BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 01:46 AM

Steve Shaw, answering me, said: Now just hang on a minute. 'Twas I who said that evolution is true, but you are seriously misrepresenting me here. The post in which I said that was absolutely full of caveats. Sticking it in a paragraph alongside evidence-innocent claims such as the virgin birth, as you do here, is positively disingenuous and just a tad tendentious, no?

Now, Steve, calm down. I was addressing the group, and not just you. There are 59 mentions of evolution in this thread, and 20 of gravity - and a great deal of the time, these physical realities were used as examples of what is true, in contrast with religious concepts that were described as "fabrications." My point is that the religious concepts should not be so easily dismissed. They have been held as sacred for millennia (even by many "learned people"), so maybe there's value in them that is not immediately understandable to all.

Let's take the creation stories. Is the purpose to explain the beginnings of existence, or could it be that these stories serve to illustrate the value of our existence, and of the world we live in? If we see our world as a sacred gift from a sacred Giver, might we not treat the world with the respect it deserves? "And God saw that it was good," seems to negate those who see only evil and depravity in the world.

In the last three centuries, we have seen the deification of Reason and Science and Commerce and Industry. And I think it's safe to say that our worship of these gods has led us to political chaos, world war, economic oppression, and wholesale destruction of our environment. Now, reason and science and commerce and industry can all be wonderful things; but they have been viewed as infallible for much of the last three centuries, and our unquestioning belief in these gods has led us into a world of chaos and trouble and poverty and war. Reason and science and commerce and industry and religion all need to be tempered with a strong dose of common sense. Otherwise, we court disaster.

So, maybe we need to honor the traditional myths that show us the value of our environment and of our fellow men, so we can see the world and its inhabitants as sacred gifts from a sacred source.

Modern society has developed a certain loathing for its traditional roots. Since Christianity is THE major tradition in western civilization, it has become highly suspect. Christian Europeans once dismissed aboriginal religious traditions as worthless, but now these aboriginal traditions are being held in high esteem by a western society that once tried to destroy aboriginal peoples and their traditions. And in an interesting turnaround, there are many in western society today who seek to destroy their own traditions and replace them with the traditions of others.

Religious and cultural traditions and rituals don't make rational sense. They develop for all sorts of obscure or silly or profound or useless reasons. Traditions are rarely practical, and they have very little value when viewed through the eyes of Reason and Science and Commerce and Industry. But traditions show the essence of a people, their world view, their values, what they hold as sacred.

Don't be too quick to dismiss all this - there is truth and value and richness in our roots.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:28 AM

The fallacy of Godel's argument is that it assumes there are necessary truths in the physical world and there is not the slightest proof that there is. There are necessary truths in abstract thought--I'll buy that--but I can't go along with the necessary truths existing in the physical world. I can't think of one.

I assume here you're talking about Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God, not Gödel's proof of the incompleteness theorem.

It doesn't have anything to do with the physical world.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:22 AM

Popper the TV evangelist?

Karl Popper the philosopher of science.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:43 PM

Popper the TV evangelist?

He recently married outside his race.
He married a human.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:30 PM

See, Guest - it works!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:20 PM

"Interesting typo, Tunesmith: at 05:08 PM

"At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher..."

Just what are you implying? :)"

If Jesus taught us to be prodigal then I'll concede that he was historical since we certainly followed him on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:15 PM

"If this random collection of chemicals (me) can produce "I" then why can't that ever more complex collection of chemicals support an infinitely greater "I"."

I don't know but that's not an argument for the existence of god if that's where you were going.

---

"Interesting typo, Tunesmith: at 05:08 PM

"At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher..."

Just what are you implying? :)"

If Jesus taught us to be prodigal then I'll concede that he was historical since we certainly followed him on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:05 PM

Interesting typo, Tunesmith: at 05:08 PM

"At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher..."

Just what are you implying? :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:04 PM

The fallacy of Godel's argument is that it assumes there are necessary truths in the physical world and there is not the slightest proof that there is. There are necessary truths in abstract thought--I'll buy that--but I can't go along with the necessary truths existing in the physical world. I can't think of one. Anything in the physical world is simply the way it is and nothing more. To say there is a truth, i.e. a thought construction, behind it is presupposing the existence of god and that is loading the argument. A true argument has to start from scratch and arrive at a conclusion logically. Godel doesn't do that. I don't care how smart he was was. Has nothing to do with anything. He saw what he wanted to see and smart people are certainly not immune from that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 10:57 PM

"Richard Dawkins has probably done more to undermine the Faith of Atheism than just about anyone else."

Some morons will say anything no matter how stupid it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 08:49 PM

And that is before we begin to refer to people like Karl Popper

Oooh, somebody who knows Popper! I'm not all alone.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 08:44 PM

"Your notion of God is an interesting diversion,"

What is my notion of God?

I'd love to know ...


Its funy, but I often argue with creationists, and I say to them:

"If you believe in an Amazing God, who is able to create an amazing universe, then why not give him some credit. Do you really believe that he would design a poxy little fairy tale or something pretty fucking complicated and beautiful that would take hundreds of years for the best scientific minds to come close to beginning to understand"

I never imagined I would use that argument in a discussion with someone who doesn't believe in God ... I mean someone who doesn't include God in his view of the universe ... two very different things so I am led to believe ... er ...

PS - Science has no rules.

Science is observation and accumulated knowledge.

Science, like Maths, is also full of anomalies - like for example, in a beautiful universe, engaged in an intricate dance of enormous complexity, we see supernovae, Nebulae, Coolliding galaxies, and illuminated plastic Elvis Presley clock radio figurines that sing "love me bender" in a japanese accent at you in the morning until you pull the plug out - in a very non-harmonious way!

A common myth is science is that of its own objectivity. Scientists haven't been truly objective for a long time, as they are generally employed by somebody to do veryy specific research.

The Days of DaVinci or even Newton have long since passed.

And that is before we begin to refer to people like Karl Popper and the idea that we can never truly be objective anyway as the act of observation changes the nature of the thing being observed etc ...

I don't know the answer, but the "I" anomaly is a spanner in the works that simply can't be ignored, and as it was the stimulus for the thirst for knowledge in the first place, it follows that not only is subjectivity an inescapable fact, but it is the most useful and honest standpoint from which to observe.

After all, this only matters because I am here to care.

I [verb]

You [verb]?

We [verb]?

Collective consciousness [verb]?

Higher/bigger consciousness [verb]?


I don't know - and neither does anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 08:32 PM

"Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected"

Do you believe that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks or that Obama was born in Kenya? This has been totally debunked. Here is a page from a skeptic website (NOT Christian) that lays it flat.

I bent over backwards to clarify that in my last long post, as anyone can read.

And anybody can read what you actually do, and wonder why they diverge.

Confusion is the territory of believers.

And you dare call somebody else tendentious? I have met a plethora of confused non-believers. (There are plenty on this thread.) You need to get out more.

while being distinctly ambiguous about what he actually believes.

Actually nobody until now has asked. I would have answered if anybody had. Here you go.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 08:20 PM

**still reading, but sitting amused at the side of the room as everyone accuses everyone else of 'not paying attention' and 'misquoting' and other assorted bits of flawed reasoning.**

It sorta reminds me of a political discussion on "Meet the Press" or some other 'talking heads' TV show where they all yell their point of view at once while denigrating the others with rapier wits.

It's ok.. don't mind me. I'll have a beer while I listen....why, I might learn something.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 08:11 PM

I don't recall putting those things together, but if you say so... And, if I may say so, you're being a tad obstinate in refusing to see my point about the legitimacy of the question. It's nothing to do with a consistent line of argument. My view of the world is that it is predicated on the laws of nature. I don't in any way discount the possibilty of some of those rules being modified in times to come, or of new rules being discovered. I see all the wondrous beauty and I sit and ponder it as much as the next person. But there's no room in my view for a being that breaks all those beautiful and harmonious laws. That may be a notion that occurs to you but it doesn't even in the remotest way occur to me. This has nothing to do with belief or not. I don't need to consider that at all, any more than I need to consider whether life on earth is being remotely controlled by a Terence Stamp lookalike on the planet Zod. Your notion of God is an interesting diversion, but ultimately I have no time for it as it can't be supported by even the slightest scrap of evidence, but good luck to you as long as you keep it to yourself and don't try to persuade impressionable people that your overwhelmingly improbable idea is the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 07:45 PM

Snail

"So what do you think it says?"

Are you asking for my interpretation?


Steve,

You are free to refuse any question you like.

You are even free to judge which question is the right one and which the wrong one according to whatever criteria you wish to apply.


But saying "I don't think God exists" and "I'm not going to tell you whether or not I think God exists" in the same sentence, and then attempting to pass that off as a consistent line of argument is nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 07:02 PM

"Steve,

ok - so you don't like the word "believe" because you don't want to say what you do or don't believe in. However, your view of the world does not include God.

This is an unsuccesful attempt to seperate what you think from what you believe.

It implies that you could hold a view of the Universe into which god does not exist, yet believe in Gods existence - and that is clearly not possible as it boils back down to "I don't want to say whether or not I think God exists, but I think he doesn't exist.

And there is nothing absurd about saying that you believe Bertrand Russels Magic Teapot doesn't exist.

I don't believe that Bertrands Magic Teapot exists.

There - I said it ... am I still sane?

Well I'm no worse ...

I think your point is a bit of overcomplicted jiggery pokery."

I don't do jiggery pokery (and I'm a very simple soul, actually). This is not about what I want or don't want to say. I've made it abundantly clear in other posts, in other contexts, that, to me, the chances of God's existence, according to my calculations (and evidence), are vanishingly small. As such, a challenge to me from a believer expressed as "do you believe in God?" is illegitimate. It is not the right question and it certainly is no challenge, any more than challenging me on whether I believe in that celestial teapot. If you ask me a question that I consider to be not the right question to ask, and I demur, it isn't for you to extrapolate as to what my answer might be. I don't answer those questions as I don't willingly go about making an ass of myself. It's a vain attempt to get me to start the discussion on religious territory, which is entirely illegitimate as far as I'm concerned. If there's anything unsuccessful in what I'm trying to convey here, I assure you that it is entirely down to my deficiencies in language and certainly not down to any confusion in my own mind. Confusion is the territory of believers.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 06:46 PM

Lox

Having looked around at some of the many options available, I haven't found any that say "I'm God - Don't argue".

So what do you think it says?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 06:16 PM

Snail,

Straw men seem to be your speciality.

I've just been looking at various different versions of the 10 commandments to find out a bit more about them as I'm not well informed on that subject.

Having looked around at some of the many options available, I haven't found any that say "I'm God - Don't argue".
Again, if you could refer to something that somebocy has actually said somewhere at sometime on thiis subject as opposed to creations of your own mind, it could prove helpful.

Steve,

ok - so you don't like the word "believe" because you don't want to say what you do or don't believe in. However, your view of the world does not include God.

This is an unsuccesful attempt to seperate what you think from what you believe.

It implies that you could hold a view of the Universe into which god does not exist, yet believe in Gods existence - and that is clearly not possible as it boils back down to "I don't want to say whether or not I think God exists, but I think he doesn't exist.

And there is nothing absurd about saying that you believe Bertrand Russels Magic Teapot doesn't exist.

I don't believe that Bertrands Magic Teapot exists.

There - I said it ... am I still sane?

Well I'm no worse ...

I think your point is a bit of overcomplicted jiggery pokery.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 06:13 PM

"Hmmmm. Interesting.

I see a lot of absolute statements here. Evolution and the laws of gravity are true, virgin birth is not true and is intended to denigrate sex (or is it to denigrate male dominance?), immaculate conception is not true (even though we don't really know what it is), myths are fabrications and unrelated to truth and damaging to children, and so on.

As for me, I'd rather ponder the questions. Certainly, I accept the ideas of evolution and gravity, but why close myself completely to alternative understandings? And even if the ancient creation stories are not factually true, isn't there something of profound value in the wonder and awe that are expressed in them? Must I dismiss all creation myths as the fabrications of ignorant savages, or is it possible that I can find profound truth in the ancient myths?

Or take gravity - should I simply accept it as a fact, or might it be better to wonder about it and ponder when it might be possible for the laws of gravity to be defied? Seems to me that Einstein and Descartes accomplished wonders by questioning scientific facts, facts that we still hold as true today.

What about a leaf, with all its intricacies? Is it suitable merely for laboratory exploration and definition, or might it also open up vast possibilities for poetic (or mystical) musings?

I think our lives might be richer if we weren't so obsessed with possession of the truth, if we took more time to ponder, if we weren't so quick to arrive at an answer and rush on to the next question.

What's the more important question, merely to discover what is, or to explore what could be and what it all means?

-Joe-"

Now just hang on a minute. 'Twas I who said that evolution is true, but you are seriously misrepresenting me here. The post in which I said that was absolutely full of caveats. Sticking it in a paragraph alongside evidence-innocent claims such as the virgin birth, as you do here, is positively disingenuous and just a tad tendentious, no?

More broadly, if you accept that some of the bibilical stories may not be literally true, but still wish to take inspiration from them, well I could well surprise you by telling you that so do I. But that does not preclude me from asking for more evidence or for critically questioning the motives of the storytellers. Asking questions doesn't stop you from taking heart from the stories.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM

[quote]The point is that not one single religious "truth" is actually a truth at all unless you apply that very special definition of truth recognised only by believers.

You keep saying this. I keep saying you're wrong. Can we agree to disagree and drop it?

Only in passing on religious "knowledge," it seems, do we exempt the teacher from the need to be truthful.

I am being truthful to the best of my ability (which is pretty able). Your continuing claims that I am not are becoming grating. Can you please accept that we disagree on this and stop hammering on it? It doesn't advance the discussion, and could rather easily be perceived as bullying.

They don't get the airtime this end that they do your end.

My end? I don't watch TV. We don't have cable and we don't have an aerial and we don't have rabbit-ears reception in this valley. I have never watched so-called Christian TV. Again you make outrageous assumptions about me. I was referring to the evangelicals that turn up in the secular news.

Best avoid attacks, I reckon.

What an excellent idea. Why don't you?

High-mindedness, it seems to me, comes with that particular kind of religious conviction that says that my faith and only my faith is the one true path.

Physician, heal thyself.[unquote]

I'm sorry if my persistence rattles you, but I want to remind you that I pointed out that there is nothing personal in the points I've put to you. I bent over backwards to clarify that in my last long post, as anyone can read. I'm not personalising this - you are, and I find it rather regrettable. And, perhaps, it speaks volumes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:53 PM

Lox

He said that the first commandment does not command christians to be certain about who or what God is.

I'm sorry, but the First Commandment seems to me to be pretty unequivocal. "I am God! Don't argue!" No room for uncertainty.

Mousethief displays considerable confidence in his(?) knowledge, learning and authority while being distinctly ambiguous about what he actually believes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:49 PM

[quote]Steve said:

"You believe in God and I think that's a big delusion, though I'm not going to tell you that I don't believe in God. I'm going to tell you instead that you have an interesting idea that, unfortunately, just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny"

This isn't one clear point but two opposing views.

Do you "think that's a big delusion"

or

Or are you "not going to tell [us] that [you] don't believe in God"

At the moment, your post reads as saying that you don't have an opinion on whether or not there is a God, but in your opinion there is no God.

Do you want to have your cake or eat it?[unquote]

The reason I'm not going to tell you that I don't believe in God is something I've covered before. It's the answer to a wrong question. I'm not going to let religious people define what I am and I'm not going to let their first question be put by them as they stand firmly on their comfortable ground. My view of the world does not allow for this "God" posited by certain sections of the population. It's an interesting idea that, unfortunately, doesn't bear close examination. It isn't a question of getting me to express disbelief in what I consider to be a ridiculous notion. I wouldn't belittle myself so. You wouldn't harangue me similarly about Bertrand Russell's cosmic teapot, would you?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:30 PM

Snail,

please try to respond to points made and not to straw men, no matter how cleverly constructed as you appear to feel is te case in this instance.

Mousethief did not say that the commandments are flexible or open to interpretation.

He said that the first commandment does not command christians to be certain about who or what God is.

Feel free to scrutinize that point if you will.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:24 PM

mousethief

No, it doesn't say anything about certainty.

The Commandments aren't about certainty? They allow "interpretation"? They have get out clauses? Very convenient.

First y'all bitch that it's too inflexible,

Where did I say that?

Tell me, mousethief, what DO you believe?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:23 PM

Oops ... sorry ...

I posted a quote without explaining why ...



Tunesmith .... Mousethief doesn't have to admit anything.



And you need to stop falling for popular mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:22 PM

Which calendar were they using when Horus was born? :)

A lot of the bible's stories can be seen to be much older, but let's try and keep it credible..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:18 PM

From Wiki ...

Self-taught amateur Egyptologist Gerald Massey argued that the deity of Horus and Jesus shared identical mythological origins in his 1907 book Ancient Egypt, the light of the world.[17] His views have been repeated by theologian and Toronto Star columnist Tom Harpur, author Acharya S, and political comedian Bill Maher.[18][19][20] Theologian W. Ward Gasque composed an e-mail to twenty leading Egyptologists, including Professor Emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool Kenneth Kitchen, and Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto Ron Leprohan. The e-mail detailed the comparisons alleged by Massey which had been repeated by Harpur. The scholars were unanimous in dismissing any similarities suggested by Massey, and one Egyptologist criticized the comparison as "fringe nonsense."[21]

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:16 PM

So it seems if you don't post for a few days, they take your cookie.

That'll larn me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:14 PM

I haven't waded through all this. Maybe someday.

Been away in PA doing things like leading a sea songs workshop from the middle of a pond--while swimming---(now that's good exercise). And singing and playing
Songs of the Pioneers, Louvin Brothers , John Prine, and a whole boatload of other music til 4:30 Saturday morning and 5:30 Sunday morning. And leading a Carter Family workshop--which went into detail not just on their music and their lives, but also on the music business at the time.   Huge pressure on them to keep coming up with songs the company (and especially Ralph Peer) could copyright. Sara and Maybelle :   "Mr. Peer made us famous and we made him rich."

Thread creep?   Perish the thought.   Thread gallop.


But amazingly enough at this weekend I actually heard a song-- (should have thought of it before, don't think it's been in the thread yet)-- which sounds like the perfect solution to the main problem raised by this thread: "Let The Mystery Be".

By the way, there's a just wonderful rendition on YouTube of Iris singing her own song.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:08 PM

Mousethief, there is no getting away from the obvious similarities between the Jesus story in the Gospels and biogs of earlier "gods". To deny this would be crazy! Any sane person would have to say that the Gospel writers borrowed liberally from earlier myths. Here's something I came across listing similarities between Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus.

"Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 04:58 PM

So you don't think that you are "by no means certain that God exists" is in conflict with the First Commandment?

No, it doesn't say anything about certainty. Why do you think it is in conflict? You haven't justified that, merely asserted it.

Faith is, indeed, a flexible thing.

First y'all bitch that it's too inflexible, now that it's too flexible. Why don't you all go away in a corner and get your set of demands lined up, then come back to the table?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 04:55 PM

Steve,

"Hmm. Right. So if you *don't* go into your room, etc., do I take it that the Father will withold rewards? So, if you want rewarding, just go into your room, etc. ... No need to actually ask for favours then!"

There are probably better critiques than this which indicate an attempt to acknowledge context and which at least pretend to have investigated what is meant by 'rewards'.

That is a whole discussion in itself which has less to do with Science, observation and testing than with English comprehension.


The point of me posting that verse was to draw attention to the fact that the idea of Christians praying to a personal God for favours is a straw man.

Praying for favours is not a Christian pursuit.

Humility is, and so is giving thanks.

Do you feel humbled by the Universe?

I do.

Do you feel grateful for the opportunity to experience it?

I do.

Most of all, I am both humbled and grateful for the honour of being my daughters father and for the life defining love that connects us.

When I feel that love, I feel that there is a God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mayomick
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 04:53 PM

I think it would be fair to say some people did try their best to keep things going Mrrzy,but without you being around it was probably inevitable that the weekend's output wouldn't be up to scratch.Nice to see you back with your positive contribution to the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 04:45 PM

mousethief

But I don't have any gods before him. I don't know how you're going from "have no other gods before me" to the line I just quoted. It's certainly not an inference I can see any justification for.

So you don't think that you are "by no means certain that God exists" is in conflict with the First Commandment?

Faith is, indeed, a flexible thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 04:24 PM

Well, I see I didn't miss much by going away for the weekend...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 03:24 PM

How many Christian parents would point out to their children that the story of Jesus in the Gospels is clearly a "cut and paste" job; a bringing together of ideas and scenarios found in earlier myths and legends.

Well, since that's not true, I didn't say it. The whole "Christianity is just paganism warmed over" thing is vastly overstated. For instance: Jesus is Not a Mithras Redux.

But, But, But! the vast majority of Christians - and virtually every Christian child - do believe every word of the Gospels.

On what do you base this claim? And please do not say "everybody knows it." That's no justification for saying anything. Also please realize that fundy evangelicals are not "the vast majority of Christans".

I was brought up very differently from Joe Offer and from what I suspect was Mousethief's upbringing but even I was not taught to believe every word of the Bible as it has come down to us.

In point of fact I was brought up in an entirely secular family, and am an adult convert to Christianity.

I believe scientists will find the answers to everything within the next hundred years!

Your faith is touching.

No room for uncertainty. No let out clauses. Absolute obedience. Remember how cross He can get.

But I don't have any gods before him. I don't know how you're going from "have no other gods before me" to the line I just quoted. It's certainly not an inference I can see any justification for.

The point is that not one single religious "truth" is actually a truth at all unless you apply that very special definition of truth recognised only by believers.

You keep saying this. I keep saying you're wrong. Can we agree to disagree and drop it?

Only in passing on religious "knowledge," it seems, do we exempt the teacher from the need to be truthful.

I am being truthful to the best of my ability (which is pretty able). Your continuing claims that I am not are becoming grating. Can you please accept that we disagree on this and stop hammering on it? It doesn't advance the discussion, and could rather easily be perceived as bullying.

They don't get the airtime this end that they do your end.

My end? I don't watch TV. We don't have cable and we don't have an aerial and we don't have rabbit-ears reception in this valley. I have never watched so-called Christian TV. Again you make outrageous assumptions about me. I was referring to the evangelicals that turn up in the secular news.

Best avoid attacks, I reckon.

What an excellent idea. Why don't you?

High-mindedness, it seems to me, comes with that particular kind of religious conviction that says that my faith and only my faith is the one true path.

Physician, heal thyself.

We only "believe" what we do not, or cannot, "know". Once something has been scientifically proved (proved, mind you, not theorised), it can no longer be the object of faith,or belief.

That's one way of using the word "belief". It also means "something you think is true" which includes those things you think you "know". Can you define what it means to know something? A definition that can withstand scrutiny?

As has been mentioned, science doesn't "prove". Science demonstrates to a high level of probability, within the current conceptual framework. But science "proved" that F=ma, and we now know it doesn't. And so on. Most scientists have cut way back on the proof/certainty rhetoric.

There is no 100% in science as you have pointed out.

Zackly.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 03:14 PM

Hmmmm. Interesting.

I see a lot of absolute statements here. Evolution and the laws of gravity are true, virgin birth is not true and is intended to denigrate sex (or is it to denigrate male dominance?), immaculate conception is not true (even though we don't really know what it is), myths are fabrications and unrelated to truth and damaging to children, and so on.

As for me, I'd rather ponder the questions. Certainly, I accept the ideas of evolution and gravity, but why close myself completely to alternative understandings? And even if the ancient creation stories are not factually true, isn't there something of profound value in the wonder and awe that are expressed in them? Must I dismiss all creation myths as the fabrications of ignorant savages, or is it possible that I can find profound truth in the ancient myths?

Or take gravity - should I simply accept it as a fact, or might it be better to wonder about it and ponder when it might be possible for the laws of gravity to be defied? Seems to me that Einstein and Descartes accomplished wonders by questioning scientific facts, facts that we still hold as true today.

What about a leaf, with all its intricacies? Is it suitable merely for laboratory exploration and definition, or might it also open up vast possibilities for poetic (or mystical) musings?

I think our lives might be richer if we weren't so obsessed with possession of the truth, if we took more time to ponder, if we weren't so quick to arrive at an answer and rush on to the next question.

What's the more important question, merely to discover what is, or to explore what could be and what it all means?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 03:11 PM

Steve said:

"You believe in God and I think that's a big delusion, though I'm not going to tell you that I don't believe in God. I'm going to tell you instead that you have an interesting idea that, unfortunately, just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny"

This isn't one clear point but two opposing views.

Do you "think that's a big delusion"

or

Or are you "not going to tell [us] that [you] don't believe in God"

At the moment, your post reads as saying that you don't have an opinion on whether or not there is a God, but in your opinion there is no God.

Do you want to have your cake or eat it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 01:23 PM

OMG! my last post was 666

lol

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 01:22 PM

I actually think evolution is one paradigm that may survive longer than most. One never can say never in science, and evolution will get more answers, but I doubt actual revisions. If something would come along that made a better explanation I still think it will be called evolution.

It can be attacked a great many ways but, so far, it always has an answer.

THAT is what Dawkins should have stuck at. As a neo-Darwinist he stood tall in my eyes. The Selfish Gene was and is a remarkable book. I really do not think he needs to carry on with his anti-religious message. He has said enough... but then maybe it pays more than science?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 01:05 PM

You may find that the word virgin became the only word they could use when the bible had one of it's updates and recisions. The original Hebrew words meant "maiden". Mary was a maiden that went with Joseph. Somehow the word got made into virgin along the way and then all of a sudden....

It's a bit like when artists paint Adam and Eve with navels! They were not born so why would they have navels?

And Christ himself should have been a girl if no male sperm got close to Mary's ova.

Of course there are wild inaccuracies in a great amount of the bible stories. Nothing can go through so many interpreatations and revisions and be 100% accurate, IMHO< but I also allow for those who wish to believe it is so. Again, this is something I feel is worth trying to get to the bottom of. Questions, questions and questions.

Some have the faith enough not to need the answers. Alas I am not one of them and so it is I will not say I do not believe. I just want to get to the facts if I can

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:43 AM

Agreed, Jack. Science always changes with new relevant information. But right now,
Darwin is the man. And it looks as though DNA, RNA, and verifiable experiments back him up.

I think we can agree that it's always a good sign when scientists challenge orthodoxy.
There is no 100% in science as you have pointed out. This is only the province of religion which allows for no differences. Here "faith" becomes the 100% assurance. And this often trumps any scientific information.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:31 AM

"BTW, Sugarfoot Jack, there are plenty of "brave" scientists out there and the new theories or scientific "Theorums" are not going to come from theology."

Absolutely - I personally know a couple of palaeontologists who regularly challenge the orthodoxy and are moving the discipline forward. The greatest scientists are the ones with the greatest imaginations; I was clumsily trying to make a scientific point rather than back up the religious viewpoint. It's just we can't be 100% certain that evolution is the only process at work in the way life develops, or that one day it won't be turned on it's head by scientists who are using techniques we can't even imagine; at the moment it's the best workable theory we have developed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:09 AM

The question, is, what is the integrity of the story itself? Is it true to its intended purpose?"

Regrettably, Joe, I don't think that it is true to its intended purpose because that purpose
is never clear but subject to a variety of different interpretations that often are the roots
of violence, authoritarian domination and discord.

I think the term "truth" needs to be clarified. What is true may not necessarily be what we would consider physically real but maybe an idea that has some wisdom attached to it as Joseph Campbell has pointed out. But physical truths are the province of empirically proven scientific "Theorums". Evolution and the laws of gravity are scientifically true.

Joe, there is no arguing with your belief as long as we can agree that that's all it is,
a belief. No evidential proof is required. As to the Virgin Birth, this is an unfortunate
denigration of sex in my opinion. It also encompasses the theory of the "fall of man".
Sex as sin is in itself a kind of to, use a biblical term, an abomination. It also guides the Catholic Church's policy of not allowing priests to marry which has resulted in the
awful abuse of young boys.

Truth as Colbert has said can result in "truthiness". Just as facts become factoids.

BTW, Sugarfoot Jack, there are plenty of "brave" scientists out there and the new theories or scientific "Theorums" are not going to come from theology. There is however as you point out a question as to whether mankind is adaptable enough to survive. War has become mankind's specialization.

Theology historically has promoted war. Crusades are part of almost every generation.
Constantine, John Bull, and even up to today where we have General's Boykin and others
who want to Christianize the military. The Mid-east crisis, (and some will disagree on this point) has to do with religious differences between Islam and Jew. The Palestinians were referred to in early days as the Philistines. Today's Israeli rabbis have more to say about where Israel is headed than they should. Religion still draws blood.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:08 AM

"With the old Deities hath it long since come to an end:—and verily, a good joyful Deity-end had they!

They did not "begloom" themselves to death—that do people fabricate! On the contrary, they—LAUGHED themselves to death once on a time!

That took place when the unGodliest utterance came from a God himself—the utterance: "There is but one God! Thou shalt have no other Gods before me!"—
—An old grim-beard of a God, a jealous one, forgot himself in such wise:—

And all the Gods then laughed, and shook upon their thrones, and exclaimed: "Is it not just divinity that there are Gods, but no God?"

......Friedrich Nietzsche "Thus Spake Zarathustra" part 3 'On Apostates'

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1998

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I first read that in high school, 53 years ago. I was still at that time nominally a Methodist, and just 'flexing my mental muscles'. The tongue-in-cheek humor of the remark has stayed with me....and I have no doubt that such reading helped influence me to think about what religion was...or should be.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 10:56 AM

""Who says we believe in nothing? All the time we get this juxtaposition of religious beliefs versus something that religious belief has to kick against.""

I too have trouble with this mindset. I don't believe in the Sasquatch, or the Yeti, but this does not mean that I believe in nothing, it simply is what it is, a lack of belief in two very specific legends.

It does not lessen the possibility that they exist, it simply expresses my opinion as to their existence, and as has been pointed out before, opinions are like navels, everybody has one, but they may not hold much water.

Faith, or belief, is by nature beyond logic and rationality. We only "believe" what we do not, or cannot, "know". Once something has been scientifically proved (proved, mind you, not theorised), it can no longer be the object of faith,or belief.

By way of example, scientists believe that our sun has another five billion years of life ahead. They do not, and cannot, know this for certain, since the human race has only existed for a fraction of a solar life span. This is as great an act of faith as belief in a deity (although somewhat more likely to be true), so scientists too are "men of faith" whether they are prepared to admit it or not.

All human beings have beliefs of some description, and it seems that it is only when dealing with religion that we have these insoluble clashes of ideals.

Faith itself is not the problem here, IMNSHO.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 10:38 AM

"Evolution is true. The basic idea of evolution is not going to be overturned. There are controversies within, sure enough. But the structure is impregnable."

It would be a brave scientist who agreed with this statement, as there are plenty of reasons we might decide evolution is an unsound theory. I can't go through each argument one by one but it's entirely possible that a technique will be developed that gives us new insight into how life functions in the universe and evolution might be replaced by a new theory. Personally I can't see this happening but then I doubt Newton even had an inkling of string theory . . .

"if humans can survive the devastating catastropes that are heading our way, then I believe scientists will find the answers to everything within the next hundred years!"

100 years? Not in 1 million. As a race, we stand on the shore of a great ocean of knowledge, and we're only dipping our toes into it. We have so much to learn it seems boggling or even impossible, but it's not and wow - what a journey lies in store for those willing to take the trip!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mayomick
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 10:04 AM

Easter has mythical origins – it takes its name from the teutonic goddess Eostre who was the goddess of fertility . Eostre existed only as a symbol but there was a truth behind the symbol – ie renewal ,fertility crops springing from the ground etc.That's the point I was making Tunesmith.

Anthropologists have studied the zeus myth and found that he didn't come from the castrated Cronus or simply from the heads of some poor old deluded Greeks .That's why anhropologists study myths - they do tell a truth about the societies that created them .

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 09:17 AM

"I just wish that someone could tell me what happened before the Big Bang"

There is no "before the Big Bang." God sitting there setting off a Big Bang would be him breaking yet another law of physics, the one that says that time is an integral function of the universe and, like everything else in it, started with the Big Bang. Still, it's up to him I suppose. It's God's gig, not mine. Just don't ask me to believe it, that's all!