Remember-the simple solution is usually the correct one!

We’re charmed by simplicity but the universe is packed full of complexity.  Occam’s razor isn’t chisled in stone, and simple explanations (the subject of the razor) are of a different nature from simple solutions. 

All too easy to confuse simplicity with being simplistic.

Good point and one of which I am well aware.
However, the point being made was that we are always needlessly complicating things, a lot of the time just because it sounds erudite. 
Allan

Why is this junk allowed in here?  Les, please toss this crap in the garbage where it belongs.

When all else fails, the simple solution is usually the correct one!

Yep: there is no god.  That’s simple.

Sorry PSoTaS, but I thought it was an interesting entry and I was curious to see what folks had to say about it. I’m always interested in alternative viewpoints on the nature of God(s) because, if nothing else, it tells you a little something about the person who holds them.

Sorry guys, I can’t let this one go.  I too am here to see alternat views and to challange my own perceptions.  I know my views are rather controversial and defiantly not main stream, but I hope that I am presenting them in a way that you can think about even if you don’t agree.

I have been dismayed by the number of atheists and evolutionists that see the societal structure as some kind of altruistic collection of individuals.  The general consensus (and what I inference as the subject of this post ) is that society is good and if you are a member of society you are good.  Our legal system is designed to protect the rest of society from those that do not comply.  The same structure exists in religious institutions.

How can BTK be part of a religious organization and still be so deprived?  If society is really this collection of like minded individuals why is there crime?  People who look at the structure in a classic way are surprised from the deviation of the few individuals and wonder what they can do to fix some perceived problem with the structure.

Here is where I start to deviate. . .  If you look seriously at evolution ( we can eliminate the creation question here because I am talking about the growth and adaptation of culture over time) there is some strong instinct for survival in all of us.  We do things that will give us a survival advantage.  We choose our career, we choose where we live, we choose to put locks on doors all to give us a survival advantage.

Being part of a society gives us a definite survival advantage.  Do you know how your DVD player is made?  Could you make one yourself?  Obviously there are advantages to being part of that society.  However, your perception of survival advantage is fluid.  In this way it is simple to explain that if an individual perceives their survival advantage to be better by cooperating with society then they will.  If an individual perceives that they can increase their personal survival advantage by breaking society’s rules then they will, even if it takes that resource away from somebody else.

Some people comprehend this inherent personal greed and either depressing or sinful.  However pious you may be the denial of personal survival will lead to not surviving.  I actually look at it positively that I have the opportunity to understand my personal motivations and don’t mind being perceived as altruistic even when I am securing my personal survival advantage, at least I am honest.

As one of the posters mentioned, it may be better to teach what “good� is (and how the “good� increases your long term survival advantage).

How can BTK be part of a religious organization and still be so deprived?

‘Cuz he NUTS, that why!  No mystery there.  Certainly his church does not advocate what he did on any level.

We do things that will give us a survival advantage.  We choose our career, we choose where we live, we choose to put locks on doors all to give us a survival advantage.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs doesn’t stack up the same way in all individuals.  Survival sometimes comes up subordinate to self-actualization or even to (a level which Maslow left out) neurological stimulation (think of dangerous sports, etc.)

I’d venture to say most people have points of honor or principle that they would hold above personal survival.

In general I’m in agreement with you, Bruno. Though I also agree with DOF that some folks do have the ability to put their principles ahead of their personal survival.

I’m often complaining that I have too many scruples myself as I know of several common and legal scams I could easily run that would fleece the stupid of their cash. Just look at any random bit of spam email for an example or two. Or, for that matter, any TV commercial for the latest weight loss product. There’s easy money to be made if you don’t mind taking advantage of the stupid. Alas, as much as I rant about stupid people I have a hard time with the idea of taking advantage of them.

Well, other than perhaps for humorous purposes…

Well it’s time for the author to reply. First of all Les is right on the button when he says “Let’s see what debate this arouses.”
So the first point I wish to make it that debate and conjecutre on this site is a hell of a lot more intelligent and thought out than on most. Here we actually get some intelligent and at times profound insights. Refreshing after listening to religious fanatics on a lot of other sites.
The second point is that even I sometimes get the feeling that it’s becoming rather much with all this ranting and Pontification.
(Although I don’t know if I would take any comments seriously from someone who uses the name “penetratingshaftoftruthandsemen!")
BUT, the fact of the matter is that I spent a lot of years on this book (God-101) and because of that I owe it to myself to promote it and kindle debate as much as possible. Besides which, the more I get into it, the more I feel strongly about it and would like to exress my point of view. (Christ, please don’t let me turn out to be one of those religious fanatics I hate so much.)

Finally a thought! Perhaps one day we can reach a point where we are all mature and developed enough as a race that the only crime will be varying degrees of “interference” with other people. Other than that, do what you will!
e.g. 
Stealing, cheating someone = Interference 1
Murder, hate crimes, = Interference 10

(Trying to convert someone=Interference 6 )
Allan W Janssen

I apologize for my earlier comments.  He has the right to say whatever he wants.  I guess i’m not sure why he wants to do it here.  Seems kind of pointless to me.  Every comment i make is serious, Allan, and you would do well to take heed.

Hey- “C’est la vie” and also “right arm”
(Is that serious enough?)

One of the nifty things about a pseudonym is that it disconnects content from assumptions about credibility.  Then you have to consider the content apart from those assumptions.

PenShaft is a good example.  I often find his comments illuminating - though in a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum! 

*(At least, I hope it’s a pseudonym!  Or his mother has a really odd sense of humor)

Yeah, PSoTaS has often said clever things here that have shocked me out of assuming that, with a name like that, he couldn’t possibly have anything intelligent to say. My first inclination is to discount him because of the name and I’m often pleasantly surprised. PSoTaS says what he’s thinking and usually without apology. I like that.

Moses, you said some things I can definitely take issue with, such as:

You are not going to find paradise by listening to 2000 year old, hallucinating, camel jockeys.

Camel jockeys? Is that how you show love for another?

The historical Jesus did not urge us to love Mankind or to feel pity for someone else.
He did not tell us to deny ourselves for someone else’s sake, or flagellate ourselves, or even to enjoy another’s company!

I think you’d better read the Bible again. Jesus, as depicted in the Bible, is anything but a messenger of love. He sets harsh conditions for being of worth and yes, he does preach pity and submission.

No one could live like Jesus supposedly told us to. It simply isn’t human to be so giving and meek. That’s why tolerance is so important. I may not like the way others order their lives and I couldn’t even pretend to love them but as long as they do myself and others no harm, it’s important that I’m willing to tolerate them. We are individuals and no two have the same set of desires, fears, passions and hates. So to honor the fact of individuality and allow it to be expressed is the only hope we have of being able to co-exist.

That isn’t love so much as it is common sense.

The point is, perhaps we should be more concerned with attaining a “State of Grace� in this life, and then sitting back to see where it leads us in the next!

I can agree with you to an extent here.  Of course, I don’t believe in an afterlife, but I do see value in at some point saying, “Fuck this bull, I’m gonna try and be happy and make others happy,” and leave it at that.  And if by Love, you mean empathy, I am all for it.  Empathy will get us farther in peace and happiness than any amount of money, bombs, or blubbering fake Texans.

Thank You! Being from Canada I don’t want to get into US politics too deep, let’s just say Bush is not held in the highest regard here.

P.S. When I referred to “camel jockeys” I was in no way passsing a value judgement or even making a slightly derogatory statement. These guys in Al Qaeda and the Wahabis are living in the dark ages and to quote Cheech and Chong;

“That’s what it is man!”

Moses, I understood what you were going for with the “camel jockeys” label.  Currently that phrase is in “the set of non-politically-correct labels” so it will raise eyebrows.  It’s apparently OK to call someone a conservative, a liberal, a Darwinist (whatever that is), a Bible-thumper, a meglomaniac, or a glass-and-plastic-in-the-recycling mixer. 

Personally, I hope the next big trend after “sensitivity training” will be “insensitivity training.” Instead of trying to change the whole society to never say anything remotely insulting, one might learn to be un-insultable. 

Agree 100% Things are so bad that my daughter, who is going to university, told this story.

Her girlfriend was describing someone to her and said, “You know, the tall guy that’s always dressed so sharp.”
Didn’t ring a bell so her friend said, “You know, the guy with the earing in both ears!”
Still no recognition so she said. “He always wears that brown leather coat you like!”
Finally, my daughter said! “Oh, you mean the BLACK guy!”
All because they didn’t even know anymore if even the word black was acceptable.

Personally, I hope the next big trend after “sensitivity training� will be “insensitivity training.� Instead of trying to change the whole society to never say anything remotely insulting, one might learn to be un-insultable.

Nice thought, DOF.  I am so tired of the PC brigade…

I’ve long considered terms like “camel jockeys” to be as offensive as ones like “sand ni**ers” or “towel heads”.

Sure you should be able to use derogatory terms as much as you like but I’ve been on the receiving end of a couple of them most of my life and I can tell you they don’t inspire me to respect the person who uses them.

When we use inexact and confining terms to describe others we run the risk of limiting the information available. Being politically correct (which in itself is a catch-all and dismissive phrase) isn’t the point. The point is to allow oneself to be more aware of both the intricacies and equivalencies of others.

The truth is not in the Bible or the Koran. (Or the Bhagavad-Gita for that matter!) They should all be thrown in the garbage because they were written by sun-baked, wandering nomads who mostly ate bugs and honey..... of course they saw God~!
God is not in a book because that is other people trying to tell you what is right and what is wrong. You are not going to find paradise by listening to 2000 year old, hallucinating, camel jockeys.

I agree that no one has a lock on the truth but aren’t you doing the same sort of “truth-telling” from your (non-drug induced, I assume) perspective.

NO, I don’t think so! (First of all I got tired of doing drugs thirty years ago )
The main point of what as I say in the Book G0D-101 is not a look at what religion IS, but rather what it IS NOT!
Naturally this means everything I explore is from a negative point of view but that’s the nature of the beast.(Or book)
On the one hand you could assume that anything I say is the same sort of preaching and conjecture as the philosophies I lampoon and lambaste, but this is not the case.
I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking, but rather to get them to question their own beliefs and re-examine them for the misleading and destructive thought processes that they are.
Now if you insist on telling me this is no different than someone who is preaching their religious point of view then so be it!
I know there is a difference but cannot verbalise the logic behind it. (unless of course there really is no difference and I am just sitting on a self deluded “higher ground!")
Allan W Janssen

Besides, most prophets were originaly misunderstood!
(How’s that for nerve!)

We toss around “inexact and limiting” (good definition!) terms all the time on SEB and elsewhere: wingnut, fundy, small-town retard, nutball, and so forth.

Brock: Sure you should be able to use derogatory terms as much as you like but I’ve been on the receiving end of a couple of them most of my life and I can tell you they don’t inspire me to respect the person who uses them.

...which is a very good reason for not using them. 

But I have noticed that there is a list of acceptable and unacceptable terms, which is constantly changing.  In the effort not to offend, language becomes stilted and clumsy.  I have found offense is seldom intended and have not found any advantage in taking offense where none is meant. Or, even when it is.

The convention of excluding some terms that describe (in however inexact and limiting a fashion) any group by some singular characteristic is cultural and widely held.  The decision to forsake the taking of offense at such terms is personal and confers a conversational advantage on the person who makes it.

Non-sequitur alert!

Re: evolving terms…

The other night this standup comic, Alozo Bodden, in his routine, was talking about the names ethnic groups give themselves (he was begging the Latinos, “Please, tell us your name!  Are you Latinos, Hispanic… or what?").  Here’s his take (paraphrased):

“When we first got here we were ‘n*ggers.’ Now, we didn’t pick that one, but it sorta stuck.  Once we were freed we became ‘colored.’ Then when we got mad, we were “Black.” Now that we’ve got money, we’re ‘African-Americans.’”

He’s really funny, and actually talks a bit about how everyone goes out of their way not to offend people.  As a comedian, he says he refuses to be PC, because it kills opportunities for good jokes.  He said he did a gig once and there was a guy in a wheelchair up front, and he could feel from the crowd a sense of, “Oh no, you WON’T go there...” He then cracked a joke about being in a wheelchair (that I can’t remember, dammit), and he said the guy in the chair laughed his head off.

Personally, I hope the next big trend after “sensitivity training� will be “insensitivity training.� Instead of trying to change the whole society to never say anything remotely insulting, one might learn to be un-insultable.

I’d like to see more of that.  Personally, I made a decision long ago never to give anyone the satisfaction of being insulted by WHATEVER they might call me (I’m Obnoxious Bitch for gawd’s sake!). Words have as much power as we choose to give them, and I’ve noticed that people get really pissed of and/or so confused they give up the fight after my failure to be insulted or offended (and my gales of laughter at such pathetic attempts to bring me low with a verbal barb).

Want an eye opener download some Lenny Bruce from the late fifties and early sixties.
His position - names cease to hurt after they have lost their shock value!