Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for December 18, 2012

I notice BD just left the room without comment. He knows better than try to confuse Boopsie with the truth.

Didn’t BD refer to that event as the Moronic Convergence?

Hey, that Harmonica Virgins thing really worked!

Beam me up Scottie. There no intelligent life left, down here.

I remember the harmonic convergence from living in Metro Washington DC area at the time. It was observed in MD, and that weekend more than sixty jackpot winning Maryland Lottery tickets were sold that weekend.

Three jackpot winning tickets were bought by the occupants of one car: A wife, her husband who figured she had forgotten to buy her lucky numbers, and the friend in the car who thought both the wife and husband who thought in all the preparation for the Wife’s part of the Convergence forgot to purchase her regular lottery numbers. I have no idea if there was a group who meditated on those numbers before the drawing because those numbers had some cosmic meaning at that time but a lot of the HCers shared the jackpot, along with others that weekend.JusSayin

Hey Mom! Sam is “that cute pink thing” now, not the outfit!

Re “… the followers of William Miller and their descendants ….”

The faction of “Millerites” that became the Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) now number nearly 20 million worldwide (1 million in North America). After their Great Disappointment on October 22, 1844, the SDAs held to the “shut door” doctrine.

Which said that only the tiny group, the “little flock”, in New England could go to heaven when Jesus did come. Which would occur in a matter of days, weeks, months, or a few years at most. Everybody else would burn in hell (not everlastingly, only till they were "everlastingly burnt up”).

Time passed. They started having children. Were their own kids shut out by the “shut door”? Their leaders, including their infallible prophet, Ellen G. White, also considered Jesus’ command to “preach the gospel” to the ends of the world. But if the “door” was shut against all the rest of the world, why evangelize?

When the youngest among them died off, they would be come extinct. So they quietly dropped the “shut door” doctrine. And they now say that Ellen G. White never did believe in the “shut door”. (Yeah, she did.)

Don’t scoff. This is just human nature.

isn’t actuaries, modern day prophets using math, probabilities, and statistics?

ALL religions are screwball…

Clean clothes are the best policy for afterlife insurance.

And the same people who laugh at these crackpot prophecies will still try to get you to believe in their crackpot prophecies, like global warming.

So sorry to see that Sen. Daniel Inouye, Congressional Medal of Honor winner, has died. RIP. The state of Hawaii had 2 US Senators who were Japanese-American, named Daniel and were 88 years old. Senator Akaka has said he will retire soon. The end of an era for Hawaii soon in the Senate. They will be missed.

There was some good news in regard to Richard Engel and 2 of his colleagues this morning, they were both freed by their captors in Syria. They had been held for 5 days.

I thought atheism was by definition, the absence of religion?

Frame 1 looked like Boopsie got a forearm tat.

If an asteroid were headed this way, it would have been detected by now. On the other hand, a gamma ray burst…..

History and Discovery cable channels ought to be doing okay dollar wise, they been running Mayan and aliens are among us, doom and gloom stuff for years…

Even though I know we have come a long way in terms of science and technology, it is fascinating to visit ancient museums of history and see what the ancients were capable of doing in their lives. The geoglyphs of the ancients are also fascinating. I know I would not have survived way back then. I would have been eaten by tigers or something.

Well, the nut doesn’t fall far from the tree, does it?

Boopsie’s forearm “tat” isn’t a tattoo because it’s gone in frame 4. It’s the date of today, December 18, the date of the strip. The vertical line between frame 1 and frame 2 is the copyright notice. The vertical line between frame 4 and frame 4 is the strip’s website notice. and the vertical handwriting running parallel to the the website notice is Trudeau’s sig.

What are the Mayans in your neighborhood doing? Have they built sacrificial altars in the back yard? Have they been carving a new calendar? Do they say they’re taking a trip this weekend? Are they laughing at the stupidity of the people who believe doomsday prophecies?

Most religion is a farce. Christianity is excepted, A faith tested and true.

Nothing says, end of the world any better, than a cute little pink thing !

“… Atheism isn’t a religion ….”

Depends how you define “religion”. At its most basic, the word “atheism” can be broken up into its two parts “a-” = no. “the” = God. “-ism” = belief. The atheist possesses “no God belief” or “no god belief” — however you wish to further refine or define that.

You don’t have to have a God / god in order to have a religion. Buddhism is a religion, but it does not possess a God / god. Nor does a God / god possess Buddhism.

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” —Albert Einstein.

“Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality,69 namely the single substance (meaning “that which stands beneath” rather than “matter”) that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser “entities” are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect is understood only in part." —Wikipedia @:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

Or, more simply for Spinoza, Nature = God or, if you prefer, nature = god.

δτπ

Faith and science – two different ways of thinking. Two different ‘tools’ for two different ‘jobs’. It’s a common mistake is to use the wrong tool for the job. Don’t use a telescope to fix your car. Don’t use a socket wrench to observe Saturn.

We’ve gone from the War on Religion to the War on Defining “Religion”.

She is Boopsie’s kid, after all.

“Religion” and “atheism” have interesting roots.

On the one hand, “atheism” has three roots (not two as I mis-stated above): A = “not” + the = "god"+ ism = belief. Or not+god+belief or no-god-belief. It’s hard for the atheist to get rid of god from the very word “atheism” which CONTAINS the root “god” (from the Greek THeos = God).

On the other hand, religion has two roots: re- + -ligare, meaning “to restrain” or “tie back”. I like to ask, to “tie back” to what? To God? Or to a God concept? Or to the evolved pre-god animism of prehistory 50,000 years ago in Germany, France, and northern Spain? Or to “tie back” even further, to the beginnings of evolved human consciousness somewhere from 100,000-to-500,000 in archaeological prehistory of anatomically modern Homo sapiens? Or even further back to the first examples of the Genus Homo some 2 million years ago?

The evidence seems to show that religion DID evolve, and that somewhere in that evolution (of animism within humans, which animism still survives today in some African tribes). Yes humans DID evolve in Africa according to the “out of Africa” theory, at least. And Charles Darwin PREDICTED that evidence would show up that humans and an ape-like creature split off from each other in Africa. Since then his predictions have been abundantly proven true with well-dated fossils, well-dated artifacts, well-dated geological layers, etc.

And so it seems that when we evolved into humans we evolved into religious beings. This is not proof that God exists, though, since it can be argued equally well that it was not God who evolved; it was the “god concept” that evolved.

Hence the notion of whether or not God actually exists rests upon split data: either God evolved or the “god concept” evolved and the matter of whether or not God exists “out there” or “in here”, meaning within my soul, is left unresolved.

It is, after all, a matter of faith, is it not? Isn’t that why we call our various religions “faiths”?

∂†π

I don’t know why everyone’s so worked up about a mayonnaise expiration date.

Here’s an interesting online quiz testing your knowledge of “Human Evolution vs. Creationism” created by RSKimball and found at

http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz2895112125150.html

I don’t think you and I are even on the same page, or, to change the metaphor, in the same ballpark.

The springing of Christianity from Judaism history comes very very very late, only 2000 years ago. I’m going back 50,000 years to 500,000 years. Has nothing to do with calling each other bigots. Contradictions in the Christian Bible or the Tanakh have almost nothing to do with what I’m talking about. Nor do the horrors of which you speak.

“Y’know, when a kid is the spitting image of the mother, it makes me wonder who the father REALLY is!!!”

If she’s genetically identical to her mother, she may be the result of asexual reproduction (I won’t phrase it “parthenogenesis,” because even if Sam doesn’t have a father I’d never believe that Boopsie is a virgin).

I wonder what Hunk-Ra has to say about all this?

Please don’t malign the Pharisees; some of their descendants are still around. They only got a bad name because of the very sort of “religion” to which you refer.

““Religions” are nothing more then a set of rituals developed by MEN years ago!”

You are correct in that Homo sapiens developed rituals tens of thousands of years ago. But these rituals were always tied to creation myths, flood myths, ancestor worship (the ancient Apache believed that his dead grandfather would “rise and speak wisdom from beyond the grave” under specific ritualistic conditions, e.g.). Tens of thousands of years ago druids in what is now Europe believed that supernatural spirits lived in trees, in rivers, in the sky, etc. People believed that the sun was a god, the moon, the planets, the stars, etc. Go as far back as the evidence will take you, and you will find people unseparated from religious ritual, religious believe in the supernatural, etc.

Well- and succintly-put.

Atheism is actually closely linked with scientism. It has it’s prophets, like Dawkins and Hitchens, and their books. My religion has prophets and a holy Book as well, but no masses. We prefer not to crucify the Son of God affresh and put Him to an open shame. Also, what’s your definition of failure?

Would you be shocked to learn that I don’t have a religion, I have an entire way of life? It makes me laugh when people call me religious. Religion is trying to reach God (or godhood, i.e. humanism). Christianity is God reaching down to man.

You’re an atheist? Coolness! Some of my favorite people are athiests. I’m still working on that.

The perfect law of liberty…

Contradictions? Hey, I’m not adverse to learning a few new explanations. Feel free to give me something to work on. Difficulties, maybe, but those aren’t the same as contradictions. And to not mistake the Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Great Whore who sits upon the seven hills, drunk with the blood of the saints as Christianity. Biblical Christianity will always condemn Catholicism. There aren’t a whole lot of people who match the biblical definition of Christianity. The Crusaders were not Christians. Neither were the Illuminati.

“Buddhism is really more of a Philosophy so shouldn’t really be included.”

Is Buddhism a philosophy or a religion?

It seems most Buddhists see their experience and practice as more than mere philosophy, such as idealism, structuralism, existentialism, scholasticism, or empiricism.

Here’s how one Buddhist answers that question:

“The Buddhism-as-philosophy argument leans heavily on the fact that Buddhism is less dogmatic than most other religions. This argument, however, ignores mysticism.

“Mysticism is … the direct and intimate experience of ultimate reality, or the Absolute, or God. Buddhism is deeply mystical, and mysticism belongs to religion more than philosophy. Through meditation, Siddhartha Gautama intimately experienced Thusness beyond subject and object, self and other, life and death. The enlightenment experience is the sine qua non of Buddhism.

—Barbara Hoetsu O’Brien, journalist and student of Zen Buddhism.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/philosophy.htm

It’s amazing the number of people here who confuse “Religion” with a belief in God, or Allah, or whatever you want to call a supreme power.“Religion” has NOTHING to do with believing in a higher power!“Religions” are nothing more then a set of rituals developed by MEN years ago!Sadly, they then became a leading justification for oppression…“Since You don’t believe in the EXACT same set of rituals that we do, that gives us the right to oppress you, imprison you, Torture you, declare war on you, and KILL you”!Nowadays “Religion” is used primarily as a money-making scam by bogus “Preachers”, and “Evangelists”, who are nothing more then modern day Pharisees!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What he said !

‘Biblical Christianity will always condemn Catholicism.’And they would say the same about you; how is someone who is neither know which one is right?

Who decides what an atheist needs or does not need to prove? No matter how you slice it, an atheist ought to have some explanation of how we got here and why we are here. Christians have a very good explanation. For something to be proven, the two parties have to agree on the evidence or the logic. If one side rejects the Bible (or the Koran, or the golden plates that Joseph Smith reportedly translated), there’s not much point in debating.

Harmonic convergence?

dookI guess because I see Christianity always claiming that Jesus is fulfillment of prophecies found in the Hebrew Scripture. If that isn’t validation, I don’t know what is. I didn’t mean to infer that Christianity accepts every last thing that Jews believe.

Asexual = without sexAtheist = without belief in GodAtypical = without conformity to type

This set of comments have been the most thought provoking I have encountered, to date. Thanks to one and all for respectful, for the most part, and reasoned comments. As always, special thanks to Unca Pi for his contributions. I even started the quizzes mentioned above. Remedial level only, for now.

Do you really want contradictions? >>If you were to read the “Book of Abraham”, you would see that these are not at all contradictory. Said book can be found in the “Pearl ot Great Peice” which is part of the scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It states that Genesis 1 was formed in the spirit world, prior to the actual creation in Ch 2.

I realize the above is simplistic but it is quite accurate.

I do enjoy hearing about astrology from time to time. However, I am not Nancy Reagan, I don’t take it seriously…

“Evolution created us and the belief in a god or gods is a survival trait so god was created by evolution.”

That’s your faith statement.

“… in order not to cross the belief without proof line Christians are stuck. For if they try to prove it means they don’t believe it without proof ….”

Are you talking about natural theology here? Or Thomas Aquinas five “proofs” for the existence of God? I can’t make heads or tails of what you’re saying. Please clarify.

“Those who say you must believe by faith alone can’t go and show “proof” of their god ….”

Apostle Paul in the book of Romans make the case for God by faith alone. But nowhere does Paul try to prove God’s existence by natural theology or by any logical proof sets for God’s existence. But I’m a Christian and I don’t believe Paul was ever “stuck”. Nor do I believe that I’m “stuck”. The bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, is how we Christians treat each other and how we as a group treat others who don’t believe.

There is no need to prove anything by scientific or historical critical methods.

Biology is not faith to me. Evolution is not faith to me. Both are sciences. I accept both as science, not as faith. Evolutionary biology is a branch of biology. How do you construe what I’ve said as “a nonsense statement”?

“… keep science and faith (religion) separate and all will be fine. Mix them and one or both will be messed up. I see science will be the one compromised.”

Agreed. All except the part about science only compromised. Faith can also be compromised if believers try — as Thomas Aquinas did (and many lesser thinkers after him did) — try to prove God’s existence using scientific means (natural theology).

For if the fundamentalists of any faith (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, …) they think they are “right” enough to have the right to persecute others.

Skeptical Cal! Nice to hear you weigh in! Haven’t you been following all the threads from Strip No. One? The commenters ALWAYS stray off topic. It’s the nature of human discourse. And it’s fun. (Nothing against “the cute pink thing”, of course. Want to see MORE of her. She’s as intriguing as Becca “Slurp” Bickle!)

“So far in science there has been no need to prove any kind of god or gods.”

Thank God!

“[The existence of any God/god or Gods/gods] simply are unnecessary to the present cosmology.”

True enough. Let science be science. Have you read THE GRAND DESIGN by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow? They say (p. 180), “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

I con concur. But my concurrence still doesn’t mean I don’t believe in God’s existence. I do. My belief is a matter of my faith. Alone.

And my faith in God is relevant and has very positive consequences in my life and relationships. (I especially like Martin Buber’s outlook in this regard.)

“The nonsense statement was you calling my statement about biology and behavior (related) a “faith statement.” Care to elaborate?”

You can’t prove it scientifically; therefore it is a faith statement.

“… it will be proven one day” is also your faith statement.

Einstein’s famous equation E = MC^2 (E energy, M mass, C lightspeed) so far has worked in any/all of the hundreds of scientific tests designed to defeat it. But if you add the term G God, such that E = MC^2 + G, then the formula becomes nonsense and unworkable in any sense at all, either scientific or non-scientific.

Take-home lesson: Let science be science, and faith be faith.

“Not faith not blind but based upon experiential work and previous research.”

I don’t understand this statement or what it means.

“How else would you explain it?”

What’s the antecedent to your pronoun “it”?

“… the majority of the human race are born to believe some god or gods.”

This statement is an hypothesis awaiting scientific procedures designed to prove it. Till then it remains a faith statement.

“The [Sylvian] fissure looks promising as a place where such feelings about another force or person exists that created everything.” I remain unaware of any truly scientific brain research designed to prove / disprove God’s existence.

I’m sorry for hoping that you wouldn’t be going in this direction. For it seems to be toward trying to prove / disprove the existence of God.

Which can never be done, since faith is not amenable — I thought we had agreed — to scientific research.

Man is the only creature who believes in a god – or needs to !

seems to slow most folks down a lot.