BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:01 AM

Steve Shaw,

I don't think Atheists as a group would be very proud to have an anti-theist as nasty as you claiming to belong in their group. I'm not pleased to be lumped into a group that includes Pat Robertson for the same reason.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 09:40 AM

Ron, you tell us off big time for slagging off believers, then, almost in the same breath, you call us paranoid. Nice one.

As for "arguments against atheism", there aren't any. It doesn't matter how many billions of nasty atheists you can conjure up or what you can pin on them, it's completely peripheral to the conversation about whether there's a God or not. Either you're right about God or you're not (in which latter case you would be deluded). As for atheist aggression, 'tis not atheists who insist on peppering the world with churches, synagogues, mosques and what have you, along with all the profligate iconography that goes with 'em. We don't force-feed our captive-audience children with very dodgy one-sided doctrine in "faith schools" (not much live and let live about that!). We don't clutter the airways with our equivalent of Songs Of Praise or stuff The House of Lords with the atheistic equivalents of archbishops. I'd call all that lot pretty aggressive behaviour in the promotion of something that's entirely without evidence. Wouldn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 08:41 AM

"list of proven atheist composers".

It appears the poster has a comprehension problem.

I am the one who has said that composers for the voice have been lopsidedly religious--or writing in a religious idiom--definitely not writing in an "atheist idiom" (whatever that might be).   Also that that fact is yet another argument against atheism--if one were needed.

Actually I'd be inclined to say that atheist regimes being responsible for more deaths than anybody else in history is enough of an argument against atheism--a reasonable person shouldn't really need another argument.

Atheists of the aggressive variety with which Mudcat is graced are, as I've said before, the flip side of religious fundamentalists--and just as desirable.

The real mystery on Mudcat regarding religion is exactly why some Mudcat atheists seem to feel they need to ridicule the beliefs of the religious, while the religious on Mudcat do not feel compelled to try to convert the unbelievers.

Live and let live should be an option.    But any thread--or idea--called "The God Delusion" is not live and let live.

Skepticism on belief in God is an eminently reasonable stance, as I've said before.   But attacks on religion and the religious often seen on Mudcat threads of this sort go way beyond skepticism and are not justified--in fact they tend to show nothing but their authors' paranoia.   


By the way, I can't tell you how surprised I am that nobody has come up with the name of a successful atheist regime.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM

Pete--

I should add tht the reason I said it wasn't worth elucidating is that it seems to me you are very deeply committed to a world view into which the insight I offered would not even fit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:48 PM

4-rational reasons as you know are not lacking

I keep hearing this. What I haven't ever heard is exactly what those rational reasons are. Can you supply some that don't refer to the Bible as a source? As far as I can tell, there isn't any other point for this whole conversation.

What are your rational reasons for belief in an entity that can alter natural laws at will without anyone who isn't a believer ever having seen it? How do you explain the logic of the claim that someone was born of a virgin, was a god in man form, washed away your sins (what's that mean, anyway?), and died and came back to life?

I know it probably sounds like I'm trying to get in your face, but I really am curious how intelligent people can believe all this stuff. I like a good debate with people who have different viewpoints than mine, but this debate keeps stopping at the point where Christians say, "It's not irrational" and atheists saying, "Why do you say that?" and the Christians simply not having an answer. Do you have one?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:35 PM

Nor apparently on 3 or 4. If there were rational reasons there would be no atheists!
I might add that suddenly veering off topic, into something like the beginning of the universe or evolution, seems to make No. 1 suffer as well, upon rereading.
That leaves the poster with No. 2, which, unfortunately, doesn't hold up in a discussion of faith and reason and why there is no need to posit the deity hypothesis (gotta love them Frenchmen sometimes...).

I mean, when you're discussing a particular field, the experts can't suddenly say, basically, don't use jargon when we're speaking English, since the whole prior discussion has been in jargon. And the poster is one of the experts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM

You are not adequately informed on points 6 and 7.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM

amos-you are probably right ,it not being worth elucidating.!
mrrzy-
1-i am not"grasping"
2-word games may look clever but are non productive
3-the word "faith" in theological usage does not mean believing for no reason.
4-rational reasons as you know are not lacking
5-what is lacking is any demonstratable materialistic cause of a beginning
6-evolutionists think ,as i understand it ,that they just have yet to find that cause.
7-therefore evolutionism is a "faith" position.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:11 PM

Pete,

In my opinion your point of view is fine as long as you remember that Jesus said "do onto others as you would have them do onto you." and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Many "Christians" forget Jesus' one commandment in discussions like this. You have not. But I think if we look at your conversation with Amos in terms of that commandment then a small answer can be found.

We would have others respect our religious beliefs so we respect theirs.

I have no problem with you stating your beliefs as TRUTH, apparently Amos does, but Amos, not being Christian, is not bound by Jesus' commands. He would have you believe your beliefs in the same way he believes his. I think that is asking a little too much, but even so, from his point of view he has made a good logical point. As Christians, I believe that if we were to sincerely make a good point, we would want it to be respected.

I respect Amos' point, even though I do not agree.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:30 AM

pete, if you are still grasping for *reason* for your faith, you have missed the whole point.

Having faith for no reason is the only faith that is actually faith. If you have rational reasons, you can draw a conclusion, you don't need faith. And rational reasons for deity are, as you know, lacking.

Amos, you're a riot!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:09 AM

Sorry, Pete--feel free. If ya missed my point, it isn't worth elucidating.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 06:35 AM

i may not be very educated but i should have thought that there was nothing amiss in giving a reason for my faith amos.quite honestly i dont entirely understand the thrust of your criticism so i,ll leave further comment till you are able to elucidate in laymans terms.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:45 PM

Well, it may be culturally okay, Jack, as we are all good, tolerant liberals and all; -- but metaphysically it is profoundly hypocritical, and I think destructive. The nerve!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:10 PM

I think it is OK if Anglo-Saxons wish to perceive God in Anglo-Saxon terms. I think it is fine to talk within the group about whatever eternal and finite God they perceive. As long as they realize that not everyone shares their perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 02:25 PM

I am very sorry to tell you this, but I think it is extremely presumptuous to describe the mind of God, and also a bit oxymoronic and a set-up job. Do you belong then to a tribe which has this sort of discussion about what this Infinite Power thinks as though he would think in middle-class Anglosaxon terms? Does that not strike you as just a tad anthropomorphic and perhaps provincial--even jingoistic, metaphysically?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM

amos-your reply betrayed more insight than you probably intended, inasmuch as God is indeed beyond complete understanding.however as a christian i believe God does reveal himseif through scriture[primarily], yet that book itself says "the secret things belong unto the Lord our God but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever ".the teaching is that we can know enougth to make us responsible but not so much that we should be as he is.
the above touches on your objection also mrrzy.yes God foreknew the fall and he also knew and planned to suffer in the person of his son,as penalty for sin on our behalf.no doubt you know most of this and dont accept it,but there might be something you can add to your knowledge of religion!-and maybe clarify for someone else.
nearest i can say as regards God making man knowing he /we would sin and suffer, is that we too produce kids that we also know will experience pain to greater or lesser degree.
as to abortion-we have clarified our positions which are unlikely to change without compromising our respective world views.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:44 AM

Mrrz:

Are you seriously trying to apply propositional logic to this mishmash?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:38 AM

It isn't a *baby* till it's born. Before that, it's a woman's pregnancy. Yes, birth changes, not the legitimacy, not the value, but the life, yes. Until it's born it's a parasite, after, it's a free-living being.
The dilemna of somebody was that if deity cannot stop evil then deity is not all-powerful, so why call it deity; if it could but doesn't, then it isn't benevolent, and so why worship it; and a third element I don't recall. It is a philosophical triad of evil/deity incompatibility that was very interestingly stated, and which I should recall...
I mean, even if evil did come into the world through deity's created Man, then, why did deity create Man, since deity must have known that would happen, being deity and all?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 03:55 PM

that evil came into the world as cause and consequence of sin-as described in the OT.however God does not ignore evil,though allowing it, though also sometimes for punitive and disciplinary purposes

I don't understand how you can have such precise knowledge of the mind-state of something as awesome and infinite as the creator of all that is, as though he was a stern Headmaster who also happened to be a favorite uncle and the local Mayor all at once. Is it possible you are confusing some other entity with your God-descriptors?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 03:38 PM

mrrzy-do you then think that a baby is,nt human till it is born?-that somehow the birth changes the legitimacy of its life value?
as to the fall-i am sure you know the traditional teaching is that evil came into the world as cause and consequence of sin-as described in the OT.however God does not ignore evil,though allowing it, though also sometimes for punitive and disciplinary purposes.there will of course always be questions but i doubt that at present you would accept answers anyway,but i am glad of the
civilized debate
steve-i suspect you put too much store by education without morality,though granted condoms etc cut down on pregnancies.i may not be entirely accurate but is not aids being reduced in one african state, with at least one component being on teaching abstinence and faithfulness?.
a bit quiet on this thread today!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:06 AM

"we are of course all guilty before God"

Not me. If I do bad things I'm guilty before people. That's whom I have to answer to.

"thanks for your civil post on abortion.point taken,though 'usually' does admit that abortions do happen later in term also,and many call for no limits."

Yep, that's me. Limits are always going to be artificial and arbitrary and the setting of them is always severely influenced by moralisers, mostly of the religious kind who can't help wanting to impose their fake morals and spurious emotional arguments on the whole of humanity. Setting limits is not the way to reduce abortion numbers. I could tell you again about better education aimed at equipping young people to make good life choices and teaching them how to respect themselves and others. Making contraception and contraceptive advice freely-available. A concerted drive to eradicate poverty and ignorance. But I don't think you're listening. So let's just keep abortion numbers high instead.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:03 AM

Right on the "usually" hedge - I am however also of the personal opinion that a pregnancy is a woman's body part/parasite until the end of the pregnancy, by birth or other termination, and as such I do call for no limits on abortion. Keep it safe and legal, and if some woman decides in her 9th month that she doesn't want a baby, she shouldn't have one, but I can't imagine anybody doing that for kicks. It would have to be a discovery of something being terribly wrong, either with the baby or the woman.
I do not agree, however, that the Fall as described in the old testament resolves the contradiction inherent in the belief in deity in the presence of evil. It may resolve the issue of why *that* god ignores evil when it's happening to "his" people, but that doesn't say anything good about that god, now, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 08:55 AM

Ok, Ron. Come on then. Give me a list of your proven atheist composers and we'll take it from there.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 08:32 AM

hi ron-enjoyed your posts.you have a gift for this,i think.
ebbie-i would rather not believe in the reality of hell either ,but as a bible believing christian ,i have to accept it.God certainly is loving,but that is not all he is.he is also utterly holy and just.that has been the overall theology of christian faith since Christ-despite the atheists sitting in judgment on whom they say does not exist!.the doctrine of hell is ,i suggest not entirely onorous since if there is no ultimate judgement ,some very evil persons got off lightly, and most of us would think that unfair.we are of course all guilty before God and he is perfectly able to mete out the degree of punishment due
mrrzy-the quagmire which you mention is resolved theologically mostly by the teaching of the fall,which i suspect you are familiar with to some extent.
thanks for your civil post on abortion.point taken,though "usually" does admit that abortions do happen later in term also,and many call for no limits.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 10:51 PM

One more thing.

I can't claim this. Think it's from Prairie Home Companion.

But it is a wonderful example of new, improved non-religious vocal music.

Just a closer walk with whoever you are
Spirit of love, may you be somewhere in or around me
Daily walking as each person's conscience tells him or her to walk
Let it be, or if not, then let it not be.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 10:37 PM

By the way, I'm singing the Mahler 8th tomorrow at the Kennedy Center, then going up to Carnegie Hall to sing the 8th and the 2nd Wednesday and Thursday.

So I'm sorry to say I won't be able to contribute further to this scintillating ---isn't that a synonym for endless?---discussion until Friday evening or Saturday.

But somehow I think you can struggle on without me.

Maybe by then somebody will have come up with the name of a successful atheist civilization.

Have fun, kids.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 10:29 PM

Fine, Steve.    For the slow learners--or lawyers-- among us, it should be obvious that I am talking of vocal music. And if anybody would like to claim either Beethoven or Mozart as an atheist, it should be interesting to see the evidence.

Still waiting for---anybody--to give us a successful atheist civilization.    Non-atheist societies have a mixed record, as I noted.


But every atheist society or regime has been a total disaster.    I can't imagine why the kinder, gentler, atheists we have with us on Mudcat seem to want to deny that there has ever been an atheist regime.    Most historians would beg to differ.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 09:32 PM

Ebbie, you're getting into the quagmire of since evil exists, god cannot.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 03:32 PM

I just remembered how I came to terms with the concept of the ever-lasting torture of hell.

Like many fundamentalists I had been brought up to believe in its physical reality- I think it was/is meant to scare us into the arms of a 'loving God', which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

When I finally came to realize is that IF there is a God who ordains things, he could not be a god that sets up a system of ever-lasting punishment.

One precept I think all humans have in common- and keep unless it has become terribly distorted - is that torture is evil. Therefore, ipso facto, torture could not come from a god.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM

I would go a bit further and submit that whenpeople ARE "good" they are acting primarily on their own moral sense, their "ethical vision", and only secondarily bringing their pre-fab rational structures, such as moral codes and deities, into the picture.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM

mrrzy-either you were speed reading,or maybe/probably i was not entirely clear but not every expert agreed entirely with your assertion on when a feotus feels pain,there being a variation of professional opinion.
There is no biologist/medical expert who says that fetuses, at the age they are usually aborted (6-10 weeks) is capable of feeling anything, including pain. They (the feti, not the doctors) just don't have the wiring. If you can find a contradiction, please post the reference.
At later gestational stages, of course they can, but not that early.

I may well have been speed-reading, though!

2)   Sure it's possible for people to be good without religion, but a lack of religion makes it just too easy to change moral guidelines to suit man. - But *with* religion you can make people do things that are horribly immoral by any *rational* (other than in that religion, in other words) standard.
"People who believe absurdities will commit atrocites."

Without Christianity, of which he had in plenty, Hitler could not have come so close to eradicating the Jews, since without the "god tells you to" he would have no justification for it. Without Islam, nobody would be flying planes into World Trade centers, either. Well, they might with another *religion*, but not with rational intelligence. Atheists don't usually change morals without rational justification. But with religion, you can unfortunately call any act moral, just by claiming it's what your god wants.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 01:12 PM

Here is ANOTHER man I had never heard of, and one who has an interesting view (in somewhat jumbled order; the grab was not a clean one):

"Harris is in town promoting The Moral Landscape, his new book. Even here, he briefly explores the connections between spiritual experience—especially an experience of selflessness—and human happiness. "I see nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions. Compassion, awe, devotion and feelings of oneness are surely among the most valuable experiences a person can have," he writes.

"Over lunch, he says with a smile how much he looks forward to working on the next project, which will allow him to pull back, after six long years, and focus on things that support human flourishing. "Ecstasy, rapture, bliss, concentration, a sense of the sacred—I'm comfortable with all of that," says Harris later. "I think all of that is indispensable and I think it's frankly lost on much of the atheist community."

"The answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" comes down to this: It depends on what you mean by "God." The God Harris doesn't believe in is, as he puts it, a "supernatural power" and "a personal deity who hears prayers and takes an interest in how people live." This God and its subscribers he finds unreasonable. But he understands that many people—especially in progressive corners of organized religion and among the "spiritual but not religious"—often mean something else. They equate God with "love" or "justice" or "singing in church" or "that feeling I get on a walk in the woods," or even "the awesome aspects of existence I'll never understand."

"What Sam Harris believes in—rationality, morality, transcendence, humility, awe, community, selflessness, and love—meets a fairly common definition of God.

"Harris's true obsession, then, is not God but consciousness, the idea that the human mind can be taught—trained, rationally—to be more loving, more generous, less egocentric than it is in its natural state. And though he knows that he can sound like a person who believes in God, he thinks that God is the wrong word to describe his beliefs. "There's a real problem with the word," he says, "because it shields the genuinely divisive doctrines and believers from criticism. If the God of the 25 percent is incredibly valuable, which it is; and it's actually worth realizing, which it is; and it's something we can talk about rationally, which it is; then calling it 'God' prevents you from criticizing all the divisive nonsense that comes with religion."

"Believing in transcendence is not the same thing as believing that you'll get virgins in paradise if you blow yourself up—and Sam Harris wants to be clear about that"

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/18/atheist-sam-harris-steps-into-the-light.html

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 12:16 PM

"For instance, virtually the only musical accomplishments atheists have produced are when they were willing to write in a religious idiom."

Point to the religion in Mozart's piano concertos, Haydn's symphonies or in Beethoven's late piano sonatas and quartets. What tosh you wrote in that post, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 10:32 AM

mrrzy-either you were speed reading,or maybe/probably i was not entirely clear but not every expert agreed entirely with your assertion on when a feotus feels pain,there being a variation of professional opinion.
ron-glad to have your imput,stating what i also believed but did not consider myself scholarly enough to be so definite.i congratulate the atheists who set themselves high morals and stick to them just out of evolutionary conviction.knowing how wayward my own heart is,i would change my morals to suit the opportunities, if not for love of my saviour-and am still a lot less than perfect!
on a radio debate an atheist philosopher very graciously stated that people of religious convictions have contributed more good causes than atheists.do we have any reliable stats on that,in view of dawkins apparently thinking the world would be better if we all turned atheist/!.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 10:18 AM

Sorry I think twitching oysters juiced or not is gross. Anyone who pretends to actually enjoy that must be slightly crazy! Just joking each to his/her own but honestly yuk!!

Ancient scripture and stories are more likely to come about because there was really nothing else to do. People had good imaginations as today but with all the time in the world to write the stories without distraction of tv, computers and everything else. More likely to listen for longer to sermons and preaching too unlike today where people have busy careers and lifestyles. I do respect the beliefs of other people but for me it doesn't do anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 09:04 AM

"These people were pyschos".   As I recall, we can add Saddam to the list.   He was aggressively secular until he reallzed he could exploit religion in a national sense.

Look, atheists, when in power have a rather dismal record--not that I would say "perfectly wretched".   Perish the thought.

Non-atheists have a mixed record.


And there are two blazingly obvious reasons, both of which have already been brought up.


1)   Atheism makes it easy for the leader to put himself forward as a God-substitute.

2)   Sure it's possible for people to be good without religion, but a lack of religion makes it just too easy to change moral guidelines to suit man.



I would dearly like an atheist to name one successful atheist civilization.

And there is a reason this is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 10:51 PM

Ron:

I do not think the "atheism" attribute is causal in the cases you recite. These people were psychos, just as the churchmen who burned Joan of Arc, and ran the Inquisition, were psychos. The embellishment of religion is window dressing on the underlying psychosis, whether it is theism or atheism.

Similarly, deeply insightful and productive people can be found in both camps, as can people of normal positive ability.

The thing you need to put your finger on is the causative element of the psychosis in these famous anti-social cases.

It is not the case that it was their atheism that accounted for it.

Nor would conversion have cured them of it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 10:18 PM

Since it appears nobody is willing to drive a stake through the heart of this thread:

"Stalin as an atheist was an anomaly".   Right.

So was Hitler. ( Don't bother to quote Hitler's appeals to God and religion.   If you believe what he said in public, I have more than one bridge to sell you).

So was Mao.

And together they have been responsible for more deaths than anyone else in human history.

And in our own day, the current crop of atheist leaders, e.g. Castro and the current head of North Korea, are also real charmers.

And in music, there can be no doubt that accomplishments are rather more due to religion than to atheism.   I've just come from a rehearsal of Mahler's 8th and 2nd.   Just unearthly--and that was even before the orchestra joins us.

This is a recording:   atheism has been a total disaster for mankind and has provided approximately zero cultural accomplishments. For instance, virtually the only musical accomplishments atheists have produced are when they were willing to write in a religious idiom.

(Not that I would ever presume to question anybody's assertion that Frank Zappa's works are the pinnacle of human creation.   Of course not.)

Aside from this, atheism has been just wonderful.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:10 PM

Right re: fetal pain - at the age at which they are usually aborted, they can't feel pain; later, they can, that's exactly what I said, pete*******.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 01:31 PM

Jack, to compare abortion to capital punishment is specious. It's the anti-choice line of propaganda today.

Not as specious as you not reading what I was saying in context. I was responding to someone else bringing capital punishment into the conversation and I was ONLY talking about the relevance of of pain to the conversation.

I still do not believe that the amount of pain felt by any organism before death is relevant to the morality of whether or not to kill it.

Though I would say that mitigating and or minimizing the amount and duration of that pain would be a kindness. But even then, dead is dead.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 01:22 PM

steve-you do dawkins proud!it was myself who did,nt know just how ugly it is.i realy dont know how guilty the pope may be but i suspect not to the extent you charge him with.probably a catholic should comment on that if they take you seriously enougth.i aim to follow jesus,the rest of us are fallible-even the pope .

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 04:45 PM

We all know it's not pretty. Don't take us for fools, please. The most anti-abortion people I know are those who want women to have the untrammelled right to decide what they do with their own bodies but who also believe in better education, especially in the realm of education for personal relationships (I won't parrot out my opinion for the umpteenth time as to how that should be done), free access to contraceptive advice and contraception, the fight against inequality and the extirpation of all the bogus moralising and emotionalising on the subject. The most pro-abortion people I know are the pope and his camp-followers, who, through their ignorant and intolerant proselytising, condemn millions of women to poverty and misery. We pro-choicers want to eliminate abortion in the long run. The pope and his ilk have a vested interest in making sure it remains a permanent issue.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM

following the assertion that unborns do not feel pain,i invited whoever it was to tell me if that was the opinion of all experts.i never got a straight answer.i have just looked it up myself and found that though pain cannot be concluded in early stages there are experts who conclude that at a later stage it can.these are primamily "pro life"though not exclusively so.of those disagreeing,inevitably they are"pro choice".for the sake of all those aborted i hope they are right.it dont make pretty reading,what happens in these "procedures"but i wont elucidate-lest i am accused of being anti woman and playing the"emotion card"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 08:40 AM

It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.
Arthur C. Clarke

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 04:50 AM

point taken jack,i ov erstretched that point.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 02:58 AM

Well when one challenges others who hold beliefs counter and perhaps even antagonistic to one's own, and one hears things one does not like some might say don't light the fire if you don't want heat.

But a sword with two edges can cut both ways.But a sword with two edges can cut both ways.

A-theists get quite used to people trying to change their beliefs, and also get used to people who are unsure of their own trying to use us as whetstones to sharpen their own ... :-)

I haven't been offended yet.... but when one is told that one is too immature and stupid to know anything, mainly because you don't hold the same beliefs, that can come very close...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 02:31 AM

Incidentally, if my post was offensive what on earth makes you - any of you - think that your posts are not offensive? sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 02:28 AM

I obviously should have added some quotation marks in my post. Sorry for offending.

In using 'rigid materialists' I am differentiating between a-theists who are flexible enough to grant they don't know everything and those a-theists who come across as believing that everything has been discovered and that everything can be explained by means of chemistry, genes, natural brain actions, and overloads of some things and the absence of others.

It just ain't so. As my brother said, not long before his death, 'I don't understand why I was so sure that some things didn't exist. It wasn't until they happened to me that I realized how wrong I had been.'

But I should definitely have put spiritual gifts in quotes. I was being facetious there, even though my underlying theme was serious.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 07:07 PM

"oysters twitch when lemon juiced, but we still eat them up, yum."

Well some believers refuse anything 'alive'. I'm just waiting for them to understand that grains and grasses are 'alive' by biological definition ... they won't hang around long then ....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:29 PM

QUOTE
Those who claim "spiritual gifts" as if they were some exalted and privileged few are perpetrating a kind of hoax.
UNQUOTE

Some others wonder if they have the courage to challenge such 'gifts' as the mark of psychosis.