Inspired by this passage of Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra:



As a caveat: When Nietzsche said that God is dead, he did not mean a physical death of God, nor that any God had existed in the first place. What he meant, rather, is that the concept of God was incapable of acting as a source of morality for mankind any longer. If you wish to read more on the topic, please read this post which I made on the subject some time ago.

Which to you agree with, Zarathustra or the saint? Do you love mankind or God? Or both? Or neither? What are your reasons for your answer?

Sure, this prose was decent, but I think Martel fell flat on his face at the end, when Pi is having the conversation with the men sent by the company to investigate his story. He pretty much told them this fantastic story which, while more interesting than its alternative, could be translated into pure argument from personal religious experience. Then he acted all outraged when they didn't believe him, comparing them to those who doubted Copernicus, Galileo, or Darwin. I mean, he's telling a simply fantastic tale, the events of which only he experienced, so he shouldn't be surprised when others don't believe it. In the end, the only thing Martel is saying is that God makes life more interesting, but that the only real reason to believe in God is because you want to. Sorry, Yann, but I think that life is a lot more interesting without adding imaginary creatures to the mix. The book actually helped turn me off belief in God.

You know, one of the greatest aspects of liberalism is that we have a broad world-view, and are willing to expand it by reading positions we don't necessarily agree with, or *gasp* respect people even though one or two of their positions might disagree with ours. Let's leave thinking in absolutes to the conservatives, shall we?

Your point that all progressives, religious and non-religious, should band together to defeat the Christian Right is well taken. It is for that very reason that I oppose the concept of a second DU forum for atheists. If atheists and believers are to work together, it is first essential that they understand each other well. There are many misconceptions about atheists out there, for example, they don't have any morals. In the same way, many atheists have misconceptions about believers: that they are dumb sheep, for example. Although I've rarely seen either stereotype actually voiced on DU in general and this forum in particular, I still believe it is essential for believers and non-believers to communicate on different issues, so they can understand each other better, so to work together better in defeating the religious right.

I am aware that many believers feel insulted by some atheist statements, and likewise, that some atheists feel insulted by some believers' statements. This is why DU has two great functions, Alert and Ignore. I would strongly recommend that anyone who feels insulted by a statement from someone on the "other side" of the debate use one or both of them. My theory is that we would have a lot fewer flamewars here if people learned to use those two functions.

Israel's government allowed them to get their start in southern Lebanon when it made clear in the eighties that Syrian soldiers entering the area would be considered an act of war. This allowed Hezbollah to get its start, as there was no one there to provide social services.

Israel's government has made so many errors in the name of defending their country that I'm just not inclined to trust them anymore. Besides, you've got to question whether defending themselves in this way will really make things any better.

If anti-abortion protesters are allowed to scream and protest women entering women's health clinics, then why should the Westboro Baptists be barred from protesting military funerals? Both groups obnoxiously protest and harass people who are going through very difficult times.

Or whatever you have in its place.

I'll go first: "Namaste" is a Hindi greeting, used in place of both "hello" and goodbye" in English. It is usually said with the pressing together of the hands and a slight bow. Literally it means "reverential salutation to you", but in a religious context it can mean "The Spirit in me meets the same Spirit in you", "I greet that place where you and I are one", or "I salute the Light of God in you".

Go.

Kindly throw aside the accusations of "Israeli apoligist", "Hezbollah supporter", or whatever other inflammatory label you prefer.

"Lebanon supporter" is what I hope we can all label ourselves.

I think we can all agree that it's unfortunate that Lebanon and the Lebanese people have suffered as a result of Israeli attacks, whatever their justification or lack thereof.

I think we can all agree that it's unfortunate that Hezbollah chose Lebanon as a base to attack Israel.

I hope we can all support the Lebanese people above Israel or whatever other party we favor in this conflict.

Whatever the reasons behind this conflict, which we clearly disagree on, I think we can all agree that the Lebanese people are, in the end, the innocent victims of both Israel and Hezbollah.

that this chane of the God concept you mention is taking place is related to the vast political changes that we are seeing. For example, the change of the Mediterranean world (the cradle of civilization at its time) from paganism to monotheism was happening at the same time as the imperial system of the Roman Empire transformed into feudal system of Medieval Europe. It will be interesting to see what political and religious realignments we will see in the future.

From Reuters





I wonder if there's a way to cryogenically freeze myself until 2008....

Not an inherently violent religion at all. My theory regarding major religions is that they go through violent and peaceful stages. In the 14th century, Christianity was at a pretty violent point (Crusades, etc.), while Muslims were rather more intelligent and enlightened than the Christians of their day. Now, in the 14th century of Islam, it is at a particularly violent point (al-Qa'eda, etc.)

Now, consider what happened within Christianity following the Crusades: the Reformation, which was essentially a struggle within Christianity between zealots and moderates. An Islamic scholar named Reza Aslan, author of "No god but God" makes the case in his book that we are living in the beginning of an Islamic reformation. He states that the alleged struggle between Islam and the west is actually a struggle within Islam itself, between moderates and zealots, and that the West is an innocent bystander, which sometimes gets lashed out at as a result of the conflict. This is similar to the role played by the Middle East during the conflicts within Christianity.

The problem is that people don't think about their religious beliefs' validity enough. By challenging them, we get people to think about their validity more, so they can decide for themselves whether to keep Christianity or leave it by the wayside, like I did after a deep examination of my beliefs. Religious beliefs can be very damaging in the wrong hands, and people should think before they accept any kind of belief in the supernatural.

As for chaos that would result from the death of religion, I wrote a commentary on that subject here, which incorporates some of what philosopher Fredriech Nietzsche had to say. Also, here is a link to an excellent article on the subject by Sam Harris: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?s...

I've been studying Ancient Rome lately, and I noticed something interesting when I was learning about the myths regarding Rome's founding, namely those of the Trojan prince Aeneas and his descendants Romulus and Remus.

It seems that the ancient Romans never bothered to investigate the validity of these stories, and most of the educated people of that time probably knew they were myths. However, they were unconcerned about their validity, because they thought the sense of community and a common origin were more important than whether the stories themselves were true.

This got me thinking, and I've come to the conclusion that the same process might have occurred with the ancient Hebrews, who passed their communal myth(s) to us as Genesis and Exodus. A lot of them probably didn't really believe that God really made Eve out of Adam's rib, or whether Moses really parted the Red Sea. The reason they never questioned these stories was probably the same reason the Romans didn't question whether Romulus really founded their city: because the sense of community that was created from the Genesis myth, and the bit about them being God's chosen, was more important to them then whether any of these things really happened.

This conclusion leads me to wonder: why do so many people in the modern era place validity on an ancient story invented to preserve a sense of community that many of the ancients probably didn't even think was true? Obviously, I could have the entirely wrong idea about this, but I'd like to know what you guys think. Thank you in advance.

The "objective" code of morality that your Christian friend cites is not objective in any way. His holy book contradicts itself on morality so many times that every Christian is forced to pick and choose which parts to follow. Objective would be if God did an interview on Larry King Live and said EXACTLY what humans are not allowed to do, without sending his message through humans (which has been a grave mistake God keeps making again and again). Rather, his various human mouthpieces contradict each other frequently on the issue of morality even within just one religion, not to mention disputes between, say, Christianity and Islam.

Objective morality does not exist, with or without God.

First off the Gospel of Thomas mentions none of Jesus' actions. Instead, it is merely a list of quotes attributed to Jesus, some we know from the other gospels and some we don't. Each verse in Thomas begins with "Jesus said..."

Secondly, Thomas was almost certainly written after Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Our best scholars place its orgin around 190-210 A.D., some 50-100 years after our last "official" gospel, John is estimated to have been recorded.

In addition, Thomas most certainly does not portray Jesus as a man, in fact he is portrayed as entirely a divine being, which is in keeping with the Gnostic tradition Thomas was written in. Gnostics believed that Yahweh was an evil demiurge, who kept the Earth's spirit (Sophia) in thrall. Jesus was sent by Sophia to get humans to rebel against Yahweh, and he only appeared as human to fool him.