BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:21 AM

But you're saying it's right for people to class us with the bigots, unless we attack the bigots directly.

Not at all, Joe. I'm saying its all right to classify such people as largely innefective and not a little bit hypocritical.

And you are the one wh included yourself among such people, not I.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:16 AM

That's an argument that's used often, Greg, and I think it's invalid...The argument could be seen as a weak attempt to rationalize bigotry.

Your opinion doesn't make it any less true as things operate in the real world, Joe. YOUR arguement could be seen as a whitewash & excuse for folks who won't put their money where their mouths are.

"If you're not part of the solution....."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:11 AM

Well the older I get the less I see things in the black and white of my youth. I can't decide whether I agree with bombing Syria. I think that nuclear power is the best way forward. I think we all need to cut politicians some slack. I support the work that the police do on the whole. Stuff like that. Thirty years ago I'd probably have been saying the polar opposite of all those things. Issues such as those all have lots of things to argue about. It's a long time since I was a person of faith. I exited Catholicism gradually and gently, no apostasy traumas in sight. There are many Catholics in my extended family still. I do see some of those constricted notions among a lot of them that Shimrod mentions, though I wouldn't issue a blanket assertion about them. All the awkward questions and challenges I put here are the same ones I put to myself decades ago. I was just like Joe, Kevin and DMcG. The difference is that I did confront those questions as honestly as I could and found that there were no satisfactory answers. It simply isn't all right to send children to schools in which they will be lied to. And it is lies. There is no evidence that anything in your belief system is founded on biblical truth, no evidence for a deity. Confront that, please. Lies can never be an artful way of getting at deeper truths. Only the truth can do that, and children in faith schools of all varieties are simply not being told the truth. I did it myself when I started teaching in 1973. For a year I took Catholic assemblies, sang in the school choir and even taught RE to 11-year-olds. I was telling them the same lies that I'm accusing others of telling now. Instead of beating myself up about it, water under the bridge and all that, I've decided to do the honest thing and fight it. I have actually seen it from the inside, everything I'm arguing against right now. It doesn't matter what you believe. It does matter a great deal what you do with your belief, especially when you belief becomes a conviction and when the conviction is distorted into fake truth. Similarly, it doesn't matter what science discovers. Science and culture are what make us human and both are unstoppable. It does matter what is done with science. Science will never wreck the planet, but the misuse of scientific discoveries probably will. Same but different. Belief is a house built on sand. Tread carefully in it and stop trying to draw other people in.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:08 AM

Does the picture say enough about brainwashing

I find the picture at the front of this BBC article abhorrent. If this is not a clear example of the brainwashing that Steve refers too I don't know what is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

"Pete is defending his own viewpoint - a positive point of view that he holds sacred, whether it be right or wrong.

Steve's whole program is merely to attack religion."

Hmmm! I'm going to have to choose my words carefully here. As I've said before, my default position is to treat everyone I meet with respect. I think that this attitude has paid off because I know that in my own community people respect me and that, in turn, gives me a strong sense of belonging. I believe that earning the respect of my friends and neighbours is one of my life's achievements that I am most proud of. Then along comes Pete and ruins it because I can't respect him, no matter how hard I try. I can't respect his absolutism, his credulity and ignorance and his disrespect for science - which is, quite simply, one of our species' greatest achievements.

You see, I was trained as a scientist and earned my living as a scientist for over 40 years. True, I worked in the consumer products industry - which was hardly 'cutting edge' - but, still, I gained a perspective on the world around me which, perhaps, non-scientists don't have. A key thing that I learned is that there are few absolutes or certainties - for a start, all of my results and conclusions had probability estimates attached to them. In addition the constant striving for objectivity and the elimination of bias was something which impressed me deeply and changed the way that I think. I know that the scientists whose work Pete derides think in much the same way - and implying that they don't is like implying that a fish can't swim!

As for religious faith, here's something which you might like to ponder, Joe (perhaps also think about in your dealings with Steve?). I was brought up in the 'wishy-washy' Church of England. The religious instruction that I received might be described as 'lite' and made little impression on me. But now I live in a great Northern English city. The Catholic church is very strong here and many people were raised as Catholics. Many of my friends and acquaintances were so raised - but most of those are now 'lapsed'. Nevertheless, I can't help noticing that their view of life tends to be different from mine. For a start, they often have a tendency to see things in 'black-and-white' and also have a tendency towards absolutism. In discussions and arguments they also have a tendency to immediately seize the 'moral high ground' and reject anything which doesn't fit with their 'black and white' view of morality - even when it may not be appropriate to do so.

I think that it's very telling that recently I was discussing the state of the environment with a local woman who is a lapsed Catholic (and a non-scientist). Her view was that we shouldn't worry because science will eventually solve all of our problems (!). I suddenly realised that she was telling me that she has FAITH that science will solve all of our problems. I'm still thinking through the implications of that! As a scientist myself, I'm more sanguine. I think that it's unlikely that science will be able to solve all of our environmental problems and we've all got to work together to solve our environmental problems (if they're even solvable). If that lady's response stems from her Catholic upbringing (I suspect that it's highly likely) has she been equipped with the tools necessary to deal with a changing world?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:59 AM

Talk about repetitive. I have no idea why that's here twice!

I hear this morning that the organisation that puts up ads on cinema screens has refused to show a recital of the Lord's Prayer produced by the Church of England. The latter had wanted it shown before the latest Star Wars movie, which will be shown to families with children, among others. Well good for the advertisers. Let the C of E get their own picture houses to which only Christians are invited! The indignation of the faithful at this decision is highly amusing. It just shows that religion thinks it has a God-given right to insert itself into whatever areas of life it wishes. What a mindset!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:15 AM

Shimrod, the hostility I get here (which involves far more personal attacks than I ever mete out these days: I prefer to put my points as plainly as I can, that's all) actually cheers me up in a peculiar way. It is a reflection of the fact that they feel very uncomfortable about having real challenges put to them for a change, something they never get within their cosy club, not even from other religious groups, which all share similar sentiments. I think that the new brand of attack atheism is an excellent thing. Religion has done so much damage and had it far too easy for far too long and it's time it was put under attack and made to account for itself. Its unpreparedness for this is reflected in the responses from believers we often see here. Heretics unite!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM

Well Steve, I don't think you have any right to tell Joe what to tell his children, or that I have any right to stop you teaching yours the worst excesses of "liberal" ideology.

It is simply none of your business and none of mine, I hold certain conservative social views and I shall defend them until I die, with facts and statistics which I believe prove me correct. You reject my views and I have absolutely no right to stop you passing yours on to your children.....no matter how wrong and damaging I feel them to be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:49 AM

Talk about repetitive. How many times have you now used the keep-'em-at-arm's-length reference to "what you hold sacred"? You ask me what it is you haven't addressed (not that I care that you haven't, but since you ask). I've asked you over and over again why you find it difficult to support telling children the plain truth. Why you prefer to see them having myths fed to them as truth. And please spare me your he-who-is-within-and-without, deeper truths stuff. That is not what children are told in schools. The plain truth, not an opinion, is that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity. The plain truth is that you have to accept magic and suspend disbelief in order to accommodate him. The PLAIN TRUTH is that stories in gospels about miracles and coming back from the dead and virgin births are NOT TRUE. Honesty dictates that children are told in plain words that these things are stories, just as the Grimm fairy tales are stories, and that they should not believe them as truth unless they have evidence confirming them (which you know full well they will never get). I have absolutely no issue with parables and stories used to convey messages, as long as it's always made clear that the actual stories are not true. Great idea. But that is not what happens. They come away thinking that these are true stories, not just myths with messages like Aesop's Fables. It's no good keeping telling us that Joe Offer and his kids understand all this, but Joe Offer spent years studying theology, unlike 99.9% of other Catholics (or is it twenty, or maybe eight...) And you have a whole plethora of hymns and prayers that they have to learn to confirm this pack of LIES. But honesty will lose you members and you know it. I've asked you to justify this and you haven't, not just "to my satisfaction," but not at all. You call me a not very nice person (even though you've never met me) for putting this challenge to you. Too bad. You accuse me of visiting websites that I don't even know exist and you insinuate that I somehow must have had horrible Catholic experiences, both stabs in the dark and completely unfounded (and not true), and very judgemental, something you're not supposed to be if I remember correctly. If I'm not very nice, you are in denial about the real truth and you don't seem to care if you pass this brand of sheer dishonesty to children. And don't get me started about how you have to mangle science in order to make it fit your belief system. You are supposed to be an intelligent man and you have been known to say many intelligent things on this board. So wassup!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:10 AM

Talk about repetitive. How many times have you now used the keep-'em-at-arm's-length reference to "what you hold sacred"? You ask me what it is you haven't addressed (not that I care that you haven't, but since you ask). I've asked you over and over again why you find it difficult to support telling children the plain truth. Why you prefer to see them having myths fed to them as truth. And please spare me your he-who-is-within-and-without, deeper truths stuff. That is not what children are told in schools. The plain truth, not an opinion, is that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity. The plain truth is that you have to accept magic and suspend disbelief in order to accommodate him. The PLAIN TRUTH is that stories in gospels about miracles and coming back from the dead and virgin births are NOT TRUE. Honesty dictates that children are told in plain words that these things are stories, just as the Grimm fairy tales are stories, and that they should not believe them as truth unless they have evidence confirming them (which you know full well they will never get). I have absolutely no issue with parables and stories used to convey messages, as long as it's always made clear that the actual stories are not true. Great idea. But that is not what happens. They come away thinking that these are true stories, not just myths with messages like Aesop's Fables. It's no good keeping telling us that Joe Offer and his kids understand all this, but Joe Offer spent years studying theology, unlike 99.9% of other Catholics (or is it twenty, or maybe eight...) And you have a whole plethora of hymns and prayers that they have to learn to confirm this pack of LIES. But honesty will lose you members and you know it. I've asked you to justify this and you haven't, not just "to my satisfaction," but not at all. You call me a not very nice person (even though you've never met me) for putting this challenge to you. Too bad. You accuse me of visiting websites that I don't even know exist and you insinuate that I somehow must have had horrible Catholic experiences, both stabs in the dark and completely unfounded (and not true), and very judgemental, something you're not supposed to be if I remember correctly. If I'm not very nice, you are in denial about the real truth and you don't seem to care if you pass this brand of sheer dishonesty to children. And don't get me started about how you have to mangle science in order to make it fit your belief system. You are supposed to be an intelligent man and you have been known to say many intelligent things on this board. So wassup!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:59 AM

No, Shimrod, there's a big difference. All Steve does is attack others - he is constantly on the offensive - and he is attacking us personally and what we hold sacred. There is no chance of having a reasonable and constructive discussion with him because he's constantly seeking to destroy and find fault - never to find common ground and agreement. If you talk with Steve, you have to be on your guard every moment. He is not a nice person. He's in this for battle, not understanding or discussion. Just like the worst of the born-agains, he is absolutely convinced that he's right. He has no ability to question his own position at all. And with such an extreme point of view, I wonder if there's any chance he can work constructively with people of faith in real life.

Pete is defending his own viewpoint - a positive point of view that he holds sacred, whether it be right or wrong.

Steve's whole program is merely to attack religion. I don't think any of us think religion is beyond reproach. We've all had both good and bad experiences with religion. Even Steve admits to having had some good experiences.

People who live only to attack and destroy, are not likely to be the most popular kids on the block.

You and Raggytash may not agree with religion, but it feels possible to have a discussion with you without being on guard every moment.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:16 AM

I think that it is a bit unfair to accuse Steve of being repetitive whilst ignoring the fact that Pete has been repeating the same old nonsense over and over and over again for years! At least Steve's opinions are his own and not someone else's. At least Steve is his own man and not a semi-articulate 'mouthpiece' who has been brainwashed and (dare I write it?) 'radicalised' by religious fundamentalists!
I suspect that a lot of the hostility towards Steve's opinions are based on the fact that, in some quarters, religion is still seen as being beyond reproach and criticism. In short, many of you see Steve as a heretic!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 11:05 PM

Steve, it's at the point where we can predict what you're going to say - almost word-for-word. I'm sure there's some reason why you harbor such disdain for religion. Many people have been harmed by religion - I have no doubt of that. Many others find great benefit in their religious practices.
So, what "issues" haven't I answered, Steve? I think it boils down to this: I believe in God and practice a religion and you don't. Either way is fine, although you don't seem to think so.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:10 PM

Absolutely untrue, Kevin. Show me when I've said the same thing over and over again, taking context into account. And, if I may say so, you, Pete and Joe crack on as if you haven't read a single word I've said. Your responses are apparently determined in advance. It's what cornered, defensive Christians always do. You are intelligent enough to address the issues. Your choice. I'm actually amazed that I've managed to bracket you with pete, but you are just as adept at not listening as he is. Your prerogative, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,badge
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:53 PM

 "Whoever is not God is nothing"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:52 PM

Of course you don't say the same thing every time, Steve. Some of your postsii are one liners, others lengthy screeds. But you do indeed say the same things over and over and over again.

I note you wrote in a post just now "How bloody arrogant can you get." I am tempted to suggest that there are examples of precisely that in a fair number of your own posts in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:53 PM

"Pete should teach his kids what he wants to teach them"

Would you say the same about the radicalisers of Al Qaeda or ISIS? Last I heard, some of them were teaching their six-year-olds to use Kalashnikovs to shoot infidels. Oh well. None of our business, I suppose. And, after all, we Christians are so much more civilised...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:44 PM

Er, "it's all so dishonest" is what I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:41 PM

Well I for one have never been on a Dawkins or Hitchens website, nor do I know if they even exist, nor would I go on them even if they did. Try to be not so bloody silly for a change. And I'm not defending children, I'm attacking YOU for espousing ideas that are likely to damage them, even though your adherence to your belief system is so strong that you really don't care. Your priority is the perpetuation of your belief system, and children's independence of thought can be sacrificed on that altar. You would rather peddle myths as truth to them than tell them the truth, the one and only way of keeping them in the club. Shame on you. It's also dishonest. As for that being your own private business, well I suppose that any decision you might make to sell their bodies on the street would be your exclusive business too. You wouldn't, of course, but abuse is abuse. I couldn't agree with you less. Your children are very far from being your exclusive private affair. They are the future of your country and the future of the planet, and we all have an investment in every one of them. In fact, in this country, and likely in yours too, people like me have to pay taxes to keep your confounded faith schools afloat, so don't dare tell me that your sending your kids to them is none of my business, please. How bloody arrogant can you get. I suppose that if your children are your own exclusive business then so is your wife, along with all your other goods and chattels. She's no less human than the kids, vice versa if you like, after all. I think I might have heard of other religions that think like that. You're not so different, are you. As they say, sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:02 PM

Steve Shaw sez: So those millions of children forced to say prayers, sing hymns and be told lies to in faith schools chose to have all that imposed on them, did they? Blimey, some choice that was, Joe.
Steve's oft-repeated defenses of children, have implications that sound very much like Orwell's 1984.
Mother: "No, Johnny, you can't attend Grandpa's funeral. He was religious, you know; and the Authorities will not admit anyone under 21 because there may be mention of angels and paradise and other untruths that might harm you."

Somehow, I think it should be left to parents to choose how to educate their children, even if portions of that education are not Correct. I don't want Steve or the Authorities controlling what I teach my kids.

---

Steve also says, I was trying to point out to the pillocks who accuse me all the time of being some kind of bitter and militant ex-Catholic that I am nothing of the sort.

In this case, I am reminded very much of something that both looks and quacks like a duck...

---

One other thing: I see that people here often accuse Pete of relying on creation.com or other creationist Websites. I wonder how often Pete's detractors rely on the Websites of Dawkins and St. Hitchens.

Pete should teach his kids what he wants to teach them (assuming that Pete lives in the United States, where that sort of thing is allowed...).

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:00 PM

The whole point of the fossil record is that it is predicated, truly, on three and a half billion years of history. Your perverted take on it, that somehow it's only a few thousand years old, represents a crude and evidence-innocent denial of everything that science is about. I tend to avoid feeling offended or insulted around here, but I must confess that, with the honourable exception of Shimrod, and one or two others who don't post so much on this topic in any case, it is frustrating to see how I am so much attacked while a charlatan like you gets a bye. I suppose that being a liar, a serial denier and insulter of science and a copy-and-paster from disreputable websites can be held in higher regard than an honest fellow who has simply decided that diplomacy isn't necessarily the highest priority. Still, I'm not jealous. Religion has a track record of celebrating liars. Just think of all those holy men (rarely women: go figure, as the yanks say) who peddle lies to children in schools and in church. They are your friends, pete, and, sadly for them, you are theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 05:28 PM

science don't need evolutionism at all to function, and made great strides when most scientists were bible believers

It does. You can;t keep science going when you selectively ignore the evidence. It made progress when people were "bible believers"* because at that stage there was no conflict with the evidence. That evolved later.

* Note the Taliban awfulness here. Thousands of evolutionary scientists are Christians. They are "Bible believers" just as much as Pete is, but are fully engaged with the demonstrated evolutionary history of life, and its prebiotic origins. But certain greedy persuasions grab the whole bloody book, and it's interpretation, as their own exclusive property.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:42 PM

Part 3, .....and the fossil record....billions of years...   Neither do we deny the fossil record. The fact is, evolutionism assumes deep time and interprets the data accordingly and assumes the sequence relates to very slow and gradual,(with some catastrophism in the mix , cos they can't deny it any more) , whereas creationism interprets the data as an order of burial. This accords well with the evidence , such as trees through more than one layer......but perhaps that's when you will accept some kind of rapid burial!?       Steve sez, science is predicated on evidence and reason alone...well that might be true in the abstract , but it is fallible humans that practise it. People who are chasing grants, or locked into a mindset like Steve is, or afraid to buck the trend, or face ridicule, and these factors might not be exhaustive either.       I did read far enough into origins to read that Darwin himself conceded that what he had presented was open to other interpretation. Whether that was humility or diplomacy I know not , but he said it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:21 PM

Part 2, Steve says that YEC ,s benefit from science despite supposedly denying science. Tell me Steve of anything that needed evolutionism(ie the idea of microbes to man etc) to be invented. In fact, science don't need evolutionism at all to function, and made great strides when most scientists were bible believers. Of course , there will often be the expected homage paid to evolution, but it is quite irrelevant to technological advance, so , Steve, that is a fallacious argument of the equivocal variety .       Neither do we deny the scientific method. You cannot do repeatable , observable test on the past....because it been , done and gone , and we were not there. But you say, we have dating methods and creationists don't accept them. Well , as it happens, many time evolutionists don't accept them either, disagree over them, and different methods can give diverse dates.......not to mention when they date for eons old, when a recent date is known.

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

"Raggytash says: My personal experience, and that of others, has led me to believe that we don't actually need any religion in any form. Shimrod agrees, and I'd agree too. But that's not the point - religion should be something that people choose to do because they want to, not because they need to."

So those millions of children forced to say prayers, sing hymns and be told lies to in faith schools chose to have all that imposed on them, did they? Blimey, some choice that was, Joe. At the present time here in Blighty we have millions of turkeys voting for Christmas too. Or maybe twenty. Or could be eight.

Unbelievable. And I don't even believe in belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:41 PM

Steve sez, ........faith against science....and I can go with that, but not as he means. The evolutionist has faith in his Darwinism, despite creationists pointing out how science and more recent data demonstrate it to be erroneous. The continual cry that "science" is continuous and self correcting, is really just a faith position, when the data contradicts their story. How do you know you will find a way to accommodate the contrary evidence ?.....because evolution is true. !    How do you know it's true ?........because most scientists say it is !    We are back to consensus science...which ain't science, it is just groupthink, peer pressure and the grip of the paradigm.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:40 PM

I am not saying the same thing every time. In that post I was trying to point out to the pillocks who accuse me all the time of being some kind of bitter and militant ex-Catholic that I am nothing of the sort. You simply don't like the fact that I've given it up and have decided to speak out. I'm really sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but, as for me, I'm well within my own comfort zone, thank you. I would prefer it if you abandoned your unwarranted dismissive stance and addressed the substance of what I say. I don't even mind if you say nothing. DMcG has decided to do just that and I can respect that. If you really want to speak out against someone who is genuinely idiotic and repetitive, let's hear it for pete and akenaton, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:39 PM

Raggytash sez: When we get a new boat the crew want it to be blessed. I suspect that is more than a tad based in superstition.

True, but isn't the christening a pretty good excuse for a party?

And aren't churches pretty good places for marking the events of life, the births and deaths and marriages? Certainly, there are other ways of marking these events, but I like the way we celebrate these things in churches. I went to a Catholic funeral yesterday, and it was a wonderful celebration of the life of a remarkable woman. And the music was terrific.

I have never said that being religious is better than not being religious, although that accusation has been hurled at me dozens of times here at Mudcat. It's just one of a number of ways of doing things - and it works for me.

I think it is inappropriate for anyone who does not practice religion, to expect to be able to use church facilities or clergy to celebrate life events. I see people who want to use our church for a wedding because it's pretty. And there was the group who didn't want a funeral service, but they wanted the free funeral luncheon prepared by the ladies of the parish. And it really grates me when people want to have their child baptized into the Church because it's a family tradition, but they don't want to attend the preparation classes and don't want to promise to bring the child to church regularly after the baptism.

Our Irish-born pastor wisely stretches the restrictions and will celebrate a funeral or wedding or whatnot if he thinks the religious service will do the people good - but he draws the line when he feels he's just being rented as part of the performance.

I think there's something primal in human beings that makes us want to join together in times of joy and sorrow, when we want to express things that words cannot express. I think that religion fills this need very well - and it adds a wonderful aspect of tradition and ties to our ancestors that doesn't come as naturally in most other settings.

Raggytash says: My personal experience, and that of others, has led me to believe that we don't actually need any religion in any form. Shimrod agrees, and I'd agree too. But that's not the point - religion should be something that people choose to do because they want to, not because they need to.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:08 PM

Greg F says: If those religious people who are not born-again bigots were to actively condemn, disassociate themselves from and campaign against the born-again bigots instead of remaining largely silent, they would find that they weren't "painted with the same brush" and they would be doing society a service.

That's an argument that's used often, Greg, and I think it's invalid. It's been used against blacks, Jews, Arabs, and just about every group that has been targeted for discrimination.

The argument could be seen as a weak attempt to rationalize bigotry.

I've listed the causes I work for. They are causes that are supported by many progressive Christians, Muslims, and Jews - and atheists. Many of them are in direct opposition to the positions of the born-again bigots. But you're saying it's right for people to class us with the bigots, unless we attack the bigots directly.

I think that direct attacks on bigots, often serve to make them stronger. People like the Westboro Baptist Church [ http://godhatesfags.com/ ] thrive on the condemnation they receive. Better to work for the good, rather than to attempt to destroy the bad.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:03 PM

That's you Steve, and good luck to you. You started out being a Catholic, and later gave it up.

So did most people I know who are Catholics. The difference is, we came back to it.

You write these enormous diatriibes in post after poost, essentially saying the same thing over and over again. Who are you actually trying to convince?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 01:44 PM

"At least BEING a Catholic..." would have read better.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 01:39 PM

Well the faith brigade will tell you that billions of people do appear to "need" religion and will use the fact to accord it legitimacy. It's a fallacious argument, but hey ho.   Speaking from just my own experience, I soaked up Catholicism without question at school (and at home and at church, but mostly at school) for the first eighteen years of my life. What was that like? Well, it felt warm and cosy on the whole, except for those few very scary days between committing what I'd thought had been a mortal sin and getting to the next confession session. Hell beckoned and I had to be especially careful about crossing the road, etc., for those few days. Apart from that, and never quite being able to work out whether masturbating was venial or mortal (and who could you ask!), all was fine. It took over a decade of ever-increasing doubt before I managed to shake it off. I mean, why risk hellfire (and the wrath of me granny)? At least for a Catholic I wasn't going to have my hand cut off or be honour-killed for apostasy, but it still wasn't that easy. We hear a lot about the human need for belief, implying that there really must be something in it, but I don't think that's true. I think there's the possibility that that most vital of human attributes, the thing that gives us our culture, our almost unbounded imagination, by its very nature is quite vulnerable to hijacking. I think that's what religion does, and the younger and more impressionable they catch you, the more effective the strategy. And I've decided that I don't like that kind of manipulation, and I think that otherwise mild fellows like Joe Offer refuse to see it and just carry on as before, deluding not just themselves but passing the delusion on, guilt-free, to children. I don't care what people do or don't believe, but I can't stomach that last bit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:59 PM

"My personal experience, and that of others, has led me to believe that we don't actually need any religion in any form."

I've certainly never needed it, Raggytash. In fact, it's always been a rather puzzling irrelevance to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:57 PM

I don't agree that the likes of Akenaton should be allowed to breed but until this point I had the courtesy to keep my view to myself.

If it's free speech he bleats about, how come he screams about seeing an imaginary solicitor whenever anyone mentions the Argylle greyhound trainer convicted of animal cruelty? Not nice, having a go at people is it Alex?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:35 PM

I suppose that if there was evidence that blessed boats are significantly less likely to sink and drown their occupants than unblessed ones, I'd have do some rethinking.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:32 PM

Hmm. Faith is about giving all right. Giving people false notions, especially children, unless that faith is kept to oneself.

I don't recognise homosexual marriage either. I recognise marriage. I've been in a happy "heterosexual marriage" for 39 years. The heterosexual part of it has played a relatively small part (though quite an important one) in that marriage. When I tell people I'm married, or put it on a form, I tell them I'm married. I've probably had to do this thousands of times. Not once have I ever told anyone that I am heterosexually married. I'm afraid the evidence is that you have an extremely unhealthy interest in people's private sex lives. I should get that seen to if I were you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:30 PM

Being part of a community group doesn't need to entail religion though. For example mywife and I have been involved in a Rescue boat for about 20 years. Neither we or the other people involved evoke a religion.

With ONE notable exception. When we get a new boat the crew want it to be blessed. I suspect that is more than a tad based in superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:21 PM

People have different "needs", but I don't really think having faith in "god" is a "need" at all......as far as I can see, it is more about "giving".

Round this area, the church people do more for the community than anyone, always collecting for charity, giving their time to community projects etc...and never mentioning "god" or religion, but if pressed they will say quite openly that god plays a major part in
how they live their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 11:23 AM

My personal experience, and that of others, has led me to believe that we don't actually need any religion in any form.

My politics do not come into the equation and the fact they don't have "provable facts" has been explained here many time by Steve far more eruditely than I ever could.

Science is, and probably always will be, a work in progress.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 11:06 AM

Sorry Raggytash, slight oversight ...."marriage"....that better?
I am sorry, but even as an agnostic, I cannot recognise the relationship of two people of the same sex as marriage, even if they "love" one another. To me marriage has a deeper and more complicated definition.


Seriously though, see how political the opposition to religion really is?
As I have said many times the opposition to religion amongst "liberals" is almost always driven by their political ideology. They are in possession of no more provable facts than religious people are.....in fact they are often more doctrinaire than people of faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:49 AM

Guest, some slight progress has been made there. The chief culprit actually mentioned Homosexual Marriage without putting "-" around it.
Not much progress but some.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:45 AM

"Are you sure these (right-wing Christian) people are not being manipulated by political forces?"

I doubt if it ever occurred to Joe, if to anyone else here, that these people weren't being manipulated. It's one big tangle of manipulation. You start with people with limited education and religious backgrounds which often explicitly foster narrow mindedness. The only social change they could possibly be comfortable with would be seeing more of the world becoming just like themselves. Then bring on a wave of mass media evangelists who are just charismatic specimens of that population or, all too often, totally unscrupulous predators who recognize a substantial financial resource. Some of those evangelists, and a significant number of unscrupulous politicos, also recognize and nurture a hefty potential voting block. It takes little more than a few standard catch phrases for a politician to endear himself to that faction.
And...Sarah Palin may be the first American woman to reach the magnitude she did as a poster child for the whole mess.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:43 AM

And Mudcat still allows hatred towards people without moderation.

There is no such thing as "marriage."

Any chance of Mudcat maturing enough to allow people coming on without being confronted by homophobic hatred? Don't the rules preclude such bigotry being propagated?

You don't need to be gay in order to feel queasy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:39 AM

You can attack what you see as my "worldview" (whatever that means) whenever you like, pete. If I can make head or tail of what you're on about I'll bite back. Unfortunately, that is a very rare occurrence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:31 AM

I meant the religious teaching in schools, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:25 AM

This thread represents faith's confrontation with science rather well.

In the beginning, we have the creationists (for now, as I've been attacked for stating otherwise, I'll limit that term to the young-earth variety). Like the rest of us, they enjoy all the fruits of science and technology, but they deny the scientific method as the means of explaining and understanding the universe. They do not accept true evidence such as that gleaned from radioisotope dating and the fossil record and they deny the true conclusion that the earth is billions of years old. Instead, they adhere to the unsubstantiated and simplistic belief that God, a supernatural entity of some kind, created everything, more or less all at once and in its present form, a few thousand years ago. Not only that, they have a tendency to attack any science that seems to threaten this belief.

Then there are the moderate Christians (we haven't had input from other belief systems so I'll stick with just Christians for now). They also believe in a creator, though some of them, for some reason, don't like to be called creationists. They probably believe in a similar God to the young-earth brigade, but they may define him in various ways in argument, as some kind of spiritual presence or driving force or as an unknowable he-who-is-within. The claim is that God need not be seen as a bearded chap in the clouds who sees all and knows all, though it's a good bet that most Christians, and children signed up as Christians, do see him in something like that kind of way, whatever our more sophisticated and philosophical types say.

Both the above types have scripture as their main guide book, though the young-earthers tend to take it rather more literally. In any case, scripture is the bedrock of the teaching that goes on in schools, teaching which mainly aims to get children to believe in what their parents, teachers and priests believe in, more or less. On the whole, unless the teaching is solely about comparing world religions and the history of religious belief, it can't be called education, as there is no scope for children to ask for true evidence to which they can apply critical thinking, an essential study skill in any process calling itself education. What's more, part of their school religion experience will probably consist of attending services, saying prayers and singing hymns, either to praise this deity or his close relatives, to thank him for doing things, to ask him for things or to beseech him to save us from hell. None of the hymns or prayers ever reveal any scope for doubt as to whether the deity actually exists in the first place. Much of this will be done standing or kneeling before graven images, a bit odd as their commandments wouldn't seem to allow this.

This latter group has an ambivalent relationship with science. History has taught them that it is always unwise to deny science, even when it seems to threaten faith, as they are always shown in the end that they were wrong to do so. They do their best to espouse science, but, where they see the clashes that are inevitable, instead of denying the science they attempt to subvert it by trying to give God a role. For example, they will say that God kick-started evolution, or that he is its driving force, doing his creating along the way. Unfortunately, this approach makes utter nonsense of the science. Science is, of course, big enough and strong enough to resist this, and this is what can cause conflict.

As science is predicated on evidence and reason alone, it will always win out. This doesn't mean that religion will disappear. The pull of the supernatural, the propensity of the imagination to espouse myth and magic and the fear of the afterlife are very strong forces. Unfortunately, they are not true, and the minds of those who embrace these notions waste a lot of energy on them, to the tragic detriment of their seeking the true evidence about everything. It's worse than that. Not only is their explanation not an explanation at all, it completely blocks any possibility that the truth about everything will ever be found. No matter what the philosophers and theologians might say, there is only one path to finding truth, which is searching out real evidence and applying all the might of the human brain to interpreting it honestly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:39 AM

Evangelicals and social work and campaigning , joe, have quite a rich tradition. The Salvation Army and wilberforce as just two examples. However, it should be expected that evangelicals will be opposed to moral issues as per bible teaching.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:33 AM

So religion needs to be attacked , does it, Steve ? I assume you are excepting your own religious worldview.   And not to do so would be immoral, you say. So, Steve , on what objective standard do you judge what is immoral or not .   You also seem to think that there would be no religion if people were not taught it, or lived in a religion free environment. I assume you mean theistic religion, and not Buddhism , atheism, new age etc.            but apart from just about everyone worshipping /devoted to something (even if it's only a football team !) the prevalence of belief in a God/gods is so widespread and natural that appeal to indoctrination just don't suffice as an explanation.    And it is not just "the religious" that struggle to make sense of the evolution story , even evolution believers sometimes recognise their own story don't add up and look for alternatives , but being unwilling to fully discard what they know is erroneous , still hang on to the concept.    Such is the power of entrenched religious worldviews......

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 05:11 AM

I can't see how any of that is relevant to the main point that I was making, Ake, i.e. that it is highly unlikely that all scientists are deluded.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:55 AM

People are very easily manipulated, and it is not confined to "evangelicals", liberals are manipulated all the time, into the role of "good cop".......in the Thought Police force.