1. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #99826 by EmilFremy on December 17, 2007 at 4:00 pm

1. "The US is (or was founded as) a Christian Nation."

How do you define Christian Nation?
Repeating just some words and ideas from the Bible
in the constitution? Sitting in churches, listening to Televangelists?
That´s just idle chatter and self-deception!

The instructions given by Jesus to his followers where quite easy
to understand, but obviously not easy to practice:
Do not kill, don´t not steal ...
Love thy enemies ... and much more!

But what happened in and through the US:
Genocide to the Indians, exploitation of slaves, Civil war,
World Wars, atomic Bombs on Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Irak, . . .

Anyone who states, that the US are a christian nation is a liar
and/or he does not know what Christ told his followers to do.
There is no excuse!

Actually there is no christian nation on earth at all.


2. "The idea of Church/State separation comes from Christianity"

This refers probably to the story in the new testament where Jesus said:
(freely translated from german) Give to the emperor what the emperors (property) is . .
... my kingdom is of another world . . .
But as the story goes, that was just tactics for the situation at that time.

The idea of separation of Church and State resulted from the terror
of religious motivated wars in Europe centuries later.
Or to be cynical, yes, it comes from christianity, but in the negative sense.

So my answer is:
Certainly not, it is just the vain attempt to bring some sanity
into political decisions, because religion is just one more reason to
hate other people and justify that.

2. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #98844 by EmilFremy on December 14, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Why is there something rather than nothing?

What a futile question!

Just a practical approach:

Imagine NOTHING without imagining ANYTHING at all!
Did you find NOTHING? You found NOTHING?
Marvelous, you found NOTHING, I never succeded.

But stop, you cheated, there is always something, did you notice it?
You imagined some SPACE and some OBSERVER hovering around in SPACE
looking for SOMETHING and/or NOTHING. Am I right?
And that is NOT NOTHING!
It works also the other way round,
imagine ANYTHING without imagining NOTHING at all!

If you try to define NOTHING, you need always SOMETHING
to compare it with NOTHING.
If you try to define ANYTHING, you need always either SOMETHING or NOTHING
to compare it and differentiate.

SOMETHING and NOTHING are the two sides of a coin,
if one side is missing, it is not a coin.
It´s like the famous Zen-koan: Listen to the clap of one hand!

Alway forgotten by thinkers who want to state absolute truth,
the OBSERVER. Therefore my question: What is the use of absolute truth?

Another amazing thing is, some start pondering about THING/NOTHING,
EXISTENCE/NONEXISTENCE. After a while they find some "truth" like
THINGS developed from NOTHING, or THINGS vanish into NOTHING.
And with that knowledge they become theologists or creationists.

That´s the way our mind works.
First with our senses we see/hear/smell/taste/touch and than
by some magic, SPACE and THINGS and MOVEMENT and etc. appears to us.
Later we build THOUGHTS and CONCEPTS and FEELINGS, put it into words,
and quarrel about words and ideas.

So again, the question above is futile as the question
about the hair-colour of a barrens womans child.
First we annalyze and separate it into words and concepts
and than we wonder how to put the concepts together again.

3. Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #98462 by EmilFremy on December 13, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies)
and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

I know a bit about hinduism and a lot about buddhism,
and its true, both offer much more sophisticated worldviews.
And as everywhere there has been much diversity in views and practices,
which is not bad by itself, competition is always good for the business.

Just consider Buddhism:

1. Tibetan Buddhismus which is very mystic and its large
pantheon of gods, godesses, bodhisattvas and the like, (almost catholic)
but also with its lofty Madyamika philosophy and the Bodhisattva ethics.

2. Zen Buddhism with its rigorous mind training, shunning intellectual
training or mystical speculation at all.

3. Theravada Buddhism which is very rational and practical but also
with sophisticated training in meditation and psychologie.

Schopenhauer admitted once, though knowing only very little about it,
that his world view is quite close to the buddhist views.

To mention the major points which can attract even some atheists:
1. there is no thing as a permanent soul, just a process going on . . .
2. there is no creator god, the origins of the world cannot be found . .
3. life is suffering, because the world is transitory . . .
4. only personal excertion can bring salvation (Nirvana)
5. meditation, psychological and intellectual training as method.
6. Freedom of thought, invitation by the Buddha: "come and see, decide yourself ..."
7. Lofty ideals, refined ethics, sophisticated philosophy.

It would be to extrem to say: "I see nothing wrong . ."
But as with all sophisticated views, its difficult to define
what is wrong and what is right. It is the same as with science:
If you have two professors, you have three views!

To mention the major points which would chase away pure atheists:
1. old fashioned cosmology with gods, demons, hells and heavens
2. different cultural background (India, Japan, China)
3. pessimistic wolrdviews in different shades
4. rigorous training required, ascetic monks religion
5. special way of thinking/acting

Thats all for now

4. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #98436 by EmilFremy on December 13, 2007 at 3:33 pm

First posting was lost!

What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

I have been forced to go to the confirmation classes when I was 13 for several reasons, mainly social.
Although I questioned the almighty god to be the one one and single cause, a everlasting being.
I remember my childly feelings about the priest telling me such nonsense.
In the later course of my life I left the evangelical (lutherian) church but studied other religions
and pilosopies just privatly.

So my first qualification is SELFDEFENSE:
I got the confirmation and some christian education on this topic although I did not want it.
After growing strong enough it is my right to question what I have been taught or forced to accept.
That way I keep my mind clean and smooth.

My second qualification: INDEPENDANCE
I am a free born human who can think and act however I like,
provided I don´t hurt others. This is a basic right in all democracies.
Since I´am allowed to question politics without qualification,
I may also question Religion even without qualification.

My third qualification: TRUTHLOVING
This means, whatever I find illogical or what I cannot experience (after some trial)
is not TRUE for me, I won´t accept it from the depth of my heart.
The dogmas propagated by churches are not truth but intellectual violance.

My forth qualification: EDUCATION
I have studied engineering, philosophie, ethics and religion for decades.
So I have learned to use my brain and may even be able to help others
who do not use their brain or do not want (believers) to use it.

My fifth qualification: INTEREST
I´m deeply interested in Ethics, Philosophie, Science, Politics, Worldviews.
Interest is a tremendous advantage over professional priests
who have to think and pray what Mother church tells them.

I think just one of the qualifications mentioned is enough!

5. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #97780 by EmilFremy on December 12, 2007 at 4:08 pm

What is the evolutionary advantage to give an old woman a place in the bus...

Well, that depends on the circumstances . . . .
If the people in the bus are starving it might be an advantage to eat the old woman . . .
Evolution is slow, lets observe the advantages in a million years!

The stupid question above suggests a darwinian solution just to trap people
into explanations of everything by evolutionism.
We cannot find a distinct evolutionary advantage for the old woman in the bus
without judging all possible circumstances.
We cannot explain everything with just one theory, as creationists do!
All laws of nature (or better: rules defined through observation)
work hand in hand with other rules/forces, and or against opposing rules/forces.

So I concluded, that the theme behind the scene is another one, a trap:
1. Is darwinism the theory of everything, including behaviour? How narrow minded!
2. Is there another theory which explains human behaviour in a better way? Maybe ID?
3. Which one supersedes or do they work side by side? Like a God making the "laws" . .

I don´t know much about behaviorism and the different theories which have been
developed to explain human bevaviour, some of them might be derived from darwinism.
But what everybody can see is, that even insects like bees and ants work together with such succes,
and that I cannot imagine that they could do it as well when acting as separate "individuals".
And that seems to me like another "law of nature":
Working together is an advantage for living creatures, including men.
Nice behaviour, as given in the sample above, can be viewed like a general strategic outline.
No memes necessary, they are on an intellectual level, far below instincts.

Some name the observed feature (in the bus) "survival of the fittest",
others may call it love, benevolence! No reason to be dogmatic about that!!
We just see it, analyse it, name it, make it a hypothesis, verify it!
That´s how our mind works!

And if we feed that feeling of love and benevolence intentionally, than we are
already perfectly on the track of evolution! ( I should have become a priest :-)! )

One thing I find in many discussions is, that the evolution of the genes,
as propagated by some simple minded darwinists, has been adorned with some
god-like attributes. Some popular theses:
1. The genes do influence our behaviour, even our social behaviour. Magic, isn´t it?
2. The genes can "somehow" see evolutionary advantages or act purposeful through a kind of program.
3. The matter and genes even produced mind/intellekt somehow.
Such a simple outlook might give rise to attacks from ID or theist,
just like those theories from creationists who believe in the bible literally.

We can see evolutionary advantages only in retrospection and than explain things
according to the Darwin Hypothesis! But is that what we imagine really that what
happens at the time of variation/mutation/selection?
What about the law of increasing entropy which is opposed by life and its increasing complexity?
If the basic laws of Darwinism are
1. variation/mutation on a material level
2. chance/selection/survival,
3. and not to forget reprocuction
than I see only that anything can happen through statistically fluctuation
but nothing like a program with a purpose.
Populations with intelligent creatures worse than humans might evolve.

The theory of evolution has been build on the remains of the "fight for survival".
Has anyone ever thought of all the nice and pretty things which have not "surviced"
because they were not "the fittest", most probably by far more than the rest we see today.
Who is the fittest? A species which devours all others or with the highest reproduction rate?
The "fittest survivor" maybe something which is not the ideals we dream of!
What is the theory for those species which never have made it?
So the Darwinian hypotheses has even some frightening features for religious people
which might lead them to seek refuge in some higher ....
( did´nt use the word ... because atheists are sometimes boring because they
are talking always about ...

It is not yet proven that genes which produce human intelligence are
the ones which will survive for long.
Maybe stubborn sheep have the better gene-pool because they don´t cause
large scale environmental changes.
Lets talk about that in a million years!

There is probably also no evolutionary advantage in Internet-postings,
Bye!

Sorry for my bad english, it has not yet gone
through evolutionary improvement.

6. Bible Belter

Comment #95590 by EmilFremy on December 8, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Citing: "Faith-based fanatics could not design anything as useful or beautiful as a skyscraper or a passenger aircraft. But, continuing their long history of plagiarism, they could borrow and steal these things and use them as a negation."

Thats especially true for the "modern" Bible-Belters in the US. Their world has been created 6000 years ago...
They want to use cars, computers, mobile-phones, etc. but they do not want to walk 40 years through the desert with their flock of sheep as the inventors of their funny faith did.

If they want ID to be taught in public schools as alternate to Darwin than the sane rest of US-citizens should demand that Darwin must be taught in the churches vice versae . . .