Excellent! So Jesus was a stand-up comic. Who knew? Perhaps he was also an illusionist with that walking on water thing? Faked his own death? The possibilities here are endless :-)

perhaps He is just a figment of our imagination?

After all, it was Man who "invented" religion.

I'm reading a book that suggests psychoactive plants are probably responsible for most of the world's major religions, which makes sense. After the first shaman said "I saw God, man!" and learned how easy it was to manipulate others with superstition, he undoubtedly asked for a tithe. Religion = riches = power. Easy peasy.

@Tperky-

Three "sacraments"- besides alcohol- are Ayahuasca , Peyote, and Cannabis.

(Of course there is also LSD, and certain frogs, that when licked. . .)

Exactly, Day. You've heard that "witches" didn't really "fly" on those brooms, right? They rubbed drugs on the broomsticks and then rubbed them on their genitals and were soon high as a kite. Of course, they were having fun, so the crazy ass men of town had them burned at the stake. Funny thing, too, after the "witches" were taken care of, some medieval "barber" took the recipes and sold them as "medicine."

Having not the slightest knowledge of Coptic grammar, I'm feeling pretty intimidated here.

As long as we're into talking about witches, let's recall that the fear of witches did have a huge, disastrous consequence with a Major Historical Effect.

In the 12th Century, the Catholic Church began hunting and persecuting "witches" (who were usually the "wise woman" in the village, the one who understood herbs and other medicines and was the closest thing to a "doctor" most of the villagers had - she was also almost always "the crazy cat lady" in town). When the witch was caught and burned, all herr cats (and all the others the truly-crazy priest who had been sent out to follow "God's will" could convince people to give up) were thrown into the flames too. The end result was a catless Europe, so that the rats and other vermin multiplied. People got sick because there was no one there to administer herbal medication. And the rats multiplied and their fleas got infected with the plague the rats carried, and the rest is well known as The Black Death, the event that destroyed feudalism and ther Middle Ages (by killing off so many lords, and so many peasants that suddenly there was a shortage of labor, which led to the freeing of the serfs) and also led to the Protestant Reformation as people came to doubt the power of the priests since they couldn't cure the Plague. This also led to the Renaissance as people started realizing they needed the old knowledge that had been lost in the church's previous Major Crime (see below).

The Black Deqath is not the first major crime against humanity committed by the Catholic Church that ended up with major historical effect.

Clement of Alexandria (later Pope Clement I) whipped up the believers and got them to go burn the Library of Alexandria to rid the world of its "pagan sin" (of knowledge), thus bringing on the Dark Ages.

"Elmer Gantry" has been with us forever.

Nice to know I am not the only one to make the connection between burning "witches" and their cats, and the plague. This has always seemed so obvious to me.

I think it was also true that if you were a woman who outlived your husband and had property the church wanted,, your a witch.

I think Michelle Bachmann is a witch. So is Ann Coulter. And Laura Ingraham. Is there any doubt about Michelle Malkin? Nope. Nikki Haley? Jan Brewer?

you have the wrong FIRST LETTER - it's "B"

That's an insult to dogs.

Before we all begin doing EXACTLY what many of us criticize the right for doing, freedom of religion means the right to believe whatever you want, in nothing OR anything, without receiving negative ramifications for it. People have all different beliefs. Just as I would not make fun of or insult your belief in the absence of a supreme being or the value of religion, I would expect you not to make fun of or insult my beliefs in a supreme being or my religion. It goes both ways, right? BTW, I'd definitely classify myself as a liberal. There are some liberals who are part of a formal, organized religion.

"...without receiving negative ramifications for it."

No it doesn't. You can believe whatever you want. Nothing can stop you. And the government can do nothing about it. But don't expect to not have to explain yourself and especially don't expect to bring your beliefs as a justification to make policy for everyone else based on them without answering serious questions.

Yeah, I especially like the evangelicals who get in your face and tell you you're going to hell and think they're doing you a favor.

Also, believe what you want, but that doesn't mean you get to shoot abortion doctors or (in some, not all, jurisdictions) perform ritual animal sacrifice.

You can believe whatever you want. Nothing can stop you. And the government can do nothing about it. But don't expect to not have to explain yourself...

I think either I must be reading this wrong, or responses indicate others have read Li's post wrong. Freedom of speech means anyone has the right to ridicule anyone for anything. But based on the content of his/her post, what is Li obligated to explain about him/herself?

It's not directed at Li personally. If someone wants to believe that they should be able to disrupt soldiers' funerals because of gays in the military, then they're going to be called on it. There are going to be negative ramifications if they do.

Wow! You really have a need to say something if you attack my post as though I said anyone had a right to force their religious beliefs on you. Agenda much? What I meant was that by ridiculing other people's beliefs, you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse so many on the right of doing. I don't believe in ANYONE'S beliefs being the basis for legal actions or infringement upon other people's right to privacy (as in a funeral). Sad that so many are ready to fight that they can't hear an opinion that is slightly different from their own without blowing it up into something it never was. I'm speaking specifically to Disgusted and George Martin. You'd be surprised how much I agree with you but you just shot me down with assumptions. Not really a way to effectively make your point. I'm a woman and fight for women's rights. But I don't go so far as advocating for policies against men's rights or putting them down. Freedom of religion is the same thing as gender equality - either ALL groups are accepted or you really don't have it.

No. Perhaps you're misunderstanding. I expect beliefs to be ridiculed if they are nonsense. I will join in in ridiculing ridiculous beliefs. And if ridiculous beliefs are used to initiate actions or policies for those other than the believers there are going to be negative ramifications for those believers.

Disgustedwithitall:

If someone wants to believe that they should be able to disrupt soldiers' funerals because of gays in the military, then they're going to be called on it.

Well "DuH". What's that gotta do with Li's post?

Li:

Sad that so many are ready to fight that they can't hear an opinion that is slightly different from their own without blowing it up into something it never was.

Nevermind. The most simple explanation is usually the correct one.

I find it irritating when our actions condone what we disdain!

Here's what Li said: "...freedom of religion means the right to believe whatever you want, in nothing OR anything, without receiving negative ramifications for it."

Nonsense. Because with beliefs comes actions and behavior. And they affect us all. Beliefs should be challenged. And the ones that are ridiculous should be made known to be ridiculous.

@Disgusted, beliefs are personal, and subjective. You're going to be busy if you find your life calling to be ridiculing all that don't adhere to your ideal (non)beliefs. Me, on the other hand - I'd be interested to learn more if there's a surge in "Disgusted philosophy". I'm just weird that way....

Anyway... Ridiculing everything one doesn't believe personally, for the sake of contesting it, seems a waste of energy. It would be like me constantly ridiculing anyone who purports to have fallen in love at first glance just because I don't believe such a thing exists. Firstly, it's really none of my business, except to be happy they're happy. Secondly, what the he\\ do I know.

Disgusted, it's amazing that I can refute what you said (in #1.21). Based on what I've read from you, I hold certain beliefs about you. However, they will never impact anyone. There are many beliefs that do not result in anything except private behavior, not public policy. The idea that you can deem something ridiculous is arrogant. The concept of ridiculous is an opinion. If you don't believe in God, for example, you have no more ability to prove your opinion than does someone who does believe in God. Both of those opinions are beliefs, nothing more. And neither belief should impact anyone else's lives in a legal way. If you want to tell me you don't agree, fine. If you think you can require me to somehow answer to you or agree with you, you are wrong. And legally, that's the way it should be. BTW, tough to have credibility in arguing that the right or anyone not of your beliefs are wrong in ridiculing you when you are doing the exact same thing.

@locknpost: I don't find it my life's calling. Don't be a drama queen.

@Li: Hoo boy.

- There's no need to get trivial by making it about all beliefs. You know what I meant and, no, you haven't refuted what I said.

- One doesn't need to prove a negative. I trust you know why. You do, right? Why?

- On the "ridiculous" thing: Upgrading this to a philosophy seminar, huh?

- No one said all beliefs affect someone else's life. But some do. And you know that's exactly what I was talking about. And those are the beliefs that need/require challenging.

- There's just too many straw men to bother with at this point. What a mess.

Hoo boy, I go away for a couple of hours and all heck breaks loose. No, Li. I wasn't attacking you at all. Call me crazy, but I consider it an insult when someone tells me I'm going to hell. I should have made it clear that it wasn't about you, but about those self-righteous holier-than-thous who think it's OK to call me names and want to control the country—AND ME—based on their beliefs. I'm sure you can supply your own examples from the Hannitys, O'Reillys, and Robertsons of the world. Nor do I make fun of others' beliefs, but I reserve the right to comment on them in view of my own. (See my #11.2 posted yesterday.) Click on my name and read my past posts. With only a couple of exceptions when I was provoked by egregious and insulting trolls, I NEVER engage in personal attacks, but will debate the issues. And I wasn't attacking you. I could give you the standard mealy-mouthed "I'm sorry if you were offended," BS apology that seems prevalent these days. But just saying "I'm sorry" is simpler and more honest. GM

Actually, no non-governmental organization believes in free speech. Nor do individuals in anything nearing absolute terms. Free speech in the United States is so that individuals can speak out against their government. Even then, it has limits.

What we see here with the Mormon power structure is the usual story: people don't want the truth about themselves told, or they don't want alternative interpretations to the officially approved one.

The Mormon church have excommunicated a lot of people. There used to be jealousy among the older men towards the younger men, they didn't want them to court the younger women, they wanted them all for themselves, they viewed the younger gents as a threat, so they excommunicated them. There were also alot of abuse cases against women, the women excommunicated themselves. I don't care what religion you are noone has the right to hurt another human being.

"I don't care what religion you are noone has the right to hurt another human being."

Precisely. And therein lies the limits to individual freedom, which absolutist and immature libertarians can't or won't understand. And also therein lies the limits of economic freedom which Republicans are in favor of in unlimited magnitude when it comes to businesses that provide their donations. Republicans have very little interest in individual freedom and are perfectly comfortable arguing groups can lord over others on issues like choice, speech, right to unionize, individuals against corporations, ...

Does Scientology believe in free speech? Do any cults believe in free speech?

Go see "The Master" - everybody says it is the metaphorical tale of L. Ron Hubbard, but it's also the metaphorical tale of Joesph Smith and every other religious con artist going back to "Saint" Paul and beyond.

Silly Mormon. He can say whatever he wants about Obama, but nada on their favorite son. I just wonder what punishment Reid is going to get or is he part of a different Mormon religion?

"I don't care what religion you are noone has the right to hurt another human being."

The Hippocratic Oath doesn't actually say it, but Epidemics does state that it's part of a doctor's duty, "to do good or to do no harm." Modern medicine is a part of science, and at odds with many religions. Funny that medicine should have (in ancient times no less, and continued through to today) already accepted this basic dictum that so many religions ignore.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greekmedicine/f/HippocraticOath.htm

The Golden Rule still stands as a much better choice for ethics:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Excommunication for free speech constitutes purposeful and deliberate refusal to forgive. Any church that engages in this unholy, unloving, unforgiving practice is not really "Christian".

which is to say that any adherent of this bronze age idiocy gets exactly what they deserve. Joe Smurf just updated the rules so that he could get laid as much as he wanted and created being a "mor(m)on".

Go see "The Last Temptation of Christ," which plays very well with this new information.

So how come it is guys like Cuccinelli, Romney, Limbaugh, and the rest of them are still walking around, and it's only the JFKs, the MLKs and the RFKs who get killed? The first list is so much more deserving of such a departure.

Because the reactionaries only believe in the "sanctity of life" before the person is born. After that, if you have to kill them to shut them up, so be it.

The LAWYER who represents THE STATE told them that THEY would have to personally bear the cost of their legal defense (for actions taken on the part of the STATE?) Time to replace the SOB

I think the pain of circumsion lives deep down in each man, why is Gods' image being tampered with? I just feel so sorry for those babies that have to enter this life with pain. They will go through enough pain just trying to survive.

You may wish to leave a bit of rebound for your shocked imagination as the influences in other lands absorb only the manly type of rah rah focussing , with just that slight absence of consideration often found in the proponents of dubious projects . What is encouraged in other cultures include waiting until the male is pubescent , the better to enjoy the debilitating pain and the practical problems of sepsis . I speak from the experience of watching without the ability to offer the sort of advice one might hope a stepson would enthusiastically consider before submitting recently .

All well that ends well ... Especially if you are able to overlook not being able to rebut emotional arguments made to an impressionable adolescent mind . As with anything else the mere idea of stress only digs those heels in deeper .

Ay yi yi yi yi yiiiiii .

@Angel#77-

Although I cannot remember my own circumcision, I can show you the scar.

I'll pass, 71 years old huh, I don't believe it, maybe it was those oysters you ate last night.

This has taken an ugly turn.

Ugly turn? I remind you that perversion is in the ,uh , eye of the beholder.

Ugly, I tell ya, just ugly. When we're talking about taking a knife to the unmentionables, and then up and comes an offer to see the results of long ago operations, that's ain't pretty.

David Letterman: "You, Mr. President, have not seen me naked."

Barack Obama: "We're gonna keep it that way."

I do know one thing for sure, if the man his not been circumcised he will be leaving the woman with an infection every time he..................

Haven't you ever wondered what was on the other side of the moon?

We have Hubble - we already know!!

Every time Obama comes out with a message like this, I rethink whether or not I'm voting at all.

That's pretty silly. Obama would be stupid not to acknowledge the 84% who need to believe they're not alone in the world. I think they're too lazy to find their own meaning in life, so they rely on ready made invisible buddies that promise paradise in the next life, and IMO people are basically followers, and look for answers outside themselves. Of course, that makes them susceptible to any snake-waving con man that comes along (I'm looking at you, Joseph Smith, and L Ron Hubbard!) It's not their fault, really, they've been conditioned by thousands of years of culture. Let Obama pander, it's the smart thing to do if he wants to win. Now, if he wants to impose religion on the rest of us, like Romney/Ryan, kick him to the curb!

While I consider myself agnostic and object to organized religions, I can recognize that many others feel completely different. If we don't want to live in a world where only one voice is allowed, then why care if a leader speaks publicly about their faith? As long as they aren't dictating policy based on their faith, what's it to you? Just as you and I don't care or need to know, frankly, what the religious leanings are of those in elected office, there are millions for whom that is important information. Why insist they be deprived of it simply because it isn't important to you?

I also agree with Tperky, to consider not voting because once in awhile, the president speaks on subjects you don't care for is quite silly. And, self-defeating. Don't vote for the guy who speaks about his faith so that the guy who would force his religious beliefs upon the entire populace gets elected. Not smart.

Religion, at one time, served several purposes, one of which was as a precursor to science which was to explain the mysteries we can observe everyday if we open our eyes. It can not and does not serve that purpose now.

As for its other purposes, we can take the moral teachings and ascribe them to something other than a creator which comes attached to attributes according to the particular faith.

Religion has served its purpose for better and for worse. But history has passed it by, and in way too many instances now is simply an obstacle to progress on current day problems.

It is tedious and wearisome that, in 2012, political reality requires the President of the United States to express not only belief in an approved religion, but to unnecessarily reaffirm that here in this country individuals have the freedom to believe whatever they want to believe, but to have to tread carefully on separation on church and state.

What's the harm in pretending, especially if it were to bring about World peace? Learning how to pretend is what has saved the lives of thousands.

Well, if pretending is upfront recognized as pretending, maybe no harm. But whenever we accept anything for which there is absolutely no evidence, then we open up the door to being able to assert anything is true and anything is false.

I just don't think that on a large scale humanity is served anymore by accepting things for which there is no evidence.

Individuals however, or some of them, might require an Imaginary Friend.

Angel, if you want to pretend there's someone out there looking over you, fine. If you want to pretend your invisible sky buddy will bring world peace, fine. If you want to believe that pretending has saved thousands of lives, good on you. Doesn't make any of it true, and it makes you appear childishly naive. Freedom of religion, doesn't mean freedom from ridicule, thank goodness. At least for now. If a Bachmann or Santorum gets into office, then it "Hello, Handmaid's Tale." You may not think your pretend game does harm, but it validates those who would.

Well said, @80sGirl.

The only way to enter heaven are through the eyes of a child.

The only way to live a good life is through the eyes of a child.

Children don't have sophisticated critical thinking skills. Awfully convenient for religionists, don't you agree? I'm sure a few of them Catholic priests are grateful for the kids' lack of sophistication.

Well, yes, but I think Angel was referring to the innocence, curiosity, and lack of true rancor that has yet to be learned by children and which, in my opinion, is necessary to hold on to when one is not directly confronted with the viciousness one is inevitably confronted with in an unnecessarily confrontational society. Particularly today, when we're confronted with people who simply willfully reject reality, it's difficult to do. My outlet is learning.

THIS would be pretty silly. Some people believe (like the President) and some people don't. To NOT vote based on that is nuts. NOBODY believes or supports everything in the platform. I will vote for Obama because I believe in the majority of the platform and after reading about the Mormons wanting to 'excommunicate' a member for CRITICIZING Romney I think they have a bigger dog in this fight than Mitt. They want to control the US. NOT gonna happen.

Disgusted, I know what Angel was talking about; I just find that rhetoric sappy as well as an invitation to exploitation. How the heck do you think all these religions sprang up in the first place? Whatevs. To each his own; everyone has their own ways of coping with reality. Still, I think all that curiosity and wonder could be better used to humanity's advantage rather than mooning over a paradise that doesn't exist.

Well, yes it is sappy. Personally, I think religions sprung up to try to explain anthropomorphically that nature was simply the result of a conscious being that man could understand. When you're alone without modern shelter in a massive thunderstorm, it's a very impressive event. Then religion became more.

Of course curiosity and wonder could be better used; I didn't say differently. I said they are ingredients for use in the way to live a good life but think it has to be combined with making life better for others other than simply one's self. That's actually a Jesuit teaching. We can't discount the wisdom in many of the teachings of religions. But we don't have to acknowledge they're inspired or originate from anything other than ourselves.

"A good life" is subjective. I have no doubt Romney thinks he lived a "good life." Hitler probably did, too, as well as that guy in Norway who killed all those people - he still maintains he did "good." Helping others came about only because it helped the group survive and multiply - the instincts of all animals. Altruism goes against our basic instincts and the only reason it exists is because society has decided helping others helps the group. (Though it's become the fashion now to deny it) Sure, you can find wisdom in religious texts, especially considering for many hundreds of years only religious people were educated enough to read and write. I'd be willing to bet that there was more practical wisdom in the orally passed down teachings of farmers to their sons and daughters. Sure, reading philosophy and theology can keep your mind active, but it's no match for ability to feed your village by knowing the best time to plant this year's crop. The only thing gods do is keep your mind busy with dreams of golden streets while you starve to death.

All right, this is where I leave when it devolves into a discussion of what "good" means. I'm not interested in a philosophy grad seminar. And I don't think altruism goes against our basic instincts. My best guess is that it's part of us from birth, and ingrained in the DNA.

Have fun.

Hey, you're the one that brought up the "good life," and Jesuit teachings, but I'm done, too, though I do disagree that altruism is in the DNA. It's a social construct, so how it possible to be genetically coded?

Actually, I didn't bring up the good life. No matter, it's enough to put up with with wingnut semantic hair-splitting and I'm just not energetic or interested in any unnecessary eye-rolling stuff right now.

Anyway, I'm not convinced altruism is simply a social construct. It could be coded in the DNA just like mothering instincts or a simple consequence from other more direct DNA encodings.

I don't know that we can say for sure yet whether "altruism" is strictly a social construct, or may have genetic roots, but there are some tantalizing clues that have been discovered in the last few years:

Like Humans, Chimps Show Selfless Behaviors

Do Chimps Share Our Sense of Fairness?

As with so many aspects of our psyches and our cultures, the answer may well be a complicated tangle of "nature" and "nurture".

It could be paradise. Imagine all the people , living for today. I will never lose sight of that dream. Sorry, I'm from the planet "Yes". Ah, the good life. And today is my birthday. Smack dab in the middle again.

Angel, I bet myself you'd pull out the Lennon card at some point, sure as the sun rises in the east. But you don't have to apologize for who you are - I'm glad there are people striving for a better world, and sappy works on a lot of people. Whatever works, I say.

Pretzel, you're probably right about nature + nurture. A chimp, seeing another chimp share food has probably learned basic reciprocation, just as children do. It's still an act of selfishness, but interpreted by observers as altruism. If certain behaviors are shown to assist in the survival of the species, they'll be propagated with subsequent generations. If sharing food means I won't have to live in my cave all by my lonesome, I'm probably going to share, right?

Happy birthday, Angel.

Hubble didn't tell you ANYTHING about the far side of the moon - Hubble is in EARTH ORBIT and can't SEE the far side.

You got that right! They know what is on the far side of the moon and they ain't about to share that info! Imagine letting us see ET, that might end this debate over Santa Claus/god.

I share disgusted's view and think he made a great point with this line--" then we open up the door to being able to assert anything is true and anything is false."

As we can see throughout history , religion has been used to control weak minded people. As Obama noted when people are in the midst of despair they tend to cling to religion and guns. They use religion as a pacifier and their guns as a substitute for guts.

Who the hell is Hubble? The only Hubble I know of is the character from "The way we were", whom a lot of women dream about. And John Lennon would take great offense as being referred to as a card. And there are a lot more people who believe in Paradise then you would imagine. Most of them are fighting in Afghanistan, and the rest of us are fighting for it here. What other purpose is there?

Canary,

The moon is in orbit around the earth also - I won't go into a physics dissertation to explain to you WHY Hubble can see what is past the moon.... If you mean what is actually ON the far side of the moon, may I refer you to some of the Russian and Apollo missions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon

Angel, Happy Belated Birthday.

For your birthday present, go to this link:

http://hubblesite.org/

Angel, you read minds of long dead pop stars? Amazing! I never understood the cult of Lennon, it's just elevator music to me, but I expect beatification efforts in the near future, and then, boom, another frikkin' religion. I'm sure your invisible buddy wouldn't take offense at that, what do your tea leaves say? Also, I have no doubt there are many people who believe in paradise, the same as there are many who believe in angels, ghosts, ufos and prolly leprechans. Belief in these things only means people are willing to let others do the thinking for them. And I understand. Reality is hard, people don't want to take responsibility for the good and bad things that happen to them when life is so brutal and short. Religionists will never suffer from lack of suckers because of it. Still doesn't mean believers are right, though if it makes you happy, and it certainly makes all the snake-oil salesmen happy, go for it.

Not sure what you mean about fighting in Afghanistan - are you saying the troops are Lennonites? I was in the military, and I assure you, that's not the case.

It's Texas, the the whole other country world capital of stupid. You were expecting something different?

You'll never see that on the corporate-owned MSM.

Hah! Nothing "fuzzy" about that math - I say you are one of the "smart people" Susan! Thanks.

Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2010

;-)

Belatedly realizing there's something "fuzzy" about MY math (or at least my calendar) - I've had a running typo in my sig line all day and just noticed. D'oh! Spell-check can't catch everything.

Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012

;-)

@FRP, thanks. Has anyone knowledgeable defined what 'traditional values' are? Do they start after the OLD Testament, before or after the crucifixion, before or after slavery, before or after the inquisition, before or after the reformation, before or after the crusades, or before or after the GOP found they were a good wedge issue to stir up their base?

Burning the flag is free speech. The US does not need to be more hypocritical than it already is. The Libyan march on the gang complex was inspired. People are capable of learning that a true god can defend himself, and those interested in chaos will face fierce opposition in their own villages. As long as we need allies, and resources around the world, money will always be cheaper than the blood of our troops.

All religion IS about control.

• Seeking to control the apparently capricious and uncontrollable: disease, harvests, fertility
• Explaining the uncontrollable: thunder, seas, etc. The ancient Greeks, who had a god for everything, are probably the best example of this
• Control by creating rules for a harmonious society, e.g. the Ten Commandments
• Control to ensure a continued reliable supply of sheep to tend the soil so the shepherds don't have to (Hey, don't blame me. They're not MY metaphors). Hence the admonition against contraception and abortion. More little ones, please
• You will be punished if you don't obey
• And, of course, the big uncontrollable, death, which becomes tolerable if we don't really die, but just go to an eternal heaven

Religions are businesses just like any other. Preachers are their salemen putting on a weekly show for the tithe. There are start ups, subsidiaries, spin offs, and competitors all looking for your money. Some people cling to the religion that they were born to just like they use the same paper towels that their mother bought. Others are always shopping around for the best "bargain" as in which rules that they like. They have ads - those clever little sayings on the signs outside the church or the billboards just like the restaurant down the street. The leaders of the religions, whether it's the Pope or Pat Robertson, want to live the good life, to be treated like a king and make a profit just like every CEO of every Fortune 500 company.

Whether or not you believe in God, he has been hijacked by people who want to make money and garner power off of the concept.

Why had you never Voted before? Everybody should Vote. This is part of our Freedom. Can you give me some insight? Thanks.

What a god-hating Communist! That despicable atheist also believed that 1 + 1 = 2 and wrote a 200-page book to justify it. Sickening.

Yes, Russell was just identifying that the faith-based ideological groups we've been infected with since human beginning and have become so particularly dangerous now choose to believe in things that, so far at least, haven't been found to be falsifiable. The believers take comfort in that, and only that. They don't bother themselves with actually providing evidence for their beliefs.

Unfortunately for us now, our faith-based, ideological wingnuts also can't be bothered to accept that parts of their belief system have indeed been falsified: supply-side economics doesn't work and there's the empirical evidence to show it, and anthropogenic global warming is a scientific fact.

That's the beauty of the whole religious set-up though isn't it? Faith-based ideology can't be defeated or even reasoned with through dialogue or debate or recitation of science and fact precisely because it's based in FAITH.

We're stuck at this point in time to the conflict model of interaction between science and religion which is exactly how the ideological wingnuts on the right want it to stay.

Science and spirituality are two different disciplines of study and independent of purpose. There is no rationale that says the two inherently HAVE to be in conflict with each other... except by those on either side who misinterpret the purpose or abuse the intent of either.

How dare you not revere and respect my sky-god-horseshet!! Where do you think we got our morality from?

What?! How dare I expect reverent compliance from you where my delusions are concerned????!!!

Burn the witch!

correction: ...independent IN purpose. =)

locknpost: while I do agree that there is no inherent need for science and religion to be in conflict, I disagree that science and religion are independent in purpose.

Both "disciplines" struggle to define the world in which we find ourselves and to map, construct and inhabit positions in order to understand our place in this environment ... "why are we here?" Obviously, that includes the "soft" sciences as well (anthropology, philosophy, psychology). Science allows for uncertainty in that any good scientist welcomes new ideas and tweaking of their theories in order to better understand "us".

The ultimate failing of religion is that is does not allow for uncertainty or questioning, at least the Christian tradition which is what people usually mean when they say "religion". It demands complete and total adherence to the rituals and myths that previous forefathers dictated. This is why I do not support organized religion. When a person talks about faith as President Obama did, which is where we started, I have no issue with that. When a person like Romney or Ryan speak of their faith inspiring their public policy, I do take issue. THAT is the line that must not be crossed.

80sgirl, I beg to differ, vehemently. Science doesn't seek to explain "why are we here?" It's more of "we know we're here, how does here work?" Any speculation on motive for "here" veers into the realm of "belief" or "faith." Faith, by definition, requires no proof or evidence. Science, on the other hand, only deals in evidence, if it is to be deemed scientific. Two totally different spheres.

@80sGirl, the shared purpose you are describing is what many label as "the search for truth". The very objectivity of the word "true" comes into question when applied liberally across disciplines. "His path was true to the progress of humanity."

Organized religion by its structure often discourages the inner-personal pursuit of "truth". "He teaches us that obedience is more important than sacrifice.", is an example, as quoted BS from internal leadership of an institution of organized religion. It is the side effects of institutionalization of what may be shared faith that I find obtuse, not faith itself that guides an individual to discoveries of truth.

I agree with you about separation of church and state. There has never been a post where I disagreed with that founding principle. So I would ask - What truth guides anyone here to believe I do not?

it is the Organized part of religion that causes so much strife.

"My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Thomas Paine

Science - tries to answer the questions When? and How?

Religion - tries to answer the questions Why? and Who?

Different questions so different answers.

I have hiked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon (and back up again - whew!) several times. The geology is fascinating and trying to comprehend the time-scale is hard - even when you can literally grasp rocks that are over a billion years old.

I am a practicing Christian - using the definition of the word as in "practice makes perfect". I have a lot of questions and uncertainties - and wont know the answers until I die. Meanwhile, when faced with the Grand Canyon, my spiritual side says - "My God How Great Thou Art!!"

Tperky, I take your point and recognize I wasn't being careful in my phrasing. As a soft scientist myself (psychology/anthropology), my search for answers isn't "WHY are we here?" but "why are we HERE?"

What in our evolution, both in the physical and the psychological sense, has led us to this place and time and how does that evolution inform our search for understanding of all manner of subjects (biology, chemistry, engineering, art, language ...). It is in this way, I believe, that science and religion could have a relationship of dialogue instead of conflict.

Keeping in mind that when I say "religion" in that sentence, I mean the spiritual leanings of individuals, not organized religion. That creature will not ever seek knowledge outside itself.

I'm only against organized religion when they try to organize my money into their pockets and their politics into my head. Ok. So I'm agnostic.

I'm as atheist as they get - total bulls hit for meaning - religion is only about CONTROL - your MONEY, THEIR pockets...

Maphi, I agree there is something very spiritual about the Grand Canyon, to me it represents the mind and the memory of the Earth, exposed. When I went I witnessed groups of seven animals, 7 ravens flew overhead right before a storm, 7 elk rested in the woods alongside the road, and 7 deer ran right in front of our truck while crossing the road. It was truly beautiful.

the churches don't create more harmony by promoting honesty and compassion - they are in the business of FEAR...

Okay, I watched it.. I'll have an order of non-nutritive chow-mein and a double order of the "Judeo-Christian-Chicken" please! Oh, and some pot stickers!!

mmm..black pepper chicken bowl ftw!

I truly don't 'get' you guys. If the President mentions GOD he is pandering. Are you kidding me? HE believes. You don't. It's all cool. I grew up believing in God and Science and have absolutely no problem, no great angst about it. You don't? Good for you. I also grew up believing in the 'separation of Church and State'. For a President or a congresscritter to believe? Good for them. For it to inform their legislation? No freakin' way.

God is one to a customer, it is in your head/my head wherein it can be honored most personally. Notice I did not qualify "it" with a gender association nor justify my humanity or humane acts with a pre-qualification that "it" works with me as a tool or I perform "its" will or intent; nor did I showcase how blessed I am/we all are because of "it". That is standard fare for the religious and that my friend is "pandering" 101, if only in my honest opinion. Separation indeed!

I do wonder if God approves of drone missions on wedding parties or keeping folks locked up with no foreseeable trial? Just more God-moments I guess..

Seeing that God can be a beeyatch sometimes, we all know God is female.

If god were female, all men would be sammiches.

The answer may surpise you!

(Flogs log in the executive ladies room?)

It's official, trolling the board for an emotional response..

This question has a funny antidote from my personal search for truth. I like Near Death Experiences as references for an afterlife. I believe regarding religion and afterlife everybody is wrong and everybody is right. When you die and cross over what you expect to be true will be true for about 5 minutes,, then a manifestation of the creative dimension we like to call god will set you strait. But if you want to live in your favorite heaven or even create one of your own design, you can.

So anyway I liked the Egyptian idea of induceing near death experiences in their priests to come up with their religion. To become a priest you would be sealed in a coffin for a few more minutes than the air in the coffin would keep you alive. So, if you lived, there was a good chance that you'd had a near death experience and you would go on to be a priest. If you died,,,.

The Egyptian religion believes that Ra masturbated to create the universe.

So that was a setback.. But it still works, you can believe anything you want about the afterlife and it will come true. We here on earth create the heavens/gods and they there are stealing our cultures. Very similar to what the little green aliens are doing... Rock and Roll Rules.

OK - so an invisible entity with omnipotent powers actually cares about a backwater planet in a minor galaxy populated by a bunch of carboniferous "creatures" who postulated the existence that selfsame "omnipotent being" and that entity actually CARES? TALK ABOUT STRETCHES OF THE IMAGINATION...

Don't you care about your own children?

First off congratulations on being kicked out of the loony bin secondly since I firmly believe in separation of church and state I think the real issue with Romney and his side kick is will they keep the two separate. The way they are sucking up to the zealots I doubt they intend to maintain this separation.

For the life of me I can't understand why MSNBC or any other news outlet has not picked up on the David Twede story before now. The LDS has excommicated a number of members for speaking out against it's repressive policies. Mormons are youtubing, and blogging about things such as the church;s unwillingness to public anything about church finances. The LDS has (based on some estimates) anywhere between $40 & a 100 BILLION dollar's in tithes that are in part responsible for their massive wealth. I assume some of this thithe /charity money was used to purchase & turnover tithed stock (HELLO), for profit the LDS world wide businesses.

One of the claims Twede and other Mormons are making is that many LDS temple, offices are satffed by unpaid volunteers while the church hierarchy (of which Romney wasis) are using people to make money.*Some mormon actually have an online petition calling for the federal government ot launch and investigation into this issue.

Mitt Romney is an intregal part in these schemes because (as he has said many time's) he tithed millions in stock to the LDS. The LDS has parlayed these tithes into a worldwide for profit businesses that Romney and many other wealthy Mormons have contributed- Bain Capital & Ensign Peak Advisors (the LDS main investestment handler) are full of venture capitalist Mormons & wealthy non Mormons.

I think the news media (including my beloved MSNBC) are abrogating their responsibility to voter's and their viewers, not covering this aspect of the campaign. Lawrence O'Donnel is the only one of MSNBC's anchor's who has the gut 's to talk about it to a limited extent. (advice to Mr ODonnell' instead of the LDS guy last night-get these people on record!!. they are talking and nobody is listening.

I feel something very sinister is happening here-Mitt Romney & the so-called christian right is using their clout & money to lure people into voting for Romney, I assume because they think he is a like minded christian. If MSNBC does not want to "go after " the LDS religion; at least ask questions about Romney's continued association with it. He is no Jack Kennedy, but he was and STILL still is a Bishop with the LDS-THEY DO NOT ALLOW SABATICAL'S OR RESIGNATIONS-THEY EX-COMMUNICATE QUITER'S AND DESCENTER'S. And for Christ sake Google- Youtube Mormonthink. ex mormon.com, SANDRA TANNER AND THE UTAH LIGHT HOUSE MINISTRIES, Ed Decker, D Michael Quinn. Lyndon Lamborn, he was a highly RESPECTED (now excommunicated ) gay man who had the audacity to challenge the 12 Apostles. Psst Romney has a cousin over their in London talking his head off about the LDS. who care's about this nutty religion-Somebody at MSNBC should be looking into why people are leaving the LDS in drove's!

PSST Mitt Romney say's he did his mission work in France- the LDs hides a big scandal called the Baseball Baptism's (cover's many sport's to recruit new LDS member's. Some of the "recruiter's got run out of places literally at the point of base ball bats by angry parents. This happened in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's MITT ROMENY WAS IN FRANCE IN 1966!

FOLLOW THE MONEY AND THE PEOPLE.