BS: The Pope in America

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:55 AM

Cor. I haven't accused you of having personality defects! In fact, I excused you entirely from the ones I see in pete. Now I know all about the different species of creationists. But you do all have the one unassailable thing in common, that you believe that God created the universe. I really can't see what you're getting aerated about. Well, I suppose that were I a creationist I wouldn't wish to be associated with pete's version. But creationist seems to be a useful characterisation for anyone who thinks God created everything, and I did differentiate you sharply from pete. As for the bullshit, well I asked you a very straightforward question, which you eventually answered, but you preceded it with verbiage that you hoped would qualify it. It wasn't necessary. The haha was not me taking pleasure in trapping you. I don't do tricks like that. It was a here-we-go-agaIn moment.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:19 AM

Ok, I admit it! I have been irked into a reply by that last splurge, but promise I really will stop now whatever you say in reply to this.

You said: "To stress again, it is about trying to get effective communication by ensuring words are going to be understood by the reader rather than inventing your own personal meaning which can do nothing but harm communication."

Well I couldn't agree more.

Actually, you did not agree at all, because what that paragraph was about was you redefining the word 'creationist' to have a completely different meaning to the whole rest of the world. You know that, I know that, all the readers of this thread know that. And why did you have to do that? Just so you could get a little burst of pleasure by saying "Ha ha ha. Three lines of bullshit, then, finally, the simple answer to the simple question. You are no less a creationist than pete". And please don't try to say you are so ice-cold when you post that the 'ha ha ha' does not indicate a touch of glee that you think you have forced me into admitting something I was fighting against.

That is simply foolish, and you are better than that. Why on earth should I object to being labelled as a creationist-but-only-in-the-sense-that-Steve-uses-it-and-no-one-else-in-the-world?   What I do object to is a deliberate attempt on your part to deceive the careless reader into thinking when you say "You are no less a creationist than pete" that it means what all the rest of the world thinks it means. That is the opposite of what true debate is about and you know it.

Then we get the three lines of bullshit bit. Really, Steve, you do need to read more widely. Have a chat with Bill D: he will give you a bit of guidance about what things like 'excluded middle', 'equivocation' and all the rest mean.

Just to sign off, I have reproduced the middle paragraph of Steve's post of 14 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM, swapped the first sentence to the end and added a bit of highlighting. Food for thought on your approach, Steve.


I put my points very directly and undiplomatically when it comes to religion and I know some of you don't like it. Well I'm glad you don't because you haven't really got a leg to stand on but you refuse to confront it. What do I mean by that? Why, you believe in a deity who is far less likely to exist than fairies at the bottom of my garden. You wrap him up in profoundly meaningless, flowery language that's merely an attempt to dignify him and stop yourselves from looking foolish. You tell children to believe in him and make them bow their heads and sing silly hymns praising him. You can't tell me why it's better to tell them lies instead of the truth. It's self-infantilisation on a massive scale and you simply can't see it.

The last refuge of a scoundrel who hasn't got anything useful left to say is to accuse your adversary of having personality defects.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 08:00 AM

"To stress again, it is about trying to get effective communication by ensuring words are going to be understood by the reader rather than inventing your own personal meaning which can do nothing but harm communication."

Well I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, inventing personal meanings (usually pretty mystical and impenetrable ones, deliberately made so in order to add gravitas and stave off the sceptics, of course) for God is the sine qua non of religion.

"You say I fail to answer the questions you pose,...But let's have one last attempt at the impossible....

Did God create the universe or not?
As always, you fall into the 'excluded middle' logical error.
The statement 'To the best of our understanding the universe came into existence with any need for God' is true. God is not needed for any such explanation. I'm not sure if you are happy with that, but even if you are you won't be happy with the next bit. Nevertheless, it is also true to say I believe God created the Universe."

Ha ha ha. Three lines of bullshit, then, finally, the simple answer to the simple question. You are no less a creationist than pete. Not an ignoramus or a mouthpiece or a science-denier as such, unlike him, but still a creationist. The next step is to ask yourself whether you have to admit to that through gritted teeth in order to give God at least some role in things. Unless he's the creator, he isn't really much use, is he? Oops, unless he's merely the "essence..."


"Is it better to tell children lies than tell them the truth?
Of course not: tell the truth. No question about that.
But does it then follow that we have a common understanding of what is a lie? No, we don't."

Well let's investigate. Here's just some of the things children are told.

There is definitely a God (Our Father who art in heaven). No doubt in that prayer, and they all have to learn it off by heart. Lots of other prayers and hymns contain similar unchallenged assertions, not just about God but also about some of his baggage, the Virgin Mary for example.

Jesus was born to a virgin.

We are all born in sin because a woman stole one apple from God and Jesus had to die to save us.

Jesus could raise the dead, feed five thousand people on a few scraps, could predict exactly what was going to happen when a cock crowed, and could come back to life even though he'd bled to death two days earlier.

There is a heaven that you will get into only if you're good.

If you do bad things, but not too bad, you will have to be tortured for a while in purgatory before you get into heaven, unless you're lucky enough to have just come out of confession before you die or if someone has earned you an indulgence by chanting some prayers, perhaps by going in and out of a church a few times or doing a few decades of the Rosary.

When we want to make good Catholics into saints, it has to be proven that miracles connected with them took place first.

You were made by God. No argument. It's the first statement in the catechism.

Now you say it's better to tell children the truth. I can't conclusively demonstrate that all the above are definitely not true, though I can say that if you believe at least some of them you must be deluded. What is definite is that not a single one can be shown to be even remotely true. Yet this is what children are taught. We've had a lot of shilly-shallying around this in this and lots of other threads. You've just told me that it's better to tell children the truth. Well here's how you can tell them all this stuff and still be telling the truth. Are you listening?

"This is a list of some of the things that some Catholics believe. When you believe something, you don't need to ask anyone to show that it's true. But, when you look at that list, you might be surprised at some of the beliefs in it. Some of them look like magic and others are about God, or Jesus, or Mary, people we're not sure were ever real at all. When you're told about something unexpected, such as about a man who could come back to life, the best thing is to ask for more information. If you think like a scientist thinks, you probably won't believe anything that seems unusual unless the person telling you about it can show you some evidence. Your science teacher can tell you what we mean by evidence and give you some examples of what is useful evidence and what isn't. You don't have to prove anything, but you need enough information to make up your own mind. Bright people never let other people make up their minds for them. If the person telling you can't give you the evidence, he may be trying to trick you, so it's best to be polite yet suspicious, even if that person is an authority figure such as your dad, a priest or even me. If a belief looks too complicated to understand, you can always wait until you're older before going back to investigate it again. And no-one is forcing you to be a Catholic, and no-one will think badly of you if you decide not to be one."

And finally:

"... you seem to want to make this some sort of mental wrestling match between us. I'm not interested, sorry. I present my views..."

Well I present my views too but I also want to tease out your take. I'm honest enough to admit that I'm on the lookout for your inconsistencies, but that's what argument is all about (in saying that, I'm expecting some philosophical stick, of course). I tend to find that the inconsistencies, woolly thinking and vaguenesses that emanate from people of faith are so legion that the debate is more a walk in the park than a wrestling match, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:50 AM

"When they are subjected to reality" is what I intended.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:07 AM

Hmm. Well, "the essence of nature" is one of those handy made-up phrases that actually means about as much as "the essence of Walmart". Your God of the essence is a superimposed figure (intra-imposed even, if there is such a word) who stops you from seeing the true reality of the wonderful nature of things. Try taking him away (I promise to let you put him back). There, you see? You've lost nothing! Everything is just as wonderful and just as mystical and spiritual as you want it to be (and even I want it to be just a little). You don't need him, and the great thing is that you're now free to look for the real evidence of how things come about and use your full intellect to relish the enjoyment of interpreting it. We call it science, and it's lovely.

As for your accusations concerning my characterisations of God, let me repeat myself yet again in order to tell you that what I say about him is simply the upshot of the ludicrous (and quite presumptuous - sinful, I thought) claims made in his name by you and others when they are applied to reality. I don't have any God model in my brain at all. It's all your own doing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:11 AM

Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn

'To the best of our understanding the universe came into existence withOUT any need for God' is true.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:58 AM


And as you well know, the term creationists refers to a whole host of things, like the literal interpretation of Genesis, the idea that the earth is around 6000 years old, that all the fossil evidence is misinterpreted and much more. Not just that God was involved in creation. Taking that one aspect and saying that everyone who thinks that God (whatever that means) was involved (ditto) in creation (ditto again) is also a creationist is at the very least unwise because of the confusion it will cause.

And as YOU well know, I'm a very simple man. The quoted passage here is obfuscation personified.

And yet you get very hot under the collar (while somehow remaining ice-cold) when someone claims in that simplicity you have over-simplified something.

That passage you quoted is not concerned with creationism: it is concerned with how people communicate. Words have meanings and when you say you intend to use a word in a way that is significantly different from how everyone in the world interprets it I say that is unwise. Isn't that simple enough for you?   It may not be, I realise, since a few posts earlier you failed to understood that a public forum the word 'we' does not necessarily mean 'you'.

To stress again, it is about trying to get effective communication by ensuring words are going to be understood by the reader rather than inventing your own personal meaning which can do nothing but harm communication.

You say I fail to answer the questions you pose, I say I do answer them but not to your satisfaction. But let's have one last attempt at the impossible and answer your questions.

Did God create the universe or not?
As always, you fall into the 'excluded middle' logical error.
The statement 'To the best of our understanding the universe came into existence with any need for God' is true. God is not needed for any such explanation. I'm not sure if you are happy with that, but even if you are you won't be happy with the next bit. Nevertheless, it is also true to say I believe God created the Universe.


Is it better to tell children lies than tell them the truth?
Of course not: tell the truth. No question about that.
But does it then follow that we have a common understanding of what is a lie? No, we don't.


So we are onto the repetition bit again, and once again you seem to want to make this some sort of mental wrestling match between us. I'm not interested, sorry. I present my views and (repeating once again!)
I think it entirely up to you whether you abuse them, ignore them, think you can learn something even where you disagree or whatever. Equally I am interested in learning other people views. Examining and questioning others views in the interest of learning something? Well and good. But if things deteriorate into "Who won the fight?" I have no interest. And as you appear to have settled once again into the same old rut where you are no longer interesting in exchanging ideas but simply shouting your own, I will take another leave of absence. Last time it was some 300 posts before I came back (no, Steve, I haven't counted them: that's an estimate) so I anticipate a similar absence if the thread is still going them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:41 AM

Steve Shaw says: If there was such a word as endarkenment, I'd say that it could be a very accurate description of what Christianity does to people's brains. To me, enlightenment involves freeing the mind from false notions that hinder progressive thinking. I can't see that believing in an almost impossible God, whose existence requires us to agree to sidelining the laws of the universe before we can do so, can be in any sense at all "enlightening". Neither can praying to a Jesus who may not have existed at all, or worshipping his mother who miraculously conceived him shaglessly (Gawd, Joseph, you mug!), or thinking that water can be turned into wine or that Jesus's mates could be raised from the dead. If any enlightenment at all can be gleaned from any of that nonsense, well blow me down is all I can say.

All that may be more-or-less true, Steve, for some people of faith. Other believers have an understanding of a God who promotes progressive thinking. How can it be necessary for God to hinder thinking? Where are the rules that say that has to be the case?

Why does God have to follow your definition of God? I believe in a God who is totally compatible with the principles of science, because I believe God is the Source of science. Other believers think differently, so their results may vary.

This is not complicated, Steve. It just doesn't jive with your preconceived notion of a stupid God, and stupid believers who follow this God. Maybe God isn't so stupid as you define God to be - and maybe some believers aren't stupid, either.

But you sound like a teenager in your arguments, since your basic premise seems to be that everyone outside yourself is stupid.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:27 AM

OK, Steve, but it seems to me that you speak only of a God who is an external force who defies the laws of nature to accomplish the impossible. I believe in a God who is the source and the essence of nature and the laws of nature, a God who by definition cannot defy the laws of nature because this God is the essence of nature. Christianity is not the only belief system that has seen God as the essence of nature, not a contradiction of nature.

Now granted that I see God as far more than the essence of nature, but I see the essence of nature as an integral aspect of this undefinable entity I worship as God.

Why do you see it necessary for God to violate the laws of nature and to be incompatible with science? I see science as unfolding the mystery of God with every new discovery.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:43 PM

"But even good scientists are human beings, which is their finest attribute."

I said that. Not Kevin nor Joe. They don't listen though. I'm accused of turning scientists into Spocks or priests. What rubbish, chaps. Read the above. And shame on anyone for ever equating science with religion in any sense at all. The one relies on invisible supernatural beings, the other relies on evidence and reason. How desperate can you get. I think I get repetitive because I have to, because some people around here doggedly refuse to take things in (not just from me, of course. Even I'm not that arrogant). Musket would have had a handy two-word expression for such people, and it wasn't Top Cat, but I'm a lot nicer than that, you lucky people.

More laughably still, and on the same theme, Joe Offer compares scientific peer review with theological peer review. My dear boy, scientists peer review each other's EVIDENCE. Whatever it is that theologians peer review, it isn't evidence. And you have the gall to equate the self-questioning of priests and scientists. A good scientist has to be a free thinker. A priest is required to do all his thinking within a tight ringfence of belief, or, if he dares to allow his thinking to stray outside of it, he'd better keep quiet about it. Either that or pack it in and get a proper job. No comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:22 PM

Hmm. If there was such a word as endarkenment, I'd say that it could be a very accurate description of what Christianity does to people's brains. To me, enlightenment involves freeing the mind from false notions that hinder progressive thinking. I can't see that believing in an almost impossible God, whose existence requires us to agree to sidelining the laws of the universe before we can do so, can be in any sense at all "enlightening". Neither can praying to a Jesus who may not have existed at all, or worshipping his mother who miraculously conceived him shaglessly (Gawd, Joseph, you mug!), or thinking that water can be turned into wine or that Jesus's mates could be raised from the dead. If any enlightenment at all can be gleaned from any of that nonsense, well blow me down is all I can say.

And as you well know, the term creationists refers to a whole host of things, like the literal interpretation of Genesis, the idea that the earth is around 6000 years old, that all the fossil evidence is misinterpreted and much more. Not just that God was involved in creation. Taking that one aspect and saying that everyone who thinks that God (whatever that means) was involved (ditto) in creation (ditto again) is also a creationist is at the very least unwise because of the confusion it will cause.

And as YOU well know, I'm a very simple man. The quoted passage here is obfuscation personified. Back to basics. I don't care about how you interpret the fairy tale known as Genesis or whether you disagree with pete and his 6000 years, etc. All you're doing here is employing the time-honoured believers' stunt of wrapping up a very simple matter in manufactured complications in order to try to confuse demurrers. Well you picked the wrong man. I know what creation means, unfortunately. Now I happen to know that no God ever "created" the universe, you, me, that daisy on my lawn nor anything else. I have plenty of science that goes a very long way to explaining how it all came about, not all the answers by any means as yet of course, and poor old God doesn't get a look in. He is simply not required. You see, I want things EXPLAINED. I don't want romanticated guesswork about supernatural beings for whom there is not one scrap of evidence. I don't want things "explained" by an impossible being who himself can't be explained and who has never once shown his hand. That is not an explanation at all. In fact, it's worse than that, because it stops us from looking for the real explanations, which can be arrived at only by means of evidence and reason, not by resort to fairy stories or by the seeking of mythical "deeper truths." We believed the corrupt police about the perpetrators of the Birmingham pub bombings, which stopped us from looking for the real culprits, so we ended up with six wrecked families and no closure for the victims. That's what happens when you believe nonsense and stop looking for real evidence and the real truth. It stops children from looking for the real explanations too, if they're told to believe this vile Godly nonsense, which hundreds of millions of them are indeed told to believe. In my book, that's just wickedness.

So the simple matter I referred to is this. Do you, or do you not, believe that the universe and all within it was created by a deity, no matter how you wish to define him? Yes or no? If you don't, then tell me what God actually did do, if anything. If you do, then you are a creationist, aren't you? Yes or no? No fannying around now. The yes/no requirement here is very fair. It doesn't matter whether you think God did the Big Bang billions of years ago or whether you think he did it all with one fell swoop in 4004 BC, setting tricks for us by laying down fake fossils. He can't really have "sort of" created it all. He either did or he didn't. The time for the bullshit about "whole hosts of things," etc., has passed. I get accused of repetition. I get accused of being simplistic. Well you are also very repetitive, in that you repeatedly fail to answer questions. Not fail to answer questions to my satisfaction, but fail to answer them at all. Did God create the universe or not? Is it better to tell children lies than tell them the truth? Simple questions, not simplistic questions. I can bore the arse off you if you like and expand the questions, but that would be repetitive, as I've done that so many times before. You wouldn't like that, but I imagine that we're past caring about such niceties.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:31 PM

McGrath: "Scientists should indeed recognise that their theories are provisional, rather than "true" in an absolute sense."
Shaw: Good scientists do. But even good scientists are human beings, which is their finest attribute.
Offer: and even priests are human beings. Think of that!

McGrath: "But if course that doesn't stop them holding on to them even when evidence seems to disprove them, and from trying to find ways to cast doubt on that evidence."
Shaw: Which is why science insists on peer review of evidence. As I say, you have a fair bit to learn about what good science gets up to.
Offer: Gee, Steve, theologians do peer review, too!

McGrath: "But the way you talk about this, Scientists appear to be seen as a kind of dedicated priesthood. And that's as shaky a version of scientists as it is of actual priests. By which I mean, most of the time it's probably not too far away from the truth, but by no means always, and all too often, it's nowhere near."
Offer: I think that both scientists and priests/theologians have far more self-awareness that we give them credit for having. Both are far more self-questioning than their disciples are.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:10 PM

Time Stamp sez: Imo Christianity needs to get back to its roots and start talking about and facilitating Gnosis

Agreed, but if I used the word "gnosis," I would be misunderstood...If one wants to espouse something that used to be considered by Christians to be a heresy, one must simply use a different name (or, simply must use a different name)

Time Stamp links to this article:
http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Articles/260552/Network_Norwich_and_Norfolk/Resources/Culture/Norwich_vicar_tells_of_road_to_enlightenment.aspx

Pertinent quote:

"The pitch is 'If you are seeking 'enlightenment', then why not find it in the Christian Tradition, people have been finding it there for centuries.' The idea is to start where people are, with their own experience of consciousness, and then build from there."

Well said. That's a point I've been trying to get across for years.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:00 PM

A fair bit lo learn about what good science gets up to? But science is what real fallible human scientists get up to, which can be far from perfect. Both when carrying out investigations etc, and when inviolved in peer review. Over time evolutionary processe occur, and things move along pretty well.

But the way you talk about this, Scientists appear to be seen as a kind of dedicated priesthood. And that's as shaky a version of scientists as it is of actual priests. By which I mean, most of the time it's probably not too far away from the truth, but by no means always, and all too often, it's nowhere near.

And that isn't just away charletons or incimpetents getting by, but also some of most productive and effective, including some Nobel Prizewinners.

And in no way am I putting down science or scientists, just pointing out they are orddinary people in most ways.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:14 PM

Time stamp sez: Jeez Joe tough crowd 8

Aw, they ain't so bad, Time stamp. Just stay away from their teeth unless you've had a rabies shot.

-Joe, taking a break to do music-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

I'm sure our resident expert Mr McGrath enjoyed it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 03:04 PM

Best laugh I've had for ages .....you're an unconscious comedian Stevie boy!

"There's nothing more simplistic than grown, intelligent people infantilising themselves by resorting to this kind of idiocy. And you may just have noticed that I don't appreciate being called simplistic or angry when I'm neither. That's just you getting desperate."

They say Budelians don't get irony :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 02:09 PM

Yes Shimrod I believe you haven't a clue what I'm talking about

Problem is, Mr. Stamp, that YOU haven't a clue what you're talking aout.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 12:51 PM

Yes could've phrased that better but you get the gist. Yes Shimrod I believe you haven't a clue what I'm talking about and that's fine.Me really done on this thread and topic just thought Shimrod needed some attention, but anymore will be not be responded. Life is far too short.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 12:32 PM

"At the heart of all religions and spiritual practices and mind body disciplines is a physical process that delivers 'a state of being' labelled enlightenment,Awakened/natural state/ Nirvana etc.. Nothing more to be said between us until you catch up and acknowledge this ridiculously evident reality."

Fairies live at the bottom of my garden. That's a RIDICULOUSLY evident reality! Of course they do! It's RIDICULOUS to say otherwise. Ha! RIDICULOUS!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM

Steve a loose recollection of your last post to me,..you're a smart boy but you need more to go on from me. What I've given you is (1) what to look for (2) where to look for it (3) how to look for it. Being a smart fella what more could you want for crying out loud. I would say we're done until you investigate thoroughly what I'm saying which is going to take you a fair while. Here's a refresher on what I'm saying..At the heart of all religions and spiritual practices and mind body disciplines is a physical process that delivers 'a state of being' labelled enlightenment,Awakened/natural state/ Nirvana etc.. Nothing more to be said between us until you catch up and acknowledge this ridiculously evident reality. A post you made in response to McG shows the closed minded disingenuous way you approach this and related matters so I'm not holding my breath.
          Now back to my real reason for posting. @Joe-- Hi, 8) Imo Christianity needs to get back to its roots and start talking about and facilitating Gnosis (ooh what an old and scary loaded word) All Gnosis is, is experience of our true base nature with all baggage removed, a higher state of consciousness. Anymore detail than that gets in the way because we can't be trusted with anything. Look at the giants down through the ages who tried to explain but have obviously failed to properly convey it. That's because it's impossible to convey isn't it, words can never do it justice unless between people who have been there, and even then they are very limiting. Imo, and others probably yours too, most of the problems we have globally emanate from the state of our psyche. Consensus
is never going to be reached on anything until we solve the human psyche. Now there is a consensus silently lovingly waiting in the background for us to realise and it's called enlightenment. Never going to happen anytime soon though..ah well.
          Here is a chap (link) half hour down the road from me, never met him but Imo he is rightly trying to reclaim Christianity and restore it to it's true purpose, and delivering the same message as Christ, whether Christ be fiction or not, the message is truth it's just been obscured, messed with and abused.
~                                                                   ~
   http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Articles/260552/Network_Norwich_and_Norfolk/Resources/Culture/Norwich_vicar_tells_of_road_to_enlightenment.aspx
~
          "The pitch is 'If you are seeking 'enlightenment', then why not find it in the Christian Tradition, people have been finding it there for centuries.' The idea is to start where people are, with their own experience of consciousness, and then build from there."
~

Here is Schopenhauer an athiest, talking about the same thing I'm talking about. I don't mind what it's called either.

    " " The better consciousness in me lifts me into a world where there is no longer personality and causality or subject or object. My hope and my belief is that this better (supersensible and extra-temporal) consciousness will become my only one, and for that reason I hope that it is not God. But if anyone wants to use the expression God symbolically for the better consciousness itself or for much that we are able to separate or name, so let it be, yet not among philosophers I would have thought " "
            Right that really is me finished on this topic as life is too short and it's a serious thread hijack and I acknowledge that. If Steve you ever feel like responding if you get interested I'll give you my email. Neither of us is stupid and hopefully we can recognise that you assuming your well honed stance here and the group dynamic is going to make it difficult for us to honestly discuss anything. Btw any difference of opinion we have here I won't carry over to other threads if I post on them,which I seriously doubt as none of the other contentious topics interest me that much. Plus most of my spare energy goes on transcribing box players n chunes which can send you daft btw so don't take anything I say to heart and fester on it. I'm here to liberate you ! (ok bad joke)
             You can now go back to getting Joe to defend the indefensible and explaining the unexplainable (Jeez Joe tough crowd 8)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 11:39 AM

Steve.. you said: " Your beliefs and assertions have as much foundation as Santa and the tooth fairy, childISH. A useful distinction. "

Yes... useful, but in the case of religious beliefs, not quite comparable. I gave up Santa & the tooth fairy (and the Easter Bunny) by the age of 7 or so... but God persisted until I was about 16. (That is, the 'god' of the Christian bible.)

It is fairly easy to link Santa and the tooth fairy to adult tales to amuse children, but the idea of God(s) is in a different category, no matter what culture it is in. Being concerned with the unfathomable mysteries of Being leads even adults who smile at Santa Claus to worry about 'where we/it all came from'. I have, as you have, decided that I cannot know about that, so I don't worry about it in the abstract..... but I DO react when those who take god(s) literally & seriously affect the fabric of my culture with contradictory & negative activities.
The problem is, some.. like Quakers... just quietly worship and act in ways that don't bother others much, while some openly proselytize and try to insert their version of morality, culture, etc. into education, politics and medicine...etc.---- and there are hundreds of steps between Quakers & radical fundamentalists.

I put Pete somewhere near the Quakers as a practical matter. His theories are extreme, but as far as I know, his actions are not. He has not tried to persuade ME to join some fundamentalist church, and he has not, as far as I can tell, advocated teaching his views in his local schools.... thus, I can discuss science & philosophy with him without any notion of 'offensive' clouding our debate.
I must just conclude that we load our definition of 'offensive' with different connotations.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:58 AM

You miss my point, Steve. It was not whether creationism is stupid or not, it was, having recognised we are unlikely to persuade Pete of that, simply repeatedly making the same point it is the most beneficial thing we can do.

And as you well know, the term creationists refers to a whole host of things, like the literal interpretation of Genesis, the idea that the earth is around 6000 years old, that all the fossil evidence is misinterpreted and much more. Not just that God was involved in creation. Taking that one aspect and saying that everyone who thinks that God (whatever that means) was involved (ditto) in creation (ditto again) is also a creationist is at the very least unwise because of the confusion it will cause.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:40 AM

"Scientists should indeed recognise that their theories are provisional, rather than "true" in an absolute sense."

Good scientists do. But even good scientists are human beings, which is their finest attribute.

"But if course that doesn't stop them holding on to them even when evidence seems to disprove them, and from trying to find ways to cast doubt on that evidence."

Which is why science insists on peer review of evidence. As I say, you have a fair bit to learn about what good science gets up to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:34 AM

Well, I neither know nor care whether God exists, so I'm not sure where that came from (actually, that's another thing I keep repeating...) As for pete and his viewpoint, he hasn't actually got one as such. Everything he tells you is predigested from somebody else's viewpoint. On the rare occasions I've bothered to investigate where he gets his notions from, I've found the exact words he uses churned out by somebody else before him. Try it for yourself some time. The day we start to give credence and respectability to brainwashed people would be a very dangerous day indeed. By the way, if creationism isn't stupid, I'd be quite interested to hear your reasoning. But remember that anyone who believes in a God that created everything, whether in 4000 BC or thirteen billion years ago, is just as much a creationist as pete is,maybe just a different kind of creationist. Different, but no more respectable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:51 AM

Just picking up the point that there is not much to learn from pete's viewpoint. Some people are more inclined to be 'analysts' and seek to divide things into the component parts. I am more of a synthesist and am more inclined to make relationships between things. All of us are both to some extent, of course.

Now, to me there are interesting relationships between pete's views and the mapplethorpe obscenity trial. In particular the comment that one of the people who brought the case made when they lost. "No, we didn't lose. We taught all the galleries to avoid exhibitions where we might bring a very expensive case against them if they don't stay within the bounds we set." That's a paraphrase because it is a long time ago, but the sentiment is right. We will fall into that sort of trap if we do not understand how other people think. And we will not get that understanding of how people think if we just keep parroting creationism is stupid, we know God doesn't exist, they are not listening to me and all that stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:47 AM

Scientists should indeed recognise that their theories are provisional, rather than "true" in an absolute sense. But if course that doesn't stop them holding on to them even when evidence seems to disprove them, and from trying to find ways to cast doubt on that evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:33 AM

"And Shimrod, one exception does in fact break a rule, if the rule is one that does not allow for exceptions."

How did I know that you would say that? Nevertheless, it's a futile reply which does nothing to advance the discussion. It just makes you look like a nit-picking clever-dick!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

Well, for the record, when I post here I rarely, if ever, raise my temperature above ice-cool. This is not real life, though it can be an entertaining place to air views and hear what strangers have to say. The day I feel angry whilst posting is the day I stop posting. I've said this several times before. Sorry to repeat. You have to ask yourself on occasion if you end up repeating because people don't listen. Ho hum. My questions are couched in simple, direct words, child-LIKE. Your beliefs and assertions have as much foundation as Santa and the tooth fairy, childISH. A useful distinction.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:22 AM

And you may just have noticed that I don't appreciate being called simplistic or angry when I'm neither. That's just you getting desperate.

And I have done neither. I said one specific question was over simplistic and in previous posts I explained why. That says nothing at all about you in general. As for anger, you will remember I was talking about 'Righteous anger'. Nothing to do with losing your temper, for example. I would say that Lord Shaftesbury, for example, is an exemplar of how righteous anger drove his philanthropy and thirst for social reform.

And if you want to take being identified with the spirit that drove that, and the suffragettes and the anti-slavery campaigners as an insult, well, there's not a lot I can do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:16 AM

"He was a scientist who was convinced a theory he had developed was true"

That is an absurd sentence. Well, I've been accused of repeating myself. So here I go again. No good scientist is ever convinced that theories are true. Theories are attempts to explain phenomena and are never "true." it's entirely the wrong way to put it. If you're right about him, he wasn't a scientist. In this case, I suspect that it's you not understanding the scientific process. You do have form.

"The history of science is a lot more complicated than you seem to present it, Steve. "

Going from your shaky understanding of what science is all about, I'd respectfully suggest that you may not be the best person to be advising me of that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:08 AM

Well I really can't see that there's much to delve into concerning his viewpoint. As for my question being simplistic, it just isn't. If you tell children to believe in a God and make them chant prayers to him that are full of certainties, you are telling lies. It's a simple, unassailable fact, but there's nothing simplistic about it at all. And all I want to know is why that is so much better than telling them the truth. I may couch those questions in simple language, but they are fair questions, plain but not simplistic, and you don't answer them, to your eternal discredit. All the dressing-up in the world, telling me I'm simplistic, that I'm angry, that God can't be seen in the terms I set out, that he is beyond understanding, that he is the great life-force, he that is within and without, and all the rest of the guff, are no more than attempts to turn an impossibility into something respectable and to stop yourself from looking foolish. There's nothing more simplistic than grown, intelligent people infantilising themselves by resorting to this kind of idiocy. And you may just have noticed that I don't appreciate being called simplistic or angry when I'm neither. That's just you getting desperate.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM

Sir Fred Hoyle was not a charleton. He was a scientist who was convinced a theory he had developed was true, despite evidence that indicated it wasn't. That's something that has often happened - and in some cases it has turned out subsequently that further evidence confirms their "discredited" ideas.

The history of science is a lot more complicated than you seem to present it, Steve. And scientists are as liable to behave in ways that aren't consistent with scientific principles as Christians are to behave in ways that aren't consistent with Christian principles. (And Shimrod, one exception does in fact break a rule, if the rule is one that does not allow for exceptions. "Scientistsd do not..." is such a rule. "Some scientists" or "most scientists" or "no scientists should" would not be.)

I have in fact responded to your repeated accusations, Steve, as has Joe. You aren't satisfied with the responses. That's fine by me, I'm really am not trying to persuade you to change your views, and don't expect to. You've done so in the past, as you've indicated, perhaps you might again in the future, but that's not my concern.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 07:44 AM

I suspect that you are more troubled by the fact that you can't respond to my repeated accusations against religion's causing damage and its dishonesty than you are about the repetitions per se.

I'm not troubled by either. I have responded to all your accusations by giving you my understanding. For example on your comment about 'telling lies to children' we had a long discussion during which I explained why I thought the question was over-simplistic but even on its simple interpretation I - and others - had plenty to say. So while it is true that no one could answer that question to your satisfaction, that is a completely different thing to saying they could not answer the question. And no, I'm not about to go all round the loop again, since as I've also said casting things in terms of 'adversaries' is not a game I want to play. If I can learn something from you or from pete, great. But that's where I draw my line.

As for you repeating yourself in general, I simply find it uninteresting. Say new things and I engage. But when we are well over a thousand and a half posts into a topic, repetitions are unlikely to add anything of value.

And finally an apology to pete. When I said a post or two ago about wasting time talking to pete, that was simply because I was quoting your message. While I profoundly disagree with pete on many things, I rarely find talking to him a waste of time, since it almost always increases my understanding of his viewpoint, however much I disagree with it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 07:19 AM

Well yes, I do, but not to pete I don't. I gave that up yonks ago. I limit myself to the occasional sideswipe at his most egregious emanations every now and again, more for amusement and ridicule than anything, though I try to be dignified about it. If I repeat myself to you, Joe and Kevin, you should see it as a compliment in that at least I don't think you're a complete waste of time. And perhaps you could reflect on the fact that, more often than not, what I repeat is repeated in different contexts, differently nuanced, to different people. I suspect that you are more troubled by the fact that you can't respond to my repeated accusations against religion's causing damage and its dishonesty than you are about the repetitions per se.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM

you continually engage in the same old futile "discussions" with him time and time again. What was that about repeating things that you know won't work over and over again...

As you do, Steve, as you do. *smile*

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM

Well, some of you appear not to know that your time is being wasted, as you continually engage in the same old futile "discussions" with him time and time again. What was that about repeating things that you know won't work over and over again...

The last refuge of a scoundrel who hasn't got anything useful left to say is to accuse your adversary of having personality defects. I put my points very directly and undiplomatically when it comes to religion and I know some of you don't like it. Well I'm glad you don't because you haven't really got a leg to stand on but you refuse to confront it. What do I mean by that? Why, you believe in a deity who is far less likely to exist than fairies at the bottom of my garden. You wrap him up in profoundly meaningless, flowery language that's merely an attempt to dignify him and stop yourselves from looking foolish. You tell children to believe in him and make them bow their heads and sing silly hymns praising him. You can't tell me why it's better to tell them lies instead of the truth. It's self-infantilisation on a massive scale and you simply can't see it.

And by the way, Kevin your comments about belief merely confirm that you have a lot of homework to do concerning your understanding of science. And plucking out a handful of charlatans in an attempt to characterise it is just desperate. Franco partook of holy communion every day. How would you like it if I tried to use him to characterise the whole of Christianity?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM

Yes, McGoH, that is ONE example of an eminent scientist who MAY not have lived up to the scientific ideal ... now find me 3000 more.

As you say, scientists are only human too, so they will not always live up their own highest ideals. For 3000, I offer you every scientist fighting for a grant to pursue his own piece of research against others who he or she privately thinks might be more promising. But a man (or woman) must live..

And, at the risk of getting pete too excited, at this stage we are genuinely taking belief, not evidence, as in "I believe my research will lead to this or that" (but since I haven't done the research yet I clearly can't have the evidence it will).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:35 AM

"For a classic example of an eminent scientist holding on to his favoured theory in face of overwhelming evidence, take Sir Fred Hoyle, who persisted in his rejection of the Big Bang ..."

Yes, McGoH, that is ONE example of an eminent scientist who MAY not have lived up to the scientific ideal ... now find me 3000 more. In this case, a single exception does not break a rule. Scientists are human, and potentially fallible, after all. The fact remains, though, that if the majority of scientists didn't strive for objectivity and didn't "expect their ideas to be dismissed, modified, expanded on, stood on the shoulders of", science would never advance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 02:50 AM

Sigh.

pete does not offend me. No-one here ever offends me.

None of us can know your feelings, Steve, so if you say you are not offended, I'll go with that.

But all the evidence we actually have to go on, which are the posts you make, *do* read as if they are from someone who is highly offended, not only by pete but all religion everywhere. And I could live with that: if someone actually is offended I don't see why they shouldn't say so.

Or perhaps you are trying to draw a distinction between being offended and being angry? "Righteous Anger" has a very respectable history, after all. It can be hard to tell them apart, but I would say a touchstone is that an ad hominem attack is a strong indicator of being offended rather than anger.

As for pete wasting our time, that's our choice. We respond to him, or not. We waste our time, not him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 02:38 AM

For a classic example of an eminent scientist holding on to his favoured theory in face of overwhelming evidence, take Sir Fred Hoyle, who persisted in his rejection of the Big Bang (a mocking term he appears to have coined) and in sticking to his belief in a steady state universe for the last 50 years of his life.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 09:37 PM

Of course you are trying to make people believe what you believe, Steve. If you really do believe you are not, I cannot help but feel that you are, in that respect, as detached from reality as any "young earth creationist" or indeed someone who insists the moon is made of green cheese.

As for the claim that "Scientists do not try to persuade people to believe in things", that just doesn't square with the facts. Like any other academics scientists fight and feud, and sometimes even cheat by adjusting their findings to win out in conflicts with other scuentists. They are human beings, who are liable to hate to have pet theories disproved by other scientists. The development of science is an example of Natural Selection in action. Which is why it gets places.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM

"I suppose it it can be possible to distinguish between evolution, which is what happens, and evolutionism, the latter being actively proselytising about it"

You can't proselytise about evolution. You can't have pro-evolution propaganda. You can't believe in evolution. You can only proselytise about things that you are trying to make people believe. Scientists do not try to persuade people to believe in things. Scientists search for, discover, interpret and communicate evidence. EV-I-DENCE. Scientists expect their ideas to be dismissed, modified, expanded on, stood on the shoulders of. Most of the people posting to these threads are perfectly intelligent (there are notable exceptions). Unfortunately, an unhealthy number of them are too lazy to find out what science demands and what evolution is. We keep on getting dismal references to proving things, only a theory, God's involvement, to shambolic popular science articles, and now to scientific proselytising. The back of the class should be getting very crowded.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 02:21 PM

Sigh.

pete does not offend me. No-one here ever offends me. Only people in real life are capable of that (and they don't, generally speaking). In any case, I have no right not be be offended. Religion has no right not to be offended, even though it has tried to pretend to have that right by cutting people's heads off and putting them under house arrest or throwing them into dungeons. Religious people actually deserve to be offended if they open their mouths to children and other vulnerable people with their wicked and harmful lies.

pete is profoundly offensive for the following reasons. He pretends to discuss but his ears and eyes are tight shut. He is wasting your time quite deliberately, and, to me, that is very offensive behaviour. He is extremely insulting to honest and hard-working scientists, using pejorative words to characterise them. He repeats the same nonsense in the same terms over and over again, taking advantage of your good nature. He pretends to be involved in discussion, but he is not here for that at all. He is simply here to dishonestly discredit science and peddle his creationist nonsense. Pure poison. Finally, he writes lazily and illiterately even though he is capable of doing it properly. He doesn't give a monkey's. Now none of this offends me in the slightest, but it is all highly offensive. There is a difference. Now what's going to happen next is that I'm going to be told that I'm offensive too. Worse than him. Which justifies his offensiveness, which you'll say isn't offensiveness at all. He's just a misguided little sweetie, isn't he. Ahhh! Good. Fire away!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 01:44 PM

"For the human race is, more than any other species, at once social by nature and quarrelsome by perversion." 
― Augustine of Hippo

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:16 PM

I do not have a canine in this discussion. I will however state unequivocally that I am all for the separation of church and hate.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:08 PM

the latter being actively proselytising about it

What constitutes this proselytising amd who does it?

And there is still no such thing, or word, as "evolutionism".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:05 PM

Pete hasn't actually got a clue what the phrase "observable, testable, repeatable science" means. In fact he has consistently demonstrated that he doesn't know what the word "science" means.

Sadly, MTB, Pete won't have read anything in 'Scientific American' or similar publications. If he did, he might learn something - and that would never do! He only reads stuff written by creationists - presumably because such material confirms his preconceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 11:47 AM

"..2, evolutionists believe a lot of stuff that they are not able to substantiate by observable, testable ,repeatable science... "

They do not "believe" in stuff they have not substantiated, they theorize about it and hold those theories until new evidence either confirms or refutes them--- then they revise the theories and look for MORE evidence---- always trying to make the search follow standard rules of logic and "testable ,repeatable science"

You are disputing an entire realm of science based on your premise that interpretations of various religious texts would lose credibility if the science is correct...and you ignore all the 'stuff' that science IS able to show, test & prove right in front of your nose.

I have refuted your assertion many times that " 3, since there are things they believe only on faith , calling it religion is not unreasonable". It most certainly IS unreasonable.

Pete, your ultimate refuge is simply stating... not showing or proving, but just asserting... that you will view the parts of science that are 'theory' as dubious and will continue to use YOUR version of 'creation' as just as good, even though it cannot EVER be proved.

..so, with that attitude, do you wonder that I... or anyone dedicated to scientific research... would grow weary of answering the same flawed analysis over & over? You are using rhetoric to avoid certain facts, and distorting standard definitions of concepts to conform to your set of unproven beliefs.

So... you are in this little box- a good, honest guy who believes in one thing (that I am not even trying to refute-- that a supreme being created everything) while trying to refute all the research of centuries of science about HOW creation happened and as many steps as we can find.

I can't argue with "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 10:47 AM

I suppose it it can be possible to distinguish between evolution, which is what happens, and evolutionism, the latter being actively proselytising about it