BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:47 PM

God is better seen as creating the universe right now, at all times. No suspension of "the laws of nature", the reverse in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:51 PM

But most people are simply not as stupid as the imaginary friends you argue with.

Most people, in this day and age of rabid anti-intellectulism and proud to be ignorant and uneducated are considerably MORE stupid, Joe.

Have you read "Idiot America" yet???

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:06 PM

"The trouble is, you're inconsistent. Your usual mode of discussion seems to be argumentum ad absurdum. You redefine everything to the point of stupidity, and then argue with the stupidity"

Examples, please.

". There's no doubt in my mind that stupid people are stupid, but then there's no point in arguing with them. But most people are simply not as stupid as the imaginary friends you argue with."

What imaginary friends? Please apprise me.

"The faith of most religious people cannot be defined in the simplistic terms you use. "

Well tell me what your terms are. I do need a starting point, however. Do you, or do you not, believe in a supernatural God who created everything? What's so hard about that?    It's what your religion teaches, you know (I know, because I was in it for thirty-five years!) Please do not try to blind me with science here. "Steve, you don't get it because it's too complicated for you." Really? Try telling that to "most religious people", hundreds of millions of Catholics in Latin America, the Far East and Africa. Blimey, if they don't all get it, what chance does Stevie-boy have! Get real, Joe. And, for once, look outside your own little bubble.

"And very few religious people have the unquestioning faith you speak of. As DMcG said so well, 'Doubt, not certainty, is an important part of religion.'"

Well if you were sincere about that you would refuse to say almost all the prayers and to sing almost all the hymns of your faith, let alone go to mass. Almost every one is replete with certainty, as unquestioning as you like. Unfortunately, not only do you not refuse them, you also force them on your children. So please spare me the pious nonsense about your doubt, eh?

"When my kids were teenagers, they seemed to think that everybody else was stupid. Now that they're hovering around the age of 40, they have a far more generous view of humankind, and occasionally even admit that their parents aren't stupid, either. So, Steve, don't go thinkin' everybody else is stupid. Otherwise, people are going to start thinkin' you're a teenager. Or are you?"

Perhaps you would kindly tell me what any of that has to do with religion. And I won't dignify your insults with ripostes. I hope you're OK with that. Typical Catholic... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:06 PM

Aw, Greg, you're too cynical. My copy of Idiot America arrived this week. I intend to read it over the next coupla weeks, so have patience.
On overview, it does seem to be a bit too cynical for my tastes. Kinda like my teenage kids who thought everybody else was stupid.

Steve Shaw didn't ask me, but here's his question and my answer:

Q: Do you think that there is a God, a supernatural being, who created everything?
A: Yes, I believe that there is a God, a supernatural being, who created everything through the wonderful, natural process called "evolution."
If God created/creates everything, including natural processes, why shouldn't the origins of things come through those same natural processes? If natural processes are part of God's creation, why would God circumvent those processes? That being the case, isn't evolution a wonderful thing?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:20 PM

"God is better seen as creating the universe right now, at all times. No suspension of "the laws of nature", the reverse in fact."

Well that looks mighty profound on the surface of it. Frankly, though, it's doesn't really matter when he created, or creates, it. The laws of nature do not provide for supernatural beings that never had a beginning nor end, nor do they provide for amazing creations from nothing. Worse, and unfortunately for poor old God, the laws of nature can explain everything we see in all its ordinary glory. So there is stuff we have yet to get our heads around, it's true. But there is every justification for saying that we will never give up looking, and no justification at all for saying that anything we can't currently explain is down to God. That's been tried down the ages and found horribly wanting. Use your brain for what it was meant to be used for, not for inventing fairy tales.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:22 PM

Re: Steve Shaw's post, 17 Oct 15 - 08:06 PM

Steve, Steve, Steve...

For a moment, I saw a glimmer of hope, but then it died....

If one starts a discussion with the premise that "everyone other than myself is stupid," it gets really hard to carry on an intelligent discussion. And somehow, you don't seem to be able to get beyond that premise...

All my life's a circle;
Sunrise and sundown;
The moon rolls thru the nighttime;
Till the daybreak comes around.

All my life's a circle;
But I can't tell you why;
The seasons spinning 'round again;
The years keep rollin' by.

Steve, until you can get past your fundamentally faulty premise, you'll find yourself eternally lost in circular arguments.

And you'll continue to wonder why people get so frustrated with you.

Think about the questions you posed in your post dated 17 Oct 15 - 08:06 PM. Those questions have all been answered in this thread, intelligently and honestly. But you didn't hear....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:26 PM

Yes, I believe that there is a God, a supernatural being, who created everything through the wonderful, natural process called "evolution."

Then you haven't got even the beginnings of an understanding of evolution. You're
right down there with pete. I've covered this in this thread. Sorry if you're not happy with it. Unfortunately, it happens to be my subject.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:30 PM

""In the land of Gibberish, the man who makes sense, the man who speaks clearly, clearly speaks nonsense.""
― Jarod Kintz, This Book Has No Title

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:35 PM

...and I owe it to ake and Pete from Seven Stars link and others, to say that their perspective is not as simplistic as some would think it to be, either.
Ridicule of one's opponent is not a particularly effective tool for debate. It works every once in a while, but not if it's used constantly. In the end, it often backfires.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:52 PM

Steve's perspective, on the other hand, is every bit as simplistic as one would expect it to be. He can't get past condemning the anthropomorphic Man with the Beard that nobody believes in anyhow.

Steve, open your mind for a change and read what I said about appreciation of art. I have a particular appreciation for the works of Edward Hopper. You may not share that appreciation. That's OK, but why ridicule mine?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:02 PM

Well, Joe, you are clearly getting so uncomfortable with this that you are trying to goad me into insults that will get the thread closed down. Well you're not getting that. What you are getting is the fact you are clearly resorting to lies because you are way out of your comfort zone. I've seen this defensive attitude with so many religious people, which is a shame really, because I also know many people of faith who are pretty good at retaining their dignity in the face of argument. That I can respect. I asked you above to defend your unjustified comments about my mode of argument. You have not responded (why am I not surprised?). I'm now asking you to demonstrate with evidence that, as you allege, I start with the premise that everyone bar me is stupid. Let me just say this: I've expended thousands of words in this thread, closely arguing my point of view. I've taken people on, told them in some cases what respect I have for them, agreed with some points and disagreed with others. Even apologised for mistakes. Yet you appear to claim that I take everyone for a fool. Well I can tell you this. Were that the case, and having spent all this time posting, I'd be taking myself for a fool for wasting all this time. Isn't the truth, Joe Offer, that you skim the thread, you look for snippets here and there that seem to confirm your prejudices, then dive in without thinking? That you feel terribly threatened by atheists and automatically hate their guts? May I get slightly biblical with you?: By his fruits shall we know him...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:13 PM

Simplistic, moi? What can be more simplistic (oops, I almost said simple-minded there...) than believing in a creator who explains nothing and who can't himself be explained? (actually, I say that quite a lot, and no-one ever addresses it). Still, it must feel good to have allies like pete and akenaton on board. Well done!

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -- Douglas Adams

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 02:28 AM

Me: I am not angry, or being defensive, or refusing to answer or avoiding the subject

Steve's response: There is no need for you to get so defensive

Once again, I am not being defensive. I have tried to make my arguments. But let me try to give you an idea of what it feels like from this side. You are trying to give someone the vaguest inklings that quantum mechanics exists. They do not have years of training in maths and physics so you can't go down those routes but you do your best: There are many descriptions of the two slit experiment in 'popular science' as you know. Then you meet someone who has read a description like that that you wrote and he insists on it being explained to him in terms of snooker balls. You try to explain, again and again that it can't be done that way. Doesn't matter: that's how he wants the explanation. You try again, with different examples, and showing that there are things in his life which, while not the same as quantum mechanics = what is? - have some features in common. Doesn't matter, he keeps coming back to those same snooker balls.

It is not defensive to think maybe you have reached the end of the line and will have to leave this guy with his snooker ball view of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 03:07 AM

Steve, open your mind for a change and consider what I said about appreciation of art. I have a particular appreciation for the works of Edward Hopper. You may not share that appreciation. That's OK, but why ridicule mine?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:27 AM

I don't recall ridiculing your appreciation of art. This is a very strange tangent you're taking. My mind is wide open to art in all its manifestations as it happens. Telling me I condemn a man with a beard is also somewhat odd, as I think there almost certainly isn't one (and I haven't mentioned beards once). There's just a little bit of ganging up going on here isn't there? You are both insinuating that I have such a ridiculously simplistic view of God that you somehow can't discuss this. But I think we all know what's really going on here. I've asked you a straight down the line child-like question: do you believe in a supernatural God who created everything? I haven't even mentioned gender in that question, let alone beards. Either you do, you don't, or you have some wildly different concept that you think I'll ridicule. Or that I won't be clever enough to get. Go on, try us. Just telling me that it isn't as simple as that, ha ha, is making both of you look a bit daft, to be honest. You're the ones that have, on the face of it, the outlandish concept, not me. If it is so dear to your hearts, which I can clearly see that it is, you shouldn't be worrying about feeling foolish by elaborating. Elaborate away. I'm interested and I'm listening. And it would be nice if you could avoid the rather unchristian-sounding insults.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:40 AM

When I leave that guy with the snooker ball view of the world, I fully expect him to keep shouting as I walk away "you still haven't explained it using snooker balls"...


It is, really, very simple. I am not out to prove you wrong. What is the value in that? I offer a description of the world as I see it, for you to ignore, or abuse, or take on board, or to learn about even if you disagree with it, all as you think fit. It is entirely up to you. My core assertion, is that there is more than one way of thinking about the world. You seem to disagree as you say believing in a creator God automatically means you haven't got to stage one in understanding evolution. So we disagree. That's all there is to it. There is no need for either of us to keep insisting on our view as if it is the only possible interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:49 AM

667! Let's move this thing on!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:34 AM

Well maybe you want a snooker ball version of evolution. I really have tried to explain this. It's irreducible: natural selection has no direction, no goal, no end point, no drive towards complexity, no drive towards perfection. That is the whole point, one hundred percent. It leads to failed branches, blind endings and extinctions as well as to successful (for a time) species. Almost all mutations are failures. It is predicated on massive over-production of offspring, most of which don't survive. It simply can't be kicked off, driven along, tweaked, overseen or have bits added by a creator, even one who works in mysterious ways. I'm not trying to keep your Godly vision of the world and evolution at arms length from each other. And it isn't my opinion. it's the way it is. Insert a creator or driving force and you lose the whole explanation for life on earth that has so much evidence going for it. You simply can't have your cake and eat it here. I know that many people of faith believe in evolution, but trying to marry evolution to God just won't wash. I take no pleasure in that, no matter how much it makes you cross. You can have both, but only if you allow evolution to get on with it unfettered. That means no creator, I'm afraid. If that means emasculating God, so be it. You're scientifically-minded, so think it through like a scientist. You both think I'm too simple-minded to understand your concept of God/world view, however you want to put it. Well try constructing one in which God is the spirit that fires all, an inspirational force, but without making him a creator or a magician. Even I could swallow something along those lines. Of course, you're entitled to your own theory to explain life if you think you can do better. And if all that jars with your world view, that isn't my doing. Don't shoot the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:39 AM

Arguing by saying people are just being argumentative is not a particularly good debating tactic either. Still, if nothing else, this thread has taught me that even saints have their off days:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:51 AM

And even those near-saints like Pius XII, John-Paul II and Mother Teresa!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 07:28 AM

667! Let's move this thing on!

Have to agree with that one, Jack!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 12:49 PM

I took that to mean two-thirds of the way to a grand. Either that or to get us off the Number of the Beast. A bit of superstition is hardly amiss in this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 02:46 PM

The beast plus one:-( Scary stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 02:52 PM

The term "laws of nature" is a very strange expression, the more you think about it. Indeed the very concept that there could be anything described as "the laws of nature"...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 03:01 PM

The term "laws of nature" is a very strange expression, the more you think about it

Only if you are unfamiliar with the different definitions of the word "law".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 03:21 PM

Well that's a good point. As a biologist, I prefer laws of nature to laws of physics, though, in the end, the terms mean the same thing. I like "nature" because it's a bit more inclusive, involving a bit of chemistry and a bit of biology. We don't understand all there is to know about the laws of nature, and who's to say that there are not others that we've yet to discover. As scientists, we're open to all that. But the laws we do know, and understand enough about, exclude timeless beings that are all-seeing, all-knowing but ultimately undetectable. It's not that we haven't found laws yet that could embrace such a fellow. But the laws we do have militate against him, ninety nine point nine nine percent. In the same way, EXACTLY the same way, they militate against leprechauns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, Santa Claus, seven-legged blue men residing on Saturn's rings and teapots in orbit in the asteroid belt. It's fine to cling on to our imperfect understanding of the laws of nature as a get-out for keeping God in the frame (or in the gaps) as long as you realise that, by so doing, you are giving him as much legitimacy as the fairies and leprechauns and the little blue men. You put him there, not me. I doubt whether he'd love you for that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:43 PM

Darn, Steve, I thought you'd be happy that some people have a concept of God that is compatible with the principles of evolution. I thought you'd be happy to see that there are people who believe in God who do not see themselves as superior to those who don't - they simply have a different perspective, not superior or inferior.

But no, you're just an absolutist like the fundamentalists. You can see only one possible perspective, all other perspectives being wrong.

And based on Pope Benedict's use of the example of a male prostitute and my comparison of art appreciation to faith as an appreciation of what surrounds us, you have no ability to listen to an example and apply it to a comparable situation. Just like the fundamentalists, you can accept thinking only if it is literal, specific, legalistic, and identical to your own train of thought.

A respectful and open exchange of ideas is a concept totally foreign to you. You only know how to defend yourself and attack others. That sounds like the fundamentalists, too.

Sad, I think.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:43 PM

Oops, the rest of my last post went missing. Never mind.

I think your expression "laws that could embrace such a fellow" is interesting. I get the impression the concept of God that you are tackling is that there is a supernatural being which is fancied as stepping in and suspending the laws of nature by which everything is governed. Reasonably enough, you reject that concept.

But there is an alternative way of seeing things, in which the world is seen as sustained and constantly created by God, with all the laws of nature not suspended arbitrarily from time to time, but constantly maintained.

True enough, there's no explanation there of how such a God could be. But the same is just as true of the world itself, the whole universe, all of creation as it is often called even by people who don't believe in a creator, such being the extent to which God centre expressions permeate through language. Cosmologist neo-metaphysicians can come up with fascinating scenarios about nothing giving rise to everything, or multiverses and branes and so forth, but even if they stand up, they just push the regression further along. As the expression goes, it's turtles all the way down.

So you pays your money and you makes your choice. One way mind and consciousness is the froth on a mindless everything, the other way mind and consciousness is an echo of a mind and consciousness underlying everything. The choice really isn't about which is more rational, it's about what makes sense to us, as the individuals we are.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:52 PM

In a sense I agree with Steve ( not that he would thank me for it !) in that I understand that the theory of evolution is undirected and unguided , so I suppose that if you make God instigator or hidden mover in it, it becomes a different theory. And I can see how it can be viewed as having your cake and eating it.   I understand that Darwin made mention of a creator at the end of origins , but later wrote to a friend regretting the "penteteuchal" reference. Not that I would agree with it, but in theory why should not theists adapt Darwinism to be directed and guided.......though , presumably, it could not then be truly called Darwinian evolution.               Steve alleges that having an uncreated creator is contrary to the " laws of nature " but unless you are somewhat selective with what those laws are, it is the general theory of evolution that is contrary to what is known from observable, testable, repeatable science.   And while a supernatural, creator who called all things into existence, including those natural laws cannot be proven , I fail to see how that can be more illogical than believing in a universe from nothing via no one.   The fairies and leprechauns are just as much, and more in your backyard !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:08 PM

I am a very simple man, Kevjn. I can't pick the bones out of your last two paragraphs (I respectfully wonder whether you can, actually).   But this:

...there's no explanation there of how such a God could be. But the same is just as true of the world itself, the whole universe, all of creation as it is often called even by people who don't believe in a creator...

...is a mischievous equivalence. Absolutely right, there is no explanation of how such a God could be (but you managed to invent him anyway, and you ignore the mountain of evidence, not least arising from evidence and reason, against him). But the same is simply not true of the world and the universe (I'll leave creation, if you don't mind). There is abundant explanation in the form of science, and by saying there is none you not only insult every scientist who ever drew breath (every curious mind, in other words) but you also reject completely the value of human intellect and curiosity. We can't explain everything and never will, but there is a lot we can explain and we are closing in. There is a joy in that that you seem to be missing. One thing we will never do is explain anything with an explanation that can't be explained. Enjoy whatever reverie makes sense to you (we all do it), but leave room for evidence and reason. It's why we're here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:16 PM

I am not selective about the laws of nature. We have what we have. That will change. There is definitely more to know. But I can't select from fresh air. And the theory of evolution is not undirected and unguided. You may use those terms to characterise natural selection if you really must and I won't argue. But the theory is simply an explanation of the phenomenon of evolution which employs a very large body of evidence. It would help if you could de-woolify your terminology. I shan't be holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:43 PM

Darn, Steve, I thought you'd be happy that some people have a concept of God that is compatible with the principles of evolution. I thought you'd be happy to see that there are people who believe in God who do not see themselves as superior to those who don't - they simply have a different perspective, not superior or inferior.

But no, you're just an absolutist like the fundamentalists. You can see only one possible perspective, all other perspectives being wrong.

And based on Pope Benedict's use of the example of a male prostitute and my comparison of art appreciation to faith as an appreciation of what surrounds us, you have no ability to listen to an example and apply it to a comparable situation. Just like the fundamentalists, you can accept thinking only if it is literal, specific, legalistic, and identical to your own train of thought.

A respectful and open exchange of ideas is a concept totally foreign to you. You only know how to defend yourself and attack others. That sounds like the fundamentalists, too.

Sad, I think.

-Joe Offer-

Negative, patronising, sarcastic, supercilious, dismissive, superficial, bitter, trolling. All the signs of a beaten man. Well done, Joe. You're right up there with those near-saints I mentioned. How was Mass today?   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:59 PM

Mass was just delightful today, thankyouverymuchsteve. On the spur of the moment, we celebrated the presence of so many young people with babies, which was very touching. The music, as usual, was excellent.
So nice to be in the presence of friends who can enjoy each other and exchange ideas without fighting - people coming together to celebrate the joys and sorrows of life.
Try it sometime.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 07:19 PM

It seems to me that "an explanation that can't be explained" is precisely what we get from the cosmologists to whom you refer. The conflicting elaborations are fascinating, Some of them could well turn out to be provisionally true, and long may the search for more profound interpretations of how things are continue. But ultimately they aren't explanations. They are turtles standing on turtles, and we should all appraciate the turtles.

Basically, as I said, it comes down to whether we believe that consciousness is an emergant phenomenon in a mindless universe, or whether it is a foundation of the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 07:33 PM

"So nice to be in the presence of friends who can enjoy each other and exchange ideas without fighting - people coming together to celebrate the joys and sorrows of life.
Try it sometime."

Oh, don't you worry. I've tried it quite a lot. I couldn't help noticing at times that some of those people were like that on Sunday mornings only.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 07:41 PM

That's right, Steve, some people are nice only on Sunday mornings. But if you judge the whole on the basis of the actions of the few, you're most likely to have to live with a constantly negative view of life. Myself, I prefer to look on the positive side.

Back to the original topic - I think Pope Francis did a pretty good job of bringing joy, wisdom, and compassion to the U.S. Is he perfect? - no. Am I perfect? - no.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 08:17 PM

There is a vast chasm of difference between an explanation that can never be explained and one that, though it has yet to yield up its secrets, is at least vulnerable to scientific enquiry. Actually, God SHOULD be very vulnerable to scientific enquiry, though his advocates ardently try to keep him from it. Sadly for him, the enquiry may conclude that, due to lack of any evidence, he almost certainly doesn't exist. And I'm afraid I don't swallow such arcane concepts as mindless universes. I like to keep me feet on the ground if I can, not even on turtles' backs. Science does it best for me. It's sheer joy, in fact, as un-Spocklike as can be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 08:26 PM

Well, Joe Offer, you didn't exactly do a spanking good job at 05.43 pm of looking on the positive side, did you now? And, as appears to be your wont, you misrepresent above what I said, which is that SOME of those people were like that on Sunday mornings only. Hardly judging the WHOLE on the actions of the few, eh? That is never what I do and I'll thank you for refraining from insinuating it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 08:43 PM

You don't swallow the arcane concept of a mindless universe, Steve? Perhaps you might elaborate on that? Of course there might be numrous other cases of species in other parts of the universe who've evolved to a state where they have minds, but do I take it you mean that even prior to that having happened it wasn't a mindless universe.

I accept that you like to keep your feet on the ground, and that's an excellent thing to do - but the ground on which we keep our feet is of course a very local phenomenon, floating in a much bigger universe. Can't escape those turtles.

Scientific inquiry is great, and it's fascinating. Mathematics is fascinating too. But there will never be a largest prime number, or an ultimate value of Pi. My instinct is that the same goes for explaining reality. The more it gets explained, the bigger it gets

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 08:48 PM

Am I perfect " ...No but I am, ask me Mammy.

   Anyway.. " Basically, as I said, it comes down to whether we believe that consciousness is an emergant phenomenon in a mindless universe, or whether it is a foundation of the universe. " ..
    Yes but too many here are fast thinkers and can't get past their personal filters to do this subject justice.
    Most external problems in society stem from the dis-ease that bubbles under the surface within most of mankind. Pope Francis understands this, I personally don't give a shit what route a person chooses as long as it delivers.
      Steve the Chaucer quote takes on a slightly different flavour when you take into consideration he was a freemason, and the word "craft" doesn't mean what you may think it means.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 09:04 PM

But at least you can go on explaining. With God there is nothing to explain. We're stopped in our tracks. Nowhere to go except to look for even more inwardness with a spicy bit of revelation thrown in. Talk of consciousness pricking a mindless universe hasn't got much to do with flesh and blood, whether on this planet or a million others. It's just rather high-flown cod philosophy. Why not just have some nice conjecture on the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere. If it's there, my bet is that it will be different to ours but just as ordinary (tangentially, I also think that it will have developed by some form of evolution by natural selection, but hey). I absolutely love that the wonderfulness of life is so ordinary. That's what I mean by keeping me feet on the ground. A bunch of hairy-arses here on earth thinking about other bunches of hairy-arses and revelling in the imagination. No need to go off half-cock talking as though the universe is some kind of super-organism that could do with a bit of spiritual awakening. It's wonderful enough without all that. You're putting fairies at the bottom of the cosmological garden. I'll set Douglas Adams on you one of these days.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 09:09 PM

Explaining things isn't the only thing. Which I take it from the rest of your post Steve, is what you actually believe as well.

Anyway, it's time to sleep here. Night all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 09:23 PM

"personally don't give a shit what route a person chooses as long as it delivers."

Delivers what? A good bloke who's nice to his kids? Someone who gives to charity? A member of the Green Party? A harmless type whose main purpose in life is keeping pews warm? Don't you think that we are here to be multi-faceted, not only to be good, kind, moral citizens (none of which needs religion, by the way), but also to use our brains? Are you saying that it doesn't matter how people turn out whether they've used their brains or not? Dammit, I don't get that. Delivers what exactly? What criteria would you adopt in order to know whether a particular person's route has delivered? And what is this dis-ease of which you speak?
As for Chaucer, I don't give a damn whether he was a freemason or not. Freemasonry does not mean the same as it meant centuries ago. Mozart was possibly the greatest composer, yet was a freemason all his adult life. So? As for craft, I quoted a piece of prose with a general message. Be kind enough to pick it to pieces for me if you like. You may note before you do it that I don't care much for being bullshitted.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 10:36 PM

Steve no I'm not going to pick your post to pieces although I could, but the desire isn't there.
       I read the thread and got drawn in like a fool, but consciousness is a subject I've been interested in since childhood,nothing I type is bullshit but your posts on this particular topic are from a place of ignorance.
       I'm about 15 years younger than you at a guess and your spiel reminds me of the thinking my generation did at school. The debate you want to have is decades out of date. Words like God and terms like Spiritual awakening are meaningless,they have too much baggage.
       You could not be trusted in your current mindset for me to explain what "delivers" means ( it's physical). Anyway far better you do your own thinking. Here is a starting point though..it removes your personal baggage and delivers a wider more informed perspective on what it is to be human in this big fat beautiful thing that is existence. It also hammers home, consciousness is not what we currently believe it to be.
       I do agree that religion is more hindrance than help.
Now off to bed with my man flu.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 10:51 PM

Sorry but a quick correction... "I do agree that religion can be more hindrance than help "
   Night night

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 02:23 AM

Steve Shaw sez: Well, Joe Offer, you didn't exactly do a spanking good job at 05.43 pm of looking on the positive side, did you now?

Well, Steve, I usually try hard to see the positive side. But how does one see the positive side of something negative? If you reverse polarity, you'll blow up your car battery. Where have you said anything positive about religious believers? And if I'm a religious believer, how do I respond positively to your barrage of negative statements about believers? Steve, you have used many of the 696 posts in this thread to attack religion and religious beliefs and believers. I'll agree that religion warrants rational criticism, but not your shotgun approach.

I guess, though, that maybe this is good therapy for you. That's positive, isn't it? Go ahead, let it out, Steve. Then I'll pat you on the back and tell you Jesus loves you.... Shall I give you a hug, too?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 03:52 AM

" Then I'll pat you on the back and tell you Jesus loves you.... "

How do you know?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 04:46 AM

I wonder if you God botherers realise that when you pray and stuff what you're actually doing is making obeisance to the Roman Emperor Constantine? You see, in the 4th century AD, Constantine did two things:

1. He established Constantinople, on the Bosphorus, as the new capital of the empire and 2. he adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

I suspect that the two are connected. By moving the capital to the eastern edge of the empire (probably a rather silly thing to do in retrospect) he was in danger of losing control. Then he, or more likely his advisers, had a brainwave: he, or they, realised that you could use religion as a means of social control. In fact, this wasn't just a brainwave, it was a stroke of pure genius - as brilliant as some of the scientific discoveries which came much, much later - but much less benign.

Anyway, they searched among the various alternatives available and finally chose some obscure middle eastern effusion called Christianity - which they had, hitherto, persecuted - but which, they realised, had all the elements that they needed (or could be tweaked to include them). For a start, it was monotheistic with an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful God like an idealised Roman Emperor (i.e. this God-Emperor had all the qualities that Constantine wished he had). Almost in passing this super-being had, of course, created everything ... or 'fathered' everything? ... let's not go there! In addition, Christianity contained this highly useful concept called "sin". According to this religion all people are inherently sinful and need to be absolved of their sins - otherwise they go to a terrible place called Hell when they die. Everyone fears death but under Christianity its even more scary!

So, they set up Christian churches in every settlement in the Empire and appointed priests to intercede with God and 'help' people to absolve themselves of sin.

Soon, everyone was so pre-occupied with sin that they were much less likely to rebel against the Emperor.

But, God botherers, Constantine's been dead for around one and two thirds millennia - you don't have to kneel before him any more! That people still do, just goes to show what a powerful concept he latched onto, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 04:58 AM

Well, Time Stamp, whoever you are, I must say that you produced a great post that asserted your intellectual superiority in arcane matters without actually saying a bloody thing about them! I was very disappointed. There are plenty of people around who can become such experts on bullshit that they can discuss it in impressively complex terms. Let's hear your take on conscious universes then. Can't wait!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 05:37 AM

It is good and useful to be reminded of that, shimrod. There has always been a complicated interplay between civil and religious power and, as far as I know, that applies to all religions. If anyone wants an example look at County Durham where the road signs announce it is "The land of the Prince Bishops"; or look at the fortress of Salzburg. Or the temples of Egypt or Mexico or elsewhere.

But it going a little too far to quite identify one with the other.