Posts by Cassius

Charles I was thinking about this further. You're less than 30 years old - a lot less. When I was 25 or so if someone had tried to tell me that the goal of life was moderate pleasure, avoidance of disturbance, "imperturbable emotional calm, "simple pleasures" a sensible diet, and a "prudent" moral life, I would have told them what they could do with their philosophy. There's no way that Epicurus could have taught that kind of asceticism and been widely applauded and followed as being the "master builder of human happiness" as Cicero recorded it. That description is Stoicism through and through, and no young person, young animal, or young of any kind, which is what we look to as the model to determine Nature's standard "before they have been corrupted" would ever buy into that unless and until they had been thoroughly corrupted by Stoicism/Platonism/religion. At this later point in my life I am much older than 30, but I still feel the same way.

Well this quickly illustrates what we were also talking about, how everybody in the world seems to share the same view that Epicurus's view of the ideal life was as an ascetic hermit cave-dweller. There's no wonder that so many people who read the modern material get the view that they do -- and why so many of them ignore Epicurus thereafter. I would certainly ignore him myself if I thought this was an accurate summary.

Read DeWitt and there is nothing whatsoever stated in summary form that looks remotely like this.
And if you read the Gosling & Taylor book, along with backup articles by Nikolsky and Wentham, you see that's there's very little justification for writing like this other than that you have a pre-conceived notion that Epicurus was essentially a Stoic.

There is no way that the ancient Stoics and Epicureans would have found among themselves like they did if this is what Epicurus taught, UNLESS they were simply playing word games and haggling over meaningless definitions, because a life such as is described here is indistinguishable from Stoicism.

Just reacting to the title: Maybe not always, but yes it can be!

Excellent catch Charles, thank you! looks like a pattern for the Bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jephthah%27s_daughter

Also: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheolog…d-christianity/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice

http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/…-ancient-israel

My general comments on this section, which I will edit here in this one post to avoid multiple posts:

1. It's interesting to me how we start right off stumbling over an idiom / expression that I think ought to be worth emphasizing. The first Latin words are HUMANA ANTE OCULUS, which presumably is an expression about what is going to be discussed about humanity is right before our eyes. But the 1743 version starts "INDEED" and Bailey has "When the life of man lay foul to see...," following Munro's "When human life to view...." Martin Ferguson Smith probably does it best with "When all could see that human life lay..." Seems to me what follows is supposed to be blindingly obvious, not rocket science.
2. The Iphigenia story is very significant for how repulsive it shows religion to be. For us the Abraham / Isaac story us more well known. Are there others?

The second episode of the LucretiusToday podcast is now available for download. Lots of work went into preparing this episode, so please let us know your comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc.

If you have questions you would like us to cover in the next episode, please place them in a comment or send us an audio file and we will try to incorporate that into a future show. Ongoing future discussion of the episode will take place here: Episode Two - The Lucretius Today Podcast

This second program covers approximately lines 62-80 (from the 1743 Edition):

Indeed mankind, in wretched bondage held, lay groveling on the ground, galled with the yoke of what is called Religion; from the sky this tyrant shewed her head, and with grim looks hung over us, poor mortals, here below; until a man of Greece, with steady eyes, dared look her in the face, and first opposed her power. Him not the fame of Gods, nor thunder’s roar, kept back, nor threatening tumults of the sky; but still the more they roused the active virtue of his aspiring soul, as he pressed forward, first to break through Nature's scanty bounds. His mind’s quick force prevailed; and so he passed by far the flaming limits of this world, and wandered with his comprehensive soul over all the mighty space; from thence returned, triumphant; told us what things may have a being, and what cannot; and how a finite power is fixed to each; a bound it cannot break. And so Religion, which we feared before, by him subdued, we tread upon in turn. His conquest makes us equal to the Gods.

Welcome to Episode two of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who lived in the age of Julius Caesar and wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.

I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you line by line through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a a self-taught Epicurean. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.

Before we get started with today's episode let me remind you of our three ground rules.

First: The opinions stated on this podcast are those of the people making them. Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, not to tell you what we think Epicurus might have said or should have said, in our opinions.

Second: In this podcast we won't be talking about modern political issues. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is entirely up to you. Over at the Epicureanfriends.com web forum, we apply this approach by following a set of ground rules we call "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is not a religion, it''s not Stoicism, it's not Humanism, it's not Libertarianism, it's not Atheism, and it's not Marxism - it is unique in the history of Western Civilization, and as we explore Lucretius's poem you'll quickly see how that is the case.

Third: Please be willing to re-examine whatever you think you already know about Epicurus. Lucretius will show that Epicurus was not focused on fine food and wine, like some people say, but neither did he teach that we should live like a hermit on bread and water, as other people say. Epicurus taught that feeling - pleasure and pain - are what Nature gave us to live by, and not gods, idealism, or virtue ethics. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.

As we get started today, remember that the home page of this podcast is LucretiusToday.com, and there you can find a free copy of the version of the poem from which we are reading, and links to where you can discuss the poem between episodes at Epicureanfriends.com.

Now let me introduce you to our panelists for this episode:

[Edit: In recording this episode we only made it through the first of these two paragraphs. The second will be transferred over for coverage in Episode three.]

This is the text that will be covered in Episode Two. The Latin version of Book One has this as approximately line 61 through 101.

The 1743 Latin version is here.

1743 Daniel Browne Version:  Indeed mankind, in wretched bondage held, lay groveling on the ground, galled with the yoke of what is called Religion; from the sky this tyrant shewed her head, and with grim looks hung over us, poor mortals, here below; until a man of Greece, with steady eyes, dared look her in the face, and first opposed her power. Him not the fame of Gods, nor thunder’s roar, kept back, nor threatening tumults of the sky; but still the more they roused the active virtue of his aspiring soul, as he pressed forward, first to break through Nature's scanty bounds. His mind’s quick force prevailed; and so he passed by far the flaming limits of this world, and wandered with his comprehensive soul over all the mighty space; from thence returned, triumphant; told us what things may have a being, and what cannot; and how a finite power is fixed to each; a bound it cannot break. And so Religion, which we feared before, by him subdued, we tread upon in turn. His conquest makes us equal to the Gods.

But in these things, I fear, you will suspect you are learning impious rudiments of reason, and entering in a road of wickedness. So, far from this, reflect what sad flagitious deeds Religion has produced. By her inspired, the Grecian chiefs, the first of men, at Aulis, Diana’s altar shamefully defiled with Iphigenia’s blood; her virgin hair a fillet bound, which hung in equal length on either side of her face. She saw her father, covered with sorrow, stand before the altar; for pity to his grief the butchering priests concealed the knife. The city, at the sight, overflowed with tears; the virgin, dumb with fear; fell low upon her knees on the hard Earth; in vain the wretched princess in distress pleaded that she first gave the honored name of Father to the King; but hurried off, and dragged by wicked hands, she, trembling, stood before the altar. Alas! not as a virgin, the solemn forms being duly done, drawn with pleasing force to Hymen’s noble rites, but a chaste maid, just ripe for nuptial joy, falls a sad victim, by a father’s hand, only to beg a kind propitious gale for Grecian ships. Such scenes of villainy Religion could inspire!

Munro Version: When human life to view lay foully prostrate upon earth crushed down under the weight of religion, who showed her head from the quarters of heaven with hideous aspect lowering upon mortals, a man of Greece ventured first to lift up his mortal eyes to her face and first to withstand her to her face. Him neither story of gods nor thunderbolts nor heaven with threatening roar could quell: they only chafed the more the eager courage of his soul, filling him with desire to be the first to burst the fast bars of nature’s portals. Therefore the living force of his soul gained the day: on he passed far beyond the flaming walls of the world and traversed throughout in mind and spirit the immeasurable universe; whence he returns a conqueror to tell us what can, what cannot come into being; in short on what principle each thing has its powers defined, its deep-set boundary mark. Therefore religion is put underfoot and trampled upon in turn; us his victory brings level with heaven.

This is what I fear herein, lest haply you should fancy that you are entering on unholy grounds of reason and treading the path of sin; whereas on the contrary often and often that very religion has given birth to sinful and unholy deeds. Thus in Aulis the chosen chieftains of the Danai, foremost of men, foully polluted with Iphianassa’s blood the altar of the Trivian maid. Soon as the fillet encircling her maiden tresses shed itself in equal lengths down each cheek, and soon as she saw her father standing sorrowful before the altars and beside him the ministering priests hiding the knife and her countrymen at sight of her shedding tears, speechless in terror she dropped down on her knees and sank to the ground. Nor aught in such a moment could it avail the luckless girl that she had first bestowed the name of father on the king. For lifted up in the hands of the men she was carried shivering to the altars, not after due performance of the customary rites to be escorted by the clear-ringing bridal song, but in the very season of marriage, stainless maid mid the stain of blood, to fall a sad victim by the sacrificing stroke of a father, that thus a happy and prosperous departure might be granted to the fleet. So great the evils to which religion could prompt!

Bailey Version: When the life of man lay foul to see and grovelling upon the earth, crushed by the weight of religion, which showed her face from the realms of heaven, lowering upon mortals with dreadful mien, ’twas a man of Greece who dared first to raise his mortal eyes to meet her, and first to stand forth to meet her: him neither the stories of the gods nor thunderbolts checked, nor the sky with its revengeful roar, but all the more spurred the eager daring of his mind to yearn to be the first to burst through the close-set bolts upon the doors of nature. And so it was that the lively force of his mind won its way, and he passed on far beyond the fiery walls of the world, and in mind and spirit traversed the boundless whole; whence in victory he brings us tidings what can come to be and what cannot, yea and in what way each thing has its power limited, and its deepset boundary-stone. And so religion in revenge is cast beneath men’s feet and trampled, and victory raises us to heaven.

Herein I have one fear, lest perchance you think that you are starting on the principles of some unholy reasoning, and setting foot upon the path of sin. Nay, but on the other hand, again and again our foe, religion, has given birth to deeds sinful and unholy. Even as at Aulis the chosen chieftains of the Danai, the first of all the host, foully stained with the blood of Iphianassa the altar of the Virgin of the Cross-Roads. For as soon as the band braided about her virgin locks streamed from her either cheek in equal lengths, as soon as she saw her sorrowing sire stand at the altar’s side, and near him the attendants hiding their knives, and her countrymen shedding tears at the sight of her, tongue-tied with terror, sinking on her knees she fell to earth. Nor could it avail the luckless maid at such a time that she first had given the name of father to the king. For seized by men’s hands, all trembling was she led to the altars, not that, when the ancient rite of sacrifice was fulfilled, she might be escorted by the clear cry of ‘Hymen’, but in the very moment of marriage, a pure victim she might foully fall, sorrowing beneath a father’s slaughtering stroke, that a happy and hallowed starting might be granted to the fleet. Such evil deeds could religion prompt.

Here is the text that we have covered in Episode One. More posting about this episode will happen as we release it, hopefully over the next several days. It has been recorded and is in final editing stages.

This text is the 1743 Daniel Browne edition. It starts with line one of Book one and goes approximately to Latin line 60.

MOTHER of Rome, Delight of Men and Gods, Sweet Venus; who with vital power does fill the sea bearing the ships, the fruitful Earth, all things beneath the rolling signs of Heaven; for it is by Thee that creatures of every kind conceive, rise into life, and view the Sun’s bright beams. Thee, Goddess, Thee the winds avoid; the clouds fly Thee and Thy approach. With various art the Earth, for Thee, affords her sweetest flowers; for Thee the sea’s rough waves put on their smiles, and the smooth sky shines with diffused light. For when the buxom Spring leads on the year, and genial gales of western winds blow fresh, unlocked from Winter’s cold, the airy birds first feel Thee, Goddess, and express thy power. Thy active flame strikes through their very souls. And then the savage beasts, with wanton play, frisk over the cheerful fields, and swim the rapid streams. So pleased with thy sweetness, so transported by thy soft charms, all living Nature strives, with sharp desire, to follow Thee, her Guide, where Thou art pleased to lead. In short, Thy power, inspiring every breast with tender love, drives every creature on with eager heat, in seas, in mountains, in swiftest floods, in leafy forests, and in verdant plains, to propagate their kind from age to age.

Since Thou, alone, doest govern Nature’s laws, and nothing, without Thee, can rise to light, without Thee nothing can look gay or lovely; I beg Thee a companion to my lays, which now I sing of Nature, and I devote to my dear Memmius, whom Thou art ever pleased, sweet Goddess, to adorn with every grace. For him, kind Deity, inspire my song, and give immortal beauty to my verse. Meantime, the bloody tumults of the war, by sea and land, compose, and lay asleep. For Thou, alone, mankind, with quiet peace, canst bless; because it is Mars Armipotent that rules the bloody tumults of the war, and He, by everlasting pains of love, bound fast, tastes in Thy lap most sweet repose, turns back his smooth long neck, and views thy charms, and greedily sucks love at both his eyes. Supinely, as he rests, his very soul hangs on thy lips. This God, dissolved in ease, in the soft moments when thy heavenly limbs cling round him, melting with eloquence, caress, great Goddess, and implore a peace for Rome.

For neither can I write with cheerful strains, in times so sad, nor can the noble House of Memmius desert the common good in such distress of things. The hours you spare, apply with close attention to my verse, and, free from care, receive true reason’s rules; nor these my gifts, prepared with faithful pains, reject with scorn before they are understood. For I begin to write of lofty themes, of Gods, and of the motions of the sky, the rise of things, how all things Nature forms, and how they grow, and to perfection rise, and into what, by the same Nature’s laws, those things resolve and die; which as I write I call by various names; sometimes it is matter, or the first principles, or seeds of things, or first of bodies, whence all else proceed.

For the whole nature of the Gods must spend an Immortality in softest peace, removed from our affairs, and separated by distance infinite; from sorrow free; secure from danger; in its own happiness sufficient, and nothing of ours can want, is neither pleased with good, nor vexed with evil.

Here is a download link for the first public edition of this PDF, downloadable at Archive.org. I will be working on upgrades and revisions to this over time and will post those in this same location. The download is approximately 125 megabtyes in size, so be careful of your personal data caps and restrictions. Once archive.org finishes processing it, it should be readable online without downloading the full edition, however you may want to so that you can set your own bookmarks.

This PDF contains the public domain versions of the 1743 Edition, the Hugh Munro Edition, and the Cyril Bailey Edition. The main value of this particular PDF version is in the bookmarks and the organization of the material into one place. If you have suggestions for improvements, please let me know, as I hope to upgrade this in future editions with much more reference bookmarking, linking, and commentary.

Note: As of this moment five hours after uploading, the Archive.org pages says that it is still processing the file and here is no "preview" available. I am hoping when the processing is finished we will be able to view and flip through the pages at the archive.org site, and that will allow us to post links to particular pages to aid in the discussions.

Here's a litmus test, Mike Anyayahan :

If someone is so tightly wound that they can't laugh at a joke like that, then they might claim to belong to a super-fundamentalist Epicurean sect!

BUT --- if they did claim such, I would say that they were NOT really Epicurean, because I do not hesitate to label someone who as no sense of humor as NON-Epicurean!

Two examples of an Epicurean speaking "with a smile" --

On Ends Book 1 -

I had spoken rather with the intention of drawing out Torquatus than of delivering a discourse of my own. But Triarius interposed, with a smile: “Why, you have practically expelled Epicurus altogether from the philosophic choir. What have you left to him except that, whatever his style may be, you find his meaning intelligible? His doctrines in Natural Philosophy were second-hand, and in your opinion unsound at that; and his attempts to improve on his authority only made things worse. Dialectic he had none. His identification of the Chief Good with pleasure in the first place was in itself an error, and secondly this also was not original; for it had been said before, and said better, by Aristippus. To crown all you added that Epicurus was a person of no education.”

On Ends Book 2 -

“I am at no loss for authorities,” said Torquatus, “to whom to refer your arguments. I might be able to do some execution myself, but I prefer to find better equipped champions.” “No doubt you allude to our excellent and learned friends Siro and Philodemus.” “You are right,” he replied. “Very well then,” said I; “but it would be fairer to let Triarius pronounce some verdict on our dispute.” “I formally object to him as prejudiced,” he rejoined with a smile, “at all events on this issue. You have shown us some mercy, but Triarius lays about him like a true Stoic.”

-------------------

It would only make sense that Epicurus would have liked to joke and have fun - which is probably something that needs to be considered in evaluating what his enemies reported him as saying at times, or even things he himself wrote at times.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

I'm atheist, but I do not put so much time and effort on atheism

I think that's an important point. I understand why people do it when they live in a super-religious atmosphere, but "atheism" has always seemed to me the assertion of a negative, rather than the assertion of anything positive, and asserting a negative hardly seems like a unifying them. The Epicurean theology gave them a "positive" to assert, along with the rest of the philosophy, as points of like-mindedness between them.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

And if that happens, what would you think of me who believes in all the teachings of Epicurus except in the context of god?

I would think that you would be just like many people who went through the Epicurean school in the ancient world or just called themselves by that name, and were in the process of studying but maybe not accepting every doctrine. Really that is ultimately the point -- Epicurus had a "School," not a membership society where people were certified by the headquarters.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

The Garden would accept people from different walks of life such as slaves and women. This attitude doesn't show any exclusivity and conservatism.

I think your conclusion in sentence two from the fact cited in sentence one probably does not follow -- unless you hold that slave status and sex and "walk of life" dictate that a person is going to think a certain way -- which you might as a holdover from Marxism but which I would say is not true, and Epicurus would say is not true, since he held that humans have at least some degree of free will.

But as to ideas and doctrines, the entire written record of the school amounts to a set of teachings that they were spreading to others and expecting others to accept, so yes they were conservative and exclusive in terms of ideas. But people of any class who held those ideas were accepted as part of the school, and that's why their admission standards were wider than the other schools.

Quote from Oscar

Don't blame me, blame Lucretius for not completing DRN with a 7th book to resolve the matter

Totally agreed!

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

I'm curious if there is such a thing as conservative Epicureans who demand 100% fidelity to Epicurus, and I want to know whether or not they can consider me an Epicurean.

Quote from Hiram

I can't speak for the adherents of Epicurus-only-fundamentalism.

As far as I know there is no such thing as an organization of "conservative Epicureans who demand 100% fidelity to Epicurus" or "adherents of Epicurus-only-fundamentalism."

However if any come to my attention, or I decide to start such an organization, you'll be among the first to know!

Quote from Hiram

, I guess my question is what do you make of all the sources cited in the Epicureanism piece on Wikipedia, for instance

Wikipedia helps, certainly, but I would have to look at that in detail to see who wrote that wikipedia article and its history in order to really comment. Maybe these terms are part of recent scholarship, but I am much more comfortable citing long-established figures in the 2000+ year history of commentary on Epicurus, and if those categories exist in that literature I am not aware of it. I am aware that academics like to coin new terms and cite each other in their articles, but I think it is much more useful to describe the relevant positions by listing them clearly and concisely. Assigning labels frequently ends up obscuring rather than explaining what is being discussed.

Unless and until someone starts "campaigning" against a core Epicurean position, as far as I am concerned there is definitely a place here for anyone who wants to discuss the study of Epicurus in good faith. What we frequently run into Mike are confirmed Stoics or others who are already set in their ways against some core Epicurean viewpoint, and all they want to do is argue against clear Epicurean positions for fun. Lots of people seem to have fun that way. Anyone who gets close to crossing that line would be warned by the moderators well in advance of taking any other action. At some point in the future we might also set up moderation rules to require pre-approval of posts from totally new people before they go "live," but we're not at that point yet. And you're not totally new, and all your posts are constructive, so you would already be elevated past "new user" level when we implement new categories. We'll deal with all these issues by moderation procedures that make clear to any offenders what the problem is before any removal action is taken.

All of your posts have been very constructive and as far as I am concerned it is very proper that you are here. We aren't in the business of "judging" anyone as a person, we're just evaluating posts as they come in and trying to build a like-minded community.

Quote from Hiram

this is the idealist view, except that the Epicurean gods were not creators, they were created by nature.

Not to be argumentative - but it would be helpful for me to point out that this is an example of a difference in approach that I have with Hiram. As far as I know, there is no "idealist view" or "realist view" well defined anywhere outside our current discussion. As far as I am concerned Hiram is welcome to coin a term for his own or S of E use, but I find it confusing to talk as if the term has a recognized meaning that you can look up in the dictionary, or in CIcero, or in some recognized authority. And the ambiguity here is that I cannot tell if Oscar is saying that he believes gods of any kind exist -- elsewhere I see reference that maybe he things a god or gods created the universe - and so I just don't think it is helpful to prematurely affix a label on a position that seems amorphous at the moment, and that contains elements that seem to accept some aspects of physical "gods" while rejecting others, especially without strict agreed-upon neutral and findable definitions for what that label means and how the position fits within it.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

But is it possible for atheists to be called Epicureans as well?

You asked Elli that question, but I want to give my answer too.

Of course it is "possible" for atheists to be called Epicureans. The question that has to be asked is "Is it proper to call them Epicureans?" And "In what context is it proper or improper to call them Epicureans."

If you are working on reconstructing a philosophy and creating a community of like-minded people to work together happily on that common project, it's necessary to come to some kind of understanding of where the limits are, how bright the line is, etc.

That's really all I am talking about here. "Epicurean" is a concept - a word - just like any other. It has only the meaning we give to it, based on all the circumstances that play into the discussion. There is no "ideal Epicurean" living in Plato's world of forms, or breathed out of the mouth of a god, or existing as an Aristotelian "essence" inside of us, waiting to be uncovered. "The earth belongs to the living," in Jefferson's phrasing. There are only living breathing humans doing their best to communicate with each other in a precise enough way that we can have a meeting of the minds. Unless we take the time to define our words and sharpen our understanding of the issues, there can really never be a true meeting, or have that meeting exist happily for very long.

Quote from Elayne

I am not like Cassius on this point, in that I do think there are beliefs that make a person not Epicurean.

As I see it, Elayne and I are not very far apart on this point. As I see it the only distinction in our positions is that I try to be very contextual and define "for what purpose" when I talk about something being Epicurean or not, such as "for purposes of the S of E" or "for purposes of posting on Epicureanfriends. Elayne is certainly approaching it correctly, however, from my point of view, in working toward a standard list of attributes for what "Epicurean" means, just like we use words in any general context. And from that general point of view my conclusion is that the texts are very clear that it Epicurus held it to be central to his philosophy to accept the position that the universe was never created by any supernatural forces / god, for the reasons Elayne states above. In fact so central that the issue of where the universe came from and his dismissal of "chaos" as an acceptable answer is what launched his philosophy career in the first place.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

If we say that Epicureanism is not for everyone, what's the point of telling people about it?

I think Epicurus would say that the basic observations about the nature of the universe are in fact true for everyone, so everyone should profit from being aware of them. However not everyone is going to accept those fundamentals, and many are going to reject them.

"A man cannot become wise with every kind of physical constitution, nor in every nation." (from the biography by Diogenes Laertius)

Why tell other people about it? Because our goal of happiness does not require that everyone in the world think exactly like we do. Our goal requires only that we find like-minded friends and that we associate with them toward our mutual happiness.

39. The man who has best ordered the element of disquiet arising from external circumstances has made those things that he could akin to himself, and the rest at least not alien; but with all to which he could not do even this, he has refrained from mixing, and has expelled from his life all which it was of advantage to treat thus.

40. As many as possess the power to procure complete immunity from their neighbours, these also live most pleasantly with one another, since they have the most certain pledge of security, and, after they have enjoyed the fullest intimacy, they do not lament the previous departure of a dead friend, as though he were to be pitied.

i just noticed this: "Another issue is that I derive happiness from thinking about the creator(s) of the universe; as Epicurus intended for us."

The "as Epicurus intended for us" in regard to creators of the universe is not consistent with the clear point of the texts. Epicurus thought adamantly that the universe does not have a creator. Which is not at all to say anything negative about Oscar, but to observe that he holds a nonEpicurean position presuming I understand that correctly. So the issue becomes does that exclude Oscar from posting here? Of course not, but what it would do, over time, if Oscar wanted to launch a series of arguments over an extended period that Epicurean philosophy should be modified to call for a supernatural universe creator, we would find a way to call a halt to posts advocating that campaign here on this website.

And to continue the comparison, if Hiram wants to say that the membership list of S of E allows people who advocate supernatural creators, then that is up to the S of E to decide, and people can join the S of E or not accordingly.