BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM

Ever since your "full circle" comment, Steve, I've been wondering if we have actually said all there is to say on this topic. So I think it is probably time to thank you for the discussion, to hope each of us has learned something, and to move onto other ground.

No doubt we'll talk again soon!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM

Er, that is precisely the process. Without that, you'd have very few Catholics indeed. The people who propagate religion ARE fools, but they have ways of ensnaring people. As for this method making them think, it does that all all right. About the severe disapproval of their parents, their church and God if they don't stick to the rules, possibly even hellfire. And they do have to stick to those rules. After all, they were signed up shortly after birth by a man in a frock dousing them with holy water, and sent to a faith school which spent years reinforcing them. .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM

(phone again!)


.. Possibly there are many like them...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 01:05 PM

You know I will say that's a false dichotomy, don't you? Anyone who teaches religion like that is a fool. Possibly a well meaning one and possibly there are a look them, but a fool none the less. That is teaching religion as a kind of history rather than about the here and now.

And don't really see much evidence of the second branch either. Titles like "The God Delusion" (which I have read by the way) don't suggest the author is going to be very inclined say believers have much to offer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 12:38 PM

First one, clearly, is more likely to get them thinking, and maybe asking questions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 12:19 PM

"More seriously, I think it boils down to you seeming to me to want to live with a true-false view of the world where's I want to live with the two-dimensional (true-false, lie-not lie) interpretation There is simply no way to make those two fit together neatly."

Well I think it boils down to a choice. Here's an illustrated example.


(A) There was a man called Jesus whose mother was a virgin and whose father was God in heaven. Jesus worked miracles such as walking on water, changing water to wine and bringing Lazarus back from the dead. He was killed by the Romans but came back to life and he did this to save us all from sin. Now I think that all this is true, so much so that I'm signing you up to my religion so that you can also accept these stories and follow Jesus like me, which involves saying prayers to Jesus and singing hymns.

(B) There are stories in a book about a man called Jesus, but he may not have existed, as the Romans never mentioned him, and in any case the book was written by people who wanted to start a new religion based around Jesus. One story is that his mother didn't have sex with a man, but was miraculously made pregnant by God. This has never been known to happen either before or since, and, as you probably know from science lessons, human babies are always produced from an egg and a sperm. Other stories tell of Jesus working what we'd call magic today in order to solve problems he came across, such as changing water to wine for a wedding and bringing his friend back from the dead. In the end he was killed by the Romans, but a couple of days later, so the story goes, his tomb was empty, and shortly after he appeared to his followers, back to life. For some reason, we're told that he did this to get forgiveness for our sins, yet the world didn't seem to become a better place. Now I'm telling you this because a lot of people believe that it's true. I might believe it's true as well, but that's beside the point. You may think that the stories are too far-fetched, and I wouldn't blame you for thinking that. But you shouldn't just ignore them, instead you should read about them for yourself to see if you can find anything to back them up, and not just in the books written by Jesus's followers, as they may be a bit biased. And you should read about the other religions too.




The first is what the Catholic faith does to children, along with similar setups in other faiths. The second is telling children the truth. As you can see, it takes a little longer to tell the truth, and you can't be so free with words. So I ask you again. Which approach is fairer to children, which is more honest, which one is designed to get them thinking - and which one is the morally correct approach?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 10:23 AM

You'd sack any teacher for saying that a theory was true, Steve. But you cite Galileo's house arrest, which actually happened more or less for that reason. There was no problem with his proposing a theory about planetary motion, but he insisted on saying it was true, rather than provisional, which at the time it actually was. (And I'm not defending his house arrest, even if he was being a wee bit unscientific. The Church had no business getting involved in controversies about science.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 10:14 AM

If we have come full circle, then I suppose the same answer as I gave last time!

More seriously, I think it boils down to you seeming to me to want to live with a true-false view of the world where's I want to live with the two-dimensional (true-false, lie-not lie) interpretation There is simply no way to make those two fit together neatly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM

So we come full circle, and I have to ask you again: why is it OK to promote doubtful ideas to children as certainties, instead of telling them the unvarnished truth?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 09:56 AM

I don't see that as big a problem as you do.


Not a problem for me

Sorry, I will rephrase it. I don't see that as big a problem as you appear to think I should. Is that better?



But what you are is, for most people, an accident. That should inform what you tell your children, otherwise it simply isn't honest.

True enough, it is an accident. And also true enough that there has been a long history of antagonism between the religions some of which really about land and possessions and the right to rule, and some which is about much more abstract things. So the world is a messy place and lots of the people who get power at various times are pretty dubious characters. I don't think either of us find that in the least surprising.

Some of you could be right, or you could all be wrong, but you can't all be right.
Or we could all have an imperfect understanding of the same right thing, and that failure has let us fool ourselves into thinking 'we' are right and 'they' are wrong so let's try and solve it with aggression.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 09:43 AM

Not a problem for me. However, you can't really gloss over the fact that the major world religions and the factions among them have different sets of "truths" that are often at odds with one another. Most people who espouse those of the Catholic Church do so because their parents were Catholic, in the scheme of things a complete accident. Had you been born to Muslim parents in Tehran, you'd probably be espousing certain "truths" that are fairly hostile to Catholic ones. Some of you could be right, or you could all be wrong, but you can't all be right. But what you are is, for most people, an accident. That should inform what you tell your children, otherwise it simply isn't honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 09:04 AM

What makes it all even worse is that you only tell them all this because you happened to be born here. Had you been born in India the story would be different.

Oddly enough, I've never denied that. I've even suggested (to Shimrod I think) that in other circumstances I reckon most people who are now Christians would be perfectly comfortable as followers of Mithras. I don't see that as big a problem as you do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 08:59 AM

I am saying that a teacher who makes unsupported assertions to children isn't teaching science. There are charlatans and ignoramuses even among science teachers, of course. Why, some of them even go to church! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 08:56 AM


DMcG, I'd sack any science teacher who told his children that any theory was true, or that they'd better believe something they were told

How precise are we being? I would, I agree, sack any teacher who insisted a theory was itself an absolute truth rather than the best approximation or description of all we have observed to date. But I don't think I have heard of a science teacher who starts every class with a declaration to that effect. No, throughout all the classes and throughout the year he or she says this "is", or this "isn't", which perhaps the occasional diversion into explaining the best approximation stuff.

Or mine did anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 08:43 AM

"Example of Steve setting the rules for discussion: Either you know that there are doubts about all the tenets of your faith, or else you're pete.."

Well I'm at a loss to see how that is setting rules. The only person around here who's set a rule is you: "My faith is sacred to me. Leave it alone."

"If you want facts and true/false and proof, go to those mindless Catholic Answers people. They speak your language, Steve."

If there's a more avid and consistent campaigner on this forum than me against asking for proof of anything, tell me who they are, please.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 08:31 AM

That's essentially what I implied when I pointed to the creed as the key summary of Christianity, a declaration of belief by individuals. Not even "We believe" - it's "I believe".

But you believe it so comprehensively that you have no compunction in instructing children in it. Perhaps you could add a rider at the end of the Creed, "This is what I believe, now you're going to believe it too."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 07:35 AM

DMcG, I'd sack any science teacher who told his children that any theory was true, or that they'd better believe something they were told. Your comparison collapses on those grounds alone. Newtonian physics, or the theory of evolution by natural selection, are attempts to explain phenomena in the world and universe. They must be able to be modified, incorporated into new ideas as knowledge advances, or, ultimately, ditched. They must be supported by real evidence (don't make me define it again). We do not tell children that they should believe extremely doubtful and unsupported assertions as true before we can move on. We would rather not move on at all than do that disservice to young minds. Comparing science education with religious instruction is a time-honoured way of lending undeserved dignity to the latter and is mischievous. If you tell your children, either directly or by implication via compulsory prayers and hymns, that Jesus was born of a virgin and whose supernatural father lives in heaven, that he fed five thousand people on a few scraps, that he bled water on a cross and later came back to life, and that we should worship him as the saviour of us all, you are not telling them the truth, are you, to put it mildly. Yet this is standard practice. Either you intend to deceive them, for the nefarious reason of keeping them in the flock, or you are so deluded yourself that you do actually think that this unnecessary nonsense is true. What makes it all even worse is that you only tell them all this because you happened to be born here. Had you been born in India the story would be different. In the Australian outback, different again. In Iran, different yet again. To you, though, these considerations are minor inconveniences. But you have the neck to convince them that they will find deeper truths and happiness if only they espouse this nonsense. It's in your heart, it's sacred to you, you don't need to defend it, etc. Yet it's indefensible, even if you're a believer. Tell them the truth, that some people believe those things, they may live their lives by them, but you shouldn't believe it at all: you should find out for yourself what's true by having a curious mind and by always asking for evidence (evidence, not proof), and that you should always be suspicious of anyone who tries to tell you something that he can't support.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 07:04 AM

Well there's one measure of the rapidity of change, the Church's attitude to science. In the 17th century good science was liable to have you put under house arrest. In the 19th century the big guns were fully out against Charles Darwin, demonising what was one of the greatest ideas in science ever. In the 21st century the Church gets in the way of the science that could revolutionise the treatment of many devastating diseases by opposing embryonic stem cell research on "ethical" grounds (conveniently overlooking the fact that God disposes of thousands of times more embryos than scientists ever could). Oh, and that Catholic USofA still has almost half its population not believing in evolution. Can't entirely blame catholicity for that last one, of course, though it's notable that even some who do "believe in evolution", including our head poncho Catholic here, can't leave God out of it, thereby trashing the whole idea. To parody: my science is sacred to me. leave it alone. :-)

(Please don't!)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 06:37 AM

That's a really good question, Jack. And there are a lot of conservative Catholics who are adamant it should not change. There were a bunch of these in the recent Synod on the Family arguing against whether divorced couples should be fully part of the community or not.

I disagree with them, as you might imagine. The Church, to my mind [and this is true of Judaism and Hinduism and all the rest] is about trying to understand the relationship whatever-God-is and the world. And therefore, as the world changes, the relationship changes even if God does not. What happened in the past may well have made sense to the people at the time, but we should not preserve it just because of that if it no longer makes sense today.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 06:33 AM

Surely Jack the RC Church has constantly changed it's stance on many issues over the past 1700 years since it was adopted by the Roman Empire back in the 4th century. It's adapted to survive and frankly has been very good at adapting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 06:24 AM

Leave my faith alone - it's sacred to me.

In a discussion the other night with a deeply religious Roman Catholic family member they were making a lot of claims for the progressiveness of Catholic thinking in recent years - eager to stress that the times they were a-changing. Then it occurred me - why should it change? Roman Catholicism is defined by the 2,000 years of history by which it is known. You can't change that, so why even try? Of course one may change oneself - one can choose to be part of it, or not. One can choose to nail one's colours to the mast in which homophobia, misogyny, institutionalised child rape, the definition, persecution & mutilation of non-believers & heretics, and the routine withholding of painkillers from the dying is integral to the theology - OR one can can opt out and join the real world which regards such practice as running contrary to the common good. But for the RCC to CHANGE its very nature - yeah, the very bedrock of its foundation - is an insult to the countless millions who have suffered under its righteous yoke for the past two millennia.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 05:39 AM

Other examples: spin doctoring is, in many cases, lying because while what is said is almost always factually true, the intention is to deceive the populus into being unaware of the implications. "Being economical with the truth" is lying because the intention to deceive is there.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 04:59 AM

"with relativity from day one" Sigh...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 04:55 AM

Children are a bit like me, simple beings who thrive ...

I know you don't intend this, Steve, but there's one other person on this thread who claims his simplicity and wants everything explained in simple terms.

not by dealing in fables that they later have to pick the bones out of. And no, those fables are not a means to an end. The searing truth is the only means to the end which we call the truth.

So you go straight in with relatively from day one rather than teaching Newtonian physics even though you personally know it isn't true? Of do you confuse all your students by explaining you know Newton physics isn't really true but you will teach this even no scientist believes in it?


A bit of a silly example, I know, but I think we need to be aware that there is an important distinction between saying or teaching something that is false and lying, and that distinction is the intention to deceive. Newtonian physics is not 'true', but there is no intention to deceive when it is taught. Equally if a sincere atheist were to teach there was no God and then God turned up they would have taught something false but it would not have been a lie because there was no intention to deceive.   And for people of faith there is no intention to deceive when these 'fables' are taught.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 03:42 AM

"Christians will teach their kids what they believe is true, and you do the same with evolution. Are you gonna tell the kids that evolutionism has never been demonstrated, ..."

And STILL you're stuck in your groove, aren't you Pete? Repeating your self over and over and over again about stuff that you don't understand and don't want to understand. All that you've managed to convince me of is that you're so narrow-minded and obsessional that you're not worth arguing with. Congratulations!

In my opinion (and I'm sure it's an opinion that you will completely ignore) if you really want to know the answers to the questions that you ask over and over again you should stop reading stuff which merely confirms your prejudices and read some modern, up-to-date texts on evolutionary biology. Then - and only then - come back here and talk about evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 10:49 PM

Yes indeed, John Betjeman doubted at the same time as believing, and believed at the same time as doubting. As we all should.

That's essentially what I implied when I pointed to the creed as the key summary of Christianity, a declaration of belief by individuals. Not even "We believe" - it's "I believe".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 10:35 PM

Example of Steve setting the rules for discussion: Either you know that there are doubts about all the tenets of your faith, or else you're pete.

Of course there's doubt, Steve. That's what faith is all about - exploring what is beyond one's understanding.

If one looks on faith as "facts" to be accepted or rejected or to be true or false, then you would be right. But maybe, just maybe, religious faith is not about "facts." Maybe it's beyond the realm of facts. I look on faith as a a context for exploration, a perspective from which a person explores the meaning of what is. To me, faith isn't about answers - it's about exploration of the questions. Meaning, significance, and value are all beyond the realm of facts. They are something to ponder, not something to prove.

If you want facts and true/false and proof, go to those mindless Catholic Answers people. They speak your language, Steve.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 09:20 PM

Grr, sexist. Honest people, not men.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 09:17 PM

I bought two lovely second-hand books of Betjeman's poetry last year, beautifully illustrated. I think that his paean to Miss Joan Hunter Dunn might be my favourite. His grave, half an hour's drive from my house, is in a most beautiful setting in the churchyard of St Enodoc's church, near Polzeath, overlooking the Camel estuary towards Stepper Point and Pentire. I visit it at least four or five times a year on our favourite walk, which starts at Trebetherick, where he lived, crossing St Enodoc's golf course which goes by the church and on to Rock. That church has suffered my rendition of Amazing Grace on a G harmonica on many occasions. If we're short of time we walk back to the car over the sands of Daymer Bay, but if we have more time and the tides are right we take the ferry across to Padstow and buy a pasty at the Chough bakery, one of Cornwall's finest pasty shops. Then back across, and back to the car along the beach. It's alleged that the weather on the day of Betjeman's funeral was terrible, and there's no road access to the church. He would have liked that.

He was a fine Christian man, but, like all honest men, he struggled with his doubts. What better than wiki:

Betjeman was a practising Anglican and his religious beliefs come through in some of his poems. He combined piety with a nagging uncertainty about the truth of Christianity. Unlike Thomas Hardy, who disbelieved in the truth of the Christmas story while hoping it might be so, Betjeman affirms his belief even while fearing it might be false.[5] In the poem "Christmas", one of his most openly religious pieces, the last three stanzas that proclaim the wonder of Christ's birth do so in the form of a question "And is it true...?" His views on Christianity were expressed in his poem "The Conversion of St. Paul", a response to a radio broadcast by humanist Margaret Knight:

But most of us turn slow to see
The figure hanging on a tree
And stumble on and blindly grope
Upheld by intermittent hope,
God grant before we die we all
May see the light as did St. Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 08:31 PM

live HIS life by them

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 08:29 PM

Don't complicate things! Either you know that there are doubts about all the tenets of your faith, or else you're pete. Now if you're an honest man you will want neither your school nor you yourself to be telling your child that these doubtful things are so true that he should not only believe them but also that he should live your life by them. Unfortunately, that is precisely what faith schools do. I'm asking a really simple question: do you think it is better to tell children that extremely dubious things are true, and that they'd better believe them, than telling them the truth, which is that lots of people believe these things, there is no evidence for them, especially the bits that appear to deal in miracles, and that you should of course live a good and virtuous life and perhaps make your mind up about religion (a very grown-up thing) when you're grown up? I mean, what are you so scared of? Children are a bit like me, simple beings who thrive far better when adults are honest with them and gain their trust by legitimate means, not by dealing in fables that they later have to pick the bones out of. And no, those fables are not a means to an end. The searing truth is the only means to the end which we call the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 08:04 PM

Essentially, Steve, you seem to think that we should tell our children "this is what I believe, but it probably is not true, and this is what I do not believe, but it probably is true."

I have to admit that I can see some problems with that.

I'd sooner read them John Betjeman's "Christmas"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 07:59 PM

That last one was my very polite reply to pete. Not that he particularly deserved it.

"Steve, I'd like to introduce you to some Catholics who share your narrow, polemical perspective of Catholicism. They're the "team of apologists" at the Catholic Answers, http://www.catholic.com//. Just like you, they claim to know everything there is to know about Catholicism, and they're ready to fight to the death to prove they're right."

You are breaking your own fourth commandment. Show that I'm wrong, and reproduce any post of mine that even begins to suggest that I know everything there is, etc. You really are getting desperate.

"I don't like being put in a position where I'm forced to fight about my faith. I think that sort of approach is poison, destructive to all sides - so I avoid it as much as I can."

I don't ask people to fight about their personal beliefs. I am asking you to justify telling children to believe in a miraculously-conceived Jesus who worked magic and who came back from the dead. In your heart of hearts, you know that that is just nonsense. But you think that telling children that is better than telling them the truth. I note that you never address this. Your prerogative, of course.

"Just like you, Steve, they see no value in tolerance."

Apprise me as to the tolerance you show children in faith schools when you make them say prayers and sing hymns full of certainties that you can nowhere near verify. You are one hundred percent intolerant of uncomfortable truths.

"Leave my faith alone - it's sacred to me."

Your sacred faith has thrown up popes who collaborate with Nazis and who have connived in centuries of antisemitism, and which has caused misery to millions of people with its illiberal teachings. It doesn't deserve to be left alone. It deserves to be thoroughly got at, big time, and made to answer for itself. You've shown yourself to be a pretty poor spokesman in that regard. Could be a failure of nerve, I suppose, or just sheer boredom. And there are far fewer of me than of you, so stop worrying.

By the way, I've been to Catholic Answers many times and found that I don't need allies like that. Unlike what I get from you and pete, what you get from me is authentic and original. I'm that honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 07:35 PM

Nope. I told my children in school about Charles Darwin, that he tried to explain a phenomenon that we see all around us with what turned out to be a rather good theory, but that it was still just a theory, not proof, and I showed them the evidence that supports the theory, and invited them to explore that evidence by observation and experiment, and also to explore all the competing ideas. I also told them that the scientific method does not seek proofs, nor does it expect anyone to "believe" anything without evidence. In fact, the scientific method requires you to dismiss anything that is suggested to you unless it can be supported by evidence. We sometimes call that the null hypothesis. Lets do a little game. Let's suppose that God isn't beyond science at all (I don't think he is). As no-one can prove either way that God exists, let's apply the scientific method (and why not? After all, science, along with culture, is by far the greatest achievement of the human mind, so let's put our brains to this, shall we?). Right, so you propose this notion of a God. As a scientist, I propose the null hypothesis, that there is no God. Taking it from there, your task is to give me evidence to reject the null hypothesis. I'm quite prepared to help you with that as long as I feel that you're an honest broker.

OK, off you go. I await....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 07:30 PM

Steve, I'd like to introduce you to some Catholics who share your narrow, polemical perspective of Catholicism. They're the "team of apologists" at the Catholic Answers, http://www.catholic.com//. Just like you, they claim to know everything there is to know about Catholicism, and they're ready to fight to the death to prove they're right. The neoconservative Catholics grabbed up all the best domain names long ago: catholic.org, catholic.com, and a number of others. I'm surprised they didn't get http://www.vatican.va. I guess somebody else beat them to that one...

I don't like being put in a position where I'm forced to fight about my faith. I think that sort of approach is poison, destructive to all sides - so I avoid it as much as I can. These Catholic Answers people love to fight, and I've been forced into a fight with them once or twice. Just like you, Steve, they see no value in tolerance.

As for me, I'd rather fight against mass incarceration or homelessness or poverty. Leave my faith alone - it's sacred to me.

So, go to Catholic Answers, Steve. They're your kind of people.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:56 PM

Christians will teach their kids what they believe is true, and you do the same with evolution. Are you gonna tell the kids that evolutionism has never been demonstrated, that despite Darwin putting his faith in future generations finding graduated transitional evidence there are only a few doubtful examples. Are you going to tell the kids that the odds of even the simplest living cell evolving out of some warm little pond are so high as to be deemed impossible etc etc.......

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:51 PM

And by the by, 'accuse' is the wrong word. I am not accusing you or creationists of anything. I am simply exploring the point than inherent in the idea of subtracting something is that you had more of it before. And since you are not using an information theoretical notion of information I wonder how someone can tell you had more information before unless it is evident in the fossil records.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:39 PM

Unless I misunderstood you, Pete, you seemed to be saying all the earlier forms must have existed to be subtracted from. If so, we would expect to see some of them in the fossil records. And where a Darwinian approach needs one ancestor for many species, you need many different ones for each species.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:34 PM

Dmcg, did,nt understand your last post to me. What is the multi times gap you accuse creationists of ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:28 PM

No need to be puzzled. You're not just telling them what you believe. You're telling them what to believe. There is no other way that we have a billion Muslims who are scared of apostasy and a billion Christians who believe that they are condemned by original sin unless they join the club or of possible hellfire if they break the rules. Tell children the real truth, that, in spite of your beliefs, that there is almost certainly no God, that no miracle has ever been verified, that much of the Bible is of dubious authorship and is not inspired by God, that St Bernadette, etc. were manipulated myth-tellers, and all the rest of the tawdry nonsense that you hold sacred, and we would have a far more honest world. What are you so afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:22 PM


On what basis would you think , either the profession it self, is shameful or wrong

What does the Bible say on the subject, pete? Particularly the old testament

I somehow think that the Bible would not be a relevant basis for the person being addressed in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:13 PM

I'm a bit puzzled why Steve thinks that telling your children that you believe something is true that you believe is true is iniquitable.

One noticeable thing about Christianity is that it centres on an expression of belief - "I believe", the creed, not an assertion of the indisputable character of that bellief. In that it contrasts with the Muslim equivalent "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:05 PM

"we should ALL be proud of the teachings of Christ, whether we be atheist or believer."

I completely fail to understand the "logic" of this statement. Could anyone please elucidate?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:00 PM

On what basis would you think , either the profession it self, is shameful or wrong

What does the Bible say on the subject, pete? Particularly the old testament.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:56 PM

Part 2 bill. The fact that only small changes contained within a type of organism indeed does not ...disprove...evolutionism, but it sure don't prove it. It is however an unwarranted connect to say those changes can account for microbes to man concept. As you say, all those creatures did,nt die in places where you could dig them up and line up the transitional links, so I suppose you have to imagine them. I was aware btw, that evolutionism postulates a bush (tree-Darwin?) rather than straight lines. But as you say there is evidence of links in our own supposed ape to man, please do tell me what they are. I am sure you know there have been many before that have gone into the evolution dustbin , but if you got something that does fill the gaps.... Chances are, it will either be ape or human, and if you can point me to an evolutionary bush that has not got lots of dotted lines indicating tenuous linkages....ie imagined...         You say I am committing a fallacy by describing your evolutionism as a faith position. Till you demonstrate otherwise I don't think so. And the logical conclusion of science would be that which accords with observable, testable,repeatable experiment, something not amenable to origins science, so the equivocation is rather yours.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:53 PM

Daddy! why have the dancing ladies got soot on their faces??

There'yare, a hole in one!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:40 PM

I'm glad my thread made 1000 posts, but sorry that a good man has been taken to task for his beliefs by a group who have neither knowledge of the subject, nor the manners to keep their mouths shut about the religious beliefs of others.

Simply mind your own business, no one is advocating that you should hold similar beliefs.
If a person wishes to teach his children how he came to be a Christian then that can only be a positive thing.....we should ALL be proud of the teachings of Christ, whether we be atheist or believer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:35 PM

No, Kevin. To bugger is the verb. Also, a noun. You daft bugger. It's a right bugger is that. But a person with a predilection for the particular activity in question can't be just a bugger. A person who's inclined to wander is a wanderer, not a wander. A person who's inclined to bugger is a buggerer, not a bugger, at least in intent if not in practice. Of course, a buggerer can also be a bit of a silly bugger as well. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:24 PM

Yes

Here you are

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:19 PM

1,000 up! Do I get a coconut?