tar

Would you rather have wings or not?

Sorry about giving Mr. Bohm the first name of someone I knew by the same sirname in my youth. My mistake. I think my point may have been several fold, and I was tying to prove them all, similltaneously. I think the general point I am driving at, is that not only is secular thought based on religious thought, but that there is some amount of truth behind religious thought. Even though the God of the Bible is demonstrably false. Another example. There is a story called "The Girl that trod on a loaf", that affected my sister, who is an atheist, very strongly when she heard it as a child. So much so, that she takes special extra caution and care, not to be vain and selfish, as to not suffer the same fate as the girl in the story. Allegorically speaking, the girl found herself in hell for being vain. Regards, TAR2 http://www.hca.gilead.org.il/girl_who.html

If there is anything that all men are created equally in, I would guess it would be in the equal bias toward their own survival. Moontanman, Good idea. In fact, how about just printing real dollars, half the dollars blank in that area, and half with "in god we trust", and see if they all spend the same, or if anybody notices or cares. Judging by public reaction, we could just increase the proportion of bills of one style or the other in each successive run, or print random inspirational messages in that spot, like postage stamps. Regards, TAR2 Then people would start collecting their favorite dollars, and the treasury could print all the dollars they desired, without causing inflation. This would also allow atheists to spend and accept only the blank dollars that they believed in and that they did not feel hypocritical about.

True, but don't believe I have even met your Mom. I have no evidence that she was a being substantial enough to be held responsible for my existence. I am fairly sure it took a being on a larger scale than my Mom, to be responsible for me. And in reality, all men are not created equal. Not if you consider any real measure. Some men are quite strong and stupid, and others are quite weak and smart. Some are created quite suitable for existence and others created with significant weaknesses. Where did you get this notion, that all men are created equal? Equal in whose estimation? Equal in what? Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, I would not expect a song entitled "imagine" would be anything but a lie itself. Its an untrue imaginary, non-exsistent dream to begin with. Which is exactly my point, concerning the belief in God, in pointing out its role in establishing the very institutions we depend on for "real" empirically true, existence. Just because an "idea" starts out as a dream, does not mean it can not be brought into reality, if the same idea is collectively held. And all "ideas" must be tested against reality, for them to become true. If we all joined John Lennon, and held the same dream...then what...we will all be holding hands, naked on the mountain top in bliss...for about an hour and a half, til people started getting hungry and wondering if anybody brought anything for lunch. Then we would have to plan for supper, and a warm place to sleep, out of the elements. Some would have made preparations and other's not, so we would share, until after about three days we were all cold and hungry and we would drive our vans and hitchhike back to the real world of politics and belief, divisions and conflicts, winners and losers. If we all joined the founding father's of the U.S. and held the same dream...then what...we would have the U.S. of America and be exactly where we are today, debating as to whether or not the word God should be on our currency. You can take a supreme being off the bill, but you would not automatically therefore be more able to turn dreams into reality, nor provide an empirical basis upon which to establish your beliefs. You can not believe in, and trust reality on the basis of humanity and a "human spirit" unless everybody would buy into the dream and make it true. And this dream is quite unrealistic, and contrary to the facts and therefore even the humanitarian dream, based on careful consideration of empirical eviidence is itself, a lie. Because humanity is made up of bais irrational humans...and those daft Russian and Chinese Communists, are never going to get it right. And those daft creationists. And those evil bankers.,,and group of believers in one dream or another by group, all will be eliminated from the rational human group, till the only one left is you, and there will be no one at all, for you to trust, but you. And it takes much much more "real and true stuff" than John Cuthber, to make a world. Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, Why actualy, for the purposes of this discussion and your objections to the phrase, I rather do require your answers and your logic. I have worked it our for myself, and have concluded its OK that it is there, and it simply restates in words what was presupposed in the establishment of America's institutions, as Zapatos showed to us in the quote from the Wiki-link to "in god we trust". And a supreme being is from whence we claim our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are derived. One nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all. Another quote from the Wiki article on Imagine (the song). "The concept of positive prayer ... If you can imagine a world at peace, with no denominations of religion—not without religion but without this my God-is-bigger-than-your-God thing—then it can be true ... the World Church called me once and asked, "Can we use the lyrics to 'Imagine' and just change it to 'Imagine one religion'?" That showed [me] they didn't understand it at all. It would defeat the whole purpose of the song, the whole idea."[1] Take my logic, with John Lennon's interpretation in mind, and Mohammed's interpretation in mind, and Moses' and Jesus', and PeterJ's, and Einstein's, and the FreeMason's. The constitution presupposes that every man ( and it turns out woman and slaves as well) has this greater being from which their life has come, and with this life comes the liberty to associate yourself with this general being in any manner of worship you see fit, and to pursue happiness. No other human can take these unalienable rights away. No one can be excluded from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No one, can stand between you and this supreme being, and tell you what to believe in. The World Church asked to use the song but change "no religion" to "one religion". John Lennon says that exactly misses the point of the song, which is to "imagine" the world free of things to kill or die for, and if some day you would join us (us that imagine such a world), then the world would live, as one. Which is akin to the belief of the humanist. Now it may seem "odd" that I would suggest that one could take a "thought" and "make it true", but we actually do this all the time in everything we create. Moses did it with the 10 commandments, our founding fathers did it with our constitutions, our humanists do it with their "human values". What can we "rationaly" put our faith in, that we can trust, will ALWAYS be true? Scientists believe in the laws of Nature. Theists believe in a supreme being, that causes this uncorruptable reality to be. Logically there cannot be a distinction between the source and nature of the greater being that caused me, and that that caused you, because we exist in the same one. The only distinctions are between my beliefs, and yours. We are both "under" a system of beliefs, that does not physically exist, that exists only in the collective mind of those that believe the same. Only made true "when you join us" We are both "under" a greater reality, that is absolutely true and uncorruptable. How we characterise it does not change the facts. We were born, we became conscious of it, it became conscious of us, and we will eventually die. And some part of the greater being will remember our passing. You may call "in god we trust" a lie, based on the fact that you do not believe in the supreme being you believe was being referenced at the founding of this country (that vision of Moses that gave him the tablets, and the character that staged the garden of Eden thing 4000 years ago, and writes names in books, and sends souls up and down and such). Because such a god does not fit the facts. But by doing so, you demand that your own belief in the laws of nature, and the scientific method, and rationality is the only proper thing to believe, and you thusly miss the point of the constitution, as badly as the World Church missed John Lennon's point in writing "imagine". Regards, TAR

John Cuthber, Well does this? Taken from the Wiki article on "imagine" (the song) "Lennon stated: "'Imagine', which says: 'Imagine that there was no more religion, no more country, no more politics,' is virtually the Communist manifesto, even though I'm not particularly a Communist and I do not belong to any movement."[4] He told NME: "There is no real Communist state in the world; you must realize that. The Socialism I speak about ... [is] not the way some daft Russian might do it, or the Chinese might do it. That might suit them. Us, we should have a nice ... British Socialism."[4]" Regards, TAR2

There was no day in my memory where the cohesion of U.S. was stronger than on 9/11. Much closer to being of "one mind", than I ever hope to experience again. John Cuthber, Yes, you may have a point, and you may not. If the rest of your countrymen felt the same though, Blair would not have done what he did in the first place. And I still would guess that when bombs are aimed at London, you would feel they were aimed at you, as well. As irrational as that sounds, it is still my guess. I have experienced such a thing. And "arrested by who" would be an important consideration to you, as Blair's head was immediately chopped off in the Public Square by radical warriors of Allah, and your flag was burned in front of you. I do not think this would make you smile. Just a guess. Regards, TAR2 Perhaps we have evidence of this human "reason" to be of one mind, as we share well in times when "outside" forces of earthquake, famine, disease, flood and such affect a human population. We tend however to get a bit conflicted in our unified response, when human reason or human insanity is the cause of a problem, because then we have to pick sides and fight amongst ourselves.

John Cuthber, I was guessing on the assumption that internal social cohesion in London was functional, and on the "theory" that the social structure would be more important to protect than an idea that was incubated outside that structure. That Londoners would be BIAS toward their Queen and country and be BIAS against the unknown intent of the outsiders. Because they are human. Idealogical battles between Londoners is fought in the press, and at the social meeting places, and in the workshops at the university, and on the floor of Parliment, and behind closed doors in government and industry and family settings. That is the way England comes to consensus. No Mullah in Pakistan can come in and arrest the Queen for crimes against humanity, based on evidence of Imperial Conquest and hegemony. The British people would retain their personal differences, fight the outside threat together, and take up the internall debate again, after the threat to their society was met. In theory. Regards, TAR2 You think perhaps the nation would hand the Queen over, on demand?

Moontanman, Well, understood. I was a godless hippy myself in the 60's, I campaigned for McGovern in New Hampshire, I lived on a family farm with my Aunt, Uncle and cousins that was of interest to authorities due to illegal drug activity, and it was later ledgended to be a hippy commune due to my aunt (after divorce of my Uncle) renting out the outbuildings and barn to people of "like mind". My cousin was probably one of the first young women in the country to wear jeans to school. My sister was one of the first group of women to be invited to attend Harvard (she declined, she didn't like the conditionals). I was PART of the consciouness raising of the 60s. I probably was a godless communist myself. I also seem to have retained the Protestant work ethic and other principles of honesty and integrity and serving humanity, that my upbringing and the Pingry honor code taught me. What ever discussions we have now are continuations of previous societal discussions, and build off our collective successes and failures. I have issues with religion, and I have issues with "the establishment". But they are not identical in nature to my positions at 18. "the establishment" turns out to be middle aged former 18 year olds, and other previously "anti-establishment" characters. And then us 59 year olds get a chance to witness the dynamics of our last 50 years as "humanity" and make comment on it, and raise a few thought provoking questions, as if the younger generations might benefit, and learn when and where they might be arguing against themselves, or biting off the hand that feeds them. Did you read the wiki article I linked on cognitive biases? I did not post them, as if I did not have them myself. I posted them so everybody would read them, and understand they ALL, belong to us all. Irrational belief is what we do. It is a significant part of being human. If human judgment is to be valued, if humanity should be served by it, I would chose we leave the faulty human judgement in charge, and not leave the decisions up to "souless" computers, or detached analytical, "objective" opinions. You cannot get detached from being a human, and serve humanity at the same time. It is a physical impossibility. Computers themselves have no reason to care about us. And you can not get so objective as to be yourself, the "supreme being". Regards, TAR2 How about "As trustworthy as it gets" or "Trustworthy". or blank. I suppose as long as the Federal Reserves name is on there somewhere it means the same. Or just United States of America. What would we put on Global Currency? The Earth? A smiley face? "Us"? How about a smiley face one side and frowny face on the other? How about Galactic currency, and atom on one side and the Milkyway on the other? Even this might not be legal tender in Andromeda. I have also served in the Army during peacetime in Germany, hid under my desk in drills during the Cuban Missle crisis, have a father wounded during the battle of the bulge, visited Japan several times on business for the Japanese company I have worked for for near half my life, and I witnessed the Twin Towers smoke and fall and burn from across the river, just when the Earth was being united by the internet and global cooperation. I like the way the Japanese ran my company better than the way Americans now run it. My friends and enemies are varied and changing. There are a lot more humans that I do not know, than humans that I do know. I put my trust primarily in people and institutions and governments that are on my side...at the time. It is not important to me that I agree completely with everybody, just that they have signed the same contract, that I am operating under. Loving humanity would require that I should have loved Osama Bin Laden, and I hated the viper. My politics put me at odds with Obama and Biden, but they are my face to the world, and represent my country, and lead my country, and they have my trust, because of it. What they do, they do in my name. And in the name of every gun slinging, white, patriotic, god fearing, oversexed, beer drinking ignoramus we got. And every intellectual elite snob, and every, atheistic scientist. And every member of the teeming masses yearning to be free. They are all on my side, as long as they have pledged alligence to my flag. (the Iranians that burned such, in front of me, at a civilian fair in Germany, on the other hand, are my enemies). how can you trust the Federal Reserve Bank, or humans, if you don't trust human bankers. that is not reasonable, not one iota's worth Allegiance. I don't mind at all, if people on my side know how to spell English words. break this one down into trust and judgment, who or what might be served, who or what might be trusted? What human contracts are being enforced and which are being tread upon or broken? What is the rationale? http://www.hpcrresearch.org/events/live-web-seminar-49-monitoring-humanitarian-crises-digital-age-crisis-mapping-crowdsourcing-a If the president of the U.S. where to be held accountable for the Murder of Osama Bin Laden, by a global body, we would simply withdraw from the body, expel its non-citizen representatives, and say "yeah, you and whose army" is going to enforce this decision. Any ensuing internal anti-governmental actors would obtain the legal status of traitor. I would guess that British citizens would like-wise protect their Queen and Prime Minister, regardless of party affiliation, or personal opinion. What is the rationale involved, where a body can assume the role of trustee to beneficiaries that have not chosen that body to represent them? It would be called hegemony if a single state tried it.

It is only a lie to someone that has no belief in any being greater than themselves. Whether this particular collection of humans that is presently on the planet, is as good as it gets, is rather doubtful. At least it is doubtful to those that believe they are a part of a larger being. Let this not be construed as an argument for literally believing in the God of the Bible, or the Allah of the Koran. But as I read the Koran, and said to myself "well that's a lie", or "that makes no sense", or "that is a blatent usurption of God's power by Mohammed", I was referencing in my mind, what the characteristics of God, would have to be, and what visions and promises were therefore lies. I still had this real "being" to have been created by, and to dissolve into, when I die. Since I have life insurance, I am fairly sure that there will be life after my death. There will be a beneficiary to which I am trustee. If I extend that thought to all of humanity, and further to the Earth and its neighbors, I think I am beginning to show a belief in "being" that has formed me, which I am now, now that I know about it, responsible for, and part of. It includes mostly family and friends, town and company, but also the government I serve, that serves me, and the world I travel and marvel at. That this "being" extends beyond my body/brain/heart group, is not questioned by anybody I know (except immortal maybe). I can take it as fact, and not a lie. So a "being" greater than John Cuthber is not a lie. And there is no reason that belief in it should be bounded by one's lifetime, or by the lifetime of everybody currently on the planet. So a "superior" being is asserted by evidence and everyone agrees that they are not the only being on the planet and that the planet with all its humanity, is not the only being in the neighborhood. So a "superior" being is a given, as soon as you notice it being "out there" out of your conscious control. "supreme" being is simply the thought that there is "something" that trumps or unifies the whole deal, all of the above. Belief in this thing is not a lie, its just a reasonable quess, that everybody tends to get guess wrong about. It in no way means that belief in God is a lie. Not if it is taken as meaning the belief in a supreme being, that guides and determines everything that there is to guide and determine. Why even "the laws of physics" would mean the same. You think "the laws of physics" is a lie? Regards, TAR2

dimreepr, Not soley by the masons, there are a lot of people, that believe in the constitution of the United States, and all of us together are backing the currency. Those that believe in one thing or another, but all believe in the constitution. So taking the word off, once its on there, would not change the atheist's ability to continue to back the currency, but it might raise some eyebrows on those that believe in a supreme being. Would you back your currency with more fervor, if the name God was withdrawn? If your personal bias was served, would this be a good or bad thing for humanity. Making that determination for myself, I have concluded that church can be removed from state, but state should not be taken out of the hands of the people. Especially it should not be taken out of the hands of the majority, that believe in, or were inspired by the belief in a supreme being. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, No, not at all. I for instance have fine moral principles. And am an athiest. But have recently suggested to myself that this does not mean I am devoid of religiously based morals. I was raised Protestant, went to schools that taught me religiously based morals, went by and still live by the "Pingry honor code", graduated from a now defunct college Upsala that had humanity serving messages on founder's plaques and such, live and work with religious folk, spend some time at Christmas with a highly Catholic family, whose moral grounding, love of humanity, and belief in god is all coupled together and education and service to their fellow man, is high on their priority list, even though every sibling is successful and fairly well off. I thusly do not consider the word god on my currency a black mark against me. Rather something that may lie embedded in my character, whether the words are printed their or not. Regards, TAR2

Even in Japan, a very low religiousty place, somebody's picture is on the note. The emperor, or someone representing the will of the people.

dimreepr, i do not disagree, but one can be "secular" and still require the belief in a supreme being, as the Freemasons do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Membership_and_religion Skimming through their principles and such, they seemed to align rather well with the secular humanist agenda, except for requiring the belief in some form of supreme being, (which belief in humanity is akin to) and the separation of lodges into men only and women only divisions. If the dollars were backed only by those who had no principles, they would be worthless. Regards, TAR2

ydoaPs, Good question. Maybe there was some implied backing that had to be spelled out during the emergence of the Civil Rights movement. Raises into question what that spooky eye above the pyramid is suppose to signify. Perhaps what ever values and authority the Mesons thought was backing up the currency, had to be spelled out. I don't know. But it still leaves a question, as to the enduring value of the note, if some enduring promise is not implied, or spelled out. Regards, TAR Masons

How about, "We swear we are good for it". "Cross my heart and hope to die". "Take my word for it". Leaving it blank might be secular, but it assumes as well, that nobody has taken any oath. We don't have to put our hand on a Bible to take and oath, but we still have to give our word that we will tell the truth. Who or what we are swearing on still pertains. Some guiding principle, some forward looking promise needs to be involved. Something against which our actions or failure to act can then be judged. God, if taken as the only possible "higher authority", sort of fills the bill. (pun intended)

Without a promise, it would not be a promisary note. Full faith and credit in the U.S. of America might not suffice, especially in the eyes of people that don't trust us.

Prometheus, How is that supposed to work, we don't trust most of the bunch. Regards, TAR

If we were to take the word God from our currency and coin, what words should we replace it with? I would suggest perhaps the word judgment. Allowing people to take it anyway it works. The two words together though I think are rather important considerations, both on a societal level and on an interpersonal and individual scale. Who or what is the beneficary and who or what is the trustee. Who or what is the judge and who or what is the judged. Trust is a forward looking thing. A promise or a contract Judgment is a backward looking thing, used to decide our next action or inaction. Human judgment, replete with biases, and trust as uncertain as a promise. Read one of these biases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases off to my daughter as she walked up the stairs, and her reply was "that's what the world does". I called to her "you are right". And started this thread. Regards, TAR

Semjase, I'm done. You have nothing sensible to offer. Nevermind, TAR2

Thanks ydoaPs, I'm signed up to be informed when the feed is available for individual viewing. Feel free to trace out a decending spiral with your finger , should you be on camera. Regards, TAR2

Semjase, Well as the spokesperson for this future race, can you ask them for us, for some of their technology, and a few helpful peices of detailed information? Such as which of the many possible cities and towns that are built on seven hills is going to be destroyed on which date, and we can order an evacuation a couple days ahead. We could also use the name and address of the antichrist, if he/she is already on this Earth, or the time and place of his/her future birth, so we can alert the local authorities to take proper precautionary measures. Sure would help to know exactly who not to listen to. Regards, TAR2

on whose authority should I make such a request? Whose name should I use? What principle or ideal or dream of collective truth should I reference? Should I speak for humanity? Jesus already tried that, and humanists doubt his rational basis for doing such. Yet they have no problem speaking for humanity on their own authority. Seem like a rent in logic to me. To use the exact same argument to both debunk religion, and support ones own cause.

ydoaPs, Sounds like a very interesting debate (just read the Wiki bios on the two featured speakers). Do let us know how it turns out. The speakers and the assembled, including you, are well equipt to debate the issue, much more so than I am. Just wondering how the thing is set up. Do you get a chance to forward any arguments or make any points? Well if you do contribute or not, please let us know your take on the proceedings. Regards, TAR2