BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:04 PM

WHo was it said organizing atheists is like herding cats? But Riginslinger has a good point - we aren't likely to need to defend our point of view, since it's the rational one.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:01 PM

I shudder at the idea of a well-organized 'Atheists' movement almost as much as I worry about the various societal pressures of various religious groups. We do not need some activist, militant group campaigning religion. All we really need is for more people..on both sides...to understand what the issues are, and why some do NOT believe in a God*, and why it is possible to co-exist with those who do. I understand perfectly well why many choose a religious system and feel comforted by it....I am just not sure that too many of them really comprehend why others do not.

       *(note..I say a God just for semantic reasons, as saying "don't believe in God" sounds as though one is acknowledging one, but just rejecting him)

For those who have trouble sorting out all the issues and following the points of quiet, calm non-believers, I can't think of a better, more succinct & clear, place than this:

http://www.infidels.org/ ...which includes this Q&A session

and this section about what logical arguments ARE

and this bit on common objections to atheisim including Pascals Wager, various comments by Einstein, and 'intelligent design'.


take the time, whether you are Christian or atheist, to follow the points being made in the above links. It may not change any minds on either side, but it may help soften the rhetoric and allow us to conduct a less antagonistic discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 12:03 PM

I wouldn't call that "doing nothing." If Gore can get Baptists motivated about Global Warming, that forces them to have to deal on a first hand basis with science. It would be just one small step from there to dealing with other aspects of their lives on a realistic basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:32 AM

Sad but true that even in this day and age no one is ever "given" their rights. They need to stand up and make a stink. Those who are happy with the way things are won't need to do a thing.

In the meantime I saw this article - which to me - shows a big shift in the thinking of a large group like the Baptists. It sounds like they are thinking about getting behind global warming. A year ago I wouldn't have thought it possible.

Gore's green message to Baptists

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:22 AM

I think we may see a wave form in that direction as a result of all the nudges published by Dawkins and others.

I can only hope they don't throw the babies out with the bathwaters.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:11 AM

Yeah, I'm a member of that group. The "Freedom from Religion Society" is another, I think.
                     The problem with organizing, though (in terms of having rallies and gatherings), as I think I've stated above. The entire thing is so obvious to them, it just doesn't make any sense for them to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:06 AM

Sorry -- I must have been thinking of the Secular Humanism organization.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:06 AM

"What would Pete Seegar do?" Organize.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:50 AM

I think the basis of the problem is, atheism is rational where religion is not. Therefore, it doesn't make a lot of sense for atheist to feel the need to defend their postition(s).
                Religion, on the other hand, is totally irrational, so it makes a lot of sense for them to feel the need to defend it. The other issue is, because it's irrational, they are always afraid of losing their faith, so their constantly trying to duct-tape the blinders. Reality is a really bad thing to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:34 AM

Google doesn't show any links to a group by that name. How good are they at getting the word out if you don't know the name of the group? That's what I'm talking about. The believers are much better at PR than the athiests. That needs to change - don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:29 AM

The Society for...is it "Rational Humanism"? I forget -- is one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:15 AM

Wouldn't it make sense to get more organized so your rights don't get trampled on? It's an issue that worries me. I'm sure there are groups dedicated to athiest's rights but you never seem to hear about them. I'm sure the media needs to accept some of the blame on that one. I know it may sound silly to some but I think if athiest groups made public donations to things like the MD telethon and poiticians willing to accept them that it would raise the awareness level in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: john f weldon
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 09:34 AM

Tis a sad truth, but true nonetheless Atheists are a quiet lot.

It's hard to get excited about nothing. We don't have meeting places, or group spirit, or many good songs. (The best we can do is parody gospel songs, I guess. See below.)
We're just not the flag-waving tub-thumping types.

The dumber the ideology, the more excited people get. All we can do is sit back and have a larf.

S A V E D

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:26 PM

Well, this thread has gotten so long, a new one certainly wouldn't hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:14 PM

I think it is grounds for a new thread. I certainly do not have an answer!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 10:22 PM

OK, now, here's a serious question. I know some atheist organization has an actual lobbyist - but how can we get out the atheist *vote*? We outnumber jews nearly 10:1 in the US, but you'd never know it from our political power...
Or is that a whole 'nuther question?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 06:14 PM

Maybe there were gods six-thousand-and-one years ago, and the reason we can't find them now is because Mike Huckabee has figured you that the universe is only six-thousand years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 12:20 PM

Especially as it's only when you can't counter the arguments that you stoop to attacking the messenger... as in the yes-god thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 10:53 PM

M.Ted, atheists are vastly outnumbered by Christians in North America. A little acrimony in an online discussion may well be worth it if even one or two people are able to at least see the 'other' point of view.

If the content disturbs you, don't read it and don't contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:33 PM

Yeah, perhaps you're right Ted. I suppose this thread could go on forever to rival the "Mother of all BS threads" Might as well stop somewhere. But it did have interesting moments.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:20 PM

As I have mentioned before, the acrimony of this thread spreads to others. You all, Nickhere, Amos, Bee, Mrrzy, Riginslinger, should think long and hard about where this poisonous discussion is going, and if it is worth the damage that it is doing--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 06:10 PM

That's probably why he's related.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 04:35 PM

I think the Bonobo, a related primate. engages in recreational sex, with abandon.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 04:09 PM

Well, I don't do the lacy furbelows, but I have no objection to celebrating the passage of the seasons, one more step in the turn of the wheel that is the metaphor for an orbit, and so on. I also like the idea of celebrating particular human virtues at particular parts of the orbit - like giving presents at the Winter Solstice, and thinking good thoughts about crops and farmers at the beginning of Spring... nothing SACRED about it, but nice, fun, and real.

And as an aside to Nickhere, we are the only species that has voluntary, recreational (in contrast to involuntary and procreative) sex, so of COURSE we're the only ones to end unwanted pregnancies. The concept, ha ha, cannot arise in any other species. That along with likely being the only species intelligent enough to even connect sex with procreation (I'll reserve judgment on elephants and cetaceans).

And we aren't supposed to be more ELEVATED - we aren't higher to start with. That is a fallacy based on the old "ladder" of evolution with people at the "top." We are just supposed to be more MORAL than other species, and many would argue that it is more immoral to force an unwanted pregnancy to term than to terminate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 03:21 PM

"In fact as far as I know only humans kill their offspring BEFORE they are born. Which animals do that? And we are supposed to be more elevated than animals..."


                     I think you have to develop opposing thumbs and master the use of tools before this activity becomes an option.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:55 PM

Bee: "Would you require a woman to carry an anencephalic baby to term?

In the case of the mentally handicapped women, they are born humans with thoughts, emotions, nervous systems which can feel pain and discomfort - they are persons"

Apparently you don't note anything odd about the juxtaposition of these two statements. It seems to me according to what you're saying that the only difference between the Mentally handicapped women and the anacephalic unborn baby in terms of a right to life is that the latter were lucky enough to make it into daylight.

If you read my previous posts you would already know that I am okay with abortion that is the result of medical procedures to save the mother's life. That is categorically not the same thing as abortion aimed only at ending the child's life when there is a normal and healthy pregnancy.

Would I charge a 12 or 16 year old with capital murder? I would be deeply empathetic with any girl stuck in such a situation. But if she asked my opinion, in would tell her that two wrongs don't make a right and deliberately ending the child's life in an otherwise healthy pregnancy would indeed be killing. Of course I wouldn't explain it so starkly or in so few words - the sitaution obviously requires more tact and loving expression. I would also assure her that if she wanted to keep it (and there was no danger to her health) I would do whatever I could to support her in that choice.

Can you explain how animals 'abandon' their fetuses???? Animals may spontaneously abort their fetuses, as do humans sometimes, but these are either born dead, or die soon after.
As you pointed out animals at least do not abandon their born offspring.

In fact as far as I know only humans kill their offspring BEFORE they are born. Which animals do that? And we are supposed to be more elevated than animals. Sigh.

As for giving miscarraiges Christain burail etc., check you PMs inbox.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:11 PM

Nor was it based only on the embryo example, but on one mudcatter suggesting to another that the latter's heart condition might indeed be contemplated as an example of someone being less human. This occured during a discussion when we eventually realised that the true definition of a human being was of a person of the species Homo Sapien, in the prime of their life (from about 15 - 45 years of age), in good health and with no bits mentally or physically missing, and therefore able to lead a 'fulfilled' as opposed to 'potential' life, and was also capable of independent living, as opposed to supported living.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:10 PM

Thanks, Amos. That was expressed better than I could have done.

Nick, in this very post you have done exactly as I mentioned - attributed lack of morality to godlessness. Your affection for embryonic life leads you to state baldly that atheism leads to the devaluation of life, which is not true.

You must try to understand that supporters of free choice for women who have conceived are concerned with the women, not their putative progeny. I'm guessing you yourself would draw a line somewhere. Would you not sanction abortion if the woman would die without it? Would you charge a sixteen year old, or a twelve year old, girl with capital murder if she obtained an abortion? Do you hold that every miscarried two week old invisible to the naked eye embryo requires a Christian burial, funeral rites and all? Would you require a woman to carry an anencephalic baby to term?

In the case of the mentally handicapped women, they are born humans with thoughts, emotions, nervous systems which can feel pain and discomfort - they are persons.

In the case of an embryo, one person already exists, has thoughts, emotions, understands mortality, feels pain, and so on. The embryo cannot be said to experience any of these things, it is separate from the mother only by virtue of its having a complement of the father's DNA, and this genetic duality is not even unique, as there are people (chimeras) who have other DNA in their bodies.

I have pointed out before: other mammals do not value their embryos and fetuses as humans do; they adsorb them or abandon them if times are tough, which is something they do not do once the pups/kits/cubs are born. It is then when a mother will fight, hunt and starve in defense of her children's lives. Nature recognises the difference between the born and the unborn: why can't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:00 PM

"Your assertion, which I believe to be only a rhetorical device, that their treatment could be construed as the same as an embryo in the eyes of a pro-choice adviocate, is seriously off base, and requires really twisted logic"

What's twisted about my logic?

BTW I still think, whatever the socio-economic background, that abusing thsoe two women in that way was horrible

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 12:59 PM

Well.... go back and have a read over my volumnious posts Amos. I'm sure it's in there somewhere...

As for the inspiration of the handlers of the two women... "an entrenched, devout theistic religion"?

No, I disagree. An inspiration in name only. You are not taking into account the whole context in which such acts occur. I'm sure this has been covered in detail on other threads. But you are overlooking decades - nay, centuries almost - of western interference in the Middle East. The Brits in Afghanistan 1840s and 1880s, the Franco-British sqaubble over the Suez (the Egyptians didn't even get much of a look in), the carve up of the Ottoman Empire by the Brits and French after World War One which is the main source of today's trouble. Then the USA got in on the act (though it had already been flexing its colonial muscles back in the Phillipines in the 1900s) from about that time on, when it came out of its non-involvement during WW1.

Since Daimler chugged down the road in his horseless carraige oil became a big part of the picture and the Arabs were unlucky enough to be sitting on the world's biggest reservoirs. Given the social Darwinism handed down from 19th century 'scientists' and 'sociologists', the pinnacle-of-evolutionary-pile West saw no reason why they shouldn't simply help themselves to what those backward Arabs had even if that meant taking it by force. Afterall, they are the Ubermensch. Iraq was one such by-product of Britian's needs, it boundaries a totally artificial construct encompassing three different sectarian groups that today find themselves condemned to share the same borders and scrabble for whatever power is allowed them.

So what motivates these guys above all is the serious injustice of having other countries and peoples arrive into your country to tell how to live like good second-class citizens and watch as your natural resources are stripped away for the benefit of foreign corporations and CEOs. If you're a good dog you might get a bone or a position on a puppet government where at leats you'll be able to lline your own pockets if not exercise any real power. What about Saudi Arabia, you say? What about it? House of Saud - corrupt and repressive, Sword and Sharia law all over. Yet not part of the so-called Axis of Evil (I like the way that name is reminiscent of how Germany, Italy and Japan were called the Axis powers in WW2, while Britain, France and the USA (nobody mention USSR) were called the "Allies" - Buddies, Chums, Mates, whatever). So it's not open to the same tireless criticism levelled at Iran. Pakistan the same. Because it is a Western ally it too escapes serious censure, though finally Western leaders had to 'urge restraint' as the country's undemocratic president-cum-general tipped the country into civil war, in order to not appear   too   absurd.

Our social Darwinism prevents us from realising that the average Middle Eastern Arab is not stupid and can see all of that - perhaps even more clearly since they are not subject to an endless diet of Fox and CNN. In other words, religion is just the icing on the cake. They find words like 'Jihad' in their religion and apply them to the reality of dispossesion and subversion they see around them. But to blame it solely on religion is lame. If the US, British and other foreign armies left, if the West cut a fair deal with these countries for their resources, and IF the revenues from their resources went to the betterment of their populations and not paying the CEOs golf fees, you'd see 'Jihad' drying up overnight.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 12:26 PM

Nick:

I think if you will pardon my saying so, that you are twisting things about a bit.

The inspiration of those women or their handlers was an entrenched, devout theistic religion.

Your assertion, which I believe to be only a rhetorical device, that their treatment could be construed as the same as an embryo in the eyes of a pro-choice adviocate, is seriously off base, and requires really twisted logic.

Finally, I do not recall your having demonstrated what you claim to demonstrate about a God-inspired moral code, nor do I see ANY basis for the implication that a moral code based on a postulated deity has any merit by that reason, that would make it stand apart from a well thought-out moral code evolved by an individual consulting his own inherent sense of justice and right action.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 12:20 PM

Wesley, my tuppence worth here. I'm not sure who Bee has in mind re. accusations of godlessness and immorality. But atheists posting here have collectively and frequently criticised Christianity on its perceived fruits - warmongering Bible-bashers like Bush and his neo-con cabinet. From this premise they have extrapolated that given such results, Christianity is suspect and devoid of moral merit in the world (leaving aside all arguments for the moment about empiricism etc.,). If I remember well someone even suggested that Christianity might actually act as an impediment to moral behaviour.

I have argued that these perceived fruits (and Bush etc.,) are not the product of Christianity as I understand it, anymore than the beating of Rodney King by the forces of law and order is exemplary of the the concept of justice.

Likewise, I have also shown that the atheistic secular model is no better a guarantee of a good and equitable society, and we have seen the results of attempts to impose it in the Soviet Union etc., I pointed this out as there was the implicit suggestion in the critique of Christianity that atheistic secularism offers a better way forward.

Just as with so-called Christian neo-cons in the USA, no such result is guaranteed with secular atheism.

I also showed how a God-inspired moral code can be beneficial to society, promoting its welfare etc., One basis for this is the divine sanctity of all human life from conception.

In that part of the discussion, I was made aware of how secular atheism (which here seems to be based on the empirical sciences) has pitfalls such as its refusal to recognise the humanity of every conceived person (person from conception onwards). It deals with humanity on a case-by-case basis, which is basically the trap of moral relativism. Ironically, on another thread we are condemning the (claimed) use of two handicapped women to deliver suicide bombs (or murder bombs) as the lowest of low morality. But from the rationale employed on this and other threads to deny the humanity of the unborn, we could make the case that these two women - whatever about their healthy, fit victims - were 'potential humans' only, and were probably better off blown up than living out their miserable (by our reckoning) 'unfulfilled lives'.

I dislike having to point this out and underline that as a Christian I find the abuse of these two women a horrible act. But it does show up some of the pitfalls I've been trying to draw attention to whenever relative secular morality is employed.

That said, maybe I'm wrong but I don't think I or anyone else on this thread has accused any atheist of not having morals, or being incapable of being a moral person on account per se of their atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 12:02 PM

Well, slow up -- sure it is demonstrably real it is the midpoint, by why lace it up with all those arbitrary furbelows?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 11:25 AM

Not to mention that today IS, in actual reality, half-way between the solstice and the equinox, so what they are celebrating over in the Imbolc thread is DEMONSTRABLY REAL. I think that point needs to be made to those who think we should be picking on the Wiccans too...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 11:21 AM

And when they insist on forcing ignorance onto children and preventing them from learning reality. Grinds my gears. Wiccans don't do that. In fact, even Moslems don't do it to the point that US Christians do. Freedom of religion has got to take a backseat to freedom FROM religion, or we'll all be metaphorically Talibanned to death.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 09:32 PM

But when another person's addiction to blind dogma perverts the public agenda and costs me money, it's a lot harder to be respectful.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 05:12 PM

"where religion seems to have gone completely mediaeval on the system, if one can judge by politicians right and left frantically proclaiming their faith and even backing changing your constitution to better reflect Biblical law."

All of which I object to and will fight to the best of my ability.

"although in return, they don't seem to feel they are not respecting me by telling me I have no moral foundation because of my godlessness, for example."

And those people are wrong. What you think is fine with me. And you'll never catch me trying to convert you. But I suspect that the actions of some of the most conservative Christians takes a toll on the folks here. If you've been treated that way on the Mudcat you have my sympathies. And I'll be the first person to tell other Mudcatters that they need to rethink their position on that.

"I do find that stating what I think can be taken as an insult by many a sensitive Christian soul"

Then they're just too sensitive. Blow 'em off.

"I at least try to be respectful - of the person, not the belief itself"

Thanks - that's all I ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 05:02 PM

Wesley, I at least try to be respectful - of the person, not the belief itself. I do find that stating what I think can be taken as an insult by many a sensitive Christian soul, although in return, they don't seem to feel they are not respecting me by telling me I have no moral foundation because of my godlessness, for example.

In real life, i have a good relationship with local churches and congregations. None of my neighbours tell me I'm hellbound, the few that know are unfazed by my lack of belief, and I approve heartily of the good works these little rural churches are involved in. I have even been known to bake cookies for church suppers, as well as for the volunteer fire department fundraisers.

But this is rural Canada, not the US, where religion seems to have gone completely mediaeval on the system, if one can judge by politicians right and left frantically proclaiming their faith and even backing changing your constitution to better reflect Biblical law.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 04:49 PM

Bee - I agree. Anytime Christians actions impose on your life it's wrong. It wrong to teach intellegent design in place of evolution. When people get fired from jobs because they don't believe in a higher power thats wrong too. And I'll be the first person to defend you when that happens. Sign me up for $100 dollars to your defense fund. But that isn't what I object to here at the Mudcat. Folks who tend to think of themselves as tolerant make snide remarks and rude remarks about the thoughts and beliefs of those of us who beleve in a higher power.

Thoughts vs actions. Two very different things. What's wrong with respect? I give it - why can't I expect it in return?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 04:41 PM

I do not think anyone's religious beliefs should be trashed. But I do think the methods and merits of establishing such beliefs, and the consequences of subscribing to them, is fair and open substance for discussion.

Assuming a belief is an act of will, no matter how persuasive the subjective impression of a moment of epiphany is. It can be undone by an act of will. So it is an individual responsibility to understand the consequences of one or another belief in a region about which there is little or no objective evidence or even heuristic reasoning.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 04:27 PM

In the other thread (God still with me...): Bee said: "I note no one's gone into the Imbolc thread and told the people there it's all nonsense."

Wesley S. said: "I've noticed that too. Why do they get a pass? It seems like when it comes to the religions that must be rejected and objected to that Christianity tops the list. Anyone for fair play?

Or better yet - maybe we shouldn't trash ANYONES religious or nonreligious beliefs. Naaaa - that's too hard. "

Rather than further contend in the other thread, I'll say this here.

Generally speaking, I only argue about other people's religions when they bring it to my attention.

Christians do this a lot: they use up a lot of airtime on television and radio to do so. They make political efforts to influence laws and education that will have an impact on me and mine. So naturally, as a group, they have placed themselves in my crosshairs.

If Muslims in my country tried to do this, I would be equally outspoken, as I disbelieve Islam just as much as Christianity.

No Wiccan or Pagan or Buddhist has ever tried to make me subject to their religious teachings, as Christians have. If Wiccans tried to change the laws or restrict education or oppress women in my country, they would be the focus of my attention. But they haven't, and they don't seem likely to try. That said, I am just as sceptical of all religions, Wicca included.

So yes, I saw no reason to bother Christians in the other thread who seemed about to just share religious stories (although that changed). But in this thread, actual issues of governance and law have been raised, and here is where I am prepared to state plainly that I don't believe in your faith, your god, or any other, and will not be subject to your morals, your customs, and your beliefs - and why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:47 AM

Wes:

I believe you are putting words in my mouth.

There are (as far as I know) objective facts, demonstrable and measurable. Gravity, on average, will accelerate an object downward at 9.81 meters per second squared even if you invoke all the Gods ever knwon to man or beast to intercede against it. I don't have to re-invent the historic legend of the Dane's King Canute, surely. The big key in this set of phenomena is demonstrability as Mrrz points out -- they are part of the agreed-upon apparency of things. People see them the same way.

Any individual, of course, is free to use the power of denial to obscure any fact. This is what breeds Flat Earth societies.

But totally aside from that there are infinitely wide ranges of individual realities, subjective perceptions and certainties, which bring about some interesting side effects in perception and CNS response, and glandular corrections too. This is a very under-researched area, IMHO.

And there is an intersecting set, or overlapping, wherein phenomena which are subjective induce agreement and possibly measurable physical impact. This is a really poorly understood zone. One example is where "psychics" bring back messages from "beyond" to people in an audience about whom they presumably know nothing, and yet deliver details that only the questioner could know. Obviously there is all kinds of argy-bargy possible on this front. Reports of spoon bending and changing the course of history by thought alone I tend to take with several grains of salt, and I have not myself done a research project collecting hard data in this region -- I am but an amateur student.

The important thing is not to mix things up and insist that, for example, all subjectivity is physical, or all objectivity is opinion. Neither of these is the case.

Bill, you certainly have a prehensile nose there!! Are you sure you're not a Republican?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:00 AM

Oh, my....I...


*sitting on my hands, lest I provoke rhetorical rationalizations from BOTH sides of this little discussion...*



(...why yes, I did type this with my nose...)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:52 AM

It's demonstrable truth, is why. It's not necessarily objective, but it certainly holds a stronger claim to "truth" than beliefs which aren't demonstrable, like beliefs in invisible friends, no matter how many people insist on adhering to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:32 AM

So Amos - Why is your objective truth the one true objective truth? And why should it deserve more respect that any of the other one true objective truths the world has to offer?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:17 AM

"It's not superstition!!!! It's TRUE!!"


GS, while I deeply sympathize with the embrassment the position may cause, I submit that, no, there is not a difference. The worshippers of Baal were just as sure as you are, just as clear in their perception of the Truth. So, indeed, are the followers of Mohammet, and the many antecedent faiths with their various pantheons.

Superstition and truth are intersecting sets -- ask anyone who has been taken out by a juujuu man's curse. The reason they intersect is because of what is often caleld the placebo effect, the ability of the human mind to bring about phenomena. While medical people limit their discussion of this to the ability of the body to be healed by the mind under power of suggestion, of some disorder or other, it extends as well to the bringing about of all kinds of other perceptions and phenomena including deities, spirit guides, deja vue and precognition.

I believe you, and Slag, and the other devout I have talked to about this, are in that interesecting realm, and that what you say you have experienced is perfectly sincere, and unarguably real in the important, experiential sense. I honor it. But it is not in the realm of empirical and objective "truth". SImilarly, the statement that brings about a placebo effect does not have to be true for the effect to be solidly real.

This is a tricky area, is it not?

A
A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:21 AM

Obviously one you haven't yet come across friend but many of us have.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:13 AM

"Superstition is for the fantasists. Christianity is for the believers!"


                         There's a difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 03:06 AM

>>>>>>Happy New Year! Maybe this year superstition will take its rightful place in the world...<<<<<<<<< This was your first post on this thread Mrrzy. I guess Christianity causes me far less hassle than superstition did before I became a believer. Superstition is for the fantasists. Christianity is for the believers!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 02:50 AM

>>>>>>>The god freaks make the world a miserable place to live for those of us who actually think for ourselves. That's the problem. <<<<<<<<< No riginslinger...that's not 'the' problem..that's your problem! Why waste time posting on here since it annoys you so much?