BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:07 AM

Actually, we are remedying that even now. Rig is going to get us a mockup and list of attributes which we will then compare to the high-level requirements, and have a preliminary design meeting.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:20 AM

I'll try to have a prototype in time for the South Carolina primary.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:38 AM

"M Ted - of course theres a point to this thread. The point is that people who believe in gods are just plain wrong - and those who don't feel vastly superior about that. And need to point that out. " - Guest Wesley

Guest Wesley, it is very frustrating that the mere stating of a negative opinion on the subject of the existence of the supernatural, including gods, gets responses like this. It would be nice if your contribution was an actual presentation of a reason for your own belief. It doesn't even have to be evidence, just a reason, instead of a plain snide insult to those of us who don't agree with you.

I personally don't believe in gods. Or the supernatural. It doesn't make me feel 'vastly superior', for example, to my own family which includes a lot of good intelligent believing church-goers.

However, I reserve the right to indulge in humourous poking at beliefs I think are completely silly, and to state my objections to beliefs I think are downright harmful. If you can find a way to poke fun at atheists, go right ahead.

It's my contention that without people who will strongly and loudly point out that religions and god beliefs have very little reason to support their continued existence, thus making sure the religious know they are not without political opponents, we would all be living in rigid theocracies, likely constantly at war with other theocracies - hear any echos?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:47 AM

If there is a God, God would be the one who is "vastly superior", and those others would be out of luck--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:00 PM

Bee - In my experience there are a few people here - not all - that have strong objections to the fact that I have a belief in a higher power. Or that anyone anywhere believes in any higher power. I could understand if they objected to the actions that some believers take as a result of those beliefs but that doesn't seem to be enough. The objections and ridicule of my thoughts is what I find offensive. I don't try to shove my beliefs down anyones throat. Whatever they want to believe is fine with me. But I find it difficult to have a dialogue with the thought police. Esp those few who propose the eradcation of all religion. Although how they plan to accomplish that is anyones guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:16 PM

Our objections are not with your belief.

As for myself, I have repeatedly stated and restated and rephrased that my argument is that denying reality in order to keep your god beliefs is bad for humanity. You can have all the faith you want - just be willing to see the arguments against such faith being reasonable. We aren't trying to shove atheism down your throat. We are succeeding in demonstrating that theism is unreasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:20 PM

Thanks - you've proved my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:24 PM

Which point is?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:24 PM

Wesley:

Just for the sake of understanding, I do not object to your belief in a higher power, and I think perhaps this may come as a surprise to you.

What I do object to is those who try to make some sort of intellectual or moral capital by trying to put such power into a human-ordinate box and push it as a commodity. The reason I object, as I think I have made cleasr, is that such a commodotized version, made into tokens for human exchange (and often control) dilutes any truth it seeks to represent.

Whether using a person, a text, or a label to "capture" the qualities of this commoditized version of Infinity, if I may put it that way, the packaging completely rots the product in too many cases for me to look too kindly on it. And the product, rotted, is toxic as hell.

I hope this very important distinction gets across okay.

Regards,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:35 PM

"a commodotized version, made into tokens for human exchange (and often control) dilutes any truth it seeks to represent."

And it may suprise you to know that I'm pretty much in agreement with you on that point. Except that I'd like to think that the "truth it seeks to represent" is a little more powerful than the people who misuse and misrepresent it. But there are a few here who can't see a difference. To them Jim Jones and Martin Luther King are one and the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 01:15 PM

Bee " If you can find a way to poke fun at atheists, go right ahead"

all right, in that case I will allow myself the luxury of this one, then..... no offence intended-

An atheist is walking through the woods.

"How wonderful and reasonable nature is" he beams

"how marvellous the underlying physical forces which articulate and sustain it all!'

"what a marvellous thing is the human intellect to appreciate it all!"

Just as he's reaching a crescendo a big bear bursts from the bushes and rushes at him.

He runs, but physical laws being what they are, he has little chance of out running a bear.
He trips on a root and sprawls on the ground. He twists just in time to see the huge bear tower over him , paw raised for the death-swipe....

"OH GOD HELP ME!" he shouts, in spite of himself.

Suddenly eveything stops - the bear stands frozen in poise. Just as he's starting to realise this, the clouds roll back and a big voice booms (well, this is a stereotype verison of God afterall) -

"all your life you denied I exist and encouraged others to think the same. And yet now you call on me to help you? What do you expect I should do?'

"Ok" admits the ex-atheist "it's true.... I did do all that, and I'm sorry for it. But can't you at leats give me a chance? I suppose it would be a bit hypocritical to suddenly start calling myself a Christian now. But can't you at least make the bear a christian, for example? I'm sure he never doubted you existed!"

God considers for a moment. "Very wel" he booms "let it be so" and promptly the clouds roll back. "Thank you God! thank you!" says the ex-atheist.

He turns again towards the bear, a smile on his face. Everything swings back into motion as time starts again.

The bear continues on his swoop, then suddenly stops, puzzled, as if he's just had some insight. The man continues to smile. The bear stops his snarl, folds his paws and says...

"For the food I am about to receive, I thank you, O Lord"

;-))


(the good news is that Jesus doesn't seem to operate like that as far as I can make out and is always ready to accept someone back)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:03 PM

There ya go. Nickhere, I have heard that joke before and I still think it's pretty funny.

"Bee - In my experience there are a few people here - not all - that have strong objections to the fact that I have a belief in a higher power. Or that anyone anywhere believes in any higher power. I could understand if they objected to the actions that some believers take as a result of those beliefs but that doesn't seem to be enough. The objections and ridicule of my thoughts is what I find offensive. I don't try to shove my beliefs down anyones throat. Whatever they want to believe is fine with me. But I find it difficult to have a dialogue with the thought police. Esp those few who propose the eradcation of all religion. Although how they plan to accomplish that is anyones guess. " - Wesley

Wesley, I think there are none at all who object to you believing whatever you please. But what I have found is that many believers take umbrage as soon as an atheist says s/he sees no valid reason to have any god beliefs at all. Immediately, we are "insulting their faith". Well, no, we're not. If you said "I have a Cadillac and I think it's the best thing since Ford started his company.", and I replied "I think they're overpriced gas guzzlers and wouldn't have one.", then you'd have no trouble seeing that we have a disagreement as to whether Cadillacs were a Good Thing. You wouldn't immediately think I wanted to take your Cadillac away and ban Cadillacs. Now, I had an objection to Cadillacs - think they are overpriced - is that offensive to you?

As for thought police, if you live in the US, then you very well know that the thought police there have pretty well dictated that no atheist shall aspire to a high political position.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:08 PM

Nickhere...I'm back online, but not sitting at a computer very long at a time. Had some minor surgery on Mon. which will be uncomfortable for a bit...There's been SO much in the thread since then - it's hard to absorb....but a quick observation on that last post.


"...Jesus doesn't seem to operate like that as far as I can make out and is always ready to accept someone back"

And of course, the reply is: Back from what? And who - specifically - says that one can 'be welcomed back'? And IF it is true, what does that say about the idea of sinning, then repenting? (old line."It's easier to get forgiveness than permission")

You see where we skeptics are coming from? The 'authority' for the idea of sin and what follows FROM sin, and what happens if one 'repents and returns' is, of course, the Bible. But the very basis of the authority of the Bible is acceptance that 1)the facts in it are correct. 2) that the very human authors of it were 'inspired' by some spiritual power. 3) that we have translated it correctly from the ancient texts. 4) that we have all the relevant texts (the status of the Gospel of Thomas is a bit awkward)...etc.
   And even if we can wrap our heads around all those necessary assumptions, we are still left with the question of 'Why, if we poor, fallible, easily confused humans are expected to follow the rules in those texts, were they delivered to us so long ago in such a haphazard way, with no regular clarifying visits since to remind us of our situation? Surely an all-powerful god would see that just are not capable of keeping straight what all the conflicting ideas of the rules ARE?

The Bible mentions The Tower of Babel...the world now has many competing 'towers' of Babel, of Theology, of Creed and of Authority.
I submit that they cannot ALL be true simultaneously. Choosing among them is more than most folks can deal with, so they usually just accept the prevailing force in their culture, or their parents' choice.
   Skeptics...for whatever reason...want more than the complex of issues I have listed: but some of us at least realize the historical and psychological forces and needs that cause most folks subscribe to one system or another, and are willing to live harmoniously with believers....unless...and you know the rest.

   I don't know what to say to skeptics who feel compelled to simply ridicule and complain. I see their points, but I do wish they'd try to understand 'belief' in the context of history & culture and be more aware of better ways to have discussions. Religion will always be with us, and we need to accommodate it, just as religions need to accommodate those who cannot, in good conscience, accept the premises necessary to pick a religious path.



Now...back to bed for me. Durned incision!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:16 PM

"Religion will always be with us, and we need to accommodate it,"


                            Maybe not; we could get lucky!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:29 PM

Rig...don't hold your breath...turning blue can be awkward.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:34 PM

I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I won't quit breathing.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:58 PM

First off, welcome back Bill, I hope you'll make a speedy recovery, and sorry to hear that you had to have any surgery at all - that's rough, especially over Xmas when you probably just want to relax and enjoy it all a bit.

re. the Bible. Yes, I know it can seem complicated and contradictory at times. But a lot of time has been studying it by highly tarined theologians and they seem to agree on the main important points. The Bible is chiefly important for what it reveals to us about what our potential relationship with God can be and His intentions for us.

I find of the two, the Old Testament difficult at times. Even in the New International Version it can be difficult to read, plus it's very long. It's hard to find anyone these days who'll actually sit down and read over 1,000 pages of anything (I'm stuck 2/3 of the way through Robert Fisk's "Great War for Civilisation'). But that's the only way to do it. Everytime I read it, I see anotehr layer, another piece of the puzzle. As you start to remember parts, it becomes easier to cross-reference and put things in the context that dispels much of the seeming-contradiction.

The New testament is much shorter and ofen, clearer (to me anyway). But it is easy to misquote either, or quote out of context. For example Jesus often speaks of peace, love your brother etc., then someone says 'but what about when he says "I come not to bring peace, but a sword...families will be divided, brother against brother..." etc., Doesn't sound very peaceful?

But if you read around it, and have read the rest of the Bible, you come to realise what Jesus was saying (think "my kingdom's not of this world', telling Peter to put away his sword, turn the other cheek...) that His message was not going to be an easy one. It would create upheavals. It would divide families: some of the family might become believers, while the rest might remain non-believers, or pagans, or whatever. They would fall out over Jesus' message, Christians would be persecuted for it. Jesus ws not saying (if I am not mistaken) that He was going to bring world war, or that He desired this state of affairs, or even that He was going to set families at each other's throats. He could just forsee what would happen if not everyone would follow His message. Not that there weren't wars and violence and disagreement already, but now people would be shunned, ridiculed and persecuted for believing in Him.

What He says Himself in much of the Gospels is quite clear enough. We only need to think of the example He gave when asked "who is my neighbour?" (the good Samaratin story) - what He was trying to say there couldn't have been clearer. He often seemed kindly exasperated with the apostles when they were slow to catch on. Sometimes He explained things again for them, especially after some of those famous parables. The Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of same only serve to clarify further, as the apsotles (some of whom, like Peter, were eyewitnesses and participants in the events they spoke of) began to gain better insight into what had happened. If it all seems a clear account to us today, we've had the benefit of some 2,000 years of the sharpest theological minds (St.Augustine etc) pondering over these problems, and the councils I mentioned previously. There may be further insights yet, but the Apostles Creed (from the time of the earliest councils, like Nicea, in response to heresies that had already arisen) summed up the main points of what Christianity stood for, and what Christian's believed. It has stood practically unaltered for the last 1650 years.

Jesus Himself was also a trained Rabbi. He regularly quoted from the Old Testament and Holy writings of Judaism, so clearly He Himself accepted their authority and correctness. As I metioned ina previous thread, when tempted by the devil, His response was to quote the Old Testament in rebuff.

As for the schisms that have occured in the church since, they are unfortunate, but arose for sound reasons. There is little doubt that the Middle Ages saw the church as an institution become heavily politicised and wrapped up in temporal affairs. This would have been ok if the temporal affairs in question had been simply moral questions rather than political ones (supporting this or that monarch cos they guaranteed church property etc.,). Afterall John the Baptist readily criticised Herod for his immoral lifestyle, for which he famously lost his head.

Then there were the selling of pardons, indulgences etc., (against which Luther rightly railed) but what was happening is what frequently happens in any institution, as much of its daily actions depend on the goodness of the people who represent it. Just think of how today the police have been caught on camera beating the s... out of Rodney King etc., We rightly condemn such actions, but we do not abandon the idea of a civil legal code or the concept of justice because of it.

I am not an expert on the reformation so I won't comment more on the history. But all Christian (inc Orthodox), the Judaic and Isamic faiths worship the same God. They also have a lot of common cause these days in face of the secularistaion of the world. But unfortunately they often prefer to focus on their undeniable differences. I would say they all hold in the truth to the extent they worship the same God. Obviously I choose Christianity over Islam because I believe Jesus was the son of God and the route to salvation, while Muslims regard this as blasphemy, as do Jews. So we'll have to find room for all of us in this crowded house, because I am sure God does not want us killing one another. In all three faiths (as well as amongst non-believers) there exist 'throat-shovers' but many of us simply want to practise our faith (or not), worship our God and tell others about it in a non-throat shoving way. I think friendly dialogue is possible for those interested in such matters. When it comes to religion & politics, I think seperation is not possible at one level. And that is when people exercise their vote according to their beliefs and conscience. And as I have pointed out in a previous thread, one cannot expect anyone, athiest or believer, to do otherwise without denying their own selves. having said that I would never vote 'yes' to any proposal to force people to go to mass or pray, for example. It would quiet go against the grain of anything I believed in and take away free will in religious matters. However I would vote 'yes' to ban abortion, just as I would vote against the death penalty (I DID vote against the death penalty in the referendum to scrap it). I would vote against war if referendum were held on such matters.

[footnote: why do we not have referenda to go to war? Afterall, who does most of the dying in wars? Senators? The president? Or Joe Soaps? But I would still vote against it even if most Joe Soaps wanted to go to war!]

I vote this way because of my religious belief that God has ordained that all human life is sacred and something special, and has told us 'thou shgalt not kill'. Other people may vote other ways according to their beliefs, whether in some other god or in secularism. That's democracy, for all it's shortcomings, and it gives the majority of people what they want for better or worse.

OK, time to sign off, I've got to head out and meet some friends for a beer!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 03:02 PM

BTW "Jesus ws not saying (if I am not mistaken) that He was going to bring world war, or that He desired this state of affairs, or even that He was going to set families at each other's throats. He could just forsee what would happen if not everyone would follow His message"

I am not ignorant of the crusades, religious wars etc., but I intend to come to that point later, i have been working on something prompted by a comment from one of Mrrzy's posts that got the brain juices flowing, back a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 03:41 PM

The Bible is chiefly important for what it reveals to us about what our potential relationship with God can be and His intentions for us.

I disagree -- it shows us these things no more accurately than Catcher in the Rye or East of Eden does.


Jesus Himself was also a trained Rabbi. He regularly quoted from the Old Testament and Holy writings of Judaism, so clearly He Himself accepted their authority and correctness.

THe word "trained" in this context is relatively meaningless, unless you simply mean trained in doctrinaire teachings,w hich is no great recommendation. "Authority" and "correctness" compared to what? In my view, authority comes from competency, and correctness must be measured against use and practice. What the devil merit is there in an appeal to dusty long-past authoritarian icons? Where's the beef?

As for the schisms that have occured in the church since, they are unfortunate, but arose for sound reason. Sound reasons like the urgent need to wui[pe out Muslims, track down and burn witches, and purify the Faith of any questioning free-thinking villains in the population? Come on--this is just rampant aplogism, screened by dewt rationalization.

But all Christian (inc Orthodox), the Judaic and Isamic faiths worship the same God. ...and murder each other gleefully for doing so, and have done so for centuries.

God has ordained that all human life is sacred and something special, and has told us 'thou shalt not kill' Apparently this is not what he told Mohammed and his followers; and I recall a few instructions about when to stone people and when not to suffer another to live that flies directly in the face of this all-knowing instruction. Just having a bad Infinity day? Multiple personalities? Divine schizophrenia? Hypocrisy? What?

Please understand, Nick, that I am more than happy for you to have these beliefs; but when you start trotting them out here as a framework of fact, I have to take exception, especially considering all the important gaps and lapses in the presentation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 05:30 PM

On the 30th of September 2007, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sat down for a first-of-its-kind, unmoderated 2-hour discussion, convened by RDFRS and filmed by Josh Timonen.
I thought maybe a few here would be intrested in viewing this.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2025,THE-FOUR-HORSEMEN,Discussions-With-Richard-Dawkins-Episode-1-RDFRS,page2#98964

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:09 PM

Thanks very much dear Rustic. These are interesting intelligent people.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:34 PM

Here is a link to the actual discussion between these four thinkers: Richard Dawkins,("The God Delusion), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon), Sam Harris (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason), and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything ). Most interesting perspectives by very good conversationalists:

The Four Horsemen Talk -- a one-hour movie. Woth the listen.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 08:36 PM

For some reason, the term "preaching to the choir" pops into mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 09:16 PM

With all of the followers out there, you'd think there ought to be some goDs out there somewhere. Has anybody looked in Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 09:00 AM

Not to mention that anything interesting attributed to Jesus was already known to other civilizations for centuries... including the Golden Rule. It's not as if he were the first to see that being nice gets you farther than several alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 10:33 AM

Yeah, in view of the fact that even Mike Huckabee is willing to agree that mankind has been around for 6,000 years, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to make the case that somebody during the first 4,000 would have come up with some of those thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:33 AM

See, there's one of the things that causes people like myself to speak up about the hazards of faith. How safe is it to have political leaders in the world's most powerful country who think the earth is 6000 years old and evolution doesn't/didn't happen? I could care less if Joe Cracker from Orlando believes that, but beliefs like that are in direct opposition to reality, no matter how many ways you say 'Goddidit'. How concerned are such believers, in positions of power, likely to be about global climate change, about funding the sciences, about keeping education free of such inhibiting notions? What happens when you elect a president who believes the Rapture is right around the corner, no need to take care of the environment or worry about a deficit?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:38 AM

Bee - Isn't that what we've got in the White House now?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:49 AM

Instant gratification

When obviously "mal"informed and relatively ignorant people are made to feel as if they were the most correct intelligently designed people on Earth, it makes them feel very content, very smug and diveinly correct regarding any kind of foolishness in the name of God.
Same thing when the Nazis advertised that all "true" Germans were made better than all Jews or when Arabs when they teach 6 year olds that Jews are Apes and monkeys. Instant elitism.

Add some hate for an emotion to push the agenda even faster alng with a dash of truth and you end up with extereist evangelicals who hate fags with the same verve that Germans hated Jews.

The guy across the street had the timarity to brag that while being an evangelical he is not one of those who believe that all dinosaus are 5,000 years old. With the look on his face you would have thought he was about to accept a Nobel PRize.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 12:30 PM

I guy I work with told me that there are no such things as dinosaurs, and that the fossil remains were planted by Satin as a way of confusing mankind.

               And this guy votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 02:21 PM

Planted by Satin,
In a deep evil shade,
Carnivorous raptors
That the evil one made.
Hidden as fossils,
Deep under the earth,
Left to confuse all
Mankind from their birth,

And it's hard, hard, hard
Oh it's hard to make sense of it all!

Brought up on Cotton,
And petroleum oil,
Life's turning rotten,
Overflowing with toil,
Blessings from Heaven,
Never seem to arrive,
Only our own sweat
Seems to keep us alive.

And it's hard, hard, hard!
Oh, it's hard to make sense of it all...

Wrapped in white Linen
And left in the clay,
Feeding the fossils
Who had nothing to say.
Joining the traces
Of the great Tyrant Rex,
Dust is worth nothing,
But then neither is sex.

And its hard, hard, hard!
Oh, it's hard to make sense of it all.

...."

Further verses on the insidious nature of various fabrics are left as an exercise for the student....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 03:41 PM

Mrrrzzy: "Not to mention that anything interesting attributed to Jesus was already known to other civilizations for centuries..."

I may be wrong but I think the case of Jesus was the first and only instance in any culture of a God deciding to come down and live amongst His creation as one of them, and die on their behalf in an act of love for them. I don't think you'll find a parallel in any other theology or mythology.

Amos, you may have missed my post when I said I wasn't unaware of religious wars either, but I'll get back to that anon. The picture isn't quite as simple as you may imagine.

"As for the schisms that have occured in the church since, they are unfortunate, but arose for sound reason. Sound reasons like the urgent need to wui[pe out Muslims, track down and burn witches, and purify the Faith of any questioning free-thinking villains in the population? Come on--this is just rampant aplogism, screened by dewt rationalization"

I'm sorry, old pal, but you simply don't know what you're talking about here. A schism is a split, and the schism to which you must know I was referring (and the only that is generally understood when the history of the Christian church is spoken of) is that which took place in the late 1400s onwards as the result of a challenge by Luther and others (like Knox and Calvin) to corruption in the church. The sound reasons I referred to were parctices like simony (buying your way into office rather than on merit), the selling of pardons (bogus or otherwise) by unscrupulous pardoners and so on. The church, like any other institution run day-to-day by humans, is suceptible to corruption, and this is what Luther was railing about (and not without justification).

BUT

He wasn't the first. St.Francis had already (back in the early 1200s) railed against corruption, with some success. he even made a trip on foot to Rome to see the Pope and try and get things put right. But with time corrupt officials within the church had managed to undoe much of the good of his reforms. Luther had hoped to similarly reform the church, not break away from it. When it was clear that was not going to be possible, he then decided to break away from it.

NONE of this had ANYTHING to do with killing Muslims (the first crusade occured back in the 1000s, the third was over by the end of the 1190s), burning witches etc., AFTER the schism both branches of Christian church (Catholic and Protestant) continued to condemn men and women to death on conviction of witchcraft. The protestant churches were probably more vigorous in this regard, especially in Switzerland and Scotland. The last person put to death as a witch was in the early 1700s in Scotland. Before that there had been a long break when the numbers of executions rapidly declined. The peak was probably from about 1480s - 1640s.

Persons tried as witches were as often brought before civil (i.e secular) courts as ecclesiastical (i.e religious) courts. The reason being that witchcraft was a staute crime at that time (the actual act was only repealed in the UK in 1956, though as I already pointed out, it had been centuries by then since anyone was condemned for it). Civil (i.e) secular courts employed torture as a means of extracting confessions (everyone seems to think it was the church / inquisition that did that) - in fact confessions were deemed suspect unles they had been extracted by torture. Church rules stipulated torture could only be for one session and that no blood could be drawn Though they found ways around this if necessary). Civil secular courts were not bound by these 'restrictions'. And of course secular courts in the US still allow de-facto torture to happen.

Yes, both prod and catholic churches tended to stamp hard on heresy (think Galilleo, btw the church finally issued an apology a few years ago.... bit late for Gallileo, sadly, but IMO that there were other reasons he ran foul of the inquisition than simply saying the earth went round the sun). They tended to stamp even harder on each other. Not very Godlike, and I'd be the first to agree. In the early years of teh Christian church they held numerous councils and discussions to sort out these matters, and did not do so without a lot of thought and effort. None were ever off-the-cuff decisions that I know of. Some people even seem to imply the Bible was scribbled down by cranky old chauvinistic men for some conspiratorial purpose, such as controlling women or just to generally rain on everyone's parade.

Now there's a thought...! If I was to write a book with rules to control women for the benefit of men, I think it'd make far more sense to have one where rule number 1 was all women would be required to wear bikinis year round despite the weather (except the ugly ones); rule number 2: "A woman shalt never say No" etc, etc., In other words, come on, pull the other one.

"The Bible is chiefly important for what it reveals to us about what our potential relationship with God can be and His intentions for us.

I disagree -- it shows us these things no more accurately than Catcher in the Rye or East of Eden does"

Ok - you're on. I invite you to make your case with those two titles.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM

By the way, I'll come back to teh Mick Huckabees etc., in due course.... I'm well aware of that particular strain of religion in the US, but don't forget the USA is not the world, and there are all kinds...!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 03:55 PM

IF you meant the Protestant Reformation, you might have said so instead of embracing all the schisms of the CHristian world, some of which have been absurd, predicated on interpretative differences in metaphysics such as UNity versus Trinity and whether or not the Holy Ghost was filtered, mentholated or what.

As for making my case, I am not making any assertions here in the first place, but merely responding to your assertion that there is a Being surrounding our existence who has precise intentions for us and whose instructions can be found in a 2500-year old anthology of mystical writings committed to parchment by people for whom a wheelbarrow would be emerging technology. I just don't see any grounds for that assertion and I think to justify it requires bending over backwards intellectually into abnormal postures of rationalization. Stoning adultresses and killing witches are two stupid examples that make your assertion untrenable, to my view.
And let me add that your explanation that witches were tried in civil court has little merit -- it was founded on scripture and would have had no merit or impetus without the underlying collision between polytheistic paganism and the Church of Rome.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 05:15 PM

Amos, if you go back and look at my post I think it is quite clear I was referring to the Protestant Reformation. I mentioned Luther by name, by way of example. It was the MAIN schism in Church history, the other being of course the split with the Eastern orthodox church almost 1,000 years prior. The Eastern Orthodox is considered closer doctrinally by the Vatican than are the Prod churches. The schism between Orthodox and Catholic is far less in degree than that which occured during the Protestant reformation.

Protestant churches, by nature of their character of individualism (as opposed to the centralised authority of the Vatcian) are prone to budding off into sects. These do not equate with schisms of the kind referred to above. No schisms occured in church history over the crusades / war against muslims; or over the burning of witches - two of the examples you mentioned in making your point.

Now, what multiple schisms are you referring to?

"As for making my case, I am not making any assertions here in the first place"

Ahhh, hang on there a mo' buddy...

""The Bible is chiefly important for what it reveals to us about what our potential relationship with God can be and His intentions for us.
I disagree -- it shows us these things no more accurately than Catcher in the Rye or East of Eden does"

This is a clear assertion that both book titles above can tell us as much or no more about our potential relationship with God and His intentions for us as the Bible does. Whether it was your intention or not, It trivialises the importance of the Bible by basically saying we can learn as much about God from any book, or from Marvel Comics. With all due respect, I'd have to disagree with you on that one. But if you feel you can make that case, I still invite you to do so, using those two particular books of your choice as a starting point.

On the other hand if you don't feel able afterall to show an equivalence with those books, I think it is an important point, as it at least suggests that the Bible is something of a different nature and in a different league.

"...writings committed to parchment by people for whom a wheelbarrow would be emerging technology."

Do I detect a note of 19th century social darwinism here?

"And let me add that your explanation that witches were tried in civil court has little merit -- it was founded on scripture and would have had no merit or impetus without the underlying collision between polytheistic paganism and the Church of Rome"

1) maybe it'd be a good time to check what Jesus had to say about the adultress

2) Re. the civil courts. Yes, the law was partly based on the fact that the religious reason for not wanting witches. But you are completely leaving out of the picture a very simple rationale for medieval and renaissance man not wanting witches in their midst. The actions ascribed to witches were rarely if ever benign. Apart from all the usual melodrame of dancing with the devil, they were accused of 'poisoning wells, crippling cattle, stealing babies, making people sick or die etc., etc.,"

The point here is that it was not religion alone that drove people to persecute witches, but a very practical fear of the physical harm witches might do.

Of course plenty of those accused of such activities were most likely innocent. But there were probably some who were carrying out such activities - basically simple criminality, malicious revenge or whatever, dressed up under the name of witchcraft. There were those who for personal gain, to obtain love or revenge, attempted to cast spells or make pacts with the devil. Probably their efforts were a waste of time but if they got caught enagaged in them they risked the penalty of the law and perhaps being blamed for every other bad thing that happened in the neighbourghood. No-one would have felt comfortable living near someone known or thought to be a witch. This was not down to religious prurience alone but very much down to simple self-preservation. We have the same thing today wiith people uncomfortable living or working with people they know or believe to be murderers / child molestors etc.

I hope it's clear anyway that the religious persecution case is not as simple as that and is often over-stated.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 05:24 PM

Sorry about that, point "1) maybe it'd be a good time to check what Jesus had to say about the adultress"

was in reference to

"Stoning adultresses and killing witches are two stupid examples that make your assertion untrenable, to my view"

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 05:50 PM

You generate rationale from the simple premise that divinity was at work in the generation of the Book and the person.

I find no evidence for either of those premises, except by self-assertion.

From these premises everything and anything may follow.

But if they are not supportable, then they are simply justifications for a lot of other viewpoints and deeds which have no reason to recommend them, including many heinous acts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 06:08 PM

Amos, excuse my slowness, but I'm not quite sure what you mean, I must confess.

"You generate rationale from the simple premise that divinity was at work in the generation of the Book and the person"

what are you referring to here in relation to our last few posts? What rationale are you talking about?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,Monique
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:05 AM

For believers and non-believers, those who understand Spanish can order this book at their favorite bookstore (not presently available on line) Mentiras iglesia
It's been translated into Italian, Portuguese and Polish. Those who understand French can also read some excerpts online though no French book is available. There is no English version either.

Just an idea: when you have a group, this group has a certain spirit which is the result of a dynamics. So what if God were the spirit of the whole universe? Kind of the universe vibration or music...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:28 AM

Your complex rationale built around the whole divinity card, Nick -- for example the interpretation that the Bible reveals that nature of God, and that God has intentions for us, and so on.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:36 AM

Ok, thanks Amos. Yes, you have a point: I don't think I can give you any scientific empirical proof of the existence of God, at least not the kind physicists, chemists and biologists usually look for. So you're right in that one has to start out from the premise there is a God and He has a plan for each of us (which we are free to follow or not) in order to make the observations I have made about the Bible (for example).

My opinion is that the empirical view is microcosmic- it looks only at the little picture of what we can sense through the five senses or have rendered in form we can sense on machines (e.g infra-red photography). This is frustrating for both believers and non-believers alike. Of course I would like to hand you a photo of God if it were possible and say 'ok, here He is' (and not in an I-told-you-so way either, but simply from the joy of being able to finally share it). Of course that would remove the faith element, and possibly alos reduce the earnestness of the search one must conduct to find God. Maybe He really wants to know that the person approaching Him really wants to approach Him, I don't know; that just seesm to be the way He's organised things regarding belief.


On the other hand I think there is fairly good proof of another kind, in the form of the transition that I have seen (and experienced) taking place in people's lives when they've found Him and let Him work on them. That is evidence to another of our senses - call it a sixth sense, call it spirit - that empirical science is unable to grapple with. You get glimpses of it in the lives of the really rich who seem to have anything from a rational point of view: money, the girl (or boy), the luxury, the fame - all the things reason might suggest we obtain. Afterall if there is no life beyond death, we might as well have as mcuh as we can here and now. yet often these people find their lives are empty, something is missing. St.Francis was one example. the son of a wealthy merchant set to inherit the lot, he gave it all up. Famously he even handed his father the shirt off his back as a way of saying I don't need any of these things. His poor Dad must have been understandably upset - he'd worked hard to build all this up and hand it on to someone. There was the someone voluntarily rejectinga life of comfort for a life of hardship that could surely only shorten it. He had found soemthing worth more than all the material wealth. The Bible (Jesus specifically) talsk about this, likening the Kingdom of Heaven a precious gem or pearl, that on finding it, a man might sell and get rid of all he has in order to have it once he arelises its true worth.

You could find evidence in how Jesus has turned people's lives around, even when they seemd hopeless, and made good things of bad. It's a different kind of evidence, I grant you, but it can be repeated (a criterion of empiricism) though not always in exactly the same way as each person is unique. Once you begin to see these things and appreciate them for what they are, the Bible starts to make more and more sense. One begins to see the rationality in it. I should I suppose add at this point that reason does not equate with empiricism, though the two may interconnect.

Taking the whole cosmos there's a kind of evidence in the order of it, the whole oft-noted coincidences that lead to life arising. Sure, you could put it down to statistical chance, but the odds are very long when you think of all the details that have to be just-so (and not simply close or approximate). You could possibly find it in our development of culture, how we have become something quite different to even our closest animal cousins (the primates - how come in all the millions of years none of them have ever evolved speech or culture to the level we have? Surely it's just as useful to them as us?) We have developed artistic and singing abilities that have nothing to do with our basic need to survive etc., (BTW I am not a creationist either in the Mick Huckabee sense, I don't hold that the earth is 4,000 years old or any such stuff, or that fossils were put these by satan to confuse us, you'll be glad to know)

Now I feel a very long post coming that I've been working on these last two days, some observations that have been growing in my mind for a while, so I'd better sign off here and give people a chance to draw breath!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:09 AM

Excuse me, Nick, but when you assert that "Jesus has turned poeple's lives around" I think you are beibng arbitrary in your selection of interpretations. For example, an equally viable proposition, based on the same data, would be "People have turned their own lives around after deciding that they could let go of confusions and.or regrets and/or guilt using JEsus as an icon to represent paternal forgiveness or other emotional needs."

In other words, you elect to take an interpretation that seems to me, at least, to be much more complex than they need to be.

It is pretty well-established that finding some stable point of reference, or some basis for confidence will generate all kinds of recuperation in people. Cf. placebo effects, the magical power for self-healing once the right "suggestion" has been made.

Be that as it may, my point is that postulating the cause to be a metaphysical intervention from a higher power whose name is really Jesus, in contrast, is a terribly complex, arbitrary hypothesis, and one which does not open the door to new data or make things easier to test, understand or see.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:06 PM

"People have turned their own lives around after deciding that they could let go of confusions and.or regrets and/or guilt using JEsus as an icon to represent paternal forgiveness or other emotional needs."

Doesn't sound any less complex than the Jesus hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:20 PM

Well, it does not require the additional ingredients of mystic entities to which powers are attributed when those same powers in other corcumstances are found to be frequently demonstrated without those entities. For example, individuals have healed themselves of serious physical ailments because they read a newspaper article validating the efficacy of a drug they believed they were taking. Quite mysterious thing, generally called the placebo effect. But the thing about the placebo effect is that it can be triggered by any number of different significances. Finding Jesus is one of them. So is believing another cares for your well-being; so is a self-determined decision to recover. The trigger "symbol" varies wildly but the consistent element in the case histories is that the individual recovered from something without physical reason.

That's the simplicity of it -- the mind, correctly activated, can relieve distress and/or illness.

Taking that phenomenon and adding a whole bunch of material about the nature of Jesus is adding complexity, because the common elements are not centered around Jesus but around "some trigger to the mind" -- indicating it is thinking about "Jesus" or something comparable, not the substance itself.

Additionally your model requires that you postulate the long extension of positive affect by an entity who died many centuries back. This makes the proposition (as you said above) unprovable. There are of course millions of people about whom it can be said that they died long ago, and maybe a score or a hundred of them who claimed divinity, some of whom were probably used in ages past as comparable triggers for what is actually an act of self-elevation. So far I have seen no argument of merit for adding all that complexity into the picture.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:34 PM

To be sure, I know a man who turned his life of drinking, drug use and family disfunction right around by becoming a follower of Islam. It's been eight years now, and he has stuck to his conversion, prays five times a day, does not indulge in drink or drugs, has five children and a stable marriage. Jesus, of course, did not figure in this conversion.

I've known this man since he was four years old, he's in his late thirties now. He grew up with loving Christian parents, moved away to a big city, ran into some hard times, and was pretty aimless for a few years. It isn't a path to recovery I would have advised, and we've had some interesting conversations about Islam as practiced in Canada, but it worked for him, probably saved his life.

Nickhere, Islam historically worships the same father God, but does not see Jesus as divine or as the path to salvation. So here is a good effect on a person resulting, yes, from believing in God, but not in Christianity. And I've seen as good results for people who left the religion out of it entirely, focussed their behaviour changes on their family or some desired goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:19 PM

Of course, many of us would conclude that he would have been better off in the long run if he'd just made the effort to get a grasp on reality, and dealt with the world on his own terms. But then, there's always the 75 virgins who await him in the sky, or wherever they hang out.


                Getting back to the point, though, I'm pretty sure I saw a goD coming out of a public toilet on 23rd Avenue.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:59 PM

I think that was doG, you dyslexic silly.


A

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

Well what would a doG be doing in a public toilet, unless, of course, he was thirsty, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:36 PM

Tsk! You're too mature to be indulging in psychedelics, Rig.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:26 PM

Well, who's to say that a goD and a doG couldn't be easily confused. I mean, that one couldn't confuse one for the other, or...