cool with her atheism and had no desire to mock it or change it...I just wanted the same consideration.

Happily, it was worth the effort...and not because I "won". The real victory was the she realized she was tolerating, promoting even, intolerance...something she found intolerable. ;)

[Rick336]

Obviously, the ways atheists express their believes is as varied as the ways we theists express ours. Some at both ends of the spectrum are fire-breathing converters wanting to convince others that theirs is the only true way. Other show the grace to say what Rick did. If only more theists could say that, as well.

I used to post on another site that was primarily an atheist forum. But unlike this forum, there was some mean-spirited name calling going on from both sides of the debate. It was a very negative atmosphere.

I hope I am not one who has given you the cold-shoulder, Rick. My apologies, if I am.

No. This happened months ago when I extended my hand out to someone in friendship. I got a, "No thanks."

But we've probably all had a similar experience at least once. I sure don't expect to be liked by everybody. My momma once told me when I was a kid, "No matter how hard you try, there's always going to be some people who will like you and some people who won't. So maybe if you don't try so hard, there will be some who like you, and some who won't."

I think that's good advice.


I am reminded of one of my Christian Ethics professors who said something like, "The strongest outward expression of your faith, whatever it may happen to be, is how it prompts you to treat others - how it informs your own ethical decision-making."

I think I very much respect your ethics, Rick, because they are informed by and reflect your beliefs. Peace and grace to you.

Thanks Andy. :) It's hard to see myself through the eyes of others. Sometimes I think I need to be reminded that atheism and homosexuality are still not very popular in this country. The issues carry a lot of negative emotions. I sometimes wonder if I need to be a little more tactful and sensitive with my words, or at least be aware of how others may interpret them. Unfortunately, sometimes that happens only in retrospect.

Maybe instead of me saying, "There is absolutely no evidence of God," I should say, "At this point in time, most scientists still see no evidence for an intelligent creator." Both statements are true. But the second one leaves the possibility open that maybe one day they will.

Rick