Godless ranting

How true! It does seem that whatever we write is viewed as a rant or an attack on something. I hadn't really thought about this before. I guess someone has to fuel the right's War on _____.

Ah. The term 'screeds' seems similarly popular. I've also seen 'blather' and 'twaddle' invoked more than once. But, of course, the biggest fountain of foolishness is not the sporadic use of dismissive language; it's the assumption, rarely challenged, that words like 'atheist' or 'godless' are pejoratives.

I've been working on my self-righteous sputter, along the lines of: "But...but...but....many of these people are my FRIENDS!" So far, sad to say, it's not working....SH

If you don't want 'godless' to be a perorative, Hatfield, you should work so that 'godfearing' isn't a commendation. The absense of a positive is a relative negative.

And not to forget the obligatory "self-professed" before "atheist".
I wonder why they never use "self-professed Christian/Muslim/Jew/etc."

It also seems to be fairly typical to attribute a religiosity of godlessness, a zeal (often of the proselytizing sort) or even a fundamentalist mindset to the writer. This is often followed by a self-righteous proclamation of how agnosticism is the only scientifically tenable* (or even rational**) position and the implication is made (or it is stated outright) that god belief and atheism are strictly equivalent positions rationally speaking.

* Which is strictly true in the sense that atheism cannot be supported by logic any more than the lack of purple Amazon women living in the dark side of the moon can be currently supported by logic (though I know no one who claims otherwise).
** Which is, in my opinion, not true.

Um... we've seen the dark side of the Moon, surveyed it quite completely, and know more about it than our own oceans.

There aren't any purple Amazon women living there.

Ah, but they are invisible purple Amazon women, didn't you know?

Look I do not know where I should post this or even if I should post it. Seems like it might fit here today if not well I'm sorry to intrude.

If I stick with the "God" of Abraham and look at "the book" these thoughts come.
The ancient people were mostly not literate in the same way we are or tend to be.
They were also more familiar with riddles and word thought puzzles than we are today (just an impression on my part not having done any study on the subject myself). So when I look at the "Creation Story" two questions come first to mind
What did "God" make the world out of?
Where did it come from?

How is it that most believers never seem to get to those questions? They the majority (All) of them only can conceive of the personification of the God they insist on, understanding it as a person like themselves but with magic "supernatural" powers. Which seems like a straight forward projection of their own psychological desire and history?

The scientific method which is the base of science seeks to answer the questions
What is this really?
How does it work?
"What is the world made of "?

All the answers I have seen are humbling if nothing else. From the search for the unified field theory to the workings of evolution moving man out of the reason for "the Creation" to just a small piece of an amazing whole.

Religion and belief in God or gods are phenomena that do exist in the human population and deserve study and understanding with serious research.

Since we all live in the world of reality we should not forget that there is great danger in people who hold such inflexible beliefs. I would say personally that they are not to be trusted. Be they of any "faith" Christian, Jew, Moslem or Hindu, they are all very capable of violence to any that differ from them and must be resisted at every turn.

That I think was the understanding of those men who founded our form of government.

mr. bill

Caledonian: Not sure what you're getting at, old Scot. I'm not afraid of God, myself, and I'm not that interested in anyone who would commend either fear and/or ignorance as a guide to living, whatever their ideology. To that extent, I agree with you. Peace...SH

Scott, I think Caledonian means that we do everything within our power to make it clear that the adjective "godfearing," ie, that people should believe in God and do what God says out of fear that He/She/It will send them to languish in eternal hellfire forever and ever and ever if they don't, is an extremely harmful term.

C wrote:
And not to forget the obligatory "self-professed" before "atheist".
I wonder why they never use "self-professed Christian/Muslim/Jew/etc."

One reason I can see (having spent far too many decades in a fundamentalist church) is that they've heard sermons about the "practical atheist", meaning someone who claims to be a Christian but who doesn't take God into consideration in his/her life choices.

And of course, there is always, "There are no real atheists; just wait until they're in a tight spot; they always pray then."

So, "professed atheist" is the term of choice.

To which, one may reasonably answer, "I'm professed, I'm real, and I'm immensely practical. 100% atheist, IOW."

PZ, have you gotten your blessing from the Bible Faith Handkerchief yet?

Um... we've seen the dark side of the Moon, surveyed it quite completely, and know more about it than our own oceans.

You look in one corner and they hide in a different corner. That's how they get you, you never see them coming.

Suddenly, I'm reminded of this old movie about "Catwomen On The Moon."

Michael Novak: They are almost as literal in their readings of the Bible as the least educated, most literal-minded fundamentalist in Flannery O'Connor's rural Georgia. They regale themselves with finding contradictions and impossibilities in these literal readings of theirs, but the full force of their ridicule depends on misreading the literary form of the Biblical passages at stake, whether they be allegorical, metaphorical, poetic, or resonant with many meanings, for the nourishment of a soul under stress. The Bible almost never pretends to be science, or strictly literal history.

Boo hoo. So how come all that weird stuff is in there then? Even if it's metaphorigicacal, how come it's so weird and stupid? I think maybe the only "nourishment" is the pretend nourishment. :-)

Stanton: As I said, I don't commend fear as a guide to living, including the fear of eternal damnation. I reject the argument ad baculum and I don't cotton to those who employ it, in the slightest---including the caricature of petty tyrant that appears to inhabit much of the OT...SH

"...but the full force of their ridicule depends on misreading the literary form of the Biblical passages at stake, whether they be allegorical, metaphorical, poetic, or resonant with many meanings, for the nourishment of a soul under stress."

Fuck that dude. One of the best courses I had in college was on the Old Testament, and we did indeed cover all those "allegorical, metaphorical, poetic" aspects of Abraham, Saul, Samuel, David, Job, et. al. Fascinating, wonderful, beautiful stories in many respects. But guess what? I was even more of an atheist when the class was done. Like what Virginia Woolf said, "I read the Book of Job last night - I don't think God comes well out of it." Ditto that, sister; ditto that.

'I reject the argument ad baculum...'
----Posted by: Scott Hatfield

Appeal to the penis bone? Ok, ok, primary meanings are: cudgel, or stick. But I like mine better.
I spent a summer with a crew trapping bears, a project of an evilutionist professor from NCSU, Raleigh. One of my jobs was to wield ruler and vernier calipers to measure the baculum length, testes diameters, etc.

More Michael Novak: Moreover, none of them ever put their weak, confused, and unplumbed ideas about God under scrutiny. Their natural habit of mind is anthropomorphic.

How very ironic considering that Mr. Novak's god wears a robe and sandals. :-) Weak, confused, and unplumbed ideas for a weak, confused, and unplumbed metaphorigicacals.

Stanton: As I said, I don't commend fear as a guide to living, including the fear of eternal damnation. I reject the argument ad baculum and I don't cotton to those who employ it, in the slightest---including the caricature of petty tyrant that appears to inhabit much of the OT...SH

Okay people, if there is anything in the Bible that Mr. Hatfield or Mr. Novak doesn't like, then everyone please feel free to ignore those parts of the Bible. :-)

More Michael Novak: "Our hearts are restless, Lord," St. Augustine recorded, with much resonance in millions upon millions of inquiring minds down through human history ever since.

Augustine thought that the stars orbited the earth, but we can forgive him for that because it has been shown that this is not the case. I wonder why it is that St. Augustine continues to get away with a lot of stuff that cannot be shown to either be or not be the case. Gee, I wonder why that is. Same goes for the Bible too. :-)

Augustine thought that the stars orbited the earth, but we can forgive him for that because it has been shown that this is not the case.

And we can forgive the Bible for that. And we can forgive the Koran for that, too.

Ergo, the Bible, the Koran, and St. Augustine, are all Jesus Christ.

Okay, that's enough godless ranting for one day. :-)

The "dark side" of the moon has the same problem that science does; It keeps changing position as new light is shed on it.

Why can't it decide where the light and dark sides should be and stick with it?!

That's why I likes my plastic Jesus. He's always in the same place on my dashboard. Although if I gets wheels for my truck he might move around some. Although not relative to my dashboard, if you know wut ah mean.

Regarding "Self-Professed Atheist"

I think I know of another reason why believers use this phrase. I have heard this line of rhetoric listening to Christian radio and I have read it on Christian blogs.

They say that the evidence for God is overwhelming and obvious. They also say that God has revealed himself to all. Therefore, the atheist doesn't genuinely disbelieve in God's existence. The atheist is actually in denial because he/she does not want to confront themselves as a sinner.

Now imagine what the effects of this are on the believer. Thinking this gives them a way out of any curiosity as to why some people don't believe in God, and it serves to suppress their own doubts about God's existence.

William said:
"What did "God" make the world out of?
Where did it come from?
How is it that most believers never seem to get to those questions?"

I am sure many here have heard this from believers:
"To be an atheist, one has to believe that something (i.e. the universe) came from nothing".

Again, apparently believers don't see the obvious contradiction in their reasoning. I suppose we atheists could say. "To believe in God one has to believe that nothing has always been, and that nothing created everything."

386sx: I don't ignore passages from the Origin or the Descent of Man that offend our present sensibilities, nor do I recommend that others ignore them. Instead, I recommend that one should place those passages in the appropriate historical context.

Similarly, one can have reservations about this or that part of the Bible without ignoring them, or recommending that anyone else ignore them.

The question, ultimately, is not one of ignorance but one of judgement in context. Holding up a naive fundy reading of the text can only advance the former, whatever text one is considering....SH