Athena

By following your link, a person can buy the DVD for less than $13 plus postage. I will buy one and then may be a second one for our local library. I have noticed our local library is short on math and science information and could use some help. That is one place we can start in building a better world, with our local libraries, assuring they have the information we want our neighbors to have before they buy something or vote. That is an extremely good investment for a better world, if our libraries have the space and will work with us on increasing the shelve space for science and math. Not good, if you literally smelled something when you opened the book, it has bacteria causing the odor and that bacteria will destroy the book in time. Sorry, but I love old books and it really hurts to think of a book being stored in dungeon where it is of no use to anyone and could be destroyed. But back on subject, it is insane to not applying science to our daily lives and the care our planet. I am afraid I can not say more without getting off subject again, because to say more is include my understanding of God and being human and morals, and all this is not what these forums about. But really all the money we spend on education is a waste considering how poorly we are educated. Why would a library have shelves of books no one appreciates, because no one is educated to appreciate them? This goes with my objection to education for technology. Education for technology is not education for science, which includes much more than memorizing facts and being prepared to serve industry.

"I'm not, because I have not been interested in the main argument, other than pointing out some flaws in the logic that underpin it," You used different words to explain yourself, but the motive to find something to attack is the same. However, you can not critically attack my logic, because you do not have understanding, and you can rationally point out some flaws, when you do not understand the subject. You do not even get what was meant by a "mechanical society", when we entered the first world war. "Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal and therefore completely effective in crushing out liberty and power". Tagore This bureaucratic technology is the foundation of the novels "The Brave New World" and "1984". In my new thread Education and morals, I posted a link that provides more detailed information about the cultural change we have had. What is happening here reminds of a high school class, where a student who knows nothing, delights the class by attacking what teacher is attempting to teach the class. Only in this situation, that student has the power of a moderator, and I think things validates my objection to the censorship in the forum.

By your own words, you are here to attack, not to learn and that makes you a bad moderator Not understanding what running bureaucracies with written policies has to do with a mechanical society, shows your reasoning is faulty.

Those who go to this link will see that the Frankfurt School and German philosophy are related to the social upheaval of the 1960's in the US and cultural change that may not be so good. It is the author's intent to explain our modern social crisis. Our democracy was dependent on classical philosophy and was transmitted through public education. I think changes were made with good intentions, but were not wise decisions. George Friedman wrote:Auschwitz was a rational place, but it was not a reasonable one. It was rational in that it was efficient and sophisticated for its given task. It would not have been practical or even seriously conceivable except for the technologies of modern science. Furthermore, except for the modern belief that thought and practice can be identical (a belief that is the basis of technology), the translation of Hitler’s nightmare image into practical reality would have been inconceivable. The power of modern reason is that it feels itself honor bound to take everything seriously. This openness to everything is the result of our peculiar skepticism, in which we are reverent about nothing. The modern feels not only that everything is possible but also that all things possible are practical. The destruction of the Jews had always been imaginable. With Hitler it became practical. The skepticism of scientific reason sapped our critical reason. Our obligation to take the awful seriously meant that we were not free simply to condemn. Our social scientists and philosophers felt that there was something terribly wrong at Auschwitz, but their methodologies, their rational procedures, did not allow their personal revulsion to be turned into scientific principle. Their methods required neutrality. Revulsion was reduced to value judgments. Since moral values were viewed as irrational, and the irrational has no place in the scientific mode of thought, our social scientists had to be open to the suspicion that there was nothing demonstrably wrong with Auschwitz. Not only was nothing sacred, but all things had possible merit. Reason denied itself the right to an a priori revulsion at Auschwitz. Modernity’s reason led us into a fully unreasonable condition in which the common sense of the humane tradition had to be denied. It was this unreasonable rationality, this modern paradox, that was the great concern of the Frankfurt School. http://www.jahrbuch2003.studien-von-zei ... school.HTM

Thank you for your honesty. I thought other moderators were just baiting me, because they dropped out of discussions when they couldn't figure out how to attack my arguments. I think you have validated my complaint. Thank you. Swansont is not the only one playing this nasty game of baiting people, leading a person to believe a sincere request for information has been made, when in fact the moderator, and several of the posters, are only for an excuse to attack. I think he has fully validated my complaint about censorship. When moderators know they are playing these nasty games, they assume everyone else is doing the same, and this results in bad judgment and censorship based on bad judgment. I might check back to see if any effort to correct this problem is made, but I don't expect that to happen.

This is going on memory, but if you want more exacting information I can quote from my 1980 text "Public Administration and Public Affairs", by Nicholas Henry. The US adopted the German model of bureaucracy, and it is obvious why. It is amazing our government functioned at all considering how things were done. First off people were not hired on merit, because we were not thinking in those terms. It was typical for someone to get a bureaucratic job, because he was related to someone in office, or knew someone. I can remember assuming I would get a bureaucratic job, just because I am reasonably intelligent, as my neighbor and sister got their jobs. Like honestly, we did things differently in the not so different past. Now this is really going to sound crazy, but no two people did the job the same. How a job was done depended upon an individual's talents and interest. This was disaster when a person died or for some reason quit a job. Everyone would have to adjust to a new person, and how this person did things differently. Obviously with the old system, there were periods of chaos. Obviously, corruption was a big problem, as people got hired for the wrong reasons. Now the Prussian military bureaucracy was the most advanced in its day, and before this, it was the Islam that had the most advanced bureaucratic model. Like you all really want to discuss this right? Kidding. But let us look at what the Prussians were doing better. You have to admire this. Because in times of war people get killed, the Prussians devised a system where individuals are easily replaced. Oh, you may not get the strong resistance to this? Noble men did not take well to this change! But this is how the new system works, from the git go policy determines what everyone will do and how it will be done. Now whoever steps into the office will do the job exactly the same as the person before. Also, because it is determine what and how things will be done, hiring is based on proven skill, or merit, not on inherited privilege and status. As Eisenhower, a military man, saw this, it was a great German contribution to democracy, because when this is paired with the education, it levels the playing field. Anyone can raise through education and qualify for jobs that were once closed to outsiders. England, rejected Germany's education for technology, because England wanted to protect its social classes. The US made some adoption to Germany's education for technology in 1917, but didn't replace liberal education with education for technology, until 1958. Are there any questions? Do you want books and page numbers or information about government documents? Like I am speaking facts and would love if everyone had the facts. I have given sites before and they are ignored. I have been looking for your reaction to the last site about NAZI Germany and concrete thinking, and haven't seen it. I think the change in bureaucracy was essential. We could not have Social Security without it. There would be no federal programs without the bureaucratic technology for such large organizations. But the change in education really concerns me, because this is a change in how we teach our young to think. We are educating for a mechanical society, and this is what we fought against. truth is not easy, because this is such a complex subject. There are good reasons for change, but there are also undesired social and political ramifications. However, with awareness of all this, the future is very hopeful, because we have a chance of creating new systems better than anything in the past. The problem is getting people to care enough to become informed. Eisenhower, warned us of the Military, Industrial Complex, and everyone ignored him. He is the man who put things in order for the Military, Industrial, Complex, and we ignored what he was telling us. Like how many people are going to read through this post and attempt to get more information? But I must say, Swansort, you are doing better than anyone else, but I don't think you are following through by reading links or looking for information on your own.

What you are calling bait and switch, is what I would call "looking at this from another angle". I started the "Why God" thread, because I thought I had a new approach to the subject. For me these arguments are a challenge to get across ideas that I am having a very hard time getting across, so I approach the challenge from different angles. What I have to say in the "Why God" comes up in this thread Secular morality and now I am afraid to give my answer. The "Why God" thread took an unintended left turn, because it became obvious this approach to the God question was not working, because there is not a good understanding of the difference between abstract and concrete thinking. I had to address that problem, before what I wanted to say in the thread could be understandable. I asked a neighbor to explain the difference between abstract and concrete thinking last night, and she did. My knowledge of this was mainstream knowledge, but this knowledge is no longer being transmitted, so there is a communication problem. The arguments about God and morals are the result of changed education, and concrete thinking verses abstract thinking. Both Christians and Atheist are thinking concretely instead of abstractly, and this becomes a moral problem, which threatens our liberty. Seriously, I am in shock most the time, because people are not getting the meaning of what I am saying, but are attacking me. What I am talking about is politically more serious than the political issues of sex, and I have become afraid to continuing posting here. We have been over this before and you all come down on me for begin afraid of being banned, while I continue to receive warnings, and mods react to my post, without being sure they are off topic before reacting. However, not here, but out there in the real world, more and more voices are saying what I am saying, so I am less afraid than I was, when my voice seemed to be the only one. They are not saying adopting German institutions has resulted in manifesting what Germany manifested, but maybe this isn't totally necessary? I think this says things very well, Secular morality , without triggering the hostility I am getting, however, it does not say it all. Secular morality is almost like people Galileo writing in code because of being forbidden to openly discuss something. When I say adopting German institutions results in manifesting what Germany manifested, I expected people would want to know about this. I was blown away when they became hostile with me! I am offering facts, and people who are proud to deal with facts, are reacting emotionally and ignoring are the facts. This was not the reaction I expected! I haven't even said it is a bad thing to adopt German institutions, but rather there good reasons for doing so, and Eisenhower praised the Germans for their contribution to democracy, and good social changes have followed the change . But now things are spinning our control, and I am trying to provide facts so everyone is empowered to regain control. In the real world, more and more people are trying to resolve the problems that have come up. I am no longer alone, but in this forum I am like Galileo facing the church's tribunal.

Thank you for your beautiful question. I would love to give you an answer, but perhaps I should ask the moderators' for permission. I have been repeatedly told to not say what needs to be said to answer your question. Your answer is tied to past education, but this information is not mainstream knowledge, and I have told to stop talking about.

Really, when it is my thread, what is being derailed? Tell me, who knows the difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking, and what education has to do with this? Your reasoning is as good, as the church forbidding Galileo to speak no the grounds his thinking is not mainstream thinking. Since no one wants what happened to Germany to happen again, might there some interest in concrete thinking and NAZI Germany and what education has to do this? My reason for objecting to the censorship is as good as Galileo's and Socrates, unless you can demonstrate others already know what I am talking about. This explains a book I think we should probably be familiar with because it is more important to our legal system and politics, than the thread about sex and politics that is so popular http://www.sciencefo...ollective-mind/ Tell me what you think of the site. And think of the church refusing to look through Galileo's telescope before censoring him, before reading the site and telling us what you think of it. While this may not be mainstream thinking it is coming up more and more

You write that as through we have some kind of disagreement here. We do not. In fact I report spam and often wish more were done to stop the personal attacks. Those personal attacks are frequent in threads where people are not familiar with the subject matter, and really ruin the discussion. But for another way to get someone to stop responding to a poster, PM that person and say why you wish this person would be ignored. Social pressure is very effective. What I have said, is sometimes errors in judgment are made by moderators. I am very pleased by a quick correction that was made when I opened this thread. I have also said I am not allowed to talk about something that I believe is politically important, and doing so doesn't violate any rules. This is a matter of lack of information, making something taboo to talk about it.

Somethings are just a matter of logic. It is very hard to continue a discussion if everyone stops posting. Inversely the way to keep a discussion going is to reply to what has been said. I know when people stop replying to me, and I have nothing to reply to, that is the end. It is that simple. I think I made a legitimate complaint, not about the rules, but how they are enforced. On occasion moderators have reacted to a word, or a subject without having adequate knowledge. Either the moderator is not familiar with the subject or has not read the content of a thread, before making a decision. In a different forum, someone asked what I meant by concrete thinking, and I googled for an easy explanation. I about fell out of my chair when I got several links about concrete thinking and NAZI Germany. I have been told not to talk about this here, so I will not, other than to say this is something I have been told not to talk about this and education. I think if people were familiar the issues, there be appreciation of the subject, but that will not happen here, because it is something I have been told not talk about. Get it, it is not as simple as enforcing rules, but also a matter of judgment.

I think I will repeat this post, because of comments that do relate to it. This is not only about censorship, but how it is being done. I write this is a memory of history and the struggle for freedom of speech, and with concern for the future. There was a country where the people were just like us, and where everything went very wrong, because the people were just like us, and didn't see the bad coming. While there are good reasons for censorship, if it is done poorly, and no makes an issue of it, a bad history can be repeated. Oh the other hand, I very effective way to get rid of an unwanted poster is to ignore that person. Of course if the person is doing something that could cause harm to others, ignoring this person is not an option. Good censorship and bad censorship are really a judgment call, and things go better when everyone is involved in that judgment call.

I am editing to connect what said here with what others are saying about institutions. Government is about governing, and it is an institution. There are different forums of government. Most governments are some combination of democracy and autocracy. Democracy begins with two questions. First a question about the gods. "How do the gods who quarrel among each other resolved their differences?" The answer is, they argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning. The second question is," To whom does give His authority"? The answer is, He gives it to everyone. None of us have more authority than another, however, we all have different abilities and different natures, and this answer goes with the first question about how the gods resolve their differences. When we all come together with our different points of view and different abilities, and argue until we have a consensus on the best reasoning, we are imitating the gods, and this is called politics. It is rule by reason, as opposed to rule by brute force, or I suppose rule by fear and superstition. It is in our nature to be political creatures and to live by rule by reason. We can also turn to science and see it is in our nature to be moral. Instinctively we have a conscience, and we have mirror neurons that inform us about others, and help us make moral decisions. When we know, dumping in the river is bad for the river and the life in the river and bad for the people down stream who drink from the river, we can not dump in it without feeling guilty of wrong doing, and we become aware of wanting to be sure someone else does not comment this wrong, against us, so we form governments for our protection. Knowledge, and conscience, effect our moral decision making. I think our best approach to understanding our morality and the breakdown in morality, is science and reason. We should come to the table with the best science of our nature, and nature in general, that is available to us. However, as some of you may have noticed, democracy is also about understanding the gods. Oh I know this is not "technologically correct", because these gods are not real beings, but the stories come with great wisdom and serve as an excellent foundation for discussion. http://ancienthistor...heuspandora.htm Being a secular society does not have to mean a society with no wisdom, and this is what we tend to be lacking today. Being technologically correct, is too separated from wisdom, and this is the problem we need to resolve, because just being smart is not good enough. We also need wisdom, and unlike all those before us, we can easily access all the wisdom of the world, and use it. The problem I see here is, an unwillingness to do that. Education has lead us to believe all we need is technological correctness, and this education has not prepared us for wisdom, or to even value wisdom. I just watched the whole video and you should get an award for finding this for us. It is the most comprehensive explanation of morality I have ever come across. Thank you.

Here is where our thinking diverges and thank goodness. Without opposing points of view, things get very boring! It looks like most people have given up arguing here so may be I get away with speculating that advancing technology is in God's plan. I know, it is very hard to believe that we are not the ultimate creation. It may be crazy to think there is other intelligent life in the universe and that things move in the direction of humans connecting with them. But what if we are not the ultimate creation and the New Age is a possible realty? It is so obvious to me that we can not continue repeating history, I do not understand the resistance to the idea of a new age, when human consciousness is so changed, people can not relate to a our primitive past, any better than we can relate to human existence before we had clothing and the technology of fire, and developed languages. Image running in the nude after a grounded bird and eating it feathers and all. Yuk! Give me a break, we are not as we were when we first walked the earth, so what firm sciences proves our existence can not get better than this? For sure, technology is vital to where we are today, and we do not know how technology may change our future. While I value the perspective of all approaches to knowing ultimate truth, I think math is our best path to truth. The whole cacamemie Aztec calender belief system is based on math. It may not be accurate, but I am saying, with math we can think of things like psychology and sociology and the future. That is, with math we can think of things that seem totally unrelated to math, including notions of God. I also feel strongly about not allowing others to define God for me. This was the Greek position before they took the bull by the horns and wrote the first Christian bible. You know, the Greeks, those great philosophers and story tellers. Come on folks, we were making great progress with proof that a God did not reveal himself to a tribe of people. Amenhotep IV's grandfather was disapproving all the gods, and had his men search the archives for the true God. Ra comes up as the dominate god, but just as there are problems with the word God, there were problems with one called Ra, so the name is changed. Amen, is a monotheist God, and what we speak His name at the end of prayers. The way to cure the religious problem is not to refuse to use the word God, but to increase what we can know of our ideas of God. This totally changes the discussion with religious folks. The ones we really need to work with, because religion can be a serious problem, just as having no unifying belief system, promoting ethical behavior, can be a problem. Good grief, these folks now have nuclear weapons, or are tied to nuclear powers. Let us not make matters worse by behaving in away that confirms their false notion of God and war! Let us engage them in arguments and plant seeds of truth, so that we might have a chance of proving human beings are capable of reason and capable of being both wise and intelligent. Oh my goodness! I had not heard of Prometheus brother. Good grief, just want I need, something else I have to learn about. Totally, trying to make sense out of information from the past, can drive a person mad. This is what makes our arguments about God so ridiculous, as though there is one revealed God, and you either you believe in this God or you don't. All those myths are allegorical, and we laugh at many of the notions of someone being God's chosen king, and here is the gold chair to prove it, or God's chosen people, or the "real people", as though all other humans aren't real people, until we come to the God of Abraham, and then we take this belief so seriously, and prevent discussion from going any further than arguing over if this God does not exist. What strange human behavior. Why do we act so strangely? We all know what we are arguing about when we argue about God, but we can use the word "God". Some of our arguments are as stupid as two people arguing "It is 8AM", "No it is 8PM", until their blood pressure is sky high and their faces turn red. Then discovering they are calling from opposites of the globe and they are both right. Being technological correct is not the end all. A degree of wisdom is also needed. It is not real wise to argue about abstract reality as though it were literally truth. So what is that Greek story telling us? More information please. I feel like Star Trek's Data at this moment. More information please. I forgot a thought. It is easier to be unemotionally rational about other people and their idea of God, than to be that way about ourselves. It is so obvious the common people of India, in their separate villages, have understood the notions presented by Hinduism differently from the highly literate people, who will understand it all abstractly instead of literally. I am also reminded of the Buddhist notion in Japan that these village people who must toil all day, and do not have the luxury of education, can not achieve a Buddhist state of mind. Not until expanding the industrial base of the Japanese economy, did their Buddhism become democratically open to all. However, Taoism began with the village people, did it not? Please, if you have knowledge of this, share it. As I ponder the thoughts expressed here, it seems terribly important to me to have a better understanding of such matters.

Oh bother, the Internet now includes many more stories than it once did. I am absolutely sure I have not confused Sumerian stories with any others because I have the books on my shelve, but I now get, there are new explanations of the text. It seems much has been added to the original information, because of on going efforts to interpret the text. This is really wonderful. Given the recent experiments teaching chimps and bonobo language, I have begun to wonder again about the possibility of aliens influencing evolution. This comes to mind here, because this interpretation of the Sumerian stories says that could have happened, http://www.halexandr...rg/dward191.htm I like this explanation because it says Niki and his brother disagreed about the creation of man. It says God giving man skins to cover himself and throwing man out of the Garden, could be the two God's Niki and his brother, one wanting to help man and the other rejecting him. I think when knowledge of these text spread, it will surely change the context for understanding these biblical stories. In Greek mythology we also have the gods divided on the issue of humans. The stories I read, assume man already exist. He was created by Zues's father and they don't know why. It is the creation of Pandora that is addressed, in the story equal to Adman and Eve, and Zeus has her created and gives her a box full of miseries, and gives her to the first man, because one of the gods had given man the technology of fire. Zeus didn't want man to have this technology, and wanted to delay discovery of other technologies. This again, parallels the Sumerian story, of gods being divided on the issue of man. Which Greek story creates man as a leader of animals? I don't know that one. Hebrews were into herding sheep, so it makes sense they gave man the duty of leading animals instead of farming duties. In fact, we have a biblical story that God favored a herding brother over a farming one. This was my first reason for rejecting the God of Abraham as a true God. I have no tolerance for favoritism. I think all these stories are like the game telephone, where everyone holds hands and pass a message from one end of the line to the next. The message gets changed as it goes down the line. Or as Joseph Campbell and Jung would say, our stories are the same, because humans think the same and tend to use the same symbology. I think skipping over the possibility that the Hebrews begin with Amenhotep IV is a mistake. Amenhotep IV is the first monotheism of which I am aware. He had an entire city devoted to his new religion, and his followers filled this city, while the pharaoh neglected the rest of Rome. There is no doubt he was a terrible pharaoh, and a devoted worshiper of this one God. These people would have to flee when the city was destroyed. The religion put a high value on family and learning, and the Hebrews, now Jews, carry these values. The value of learning is dropped when we come to Christianity, a religion that warns against attempting to learn too much, and like Islam, promotes fear of Satan misleading people. This fear of Satan and demons comes from the east, and is not an original Hebrew division of good and evil. But I say, those followers of Amenhotep IV fled Egypt, went to Ur, and searched Sumerian libraries for truth, and interpreted their stories, as they once searched Egyptian libraries for truth. Sumer had already fallen, so there would be no Sumerians to interpret the stories in the context of an established civilization. The activity of searching ancient recorders for truth is the same for Amenhotep IV's followers. Whoo, the Internet is getting more exciting every day! How about this book by Freud claiming Moses was a follower of Amenhotep IV. Freud writing on this subject? I didn't expect that. http://en.wikipedia...._and_Monotheism This site is even firmer on the connection between Hebrews and Amenhotep IV. Okay, there we go with the word problem. Is the God issue different if we use a different word? A word no one understands, and so excludes Jews, Christians and Muslims from the conversation? Then there isn't much point in having the conversation. Why is this necessary? Because there is a handful of intolerant people who insist on interpreting God literally, so they can be right about claiming there is no God? What kind of logic is that? Personally, I think the problem is ignorance and attitude, not a word. It is certainly more effective, from my point of view, to address the problem of ignorance, by providing information, and the problem of attitude, by raising awareness of it, than use a new word, no one understands, and that excludes the most important people from the conversation. The people who cause us so much trouble by promoting ignorance and threatening to start a nuclear war. It is those people I want in on the conversation, because they are dangerous folk. I am not concerned with those who just have a bad attitude and chose to be ignore information. In fact, it is rather pleasant when they stay out of the conversation.

The story of Eden which in cuneiform means "uncultivated plain" while Adam means "settlement on the plain". Enki the river spirit eats the goddesses plants, and she curses him to death. A fox convinces her to let the river live, and Niniti which translates to both "the lady of the rib" and "the lady who makes live" becomes Eve in the translated account of the story. The goddess makes a man and woman out of mud, to help the river stay in its banks. I would dearly love a link to your story. I am working on trying to explain the importance of caring for our earth. Parables are much more interesting than lectures. Wow, what is your reasoning? Like my mind has been playing with this idea, but I haven't focused on it. I believe many people began with monotheism, in the form or an Earth Mother, and then went to multiple gods when they became bureaucratic. However, I think knowledge of pharaoh Amenhotep IV is vital our understanding of Judaism, which later becomes the foundation of Christianity and Islam. I think this line of reasoning is especially helpful when dealing with religious people, because it demonstrates the God of Abraham is not a revealed God, unless we want to credit Amenhotep IV with receiving that revelation, and that really throws a monkey wrench in the gears, because then the chosen people are Egyptians. Well, scholars would have to chew on this. I suppose we could agree only those who followed Amenhotep IV religion were the chosen people? I must apologize for my very bad reaction to the Father, because I know it is not pure logic. You might be able to tell by my name, that I am female, and I think a jealous, revengeful, fearsome god, is the role model for abusive men. Obviously, a Father in heaven is patriarchy, and few men are good enough for me to desire patriarchy. Those who are, are really great, but unfortunately there is extremely few of them. I think matriarchy has its merits, as in the Earth Goddess. However, I do not think we would have advanced technology without the patriarchy and we could not support the world population we have today without technology. Can I say God works in strange ways? It might be helpful if we think in terms of process, rather than this or that. I am thrilled that this thread has survived and developed! I hope some folks get what happens when it is okay to discuss God and the discussion is not prevented by those insist there is no God. I hope people are getting how much there is to talk about, when discussing God, including our concept of history which goes with all kinds of prejudices. If Iran would return to its religion Zoroastrianism, and the memory of their king paying for the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, we might avoid an ugly war! Please, folks work on tolerance of discussion of God, because people with nuclear bombs need to be as wise as they are smart. http://en.wikipedia....i/Sri_Aurobindo Oh my goodness, I will have to give this person more of my attention. I am a bit unnerved at the moment. Have you read Jose Arguelles "The Mayan Factor"? We most certainly can not discuss these two men's thoughts here. The real force of censorship is the culture, and the culture here is not ready for some ideas. For sure Aurobindo's ideas are what I am talking about when I speak of God. If I used the word Brahman would that be better? Can't everyone see the hang up over one word, a word that be the Creator, Brahman, Allah, but not Jehovah or Yahweh, these last two names are the name of a patron god, equal to other patron gods and goddesses. God, Creator Brahman, Allah are abstract. Jehovah or Yahweh is not. I might be interesting to follow the evolution of Judaism, from Amenhotep IV through all the cultures these people traveled. We are not clear on the word these people used for God, because the name was not spoken and no images are to be made of this God. These taboos function to prevent an abstract idea from becoming a literal one, but humans seem to love being literal and have a real hard time with dealing with stractions. I think the Hebrews began with an abstract God, and ended up with a literal one. For sure Christianity took a turn towards literalness, with religious icons, and for awhile converting the patron gods and goddesses into saints.

Okay, so I am not getting the rules about the word "God" and how God is defined. Thomas Jefferson used the word "Creator" . The religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam, seem to be being with the an Egyptian pharaoh's efforts to have only one God, and we could use the word Ra for god. Then the Sumerian story about a river that flooded its banks, and lead to the creation of the first man and woman, to keep the river in its banks was added to the Egyptian one God. Around the world I think most primitive people thought is was our scared duty to care for the earth. Effectively, we are the co creators, right? The theory of how the monotheistic God Ra got connected with the Sumerian story of creation, is when the Pharaoh died, both the former priest, military and most of Egypt was glad to destroy any memory of that pharaoh, who tried to force monotheism on everyone, and was so wrapped up in his new religion that he was a very bad pharaoh. The believers in this new religion fled to Ur, a Sumerian city that didn't exist at that time, but its clay tablets remained, and these people who worshiped the one God, translated the Sumerian story, adjusting it so it made sense to them. Then of course, these people return to Egypt, and have to flee Egypt again. The bible is an account of their story. It is history from their point of view, and it is mind boggling that so many have taken this tribes historical point of view, as God's truth. Oh, well. There is tension around the notion that a God/ Creator endows us with morals, but this is established by science and learning of mirror neurons, and the behavior of social animals. The error is not in believing we are endowed with a moral nature, but in not understanding how we are endowed with a moral nature. Another error is the notion that a God has favorite people, and can be manipulated with sacrifices, prayers, burning candles. You know, superstitious notions of how God works, instead of a scientifically based notion of how things work, that can be corrected as we gain more information. I think if we work with the idea that there is a God, and bridge religious people from their understanding of the cosmos, to the scientifically based notions, we will progress a long this scientific line a lot faster than if we seem to confirm their superstitious notions by arguing there is no God. That is an argument that locks people into a senseless argument, and does not move things forward. It is perhaps better to just ask, how does God do that, and move forward. Hey, would anyone like to carry Philo's understanding of numbers to another thread? I think we have much to gain by understanding the archetypes of numbers.

Do you mean Isis and all the Egyptian gods, and Zeus and all his brothers and sisters, are equal to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, because God is a religious concept? I am afraid I can not agree with you on this one. I think the religions that claim to be God's revealed truth, are distinctly different from the understandings of god that came before these religions. I refuse to allow these 3 religions to define God for me, and think it is best that we all stop allowing those religions to define God. We get our best ideas, such as the theory of relativity, when we stop working on the idea, and are sleeping or driving or walking.

Thank you for expanding our understanding. This is very important to our discussion. I thought it was well understood in India that when we speak of one thing, we are also speaking of the opposite? Perhaps this is the place to mention how culture defines reality for us? I forget the name of the book and author, but he explained in every culture there is a consciousness and subconscious, just as is so for individuals, and also taboos. Our cultures limit what we become aware of, and other cultures can have very different awarenesses. I am told in France there is something like 5 words for love, and wouldn't this give a better understanding of love? The Eskimo have something like 5 words for rain, and each contains information about weather that is important to their survival. What we can be aware of and what we remain unaware of is totally dependent on the words we have to express our thought, and our right to speak of such things. Sumerians did not have words to categorize trees differently from bushes, and this ability to categorize things, is essential to science. So language and culture is essential to what we can be aware of. The art of Aztecs, was similar to the art of people in European mental institutions, indicating a difference in what these cultures accepted. It appears our country, that once lived for God, and has a form of government dependent on an understanding of logos and morals, has now made it taboo to use some words, preventing us from have a developed consciousness of some things, including the reasoning for democracy. Why god? because of all the things we think about and discuss when we have the word "god". Not only do we discuss many things when discussing god, but we see the relationships and unity. Now why not have a word such as god in our vocabulary? Let us take a lesson from the Unpanishads, and speak of the opposite of consciousness of god. What comes to mind, is without god there is mental chaos, a lack of a means and failure to be conscious of relationships and unity. Perhaps an individualism that is like a cancer destroying the integrity of the body? For sure, we should not take God to literally! God is an abstract. There seems to be a problem with understanding of the meanings of words. I have taken a lot of heat for talking about what education for technology has done to our ability to think abstractly, but I can not of any of other reason for our communication problem, other than some people interpreting the word God too literally. No, having a notion of god does not mean not being empirical. All along I have said is science vital to our knowledge of God and morals. We can not study God, but the philosophical approach to this is to study nature and imply something about God. It is 100% based on science and reason. One of the most important reasons for understanding this is, to end false concepts of God. Repeatedly I have stressed the harm done by believing in supernatural beings. I am strongly opposed to believing in supernatural beings. Believing in supernatural beings, totally distorts democracy and our understanding of morals. This has become an education problem. Without liberal education we no longer understanding the reasoning behind democracy, and this why I write. Whose idea is it that religion has to abandon reason? When we had liberal education, no one thought this, because liberal education taught "how" to think, not "what to think". Education for technology is about what to think, because its defined purpose is education that serves industry and military purpose and it does not serve humanity as liberal education did. Making it taboo for me to say is the worse possible violation of the meaning of freedom of speech. We must know how and why education was changed, if we are to any power to create our reality, instead of being subject to the reality that a few have been creating for us. Atheist are making matters so much worse by standing in the way of discussion of God. Their behavior regarding the God issue, reenforces religious fanaticism. When we can openly discuss God, we can achieve what many who rely on science, want to achieve. Making the word "God" taboo creates a problem that is best avoided. If we insist there is no God, this prevents the reasoning that is essential to correct erroneous beliefs through reason. Preventing a rational discussion of God, by insisting there is no God, brings us to war with religious fanatics who are driven to create war. How is this different from the church trying to restrict what people can talk about? How can preventing reasoning through what we think lead of rule by reason?

Excuse me, I didn't know there is a law against using philosophy to understand God. Who wrote that law? It is obvious who is enforcing it. My bad I guess. You tell me exactly how are we to think of God, and who is the authority I should give the right to define God for all of us?

Let's see, I am working with Greek and Roman philosophy, and I think you all will greatly appreciate it, when you know about it, because it has everything to do with morals and law, everything! We give Athens credit for the philosophy that is the foundation of Roman law and what makes the west the west, separate from the east, comes from Greek philosophy and Roman law. The gods are the quarks and neutrons of civilizations. As we name a new atomic particle when we ask a new question and think we have a new answer, the ancients named a new god. These gods, from the time humans began thinking in terms of many gods, are nature beings. This became more formal when civilizations became so large humans needed to organize with bureaucracies, and began appointing people to different positions of authority. When they began doing this, they realized the one God the, Earth Mother, could not possibly manage everything alone, and gradually She was replaced with Him and we shifted from matriarchy to patriarchy. I think other distortions in this natural human thinking also arouse. The Sumerian story of creation seems most obvious to me a stories of weather extremes, a flood, and then an extremely long drought and death of a river, followed with a return to normal weather, and than another flood. Commonly primitive people humanized nature, just we name our machines. It is in our nature to do this and it makes the stories we tell easier to remember. As these stories convey survival information, that is very important. Later when the people who came to be known as Hebrews, translated these stories, and adjusted them to fit the idea that there is only one God, the truth behind the story is lost. I mean, the stories no longer carries the knowledge of natural events, but seems to the Hebrews a good story of creation and sin being the cause of our troubles. The Greeks give us the same story with minor deviations. The story or Adam and Eve and Pandora and the Box filled with miseries, are the same story, with slightly different reasoning. Now when we come to Roman law it is based on Laws of Nature. This is not the sciences making laws, as the sciences have not been developed, but what is natural to humans. Greek philosophy establishes, laws may vary from place to place, but the morality, that in this forum, we have established is in our animal nature, is common to all man. Rome dared to rule over many city/states with different laws, and its courts had to make legal judgements when dealing with court cases involving people from different city/states with different laws. They used the Law of Nature to do this. That is they took what was common in the different laws, and effectively this became the Truth based on the Laws of Nature. Later this becomes Christianity which is a blend of popular religions, but unfortunately the religion got separated from math and philosophy which is the foundation of science. Anyway, the bottom line is, our understanding of morals and law comes out of our understanding of God even if we are Atheist, because the past philosophy and religion is what shapes our culture, and it is our culture that shapes our consciousness. Thinking you are not dealing with religion when you make judgements, is like thinking you aren't using sugar with when you use an imitation creamer for your coffee. It is in there, even you aren't aware of it. Democracy begins with the belief that we are equal under the sun, and capable of reasoning, and therefore, we are capable of governing ruling ourselves with reason. This is reasoning beyond the animal level of reasoning. Animals do not identify laws, put them in writing and regulate their lives with written laws. I am editing what I said in the heat of emotion. It is not my intention to offend, but I wonder about judgment. How much reading did you do before making your arbitrary decision to move my thread and tell me what I can talk about? Why it is wrong to question, what the change in education has done to our understanding of God, and therefore, our culture and understanding of democracy? This by the way means, giving Christians an excessively restricted understanding of God that is closer to fundamentalist Islam than the liberal understand of God we had. Might there be some benefit in understanding how education shapes what we think, and even what we think about? When we think of God, we think of everything, and this is not the case when think of physics or chemistry. Our technological society is also a specialized society, and this becomes a thinking and relationship problem. How is trying to control what I say about education and God, and of God and morals and laws, different from the church trying to control what people are made aware of and discuss? Like some religious people want to end discussion of evolution, while others want to end discussion or god. Why prevent awareness of ideas? Moontanman, What do you know of any other explanation of God, besides the Christian one? How did you become aware of these other ways of thinking about God? Please, bring other concepts of God, and your knowledge of philosophy into this discussion. Perhaps you might share what know of native American spirituality. Perhaps you would like to explain how God is not integral to the universe? You might want to argue the logic of these quotes: "You cannot conceive the many without the one...The study of the unit is among those that lead the mind on and turn it to the vision of reality." Plato "One principle must make the universe a single complex living creature, one from all." Plotinus "Everything an Indians does is in a circle, and that is because the power of the world always works in circles, and everything tries to be round." Black Elk "The eye is the first circle, the horizon which it forms is the second: and through nature this primary figure is repeated with end." Ralph Waldo Emerson "It is a fallacy of the old schools to divide man into parcels, elements, thoughts, emotions, intuitions, etc. All human faculties consist of an interconnected whole." Alfred Korzybski "All are but parts of one stupendous whole". Alexander Pope "Whence shall he have grief, how shall he be deluded who sees everywhere the Oneness" Isha Upanishad How about answering this question, do the gods say things are wrong because they are wrong, or are things wrong because the gods say they are? What does it mean to say, even the gods are subject to reason? What are we talking about when we speak of the Laws of Nature? How is it that are Laws of Nature? Might we want to understand the Laws of Nature before flying a plane, or doing chemistry? What might want to know before governing ourselves? Why don't give gods the responsibility of voting?

Excuse me, I am speaking facts and these facts come out of books. They are not something you or I can change. The reasoning for vocational education, just happened to come up when the US mobilized for the first world war. According to the book covering the 1917 National Education Association Conference, Industry wanted to close the schools, claiming the war caused a labor shortage, and they were not getting their monies worth from education, because they still had to train new employees. Teachers argue an institution good for making good citizens is good for making patriotic citizens, and if you could see my library I would show the physical proof, in the form of form of books and documents, that public education was used to mobilize for both world wars. That is, the teachers won the argument. However, this was the first time National Defense, Industry and Education sat on the same board. Granted the whole reason for adding vocational training to education was not for military purpose in 1917, but never again was our education free of military and industrial control, which controls for something besides the original purpose of public education. In 1958 the industrial and military controlling forces, completely replaced liberal education with education for technology and that changes our discussions of God. In fact , as I said in my post before this one, it has made a discussion of God coming from Greek and Roman classics, almost impossible, because the liberal reasoning is no longer common, and everything I say is interpreted with knowledge of Christianity and not knowledge of the philosophy. Anyway I have a house guest and she has waited too long for my attention, so please excuse for not reading and addressing every more carefully.

Laugh, I am dealing with mother nature, because I garden, and I think she is a wonderful teacher of morals. For this reason I have agreed to share my plot with my daughter in law who seriously annoys me! As long as she is working the garden, it will not be my garden, but her learning experience that is what will have to give me satisfaction. I remember so well, the first year I did a garden and bulked at harvesting when mother nature said it was time to harvest. I lost most my produce, and never again tried to do things my way instead of mother's nature way. I think everyone should have to grow their own food for at least 3 years. It would be a shame if they gave up instead of learning from their mistakes, and trying again the next year. We learn morals through experience and with our human communication, parables, plays and movies, folk tales, studying philosophy, etc.. I am often amazed by how difficult communication is. People keep confusing Christianity with what I am saying, and this results in a complete break down in communication. If people were coming from classical philosophy, this would not be a problem in my communication. I really am offended by the idea that "without God there can be no moral principles", unless we also say, without God there would be no gravity, because logos, is reason, the controlling force of the universe. We are born equal under the sun and what is moral for one is moral for all. The only difference is some are aware of morals and others are not, but how do we become aware of them? Plant a garden and see what mother nature has to teach. Pick up a book and read what science has revealed. Study philosophy. A moral is a matter of cause and effect, and it is the same for Christians and non Christians. Speaking of Christianity there is this little problem with the idea that a God can be manipulated with sacrifices, prayers, or other rituals. God or mother nature will not change the course of nature, because we want to go vacation and will not be back to water your garden for a week. How do I say? God does not go against the laws of nature, and our sacrifices, prayers, etc. do not get us special favors, nor do the laws treat those pagans any differently from the pious.

Sorry I don't have time to find the sites that explain animals do not use language. Nor time to read everything carefully, and I promise to do so as soon as possible. In the mean time, for those who think "truth" is all we need, that would be truth about what? God covers many things and religions gives us moral principles, how do we achieve this without religion or a concept of God? I have said how this done, but wonder if that was noticed?