Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believers

**MrHeathen** · 06-09-2010, 10:40 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

man mi here thinking di same thing

Monk have more patience than job(pun intended)

The problem you come across when arguing with people of "faith" is that they can use it to substantiate any stance.
However when it comes to their lives they usually only apply it to religion.
I dunno too many people that will ide in an airplane on faith alone without having some degree of certainty it was checked and serviced.

@ the end of the day a wise person once said

Faith does not give us the answers it simply stops us from asking the questions.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Monk,
I have to say I am total agreement with your way of thinking on the God myths.
Thanks for your time and thoughtful explanations.

Again, thanks for the impeccable logic of your arguments.
</div></div>

**rudemonk** · 06-09-2010, 11:17 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I heard Marcelo Gleiser talking about his new book A Tear at the Edge of Creation on late night radio and ordered it the next day from from Amazon. I'm half way though it. Mr Gleiser is a great lecturer and writer. And I recommend it to you all who are interested in this topic.

http://www.amazon.com/Tear-Edge-Creation...4416&sr=1-1

</div></div>

<span style="font-style: italic">
“A scientist's deeply personal plea to accept and cherish the universe as it is—with all its rich and creative imperfections—rather than seek in vain some sterile notion of simplistic ?oneness.' Urging humility above all before the fantastic complexity of our universe, Gleiser reminds us that neither the universe nor life needs a ?reason' in order to be meaningful. Only by embracing the fragility and unlikeliness of our existence can we create a new morality aimed at fighting not each other, but together as a species, for the continued existence of what is probably the only life in the universe capable of fully appreciating all that surrounds us.”

—K.C. Cole, author of Something Incredibly Wonderful Happens
</span>

sounds very buddhist!

**rudemonk** · 06-09-2010, 11:24 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Member_0</div><div class="ubbcode-body">man mi here thinking di same thing

Monk have more patience than job(pun intended)

The problem you come across when arguing with people of "faith" is that they can use it to substantiate any stance.
However when it comes to their lives they usually only apply it to religion.
I dunno too many people that will ide in an airplane on faith alone without having some degree of certainty it was checked and serviced.

@ the end of the day a wise person once said

Faith does not give us the answers it simply stops us from asking the questions.
</div></div>

that's one of the crazy things- which is often pointed out by thinkers like dawkins or hitchens- normal relatively rational people who use the adaptations of science in their every day lives, whose every day lives are factual <span style="font-style: italic">proofs</span> of the very things that erode literal fundamental concepts of God, become divorced of their reasoning faculties when it comes to their personal myths...

for example evolution provides a classic example. people accept in courts of law DNA findings, or for paternity, or for organ rejection...yet suddenly when it comes out that the same exact science which is applied in those cases, also shows beyond any shadow of a doubt, that man and ape share common ancestry, wow...people go bananas and prefer to believe in a fairy tale.

but put them in that court case where DNA evidence would prove them innocent, and I bet they would have no trouble with the conclusion.

so i am not saying to throw away the myths, we obviously need them as we wrestle with archetypal issues and concepts, but we need to recognize them and understand what these myths- what the underlying process which fuels them and gives them shape- is about.

**jah_yout** · 06-10-2010, 12:09 AM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it is high time we shed ourselves of those cultural devices which force us to see the other as something not like ourselves.</div></div>

in this context, do you consider racism to be a religion?
how about homophobia?
what about homosexuality?
religions?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">when beliefs such as those which have destroyed entire peoples, and threaten to do so- </div></div>

i think the beliefs i just mentioned-- especially racism--have destroyed entire peoples...
--in other words people can use or mis-use 'beliefs'...that in itself does not prove or dis-prove the validity of whatever that belief is...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">such as what grips the middle east, can be shown to be what they really are, I think it behooves us to tirelessly beat the drum.</div></div>

again--the existence of violent religious fanatics does not reflect on whether 'a creator' exists or does not exist---any more than the existence of peaceful, benevolent people...or of a bad-behaving child indicate whether that child was reared by their parents or not...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right now we have people blowing themselves up over where a man on a flying horse visited. </div></div>

we also have people blowing things up in oklahoma, u.s.a. as well as kids shooting up schools with automatic weapons in columbine, u.s.a....bombing churches killing little girls in the 60's birmingham, u.s.a.---
ones using & mis-using ideologies...some may have even learned those ideaologies from a prophet of sorts--for that belief sytem---charles darwin;

so 'god' is certainly not to blame for these fanatics any more than 'man' is...
it is man after all, who creates religion...the existence of religion does not and can not prove whether 'god' exists or not, as religion is simply one of the methods man uses to attempt to understand the world...science is another method, though they are not mutually exclusive...neither has explained every last mystery of the universe--religious texts contain many allegorical & fantastic tales to illustrate certain points, while science attempts to use facts to back up theories and explain things...i'm just saying that certain things are still beyond our present-day comprehension---we are still learning and anyone who claims to have all the answers is a fraud...
there is a certain order to the universe still...

yea man, di likkle reasoning a get sweet...

respect

**rudemonk** · 06-10-2010, 04:59 AM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it is high time we shed ourselves of those cultural devices which force us to see the other as something not like ourselves.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
in this context, do you consider racism to be a religion?
how about homophobia?
what about homosexuality?
</div></div>

I think we need to clarify. There are religions which are racist. And religions which are not.

Human culture, as it has developed, is predicated on establishing the parameters of any given group of individuals. Often, we see these groups adopt definitions which at their heart can certainly be seen as racist, homophobic, or what have you.

This duality is actually what the majority of human spiritual systems is supposed to smash, but when literalisms gain more traction than metaphorical processes in any given system, problems begin to arise. Which is why the ancient Jews could slaughter whole populations on 'God's word'. For example.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">when beliefs such as those which have destroyed entire peoples, and threaten to do so- </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i think the beliefs i just mentioned-- especially racism--have destroyed entire peoples...
--in other words people can use or mis-use 'beliefs'...that in itself does not prove or dis-prove the validity of whatever that belief is...
</div></div>

of course. unless the belief itself is inherently racist- like some of the OT. it depends.

If God has 'chosen' a people to be special, then that is a slippery slope upon which abuse can be justified. For example.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">such as what grips the middle east, can be shown to be what they really are, I think it behooves us to tirelessly beat the drum.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
again--the existence of violent religious fanatics does not reflect on whether 'a creator' exists or does not exist---any more than the existence of peaceful, benevolent people...or of a bad-behaving child indicate whether that child was reared by their parents or not...
</div></div>

yes that is a side bar. setting aside the issue of such a being's fact of existence, once we move beyond that agnostic conclusion and into the conjectural area of what that being's possible existence is like, the point here is what people claim for this being. what people claim and what is observable/testable DOES reflect on that being's existence, and if that being does exist, the being has a moral responsibility to make that existence clear to it's creation. For example, if you claim this being is a creator. So that is, IF the being is moral, just, omnipotent, and omniscient, and our creator, it has a moral obligation which it is not holding up, as evidenced by observable facts.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right now we have people blowing themselves up over where a man on a flying horse visited. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
we also have people blowing things up in oklahoma, u.s.a. as well as kids shooting up schools with automatic weapons in columbine, u.s.a....bombing churches killing little girls in the 60's birmingham, u.s.a.---
ones using & mis-using ideologies...some may have even learned those ideaologies from a prophet of sorts--for that belief sytem---charles darwin;

so 'god' is certainly not to blame for these fanatics any more than 'man' is...

</div></div>

again, this depends on what the truth claim is about God.

If you claim that we were created by God, then yes, he is at fault, if it is within his power to have prevented the evils you just listed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it is man after all, who creates religion...the existence of religion does not and can not prove whether 'god' exists or not, as religion is simply one of the methods man uses to attempt to understand the world...science is another method, though they are not mutually exclusive...
</div></div>

except for where they are in fact mutually exclusive. like the human genome. we can match truth claims and determine what is true. or logic. again, it depends on the truth claim being examined and tested.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
neither has explained every last mystery of the universe--religious texts contain many allegorical & fantastic tales to illustrate certain points, while science attempts to use facts to back up theories and explain things...i'm just saying that certain things are still beyond our present-day comprehension---we are still learning and anyone who claims to have all the answers is a fraud...
there is a certain order to the universe still...

</div></div>
granted!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
yea man, di likkle reasoning a get sweet...

respect </div></div>

_/\_

**jah_yout** · 06-10-2010, 11:48 AM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it is high time we shed ourselves of those <span style="font-weight: bold">cultural devices which force us to see the other as something not like ourselves</span>.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
in this context, do you consider racism to be a religion?
how about homophobia?
what about homosexuality?
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think we need to clarify. There are religions which are racist. And religions which are not.
</div></div>

aah...but that is not the question...
the question is not whether some religions are more racist than others...
the question is:
is racism a religion?---based on your description of religion above...

if religion has destroyed earth...
then racism has done equally as much damage...
yet racism is not called a religion...

well here i am calling racism and white supremacy...or any other supremacy for that matter- religion;

i will even go further to back up what another poster said earlier...

even atheism is a religion....

**rudemonk** · 06-10-2010, 01:09 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

well, when in doubt, let's go to the books:

websters.com:

re·li·gion&#8194; &#8194;[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9.
get religion, Informal .
a.
to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b.
to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

So I think there are definite forms of racism which can be called religious, in that they stem from beliefs developed which include supernatural motifs/justifications.

But I think 'racism' by itself without qualifiers is too broad a term to label a Religion.

Atheism I don't think you can call a religion, to be fair to either term. Maybe, if you want to be very very stretchy with the definition in a conversational sense.

ps. I am not saying religion has destroyed earth, but I am saying it is a major causal factor for inter-human strife.

This because religion is of Mythology- it comes from any given people's mythologizing their relationship to the world. This can be seen in any perusal of all the fascinating spiritual systems we have the luxury of knowing about. For example, the motif of the World Mountain, why we see epic architecture like Ziggurats and Pyramids and earth mounds, the numeric progression of number sequences in disparate ethnic groups, the same themes and motifs expressed in slightly variant stories building on each other as groups come into contact. Culture is a means of identity. Identity and social order is an imposed illusion of value and self worth and a lookup table by which others can be viewed to ascertain as much. Therein lies the mind job. People need to invent or justify their reasons for exploiting each other, and even simple messages like Yashua's can be reformulated to express their opposite.

**jah_yout** · 06-12-2010, 12:45 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

3<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.</div></div>

according to these definitions...i would consider white supremacy to have been one of the biggest religions over the past 500 years...probably more influential than christianity & islam combined---the religion of racism has changed the entire population dynamics of the western hemisphere...capitalism & communism also religions with big impacts on modern times...

even the idea that science has answered all questions is a myth/religion...
scientists merely a hundred years ago bravely proclaimed that the african was a semi-evolved human closer on the evolutionary ladder to his ancestor the orangutang than to the european 'white' man...they published this stuff in fancy scholarly book after book...
now they have been proven wrong;

personally i have more faith in 'god' than in egotistical scientists claiming to know what they clearly do not...

**rudemonk** · 06-12-2010, 02:06 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.</div></div>

according to these definitions...i would consider white supremacy to have been one of the biggest religions over the past 500 years...
</div></div>

okay, but I think it's better stated that racists use whatever systems they have at hand to divest peoples of power and humanity- be it government, religion, culture...

maybe we are splitting hairs.

but I think you can go back waaaaaaaay farther than 500 years.

people have always systemically exploited the other, probably since human clustered in groups and shared resources.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

even the idea that science has answered all questions is a myth/religion...
scientists merely a hundred years ago bravely proclaimed that the african was a semi-evolved human closer on the evolutionary ladder to his ancestor the orangutang than to the european 'white' man...they published this stuff in fancy scholarly book after book...
</div></div>

well first of all we can't say at all that Science is claiming they have all the answers, there are tons of competing theories depending on what you are looking at- but we can say that when scientists working in any given field of inquiry- when they have built up enough consensus and there are results and conclusions derived from enough independent and converging streams of inquiry- like with evolution being supported by geology, genetics, paleontology, biology, etc., then yes they have the answer until proven otherwise. this is not to say that there are never tweaks or changes, which the public often misperceives as simply being total error.

I don't think there was ever consensus at all regarding the position of various humans on the evolutionary tree...BECAUSE...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
now they have been proven wrong;
</div></div>

it was SCIENCE, my bredren, that proved anyone holding that view wrong!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yute</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

personally i have more faith in 'god' than in egotistical scientists claiming to know what they clearly do not... </div></div>

well everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but I would simply say that those beliefs should be informed. I think if we did a survey, there would be less egotistical scientists making guesses and trying to prove their guesses, than religious people who KNOW without really knowing shyte, talking about their beliefs and pointing to a claptrap ensemble of -sometimes very lovely stories- stories in a book.

I mean just look at how many people in this country deny evolution? You have your answer right there.

**johnnycakes** · 06-13-2010, 09:05 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

Here's a good long piece on Noam Chomsky's thoughts on religions:

Very entertaining and informative.

Noam Chomsky
Linguist/Social Commentator
Chomsky, the founder of modern Linguistics, is also among the leading leftist thinkers in the world. Some of his quotes:

'Like everyone participating [in Science, Religion, Reason and Survival an Edge Discussion of BEYOND BELIEF] I'm what's called here a "secular atheist," except that I can't even call myself an "atheist" because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny.'
"As for the various religions, there's no doubt that they are very meaningful to adherents, and allow them to delude themselves into thinking there is some meaning to their lives beyond what we agree is the case. I'd never try to talk them out of the delusions, which are necessary for them to live a life that makes some sense to them. These beliefs can provide a framework for deeds that are noble or savage, and anywhere in between, and there's every reason to focus attention on the deeds and the background for them, to the extent that we can grasp it." (source: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival)
"...the Bible is probably the most genocidal book in the literary canon." (source: Interview with Noam Chomsky) (PDF)
"You can see that in the polls too. I was just looking at a study by an American sociologist (published in England) of comparative religious attitudes in various countries. The figures are shocking. Three quarters of the American population literally believe in religious miracles. The numbers who believe in the devil, in resurrection, in God doing this and that -- it's astonishing. These numbers aren't duplicated anywhere else in the industrial world. You'd have to maybe go to mosques in Iran or do a poll among old ladies in Sicily to get numbers like this. Yet this is the American population." (source: The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many)
"Just a couple of years ago, there was a study of what people thought of evolution. The percentage of the population that believe in Darwinian evolution at that point was 9% -- not all that much above statistical error. About half the population believed in divinely-guided evolution, Catholic church doctrine. About 40% thought the world was created a few thousand years ago." (source: The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many)
---
From ZNet's ChomskyChat (www.lbbs.org):
1998 May 17
Reply from [Noam Chomsky], to Darrenn Bills, on "Definition of God."
How do I define God? I don't. Divinities have been understood in various ways in the cultural traditions that we know. Take, say, the core of the established religions today: the Bible. It is basically polytheistic, with the warrior God demanding of his chosen people that they not worship the other Gods and destroy those who do -- in an extremely brutal way, in fact. It would be hard to find a more genocidal text in the literary canon, or a more violent and destructive character than the God who was to be worshipped. So that's one definition.
In the Prophets, one finds (sometimes) a different conception, much more humane. That's why the Prophets (the "dissident intellectuals" of their day) were persecuted, imprisoned, driven into the desert, etc. -- other reasons included their geopolitical analysis, unwelcome to power. The intellectuals who were honored and privileged were those who centuries later were called "false prophets." More or less a cultural universal. There were different conceptions of divinity associated with these tendencies, and Greek and Zoroastrian influences are probable causes for later monotheistic tendencies (how one evaluates these are a different matter).
Looking beyond, we find other conceptions, of many kinds. But I have nothing to propose. People who find such conceptions important for themselves have every right to frame them as they like. Personally, I don't. That's why you haven't found my "thoughts on this [for you] criticaI question." I have none, because I see no need for them (apart from the -- often extremely interesting and revealing -- inquiry into human culture an history).
As for "First Principles," basing them on divinities is, I think, a very bad idea. That leaves anyone free to pick the "first principles" they choose on other grounds, and to disguise the choices as "what God commands." If its the warrior God of the Bible, the First Principles are horrendous (in the basic texts) and often uplifting -- in Amos, for example; but recall that he made it clear that he was no intellectual (no "prophet," as the obscure Hebrew word is translated), but an ordinary farmer.
If you like Maslow's choices, fine, then say so. But nothing is gained by investing them with divinity, and a great deal is lost: specifically, the opportunity to question, elaborate, modify, or reject them. But these are basic elements of decent human life and thought, I believe.
If you want to use the word "God" to refer to "what you are and what you want" -- well, that's a terminological decision, not a substantive one. And a bad terminological decision, I think, for the reasons just mentioned.
Is "reality an accident"? Could the laws of nature have been other than what they are? Maybe one can make some sense of such questions, but bringing divinity into the story helps not at all. It only adds confusion and deflects serious thought and inquiry.
Is it "possible that the nature of reality could be a living urge towards freedom"? As Bakunin put it, is an "instinct for freedom" part of human nature, maybe part of organic nature? Could be. I hope so. But we don't know. But again, bringing divinity in just adds confusion and bars serious inquiry and action, in my opinion.
Others feel differently. They feel they need to ground their beliefs and hopes in something they call "God." OK. I don't legislate for others, but if they want my advice (no reason why they should), it's more or less as above.
On the linguistic work, it bears on these issues only tangentially, by seeking to explore some aspects of our essential and distinctive human nature. An exciting enterprise, I think, but these questions are barely touched.
---
A reader provides another quote from Noam Chomsky regarding religion. It's taken from ZNet's ChomskyChat archive at http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/chomchatarch.htm.
That "religion is inherently irrational" is surely true. Why one set of beliefs that are offered without argument or evidence rather than another? On the claim that "religion will die out in the next few hundred years unless it incorporates science for its explanation for cosmological events of the universe," possibly that is correct, if you mean organized religion (the Church in Rome, for example), but then they've moved in that direction long ago. As for religion being "a part of every observable society," if what is meant is that every society we know has sought to find some explanation for matters of deep human concern that we do not begin to understand (death, the origins of the universe, etc.), that's doubtless true. If one wants to call the constructs developed "religion," OK. I don't see what that implies, apart from the fact -- I presume it is a fact -- that people seek answers to hard questions, and where understanding reaches limits (very quickly, in most areas), they speculate, construct myths, etc. To draw conclusions about "human nature" from historical constructs of dominant societies in the past few thousand years seems to me quite a stretch. On "submission to an authoritarian God," that's part of some belief systems, not others. As for monotheism, I think a strong case can be made that that's not to be found in the Old Testament, pre-Babylonian exile, and may well have its roots in non-Semitic cultures, as often argued. On the divinity "allowing suffering to exist," there's a vast literature. As for "our model of god," we can "revamp" it if we have one. Not having one, I can't revamp it, or suggest how others should. On religion in an anarchistic society, I would agree with the classic anarchist slogan "Ni Dieu, ni Maitre" (No god, no master). I don't see the justification for either, but individuals make their own choices, just as I make mine.
---
A poster to the [message board] had come across a quote which prompted me, the Editor, to place Chomsky in the 'ambiguous' category.
"He {Noam Chomsky} has now reached the conclusion that some "divine superengineer" endowed humans with the power of language where formerly they had none. In short, language is not the product of impersonal evolution. Language demands structure and innate understanding of structures, etc. He is in search of a universal grammar. His theories, whether he knows it or not, point to an Intelligent Designer. Another name for this One is God. It is amazing how all branches of science are pointing towards the Creator." -- New York Times, 5 December 1998.
Reader DLM pursued and received a clarification from Chomsky himself, via Michael Albert the Sysop at ZNET (in late December 1999):
"Whoever you are quoting is misquoting an interview with a NY Times reporter who wanted to know about current work in linguistics that I'm involved in. In trying to explain some points, I suggested an "evolutionary fable," which had nothing to do with anything "divine" (that was inserted by the reporter) but with an imaginary engineer who had the task of inserting a language faculty in a brain in an optimal fashion. She reported it, accurately, as a fable, intended to illustrate a point graphically. No one who is within any realm of discourse I even remotely take part in doubts that language, like everything else about humans, is the product of evolution. But evolution has many mysteries, as every biologist knows. To say that some part of the organic world is the result of evolution is close to truism; beyond truism the interesting (and mostly unsolved) questions arise." --Noam Chomsky
Chomsky is now restored to the atheist section.
---
In the ChomskyChat public discussion forum, Chomsky was asked if he believes in a God. He replied in a message dated January 18, 2000:
Do I believe in God? Can't answer, I'm afraid. I'm not being flippant, but I don't understand the question. What is it that I am supposed to believe or not believe in? Are you asking whether I believe there is something not in the universe (or the universes, if there are (maybe infinitely) many of them), and that somehow stands above them? I've never heard of any reason for believing that. Something else? What. There are many concepts of spirituality, among them, various notions of divinity developed in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions. Within these the concepts vary greatly. St. Augustine and others, for example, argued that one should not take seriously the Biblical account of God as an exaggerated human, and other Biblical accounts, because they were crafted so as to make the intended message intelligible to humans -- and on such grounds, he argued, organized religion ought to accept persuasive conclusions of science, a conception that Galileo appealed to (in vain) when he faced Papal censure.
Anyway, without clarification of a kind I have never seen, I don't know whether I believe or don't believe in whatever a questioner has in mind.
I don't see how one can "believe in organized religion." What does it mean to believe in an organization? One can join it, support it, oppose it, accept its doctrines or reject them. There are many kinds of organized religion. People associate themselves with some of them, or not, for all sorts of reasons, maybe belief in some of their doctrines.
Who wrote the Bible? Current scholarship, to my knowledge, assumes that the material that constitutes the Old Testament was put together from various oral and folk traditions (many of them going far back) in the Hellenistic period. That was one of several currents, of which the collection that formed the New Testament was another. Biblical archaeology was developed early in this century in an effort to substantiate the authenticity of the Biblical account. It's by now generally recognized in Biblical scholarship that
[I]t has done the opposite. The Bible is not a historical text, and has only vague resemblances to what took place, as far as can be reconstructed. For example, whether Israel ever existed is not clear; if so, it was probably a small kingdom somewhere in the hills, apparently virtually unknown to the Egyptians. That's my understanding, from casual reading; I haven't followed recent work closely.
Importance, relevance, historical-social impact? These are enormous questions. I can't try to address them at this level of generality; it requires at least an article, better a book or many books.
Elements of the Christian fundamentalist right are one of the strongest components of "support for Israel" -- support in a odd sense, because they presumably want to see it destroyed in a cosmic battle at Armageddon, after which all the proper souls will ascend to heaven -- or so I understand, again, not from close reading. They have provided enormous economic aid, again of a dubious sort. One of their goals seems to be to rebuild the Temple, which means destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which presumably means war with the Arab world -- one of the goals, perhaps, in fulfilling the prophecy of Armageddon. So they strongly support Israeli power and expansionism, and help fund it and lobby for it; but they also support actions that are very harmful and objectionable to most of its population -- as do Jewish fundamentalist groups, mostly rooted in the US, which, after all, is one of the most extreme religious fundamentalist societies in the world.
Noam Chomsky

**rudemonk** · 06-13-2010, 09:48 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Elements of the Christian fundamentalist right are one of the strongest components of "support for Israel" -- support in a odd sense, because they presumably want to see it destroyed in a cosmic battle at Armageddon, after which all the proper souls will ascend to heaven -- or so I understand, again, not from close reading. They have provided enormous economic aid, again of a dubious sort. One of their goals seems to be to rebuild the Temple, which means destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which presumably means war with the Arab world -- one of the goals, perhaps, in fulfilling the prophecy of Armageddon. So they strongly support Israeli power and expansionism, and help fund it and lobby for it; but they also support actions that are very harmful and objectionable to most of its population -- as do Jewish fundamentalist groups, mostly rooted in the US, which, after all, is one of the most extreme religious fundamentalist societies in the world.
Noam Chomsky
</div></div>

funny that this comes up, as I just was watching some videos about these evangelicals and their thing with israel...also, I have to admit I never knew what the story was behind the Al-Aqsa mosque and now that I do I can't begin to understand how we can allow an obvious fable to determine very real courses of action that have such systemic impact on our world and long term geopolitical strategy. no disrespect to either israel or moslems. it's just that it is the year 2010.

I was just telling a friend that on those grounds alone the United States was completely justified in denying, if necessary through force, Iran's 'right' to Nuclear power. Anyone who believes in flying horses does not have a right to nuclear energy. And all anyone would have to say as soon as the mock or real outrage hit the fan when we shut down their program is, hey...guess what...this guy literally believes in a flying horse. So no, no nukes. What could Russia say to that? China? India? It would all make perfect sense and all the powers that be would be forced to concede the point.

Then again, we had 8 years of Bush...and that, sadly, completely deflates my entire position.

**rudemonk** · 06-14-2010, 12:31 AM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mjMRgT5o-Ig"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mjMRgT5o-Ig" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

**Wahalla** · 06-14-2010, 01:27 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believers

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Faithfull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Atheism is a religion like any other religion, so who really gives a damn that they are atheists?

To each his own, there is nothing to argue here. </div></div>

Atheism is the lack of beleif in god.. or gods.. it is a broad church (great pun that).. there is no singular uniting moral theme. .the only connection is the lack of beleif in god.. For a beleif system to be a religion it needs in my opnion not merely common beleif but
Rictual
Mythology
philosophy
Morals

There my be a single common beleif among atheists but not common rictual, philosophy or rictual..

I like you dear lady dont see the need to argue on this... Still I beleive that there were gods but they were murdered in the 15th centuary!

I would say when I told a group of African Jamaicans some twenty years ago I was an atheist they were shocked and started to argue.. Well it was over cow cod soup, white rum and dominos!

I pointed out that Tingle, Copper, Messers Coke Senior, PJ, Ms Simpson, Seaga, Bustamante, Trinity, Mr Adams (god I remeber the day as he had just shot some body in suspsious circumstances) et al all claimed to be god fearing church going.. Me on the other had while equally as corrupt as these sterling members of our scoiety the only difference was I beleived in one less god than they did...

So we poured another rum and hit some more dynamite on the table!

Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believers

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads