BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 09:08 AM

Thanks for the explication...

Great quotes! I especially like One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion (Arthur C. Clarke)!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 10:32 PM

I think the past pluperfect of the verb you are thinking of is scrod.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 10:29 PM

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.Unknown

The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.Eric Hoffer

More here Top 50 Atheism Quotes

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 10:03 PM

at least it's not the past tense of a verb.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 10:01 PM

Google knows all

in this case, a long, informal piece of writing.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 09:36 PM

OK, now, somebody please tell me what a screed is? Is it a fast creed?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 01:54 PM

well...maybe I should be glad my recent minor surgery kept me from sitting up and following this much the last few days. My penchant for agonizing over the details would have eaten up hours of sorting out logic from linguistics from theology from silliness from history from .....whatever.

I think I will just thank Amos for HIS version of what I tried to say a week of more ago about embedded assumptions, circular reasoning and linguistic confusions.

Nickhere...if you are still following.... I see in your posts a very common, but highly developed, form of complex rationalization to support and defend your belief system. You mix psychology with cultural ideas and connect themes with subjective notions of relevance and value in ways in which 'seemingly' obvious facts prop up dubious claims with largely rhetorical links.

If I were to write a paper on 'why' religious concepts have such staying power among humans, I might use your screed for many examples, but in the final analysis, all we are left with is that you 'feel' comforted and supported by your personal interpretation of the value & relevance of a particular version of one religious tradition.....which is fine. No one expects you to 'change' because a bunch of skeptics pick at you. But be aware that the more complex your defense and argument, the more you expose yourself to critiques based on your employment of faulty logic and careless use of terminology. Religion can be explained and defended from within, after a set of assumptions and beliefs is clarified and understood by those discussing it...but...and this is important....there is a reason why religious tenets are described as beliefs! (Yes, I know that it is possible to claim 'value' for religion quite apart from 'truth'...but that introduces a different debate.)

In any case, it is always edifying for me to read and participate in these discussions, as it helps me to clarify my OWN thoughts and practice expressing them within different contexts...but after awhile, most of these discussions begin, as my daddy used to say, to be "the same, only different".

I think this tread has achieved new horizons in my daddy's view of it all...*grin*

I

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 12:05 PM

I am going to find out from the Sartre people if it's OK, so we don't get into any kind of copyright troubles, and, if it is, I'll have Joe change this thread from "..no gods..." to "No Exit"--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 11:15 AM

Bee - Wow, you really laid it out!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 11:04 AM

Nick:

Instead of reviewing your deeply embedded premises, you have rolled out extensive (to put it mildly) discussions about the world as it would seem to be if those premises had actual validity in the working of the world.

This is an endless screed. The reason our human history from HErod's infanticide to the destruction of the World Trade Center and the insurgencies of Iraq is so riddled with insanity is because of the same gap in reasoning which informs your lengthy dissertation.

This is the simple truth of the matter, in my view: if you postulate inaccurate assumptions abotu any system, then any analysis of the system will breed multiplying complexity and generate endless efforts to compensate for that complexity, which was introduced by mis-assumptions in the first instance.

This is the actual reasoning behind my terse dismissal.

What you have defended as rational dialogue is actually something else -- a long tape of noise which will not be resolved because it embraces the very generators of noise in its premises. These premises are built intot he terms you use, and the intermediate assumptions that lie behind the steps of your reasoning, and color the whole thing. To my view this is trying to measure a curve-ball universe with a straight-edge. It will never come out quite right.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 10:55 AM

OK, here is a very common misapprehension:

Atheists say there is no God. If He doesn't exist, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever if people pray to Him. It changes nothing in this world.

Our argument is that it DOES make a difference because people are wasting their energies doing something useless, that (indeed, as you say) doesn't change anything, when they could be ACCOMPLISHING something, like fixing whatever problem they are praying about.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 10:40 PM

Nick: I'm going to speak strictly for myself here, not for all atheists or all secularists or all anybody. I'm also not going to speak of other religions, since here in North America, it is Christianity we must live with.

It's all very well to say Bush and others like him, who claim to be talking to God and Jesus, are not acting like Christians should act and therefore we shouldn't judge Christianity based on their actions, despite their claims of having God on their side. But a very large portion of the US population believes apparently that actions like those Bush has taken are perfectly in line with their Christian beliefs, and they will cheerfully bring up both Old and New Testament precedents to back them up.

You say: "From what we know of God, God does not use either lies or murder to achieve His objectives. "
But there are examples from the Old Testament that suggest God has done exactly those kinds of things, or told men to do them, in the tales of genocides ordered by God and in events like the hardening (three times) of Pharoah's heart, which is a kind of lying, since Pharoah was disposed to let the Israelites leave except for God's manipulation of his mind.

You may say, like some Christians do, that the Old Testament is irrelevant, but there are many who think the OT is as relevant as the New, and it is certainly the source of information about the Christian God, supposedly the same being as the 'reformed' God of the NT. The NT also still holds women to be lesser (despite the many attempts by genuinely feminist Christians to explain Paul's words away), and is the source of diatribes against homosexuality.
If we must ferret out whether a Christian leader is an OT kinda guy or an NT kinda guy before trusting them not to practice lying and murdering, we still have a problem with loudly praying Christians in the White House.

To your Axiom No. 1 I say, I think Christianity is as good or bad as the individual who professes it, but it is also a guide to how that person might act, once you figure out what kind of Christian they are, and if they are an OT believing, Young Earth Creationist, and evangelistic as well, how can we trust them not to undermine science research and education, reverse gender equality, and work toward Armageddon?

I'm inclined to call your argument by Soviet Russia and French rationalists a scare tactic. I don't think there are many atheists who want to stop people from worshipping however they like - we just don't want our lives constricted or devastated by wars or made shorter and nastier by a refusal to allow science to progress. What is wrong with running a country based on rationality and compassion, two aspects of humanity which can be found and practiced regardless of who or what you might or might not be inclined to pray to?

You say: "But then how safe is it to have atheistic secular leaders who believe that children before birth are not really human at all, and not entitled to the same right to life as everyone else automatically expects. Even when such beliefs are in direct opposition to reality? It's certainly not safe for generations of children as yet unborn; or ultimately for anyone as it creates a sliding scale of humanity on which we may all slip eventually."

If I get into the abortion topic, my post will get longer than yours, if it isn't already. I will just note that science has also found that between forty five and sixty five (some estimates are higher) percent of conceptions - that's after sperm and egg unite to form your unique human - naturally abort, miscarry, slough away, during the first few weeks of pregnancy. Given God's care of unique human life, he appears mighty careless of what happens to it those first few weeks.

You speak as if atheists would wholesale stop the reproduction process, which is ridiculous, since atheists are humans who have babies themselves. Atheists, however, would not place barriers before women trying to get various forms of birth control, would not refuse to prescribe morning after pills (or even refuse to sell contraceptives, like some Christian pharmacists), and might try to offer poor women better health care and better prenatal care, and better financial and social assistance if they actually have children. The person who is for choice says, don't have an abortion if you don't want one. The anti choice person says, you have no choice because of our God.

Again: I don't care if people believe in the supernatural. I do care if they require me to live as if I believed in it, and Christianity is muddy enough to let politicians claim it sincerely and still act like monsters in the real world.

Lastly, I cannot believe that living in the US you could describe Christians as 'feeling isolated', when Christians are eighty percent of your population and almost fifty percent of people profess themselves to be creationists (don't believe in evolution).

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,Mrr, checking in fast on another computer
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 08:16 PM

Um - Jesus was the first and only instance in any culture of a God deciding to come down and live amongst His creation as one of them... - no, actually most gods lived among the people rather than in the unattainable sky, if you look at the history of religion.

And lots of gods before Jesus died.

Now, it may be that the god of Abraham might be the first to have deliberately SENT an avatar to die, specifically - but that doesn't seem to be in that god's favor...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:27 PM

Amos "F you can't beat them in debate, baffle them with bullshit. Been there, done that"

If you say so!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:26 PM

Alright, you guys clearly don't want rational discussion. I'll leave you to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:21 PM

OOPs! Forgot the link in the last post, anyway it was just a link to the thread where we discussed the abortion issue, which you can easily find.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:16 PM

IF you can't beat them in debate, baffle them with bullshit. Been there, done that.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:13 PM

HOLY MACKEREL!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:11 PM

And now the BIG ONE! Excuse me if this post is rather long, but a lot of ideas rolling around in my mind finally found articulation at around the same time, coalescing into one argument finally. They are a response to posts made a while back on this thread.

Mrzzzy: "Do you believe that a leader should consult their personal supernatural force or being when making decisions involving your actual life?"

You're probably referring to his Dubya-ship here? Well, I agree with you most of the way. I too have a problem with such a leader consulting a supernatural force when making decisions, etc., Not because I believe it is wrong to ask God for guidance, but because 'by their fruits you shall know them'. I don't recognise the supernatural force Dubya seems to be in commune with, I'm not sure it is the God I worship, though perhaps he thinks so. If he is a Christian and is praying to the God recognised by Christians (as he claims) then surely he's heard of 'Thou shalt not kill'? He is trying to follow this commandment when it comes to abortion, which I am glad of, but bizarrely seems to abandon it completely when it comes to Iraqis, Iranians and anyone else outside the US who gets in the way of his ambitions. Maybe he believes God's laws apply only to American citizens, especially better-off white ones. That's unfortunate (especially for those on the receiving end of the 5.56 mm bullets, tank shells etc.,) and seems to be a particular problem in the US. Such 'Christians' in my opinion are trying to be the masters rather than servants of God. They want to harness God for their own ends. They believe what's good for them is good for God. Bob Dylan has already summed this up in 'With God on Their Side".Such hubris is not the sole preserve of the US political scene of course, we only need think of God-fearing ulster unionists ("For God and Ulster!"). Actually come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the republican party is composed largely of the descendents of emigrants from that persuasion…..!

But beyond that, let's look at that proposition a little more closely. First of all, we can discount George Bush's claim to be divinely inspired. Peter Singer has outlined in detail the contradictions in Bush's public pronouncements ("The President of Good and Evil" CIP 13579 10 8642). He makes a convincing case that what Bush is actually doing is astutely identifying the qualities that make a president attractive to a large number of voters. Bush uses the language of Christianity to make a connection with a sector of the US population. I don't like generalistaions, but we could typify that sector as being Christian in name, church-going, gun-toting and confusing nationalistic patriotism with religious belief ("For God and Ulster" / "With God on Our Side").

But we don't need a whole book to prove conclusively that whatever Bush says about being in commune with God, he either isn't listening to God or is in commune with something else. From what we know of God, God does not use either lies or murder to achieve His objectives. Bush and his cabinet rely heavily on both: lies – the WMD claims and a host of other farcical 'facts' about terrorism used to justify his murderous policies. Murder: all the Iraqi and Middle-eastern blood on his hands. Venezualan blood too, except the coup was nipped in the bud. None of this can possibly come from the Christian God. This is what Jesus had to say about such matters – He spoke of Satan falling from heaven, and described him as a 'murderer and a liar from the beginning'. I find the juxtaposition fascinating. Murder and lies seem to need each other. Bush must know this if he has studied the Bible like he claims.

So, those of you who are fearful of people who make policy because they are in commune with the God can relax. "By their fruit you will know them". Policies like those being formulated by neo-cons do not come from God, but from the neo-cons. Their abuse of Christian beliefs is exactly that – an abuse. Don't make the mistake of rejecting God because of the dishonest actions of these people. Rejecting God because you don't believe He exists is a different matter – it's more understandable and is a personal quest. All I'm saying is don't be confused and put off by the actions of these so-called Christians. Instead you could up-end them and surprise them badly by becoming proficient in Christian theology and attending the next questions & answers session where Bush goes……!! It would probably not be the best reason to become a proficient Christian, but at least they wouldn't have it all their own way, muddying the name of God.

So, may I propose Axiom No.1? –

"The evil actions of people who misuse Christianity for their own ends is not proof that Christianity is a bad or evil religion. It does demonstrate how people can take anything, however good, and misuse it"


What then of atheistic secularism? Can it provide a better model? Should we be worried when people vote out of their atheistic secular beliefs?

The first obvious thing is to look for existing models or precedents. Soviet Russia is the pre-eminent example. One of Marxism's axioms is that 'religion is the opium of the people'. The form of communism there was both highly secular AND atheistic. God was driven from public life. All mention of Him was made either illegal or censored. Churches were closed, priests murdered or sent to gulags (Soviet concentration camps). Christians were heavily persecuted in 100 petty and serious ways. If religion is the root of all evil in society, that should have made Soviet society a model for the world. Instead we all know how it served as one of the premier examples of 20th century totalitarianism. People tried to flee its stifling oppression, over 20 million people died under Stalin alone – the biggest genocide of the 20th century, even outstripping Hitler's holocaust. People were forced to recognise the state as the supreme social entity as it took on an almost totemic significance.

Soviet Russia collapsed, at least in part because the human being was not made to live such an unnatural life. But the experiment was tried elsewhere – China, Cambodia etc., all around the world we find places where there were attempts to introduce secular atheistic societies that left nothing but human misery in their wake. So the secular atheistic model doesn't seem to be able to deliver Utopia either – indeed it seems even more intolerable to those living under it than the theocracies so often derided in western media; such as Saudi Arabia. While I wouldn't like to live in such a society, the Saudis have not had genocide in contrast to the Chinese or Russian or Cambodian examples.

"Sure", you say. "But you could apply the same argument that I applied above to Bush – that this is not representative of the real thing. That's not real secular atheism, but various corruptions of it. There's no rationality in it. Now, if we had rationality…."

This is an old 18th century enlightenment idea. Various philosophers, engaged in rational thought themselves, began to extrapolate from their own enlightened minds onto the the human race and think that everyone was basically rational like themselves, and if all just used our reason we could do away with religion, superstition, perhaps even government (anarchists eat your heart out!) and just use our pure reason to govern ourselves for the common good!

Sounds like a wonderful idea, a Utopia based on reason…. But they overlooked human nature. They didn't factor in greed, egotism, dishonesty, avarice and so on, all of the inconvenient things that help to block reason, or that can appear very reasonable to someone interested only in short-term gain for themselves. Plus not everyone agrees on what is 'reasonable' How do we decide who is the most reasonable and therefore whose viewpoint should be taken as the model on which to base laws etc.,?

We can't really use the majority rule model. As several people on this site have pointed out, the majority isn't always right. The minority may have the better point of view. But in a democracy, people get the society they want. If that is so, and the people want a religious society, then that is what they should get. If they want a secular one, then that is what they should get.

It can be difficult to decide what is right or wrong since even rationalisations can be subjective. I gave the example of Grenouile (from 'Perfume') in an earlier thread to show what can happen when someone works off a different set of rationalisations to the majority. His actions – killing the girls but preserving their scent – were perfectly rational to him, however gross they might appear to the majority. The result is that such a person is termed mad and locked up. But once again we find ourselves back at the 'majority rules' model. And what happens (as in Nazi Germany for example) that a particular course of action is commonly thought reasonable and for the benefit of society?

Even in the Middle Ages – so stereotyped as being THE era of superstition, their behaviour was in fact, perfectly rational. If you believe in heaven and hell, it makes perfect sense to pray, go on pilgrimage etc., The difference is that today, because of the sucesses of empirical science in describing the physical world and its inability to decide on metaphysical questions, there are people who believe we are at the apex of social evolution (despite having to explain away two of the worst and most widespread wars in history which killed more people than all previous wars combined – wars that had nothing to do with religion and were based on cold logic) and that our behaviour is therefore superior and somehow more rational than the behaviour of all societies in the past.

So what of the secular atheists who believe in the power of empiricism and reason to provide a better society?

In a previous thread we discussed the contentious issue of abortion. A summary view of the debate shows it can be characterised as falling into two camps. On one side the 'religionists' are generally opposed to abortion, firstly on the grounds that all human life is a unique gift from God to be preserved until He calls it back to Him. On the other side you will find most 'rational secular atheists' are in favour of abortion to varying degrees. Some see it as a simple matter of choice, abortion-on-demand; others see it as an option in some cases. None view the life within the womb as an unborn human being up to a certain point – though they cannot all agree on what that point should be. Some say 24 weeks, others say when there's a nervous system, others say when you can see the humanoid form.

If we reject the religious objection to abortion - as secular atheists insist we do - can empirical science help us out here? Surprisingly it can. Empirical science has managed to prove beyond doubt that what is growing in the womb is in fact a unique human being, a new life. Powerful sceintific learning and equipment are able to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only time this new life is 'a potential life' (as those in favour of choice / abortion like to say in its justification) is when the child 'is a twinkle in his father's eye' – in other words when the egg and sperm are still separate.
   Once they meet and conception takes place, we have a unqiue genetic code and a new human being. It may be 'only a collection of cells' but then so are we all, and we all return to dust in the end.

More detail here: (link)

What matters is that in this instance empirical science has come out in favour of the Christian religious verdict that pre-dated it: each human life is something that begins from conception. Anything else is simply a point along a continuum that only ends at death.

So what happens when secular atheists are given this empirical science, that they insist should be the bedrock of our modern social policy?

They ignore it. They refuse to believe it. At this point they have abandoned both empiricism and rationality and crossed over into the belief they condemn. For they now choose to believe that the new life begins at some time of their arbitrary choice after conception. To me, this is even worse than flirting with Christian beliefs without implementing them fully, as Bush does. Without even the reference to the higher moral authority of God we can convince ourselves of anything. From there, any premise is possible and many heinous acts can be justified on the grounds the person was 'not fully human' – ranging from abortion, through to partial-birth abortion, to euthanasia, to war, execution, genocide, slavery and many other evils the Christian religion has traditionally condemned (I am aware of St.Paul's advice to slaves to obey their masters, much abused by plantation owners of later years to justify their actions and totally taken out of context. More on that later when I get round to it).

Bee "How safe is it to have political leaders in the world's most powerful country who think the earth is 6000 years old and evolution doesn't/didn't happen? I could care less if Joe Cracker from Orlando believes that, but beliefs like that are in direct opposition to reality, no matter how many ways you say 'Goddidit'"

But then how safe is it to have atheistic secular leaders who believe that children before birth are not really human at all, and not entitled to the same right to life as everyone else automatically expects. Even when such beliefs are in direct opposition to reality? It's certainly not safe for generations of children as yet unborn; or ultimately for anyone as it creates a sliding scale of humanity on which we may all slip eventually.


Axiom No.2 : "Secularism, atheism, human rationality and empiricism alone are no guarantees against the perversion of human nature or for a better society"


What use is empiricism and reason if they are so lightly abandoned when they stand in the way of people's desires? Are they of any greater utility than religion? I would argue they are of even less use. Of the two, empiricism is the more useless. All it can do is to give us certain facts about the physical world. This is good and potentially useful, but that all depends on what we do about this information. Empiricism alone cannot guide us in making the correct moral choices. It can give us the information we need to build an atomic device but cannot tell us whether we should use it. We need something else to guide us in this question which empiricism cannot touch. Can 'reason' be of use? Unfortuantely, it too, has its weakness. People can create rationalisations for almost any act they wish to commit. For example, someone reasons 'why shouldn't I help myself to a few pads of office notepaper or pens? I put in enough unpaid overtime to deserve it" and the company pays you without knowing. The Christian perspective is that both parties are enagaged in theft. The company is stealing from the employee by getting him to work extra time unpaid. Jesus said in the Bible quite clearly that the 'workman deserves his wages'. On the other hand, even though a Christian might be compassionate towards him knowing the circumstances, the employee is quite clearly stealing too and should stop. In other words, it is not OK to do something bad just because someone else is – 'never benchmark yourself against badness'. Christian morality takes commandment no.8 here – thou shalt not steal.

We see a neat dovetailing of science, religion and reason in the abortion question.

Christianity has long held human life to a unique sacred gift from God. It could not back up this claim scientifically where life in the womb was concerned. Yet in recent centuries empirical science has been able to do this. We can now see life at an ever earlier stage and understand its mechanics far better than those who formulated church doctrine all those years ago. We realise that empirically they were right, too. Reason can come into play: there is clear logic. Sperm + egg = the full set of gametes to create a new DNA, a new identity. Prior to that, that identity is a 'potential identity' only. Logically it follows that what grows from that point on is a unique human being that goes through all stages on a continuum until it reaches the end of its life and dies. Once again, Christians see this as the act of God calling that life home in His own good time.

So, for me, empirical science, reason and my Christian religion can all go hand in hand. The first explains the physical workings of the world to my God-given curiosity (my ultimate curiosity is for God, but I take great pleasure in understanding the workings of physical creation too), logical reason and Christian belief togther form the basis for understanding the metaphysical questions of life, and dealing with the moral questions empiricism alone cannot cope with.


Just a few final observations. In "President of Good & Evil" Peter Singer repeats the question "We need to ask to what extent is it appropriate for the elected leaders of pluralist societies to invoke their religious faith on official occasions… and to use it as a basis for policy on issues that affect others in the community who do not share those beliefs" (p.91)

To this we can point ot the following observations -

1)        the emphasis on the fact of pluralism as a motive for secularising society has a counterpoint in the implication that societies which are not pluralistic are free to be theocratic. Therefore we should hold our condemnation of say, middle eastern societies based on Sharia rule.

2)        But what are Christian beliefs? The Credo ("I believe in God…") sums these up for Catholics, and many points would be shared by Orthodox and Protestant also – is mostly about belief to do with the afterlife and about our relationship with God. We cannot pass any legislation dealing with the afterlife, so non-believers are safe from that. No legislation has, or likely ever will be, passed to oblige anyone to go to mass, pray the rosary etc., Even prayer in schools – where it exists – is optional. One might feel excluded, but one is not obliged to worship. The contrary was often the case in the past in pagan societies where christians were ordered on pain of death to worship some idol or other.

3)        Other than that, the central pillar of Christian belief are the 10 Commandments. The first 2 deal specifically with God. If one does not believe in Him, one is free to not to. But what of the other 8? Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat on your wife or husband. Don't want what your neighbour has. Don't slander or gossip about them.

We have to ask ourselves, what sector of society is it that 'doesn't share those beliefs'? Who are the people that consider it acceptable on the contrary to lie, cheat on your partner, kill and so on. These 'values' are not social, they are scoiopathic. We have to ask ourselves if any society interested in its own survival – even a very pluralistic one – can tolerate such socially harmful values in its midst. The only answer is clearly it cannot.

Yes, you say, but these are not the 'beliefs' we are talking about. We are talking about the belief that there is a God, that His son Jesus voluntarily died on the Cross on our behalf. That is what we object to!

But hold on a minute. Atheists say there is no God. If He doesn't exist, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever if people pray to Him. It changes nothing in this world. As I already pointed out, no-one in our western society is obliged to pray or believe in God, even if the President claims to (and I have already commented on what I feel about his actions). There may be sectors of society or geographical areas where one feels isolated or fearful because one is an atheist in a community where the majority are believers. That's socially difficult, but in a pluralistic society we must allow the believers their freedom to practise. We could take away their free will and oblige them all to be atheists and make ourselves feel more at home. And we have already spoken of places and times where this happened – as in Soviet Russia. I'm surprised there wasn't a flood of secular atheists to Russia in the old days where they'd be guaranteed separation of church and state, religion being regarded as 'the biggest evil of all'.

I am reminded me of a CS Lewis book called "That Hideous Strength" (part of a trilogy) where a central character, Mark finds himself working for a kind of corporation / organistaion called NICE. As often with such acronyms, the name hides a more sinister reality. As he is inducted further up the ranks and into the workings of this corporation, Mark is asked to demonstrate his loyalty to the way of science, progress etc., by trampling and spitting on a crucifix. CS Lewis writes this as the forces of evil overplaying their hand. "Having instilled in him by their [NICE corp] techniques a sense of the meaninglessness of the world, and the irrelevance of all religion, he [Mark] questions why they should then be so insistent that he desecrate a crucifix. If a crucifix has no value or meaning what is the point of abusing it? It leads him to wonder if there are not deeper forces at work than he ever dreamed might exist" (Gareth Knight in "The Magical World of the Inklings").


And there are many other sectors of society where it is believers who feel isolated. They don't often pray or express their beliefs publicly for fear of the ridicule of non-belivers. They just learn to live with it and endure the slings and arrows.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:05 PM

Amos "Additionally your model requires that you postulate the long extension of positive affect by an entity who died many centuries back. This makes the proposition (as you said above) unprovable"

I said the existence of God cannot be demonstrated according to the terms of empirical science as it currently stands (or words to that effect). Jesus did die centuries back, but as you surely know, the central idea in Christianity is that He then rose from the dead, stayed on earth in corporeal form for 40 days afterwards before ascending to heaven. Therefore for Christians He is not dead, that is to say He has transcended it. Death is also the end of the 'mortal coil', not the end of the spirit that dwells in it.

You've got a point about the placebo effect, though I would posit that it's effects are somewhat overstated. I doubt any doctor would risk using placebo drugs in chemotherapy, even if the patient had no idea they had been substituted.

Bee "To be sure, I know a man who ... by becoming a follower of Islam... Jesus, of course, did not figure in this conversion"

Yes, as we both point out, Islam does not see Jesus as divine. But from a Christian perspective, it makes perfect sense: Jesus is also fully God (the mystery of the Holy Trinity).
But Catholic (and unless I am mistaken, Protestant) theology also allows for many people outside of Christianity to find God. I forget the name of the doctrine, but basically it states that people who earnestly seek God, even from outside the monotheistis framework, will find Him. They may not even realise what it is they seek. A good example is Lame Deer, that I mentioned a few posts back. From reading what he says and his view of what he calls the Great Spirit, I have little doubt he is describing the same entity with which I am familiar (as far as I familiar with it).

Ringslinger....... oh dear, oh dear. What can I say? I always feel a bit apprehensive on these threads since they always seem to circle back to the same point sooner or later. And that's a chance for some people to use the opportunity to hurl insult at God. Though why anyone should want to insult something they don't believe exists is a mystery to me sometimes.
I don't take offence easily and I'm not *too* bothered about jibes against followers of Christ. It's par for the course apparently (though a bit saddening). What I do take exception to is is when someone gratuitously tries to offend God by juxtaposing reference to Him with the facile or scatalogical. Try and bear in mind that even if you don't believe in God some people (like myself) regard Him as a true and loyal friend. Try and think how you would feel if I were to belittle and jeer at one of your friends or one of your family. Wouldn't you feel disappointed in me at the very least? Wouldn't you want to walk away? That's what I'm tempted to do here. I wouldn't want to be party to any forum which becomes a means of insulting God, so please don't drive me away and maybe we can engage in rational discussion. And that goes for anyone else thinking of making 'God jokes' as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:16 PM

Well, that one looks really confused to me!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:56 PM

Dog God

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:26 PM

Well, who's to say that a goD and a doG couldn't be easily confused. I mean, that one couldn't confuse one for the other, or...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:36 PM

Tsk! You're too mature to be indulging in psychedelics, Rig.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM

Well what would a doG be doing in a public toilet, unless, of course, he was thirsty, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:59 PM

I think that was doG, you dyslexic silly.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:19 PM

Of course, many of us would conclude that he would have been better off in the long run if he'd just made the effort to get a grasp on reality, and dealt with the world on his own terms. But then, there's always the 75 virgins who await him in the sky, or wherever they hang out.


                Getting back to the point, though, I'm pretty sure I saw a goD coming out of a public toilet on 23rd Avenue.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:34 PM

To be sure, I know a man who turned his life of drinking, drug use and family disfunction right around by becoming a follower of Islam. It's been eight years now, and he has stuck to his conversion, prays five times a day, does not indulge in drink or drugs, has five children and a stable marriage. Jesus, of course, did not figure in this conversion.

I've known this man since he was four years old, he's in his late thirties now. He grew up with loving Christian parents, moved away to a big city, ran into some hard times, and was pretty aimless for a few years. It isn't a path to recovery I would have advised, and we've had some interesting conversations about Islam as practiced in Canada, but it worked for him, probably saved his life.

Nickhere, Islam historically worships the same father God, but does not see Jesus as divine or as the path to salvation. So here is a good effect on a person resulting, yes, from believing in God, but not in Christianity. And I've seen as good results for people who left the religion out of it entirely, focussed their behaviour changes on their family or some desired goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:20 PM

Well, it does not require the additional ingredients of mystic entities to which powers are attributed when those same powers in other corcumstances are found to be frequently demonstrated without those entities. For example, individuals have healed themselves of serious physical ailments because they read a newspaper article validating the efficacy of a drug they believed they were taking. Quite mysterious thing, generally called the placebo effect. But the thing about the placebo effect is that it can be triggered by any number of different significances. Finding Jesus is one of them. So is believing another cares for your well-being; so is a self-determined decision to recover. The trigger "symbol" varies wildly but the consistent element in the case histories is that the individual recovered from something without physical reason.

That's the simplicity of it -- the mind, correctly activated, can relieve distress and/or illness.

Taking that phenomenon and adding a whole bunch of material about the nature of Jesus is adding complexity, because the common elements are not centered around Jesus but around "some trigger to the mind" -- indicating it is thinking about "Jesus" or something comparable, not the substance itself.

Additionally your model requires that you postulate the long extension of positive affect by an entity who died many centuries back. This makes the proposition (as you said above) unprovable. There are of course millions of people about whom it can be said that they died long ago, and maybe a score or a hundred of them who claimed divinity, some of whom were probably used in ages past as comparable triggers for what is actually an act of self-elevation. So far I have seen no argument of merit for adding all that complexity into the picture.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:06 PM

"People have turned their own lives around after deciding that they could let go of confusions and.or regrets and/or guilt using JEsus as an icon to represent paternal forgiveness or other emotional needs."

Doesn't sound any less complex than the Jesus hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:09 AM

Excuse me, Nick, but when you assert that "Jesus has turned poeple's lives around" I think you are beibng arbitrary in your selection of interpretations. For example, an equally viable proposition, based on the same data, would be "People have turned their own lives around after deciding that they could let go of confusions and.or regrets and/or guilt using JEsus as an icon to represent paternal forgiveness or other emotional needs."

In other words, you elect to take an interpretation that seems to me, at least, to be much more complex than they need to be.

It is pretty well-established that finding some stable point of reference, or some basis for confidence will generate all kinds of recuperation in people. Cf. placebo effects, the magical power for self-healing once the right "suggestion" has been made.

Be that as it may, my point is that postulating the cause to be a metaphysical intervention from a higher power whose name is really Jesus, in contrast, is a terribly complex, arbitrary hypothesis, and one which does not open the door to new data or make things easier to test, understand or see.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:36 AM

Ok, thanks Amos. Yes, you have a point: I don't think I can give you any scientific empirical proof of the existence of God, at least not the kind physicists, chemists and biologists usually look for. So you're right in that one has to start out from the premise there is a God and He has a plan for each of us (which we are free to follow or not) in order to make the observations I have made about the Bible (for example).

My opinion is that the empirical view is microcosmic- it looks only at the little picture of what we can sense through the five senses or have rendered in form we can sense on machines (e.g infra-red photography). This is frustrating for both believers and non-believers alike. Of course I would like to hand you a photo of God if it were possible and say 'ok, here He is' (and not in an I-told-you-so way either, but simply from the joy of being able to finally share it). Of course that would remove the faith element, and possibly alos reduce the earnestness of the search one must conduct to find God. Maybe He really wants to know that the person approaching Him really wants to approach Him, I don't know; that just seesm to be the way He's organised things regarding belief.


On the other hand I think there is fairly good proof of another kind, in the form of the transition that I have seen (and experienced) taking place in people's lives when they've found Him and let Him work on them. That is evidence to another of our senses - call it a sixth sense, call it spirit - that empirical science is unable to grapple with. You get glimpses of it in the lives of the really rich who seem to have anything from a rational point of view: money, the girl (or boy), the luxury, the fame - all the things reason might suggest we obtain. Afterall if there is no life beyond death, we might as well have as mcuh as we can here and now. yet often these people find their lives are empty, something is missing. St.Francis was one example. the son of a wealthy merchant set to inherit the lot, he gave it all up. Famously he even handed his father the shirt off his back as a way of saying I don't need any of these things. His poor Dad must have been understandably upset - he'd worked hard to build all this up and hand it on to someone. There was the someone voluntarily rejectinga life of comfort for a life of hardship that could surely only shorten it. He had found soemthing worth more than all the material wealth. The Bible (Jesus specifically) talsk about this, likening the Kingdom of Heaven a precious gem or pearl, that on finding it, a man might sell and get rid of all he has in order to have it once he arelises its true worth.

You could find evidence in how Jesus has turned people's lives around, even when they seemd hopeless, and made good things of bad. It's a different kind of evidence, I grant you, but it can be repeated (a criterion of empiricism) though not always in exactly the same way as each person is unique. Once you begin to see these things and appreciate them for what they are, the Bible starts to make more and more sense. One begins to see the rationality in it. I should I suppose add at this point that reason does not equate with empiricism, though the two may interconnect.

Taking the whole cosmos there's a kind of evidence in the order of it, the whole oft-noted coincidences that lead to life arising. Sure, you could put it down to statistical chance, but the odds are very long when you think of all the details that have to be just-so (and not simply close or approximate). You could possibly find it in our development of culture, how we have become something quite different to even our closest animal cousins (the primates - how come in all the millions of years none of them have ever evolved speech or culture to the level we have? Surely it's just as useful to them as us?) We have developed artistic and singing abilities that have nothing to do with our basic need to survive etc., (BTW I am not a creationist either in the Mick Huckabee sense, I don't hold that the earth is 4,000 years old or any such stuff, or that fossils were put these by satan to confuse us, you'll be glad to know)

Now I feel a very long post coming that I've been working on these last two days, some observations that have been growing in my mind for a while, so I'd better sign off here and give people a chance to draw breath!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:28 AM

Your complex rationale built around the whole divinity card, Nick -- for example the interpretation that the Bible reveals that nature of God, and that God has intentions for us, and so on.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,Monique
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:05 AM

For believers and non-believers, those who understand Spanish can order this book at their favorite bookstore (not presently available on line) Mentiras iglesia
It's been translated into Italian, Portuguese and Polish. Those who understand French can also read some excerpts online though no French book is available. There is no English version either.

Just an idea: when you have a group, this group has a certain spirit which is the result of a dynamics. So what if God were the spirit of the whole universe? Kind of the universe vibration or music...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 06:08 PM

Amos, excuse my slowness, but I'm not quite sure what you mean, I must confess.

"You generate rationale from the simple premise that divinity was at work in the generation of the Book and the person"

what are you referring to here in relation to our last few posts? What rationale are you talking about?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 05:50 PM

You generate rationale from the simple premise that divinity was at work in the generation of the Book and the person.

I find no evidence for either of those premises, except by self-assertion.

From these premises everything and anything may follow.

But if they are not supportable, then they are simply justifications for a lot of other viewpoints and deeds which have no reason to recommend them, including many heinous acts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 05:24 PM

Sorry about that, point "1) maybe it'd be a good time to check what Jesus had to say about the adultress"

was in reference to

"Stoning adultresses and killing witches are two stupid examples that make your assertion untrenable, to my view"

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 05:15 PM

Amos, if you go back and look at my post I think it is quite clear I was referring to the Protestant Reformation. I mentioned Luther by name, by way of example. It was the MAIN schism in Church history, the other being of course the split with the Eastern orthodox church almost 1,000 years prior. The Eastern Orthodox is considered closer doctrinally by the Vatican than are the Prod churches. The schism between Orthodox and Catholic is far less in degree than that which occured during the Protestant reformation.

Protestant churches, by nature of their character of individualism (as opposed to the centralised authority of the Vatcian) are prone to budding off into sects. These do not equate with schisms of the kind referred to above. No schisms occured in church history over the crusades / war against muslims; or over the burning of witches - two of the examples you mentioned in making your point.

Now, what multiple schisms are you referring to?

"As for making my case, I am not making any assertions here in the first place"

Ahhh, hang on there a mo' buddy...

""The Bible is chiefly important for what it reveals to us about what our potential relationship with God can be and His intentions for us.
I disagree -- it shows us these things no more accurately than Catcher in the Rye or East of Eden does"

This is a clear assertion that both book titles above can tell us as much or no more about our potential relationship with God and His intentions for us as the Bible does. Whether it was your intention or not, It trivialises the importance of the Bible by basically saying we can learn as much about God from any book, or from Marvel Comics. With all due respect, I'd have to disagree with you on that one. But if you feel you can make that case, I still invite you to do so, using those two particular books of your choice as a starting point.

On the other hand if you don't feel able afterall to show an equivalence with those books, I think it is an important point, as it at least suggests that the Bible is something of a different nature and in a different league.

"...writings committed to parchment by people for whom a wheelbarrow would be emerging technology."

Do I detect a note of 19th century social darwinism here?

"And let me add that your explanation that witches were tried in civil court has little merit -- it was founded on scripture and would have had no merit or impetus without the underlying collision between polytheistic paganism and the Church of Rome"

1) maybe it'd be a good time to check what Jesus had to say about the adultress

2) Re. the civil courts. Yes, the law was partly based on the fact that the religious reason for not wanting witches. But you are completely leaving out of the picture a very simple rationale for medieval and renaissance man not wanting witches in their midst. The actions ascribed to witches were rarely if ever benign. Apart from all the usual melodrame of dancing with the devil, they were accused of 'poisoning wells, crippling cattle, stealing babies, making people sick or die etc., etc.,"

The point here is that it was not religion alone that drove people to persecute witches, but a very practical fear of the physical harm witches might do.

Of course plenty of those accused of such activities were most likely innocent. But there were probably some who were carrying out such activities - basically simple criminality, malicious revenge or whatever, dressed up under the name of witchcraft. There were those who for personal gain, to obtain love or revenge, attempted to cast spells or make pacts with the devil. Probably their efforts were a waste of time but if they got caught enagaged in them they risked the penalty of the law and perhaps being blamed for every other bad thing that happened in the neighbourghood. No-one would have felt comfortable living near someone known or thought to be a witch. This was not down to religious prurience alone but very much down to simple self-preservation. We have the same thing today wiith people uncomfortable living or working with people they know or believe to be murderers / child molestors etc.

I hope it's clear anyway that the religious persecution case is not as simple as that and is often over-stated.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 03:55 PM

IF you meant the Protestant Reformation, you might have said so instead of embracing all the schisms of the CHristian world, some of which have been absurd, predicated on interpretative differences in metaphysics such as UNity versus Trinity and whether or not the Holy Ghost was filtered, mentholated or what.

As for making my case, I am not making any assertions here in the first place, but merely responding to your assertion that there is a Being surrounding our existence who has precise intentions for us and whose instructions can be found in a 2500-year old anthology of mystical writings committed to parchment by people for whom a wheelbarrow would be emerging technology. I just don't see any grounds for that assertion and I think to justify it requires bending over backwards intellectually into abnormal postures of rationalization. Stoning adultresses and killing witches are two stupid examples that make your assertion untrenable, to my view.
And let me add that your explanation that witches were tried in civil court has little merit -- it was founded on scripture and would have had no merit or impetus without the underlying collision between polytheistic paganism and the Church of Rome.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM

By the way, I'll come back to teh Mick Huckabees etc., in due course.... I'm well aware of that particular strain of religion in the US, but don't forget the USA is not the world, and there are all kinds...!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 03:41 PM

Mrrrzzy: "Not to mention that anything interesting attributed to Jesus was already known to other civilizations for centuries..."

I may be wrong but I think the case of Jesus was the first and only instance in any culture of a God deciding to come down and live amongst His creation as one of them, and die on their behalf in an act of love for them. I don't think you'll find a parallel in any other theology or mythology.

Amos, you may have missed my post when I said I wasn't unaware of religious wars either, but I'll get back to that anon. The picture isn't quite as simple as you may imagine.

"As for the schisms that have occured in the church since, they are unfortunate, but arose for sound reason. Sound reasons like the urgent need to wui[pe out Muslims, track down and burn witches, and purify the Faith of any questioning free-thinking villains in the population? Come on--this is just rampant aplogism, screened by dewt rationalization"

I'm sorry, old pal, but you simply don't know what you're talking about here. A schism is a split, and the schism to which you must know I was referring (and the only that is generally understood when the history of the Christian church is spoken of) is that which took place in the late 1400s onwards as the result of a challenge by Luther and others (like Knox and Calvin) to corruption in the church. The sound reasons I referred to were parctices like simony (buying your way into office rather than on merit), the selling of pardons (bogus or otherwise) by unscrupulous pardoners and so on. The church, like any other institution run day-to-day by humans, is suceptible to corruption, and this is what Luther was railing about (and not without justification).

BUT

He wasn't the first. St.Francis had already (back in the early 1200s) railed against corruption, with some success. he even made a trip on foot to Rome to see the Pope and try and get things put right. But with time corrupt officials within the church had managed to undoe much of the good of his reforms. Luther had hoped to similarly reform the church, not break away from it. When it was clear that was not going to be possible, he then decided to break away from it.

NONE of this had ANYTHING to do with killing Muslims (the first crusade occured back in the 1000s, the third was over by the end of the 1190s), burning witches etc., AFTER the schism both branches of Christian church (Catholic and Protestant) continued to condemn men and women to death on conviction of witchcraft. The protestant churches were probably more vigorous in this regard, especially in Switzerland and Scotland. The last person put to death as a witch was in the early 1700s in Scotland. Before that there had been a long break when the numbers of executions rapidly declined. The peak was probably from about 1480s - 1640s.

Persons tried as witches were as often brought before civil (i.e secular) courts as ecclesiastical (i.e religious) courts. The reason being that witchcraft was a staute crime at that time (the actual act was only repealed in the UK in 1956, though as I already pointed out, it had been centuries by then since anyone was condemned for it). Civil (i.e) secular courts employed torture as a means of extracting confessions (everyone seems to think it was the church / inquisition that did that) - in fact confessions were deemed suspect unles they had been extracted by torture. Church rules stipulated torture could only be for one session and that no blood could be drawn Though they found ways around this if necessary). Civil secular courts were not bound by these 'restrictions'. And of course secular courts in the US still allow de-facto torture to happen.

Yes, both prod and catholic churches tended to stamp hard on heresy (think Galilleo, btw the church finally issued an apology a few years ago.... bit late for Gallileo, sadly, but IMO that there were other reasons he ran foul of the inquisition than simply saying the earth went round the sun). They tended to stamp even harder on each other. Not very Godlike, and I'd be the first to agree. In the early years of teh Christian church they held numerous councils and discussions to sort out these matters, and did not do so without a lot of thought and effort. None were ever off-the-cuff decisions that I know of. Some people even seem to imply the Bible was scribbled down by cranky old chauvinistic men for some conspiratorial purpose, such as controlling women or just to generally rain on everyone's parade.

Now there's a thought...! If I was to write a book with rules to control women for the benefit of men, I think it'd make far more sense to have one where rule number 1 was all women would be required to wear bikinis year round despite the weather (except the ugly ones); rule number 2: "A woman shalt never say No" etc, etc., In other words, come on, pull the other one.

"The Bible is chiefly important for what it reveals to us about what our potential relationship with God can be and His intentions for us.

I disagree -- it shows us these things no more accurately than Catcher in the Rye or East of Eden does"

Ok - you're on. I invite you to make your case with those two titles.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 02:21 PM

Planted by Satin,
In a deep evil shade,
Carnivorous raptors
That the evil one made.
Hidden as fossils,
Deep under the earth,
Left to confuse all
Mankind from their birth,

And it's hard, hard, hard
Oh it's hard to make sense of it all!

Brought up on Cotton,
And petroleum oil,
Life's turning rotten,
Overflowing with toil,
Blessings from Heaven,
Never seem to arrive,
Only our own sweat
Seems to keep us alive.

And it's hard, hard, hard!
Oh, it's hard to make sense of it all...

Wrapped in white Linen
And left in the clay,
Feeding the fossils
Who had nothing to say.
Joining the traces
Of the great Tyrant Rex,
Dust is worth nothing,
But then neither is sex.

And its hard, hard, hard!
Oh, it's hard to make sense of it all.

...."

Further verses on the insidious nature of various fabrics are left as an exercise for the student....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 12:30 PM

I guy I work with told me that there are no such things as dinosaurs, and that the fossil remains were planted by Satin as a way of confusing mankind.

               And this guy votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:49 AM

Instant gratification

When obviously "mal"informed and relatively ignorant people are made to feel as if they were the most correct intelligently designed people on Earth, it makes them feel very content, very smug and diveinly correct regarding any kind of foolishness in the name of God.
Same thing when the Nazis advertised that all "true" Germans were made better than all Jews or when Arabs when they teach 6 year olds that Jews are Apes and monkeys. Instant elitism.

Add some hate for an emotion to push the agenda even faster alng with a dash of truth and you end up with extereist evangelicals who hate fags with the same verve that Germans hated Jews.

The guy across the street had the timarity to brag that while being an evangelical he is not one of those who believe that all dinosaus are 5,000 years old. With the look on his face you would have thought he was about to accept a Nobel PRize.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:38 AM

Bee - Isn't that what we've got in the White House now?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 11:33 AM

See, there's one of the things that causes people like myself to speak up about the hazards of faith. How safe is it to have political leaders in the world's most powerful country who think the earth is 6000 years old and evolution doesn't/didn't happen? I could care less if Joe Cracker from Orlando believes that, but beliefs like that are in direct opposition to reality, no matter how many ways you say 'Goddidit'. How concerned are such believers, in positions of power, likely to be about global climate change, about funding the sciences, about keeping education free of such inhibiting notions? What happens when you elect a president who believes the Rapture is right around the corner, no need to take care of the environment or worry about a deficit?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 10:33 AM

Yeah, in view of the fact that even Mike Huckabee is willing to agree that mankind has been around for 6,000 years, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to make the case that somebody during the first 4,000 would have come up with some of those thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 09:00 AM

Not to mention that anything interesting attributed to Jesus was already known to other civilizations for centuries... including the Golden Rule. It's not as if he were the first to see that being nice gets you farther than several alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 09:16 PM

With all of the followers out there, you'd think there ought to be some goDs out there somewhere. Has anybody looked in Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 08:36 PM

For some reason, the term "preaching to the choir" pops into mind.