![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 77. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:17
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Michael83's post, posted by alexandra_k on September 26, 2006, at 0:42:56
Here is some of what Daniel Dennett has to say (available off the Brights website):
A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that 27 million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference. That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than a religious one — more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.
Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. We don't want to turn every conversation into a debate about religion, and we don't want to offend our friends and neighbors, and so we maintain a diplomatic silence.
But the price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us.
From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk vote-getter. And, of course, the assault isn't only rhetorical: the Bush administration has advocated changes in government rules and policies to increase the role of religious organizations in daily life, a serious subversion of the Constitution. It is time to halt this erosion and to take a stand: the United States is not a religious state, it is a secular state that tolerates all religions and — yes — all manner of nonreligious ethical beliefs as well.
I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together leading scientists, artists and authors to talk candidly and informally about their lives to a group of very smart high school students. Toward the end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as a bright.
Now, my identity would come as no surprise to anybody with the slightest knowledge of my work. Nevertheless, the result was electrifying.
Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.
In addition, many of the later speakers, including several Nobel laureates, were inspired to say that they, too, were brights. In each case the remark drew applause. Even more gratifying were the comments of adults and students alike who sought me out afterward to tell me that, while they themselves were not brights, they supported bright rights. And that is what we want most of all: to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.
If you're a bright, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves. (The founding brights maintain a Web site on which you can stand up and be counted.) I appreciate, however, that while coming out of the closet was easy for an academic like me — or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a similar call in England — in some parts of the country admitting you're a bright could lead to social calamity. So please: no "outing."
But there's no reason all Americans can't support bright rights. I am neither gay nor African-American, but nobody can use a slur against blacks or homosexuals in my hearing and get away with it. Whatever your theology, you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or agnostics or other godless folk.
And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a bright? Would you support a nominee for the Supreme Court who was a bright? Do you think brights should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of police?
Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling chorus of brights. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best friends are brights."
Posted by Dinah on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:19
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Lindenblüte, posted by Michael83 on September 25, 2006, at 16:07:53
> The Bible also clearly says that anyone who becomes a Christian, then leaves the faith, is not allowed back in, and cannot be forgiven (Jesus himself said this).
I've been a practicing member of three denominations. Not one of them taught this, and all three actively expressed the opposite viewpoint.
Posted by Declan on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:24
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Lindenblüte » Michael83, posted by Dinah on September 26, 2006, at 7:29:23
Michael, Jesus didn't say that. He did say that a sin against the Holy Spirit was unforgiveable. Is that what you're thinking of?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:31
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83, posted by Declan on September 26, 2006, at 17:53:33
This is a pretty good look at contradictions in biblical texts:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#introduction
This church looks okay...
http://www.churchofvirus.org/index.html
I think it might be inspired by Dennett and Dawkins new books on religion... They consider the idea (meme) of religion to be a parasite that survives in spite of harming the hosts (us people).
Posted by Declan on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:32
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83, posted by alexandra_k on September 26, 2006, at 19:44:56
This is a bit off topic, but I didn't like "The Blind Watchmaker" (is it?) by Dawkins. Maybe he's not a very attractive personality?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:34
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83 » alexandra_k, posted by Declan on September 26, 2006, at 21:37:04
I started reading it but I never finished.
He wrote "The Selfish Gene" which is more influential.
People thought natural selection worked at the level of the organism, but he argued that the unit of selection was the gene. Organisms are just things that carry around genes. Thats how come people risk their lives for their kids and stuff... Survival of the genes...He has a book out now on religion. Dennett has one too.
I'll see if I can link to them:
It is controversial...
But kinda interesting. My version of novels...
Posted by Michael83 on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:35
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83, posted by Declan on September 26, 2006, at 17:53:33
It was my mistake, one of the apostles said it on the book of Hebrews, I gave the verse above.
But nonetheless, the church generally says the Bible is 100% correct because it was inspired by the word of God.
But as I said above...
Then how are we supposed to know what to believe?
If we were given questionable information, who is to blame someone for leaving the faith? Humans are not perfect, so how can the system of judgement leave no room for error?
And if they are not to blame for leaving based on faulty, misleading, questionable interpretations, doesn't that contradict the whole "belief in Jesus is the only way to salvation" concept, which is the basis for Christianity?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:37
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83 » Declan, posted by Michael83 on September 27, 2006, at 1:28:45
> But nonetheless, the church generally says the Bible is 100% correct because it was inspired by the word of God.Unfortunately the Bible says contradictory things hence it can't be 100% correct.
> Then how are we supposed to know what to believe?I guess... One might have to fall back on your making up your own mind instead of relying on the bible / church doctrine...
Posted by Declan on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:40
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83 » Declan, posted by Michael83 on September 27, 2006, at 1:28:45
Michael, "belief in Jesus as the only way to salvation" is a bit different from the Christianity I was brought up on. We were told that too, I guess, but believed inconsistantly that those who hadn't had the opportunity to hear the Word were OK, and even those who were in the wrong (everyone but us) were OK too, as long as they were good (or something).
Sunday School was taken by Baptists who taught us all about Satan being tied up for 1000 years (in the bottomless pit?), and then him being loosed on the world and Armageddon and all that interesting stuff.
It took me a while to understand that the men didn't really believe in any of it, while the women would have liked to. This explained the funny looks everyone had on their faces as they came back from Communion. I asked my mother what they were doing up there and she said something about a body. I assumed she was talking about sex and left it at that (maybe I was right?). But anyway, that was a while ago and there's been a fundamentalist revival since.
You know how in Islam apostasy (turning from the faith) is a capital offence? When I was growing up we were culturally secure/arrogant enough to believe that we were much more enlightened.
Posted by Michael83 on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:45
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83, posted by Declan on September 27, 2006, at 14:40:25
I'm not completely sure I understand what you're saying Declan.
>>>>but believed inconsistantly that those who hadn't had the opportunity to hear the Word were OK, and even those who were in the wrong (everyone but us) were OK too, as long as they were good (or something).
I onced believed that too, but I realized I want to believe in a certain religion the way is was originally supposed to be believed in, or not believe in it at all. I'm not going to "prop up" and modernize a religion. If a religion is correct, it should withstand time and social change.
Not everyone believes what I stated, thankfully.
Those who believe in the more "open minded" Christianity in my opinion use religion responsibly.
While those who teach the "fire and brimstone" version are teaching a very irresponsible version. Deep down, I think those people are just as scared as I am (and others are just insecure or arrogant), but they cannot conjure up the courage to believe in a more reasonable version of Christianity.
All the nicest and intelligent people I've known who were Christian believed in the responsible version, while the least intelligent, most bigoted, and arrogant believed in the irresponsible version. I think if there is a god, he created us to react in certain ways to the philosophical tenets that are best. Meaning, if you insert a good philosophy, you will get a person who is universally admired, if you insert a bad one, you will get an opposite result (the arrogant, bigoted types often seen).
I just can't get myself to believe the "fire and brimstone" version isn't true, although I've logically defeated it in my mind a million times.
>>>>>When I was growing up we were culturally secure/arrogant enough to believe that we were much more enlightened.
As long as the "fire and brimstone" version exists in this society, we're no better than them.
Posted by Michael83 on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:48
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83, posted by alexandra_k on September 27, 2006, at 2:11:59
When I say the phrase "Then how are we supposed to know what to believe?" I'm basically trying to declare the traditional Christian religion null and void based on the logic I present.
My basic argument is, if there is contradictory, bad, false, unbelievable, or unreasonable information, and the religion's tenets leave no room for forgiveness (at least in terms of whether or not you'll go to hell) for someone who has used their logic, yet came up at odds with the faith, how can this belief system be valid?
This would mean good people, who really thought about it and offered their belief, but were turned away by faulty, misleading, or unreasonable, are going to hell.
A religion like that is not just.
How can a perfect God create an unjust system/religion? I don't believe God would create an unjust system where good people (who were born into a life without their consent and forced to make this decision) slip through the cracks, and where only only a lucky few who were emotionally/intellectually vulnerable enough to believe it get to go to heaven, while the rest will be punished for eternity.
I could write volumes more on this, but I'd have a nervous breakdown, so I'm going to bed now.
But doesn't my logic make sense? I'm not the only one who sees that am I?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:50
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83 » alexandra_k, posted by Michael83 on September 28, 2006, at 0:49:37
> if there is contradictory, bad, false, unbelievable, or unreasonable information...
maybe that comes of taking the bible literally instead of metaphorically?
> How can a perfect God create an unjust system/religion?
maybe he just let the translators corrupt it...
but then you get the problem of evil.
i think the problem of evil if fatal. i think the problem of evil shows that it is not logically possible that god (an all loving, all knowing, all powerful agent) exists, hence it is not actual that god exists (hence god does not exist)
but there have been numerous theodicies (defences) of that conception of god in the face of the problem of evil...
apparantly philosophers (who study such things) are split down the middle regarding the existence of omni-god. so... who knows.
i just... find that notion of god doesn't help me understand, explain, or find meaning that i can't get from alternative explanations. and so... i have no use for the concept of god.
but it is an individual decision, i guess...
Posted by rayww on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:54
In reply to Having panic/anxiety attack again, ADVICE? HELP?, posted by Michael83 on September 19, 2006, at 21:58:06
When you feel confusion about religion and your mind becomes darkened it means that you should keep searching. Religion should bring peace to your soul, and should not make you feel like justifying by fighting against another. Those are all on the dark side of religion. There is a bright side to religion. Pray, seek, trust till you get on the right track.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:59
In reply to Re: Having panic/anxiety....and it's one thing... » Phillipa, posted by Michael83 on September 19, 2006, at 23:07:48
Michael83,
You wrote,[...I do not believe in heaven, Jesus, the bible, miracles, an afterlife, or anything like that....To believe in any of those things is impossible...].
I ask;
A. By what authority do you use to write that it is impossible to believe in any of the things that you mentioned to be impossible?
B. If it is impossible, as you write, to believe those things, could it be possible, in your opinion, that there could be things unbeknowing to you that could make it possible to believe those things?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2006, at 23:04:02
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Michael83's post, posted by Michael83 on September 26, 2006, at 0:09:45
Michael83,
You wrote,[...The Christian relgion..does not add up....Not a bit...].
I ask;
A. What is your definition of the phrase,{add up}?
B. In your use of {not a bit}, are you saying that there is not {any} part of the Christian religion that {adds up}?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2006, at 23:04:08
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83 » Declan, posted by Michael83 on September 28, 2006, at 0:40:35
Michael83,
you wrote,[...(people that I know who are Christian) those that teach the {fire and brimstone} version are teaching a ..irresponsible version....the least intelligent, most bigoted, and arrogant believed in the irrisponsible version.
Could you clarify if:
A. you can identify people that you do not know that are Christian to be the least intelligent by asking them if they teach or believe the fire and brimstone version?
B. If that is the case, then could you identify someone that you do not know, that are not Christian, to be either intelligent or not by asking them their perspective on the fire and brimstone version?
C. Could you tell if someone is intelligent or not, if they are not a Christian and you do not know them, by asking them if they accept the perspective of the fire and brimstone version?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2006, at 23:30:32
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83 » Declan, posted by Michael83 on September 28, 2006, at 0:40:35
> those who teach the "fire and brimstone" version are teaching a very irresponsible version. Deep down, I think those people ... cannot conjure up the courage to believe in a more reasonable version of Christianity.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Here on Social, you don't need to support religious faith, but it's still important to be civil.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 30, 2006, at 10:25:52
In reply to Redirected to Faith board, posted by gardenergirl on September 28, 2006, at 8:47:47
oops.
the conversation diverged rather...
seeing as it wasn't on the faith board and all i posted some stuff that i wouldn't have posted on the faith board (seeing as atheism and agnosticism and even flying spaghetti monster and virus is probably considered unsupportive of religious faith)though... flying spahetti monster is probably ok?
Posted by gardenergirl on September 30, 2006, at 12:02:07
In reply to Re: Redirected to Faith board, posted by alexandra_k on September 28, 2006, at 21:19:26
> oops.
>
> the conversation diverged rather...
> seeing as it wasn't on the faith board and all i posted some stuff that i wouldn't have posted on the faith board (seeing as atheism and agnosticism and even flying spaghetti monster and virus is probably considered unsupportive of religious faith)
>
> though... flying spahetti monster is probably ok?If there's any problem with your post because I moved it, I take full responsibility. I admit I didn't read each post again before moving the thread.
gg
Posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:02:26
In reply to Lou's request for clarification to Michael83.. » Michael83, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2006, at 11:26:53
A. I believe it is impossible to "believe" in something if you have no evidence to base that belief on. "God" is impossible for us to understand, so I think it's incorrect to say we know the nature of the ruler of the universe.
I just think the best we can do is "hope" for a God. If your way of believing is to "hope" then I understand and agree 100%. I too hope for a loving God.
B. Yes, and I use the word "hope" to describe the things I suspect, but have no proof to base my suspicions on.
I'm only saying we should describe our belief in God as a "hope" rather than a "belief."
But if you truly "believe" that's fine. I'm not pointing any fingers. I could be wrong.
Posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:06:07
In reply to Lou's request for clarificatio to Michael83's post » Michael83, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2006, at 12:04:31
I'm trying to reply to your post as best I can without it looking like I'm blaming anyone, as Bob would like. I don't want to break the rules, so I'll describe it the best I can.
A. I do not believe that God created human beings uninvited, gave them an illogical belief system, and will punish them for simply following their logic. I do not believe that God would create faulty human beings and then blame them for their mistakes (which he created). There are just too many holes in a belief system like that.
B. Well no, a lot of it is good advice. I was just emphasizing how confused I am with it.
Posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:10:03
In reply to Lou's request for clarification from Michael83 » Michael83, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2006, at 13:43:38
For your 3rd reply, I cannot answer those questions on here. I have my opinions, but I still respect everyone's belief. Some people just believe what makes them happy, and I guess the thing I've asked the most is "what's wrong with that?" I do the same as them, believe in what makes me happy.
Posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:11:35
In reply to Re: please be civil » Michael83, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2006, at 23:30:32
I'm sorry Bob, I'll try to be more careful about what I say. I didn't mean to make it look like I'm pointing fingers. I just felt threatened by people who claim I'm going to burn in hell.
But I will try to be more careful about what I say, I understand completely.
Thanks.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 1, 2006, at 8:12:40
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification to Michael83.. » Lou Pilder, posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:02:26
Michael83,
You wrote,[...it's {incorrect} to say (we know [the nature] of the ruler of the universe)....we should describe our belief in God as "hope" rather than "belief"...].
A.Are you saying that those that say that they know in their heart that God is love, are incorrect to say that they know that the nature of God is love?
B.Are you saying that those that describe that they believe in their heart that God is love, and they say that they have experianced the Love of God, {should} really be saying that they hope that God is love instead of that they believe in their heart that and that those that say that they believe are {incorrect}?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 1, 2006, at 8:38:00
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarificatio to Michael83's, posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:06:07
Michael83,
You wrote,[...I do not believe that (God) gave {them} an illogical belief system...there are too many holes in a belief system like that...]]
A. Are you saying that the Jews and others that believe that they are recipiants of a belief system that they say that God gave them, is an illogical system, so thearfore , according to you, the Jews and others that believe that they are recipiants of a system given to them by God are beliveing something that is not true, because you say that it is {illogical}?
B. in your statement,[...there are too many holes in a belief system like that...],could it not be that what you think are {holes in the beliefe system} could possibly be explained with things that may be unbeknowing to you so that if you knew those things the holes might not be there?
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.