BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:47 AM

"We wouldn't be having this discussion because personal computers and the Internet wouldn't exist, would they?"

I think you are wrong there Shim, In my apprentice days people got involved in discussion much more than they do today. There was more time to meet up and debate. At work discussions of all sorts abounded, books we were reading politics, religion, morality, football, shinty, war experiences, vegetable and livestock cultivation. Some of us have more information available, but we have become insular, unable to relate to others....your remarks to pete would never have been tolerated.
Being subjected to abusive stalking as I have been here lately would have been treated with scorn.

The internet has opened some doors, mainly marketing doors, but has closed many more, like face to face debate, non mainstream views....much too easy to manipulate the cyber world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:01 AM

I've been thinking about Pete's latest 'straw man' of "scientific consensus". What he seemed to be implying with that jibe is that mainstream scientists, working in the field of evolutionary biology and related fields, are sharing a common delusion or are engaging in some sort of giant (anti-religious?) conspiracy. I have challenged him on the conspiracy hypothesis before, on this thread, and he has ruled it out. So that leaves us with the common delusion. So we are asked to believe (with no evidence, of course) that many thousands of scientists worldwide, plus the great institutions of learning that they are affiliated to, plus numerous grant awarding bodies, plus the editors and staff of the distinguished journals that they publish their work in are ALL deluded; does that seem likely? Does it also seem likely that a bunch of religious fundamentalists - based mainly in the US (sorry Joe!) - are the only group who are not deluded?

And if evolutionary biologists and palaeontologists and geologists and geneticists and molecular biologists are deluded, where does it stop? Are physicists and chemists deluded too? If all scientists are deluded, we wouldn't be having this discussion, in this medium, would we? We wouldn't be having this discussion because personal computers and the Internet wouldn't exist, would they?

So who am I to take most seriously and find most credible: a bunch of religious fundamentalist bigots and a barely literate, scientifically ignorant oaf they appear to have brainwashed or thousands of ingenious, hard working, mainstream scientists? That's not a difficult choice, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:56 AM

thanks Joe, but I still cant work out why Christians would be against the things you mention with the arguable exception of homosexual marriage legislation.

War, civil rights, poverty, why on earth would Christians oppose such things when they are obviously against Christian principles?

UK Christians do not oppose such things, to do so would be indefensible.

Are you sure these people are not being manipulated by political forces?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 02:01 AM

Joe. You use the word tradition. Those you speak of use the word truth, with the odd use of literal.

Presumably you would stand in their way when they hold lit fire torches shouting "To the observatory!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:19 PM

Joe, see 20 Nov 15 - 10:23 AM

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:00 PM

Re: Born-again bigot

In the U.S. in the 1970s, there was a resurgence of conservative, evangelical Christianity, promoted by radio and television evangelists. It derived much of its power from reacting to the Civil Rights and antiwar movements, and has continued to draw power by opposing evolution, anti-poverty work, feminism, gay rights, and other social justice causes.

There are some evangelicals who are finally realizing that their opposition to social justice is contrary to the Gospel they preach, and so we have some very interesting evangelicals like Jim Wallis and his Sojourners movement, and (to a lesser degree) Rick Warren and his "purpose-driven life." It's nice to see hopeful signs from the evangelicals, although I suppose their religious traditions will not be acceptable to literalists like Mr. Shaw.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM

Cor. I meant STUNTS the intellect. I find that a surfeit of vino rosso can stun my intellect, but the effect is only temporary (I hope).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 06:26 PM

"But the main point was that your lengthy post really amounted to relying on consensus science.....and that is not scientific, it is following the herd."

"Consensus science" - another 'straw man', Pete! Do you expect every scientist to disagree with every other scientist? Every human endeavour that I can think advances through consensus, you prick! Even fundamentalist, religious maniacs, like you and your creationist chums, agree on the details of the nonsense that you and they spout. And how dare you characterise members of the scientific community as "the herd" - you arrogant, ignorant, brain-washed dullard!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 05:44 PM

Who told him?

Oh. The lickle baby jesus

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 05:14 PM

so I try to comprehend why he thinks that way.

Ah, but Bill- you've put your finger right on the problem: he DOESN'T think - he parrots, he quotes, he repeats what others have told him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 05:01 PM

"But getting Pete to see the point of this and other examples of scientific progress towards understanding what we are is no harder than getting Steve and Greg and Shimrod and a few others to see why Pete and other deeply religious folk believe as they do."

You don't have to try too hard with me, Bill. I do get it. When we were little we were all swamped by religion. It's the default. It WILL be fed to us and that won't be questioned. Millions of people will never enter a free-enough thinking environment where this can be questioned guilt-free (it was hard enough for those of us who did manage to unshackle ourselves). I understand why enforced belief sticks. There would be no religion if it didn't. But this is absolutely not my issue. Unlike you, I think that, after centuries of a free pass for religion, it's high time that it was comprehensively attacked. Charles Darwin was as diplomatic as can be towards religion once he realised how the truth of evolution was undermining it, but he was attacked and demonised vehemently nonetheless. He still is being from certain quarters, as we see on this forum, and it stinks. Soft-soaping organised religion is spineless. All religion is predicated on falsehood and proselytisation and it's incredibly damaging. Religion NEEDS to be attacked. Not to do so would be immoral.

"It is not enough to study science & logic in order to comprehend why evolution makes sense......... there is also a need to study history and culture and philosophy and psychology in order to cope with the strange situation we have where basically intelligent people can look at the same data/evidence and draw different, incompatible conclusions."

I don't agree with this. Only people blinded by religion would fail to comprehend why the beautiful and true phenomenon of evolution makes sense. There is no other explanation for life on earth. Anyone confronting the truth of evolution who then continues to deny it, or who tries to subvert it by positing Godly input, is not as intelligent as you're suggesting. As I've said over and over again, religious faith stuns the intellect. If you deny evolution, you are not especially intelligent. Their conclusions are not incompatible. You're being far too indulgent. Their conclusions are wrong. Say so.

"Of course it is tempting to lay out 'evidence' to show the ignorant how much better YOUR system is... but when you encounter 'stubbornness' or 'ignorance'(which is different than stupidity), why would you think that arrogance and insults might turn the tide?"

I am very disappointed that you feel the need to put evidence in speech marks. And there is more muddle here. I haven't got a system for a start, and even if I did I wouldn't be doing the schoolyard mine's-better-than-yours thing. I can do better than that, thanks. As for arrogance and insults, well I'm a direct fellow, though I've more or less abandoned name-calling in case you haven't noticed. I prefer to counter with argument laced, admittedly, with that thing that's the lowest form of wit. I would also suggest that your approach is absolutely no better at turning the tide than mine, but hey ho. I must say, I admire your staying power apropos of pete's incessant inanity, but brick walls and heads spring to mind. I would also say that pete is one of the most Insulting people it's ever been my misfortune to encounter, even though he dresses up his insults in a particular brand of sloppy and smiley wackiness.

"No, I'm sure you DON'T think that making fun of different views will suffice.... it's just an common human response - perhaps allowing one to 'feel superior'?"

Or perhaps not, Bill. Your rather aloof and objective philosophical approach here is admirable and valuable, but I wouldn't dream of saying that you were doing it to look superior. However, it probably stands slightly more chance of eliciting that response from the average reader around here than our merely making fun...

"I argue with Pete.. but I don't really expect him to change much, so I try to comprehend why he thinks that way. Then I argue with those who denigrate Pete... and I try to understand why they feel it necessary to react that way.----- You know, it's easier in some ways to have a polite, although frustrating, debate with Pete than to cope with the attitudes of some of those with whom I agree!"

I suppose you're not a bad old boy on the whole... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:54 PM

consensus science

Another meaningless expression like evolutionism. Do you make these up all by yourself, pete, or does god reveal these to you one-on-one?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 02:09 PM

Greg...I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but what do you mean by a "born again bigot"

Take it up with Joe - he coined the phrase, I was quoting him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 12:38 PM

A bit rich isn't it? A god botherer reckoning others have nothing to go on.

In answer to why normal people get hostile towards those who try to inflict superstition on others, just open a fucking newspaper. Pages one to thirty will do.

No born again bigots in The UK??? 😳 Keep going, this is priceless material for the jokes between songs. New strings usually means more waffle time. Pointing and laughing at the one in every village fills a few minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 12:28 PM

Methinks, bill , that the reason some of your fellow atheists resort to ridicule and bad mouthing is simply that they got nothing else to go on. At least you try to debate tHe issues though for the life of me I can't see (leaving Aside spiritual reasons) why you as so educated are so illogical. ....smile....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 12:09 PM

Oh frustration.....I typed a detailed response to you previous post , bill , but lost it ! But the main point was that your lengthy post really amounted to relying on consensus science.....and that is not scientific, it is following the herd. On to last post. So acorn worms share a percentage of genes with humans. Do you suppose that God should have used something else ? What we have is a measure of correlation , not an explanation of how the evolution bush developed. Did,nt we have all this with apes and humans , but when more data came to light , the greater detail revealed far more difference than first suggested.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:57 AM

I just found this in an old thread.... for some reason it seemed relevant to all this:

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
                                        Friedrich Nietzsche

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:49 AM

Greg...I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but what do you mean by a "born again bigot".....I don't think we have any Christians in the UK that I could label as such.
What is so bad about them? what atrocities do they commit? why does the American liberal dislike them so much?

If you don't want to answer on the thread, feel free to PM me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:26 AM

I thought I'd post one more link for Pete to explain away:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1119/These-slimy-deep-sea-worms-are-actually-quite-close-cousins-to-humans

_______________________

But getting Pete to see the point of this and other examples of scientific progress towards understanding what we are is no harder than getting Steve and Greg and Shimrod and a few others to see why Pete and other deeply religious folk believe as they do. It is not enough to study science & logic in order to comprehend why evolution makes sense......... there is also a need to study history and culture and philosophy and psychology in order to cope with the strange situation we have where basically intelligent people can look at the same data/evidence and draw different, incompatible conclusions.
It is not as though Pete (and even Joe Offer) were rare specimens who fail to grasp what is now 'obvious' to most of the human race..... Face it- they are in the majority that 'believe' in some sort of metaphysical entity (or entities) that control or affect the universe!
Of course it is tempting to lay out 'evidence' to show the ignorant how much better YOUR system is... but when you encounter 'stubbornness' or 'ignorance'(which is different than stupidity), why would you think that arrogance and insults might turn the tide?
No, I'm sure you DON'T think that making fun of different views will suffice.... it's just an common human response - perhaps allowing one to 'feel superior'?

I argue with Pete.. but I don't really expect him to change much, so I try to comprehend why he thinks that way. Then I argue with those who denigrate Pete... and I try to understand why they feel it necessary to react that way.----- You know, it's easier in some ways to have a polite, although frustrating, debate with Pete than to cope with the attitudes of some of those with whom I agree!

Ain't we humans fascinating?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:23 AM

Then came the advent of born-again, bigoted Christianity, and the takeover of broadcasting and inroads into politics by the religious right. All of a sudden, all religious people got painted with the same brush

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.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 09:00 AM

It's a pity that the myths can't just be seen as myths. I loved Aesop's Fables when I was little and may even have picked up a few pieces of morality from them, but not for a single second did I not know they were myths. Myths can be colourful, absorbing and instructive. Jesus, or the committee that posed as Jesus, came up with some elegant and true teachings. Not all of it (I can't go along with turning the other cheek, giving all my stuff away, the misogynistic bits about putting your wife away, not worrying about tomorrow and, worst of all, believing without seeing evidence: shame on Thomas for getting that right then caving in!), but quite a lot of it. I won't accept the bad bits just because I'm told that God says they must be beyond question. We all know where that leads.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:50 AM

"I had read once that dumb people didn't know they were dumb. They thought they were just as smart as anybody else. That was a very unsettling thought. What if I was really dumb and didn't know it?" 
― Dinah Katt, 

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 06:15 AM

It's all very well, a few "educated" Catholics (or people of any religious creed) who recognise that myths are just that, myths, an effective channel for good messages to pass down, whilst knowing that the rest, as Bill says, need simpler answers. My strong suspicion is the well-educated echelons are quite happy to let the majority keep on thinking that the myths are real. That's the way to keep the club, or the flock, together, the whole edifice founded on a big lie. For a well-educated Catholic to keep telling us that he does this and that, that his children are free to go, that he's taught them to be critical, etc., is all very well, laudable in fact in some regards, but unfortunately he is not representative, and the trouble is I think he knows that. Yet he defends the system that cheerfully feeds the masses those simpler answers, getting cross when I lambast faith schools, for example. That just leaves me scratching my head, frankly. I know that religion isn't going away any time soon, but I would at least like to see it getting a damn sight more honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 03:40 AM

"In both your system & mine, claims need data."

Nice try, Bill. But the problem is that Pete doesn't actually have a system - he has 'Creation.com's' system. When you attempted to teach him about the 'ladder and bush' analogy he scuttled off to his favourite website and 'parroted' what they have to say about it. But the thing that he will never understand - because he's incapable of thinking anything through - is that creationism is not even a system - it's a sort of dead-end. Creationists believe what the Bible tells them to believe i.e. God created the world ... however many thousands of years ago (?) - The End. To them, none of this is open to question and God is unknowable anyway.

Then along comes the Great Beast Science and blows this cosy excuse for switching off your brain (or, more accurately, switching off the brains of the 'flock') apart! The Christian origins myth no longer makes any sense whatsoever and is shown to have no scientific validity. Creationists are now fighting a desperate rear-guard action. They portray themselves as noble Christian 'scientists' defending The Truth against the heathen. But what they, and Pete, refuse to acknowledge is that REAL scientists don't START with the truth! Real scientists work painstakingly TOWARDS the truth. If the truth were really known already, there would be no point in doing science!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 03:13 AM

The Pope refuses to say that we are all equal. He perpetuates misogyny, actively encourages homophobia and agreed to run rather than shut down the most corrupt crime racket on the planet.

I can see why a particularly confused person on here supports giving moral guidance to the leader of a crime racket, I can see why Joe Offer has no issue with that.

But the Pope's opportunity to put substance to his platitudes the other week? He bottled out.

Luckily, the majority of people are capable of their own moral compass rather than sacrifice their intelligence and contract out their morality to medieval anachronisms.

Boutique Christianity is a waste of a Sunday morning and believing in sky fairies requires a lowering of education that is too late for the articulate western world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 10:37 PM

"Bill, what do you think of religious myth? Do you think they were intended to be accepted as factual representations of history ..."

Joe.. it depends on which ones. If they were originally presented AS myths, the answer is obvious... they must be assumed to carry some sort of message...using images & metaphor.

The problem is that many of the older ones 'feel like' they were either believed to be true at the start, or were so compelling that they soon moved into the category of 'almost truths', moderated only by interpretation & translation. I think this because of the reverence and stalwart defense put up when their relevance is questioned... or when artifacts are involved. As Steve indicates, myths which sound good are very often adopted AS truth & fact by the common people of any religion. It happens in Buddhism and certain trees are revered as somehow directly connected to the person. Christianity has many stories, artifacts & locations which have become icons and are defended as if they are fact, whether or not they were originally intended just as educational, inspirational myths.... and it is hard to tell the difference.... and church leaders often find treating them AS fact makes it easier to ....ummm.... herd the sheep. The "Master of the Sheepfold" needs a dedicated "hireling shepherd" to go out in the storm for one stray sheep.
I think that, if a religion is successful, the connection between myth & reality almost automatically assumes a path toward belief. You are, as you are probably aware, a fairly uncommon sort of Catholic in your ability to balance belief with metaphor. I;d with that, for practical reasons, there were more like you... but I suspect that most of the flock wants simpler answers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 10:03 PM

You'll find me quite hard to ignore, Joe! Good luck with that!

I think that humans have an inherent ability to understand myth and fiction."

Ha. The evidence against you is that billions of people have been persuaded that myth is truth, that there is a God, that there was a real Jesus who worked miracles, etc. What you should be asking yourself, instead of telling us how all this mythology is so meaningful, is why we need it at all, when the world is already such a wonderful place, so full of non-supernatural magic. But you won't ask yourself that. You've been well and truly got at, old chap!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:45 PM

I think I should ignore Steve for a while and let him blather in his bigotry.

Bill, what do you think of religious myth? Do you think they were intended to be accepted as factual representations of history and of the origins of the universe, or did the writers have another purpose?

I suppose I base my thinking mostly on the books and video presentations by Joseph Campbell. I see importance and wisdom in the foundational myths of most of the ancient religions. I think that they were intended to instill a sense of awe and wonder, and a kinship with an entity beyond and above the immediate, everyday reality. I pay particular attention to the ancient sacred writings of Christians and Jews (The Bible) and Muslims (The Koran), but I am also intrigued by the mythologies of the Greeks, Egyptians, Celts, and particularly the Native Americans of my area. I don't think these mythologies were intended to mislead or control people. I think they were meant to draw people to a higher ideal and a deeper appreciation of the world that surrounded them.

No doubt there are many who have interpreted these myths in many detrimental ways, but I think their original intent was constructive - and I don't think that most of them were intended to be understood literally. I think that humans have an inherent ability to understand myth and fiction. I consider literalism to be an aberration - and I see that literalism in some who support and some who attack sacred myth. But I think that for the most part, people understand myth and can benefit from it greatly - especially if they view the myth of various cultures with an open mind.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:21 PM

Well blow me down, John-Paul II is a saint already. That was quick. That's who I meant. I must try to keep up. Thanks for the entertaining list. When is it the turn of the poison dwarf of Romania? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:15 PM

So, Steve, exactly whom are you referring to by "pope who [I] want to be made a saint"?

Considering Popes since about 1300, I can think of two who should be saints: Leo XIII and John XXIII (who was declared a saint). Leo XIII reigned from 1878-1903, and was the Pope who initiated Catholic Social Teaching with his Rerum Novarum encyclical. He spoke out for the rights of workers and the poor. John XXIII reigned from 1958-1963, and did much to bring the Catholic Church out of isolation and into the modern world. John XXIII was canonized 27 April 2014, along with John Paul II. I didn't think much of John Paul, the darling of the neoconservatives. I do think that he was the one primarily responsible for what you rightly call "disgusting cover-ups of child sex abuse by priests" - which is just one of the many reasons for my disdain for him.

If the Pope you think I'm promoting for sainthood isn't Leo XIII or John XXIII, then you're putting words in my mouth. You do that quite often.

I'd also like to see the Catholic Church declare sainthood for Dorothy Day, Chicago's Joseph Cardinal Bernadin, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Julian of Norwich, and Dag Hammarskjöld. I'm glad to see that Hildegard von Bingen was canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church by Benedict XVI in 2012.

Can't say I'm pleased with the canonization of Junipero Serra, and I don't understand why Pope Francis did that. Serra is too much a symbol of European oppression of native peoples. I will say, however, that Serra is a symbol to us Californians that Hispanic people have a right to be here, and many of my fellow Californians do not believe that.

Oh, and I think that Pope Francis has done enough already to merit sainthood.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:14 PM

Gosh, this is entertaining...

"Steve is saying Joe is wrong to be a Christian

Nope. Don't give a fig.

"...a believer"

Nope. Not my problem.

"... and to tell his own children about his beliefs."

Nope. I tell my children about what I think is true or not true, but beliefs don't come Into it. But they are not required to take my conclusions on board.

"Joe says it's none of Steve's business....end of story."

Well, as those children who are severely damaged by being forced to chant prayers, sing hymns and attend meaningless services, not to speak of being told what to believe under a crucifix on the classroom wall, will influence my life greatly as I enter my dotage, I think it is my business, actually.

"People can support Joe or Steve..."

Carry on. I don't give a monkey's. It isn't a competition.

"Not really an argument at all just one member abusing another for his beliefs"

I have never done that. But I will abuse anyone who justifies forcing their children to endure religious miseducation in faith schools.

"but Steve is supposed to be the epitome of tolerance a true liberal, so he says!"

Never said it in my life. God, you're amusing.

" Joe is a good guy, we all know that......who is Steve to tell him what to think or how to bring up his family?"

Well I'm sure he is, misguided though his thinking is. I don't tell anyone to do anything. I reserve the right to be critical of people's actions, that's alI, not what they think. I have never told anyone what to think. Contrast that with Catholic teaching. Joe was told what to think, and he has still to recover.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:12 PM

Ok Pete... you seem to understand the basics of what I am supporting in favor of evolution and even understand what my complaints about your arguments against evolution entail.
Now, what we seem to have at rock-bottom is your assertion that both are basically 'beliefs': and that there is at least 'some' evidence for biblical stories, which you feel balances my evidence for evolution.

(and by the way, you need a different word.. "evidence" is not usually considered a verb. You don't 'evidence' something.)

In both your system & mine, claims need data. Clear & obvious data from various reputable sources are **good** evidence. The word I will use for the moment is that lots of data giving good evidence supports a theory, whether you call it 'belief' or not.

If I had hours..(and thought it would help)... I could describe various everyday activities where both you & I make assumptions and act on them with little doubt about the underlying 'beliefs' one needs to make decisions about their ..ummm... validity, reproducibility, etc. If I could play Socratic method with you, you'd agree that certain things made sense....... yet, when it comes to evolution, you deny the very reasoning that you accept about other things! This notion that because 'the past' can't be continuously observed & tested, any logical inferences we make about it are 'only' theories and beliefs, and thus no better than various religious theories & beliefs is just...... I am at a loss- (I'm sure Steve & Shimrod would supply a word). I'll pick for the moment 'deluded'. You are defending one set of theories-- the religious ones-- by attempting to reduce the status of the scientific ones so that it's purely personal what one chooses.
(Yes.. I know you make certain attempts to justify & support religious beliefs on their own, but you break all sorts of solid, accepted rules of logic & 'evidence in doing so... and when I challenge you, you just equivocate about the language used!)
So... as long as you operate from a totally different and VERY subjective set of premises about 'evidence' and 'proof' and 'belief', there's very little I can say. Your basic, rock-bottom thesis IS circular, as you **implicitly** use certain of your premises to define & support your conclusions. By denying standard values for scientific methods, you have locked yourself into a pattern that cannot be dealt with by those of us who know & understand WHY science & logic work.... and why they must be followed and why errors in them are gradually self-correcting.

I can tell you that my image of myself right now is of a bruised & bloody forehead from beating my metaphorical head against a wall... :>).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 07:56 PM

Don't think its really an argument #.....Steve is saying Joe is wrong to be a Christian, a believer and to tell his own children about his beliefs.
Joe says it's none of Steve's business....end of story.
People can support Joe or Steve, but Steve continues to reassert the charges.

Not really an argument at all just one member abusing another for his beliefs, but Steve is supposed to be the epitome of tolerance a true liberal, so he says! Joe is a good guy, we all know that......who is Steve to tell him what to think or how to bring up his family?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 07:55 PM

Bill ,your link did,nt come up , but I shall assume it is an amplification of the ladder v bush concept. Maybe I was unclear , or maybe it is you who are presenting the straw man. Infact, I had previously mentioned that darwins tree is now a bush. I hear it is a very tangled bush with plenty of branches unjointed! I did not really know of the ladder concept. When I say fish to philosopher, or microbes to mudcatters, I am assuming the (supposed)intervening eons are understood.   I also understand that the bush concept is not all vertical in a straight line, but sideways and messy as well. Either way, you are espousing what cannot be evidenced....or falsified !       And I reject your charge of equivocation , as I said before, if you cannot evidence your theory, it is a belief system......and all the more so, when experimental science contradicts the theory.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 07:48 PM

Religious people and leaders were indeed frequently at the forefront of civil rights, etc., but, at least equally, so were people like me, and you insult us with this barrage of claims, implicit yet bloody obvious, that your religion has anything to do with the moral high ground in those campaigns. Actually, I seem to recall that an awful lot of Southern "Christians" were not exactly of your liberal persuasion, to say the least. If you really want me to, I can give you loads of examples of how your religion was at the forefront of antisemitism and collaboration with the Nazis and a whole host of military dictatorships, not to speak of the disgusting cover-ups of child sex abuse by priests, including by a pope who you want to be made a saint. Actually, I generally choose not to do that, as it's unfair on most people of your belief system, but if you will insist on claiming the virtues of your good bits then I'm going to forcefully remind you of your bad bits, just in case your fake sense of morality goes to your head. Regard my statements as a corrective to your sanctimoniousness, OK? As they say, Joe Offer, sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 07:32 PM

"The arguments may be repetitive, but they are not circular."

OK then, helical.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM

You're right, #. I've been trying to take a day off in between times when I post a message or three. I do wonder why I bother posting to a thread like this. I guess it's because many folkies seem to take it for granted that atheism is the Universal Religion of Folkdom. In most situations, I think that folkies are very tolerant, but not in the area of religion. After a while, it starts to bother me that there are people here who speak without opposition as they deride and attack those with religious beliefs. I come from a time when religious people and religious leaders were at the forefront of the peace and civil rights movements, and they were treated with respect but with no feeling that anybody had to join one religion or another.

Then came the advent of born-again, bigoted Christianity, and the takeover of broadcasting and inroads into politics by the religious right. All of a sudden, all religious people got painted with the same brush - and people began to tie me to the mindlessness of the religious right. When people put me into that sort of pigeonhole and begin telling me what I think and how wrong I am to think it, I think I have a right to react viscerally.

It's too bad that such bigotry has taken such a strong foothold in Folkdom. I thought folk music people were better than that. I want to work on equal footing with others on the list I gave before - working to end racism, warfare, capital punishment, poverty, homelessness, capital punishment, and mass incarceration. I shouldn't have to put up with having my personal beliefs attacked constantly by people I thought should be working on the same causes I work for.

But instead, they're working to insult, attack, and silence what I hold to be sacred. It's enough to cause a person to become disillusioned.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:37 PM

The arguments may be repetitive, but they are not circular.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:20 PM

José,

The arguments have become circular (and repetitive).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:09 PM

Well as we're into verse, here's a few lines from Neil D's hymn that Joe thought was so good:

When the scales drop from your eyes
And fall beneath the bridge of sighs
With no one there to hear your cries
You're beginning to breathe free

With no one there to criticize
To damn your eyes or demonize
You'll begin to realize
The way we're meant to be

Absolutely. Let the scales fall from your eyes, Joe offer et al. Begin to breathe free. Begin to realise the way we're meant to be. Exactly what I'm saying but in far more eloquent words. And enjoy the quest to study nature in its true real magic and glory. But not your dismal kind of magic, which isn't magic at all. It's a strangulating lie.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:43 PM

"O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:33 PM

"Steve, your entire presence here seems to be based on attacking what others hold sacred."

Desperate stuff, Joe. You are held in high regard here. Don't make a fool of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:29 PM

"On which basis, Steve, your view would be that nobody should ever believe anything. But of course, by definition, you don't believe that..."

Well, define " believe". Apart from believing that Liverpool are the greatest team on earth and that Bill Shankly was greater than God (and that's the truth of it, of course), why should I accept anything on someone else's say so? Well, I might trust that person implicitly, though that will come after a long period of knowing that person very well and seeing plenty of evidence of his integrity. There may be other occasions when the matter in question may be neither here nor there to me and I might as well take the assertion in question at face value in order to save time. But for anything important I want evidence. That doesn't make me Mr Spock. That makes me someone who doesn't care to be controlled or hoodwinked. I'll leave that approach to organised religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:28 PM

Steve, your entire presence here seems to be based on attacking what others hold sacred. The only thing I attack, is your attacks.

Can't you see the difference?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:06 PM

My alleged vicious attacks are couched in far more moderate tones than Joe's cornered-cat responses. They are put mostly in the form of questions and challenges. I don't attack anyone's privately-held beliefs. I do attack the things done as a result of those beliefs. I do that because I think it's high time we stopped respecting religion and leaving it wrapped in cotton wool. Religion in any guise is always predicated on falsehood and I think it needs shooting down. Yes you are telling lies to children. Don't make me go over all that again. You simply have no answer. Yes you do pervert science when you try to insert a God into it. I tend to make my criticisms in a measured and thoughtful manner. I try to avoid sloppy English, especially when we are discussing scientific practice, but, in doing so, I get accused of dabbling in semantics. When you're desperate you'll try anything. I get that. But this thread has gone a long way towards exposing the institutional dishonesty of Christianity. Evidence and reason are the great evils, to be sneered at or worse, yet they're very attributes of science that have been the drivers of human progress, along with culture. There really is no difference between you and the illiberal forces who vehemently opposed Darwin and Galileo. You haven't moved on. You just have to be a little more gentle about them these days in what you say because you don't want to make yourselves look foolish. It's all very sad.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 04:42 PM

No comprendo, Señor #

-José-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 04:28 PM

I always wondered what would happen when an unstoppable force met an immovable object.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 04:16 PM

Steve Shaw says: I seem to have managed all this without the crutch of a Jesus Christ. I've managed to oppose those evils without recourse to that fellow. I suggest, being nice to you, that you might have been that way even without him. I also suggest that people who can oppose all those evils without the Jesus crutch could just conceivably be made of sterner stuff.

"Crutch" is your word, Steve. I find wisdom in the teachings of Christ and of my church, and I have learned from them - how is that a "crutch"? No doubt, I would have been involved in the same causes had I not been a believer - and I said that many others are involved in those causes without being religious. Nonetheless, most of the nonprofit social services in my town have Catholic roots (but serve all and are staffed by all). My saying that my involvement in causes flows from my Catholic faith, should not be interpreted to imply that similar involvement cannot flow from other sources.

The fact that I'm Catholic, is who I am. It is not a crutch, but it is part of my self-identity, and it is a path that I have chosen to take because I find it worthwhile. And I am no less and no more a person because I'm Catholic. It's just who I am, and I like being that way. Why can't you understand that? Why do you feel so driven to insult and deride and attack and demean?

Neil Devore posted an interesting piece in the Atheist Hymns thread, a song or poem he wrote titled "Freedom." To me, it expresses disillusionment with the pretentiousness and guilt that can certainly be a part of religion for some people. It's an honest assessment, and I admit that parts of it are hard to take for me. But it's a reasonable observation, quite different from your insulting attacks. Maybe you could learn to be a little less viciously doctrinaire, and a little more reasonable. Then, maybe you'd have something worthwhile to say. But your blathering attacks are just worthless bigotry.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:16 PM

Well, Joe, I espouse all those values too, and I've also taught my children to espouse them. I seem to have managed all this without the crutch of a Jesus Christ. I've managed to oppose those evils without recourse to that fellow. I suggest, being nice to you, that you might have been that way even without him. I also suggest that people who can oppose all those evils without the Jesus crutch could just conceivably be made of sterner stuff. I went to the funeral of a good friend I'd known for over forty years. A lovely, gentle man he was, a fantastic family man who would do anything for anybody. He hated religion and would only go near a church for weddings and funerals. His Christian family wanted a Christian funeral service. The vicar at the service regaled us all with the assertion that my friend had learned his moral values from his Christian background. I nearly died suppressing my laughter. You blokes who try to equate your goodness with your religion have got a lot to learn. It has nothing to do with it, old chap. The evidence is all around you for the taking. Good believers, bad believers, good atheists, bad atheists. If you need Jesus to make you good, there's something wrong with you. As for your critical thinking, it doesn't seem to extend to your consideration of evolution or starry nights. It certainly hasn't helped your understanding of science. And there is no excuse for sending children to a school where you know they will be lied to under a crucifix. That's just immoral.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:55 PM

"belief and unbelief are predicated on lack of evidence"

On which basis, Steve, your view would be that nobody should ever believe anything. But of course, by definition, you don't believe that...