Stuff I figured out years ago.

[paperburn1]

If one were to read the works and writings of the founding fathers, even the most amoral of the founding fathers Benjamin Franklin. One can easily glean the fact that all the founding fathers at the time supported some sort of moral guiding authority. It is also fairly self-evident by their separation of church and state was not to exclude the church on the actions of the state but instead to ensure that one religion would not become the official state religion as had incurred in England. There are even writings to include an atheist point of view but it was cautioned that that to could also be construed as a belief system and it in itself must not be allowed to be the prevailing moral guiding factor for the new nation as it was being formed.

[Diogenes]

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

While I can see your first point, this one was the generally used method of officially stating the date and may not denote an actually religious preference for the government. It may, but then again it may not.

That our entire dating system is based on Christianity is a point that cannot be stressed too much in the context of the relationship between government and religion in those days. The concept of a secular government was completely foreign to people in the 1790s. No one had ever heard of such a thing, nor did anyone believe that they had created any such thing by ratifying the US Constitution of 1787.


Religion absolutely pervaded society in those days. It was a given. It was a base assumption. The congress specifically created religious prohibitions from disqualifying people of different denominations from attaining office, and it never seriously entertained the idea of any concern for the sensibilities of atheists. They were a laughably teeny and irrelevant portion of the population in those societies.


This notion of an assumed and shared national religion of Christianity is even more obvious in the previous Constitution known as "The Articles of Confederation."

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union.

Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth Day of July in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.

And if you think that is bad, you ought to look at some of the State constitutions of that time period.


Pennsylvania for example:

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

Or Massachusetts:

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Or Maryland:

XXXIII. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice; unless, under colour of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others, in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any particular place of worship, or any particular ministry; yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion; leaving to each individual the power of appointing the payment over of the money, collected from him, to the support of any particular place of worship or minister, or for the benefit of the poor of his own denomination, or the poor in general of any particular county: but the churches, chapels, glebes, and all other property now belonging to the church of England, ought to remain to the church of England forever. And all acts of Assembly, lately passed, for collecting monies for building or repairing particular churches or chapels of ease, shall continue in force, and be executed, unless the Legislature shall, by act, supersede or repeal the same: but no county court shall assess any quantity of tobacco, or sum of money, hereafter, on the application of any vestrymen or church-wardens; and every encumbent of the church of England, who hath remained in his parish, and performed his duty, shall be entitled to receive the provision and support established by the act, entitled "An act for the support of the clergy of the church of England, in this Province," till the November court of this present year to be held for the county in which his parish shall lie, or partly lie, or for such time as he hath remained in his parish, and performed his duty.

Delaware:

ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation...



And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

And so on.

[GIThruster]

If one were to read the works and writings of the founding fathers, even the most amoral of the founding fathers Benjamin Franklin. One can easily glean the fact that all the founding fathers at the time supported some sort of moral guiding authority. It is also fairly self-evident by their separation of church and state was not to exclude the church on the actions of the state but instead to ensure that one religion would not become the official state religion as had incurred in England. There are even writings to include an atheist point of view but it was cautioned that that to could also be construed as a belief system and it in itself must not be allowed to be the prevailing moral guiding factor for the new nation as it was being formed.

Well said. Another way to view this is to note that the intention was to thwart religious persecution and promote religious liberty. When atheists harass Christians by attacking their modes and forms of worship, as for example when they complain against nativity scenes and crosses in cemeteries; they are doing what the founders were trying to stop. The fact atheists are so secure in their position and bold to be so aggressive against theists is evidence that atheists are not being persecuted in any way. So what's their beef?

Positions that rely primarily upon popularity are generally not going to be won by atheists, but even this has exceptions. If you want to be mayor of san Francisco, you've got a fair chance by running as an atheist. So under what set of criteria could one argue that atheists are persecuted? I just don't see it. rather, they've become the persecutors, and note, they never do this face to face. Their methods are actually quite cowardly and they didn't act this way until the internet made most of their efforts anonymous.

[Betruger]

So what's their beef?

Same beef as the Spanish Inquisition and Nazis. They're assholes. Those "atheists" that exploit their philosophy as some excuse to be assholes, are assholes. It's immaterial to the original atheist philosophy, as the Socio-religious Machines' oppressive abuse is to the original well-meaning (overall and usually, anyway) religious philosophy, as "filthy capitalist" machines (inhumane corporate activity, for one) are to the original free market principle of optimal problem-solving by an iterative "evolution" approach.

Eugenics is the morality of Atheism, and there are noises of it stirring again.

A dark side of the moon argument. There's no need for some rube goldberg superstition to explain reality and grok why unproductive suffering is not-good. Just like there was no need for Zeus & Cie to explain lightning or droughts. Life is finite and basic wholesomeness is toddler-level common sense; material reality's indifference to that anti-entropic preference of humans', and humans' non-omnipotence and non-omniscience and subjugation to time IE causality, is the reason for engineering IE re-arranging said material reality IE wringing some local order out of surrounding chaos, AKA entropy. That does include engineering our feeble flesh regardless whether or not some freaks perverted those means to their freak fantasies.

It's statistically unavoidable that at some point in time such freaks happen. That they do happen is no reason for going Amish. Pasteur and Curie aren't to be thrown out with the bath water - they did for health what Einstein and Edison & the rest did for S&Tech. It is all a hygienic force, in making the human body healthier IE more efficient, as others do for technological health. More efficiency, less waste, less unwanted consequences, less collateral damage caused in producing the actual, precise intended product.

From Desire, ariseth the Thought of some means we have seen produce the like of that which we ayme at; and from the thought of that, the thought of means to that mean; and so continually, till we come to some beginning within our own power.

"Trayne of thoughts regulated"
Atheists or theists who are "without [that] harmony" in practice are what's wrong. Not the original thought. Cf Orwell's Thought Police. A thought is just a thought, just like a gun is just a gun. Inanimate.

[Diogenes]

Eugenics is the morality of Atheism, and there are noises of it stirring again.

A dark side of the moon argument. There's no need for some rube goldberg superstition to explain reality and grok why unproductive suffering is not-good. Just like there was no need for Zeus & Cie to explain lightning or droughts.

And here again we encounter a phenomena with which I have become all too familiar. The subjective analysis. It generally takes the form of "if it doesn't apply to me, then it doesn't apply to anyone else either."


You may have no need for a rube goldberg religion. Just as there are some people who can handle marijuana or even stronger drugs responsibly does not mean that this is the norm.


I perceive that some large segment of the population *NEEDS* to believe in spiritual things, and without those beliefs they will behave in a most heinous fashion, of which eugenics is just one aspect.


I see individual atheist declare that society has no need for religion, and this is based on their own preferences, and not on a comprehensive understanding of the needs of a society and of the various components of people of which it is made.


I think what i'm getting at is that people are not all alike. While some may constrain their murderous appetites in the absence of religion, there are huge percentages of people who will not do this. You cut the rope that binds them to civil behavior and they will unleash their base and primitive human instincts of which killing others who are different from them is certainly an evolutionary winner.


If it takes a little fiction to keep down mass death, count me as a supporter of fiction.

[Betruger]

And here again we encounter a phenomena with which I have become all too familiar.

Grandstanding sophists would love.

"if it doesn't apply to me, then it doesn't apply to anyone else either."

I'm nothing special. If I can do something, most people also near middle of bell curve can, too.

[Diogenes]

And here again we encounter a phenomena with which I have become all too familiar.

Grandstanding sophists would love.

Yes, i'm a bit of an @$$ sometimes, but I think most of you have figured that out a long time ago. I don't know if it is the same for you, but I don't mind arguing with @$$E$ so long as they make valid points.

"if it doesn't apply to me, then it doesn't apply to anyone else either."

I'm nothing special. If I can do something, most people also near middle of bell curve can, too.

I think you give my point short shrift. I think it only takes a small percentage of the population to refuse to follow a moral code to enact horrible consequences on the rest of the population.


I believe the War of American independence was pretty much the work of only 1/3rd of the population which wanted it. I think most Muslims (95%)just sit on the sidelines while ISIS murders thousands on their behalf.


If 10 percent of the population is not capable of following a Judeo-Christian style moral code in absence of belief in a deity, that 10 percent can wreck gruesome consequences on the other 90 percent who can.


Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I am not wise enough or knowledgeable enough to be certain about this idea, but it would appear to me that at least one man who is wiser and more knowledgeable than myself thinks there is something to it.




" More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

"Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. "


-Aleksander Solzhenitsyn-

[Betruger]

So that "ass" act is like the religion bit. Do as I say, not as I do.

--

I think you give my point short shrift. I think it only takes a small percentage of the population to refuse to follow a moral code to enact horrible consequences on the rest of the population.

It's the same thing again. Abuse does not warrant forbiddance of use. With that sort of intolerance, nothing gets done. OTOH this is good recipe for energy revolution - stick a magnets onto and dynamo around Orwell's grave. Because delinquance is not going away and technology (the means to horror) is at very least moving right on (maybe accelerating for medium-long term); that bad hair day apocalypse era is coming.

Also this argument quoted is naive. It treats religion and human mind like black box. The human mind is not that stupid. And religion itself is evidence too: aside any superstitious metaphyics, it is just another memetic variation. Culture. It's not magic. You don't rub a rosary together to trigger miracles.

Religion is a chastity belt.

[Diogenes]

So that "ass" act is like the religion bit. Do as I say, not as I do.

Let us just say for the sake of argument, that I am a hypocritical ass and move on to the next point.


--

I think you give my point short shrift. I think it only takes a small percentage of the population to refuse to follow a moral code to enact horrible consequences on the rest of the population.

It's the same thing again. Abuse does not warrant forbiddance of use.

Your meaning here is unclear. Abuse of what? The moral system put in place by Western civilization? Judging by the relative body counts it would appear that those who eschew the system have produced the vast lion share of abuse. 60 Million Dead Russians, and perhaps 80 million dead Chinese as a result of a governing system which rejected religion.


Of course, in absence of a belief in spirituality, I can see where any number of dead bodies is inconsequential in the march toward's "progress". Those bodies just represent a bunch of complex organic matter and nothing more. Nothing special, and we can make others which are more to our liking.

With that sort of intolerance, nothing gets done. OTOH this is good recipe for energy revolution - stick a magnets onto and dynamo around Orwell's grave. Because delinquance is not going away and technology (the means to horror) is at very least moving right on (maybe accelerating for medium-long term); that bad hair day apocalypse era is coming.

The march towards borg-like obedience does seem systemic and fueled by technology. Not something *I* would be treating frivolously, and it would seem to be a good idea to attempt to prevent it, (as Orwell seemingly was trying to do) but like I mentioned earlier, if it's just a bunch of complex organic matter, what does it matter if it gets ground up in the gears?

Also this argument quoted is naive. It treats religion and human mind like black box. The human mind is not that stupid.

Many individual minds are certainly not that stupid, but as I pointed out it only takes a small group of dedicated people who are that stupid to do much damage. You seem to think that everyone is as smart as you. I assure you they are not. Some of them need that mental crutch.

And religion itself is evidence too: aside any superstitious metaphyics, it is just another memetic variation. Culture. It's not magic. You don't rub a rosary together to trigger miracles.

Religion is a chastity belt.

Nah, it's a Safety harness.

[djolds1]

Also this argument quoted is naive. It treats religion and human mind like black box. The human mind is not that stupid. And religion itself is evidence too: aside any superstitious metaphyics, it is just another memetic variation. Culture. It's not magic. You don't rub a rosary together to trigger miracles.

Prove that human minds exist, using the assumptions of determinism and reductive materialism.

Absent those superstitious metaphysics, limiting oneself to the tools and methods of reductive materialism, the existence of the mind is a maddening, frustrating problem to confront. On this rock, more than a few highly thoughtful atheists have foundered so badly they have admitted defeat and switched to theism.

[ohiovr]

Also this argument quoted is naive. It treats religion and human mind like black box. The human mind is not that stupid. And religion itself is evidence too: aside any superstitious metaphyics, it is just another memetic variation. Culture. It's not magic. You don't rub a rosary together to trigger miracles.

Prove that human minds exist, using the assumptions of determinism and reductive materialism.

Absent those superstitious metaphysics, limiting oneself to the tools and methods of reductive materialism, the existence of the mind is a maddening, frustrating problem to confront. On this rock, more than a few highly thoughtful atheists have foundered so badly they have admitted defeat and switched to theism.

Sorry to butt in but I couldn't resist. Did you know there have been recent technological developments that can reconstruct images (like from someone's eyes) directly from a person's mind, from some kind of scanning machine? If you don' believe me I'll try to look it up.

[djolds1]

[Prove that human minds exist, using the assumptions of determinism and reductive materialism.

Absent those superstitious metaphysics, limiting oneself to the tools and methods of reductive materialism, the existence of the mind is a maddening, frustrating problem to confront. On this rock, more than a few highly thoughtful atheists have foundered so badly they have admitted defeat and switched to theism.

Sorry to butt in but I couldn't resist. Did you know there have been recent technological developments that can reconstruct images (like from someone's eyes) directly from a person's mind, from some kind of scanning machine? If you don' believe me I'll try to look it up.

Oh I am very much aware of the various fMRI studies; I assume you're referring to one of the new(er) ones?

But monitoring electrical signals conducted along the nerves does not per se give you access to THE MIND, no matter what the High Church Atheists like Harris and Dawkins keep screaming. The Mind-Body Problem is much, much more complicated than the simple faith of the naive reductive materialist wants to admit. And I was one of those naive reductive materialists myself, not so long ago.

[ohiovr]

[Prove that human minds exist, using the assumptions of determinism and reductive materialism.

Absent those superstitious metaphysics, limiting oneself to the tools and methods of reductive materialism, the existence of the mind is a maddening, frustrating problem to confront. On this rock, more than a few highly thoughtful atheists have foundered so badly they have admitted defeat and switched to theism.

Sorry to butt in but I couldn't resist. Did you know there have been recent technological developments that can reconstruct images (like from someone's eyes) directly from a person's mind, from some kind of scanning machine? If you don' believe me I'll try to look it up.

Oh I am very much aware of the various fMRI studies; I assume you're referring to one of the new(er) ones?

But monitoring electrical signals conducted along the nerves does not per se give you access to THE MIND, no matter what the High Church Atheists like Harris and Dawkins keep screaming. The Mind-Body Problem is much, much more complicated than the simple faith of the naive reductive materialist wants to admit. And I was one of those naive reductive materialists myself, not so long ago.

There is a material component to the mind otherwise I would not get drunk while drinking a lot of beer. I drink therefor I am?

[djolds1]

Oh I am very much aware of the various fMRI studies; I assume you're referring to one of the new(er) ones?

But monitoring electrical signals conducted along the nerves does not per se give you access to THE MIND, no matter what the High Church Atheists like Harris and Dawkins keep screaming. The Mind-Body Problem is much, much more complicated than the simple faith of the naive reductive materialist wants to admit. And I was one of those naive reductive materialists myself, not so long ago.

There is a material component to the mind otherwise I would not get drunk while drinking a lot of beer. I drink therefor I am?

Aristotelian Hylomorphism admits to a material component, but also invokes the forms.

The interesting thing about thermodynamics become chaos theory? The attractors are unavoidable, and attractors are merely a mathematical restatement of the theory of forms.

The complex is inherent in the simple. The eye didn't evolve separately three times because the world is governed by Stephen Jay Gould's random walks, it independently evolved three separate times because it is somehow inherent in matter; the form, or attractor, or attractor of attractors, expressing itself. Similarly, the value phi and its structural cousins such as the Fibonacci sequence, the golden ratio and the logarithmic spiral show up everywhere, somehow inherent.

Now. Just why are there forms? Forms are a bit more than reductive materialism can handle. In fact, reductive materialism specifically rejects hard-to-perceive underlying natures within and around physical matter.

Conclusion? Somewhere, somehow, there is something WRONG with simple reductive materialism. It is simple, it is seductive, and it is mistaken.

[ohiovr]

Oh I am very much aware of the various fMRI studies; I assume you're referring to one of the new(er) ones?

But monitoring electrical signals conducted along the nerves does not per se give you access to THE MIND, no matter what the High Church Atheists like Harris and Dawkins keep screaming. The Mind-Body Problem is much, much more complicated than the simple faith of the naive reductive materialist wants to admit. And I was one of those naive reductive materialists myself, not so long ago.

There is a material component to the mind otherwise I would not get drunk while drinking a lot of beer. I drink therefor I am?

Aristotelian Hylomorphism admits to a material component, but also invokes the forms.

The interesting thing about thermodynamics become chaos theory? The attractors are unavoidable, and attractors are merely a mathematical restatement of the theory of forms.

The complex is inherent in the simple. The eye didn't evolve separately three times because the world is governed by Stephen Jay Gould's random walks, it independently evolved three separate times because it is somehow inherent in matter; the form, or attractor, or attractor of attractors, expressing itself. Similarly, the value phi and its structural cousins such as the Fibonacci sequence, the golden ratio and the logarithmic spiral show up everywhere, somehow inherent.

Now. Just why are there forms? Forms are a bit more than reductive materialism can handle. In fact, reductive materialism specifically rejects hard-to-perceive underlying natures within and around physical matter.

Conclusion? Somewhere, somehow, there is something WRONG with simple reductive materialism. It is simple, it is seductive, and it is mistaken.

There is a plan in the universe. For some reason most matter is hydrogen. The matter that makes us think was invented before it was put into practice.