BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 06:43 AM

The assumption that the account in the Gospels about this has anything whatsoever with the notion that there is something unsavoury about sex is completely without any foundation. Not a hint of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 06:32 AM

Christianity teaches that there was an "intercession."
Just not by Joseph.

Quite. That makes poor Joseph a bit of a mug really, though, I suppose. Anyway, the story goes that Jesus came about without the intercession of one of those filthy sperms that came from a nasty, furtive bonk, which sets him slightly above the rest of us, which is the intention I guess. Unfortunately, no-one told the creators of this yarn that the blackfly on my broad beans are conceived in exactly the same way. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 05:44 AM

Have you read that book that I recommended yet, Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 05:40 AM

The only things that are beyond science are the things invented by deluded minds.

Tell that to the psychologists.

How many people have not cursed at an innaminate object that would not 'do what they wanted' ? How far is it from fearing a predator in the dark from fearing the dark and what it may hide. Is a mistaken perception agency in thunderstorm so surprising ?

Superstition happens, it is part human nature. How many societies have not invented or adopted a god ?

And scientists study it/them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 05:14 AM

With apologies to Tim Hardin:

If I was the holy ghost
and you were our lady
you could marry a carpenter
but you'd still have my baby

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:46 AM

I'm not mistaken in the substantive, that Jesus was supposedly conceived without the intercession of Joseph, poor chap.

Christianity teaches that there was an "intercession."
Just not by Joseph.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:44 AM

this cause and effect thing is tricky. Most of the time , science does assume all effects have causes - it would be difficult to formulate most scientic laws otherwise - but there are exceptions. Things we call 'random mutations' in genetics are one example. Yes, if you really want to you might say it was caused by a specific genetic blip, but you would then have to trace those back and say they were caused by an interaction with a bit of background radiation, say, and that only gets you into the whole quantum uncertainty palaver.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:35 AM

" ... stuff like the law which says that any effect must have sufficient cause, and life only comes from life for starters."

Which 'laws' are those, Pete? And who formulated them? And if there is such a thing as the first law, what effect caused God?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 10:12 PM

The only way, Steve, that you can say the laws of science have not been breached according to the general theory of evolution, is to hope there is a law of science yet to be discovered to counteract the laws of science that the GtE does breach !          You know, stuff like the law which says that any effect must have sufficient cause, and life only comes from life for starters.

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

Quite so. Though I'm mistaken in the detail, I'm not mistaken in the substantive, that Jesus was supposedly conceived without the intercession of Joseph, poor chap. The miracle stands, as does the point about the evils of sex and the purity of Jesus conceived without it. I hate to weaken my case by such errors, but I don't really need to change the argument. Point graciously conceded! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 09:12 PM

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing whatsoever to do with virgin birth.

As I said, it's about an absence of "original sin".

You aren't the first person to make that mistake, and you won't be the last.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 08:57 PM

As for the immaculate conception, well now here we have a number of complications. Not the least of which is that sex is just a bit evil, which is why Jesus, that most perfect of all fellows, simply had to come about without it. Hence, immaculate. Unblemished, unspotted, unsullied by those disgusting sperms. A very convenient way of setting up a belief system that is largely predicated on making people feel guilty, and what better to make them feel guilty about than bonking!   Fantastic instrument of control! Christ, man, why can't you see that! Of course, the other complication is that the immaculate conception is possible by miracle only. Another great handle for the purveyors of the faith. Imbue the thing with guilt and make it miraculous to boot. A superb double whammy! No wonder it's ex cathedra! Joseph must have been incredibly gullible, or a complete wimp, or, as I suspect, both. The archetypal cuckold! He'd have been better off had he never existed. Which he probably didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 08:40 PM

Well, I am utterly uninterested in notions that the cosmos is beyond science, because, quite simply, it isn't. The only things that are beyond science are the things invented by deluded minds. This universe operates according to the laws of physics, some of which we haven't yet got our heads round, but none of which, so far, have ever been breached. And I'll tell you summat else. If your God has, in his infinite wisdom, given you the wherewithal to ponder such conundrums, then I think he would be fully expecting you to use that intellect to the full. The very last thing he would be expecting is for you to look at a tree and declare that it's so wonderful that only a creator could have come up with it. He would be fully expecting you to use that mighty brain of yours to explore the wonders of evolution, the fact that a billion tiny changes over three billion years resulted in that tree. How bloody marvellous is that, and how redundant does it make your God. In fact, beside that wonder of nature that is evolution, he pales. He's a hopeless explanation that can't even, himself, be explained.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 08:15 PM

The Immaculate Conception a "perfectly ludicrous proposition", Steve? I'd have thought you'd actually agree with that one. It declares that the mother of Jesus was completely free of "original sin", and since I rather suspect you might disagree with the notion of "original sin" in the first place, you'd surely have no reason to take issue with that.
.................................
As for the suggestion that very few people have come up with the idea of God de novo, you are likely right. But then, if that idea is already all around them, how could they?

However the suggestion that if you leave the idea of God out of it, things fall into a neat comprehensible pattern doesn't really stand up too well.

Here's a chunk from an article about Cosmology. (Which incidentally shares my suggestiin that cosmology can be seen as a branch of Metaphysics) It is interesting to click on that, if only to see its summary of an imposing list of som 44 Cosmologies that have floated around over the centuries, most of them put forward by scientists in the last century. I very much doubt if many people will have come up with any of those on their own either.

Cosmology deals with the world as the totality of space, time and all phenomena. Historically, it has had quite a broad scope, and in many cases was founded in religion.[citation needed] The ancient Greeks did not draw a distinction between this use and their model for the cosmos.[citation needed] However, in modern use metaphysical cosmology addresses questions about the Universe which are beyond the scope of science. It is distinguished from religious cosmology in that it approaches these questions using philosophical methods like dialectics. Modern metaphysical cosmology tries to address questions such as:

What is the origin of the Universe? What is its first cause? Is its existence necessary? (see monism, pantheism, emanationism and creationism)
What are the ultimate material components of the Universe? (see mechanism, dynamism, hylomorphism, atomism)
What is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe? Does the cosmos have a purpose? (see teleology)
Does the existence of consciousness have a purpose? How do we know what we know about the totality of the cosmos? Does cosmological reasoning reveal metaphysical truths? (see epistemology)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 06:53 PM

I haven't a clue as to whether you'd differ from them on "theology" and, frankly my dear, I don't GIVE a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 06:25 PM

....hostile....certainly not, though as you will know I suppose, that I would differ from them on some quite important theology.   Used to get quite a lot knocking on the door and I often had discussion with them but it dropped off, and lately they have taken to setting up displays in town.                                                                                              Congratulations on the apples.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 06:19 PM

"So shimrod, you want me to read a book that you yourself are unable to come to grips with !"

Where did I say that I was unable to come to grips with the book, Pete?

By the way, have you read it yet?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 04:42 PM

Hmm. I take it that you're hostile to Jehovah's Witnesses. They seem to me to be a little confused over creationism/evolution. That's really their problem, easily resolved if only they'd rely on evidence. I care not a jot. Far more important is that my friend, very elderly now, is a good man with a message. I am a pretty good test for him, I suppose. He knows that his ideas are falling on stony ground on my doorstep, but he isn't pushy, he listens to what I have to say (just like here, I'm very gentle) and I'm not going to stand there and mercilessly demolish him. He is a great bloke to chat to, he appreciates nature in all its glory, he likes a cup of tea and I suppose he'll be back for more apples any day now. Damn good crop this year. He isn't a complicated man. I haven't a clue whether other Jehovah's Witnesses are like him. I don't care, really. I just like talking to real people, and he's one of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 04:21 PM

I do not write with any flourish. I write the way I've always written. It probably doesn't represent the rather shambolic me very well. But that's how it is. Take it or leave it. I know no other way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 03:18 PM

point taken, dmcg, I made an unwarranted extension of your thought there.
you certainly write with great flourish steve . however , a lot of it seems to be straw man argument. I don't recall myself, or anyone else using these arguments. as I said earlier, we cannot make a complete case for our faith , but seems to me it is not in conflict with observational science , whereas, what you believe is , and rests on the interpretation of data that can be as well if not better interpreted by creation and intelligent design.
you don't seem to have taken on board either, earlier comments, that many believers went through doubt or even rejection of their faith, but returned to it later. and though there may be many who simply adopted the faith of their parents, many [ including myself ] became Christians without the benefit of believing [or rather practising Christian] parents.
have you been tackled on evolution by your watchtower visitors. as I understand it from also reading some of their stuff, they reject it, though accepting deep time !

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

Not so, guest. If you relied on the actual probability of the person stepping into the road then you would have to drive as if every body was bout to step into the road, or that no one was, neither of which would be sensible. Instead you make snap judgements after looking at them for perhaps a tenth of a second based on gut feel.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 02:01 PM

Very few people out the seven billion on this planet came up with the God notion by themselves. The vast majority are believers because they were told about it by someone else, or read about it, but mostly told it. A very large number of those, including me, were told that they'd better believe it under pain of sanctions. Hundreds of millions are told that public demurral could lead to death. In my case, it was hell fire even if I neglected to take part in regular worship, let alone failed to believe. I understand that slightly more enlightened attitudes are afoot these days (though for every newly-enlightened one I can show you half a dozen unenlightened ones that haven't budged). The evidence for God, or that religion is right, is not evidence at all. St Bernadette is not evidence. It could not be corroborated. When someone says something outrageous to you, you don't take them at their word, even if they're innocent little shepherdesses. The sky shimmering at Knock or moving statues are not evidence. The Bible is not evidence because, even if you you accept the authorship of the writings, what the authors wrote cannot, in most cases, be corroborated. In fact, the four Gospels, the "best" selection of a large bunch of gospels most of which are suppressed, are replete with inconsistencies. The Immaculate Conception is, in effect, an edict from the Vatican, one of the infamous ex cathedra pronouncements. It is actually a perfectly ludicrous proposition that casts the Church into disrepute. It certainly isn't evidence just because a pope said so. Great cathedrals (which I love), high masses with grand vestments, chanting and incense, are not evidence, imposing though they are. That would be like saying that the Mayday parades of impressive weaponry in Moscow were evidence that the USSR was the greatest nation. Prayers and hymns, whatever their aesthetic value, are not evidence. Papal speeches on Easter Sunday calling for world peace are very fine, but they don't amount to a hill of beans in the evidence stakes.   Looking all around you at the marvels of nature (always the opening gambit of my good friend, the local Jehovah's Witness), and claiming that there can be only one conclusion, a creator, is not only seeing evidence for God where there isn't any, but is also a complete dereliction of the human intellect.

I really try, honest. I don't accept anything without evidence, not even from Hitchens and Dawkins (they are usually careful to support any claims, mind you). I always read Watchtower and Awake! cover to cover and am currently perusing the Jehovah's Witnesses' book on what the Bible really teaches. The last time he came round we walked round my garden chatting about stuff and I gave him two big bags of apples. I don't care what people believe and I know that what diminishes people is the stupid things that they say or do, not what exists in the privacy of their minds. All I say is be careful who you pass it on to. You have no monopoly on the truth, in spite of your prayers and hymns riddled with certainties, and neither do I. You may not have noticed it, but I don't start threads on religion or atheism. I just react.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 01:26 PM

as I think it shed some light on the way Jesus obviously spoke symbolically in johns gospel

Most Christians think it is symbolic, but it would be a mistake to assume that follows from my argument (which would, I am sure, have got me burnt a few centuries ago!).

Think about my person who was a call centre operative and than transubstantiated into a folk singer. He was not symbolically a call centre worker. He actually was one. Equally, he was not symbolically a folk singer, he actually was one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 01:26 PM

So shimrod, you want me to read a book that you yourself are unable to come to grips with ! And you a scientist an all!.   As usual, you present no argument from science at all.....just the usual implied argument from authority.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 01:15 PM

How do you know that a large body of evidence is not possible for creationism, Steve.? Have you actually looked ?    The truth is we all have the same evidence , it is the interpretation that makes the difference. The claim that the body of evidence supports one belief or the other is meaningless.    The crucial thing is ....can you substantiate what you say is true/validated by the evidence.    And as theists admit the limits of demonstrating a belief whereas you ,and your fellow atheists claim the intellectual high ground, it is more incumbent on you,s to demonstrate that you really do set the bar high......when it comes to your biased view.   I won't hold my breath !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 01:14 PM

It matters not that probability of a person stepping into the road without looking is X; all that matters is whether that person there is about to, which is not statistical in nature.

If you don't know anything about 'that person there' then the probability of 'a person' doing it (ideally in a situation like the current one) is what you have to go on. That the probablity is known to be more than zero might be relevant in court.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:58 PM

Joe , no offence intended. I genuinely did not know if you accepted the miraculous from what I can recall of your previous posts. I am encouraged that you do, as there have been many who would call themselves Christian while demoting the resurrection to merely spiritual or a trick with bones.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:51 PM

I found those thoughts on transubstantiation helpful, dmcg , though not an RC , as I think it shed some light on the way Jesus obviously spoke symbolically in johns gospel.    Steve implies that God believers set the evidence bar low, but in my many discussions with him he has never produced evidence for his position, other than that which is open easily to the creation model interpretation also.   Darwin himself conceded as much.....and , if anything, scientific progress has only made evolutionism more improbable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:51 PM

"And if it works for you, fine. I can't argue with that. What I can argue with is passing it on to others as if it were truth. Someone did that to you, which is why you believe. And millions of people are trapped in belief systems that do NOT work very well for them."

There's an assumption here which is pretty questionable. Pretty well every Catholic I know, including priests, have lapsed for a period before returning to practising. They don't believe because they were programmed into it as children and have never questioned it. From the childhood experience they bring an awareness of the Church, and this can become relevant in later life, should they so choose, on the basis of later life.

In some ways there's an analogy with what happens to children of parents immersed in folk music. They get taken to festivals and so forth, and hear the music around the house. Typically they grow up and react against it. Then often enough they get back into it. Because it works.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:40 PM

and all this just because somebody told you it was true

No.
No-one can tell you it is true.
No evidence.
All anyone can do is open your mind to the possibility.

It is not about evidence. If it is true, there would still be no evidence.
Not the kind you mean anyway.
Most believers will tell you that they have their reasons, but personal.

And, like you, we never stop questioning.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:34 PM

"Someone did that to you" - a bit of a negative way of expressing things, you know. And not one you have evidence for as it happens. There are people like CS Lewis, for example, who moved from an atheist position to a believer, though the majority of the movement is certainly in the other direction. So isn't it an assumption I am a birth-Christian rather than choosing it later in life?   

As it happens, you are right in that I was brought up Catholic, and though a Catholic primary and secondary school. But you are quite wrong to imagine I accept these ideas without demur. You brought up some time ago the topic of transubstantiation. And I can see, wearing a science hat, that's there's something wrong there. Indeed, I could see it at seven year old. Now, the superficial thinker either rejects that out of hand, or accepts it uncritically. The deeper thinker says there appears to be something wrong, so maybe I am just not understanding it properly. Which leads you into exploring Aristotle and Plato and the discovery that, not only is the term 'substance' in transubstantiation dramatically different to the same word in the scientific sense (being closer to the sense of 'the substance of an argument') but that transubstantiation in the Aristotelian sense happens the whole time in ordinary life, such as when a person leaves work where he has the substance of 'call centre operative' and walks into a club he gains the substance of 'folk singer'.

Not that the well meaning nuns who taught me appeared to understood any of that. But I say it just to illustrate the point that things are not necessarily just 'accepted without demur'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:22 PM

Who put, that bloody comma, in there...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:21 PM

Very defeatist. We have to keep looking. But we won't find out anything useful, unless we demand evidence. We call it scientific endeavour, which, along with culture, is the greatest attribute of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:08 PM

The origins of the universe are well beyond science I believe they involve things which humanity would find impossible to understand.
For example the extent of the universe, does it really go on for ever?
Are we equipped to deal with the concept of "for ever"
Isn't that concept more alien to humanity than a concept of "god"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:05 PM

"But actually the vast majority of your decision making is based on judgements without adequate evidence. "

Er, but this is not what we're talking about   We are talking about accepting without demur a highly-improbable notion that is at odds with everything else we experience and for which there is NO evidence. I know I set the bar high for evidence. But no higher than for anything else. And if it works for you, fine. I can't argue with that. What I can argue with is passing it on to others as if it were truth. Someone did that to you, which is why you believe. And millions of people are trapped in belief systems that do NOT work very well for them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 11:50 AM

We make those kind of decisions on the basis of a mixture of evidence and feeling.("Would you buy a used car from this person?") But very largely on pragmatic stuff - what works for.you.

And that's how it goes with religious belief. Does it work for you. And the evidence appears to confirm that on the whole , for many people (arguably most people) it does.
Doing what works is a very rational thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 11:50 AM

But Steve, that's not the only, or even the main way people act. Science is about things that are known unambiguously (leaving aside the usual caveats in the interests of simplicity.) So is checking your Sainsbury's bill.

But actually the vast majority of your decision making is based on judgements without adequate evidence. Second by second while you drive you are making assumptions about what all the cars and pedestrians nearby are about to do: it is all based on assumption not evidence. Holiday planning, investments and loans, travel arrangements and expected time of arrival, the list goes on for ever.

Nor can we can avoid this using probability - since we are dealing with individual events, not statistics. It matters not that probability of a person stepping into the road without looking is X; all that matters is whether that person there is about to, which is not statistical in nature. The probability of horses wandering over the M25 on a typical journey must be extremely low, but it still happened to me a few months ago.

So all our thinking is sometimes evidence based, but sometimes not. And, to coin a mischievous phrase, it is the Scientific Delusion to think otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 11:33 AM

It isn't particularly clever to apply the same requirements for evidence that you'd apply to the other aspects of your life, such as checking your Sainsbury's receipt, or going down the builders' yard to check that the builder isn't overcharging you, or having a good look at a used car before you buy it, or looking up other sources to make sure that Keith/akenaton/the Daily Mail aren't lying to you (vital). None of that is clever, just sensible. It's odd that you could accept without checking for evidence that there's a supernatural being who's all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, who never had a beginning and who created everything, all contrary to the laws of nature that he presumably instituted, yet who's never been seen and who can't be explained, and all this just because somebody told you it was true without offering you a scrap of evidence. I don't call questioning that clever. I call questioning that normal and rational. Very ordinary really.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 10:55 AM

A bit sarcastic keith........but probably justifiable in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 10:54 AM

We are not worthy.

Dunno 'bout "we" Professor, but YOU got that right.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 10:34 AM

The people who believe in God CAN know better, if only they would apply the same critical faculties....

If only we were as clever as you, O wise Steve.
Then we would all know better about God, and him not existing.
We are not worthy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 09:53 AM

Quote of the day in my eyes -

God exists as an idea. Regardless of if its existance or non existance as a deity. There is no conceivable way to ever know.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 08:27 AM

That's the true Revivalist spirit, Steve. Alleluiah!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 08:04 AM

The people who believe in God CAN know better, if only they would apply the same critical faculties with regard to evidence that they apply to the rest of their thinking. Whether they should know better is up to them. It's there for the taking, and life in the atheistic sunlit uplands is happy and free, I assure you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 07:55 AM

Not crazy, but in the grip of a delusion...

Hamlet summed up the situation of being deluded only part way, "I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I can tell a hawk from a handsaw". Check the etymology of "crazy", perhaps. Crazy pavements can provide an excellent support, but they are still full of cracks, which is why they are called crazy.

But I wasn't pointing a finger at anyone in particular. I do think that the view that people who believe in God should know better, and that they let themselves down, is very clearly implied in the words of such critics as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. I don't think there is anything shameful in their saying it, or that it's an unfair thing to say they do. (I would actually object to the reverse accusation, where non-belief was seen as shameful. )

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 06:40 AM

I have never said that belief in God is either shameful (it isn't) or crazy (ditto). My view is that it is a delusion because there is no evidence for it and it breaks all the laws of nature. I've always been careful to add that you can be perfectly rational in all other aspects of your life yet still harbour a delusion. I still support Liverpool. I rest my case. It would be good if akenaton would desist from the same kind of slanderous behaviour that he so frequently accuses others of.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 02:43 AM

Steve and Richard, primarily.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 02:29 AM

" ... no true scientist is ever absolutely sure they're right about anything."

No argument there.

"Sometimes it's about believing in God, sometimes it's about it being shamefully crazy to believe in God."

Who, exactly, has accused anyone of being "shamefully crazy", McGrath?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 05:12 PM

True enough, no true scientist is ever absolutely sure they're right about anything. (That's one reason Jesuits are quite often scientist.) But there are a fair number of people who are, and sometimes they get hyperactive trying to "dictate what others do and should believe".

"Yes, I'm right! - and you are wrong!" Sometimes it's about believing in God, sometimes it's about it being shamefully crazy to believe in God. Perhaps more often it's the latter variety on the Mudcat, but who knows? In fact, who cares?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 05:00 PM

Well, to take an example - who, apart from god-botherers dictates either that contraception is wrong, or that sex outside marriage is wrong, or that abortion is wrong?