BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist Random Thoughts

Lestie, more than rhetorically asked, "If I say ROSE what immediatley comes to mind?"

Rising from the dead!

You like playing don't you!

I used to ask this on my long-past training on communication courses etc and to prove the point of individual takes on one word let alone a sentence let alone a concept let alone a life experience etc etc and so on I would get

A Girl's name
A flower
Valentines day
Red
Expensive
Passion and disappointment
red jellybabies
Scent and fragrance
rosewater
turkish delight sweets,
cosmetics (only got this once)
My smelly Auntie
Rosey pink and all colours associated with the flower
Thorns
Pruning
rose gardens

These are the ones I remember but they suffice to make the point.

cheers

Ok Lestie and all, let's play word association with AGNOSTIC and what it can and should (but not always does) exemplify:

AGNOSTIC

Questioning
Doubting/Skeptical
Searching
Exploring
Ruminating
Process-Oriented
Open to new information/Open-Minded
Without Knowledge of ???
Freethinking
Realistic
Non-Delusional
Knowledgeable about other belief sytems
Scientifically-oriented/Naturalistic/Non-Superstitious
Humanistic
Past/Present/Future-Oriented
Non-Dogmatic
Iconoclastic
Non-Ethnocentric
Intellectually Flexible
Intellectually Curious
Sense of Humor
Self-Aware

Any others?
Any that you think do not belong?

What words or phrases do you think would be most appropriate in describing both strong atheists and Fundamentalist Christians?

Hey Les

I think you are stepping onto thin ice here in this public forum where misunderstanding and shooting from the hip can rule readily. Just an opinion but will answer this in another way.

A word is a word is a word; somebody Greek and very wise and ancient said that before me(!), only he said an apple is an apple is an apple. We attribute meanings to each word on several levels, the dictionary meaning perhaps being the first. Then we have context and content and life experiences and all and all that add further and extra dimensions. And language? There are words in Spanish which are just not easily translated into any other language as there are in French or German or English or ... or ... or ...

Do you remember playing that game as a kid where with a group of around 8 plus, the first person whispers "We are going to the swimming pool to collect the left over balloons from the gala" that when passed on there and back lands up being something like Mr Baloney said he would not go trimming the trees on the left bacause the leaves don't fall in the pool."

Well that is what I see happening here.

But to comment on the post above if others want to answer (and please do and why not?) I would say that there are quite a few that are not only agnostic-oriented. I guess that Atheists would choose some of them too as would other groups, it will all depend on your individual life view.

BTW There is a new novel/biography been written about Olive Schreiner which has a rave reveiw. I will seek out details and post back later but she was a well known agnostic who came from a fudamentalist missionary family and I can't wait for the library to get it, already put my name down to read it for several reasons. Also, speaking of books, have you read The Poisonwood Bible? It is an excellent novel, which would give a fascinating insight into some aspects of the history of the Congo and a lot more, gripping in a few places, politically educational in several others plus a darn good read.

Adios

Hi Lestie and all,

Lestie in reference to my most previous post commented, "I think you are stepping onto thin ice here in this public forum where misunderstanding and shooting from the hip can rule readily. Just an opinion but will answer this in another way."

Point well taken but...

From my perspective this forum and this particular topic is not the Spinning Forum or the Chocolate Forum and may engender at times some thought provoking stimulation and difference of opinions- with the caveat that ones opinions/feelings/beliefs are stated positively,respectfully,and in a non-attacking manner/non-debating manner/non-prostelatizing manner. So sometimes what I may write may not exactly be vanilla milkshake in texture or content. There is a method to my non-madness, I hope.

Lestie also commented: "But to comment on the post above if others want to answer (and please do and why not?) I would say that there are quite a few that are not only agnostic-oriented. I guess that Atheists would choose some of them too as would other groups, it will all depend on your individual life view."

How you interpreted my list and how others interpreted it is a subject to individual interpretation. I never stated, alluded to, or thought that the particular type of agnostic that I was describing had a monopoly on any or all of the listed traits. There is one (ok two!) that I included that may be very controversial but it is what I truly believe and would be worthy of informed discussion if anybody wants to comment on it or ask why I believe it to be true- no offense was intended. Part of my intent in writing it the way that I did and including certain traits was for others to perhaps state what traits were integral to their belief systems and what commonalities may exist, even though I did not ask that directly.

That Schreiner book sounds intriguing- if you think it is worth a read please let us know- if availlable, I then would have Maria pick it up for me when she is in the U.S. this winter.

Hi there Les and all,

Les you are right in that this is not a light-subject forum where people come to play - they come here to think I am sure or to see what others are thinking about and talking about when it comes to belief or non-belief sites and systems and all.

Did you like my Mr Baloney effort? I re-read it now now and think it was not so bad for a shooting from the hip type of example. One day when I find the book (in one of my yet-as-unpacked book boxes from storage) I will rewrite the one that's there about Halleys Comet. Oh so funny.

Will tell about Olive Schreiner soonest, I am looking forward to the reading of the book.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now for me some of those words and ideas etc. that you used to describe atheism were judgemental and badgering and spoiling for a quarrel; but I also don't think you will get many people willing to take up that challenge. Perhaps that was not an intended action on your part, I just see it that way. And also read back - you asked for examples that the reader may think did not fit.

Questioning

Doubting/Skeptical (of what? being an Atheist?)

Searching
Exploring
Ruminating

Process-Oriented (baking a cake can be described thusly)

Open to new information/Open-Minded
Without Knowledge of ???
Freethinking

Realistic (Others might say tosh to this)

Non-Delusional (I think someone else would say that an agnostic/atheist is just the opposite. e- delusional)

Knowledgeable about other belief systems (Knowledgable maybe but on a surface level only and only knowledgeable enough to support a non-God approach. In a Catholic's book if you were knowledgable you would not be questioning. You would just have faith and be devout)

Scientifically-oriented/Naturalistic/Non-Superstitious (Mixed up overarching and too broad one might say?)

Humanistic (Define please?)

Past/Present/Future-Oriented (Which belief system isn't this?)

Non-Dogmatic (Another tosh one, Athiests are very dogmatic)

Iconoclastic (Define in context of Athiesm please)

Non-Ethnocentric (Now't to do with religious belief per se.)

Intellectually Flexible (Argues both sides and feel satisfied?)
at a stalemate answer or going round and round in circles?)

Intellectually Curious (about what? What someone else believes in or about what "I" believe in contrast?)

Sense of Humor (Nothing to do with the topic. Everyone needs a sense of Humour for everything they do in life and way beyond what one believes in etc)

Self-Aware

Any others?
Any that you think do not belong?

What words or phrases do you think would be most appropriate in describing both strong atheists and Fundamentalist Christians?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I do not know enough about either fundamental Christianity other than to note it does not suit me at all and likewise, I do not know enough about Atheism to answer the last bit. Mind you, the comments I have made are neither here nor there really, one could get a real headache just thinking about it all. And as they say as a cop out ... the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the writer/editor/whomever. Sorry Les.

Perhaps in my next life I will find those answers? Or perhaps the answers lie in the stars Horatio? Or could it be an occasion to clap with one hand?

Smile now. Cheers I say, am off to absorb some sun, commune with my roses and remove the leaves of those afflicted ... out out damn spot!

Hi Lestie and all,

I loved your "Mr. Baloney" story. As a social work undergraduate I remember having to play that game more than once.

Lestie for clarification sake, I was describing a certain type of AGNOSTIC not an ATHEIST as you stated and some of what I wrote may apply to some atheists while others would not apply to any, more than likely.

For the "humanist" definition please refer to the glossary article that I wrote- it's in the subject area under "basics."-I refer you there because you might want to look at some of the other definitions also. See the definition of "freethinking" to see what I meant by "process-oriented." Many agnostics, myself included, have much more that a superficial knowledge of certain established religions.

New Random Thought:

No wonder, unlike my older brother, at the age of 8 I never wanted to join the Scouts Of America. And I always thought it was because I really disliked uniforms and regimentation.

"No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws. So every Scout should have religion." From the book "Scouting for Boys" by Robert Lord Baden Powell (founder of the Scouting movement).

"The Boy Scouts of America maintain that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing his obligation to God." Boy Scouts of America, Bylaws.

"Any organization could profit from a 10-year-old member with enough strength of character to refuse to swear falsely." Editorial, New York Times, 1993-DEC-12, commenting on the Boy Scouts' exclusion of a young Atheist

"Obviously, the Boy Scouts can accept and reject whomever they wish. But officials should bear in mind that they, like the Christian Right and the Anglican bishops, are disserving the nation's boys -- mere children -- when teaching them to hate fellow humans." Bill Maxwell, St. Petersburg Times, 1998-AUG-9

What do you think?

Hello Les and all,

Naughty me! I have not read the articles on the site so of course my posts have been skewed by this or I would have been able to make more sense in context instead of just passing unsupported opinions out of context as it were. I am suitbly chastised and will go and do the homework. Apologies.

Onto your next topic Les, do you think a new heading would be useful? I do but that's an aside.

When a person goes to court in the USA do they still swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the Bible? I do not frequent court and do not work there so am not sure for SA but am nearly sure that we still do here. OR Swearing in a new President or some or other official, we do do that here in SA as I think you do in the US.

Now with Baden Powell, as I understand it, he did certainly start the Scouts movement with a Christian God and Christian-based principles in mind and of course the movement thus based swept across the world. That movement has mutated so much in a way to encompass all boys of all religions and now, I read that the Girls are Scouts too having amalgamated (tut) so there is only one Scout Movement for either. There are no Girl Guides left? Of course I stand corrected and would be keen to hear from anyone who knows better or more. I was a Brownie and and Girl Guide and knew lots of Cubs and Scouts by the hikes and fetes and whatevers we held growing up I also just remember the fun and games we had going and growing up through the ranks and collecting lifeskill badges on the way. To become a Queen's Guide was our ultimate prize (as a colony that the then Rhodesia was).

An alternative question to the one you posed Less, is perhaps is this GOD by whom we swear to tell the truth or to serve a country (cause whatever) to the best of 'my' ability not become for many a flat conceptual use of the word. May the meaning not have evolved to represent a sincerity beyond the norm, or a concept of all that is right and good to underpin my promise to tell the truth and the whole truth etc?

Of course this then poses another question in that why not make up a word that would mean this and not refer to GOD with it's religious overtones not only Christian.

Let's say for argument's sake a word like State or Life might be used (though then we get caught up in the definition game again) or a newly coined jumble of letters that would only have this meaning for this use only like GER or TWOH etc. So it could be I swear to tell the truth etc so help me TWOH.

I do not mean to make light of it, much as it may sound as such.

BTW have you ever come across that concept of presentism?

Cheers for the nonce!

Hi Lestie and all,

For a while I have been debating whether to start new topics or just keep on adding to "Random Thoughts." I like the randomness of a topic just going on and on... and being able to jump back and forth with it but if you can give me reasons why it would be better to have individual topics I might be amenable in doing so. As I wrote previously, though, "Random Thoughts" gets between 100 and 225 plus views per day and it may be that people are comfortable with its location and format.

Lestie, I found your comments about "swearing" to be spot on as I have given that matter quite a bit of thought and had done some research on it. In elementery school, I had stopped saying the "pledge of allegiance" as the "God" part made no sense to me and just as importantly pledging ones allegiance to whatever is just words and it is deeds that matter (as there is enough hypocrisy in the world as is.

I never obsessed about the "God" issue in court, school and elsewhere as that is how it goes in Christian America and decided that I would only do what I believed was consistent with my beliefs and accept the consequences whatever they may be. In court, I think that people should have to sign a document that merely states that their testimony will be truthful without any unnecessary and biased verbiage.

The only time that I came upon the concept of "presentism" is during Christmas. Que es "presentism"? So, could either you or TWOH please edify us

I am including an excellent article that I had read previously by Austin Cline at About.com as it answers some of your questions and raises others. Nothing is ever as clear cut as we might hope that it may be.

Affirming vs. Swearing Oaths in Court

Court scenes in American movies, television, and books typically show people swearing an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Usually they swear an oath "to God" and with a hand on the Bible. Such scenes are so common that most people seem to assume that it's required, but it's not. You have a right to just "affirm" that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No gods, Bibles, or anything else religious need to be involved.

This is not an issue that only affects atheists. Many religious believers, including some Christians, object to swearing oaths to God and would prefer to affirm that they will tell the truth. Britain has guaranteed a right to affirm rather than swear an oath since 1695. In America, the Constitution specifically references affirming alongside swearing at four different points.

This doesn't mean that there are no risks involved if you choose to affirm rather than swear, but it does mean that atheists aren't alone in this preference. Given that there are many political, personal, and legal reasons for affirming rather than swearing, it means that you should probably making this choice when the situation arises.


Why Should Atheists Affirm Rather than Swear?

There are good political and ideological reasons for affirming an oath rather than swearing. Expecting people in court to swear an oath to God while using a Bible only helps reinforce Christian Supremacy in America. It's not just a "privilege" for Christians that courts incorporate Christian beliefs and text into legal procedures, but instead a form of supremacy because they are receiving official state approval and citizens are expected to actively participate. Even if other religious texts are permitted, it still means that the government is favoring religion in an inappropriate manner.

There are also good personal reasons to affirm an oath rather than swear. If you acquiesce to participating in what is effectively a religious ritual, you are making a public statement of approval of and agreement with the religious underpinnings of that ritual. It's not psychologically healthy to publicly proclaim the existence of God and moral value of the Bible when you don't actually believe any of this.

Finally, there are good legal reasons to affirm an oath rather than swear. If you swear to God on a Bible when you don't believe in either, then you doing the opposite of what you are supposed to. You cannot reliably promise to tell the truth in a ceremony where you are lying about your beliefs and commitments. I don�t know if this could be used to undermine your credibility in current or future court proceedings, but it is a risk.


Risks to Atheists in Affirming an Oath

If you ask in open court to be permitted to affirm an oath to tell the truth rather than swear to God and on a Bible, you'll be drawing a great deal of attention to yourself. Because everyone "knows" that you swear an oath to God and on the Bible to tell the truth, then you will attract attention even if you make arrangements ahead of time. It is more likely that this attention will lean negative because so many people associate morality with God and Christianity. Anyone refusing or failing to swear to God will thus become suspicious to at least a percentage of observers.

Prejudice against atheists in America is widespread. If you are suspected of being an atheist, or even of just not believing in God the way most people do, then judges and jurors may be inclined to give your testimony less weight. If it is your case that is being dealt with, you may become less sympathetic and thus less likely to be victorious. Do you want to risk losing your case or hurting the case you favor? This is not a risk to be taken lightly, even though it may not be very likely to lead to any serious problems.

So while there are plenty of political, ideological, personal, and legal reasons to affirm rather than swear, there are very strong pragmatic reasons to simply keep your head down and not contradicting anyone's expectations. If you conclude that it is best to affirm rather than swear an oath, you should do so only if you understand that risks are involved and if you are prepared to deal with them. At the very least, it would be a good idea to talk an officer of the court in advance about affirming rather than swearing.