28 replies to this topic

[zaara]

Hello,

This is my first post here. I suspect that I won't post often. Most of my opinions are not well received.

I have been terrified of death since the the age of 10. At that age, in the simplistic mind of a 10 year old, I nevertheless came to understand death and religion in an intimate way. I saw religion from two points of view...as a means for some to explain the unexplainable, but mostly as a way that humans comfort their selves in the face of their mortality. It was a hard and traumatic vision that confronted me that night, because I suddenly saw myself in a world where I honestly believed myself to be sane in a world populated by those who are insane.

In the ensuing years, I have often wondered if I could have been wrong. I have often examined...and tried...many different religions. The only one that I feel has any merit is Buddhism, and that, only because it is not really a religion in the strict sense of the word. But even Buddhism is rife with dogma and unfulfilling to me.

With the advances in medical science that I have seen over the years, and the corresponding lengthening of average life-spans, I have thought that it was possible that there are humans alive today who will never die. I have thought that if one could hold on long enough that there was a chance...albeit slim...that the discovery would come that would erradicate the fear of death.

I have looked at the diseases of cancer and HIV with great interest. I have considered that both of these maladies could, in a certain way, be considered the saviors of mankind. Because, when we are able to cure cancer, we will have fully deciphered and mastered the human genome, and when we erradicate HIV, we will have mastered the human immune system. I understand that this is an oversimplification, but in gist, I think there is some degree of truth there.

I can understand the necessary precautions that should accompany genetic, and other biological research. We don't want to unleash a man-made plague that will cause our extinction. However, it seems to me that many of the restrictions that are placed on medical research are not for the sake of safety, but rather because there are people who think that we should be careful not to offend some alleged supernatural being as postulated by their religious beliefs.

Until recently, I had begun to think that logic and reason were beginning to hold sway with public opinion. But since the events of 9/11 I have been alarmed at the religous backlash that has swept not just the United States, but, it seems, the entire world. This worries me. I have been particularly upset with President Bush and his religious agenda. In response, my knee-jerk reaction was to create some 3D artwork that attacked religous figures and, also, over several months, I wrote an article for myself that codifies my thinking. Then, I further developed that article into a...I don't know how to describe it...dissertation(?) that I have shown in a few places. The responses I have received to that paper have been...heated.

At the end of this posts, I will attach that paper. I would appreciate it if anyone here could tell me what is so offensive about it. I can understand why religious-minded people would find it uncomfortable, but I am unable to fathom why atheists and agnostics have taken such offense to it.

I do not understand why seemingly intelligent people continue to willingly cast themselves into the abyss of death when we have created, or will soon create, for ourselves, an alternative. I do not understand why these people feel that their personal beliefs in this matter should be incumbent upon those of us who wish to seek an alternative. I don't have a problem with them dying if that is what they believe their religion requires. I don't have a religion, and feel that their personal opinions should not be a criteria in my decisions regarding life or death.

Thank you for your consideration,
Zaara

========================

THE FOUR QUESTIONS
===================
In the course of a human lifetime, every human, to a greater or lesser degree of sincerity and fervor, will attempt to answer for their self, Four Questions. The questions may be phrased differently, or couched in other contexts, due to one's local language, heritage, and society. But the questions are still the same, and every human, during the course of their lifetime will attempt to answer these questions for their self. The questions are:

Question #1 - Who, or what, am I?

Question #2 - Where did I come from, what was the state of my existence, before I was born?

Question #3 - What will happen to me, what will be the state of my existence, when I die?

Question #4 - If I was born, only to live, experience pleasure, pain, health, sickness, old-age, infirmity and death, then what is the purpose of my existence?

In the course of a human lifetime, every human to greater or lesser degree of sincerity and fervor, will attempt to answer those Four Questions...FOR THEIR SELF! One answer's may be influenced by culture and heritage. One's answers may be influenced by things heard from others. One's answers may be influenced by things that one reads. One's answers may be influenced by the circumstances and events of one's life. But, ultimately, every human answers those Four Questions in their own mind...alone!

No one can answer those Four Questions for another!
No one has ever been able to answer those Four Questions for another!
No one will ever be able to answer those Four Questions for another!

And more...

No one has the right to TRY to answer those Four Questions for another.
No one has ever had the right to try to answer those Four Questions for another.
And...
No one will EVER have the right to try to answer those Four Questions for another!

One may doubt that the Four Questions are the REAL absolute truth of human existence. But, this is how and when all humans come to know, for their self, that the Four Questions are the REAL absolute truth of human existence:

It happens at night, when one is in bed, and the room is dark, and their eyes are closed, but they are not yet asleep. At this time, we, as humans, allow our minds to drift...through the events of our day, through our memories, into our futures. Sometimes, when we are troubled, we allow our minds to drift to darker places...to the places where we have placed the Four Questions, and our answers to them. And we begin to ponder...

"Have I been a good person?"
"Have I been such a terribly bad person?"
"Do I deserve such a horrific punishment?"
"Have I earned The Great Reward?"
***** "Are those stories real?" *****

And THAT is the instant when we all know...whether we admit it to others or not... that the Four Questions are the REAL absolute truth of human existence!

Every human alive on this planet...every human who has ever been alive on this planet...every human who will ever be alive on this planet...asks of their self The Four Questions. Next to our DNA, it is the most common aspect that defines our humanity! We all ask ourselves...These...Four...Questions! The Four Questions are the basis for every religion and human philosophy that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist on this planet. And, since Atheists, Agnostics, and practicers of Non-Monotheistic religions ask these same questions of their selves, then Atheism, Agnosticism and Non-Monotheism are, in fact, religious expressions, and are as deserving of respect as any other religion!

One's answers to the Four Questions, are NOT the absolute truth of human existence. MY answers to the Four Questions are not the absolute truth of human existence. Our answers to the Four Questions are only our answers. And our answers are not, nor ever will be, the absolute truth of human existence. One's religion is NOT the absolute truth of human existence. The absolute truth of human existence is The Four Questions!

THIS is what religion REALLY is:

Religion is...one's hopes...desires...fears...agonies...and angers. One's religion is also a most profound and sincere expression of gratitude and joy to whatever forces of creation one may hold sacred. One's religion is also a gift that is offered to others, that though we may not share the same vision of our answers to the Four Questions, we may ALL share in our collective joy for existence! We accept theses gifts from others as COURTESIES so that we should not feel compelled to destroy each other over the Four Questions.

To refuse, rebuke, or belittle these gifts from others is an insult...and the greatest SIN that any human can commit against another!

========================

[Bruce Klein]

Zaara,

Welcome and I hope you find the chance to post more as I find very little that I disagree with.


I'm a little confused as to your deep conviction about the 4 questions, yet I'd agree that basically these represent a commonality among humans.

Bruce,
http://www.bjklein.com

[zaara]

In several usenet newsgroups I've seen responses from various U.S. Senators in replies to atheists who were alarmed over statements and activities subsequent to last summer's brouhaha over the Pledge of Allegiance. What these Senators have said, some in so many words and others straight out, is that the Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion, but not Freedom FROM Religion. Hillary Clinton, for one, said this straight out in her reply to an atheist. I find this trend to be ominous and am greatly alarmed.

I don't really care what religion a person wants to practice, as long as they leave me alone. But, when a person's religon becomes the foundation for social and civil legislation, then I become alarmed. IMO the Senators, and other elected officials who have made such statemets, do not understand religion at all. IMO, they are zealots intent on "rolling back" society to 50's era mentality. I've read comments from several Europeans who are alarmed at what is happening in the U.S. They have stated that, here in the U.S., we have never lived under a religous theocracy as have many European nations. Thus, we do not understand the repressive nature of such societies. I agree.

When the President of the United States can stand before the cameras of the world and state that he will never approve the federal appointment of a person from a non-monotheistic background, I can't understand why that is not considered "respecting an establishment of religion" and thus unconstitutional. Likewise, when a Supreme Court Justice (Scalia) is on record as having said that it is inevitable that one religion will grow to dominate all others in a democratic society, I can't understand why that justice's decisions are not considered questionable and and contrary to the spirit of the constitution.

I find such people to be zealots, and FAR from being paragons of religion. Yet, these are the people who are in power, and they are engaged in molding American society in their twisted Christian values. And their values have decided that we should not strive to live forever, because their god won't like it. We should not strive for human cloning, we should not engage in fetal tissue research, etc., etc..

George Bush senior, as an incumbent Vice-President, stated that Atheists and Agnostics should not have rights as citizens of the Unites States. His son is now President, and is actively engaged in creating a religious society.

I think that this trend should not be allowed to continue.

The reason I am passionate about the Four Questions, is because I feel strongly that everyone needs to understand that people should have the right to answer their own personal Four Questions without fear of persecution. The we should have the right to live our lives according to our own personal answers to the Four Questions, and that we should not be subjected to any legislation that would require that someone else's answers to the Four Questions be shoved down our throats every single moment of every day, from the day we are born!

Maybe I am insane. I am definitely upset.

[Utnapishtim]

Welcome to the Forums Zaara. That was an interesting post.
I agree with you that the 'Four Questions' you name are central to the preoccupations of many, many people on this planet. However they are not quite as universal as you suggest. There have always been plenty of pragmatists who reject all metaphysical speculation and concentrate their intellectual efforts on the here and now. The teachings of Confucious for example reject all attempts to answer unanswerable questions.

Furthermore I do not believe that one persons answers to existential questions is a valid as another. Beliefs must still be tested by reality and reality will often give you an idea as to how close you are to the truth.

The ancient greeks believed that Gods lived at the summit of Mount Olympus. They didn't. Regardless of how many people believed in the existence of Zeus Hera and Aphrodite they were NEVER on that mountaintop. So the belief in these divinities was an INCORRECT one.

Science has been the greatest tool for the advancement of human comfort and happiness this planet has eveer seen. It is founded on the notion that there are observer independent truths. All answers are NOT equally valid.

The copernican and ptolemaic conceptions of the orbits of the planets are not equally valid. The ptolemaic scheme is incorrect.

I do not believe that Moses parted the red sea, that Yahweh spoke to him from a burning bush or that He delivered ten commandments to him on Mount Sinai. I do not believe that Jesus was born to a virgin, that astrological bodies rearranged themselves in the sky to allow kings to visit his birthplace, that he walked on water or that he was ressurected.
I do not believe that the Quran is a divine book that has existed in heaven since the beginning of time. I do not believe it represents a divine law greater than mans own. I do not believe that siddharta Gautama's (The Buddha) high state of enlightenment were due to numerous reincarnations.

The above assertions are either true or they are false. I believe them to be false. Therefore I consider those who hold such beliefs to be not merely 'people with different answers to the four questions' but I consider them to be wrong.

To people who believe such assertions there is no compromise either. If the world around them is founded on a supreme moral order dictated in a holy book, they have a duty to attempt to remold the world in the image of that moral order. That includes makign me see the error of my sinful ways.

I understand that compromises must be reached. For this reason I must accept that others have the right to hold beliefs I consider moronic. That doesn't make the holders of those beliefs any less objectively wrong in my eyes.

I would actually things down to a single universal question not four.

"How or why can my existence matter?"

Think about it.

Now that is a question to which I truly believe there are no objective answers.
I would respect anyones answer that did not encroach on my own

[zaara]

<snip>
I understand that compromises must be reached. For this reason I must accept that others have the right to hold beliefs I consider moronic. That doesn't make the holders of those beliefs any less objectively wrong in my eyes.
<snip>

Compromise is my point.

I do not believe in gods, godesses, magic, or fantasical creatures and spirits, either. But that is not the point. The intent of the Four Questions is not to argue religion or philosopy. The intent of the Four Questions is to present a strategy for social and political reform whereby it must be seen that whatever one's belief, religous opinions must never become the basis for law.

Atheists and agnostics are an extreme minority in the world, IMO. Even within the ranks of scientists, there are many who hold strongly (and baselessly) to the conviction that there is a supernatural intelligence behind the creation of the universe and ourselves. In the current socio-political climate, I believe that atheist and agnostic reasoning is in danger of becoming practically outlawed. The point of the Four Questions is not to present my personal ideas or beliefs, nor to deny or refute the ideas or beliefs of others. The purpose of the Four Questions is to present to what I hope are the still reasoning minds of non-zealots, a paradigm in which it can be seen that all people should have the rights to answer these questions for themselves, without fear of persecution. Hopefully, if this paradigm can be engendered into society, then it may follow that any legislation that supports any particular religious viewpoint must be denied.

I get the feeling that when atheists and agnostics read the Four Questions, they think that I am some kind of a theist or deist trying to place them into a religious mold. Nothing could be further from my intent. However, for the sake of our rights to have and express atheist and agnostic opinions, and our rights to live in a society where we are not inundated with someone else's opinions ad nauseum, wouldn't it be wise to adopt a strategy where theists and deists could not deny atheist and agnostic views without engaging in overt hypocrisy? That is my point.

I am not trying to subject you or anyone else to mysticism. I do not believe in that crap either. What I am talking about if the development and implementation of a socio-political strategy whereby religous zealots and their insane beliefs will be forever forbidden as a basis of law, on the grounds that, in a truly free society, even if the majority does hold a particular belief, for the sake of true religious and social freedom, that no religous laws, however couched or disguised, can be tolerated.

I would like to know why this is not a good strategy?

[Utnapishtim]

The above was me again. I keep forgetting to log in before I post!!

Please do not construe my continued disagreement with you on this matter as hostility by the way! I think discussion and debate -even heated debate- can be very positive and look forward to any future response :D

[wall]

I am by no means offended by your writing, however you asked why some people might be, so I will attempt to answer it....

I think the answer to that is rather simple, no matter what your intentions or what the "4 questions" actually represent or mean, the bottem line is that you are still trying to tell people what to do, and in a way, how to think. Even providing the 4 questions themselves is, well, 4 to many questions to be provided. The suggested structure, no matter how small, compromised, or universal, is still a suggested method of religious thought. It doesn't matter that you don't answer the questions... with true freedom from relgion, people would have a true blank slate and come up with their own questions.

On a side note, I totally agree that the "truth of human existance" comes in the form of a question and not an answer. I have thought this for quite some time. Answers have never really done much for me, I am a question seeker.

[Malpoet]

It is important to point out the errors of religious belief. As has been pointed out previously, creationism is false, there was no virgin birth, etc.

It is also unacceptable to have laws or political systems that force compliance with any belief system whether it is characterised as a religion or not. So the communist, and allegedly atheist, states that prohibited free thought and action were wrong in a similar way to theocratic states.

However, challenging error and exposing oppression is not the same as agreeing on the manner in which opposition to false beliefs must be constructed or pursued.

I want freedom from false religions and I want freedom from dogmas or ideologies being imposed upon me whether they are right or wrong.

[roll]

[Lazarus Long]

I happen to agree with your observations about AIDS and Cancer, though I think that we will be learning about the human genome fom both areas of study. But I have to leave it at that for I am ouot of time on this computer for today.

[The White Wolf]

Zaara, I am amazed at your openions. You really put some time and your heart into these post, eh? That is great! I must agree with BJKlein, that I took am a little confused as to your deep conviction about the 4 questions. However, we all would agree with you to some degree...at least I do. Your views are unique and I enjoyed reading what all you had to say. I look forward to reading more from you.
~ The White Wolf

[thefirstimmortal]

It is also unacceptable to have laws or political systems that force compliance with any belief system....

A unique contribution of the United States to civilization is the invention of religious liberty. No nation before our own had moved beyond tolerance. No nation had made freedom of reli­gion a cherished value. No nation had designated “exercise,” not mere opinion, as the value guaranteed. No nation had ever guar­anteed in a written constitution that the nation would enact no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

The mother country, Great Britain, had for a century enjoyed a highly limited tolerance, coupled to the establishment of a church endowed with many prerogatives and privileges. Protes­tants who were not communicants in the Church of England, Catholics, Jews, members of all the other religions of the world, agnostics, and atheists were the subject of legal disabilities de­structive of their civil rights and prohibitive of their participa­tion in the government of the country. Some of the American colonies founded by Englishmen had moved toward greater tolerance, but none before the American Revolution had estab­lished equality and complete freedom of religion. All the colo­nists were part of an empire whose monarch was also the head of a church.

The unique United States provision was, therefore, an ex­periment. It had to be an experiment. It had never been tried before. It was proclaimed as an experiment by its principal pro­ponent, James Madison, who also drew the corollary that the umpire of the experiment would be experience. It has been the American experience that has determined the success of the ex­periment and its extent and contours.

[thefirstimmortal]

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

[thefirstimmortal]

It is my belief that there are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant, and meant their prohibitions to be "absolute."
-- Hugo Black, limiting the power of the courts and Congress to reinterpret the Constitution

[thefirstimmortal]

The American Revolution was made by British subjects, individual men and women who, by our modem sense of proportions, were amazingly few in number. The war they fought was the most important in our history, and as too few today seem to understand, it very quickly became a world war. But the revolution began well before the war. As John Adams famously observed, ‘The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.’ And it changed the world.

There was no American nation, no army at the start, no sweeping popular support for rebellion, nor much promise of success. No rebelling people had ever broken free from the grip of colonial empire, and those we call patriots were also clearly traitors to the King. And so, as we must never forget, when they pledged ‘their lives, their for­tunes, their sacred honor,’ it was not in a manner of speaking.

We call them the Founding Fathers, in tribute, but tend to see them as distant and a bit unreal, like figures in a costume pageant. Yet very real they were, real as all that stirred their ‘hearts and minds,’ and it has meaning in our time as never before.

With change accelerating all around, more and more we need understanding and appreciation of those principles upon which the republic was founded, those ‘self-evident’ truths that so many risked all for, fought for, suffered and died for?

[Lazarus Long]

The very concept of a separation of Church and State was as revolutionary in a political sense, if not more so than the idea of Democracy itself.

Democracy had a historical precedent, however vague and distant in Human History or confused in the hearts and minds of idealists, but never in the entire history of humanity had the idea of a State independent of the validation of theocratic authority been realized. The very notion was a common heresy.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

We established a State independent of any single established religion or doctrine with an intent to remain objective in this regard, granting all citizens the right to practice their beliefs unhindered by state oversight and decree, but also without any one religion to be made "Official" as an institution of State.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We did not proclaim Independence blithely or lightly, nor with such brazen and wanton disregard for the Rule of Law as to behave as simple hedonists or "libertines", "We the people" attempted to methodically and diligently lay the case for the establishment of a responsive government and system of law and social fabric that would be coherent and transparent to the governed as well as the governing. The delicate balancing of power would come later after long struggle and longer contemplation but the words that followed the above quotes were these:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

And we did... With greater alacrity with simple words, individual purpose, and more precise aim, we proved the ancient adage that words are mightier then the sword. Words alone would not have withstood the test of human mettle but it was the argument made in support of our claim that has withstood the test of time and inspired an Age of Revolution.

We demanded a redress of grievance in the court of Public Opinion under the Principle of Common Law as defined not just by custom but of reason. We established that Law is a bottom up phenomenon determined by a freely associating people, not a top down imposition of the of Rule of Kings and Churches. We declared boldly that the idea of a Benevolent Dictatorship is an oxymoron.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

For those of you that still do not recognize this document and the quotes my friend William freely uses it is not a legal document at all. It is not the law of any land, it is the United States Declaration of Independence. It begins thus:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

These were fighting words, some of the most imaginative and powerful fighting words yet heard in the political arena since the fall of the Roman Republic, but of even greater importance is the fact that they were Uniting Words.

In the above title realize that we were not yet called the United States of America, we were thirteen uniting States of America. Separate City/States and their respective peoples joining in a Union of like intent and common cause with regard to the fundamental principles of governance.

And everyone please take notice that nowhere does it say "One Nation Under God" but instead anticipates Darwin's Laws of Nature, and Nature's God as the source of divinity in each individual, transcendent of the State's or Institutionalized Church's attempt to define and establish said legitimacy for the individual.

The wildfire started upon this distant shore called the New World is one that shall not be extinguished so long as any can learn of its inspiring purpose. Even should this great nation fall, the hope that it has inspired will last so long as humans do, and such concepts shall endure. It is a rational principle that cannot even be extinguished by those that would turn a blind eye to the fact that its substantive message is a banner that has been taken up by Freedom loving peoples everywhere on this Earth, though much to the conspicuous chagrin of those vested interests that have come to rule in the Land where these concepts of Freedom were conceived, fought for, and established.

[thefirstimmortal]

Your post is pure poetry Lazarus

[Lazarus Long]

Thank you William, and Season's Tidings and Happy New Year to you!

In fact, my warmest regards to all who read this.



Please take a moment to reflect as we mark the turning point of the year and season to appreciate all we have, and all we could lose. But of the greatest importance, of the goals we would set for ourselves.

[thefirstimmortal]

Happy New Year to you, also

[Bruce Klein]

Happy New Year Laz & Will.

[Omnido]

Poetry in Motion Laz. *applauds*

Seasons greetings and a happy new year to all of you.

[fruitimmortal]

" It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a Golden Age: but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and that dragon is religion. " ---Bertrand Russel

[fruitimmortal]

" The sex drive itself gave organized religion an opportunity to amass what was indisputably the greatest power ever lodged in human hands." --- Rabbi Abraham Feinberg

[fruitimmortal]

" The church historically has set up a lunatic asylum as the ultimate ideal."---( Friedrich Nietzche _

[fruitimmortal]

" Civilisation will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest."---( Emile Zola, french Author )

[Lazarus Long]

OK I think I should weigh back in here:

I have been hunting around for these old articles and I finally got the links together. I want to add that the problem with belief is that it generates the best and the worst behaviors, it is a consequence of evolution overcoming reason to insure "Some kind of" Active response as opposed to inaction from a pure Natural Selection perspective.

This is my take on the Evolutionary Psychology. At some point screaming at the unknown has a higher chance of success then going gently into that good night. Faith becomes reason, at least in one's self.

Here are some very good articles on the psyhology of belief.

The problems with beliefs - by Jim Walker. originated: 29 March 1997. additions: 18 Jan. 2002. Introduction. People have slaughtered each ...
http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

Problems with Creationism - by Jim Walker: Originated, 25 March 1997 Modified 24 Apr. ... the few scientists who claim belief in God must leave their beliefs aside if ...
http://www.nobeliefs...Creationism.htm

http://www.gate.com/...Creationism.htm

This Is Your Brain On God (Michael Persinger's experiments): http://www.wired.com.../persinger.html

The Talk Origins Archives: http://www.talkorigi...ins/search.html

The World of Richard Dawkins: http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/

The Genetic Algorithms Archive: http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/galist/

Lab molecules replicate and evolve: http://news.bbc.co.u...7000/217054.stm

Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism: http://icarus.uic.ed...etic/cefec.html

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution: http://www.talkorigi...onceptions.html

[Limitless]

" Civilisation will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest."---( Emile Zola, french Author )

(Thanks for the quote, fruitimmortal.)


The stones are falling....... [cry] [unsure] lol [wacko]


Apr. 8, 2003. 01:00 AM - Toronto Star Website (thestar.com)

Editorial: Toronto loses a leader

You don't have to be Catholic to recognize the name Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter.

That alone speaks volumes about his influence on Toronto.

From 1978 to 1990, Cardinal Carter served as archbishop of the Toronto diocese, making him the spiritual leader of Canada's largest English-speaking Roman Catholic diocese.

Indeed, the cardinal was once called the country's most powerful cleric. His reach extended beyond the pulpit and the Catholic parishes to touch political and business leaders of all faiths.

He was never shy about using his power and position to sway the day's moral, social and political issues.

He spoke out against abortion, although not strongly enough to please conservatives. He frowned on the idea of ordaining women. He was praised for his work on race relations. And he was credited with pressuring former premier Bill Davis into extending full public funding for Catholic schools in 1984. It could be said the city's Catholic community gained in stature during his tenure.

But he was known as much for the company he kept as his opinions.

Davis counted him as a close friend, as did newspaper owner Conrad Black. He was at ease playing tennis with the captains of industry, fine dining with politicians, hobnobbing with the city's elite — too much so, according to his critics.

Yet Cardinal Carter made no apologies for his circle of friends.

Yet it's unfair to say Cardinal Carter, for all his connections to the movers and shakers, was blind to the plight of the less fortunate.

His New Year's message for 1988, for example, was a clarion call to all parishes in the Toronto area to help find housing for the homeless.

He called on legislators to make the homeless a priority. Landlords should set aside one house or apartment for families or individuals without a home, he said.

Cardinal Carter died over the weekend at the age of 91.

While his strong views provoked strong reactions, this much is true. Catholics have lost an influential churchman, Toronto has lost a respected civic leader who felt a responsibility to the city as a whole. (editorial done.)



-Unfortunately, it will be hard to sway the minds of people who see criticism of religion as an attack of the humanity that represents religion, symbolically (and likely did valuable humanitarian work, in various communities).....this is seeing religion at the lower end of the "Human" level.....which is missing the point, but.........well, you know............. [uhh] ...... (Sigh)

[galtsgulch]

Zaara;

I would disagree with your characterization of the "4 Questions." I would like to reply to them in sequence:

Question #1 - Who, or what, am I? These are two questions, not one. WHO you are is a question of the sum total of your experiences, your moral code and your integrity. WHAT you are is a biological question, which, at its easiest is a matter of your DNA ("homo sapien" if you came into being in the last 60,000 years).

Question #2 - Where did I come from, what was the state of my existence, before I was born? Again, this contains two separate issues. You most likely came from the biological union of your mother's ovum and your father's sperm (technically, this is no longer necessary; soon an artificial womb might replace your mother's womb as well). The second question is, to me, nonsensical. I think that if one were to tell a child early in his/her learning where they came from (biologically) and explained about the development of the brain and learning, that the question of what happened BEFORE birth would be moot. That question presupposes an ignorance of biology (the state of affairs which existed when most religions were founded).

Question #3 - What will happen to me, what will be the state of my existence, when I die? Without the presupposition of a SOUL, this question would not necessarily arise. Sure, one can wonder what it's like to actually die, but if you recognize that your identity is solely based on your MEMORY (with a slight DNA/Mendel's Laws component which can predispose you to certain traits), then it's inconceivable to think of a YOU after your brain has rotted and turned to dust.

Question #4 - If I was born, only to live, experience pleasure, pain, health, sickness, old-age, infirmity and death, then what is the purpose of my existence? This again presupposes a belief that SOMEONE or THING put you on this Earth for a PURPOSE. LIFE IS, that's all there is to it. We can thank our lucky stars (a throwback to pagan days) that we were born, and that we exist when we do rather than a hundred years ago, when cryonics and life-extension were unheard of. Humans are thinking creatures; THINK, be PRODUCTIVE, have GOALS, and ENJOY life.

[fruitimmortal]

Limitless

T H E Roman Empire W 'ILL' Expire [ph34r]

( 'coincidently' the word "Roman" is found in the german language; a Roman is a written romantic fantasy;a LIE) [wacko] [ph34r]

Edited by fruitimmortal, 14 April 2003 - 08:01 AM.