Here's the link to the story about the Socialist Mayors in Milwaukee:

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=68504893762&h=gZtpT&u=Y3AGy&re...

You know, Thom....

I've always felt that religion or spiritual practice is a bit like a good cloak. Therefore, like any well-worn item of clothing, it's gonna get a little frayed with wear. This explains "radical fringe" - (gentle hugs and warm smiles)

Thom, You asked how one can reform a religion re the fundamentalist. As a former Christian, (now a Deist) I submit to you that perhaps you can't. When the liberal/moderate acknowledges the book to be the word of God (in any shape or form) the fundamentalist says " Yes, and this is what it says..."

Nicolette,
re: who should govern?
It seems to me that we do indeed create "God" in our own image. If you are a liberal, you see a loving. tolerant God, Where as a fundamentalist sees a judgmental, "tuff love" God. Therefor, it is us, who determines how we are governed.

Tsk-tsk Thom!
Your comments on Unitarians was that we:"sit around and sing hymns."
Do you know what religion led the abolitionist movement in the early 19th century?
Do you know what religion was in the forefront of the Civil Rights movement?
The Unitarian religion.
And both events at a time when many -- if not most -- other mainstream religions were urging black Americans to "wait a while longer."

Just so you know I don't have a rod up my butt, my favorite Unitarian joke is that the reason we're such bad hymn singers is that we're always reading ahead in the hymn book to see if we agree with it.

You think the good core of religion is the spiritual, the mystical. I think the essential part is how we behave toward one another.

I'm sure you didn't mean to diss Unitarians, but you sure did.

I have to disagree with you, Francis. Religion is the broad brush definition given to describe spiritual practice with others in mind. Quite frankly, I think the human race would be better served if there were no religions. Personal spiritual practice is instead such a private matter that public discussion should be considered a faux pas of the highest magnitude.
Remember, actions speak far louder than words. I would prefer if people expressed their adoration of the sacred by feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and helping the ill become healthy again. No need to brag about whatever philosophy-of-the-moment you espouse.

Just me.....

Lets not forget there are over one billion people in Europe living in about the same space as 300 million here in the USA. Of course, their homes will be smaller as they have more people sharing the same resources. Imagine what our country will look like with over one billion people?

There is some value in the openness and appreciation of things that may transcend our limited tools of language, reason and empiricism.

I am a Unitarian Universalist, and I think there is value in communities that permit the sharing of ideas and possibly transforming interactions and bonds between people that may help individuals gain insights into possibly transcendant, spiritual, mystical realms. Undoubtedly, a belief in a loving "central force" helps people in Alcoholics Anonymous gain the resolve to overcome crippling and seemingly intractable addictions. Same with athletes who seem to perform well beyond expectations due to their belief in a God. We can say that their beliefs are a crutch, and that it is really their own determination that yields success in their endeavors, but we CANNOT PROVE that they have NOT tapped into something beyond the things that are observable or comprehensible in our material world.

So we cannot deny the spiritual significance of another person's perspective. However, that does not mean that that person's claim of divine connection should add any value to that person's claims about reality or real-life decision making. Anytime an individual chooses to relay the results of his or her "divinely-inspired" insights to others, he or she must then be limited to the tools that are COMMONLY ACCESSIBLE to all people: language, reason and empiricism. These tools have their limitations, but given the limited nature of human condition, these are the best tools we have available to all of us.

We must resist the urge to believe things because we deeply desire to have the gratification of knowing: this leads to delusion as well as abuses resulting from asserting beliefs via power rather than through respectful, rational discourse. This can lead to unnecessary errors and conflicts--some with major consequences (e.g., creating unnecessary rifts between people or, at the extreme, killing other people or groups who have the "wrong" beliefs...)

We can commit to beliefs for which we have sound justification from the tools of language, reason and empiricism--always acknowledging that we may encounter new evidence or our collective understandings might be changed via a paradigm shift sometime later. Thus, instead of promoting intellectually impure and possibly corrosive dogmatism, a person can make useful and gratifying intellectual commitments WHILE RETAINING an openness to revisit and perhaps revise or reject such beliefs later on.

Thus a person remains intellectually humble and on a path of continual growth. This growth is enabled by a willingness and perhaps commitment to take in information and perspectives continually via reading and dialogue. This has the added benefit of deepening our connections with others, which can benefit us not only intellectually, but perhaps spiritually as well.

The only reason religion exists, is for a few men to control mankind. The fear of death as final is the driving force behind all made up religion. It is all man made and any reference to divine inspiration is nonsense. Main stream, more tolerable religions are losing ground to fundamentalist religions, that are growing fast. These men who lead these religions are in the business of making fortunes off the fear of death. Atheism is not a religion. Study the origins of religion and any rational person should conclude that all faith is a belief in a belief. Atheism is rational study of natural selection and evolution. Morality is not the result of a belief in any god. The god of the bible was an insecure entity who was jealous and hatefull and encouraged genocide of all who opposed it. This invisable entity is something I would certainly not worship or ever want to meet. Love your fellow man and make the world better for everyone. I also believe that Religion Poisens Everthing

RE: The head-to-head between Hitchens and Hartmann

This discussion was simultaneously interesting and frustrating. Thanks to the callers afterward, it was brought closer to being understandable.

I think what causes my frustration when I've heard Thom plunge into these discussions (he had one a while back with Chris Hedges on atheism), he seems unaware of all the threads involved in the topic.

For instance, today there was use of the word religion without a definition of religion clarified. Also, there was acknowledgement that TOXIC religions have developed, yet there was no definition/clarification of that toxicity or how it came about.

Here's my submission: Religions take beliefs, spiritual practices and mystical experience and turn those into a commodity/business. Religions are 1/ contained, 2/ hierarchy-fied (priesthood and followers and unbelievers (heretics)), 3/ politicized, 4/ money-fied, 5/ dogma-fied beliefs, spiritual practices, and human propensity for the mystical.

Once the priesthood steps into the realm of concretizing these into dogma (including those dangerous 'fundamentals' which lie at the heart of fundamentalism), they give birth to INTOLERANCE and the TOXICITY is endemic.

Some religions get there in baby steps: Christianity was a cult, a seed of a religion until the Roman Empire Oligarchs decided to adopt and use it to make their empire HOLY as in The Holy Roman Empire! And we must give Mohammed credit for his initial attempt to create a tolerant religion, one that brought tolerance of diverse peoples and religions, tribal rivalries and protections for women; however those aspects came to be quickly eclipsed by Mohammed's challenge to survive rather than be martyred by the Arab Oligarchy and (quite a mirroring the Holy Roman Empire) Mohammedism embraced the goal of EMPIRE, overlayed EMPIRE on Mohammedism and created Islam. As Empires are authoritarian, their religions become tools of EMPIRE and the authoritarianism EMPIRE requires. For a religion born wholly intolerant, I think an example would be Mormonism, with its chauvinism against women, racism, economic authority born whole as initial dogma -- with changes in the direction of greater tolerance coming only when necessary to protect the wealth and EMPIRE of the Mormon Church's interests.

Even the Dalai Lama has acknowledged that Tibetan Buddhism ran Tibet in a manner that was FEUDAL. Was that Empire frozen in feudelism run by monks a weak system prime for collapse from ANY pressure from the outside world -- whether from well-intentioned, appreciative tourists or aggressors? That Tibet closed itself off from the world for some time seems to indicate the controlling monks realized INTOLERANCE of others, preventing new ideas to enter, was necessary for Tibet's survival.

I think any system that relies on its DOGMA and INTOLERANCE becomes TOXIC -- and that goes for SCIENCE as well, which has become a kind of religion of the secular world.

And we must investigate the existence of OCCULT religions in the form of Secret Societies. As dangerous as the out-in-the-open TOXIC religions are, it seems possible that the secret religions may be even more TOXIC and dangerous.

I just arrived here on what I believe is the "Live Blog." The times of other comments seem off a bit...
At any rate, can someone tell me how to get to the chat room! I have tried so many times to get into the old chat, but my old username and password aren't working.
I clearly have a "new" account as well...but I CANNOT find the "new" chat room that is supposed to be in Thom's Community!!!
I beg that someone patient, kind, and knowledgable on this matter may assist me - please! :-)
I may be e-mailed at Brendan4816@yahoo.com. Thank you for any suggestions you may have!
Peace

Deists do not worship nature. They believe observing and studying nature one can infer certain things about "God" [powerful, intelligent, etc.]. Furthermore, deist believe that this "God" has not and does not intervene in human affairs. After the creation of humans, animals, etc., this creator left us to our own devices. Therefore, holy books, prophets, etc are all things of human construct and not "divine".

Afterthought:

Thom said we need more religious REFORMATION.

I don't think Reformation would prove that effective. Look at the intolerant, fundamentalist off-shoots of Protestantism resulting from the Catholic Reformation. Reformation seems only to fragment the original toxic religion into splinters. Reformation is like corporate restructuring; the corporate structure is still there -- the business aspect, the dogmatic base, the "believe-us-because-we-have-the-answer" marketing message still exist but merely are repackaged into more versions of religious dogma.

How many more intolerant factions do we need?

We need tolerant, open-minded, live-and-let-live attitudes alot more than we need reform into more offshoots of the toxic religious commerce.

Thom -
I am surprised that a man of your wisdom would make such a naive "if / therefore" mistake in reasoning, i.e.: `since every culture has some form(s) of religion, this must mean that the supernatural exists'. A caller crystallized these thoughts, because he presumed that there “must be a `why’” for everything that happens – thus requiring a force which sets the rules…if only we mere mortals could figure them out.

As pattern-recognizing creatures, humans create mythologies to impose “TRUE if/therefore rules on nature, in the understandable attempt to comprehend – and even influence - events in a cause-&-effect manner. But True Believers must either meekly explain away every instance where the `agreement’ between themselves and their god(s) breaks down (i.e.: the “why bad things happen to good people” rationalizations) – or at worst, they must aggressively engage in a `witch-hunt’ to locate & scapegoat the “unbeliever” in their midst who has caused their god(s) to show his/her/its displeasure by punishing them all.

Of course, what is lacking in any religion is an honest effort to keep track of the “success-to-failure” ratios of their various tenants; if done, I expect this would demonstrate that their premises are at least flawed – if not totally invalid.

Remember the Cheech & Chong line: “I used to be messed up on drugs until I found the Lord…now I’m messed up on the Lord.”? Every known human culture (and not a few animal species) have found- and/or developed intoxicating substances which are actively sought out to mute stress, produce relaxation, or even alter / heighten the user's sense of reality (this latter substance class often becomes the core of mystical religious practices). Is there “The ONE TRUE intoxicant”? Of course not. They all work pretty much the same across all populations (something which cannot be said for the thousands of variants of “The ONE TRUE religion”).

All that this means is that the function of the animal brain is susceptible to alteration by the administration of certain internal or external substances - and since no animals appear to practice `religion’, one could argue that the human brain has merely developed internal mechanisms to release intoxicating substances that we misinterpret as “proof” of supernatural forces.

There is no ethically-weighted “TRUE why” in the functioning of the universe, only the “ACTUAL is” of how things function.

It seems to me that Deism has many differant flavors (beliefs, opinions, ect.)What we Deist share, is the belief in/of a "God", prime mover, first cause, what ever you want to name it. We all have our own opinions beyond that; many Deist, such as George Washington believed in divine providence. Thomas Paine believed in an after life. What Deism is; is a philosophy (belief in "God" based on (the evidence of) nature & (using God's gift ) of reason. For those interested, a very good book regarding Deism would be Thomas Paine's "Modern Age of Reason".

The religious institution is somewhat like the corporation. They are both entities with self-serving, self-promoting, self-enriching goals, except the corporation might possibly give more to its members (stock dividends to stockholders) while taking money from consumers for product/servicecs. A religious institution is limited to taking money from its members/congregation(consumers) in return for providing them with the product/service of telling them what to dogmatically believe and which rituals to observe.

Now with the government breakdown of separation of church and state in the USA and the so-called health and human services delivery through religious institutions, we are seeing even more of this business-style operation of religious institutions via Faith-Based Initiatives stuff....

.

I was surprised at Chris Hedges assertions about atheists. He claims they externalize "evil" and that they place humans above all with regards to moral standing while retaining a linear sense of time. I don't know which atheists Hedges references but none seem to be part and parcel of what atheism is. Atheism (speaking as one) to put crudely means a lack of belief in any form of higher power/ consciousness that somehow overseas, controls or affects the whole of existence. Any notions of the supernatural, religion or mysticism becomes moot as the result.

With that, the notion of externalization of evil, as Hedges claims, becomes meaningless in true atheistic terms. People are capable of committing horrible acts and are able to cause much misery and destruction. Is Hedges somehow claiming atheists believe in some ultimate force out there in space named "evil"? Hedges' claim makes no sense here.

Also, I doubt most atheists make any claim with regards to human being's moral superiority. Again, humans are capable of constructive or destructive actions, as with any other animal species. If anyone wants to frame or label these actions in specific terms such as "morality", then so be it. What does this have to do with atheism?

Finally, Hedges claims that atheists have a linear notion of time. How so? This is a bit of logic trap. If one says well religious belief systems have a very linear notion of time, then Hedges could claim "see atheism is a religion". What a weak link! Many belief systems, regardless of religiosity, have linear notions of time. This fact makes for a soft argument for atheism as a religion. Many physicists don't believe time as a straight line: time and space as a loop, the string theory, quantum physics, etc.

Atheists don't claim to know everything, neither does science. The problem begins when people try to fill the gaps of knowledge with notions of the supernatural.