BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:23 PM

Dawkins was on More 4 TV tonight (25th Aug 2010).

I'm inclined to go with him that religions are all dangerous.

In his programme the scariest were the extreme Muslims - but it's all in the editing and indeed who is selected for interview.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:45 PM

Everything is dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:47 PM

All political regimes and political parties are dangerous too! ;-) And then there are the bankers, industrialists, drug cartels, and lawyers!!!

Where will it all end? Nothing but danger on every hand.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:48 PM

It is? Where do I hide?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:58 PM

Try under the bed, Bill. If that fails, barricade yourself in the closet.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:08 PM

Closets can be prety dangerous. As for beds - don't most people die in beds?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Slag
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:32 PM

Anywhere someone can garner power over another person or a group of folks there is the potential for great danger. When people surrender the responsiblity to think for themselves there is great danger. Symbols, parties, ideologies, differences, any toehold for the greedy and grasping, there! There is the danger!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:40 PM

The biggest danger is people. The only ones who aren't are the very young and the nearly dead.

I just thought I'd cheer everyone up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:43 PM

Don't follow leaders (watch the parking meters).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 08:02 PM

My Daddy usta say, "The most unreliable part of an automobile is the nut the holds the wheel. . . ."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 08:56 PM

Richard Bridge says: I'm inclined to go with him that religions are all dangerous.

I would say that the danger lies in all those who seek to suppress the thinking of others. Many religious people do this, it's true - but Mr. Bridge and Mr. Dawkins seek the very same thing. The "born-again atheists" are every bit as obnoxious as the "born-again Christians." Strange bedfellows - bigots on both ends of the spectrum. Both have the same hateful, rigid, know-nothing kind of thinking. No wonder so many rigid atheists convert to born-again Christianity - and vice-versa.

In other words, Mr. Bridge, your words are offensive - as usual. Ever notice how almost all the religion threads at Mudcat are started by people who hate religion? We religious Mudcatters rarely start one - we'd be quite happy just being left alone, but we also aren't about to remain silent when the bigots spew their crap.

If you were a religious person, how would you feel about the things Mudcatters post about religion?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Leadfingers
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:06 PM

The danger is from ANY of the Extremists , wether the are classed as Religious , Political , Nationalist or even MUSICAL ! Beware the Folk Police !!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:10 PM

I've been involved with some fine Christain churches over the years where folks genuinely tolerate others and are filled with love and caring... I'm sure it is the same with all religions... Martin Luther King III said as much in an op-ed in this moring's Washington Post...

What hppens, however, is that politics can get into the church and when that happen's there's a problem... I recall my favorite minister being booted out of the chucrh O came up in for speakin' out against the Vietnam War... Was he right to do that??? I donno??? Wished he hadn't, at least from the pulpit, 'cause there were no winners in that deal... It split the church in half... Maybe I was niave and there may have been other problems, I donno... But it semed like a very tolerant church for 1965 standards...

Yeah, there is a tendency for some bad folks to use religion as an excuse to to bad stuff... I don't belive we can balme the religion... I mean, people can get into a car and drive it into a crowd and we don't blame the car???

Tell ya' what, ya'll... If bad people would just step up to the plate and say "Hey, I'm a bad person" and leave all religions outta their way we'd all be one heck of alot better off...

B~`

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Slag
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:23 PM

Right on Joe. Aside from that main point, however, is the vast number of people who do not want to think for themselves. Ignorant and proud of it! There are vast armies of people ready, willing and able to follow someone, anyone to whatever hell they have devised. power-mongers know this and are always scheming ways to exploit the same.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:30 PM

Joe has it right.

The "God-Delusion" people are brothers and sisters under the skin to those who lump all Moslems together as being responsible for the 11 Sept attacks.

Don't look for tolerance from either--or in fact anything but cherrypicking "facts" which fit their arguments--and ignoring anything that doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:35 PM

And somebody who mentions "in the editing" and "selected for interview" should know this.

Therefore it seems a reasonable conclusion that, rather than thinking, he is letting his own prejudices speak.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: jacqui.c
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM

I started reading Dawkins' book - wasn't impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:00 PM

Funny, I just made a post here and it vanished.

It seems to me that Dawkins is right that science is based on evidence, whereas religions is based on belief and authority, regardless of evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: ranger1
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:06 PM

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I'm not religious, but I respect the right of other people to believe in what gives them comfort, as long as it doesn't impact my beliefs. So maybe a little less belief-bashing on Mudcat wouldn't be a bad thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:21 PM

I think we have been through all of this before ... many times.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:25 PM

I don't think Dawkins himself is actually trying to suppress anyone's thinking but he's certainly attracted adherents who might. There is some danger in all beliefs that have not been freely arrived at through informed choice. I have to say I agree with Joe, even though I'm not a believer.

And someone should write a song called "When the Bigots Spew Their Crap", it's a great title..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 11:39 PM

Here is the dilemma: I also feel as ranger 1 does, that people's right to have & practice their religion needs to to be protected & respected.... but this leads to a very awkward contradiction about **rights**.

I understand tens of thousands of years of religion being embedded in human's attempts to make sense of the world...and now, of the Universe. Different cultures have interpreted religion and the idea of the Infinite differently. In the last 2-3 centuries, science and philosophy have studied facts and ways of thinking which has led many to skeptical attitudes about the 'factual' basis of religion. Not 'disproved' it... just shown that it IS possible to disagree and still be sane, decent folks.

Now the dilemma.... in some religions, it is a built in doctrine that it is not permissible to doubt or to make assertions which undermine the accepted doctrine.
Moreover, some parts of some general religions...(yes...especially Christianity), also have as a doctrine that members should actively recruit NON-believers, or seek to convert members of other religions.
The basic thought pattern is: 'We are right. Therefore almost anything done to promote what is 'right' is also right. Therefore, the very idea of 'Separation of Church & State' is flawed. We see 'state religions' in other countries, but *our* religion is even better and **SHOULD** be adopted and approved here!"

Now...in the USA, even with a specific line in the Constitution saying "You get freedom to practice your religion, but not to impose it on the country as a whole", many of these folks either refuse to accept it, or re-interpret it. They insist that "this country was 'founded on Christian principles'"...etc. Or they say:

'whatever that flawed document says, **IF** I am allowed to practice my religion freely, this means I can do it anywhere, anytime and in any way, and if I can round up enough votes, I can force YOU, no matter what you believe...or don't believe... to submit to my set of rules'

This is not some paranoid fantasy Bill D invented to attack religion(s), ..[read back at my first sentences]...people ARE doing this everyday with 'public prayer' being used in inappropriate places, with religion being used directly to elect or defeat political candidates, with TV evangelists exhorting...scuse me, hinting to their flocks to harass, injure ..or worse... those who break "God's Laws".

"Oh", you say.."but those are just extremist minorities...we don't take them seriously!" The problem is, THEY take themselves seriously, and there are enough of them to put certain health care providers in jeopardy. They feel that they have not only the RIGHT, but also the OBLIGATION to "practice their religion" as they understand it. There is a verse in the Bible, *Mark 1:17* "And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." This is taken VERY seriously by some demominations:

http://www.fishersofmen.net/
http://www.fishersofmen.org/

Thus...a restatement of the dilemma... how are those of us who are not religious to protest being proselytized, condemned and kept from political office by those who hold extreme views, without making remarks which, inevitably, refer to the concepts of religious belief in general? *IF* most religions were like the Quakers, or the Amish, to mention a couple of pretty devout but non-confrontational groups, there would be little problem. But, in order to get at the basic inconsistencies of radical, fundamentalist religious attitudes, we end up pointing at the basic inconsistencies of religion in general...and then we hear about 'religion bashing' and other complaints.

Ranger 1 said: "Religion and science are not mutually exclusive" It is better to say, they NEED not be. Unfortunately, as practiced and understood by some, religion and science are directly in conflict. Those who deny evolution on religious grounds are not only working hard, they are growing in number and in Texas it is now law that textbooks have to treat evolution as only 'one opinion'...as a theory....and the point they are trying to make is that 'theories are no BETTER than opinion'...which distorts the very idea of what scientific theories are about.

So... the dilemma remains, because there IS this assumption among many religious folk that they MUST, by virtue OF their belief, press for its universal adoption..... and 'moderate' religious folks who would be willing to practice their religion quietly, and not seek to impose it on others, get the overflow as those who don't wish their lives to be affected by stuff they don't accept...and who eventually say so in a grumpy manner.

It's like many are pleading with moderate Muslim clerics these days to HELP change the tenor of the hate-rhetoric by speaking out and calming things.

...........and that's the best I can do for one night.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:08 AM

I'm still trying to work out what, if anything, religion has to do with God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:41 AM

I'm not much of a fan of Dawkins, who is as bad as anyone who tries to shove religion down your throat; in fact you have to wonder what the reaction would be if you allowed an equally vocal proponent of any religion on primetime TV.

But . . .

We have a real, long running and lethal problem here in our Islands with sectarianism and the alienation felt by religions whose followers are demonised by certain sections the press. To add fuel to the fire our government is allowing the establishment of faith schools; when we should be encouraging integration and understanding we are instead dividing them up along religious grounds and instilling the idea that we are different to each other because of our religion.

You could argue that these schools will teach tolerance and understanding, but in reality that's a cop out; without integration there is NO true understanding. Unless you go and meet, mix and talk to people then you're not going to get any real insight into what they're about. By denying our children that ability to mix, we're encouraging the sort of prejudices and ignorance that have cost, and are costing now so many people their lives. Faith schools should be banned - not because of some desire to persecute or oppress people's religious beliefs (one assumes you have churches/synagogues/temples/mosques etc for that very purpose), but because we should revel in our diversity and realise the followers of other religions are just people. We should free ourselves as a society from the ignorance and divisiveness that has plagued us for centuries, and indeed been responsible for the worst atrocities in human history.


"Unfortunately, as practiced and understood by some, religion and science are directly in conflict."

That is because the most basic aims of each are fundamentally irreconcilable. Both are the search for truths, but they're not comparable in any real sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:04 AM

"In other words, Mr. Bridge, your words are offensive - as usual. Ever notice how almost all the religion threads at Mudcat are started by people who hate religion? We religious Mudcatters rarely start one - we'd be quite happy just being left alone, but we also aren't about to remain silent when the bigots spew their crap."

Well thank goodness you don't have the right not to be offended! We non-religious mudcatters (and how I hate the way religion obliges me to define myself in the negative - even "a-theist" suggests that I'm without something) would also be very happy to be left alone, but alas organised religion doesn't allow this. All schools in England and Wales, for example, are obliged to include a daily act of collective worship. I can't go into my town without being regaled with large crosses, clanging church bells and wayside pulpits everywhere I go (we don't have a mosque in Bude otherwise I could have added those tedious calls to prayer). The archbishops and pope have no difficulty getting their pronouncements aired on all the public media (and my atheistic BBC licence fee helps to facilitate this). Religion is in our faces all the time and it's not a matter of choice. Even in secular nations such as ours religion is the public default position. So please don't ask to be left alone. That request is legitimate only for private, inner reflection, not for public religion, which needs all the opposition, for a change, that we atheists can muster. Anything else would be seriously unhealthy.




"The 'God-Delusion' people are brothers and sisters under the skin to those who lump all Moslems together as being responsible for the 11 Sept attacks."

Well excuse me but I'm a "God-Delusion" person and I abhor the way in which all Muslims are sometimes lumped together in the way you describe. Why, in my experience it's people of religions other than Islam who commonly do this lumping.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:37 AM

Right on, Steve.

As you say to the deluded, "Well thank goodness you don't have the right not to be offended!" ~~ But even that is quite a recent development. How long since the anti-blasphemy laws were repealed? Anyone know?

Two years! That's all! "The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008"{Wikipedia}. Until then, the deluded had the legal right not to be offended. And they are still squealing because now we are allowed to point out to them the absurdity of their persistent,[in-your-face, as you rightly say, Steve] fatuities.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:49 AM

Well I don't definitely say that I know or can prove that there is no God, and I don't really care if people want to believe that there is a God - whatever God it is - but I do object to the common religious assumption that the beliefs and rules of their religions are not to be rationally questioned, and that they justify acts (or omissions) that are prohibited by secular law.

I particularly object to the idiocies that prohibit statements derived from solid evidence - like the age of the earth, and how it was formed - and that in the name of "faith" require children to be indoctrinated - or effectively disentitle a gender.

I further object to the assumption that your God can tell me what to do (or not to do) - or that a set of people who believe in that God can tell me what to do on the basis of their "divine revelation". Dawkin's example of the assumption of Mary was quite telling (although I notice he held back from a similar criticism of Islam's belief in the uplifting (sorry if I have the wrong term) of Mohammed.

These religions are irrational beliefs. Believe in them if you wish: thought is not a crime. But using those beliefs to oppress others, now that can well be a crime. It is very troubling that it is such a widespread crime.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:15 AM

As I recall, the thread originator was the one who told us awhile back that Obama was an "oreo". As far as I know--perhaps I'm incorrect-- we've never heard that he has revised his opinion. I note with interest that his diplomatic skills are as sterling as ever.

It's also interesting that one can get a law degree and still be so ignorant. If I had to guess I'd say it's willful ignorance.

Sure seems to be Exhibit A for one of the main reasons lawyers are beloved the world over. Good thing we know there are lawyers who are decent human beings, not bitter old men.

But bigotry---yes even genteel bigotry-- by atheists is no more acceptable than bigotry by religious fundamentalists.   And, as already pointed out, is remarkably similar.

By the way, atheists do not want to get into a debate as to whether atheists or religious people have done more good--or more harm-- in the world.   In that debate, atheists have no chance.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:23 AM

Thanks so much to him for stating that he had no proof there is no God. Agnosticism is an eminently reasonable stance for a thinking individual.

Now all he has do is brush up on his diplomatic skills a bit more, stop setting up straw men, and he'd be well on the way to being a likable person.

Congratulations.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:46 AM

Agnosticism is not defined by the fact that God cannot be disproved. Were that to be the case there would be no atheists. Even Dawkins accepts that there cannot be certainty about the non-existence of God.

As for who does more good in the world, this one never fails to amuse me. It's like saying that this great country of ours was founded "on Christian principles," as if that somehow confers an extra layer of goodness. There are huge numbers people on this planet whose lives are not based on Christian principles but who are just as saintly as the most saintly Christian. Christianity has usurped (as with Christmas) that which is good about people and pretends that somehow these values are its own invention. Well, the good news is that the world would manage quite well without Christianity but the "Christian values" would live happily on, just as they did before Christianity was so much as a twinkle in Joseph's eye. It's worth remembering that a world full of Christian values has just delivered the most brutal, inhuman century the planet has ever experienced, and I don't recall Christianity exactly standing by whilst it happened.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:05 AM

There's nothing that divides people more than religion - but that was it's original purpose, wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:06 AM

1) math formula

This DE has order 2 (the highest derivative appearing is the second derivative) and degree 1 (the power of the highest derivative is 1.)

2) math formula

This DE has order 1 (the highest derivative appearing is the first derivative) and degree 5 (the power of the highest derivative is 5.)

3) (y")4 + 2(y')7 − 5y = 3

This DE has order 2 (the highest derivative appearing is the second derivative) and degree 4 (the power of the highest derivative is 4.)

General and Particular Solutions

When we first performed integrations, we obtained a general solution (involving a constant, K).

We obtained a particular solution by substituting known values for x and y. These known conditions are called boundary conditions (or initial conditions).

It is the same concept when solving differential equations - find general solution first, then substitute given numbers to find particular solutions.

Let's see some examples of finding solutions of first order, first degree DEs.
Example 1

a. Find the general solution for the differential equation

    dy + 7x dx = 0.

b. Find the particular solution given that y(0) = 3.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:34 AM

Is this part of the search for the God particle by any chance? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM

Your recollections are as faulty as your reasoning and manners, Mr Badger. I would have been unlikely to use the word "oreo". I did however I think at one stage report that I had heard criticism (not that it was my opinion) of Obama that he was a white man in a a black skin. I thought I made it clear that it was a criticism of which I disapproved. If I had used a metaphor, it would probably have been "Bounty Bar" which I think is the vernacular in the UK, or "Coconut" which I think is the vernacular in the West Indies.

I am not clear of your point old dude.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:00 AM

God is in the equasion someplace .. now ya made me lose my train of thought and I gotta start over again , now where is my chalk :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:00 AM

can't type today either

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM

Godel was an athiest .. his math proof came up with the existence of God. I thought it was cool logic actually no matter how one looks at it. It was some good logic

Godels proof

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:33 AM

As a born again, bible believing Christian... I have no trouble at all with believing that scientific study is a great thing and that evolution is happening even now. What I can't get my head round in that context is the way things are.... The intricate make up of the human body... the make up of a tree from its roots to the tiny veins in every leaf.... to the diversity of different flora and fauna.. the aqua dwelling life... the make up of the air... and most of all 'The Balance' .... I can believe in a supernatural beginning... made by a great designer... but I can't get to feeling that mere chance caused the multiplicity of existing things on this earth. The thought that a cell (where did it come from in the first instance) decided to split into two and so everything living begun does not compute within my brain.
I didn't become Christian until 43 yrs of age and was definitely not indoctrinated. I became aware of something more in my life than just me.... Even before then when I had been feeling at my lowest.. I had prayed to God..... to ask Him to get me out of whatever bad situation I was in or to help someone in my family or a friend in distress... I now believe that to be an instinct to pray to my maker in times of difficulty. How many people will admit to having prayed when their lives have been at an extremely low ebb or for a member of the family or a friend..... how many have actually tried to make a pact with God... "God if you do X for me I will do Y for you".... I was not a Christian when I did those things.... and certainly not a believer.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:39 AM

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:51 AM

Yes, power corrupts, and yes, the corrupt seek power.

But:

The pertinent issue with people who want to have power over others is that when they say an invisible power is behind them, and people *believe* that, the powermongers are quantum LEAPS more dangerous than when they say Here are my rational reasons, and those can be examined. That's why religious power (the priest/worshipper one) is so much harder to repel - it's *faith* that morphs an invisible power into such a strong, real one, for good or evil.

Another problem is that there are *rational* reasons for good, so you don't need faith or religion for it.

Yet another problem (which is restricted to the Middle East and the US, I think) is the govermental placing the right of adults to beliefs in supernatural explanations of natural phenomena before the rights of their children to learning the actual, known, accepted-throughout-the-world knowledge about those phenomena. And that one chaps my ass bigtime! Doctrine and dogma (Lore) should yeild the right of way in public schools to actual knowledge (Data).

Live long and prosper.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:57 AM

Georgiansilver

That is why God exists to me also.. And I don't spend my time talking to God when I get into trouble. You are so right. I spend most of my time thanking God for things I see everyday .. One only has to take a look at anything in nature and then get it. As I said many times before, I don't care who believes in what ... just don't want anyone telling me what I should or how I should believe ... that includes other Christians, non Christians and atheists also. Nor do I wish to tolerate ridicule for my beliefs. I don't do that to others, I do not allow others to do that to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:11 AM

But if some beliefs are silly, why *can't* they be ridiculed in this day and age? I'm talking about people who believe humans somehow didn't evolve, or that it's a cat eating the moon that made the eclipse, or other known-to-be-old superstitions things? And what about requiring respect to the point of preventing their children from simple everyday knowledge about how life works? That isn't even funny, it should be a crime, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:27 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:36 AM

"But if some beliefs are silly, why *can't* they be ridiculed in this day and age?"

Perhaps because it's not polite?

And - silly to you doesn't mean silly to everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:38 AM

"...but I can't get to feeling that mere chance caused the multiplicity of existing things on this earth."

And that's not really what is claimed by those scientists who are not religious. They show how, once anything at all existed (in the 'beginning'), all combinations of atoms followed strict, but complex, laws of physics. To them...and to me... it is even harder to imagine some form of 'ultimate intelligence' setting out to design everything.

Once certain elements existed, it was inevitable that some would combine in ways that produced stars, planets, water, plants...and yes, even banjo players. ☺

Now...since we can barely imagine when & how that first 'creation' happened..(the "Big Bang" of science).. it is simply a matter of personal feeling whether to say about the original moment..."God did it" or "I have no idea"...or something else even stranger.

To those who 'feel' oriented toward a scientific explanation, saying "God did it" just pushes the question back one step to "why was there a god?" To those science folks, adding 'God' into the calculation makes the study over-complicated, since we don't have any standard measures or math symbols to represent such a concept. We KNOW we have atoms and forces and such which we have mostly learned to measure and count, but no one can agree on how a 'god' might be factored in.
   Of course, this doesn't deal with the emotional/moral/psychological/aesthetic/social/practical...etc.. values of having a vision of a "supreme Being" to turn to in times of crisis and for comfort and solice. Once humans could even imagine the idea of a 'God'...(50,000 years ago? 1,000,000 years ago?), it helped them deal with all the scary aspects of life...and death.... and I'd frankly NOT like to see all the leaders of churches and countries suddenly declare "We hereby renounce religion and assert NO belief in a god". Whether there is, or is not one, the idea is too deeply embedded in humanity to just suddenly discard.
*IF* humans decide to move away from religion, (and I doubt that this will ever really happen), it would have to be very slowly and because they really developed in such a way as to no longer 'need' religion to sustain themselves as they cope with confusion and problems.
All we can hope for is that those who DO choose religion and those who do not can learn to either discuss the issue quietly, or ignore each other....and I kinda doubt the 'ignoring' part will happen.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:43 AM

If you think Dawkins is all about free thinking, look up what happened on the chat board on his website richarddawkins.net. He is a shrill little hatemonger who can't stand to have people disagree with him.

People who lash out at religion are no more "rational" than the people they apparently despise. And the idea that there is ANYBODY in the WORLD who only believes things based on reason, logic, science, and math is a moron. Complete, total, utter, mouth-breathing, knee-walking, nanocephalic wanker.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:53 AM

Dawkins...and Christopher Hitchens ...and before them, Madeline Murrey O'Hair... used a kind of 'hit 'em in the head with a 2X4' approach to their anti-religion campaigns.
No one is likely to get dedicated Christians..or Muslims..etc.. to give up religion by using ridicule and sarcasm. They just look as silly going out and giving "there ain't no god" interviews and writing books on it as some religious groups do knocking on doors to proclaim "there IS a god". (It's sort of "preaching to the choir" in reverse!)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:04 PM

"Random" and "mere chance" are expressions frequently used by believers to dismiss the possibility of a world that got here without a God. They are concepts that most evolutionary biologists wouldn't recognise as characterisations of events.

The trouble with shoving a God into those perceived gaps in our understanding is that it stops us for looking for the real truth. In other words, God is mere intellectual stunting. There is the further illogicality of trying to explain a world of apparent great complexity with something which must be far more complex still and which is even more impossible to explain to boot.

Charles Darwin was equal to the task of confronting the difficulties his theory threw up, including such a matter, a favourite of the detractors, as the evolution of the mammalian eye. He writes clearly and elegantly. I suggest that all doubters of the theory should get a copy of the Origin Of Species and read it. While you're still allowed. The real thing, not some twisted interpretation of it by a demented evangelical. Go on. After all, we non-believers were forced to study the Bible, y'know!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:06 PM

stops us from looking

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:17 PM

I hear this constant backlash from some believers that Dawkins and his ilk are hate-mongers, militantly anti-religion, intolerant, shrill, given to ridiculing religion, sarcastic, etc. Well, I've read the book and am watching the series on the telly. Richard Dawkins comes across as a mild-mannered articulate fellow who speaks, and writes, in pretty measured tones. He commonly lets the evangelists have the last word and allows them to talk him down. Where does this vile, hate-spitting image come from? Can anyone illustrate this alleged Dawkins trait with a quote or any other example? I'm frankly puzzled.

As I understand it, his website, of which I was a member, was hijacked. All was fine, then one day it went read-only and then it just went. I suppose you had to be there really.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:27 PM

Then what you are trying to describe is shoving your belief system down the throats of others that do believe. Are you not .. if you go about ridiculing others thought process you are no different than any of the door knockers who want to toss a pamphlet in your face of the guys at the airport .. no different at all ... so rock on, hate mongers come in all sizes and shapes creeds and non creeds .. from the guy on TV saying all Jews are going to hell to the guys who sit behind a website telling Christians how stupid they are. The last time I looked you had no clue of life anymore than anyone else but so sure of your convictions that you can go about ridiculing others .. not worth my time for sure . Got far better things to do are far better people to discuss it with

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:28 PM

Yes, Steve...it does sorta "stop us from looking", but be mindful of how much work "looking" is! "Looking"...that is, serious exploration of all the alternatives, requires a LOT of time and energy and education to even comprehend what "looking" means.
Most of humanity has neither the time nor the background to do more than perfunctory looking...and they grow up with ready-made 'answers' handed to them. It is so much easier to just nod wisely when one's priest, Imam, preacher, cleric, father, teacher...etc. says: "We have already 'looked' and studied it, and here are the ancient books and temples and images that have been determined to be the 'answers'...oh, and by the way, there are serious penalties for doubting!"

Who has time...or stamina... to go "looking" elsewhere, when thousand year old answers are handed to you? And a lot of those answers come with fascinating, inspirational stories...along with ceremonies that create a fellowship with others and communities which provide support and 'meaning'. It is work to doubt & "look".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:34 PM

(I will tell everyone also that it is a LOT of work to walk this line in the middle like I try to do....agreeing that there is lots of 'doubt' about religion, while suggesting that we can't just condemn it out-of-hand. ....and we can't DISprove it any more than they can prove it. We MUST learn to have useful conversations about how to co-exist.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:45 PM

Joe offers the opinion that Dawkin is a born again aethiest.   I would agree that some people who fall under this banner are every bit as fundamental and whacky as similar fundamentalists who happen to have an imaginary friend.

However, it is interesting that Richard Dawkin is often lambasted in this way. Why?   I didn't see the program Richard Bridge refers to, but I have read the book, indeed many of his books. His angle is not a born again anything, it is as a scientist who is fed up of his work being belittled by people, some of whom should know better. He is a geneticist, and as a theoretical one, perhaps at the top of his profession. He has taken the observed conclusions of Darwin and applied them at the genetic level.

Now... this is concerning to people who wish to sustain religion as more than a personal moral compass. Why? because he has explained rather plausibly the reasons for altruism and community cohesion. And guess what? it isn't a benevolent gift bestowed on humans. It would appear that it is possibly an efficient means for genes to use larger organisms (fauna and flora) to their ends. Try reading his "Selfish Gene" and I guarantee it will leave you thinking.

The vitriol and accusations based on myth that are poured onto this amazing person defy logic. His mistake I suppose is to play up to his reputation. He set out to say that God is a way of describing that which we do not yet understand, but scientific advance chisels away at the God mists of understanding. Too many people profit from God getting bigger rather than smaller, so he makes powerful enemies.

If my PhD dissertation was ridiculed because my equations aren't substantiated in the Bible or Q'ran, I reckon I would be a bit frustrated too....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:51 PM

That hard work of doubting and looking is called science. All Dawkins asks you to do is to insist on evidence (which means a bit more than witness) for anything anyone presents to you as fact/truth. Yes, the stories and the customs and the fellowship are all nice - as long as you're in, of course. But don't try to oppose anyone else's customs and stories, etc., whatever you do!

Was that aimed at me, olddude? I don't think I know you, do I? I have no belief system, by the way. Believers like to characterise atheism as a belief system, which it patently isn't. I've never really worked out the motive for that. Don't forget, had religion never arisen, atheists wouldn't exist either! Would there still be an atheist belief system then, do you think?

"Shoving down throats:"

Group A: enforced signing-up to the club (christenings of tiny babies for example); severe threats of penalties for demurring (hell fire, social exclusion, etc); enforced participation in ceremonies; enforced indoctrination of children; mistreatment of women as second-class members of the faith; moralising standpoints about private matters such as abortion and contraception that precipitate thousands of people into misery; public showing-off of religious icons and symbolism irrespective of the faith, or not, of the captive bystander.

Group B: publishing of books that you don't have to buy and which don't get on school reading lists; an advert on the side of a bus that had the timid word "probably" in it; a few programmes on the telly (though nowhere near as many as Songs of Praise, etc.) that you don't have to watch (have I missed anything?)

Who exactly is ~really~ shoving things down whose throats?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:53 PM

I've nothing to add except everyone should see The Invention of Lying.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:00 PM

" The thought that a cell (where did it come from in the first instance) decided to split into two and so everything living begun does not compute within my brain."

But it does compute in lots of people's brains, and those who dedicate their lives to finding out how and why these things have occurred and continue to occur can and do tell us. The whole thing is marvellously complicated, but the awe felt when contemplating the natural world and the universe we live in isn't the result of some deep intuitive revelation it's from the mind of a divine creator, it's the deeper understanding that we are the universe contemplating itself and understanding itself. Stop and think about that; we're made of the same stuff as supernovae and planets, interstellar gas clouds and comets - we are those things and we can recognise our own consciousness, contemplate the fact we are a product of a set of rules we are beginning to understand. A concept far more profound and beautiful any religion on earth has yet to get close to; all we have to do is recognise it ourselves and we can develop moral codes that recognise the sanctity and preciousness of all life (even that we don't even recognise at the moment) and the entire physical universe.

We're only scratching the surface at the moment with our infant sciences; it's going to be a whole lot more incredible in years to come. I can't wait.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:03 PM

Believers like to characterise atheism as a belief system, which it patently isn't. I've never really worked out the motive for that.

Because they can't discredit it on their own terms otherwise, and some feel a need to discredit it to lessen the insecurity of their own beliefs which are based on no more than faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:06 PM

"All Dawkins asks you to do is to insist on evidence ..."

*smile*...yes...a fine idea! I'm convinced.... Please tell Dawkins he gets to explain that to these folks

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:08 PM

Exactly, Smokey. Militant believers are extremely uncomfortable taking on us, er, non-believers, or a-theists (you see? I have to define myself in their terms!) unless it's on their own ground. These days, if anyone asks me if I believe in God, I tell 'em they're asking the wrong question.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:23 PM

I just can't do faith, my head won't let me. In the words of Gerald Bostock, "God is an overwhelming responsibility."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Will Fly
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM

Georgiansilver:
What I can't get my head round in that context is the way things are.... The intricate make up of the human body... the make up of a tree from its roots to the tiny veins in every leaf.... to the diversity of different flora and fauna.. the aqua dwelling life...

Then why not read about it? There are perfectly good, straightforward scientific explanations for of these things. The real no-brainer for most people is that the immense time scale over which genetic diversity takes place is almost impossible to imagine. A lot longer than the 6,000 years which some otherwise rational people would have you believe is the age of the earth.

mousethief:
the idea that there is ANYBODY in the WORLD who only believes things based on reason, logic, science, and math is a moron. Complete, total, utter, mouth-breathing, knee-walking, nanocephalic wanker.

Which says more about you than anyone else, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:29 PM

Hark! I hear the sounds of the perpetual motion machine cranking on its endless round yet again. CREAK! CREAK! CREAK!

It can drive you crazy, that thing. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Will Fly
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:33 PM

Yup - time to jump off...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:41 PM

The idea, however, that evidence can be dismissed on grounds of faith is surely not rationally defensible.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:42 PM

...is a moron. Complete, total, utter, mouth-breathing, knee-walking, nanocephalic wanker.

The cockles of my heart are truly warmed by such a display of charitable Christian tolerance. I must away to God's house and give thanks immediately, for I am divinely inspired.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:44 PM

Someone wrote a few posts back that a good reason not to ridicule religion, even if one thinks it a ridiculous concept, is that it would not be 'polite' to do so. Can none of you lot recognise that as the con-trick that it is?: if we question your tenets you come over all wounded, as if we had said we think your wife is ugly and your children boorish and stupid; we are made to feel we have committed an error of taste and etiquette. That is not fair dealing.

Why, please, has "God" got so many things manifestly wrong? Take that concept you all came up a few years ago of "Intelligent Design", which was supposed to be another name for God but one that wouldn't offend us. When I pointed out that the phenomenon of childbirth in its present form [which thank providence I shall never have to undergo], or the necessity for all of us creatures of whatever degree of sentience or development to piss and shit regularly, however disagreeable, inconvenient, or worse, the circumstances, all point rather to Unintelligent Design, I would generally get looked at, and the subject would change, or my interlocutors would go away.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:46 PM

"Religion and science are not mutually exclusive."

I have a strong feeling that they might be. You see religious people advance the hypothesis: 'there is a God' and a scientist is entitled to ask them to prove the hypothesis (probably not a wise thing to do - but there you go!). The scientist cannot prove that there is no God because you can't prove a negative (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Hence a true scientist, who must follow the laws of logic, can only be an agnostic - not an atheist. Note that, in a scientific context, the burden of proof lies with the religious person (it is he/she who has advanced, and who 'owns', the God hypothesis).

On the other hand religious people tend to assert that they don't need 'proof' of the existence of God because they have 'faith' in His existence. To my mind this assertion of faith negates any possibility of dialogue between the religious person and the scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:50 PM

If an atheist believes there is no god, even though he cannot prove it, he is in the mirror position of a believer. He may still be a scientist but his belief is not susceptible of scientific proof.

And to return to the irrationality of religious groups -

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:54 PM

CREAK! CREAK! CREAK!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 01:58 PM

I do find the idea of blasphemy or indeed taking offense at another's ridicule or dismissal of ones umm 'preferences' really daft. Eg: I like Modern Art but most people shout about it being total shit. Rather than being offended however I can retreat into my smugly self-satisfied awareness that I am right and they are just dumb. Christians of course have something even more brilliant to console themselves with, and that is the fact that they know everyone who disses them and their liking for god will burn forever in boiling blood and hell-fire...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 02:30 PM

It's interesting to see how quickly the usual pattern develops. The religion-haters make their foray, and those with religion make a response (which I consider to be a rational response).
Then the religion-haters make their counterattack - but notice that by this point, they have redefined all religious people as ludicrous fundamentalists.

As usual, the primary argument against religious people has to do with religion's rejection of the idea of evolution, and with the contention that religion is some kind of control mechanism designed to rule the lives of mindless people. But the fact of the matter is that there are few, if any, religious Mudcatters who reject evolution or who accept any sort of religious control over their lives.

Steamin' Willie says this about Mr. Dawkins:

His angle is not a born again anything, it is as a scientist who is fed up of his work being belittled by people, some of whom should know better. He is a geneticist, and as a theoretical one, perhaps at the top of his profession. He has taken the observed conclusions of Darwin and applied them at the genetic level.

Well, if that's the case, Mr. Dawkins needs to learn that a vast number of religious people have no argument with the conclusions of Darwin, or with modern work in genetics.

We have a few new elements in this thread, like annoyance at being forced to see crosses (on church property) or hear church bells. Can't say I have any answer to that, other than to say, "Get over it."

But except for the addition of the complaint against the bell-hearings and cross-sightings, it's the usual argumentum ad absurdum - redefine all religion as fundamentalism so it's a sitting duck, and then shoot it down.

For shame.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 02:43 PM

"the complaint against the bell-hearings and cross-sightings" yeah, that's daft too. I might as well complain about the vast amount of bedding plants there are to be seen around my village.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:17 PM

Oh - I almost forgot to point out the silly contention that christening is somehow harmful to an infant. I suppose it's also wrong for parents to even discuss religious ideas in front of their children, for fear their little minds may be perverted.

That's what I'm talking about - the idea that people on both extremes seek the same thing: to suppress and control what people say and do.

There has rarely been any attempt at Mudcat to discussion religion as it is for the vast majority of people who take the middle road. Here at Mudcat, religion is almost always defined according to the actions of the extreme, fundamentalist minority.

Get this straight: most religious people are plagued by fundamentalists, too. In fact, they have a far greater effect on us, and we may dislike them even more than you do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:27 PM

Hello? Religion depends on faith and authority. Those are not evidence. Believe what you like. Do not impose irrationality or your faith-based rules on others. Christening (or the equivalent if any in other religions) is trivial (although I'm not so sure about a briss) - but religious parents go much further than that when they sign their children up for indoctrination disguised as education.

Joe, it is you who is misrepresenting what critics of religion say.

I should, however, like to see more evidence of religious moderates disliking or disapproving of religious extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:36 PM

"Someone wrote a few posts back that a good reason not to ridicule religion, even if one thinks it a ridiculous concept, is that it would not be 'polite' to do so. Can none of you lot recognise that as the con-trick that it is?: if we question your tenets you come over all wounded, as if we had said we think your wife is ugly and your children boorish and stupid; we are made to feel we have committed an error of taste and etiquette. That is not fair dealing."


MtheGM - That was me a few posts back. My name is Wesley. I'm sorry that you feel that asking for polite behavior is a con of some sort. And - yes - I would feel all wounded if you were to say that my wife was ugly and my child was boorish and stupid. Even if it were true. Wouldn't you?

Why is it out of the question to ask that you respect my beliefs - whatever they are? It's not that I mind your disbelief. It's the ridicule that goes along with it. I can understand why someone would chose to be an athiest. It's a very logical choice to make. What I don't understand is why a few of the athiests here find that it's necessary to go out of their way to poke fun at others.

I don't like Swedish fiddle music. I've never felt the need to start a thread to say so.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:41 PM

Give me a break, Richard. If you want to condemn religious fundamentalists, you'll get no disagreement from me. But if you want to continue paint your condemnations with the wide brush of condemning all religion, then all I can say is that you're as blind as the fundamentalists are.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:41 PM

indoctrination disguised as education.

The curious thing is that a big problem for such schools in England tends to be parents with no religious beliefs faking it so as to get their children in, because the educational results seem so much better than schools with no religious connection...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:45 PM

Well, as the chap who brought the ubiquitous bell-ringing and crucifixes into it ("I can't go into my town without being regaled with large crosses, clanging church bells and wayside pulpits everywhere I go" quoth I), let me just say that these things don't actually annoy me at all. In fact, I listen to "Bells On Sunday" on BBC Radio 4 every Sunday. I didn't say they annoyed me or that I was complaining about them per se. I was simply pointing out that we are expected to experience these things as part of the assumed default position of religion (even in our secular nation, in which fewer than one person in fifteen ever attends a regular church service). Whenever I get the chance to visit cities I never miss the opportunity to visit great cathedrals, and Bach's Mass in B minor is one of my desert island discs (conducted by Giulini, please). I wonder what the average believer would think of atheistic posters on billboards around every corner (one poster per church crucifix would be about fair). It's the sheer arrogance of believers in assuming that the rest of the planet should put up with this not-so-subliminal proselytising that's so amusing ("Get over it": - sorry, Joe, but you said it!)

As for christening being harmful to infants, pray tell me what would be so wrong with waiting until the child is old enough, and informed enough about all the alternatives, to make their own mind up. That would be a far more moral approach. I'm not allowed to join the Campaign For Real Ale until I'm old enough (legally) to understand beer. I suppose I know the answer really. Religions are scared stiff of doing that because they know that very few people would ever sign up!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:51 PM

There was nothing offensive or oppressive in the original post. The fact remains horrible things have been and are still being done in the name of religion (pick one).

I neither like nor approve of Dawkins' style but I agree that religion can often be and is dangerous. And not just the acts of war and personal physical violence but the psychological damage it does to its own followers and non believers.

Any system that promotes intolerance, exclusivism, misogyny, to name a few, is unacceptable to my mind and makes no valuable contribution to society.

Not saying I DO or DO NOT believe in a supreme thinking creative energy (god if you like). I just do not and will not follow a religion.

I never felt more isolated, terrified and excluded than when I was a praying, bible reading, church going "believer."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 03:54 PM

As someone who holds to a very minority style spiritual belief system (Gnosticism) I find it impossible to be offended by atheists who scorn what I believe in. I'm more often offended by the BIG religions telling me I'm wrong or will burn in hell-fire of I don't convert, especially as historically they didn't bother waiting for spiritual fires but instead literally did burn people in the flesh and en masse who believed as I do!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:01 PM

Even tough-guy soldiers are not immune!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/us-soldiers-punished-for-_b_687051.html

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:03 PM

atheistic posters on billboards around every corner

Have you ever looked at the posters that are up on virtually every billboard? They might not be formally atheistic, but they certainly propagate a pretty hostile set of values.

As for children, the analogy with drink isn't bad, but I suggest it points the other way. Growing up in a family where drinking in moderation is part of the way of life is a better preparation for handling it in adult life then keeping it at arms length until you are suddenly exposed to it, and get overwhelmed by it.

The same can be true with religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:27 PM

Good point. But you don't introduce drink to tiny babies! I'm not saying that children should be kept ignorant about religion until they reach the age of majority. Religion has been part and parcel of world history and no school education would be complete without an objective consideration of it. I am saying that I think it's wrong to give children a set of beliefs, presented to them as truth, without telling them that this is simply one set of beliefs that one body of people hold to be true, and here are some others that you may consider to be equally valid (or equally invalid even). And they should be listening to their science teachers telling them to accept nothing as fact/truth until they have been presented with evidence. Real evidence, not witness or hearsay. The Bible contains very little evidence.

I'm not sure I accept your juxtaposition of hostile values with informal atheism...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:42 PM

The equation is simple enough - it runs: They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong ergo, if one is wrong, they're all wrong. Truth on the other hand is that which is common to all and entirely falsifiable - the rest is just funny hats & hoo-hah; folklore, superstition, myth, mumbo-jumbo and other such cosmic debris that we could really do without taking too seriously.

Personally, I am an Athiest because I can't conceive of a greater divinity than Duke Ellington.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:52 PM

Pah. Chuck Berry.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:58 PM

How would you set about "proving" that Duke Ellington (or Chuck Berry) is good? You believe he is, and so do lots of other people, but that's a matter of "faith"...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:03 PM

"They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong ergo, if one is wrong, they're all wrong."

That seems to be a bit flawed, Sweeney.. One of them could be right. But I doubt it :-)

They could all be a bit right, though.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:05 PM

McGrath, this is my universe, and I say so.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Art Thieme
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:14 PM

I'm a completely secular Jewish atheist who has been married to a Jehovah's Witness for nearly 44 uniquely great years.

Now, at age 69, I am finally able to see that I got married for the friction!

The friction is what informs my life--and myself. I've learned so much.

The mutual loving friction makes for incandescent orgasms.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:20 PM

Wesley S ~ Your post of 3.36 missed my point by so huge a distance that I hardly know where to begin to reply.

Of course I think one should be civil. I would regard it as very rude to insult anyone's wife or children, and would never dream of doing so.

BUT I regard the questioning of metaphysical concepts which I find absurd to be a different order of communication altogether; & I think it is cheating for a religious person, when his faith is treated with less than unquestioning respect, because 'religions must be regarded as sacrosanct, & it is unseemly to question them', to come on as if one had done something equivalent to being less than civil to his family. You made my point in asserting that you think it would be 'not polite' for anyone to question the truth of your beliefs. I consider the appeal to the concept of 'politeness' a feeble evasion, a pusillanimous cop-out, in this context: but one which the religious are only too prone to resort to. THAT was my point.

Can you really not see this distinction?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:31 PM

Chuck Berry? In what way is My Ding-a-Ling a manifestation of the divine?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:56 PM

He moves in mysterious ways.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:10 PM

Tommy Cooper:

Two blokes knocked on my door last Sunday morning. They only wanted to talk about vacuum cleaners.



That's all I need, I thought. Bloody Jehoover's Witnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:44 PM

Dear Guest, Suibhne Astray - If you understand the nature of a hologram, each tiniest part of it contains the essential structure and nature of the entire hologram. If the hologram sprang out of something deemed "divine" then every least part of it is likewise deemed divine. This would include the song "My Ding-a-Ling". You are now free to debate about what the word "divine" means, and I happily leave you to it, not particularly caring one way or the other whether your view of it resembles mine... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:03 PM

If you play it backwards at 16rpm, you get to hear the subliminal messages.. And I wouldn't tell that to just anyone..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:17 PM

I wish there were better words than "atheist" or "agnostic", since both of these carry lots of connotations that don't apply to me. What's the word for "I've never been given any reason to even consider it" or "it really doesn't make any sense to me"?

I suppose I would consider myself an atheist if I could get away from the "atheism is a belief" bullshit. The fact is that I pay more attention to my little toe than I do to my lack of belief in god, in that I wash and clothe my toes.

I do think it's odd for Christians in the USA to complain about being discriminated against or insulted. This country, and its laws, are overwhelmingly slanted toward Christianity. As a non-Christian, I have often felt strong prejudice against me. I gave up any hopes of a political career long ago -- no non-religious person will be elected to high office any time soon. That IS political discrimination, and one that is supported by many otherwise "good" Christians.

I like my Christian friends, all of whom are good, moral, honest people. I do think they are irrational to some degree, in that they are willing to believe something for which there is no evidence. But I suppose most of us have our own irrational quirks . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:18 PM

'Turn me Tender' - Martyn Joseph

"Turn me tender again, fold me into You...Turn me tender again, through Union with You...."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:37 PM

Lets see, all blacks are lazy right and all polish are stupid
and all Irish are drunks and all Christians are Jerry Falwell

ya know you are no better than those you preach against with your anti faith constant bashing .. absolute generalizations no better then those who make such comments as above .. what a sham ... the great athiest non god came down and told you exactly what life was all about and how it all worked and now it is your mission to preach to the rest of us or enlighten the rest of us on the folly of our faith ...

exactly the same thing as the door knockers .. maybe worse what a sham.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:39 PM

"You made my point in asserting that you think it would be 'not polite' for anyone to question the truth of your beliefs."

And you're missing my point. I have no objection at all that you question the truth of my beliefs. You are of course welcome to your views.In my memory I've not seen a thread where people of faith tried to convert those of you who are happy in your athiesm. What I find interesting is that so many non-believers here feel it's their duty to start threads and get in the face of those people who belive in a higher power of some sort - just to tell them how wrong they are. IF people of faith were to take ACTIONS against you for your beliefs that would be wrong. But it seems to me that many of the athiests here find THOUGHTS objectionable. And I've been told that before - that my thoughts are offensive to another Mudcatter even though we've never met - and I've taken no actions against them. It appears that some of the athiests here would love to become the thought police.

It's the difference of thoughts vs actions.

Can you see the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:44 PM

WELL SAID WES EXACTLY MY POINT.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:52 PM

Besides what I posted in 5-6 earlier posts last night and today..(and which seem to have been WAY too long and 'middle of the road' for most others here)... I agree very much with John P about "This country, and its laws, are overwhelmingly slanted toward Christianity. As a non-Christian, I have often felt strong prejudice against me...." and "...no non-religious person will be elected to high office any time soon. That IS political discrimination, and one that is supported by many otherwise "good" Christians."

That IS the way much of the situation exists currently....no matter how you view the relevance of it.... and one of the consequences of that situation is that non-religious persons are mostly relegated to writing, technical advice, blogging...etc. and other less visible posts. There is an enormous amount of experience and competence among these folks which very seldom is available thru elected officials, simply because they would never be elected once the hired 'diggers' discover they are either atheist or non-Christian. This has bothered me for 30 years.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:01 PM

When you cannot justify your actions you cry predjuice .. exactly where? I live in the same country you do ... I do not see any laws saying you go to jail if you don't go to church or if you are a non believer you get public whipping or something .. By the way the F'in country was founded by mostly people of no faith or very non christian faith ... It just so happens most of the people of faith are Christians that somehow that bothers you and now it is your mission to preach your religion of non belief to those of us that don't buy into it .. yet it is ok cause it is a non-belief .. but you cry like a little girl if someone knocked on your door with a pamphlet of the 10 commandments

AHHH try the 1st Admendment .. that existed since day 1 .. no one at no time has predjuiced you because of your non faith ... but you sure as HELL want to do that to us ..

Again what a Joke

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:05 PM

And what the hell laws are you talking about that are based on christian belief ... ahhhh stuff like not being allowed to steal or kill or things like that ... oh is that ok for an athiest??? or are those laws only Christian laws ...

Yea about 100 years ago there were laws you couldn't do business on sunday .. ya know what that was for .. not to go to church , to try and get folks to spend some time with their family ... ya and those laws were removed .. probably a good thing ..

Wow ... tons of Christian laws .. yup .. probably that drinking and driving one also .. is that ok to do as an atheist also

Why do I bother ..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Art Thieme
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:15 PM

As I've said, faith necessitates a leap into thought processes that I cannot make. I usually try to say I "think" something is true rather than merely leap unthoughtfully to a place where a thing is truth because I want it to be that. To me, it's just wishful thinking!

Art

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:24 PM

Nothing wrong with that Art. You also don't go around putting your religion or beliefs in others face like many do here. Like I don't preach mine to others , I don't want others with their faith (and yes non belief is a faith) preaching to me.

If one thinks Christians are prejudiced to them as someone here wrote, maybe it is because they came into someone's face preaching your own concept of life over and over again and then wonder why they take grief from others ....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:33 PM

"And what the hell laws are you talking about that are based on christian belief "

The attorney general of Virginia has issued an 'opinion' that it would be appropriate to enact laws requiring abortion centers to fall under the exact same rules and standards that hospitals do. This means they would have to widen hallways to "acommodate 2 gurneys", when they don't USE gurneys. It is estimated this would cost about $1.2 million per facility, and result in closing 17 out of 20 in the state. There are already laws in other states that strive to 'combat' abortion thru cleverly designed laws.

Whether you agree with abortion or disapprove of it, this 'suggested' law is precisely based on and fueled by Christian belief. This one of the areas I mentioned earlier in my comment at 11:39PM last night about the opinion of many Christians that the 'truth' of their religion justifies almost any law, procedure or propaganda which advances their agenda.

If I had a couple hours, I could dig up many, many laws from many states which implicitly reflect religious attitudes.
No, I don't know of any "...any laws saying you go to jail if you don't go to church or if you are a non believer you get public whipping or something "....but that is a straw man argument, Dan...neither I nor anyone else has made such a claim. But I DO remember in 1952 how Dwight Eisenhower had to quickly 'find a church' to be seen in, as his advisors doubted he could beat Adlai Stevenson if he could not show 'membership'.

Dan....none of this invalidates the Christian religion, and *I* have argued in THIS thread that religious freedom MUST be preserved and that religious faith is a major force for strength & comfort in the lives of many people...but it IS still the case that NON-religious people are frowned on and directly rejected in many ways in this country....no matter how honest, sane and decent they are.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Slag
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:37 PM

Blanket inclusions are as offensive as blanket dismisals with regards a a person's belief system(s). So much has to do with how one incorprates information and experience into their reality. The limitations, inherent or learned, of any such view serve those who may differ as an anvil or a hammer for THEIR particular view. And don't we tend to all be "right" in our own eyes? On and on it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:45 PM

Non-belief isn't necessarily a 'faith', olddude, mine certainly isn't. When I said my head 'won't do faith', I didn't just mean it one sidedly. I've known some highly irritating atheists whose preaching was as unwelcome as any, regardless of agreement or disagreement. I try to not have rigid beliefs, I see them as a constriction.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:37 PM

olddude, Calm down!! I'm not sure what it is that I wrote that got you so riled up, but I really didn't mean to insult anyone.

Things I don't do:
-Proselytize, except sometimes about traditional folk music.
-Get any more bothered by a Christian at the door than I do by any other salesperson.
-Knowingly insult anyone.
-Get my conclusions about whether or not there's a god from some outside source.
-Think that laws against theft and violence are based on Christianity.
-And, as I said, I don't spend much time thinking about it.

And, can I just say, here it is again: you say that atheism is a belief structure. I'm pretty tired of encountering that statement every time there's a discussion on Mudcat about religion. The statement is logically and semantically specious. Saying that a lack of belief is belief is doublespeak at its best. As I made clear earlier, I don't believe in God because I've never been given any reason to do so. I've also never been given any reason to think the sky is bright red. "Belief" simply doesn't enter the equation.

You go farther to say that I fail to have belief because some "great athiest non god came down and told you exactly what life was all about and how it all worked". This is another tactic I'm sick of in Mudcat discussions. It is dismissive: since I'm obviously too stupid to make up my own mind about something, I must be getting my ideas from some outside source, and therefore I don't need to be taken seriously. This is really, really bad discussion/debate/conversation technique, and makes you largely useless as a conversation partner. I wish you'd talk to individuals instead of to a perceived wide-spread agenda.

As for prejudice against non-religious people and laws that are based on religious beliefs, I'm not going to start making a list for you. I'm sure there are many websites run by the atheist proselytizers, who I also find distasteful. I can just say that as an outsider looking in, the laws and attitudes are widespread. I can also say, thankfully, that I'm not much personally affected by any of it, since I live in Seattle and not Kansas or Texas. I know I once failed to get a job because I didn't profess my faith at the verbal opening in the interview that was created for that purpose. That's one example of prejudice that was directed at me.

I'd enjoy continuing to talk about this, but really don't want to have an argument.

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:25 PM

Wasn't singling you out John. It was more of a shotgun blast then a precision shot ...

It all started with the term DELUSION ... that phrase sure is going to make friends and influence people .. yup .. and then when someone gets pissed off and calls it like it is .. they are just a Christian bigeot trying to stop free speech. No actually it is others trying to force their belief system on people like me... I don't start fights .. I don't walk away from them either .. but I should

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:39 PM

and if someone wanted you to profess their faith to get a job .. I would have a lawyer so far up their ass I would end up owning the company ... that is about as illegal as it gets. I share your concern with places like Texas where a group can edit textbooks based on their version of the bible ... People like that are as far from Christian as one can get and never understood a thing they ever read about the teachings of Christ. Cause that ain't him..

But that is local school board and if people are that stupid to elect those folks as school board members I can only cry for the children. But trying to blame everything on the stupid actions of a few is a mistake.

It is always a mistake to generalize anyone for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:41 PM

Golly, I go away and work on the deck all afternoon, and y'all have been having fun here without me! I didn't write who said each of the things in italics, but I hope whoever said one of them knows who they are and can attack respond as appropriate.

The cockles of my heart are truly warmed by such a display of charitable Christian tolerance.

I didn't say I don't tolerate stupid people. Hell, if I couldn't tolerate them I'd die, because this country right now seems to be chock full of stupid people. The vast majority of the stupid people saying stupid things in the news tend to be Christians, or claim to be. They do make my teeth hurt, I'll admit.

What most people know about epistemology can be fit into a thimble. They then make big pronouncements about science this and reason that, and to somebody who has actually studied epistemology, they come off looking like fools. But if you say that, you're attacked as not being a good little Christian. What-the-fuck-ever.

Oh, and people who say, "I don't have a belief system" are also deluded. Everybody has a belief system. Unless you are using the term "belief system" to mean "religion" -- which you're allowed to. But if you use words that way be sure to pay them extra, like Humpty-Dumpty. That said, I won't say that atheism is a belief system. Atheists have belief systems, which is to say, a system of interlinked beliefs in their heads. One of those beliefs may be "God does not exist" or a watered-down derivative thereof. I'm not saying atheism is a belief system.

You see religious people advance the hypothesis: 'there is a God'

This is where you're wrong. We do not advance that as a hypothesis.

Which says more about you than anyone else, I'm afraid.

Yes, it says I am familiar with epistemology and you're not, I'm afraid.

Do not impose irrationality or your faith-based rules on others.

I agree with this. Probably makes me a bad Christian, and somebody will be along to make an arch-sarcastic comment about how they find me an inferior Christian and are therefore unlikely to go to my church because of me.

I should, however, like to see more evidence of religious moderates disliking or disapproving of religious extremists.

I disapprove of religious extremists. I think nobody should be forced to do anything because of somebody else's religion. This is one reason why I am in favour of pro-choice laws even though I personally believe abortion is wrong.

Now, when will atheist moderates show evidence of disliking or disapproving of atheist extremists? If anybody even hints that Dawkins might be an extremist, a whole phalanx of hysteria comes out of the batteries and is broght to bear. You Christians this, you religious people that. Poor Mr Dawkins, he just thinks that raising a child in your own religion is worse for a child than being the victim of pedophila. Yes he said that. He took it back, but I'm skeptical that that means he doesn't still believe it. It just means he got caught saying something out loud he shouldn't. THAT is extremism, friends.

It's also really really really really stupid to think that bringing up a child in one's own religion means that they will stay there.

It's the sheer arrogance of believers in assuming that the rest of the planet should put up with this not-so-subliminal proselytising that's so amusing ("Get over it": - sorry, Joe, but you said it!)

Like I put up with posters on the sides of buses saying God doesn't exist? Hey guess what. This country has freedom of speech. I'm allowed to say "God exists" in public, and you're allowed to say "No he doesn't." If you can't get over that, there are lots of nummy countries you might prefer to live in. Sadly for you some of the ones that most cracked down on religious people speaking out are now gone. Although I'm sure if you were interested you could get a bunch of people together and buy an island and insulate yourselves from the free speech of people you disagree with.

Personally, I am an Athiest because I can't conceive of a greater divinity than Duke Ellington.

Who, ironically, could. Still, a clever line.

BUT I regard the questioning of metaphysical concepts which I find absurd to be a different order of communication altogether;

For my part, I have no problem with people questioning "metaphysical concepts" (you mean like the existence of matter? Oh wait, not that kind of metaphysical concept) (grin) all they want. But using words like "sky fairy" are just blatant attempts to be insulting/disrespectful/rude/funny. They can't possibly taken seriously as an attempt to civilly discuss religious issues. And people who insist on the propriety of using them are hard to take seriously.

In what way is My Ding-a-Ling a manifestation of the divine?

Doesn't God have a penis?

I do think they are irrational to some degree, in that they are willing to believe something for which there is no evidence.

See, this is an in to a conversation about what it is reasonable to believe, and what counts as "evidence" for any given proposition. I would love to have a real discussion with any atheist about what is required for a working epistemology that can take into account the ways people actually work vis-a-vis believing, knowing, etc. It's almost impossible to do that online, and without a little background reading. So I'll be polite here: thinking that you have "evidence" for everything you believe, and that they don't have "evidence" for believing in God, is a weeny teeny bit naïve.

As I've said, faith necessitates a leap into thought processes that I cannot make. I usually try to say I "think" something is true rather than merely leap unthoughtfully to a place where a thing is truth because I want it to be that. To me, it's just wishful thinking!

Very few people become believers via the "leap" route. That's a trope invented by Kierkegaard that has little bearing on 99% of believers. I don't understand your "think" thing -- who doesn't think that certain things are true? I must be missing something.

@BillD: I agree that the fudge laws trying to worm out abortion clinics by regulating them to death are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:54 PM

That's all I need, I thought. Bloody Jehoover's Witnesses

hahahha Now, that's funny.

Bill D, you say: "Whether you agree with abortion or disapprove of it, this 'suggested' law is precisely based on and fueled by Christian belief"

You may be right, Bill, but I'll bet you good money that there are non-religious, non-Christian people in this world who are against abortion. I personally uphold the right to abort- believing it to be a matter between the mother and her doctor - but at the same time I would feel better if I knew when a thinking life begins. I do NOT believe that human life begins at conception.

You also say: "But I DO remember in 1952 how Dwight Eisenhower had to quickly 'find a church' to be seen in, as his advisors doubted he could beat Adlai Stevenson if he could not show 'membership'.

Again, that is undoubtedly true but in my opinion a lot of that belief (no offense) comes from so few people having the courage to try it. I would have no trouble voting for a good man or woman who frankly said that they were agnostic. Now, on the other hand, if they said adamantly that they are atheist and don't see how anyone could believe in such claptrap- NO. I would not vote for them, because it reveals a mindset that I am not comfortable with.

John P, you say: "I know I once failed to get a job because I didn't profess my faith at the verbal opening in the interview that was created for that purpose."

I have no idea what kind of employment field that was; I certainly have never been asked in a job interview about my religious beliefs. I did, however, once lose a job offer at a city Chamber of Commerce because my Letters to the Editor revealed that I was "not in harmony with them".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:46 AM

completely agree with Ebbie. anti abortion is not the exclusive domain of the religious. My doc is an atheist, he WILL NOT do an abortion. He believes it is against the oath of a doctor to do no harm and he frankly says it is killing a child ..

That is from an atheist .. you don't have to be religious to be against abortion. ME i let people make the call as to what they can do to their own bodies ... I hate the idea of abortion but want no law to stop it .. period ..

again the same exact clinches that I see all the time here to justify your own belief system and to justify converting us to the way of the atheist ..(your religion) yet I see no christian doing that here on a daily basis

preach on ... I ain't buying it

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:01 AM

and much to the chagrin of many, women do have the right to choose. And doctors have the right to choose not to do it also ... and I support their right. One cannot get an abortion in my town. You can go down the road to another hospital but not here .. Why, no doc will do it .. some because of their faith .. others because they feel it is wrong ... like Ebbie said it is way beyond religions beliefs ... but ya know something else ... IT IS LEGAL .. so much for the CHRISTIAN LAW THAT DISTURBS YOU SO .. but I go back to my original assumption. Does atheists think stealing and murder and other such Christian laws are bad HUH .. is it because you have NO foundation to believe in anything then why not allow murder ... or stealing or pretty much anything else you want to do ... is that your argument?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:37 AM

Many of your arguments hold water, Dan: but not this last bit ~~ laws against murder, theft &c, are not CHRISTIAN laws, specifically ~ and please don't cop out by saying you didn't say they were, just look back at your last sentence above: they are ones which must, & do, exist in all societies, not just Christian societies, just to enable them to function at all. You will find these two specified in the 10 Commandments e.g., btw, which are some 12 centuries pre-Christian, you know. Are you not in danger here of confusedly claiming all social morality to be Christian-based? Think about it.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:08 AM

Virginia Tam says: Any system that promotes intolerance, exclusivism, misogyny, to name a few, is unacceptable to my mind and makes no valuable contribution to society.


....and I agree wholeheartedly.

And along with Bill D, "I agree very much with John P about This country, and its laws, are overwhelmingly slanted toward Christianity. As a non-Christian, I have often felt strong prejudice against me.... and ...no non-religious person will be elected to high office any time soon. That IS political discrimination, and one that is supported by many otherwise "good" Christians."
-It's quite true that Americans in positions of leadership are expected to practice some sort of religious creed. As a result, churches are plagued with nominal believers, people whose only belief is that God is on their side and supports their views and prejudices.
One reason I became disillusioned with the Boy Scouts of America was their insistence that members and leaders believe in God - again, this led to a number nominal believers who tended toward right-wing "God is on my side" practices. Their opposition to homosexuals was another thing that caused me dismay, and I finally gave up believing they would change.

And JohnP, I agree that there is a semantic problem with the term "atheist." Some atheists just don't believe in a God, and I have no quarrel with them. The people who trouble me are those who are actively antireligious - especially those who insist on defining what it is that I believe and then condemn me for it, not bothering to find out what actually it is that I do believe.

-Joe Offer-

Interesting to see mention of Ellington above. He did some terrific sacred music - (click).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:19 AM

Laws against murder and theft are common to (virtually) all societies, though people find various ways around it...like murdering and thieving from the neighbouring tribe or society. That's called "war". ;-)   It is also true that virtually all societies, if not all societies without exception, were religious in the ancient times when they first began to form, and they were all openly religious up until quite recent historical times. You can therefore either claim that...

1. laws against common crimes like murder and theft arose because of religion or you can claim that...

2. they would have arisen regardless even if there had been no religion.

To argue about it and blame religion for everything that's gone wrong in the past 20,000 years or to say that religion played no useful part in the development of human societies, seems worse than stupid to me. It would be just as stupid as saying that religion is the only thing that's ever made anything go right for people in the past 20,000 years.

And to attack anyone with an opinion different from your own and try to shoehorn them into one of these exaggerated fanatical positions is to erect a straw man. That's what happens on these threads. People erect a straw man (the religious fanatic or the atheist fanatic) to suit their particular brand of prejudice, and then they attack that straw man continuously, and rave on about how awful he is, and they pretend (or imagine) that anyone who doesn't agree with them on every point must be just like that straw man.

And that's just a big waste of hot air. Too bad we don't have a big balloon to inflate. ;-) This thread and others like it would then serve a useful purpose of sorts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:43 AM

Ok, a few observations..

Joe Offer (scroll up a few...) takes a sentence of my admiration of Dawkin and sadly takes it out of context. Come on Joe, we can all do a bit better than that. I do have sympathy (empathy? Have to think about that,) with your frustration that people judge religious belief at the fundamentalist level. ie., you have faith therefore you are a fundamentalist.

I can see where Joe is right in saying "Don't judge me with that yardstick." I am a huge football fan and my support for my team has parallels with religious faith. In the '70s and to a much smaller degree since, violence within crowds at matches has been evident. Therefore, the term football fan has been successfully crossed with football hooligan. I'm still a huge fan of my team and get to as many matches as I can. But I resent being tarred with the same brush as the idiots. I guess this is Joe's point regarding religion?

Mind you, by swelling the crowds at the match, could I be seen as encouraging the idiots? Moot point.... some could, (unfairly I know..) say that people like Joe give respectability to the dangerous fundamentalist looneys who profess their take on religion in a way that goes well beyond the moral compass and metaphor.

I like the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." as put forward by Shimrod. However, the invisible goo monster behind my chair right now would have to possibly exist if we thought that through enough. I prefer Einstein's take that atheism cannot be the ultimate answer as that infers chaos, and the laws of physics work every time, so chaos cannot be the answer.

I notice bell ringing has cropped up. Here's one for you. My wife is a bell ringer, and many of our friends are. Funnily enough, once the service starts, you will find most bell ringers either in the cafe (mornings) or the pub (evenings.) It may be a service to the church from the church's perspective, but it is a hobby on the mathematical and (in their opinion) musical level to many of the people who practice it. Being a Christian or not is quite irrelevant. (A cathedral not too far away has a family of a father and a daughter ringing and they are Muslim. They love the hobby, tradition etc. and why not?)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:10 AM

I love churches, the sound of a peal of bells (I'm lucky enough to be able to hear them from my house) but I'm not a Christian, or even religious (although I like to think of myself as spiritual). Personally, I've no problem with mosques, temples or any religious building as I think they add to our urban and rural landscapes; they represent a continuity of expression of human spirituality that is quite fantastic.

"is it because you have NO foundation to believe in anything then why not allow murder ... or stealing or pretty much anything else you want to do"

Don't fall into the trap that because you don't adhere to a religion you can't have a moral code; read my earlier post on that subject, or Little Hawk's. People don't require a supernatural explanation for the way the world works and it is, and that doesn't make them amoral miscreants. Like Joe says, don't judge everyone with the same yardstick.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:11 AM

"I like the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." as put forward by Shimrod. However, the invisible goo monster behind my chair right now would have to possibly exist if we thought that through enough."

Thanks for the acknowledgement 'Steamin' Willy'. My point was though that if you postulate an "invisible goo monster", AND EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IN IT, it is your responsibility to prove that it exists - it is not my responsibility to prove its non-existence (which it is impossible for me to do). The only logical thing for me to do is to remain 'agnostic' with respect to invisible goo monsters until you prove that they exist. My further point was that religion does not appear to operate according to the laws of logic (this is not a value judgement, just a fact) hence there can be no real dialogue between religion and science.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:14 AM

LH - I wasn't suggesting My Ding-a-Ling wasn't a manifestation of the divine, I was was just asking in what way it was. I think I've got the answer now - the song is about God's demonstration of the Thrusting Masculine Generative Force of the Universe couched entirely in Occult Gnostic Symbolism.

As for Duke Ellington - all his music was sacred, not just the religious stuff. In fact I'd argue the secular stuff was a good deal more sacred because it addresses the Human Cause of which religion is entirely bereft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci7Q8d66_oI

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:19 AM

How would you set about "proving" that Duke Ellington (or Chuck Berry) is good? You believe he is, and so do lots of other people, but that's a matter of "faith"...

Kevin, that is not a matter of 'faith' it is a matter of taste, which is what religion or any other system people will group themselve into, is. People follow what appeals to them on some level for whatever reason.

I wish there were better words than "atheist" or "agnostic", since both of these carry lots of connotations that don't apply to me.

John, that is the nature of all labels that lump people together. Some will view with disdain the Catholic, others, the Jew, another the diasbled child, the black youth or the unmarried mother. No getting around it as long as any group or person excludes another group or person.

the great athiest non god came down and told you exactly what life was all about and how it all worked and now it is your mission to preach to the rest of us or enlighten the rest of us on the folly of our faith ...

Dan, not all unbelievers are trying to push their nonbelief down the believer's throat. As I stated before, Dawkins' television style I find repugnant. I purposely do not call myself an atheist or agnostic because; 1) I don't like labels, 2) I won't be defined by a group "The mob is the untruth." because it impedes my ability to think for myself and displaces my personal responsibility for word and deed committed within and without the group. But I would never tell anyone else they should or should not believe this or that. What I would do is let a person know when a specific word or deed, harms or excludes another human being.

What I find interesting is that so many non-believers here feel it's their duty to start threads and get in the face of those people who belive in a higher power of some sort - just to tell them how wrong they are. IF people of faith were to take ACTIONS against you for your beliefs that would be wrong. But it seems to me that many of the athiests here find THOUGHTS objectionable. And I've been told that before - that my thoughts are offensive to another Mudcatter even though we've never met - and I've taken no actions against them. It appears that some of the athiests here would love to become the thought police.

It's the difference of thoughts vs actions.

Can you see the difference?

Wesley, the original post was not a slap in the face to believers. It was mearly a statement of personal opinion and one that I interpreted as a developing opinion, based upon his phrasing. By your own description, it was his THOUGHT and not an ACTION. But on an electronic forum where ACTION is not possible THOUGHT will stand as ACTION if the reader wishes to view it as such, as you have demonstrated in the diatribe cited above.


BillD and JohnP - I agree there is a worrying discrimination in politics and business towards ahteist and agnostic as there is to some religions, which is why many people do not aswer the reigious affiliation part of job applications. Again labels and sorting individuals into groups is what is destructive and unfair.

Let's make this clear... the thread title is the name of the book written by Dawkins, the presenter of television "documentary" viewed by the OP.   It was not made up by the OP in order to inflame sensibilities of anyone on this forum.   That was just an accident (happy to some and unhappy to others).



This forum could and should be the perfect tool for understanding and accepting each other whatever we believe or don't. Instead it devolves like so many others into division.

love to all from tamara, the naive.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:33 AM

Well, Willie, maybe I should should listen to Richard Dawkins directly, instead of getting him filtered through people like Richard Bridge, who says he's "inclined to go with [Dawkins] that religions are all dangerous." - which is painting religion with the broad brush I complain about.

But on the other hand, I watched this video from Dawkins promoting his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth (which is about evolution) - and I agree with everything Dawkins has to say on the video.

Here's another video from Dawkins on The New Atheism. Can't say I agree with everything he says, but he's certainly far more diplomatic and far more rational than he is portrayed by his supporters (not to mention his detractors). In listening to fifteen minutes of Dawkins, I didn't hear any of the broad antireligious generalizations that his supporters attribute to him.

In his talk on The New Atheism, Dawkins pokes fun at Pope John Paul II's claim to have been saved from assassination by "Our Lady of Fatima." I agree with Dawkins - I always thought that was JPII's silliest moment (and many progressive Catholics share my views on that).

I'll pay more attention to Dawkins in the future, and let you know later what I think. I have to say that I enjoyed and appreciated what he had to say.

So, did Dawkins actually say that "religions are all dangerous," or is that the Richard Bridge interpretation of Dawkins?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:42 AM

Don't fall into the trap that because you don't adhere to a religion you can't have a moral code;

Agreed. I know a good number of atheists through my stepson, and they are all both (a) much nicer than I am, and (b) no less moral than any of the Christians I know (and more moral than some of the Christians I know).

My further point was that religion does not appear to operate according to the laws of logic (this is not a value judgement, just a fact) hence there can be no real dialogue between religion and science.

I dunno. Most religions have an internal consistency -- like most novels, even the most fantastic or science-fictionny, have an internal consistency. That doesn't mean that you have to believe them, but I don't think that they are totally devoid of logic. Of course the bits of religions that are taken "on faith" are not going to be scientifically provable (by definition, wot?), and so in that sense they are not "in dialogue" with science. But I can easily balance belief that my wife loves me, which is not provable by logic or science, with my understanding (lame as it is) of quantum mechanics or string theory. I think they are complementary rather than contradictory.

In fact I'd argue the secular stuff was a good deal more sacred because it addresses the Human Cause of which religion is entirely bereft.

Can you explain what you mean please? What is this "Human Cause" of which religion is entirely bereft? Sounds (forgive me) like a distinctly unscientific thing.

People follow what appeals to them on some level for whatever reason.

Yes and no. CS Lewis famously said that if he was picking a religion on what appealed to him, he'd pick Norse Mythology. He became a Christian because it impressed itself upon him as true.

diatribe

The insults continue. Time to stop now?

This forum could and should be the perfect tool for understanding and accepting each other whatever we believe or don't. Instead it devolves like so many others into division.

As it is likely to do. As Joe stated, most of the religious people on this board are very reserved. The atheists come out like a bull in a china shop, flinging insults left and right. Accepting and understanding don't seem to be in sight. Things like (I'm paraphrasing and combining here) "I won't tell anybody what to believe but you're all a bunch of irrational bullies" don't help any. (Nor, to be sure, was my insult, and I apologize for coming across so strong. One does get tired of being battered about the head, and sometimes the battering in one place isn't so bad but it puts one in mind of earlier batterings. I'll attempt to be more evenhanded.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:00 AM

Religion bereft of the "human cause"? How about this?

'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me'....‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.'
(Matthew 25, NRSV)

To me and to many Christians, this sort of compassionate God is the central focus of our belief - that the essence of God is within everyone and everything. Virgins who spare popes from bullets and deities who damn homosexuals don't really fit into the picture for us. I believe that all those who show this sort of compassion will "inherit the kingdom," no matter what they do or don't believe...but don't ask me what the "kingdom" is. I don't really know...some sort of absorption into all that is good, I think.

Why do I believe? It doesn't have anything to do with doctrine or authority - that's just the institutional structure intended to serve those who share the faith. And to my mind, theories of creation or the origins of things, have very little to do with the essence of faith. I believe because all my life, I have experienced glimpses of a profound goodness. I see that goodness embodied in Jesus Christ, and I call that goodness God. Other people don't have that same experience, and that's fine with me. I cannot and will not impose my experience of what I call God on others. I respond to that experience through my (Catholic) religious tradition, and other people respond differently. If people see that this has a good effect on me, maybe that will make a difference to them - or not. Whatever the case, it's good for me, and it's sacred to me - and I don't want to argue about it, or impose it on anyone else, or allow somebody to back me into a corner and beat me on the head about it. It's part of who I am, part of my essence. If you don't like who I am, leave me alone and go talk to somebody else. I don't want to force anything on you, and I don't want to prove myself to you, and I don't want to defend myself to you. Why should I have to?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:44 AM

di·a·tribe   [dahy-uh-trahyb] –noun
a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism

Mousethief, insult is a matter of interpretation. I found Wesley's tone fit all of the things stated in the definition. If I was on the Christian right, I would still think so. If I was an extraterrestrial with no prior knowledge of belief systems, I should still think it so. But alright, perhaps the term is too strong so for the sake of peace, I retract it with a genuine apology for offending anyone with it.


'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world......

Joe, never did I feel more bereft, unwanted and unloved by God than when I was amongst fellow believers.

This verse (written by a man) indicates that God has already chosen the blessed and encourages the same exclusivity in religon, that I find so unpalatable.

I won't deny it sounds lovely, ideal and poetic, but it never applied to me. And if it doesn't apply to me, what about all the others to whom it does not apply? Indeed, how can anyone really know they are on the blessed list. All I can do is live each day trying to do more good than harm to the world and my fellow man. And then just take what comes after life (if anything) as it comes. If it be damnation, then there was nothing I could do differently in life to change that, because the decision was a done deal before I was born.

In my experience (granted it was limited - raised up moderate southern baptist) religion made me despair. The more I learn about others historically and currently, the more I despair.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:54 AM

Well, Tam, my interpretation is that they were blessed because they showed compassion. I know that some religious traditions define an exclusive, elite group of those who are saved, but that's not what this passage says. The passage is quite clear - the rest of it says that those who fail to show compassion, are damned. And the list of compassionate acts is repeated four times in a very short passage. It's the only description of the Last Judgment that is attributed to Jesus, and it's all about compassion.

And I'll be the first to agree that many so-called "religious" people are the very antithesis of compassion. Jesus had the same problem with the Pharisees. I believe in a God who is "slow to anger and rich in kindness and abounding in mercy and love" - these words appear six times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). I don't believe in a God of judgment - those who fail to show compassion, pass judgment on themselves. All that simplistic shit about being "saved" has little scriptural basis. If you're not compassionate, it doesn't mean a thing.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:01 AM

Oh dear. Pharisee.   Like the "good" Samaritan parable. Another divisive label. :~)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:16 AM

Whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:20 AM

Hey Joe,

You have done what some of us would wish to do but don't get around to always, ie seeing what all the fuss is about. Dawkins does have many strong comments on those who hide ignorance behind religion, but his comments on God are more benign. after all, how can you be angry about something you don't think exists?   

I am with him on the subject of God being a convenient metaphor for what we don't yet understand. I am also with him when he loses patience with those who reckon they have interpreted that which we don't understand without scientific research. ie., putting substance to the God metaphor, hence denying the idea that one day scientific understanding will chisel that bit of God away.

Like I said before, the reason why so many see him as a threat, (and the propaganda war against him is immense!) is that he has put forward (with others, I must admit) a reason why altruism exists and it ain't the love of any God. Ants sacrifice themselves for the perpetuation of the community. Our good deeds as humans can do the same. Why? well, to date, I can't see a better reason than his idea of genes demanding it as the best vehicle for perpetuation.

That is hugely dangerous to the idea of religious faith and the supremacy of humans. Not as devastating as Darwin, but certainly up there, and strengthening Darwin whilst at it....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:31 AM

" 'It's the sheer arrogance of believers in assuming that the rest of the planet should put up with this not-so-subliminal proselytising that's so amusing ("Get over it": - sorry, Joe, but you said it!)'

Like I put up with posters on the sides of buses saying God doesn't exist? Hey guess what. This country has freedom of speech. I'm allowed to say "God exists" in public, and you're allowed to say "No he doesn't." If you can't get over that, there are lots of nummy countries you might prefer to live in. Sadly for you some of the ones that most cracked down on religious people speaking out are now gone. Although I'm sure if you were interested you could get a bunch of people together and buy an island and insulate yourselves from the free speech of people you disagree with."

Silly, silly, mousethief. You picked this bit from me to include in your polemic, but unfortunately you completely misread the meaning it's meant to convey, and, even worse, you then go on to extrapolate that I'm somehow against free speech. Nowhere have I said that the public show of religious iconography, or wayside pulpits, or even those bells, should be curtailed. Pointing to the arrogant presumption by a religion that the whole world, including the non-religious or otherly-religious, deserves exposure to their wacky notions is not the same at all as my saying they should be stopped from doing it. As a result of this misreading you go off half-cock about free speech. I think you'd like me to be against free speech to help make your case but I can't oblige, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:38 AM

"People don't require a supernatural explanation for the way the world works"

There isn't a supernatural explanation and there never will be. There may well be a supernatural ~imposition~ on the science (by exceptionally non-supernatural people), but an explanation it can never be. You can't explain something by ascribing it to something else infinitely complex, infinitely rule-breaking and infinitely inexplicable in itself.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:55 AM

Actually it's quite true that religion is dangerous. So is electricity. So is gravity. So are people.
.................................

"...how can you be angry about something you don't think exists? " Very easily indeed, it would appear.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 07:19 AM

To some of us a television is inexplicable; I'm writing this on my laptop which I couldn't explain either. To all of us Stonehenge is inexplicable, likewise, to some of us, it's 21st Century cousin the Large Hadron Collider. Same goes for the world; if it works, there is an explanation, just we haven't got there yet. Instead we make up gods to account for all the stuff that bugs us until we figure it out, but then the Religious hang on to the gods because it gives them power over people & the smugness of righteousness. At the heart of every Christian is the stinking evil that they believe they are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell. As with God, then so with Foghorn Leghorn, Captain Ahab, Monsieur C. Auguste Dupin, Don Quixote, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Borg, Greggary Peccary - we made them all up, along with so much else, just no one's committed any mass atrocities in the name of Top Cat, so that'll do for me. In lieu of so-called Spirituality I will watch Top Cat on a Television that I find inexplicable safe in the certainty that there is an explanation for everything. There is nothing in the universe that cannot be accounted for, nor is there anything more Sacred than the joy of the material world in Human terms, which are, of course, the only terms we've got. Meanwhile....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB0qbcQXEyE&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:22 AM

yea but it is perfectly ok to preach your religion isn't it .. ashtray
yup ... the version of the world as you see it .. The in your face I have all the answers so I am going to point you to the light of the atheist dogma .. and you say Christians are evil ... you cornered the market on that one.

Someone tell me why I engage with bigots ... I must be nuts - hope you have a great life .. maybe we can get rid of some of those pesky Christian laws for you ... need something , go steal it cause that is a Christian law and you wouldn't want a Christian law ..

makes me sick. Got it all figured out do you. Oh and the science, lets don't forget that ... well I have worked with some of the best minds in the world (Including a professor who won the Nobel prize) some are atheists .. most are Christians , I guess the great atheist non god didn't reach those guys yet .. maybe that is your religious charge to convert them to your belief system also as you do here everyday on the Cat

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:52 AM

I have no religion, olddood - Humanity is the whole of the case and all religion was made up by human beings. You only find religion in a human context - I gaze up at the stars, look at the trees or listen to the birds and there's nothing there in least bit religious, although the religious might tell you about this wrathful/benign/all-loving/all-hating/all-powerful creator who made it all, and gave us free will only to send us to hell if we actually use it. The spiritual is the consequence of inadequate sensory aperatus coupled with our instinctive fear of death and the unknown, all of which seems fair enough to me. Otherwise, I take a keen interest in the cultural & human manifestations of religion & spend a good deal of time rooting around medieval churches & listening to otherwise 'sacred music'; I have sung plain chant and Gelineau Psalm Tones with the Benedictine monks of Worth Abbey and told of fantastic miracles acounted for in the Cantigas de Santa Maria. It's rich and fascinating for sure but no more or less so than Foghorn Leghorn or the animations of Max Fliescher.

There is no Atheist Dogma though - only the common Truth that all religions are as wrong as they are manifestly absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:39 AM

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:41 AM

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.

Carl Sagan"

Double amen.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:42 AM

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.

Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address"

Amens x 100

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM

"Christian laws for you ... need something , go steal it cause that is a Christian law and you wouldn't want a Christian law .."



NO IT ISN'T DAN!!! Again, it's a human law. You'll find laws against stealing in Tibet & Israel & Egypt ~~ none of them Christian countries. And back when in Babylon & Assyria, & among the Aztecs & the Incas ~ & ~ & ~ &....

Again: ~~ NONE OF THEM CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES OR SOCIETIES.

What the hell has come over you, Dan? Who has shaken your trolley so hard as to make you so unwontedly THICK, for goodness' sake!?


~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:20 AM

Can I just add that I see Religion in much the same way as Folklore? They're manifestations of human irrationality we're all prone to, to a greater or lesser extent. Thus I delight in many aspects of our culture that have a religious vibe - churches, festivals, Christmas, Easter, Catholic Statuary, Green Men, Misericords, churches, cathedrals, etc. etc. but all of these I see purely in terms of their humanity; Folklore likewise, and other so-called Spirituality. So whilst I don't do hocus-pocus, I wouldn't deny another person's right to partake if that is their desire. I will, however, oppose the Mormons, JWs, Christians or any other rancid cult who comes knocking at my door intent on saving my soul in the sincere hope they end up in the hell they've dreamed up for the rest of us. So whilst I see Atheism as the ultimate objective of Humanity, it still remains a high Ideal, as with Anarchy - we've a long way to go, but we've also come a long way too and we're getting there, by slow and steady degrees.

Love those Carl Sagan quotes, SJ - that says it all! Amen indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:48 AM

Ok here is my point one more time. If a Christian started a thread on a daily basis quoting Scripture ... people here would be on them like flies on shit ...

Since there cannot and never can be proof of the existence or non existence of God .. it comes down to a belief system. Atheism is by definition a belief system ... hence it is a religion just as Muslim, Jew or Christian is.

yet on mudcat it is ok for others to jam their belief system on others and we are suppose to take it cause it is a belief system in non belief ... it is a religion plain and simple and the attempt to convert others to that thinking who don't agree is as odorous as the door knockers handing out fliers to people who don't want to hear it.

yet it is hidden under this idea that it is only free thinking ... bunk ..it is a religious doctrine that people are trying to push on others who don't want to keep hearing it plain and simple.

X's and Y's don't lie .. it is what it is

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:49 AM

olddude, Calm Down!!

Why are you feeling so attacked? Why are you seeing hatred and bigotry in every other post here? Perhaps a good technique for you would to respond very specifically to specific statements, instead of making blanket comments. That way, you might actually find out that people aren't putting you down before you start blasting away. I get the feeling that there is a whole other side to this conversation that is only taking place in your head. I'm afraid you're responding in the external world to the internal dialog.

And if you don't get off the "atheism is a religion" thing, I will start attacking you. But I'll do so because you're being a jerk, not because you're a Christian.

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:19 AM

"Atheism is by definition a belief system ... hence it is a religion just as Muslim, Jew or Christian is."

That is a profoundly wrong statement. In no way, shape or for is atheism a religion, not matter how you couch it. That is simply very wrong olddude mate!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:23 AM

Me, I prefer opiates but chacun à son goût.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:33 AM

Atheism is about Reality and Inclusivity; it is about the celebration of the commonality of each and every one of us in that not one of us is any greater than any other. No matter what we are there is an ultimate Atheistic Unity in our Individual & Cultural diversity. There are countless idioms and genres of music - not one of these claims to be any truer than any other, just different. Same goes for language, art, sexuality, dance, craftsmanship, literature - all is done in the glory of the unversality of idiomatic diversity that is entirely Human. I might bring in Folklore, I might even bring in Spirituality, but the reason why Atheism is most assuredly not a Religion is because Religion is not about Reality, nor is it about Inclusivity - it does not celebrate the commonality of Humanity, nor yet does it acknowledge that there is Unity in our Individual and Cultural Diversity. Atheistic Truth is manifestly self-evident in the universality of acceptance; Religious Truth is crammed away in the narrow minds of denial. That Humans aren't perfect is a fact largely measured by our propensity for righteousness, which is invariably religious, or else something very like it. Atheism isn't about Righteousness, it is simply about Right, which is measured by the Right of each and every single one of us.

What about the right to be religious? To quote Bakunin, if I may: I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation. As with Anarchy, then so with Atheism. No religion would ever say such a thing, much less allow it; Christ came pretty close but - and here's a crazy thought - imagine anyone being so stupid as to found a religion on his teachings and example! Just ain't going to happen...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:39 AM

Religion - noun : A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Notice that it says "especially" - not "exclusively". "Usually" and not "always".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:44 AM

"Christ came pretty close but"

Buddhism is a second to none religion.
No dogma and no concept of blasphemy. In fact it encourages introspection and questioning.
Zen in particular, is really just a set of tools for cultivating self-mastery. And you don't have to be religious, devote yourself to any supernatural agency, or even aspire to the notion of 'self-realisation' to make use of them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:47 AM

I tend not to like to be called an atheist. Reading oldude's diatribe, there is no wonder...

Why do superstitious people get all precious over their delusion? Is it because deep down they realise the imaginary friend bit is in fact just a metaphor for the whole mindset? or is it because again deep down, they either knowingly or otherwise resent being told how to behave by people in charge of their faith?

Nobody is denying anybody's right to be religious. the problem is that many interpretations of religion are profoundly jealous of either other religions or lack of religion so try to impose their religion on others.

That and that alone is reason enough to laugh in the faces of those who try and ram it down your throat. Next time a Jehovas Witness knocks on your door, ensure they waddle back down the drive, with a copy of their Watchtower protruding and causing the wobbly walk.

Anyway, I have had occasion recently to fill in a few forms where my religion has been asked for, (I thought it was illegal to do so, but there you go...) rather than a box with none in it, there was a "rather not say." This was not satisfactory, but there was a "other" box with a field for you to fill in. I trawled the net and signed up to The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I am a Pastafarian! Whats more, I ruin silly ethnic monitoring forms by stating the fact.

That makes me so happy, I suppose it is a little bit sad really.....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:05 PM

Buddhism is technically a philosophy not a religion but you are spot on about it being a good positive guide on how to conduct one's life. The example of Jesus is too for that matter. It is all the other stuff attached to Christianity that I find too bitter a pill to swallow.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:07 PM

well here is what the Supreme Court ruled it as a religion
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:11 PM

Anyway my point is made. And you maybe right .. I could just be pissed off at the world at the moment and taking it out on everyone .. but I do get rather pissed at the religous comments I read all the time. I don't do that to others .. but it does seem to be ok for others to do that to me and everyone else here that does have a belief system .. anyway .. I will agree to disagree and leave it

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM

I think I will feel much better after I hunt that skunk down that sprayed me last night and kill his ass. And many thank to Bobad, his concoction worked.

Then I won't be so crabby at everything I read

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM

I don't think Buddhism sits well on its pedestal, CS. Remember the recent war in Sri Lanka. And the oppressors in Burma are just as Buddhist as the oppressed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM

Whole article from Dan's link posted here for convenience

LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com


A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.


The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."

"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.

What I get from this is that it was a ludicrous thing for the court to do and it in no way legitimises the argument that atheism is a religion. Sorry Dan. I loves ya man, but I can't agree with you on this.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:27 PM

No dogma and no concept of blasphemy. In fact it encourages introspection and questioning.

I wouldn't be so sure, CS. I've known a few Buddhists in my time hung up on such bollox concepts as Karma and reincarnation. One was a bus driver who went sailing passed an old woman who was running for the bus stop struggling with her shopping. He excused this on account of karmic justice - that she somehow deserved it! Buddhism is the same old bullshit in a different box basically; it aspires to enlightenment, elitism and fabricates a spiritual hierachy the same way Christianity believes such hierachies were ordained by God or Hindus believe in the Caste System. Buddhism is no different really - it has its monks, disciples, and more funny hats and hoo-hah that you could shake a prayer wheel at. I may dig Tibetan Buddhist music, art & culture (a very fine display in the Liverpool Museum - we'll be popping in tomorrow!) but again on human terms. Amazing how all this Zen & Taoist stuff becomes New Age vacuity when adopted by the west - reduced to so much Cosmic Debris, though the basic writings of the Koans, the I Ching, Tao Te Ching et al would imply something very different, rather like the way the teachings of Christ bear no relationship to Roman Catholic theology I suppose. Anyway, introspection is all very well, but it's no substitute for a night in with the TV, or a game of footy with your mates, or a wander around The Trafford Centre, or a few pints and good old blow down your local singaround.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:29 PM

But isn't it time to stop being polite to peole who insist on damaging their children's education?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM

" He excused this on account of karmic justice - that she somehow deserved it!"

This attitude of 'blame the victim' is one of the fundamental misunderstandings of the way karma works. In fact, it's possible for a buddhist to ignore the law of karma completely and concentrate on developing compassion which will in the end address the whole issue of karmic debut; you don't have to believe in karma or reincarnation to be a buddhist.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM

mousethief: See, this is an in to a conversation about what it is reasonable to believe, and what counts as "evidence" for any given proposition. I would love to have a real discussion with any atheist about what is required for a working epistemology that can take into account the ways people actually work vis-a-vis believing, knowing, etc. It's almost impossible to do that online, and without a little background reading. So I'll be polite here: thinking that you have "evidence" for everything you believe, and that they don't have "evidence" for believing in God, is a weeny teeny bit naïve.

I have some questions:
What do I believe that I don't have evidence for?
How is it polite to call me naive and tell me I can't understand the subject matter?

What evidence can you offer that:
God talks.
God listens.
God has a personality, in that it takes notice of individual humans.
Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus died and came back to life.
God is everywhere.
God is in heaven.
God is, in some way, three beings in one. Did that arrangement pertain before the birth of Christ?
The Bible is divinely inspired.
Anyone knows what happens to us after we die.
Hell exists.
Heaven exists.

You'll notice that I'm not talking about what place religion or belief has in peoples' lives, or whether or not it inspires them to good deeds. I'm also not talking about spiritual experience, which is a well-documented phenomenon and is available to anyone. "Christianity" is defined primarily by a belief in the resurrection of Christ, by the concept that he died for your sins, and by the notion that he is part of a Trinity. Why do you believe that?

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:59 PM

Sorry, the last sentence should be: What evidence can you offer for these ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM

JohnP
Faith means you believe without having evidence. So to ask a person of faith for evidence is apart from being pointless is ummm impolite and inconsiderate no matter how gently it is worded.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:32 PM

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
---------------------------------------------------------------

Unless one follows a leader instead of the God they worship, why would anyone need to explain their personal belief system that is quite private to anyone else ? That I don't get ... Likewise I don't expect an atheist to explain their reasoning to me either.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM

"But isn't it time to stop being polite to peole who insist on damaging their children's education? "

Mrrzy - More details please.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM

No, faith means you have confidence in something. ;-) For instance, I have faith that my car will get me safely to town, because it has already done so on hundreds of previous occasions. No one can guarantee that it will do so next time, but I have faith that it will.

*****

No one thinks that God is physical. No one thinks that one's dreams for the future are physical either. No evidence can be provided for something that is not physical. But one's dreams for the future can serve as a very real motivator that can have real and tangible effects on the progress of one's life. Shall we, therefore, object to people having dreams for the future merely on the basis that no evidence can be provided to prove that those dreams exist?

If a human being's concept of "God" proves useful or comforting to him in some way, what business does anyone else have disparaging it on the basis that there is "no evidence" to support it? Why should there be any evidence for something which is, by definition, NOT physical?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:52 PM

Atheism acts LIKE a religion if people organize, hold regular meetings, creat websites and publish documents promoting it in order to 'sell' the idea.... that is, anti-theistic proselytizing.
This is a silly, useless activity in my opinion,,,but it is still basically protected as 'free speech'.

Just replying "I guess I'm an atheist." when asked does NOT make it a religion, and that court may have had a point if a group was trying to form an organization in prison specifically to tout their DISbelief....not a good point, but if someone acts like many religious groups do, lines get fuzzy.

Most atheists do not 'join' anything, and the word is just shorthand for "I don't accept all the stuff churches tell me."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:06 PM

Little Hawk, I'm not disparaging anyone. If asking questions and sharing thoughts is disparagement, then we might as well conclude this conversation. I was responding directly to mousethief's assertion that I can't know what the evidence is that supports a belief in a higher being. Also defending my position that I've never been given any reason to think that gods exist, a position which has drawn some fire. You are, once again, using the word "belief" in a way that is not supported by the current context. I was very specific that I wasn't referring to the fact that "a human being's concept of "God" proves useful or comforting to him in some way". You do, by the way, have a lot of evidence that should lead you think that your car will start when you turn the key. Blindly expecting that it will happen would be stupid, but that's not the same as a lack of evidence that it will. The stupidity would be the conviction that a fallible mechanical object will always work. That's not what we're talking about.

All I'm saying is that I don't see any evidence for the existence of gods. I've been told that such evidence exists, and I want the people who say so to support their assertion. If it is based on personal experience, that's well and good; I have no problem with personal spiritual experience. But perhaps we can find other conclusions that could be drawn from those experiences, ones that don't make the logical leap to a supreme being that thinks and acts. I just want things to make sense and to understand why things make sense to other people. For me, gods don't make sense. Apparently they do to many other people. I just want to know why.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:07 PM

Wesley please read back through the thread for Mrzzy's posts for more info.

LH That definition of faith is merely the first and simplest definition and your example is based on evidence in that the car has worked in past so you are confident it will continue to work.

However, I agree that it is not ON to disparage an individual for what he or she does or does not believe. The question on the table implied by the opinion of the OP is 'Does organised religion cause more hurt than good?' In my opinion it does cause more harm. But that is my opinion. It may not be Joe's or Dan's or anyone else's who does not agree with me. That does not mean I don't respect them, their beliefs and their right to have em.

And yes Mrzzy any system that denies a full comprehensive education to children does damage them in the sense that they will be ill equipped to think and decide things for themselves. So they need non- indoctrinating exposure to main religions as well as philosophies, and scientific theory and facts. Best in a tone of acceptance and celebration of diversity. Put it all on the table repeatedly and let them come up with their own conclusions.

Do I think the law should impose this? Ideally yes, but impossible to put in practice.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:07 PM

And the thing about it Bill, if by definition it is or isn't a religion people have the right to believe in the non existence of God. It is their right. And that belief should be respected .. as long as the respect goes both ways for those who have faith in a God also .. The problems occur when my God can beat up your God or your non-God can beat up my God that people get upset, and go off on others even when they regard as friends and I do . I think I have proved it time and time again by actions here and not words..

I freely admit I am a crabby son of a bitch lately .. maybe I need a smoke .. but I tend to respect others and their path in life. I ask that others do that for me and the rest of us that do have a chosen path and pretty much mind our own business. You see for me, my faith is intensely personal .. and for those who knock on doors they couldn't be more wrong doing that .. Free will is the single most important concept in my faith .. Likewise It is wrong to berate others for their personal choices in life .. no belief system or non system is any better than another. It is all personal. When one tries to step on the others rights, then it becomes an issue of contention.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:09 PM

Neil Young, on Marriage, Faith, Christianity, Islam and well...Life! (no mention of skunks though) ;0)

Neil...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM

Lizzie
Skunks are Gods creatures also .. but I am going to kill his ass ... sorry but I am .. that was uncalled for. I wasn't going to hurt him but he felt the need to blast me and make my life a living hell last night LOL ... so sorry God be he is going down !!

ya know when I was sick, I got a PM from a pagan who wanted to light a candle for me .. I cherished that, it touched my heart .. why, because even though that is not my faith and is opposite of my faith, they believed it doesn't matter what I believe, they believe it would help me.. and they offered that out of love for someone they never met face to face .. I was honored and touched by that.. it is all about respect for others that is what I been trying to say. Although I may have been a jerk in the manner which I said it. I am a work in progress

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:33 PM

Dan... you & I have different 'personal' belief..or non-belief ..systems, and sometimes our opinions hit rocky impasses, but I see you, in all these discussions, trying to 'think' and be reasonable and find the best path thru awkward situations. Sometimes we don't exactly disagree, we are just looking at different sides of the same coin. We DO both seem to agree that imposing ones views on everyone else is a bad practice....we are just sensitive to different instances of that behavior.

We can discuss touchy, but important topics reasonably with a little effort....

....and nawwwww... a smoke ain't what you need...maybe a nice song..☺

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:39 PM

You Bill are one of my favorite people in the world. I will argue with you but that is all it is ... just disagreement .. I don't fight or argue with those I don't care about ... I tend to just walk away .. I only fight with those I truly care for

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:45 PM

.....*blush*.... ok, then

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:49 PM

Gotta remember also, I am a hot headed Irish shithead who got out of the hospital got sprayed by a skunk and is trying to quit smoking ... terrible combination ... doesn't mean it is right to go off on my friends... it is just something right now I can't control ... my family is going to heaven putting up with me at the moment

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:56 PM

John, you said: "All I'm saying is that I don't see any evidence for the existence of gods."

Neither do I. Nor do I see any evidence against the existence of gods either. (shrug) So? What evidence would one expect?

I've noticed all my life what most people base faith on. They base it on:

1. familiarity - If they're quite familiar with something...then they usually have faith in it being as they think it is. That something can be an idea. People repeat and have faith in those ideas they are most familiar with. This includes both scientifically-based and religiously based ideas as well as, for example, political ideas or ideas about what clothing one should or should not wear and what words one should or should not use in a given situation.

2. social customs - see "familiarity" above... ;-)

3. what their parents told them and acted out in front of them: familiarity

4. what their schools told them

And so on...

So, suppose you have a generation of young people growing up in Maoist China, and their government which is vehemently against religion teaches them all to be militant atheists. Well, then that's certainly what most of them will become, unless their parents quietly teach them otherwise, in which case maybe they won't.

Likewise, suppose you have a generation in a staunchly religious country, growing up in schools where they are all taught the religious assumptions common in that culture. Well, then most of them will grow up to follow that religion, because they're familiar with it...unless their parents teach them otherwise. My parents taught me nothing about religion, and I naturally didn't have faith in it as a consequence. We never went to church.

As for science...virtually every organized society on Earth now teaches science to its youngsters in school (maybe a couple of exceptions), so young people everywhere grow up believing in science...but not because they have been confronted with or because they understand much of the evidence. They believe in it because they are familiar with it! ;-) Most of them, if questioned carefully, would soon reveal that their actual awareness of scientific evidence is extremely limited, fragmentary, and quite vague. They have merely accepted it on the basis of faith, because it was all around them and they saw no reason not to.

The exception to the above would be the few people who seek a career in science. Those people know a good deal more about the evidence, obviously.

The rest of the populace, however, just takes their word for it, much like the religious populace takes the word of the religious authorities.

Most of the people out there are proceeding primarily on faith, regardless of whether they are religious or not, and their faith is built upon familiarity with some viewpoint they have become emotionally attached to.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:02 PM

Dan, don't shoot him...write a song about him.

He didn't ask to be a skunk, it was just his 'karma' this time round... :0)   

He probably has many skunk babies to support and protect, so maybe that's why he over-reacted and viewed you as an attacker...Maybe he's a Grandaddy Skunk?

Or, maybe he's just quit smoking too... ;0)


Skunk Love

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:16 PM

You maybe right Lizzie,
you kinda got me with the grand baby skunk thing ... but that was un-called for .. dang .. it was just mean of him ... mean .. I will let it go .. maybe he did stop smoking ... hell there is enough butts in my yard .. maybe he was addicted also .. but I better not see his skunk face around for awhile ... I am still very pissed. Last night was hell on earth

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:28 PM

Little Hawk, on science: The rest of the populace, however, just takes their word for it, much like the religious populace takes the word of the religious authorities.

Sorry, Little Hawk, you are once again out to lunch. People take the word of scientists because they know that there is evidence to back up the stuff that scientists say. That's nothing at all like religion. I'm not a scientist but I have no problem at all with the concept that scientists use a methodology that doesn't let in ideas for which there is no evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:39 PM

Cool Dude Dan!   Vive le Skoonk! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:01 PM

"Buddhism is the same old bullshit in a different box basically; it aspires to enlightenment, elitism and fabricates a spiritual hierachy"

It suggests that if you already aspire to self-realisation and you want to put in the work you then can find out for yourself. There are no special individuals, only people who have an inner impulse to change, simply because they want to. The proof is in the pudding. It's not a matter of faith but observable results to techniques that have been developed over thousands of years. Anyone can choose to suck it and see if they want to, or not if they don't. Buddhists don't proselityse or seek to covert people, or tell them that they will suffer in any way if they don't happen to share that impulse. I don't aspire to climb mount everest or sail the world solo, that drive isn't in me and I don't get it, but it doesn't bug me that other people do.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:07 PM

Dan since you surprised the skunk enough to spray, maybe s/he won't return. I am sure hoping so for the skunk's sake.

I am having a crisis in faith in my old ability to learn new instruments quickly.

Recently bought a pair of bones.... cannot get to grips (hahaha) with them. I have no rhythm.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:18 PM

For many "believers," a primary aspect of their religion is their belief in their own superiority, and their condemnation of others for this and that and the other thing. Most times, you wonder what it is that they do believe, because most of their time and energy seems to be spent condemning others. Perhaps one could say the primary aspect of their faith is xenophobia, the fear of anyone and anything other than themselves. They insist that they have certain knowledge of whatever it is they know, and contend that anything other that what they know for certain, is false.

We see this same kind of thinking expressed in a number of the posts above - except that it comes from people who actively profess that all religious belief is false.

Both sides profess that only they know the truth, and that all others are wrong and need to be suppressed and controlled - even to the point of suggesting that there should be control over what people teach their children and what rituals they celebrate in their own homes.

I can tolerate most things and most people of good will, but I draw the line at the point where people think they have a right to control or condemn what I am and who I am and what I think.

John P gave a list of beliefs-

What evidence can you offer that:
God talks.
God listens.
God has a personality, in that it takes notice of individual humans.
Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus died and came back to life.
God is everywhere.
God is in heaven.
God is, in some way, three beings in one. Did that arrangement pertain before the birth of Christ?
The Bible is divinely inspired.
Anyone knows what happens to us after we die.
Hell exists.
Heaven exists.

And all I can answer is that I can offer no evidence that he would accept, but that most of these things make sense to me within the context of who I am - although I also must insist that people have vastly different understandings of these beliefs. I can offer no evidence or proof, but yet I have experienced most of these "beliefs" within the context of my life. I wouldn't expect John to believe any of these things because he does not share my faith perspective.


Suibhne says, Atheism is about Reality and Inclusivity; it is about the celebration of the commonality of each and every one of us in that not one of us is any greater than any other.
Funny thing....that's exactly the same thing I hold, but within my theistic, religious context. If that's what atheism is, then why should atheism have any conflict with me?
But then, Suibhne spoils the unity by talking about folklore, superstition, myth, mumbo-jumbo and other such cosmic debris that we could really do without taking too seriously.
How is he so sure that these things are without worth, that only Reason reigns supreme?

Suibhne says something else: Can I just add that I see Religion in much the same way as Folklore? They're manifestations of human irrationality we're all prone to, to a greater or lesser extent. Thus I delight in many aspects of our culture that have a religious vibe - churches, festivals, Christmas, Easter, Catholic Statuary, Green Men, Misericords, churches, cathedrals, etc. etc. but all of these I see purely in terms of their humanity; Folklore likewise, and other so-called Spirituality. So whilst I don't do hocus-pocus, I wouldn't deny another person's right to partake if that is their desire.

I'd agree that there is a very close relationship between religion and folklore. To my mind, much of religion IS folklore, wonderful folklore. The Old Testament stories of Job and Jonah are two of the best examples of folklore in Scripture, as are the creation and flood stories. But I don't see them as "manifestations of human irrationality." Rather, I see them as "manifestations of that which is beyond human rationality."

Pure rationality cannot capture the fullness of what some of us see as the transcendent mysteries of life: love, beauty, life, death, peace, evil, and the reason for existence, for example. If you're in love, you know that no rational explanation can approach the reality of the experience - although the experience is indeed intensely real. Likewise with the beauty of a tree or a sunset - intensely real, but beyond the capabilities of rational explanation.

In about 2005, I worked for about a year as an employee of my Catholic parish, teaching people who wanted to become Catholic. During that year, I was under constant scrutiny by right-wing Catholics. They filed a formal complaint to the bishop, and I had to attend a hearing and go through the process of being exonerated. The pastor told me he had to lay me off "for financial reasons," but last year he finally admitted he terminated me because of pressure from right-wing forces.

I tried to reason with these right-wing ultra-Catholics, but it did no good because we spoke a totally different language. From their religious perspective, they sought Absolute Truth and claimed to possess Absolute Truth; while my religious perspective directs me to explore that which is beyond understanding or definition. I found that if I tried to explain things in their language and their terms, I went places where I did not want to go. When I tried to speak in their terms, I found myself getting defensive and angry and limiting. I found myself closing doors, instead of opening them and exploring what was inside.

I have the same experience when I try to respond to non-believers who seek to force me to defend my beliefs. They, like the ultra-Catholics, want to speak in the language of certainty and argument and combat, while the essence of my being is to drift through life without certain knowledge, exploring the wonders I encounter with an open mind. They place a primary importance on proving others wrong, while all I want to do is explore. How can there ever be any depth of communication between us?

So, I try to be polite to those who insist on certainty, and I try not to rattle their cages.

But it's difficult, especially when they seek to control or limit or suppress or silence me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:38 PM

I have 12 patents under my name, all owned by corporations I did business with but my design. I have worked with scientist of all walks of life in a host of various fields. Everything from Nuclear attack subs to fighter jets to voting machines to encryption algorithms to speech recognition to semantic database system to artificial intelligence and the list goes on ... I developed a software facility that is used in every PC today and I gave it to the world for free via publishing instead of patenting it... my mistake , I would be a rich man instead of struggling ... in short .. if you look to science to prove your position in no God you are petting the wrong dog.

Scientists like everyone else are trying to figure out life. The scientific method doesn't apply to the search for the creator or the non existence of a Creator. That is a belief system, one that most atheists seem to deny they have (IE a belief system).

It is ok to have whatever belief system you choose, but not ok to try and dictate what others should or should not believe. Joe is absolutely correct.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:55 PM

Details on what? Happy to provide...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:14 PM

Silly, silly, mousethief. You picked this bit from me to include in your polemic, but unfortunately you completely misread the meaning it's meant to convey,

If the message fails to come across, blame the recipient. Nice. I'll remember that general principle.

At the heart of every Christian is the stinking evil that they believe they are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell.

Incorrect. There are Christian universalists.

Atheism is by definition a belief system

Can't agree. Atheism is by definition lack of belief in God. You might as well say not-stamp-collecting is a hobby.

Atheism is about Reality and Inclusivity; it is about the celebration of the commonality of each and every one of us in that not one of us is any greater than any other.

That sounds an awful lot like a belief system. Better to say that atheism means lack of belief in God.

Buddhism is a second to none religion.

Is Buddhism a religion? I've heard Buddhists argue both ways.

Why do superstitious people get all precious over their delusion?

See, this kind of rhetoric just doesn't move the conversation forward. By the way, something is a delusion only if it's false. By saying it's a delusion you're saying you KNOW God doesn't exist. How would you know that?

Is it because deep down they realise the imaginary friend bit is in fact just a metaphor for the whole mindset? or is it because again deep down, they either knowingly or otherwise resent being told how to behave by people in charge of their faith?

This is just Bulverism.

It is all the other stuff attached to Christianity that I find too bitter a pill to swallow.

This is a respectful statement that one could have a discussion over, because Virginia isn't starting out by insulting Christianity or saying she knows it's false.

well here is what the Supreme Court ruled it as a religion

The Supreme Court also overturned the Florida Supreme Court in order to make George Bush president. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time.

But isn't it time to stop being polite to people who insist on damaging their children's education?

Why, what would being rude do? Would it help them to see the error of their ways and do something else? Like hell. It will only make them feel justified in their doings by the "persecution", and make the snarky ones feel glibly self-righteous.

Why do you believe that?

JohnP: that is a decent approach to go about. But before you can ask for evidence we need to back up one step (at least) and talk about what counts as evidence. Otherwise we may be using the word in two different ways, and talking right past each other. I usually don't give reasons for what I believe online, because I have found that when I do, people pounce on them as if I were presenting a hypothesis in a scientific or logical debate. I don't expect anybody to go along with my beliefs, and greatly appreciate being treated in the same way. What I try to point out are inconsistencies and insufficient attention to the underlying principles of someone's statements.

And the problem with the whole "evidence" thing is that evidence for belief in God isn't scientific evidence. There is no experiment (yet?) one can do and say, "See? God exists." Most people's belief in God (those who have thought about it philosophically) probably rests on a combination of personal experience, historical evidence, and trust in the reports of persons they find trustworthy. None of that is scientific in nature. The existence of God is NOT a scientific question, and treating it as such is a category error.

See, when you say:

I'm also not talking about spiritual experience, which is a well-documented phenomenon and is available to anyone.

you're pre-defining the constraints of the discussion. It's like me saying, "Explain to me why you think light is both a particle or a wave. But no dragging in scientific experiments." Horses for courses. Belief in God and belief in the findings of science just aren't the same kind of thing.

Faith means you believe without having evidence.

See, this is just wrong-headed. It have faith my wife will not have an affair. I don't know she won't, but I believe it. It is not without any evidence, but it is certainly without scientific evidence. So with people's faith in God. They don't have scientific evidence (as I said that is impossible) but that doesn't mean they don't have any evidence at all. Maybe not evidence that you will accept, which is fair enough but not the same thing.

I was responding directly to mousethief's assertion that I can't know what the evidence is that supports a belief in a higher being.

I don't think I said that, and if I did I was mistaken and I apologize.

Also defending my position that I've never been given any reason to think that gods exist, a position which has drawn some fire.

Not from me. If you have no reason to think X, then there is certainly no call to expect you to think X.

People take the word of scientists because they know that there is evidence to back up the stuff that scientists say.

Which they know because the scientists tell them so. Few of us are in the position to replicate the experiments that led to the majority of scientific beliefs. Hell, few of us would even understand them. Truly, most people's understanding and faith in science is based on trust in authority.

Recently bought a pair of bones.... cannot get to grips (hahaha) with them. I have no rhythm.

Bones are impossible. Don't feel bad. I think there must be a bone-playing gene that I failed to inherit.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:28 PM

Of course faith means believing without evidence... if there is evidence, you don't need faith to believe it. You can conclude it instead.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:42 PM

Hey Tam
I love you to hon

Thank you

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:03 PM

Of course there's evidence - just not evidence you'd accept, Mrr. I usually attribute the beginnings of my faith to my grandmother, although there have been many others since her. My grandmother was a woman permeated with faith, and it all made sense in her and the way she lived and who she was. She was full of joy and generosity, without guile or prejudice. Her faith was an integral part of her life, the essence of her integrity. And seeing her, faith made sense to me.

That's my evidence. It doesn't follow all the rules of logical argument - but it's valid evidence, nonetheless. And as I've said before, I want to stay out of the realm of argument. I live my faith, I don't preach it - and it's part of my integrity.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:24 PM

Genetics? My dad was raised Quaker, ran away at 15 to join the army and was not religious all my life. (Mom was the baptist) But he was a great spoon player.   It may not be the rhythm it is the grip. I am going to start a thread on how to hold bones, finger placement, arm and wrist movement, how not to knock innocent bystanders senseless with flying musical missiles. Yes I've searched no real direction on how to.

Going to say goodbye to this thread with a great big hug to all who have posted here for aiding my understanding of you good people.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:30 PM

ok, Joe... *grin* in honor of the genteel tone, I will refrain from my usual 12 paragraph lecture about the linguistic equivocation on 'valid' and 'evidence'....

Mind you, it's a strain... I may have to drink something alcoholic

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:45 PM

That's my evidence.

And of course you know it's not evidence at all, Joe. There are people like your grandmother in every belief - which would make it evidence for every belief- and they can't all be "true" in any useful sense of that elastic word. I'd posit Brother Gregory as counter- evidence to your grandmother. There are Brother Gregories in every belief as well.

As for belief or not, I couldn't give a frankly my dear. It's what you take from that belief that matters. And I can't see how the profession of a religion or the opposite has made the slightest difference to people's social values. As I've said before, show me your St. Francis and I'll show you my Torquemada.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:40 PM

Do we actually have any choice in what we believe or don't believe? I've never chosen not to believe in God, I just can't. Never could, even as a child.

Is this the same for believers?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:56 PM

Pardon my abiguity..

I've never chosen not to believe in God, I just can't.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:58 PM

I give up - even my spelling's gorn to the twilight zone.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:01 PM

"Silly, silly, mousethief. You picked this bit from me to include in your polemic, but unfortunately you completely misread the meaning it's meant to convey,

'If the message fails to come across, blame the recipient. Nice. I'll remember that general principle.'"

Sorry, mate, but my message was very clearly not an attack on free speech, so yes, I can confidently blame you for misreading it. Go and read it properly and stop trying to make it fit your attack mindset. You will find it to be a complaint about the arrogance of religion but quite clearly not a call to stop religions from doing the things I pointed to. Neither explicitly nor implicitly.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:12 PM

I dunno, Paul. It seems to me that a life of faith lived in integrity and joy, is wonderful evidence.
It just doesn't fit YOUR criteria. If I were trying to convert you, then I'd have more of an obligation to meet your criteria. But I have no desire to proselytize, and I see no obligation to defend what I believe. If people see something valuable in the way I live life and want to share my faith, that would be wonderful - but that's entirely up to them. I don't want to push nothin' on nobody.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:20 PM

It might be the hard times, but I simply have no invisible means of support!

Art

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:25 PM

I have strange inclinations.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:32 PM

I've never chosen not to believe in God, I just can't.

and I have never seen you write anything Smokey that criticizes others that do .. and you have my respect for that

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:47 PM

Thanks, olddude - I've criticised religions often enough, but I don't consider that the same as criticising the individuals. Some do, but it's never my intention.

If I have a religion, it's music.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:29 PM

And all music really is, is wobbling air - the rest is all in the mind. That probably makes me irrational :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:41 AM

Just about to heartily concur with the wobbling air when I see in Google ads box a link to "Atheist Beliefs" which made me smile. In the light of that, and so much more, I think if Joe's evidence is anything to go by then it's that our humanity is defined by Joyful Integrity no matter what our personal beliefs might be, and that Joyful Integrity is the right and entitlement of all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:51 AM

Could be so, Suib - but I'm not trying to sell anybody anything. At the very least, however, if I live my life with integrity, perhaps people could leave me alone and lay off the condemnation.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:50 AM

"If I were trying to convert you, then I'd have more of an obligation to meet your criteria. But I have no desire to proselytize, and I see no obligation to defend what I believe."

That's fair enough, Joe, and you and I (and, I hope, other 'unbelievers') have no quarrel. I would never seek to belittle your faith or to tell you what you should or should not be believing. Trouble is there are many 'people of faith' in the world who are desperate to proselytize and to convert others. The other day I ran into some members of a Christian sect on my local high street. I got into conversation with a very articulate and rather eloquent young man who, at one point, informed me that anyone who didn't accept 'Jesus as his/her saviour' was going to Hell (including Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc.). In fact I was left with the impression that anyone who didn't belong to the young man's particular sect was going to Hell. Now you could write such views off as some sort of loony aberration - but fundamentalist religion is on the rise all over the world - yes, even here in relatively godless Britain. Sadly, especially for good people of faith, such as yourself, the time may have come to have a good hard look at all religions and the things that they preach.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:05 AM

"No one thinks that God is physical."

Huh? Surely if someone believes in intelligent design then God has to be physical, or am I missing the point? How would the process of creation work if God were not physical?

Good link Suibhe. The subject of transcendence is one that interests me (both in the bacchic and delphic sense) and is a state of mind which obviously is felt and desired by all people. Yet it's workings are mysterious . . . the very first time I stood in front of Rothko's Seagram murals I experienced a state of transcendence that I certainly wasn't expecting, a moment of epiphany followed and in some way my world outlook was changed at that instant in time. The same happened when I picked up my first ceratopsian fossil in the North Dakota badlands in the summer, when I stood in Arbor Low one sunny day years ago etc etc. What do these moment mean? We all experience these states in a fleeting sense and we wonder if these states could be experienced for longer, and here the more thoughtful mystical branches of religion have some fascinating philosophys (I believe Christian Gnostics call the feeling 'At Play in the Fields of the Lord', a buddhist would call it 'Nirvana').

But . . . scientists also experience these moments (the badlands - yes!) too and the Sagan quotes which are couched in quasi-mystical terms demonstrate this brilliantly. Obviously these moments of transcendence touch individuals differently, we draw different conclusions from the experience. However, it is a common experience (a musicians we all understand that) so what is going on?

It might be simply a firing of synapses in a particularly unusual order; a pleasurable spark of electricity in the biological machine we call 'the brain'. It might be a flash of insight into the divine nature of the universe, or it might be the physical universe contemplating and marvelling at itself through one of it's conscious manifestations . . . us.

I'll go with the last one.*






* But I might be wrong ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:20 AM

We all indeed, I take it, experience these moments of numinosity, 'Mystic experience', call it what you will, when we feel as if some profound thought or experience is hovering on the verges of the mind if only one could just grasp what it was ~~ it is how I always interpret Edward Thomas's exquisite poem "Adlestrop"*. But I have always taken it that there is some neurological explanation for it, rather than that it is proof of the existence of any sort of Divinity.

~Michael~

[* The name of a small village in Gloucestershire in the west of England, where, it appears, Thomas once had such a thought-process as his train stopped for a few moments in its station.]

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:22 AM

"Trouble is there are many 'people of faith' in the world who are desperate to proselytize and to convert others.

And sometimes the "faith" involved is proselytising atheism.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to share what you believe in and value, but it can't be imposed. "If I have a religion, it's music" said Smokey just there. amd that's a good analogy. You're happy to share your music and give people a chance to hear it, but you can't force it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:29 AM

"If people see something valuable in the way I live life and want to share my faith, that would be wonderful - but that's entirely up to them. I don't want to push nothin' on nobody."

That is very laudable (and I'd like to say the same thing about my atheistic self as it happens). But every Christian/Muslim/Jew/whoever who ever sent a child to a religious school, or connived in their receiving religious instruction in any school, or took them to religious services, or said prayers with them before bed, or had them christened at a very young age, or confirmed, or whatever the equivalents are in the non-Christian religions, is pushing somethin' on somebody, and big time with it. No matter how benign it may seem, no matter what feelings of community or fellowship it bestows, it is dishonestly perpetuating myth as truth in their impressionable minds. Doing this to children is the ultimate in pushing somethin' on somebody and there's simply no escaping that fact. And millions and millions of people do it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:25 AM

Joe Offer,

I think you are very wrong about Dawkins. He doesn't hate religion, he just thinks it's
a delusion. There is a difference.

There are those out there who do express hate for religion but these are basically ex-religious people who are still in the throes of religion and are overreacting.

Then there are those who have left religion to those who want it and see no need for it
in their lives. They also see no need to convince anyone of their views.

But remember Joe that the majority of Americans polled statistically don't believe in evolution because of their religion. There are also plenty of religious people out there who justify killing and destructive behavior using their religion as a pretext to do this.

The percentage of Freethinkers and non-believers are not given to violence compared to
the believers. This may be due to the fact that this is a growing minority.

Hate doesn't equate with atheism.

I also see that Mudcat is not always respectful of secular views and sometimes people
impose their religious views on others here and you don't object to that. This is
a double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:44 AM

On the abortion issue, it is always assumed that if you are pro-choice you are also pro-abortion. This is not true. Abortion is always a last ditch effort and not a first choice
for any woman. It's a very hard decision to make in the mind of a healthy woman.

However, to outlaw abortion is to deny a woman not only the right to choose but to
negate the very difficult decision as irrelevant. In that sense, it's a dismissal of
women and their needs by ideologues who are general white, overweight males who have at the bottom of their reasoning a political agenda. They don't really care about women or
babies but are using the abortion issue as a political tool.

It is true that many of the outspoken critics of abortion are women. But they all have
a political agenda whereas the pro-choice women may not.

Having an abortion is not an easy decision and the so-called "pro-life" groups trivialize
this by their close-minded political agendas.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:52 AM

Americas really is more like a different planet than a different country in some ways...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:18 AM

So after more than 200 posts--on Mudcat's most dead horse--what do we have? Looks to be a gaggle of dyspeptic (thanks for the opportunity to use that word) old geese honking madly about the heinous crimes of church bells, baptism---(so sorry you were forced to be baptized, especially for the lifelong trauma it has evidently caused you), being forced to see on busses advertisements you don't agree with, etc.   And I expect some Jehovah's Witnesses have further shattered your life forever by knocking on your door. The lives of the non-believers on Mudcat must be a living hell--so sorry for inflicting religious terminology on you.   Somehow I wasn't aware that Torquemada was in charge in the UK.

Interesting that many of the same players are here as were earlier telling us about the incomparable crime of a nurse praying for a patient--never mind that the patient herself did not seem to have any objection.

The vaunted British sense of fair play is scarcely in evidence here--only McGrath and Leadfingers representing it. US atheists are also not helping their cause--with the exception of Bill D, they also appear incapable of rational thinking. and reasonable debate.

I don't consider myself in the least religious but I do believe in fair play for all points of view--and on Mudcat religion seems to be the #1 scapegoat for most ills of the world.".

"..inclined to go with Dawkins that all religions are dangerous". You can tell us about how all religions are dangerous when you are willing to explain how atheism has worked out when in power.   Start with Hitler, Stalin and Mao---together responsible for more deaths than anybody else in human history.

Atheism has been an unmitigated disaster for mankind. Religion has had much misery inflicted in its name.   But atheism wins this contest hands down.    Congratulations to all you atheists.

And religion, for its believers, is a very real source of comfort.   Please tell us about how comforting atheism is for you.


As I noted earlier, agnosticism is an eminently reasonable stance for a thinking person to take. Atheism is not--for the same reason that fundamentalist religion is not.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:03 AM

This seems to happen a lot. I was thinking last night. The last thing I want to do is go off on people that I do very much regard as friends. I don't think you can talk to people every day for 5 years and not figure out how they tick and become close to them. This is why I regard such threads as not productive. If one knows that there are a large segment of catters that do have faith, that regard their faith as deeply personal and a very important part of their life. Then why would you want to upset your friends to the point of wanting to explode. I don't get it. If someone is preaching to you, confront them and ask them to politely stop you are not interested. But what is the point of causing hard feelings to those who have done nothing but offer their hand in friendship. I don't get it .. God to those who believe is no a delusion but very real in spirit to them and people like me. It is a glue that holds meaning to a persons life and it is a very personal thing. Everyone can find their own path. But most of these types of threads are nothing more than attacks .. I feel it is wrong and not something that is productive but you are free to do so. Likewise, you have to understand when good people go off on you for it . And you run the risk of losing people who care about you. Kinda messed up thinking to me. But anyway .. no hard feeling from me. I do apologize for blowing up .. like I said I have a few issues right at the moment .. (anyone got a cig)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:24 AM

sure Dan... here you go

(the only kind I ever tried)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:49 AM

Dear Dan, except for the last time, when I really did quit smoking, I was so angry the whole time I could have bitten the heads off nails. It was not logical, of course, because I was doing it to myself, but the fact remains that I was plain mad.

And also, of course, I didn't make it. I didn't make it because I had turned into a person I couldn't stand.

My question: Is there any group, club or person that you could go to get over this patch? The deprivation is real; you are asking yourself to change what seems to be your whole life while giving yourself what seems to be very little in return.

Now back to the thread...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 12:40 PM

"This is why I regard such threads as not productive."

Amazing, then, how many times you've posted to it, considering.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 12:47 PM

Dear Steve
that is exactly why I posted so many times if you can understand my drift here. But hey you are welcome to your opinions .. it is highly unlikely that I will post again to another one since I said my piece.

Bill, my dear friend you are sooo right .. gotta ask my doc buddie, there has to be a group around here that I can join .. I went from 2 packs a day to 0 ... not fun

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:08 PM

because of faith
I don't work for scary government agencies
I don't build weapon systems
I don't teach hand to hand fighting or handgun use

I make grape juice
I build charity website for sick kids

I study war no more ..

I thank God for my faith .. it changed my life and that is my path forever
be well my friend, leaving the thread now

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:55 PM

"Somehow I wasn't aware that Torquemada was in charge in the UK."

It's alive and well in the U.S.   Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Aq00yJSxo

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:56 PM

"No matter how benign it may seem, no matter what feelings of community or fellowship it bestows, it is dishonestly perpetuating myth as truth in their impressionable minds. Doing this to children is the ultimate in pushing somethin' on somebody and there's simply no escaping that fact. And millions and millions of people do it."


Bang goes Father Christmas then... ;0)


Look, I saw this programme. It was very interesting...sadly they've removed it from Youtube at present, else I'd have linked to it. Richard Dawkins is as passionate about evolution being the 'answer' as others are about religion being the same thing.

Bottom line, NONE of us will *ever* know, ever, ever...EVER.

Most of the 'religous' folks he met were slightly extreme, to say the least..There was 'Bible Bashing Ted' and the eerily aggressive 'Once I was a Jew now I'm TWICE the Muslim you ARE!' bloke, who had steam coming out of his ears and was almost writing the name Dawkins in his new 'Hit List 2010 Diary'

What made me chuckle was when Richard and Bible Bashing Ted got talking...and each was as arrogant, angry and aggressive as the other. Hormones were flying, swords were being laid down with visual expressions alone! I've *never* seen two men who looked more as if they wanted to kill each other than those two...

Now of course, the interesting thing is that Bible Bashing Ted Haggard has been Bashing Gays with the Bible for a long time, encouraging many others to do the same...but then, I find on Youtube, 'Oh dear, Woopsie, Ted' admitting to having had homosexual relationships in the past...and being a little confused about his wife, although he now loves her passionately, apparently.   Ted was falling over himself, following therapy (and a 'lover' who basically sold his story) to apologise from the bottom of his hypocritcal heart, fully admitting he'd been a hypocrite and had done much damage to some gay people with his attitude and preachings...

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but of course, those who need to believe their preachers 1000 percent will have taken his words of hatred on board...especially if they're little children, whose Mums and Dads put them to bed singing anti-gay songs each night..and oh yes, those are out there on Youtube too..

Religious extremists of ALL religions do terrible damage to decent people whose religion is about love, kindness and helping each other, nothing else..

I think Christianity has become so hated because of the issue over gay people, and imo, the Gay Rights Movement has done a great deal to try to damage Christianity because of that issue.   I guess many can understand their anger, for to be gay and to be told that you cannot be a Christian because God deems you to be kinda weird and wrong, must hurt to the very core. Add to this the crazy folks who use that to whip up hatred and horror for gay people and well...it's just not good, really, is it?

Now, I don't believe that God hates Gay people, or Black people, or Short people or Tall people, because I believe that the Bible was written by *people*, many of whom had their own personal hang ups...I believe that of the other Holy Books too.

Soooo...I think that's why Christianity gets so attacked in here, although I could, of course be wrong.

Yes, most wars start over religion, but...we're changing that now, and starting them over oil and water, so that's er...a step forward...or at least it will be when all religions join together 'cos no-one has any oil or water left...and finally we all become ONE religion....., which is The Spirit of Faith, I guess...

I love God, but he's my god...and he has a whacking sense of humour. I silently curse him at times though, but I also feel sorry for him, b ecause in forgetting to explain to humans where we came from, how the Big Bang happened, where the first atom appeared from, he's created one helluva stink...

But then, maybe he likes that...maybe he likes sitting up there with Darwin beside him watching this Game of Life To Infinity and Beyond, being played out below...

I tell you what though, as Dan says, you only have to look to Nature, to the Beauty of this Planet, to realise that something, somewhere, somehow, sometime is 'out there', but we all have to be patient and wait until we die to find out exactly what the answer is.

Hopefully, there's a Heavenly Big Bang Mudcat board up there, to which we can all post "I ***TOLD*** you ***SO!***" messages to...and Joe can sit there, zapping the Heavenly Guests from it, day after day, ad infinitum... :0)

The main thing is that Pastor Ted is probably earning EVEN MORE from his TV appearances than he did from his Bible Bashing meetings...so er...that's OK then!

Faith, to me, is all. No rules, no regulations, no Pastor Ted's, no hang ups...just faith and beauty and peace..

Pastor Ted comes clean

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:03 PM

Ron you are under misapprehensions about atheism.

"Interesting that many of the same players are here as were earlier telling us about the incomparable crime of a nurse praying for a patient--never mind that the patient herself did not seem to have any objection."

First of all, nothing fails like prayer.

" US atheists are also not helping their cause--with the exception of Bill D, they also appear incapable of rational thinking. and reasonable debate."

This is patently false.

"I don't consider myself in the least religious but I do believe in fair play for all points of view--and on Mudcat religion seems to be the #1 scapegoat for most ills of the world.".

I wouldn't call your bias against atheism as fair play. I'd call it intolerance.

" Start with Hitler, Stalin and Mao---together responsible for more deaths than anybody else in human history."

Religion has been responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Stalin and Mao put together.
Also, Hitler was raised a Catholic and he condemned atheism.

"Atheism has been an unmitigated disaster for mankind. Religion has had much misery inflicted in its name.   But atheism wins this contest hands down.    Congratulations to all you atheists."

This statement is blind prejudice and nothing else. It's complete propaganda.

"And religion, for its believers, is a very real source of comfort.   Please tell us about how comforting atheism is for you."

Actually atheism can be very comforting because it frees the mind from the shackles
of dogma. It's like being released from a prison.

" agnosticism is an eminently reasonable stance for a thinking person to take. Atheism is not--for the same reason that fundamentalist religion is not."

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. There are agnostic atheists as well as many kinds.

McGrath, atheism is not a "faith" or belief. It is a lack of faith or belief in religion and
that's all it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:10 PM

mousethief,

I have followed Richard Dawkin's speeches and find no hatred in them but there is
plenty of hatred for those who criticize religion in a dispassionate and analytical way.

There are all kinds of atheists and some of them are shrill and mean but Dawkins is not
one of them. He is a rational thinker and though critical of religion, he has religious
friends and supporters. Dawkins is an ethologist, a biologist and a proponent of Darwin and one of the few who really understands Darwin's contributions to humanity.

Man, there sure is a lot of prejudice on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:14 PM

"Please tell us about how comforting atheism is for you."

As a non-atheist this is what I'd posit: No afterlife = no eternity of damnation and torment?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:21 PM

"Man, there sure is a lot of prejudice on Mudcat."

So Frank - just to clarify the matter. Your belief is that the folks who have to put up with the bulk of the prejudice here at the Mudcat are the athiests?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:24 PM

I think it exists here Wesley about atheists as well as other points-of-view.

Prejudice is prejudice regardless of who is the recipient of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:25 PM

The main comfort people take in adopting any firm opinion, no matter what it is, is the absolute certainty that they are right, and that anyone who doesn't see it their way is wrong...as well as being a prat, a fool, an idiot, etc....   

And there you have this thread. In a nutshell.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:27 PM

Most of the people here are too rational to condone this. But this is where religion can
lead many people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfL7GvWsHAA&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:28 PM

It reminds me of the age old question: "Do you want to be happy - or right?"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:35 PM

I think it's possible to have a rational discussion about religion without resorting to passionate reactionary opinions. I can see that religion for some people has more of a benign effect and that not all religious folk are violent, prejudiced or behave destructively.

In the end, it comes down to personal opinions about the value of religion. It will not change anyone's mind to argue pro or con but it can be illuminating to present a different point-of-view. I'm happy that we don't all think alike.

I think that the figures given by the media for the rise of atheism in the US are too low.

Although religion for me is a delusion, I don't think religious people are necessarily crazy.
It would be crazy to say that. Delusion may sound like an attack to some but the word is clear.

delusion
noun
was her belief in his fidelity just a delusion? misapprehension, misconception, misunderstanding, mistake, error, misinterpretation, misconstruction, misbelief; fallacy, illusion, fantasy.

No where does it say that the holder of a delusion is crazy.

Tolerance, people. Atheists are treated worse than Muslims or Gays today.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:42 PM

"Atheists are treated worse than Muslims or Gays today."

Probably correct there. That's why their rights need to be respected. Both of the other groups you mentioneded have organizations that come to their aid when their rights are infringed upon. It seems that by nature - athiests don't belong to groups that have the power to protect their rights. The ACLU comes to mind - but the answer to this and other problems where rights are trampled is to organize.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:52 PM

Wesley, atheists do have one major ally, the U.S. Constitution. Separation of Church and State. There are organizations that do protect the rights of atheists. The Freedom From Religion in Madison, Wisconsin is doing a great job.

There will continue to be court battles around such Separation issues.

Thank you Wesley for acknowledging that atheist's rights need to be respected.
This is the first voice of tolerance that I've heard on Mudcat among those who
are believers.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:59 PM

"The main comfort people take in adopting any firm opinion, no matter what it is, is the absolute certainty that they are right, and that anyone who doesn't see it their way is wrong...as well as being a prat, a fool, an idiot, etc....   

And there you have this thread. In a nutshell."

LH, I have to disagree here. There is a possibility of having a rational and analytical
discussion about religion without dissing anyone. The purpose of this thread is no
different from other threads that I've seen promoting religious views.

As a supporter of the rights of freedom of speech, I think that many different points-of-view can and should be presented on Mudcat. I am not in favor of censorship. That's what I like about this BS section and Mudcat in particular. Keep 'em coming.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:25 PM

I don't work for scary government agencies
I don't build weapon systems
I don't teach hand to hand fighting or handgun use


And because of not-faith, I do the same, though it's cost me.

And other people do the opposite because of faith, and still others because of not-faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:30 PM

I was talking my path personally Paul .. not anyone elses that is their choice.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:35 PM

And Frank, the so called Christian right that is really Christian wrong has peddled more hate in this country than any 10 other groups combined .. I can fully appreciate people going off on them. I DO THAT MYSELF

however, those of us here on mudcat ... well WE AIN'T THEM
when did you ever here me do that .. or Jerry or anyone else for that matter. And when one of those nut cases go off on gay people. I am the f irst one to kick their ass for them ..

Mudcat isn't rev TED .. one need to understand who they are talking to and why some people do tend to get upset

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:35 PM

One of the scary things is the fundamentalist Christianization of the US military.
McChrystal was one of the culprits, here. Boykin was another. Not sure of Petraeus
but I am suspicious that he is another.

There are many reasons to question the efficacy of religion practically. I see no harm
in thoughtful criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:00 PM

You point is well take Frank. Those groups are not christian groups. They are power groups. Preachers who call themselves preachers who are in it for the dollars, the power, the votes for candidates of their choosing. To control the thoughts the words the actions of others .. to divide and then control.   Feeble minds who would followed anyone is their prime targets. They use half truths, distorted views of the faith to proceed with their plan.

I do not work for the military, ever again .. why .. it is against my faith .. it is wrong .. one cannot believe in Christ and build weapons that kill .. it is wrong .. so I walk away a better person. But others follow these leaders .. right into a dark place because they cannot think and understand the words of God .. if they read their own bible they would know it is wrong .. you cannot peddle hate against others .. you cannot demonize gay people or women. I understand atheist people getting so upset. Those people peddled so much hate that it is completely understandable to hate back. But hate bring hate bring more hate .. people who understand their God understand there is no place for hate towards anyone .. only compassion and love .. that is the only path in Christianity .. but understand also that evil people calling themselves Christian use half truths for their own gain.   The Taliban is not Muslim .. that is a great faith a faith of peace for 500 years they lived in peace with everyone .. but now some weak minds follow not their God but their self appointed leaders ... Much like you see today in the modern fundamentalist movement in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010Reason A
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:13 PM

Ok, this is an interesting question: if information A leads Person A to believe in Answer A, then that information is being considered as evidence for that answer by that person. BUT - if Answer A is known to be demonstrably false, OR if information A leads everybody else to answer B, or doesn't lead anybody else anywhere, THEN - is that information still evidence?

There are people who say the beauty of the world is evidence for deity, for instance. Most of us data folk restrict the word Evidence to replicable data, as in an increase in reaction time is Evidence for an increase in cognitive function. Also most of ua atheists consider the beauty of the world inevitable to us since we all evolved together, and would not consider it to bear on the existence of deity.

Evidence I would accept, Joe, would be replicable. But I would argue that semantically, what you have that you call evidence I wouldn't accept is rather not, to me, evidence at all.

Kinda like the word Theory. Evolution may be a theory but it is not theoretical, like gravity, which is also a theory.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:15 PM

Doesn't get more clear than this:

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:17 PM

I am glad that you are consistent in your Christian belief system. I think that this has to be respected regardless of whether I agree with it's "truth" or not. Although I am not in accordance with their belief system, I respect the Quakers for what they do.
I totally agree that our military system is corrupt just like our Senate and Congress.

I think that the Taliban is not Al Quaeda and that should be emphasized in our foreign policy.

I can understand why certain Christian believers do not identify with the war-mongering and loud-mouthed preachers, politicians and moral dictators. I try to respect the individual in his/her actions rather than in his/her belief system. When it comes down to the wire, in my view, human kindness and humanity trumps ideology every time.

Olddude, keep on pickin'. You have a fan here.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 05:12 PM

Just found this rather interesting programme...Hope some of you may enjoy it....

Richard Dawkins versus the fundamentalists.

Did Darwin Kill God - BBC Documentary in 6 parts

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 05:28 PM

Mrrzy.. you have just enlarged on my kidding post to Joe Offer a ways back. Yes...there ARE strict, technical ways to use words like 'valid' and 'evidence', but those words are like 'folk' and 'traditional'; they are just too handy and convenient shorthand for "concepts that I like and agree with".

When words get used, as Humpy-Dumpty said to Alice, "to mean exactly what I choose them to mean..", it is an example of Equivocation.

This is SUCH a common problem when folks get to arguing past one another in a "yes it is"/"no it isn't" exercise in futility. They simply, flatly have different meanings in mind, and often, neither side figures it out.....and when the topic is about arcane, metaphysical matters, it is not always easy to even untangle enough rhetoric to show where the equivocation lies. It is even harder to get everyone to agree to **agree** on a common definition in order to continue the debate on level ground.

People say: "Well, MY God is not X" or "The 'spirit' of humanity is..." and often, even the one speaking cannot even find alternate language to explain his 'inner meaning'.

And we wonder why, after 10,000 years and variations in 10,000 languages, we fail to communicate!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 05:52 PM

A "theory" which has been proven may be called a "law", "rule", "principle", and in math and (perhaps) classic logic, a "theorem".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:03 PM

The lesson of Humpty Dumpty was to ask what people mean before reacting to our own meaning of what they said.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:07 PM

Semantics surrounding words like "evidence" and "theory" are purely context-driven. They mean different things on the street than they do in th elab.

Faith and religion are far from being synonymous.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:34 PM

Until it's been proven (upheld beyond a reasonable doubt), it isn't a theory. To be called a theory it already has to be well-established.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:18 PM

Er, not really. There is no way that in science a theory is something that is proven beyond reasonable doubt. You're not a scientist, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:25 PM

The distinction is between a hypothesis, which is an idea that doesn't as yet have much evidence to back it up, and a theory which does. All theories are still to some extent provisional.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:50 PM

Yes, but that extent is tiny - like, yeah, there MIGHT not be gravity, but all the evidence is that there *is*. That's why I said Upheld beyond a reasonable doubt. No, not proven, in science, you're right, I should have been more clear. But upheld beyond a reasonable doubt, absolutely. That is then an Accepted theory, like gravity, plate tectonics, evolution, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:54 PM

The word evidence is the thing. A word, sadly, usurped by religion (religion loves to usurp) to mean, well, things that ain't evidence. Like writings in an ancient book with loads of authors, dodgy translators and even more "editors." Like witness statements (Bernadette for example). Like people who say they've had visions/prayers answered/miracle cures that were nothing of the sort. Like "look around you at the wonders of nature! What more evidence do you need!" I hate it when religion talks of evidence. There isn't the slightest scrap of evidence for the existence of God and there never will be. There's faith and there's evidence. The twain cannot meet in a religious context, ever.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:55 PM

Thank you Frank. You have been a music hero to me for over 40 years. And a good friend to me here on Mudcat. I always respect your opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:03 PM

We all know there is gravity, Mrrzy. What we have theories about is what causes it and exactly how it works and whether there are any anomalies or variances in how it works. There are some very interesting theories now about gravity, and probably a great deal yet to be discovered concerning it.

Now, about "beyond reasonable doubt"....

Prior to the 1950s, the general science community felt sure beyond a reasonable doubt that continental drift did not and could not have ever occured. A scientist named Alfred Wegener thought otherwise and proposed his theory in 1905 about the breakup of an original enormous continent "Gondwanaland" into the present separate continents (plate tectonics...continental drift). He was scorned utterly by the mainstream science community who felt that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that continents do NOT move around, but have a permanent, fixed position on the globe.

They were wrong. ;-) Evidence since the 1950s has confirmed that Wegener was correct in his theory.

The conventional and popular view in any era NEVER doubts itself one iota...but it frequently turns out to be dead wrong after the passage of some time. The society of each century has the fun of debunking the sacred cows of the previous one...including the scientific sacred cows. I doubt we've seen the end of that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:08 PM

Throughout history most religion has not been any gift to mankind at all. Usually just the opposite because it is corrupted by others who call themselves leaders.

If your faith is personal based.. it cannot be corrupted by others .. I have said it many times before, there is a huge difference between faith and religion ... Amos said it also , he is 100% correct.

it is like my friend who is minister and wanted me to check out his new church when I went to San Diego. Gary is one of the kindest and gentlest people one could meet. He said, isn't the church beautiful, I said sure is. I will show you mine when you visit. He visited me last summer and I took him out to a lookout point where you can see the valley, the grape vineyards and a perfect view of the Lake and told him
"this is my church" he said, you win, yours is more beautiful

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:19 PM

Religion is procedural, hierarchichal, historical, organizational, formal, and political.

Faith is personal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:47 PM

I always find it so hard to understand. I see all of the people following a guy like Hagee, he stands there spewing hate at gays and Catholics and atheists and pretty much everyone else and calls himself minister and has this big following of "fellow Christians" when you open up the New Testament and read "That which you do to the least of my brothers you do to me" and then you read the post I did earlier about what love is .. and then how they wanted to stone a woman for adultry and he said "let you with no sin throw the first stone" and they walked away and he tell her anyone left to condemn you and she answers no one. And he says nor do I go and sin nomore ..

What don't they get .. why would you follow those guys and turn your back on God if you are a Christian.. so far from faith that it makes those of us who do believe cry.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:59 PM

The very heart of faith is this:



    One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:13 PM

Dude, that is the heart of some faiths; the essence of Faith as a condition of person does not depend on mandates or names. I have to distinguish between the spiritual state of faith as a unique mode of consciousness, and the targeted faith each religion holds about its own vocabulary and cast of characters.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:14 PM

Theory ...(many definitions...see why it is difficult to debate these things?)

1: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

2:A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

"a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"; "a scientific possibility that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"

3:A belief that can guide behavior

4:An unproven conjecture.

5: (logic) A set of axioms together with all statements derivable from them.
A theory is consistent if it has a model.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:24 PM

You are correct Amos and each faith has their own version but it is all pretty much consistent on a personal level. That is where the leaders all start to corrupt, they will interpret for you .. toss in their opinions .. then it all goes down the tubes into some evil abyss.

I confront these guys with the bible they profess to understand and it is amazing how the topic changes back to gay bashing or something else .. Then I quote the least of my brethren and then subject is changed again .. That is what a professed leader does to it.

In centuries past, the Catholic church outlawed bible ownership to anyone but the priest. Why, exact reason, they would lose power had people been able to read the message themselves and question why the church acted like it did at that time frame since it was a political organization controlling all land and wealth

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:33 PM

The Buddhist faith has some beautiful passages .. I remember one that reads to forgive rather than to hurt . all life is sacred and cannot be replaced. Muslim faith and Jewish faith same ...

But when men enter the picture .. corruption, hatred, death ..
amazing to me

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM

And Native Americans

NATIVE AMERICAN SPIRITUALITY

Robert Staffanson
Executive Director, American Indian Institute

While Native American spirituality is not easily defined, it has
several defining characteristics:

    a) Recognition of the interconnectedness of all Creation, and the
responsibility of human beings to use their intelligence in protecting
that inter- connectedness. That applies particularly to the lifegiving
elements: water, air and soil.

    b) A belief that all life is equal, and that the presence of the life
spark implies a degree of spirituality whether in humans, animals or
plants. In their view the species of animals and birds, as well as forests
and other plant life, have as much "right" to existence as human beings,
and should not be damaged or destroyed. That does not mean that they
cannot be used but that use has limitations.

    c) Their primary concern is with the long-term welfare of life rather
than with short-term expediency or comfort. They consider all issues and
actions in relationship to their long-term effect on all life, not just
human life.

    d) Their spirituality is undergirded by thankfulness to the Creator.
Prayer, ceremonies, meditation and fasting are an important part of their
lives. But they ask for nothing. They give thanks: for all forms of life
and for all the elements that make life possible, and they are concerned
with the continuation of that life and the ingredients upon which it
depends.

~~ excerpted from http://www.silcom.com/~origin/sbcr/sbcr072

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:51 PM

ah, Dan, my friend...men have always been in the picture. From all those thousands of years ago, cowering in caves and wondering about the lightning and thunder to Popes and Imams issuing edicts to frighten the 'flock', men have both 'believed' and manipulated the belief of others in order to suit an agenda.
Whether any of them stumbled on bits of the 'truth' in the process is hard to know.
We have, at least, the freedom to glean from the heaps of 'wisdom' something to suit almost every taste. I see beauty and goodness... as well as sadness and hate ...in the paths various people have chosen from the 'tower of Babel'.....which is about all we can hope for, I guess.
It is comforting to read about those who have found happy & pleasant pieces.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:11 PM

Dan,
Try to stay out of the way of the stuff when it's flying all around you. I wish us all luck in doing that. Also: Center on here and now and the details thereof. Thinking too much will do ya in.

With admiration--mostly.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:45 PM

So true Art, thank you my friend

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:31 AM

The word evidence is the thing. A word, sadly, usurped by religion (religion loves to usurp) to mean, well, things that ain't evidence. Like writings in an ancient book with loads of authors, dodgy translators and even more "editors." Like witness statements (Bernadette for example). Like people who say they've had visions/prayers answered/miracle cures that were nothing of the sort. Like "look around you at the wonders of nature! What more evidence do you need!" I hate it when religion talks of evidence. There isn't the slightest scrap of evidence for the existence of God and there never will be. There's faith and there's evidence. The twain cannot meet in a religious context, ever.

If, at 5:00 in the afternoon, I come into the house and my wife's hat, which she wore to work this morning, is on the table, it's evidence she's home. If you don't agree than you are using "evidence" in a very specific way and it's no wonder you don't recognize "writings in an ancient book" as evidence. How do you know the visions/prayers/whatever were nothing of the sort? Because there's no God so those things don't happen? That's arguing in a circle. Witness statements sure are evidence in a court of law!

There are a lot of meanings to the word "evidence". You don't get to outlaw all the uses you don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:09 AM

MT has the rights of the matter--what constitutes evidence varies with the kind of knowing and the context being treated. Law, physics, social science and mysticism all use the word to suit their fields.

But it is foolhardy to grab the scientific use and misapply it, for example, to the theory of evolution.

Anyone who has touched the infinite wind of creation knows about the aspect of existence people call God whether they bother buying a brand or not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:13 AM

I think what most atheists or at least agnostics require is empirical evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 02:36 AM

Yeah, but there's a difference between evidence and proof. The word evidence has a rather broad spectrum of meaning. I'd say that in general, evidence is information or something observable or palpable that leads one to assume, believe, conclude, or prove something.
But proof is a logical and incontrovertible conclusion based on a body of evidence.

I acknowledge that there are many believers who want to "prove" the correctness of what they believe, but I see very few Mudcatters who seek to prove their beliefs. They see their beliefs as more....intuitive. They acknowledge some element of doubt and uncertainty in what they believe - but they believe nonetheless, and wish only to be free to believe unmolested. Here and there we get a religious nut at Mudcat who wants to condemn people for their unbelief, that that's rarely the case here.

---

I don't think I have ever seen a post here that shows disrespect to Native American beliefs, legends, stories, rituals, and traditions. People seem to be able to grasp that although these elements of Native American belief may not be "factually" true, they can often lead to profound truth and insight. Well, I think that the same can hold true for the beliefs, legends, stories, rituals, and traditions of a wide variety of other belief systems, from Christianity to Zen. By keeping an open mind, I have learned wonderful things from a wide variety of religious and philosophical traditions, not only from my own tradition. These traditions may not always be rational or logical or "factual," but they can be good and true if they open people to a deeper understanding and respect for that which surrounds us. If they lead people to closed minds and intolerance and exclusionism, then I think they can be harmful or dangerous.

And despite all the good and sacredness in the elements Native American beliefs, there are other Native American belief elements that can lead people to closed minds and intolerance and exclusionism; and yes, even to violence.

So, what I ask for is tolerance and respect for all that can lead people to openness and generosity and wisdom - even to people who do not share your particular ideology. And yes, even legend and myth can lead people to openness and generosity and wisdom.


Stringsinger, you said something that I don't completely understand:

I also see that Mudcat is not always respectful of secular views
and sometimes people impose their religious views on others here
and you don't object to that.
This is a double standard.

I wonder if you could explain that more, because I don't completely understand what you're saying. Mudcat has a policy of generally allowing people to say what they say, as long as it isn't a direct and personal attack on another Mudcatter. We expect people to express their secular views and their religious views without restriction, and I think we're pretty good at adhering to that free-speech policy.

Now, as far as my personal views, I admit that I myself may have a double standard. I expect nonbelievers to be rational and tolerant and respectful, because they usually are. And yes, when they are disrespectful or when they paint a condemnation with too broad a brush, I object.
On the other hand, I do NOT expect religious fanatics to be rational or tolerant or respectful, because they usually aren't. I usually don't object to what they say, because I do not believe they are capable of rational discussion. I just keep quiet and hope they go away, and I've found they're more likely to leave if people don't respond to them. But yet, as a moderator I feel bound to allow what they say because we have a free-speech policy.
In general, I respect nonbelievers, but I do not respect religious fanatics. I have profound respect for you and for most of the values you say you hold dear, and I espouse almost all the same values you claim as your own. But I am a religious person, and you are not - so if you condemn my beliefs when I think we share mostly the same values, it hurts. I ask only that you respect my beliefs as sacred to me, even though you do not hold those beliefs. That, I believe, is tolerance - if we respect a person, then we must also respect (but not necessarily espouse) what that person holds sacred.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:15 AM

"Please tell us about how comforting atheism is for you."

Atheism is not an absence of anything other than the inane belief in the supernatural; it is a celebration of the infinite wonders of what is rather than the somewhat warped fantasies of what, most evidently, isn't. Atheism is about life and reality; it rejects hocus-pocus and spirtuality as being, at best, Folklore and treats them accordingly. The comforts of Atheism, therefore, are not effected by absence of God, Sprituality, Funny hats, Hoo-Hah, Tarot, Astrology, Ley lines, Elightenment, Nirvana, Karma, Holy Toast, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Fairies, Jungian Archeytypes, Rosary Beads, Prayer Wheels, Reincarnation, and other such arcticles of faith, rather they are enriched by the presence of a far greater and more meaningful material reality. In my case the list is endless - Frank Zappa, M R James, The Marx Brothers, sex, food, Folk Song, Fiddles, Organology, Sun Ra, Don Cherry, Bitches Brew, Jordi Savall, Rene Zosso, Phil Rickman, Liverpool, Manchester, the AA, the Trafford Centre, Studio Ghibli, Beat Takeshi, Kraftwerk, New Order, Tim Westwood, Subway, McDonalds, Davie Stewart, Edgar Allen Poe, Friedrich Nietzsche, IKEA, ASDA, Morrisons, Wetherspoons, penguins, Larry David, Godzilla, Willie Scott, canals, Thelonius Monk, ducks, Becks, vintage pornography, Peter Bellamy, pigs, jelly fish, The Fall, Laurel and Hardy, The Three Stooges, Top Cat, Vic Reeves, Rolf Harris, clouds, hedgerows, Green Men, Misericords, Magma, Will Hay, Jim Eldon, the Herefordshire School of Romanesque Sculture, the Soft Machine, Art Tatum, Rahsaan Rold Kirk and, of course, Duke Ellington.   

Real Life is all the comfort I need, and in my experience the Cosmic Debris of Religion just gets in the way of living so I reject it. The Human Dimension is all there is, so believe whatever you like, just don't go telling me it's a) real b) true or c) worth killing or dying for. The universe is so much bigger than religion; I tell you ASDA is bigger than religion, and Life really is too short for doing anything else but living it. As for Death - I was Dead once upon a tie; before my birth I didn't exist. Non-existense didn't bother me then so I doubt very much it'll bother me again.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:27 AM

"Human Dimension is all there is, ..."

My immediate reaction to that, Suibhne, is: "Oh no it isn't!" There's a lot more to existence than humans, and if we don't start acknowledging that soon we'll all be well and truly scundered! Besides us (and our petty concerns) there's various classes of micro-organisms, plants, fungi, molluscs, crustaceans, insects (countless thousands of beetles, for example), birds and mammals (plus loads of stuff I've missed). There's the various components of the Earth's interior and plate techtonics and volcanoes and oceans, rivers and lakes. There's weather, clouds and thunder and lightning and various other atmospheric phenomena. There's the Sun (an on-going thermonuclear explosion held together by gravity) and planets, moons, asteroids and comets, the Oort Cloud and the complex boundaries of the Solar System. There are the terrifying gulfs of interstellar space and other suns (at least 100 billion of them in our galaxy alone); these include red and brown dwarfs and blue and red giants giants and it appears now that many of these have planets - some of which could be earth-like; I believe that there are suns that are so big that it would take a modern jet airliner several thousand years to circumnavigate them. There are black holes - collapsed stars with such intense gravitational fields that they swallow light. There is the galaxy itself: a vast, lens-shaped conglomeration of stars around 100,000 light years in diameter. There are the even more terrifying gulfs of intergalactic space and countless billions of other galaxies. Finally there is the Universe itself: I one saw a representation of it which looked like a 3-dimensional filigree or net - with inconceivably vast, empty 'cells' between the skeins of galaxies. And all of this is composed 'stuff' we call 'matter' which has a complex structure on a sub-microscopic scale governed by the outre laws of quantum mechanics.

Where do you and I fit into all of this? Do you know, I haven't got the faintest clue!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:47 AM

OK, mousethief. Never mind the hat. This is more like it. I drop into your local and proclaim to you that the Large Blue isn't extinct in Cornwall after all, contrary to all received wisdom. Now which of the following would you accept as evidence from me?

(a) I saw it written in a book.

(b) I claim I saw one fluttering around in my garden.

(c) I claim I dreamed about them flying over the clifftops at Newquay.

(d) I claim I'd had a vision that it had returned in great numbers.

(e) I tell you that a bloke had told me his granny had seen one.

(f) I show you a dead specimen in a jar.

(g) I claim it had to be back because I'd seen one of its food plants nibbled.

(h) I show you a close-up photo of a Large Blue I'd taken.

(i) I show you a set of dated digital photos clearly showing the butterfly in an appropriate habitat and showing that the habitat in question was located in Cornwall.

If you didn't know me you'd accept (i) only, and then only provisionally. You can fake photos. You'd ask me to take you to the place to see for yourself and confirm my sightings and take your own photos (there's your link with evidence in the scientific sense). I could hardly accuse you of being unreasonable/treading on my beliefs. Once several people have done that you could start to build on the evidence - you look for appropriate food plants and for colonies of the ant that the Large Blue needs for its life-cycle and you might look for the caterpillars in the ants' nests. If you knew me well and trusted me you might just take (b), (f) and (h) as supporting evidence, sufficient even for you to go to take a look for yourself (with little real expectation at best, perhaps) but you would never accept them on their own. If you did, and you went around telling people that the Large Blue was back just on my say-so, you could very well end up looking a fool. We all know about people who build up trust in others then betray them (like teachers building trust in kids in faith schools then teaching God to them as truth).

With religion you can never get past the level of (e). Because of this, religion resorts to reliance on faith. Now that faith, based on (a) to (e), is pretty well all faith and nothing remotely resembling reliable, repeatable, corroboratable evidence. Everyone of religion accepts their God on the basis of nothing more than this, because there is nothing more than this, and they are quite happy to pass this faith on robustly, expressed as spurious certainties, to their children. "Our Father who art in heaven..." is not "Our Father, if he or she (!) actually exists, who may or may not be in heaven, if there is a heaven at all..." Thank goodness atheists don't deal in such certainties, not even Dawkins. The atheist is like you in the pub. You demand a certain level of evidence before you'll even agree to take me seriously. Religion can never reach that minimum level of evidence, because what it comes up with isn't evidence in any real sense at all.

Oh, and I forgot that last resort of the believer. We could call it (j). "Just go outside, look at the sky, the trees, feel the wind and the sun...what more evidence do you need!"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:04 AM

I suffer from this delusion.
I tend to believe in a "magic fairy in the sky" as Foolestroupe likes to call the deity.
I say "tend" because my faith is shaky.
I have doubts.
Most people of faith, apart from the fanatics, also have doubts.

I am amazed at the arrogant certainty expressed by many here.
Remember that many, most even, of the greatest intellectual giants our species has produced have had some form of faith.
That is true still today and includes great scientists and cosmologists.
That does not make us right, but it should make you ponder.
What great insight do you have that a lifetime's consideration failed to give them?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:17 AM

Gee, it seems atheists might possibly not like being described as "a gaggle of dyspeptic old geese honking madly..."   ( And setting up straw men--mind you, these are very talented geese.) Can't understand why they would object to that depiction. But if they in fact object, perhaps they might start to appreciate how the religious feel when their beliefs are caricatured with terms like "imaginary friend" and the like.

By the way, atheists, don't try to crawl away. If you call yourself an atheist, you buy the whole ball of wax. After all that's your attitude to Christians.


Unless you prefer to identify with the Red Queen, words mean something. There is a difference between atheism and agnosticism. On Mudcat the difference appears to primarily manifest itself in the fact that atheists feel free to ridicule the beliefs of the religious. Agnostics do not.

And why is this?   It seems that it's because atheists feel a degree of certainty on the question of God's existence which agnostics do not.

Sure enough, my dictionary defines agnosticism as follows:   'believing that the human mind cannot know if there is a God or an ultimate cause or anything beyond natural phenomena".   Dictionary on atheism:   "the belief that there is no God or denial that God or gods exist."

If words mean anything there is a clear difference in degree between the two on the question of God's existence.

Agnostics are rather more humble--admitting they don't know. Atheists are not so humble on the question--as we have richly seen on Mudcat. And on Mudcat the difference seems to manifest itself in the attitude of the writer.

It seems blazingly clear which of the two is the more sensible position for any thinking person.   It ain't atheism.



To be continued

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:18 AM

Leading scientists still reject God

Originally appeared in Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313

The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.org/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:20 AM

I used to have a great deal of respect for Dawkins. In some scientific areas I still do. I have all his books and found the first three or four extremely facinating and wonderful. After Darwin he was the nearest thing I had to a biological master. Then it started. What used to be the occasional comment or explanation why religion and God cannot be became almost a battlecry in his books. He harped on and on in order to to 'prove' there was no God.

At the time I was happily calling myself an agnostic and had no God in my life. All was well with the world if I put no God in charge of things. If I allowed evolutions to take it's randon course I could explain all things (except those first microseconds of the beginning of time/the universe we know today). I was satisfied with my lot.

Something happened that deeply upset all my thinking. Someone I loved dearly died and it became important to me for me to find she had a chance to be 'alive' somewhere and having a better life than she had here. I started looking toward religion for some answers, while remaining open minded on God and trying to find answers I could sit comfy with scientifically and spiritually. I had a wonderful mentor who had the patience of a saint and he was so helpful in assisting me along my own path to try and find answers. I attended an Alpha course. This was a wonderful experience but I came away with more questions than answers.

I became what I call a Christian Agnostic. Emotionally I am spiritual but academically I am skeptical. I started getting splinters in my bottom from the fence I was sitting on. Once I started putting an all powerful, micromanaging God in charge of the world, I became unsettled and unhappy. Putting God in charge of everything threw me, as I then had to explain how he could be so cruel and power crazy. I sought to not go along with orthodox doctrine and teaching. If I was to have God in some way in my life I had to make hime a kind God.

Jesus I have no trouble with. I could happily go along with his teaching and his ways. He seemed such a well balanced guy, considering his parent, and I so believe in the values that it is said he handed down. I was finding a balance and an equilibrium.

The Dawkins got involved with the adverts on the buses "There is PROBABLY no God" and I was sunk. Here was a man who I had listened to, respected, put on a pedestal, and I had put up with him calling agnostics as he did for sitting on fences. Then he happily subscribes to the word PROBABLY. Where was.is his certainty all of a sudden. Then I saw that he is just as much extreme in his thinking as some religious extremists are. It is also dangerous to be spreading what appears to me to be an anti-Muslim ethic. They get blamed for all iniquitous things these days. it is WE (al of us humans) who are responible throughout history, for the wars and carnage. Our interpretation of whatever faith we follow can be as bad as the next persons... or as good.

My respect for Dawkins has gone. My wanting to get to know God better is gone (though I have not given up on wanting to find out answers). I have not given up a kind of belief in Christ's teachings. I remain agnostic but with a deep spiritual quest allowable. I do not believe in God... but I do not NOT believe in him. I still await proff of one thing or the other.

For those who have faith and belief I almost envy them their comforts. Not the extreme versions but the ones just wending their way through their lives who are trying to follow something they believe in. They are not a danger to me. The ones with true open minds, even with faith, are not the dangers. What is a danger is people who preach the message of hate, in one form or another, and get you believing in their message only to find later thet have changed they tack again and are not so solid as it first seemed.

Intellectually I believe true science (I use true to define it from false science) will find us the answers eventually to our beginnings: our roots. Spiritually I find I need a Jesus as much as he needs me. I am hoping to find my way along this path and still keep an open mind as to what I may find art the end. Answers or just more questions?

Probably no god could also mean there could probably be one too?

Hope this in some way helps the debate and my own personal stance. In the end we have to make decisions based on our own personal stance. Ww need to learn to allow others to do it there own way too. Doctrine and Dogma aside, power and possesions removed, it is not religion that is the threat. It is our interpreations of what is given us by the men at the top.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:26 AM

Atheism does not deal in certainties, Ron. Dawkins will admit that he can't be certain that there is no God. What he will tell you is that any "evidence" for God's existence falls way below his minimum requirements for evidence. All he can try to do is to show you that those requirements are reasonable (I tried to demonstrate that in my last post). Atheists live their lives quite happily with a disregard for God. Agnostics have more serious doubts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:28 AM

There's a lot more to existence than humans

Everything you mention we understand in human terms; names, concepts, taxonomy, our whole understanding of the natural world is entirely human. It is this understanding that has given us Atheism. Indeed, we sacrificed our very naturalness for cognition, language & culture - things that set us apart from the natural world which enable us to understand, celebrate and exploit it in terms of either Spiritual delusion or scientific classification. I'm not so sure about certain scientific concepts such as homocentricity, but otherwise I see what you're getting at, just the Universe is ours in terms of concept and actuality - thus is the Large Hardon Collider the Stonehenge of our day and Green Notions of Ecology all too prone to as much small minded Religiosity as Christianity and Folk Music. I think David Bellamy is saying some interesting things right now, especially in the light of certain Orthodoxies - the human tendancy to Orthodoxy & Compliance scares me to be honest, but I accept humanity mostly in terms of its imperfection - likewise my own - which is I don't think we're ready for Atheism just yet, just as we're not ready for Anarchy. God knows I've never met anything so restrictive and conservative as so called alternative Hippy Ideology which rests on a greater compliance to a restrictively Orthodox norm than anything you find in so-called straight society. But as Kipling says, the people, Lord, thy people... - and we're getting there.

Meanwhile, back to reading the latest Fortean Times whilst listening to field recordings of Tibetan Buddhist temple music. Sweet!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:33 AM

Last para from the bottom of my last should red

"Probably no God could also mean there could probably be one too?"

if a Mudcat magician can change it and then delete this is may be useful

Thanks :-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:41 AM

Right on Mauvepink

Suibhne - your last post is the first time I was able to understand every single bit of what you were saying. What's more, I agree with it, at least at this stage of my learning journey.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:51 AM

Furthermore, I'd pursue my earlier point.   Atheism has been a complete disaster for mankind. Religion has not.

Anybody who this is invited to give evidence to the contrary.

Reason is also obvious: in an atheist state it is easy for the leader to take on himself the attributes of God. Makes it not easy, to say the least, to contradict the leader.

In addition to defending the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, atheists are also requested to provide names of hospitals founded by atheists, charitable orders started by them, and books saved by them.

Also on Mudcat there is another aspect worth discussing:   music.    Admittedly I am not an unbiased observer, since I have been a choral singer in an excellent group for about 20 years.

Atheists are requested to give names of pieces of choral music composed by atheists.

Religion, especially Christianity, has given us the most sublime vocal music known to man--everything from choral masterpiece to spirituals. . Examples are far too many to count.   Just for starters:   Mozart Requiem, Brahms Requiem, Verdi Requiem, Faure Requiem, virtually all of Tallis' and Byrd's choral music. And spirituals--all of them.

All unthinkable without Christianity.

And don't bother to whine that these accomplishments are due to religion often being organized. My argument is at least as fair as the tarring and ridiculing of religion which goes on constantly on Mudcat.



And to further address an earlier issue:

The opening poster, it seems, might possibly think describing candidate Obama as a "coconut" is just fine since it was not "oreo".

If he learns to read anytime soon he might possibly discover that "oreo" and "coconut", in this context mean exactly the same thing.   According to his own definition:   "white on the inside" (Identikit thread:   10 Jan 2008, 5:43 PM).

As I said earlier, genteel racism is no more acceptable than the more blatant sort. Though with his just so slightly supercilious attitude, he may think that it is. Wrong.   Open mouth, insert foot.   And he is indeed a past master at this.

Sorry, it is not at all clear that this definition of Mr. Obama is "a criticism of which I disapproved". .

What is clear is that he thought he was being witty.

No surprise that he wants now to conveniently-- ex post facto (perhaps he understands Latin)-- claim that he disagreed. No surprise there.

Nice try, but no cigar. As anybody who reads the opening post of the thread in question will see.

I wonder how he is with "Stepinfetchit."

But he might want to actually start thinking before hitting "send". Would be a pleasant change.

Just a friendly suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 07:53 AM

Bobad, a more recent survey.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:11 AM

"Anybody who disagrees with this..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:35 AM

Anybody who this is invited to give evidence to the contrary.

The Roman Catholic church has too long & bloody a history to detail here; the inquisitions & exterminations of The Albigensian Crusade is a good place to start. Hitler was acting in the name of Religiosity and as compliance to Absolute Truth; Stalin & Mao likewise. The Theology of Roman Catholicism still accounts for suffering of millions and the mission of Mother Theresa doesn't bear to close a scrutiny either.

Be it Music or Atrocity - it's human beings who are doing these things, not God or some Higher Spiritual Being but they generallyu so in the name of Absolute Truth. Henry Purcell composed transcendant secular and sacred music in equal measure; Sun Ra spoke of being a member of the Angel Race and Don Cherry addressed his entire output to the service of God, as did John Coltrane.

And besides - no Religion has ever come up with a cure for disease, advanced medicine, pain killers, the invention of electricity, steam engines, motorcars, washing machines, power stations, violins, trumpets, CDs. MP3s or any of the other billions of technological and medical advances that make life increasingly worthwhile.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:43 AM

The opening poster, it seems, might possibly think describing candidate Obama as a "coconut" is just fine since it was not "oreo".

When did he say that? Not in the opening post anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:02 AM

"And besides - no Religion has ever come up with a cure for disease, advanced medicine, pain killers, the invention of electricity, steam engines, motorcars, washing machines, power stations, violins, trumpets, CDs. MP3s or any of the other billions of technological and medical advances that make life increasingly worthwhile."

In any given generation Life has always been worthwhile. From a purely evolutionary point of view, life is always worthwhile. Without life there is no progress in any species.

The things you make mention of above may not have been done/created by any one religion BUT they have often come about in the light and faith of religious conviction. Many of the people involved in many good works have belief and believe they are doing what they do in the eyes of God or under Jesus' divine instruction. Can there be any harm in that? These people are not 'preaching the Gospel' so to speak, but are carrying out what they believe is God's will. Should they be denied such inspiration or have no right to do that?

Whether or not they actually are is open to interpretation dependant on on'es own belief system. Anyone doing good and using their spiritual base with it cannot possibly be doing anything bad.

Likewise many who do bad also believe they are doing God's work or are under divine instruction. They are two sides of the same coin I suppose. One cannot have one without the other (though you would wish you could).

And then there are atheists and agnostics who also do good and bad under no spiritual banner. All are part of the fabric of Life. Perhaps one day we will evolve far enough to manage to have one without the other. I would hope the good survive, but the chances are there will always be power mongers willing to get it in any way possible who use other things in life to get it.

Get rid of religion and something else would take it's place. Imagine a world without a religion. Do you see a world of peace then? Probably not. Because humans hide behind banners of various labels and names. Politics, business, military, tribal, supporters of this team or that.... no religion there but there is plenty of competition and power grabbing. Money is at the bottom of a lot of it.

Let those who do good have their hopes, faith and belief. In whatever they believe. That very force is often what drives many a discovery just as much as someone who is not religious is just as capable of great works. We need them all.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:13 AM

When did he say that? Not in the opening post anyway.

One is not permitted to contradict The Oracle, Fount of All Knowledge, and Simple Seeher Afrer trutn..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:27 AM

Ron if you think Richard is a racist you could not be more wrong.    Clearly you have an axe to grind against the OP evidenced by citing a post from more than 2 years ago on another thread. You have been digging for something to use in your attack on him and you take it out of context and misapply it to this thread. This type of behaviour invalidates your entire argument. I won't say any more on that point.

Back to the topic ... are you saying that all these people who have created beautiful choral music and attributed it to God would not have created it if they had never been exposed to the concept of God through religion? Surely, the melodies, harmonies might have been laid against a libretto that honoured the glory of nature or a saga of real human heroes and still have been as beautiful.

I don't think that is how the creativity of man works. I would say that it is the wonderful creativity in humans which made the concept of God and built upon that with religions. Respectfully to others, this is my feeling. (and I use the term 'feeling' quite literally).

Wonder and problem solving are the driving forces behind creativity. Creativity is not the remit of only the religious.

Now I am really going to leave this thread, because it is taking too much of my time.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:40 AM

Here's something to think about.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/1

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:41 AM

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/1

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:44 AM

Ron
I may not agree with Richard, but I regard him as a friend and he is a very very good person. It is wrong to accuse him of that. You also are a good person and know you shouldn't do that .. please refrain from such things ..

I will disagree with people here about their views on faith. I will sometimes, as now, be a jerk in the way that I disagree but there are no bad people here .. only people who disagree and it is ok to disagree .. hell it is ok to fight .. but not ok to call someone racist .. that is wrong ..

like Tam, I have to leave this .. Art is right .. by the way Art you always come up with one liners that make me burst out laughing. You would have had a successful career as a comedy writer. How can someone come up with one liners on the fly that make ya fall over laughing

I am admire you (mostly) LOL ... what a line !!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:20 AM

"the Trafford Centre"

Omigod! I can honestly say that I've never really equated the Trafford Centre with the enriching of life . . . I do go to visit the Apple Store (but I can avoid that now there's one in the Arndale, a cock's stride from the epicurean delights of the Northern Quarter), and I can see the attraction in the Selfridges food hall (but only when I'm flush), but I rather identify the place with one of the circles of Hell Dante missed the door to.


". . . atheists are also requested to provide names of hospitals founded by atheists, charitable orders started by them, and books saved by them.

Er, are you seriously suggesting that atheists are not involved in any good works? That's quite ridiculous. You don't personally know the religious (or otherwise) views of everyone involved in working for the common good.

"Here and there we get a religious nut at Mudcat who wants to condemn people for their unbelief, that that's rarely the case here.

Which the above post proves wrong, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:21 AM

Did I just read that atheism has caused more trouble than religion?

Apparently, that phrase is in the "How to knock on doors" guide for Jehovah's Witnesses. (I know, a mate of mine was one till he discovered beer, loose sex and horse racing.) also, I had a girlfriend who had "seen the dark" as she put it, leaving after being one all her life.

Apparently, because Hitler and Stalin weren't religious, so the waffle goes. Interestingly, of course they were very religious. Just that instead of following a cult, they invented their own. Mind you, I have been reliably informed that using Hitler on a forum is a sign of having admitted losing the argument...

I reckon the whole you vs me, them vs us etc diatribe can be summed up in my mind as follows;

In our so called enlightened society, there are those, including those in power, who would wish to force their way of life on the rest of us. Sunday trading, charity breaks for religious organisations, Bishops in the upper house of legislature, (in our case House of Lords.) In the face of this unacceptable state of affairs, normal rational people will rebel, and rebel strongly.

I love being accused of blasphemy, the victimless crime. Why? because it stops superstition taking over completely. Look at Islam, debased and made useful by those who wish to subjugate others. You know what? So do most Christian churches...

I read above something about a court in the USA stating that atheism is a religion. Doesn't surprise me. USA courts can be guilty of conspiracy to murder when they execute their citizens, so other strange judgements don't even make me blink.

And you know what? When I was last in Georgia, I sent a postcard to my mate saying "greetings from Dumbfuckistan." I thought it was funny, but sometimes, the laughter is hollow. That's why I jump in on these threads. I would hate the civilised world getting deeper in medieval superstition. Not quite so bad here in England just yet, but the bible bashers and Q'ran pushers are waiting in the wings... Sod the lot of 'em. I have no time for hypocrisy, preying on weak minds or jam tomorrow.

I get my jam today.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:36 AM

I regard no racists--blatant or genteel-as my friend.   

Mudcat is not Love Story.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:40 AM

It just seems Ron you're doing to atheists what you say atheists are doing to Christians, and that's gotta be wrong Ron Ron Ron, plain wrong Ron Ron.*





*Sorry. Couldn't help myself. This has become a great thread and if one good thing has come out of it (in my case, a little more understanding), it's the fact olddude isn't going to kill the skunk.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:41 AM

Also, the poster in question, as Joe has pointed out, has a long history of similarly delightful attitudes and postings on an array of subjects.   It seems reasonable to point it out.   Who knows, maybe he's capable of learning.

We can but hope.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:07 AM

mauvepink said: "Probably no god could also mean there could probably be one too?"...well, that's not exactly a correct 'logical' translation. It's not the same structure as saying "no one knows".


In about 1964, my hometown newspaper,The Wichita Eagle, removed the BC comic strip from the paper for over a year because of a strip where BC asks Peter,"Do you believe in God?" "Yes..."..."Why?"..."Because there might be one..."

This was a very conservative town, and although Jonny Hart, creator of the BC strip was a dedicated and 'witnessing' Christian who was just using humor to make HIS point, the paper got myriads of call & letters demanding that this 'blasphemous' strip be removed! I 'think' it was not replaced until Hart wrote personally to the paper and 'explained' and apologized for the confusion.

All discussions about 'maybes' and 'probably' lead inevitably to "Pascal's Wager", which asserts that IF you admit the possibility of a god, it's smart to act on it and believe.
   The problem is, Pascal's little chart only lists 4 possible outcomes, and itself assumes too much about what a god, if there is one, does and thinks and requires...etc. There are far more than 4 scenarios if we begin allowing 'possible' truths in our calculations. (God MAY like Jehovah's Witnesses more than Catholics!)

Being an agnostic is sort of a formal way of saying "I don't think we can ever know the answer, one way or another." On a practical level, there is not much difference in being agnostic or atheist, except in how you act & argue. If you don't get into discussions, the exact label you give yourself is almost irrelevant....and if you DO adopt a label, you open yourself to all the interpretations of it....as we have just seen.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:17 AM

Ron
I never seen any posts that indicate any type of racist, but I admit I don't read every post from everyone either ... I would just be shocked to see it. Richard like many others have strong feelings against organized religion .. and that is ok , it sets me off sometimes but they are entitled to their opinion as I am to my faith.

so i guess what I am saying is I never saw it ..

anyway .. I hope everyone has a good day .. pretty nice here in Western NY .. today .. not so stinking hot as it has been. Grapes are coming into season and people are starting to pick .. love the smell of grapes this time of year. it is a good thing I do, I got 7 miles of them behind my house

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:51 AM

"Probably no god could also mean there could probably be one too?"...

I knew as I pressed the "submit" button that someone, if not many, would point out that this statement was not quite so logical as it sounds. It's not, I know it, but in my way of thinking I need to make space for things I do not KNOW for sure and leave it open to the possibility. Logically, and using Occam's razor, the chances are there is no God. But even Occam's Razor is quite drastic as sometimes there are illogical reasons for things being in place too.

In short: I'm not sure at all, one way or the other, but I am not scared of either possibility. Whether I believe or not is also not as relevant as allowing in my life for those who do have faith. I detest football but can also allow for the true football fan without giving in to the hooligan element that spoils the true fan's reputation so often.

The point you make is fair. I know it. Thank you for pointing it out so eloquently.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:54 AM

The All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker After Truth is NEVER wrong, oh blasphemous disbeliever.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:18 PM

Well....the Seeker After Truth has a darn good chance of being wrong, once he/she claims to have captured the truth.
Those who seek, usually aren't wrong.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM

Right, Little Hawk. That is precisely why it is so unreasonable to posit the necessity of deity for *any* natural phenomenon, nowadays.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:27 PM

"... sometimes there are illogical reasons for things being in place too."

More often than not, it's just that we haven't worked out the proper logic/connections yet.

I think the term 'counter-intuitive' is what you may be thinking of...like the guy who 'proved' that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly. *grin*

The first people who saw bread dough 'rise' didn't understand it either...I'd wager they prayed and made 'offerings' before they learned about yeast. To this day there are Belgian breweries who allow 'natural' yeast to settle into open kettles to create Lambic beer, and NO ONE is allowed to clean the room where the kettles are, for fear of messing up the formula. They know THAT it works, and they have some idea 'how' it works...but......

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 12:45 PM

Well....the Seeker After Truth has a darn good chance of being wrong, once he/she claims to have captured the truth.

Ah, but Joe, "our" Ron, the All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker After Truth has ALWAYS claimed not only to have captured, but to be the sole purveyer of, ALL truth.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM

Well, I am a seeker without doubt. But nowhere do I think I said, nor do I believe, that I cannot be wrong. It is VERY possible I am but if we never sought answers....

Sometimes asking the right question helps.

Counter-intuitive indeed ;-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM

I've never really equated the Trafford Centre with the enriching of life

Let me tell you - we live about an hour's drive away from the Ladywell Park & Ride, by which means we make our invariably joyful entry into Manchester, there to sample the delights of The Rylands Library, Forsyths, Cathedral, Afflecks, Northern Quarter, Arndale, Picadilly, Fopp, Subway, Art Gallery, China Town, etc. etc. in a number of well trodden routes all of which have us suitably footsore by closing time, when like ravenous corbies we invariably ask ourselves whaur shall we gan and dine the day-o? The answer to which is usually The Trafford Centre! - which looms like a heavenly Bethlehem as painted by Paul Klee as we cross the ship canal on the M60. Once within, I am transported by the Post-Modern excess of it all; Selfridges & all, but my chief delight is partaking of a Subway / McDonalds beneath the painted skies of the foodhall wherein I am as humbled as in any cathedral & just as joyful. It is the perfect end to an invariably perfect day - like yesterday when we went to Warrington IKEA after a day in Liverpool.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:40 PM

"Whether or not they actually are is open to interpretation dependant on on'es own belief system. Anyone doing good and using their spiritual base with it cannot possibly be doing anything bad."

"Doing good" is often a matter of interpretation. There is a pre-bible statement that stems from earlier religions that says (and I paraphrase) "Don't do anything bad to someone that
you wouldn't like to have done to you." (It's the Golden Rule in reverse and it predates
Christianity.

Don't the military generals at the Pentagon think they are doing something good for humanity based on their spiritual beliefs? Hence, Iraq and Afghanistan.

When you get into the area of "spiritual beliefs" you can run into trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:44 PM

"The All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker After Truth is NEVER wrong, oh blasphemous disbeliever."

This is the kind of rhetoric that really ticks people off.

I would paraphrase, "The All-Knowing and All-Seeing Simple Seeker after Truth
is often wrong."

Arrogance comes in neat little packages of bumper-sticker statements.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:50 PM

"Don't the military generals at the Pentagon think they are doing something good for humanity based on their spiritual beliefs? Hence, Iraq and Afghanistan."

That statement is idiotic.

The generals do what they are told by the govennment which is run by politicians. The vote to take down the Taliban and retaliate against al-Qaeda was the decision of the US Congress.

The Senate vote was 98 to 0.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:50 PM

I sought, I found, now I seek to apply. Wow, what a pun, there!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:00 PM

"whaur shall we gan and dine the day-o?"

The Trafford Centre is pretty 'nur' compared to other interests of Manchester. Including the abundance of eat all you can Chinese Buffets in China Town. If you enjoy indulging in "proletarian common-folk" culcha then you can't beat the all you can eat Chinky's in China-town with their paper lanterns and piped cheesy Chinese pop music.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:03 PM

just saw comedienne on channel 4+1 told of a woman who approached her on the street and asked, "Will you let Jesus into your heart today?" After a pregnant pause the comedienne answered

"No! If Jesus fancies he me, he should come and ask me himself."

Well, guess you actually had to see it for it to strike as funny.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 04:21 PM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:04 PM

The generals in the Pentagon are as much in touch with their "spiritual" selves as anyone else. They are attempting to Christianize the U.S. military. They think it's fine what they are doing.

Of course the Senate vote was that high. The Senate has been corrupted. So?

What is idiotic is beating the drums for war and further expansion into the Mid-East.

This has to be laid at the feet of the Congress, the President and the Pentagon.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:39 PM

I must qualify my previous statement. There are some politicians who are not corrupted
by the war-mongers. Dennis Kucinich is one. Bernie Sanders, another. There are responsible members of Congress who are not going along with the generals and their
interest in extending troops. They haven't fallen for the jingoism that's out there today
about Mr. Obama's War. The Senate and Congress may have been hoodwinked by the
Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex but if you poll Americans today, you will
see by the numbers that Iraq and Afghanistan wars are not popular.

There should be a cautionary tale about LBJ's foray into Vietnam. We see how that ended.

The "delusion" is that "god is on our side". It goes along with the religious-right who are the religious-wrong. The GOP is hopping on the religious bandwagon as well as some Democrats. The point is that religion has intruded into politics as a bad house guest.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 05:54 PM

all you can Chinese Buffets in China Town

You tumble my not-so-secret vice, CS; trouble is I take all you can eat as a personal challenge & like nothing better than quenching an MSG thirst with gallons of ice-cold lager. Not good health wise of course, but there are times... Actually the best Chinese buffet in the NW is Buffet@Preston - seriously good. China in Lancaster does a lot of western stuff too - all you can eat fried fish, pizza, Yorkshire Puddings & roast lamb.

In answer to an earlier question, food is among my comforts, one of them; it keeps me alive & brings me ever closer to the eternal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:18 PM

"Get rid of religion and something else would take it's place. Imagine a world without a religion. Do you see a world of peace then? Probably not. Because humans hide behind banners of various labels and names. Politics, business, military, tribal, supporters of this team or that.... no religion there but there is plenty of competition and power grabbing. Money is at the bottom of a lot of it."

I think that the point can be taken that religion is not the only delusion. Greed and power are forms of delusion as well. The problem is that today, the latter are tied to the former.

Answer: Separation of Church and State. As for world peace, this is something that has to be taken seriously without infusing it with religious belief. World peace and religious belief is almost an oxymoron. However, in a free democracy, people have the right to worship their shoes if they so desire so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The problem that is being presented is that churches, mosques, synagogues and cathedrals do infringe on these rights sometimes. They need to stop doing that.

One of the big problems is the evangelical movement in the U.S. There is an arrogance,
here, in which a religious group actively tries to impose their religion on others whether
they like it or not. This has carried over into U.S. foreign policy. Don't think for a moment that the concept of a Christian "crusade" is not out there.

Also, religious evangelizing is exacerbating the problems in the Mid-East between Israel and Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:18 PM

This one really is drifting...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:34 PM

It's the public that is drifting.....off to sleep. Many non-believers have connected the dots.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:16 PM

As far as I am concerned any belief system that informs a civil and courteous interaction with others in the world is earning its keep. Any belief system that can be used to justify the eradication of human lives without provocation (including some warped versions of materialism AND of Christianity) is a risky belief system.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010---and more
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:14 PM

I've been mulling this over all day, and re-reading one of the rare threads I personally started ...5½ years ago, called "Thinking about recent threads"

I considered refreshing it, but some people never note the date, so I will just let those who choose read what they will. The title is still appropriate, and many of the comments folks added are quite valuable. If you DO read it, please remember it IS 5 years old and consider whether to post to it. (should I have it closed?)

It is interesting that 5 years ago, I 'worked harder' to say what I wanted...perhaps advancing age is relevant *wry grin*. I have no idea how much energy I'll devote to it all in another 5 years.

What is it about? It is about thinking and believing and knowing and relevance and pausing and.... other things...by many famous, and not-so-famous, writers.

It made me (mostly) feel good to re-read it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:42 PM

(Quoting from a fictional world without religion) ***Kill the wise one!***

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:57 PM

"doing to atheists what... they do to Christians..."

Bingo.

Go to the head of the class.

And if by some chance atheists don't like it, they may, as I noted--did you not read what I wrote earlier?-- start to realize what the religious feel like with the singularly absurd smears and sneering remarks they aim at all Christians.

The shoe is on the other foot.   Fair is fair.

And, not being bound by the Golden Rule, since I am not religious, I will opt rather for the Code of Hammurabi.

If the atheists stop their smearing of Christianity and Christians in toto, I will withdraw my requests of the illustrious atheists we are honored to have on Mudcat. And not before.

All I am interested in is fair play.   But if the other side does not believe in it, I can live with that.   And act accordingly.

Though, as I have said, it's obvious to anybody with any grasp of history that atheism has in fact been a total disaster for mankind. Religion has not. And I have given exact examples.

Still waiting for the requested contributions by atheists in the categories I cited.



And the opening poster's remark I cited on Obama is from another thread--which I also cited. Does nobody here read anything?

I think 'genteel racist' fits rather snugly.   The alternative might be "clumsy and boorish prig". Perhaps you prefer that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:14 AM

"atheism has in fact been a total disaster for mankind. Religion has not. And I have given exact examples."

& you have had some pretty exact examples back of where it HAS, for all your "has not" ~~ like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the St Bartholmew's Day Massacre, the Holocaust, the concept of jihad leading to current militant Islamism, &c &c &c: but in typically fair-minded 'religious' fashion you have elected to ignore those bits.


~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:32 AM

When have people ever been tortured or killed in the name of atheism?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:22 AM

"Here and there we get a religious nut at Mudcat who wants to condemn people for their unbelief, that that's rarely the case here.

Which the above post proves wrong, Joe.

One post can't disprove that something is rare. It can disprove a claim that it doesn't exist, but not that it's rare.

repeatable, corroboratable evidence

That's one type of evidence. There is no repeatable, corroboratable evidence for anything that happened in the past because the past is not repeatable. Much of archaeology, evolution, history are that way. As is some of astronomy. There is evidence, just not repeatable evidence. But really you're treating the question of the existence of God as if it were a scientific hypothesis, and accepting only scientific evidence (and of a particular kind as used in many but not all sciences) for it.

Most of what Science tells us, the vast majority of us accept on faith -- faith in the scientists doing the experiments, or making the observations, or whatever. I have no way of knowing whether or not most propositions in science are true, and don't have the time or inclination (or funds or time off work) to do the sort of research/experimentation it would require to settle the matter before my own eyes. But mostly I just accept what those people say. It's all about trust.

If I really trusted you as an ornithologist, then I would trust you when you said you had found the Large Blue (that is a bird, right?). There was a story on NPR a few years back about a person that had a recording of some woodpecker thought to be extinct (ivory bill? does that sound right?), and went into the wild and played the recording. At one point he said he heard a sound in the bush like the same call being repeated back. Maybe, he suggested, there are some of this kind of woodpecker still left. Unfortunately he didn't have recording equipment running, so all we have is his word to go on. Also there was no sighting. Did he really hear it? It all depends on what you think about him as a person: primarily his honesty and his aural acuity (and the reliability of his memory of course).

Thank goodness atheists don't deal in such certainties, not even Dawkins.

Any atheist who says "delusion" of belief in God is dealing in certainty. Delusion implies that you know it is wrong. It is an insult word, and it is used by someone wanting to insult somebody because they believe something the insulter knows to be false. Despite what he may protest at some times, Dawkins acts at other times as if he is certain there is no God. At which point the evidence trail leads from quacking and walking to duckosity.

There is a pre-bible statement that stems from earlier religions that says (and I paraphrase) "Don't do anything bad to someone that you wouldn't like to have done to you." (It's the Golden Rule in reverse and it predates Christianity.

It predates Christianity but not the Bible. It is the saying of a 1st Century Rabbi (I want to say Gamaliel but I'm not sure of that).

The GOP is hopping on the religious bandwagon as well as some Democrats.

Is hopping? The GOP hopped on the religious bandwagon in 1979 and hasn't hopped off yet. Some evangelical Christians are hopping off the GOP bandwagon, which can only be a good thing, IMHO. I want religion and the US government to be watertight separate compartments. Theocracy/caesaropapism never ends well -- especially for people with minority beliefs, which includes mine (a little enlightened self-interest going on here!).

The problem that is being presented is that churches, mosques, synagogues and cathedrals do infringe on these rights sometimes. They need to stop doing that.

I agree they need to stop doing that. I disagree that presenting that problem is all that the non-theists are doing on this thread. I'm with Joe: I have no need to try to convert people here, and am perfectly willing to listen to and learn from atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Pastafarian, and would expect them to respectfully listen to me (whether they learn from me, I can't require, and it's probably unlikely even so). But also I will not ridicule somebody for being an atheist or Jew or whatever. I will tell them their belief (or lack thereof) is stupid or a fantasy or a delusion. If you catch me doing so, give me a boot to the head. (Saying somebody's logic/argument is stupid, by the way, is not saying their belief is stupid. Maybe you can stomp on my foot if I do that, but not boot my head.)

When have people ever been tortured or killed in the name of atheism?

Stalinist Russia. Not all of the people killed under Lenin and Stalin were killed because of their religion, but many were. Churches were looted and burned, nuns were raped and killed, priests and bishops and monks and laypeople were killed because they were Christians by people whose motivation for doing so was their atheism. Others were thrown into the Gulag system to rot and die. Note that I don't say that all of the people killed under Lenin or Stalin were killed because of religion. That's clearly not the case. But some were, especially in the early days of the October Revolution/Civil War in Russia.

[tangent] (People always want to give Lenin a break and make out that all the bad stuff was Stalin -- but it was under Lenin that the NKVD (precursor to the KGB) was formed, and it was Lenin who said that the country must be ruled via a state of constant and continual terror.) [/tangent]

Also whoever said that Religion has killed more people than Hitler and Stalin and Mao put together was deluded. There weren't enough people alive before the 19th/20th centuries to make that even possible. And Stalin's policies/rulings alone are responsible for the deaths of between 25 and 50 million non-combatants.

I question whether or not Hitler was an atheist; but I don't have enough evidence to say. He certainly used people's belief in God to further his own aims (remember "Ein Reich, Ein Gott, Ein Führer") but that doesn't mean he believed in God himself, so it leaves the question open (to me -- I will always look at evidence one way or the other, if time allows (I'm not going to read some big tome -- I have too much other reading to do!)).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:29 AM

>>There is a pre-bible statement that stems from earlier religions that says (and I paraphrase) "Don't do anything bad to someone that you wouldn't like to have done to you." (It's the Golden Rule in reverse and it predates Christianity.

It predates Christianity but not the Bible. It is the saying of a 1st Century Rabbi (I want to say Gamaliel but I'm not sure of that).<<

FYI, I think it is generally attributed to Rabbi Hillel.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:50 AM

Suppose all religion really is a delusion.
Dawkins should apply his understanding of selection and evolution.
The principles apply to ideas also.
If a belief did not confer any advantage on the believers, it would be supplanted by a belief that did.
Religion probably gave tribal groups cohesion and encouraged co operation.
Don't do to others what you would not like.
If you can persuade people to behave like that your group will prosper.
Without CCTV cameras or belief, people would just seek their own advantage and be in perpetual conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:54 AM

"That's one type of evidence. There is no repeatable, corroboratable evidence for anything that happened in the past because the past is not repeatable. Much of archaeology, evolution, history are that way. As is some of astronomy. There is evidence, just not repeatable evidence. But really you're treating the question of the existence of God as if it were a scientific hypothesis, and accepting only scientific evidence (and of a particular kind as used in many but not all sciences) for it.

Most of what Science tells us, the vast majority of us accept on faith -- faith in the scientists doing the experiments, or making the observations, or whatever. I have no way of knowing whether or not most propositions in science are true, and don't have the time or inclination (or funds or time off work) to do the sort of research/experimentation it would require to settle the matter before my own eyes. But mostly I just accept what those people say. It's all about trust."

There's plenty of verifiable (better word - OK?) evidence from the past. You can go and see fossils or visit archaeological sites. YOu can study geological formations and carry out radio-isotope dating. None of it will ever yield certainty and every scientist will cheerfully admit that, but the evidence is verifiable. That's the basis of scientific progress. Same with astronomy - you may not be able to corroborate evidence personally but that is not to say it can't be verified by people qualified to do so who are in the right place with the right gear. A story told by someone long-dead in a heavily-edited and translated book is not verifiable (unless you can somehow find several different completely independent sources, and verify that independence). Even then it's still a story and you can't grill the bloke who wrote it. There is a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:22 AM

"Any atheist who says "delusion" of belief in God is dealing in certainty. Delusion implies that you know it is wrong."

In that case we need to excise the word from the dictionary. There can clearly never be a suitable context for its use. Or we can continue to use it for people who fiercely hold to beliefs that have a vanishingly-small chance of being true. If I told you and everyone else that little blue men with seven legs and sixteen eyes skated on the rings of Saturn every Friday, preached it from pulpits and handed it down to the kids you would call me deluded (and a few other things). But, of course, it might just be true...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:07 AM

"No evil priest can prevent us from feeling
That we are the children of Hitler
We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel
Away with incense and holy water
The Church can hang for all we care
The Swastika brings salvation on earth"

"Fuehrer, my Fuehrer
Thou has rescued Germany from deepest despair
I thank thee for my daily bread
Abide thou long with me, forsake me not
Fuehrer my Fuehrer, my faith and light"

(From songs sung at the 1936 Nuremberg rally.)



"A favorite Storm Trooper song had the refrain: 'Hang the Jews and and put the priests up against the wall.' "


Richard Grunberger, 'A Social History of the Third Reich


I'm sorry the author did not give the original German, since I speak
German and could have easily checked for accuracy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:20 AM

For those who don't believe in God.....

Dan and Joe, I think you'll both love this film...

Taken from the link below....some words given to , during her medi Eileen Caddy, founder of Findhorn during her meditation times..

‎"A whole new world is opening up for you, be not afraid. This centre is becoming a beacon of light, which will draw souls to it. Turn no one away. Judge no one but see my hand in everything. Expand your thinking. You can do your part by ...holding the viisons I give you. This place is my fortress. It will flower and flourish because I my blessings are poured upon it, because I am guiding and directing all that is done here. The young and old, all nations, all colours, all creeds, shall gather together in perfect peace and harmony in this place. See the work expanding beyond anything you've ever imagined, sweeping across the world like a mighty flame."

The Findhorn Film

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:35 AM

"Thou hast..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:02 AM

By the way, people don't have to be tortured on killed in the name of atheism in order for their deaths to be chalked up to atheism.

My main point, as I've said before, is that in an atheist state the leader is seen as God.   So it becomes rather difficult to contradict him.   Since he is infallible, every decision he makes is seen as coming from the God-figure.   So in every misjudgment he makes--whether he intended it to cause death or not-- which results in deaths, those deaths are directly traceable to the fact that he heads an atheist state.

See for instance Mao and the sparrows.

And I am still waiting for the charitable orders, hospitals, books saved for posterity--and music produced by atheists.

Seems like it may be a long wait.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:03 AM

"tortured or killed"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 09:58 AM

Ron, people who love power seek it, and often become totalitarians. Religion or atheism isn't really part of it, even if the totalitarian says so.

And can we avoid getting into the history of atrocity and enlightenment in this thread? Bad people do bad things and good people do good things and they always have and always will. There are good and bad people who are atheists and there are good and bad people who are believers. That's all completely beside the point of this discussion.

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:14 AM

I think you overstate the case a bit, using an extreme example, Ron. But perhaps what a State should be is agnostic, leaving all such matters up to the individuals. A State, after all, is not a sentient being, but a conglomerated set of live individuals making agreement as to certain procedures and codes. It has no business messing with that which it cannot comprehend.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:15 AM

Thanks for reminding us of that old thread, Bill. Some good stuff in there - including especially a throwaway remark you made which deserves repeating and thinking about: "If you cannot clearly argue the opposite viewpoint, you cannot truly defend your own."

One good thing about doing that is that it gets people out of the habit of glibly using words like "inane".

And another quote worth thinking about in that thread comes from Wittgenstein, and it is worth pondering in the context of the easy comments made about religion and education: ""The child learns by believing the adult. Doubt comes after belief."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:32 AM

But perhaps what a State should be is agnostic, leaving all such matters up to the individuals.

vide U.S. Constitution, separation of church and state.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 11:26 AM

If only we had it in real life...

You wouldn't believe the Christian crap that passes for history and science in US public schools!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 11:30 AM

Is it any worse than the secular myths that pass for history?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 11:35 AM

John P (a few days ago)

I wish there were better words than "atheist" or "agnostic", since both of these carry lots of connotations that don't apply to me. What's the word for "I've never been given any reason to even consider it" or "it really doesn't make any sense to me"?

Ignosticism

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 11:39 AM

(thanks for remembering, Kevin...I try to say things I mean & have thought about, but never think about my own remarks as being 'memorable') Several people picked up on the Wittgenstein quote, and re-reading it now, it feels even more insightful.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:04 PM

Ignosticism.

Nope.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:14 PM

in an atheist state the leader is seen as God

Various Catholic Popes have been responsible for the inquisition, the crusades and harbouring of priests and nuns who do horrible things to children, orphans and unwed mothers. To some Catholics the Pope is God's authority on earth. This puts that office in a position to do great good or cause great evil, depending upon the office holder. And the Catholic church is not the only Christian religion where leaders abuse office, manipulate and accumulate power. It is simply the first Christian religion and has the misfortune of longest recorded history of abuses.

Middle East and Africa various areas and religions (Christian and Islam) suffer genocide, oppression, torture, maiming and murder of women and children and the frail. Whole tribes and their cultures and traditions gone. The Ayatollah is a religious office. Some men in the office have been tyrants and the people follow and do terrible things because the leaders tell them to.

Just this week Ovadia Yosef former chief rabbi of Israel and now founder Shas Party said "all Palestinians should perish from the world." Thank goodness the Israeli leaders are condemning this statement at least publicly as tantamount to genocide. How big is the Shas party I wonder? What is the likelihood of its increase in numbers and influence?

US of A which is/was predominantly Christian at given points in history has abused Native Americans, Mexican Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, Irish Americans, Chinese Americans, etc. on its own soil. Why? Because the leaders in power could!

A fair few of the states of the former USSR are still struggling with shatterbelts, as are Africa and Asia.

It all boils down to individuals and groups commandeering and abusing belief systems in order to manipulate others and accumulate power. The problem is too many people are sheep because they do not have the knowledge, experience, socio-economic means to be anything but sheep. More people in the world than not have to put all their energy into surviving. Often this means joining a group for the sheer protection it provides, whether or not they adhere to the ideologies of the group.   Fortunately, everyone contributing to this thread has had the opportunity to not be sheep. We all think and decide for ourselves what fits us best. We are all very lucky on that point. Most people are not.

Dagnabbit... Why can't I stay out of this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:47 PM

Ignosticism? I would probably consider the condition 'IgNOREsticism'. Isn't that where 'ignorant' comes from? :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:52 PM

thank you Ebbie... very good. I am now a converting to Ignoresticism. Since you came up with the term, you can be the leader.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:56 PM

Gnosis--the Greek form of "knowing"--rendered negative by the prefix a- or i- as "unknowing" or "not-knowing".

As always the core "sense of truth" of a given religious system is to be carefully differentiated from the organizational culture and dramatization that sets in when said core tries to bring abount an organization.

A dramatizing, expansion-driven organization is NOT a religion. A moral code of random and arbitrary strictures about how to act is NOT a religion. But in the common parlance, these things get heavily conflated and identified. They are as different as Christ was different from an abusive pedophilic bishop with high cholesterol.

All the brouhaha surrounding organizations flying the colors of a religion has no bearing on the actual spiritual tenets of the creed, regardless whether it is Christian, Mohammedan, Zen Buddhist, Universalist, or Scientologist-ian.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:35 PM

"My main point, as I've said before, is that in an atheist state the leader is seen as God. "

This is not an atheist position. No leader among atheists is seen as a "God". That's strictly
a doctrinal idea. The only example you might give for an "atheist state" is Stalin's USSR
or China and I argue that neither of these states are true atheist states. They follow a party line that most self respecting atheists would never allow. These party lines are tantamount to religious beliefs. A true atheist is (I re-emphasize since it seems to be lost on some) a non-believer in any god.

As to the use of the word "atheist", I would consider that to be a bad choice because an "a-theist" to many means "anti-theist" and this is subject to interpretation. I think there is a difference in that "a-theism" allows for others to believe what they like whereas "anti-theism" is exactly what it says. It's against any religious belief. Since I don't accept a religious belief as being "real" for me then I can't be against it.

I personally have no problem with anyone who wants to believe whatever they want to so long as it doesn't produce harm. (Kinda' the hypocratic oath...do no harm).

Instead of the term atheist, I prefer to call myself a Freethinker. To me this means that
I will not be shackled by someone else's dogma whether a bible, koran, torah or Marxist Manifesto. I don't ascribe to any individual a "higher power" but look at others in egalitarian terms as equals.

This would preclude popes, bishops, kings, authority figures, reverends, priests, messianic people, rabbis, monks and imams. Also, I have no problem with flat-earthers, astrologers, or any other bandwagon which is protected by the US Constitution. I do not, care for religious evangelism and feel that this activity is harmful to social good.

I also do not put a god above the US Constitution.

I think the "delusion" occurs when one allows others to do their thinking for them.

I can respect that some others will not share my views. This doesn't mean that I believe that they're bad people. Many of my friends are religious and I love them.

I think that there are some religious people that do a lot of good for society but I don't
attribute this to their religion. They are just good people and behave accordingly.
.
A lot of clarity needs to be presented about this topic. Fortunately, I live in a country
where my views are protected by the US Constitution and I hope that this will continue
to be the case otherwise our democracy will be lost.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:42 PM

FYI, I think it is generally attributed to Rabbi Hillel.

Thanks! Honestly that was my second guess. :)

And I am still waiting for the charitable orders, hospitals, books saved for posterity--and music produced by atheists.

For books, I'll give you Being and Nothingness by Sartre. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged by Rand. Not saying how good or bad they are, but they are classics and will be saved for posterity.

But perhaps what a State should be is agnostic, leaving all such matters up to the individuals.

Amen, amen, and amen!

In that case we need to excise the word from the dictionary.

I don't think it's as bad as all that. It's just that it's off-limits to people who want to say they are being open-minded about a question, or who protest that they're not claiming to have proved God doesn't exist (for proofs are subject to critical analysis and refutation and who wants that?!). In short, it's hypocritical for Dawkins to use it the way he does.

A story told by someone long-dead in a heavily-edited and translated book is not verifiable (unless you can somehow find several different completely independent sources, and verify that independence). Even then it's still a story and you can't grill the bloke who wrote it. There is a difference.

Yep, and that's why belief in God isn't a scientific belief, and subjecting it to scientific tests/procedures is naff. Sorry, that's rude. It's a category error.

How does one verify independence of sources? One way is to show that they disagree on some details -- if they agree on everything it's probable that one is copying the other. And the gospels do disagree on a lot of fiddly details (Matthew has 2 animals on Palm Sunday, for instance, where Luke has 1). Of course the response to this will be that this just proves that they're not accurate and so can be dismissed! We can't win. A man who has bought a theory will fight a vigorous, rearguard action against the facts (Lord Acton).

The heavily-edited and translated thing approaches an urban legend. We have (literally hundreds of) chunks of the NT (on papyrus mostly) that can be physically dated back into the 2nd and sometimes 1st century, and the differences between that and the later full manuscripts are teensy. Modern translations are made from the most attested manuscripts and thus are coming straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. The whole thing about a translation of a translation of a translation (ya-da) held in the 16th century. It's no longer the case.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:47 PM

Sorry, John P, I'm not flying any great flag for Ignosticism which, I suspect, wouldn't stand up to a proper analysis (I'm not a fundamentalist Ignostic) but why do you feel it doesn't fulfil your needs? It basically says "Does God exist?" is a meaningless question unless you can come up with a proper definition of God.

Ebbie

Ignosticism? I would probably consider the condition 'IgNOREsticism'

Er....ignoring what?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 01:55 PM

"Gnosis--the Greek form of "knowing""

Aye. For the Gnostic, it's the only kind of evidence that one desires or seeks. This is why Gnostics deal in experience rather than faith and there is no Priestly intercessor: for the Gnostic seeks direct personal revelation.

Such an experience is not necessarily easily communicable to another (and it's certainly not 'provable') unless that other has shared an equivalent Gnosis.

Very much like falling in love, it's a powerful subjective experience. And one open to personal interpretation, depending on how the individual having such an experience chooses to understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM

Hey John
didn't mean to blast at ya on this thread, you been a good friend to me here on mudcat. Sorry i gave you some grief buddy

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:07 PM

Just want to pipe up and say that I'm pretty much in John P's group, a quiet non-theist (have we used that term yet?), in an attempt to counter the local (Mudcat) and national (and global, I suppose) effect of those with strong and sometimes extreme positions being the most often heard from.

Also to echo his point about history: good and bad people have their representatives all along the spectrum. Humans are a mixed bag.

[as to "piping up", apologies for what has become a long post that results from accumulating and processing thoughts on the topic, rather than actually participating in the conversation properly.]

If I am feeling "spiritual" or having to define my perspective on cosmology, it's most likely to fall in the realm of what's labelled religious naturalism, although I'm not religious (as in, formally ceremonial) about it. (I'm an evolutionary biologist, and I have to say that the stuff on this site smacks of a "born again" excess of enthusiasm to me... for me it's just acceptance and comfort that "that's the way it is".)

Reading about religion in the news lately, following this thread, and also the philosophical challenge that results from having relatively recently married someone who is Christian have caused me to spent more time than usual in trying to learn more about religion and examining my own perspective in some attempt to define it.

One conclusion about the conversations (that I've had and that I've observed) is that it's really difficult to have a rational conversation on personal beliefs without some strong emotion, because if the beliefs are not the same then at some level you have to believe that the other person is wrong (in the sense of "mistaken") -- and also understand that the other person believes you are wrong. It's difficult to have the words that come out of that conflict not cause some distress. It requires treading very carefully, for both the speaker and the listener, and not everyone's very good at that. Misapprehensions are inevitable, even if you're careful, and we have it even worse when we're not face to face.

I think a natural human inclination (with the exception of the paranoid!) is to start from the point of assuming that other people think the way we do (and this is not just about spirituality, of course, take politics, for example). If we don't get close enough to other people to find out otherwise, we can go on in blissful ignorance. I've spent a lot of time there -- and it has been pleasant and peaceful. :-)

The other natural behavior is to tend to hang out with people who believe as you do. This makes it even easier to be ignorant of or forget about other perspectives. I know that having spent lots of my time among other biologists (who, among scientists, are least likely to be religious), I have been happily ignorant and sometimes mistaken about religion. It's certainly seems to be as true between religions, or sects, as between the a-religious and the religious.

Here's a little thought just from my own experience: social activities that aren't conducive to extended conversation, like playing tunes and dancing, foster this blissful ignorance, in some ways. In the advent of Facebook, I find myself learning things about my casual friends' beliefs and affiliations that I might have been happier not knowing... Similarly, spending one's time above the line at Mudcat is generally less emotionally challenging than the personally revealing conversations below the line (excepting of course the threads on our deeply held beliefs on the definition of "folk" ;-)

My other personal perspective on humanity comes from my training in animal behavior. I tend to look at religion as a behavior that promotes community, and religious conflict as an expression of territoriality. This is my way of trying not to see various groups as "other", or judging groups on their beliefs. Humans are messy animals, and we really still have a long way to go to evolve beyond our "baser instincts", to use an archaic phrase. Sometimes I despair, but have to be reassured that the mass of humanity is made of individuals who mostly are just trying to survive and reproduce, and because they're humans, trying to be happy. That is, they're trying to get on with their lives without interfering in others. It's the noisy few that make us nervous.

I've been collecting a set of web links for sites that discuss the non-theistic perspective (for those few who actually do stop to examine that perspective!). If you're interested, PM me.

A funny side note: some of the time I spent thinking/exploring about the topic this weekend arose from this essay, "My Covenant With Mystery" by Washington University, St. Louis, biologist Ursula Goodenough in the 13.7 blog on the NPR web site. She is a founder of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. As I looked into this I realized that I had waltzed with and had a conversation with her husband (they were relatively recently married) three years ago at a contra dance weekend in New Hampshire! It really is a teeny-tiny world sometimes.

I think I'd better quit here. Thanks if you've hung in with me.

~ Becky in Tucson
heading to Long Beach today
still with a LOT to learn about humans

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:11 PM

(and this morning in the hour or two I've burned writing that post, there have been several more... fortunately, I think mine still follows on o.k.!)

~ B in T
gotta pack and get on the road!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:11 PM

Some poeople seem to see the US CO(nstitution as having quasi-divine authority...
...................

The historical Gnostics had some pretty strange beliefs of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:13 PM

"Yep, and that's why belief in God isn't a scientific belief, and subjecting it to scientific tests/procedures is naff. Sorry, that's rude. It's a category error."

That is not the issue. Believers broadcast their message to the heathen world and pass on their beliefs to their children as truth. It is not unreasonable under these circumstances to be sceptical and ask what their evidence is, and it is equally not unreasonable to put what they call their evidence (and they do use the word) under scrutiny. They have no right to immunity from awkward questions, considering what they do.

"How does one verify independence of sources? One way is to show that they disagree on some details -- if they agree on everything it's probable that one is copying the other. And the gospels do disagree on a lot of fiddly details (Matthew has 2 animals on Palm Sunday, for instance, where Luke has 1). Of course the response to this will be that this just proves that they're not accurate and so can be dismissed! We can't win."

Well, not all the conflicts are fiddly, but we'll leave that aside for now. Good point about disagreement on detail pointing to authenticity - I like that. But it does go to show that the gospels, and all the rest, should not be taken as, er, gospel. What's more, it would be foolish to overlook the tendentious nature of many of these texts. Mostly, they're hardly neutral, are they?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM

"The historical Gnostics had some pretty strange beliefs of their own."

Maybe? But then history is always written by the victors. And something we do know for sure, is that the Catholic Church successfully demonised and burned the historical Gnostics.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:33 PM

McGrath, the lack of a Constitution would be disaster for this country as it turns out to have been for others. There is nothing divine about it and it should be flexible enough to be changed if certain articles don't work...ie: slavery, prohibition etc. I think the Equal Rights Amendment for women is long overdue.

"Non-theist" is the same as "a-theist". It just doesn't have the loaded implication for some people.

Science may discover through psychology and the manipulation of the human brain why some people are inclined toward religion. I don't think that this subject should be taboo.
Already, brain specialists can simulate a "religious" feeling by massaging certain temporal
lobes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 02:50 PM

I wrote ...it's really difficult to have a rational conversation on personal beliefs without some strong emotion, because if the beliefs are not the same then at some level you have to believe that the other person is wrong (in the sense of "mistaken") -- and also understand that the other person believes you are wrong. It's difficult to have the words that come out of that conflict not cause some distress.

This ignores these conversations where someone's going to flat out say "you're wrong and here's why"... is it possible to have light in those without heat? I suppose it's a case of if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. We have the option here of not engaging in the conversation -- don't participate in the thread. Or if you must, figure out how to reassure yourself that that assault to your beliefs is not necessarily an assault on you as a person.

~ Becky in Tucson
realizing that once you get yourself involved, sometimes it's hard to get out clean...

and contemplating conversation and metaconversation...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 03:56 PM

A_ theism is a far far cry from anti-theism. To be anti- something you have to contemplate and oppose its existence, not believe it existeth not.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 04:15 PM

What's more, it would be foolish to overlook the tendentious nature of many of these texts. Mostly, they're hardly neutral, are they?

True. Then again as CS Lewis pointed out, all of the contemporary accounts about Napoleon were written either by the French, who idolized him, or by the English/Germans/etc., who despised him. There are no neutral sources. From this we do not conclude, however, that we don't know anything about Napoleon.

Of course a flaw in this analogy is that we don't have many contrary sources about Christ. Mostly we have the canonical NT writings, a bunch of gnostic texts, and a reference in Josephus which appears to have been garbled or mangled (or just straightforward embellished) in the process of being handed down.

But really the problem is that you have defined all of the types of evidence that Christians have for their religion as out of court, mostly because the only evidence you accept as in court is scientific evidence. At which point all I can do is throw up my hands and admit, no, we don't have any scientific evidence for the existence of God. But, as I said, it's not a scientific question.

I mentioned above that the type of evidence that most Christians have for their faith/belief breaks down into (a) historical documents, (b) testimony of trusted persons, and (c) personal experience of the divine. The problem is that when anybody presents any of this evidence, they are pounced on because it's "not conclusive" or "not rigorous and repeatable" or what have you. Well, yes. It's not a scientific question. It's a matter of looking at the existing evidence, and deciding if one finds it convincing or not. It's not a mathematical proof or scientific validation. It is, as some of the more calm and reasonable people on both sides of the fence have stated, something about which good and rational people can go either way on.

The ugliness starts when either side starts flinging poo at the other. The religious side tends to fling (a) eternal damnation, and (b) accusations of immorality; whereas the areligious side tends to fling (c) accusations of irrationality and stupidity. Leaving (a) aside for the moment, neither (b) nor (c) are really fair.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 04:46 PM

This is a fun "game" that some people might enjoy playing: it's merely a series of true/false questions about religion/god, and the "game" tells you if you believe one or more things that are not logically consistent with one another. (fwiw: I took 1 hit and bit 0 bullets, but I believe they were drawing an equivalence that I disagree with.)

Battleground God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 04:46 PM

There is no reason some data cannot be compared as data without getting too deeply into imponderables. The provenance of a certainty that comes from an individual experience may not be as valid to a physicist as a rock-solid repeatable lab experiment, but it strikes me as more valid than, say, a decree about damnation based on the querulous notion that a single ancient book contained nothing but unquestionable truth and therefore all interpretations of it were binding. Experiential perception is certainly senior to mere blind compliance to dogmatic authority.

There are some experiences, also, which although they may not be religious could be classified as spiritual which ARE more repeatable, even if not completely so, than others; for example, the ingestion of psilocybin or LSD makes for pretty standard psychic experiences, and the map of things one encounters undergoing certain kinds of meditation has been fairly well mapped at least in general terms. Accurate, but not precise, you might say.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:01 PM

hmmm...well, I got to the last question in that game with NO flaws before I misread something and made some sort of logical contradiction about the circumstances where it is "justifiable" to believe in a God....serves me right for hurrying.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:03 PM

My result:

"You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 05:56 PM

"When have people ever been tortured or killed in the name of atheism?"

Stalinist Russia. Not all of the people killed under Lenin and Stalin were killed because of their religion, but many were. Churches were looted and burned, nuns were raped and killed, priests and bishops and monks and laypeople were killed because they were Christians by people whose motivation for doing so was their atheism.

They were killed in the name of communism, as were the victims of Mao. Religion was not seen as a threat to atheism, but to communism. Not the same thing at all. Correlation is not causation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:20 PM

Me too. I bottled on the last question. I thought I would have been shot down much earlier, because I had to reread several questions to understand them.

"You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:35 PM

Mousethief: I mentioned above that the type of evidence that most Christians have for their faith/belief breaks down into (a) historical documents, (b) testimony of trusted persons, and (c) personal experience of the divine. The problem is that when anybody presents any of this evidence, they are pounced on because it's "not conclusive" or "not rigorous and repeatable" or what have you.

I'm glad to say I'm not one who insists on scientific, repeatable proof. Spiritual experience can't (yet) be defined in that way, and yet it exists. My question: Why do these experiences lead anyone to believe in the divinity of Jesus, or in the specific details of any religion?

Historical documents are meaningless in this context and no conclusions can be drawn from them. Anyone can write anything they want to. Testimony of trusted persons and personal experience of the divine are, to me, admissible evidence, but I don't see them adding up to anything other than "people can have spiritual experiences that cause them to become enlightened" and "there are good, inspirational, enlightened people in this world".

How do you get from there to "Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected three days later"? or "I had this amazing spiritual experience and it must have been Muhammad/Jesus/Buddha who gave it to me"?

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:40 PM

Dan, the presence of a skunk and the non-presence of tobacco are more than enough to explain any ill humor! My heart has been warmed by the fact that ALL the religious folk in this discussion have proved themselves to be amongst those who don't want to take over the world and control the minds and bodies of other people, or even to blather at them about religion without invitation. Thank you!

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:44 PM

Hi, John - re: your reference to this: I had this amazing spiritual experience and it must have been Muhammad/Jesus/Buddha who gave it to me:

I wonder if we specify because of the spiritual tradition we come from. If we come from the Muslim tradition, we see things as coming from Mohammed, who is our chief prophet of the Spiritual Source, or Jesus as chief prophet (and incarnation) of that same Spiritual Source.

If we study the mystics of various spiritual traditions, we often find that their mystical experiences are very much the same, and don't have much denominational differentiation. And mystical experiences are usually beyond doctrine and competition and all that nasty stuff. Peace and a sensation of unity are two things common to many mystical experiences.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM

John P...as to your question: "How do you get from there to "Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected three days later"? or "I had this amazing spiritual experience and it must have been Muhammad/Jesus/Buddha who gave it to me"?


The God Gene"

Do *I* accept it? *shrug*... Anything like that will need a lot more study...but...what IF it turns out to be true, and that gene also makes it impossible for the bearer to accept that it exists?.. *wry grin*

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:09 PM

I did just the same, VTam. The issue lies with the semantics of the last question, which implies that God is of the external world. Easily a problematic proposition.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:24 PM

Yep... the art of phrasing a true/false question is...well, an art.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 07:51 PM

"But really the problem is that you have defined all of the types of evidence that Christians have for their religion as out of court, mostly because the only evidence you accept as in court is scientific evidence. At which point all I can do is throw up my hands and admit, no, we don't have any scientific evidence for the existence of God. But, as I said, it's not a scientific question."

A hard man would hold you to the view that it is indeed a "scientific question." But it isn't really, even though you would apparently like me to think so. I might want to set the evidence bar a little higher than you'd like, but I'm not throwing the scientific bit at you. Basically, you are trying to force the evidence/faith conundrum to a sort of breaking point here. Forget court, which is something you raised, not me. No-one's on trial here. And I wouldn't give a second thought to what religious people thought if only they'd keep it all to themselves. I have a fairly stern set of conditions for that. The fact that big religion likes to go big public and big proselytising makes it seriously vulnerable to opposition, and you can hardly blame those opponents for requiring religion to validate itself, especially in the light of its predilection for passing off myth as truth to children (you can probably see what my big gripe is with religion by now). You want to tell kids that there is a God and that he is high and mighty? Good, but your evidence had better be better than good, otherwise you are leaving yourself seriously open to accusations of immorality. This is an issue that religion has set up for itself, not an issue that science confronts religion with. Actually, science doesn't confront religion. It proceeds in spite of it. Religion, on the other hand, loves to confront science. It never learns though. Talk about cruising for a bruising!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:31 PM

Steve, I like you and I hope we can agree to disagree on areas where we disagree and be, if not friends, then friendly. Come to Seattle and I'll buy you a beer and we can play music. I'd love to show you my instrument. Um, musical instrument (my lovely hand-made-in-the-USA Tacoma Chief). Get your mind out of the gutter.

On to your most recent post.

A hard man would hold you to the view that it is indeed a "scientific question." But it isn't really, even though you would apparently like me to think so.

I don't understand what you're saying. I want you to think that it isn't a scientific question, inasmuch as I think that's true and I think people should believe what's true.

Forget court, which is something you raised, not me. No-one's on trial here.

Non sequitur. I never said anyone was on trial. I brought it up as an area in which a different kind of evidence -- personal/eyewitness testimony -- is allowed. (I.e. different from scientific evidence.) Do you agree with that assessment?

I wouldn't give a second thought to what religious people thought if only they'd keep it all to themselves.

I completely understand. And if it is brought up, you are well within your rights to ask for evidence/arguments that you find convincing. But what you are doing (or seem to be doing) is telling other people that they should apply scientific "rules" of evidence (for want of a better word) to the question, even though it is not a scientific question.

passing off myth as truth to children

There you go again, making assertions of certitude. Really, if you have a disproof of the existence of God, I'd love to see it. I don't want to believe something that isn't true.

otherwise you are leaving yourself seriously open to accusations of immorality.

I don't follow. How is teaching my children what I believe immoral? I assume you teach your children (if you have any) what you believe?

Actually, science doesn't confront religion. It proceeds in spite of it.

There is good argument, some of it by atheists, that science as we know it got a good jump-start from religion, in the form of belief that the world is predictable because it is made by a rational God. The scientific method of iterative experiment and hypothesis, as first proposed by Roger Bacon, follows immediately from the philosophy of the Scholastics. Experimental science is the daughter of Abrahamic religion and Greek philosophy. It can be reasonably argued that without both, it would not have arisen, or would have arisen at a much much later date, after the intellectual framework was built up from some other source. Isaac Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants. Many of those giants were Christian philosophers.

Religion, on the other hand, loves to confront science.

Does it? Some religious people seem to love to confront science, although I think they would argue they are compelled to confront science. Many other religious people do not. A little reading into the history of Creationism (a good book is The Creationists by Ronald Numbers) shows that religion was getting along pretty well with Darwinism and the new archaeology until the late 1800s when six-day or "young earth" creationism was invented (belief that creation literally took place in six 24-hour days, leading to the absurd date of 4004 BC for the creation of the world).

Although this started out a minority belief, unfortunately it has come to be embedded in many strands of Protestant fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, to where denying the earth is very young is considered a heresy. The belief has worked its way into the non-church-going populous of the US, alas alas, affecting the same people who think that there was no moon landing, the 9/11 attacks were made by agents of the US government, and Barak Obama is a Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:39 PM

"people who love power..."

Sorry, that's drivel.   The power Stalin, Mao, and Hitler each had was in large part due to the status of each of being a God-substitute.   That is, each one headed an atheist state--with the leader standing in for God. And that was a major foundation of the totalitarian state each headed. With the results I described.

In Hitler's case, for instance, the parallel is made blazingly obvious in the songs I quoted. Except of course to those who for some reason--gee I wonder what it could be-don't want to see it.

I can't imagine why atheists are not willing to claim Hitler, Mao and Stalin as their own.    And are probably unwilling to admit there has ever been an atheist state.   Correction:   just not the 'kinder, gentler' atheist state Mudcatter atheists envision in their cute, absurdly soft-focus neverlands.   Which easily rival any talk about the 'next life' in degree of rationality.

No secret why the Left has such the unchallenged reputation for fuzzy thinking which it enjoys particularly in the West.

Interesting that in each case, the atheist state needed to be accompanied by a police state.
That certainly however does cut down on the chances of criticism of the leader.

And we still have an atheist state in North Korea--another Leftist paradise.   And folks are just overjoyed in Cuba--another one.



Re:   Sartre's Being and Nothingness

1)   I can't imagine how the world would go on without that bit of literature.   Interesting that the poster seems to think it offsets all the religious works--in all religions.

2)   The poster has managed to miss the point.   Point was not how many books had been written by atheists, but how many had been preserved by atheists against efforts to destroy them.   Seems that Hitler, for instance was actually a bit on the other side of the issue.


Once more with feeling:   atheism has been a total disaster for the world.   Particularly when in power.   But also creations by atheists are not exactly anything to write home about. Unless of course nihilism turns you on. Who knows, perhaps it does turn Mudcat atheists on. I wouldn't want to deprive you.

Just leave me Mozart, Brahms, Tallis, Byrd---and countless other composers.   And leave me the literature written by religious people--of all religions---and by agnostics.

You're more than welcome to all the literature and music written by atheists.   Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:43 PM

I took two hits but I protest on both - yes on semantics. Maybe I should have read the instructions and still should, but:

"You claim that it is not justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions, but earlier you stated that it was justifiable for the serial rapist to draw conclusions about God's will on the same grounds. If this form of justification is good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God?"

Answer: I "meant" it is not objectively justifiable to knowingly and intentionally reach conclusions against all evidence known to you (they have misstated what I actually "claimed" here, btw), but once someone has formed a set of beliefs about God, by whatever processes, he would be subjectively and objectively justified in following God's orders as he hears them.

They asked me all these questions about what God can or can't do. Since I knew they wanted me to be consistent, I slid through. Thankfully, though, they didn't ask me if God could make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:48 PM

OMG look at how they muck about with words even in the explanations: "[If it is] good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God?"

Hello?! The rapist was a believer in "God." (Have these philosphers heard of Venn diagrams?)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 08:58 PM

Most people don't bother asking whether a tune was written by an atheist or not..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:36 PM

Most people don't bother asking whether a tune was written by an atheist or not..

They know what the odds are. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:44 PM

Ah well.. some people know everything :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 10:56 PM

Oh but then, Smokey, the all-knowing and all-seeing Simple Seeker is most assuredly NOT most people.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 11:04 PM

"No secret why the Left has the unchallenged..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 04:26 AM

Frank Zappa was an atheist, which accounts for some of the finest music ever realised.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:56 AM

"some of the finest music ever realised. "
Prove it...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:05 AM

" 'otherwise you are leaving yourself seriously open to accusations of immorality.'

I don't follow. How is teaching my children what I believe immoral? I assume you teach your children (if you have any) what you believe?"

Of course it isn't immoral to teach your children what you believe. But they have to know that it's just what you believe, and not universal truth. Religion, in its prayers and its written word, deals in certainties. Our Father, who art in heaven... that is certainty, and by enforcing endless repetition you are instilling this spurious sense of certainty in kids. I was brought up a Catholic and I remember few, if any, caveats about the "truths" we were bombarded with. It wasn't repressive but, looking back, I think I might have been brainwashed into believing the total truth of what I was being told and, worse, into being very reluctant to question those truths. I certainly found it hard to shake off in later life. Looking back, I kind of think that was one of the big ideas of the approach. That can't be right. Education is not about bombarding people with truths but enabling children to find truth for themselves, by asking questions, being constructively sceptical and demanding evidence. I think that religious education is very poor at doing that. There's a very good harmonica player in Seattle, by te way. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:12 AM

Oh, no question Frank Zappa puts Mozart, Brahms,, Tallis, Byrd, etc. to shame.

Whatever you say.

Look, it's painfully obvious to anybody who can think:   atheism is worse than useless.

When in power it has resulted in more deaths than anything else in human history.

And virtually nothing worthwhile culturally has come from it.

If a rational person had to choose between a world without religion and a world without atheism, no question which he or she would choose.

Sorry, not atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:27 AM

" 'passing off myth as truth to children'

There you go again, making assertions of certitude. Really, if you have a disproof of the existence of God, I'd love to see it. I don't want to believe something that isn't true."

A good deal of what's in the Bible is mythology under another guise. Parting the waters, bloke talking to God up a mountain and coming down with a clutch of laws, all those miracles, Jesus coming from the dead. That is mythology, but the near-certainty (sorry, that's the best I can do) that these things are no more than made-up yarns emanating from tendentious authors (and very childish yarns at that, clearly intended to strike awe into believers and keep an ever-tightening grip on them) is never relayed to children. As for what you believe, your evidence bar is set very low, which means that, whilst you don't want to believe something that isn't true, you don't mind believing something that is almost certainly not true.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:59 AM

I have no desire to be offensive to anyone [fingers crossed? maybe!] ~~ but am I alone in getting the impression that this Ron Davies character either doesn't want to listen or is not right bright?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 08:17 AM

I suggest that discussions are best carried out if we restrain ourselves from saying things about other people posting which we would not be willing to say to their face in the same room.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:02 AM

If we were able to set aside proving the existence of god for awhile, lets take a look at when and how the existence of god in the minds of people is a good thing and when does it go bad.

As simply put as I can...

Lets go back 40,000 years. Kids then knew what it was like to be watched by their mother. Feeling that you are being watched is a transmutable emotion that can be transferred into a god like observance. It was a valuable experience for a tribe when someone did a bad thing that deserved punishment. When a fellow tribesman did the punishment, a vendetta or revenge cycle was established to the detrement of the tribe. If however a god was respondible for the punishment, the tribe could be insulated from personal in fighting. This was a good thing.

When it goes bad for the tribe of long ago or today, is when the punishment by god, delivered by man, is prescribed for things like having the wrong god or usurping "god's judgment" for your own advancment of personal gain at the expense of the tribe.


Enter Glen Beck...or fill in the blank with your favorite crack pot, reverend or dictator.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:02 AM

OK McGrath ~~ I will substitute the word 'evasive', which I would happily address directly [as I would, in any case, what I said last time with my 'either...or... formulation ~ but you appeared to find this offensive for some reason]. I reiterate the following, which I posted yesterday 0114 am, in response to R Davies, which he has not seen fit to reply to, but just gone on asserting his idiocies [as I perceive them] about religion being entirely benign & atheism totally malignant ~~

>>"atheism has in fact been a total disaster for mankind. Religion has not. And I have given exact examples." [R Davies]

& you have had some pretty exact examples back of where it HAS, for all your "has not" ~~ like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the St Bartholmew's Day Massacre, the Holocaust, the concept of jihad leading to current militant Islamism, &c &c &c: but in typically fair-minded 'religious' fashion you have elected to ignore those bits.<<

These seem to me valid points. So, if he is not being evasive, how about an answer.


~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:05 AM

There you go again, making assertions of certitude.

What else would one expect from His Simple Seeking Supreme Omniscience?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:30 AM

Methinks Ron is taking the Michael, Michael.


"Sorry, not atheism."

Wot then Ron? Wot?


Suibhne - I can recommend Tai Wu on Oxford Road. It's close to The Cornerhouse (excellent bookshop as well as first-class cinema) and if you go downstairs rather than in the restaurant situated at ground level, you'l find a real gem.

Go for the evening service, it's £10.50 for all you can eat, and start with the duck - it really is very good. Best buffet in Manchester!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:56 AM

Oh, no question Frank Zappa puts Mozart, Brahms,, Tallis, Byrd, etc. to shame. Whatever you say.

I never said he put them to shame, Ron - rather that he carried on in the same tradition and stands as an equal to each of them. Your overtly reactive stance is such that it either deliberately avoids the points raised (as you have with earlier posts from myself & MtheGM) or else you're missing the point entirely. I could name countless Atheist composers & musicians - and many others who've devoted their lives to performing the music of the composers you mention, not because of some transcendent spiritually you feel is somehow inherent in the music, but because of its human beauty which remains even when removed from its religious context.

To the Atheist such things aren't an issue; all is seen in human terms (even Religion) of both the positive and the negative which rests at the heart of the grand paradox that is the Human Condition. Whilst the Atheist is all too aware of the lessons of history, like the Anarchist, their abiding faith is that one day we'll be able to live succesfully without Religion or Government. You seem to be suggesting we need the oppression, the lies, the myths & the hoo-hah to function; maybe we need the jack-boots too, eh? Here in the UK we have a largely secular atheist society that works just splendidly. The same might be said for other parts of the world. Religion lingers as Folklore & Seasonal Festival - even Atheists might partake on such grounds (no one loves Xmas more than I & I even might go to Mass at Easter) but for the most part the pervading faith is in the goodness of the people around us whilst being aware that none of us is perfect. Note the word Faith there - Good Faith in Humanity, which is not a religious belief, but a Humanist Certainty, one founded entirely on Empirical Gnosis.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:59 AM

Will do, SJ - these days we limit ourselves to one big buffet blow out every three months or so, so once we've got The Fylde out of the way I think we'll ready & perhaps a little overdue!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 10:33 AM

Methinks Ron is taking the Michael, Michael.

Absolutely not! Simple Seeker firmly believes in his own omniscience & infallibility.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 10:45 AM

But faith IS irrational; if it were rational it would be a conclusion from evidence.

LOVE the battleground game, but would of course argue that since I have no religious beliefs, mine are not irrational, so I spit out one of the bullets, I think. If I had any, I would agree that they were irrational.

I have HOPES, myself, rather than faith, in humanity - I have known since I was a very small child and was learning about people's gods that if real people would just work together, we would be AS gods, in the sense of being able to accomplish anything.

I am reminded of that every time I am in a huge crowd of people all experiencing something together, like waiting outside the bookstore for the last Harry Potter book, or Obama's inauguration, or something else not directly working against, oh, say, poverty.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 11:11 AM

Greater things than I have done, ye shall do.

And,

The Kingdom of HEaven is within.

Faith is not irrational IMHO, but you might call it metarational. Optimistic extrapolation over the long term, based on a clear insight into the fundamentals. Whatever you call it, it is perfectly rational when it is done knowingly, not as a kind of black-box hopeful ignorance. Big difference.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 11:42 AM

mousethief brought up an interesting point:

"There is good argument, some of it by atheists, that science as we know it got a good jump-start from religion, in the form of belief that the world is predictable because it is made by a rational God. The scientific method of iterative experiment and hypothesis, as first proposed by Roger Bacon, follows immediately from the philosophy of the Scholastics. Experimental science is the daughter of Abrahamic religion and Greek philosophy. It can be reasonably argued that without both, it would not have arisen, or would have arisen at a much much later date, after the intellectual framework was built up from some other source. Isaac Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants. Many of those giants were Christian philosophers."

This is quite true-- centuries ago, most/many 'scientists' were also religious. There was an underlying theme to much of 'scientific' thought of "Let's learn all we can about the wonders God has given us", and much of what was learned was guided by, and interpreted in terms of, how it fit with religious texts. Nothing very surprising about that.
   But in the process of studying nature (plants & animals), the stars, physics, chemistry, geology....etc., the major thinkers were also codifying the rules for making sense OF scientific discovery. That is, they were gradually inventing the scientific method as a tool for accurately doing experiments, testing hypotheses, and using careful language to minimize misunderstandings among their peers & students. Gradually, as mathematics and rules for 'good science' were integrated, many became aware that they were defining not only 'good science', but also 'good thinking'.
Now...what happens when a dedicated scientist...such as Galileo... finds that 'good thinking' requires him to dispute or question certain religious precepts... like Heliocentric universe or age of the Earth? Several things happen.... Some 'rationalize' and try to make scientific theories 'fit' the religious concepts they cannot emotionally doubt. Some just try not to deal with it and simply do the science and let others do the arguing or questioning.... and some begin to see the rules of 'good thinking' as a separate, but guiding principle for ALL concerns.
Fast forward to today's dichotomy: the dispute between those who argue that "science, when done properly, has no place for a 'god' which cannot be tested in standard scientific method" and those who reply that "issues about God are not IN the realm of science, and simply not subject to 'testing'."

This seems to be a chasm that defies any effort to build a bridge. On the one hand, many assert that it is irrelevant whether religious topics are subject to 'testing' ala 'scientific method', because the 'rules of good thinking' always are relevant, and positing metaphysical realms and 'gods' EITHER violates certain rules of 'good thinking' and logic, OR is only internally and circularly consistent.
On the other hand, opponents assert that because gods and metaphysical concepts can be conceived of at all, they are 'possible' and simply involve 'different' forms of evidence & reasoning and it is not even fair or useful to suggest they be required to submit to testing or analysis common to the physical world.

   ...but there is a 'sort of' other position which may be about as close to a bridge as we will ever get, and which can be held in some form by those on both sides of the chasm. It holds that because religious thought is so ancient and embedded in human culture throughout history, it has 'value' over & beyond any reference to its absolute 'truth'. These people hold that we can & should find within religious contexts...lessons about our 'selves', beauty, guidance about morals, respect for tradition...and many other subjective concepts.

I **tend** to think that the 'good thinking' position IS the most reasonable one... but *smile*...perhaps some will say that is as circular & subjective as any religious orientation. To me, it is just "reasonable to BE reasonable" in all things, and that the rules of 'good thinking' are, in fact **objective** if properly understood....but I do cross a mite over halfway on that shaky bridge of respect for the values I can see on 'the other side'.


The details & complex implications of the position I take is even longer than THIS rambling attempt to say something new on this topic...but maybe they are obvious to some.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 12:23 PM

Wal, Bill, the channels of perception which generate religious experience are psychological channels, about which we know so little we can't even offer a clear explanation of what's data and what ain't. Cf. James. While your adherence to rationality is always admirable, one insidious form of irrationality is mixing up data types in such a way that babies and bathwaters get thrown out together. WHen this happens rationality shoots itself in its own foot, so to speak.

The scientific method (in pure form) takes this into account by learning over time what kinds of data can be used in what context. Thus some kinds of surveys are acceptable measurements of sociological phenomena, but never would do for non-organic chemistry evidence.

The trend to reduce thought to bio-mechanics in the brain is this sort of mistake, because it ignores the far more important issues of understanding thought itself, what it is actually capable of and what its innate dynamics are as thought. A psychological event is farmore interesting than its chemical or electronic antecedents, in general; this is why we have rhetoric, poetry, and flashes of insight, and also why we generate unstoppable intentionality sometimes. Confusing the biophysical concomitants of these things with the things themselves is (IMHO) a fatal flaw of narrowmindedness and a betrayal of true scientific method.

And considering subjective personal viewpoints and thoughts to be outside the realm of rational science is a treacherous slope to walk down because it uses the power of thought to nullify thinking in an insidiious way.

Babies and bathwater, baby....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 12:32 PM

How much do I love thee? If you are not capable of measuring my love, can it possibly be true that I love?

Me thinks some things are not certifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM

Love is something we can get a measure of on an intra-personal level; it's a human thang & lives / breathes according to how we experience it. Thus Love, unlike God, or similar supernatural conceits, is manifestly Empirical.

Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best... - Frank Zappa

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 12:59 PM

"Love is something we can get a measure of on an intra-personal level"

How do we measure it so that the impersonal observer/skeptic can be convinced?

I have heard 'Christians' say: "he claims to be a Christian but I have my doubts..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 01:22 PM

Ron, people who love power seek it, and often become totalitarians. Religion or atheism isn't really part of it, even if the totalitarian says so.

Ron's response: Sorry, that's drivel.

Are you saying that people who don't want power end up in positions of power? Are you saying that people who like to boss others around don't seek the power to do so? Are you saying that any atheist who gets power becomes a murderous monster? Are you saying that religious folks with power are always benign? Are you really that clueless, or are you just feeling rude these days?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 01:31 PM

And PLEASE don't get into the history of secular vs. religious atrocities. Almost every religious discussion on Mudcat devolves into that and it is really, really, pointless. This discussion has been very interesting so far, partly because the biased history lessons have been minimal.

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 01:58 PM

Apparently, Ron thinks my music is inferior because I don't believe in God. Sadly, the rules of the forum don't allow me (and quite rightly) to state my true feelings on that, but I trust those with more than two brain cells can work it out for themselves.

Given that I have no choice whatsoever in my non-belief, should I be claiming invalidity benefit for my loss of earnings due to an obviously debilitating mental condition?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 02:01 PM

...Or should I just pretend to be religious, as have, I suspect, countless people throughout history?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM

Historically I think we owe a lot to religion for a great amount of various styles of music. We also 'owe' religion a fair amount for the wars that have lead to a great many great songs. But not all...

I remember years ago some Archbishop or other stating that Atheists could not be true altruists. I thought it then and I still think it now. Hogwash! It seems some think that Atheists could not make great songs. Again: Hogwash!

Whether your life is under, what I will call, 'positive religious control', or not, will not make you a great singer or lyricist. Ultimately what is in your heart and head will be what influences what you do and so anything that follows comes from your life experience, not just spirituality or absence from it.

I had ti resist putting "surely" on the end of that last sentence asit is not my wish to call anyone Shirley! ;-)

Religious or not... none of it can take place without YOU! Never forget the part you play in that and outcomes of anything. Believing in God or not... there is good and bad in everyone.

In honesty I actually thing the altruistic atheist has a kind of upper hand. They are not looking to do anything for some higher reward after death. But that is an entirely different thread and I do know not all believers actually look for reward that way.

With the fullest respect to all who believe in God. When did God ever issue an edict for us to have ONLY a relationship with him without a relationship with each other? When I listen to a singer it matters not what religion, colour, creed, sexuality or gender they are. If I enjoy them I enjoy them

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 02:31 PM

"If a rational person had to choose between a world without religion and a world without atheism, no question which he or she would choose"

There may not be a question in your head, Ron, but it is a question that has been asked many times in history by a great many rational people.

Charles Darwin turned his back on God and religion, but not without respect to those he knew did believe. Indeed, he made himself ill worrying about upsetting people if he disclosed what his life work had shown. Evolution is hardly irrational. I do think though that Darwin, along with his friend Huxley who coined the term, was actually agnostic

Giuseppe Verdi was also atheist. His operas, and in particular his Requiem and the religious music within his operas, are sublimely beautiful (IMHO). He, too, questioned deeply his stance on God. Again, hardly an irrational man.

History is full of men who chose, often through personal experience or circumstance, to live in a world which to them could have no religion.

It's not a fair question. It is like asking to live in a world without art or culture. What good does that do us all? Yet, it absolutely does a great deal of good. It's not always apparent but the world would be poorer without it.

Had the world never had religion I doubt we would miss that which we never knew. We never met a dynosaur but can still be facinated by their fossils. We cannot have a world without religion or atheism. They are the two sides of the same coin.

Just my opinion. Am I being irrational?

Don't answer that! lol

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 02:34 PM

There is a large catalogue of sublime music which was written by church sponsored composers, but the private beliefs of the composers aren't really known to anyone, nor do they matter.

For a daft example, take a look at Hitler's paintings; do they look as if they were painted by a fascist dictator? I think not.. He was a much better painter than me, and I hardly ever want to rule the world. Much.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 02:47 PM

LOL, Smokey.

The biggest confusion I think occurs in this field is the notion that God is an external. The gets people into all sorts of tizzies because they think, like other parts of the shared universe, it should be possible to agree on what is there, just like a mile or a stone in a field.

But the fact is God and all his ilk are internally generated from the same realm all subjective assessments come from.

That's why the separation of Church and State is critical to a nation's success--it inserts a true division between the commons and the temple, the same division that exists in nature between opinions about beauty and the objective measurable frequency of green.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 03:16 PM

How do we measure it so that the impersonal observer/skeptic can be convinced?

Is there such any such person? Our very humanity is defined by such experience. Like orgasm - how do we measure that? Or pain? Constipation? Fear? Joy? Cramp?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 03:28 PM

Ron's response: 'Sorry, that's drivel'..... Are you saying that people who don't want power end up in positions of power...

No, he's saying he has all the answers, and no-one else matters.

Thou Shalt Not Contradict the Simple Seeker.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 04:01 PM

Quote: Fast forward to today's dichotomy: the dispute between those who argue that "science, when done properly, has no place for a 'god' which cannot be tested in standard scientific method" and those who reply that "issues about God are not IN the realm of science, and simply not subject to 'testing'." (unquote)

I haven't really come across this alleged dichotomy. There is little or no real motivation in science to test for a God. The latter is more the case, and it reflects what I said about science being generally unconcerned about God. It can't really be any other way. I have never seen any paradox in the fact that many scientists believe in God. In nearly every case a belief in God will not impinge in any way in their everyday work. Science is generally not about people philosophising in ivory towers. It's about earning a crust. And let's not forget that Newton, that guru quoted above, was frequently wrong and was a self-centred, opinionated, arrogant prick!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 05:15 PM

I certainly found it hard to shake off in later life

Yes, clearly you're still a Catholic and tied to that belief system forever. ::rolleyes:: A quick look at the actual numbers of kids who are raised in Christian homes and then "fall away" i.e. cease to be Christians in later life, would indicate your despair over kids being raised as Christians is misplaced.

As for what you believe, your evidence bar is set very low, which means that, whilst you don't want to believe something that isn't true, you don't mind believing something that is almost certainly not true.

You don't know where my evidence bar is; this is bluster. And "almost certainly not true" is not based on any obtainable objective register of probability (there is none) but on your own beliefs. In short, you believe one way, I believe the other. The difference is I'm not trying to slander you for your beliefs, or denigrate your atheism, or insult your decsion-making abilities.

>>"atheism has in fact been a total disaster for mankind. Religion has not. And I have given exact examples." [R Davies]

& you have had some pretty exact examples back of where it HAS, for all your "has not" ~

You are neglecting the word "total" in his claim. He's not saying that religion has not led to disasters. He's saying that it has also led to good, so the sum total is not 100% disaster. Whereas for atheism, he is saying the sum total is 100% disaster. Whether or not this is the case, I do not know. But you two are talking past each other and I think the word "total" is the reason why. I don't know any religious person who would want to claim that everything done in the name of Christianity or in the name of Christ has been an unmitigated blessing to humanity.

Oh, no question Frank Zappa puts Mozart, Brahms,, Tallis, Byrd, etc. to shame. Whatever you say.

I never said he put them to shame, Ron - rather that he carried on in the same tradition and stands as an equal to each of them.

This is delerium. Please, see a brain care specialist right away. Zappa doesn't stand anywhere in their neighborhood. Although a quick google finds that Verdi, Berlioz, and Brahms were at least agnostic if not atheist (apparently Berlioz stated outright that he was atheist). John Cage of course was an atheist but no right-thinking person believes he's a good composer.

But faith IS irrational; if it were rational it would be a conclusion from evidence.

Faith steps in where the evidence is inconclusive either way. It is not irrational, which means against reason; it is arational. Amos says "metarational" but I"m not sure what that means.

to BillD: you are equating "good thinking" with "scientific thinking." As a philosopher, I cannot agree. There are some questions that are worthwile and meaningful that are not scientific questions.

Love is something we can get a measure of on an intra-personal level;

What unit is love measured in? By what instruments?

I remember years ago some Archbishop or other stating that Atheists could not be true altruists. I thought it then and I still think it now. Hogwash!

I agree with you. However at least in the United States, it is a pretty well established fact that Christians and other religious people give a lot more to charitable causes than Atheists do. An Atheist on another forum I frequent bemoaned this fact and worked hard to raise levels of giving to charitable causes by Atheists. More power to him.

to mauvepink: it's pretty uncontroversial to say that Darwin's loss of faith had a lot more to do with his daughter's death than his evolutionary theories.

Like orgasm - how do we measure that? Or pain? Constipation? Fear? Joy? Cramp?

You appear to agree, then, that scientific evidence is not the only kind that matters?

Science is generally not about people philosophising in ivory towers. It's about earning a crust.

How I would love to earn a crust philosophizing in ivory towers. Many do. They are university professors of philosophy for the most part. I think it is important that we think about what it means to think. And it was their thinking that gave rise to what we call "science" in the first place.

And let's not forget that Newton, that guru quoted above, was frequently wrong and was a self-centred, opinionated, arrogant prick!

Would that I, frequently wrong, self-centered, opinionated, and prickoid as I am, could have done what he did for the future of human knowledge!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,BS = Briceida Santiago
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 05:30 PM

Captured! Psycho! What the heck is this? Kiss my Ass!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:05 PM

Mousethief is right about my use of "total".    My critic might want to take a course in reading the English language. And another in logic.

It doesn't even matter if Berlioz said he was atheist.   What I would refer to if I mentioned him would be his stirring and majestic Requiem,( which is wonderful to sing and which I have been lucky enough to sing one of my group's Italian tours--we were part of the Spoleto festival and also sang in the Sistine Chapel that year.)   And the music in the street and after midnight when I hooked up with the cultural center of Spoleto after midnight was one of the musical high points of my life.   Too bad the rest of the chorus just wanted to sleep.

My point is that without Christianity the Berlioz Requiem--like the other music I have cited--would not have been written.

It's fine with me if atheists write Christian music--as long as they honor the actual tradition and take it seriously, as Berlioz did.   He is in fact very convincing--if any Mudcat atheist had actually listened to the piece.   Not that that's likely to happen.   It would take away from important Zappa time.

Somehow I tend to doubt a Mudcat atheist's efforts along those lines would be similar.

I can't help but think that I could exist--quite happily, in fact--without ever hearing another Zappa song.   It was fun in Paris to yell "A bas les flics!" when Zappa didn't show up for his concert.   But I suspect the live participatory street theater was more of a kick than his actual concert would have been.   Though I was glad not to be arrested--and the tear gas was unexpected.

So this does not change the fact that it is Christianity--(and probably capitalism, since Berlioz was probably paid for his work)-- and not atheism which is responsible for the glorious Berlioz Requiem.

Therefore my point remains that music due to atheism is, shall we say, not worth the time of any serious music lover.   Not that I would want to call it trash.   Of course not.

Ergo atheism is still virtually worthless as a contributor to culture--unless, as I said, you get off on nihilism. Perhaps all the sales of Being and Nothingness and similar bleak pinnacles of achievement are due to sales to Mudcat atheists.

And of course I have also said that agnosticism is an eminently sensible stance for a thinking person to take.

It's only atheism which has been a disaster for the world and close to a dead loss for culture.   So, as noted earlier, if forced to choose between no atheism and no religion, I'll stay with religion. Thanks for asking.

I can tell you point blank that Brahms was no atheist.   Neither, by the way, was Darwin.
So I'll keep Darwin and you atheists can have Dawkins.   Seems fair.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:10 PM

Verdi was also not atheist. Mistreated by the Church, he had every reason not to be a strong Catholic, may well have been agnostic.   Again his Requiem is a true pinnacle of music--with no trace of atheism whatsoever.   (And a glorious experience to sing.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:34 PM

I think that this is not true about Verdi.

Remember, when these men were writing music, the only patrons they could find to support their works were either rich people or members of the clergy.

Christian power and money may have been responsible for some of the great works flying under the church banner but just as Da Vinci and Michelangelo have shown, they were not big fans of the clergy in their lives. The clergy paid the bills, that's all.

These composers were great and would have been even if they hadn't written liturgical
music. They were great because they were great and that's all.

As for any trace of atheism, this can't be established through the liturgical words that they
were kind of forced to write. Remember, heretics could easily be burned at the stake.
You knew which side your "bread was buttered on".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:37 PM

See? Simply infallible in matters of faith, morals, and whatever other BS he chooses to splash around.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 06:54 PM

Y'know, Amos... your reply to my long post was essentially your USUAL reply to some of the issues I often discuss at other times. I am not sure what you 'thought' you read that made you plug in the usual mind/body dichotomy and revert to the 'babies & bathwater' metaphor, but I was not 'throwing out' anything in that post. I said nothing about "bio-mechanics of the brain", and was not even trying to approach that debate... and my real point about how to achieve that 'bridge' between different approaches seems to have been lost.


mousethief: ": you are equating "good thinking" with "scientific thinking."
   No, that's not exactly what I am doing at all. I DO suggest that they are related, because you can't have 'good science' with 'bad thinking'.
As a matter of fact, I agree that "There are some questions that are worthwhile and meaningful that are not scientific questions.", and I alluded to that within my post.
All I was trying to do (besides the historical perspective ON science and logic) was to show that ... lemmee see.... that IF one employs 'bad thinking'...that is, starts with premises that are obviously false or gratuitously subjective and then are linked in a logically fallacious manner, it follows that the conclusions have limited ....*long pause*.... limited ..ummm... relevance and 'substance'. They have less *power to convince*.
Everyone will see this if we use examples they agree with and see the sequence....whether it's about gardening, geology, sanitation or map reading.... but when the topic is a personal 'sacred cow', they suddenly don't LIKE to look directly at the logical fallacies involved.
   Now, let me state clearly that I do realize that it IS possible to achieve either a true conclusion or a valuable, relevant one even if the method employed is flawed... "even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes"... or "even a blindfolded darts thrower hits the target now & then"...etc. But there ARE more efficient & productive ways to achieve goals, and I flatly assert that using demonstrably 'bad thinking' is more likely to produce questionable answers.

I am not sure how anyone can dispute the basic sense of this claim, but I sure notice that the more specific the topic is, the easier it seems to be for people to harrumph and refuse to even consider that their coveted 'answer' is either exempt from analysis, or that the analysis is wrong.
Nietzsche once illustrated this succinctly with a 'quote' from an old woman, saying "Of course it was a just war! My son died in it!"
She simply could not cope with any logical or factual analysis of the 'justness' of the war.
   Today we see this happening with 'global climate change', with disputes over what taxes are justified, with how immigration should be handled, with disputes over Obama's birth certificate,...and we see 'denial' among smokers, among the obese over why they ARE obese, and in people who choose to live in areas which are subject to flooding or landslides or fires. They just insert premises that they like and link them so that they reach the decision that is comfortable for them. It is often obvious why they DO resort to 'bad thinking', but anyone who is NOT emotionally committed to their position can usually see the flaws in their reasoning.

....see? I rest my case... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:04 PM

1)   If you think Verdi was atheist, not agnostic, let's have some actual evidence.   Burden of proof is on you.

2) You are still not reading very carefully.   It makes no difference to me if he were atheist--point is that without Christianity his Requiem would never have been written.

As I've said, atheists are welcome to write Christian pieces as long as they are respectful of the tradition. Verdi was more than that--this piece, as I've said, is a peak of choral music.




In fact it was not written, as the poster seems to cynically assume, solely for a commission--and it was not the Church which commissioned it-- but also to honor several men Verdi deeply respected, one who had in fact asked him to write a Requiem for him.

Verdi, after finishing the Requiem, said he had written it "...to the greater glory of God."

Far from Verdi's showing atheist tendencies, the actual problem at the start was with the Milan city council:'   Verdi:   A Biography, by Mary Jane Phillips-Matz p . 607: "At a meeting of the city council in Milan, some members protested that the Messa da Requiem would cost the City too much money; others said the authorities should not underwrite a religious event.   Boito, then a city councillor, defended Verdi and won the day."

No surprise that an Mudcat atheist would suspect the worst of people.   Atheists' sunny good humor and upbeat humanism are always a joy. Or maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:35 PM

Oh...and just for further record, I agree with Ron about the influence of Christianity on music...and art of many other types. I sing some Pentecostal and other gospel songs...just because they are great music, and I really am awed by Gothic cathedrals and stained glass windows...and ceiling of the Sistine Chapel....and the paintings of the Italian masters who represented angels dancing...and, and...
   These things are part of our history and culture and are a very essential part of who & what we are in Western civilization. We MUST retain some perspective on why people were inspired to create such masterpieces....no matter what we 'feel' about the ultimate 'truth' or causality of the Universe.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:36 PM

I suspect that that Archbishop might actually have been saying that true altruists cannot actually be true atheists, even if they think they are.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:38 PM

quote]I certainly found it hard to shake off in later life

Yes, clearly you're still a Catholic and tied to that belief system forever. ::rolleyes:: A quick look at the actual numbers of kids who are raised in Christian homes and then "fall away" i.e. cease to be Christians in later life, would indicate your despair over kids being raised as Christians is misplaced.[unquote]

Oh dear. I'm surprised at your lack of imagination in trotting out this standard, formulaic, banal riposte. Every person who's now an atheist but who was once a Catholic has heard this rubbish dozens of times. You can do better. Seems you can't be an ex-Catholic without being a militant, bitter, conscience-ridden, still-a-Catholic-deep-down-inside, ex-Catholic. You've sort of proved my point about one of organised religion's standard big ideas: to make it bloody tough to get out. Some of us made it, though I'm sure you'll disapprove. Did you not see where I said it wasn't exactly oppressive?

"As for what you believe, your evidence bar is set very low, which means that, whilst you don't want to believe something that isn't true, you don't mind believing something that is almost certainly not true.

You don't know where my evidence bar is; this is bluster. And "almost certainly not true" is not based on any obtainable objective register of probability (there is none) but on your own beliefs. In short, you believe one way, I believe the other. The difference is I'm not trying to slander you for your beliefs, or denigrate your atheism, or insult your decsion-making abilities."

No bluster. You don't want evidence because you have faith. Your faith is what stops you from seeking evidence. The search would be far too inconvenient, not to say fruitless. You're way down the evidence register and way up the faith register (though, like fossil missing links, there isn't a lot between the extremes). It's strange (ironic?) that you should resort to bringing objectivity into this argument. I would be interested to know what objective measure you apply to your belief in God. I have plenty of objective measures I can apply to my dismissal of God. I could start by saying that, by having your God at the heart of things, you are trying to explain the world by resort to something far more complex, rule-busting and inexplicable than anything the world contains. Tell me where your objectivity lies in all that. And yes, there is an objective measure of probability. A measure you can't exactly put a number to, but that's mainly because that number, were it to exist, would be vanishingly small.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 07:50 PM

You seem to know an awful lot about the private thoughts of composers, Ron. Do you happen to know whether Mussorgsky believed in Baba Yaga?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 08:22 PM

Bill:

Babies and bathwater; and what I was addressing was your usual admirable paean to rationality and the rules thereof. I was very simply making the point about the need to be careful about exclusionary data definitions. True, we've batted this back and forth before, but it was completely relevant to a discussion of religiosity vis-a-vis rational rules of thought.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 08:39 PM

I DO try to be careful, Amos. The babies are safe when I bathe them.

It may be 'relevant' in some sense, but it didn't address the point I was making. I guess I gotta pare my points down a bit......

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: pdq
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 08:55 PM

Well, Bill D, I don't want to interfere with you amazing magnum opus (correct, since opus third declension, neuter) postings, which are some of Mudcat's best entertainment, but you used a rhetorical trick by suggesting that someone who refues to accept the theory of "climate change" is a denier, just like a smoker or an alcoholic et al is a denier, therefore he is wrong.

The fact is that these cases have their own facts and must be judged separately on factual evidence. You can't get away with suggesting that "he believes that smoking is not bad for your health therefore his belief that 'global warming' is also a fraud is wrong".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 08:58 PM

"to mauvepink: it's pretty uncontroversial to say that Darwin's loss of faith had a lot more to do with his daughter's death than his evolutionary theories"

Agreed

However, whatever the cause of his atheism/agnosticism, he still had a respect for those who did believe and had no wish to upset or injure them. He knew he was sitting on a timebomb and what it would likely do if it exploded.

I was just trying to put in place some people's atheism and that they had produced extremely rational works by being so

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:07 PM

I cannot say whether Verdi was an atheist or an agnostic with conviction. I do know Giuseppina Streponi worried a great deal for his soul. The biographies I have read on Verdi stated he was atheist and there are many referebnces to his atheism if you Google "Verdi + Atheism"

I certainly will not argue the point. In the end, even on this, people will believe as they wish.

I did believe my statement was well founded though when I wrote it.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:15 PM

"I suspect that that Archbishop might actually have been saying that true altruists cannot actually be true atheists, even if they think they are"

I am going back to around 1988-1990 Michael. I am almost sure it was in the Times. And I assure you, what he said was that Atheists could not be alruists. Myself and several other biologists at the time were quite affronted at the arrogance of such a statement. Some of them were Christian and some were atheists.

I cannot find no reference to it on the web however.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 09:51 PM

Yes, and Bush said we couldn't be patriots or in all likelihood citizens...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 10:07 PM

Remember, heretics could easily be burned at the stake.

Verdi was 1813-1901. Berlioz was 1803-1869. Brahms was 1833-1897. Not a lot of heretics getting burned in western Europe at that time.

to BillD: But if the charge of 'bad thinking' is going to stick, it requires more than assertion.

Seems you can't be an ex-Catholic without being a militant, bitter, conscience-ridden, still-a-Catholic-deep-down-inside, ex-Catholic.

Your irony meter needs recalibration. I was being sarcastic. I do not think you're still a Catholic.

You don't want evidence because you have faith.

I have evidence, just not evidence that you would accept. Indeed, you don't even accept that it's possible that I have evidence, because of how narrowly you have defined evidence.

Your faith is what stops you from seeking evidence. The search would be far too inconvenient, not to say fruitless.

This is just bulverism.

And yes, there is an objective measure of probability

For the existence of God? I'm all ears.

I was just trying to put in place some people's atheism and that they had produced extremely rational works by being so

I don't understand what you mean. Darwin produced his theories because he was atheist?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 10 - 10:22 PM

pdq... a "denier" can be one who insists on HIS version of facts while denying the version that the scientific community generally accepts. Sometimes they win... Galileo did...sometimes they lose...like smokers.

I do NOT assume nor did I claim that any belief in contradiction to the majority is automatically wrong; merely that certain types of denial share certain types of fallacious thinking. One CAN even end up being 'right' with bad reasoning....but that's not the way to bet.


But I'm glad I have kept you, at least, entertained.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 06:10 AM

"And yes, there is an objective measure of probability

For the existence of God? I'm all ears."

Well, a lot hinges on whether you demand that I put a figure on it (as you don't care to demand evidence of the verifiable kind I assume you won't insist). I can neither find verifiable evidence for, nor put a probability number on, the existence of sixteen-legged, seven-eyed little blue men skating on Saturn's rings every Friday, but I can say with, er, considerable confidence, tinged with objectivity, that they almost certainly don't exist. The word "almost" is vital (and most atheists would agree to a similar characterisation for their dismissal of God. In contrast, believers deal in cast-iron certainties. It's never "Our Father, who almost certainly art in heaven...). The reason for my confidence is that I would have to ditch a very large amount of the accumulated knowledge and understanding of the universe painstakingly accumulated by humans over many millennia in order to accept the little mens' existence. Most of what we understand about life and the laws of physics would have to be abandoned. Worse, I'd have to come up from scratch with an alternative explanation for their existence and provenance, along with a whole clutch of new laws never dreamed of until now. As I wouldn't be able to do that, I'd have to have a last resort, which would be faith. Now I doubt that most people would allow me to to get away with this, except to smile benignly and say that as long as I kept it to myself and tried to not waste anyone's time with it I would be treated as no more than a harmless old duffer. And they certainly wouldn't allow me to put my belief on school curricula, etc.
   
The only real difference between my little men and the just-as-improbable God is that God has been going for a lot longer. That is scarcely a good reason, when you really think about it, for clinging on to him. Longevity is not good evidence for veracity, as with the idea that the sun went round the Earth, though I can see that, as with many traditions, it would comfort many a believer.

So there is objective evidence/reasoning for the non-existence of God. He's up against all the science and maths that we've objectively accumulated. Wackily, he has to break all the rules he himself created in order to exist at all. On the other hand, the evidence ~for~ his existence is, well....faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:13 AM

"And yes, there is an objective measure of probability

For the existence of God? I'm all ears."

The Probability of God

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:49 AM

If it is true that no atheists are altruists, it logically follows that anyone who is a true altruist cannot be a true atheist, even if they think they are.

Similarly if no cats bark, than any creature that barks is not a cat.

Of course in both cases the initial premise might be challenged.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:38 AM

"Ergo atheism is still virtually worthless as a contributor to culture--unless, as I said, you get off on nihilism. Perhaps all the sales of Being and Nothingness and similar bleak pinnacles of achievement are due to sales to Mudcat atheists."

Hmmm . . . seems you've not been reading all the posts here Ron. I don't count myself as a nihilist but then I'm wondering if we're all even talking about the same thing here.

From dictionary.com:

a·the·ist   [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So far so good . . . we all agree on that then. The synonym section continues:

—Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Now, as I've said earlier I consider myself a deeply spiritual person, and I certainly believe that in a scientific sense we are mere children, still gazing in wonder at rainbows and lightning . . . well, essentially. Because I still feel the awe and the sense of the sublime that pervades our arts, our sciences, our very existence. However, I am also an empiricist and this presents problems, because there is no way we have at our disposal the means and methods we need to understand the universe fully - not by a long stretch. Heck, we don't even know what consciousness is, although we can appreciate the state itself and the incredible implications of being a conscious being; we are now realising there are more type of consciousness than our own, and one day we'll hopefully understand consciousnesses that perhaps only some of our fellow humans have had insight into (and I mean that in a non-religious, physical sense).

The problem with Ron's arguments is it's a solely Christian viewpoint. There is of course nothing wrong with that, but to all intents and purposes this seems to lump all non-Christians in with Ron's 'atheists'. So despite the fact as an atheist (in short - the rest of the human race who don't subscribe to Christianity is what people here seem to be saying) you could come from many walks of life, backgrounds etc by lumping them all together you sort of miss the point - the rest of the human race can be thinkers, artists, scientists etc etc and that is a group whose opinions will be vastly varied and whose contributions to our civilisation is as equally relevant and valuable as any Christian (no more, no less). Even if we include all those who are not by definition atheists many will refute the concept of the Christian/Hebrew/Islamic God.There are plenty of other faiths which don't have any concept of God in the Christian sense; Australian aborigines, Buddhists, Massai tribesman, Native American, uncontacted Amazonian tribes etc. To all intents and purposes these people are atheists, except of course, they're not. So how do you treat their denial of a Christian God, because it might be as emphatic as a true atheist's?

So the statement I've quoted above from Ron is at best a result of blind faith, ignorance or prejudice. Now although I'm pointing the finger at Ron here I don't mean to be personal (honest!), but the above statement seems to indicate a very blinkered, and in fact erroneous world view, and that is the problem with this debate. What we need to understand is that perhaps the pantheists, Christians, Waiwai etc are all talking about the same thing, but it's not actually the same thing they're talking about (!).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:11 AM

"..the private thoughts of composers." Gee, if I did not know better, I'd think that was meant sarcastically.

1)   I have a substantial library of books on serious topics--lopsidedly music and history.   I'm hopelessly addicted to reading--always nonfiction. I do not reject any source out of hand--including Wiki, though it always needs outside corroboration.   But I do not just pillage the Net for a phrase that will support my point.    I try to give exact sources--as anybody can do.

2) Obviously nobody can know 'private thoughts'.   All we can do is read what a person has said--and how he or she has acted.   I try to give exact quotes, and sources.   Anybody else is invited to do the same.

3)   This poster also, it seems, needs a course in reading English.   I've said more than once that it bothers me not in the least if an atheist writes a Christian piece, as long as the composer is respectful of the tradition.

To be continued

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:32 AM

By the way, I'd be curious to know the poster's own view on Mussourgsky and Baba Yaga.

4)    As I've mentioned before, I've been a member of an excellent choral group for about 20 years. Our usual venue is the Kennedy Center Concert Hall but we have sung all over the world.   In this group I've sung huge numbers of choral masterpieces.

Just as it's possible for an atheist to write a wonderful Christian piece, in our group we have Jewish singers, agnostics, and probably also atheists. But every singer can and does belt out a "Credo" when the music calls for it. It's a question of serving the music.

Our conductor has told us the words should be out front on a 'neon sign'--the audience should hear every word if the music demands that at a given point--regardless of the language.



I find that just being in such a group doing these wonderful pieces can itself be a mystical experience--and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. I've just recently heard that one of the reasons people climb mountains is for the mystical experience. I'm glad I don't have to climb K-2 for a similar result.



But acting convincingly is part of a good performance--regardless of your own personal views and background-as anybody who has sung "Sam Hall" for instance should know.



I find that music--especially making it yourself--is endlessly satisfying.

And tends to make you less cynical.

Or maybe it's just not being an atheist which makes you less cynical.

Sure is interesting that the most bitter, nihilistic cynics on Mudcat seem to be without exception also the strongest atheists.

That in itself is a powerful argument against atheism--if any more arguments were needed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:49 AM

Ron, I think the thing that is bothering people here is that your view of atheists seems starkly black and white, all or nothing. You use phrases like "athiests do this" or "what I might expect from Mudcat athiests". Lumping everyone together and making judgements about them makes you sound like you have an axe to grind, and that you don't really want to take part in the actual discussion. I find it fascinating that the only person in this thread who is consistently bashing atheists is you, who claim to have no religious convictions. The Christians have, for the most part, been polite and seemingly more interested in the conversation than in treating all atheists the same. Perhaps you could tone down the rhetoric a bit.

As for comparisons (which are off topic here and kind of silly in the first place), it seems obvious that artists make art, power-seekers seek power, spirtiual people have revelations, Christians have faith, and atheists don't. It's not really that complicated.

Thanks,
John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 11:06 AM

Respect the constitution and its wisdom for allowing the freedom of religion and by inclusion the freedom from religion.

One of George Washington's letters after the war stated that his hopes of the new Constitufion allowing for the freedom of religion are being dashed by overly zealot Christians who still insist upon causing trouble in the name of their one true religion.

Its hard to see past ego for most people. I assure you it is a beautiful vista once you learn to see beyond your personal or religious ego. It is not easy, but with practice and frequent relapses, it can be done.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 12:31 PM

Been away a few days and catching up on this thread..

I heard a comic in a show in London last night, and one of the things he said reminded me of this thread, (sad I know, but who needs a life when your Mac is waiting at home for you?)

"Religion is like a dog. When it is yours, it is warm and cuddly. When it is someone else's, it is dangerous and threatening. In either event, children need protecting from it."

Oh, and I remember now, reading a term of reference that suits me and my stance (or lack of stance.) I am not atheist nor indeed agnostic. I am (like 90% of The UK population) irreligious.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 12:44 PM

No, what is bothering people is that Ron the Omniscient and Infallible Simple Seeker believes himself to be the ultimate authority on all matters bar none & will brook no opposition.

His delusions of godhood are most appropriate in a thread about the god delusion, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 12:59 PM

Those aren't synonymns, they are words with associated meanings, what you find in a thesaurus. A synonym is a word that has the same meaning. For example snake and serpent.

You do rather repeat yourself Greg. Even more than most of us do.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 01:14 PM

The point is worth repeating, Kevin, if only as a public service.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 01:39 PM

"what is bothering people"

If 'bothering' were spelled 'boring', then you'd be spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 02:57 PM

So there is objective evidence/reasoning for the non-existence of God. He's up against all the science and maths that we've objectively accumulated.

Only if you conceive of God as a (potentially) scientifically-detectable entity. As I have been at pains to say, the existence of God is not a scientific question at all. Science can only deal with the spacetime continuum. Saying that nothing that science cannot deal with exists is not a scientific statement, it is a philosophical statement, and cannot be deduced scientifically. Thinking that the existence of God is a scientific question leads to silliness, like the famous kosmonaut who said he had been in space and didn't find God there.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 03:03 PM

On Unwin: The problem with his (to me, cutesy) equation is precisely what value you give to D, as he himself admits, "this number has a subjective element since it reflects my assessment of the evidence." It seems an exercise in silliness. It creates an entirely an arbitrary number (Why multiply by D? Why not D squared?) based on the beliefs of the person who uses it. It's like one of those online tests where you say what you think about God and it tells you what religion/denomination you should join, only it pretends a greater "accuracy" level than the online tests.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM

Unwin? Only Unwin I know about is Stanley

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM

You can't measure (in external units) an opinion, or a thought, or a spiritual insight. You would be trying to lift the measuring device from the wrong universe of discourse. Not to repeat myself, or anything, but the error persists in many places if trying to force the subjective discovery of "God" (or whatever else it may be labeled) into the framework of shared commons experience where measurements based on agreements about forms and common spaces can occur. This is like trying to a speedometer to measure weight--you can't get theah from heah.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 03:53 PM

"... the existence of God is not a scientific question at all.

That's correct. Such a question can not be dealt with by 'science' unless there is added in some element that also make some sort of scientific claim. "God lives atop Mt. Everest"

But, if not scientific, what kind of question is it?

*I* have been at pains to say, the very question, as stated, makes certain embedded assumptions and is 'loaded' by positing an entity and 'naming' it, THEN asking whether 'it' exists. Persons who are, for whatever reason, already inclined toward some sort of internalization of the concept referenced BY the word 'god' (especially if capitalized) will be predisposed to answer 'yes'.

It is hard to even construct any short, semi-neutral way of asking a question about the possibility of an omnipotent 'being' (already loaded) or 'entity' which was here before there WAS any 'here', and which 'decided' (a human process) to 'create' 'everything', including certain beings, in 'his' own image.

There are long, involved technical, philosophical ways of explaining the status OF such questions, but they tend to make the brain hurt without previous study of the required terms.

The point I try to make is: There is some doubt whether certain questions, while grammatically coherent, can even be asked in such a way as to elicit meaningful responses from an average set of people.
(The famous question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" falls into this category... it make assumptions in its very construction and asks for speculation about metaphysics that strain the imagination)

One can ask relevant questions about personal attitudes, such as: "Do you adhere to various beliefs and moral imperatives that you understand to be supported and promulgated by the [insert one religious denomination here], based on your best guess that they have the insight and subjective coherence to justify your trust?"

Even that has weaknesses, and is not exactly something you'd see on a survey...*wry smile*

I say it this way... just because "Is there a god?" is clearly NOT a scientific question, it does not follow that it is, in that form, a meaningful question at all. Once asked, people INSERT meaning when trying to answer it, and obviously there are many varieties OF meaning, gleaned from different sources as well as from linguistic context and deeply personal concepts.
When the question(s) "Is there a god?" or "Do you believe in God?" is asked, we learn something about people, but little or nothing about 'god'......

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 04:05 PM

When the question(s) "Is there a god?" or "Do you believe in God?" is asked, we learn something about people, but little or nothing about 'god'......

True, because essentially what you're asking is about people: their belief or lack thereof in God.

A question about God, such as, "what is God like?" is a horse of a different colour. That said, the problem with that question is that its answer depends on a host of underlying assumptions that are not universally shared. Add to this the fact that most people don't even realize the underlying assumptions they hold that give rise to their answer to that question, and it does look very subjective indeed. I would not deny this. Further the type of evidence (there's that word again) which underlies most people's belief in God (those that have belief in God), is largely (but usually not entirely) of a subjective nature.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 04:13 PM

You don't get anywhere in discourse without a definition of terms; and asking a Goddie for a definition is likely to come up with something on the line of "He is the undefinable". Well, it is possible there may be unbounded consciousness transcending all dimensionality and all definition. If so, it probably surpasses labeling and can't be used easily as a "term", anyway.

Let us scrut the inscrutable, eff the ineffable, ponder the imponderable, and speak the unspeakable. At the very least it's just the thing to pass the time away while we are trapped inside the time stream.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 04:34 PM

Willie WOOF
it bears repeatin
"Religion is like a dog. When it is yours, it is warm and cuddly. When it is someone else's, it is dangerous and threatening. In either event, children need protecting from it."




Have you ever noticed...

Religions that have multiple gods or have the unknowable mystery as a primary tenent are peaceful religions that treat their diverse neighbors very well. Mono theisitic religions which are touted to be an "improvement" have proven very bloody.

Monotheistic rants I have heard; The one and only, the one true God, the path that others must take or die.




Now as I promised earlier...



HOW TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

There once was a skin cell on the forskin of Sir Issac Newton. IT knew virtually nothing of the man it was attached to. However it did know of times of great rigidity and times of sustained wet. It knew of dark sleeping times and rigorous rubbing until one day it dried up and fell off. Despite having a nerveous system connection to mr. Newton, it knew nothing of questions of gravity or orbital velocities. It knew there was somthing more. It knew when its needs were met and when they weren't. It knew of an urge to exist, but it never knew the entireity of the man named Newton.

People have an inkling that they are like a cell on a larger being and they are indeed correct. They are part of an eco system which is part of a cosmological system which is part of a larger dimensional system. In the other direction the molecules are part of an electro dynamic system which are part of vibratory atomic systems harmonicly obeying the same laws, fractally ad infinitum down to the strings and waves of energy at the Plank baseline.

None of these systems exist on their own. They are a response, no they are indeed a harmony to something else, like the note C is a vibration of many things but combine that C with an E and you have a harmony that conveys a certain feeling to Issac Newton or yourself.
Add a G and you feel a larger harmony. etc.

No cell is an island. No being is an Island. No religion is an Island. No science is an Island. Interdisciplinary systems are more revealing than one branch of science alone.

To know this deeply is alin to falling in love as two people both see a fucntionsing oof a larger harmony in their lives.

This state of everything existing in response to and because of the interlacing harmonies of all energies is called God by some people. Make god a religion outside of ANYTHING else, make a religion exclusive or special outside of ANYTHING else, then you will lose the entire universe. You will have lost the point.

The harmonic continuem will exist but your exclusive idea of a singular god of a single religion, will kill the wisdom of shared harmony.

To a scientist it is like a grand split beam quantum experiment.
Leave the electrons to their own devices and they will behave in a beautiful spread BUT when you observe just one outside the context of everything YOU WILL CHANGE ITS PATH. Yes just by looking at one thing seperate from its context, you will have seperated it behavior from the norm.

Do so with an inclusive religion and you have changee the harmony. Do so with a vengEful religion and you have changed harmony to dissonance.

ergo

God exists best when you don't try to find it.
By not looking you will find it by experiencing it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 04:43 PM

Religions with multiple gods "are peaceful religions that treat their diverse neighbors very well".

For example the Romans...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 04:51 PM

hOW'S THAT FOR "EFFING" "SCRUTING" AND "PONDERING"?

It doesn't go beyond the norm, It is the norm.

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

I 'scrut', we have 'scrot', they will 'screet'?

I dunno, Amos...I think I'd better stick to 'pondering effing'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:40 PM

Religions that have multiple gods or have the unknowable mystery as a primary tenent are peaceful religions that treat their diverse neighbors very well.

Oh yeah, those Hindus are so kind to the Muslims in their midst. You might want to re-think this maxim. I see somebody already mentioned the ancient Romans. I might also mention Alexander the Great.

This dog just will not hunt.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:47 PM

"All generalizations are suspect" ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:48 PM

" 'So there is objective evidence/reasoning for the non-existence of God. He's up against all the science and maths that we've objectively accumulated.'

Only if you conceive of God as a (potentially) scientifically-detectable entity. As I have been at pains to say, the existence of God is not a scientific question at all. Science can only deal with the spacetime continuum. Saying that nothing that science cannot deal with exists is not a scientific statement, it is a philosophical statement, and cannot be deduced scientifically. Thinking that the existence of God is a scientific question leads to silliness, like the famous kosmonaut who said he had been in space and didn't find God there."

You asked for objective evidence. Now it's you that won't accept evidence that don't fit your view. Scientific evidence can be uncomfortably strong at times, I admit. And I actually think that the cosmonaut was very wise. After all, an awful lot of believers think that God's up there in the sky.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:50 PM

There once was a skin cell on the foreskin of Sir Issac Newton. IT knew virtually nothing of the man it was attached to. However it did know of times of great rigidity and times of sustained wet. (...). It knew of an urge to exist, but it never knew the entireity of the man named Newton.

Crap. It knew balls all, it was a cell, not a sentient organism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:53 PM

"All generalizations are suspect"

Apart perhaps from that one.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:54 PM

But that exception means it is false...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 06:39 PM

Obviously nobody can know 'private thoughts'. (Ron D)

Exactly - so you don't know for sure which composers believed in God, only what they said.

This poster also, it seems, needs a course in reading English. I've said more than once that it bothers me not in the least if an atheist writes a Christian piece, as long as the composer is respectful of the tradition.

Patronising though it is, that isn't the point I was addressing.

By the way, I'd be curious to know the poster's own view on Mussourgsky and Baba Yaga.

The point of my comment was that I haven't a clue whether he believed in Baba Yaga and neither do you - but I do know you don't spell Mussorgsky like that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 06:47 PM

You asked for objective evidence. Now it's you that won't accept evidence that don't fit your view.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But you're right. I won't accept framing the existence of God as a scientific question. I've made that pretty plain, I think.

I do know you don't spell Mussorgsky like that.

On the contrary, it's quite obvious he does.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 06:55 PM

"Spect he knows best ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:03 PM

"I won't accept framing the existence of God as a scientific question."

I think you've just defined faith, and you appear to have defined it as something totally insulated from the world of reality. Eyes tight shut, hands clasped, face raised to heaven...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:30 PM

If believers don't need 'scientific evidence' for their belief, why should they bother about it? Ardent non-believers don't believe anyway, so why should they bother about it either? It all seems like a bit of a waste of time to me.. Let the scientists keep looking, and wake me up if they find anything. Meanwhile, live and let live.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:38 PM

I was willing to overlook the Romans with an artist's prerogative but I beg to differ with any assertion that Hinduism today is a violent religion. It is far more individualistic in interpretation and has little or no dogma. Being pitted against Islamic angst continually has brought about a certain amount of defensiveness. At any rate the premise at its foundation is that MONTHEISM is not an improvement over other religions by any means.
-wait a minute-
-got an itch-
Ouch, was that a foreskin cell sending me a message?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:50 PM

I think you've just defined faith, and you appear to have defined it as something totally insulated from the world of reality.

Rather, you have defined scientifically-detectable reality as the only reality. Which, as I said above, you cannot do via science. You believe this independent of scientific evidence, for "science" is a scientific entity.

If believers don't need 'scientific evidence' for their belief, why should they bother about it?

Because there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your science.

I was willing to overlook the Romans with an artist's prerogative but I beg to differ with any assertion that Hinduism today is a violent religion.

Whoa, where did "today" come from? You're moving the goalposts. What about Alexander the Great?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:58 PM

It wasn't meant as an insult, Mousethief. I meant that non-believers have no right to insist that believers should require scientific evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:02 PM

"But that exception means it is false..."

The exception proves the rule.


Consequently, the more exceptions,the better the rule...

Isn't language fun? We can, and do, bewilder ourselves with our own thought patterns.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:02 PM

Hindus isn't "a violent religion" any more than Christianity, Judaism or for that matter Islam - but there have been many horrifying examples of mass violence carried out in the name of Hinduism, just as bad as anything done in the name of the monotheistic religions.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:04 PM

McGrath of Harlow

Unwin? Only Unwin I know about is Stanley

I suspect Professor Stanley may make more sense than Dr Stephen (who may have had his tongue poked just a little way into his cheek).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:06 PM

All we require evidence for is IF they are going to claim that their faith is *rational*. We have no issue at all with believers who know full well that that their faith is faith-based. And nobody requires data for faith, not the theists nor the atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:09 PM

BTW
The reason I followed this thread at all was due to mousethief's exceptional essays and answers. He is by no means a muse thief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:18 PM

Evidence for rationality? What sort of evidence? Of course faith is faith based - what else?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:49 PM

As I see it, faith is bound to seem rational to those who have faith, and irrational to those who haven't. However, I doubt very much that there is such an animal as a completely rational human being.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:52 PM

The reason I followed this thread at all was due to mousethief's exceptional essays and answers. He is by no means a muse thief.

Thank you for your kind words. At least, I hope I may take them that way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM

Smokey, I have many friends of faith who say I have no *reason* to believe, I just do. That is what I meant.

Mousethief, it is true your writing shows you to be a gem.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:01 PM

Then we are in agreement, Mrrzy, and I am also appreciating Mousethief's input.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:11 PM

"...lumping people together"

Bingo.

My heart truly bleeds for Mudcat atheists if they feel I am lumping people together.

Now when will they realize that this is exactly how quite a few Mudcat atheists' posts read when they discuss Christians?   There is no attempt to look for shades of gray.

If all Mudcat atheists refrain from the black/white approach, smearing all Christians with the deeds of a crackpot few, I will also stop the Manichean style.

And it is obvious to anybody who reads that many Mudcat atheists have in fact been doing this.

So, do we have a deal?

(And not just on this thread--which now is in fact just the ghost of a dead horse.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:16 PM

Faith, guided imagery, hypnosis, pscho neural linguistics, realxation response directives, prayer etc etc

The phenomenon is remarkable no matter what you call it.
I've seen it. You've seen it. I've done it, You've done it.

The act does not require a God to work. It does not require a religion. But you can add them both to the process if you want.

All I would ask is that it is done for good and not evil.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:16 PM

Ah yes, also no stupid needlessly incendiary language like "imaginary friend".

That has to be part of the deal also.

Otherwise no deal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:23 PM

Incendiary language requires combustible people to be effective..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:32 PM

Incendiary language requires combustible people to be effective..

But not to be ill-intended.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:38 PM

True, but I don't think one should encourage further ill intent as a result of it. The phrase 'turn the other cheek' comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:48 PM

How to get a wife according to the bible:
1.Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she's yours. - (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)
2.Find a prostitute and marry her. - (Hosea 1:1-3)
3.Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock. - Moses (Ex 2:16-21)
4.Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal. - Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)
5.Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife. - Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)
6.Have God create a wife for you while you sleep. Note: this will cost you. - Adam (Gen 2:19-24)
7.Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman's hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That's right. Fourteen years of toil for a wife. - Jacob (Genesis 29:15-30)
8.Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law's enemies and get his daughter for a wife - David (I Samuel 18:27)
9.Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you'll definitely find someone. (It's all relative, of course.) - Cain (Genesis 4:16-17)
10.Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest. - Xerxes or Ahasuerus (Esther 2:3-4)
11.When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, "I have seen a ... woman; now get her for me." If your parents question your decision, simply say, "Get her for me. She's the one for me." - Samson (Judges 14:1-3)
12.Kill any husband and take HIS wife (Prepare to lose four sons, though). - David (2 Samuel 11)
13.Wait for your brother to die. Take his widow. (It's not just a good idea; it's the law.) - Onana and Boaz (Deuteronomy or Leviticus, example in Ruth)
14.Don't be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity. - Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)
15.A wife?...NOT? - Paul (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)

bad bible advice

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:29 PM

True, but I don't think one should encourage further ill intent as a result of it. The phrase 'turn the other cheek' comes to mind.

Sadly that is often used by abusive atheists as an excuse for their abuse, and yet challenging the Christians to "take it" because they are commanded to, ya-da. The Christian doormat. It's really disingenuous to pull such a stunt.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:45 PM

Yes, I appreciate that, but if intended abuse just hits a brick wall and seems to have no effect, it's less likely to encourage the abuser, who is no doubt looking for a dramatic result. Just less trouble all round, I suppose.

My own policy on 'offence' is that it has to be both given and taken to be anything more than just a misunderstanding. Not taking offence renders the would-be offender impotent. Anything for a quiet life :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:53 PM

Besides, I usually find contentment in the fact that those sort of offensive jibes say far more about the giver than the receiver.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 11:43 PM

Point is:   if atheists can't take jibes, they shouldn't give them out.

Somebody who complains about "lumping together" is invited to look in the mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 11:52 PM

To Smokey.: Point taken. We try to teach our kids not to respond to bullying. Same principle.

To Ron Davies: Point is:   if atheists can't take jibes, they shouldn't give them out.

Some of them can be awfully delicate. And few of them are really terribly logical for all their bluster. But then I have two earned degrees in Philosophy (not to brag or anything) and have put a lot of time into studying logic (both formal and informal) and analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 11:54 PM

Would that be atheists in general, or 'Mudcat atheists'?

Not that you aren't right, on both counts, but there are two sides to every mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 11:57 PM

Not that you aren't right, on both counts, but there are two sides to every mirror.

True but one of them is generally non-reflective and not much use as a mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:16 AM

I was thinking of Alice's mirror - just been reading it to my eldest.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:32 AM

Wonderful story!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:40 AM

Essential education for a young mind, I think, probably an old one too. The man was a true genius.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:02 AM

We have one of the "complete works" books, and there is a wonderful work he did (A Tangled Tale) as a column in a paper -- he set logical problems and readers wrote in with their solutions. He then graded the solutions.

The reason I bring this up is the names the readers used -- some used their actual names, but others picked handles that were just exactly what people use online as anonymous handles today -- for example, Sea-Breeze, Money-Spinner, Simple Susan, Old Cat, Valentine, Bradshaw of the Future, Rags and Tatters.

Some things never do change!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:31 AM

Interesting - I don't think I've seen that. I must invest..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:49 AM

"All we require evidence for is IF they are going to claim that their faith is *rational*. We have no issue at all with believers who know full well that that their faith is faith-based."

I have plenty of issues with believers, whether or not they consider their beliefs to be rational or faith-based, who impose their beliefs as certainties on children. This is what happens in much of what we misleadingly call religious "education." Actually, if none of them ever did this, I suppose organised religion would quickly die out, and we'd be left with a much better world in which you could believe what you wanted to believe and, generally speaking, accepted that you keep it to yourself except for a few lusty arguments about it in the pub with your mates.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:10 AM

just the ghost of a dead horse>/I>

I like that.
..........................
One problem with the practice of throwing insults and sneers around is that it drives people away from the thread. I don't just mean the people who are the targets, but the people who look in and decide they don't want any part of a "discussion" like that.

And of course it is also liable to divert what might be an interesting exchange of ideas into a pointless squabble.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:30 AM

" 'I think you've just defined faith, and you appear to have defined it as something totally insulated from the world of reality.'

Rather, you have defined scientifically-detectable reality as the only reality. Which, as I said above, you cannot do via science. You believe this independent of scientific evidence, for "science" is a scientific entity."

I fail to see where I did this. Also, I think you're ringfencing science far too much, possibly in an effort to shoot at it all the more easily. Science is not robotic thought executed by robots. It bleeds and becomes a bit less pure, just like the rest of us, and that's what makes it a great human endeavour as opposed to just a great endeavour.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:50 AM

Sure is interesting though.

Mudcatters (can't help thinking some might possibly be atheists)   are only too willing to tell us about: priests abusing children, priests involved in an alleged cover-up of a 1972 at atrocity, bigoted statements by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other negatives--real or trumped- up (like the terrible assault by a nurse on a patient (i.e. praying for her--though the patient herself seems to have had no objection), ridiculing Christians-- "imaginary friend" etc.

But when asked for anything positive done by Christians or Christianity---which I have in fact done--all of a sudden very few Mudcatters have anything to say. And certainly nothing positive.   Even on this thread, Bill D is about the only non-believer (aside from me) who has said anything in favor of anything Christians have done.

In general it's the same approach as was done in the 3rd Reich, done by US bigots to justify lynchings, done now by those who want to cite Voz de Aztlan to justify anti-immigrant feeling, etc.:   a steady diet of real and alleged outrages and lumping all in the target group together.

Fascinating that Mudcat atheists (so sorry for the generalization) don't seem to recognize the pattern.

Can't imagine why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 08:29 AM

Also it's intriguing that Mudcat atheists have not really been very happy when the shoe is on the other foot:   when I have pointed out that atheism when in power has been the worst disaster ever for humanity, and when I have noted that atheism has provided us with virtually nothing in cultural achievement.

It seems that for instance in music the only stunning achievements by atheists were when they were willing to work within the Christian idiom entirely--with no trace of atheism whatsoever.   Unless of course you agree with the illustrious Mudcatter who has assured us that Frank Zappa is every bit the equal of Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Tallis, Byrd, etc. But perhaps that is the general feeling among Mudcat atheists. Far be it from me to try to dissuade you.

It seems clear to me however that the world would have been far better off if atheism had never arisen. The same however is not true of Christianity--or other religions.

And I am speaking of course only of atheism, not agnosticism.   Agnosticism, as I've said before, makes perfect sense. Atheism--especially the aggressive atheism amply seen on Mudcat-- is just the flip side of fundamentalist religion.

And just as desirable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 08:46 AM

Of course, all-knowing and all-seeing one. Whatever you say.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:08 AM

I'd still like to fly the flag for ignosticism.

Atheism takes the question "Does God exist?" and says "No!". Agnosticism says "Ooooooh. I don't know." Ignosticism says "That isn't a meaningful question. Why consider it at all."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:45 AM

There are lots of positive things that believers have done; the trick is, none of it required what they believe in. You can just do good.

Faith is very helpful for good people to do evil, however.

And atheist does NOT say, sigh, there are no gods; it just says we don't believe in any. Ignosticism is kinda like apatheism - don't care.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:03 AM

Mousethief, would you be willing to turn your eloquence to a question I asked some time back and didn't get much answer to?

I'm glad to say I'm not one who insists on scientific, repeatable proof. Spiritual experience can't (yet) be defined in that way, and yet it exists. Goodness in human beings is palpable but not measurable. My question: Why do these experiences and contact with holy people lead anyone to believe in the specific details of any religion? How do you get from there to "Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected three days later"? or "I had this amazing spiritual experience and it must have been Muhammad/Jesus/Buddha who gave it to me"?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:13 AM

Deep question, there, JohnP.

Ron, I think you are exagerrating the situation. I've joined a number of these threads, and I have used the expression imaginary friends in a sarcastic tone, for which I should apologize. I am well aware that millions of good deeds are done by Christians every day.

I di not believe this is directly, causally connected with their religious convictions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:18 AM

Mrrzy

And atheist does NOT say, sigh, there are no gods; it just says we don't believe in any.

I've just had a quick browse. The OED says "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god." which is interesting because "Disbelief in" and "denial of" are rather different. Other sources talk about weak and strong atheism.

Ignosticism is kinda like apatheism - don't care.

A little pejorative but fair enough. Why should someone care about a question they find meaningless?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:40 AM

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe"

Carl Sagan again.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:45 AM

Unless of course you agree with the illustrious Mudcatter who has assured us that Frank Zappa is every bit the equal of Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Tallis, Byrd, etc.

Illustrious, eh? Well, on an average day maybe, when I might get as far as Bach, Dowland, Tallis, Tye, Handel, Morley, Lawes, Ferrabosco, Jenkins, Byrd etc. but the humanity of their evident secularism (the occasional In Nomine notwithstanding but I'd argue that was essentially a secular convention) transcends their so-called sacred output; Purcell likewise, who, like Zappa, was a master of the ostinato and had fondness for folklore & obscenity. Purcell was at his most potent celebrating the human dimensions - even to the point where many feel his music for Queen Mary could well betray yet deeper emotions... Lawes evokes classical paganism by way of popular fantasy, the eroticism of which makes it still pretty effective as music to fuck to, likewise Purcell, of course, covering some of his most sensual work in the likes of King Arthur and The Fairy Queen which prefigures Handel's finest work, which most certainly isn't The Messiah. Give me the Arcadian revels of Acis and Galatea (HWV 49) any day. Compositionally, however, I'd say Uncle Meat (1969) is the equal of anything any of these guys ever came up with and is every bit as trascendent.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 11:15 AM

"It seems clear to me however that the world would have been far better off if atheism had never arisen."

It didn't. Religion arose and created atheism for itself in its wake.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 11:41 AM

Ron said up ^ there....

"It seems clear to me however that the world would have been far better off if atheism had never arisen. "

?? Ummm.. Ron... that's a funny way to say 'I think that atheism is a poorer choice than agnosticism.' To extrapolate how our entire history 'might' have been different if some folks had not been adamant about their non-belief is a bit presumptuous. (this is an example of a counterfactual conditional, and as the link shows, is fraught with difficulties)

Even though I sorta agree with you, Ron, about the tediousness of 'table-pounding' atheism, I do find 'militant agnosticism' to be pretty curious, also.. ☺

You give me some credit for trying to be 'fair' in MY posts as I recognize many of the positive contributions of the religious attitude. I'd like to suggest that inflammatory rhetoric is counter-productive, no matter what you are defending or promulgating.

Huh? What did Bill say? He said, "you can catch more flies with sugar..." and "A soft answer turneth away wrath" ..
and my own timeless contribution, made up on the spur of the moment just to have a trio of wise sayings: "Choosing to be a lightning rod leads to many shocking encounters"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 11:49 AM

Atheism is default enlightenment - it existed before humans kicked off the shackles of nature in exchange for the freedom afforded by language, culture & cognition. The prospective urge was always scientific, before some doofus started extending names to include personifications of those things that hitherto (in our natural / animal state) hadn't been an issue. So out of Language & Science came Gods and Mythology - and then Religion when people started taking it a little too literally. Thus Gods which had hitherto sufficed as metaphors for nature became greater than nature itself. Generally despised, nature became the metaphor for God, who Created All Things; a very useful device for political control once you've created Heaven and Hell to go with it...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM

Stephen Hawking has entered the fray on this subject once again: here.

"But when asked for anything positive done by Christians or Christianity---which I have in fact done--all of a sudden very few Mudcatters have anything to say. And certainly nothing positive"

Perhaps that is because the question is asinine. Good deeds and bad deeds are done by people regardless of their faith or lack thereof; what's the point of listing them?

My local vicar, who I met years ago when we were both working in the new media industry and was a contractor I was liaising with on a project his company was involved with (although unbeknownst to me at the time he was a curate) was a person who I liked from the day I met him and I was completely unaware of his calling. He is a warm, friendly and wonderful man with a deep faith, a gentle turn of phrase and genuine compassion for his parishioners and beyond. In fact, were I to be buried (I don't want to be, preferring instead to become part of the carbonate cycle and join the dance of the tectonic plates for eons after my demise) then I would have this man commit me to the earth. He treats all he meets with equanimity and gives them his full attention, a wonderful chap.

The vicar in a village I lived in a few years ago was, on the other hand, a condescending, stuck-up old scrotum whose ability to peer down his nose at some of his less sophisticated parishioners (unless they were buying him a pint) was breathtaking to observe. He was not a person I liked in the slightest and I don't think he liked me to much, as I didn't want to pay lip service to a person who I considered then a charlatan; as time as passed I think my judgement was harsh, he was simply a miserable, ignorant old sod and they're personality traits (which I share with him).

So it's irrelevant Ron. I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually interested in the discussion or want to pick an argument for some reason. Oh well.


"It's really disingenuous to pull such a stunt."

I'm not sure it's disingenuous, just trite. It's a fine line you have to tread when debating with believers (and vice-versa for believers, I suppose) of any faith as invariably the debaters have little common ground in their world view. John P's question is one of the best posed, but let's face it no-one here is interested in debating the mystical side of the religious or non-religious human experience as I've tried and the posts were all more or less ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:12 PM

Bill D, how do you make those little smiley faces?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:23 PM

(You will note that I don't classify myself with a specific label in these discussions.....with one exception.

Because I am 'technically' an agnostic; (that is, I truly "don't know") but practically an atheist; (that is, I really don't 'believe' that a Supreme Being guides the universe"....what I choose to call myself when I accept a label at all is **skeptic**...meaning that I react to the claims of others about metaphysical entitied with 'doubt' and questions about evidence & logic.
   All about me I see various assertions about god, creationism, 'spirit' 'angels', as well as interwoven beliefs regarding astrology, magic, past lives, OOB experiences...etc., etc. Some of these beliefs by others impact my life in various ways and to varying degrees, thus I respond to them in various ways when I feel 'moved'.

   Seldom do I see any value in flatly denying someone's belief/assertion...unless it is totally absurd and dangerous as well. All I want to do is note alternative ways of reasoning about the issues and clarifying the implications that certain belief systems have built in.....and before anyone objects...yes, I DO hope that my poking & nagging will create a bit more 'skepticicism' in others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:29 PM

One thing we tend to lose sight of is that a privately held belief may never become public, may never be known. In a society or culture or time when almost everyone espouses a similar belief, it is safer and less troublesome to publicly object.

A person may well be a believer in an atheistic society but not dare, for whatever reason, to say so. Conversely, a person may well be a non-believer in a believing society (whether Christian or functioning under any other label) and find it less trouble to keep his or her silence. I know that on occasion I have not spoken up; I try to pick my battles and being in the presence of an assertion of faith amongst the elderly or the imprisoned or the dying is not the battle I would pick. It would be tactless, at the very least, and grievously insensitive at the worst.

I doubt this has changed much over the centuries. I would guess that some of the most soaring religious music was composed by unbelievers, and that some of the most rational dissertations were presented by believers.

After all, it is really no one else's business what each of us privately believes.

That said, it is also not my business to question what - or whom - the anguished and torn may turn to in the dark hour of the night.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:33 PM

So it's irrelevant Ron. I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually interested in the discussion or want to pick an argument for some reason.

Ron The Simple Seeker is often assinine and irrelevant, and he's historically not interested in discussion, but in making Great Pronouncements From On High.

He tends to get tetchy when his omniscience and infallibility are challenged by mere mortals.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 12:36 PM

Greg:

Show a bit more tolerance for those with whom you disagree, okay? Name-calling is so passé!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:02 PM

Ebbie hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:04 PM

Just answering as poster's question & providing information, Amos.

I did not call The Simple Seeker assinine and irrelevant, I was quoting descriptions provided by others.

Ron styles HIMSELF as "The Simple Seeker"[ not my name for him, but his own.

I neither agree with nor disagree with what he's posted on this thread- since, as others have notices, his postings are largely irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:16 PM

Elegantly put, Eb.

Greg, Ron is a major contributor to the delights of the Getaway, a sterling proponent of our mutual art, and I hate to see him being embattled even if he deserves it in some way. A sharp tongue turneth away understanding.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:25 PM

... even if he deserves it ...

Which he most assuredly does. However, the solution is in HIS hands, not mine. He can stop acting the pompous know-all jackass any time he wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:30 PM

Sigh . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:33 PM

He does repeat himself a bit, doesn't he? Needle stuck in the same groove...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 01:43 PM

In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.
Dalai Lama

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Mrrzy away
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 02:23 PM

Unfortunately, belief in gods arose before our intelligence did - they were/it was (the gods or the belief) the best explanation our child-minds could come up with for natural phenomena. Later, religion arose and was amazingly adaptive for the priest-caste (or whatever), and now here we are, fighting the good fight for the rearguard intelligence that came later...

To do is to be - Kant
To be is to do - Sartre
Do be do be do - Sinatra

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:03 PM

I fail to see where I did this.

Every time you say "there is no evidence for religion."

Of course, all-knowing and all-seeing one. Whatever you say.

How much easier it is to say that than to actually engage with what he's said. It's the coward's way out.

And atheist does NOT say, sigh, there are no gods; it just says we don't believe in any.

Any time atheism says, "God is a delusion" it is saying there are no gods, not that it doesn't believe in any.

Why do these experiences and contact with holy people lead anyone to believe in the specific details of any religion? How do you get from there to "Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected three days later"? or "I had this amazing spiritual experience and it must have been Muhammad/Jesus/Buddha who gave it to me"?

I think in part it depends on the framework. But also the content of the experience. I have heard tell (never met any myself) of Muslims who had a mystical experience of Jesus and became Christians (yes, I know Jesus is a prophet in Islam; I'm just relating the story). In other cases such experience merely reaffirms the religious position the person has already made. Which leads to the question how did they decide on that religion in the first place? Some will have been through historical evidence or informal reasoning; others because that's what they grew up in, or that's what was in the society they grew up in. Most often a mixture of the three. Depends on the person.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Here you go, an atheist calling theism "delusion". Which means he must be sure for himself that God doesn't exist. This is not just a negative thing ("I don't believe X") but a positive thing ("I believe not-X").

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe

This is just a sad mixture of scientism and bulverism. Then again Sagan, although a great astronomer and popularizer of astronomy, was a pretty shitty philosopher. There's a reason why people called his show, "Sagan's Circus."

The prospective urge was always scientific

On what do you base this assumption? None of us were around then, and those people didn't leave much to us except cave paintings and stone tools. It's hard to see how you can extrapolate from that to their attitude about the world being scientific.

Ron The Simple Seeker is often assinine and irrelevant, and he's historically not interested in discussion, but in making Great Pronouncements From On High.

The irony of this is just astounding.

I did not call The Simple Seeker assinine and irrelevant, I was quoting descriptions provided by others.

Why would you quote inflammatory descriptions if not to be inflammatory? Maybe to discuss the description itself, but you weren't doing that, you were labelling Ron.

Unfortunately, belief in gods arose before our intelligence did

Another assumption for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Clearly both sides are capable of believing things on faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:07 PM

God's lcation
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507605,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:13 PM

Interesting how the headline is "Scientists locate God Spot in human brain" when in the text of the article itself it says, "Such results fit with previous research which shows that no single 'God spot' exists in the brain."

Stupid headline writers.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:19 PM

I think in part it depends on the framework. But also the content of the experience. I have heard tell (never met any myself) of Muslims who had a mystical experience of Jesus and became Christians (yes, I know Jesus is a prophet in Islam; I'm just relating the story). In other cases such experience merely reaffirms the religious position the person has already made. Which leads to the question how did they decide on that religion in the first place? Some will have been through historical evidence or informal reasoning; others because that's what they grew up in, or that's what was in the society they grew up in. Most often a mixture of the three. Depends on the person.

Mousethief, I wasn't asking for anecdotes or generalizations. I was asking for your rationale. I have no problem with the type of evidence you've been talking about. My problem is with the next step in the chain of logic. There still has to be a way that you convince yourself of the existence of a super-being based on the evidence you have. I don't see the observed phenomena adding up to the conclusion you've drawn. So far, my conclusion is that you're making things up, or rather accepting as truth things that other people have made up. Is there a reason I should think anything else?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:20 PM

"Then again Sagan, although a great astronomer and popularizer of astronomy, was a pretty shitty philosopher"

Well, I'm not going to argue with a philosophy expert about philosophers - I'd be way out of my depth. However, to my simple mind Sagan (whilst not entirely original in many of his pronouncements) did have some insight into the sense of wonder, the search for the sublime and incredible majesty of the universe and he understood that the transcendence felt and intuition that greater forces are at work in the universe wasn't confined to people with a faith.

Shine a light - I love Rothko and finding dinosaur bones and The Electric Light Orchestra.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:25 PM

funny, that Hawking link:

"Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God..'

then underneath: "Poll: Is Hawking right?"

we get to VOTE on it? ☺

..........................................................

(I make the smiley faces by doing this: (I hope this works)

<big>?</big>


all you need to do in Windows is hit "alt 1" to make a face ☺ alt 2 makes a dark face ☻...to make it bigger, I do the angle bracket thing like doing italics or underlining, but with 'big' in between

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 03:59 PM

" 'I fail to see where I did this.'

Every time you say "there is no evidence for religion."

I have never said that there is no evidence for religion. Clearly, we scientific types are better sticklers for accuracy than you philosophical types.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 04:30 PM

But, there are no data which support a god hypothesis *more than* a natural one for *any* known phenomenon. So there is no earthly reason to posit the supernatural. Hee hee, get it? I said Earthly. That's supposed to be funny...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 04:31 PM

To grasp the universe as it really is is no small feat; but there is a gross divide between the universe of energy and matter rolling around in spacetime, and the universe of thought, communication, understanding, and a whole spectrum of related things such as ethics, insight, intent, and creativity.

The slippery slope in confusing these realms, as I have mentioned before to Bill is that you can easily get sunk into the apparent solidity of things and lose all contact with your higher qualities, reduced in scope to a dull-witted computing machine with no higher goal than to keep passing food through the food-tube.

It helps (perhaps) to remember that the most elevated adherents of many philosophies --religious or otherwise--assert with complete tranquility that what is illusory is not thought, not the Viewer, but the apparent massive solidity of particles and masses galumphing through Time.


A.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 04:55 PM

"...as I have mentioned before to Bill.."

well, yes...a time or two.

"...the apparent solidity of things.."?? as opposed to the non-apparent realms you have mentioned a few times? ;>)

I am quite content with whatever 'higher qualities' I have being recognized and appreciated, no matter what their ultimate being-ness might consist of. I just see no purpose in positing realms that are hard to pin down, when we can, like Dr. Samuel Johnson, just kick this realm to verify it. ☺

"the most elevated adherents of many philosophies..... assert..." appeal to authority?

Many of them now assert just the opposite. *shrug*


relevant to the thread topic

relevant to the topic AND to me & Amos

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 05:23 PM

A propos of nothing, I'd appreciate kind thoughts/prayers: I interviewed today for a job as an adjunct professor at a local community college teaching intro Phil.

Mousethief, I wasn't asking for anecdotes or generalizations. I was asking for your rationale.

Sorry, John, you said "anyone" and I thought that's the question you were asking. You didn't say "you". As I said before I'm not going to lay bare my soul on a hostile internet thread. Sorry.

However, to my simple mind Sagan (whilst not entirely original in many of his pronouncements) did have some insight into the sense of wonder, the search for the sublime and incredible majesty of the universe and he understood that the transcendence felt and intuition that greater forces are at work in the universe wasn't confined to people with a faith.

Completely agree.

I have never said that there is no evidence for religion.

Wellllllll, you did say:

I like my Christian friends, all of whom are good, moral, honest people. I do think they are irrational to some degree, in that they are willing to believe something for which there is no evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 05:44 PM

Mousethief, I'm sorry you feel like this is a hostile thread. I didn't think it was, and I certainly don't feel any hostility. I just want to understand.

Actually, Steve Shaw was the one who said he'd never said there wasn't any evidence for religion. It was my quote you responded with. I've since decided to accept ideas that you would consider evidence. I'm just having a problem with a conscious god and a resurrected redeemer. I don't see how the evidence supports that conclusion. Admittedly, the evidence you have supplied is somewhat meager; is there more?

I can understand you not wanting to bare your soul on an internet thread, hostile or otherwise, but you probably shouldn't claim to have evidence that leads you to conclusions and then refuse to supply the path of your thoughts. It just makes it sound like you don't have rational reasons for your conclusions, which brings us back to my original assessment. I don't think there's anything wrong with you having faith, but if you want others to think it's not irrational you should either provide the reasons or not make the claim that evidence exists.

Best,
John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 05:48 PM

Oh, and good luck with the job! My good thoughts are with you. Which college are you trying for?

It's a hard time to be applying for work. I've been conducting interviews at work and seeing a lot of people who are very over-qualified being willing to take a lot less pay than they should be getting. It would be great if you could actually get a job doing something you like.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 05:49 PM

mousethief

A propos of nothing, I'd appreciate kind thoughts/prayers: I interviewed today for a job as an adjunct professor at a local community college teaching intro Phil.

If we assume that all the other candidates have asked for "kind thoughts/prayers", what is God to do? Does He/SHe/It count them? Weigh them? Allocate them points for sincerity? (Do Mudcat prayers count higher?) Does He/SHe/It intervene in the interviewer's thought processes? Or does He/SHe/It think "I gave them free will. I will let the interviewer choose the best person for the job for the benefit of the students."?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 05:57 PM

Introductory Philosophy! I had my 2 years as a graduate asst., teaching small, once-a-week discussion sessions with new students. I wish you not only luck, but forebearance. Some just never get the distinctions required.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM

"Scientists locate God Spot in human brain"?

Ah yes. I have heard of the 'G-Spot'

:)

Sorry! (Not really)

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

Pshaw, Bill. You are ignoring the bottom of the curve of Occam's razor, where, in order to simplify, things are lumped together incorrectly. Thus a devout Creationist can claim that all the distinctions and comparisons of fossil record experts are no good--it is all God's show. No, there's a simple explanation, no? But to those who engage in real observation it might appear not only simple of text but even simpler of mind.

The corrollary to Occam is that differences should not be ignored in order to over-simplify. Otherwise you are bucking Einstein's lower limit ("...but no simpler". And who wants to mess with him???

Pishtush. Things you can kick (which I very much agree are real) are not going to think much about your motives, intend revenge, or dream up plans to stop being kicked.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:24 PM

If only the universe knew what wonders it contained.

Maybe it does.

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".

Hawkins says that God doesn't fit in his universe.

How does compassion fit?

how do royal wedding commemorative spoons fit?

Why does music sound so much better when you sing with your soul?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:38 PM

If you think that there are no gods, it follows that you don't believe in them.

I've noticed that agnosticism is generally supported by some believers but atheism isn't.

Agnostics don't want to hedge their bets just in case there is an afterlife whereby they would be judged.

"The bible is about one of the most unpleasant characters in all of fiction".

The flip side of fundamentalist religion is sanity.

I'll accept the veracity of a reputable scientist over a philosopher any day.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:52 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 suppose we could think that. But I have a great deal of evidence that tells me I exist. Likewise that you exist. I don't have that evidence for an infinitely greater consciousness.

Hawkins says that God doesn't fit in his universe. How does compassion fit?

The fact that things exist that we can't scientifically measure doesn't imply the existence of anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 06:59 PM

I [verb] ...

For thousands of years we've been working to understand the above riddle.

We've learned a lot but we haven't got near finding a solution.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:00 PM

Thanks for clearing that up for me, John P. And for your excellent post.

"Agnostics don't want to hedge their bets just in case there is an afterlife whereby they would be judged."

I suppose you mean that they ~do~ want to hedge their bets... Yep, a serious problem for those who like to think they're agnostic. Another way of putting it would be "piss or get off the pot."

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

Steve - you seem to be saying that people need to make up their minds for some reason.

Why?

If God doesn't exist, what difference does it make?

Our consciousness is a temporary blip that will wink out along with all memory, identity etc ...

So why the rules about having to commit to one certainty or another?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:23 PM

"...a devout Creationist can claim...

well, sure! He can misinterpret what 'simplify' really means, thus misapplying Occam in his very critique of it.

A.N. Whitehead also said "Strive for simplicity, but learn to mistrust it,"....and I can even agree with the warning.....that's where the "sine necessitate comes in....and that's why "God made it all" is not a useful answer to "Why is there something, instead of nothing?".

But, the more science discovers about brain chemistry and structure and DNA, etc....the less it seems we NEED metaphysical concepts to explain many, if not most, experiences. There will always be subjective 'stuff' that we can never totally measure, record or track, but until we can do statistically relevant tests that **incontrovertibly** show non-physical causality, Occam's law will still be a basic tool...(and I'm sure you will find a way to 'kick it' if only by using your linguistically enhanced 'virtual toe'... *grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:33 PM

There is confusion about agnosticism and uncertainty. I don't know of any atheists who will declare with certainty that God does not exist. I smell the horrid stench of certainty in many religious writings and in many prayers. I think that's a shame. Being an atheist is not about being certain that God doesn't exist, but neither is it agnosticism. Agnostics just don't know. What I know, as an atheist, is that the possibility of the existence of a supernatural being who breaks every law of nature we know about, and who is impossible to explain, is vanishingly small. I can live my life happily in that knowledge and I am completely unconcerned about wacky ideas of afterlifes, etc. Unto stardust I shall return and I'm deliriously happy with that. Agnostics just haven't made up their minds, and they have a serious problem of not having made up their minds about who and what they are on this planet. They have to answer to the hedging-of-bets charge, I reckon.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:35 PM

"how do royal wedding commemorative spoons fit?"

Did Fergie get one?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 07:43 PM

I am Christian, and have Christian faith, by my upbringing.

If I had have been born somewhere else, or in a different time, I likely would have a different faith and religion.

But, would my faith, beliefs, and goodness to my feellow man be less? Possibly not.
Would I be convinced that my faith and religion was right, and others wrong. I suspect so.

Would I be less of a good person? Maybe yes, maybe no....depeends on the test and interpretation?


Would I still pray to God? Likely yes.

Would it be the same God? It beats me. I suspect noone really knows, and is in a position to judge others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 08:20 PM

I've noticed that agnosticism is generally supported by some believers but atheism isn't.Stringsinger (love that handle!)

The answer to that, I think, is simple: Even believers have their moments of doubt; therefore they don't blame others for having doubts all the time. Doubt, to me, is a logical response.

"The fact that things exist that we can't scientifically measure doesn't imply the existence of anything else." John P

See, I think of that statement as being beyond arrogant. If you really mean that, do you also go along with the notion that everything that could possibly be invented is already here? That we already know everything? Tut tut.

"I don't know of any atheists who will declare with certainty that God does not exist. " Steve Shaw

For assertions regarding God's non-existence, just look at some of the above posts. Methinks some people have short memories.

"Agnostics just haven't made up their minds, and they have a serious problem of not having made up their minds about who and what they are on this planet. They have to answer to the hedging-of-bets charge, I reckon." Steve Shaw

See above.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 08:36 PM

"Agnostics just haven't made up their minds, and they have a serious problem of not having made up their minds about who and what they are on this planet."

That is not true at all. No more true than agnostics are bet hedging either.

My agnosticism is based on the lack of proof one way or the other for a God. It has nothing to do with any thoughts towards... "but I'll keep an open mind just so I may go to heaven". It's about keeping an open mind until actual proof, based beyond just faith, occurs. I do not expect it will happen in my life time... yet it could happen tomorrow. As to those who have such faith it is not for me to judge or criticise their belief system. It is a very individual thing.

The above statement can be quite insulting to an Agnostic. Be happy in your Atheism but there is no need to lash out at those who have alternative beliefs. I know full well what and who I am. I also know what I believe in and don't. There are many things I remain quite open minded about because I do not know one way or the other. If it is that I like to have proof of certain things then so be it. It has nothing to do with bet hedging or not knowing myself.

So you believe you know there is no God. That is your own decision. Do allow other's theirs without insulting them as Dawkins did and then used words like "there probably is no God". Such commitment!

Agnosticism is just a valid a stance as any other. Thankfully most other Atheists I have spoken to on that subject have been far fairer about it. It is an individual choice.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 08:49 PM

Ebbie said "Even believers have their moments of doubt; therefore they don't blame others for having doubts all the time. Doubt, to me, is a logical response."

The person wasn't born who never had a doubt. In Christianity itself Christ doubted his ministry and task several times. To me it signifies his human failings, although failings is the wrong word, and his fears. If I were to believe it all I would take it to be that Christ himself really did know human emotion in the raw. He even asked that this cup be removed from him if it could be.... Very understandable and very human.

For me a believer who says they have never doubted is being somewhat economic with truths. If Christ had his doubts then there is certainly nothing to be worried about having doubts on belief. It is the overcoming of those doubts I well imagine that strengthen faith. AQx person never tested by a doubt can never really know what they would do if confronted with one. Blind faith is just that: blind. I believe you have to be able to see your way through things to be abel to know your faith is true.

Sadly I lack that amount of conviction. I am unable to have such faith with some proof. Perhaps that is my failing. I do often envy true believers their faith and commitment. But then I can also appreciate the athiests and agnostics viewpoints too and why they have come to that conclusion.

It's all very complex but does make for a facinating topic and conversation. To each their own :-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:12 PM

Don't worry about Greg. He and I have a mutual admiration society of longstanding. Perhaps someday he'll make a worthwhile contribution to the thread. And possibly even broaden his vocabulary.   But at least he's managing to stay out of the gutter. I suppose we should be grateful for that. It's not something you can assume.

I'm sorry to say I won't be able to participate in this scintillating and vital discussion for a while. I have other things to do. I'm sure this is crushing news--especially for dear Greg.

Have fun, kids.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:26 PM

Agnostics who say "no proof either way" don't believe in any gods, and *are* thus atheists in one (narrow) sense of not having any god beliefs. But they choose to call themselves Agnostic, as I understand it, to distance themselves from others who profess to believe there are no gods, which is another (narrow) sense of the term. I don't have a problem with that choice, although I choose to claim the term Atheist in the hopes of getting the hoodoo off the word so other agnostics don't have to prefer not to be called it.

Hope that makes sense.

Two things I love about this kind of discussions are a) that because the world turns and we have Catters ally ally over, whenever I go to sleep the thread goes on and when I check it in the morning has always gone off in interesting directions. Hope that is the same experience for those of you across the pond, and b) that I'm not the only one who keeps bipping it back to the top!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:31 PM

It's a shame Ron's going - now I'll never find out how to tell the difference between Christian and atheist instrumental music.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 09:50 PM

That's not hard, Smokey... Christians have more trumpets:

"When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound, and time shall be no more,
And the morning breaks, eternal, bright and fair;
When the saved of earth shall gather over on the other shore,
And the roll is called up yonder, I'll be there."

and Gabriel blew a horn, and Joshua commanded lots of of them to topple the walls of Jericho.

I assume therefore that Louis Armstrong is a major force in Heaven, and harps are issued to those who don't have the lung capacity.

;>)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 10:15 PM

Oh, I'm sure Louis won't be in Heaven after what he said about folk music..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 10 - 11:11 PM

The other thing about all this circular verbal bouillabaisse is that it ignores the fact that Godhood is an idea, not a thing. It is a true idea for some, and true in other ways for others, and a mere flight of imagination for yet others. But there's no-one who has ever claimed to be able to count or measure or plot the location thereof. I think some versions of the idea are very fine, and other versions of the idea not so much.

Another way to approach the definition is that god-ness is a quality of own intention toward the world, rather than something one can aim intentions at.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 12:02 AM

If we assume that all the other candidates have asked for "kind thoughts/prayers", what is God to do?

Pick me. Duh. Look, if you don't want to wish somebody well, then don't. I assume that out of consistency you don't root for any sports teams, and in job interviews you admit you're no better than any of the other candidates?

I can understand you not wanting to bare your soul on an internet thread, hostile or otherwise, but you probably shouldn't claim to have evidence that leads you to conclusions and then refuse to supply the path of your thoughts.

Well, I haven't exactly said that *I* have evidence. I was referring to theists in general.

Actually, Steve Shaw was the one who said he'd never said there wasn't any evidence for religion. It was my quote you responded with.

Which explains why I thought he had. I had mixed him up with you. Apologies to you both! I try to be careful but sometimes....

Oh, and good luck with the job! My good thoughts are with you. Which college are you trying for?

Thanks! Green River Community College in Auburn, WA.

I'll accept the veracity of a reputable scientist over a philosopher any day.

On a non-scientific question? Why? It's like letting a rock star tell you which car you should drive.

The fact that things exist that we can't scientifically measure doesn't imply the existence of anything else.

True, but it does imply that being capable of being scientifically measured isn't a necessary qualification to exist.

Being an atheist is not about being certain that God doesn't exist

Isn't necessarily, no. But for some, it is. You don't get to speak for them.

Hope that makes sense.

Um...

But there's no-one who has ever claimed to be able to count or measure or plot the location thereof.

You assume all "things" can be measured, counted, or located. Why?

Another way to approach the definition is that god-ness is a quality of own intention toward the world, rather than something one can aim intentions at.

A possible definition, yes, although of course not one that all god-botherers will accept.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 04:57 AM

"My agnosticism is based on the lack of proof one way or the other for a God. It has nothing to do with any thoughts towards... "but I'll keep an open mind just so I may go to heaven". It's about keeping an open mind until actual proof, based beyond just faith, occurs. I do not expect it will happen in my life time... yet it could happen tomorrow."

No, you're quite safe. There will never be actual "proof" one way or the other. Saying that I'm an agnostic until proof shows up is just disingenuous. It's an uphill struggle for any agnostic to show that their agnosticism isn't just an insurance policy. Which it probably isn't in most cases, but there is a hill to climb there.

" 'Being an atheist is not about being certain that God doesn't exist'

Isn't necessarily, no. But for some, it is. You don't get to speak for them."

Oh yeah? Where are these people then? Hands up any atheist on this thread or anywhere else who will declare to the world that God certainly does not exist! You certainly won't get Dawkins to say it!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 05:30 AM

mousethief

Pick me. Duh. Look, if you don't want to wish somebody well, then don't.

You asked for prayers. You asked us to appeal to God to intercede on your behalf, to favour you over other of His/Her/Its children.

I assume that out of consistency you don't root for any sports teams,

Well, I don't actually but if I did, I wouldn't ask God to sway the result.

and in job interviews you admit you're no better than any of the other candidates?

I may be better or I may be worse but I would want to get the job on my own merits not through divine intervention.

If you are the best candidate, I hope that the interviewer has the judgement to see that and gives you the job. If you are not, it would be unfair on the better candidate and the students if you were appointed. Why should I pray for that?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 05:33 AM

"The slippery slope in confusing these realms, as I have mentioned before to Bill is that you can easily get sunk into the apparent solidity of things and lose all contact with your higher qualities, reduced in scope to a dull-witted computing machine with no higher goal than to keep passing food through the food-tube."

I completely agree. The key to not reducing us to computing machines is to see and revel in our achievements as a race. Go and visit an art gallery. Pick up your musical instrument and play. Read philosophy (good luck mousethief!), read a novel etc etc. As I suggest below, it's rather unimaginative to say the least to condemn us to mere machines. We're much more than that.


"If only the universe knew what wonders it contained.

Maybe it does."


No maybe about it - it does and is still learning.

This is my point - I'll try making it again as the last time one or two of my phrases were a tad pejorative. If, at the very least there is no God(s) or any other divine being(s), if at the very least we are biological machines, conforming to a set of laws which govern the workings of the entire universe, then all is not lost; in fact all is wonderful. Because we are made of the same stuff as the stars, the planets and all those incredible cosmic sights that dazzle us and induce that feeling there is more to life than the daily grind. We are the universe ourselves, and we are conscious; we are the universe recognising and learning about it's true nature, we are the universe contemplating itself. And that's at the very least. How can one not be deeply moved by that thought?


P.S. Cheers Bill! I don't think it works on a Mac :-(

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 05:37 AM

Steve says "No, you're quite safe. There will never be actual "proof" one way or the other. Saying that I'm an agnostic until proof shows up is just disingenuous. It's an uphill struggle for any agnostic to show that their agnosticism isn't just an insurance policy. Which it probably isn't in most cases, but there is a hill to climb there"

I personally do not see how I am being diingeneous by being honest about my own stance and my feelings about that stance Steve. You may think it is. That is your choice. But as I am the one who knows my thoughts and beliefs better than anyone I can assure you that my comments are far from the definition "not sincere, lacking candour" for disingeneous. I would also say that your statement that there will never be actual proof one way or another is a little too assured. You can believe that as is your right. I believe that there may be a time when some proof - if proof can exists at all ever - MAY be avaialable.

I have no uphill struggle to show or prove anything about my agnosticism not being an insurance policy. I never mind explaining it - as I see and feel it - but I do not need to justify it to you or anyone. People believe what they wish in the end anyway.

My agnosticism, to me, is a simple statement of me saying "I really don't KNOW". I have stated earlier in the thread that I am emotionally spiritual but intellectually skeptical. That much *I* KNOW about my thoughts and feelings on this. I am in the best place possible to know what I feel and think. If you think that disingeneous then fair enough. Though just because you think it does not make it true. As I have also stated. I know who and what I am.

I can, and do, respect you have your own ideas and thoughts. They differ from mine and I have no need to 'attack' your views in order to give my own greater validity because that never really does work in reasoned discussion. No matter how much one puts down someone's else's argument, seldom would it ever make your own more potent.

Sometimes one has to agree to differ with respect and not 'insults'. Besides. My insurance premiums are high enough. Why would I try to sustain insurance formsomething I am not committed to? lol

"Hello. Is that Heavenly Insurance? I would like a quote for my belief. Could you give me some idea of what the cost would be for taking out fully comprehensive, new-for-old, protected no claims on such a policy please?"

"Life?... you say it would cost my life? Oh my. That's quite a high price don't you think?"

;-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 06:34 AM

Ha. But my atheism (a term I hate, as it's religion defining me, which is scarcely without irony) is also a statement of me saying "I don't really know." All I've done is weighed up the odds of God's existence on a scale of my own construction and found them to be almost unimaginably long. It means that I can completely disregard the influence of any God or talk of afterlife on the way I proceed through life. But that doesn't mean I "know." I don't. Before your offence takes root too much, remember that I did say "It's an uphill struggle for any agnostic to show that their agnosticism isn't just an insurance policy. Which it probably isn't in most cases..."

As for this elusive proof. The real proof of proof will finally be when it gets to be universally accepted. That's the problem, innit. For starters, proving a nagative is notoriously impossible, so the only proof left that may rear its head will be proof that God exists. Heheh - hardly fair! And hardly likely to be universally accepted unless he comes down in a chariot of fire and shows us a load of magic. And even then.... No, agnostics waiting for proof are in for a long wait.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 08:23 AM

Mousethief earlier on:

"I have evidence, just not evidence that you would accept. Indeed, you don't even accept that it's possible that I have evidence, because of how narrowly you have defined evidence."


Mousethief later on:

"Well, I haven't exactly said that *I* have evidence. I was referring to theists in general."

Er...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 10:19 AM

"I don't think it works on a Mac :-("

If you can see the faces on a Mac, there is some way to make them on a Mac....just different keystrokes for different PC folks :>)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 10:46 AM

and.... "...it's rather unimaginative to say the least to condemn us to mere machines. We're much more than that."

Of course we are! The very fact that we can have this debate shows that we are something unusual. We are this amazing neuro-chemical 'machine' that has enough funny little cells, synapses and inter-related parts to our brain that we have not only become conscious, but self-reflectively 'aware' and able to 'do' phenomenological tricks and contemplate our own existence! It doesn't detract from the mystery and awe at all...(at least to ME).. to realize that just as 'critical mass' allows nuclear reactions, when applied to neural synapses, it also allows 'creative thinking' reactions.
   It's all marvelous and exciting and beautiful...and sometimes depressing and dangerous (but that part fuels much literature & music and relationships, just as the 'good' parts do.)
When I go to a concert or read a book or look out over a garden filled with flowers and birds, I am not simultaneously wallowing in disappointment that I am 'only' a complex 'machine' made of flesh....I just appreciate. I appreciate even more that I can reflect ON my 'machine-like' status when the situation requires and not be lured into vague, hypothetical constructions of indefinite origin and unprovable realms of ambiguous concepts which no two 'believers' seem to 'see' in the same way.
   This does not prevent me from remaining open-minded and willing to see other possibilities IF new information appears.
Open minded, however, does not mean there are no BS filters at the entrance to my....mind... ☺

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

"We" are an amazing neuro-chemical machine?

C'mon, Bill. From time immemorial superstitions have been the raw porridge of the unthinking, and the notion that "we are machines" is a classic candidate. Insisting that things that are different are the same is an earmark of premature conclusive ignorance. "Everything is biochemical" is just as superstitious a remark as "everything is illusion" or "everything is God's will".

Anyway, speak for yourself. If you want to be an amazing neurochemical machine, feel free. After all, beingness--the identities with which we choose to associate ourselves--are elective. Don't look too hard, though, at the question of who is doing the election, or you might find yourself floating six feet back of yourhead! :D Please, don't go lumping into your generalizations those who choose some other category to be in.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 11:52 AM

It's an uphill struggle for any agnostic to show that their agnosticism isn't just an insurance policy.

Well yes it's imossible to prove a negative claim like that. Fox News uses this all the time -- Is Obama really a space alien? If he's not, why doesn't he come clean about it? What's he got to hide? Substitute innuendo-of-the-day for "space alien" and repeat. Obama does not have to prove he's not an atheist, foreign-born, or Muslim. Nor do Agnostics have to prove they're not agnostic because they want fire insurance. That's something of a slimy move, Steve, and I'd have thought it beneath you.

Oh yeah? Where are these people then? Hands up any atheist on this thread or anywhere else who will declare to the world that God certainly does not exist! You certainly won't get Dawkins to say it!

But he will say believing in God is a "delusion" which presupposes it. Obviously he believes it, but is too something to say it. He should have the courage of his convictions.

You asked for prayers.

And kind thoughts. What, if the word "prayers" is in the sentence do you not read the rest of it?

Mousethief later on:

"Well, I haven't exactly said that *I* have evidence. I was referring to theists in general."

It's a fair cop. Nevertheless, what I said about baring my soul to a semi-hostile audience. I've been ripped to shreds too many times. Fool me once, shame on you, etc. The problem is that if a theist does mention what their reasons are for believing in God, then they enter into this no-win argument when people start tearing their reasons apart. What end does that serve? To make trigger-happy Atheists feel better about themselves? Get your own happy juice. They're not reasons you would accept. I've already said that. If I told you what my reasons were, you still wouldn't accept them, and you'd gloat over me as well. Who needs that?

I can understand you not wanting to bare your soul on an internet thread, hostile or otherwise, but you probably shouldn't claim to have evidence that leads you to conclusions and then refuse to supply the path of your thoughts.

Oh wait, you already do gloat over me. ::rolleyes smiley:: I claim to have great sex with my wife. I'm not going to tell you what the evidence is. Why should this be a problem? I'm not saying you should believe, or that there's something wrong with you if you don't have evidence that convinces you of the existence of God. Why should my saying that I have evidence that convinces me, but I'm not willing to wrangle about it, somehow be a fault?

(PS and no, I don't think you will go to Hell. I'm a universalist. So don't even go there.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 12:12 PM

Well, I'm not looking to gloat. I'd probably start probing and poking at your reasons, but the purpose wouldn't be to "win". Certainly not I don't have any belief that I could change your mind. Actually, I was just grabbing an opportunity to investigate the thinking of some articulate and non-dogmatic Christians. I like things to make sense and this one doesn't. Equally not making sense to me is the fact that it makes sense to intelligent people such as yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 01:05 PM

mousethief

And kind thoughts. What, if the word "prayers" is in the sentence do you not read the rest of it?

Yes, you asked for kind thoughts but you also asked for prayers. Do you see them as equivalent? I thought a prayer was a direct appeal to God. Do you consider that a morally acceptable way to compete for a job?

What do other religiously inclined people think?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mayomick
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 01:40 PM

John P asks ,

"What's the word for "I've never been given any reason to even consider it" or "it really doesn't make any sense to me"?"


A free-thinker?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 02:29 PM

" "Everything is biochemical" is just as superstitious a remark ..."

To quote a well-known pundit 'round these parts: "pshaw" or "pishtush"

If you review, very carefully, my years of discussing this topic, you will be reminded that my assertion is that There is no compelling reason to assume a non-physical basis to the mystery of 'us-ness'..... that's all.

" If you want to be an amazing neurochemical machine, feel free. ....Not sure yet whether 'feeling free' IS free....scholars differ. I was almost one of them.

'Taint a matter of 'want'... it is what it is, and I doubt that "choosing some other category to be in" affects anything but one's own smug ...umm... 'personal' concept of 'self'.
   It's kinda like some of those British 'titles' which confer the privilege of putting a longer & fancier return address on your mail. ;>) You 'feel' more important. I feel just fine, and I retain my sense of wonder & awe at whatever I...and you... are.
If you discover any profound insights as to why I can add ^metaphysical credits to my sense of beingness, lemme know......but I do have my standards!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 02:42 PM

Bill:

I see your bastion of certainty is deep-rooted. The reason for differentiating the two realms has been pointed out over and over in these threads but your gloss is impermeable. That's why I fell back on "feel free". As long as you exclude the data that might unsettle your perspective, you won't find any reason to modify it. It's a self-proving machine. All the transcendant experiences in the universe reported by others will not scratch the invisible shield. Smug? Not me. I am all for wonder and amazement and the creative awe that playing in the fields of the universe instill. But I suspect my mind may be more open than your own, sir.

Rigid systems of logic do not contain within them the notion that they themselves may be arbitrary. It would ruin the game. But there are more dimensions and broader fields of play than even the wonders of "natural" space-time can afford, which I hope to see you in one day.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 03:09 PM

As long as you use phrases like "I see your bastion of certainty is deep-rooted.", you show that you don't 'quite' comprehend what my position really is.
It is very much an UNcertainty on most topics. I am very much NOT certain that "...the transcendant experiences in the universe reported by others .." represents 'good evidence '. Forgive me for delaying in applying my rubber stamp to the reams of documentation.


"But I suspect my mind may be more open than your own, sir."

You may be right... I do think I hear the wind whistling thru it at times.. (thus, the hat, I assume?

but if all you mean is that you have a more...ummmm.. 'vivid imagination', I can certainly allow you that status. ☺

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 03:57 PM

That's not the wind you hear, Bill. It's the sound of the Akashic Records downloading!! :D

You deflect my argument most reasonably, but you do not meet it.

But since we have both wrapped around this axle before, and you have not modulated your hard-nosed (if narrow) perspective a whit, and since it seems clear to me that it is entirely attributable to exclusionary data definitions to which you closely cleave, I have nothing further to offer on this front, aside from repeating myself ad infinitum (which is probably easier for me than it would be for you).


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 04:38 PM

" probably easier for me than it would be for you)."

well, sort of..

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞...∞

Ok, then... it IS Friday.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 06:47 PM

You know - there is an oft repeated mistake in these conversations.

It is that "there is no evidence for Gods existence"

In fact this is not true.

There is evidence in the form of testimony.

The accurate way to describe our predicament is to say that the claims made by "witnesses" have yet to be tested, either proved true or discredited.

Some opine that the available testimony isn't true, some opine that some of it is true, and many disagree as to how to interpret that testimony.

What does "God" mean?

What is the "Soul"

Are they by products of chemical reactions?

Or are they independant of the physical realm?

Is my consciousness a scientific Miracle or a spiritual one?

What is the difference?


Lots of questions .... no satisfactory answers!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 09:03 PM

" 'It's an uphill struggle for any agnostic to show that their agnosticism isn't just an insurance policy.'

Well yes it's imossible to prove a negative claim like that. Fox News uses this all the time -- Is Obama really a space alien? If he's not, why doesn't he come clean about it? What's he got to hide? Substitute innuendo-of-the-day for "space alien" and repeat. Obama does not have to prove he's not an atheist, foreign-born, or Muslim. Nor do Agnostics have to prove they're not agnostic because they want fire insurance. That's something of a slimy move, Steve, and I'd have thought it beneath you."

Sorry to see you've turned sour following a couple of careless faux-pas. I don't do innuendo but I do do challenges to so-called agnostics who don't want their comfort zones violated (which is by no means all of them I hasten to add). I don't see agnosticism as a particularly honest position, generally speaking, and I don't need to resort to innuendo to state that. Now why would anyone be an agnostic? Maybe they haven't given the matter much thought. Or the pros and cons are too complicated to deal with right now. Or they have a sneaky suspicion that agnostics, if they happen to be wrong, might go to hell. Or they have given the matter a huge amount of anguished thought but have decided they still don't know. I've met a good few agnostics but very few fall into that latter category. I do see an awful lot of apathy wrapped up as agnostism, in contrast. I think the trouble with agnosticism is that it doesn't understand atheism very well. It is slightly scared of atheism's supposed absolutism. The fear is without foundation, as any serious atheist (and there are a few of the other kind, I know) will tell you they're not certain about God's non-existence. Atheism doesn't deal in absolutes (in stark contrast to religion). Most so-called agnostics I've met seem actually to be closet believers. I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that belief and agnosticism comes with a whole load of potential self-interested baggage. In a way, you've sort of proved that yourself by asking for prayers. Asking God to give you an advantage will always mean that you're asking him to give someone else a disadvantage. There are no victimless prayers of that sort.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 09:46 PM

Testimony is always misleading. Eye witnesses can be wrong. They generally can't be counted on for veracity in legal proceedings. DNA and other methods of scientific
verification can.

There are no eye witnesses among those who are testifying. They are speculating after
the fact.

I agree with Steve Shaw about agnosticism. It's from a position of denial, I think, by not wanting to make a clear appraisal.

I also agree that atheism doesn't deal in absolutes. There are too many different kinds of atheists.

I think that a Freethinker has given intense thought to the idea of whether a god exists or not. I like this designation rather than the term atheist. It means to me that the question of the existence of a god has been thought through and conclusions that are reached
are that there is no god.

We are a species and not a machine. If the species in our world were "designed" than the
"designer" would have to be relegated back to the drawing board. Evolution, not "design"
explains how sometimes inefficient biology is prevalent in all species and genus's. There are examples of this in Dawkin's book, "The Greatest Show On Earth" which may be his best.

Being a Freethinker or an atheist includes compassion for fellow human-beings and
high moral standards. It also means that you can be kind and understanding to others.
You can be empathetic and sympathetic to people and other animals. The idea that religion is necessary to do this is specious.


From: mauvepink - PM

"So you believe you know there is no God. That is your own decision. Do allow other's theirs without insulting them as Dawkins did and then used words like "there probably is no God". Such commitment!"

I see no insult in Dawkin's statement. This is the kind of ultra-sensitivity that causes problems when broaching this topic. People take this examination personally. "Probably" is the key word here. The insult is insisting that there is a god. That violates free thought.

Anyone can have an opinion. It doesn't have to be agreed to. I see no more insult to this statement than those of a political nature. The GOP probably will mess things up in November. Notice I said "probably". Would you have a problem with that statement?

Dawkins when he offers a critique of religion is immediately accused of insulting someone. The supreme insult is denying the critique at all and assuming that this is
not a topic for conversation. The supreme insult is the argument from ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 09:57 PM

Interestingly, Christianity does not advocate asking God to prioritize ones interests over somebody elses, but it states clearly that God already knows what you want.

Once it has stated this it goes on to prescribe a specific prayer.

But we digress ...


I am an agnostic because, coming from Hong Kong, I am all too aware of how chinese whispers works.

Even if people are reciting from the same scripture, they often represent a whole myriad of interpretation.

Given the huge array of accounts of God and how he/she/it has interacted with humankind, it seems unreasonable to me to subscribe to any specific interpretation or set of beliefs.

An agnostic feels that there is more to the universe than mere apparent physical solidity, but doesn't presume to be able to explain it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 12:06 AM

Yes, you asked for kind thoughts but you also asked for prayers. Do you see them as equivalent?

No. Can't one ask for both? If I ask you for a sandwich and a glass of Coke, do you conclude they're the same thing? But really I was asking for one or the other.

A free-thinker?

Free-thinkers aren't allowed to make decisions? He said he never had the evidence to convince him. That doesn't mean he's a free thinker. It just means he hasn't had the evidence to convince him. For all we know he could be hidebound as a horse on some other topic. (I assume not, but I'm talking about the unjustified inference.)

Asking God to give you an advantage

That's one way to pray for a person, certainly. One could also pray that their nerves not be shot while waiting. Or that the people making the decision do not unfairly prejudice against them in any way. Etc etc. But these are things that believers talk about; probably atheists don't think about the various meanings and objects of prayer, since they don't pray. But they do jump to conclusions, don't they?

I think that a Freethinker has given intense thought to the idea of whether a god exists or not. I like this designation rather than the term atheist. It means to me that the question of the existence of a god has been thought through and conclusions that are reached are that there is no god.

If a Freethinker gives intense thought to the idea, and concludes a god does exist, does she thereby cease to be a freethinker? Or are you defining "freethinker" in such as way as to preclude ever coming to believe in God or god(s)? It reminds me of the hilariously self-congratulatory label "Brights" that some atheists have (or had) taken for themselves.

@Steve re. Lox: Lox's agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable to me. Your insistence that few people are agnostic for intellectually honest reasons almost smacks of religious dogma. Why is it so important to you that Agnostics call themselves Atheists?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 12:50 AM

Much as I like the term 'free thinker', could it not just as easily be applied to a believer as long as they were open to the possibility of being wrong, as I am about my lack of belief?

I suppose the answer is that it varies from person to person, but do the believers here think that is an unreasonable thing to expect of a believer, or does religious belief by definition normally demand no doubts whatsoever? That looks to be the case, but not being a believer, I've no idea really and I'd be genuinely interested what believers think.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 05:38 AM

sandwich ==> kind thoughts
a glass of Coke ==> prayers (A reverent petition made to God)

Hmmm.

One could also pray that their nerves not be shot while waiting.

I can see that you praying might, given your beliefs, help calm your nerves but the idea that a bunch of people scattered round the World praying on your behalf would have any effect stretches my credulity. If it did, it would mean the most nerve calming would go to whoever had accumulated the greatest quantity and quality of prayers in God's judgement. Anyway, you'd already had the interview.

Or that the people making the decision do not unfairly prejudice against them in any way.

So you're asking us to pray that the best person gets the job on their own merits. Good. (But it might not be you.)

But these are things that believers talk about; probably atheists don't think about the various meanings and objects of prayer, since they don't pray. But they do jump to conclusions, don't they?

I have no idea what atheists think. I find their position even more absurd than believers. To define yourself by something you believe in is an understandable position even if I don't share that belief. To define yourself by something you don't believe in seems bizarre. I don't believe in Blurquahal but I don't agonise over it or define myself as an ablurquahalist.

Perhaps, as a believer, potential adjunct professor of philosophy and expert on epistemology, you could enlighten us as to the various meanings and objects of prayer.

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

"If a Freethinker gives intense thought to the idea, and concludes a god does exist, does she thereby cease to be a freethinker?"

Yes she does. You are demonstrating, perhaps unintentionally, in this remark the inbuilt certainty that blights religion. Anyone who comes to a conclusion of such certainty, either way, without sufficient evidence (and there can never be sufficient evidence for certainty) is not a freethinker. You may conclude that there is some possibility that a God exists and still be a freethinker. But if you conclude that there is a strong possibility that God exists (let's say, more likely than not) you are in danger of losing the badge as you are reaching conclusions that fly in the face of all rational evidence. The other issue for aspiring freethinkers is to ensure that certain baggage is ditched, such as fear of heavenly reprisal or fear of social disadvantage here on the ground. Not easy, and organised religion makes very sure that it isn't easy.



"Your insistence that few people are agnostic for intellectually honest reasons almost smacks of religious dogma. Why is it so important to you that Agnostics call themselves Atheists?"

I'm not insisting on it at all. I'm speaking as I find. Next time you meet an alleged agnostic ask them why they're agnostic. You may get lucky and get a good debate going, but you're far more likely to hear that "it's all a load of rubbish as far as I'm concerned," or "I can't be bothered with all that hocus-pocus and dressing-up" or you might get a remark about priests and child abuse. Largely, you'll hear a lot of veiled excuses for the fact they've stopped going to church. I don't want or not want it this way. It's the way it is. And actually, as I've said several times on this thread, I don't want anyone to call themselves atheists, not even atheists. It's outrageous that we're defined by religion when religion has nothing to do with the way we live. And it's a negative word in any case. My view that so-called atheism is largely misinterpreted to be an absolutist stance - it is anything but - is meant more as an invitation to agnostics to think again.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 06:17 AM

Strinsinger wrote: "I agree with Steve Shaw about agnosticism. It's from a position of denial, I think, by not wanting to make a clear appraisal.
"


and to me...

"I see no insult in Dawkin's statement. This is the kind of ultra-sensitivity that causes problems when broaching this topic. People take this examination personally. "Probably" is the key word here. The insult is insisting that there is a god. That violates free thought."

Where exactly is my denial occurring in my statement about how I choose to be agnostic? What is there to deny? I am clearly stating that I await proof one way or the other. I am denying no possibilty of one idea or the other therefore. THAT IS my clear appraisal based on many many years of being let down by both religious dogma AND science. I am looking at it as someone who has been involved with religion and science. Science can sometimes be misleading too (deliberately) and try and shut down free thinkers. Anyone who doubts it look up the story of what happened to Alton Arp when he discovered various innacuracies about quasars and the Hubble Constant. At one point I was left with totally nothing I could belive in with honesty and truth. That aside. No denial is taking place. My uncertainty comes from lack of what I need to make a decision for myself.

What insulted me about Dawkin's statement and involvement with the bus advertising, which again I clearly stated earlier in this thread, was his pompous and arogant attitude. He calls agnostics fence sitters and then he himself uses the word "probably". Probably suggests some doubt or alternative is possible. Where is his conviction with such a sloppy statement?

As a scientist I had no problems at all with Dawkins. Brilliant man. But he should have stuck with what he was good at. This, what now seems like a private crusade, to trash those who have belief is unworthy of him in my opnion. He has made his point. Several times... and several times and again and again... ad nauseum. Why does he have to keeping thrusting it home? And then, with all his oh-so-certain statements and commitment, he goes along with the word probably. THAT word just about said it all and with it went my respect for him.

Someone who stands on for what they believe in has my respect. I may not necessarily believe in what they do, but I can respect their commitment and stance. I also accept that sometimes people change their position. But to hammer home a point about something that he is certain about, and call those who do not go along with his thinking, and then use the word probably, is wishy-washy at best. It is insincere. Had he advertised THERE IS NO GOD then, no matter what I personally think, he is sticking by his message. The word "probably" said a great deal.

Over sensitive? Well, no. But I am entitled to feel affronted when I get called a fence sitter by the likes of Dawkins. He is no better with the statement he made. I get called as being in denial, something I clearly am not. I get called diingeneous when I am neither a liar or insincere.

I only 'personalise' this as I cannot speak for other agnostics. Just myself. I have not taken ofence on a personal level. I know Dawkin's and yours and others are not personal to me. But my response is a personal one. It is also honest and sincere.

Fundamentalist atheism is as bad as any other form of fundamentalism. Hammering home insults to open minds or believers does not make the other's mesage any more certain or correct. There are many variations on this theme and I think people are entitled to them without having to suffer the indignations of those who hold other views. If you believe there is not God then well and good. No argument will you get from me. You do need to allow for other people having other views though without seeing it as being in denial.

Sorry to have rabbited on ;-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 06:31 AM

"I'm not insisting on it at all. I'm speaking as I find. Next time you meet an alleged agnostic ask them why they're agnostic. You may get lucky and get a good debate going, but you're far more likely to hear that "it's all a load of rubbish as far as I'm concerned," or "I can't be bothered with all that hocus-pocus and dressing-up" or you might get a remark about priests and child abuse. Largely, you'll hear a lot of veiled excuses for the fact they've stopped going to church. I don't want or not want it this way. It's the way it is. And actually, as I've said several times on this thread, I don't want anyone to call themselves atheists, not even atheists. It's outrageous that we're defined by religion when religion has nothing to do with the way we live. And it's a negative word in any case. My view that so-called atheism is largely misinterpreted to be an absolutist stance - it is anything but - is meant more as an invitation to agnostics to think again. "

Had I have seen that first I would have not bothered replying as I just did. You are as likely to se my replies and answers the same way as what you state here. It does, nonetheless, seem very important to you to want to convert agonstics to atheism. Think again? I think all the time and seldom is there a day goes by I don't ponder something about life. My thinking takes me to all sorts of places... but I still stand by that if I do not know something that I need to have more knowledge of it before I can make an informed choice.

Bye the by: have you ever been Christian or Agnostic yourself? Your agnostophobia seems so deep rooted. In reality I know you are just standing your own ground and that is okay. You be what you wish. But also allow others to do their own thing too. If you cannot provide me the proof I need to change my stance, then anything you say is actually about how you believe what you don't believ. I think my conversion is some way off yet ;-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 06:43 AM

I think I may need to repeat (more clearly) that the concept of "prayer" in christianity, as allegedly prescribed in the Gospels by the Christian Gods alleged incarnation on earth (Jesus) does not involve 'asking' for anything.

Matthew chapter 6 verse 5 states:

" 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 06:48 AM

I pressed submit by accident in that last post ...

... snyway, my point is that criticisms of prayer as an act of currying favour with God have no relevance in Christianity.

As far as I understand, this is also true in Islam, and I suspect it is probably true in Judaism as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 06:56 AM

Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you

Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

But Jesus did frequently talk about asking him of his Father Lox. Above are just two instances in the same Gospel you quote.

From a Christian perspective, of course, it is fine to ask. That does not mean you will automatically get it nor that God would disfavour others because of it. God will only give what you need. Jesus' was very specific about that.

Likewise, God, through Jesus, asks a lot of things of and from us in return.

Once again it has to be a very individual thing don't you think? Though I do take the point that sometimes by asking to get something others do not have it could be construed as being selfish and asking special favour.

I ask all the time for proof!

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 07:01 AM

"Largely, you'll hear a lot of veiled excuses for the fact they've stopped going to church."

Re Agnosticism in the UK, this couldn't be farther from the truth. It's simply the case that most people here don't care enough about religion or the idea of God to have thought about it, or formed any particular opinions about it.

You'll get plenty of staunch atheists in the better educated or intellectual groups - and especially among Socialists and Liberals - but most people if asked if they believe in God will generally say "I don't know".

In other words they're agnostic by default because they have no particular opinion. They have no opinion because they don't think about it. And they don't think about it, because here in the UK religion has become a complete irrelevance to indigenous British culture. It's something immigrants and foreigners do. And little old ladies.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 07:15 AM

MP,

Context is important.

Chapter 7 isn't about prayer, but taking responsibility for ones own choices, choosing whether or not to follow the christian way, and having faith that there are rewards for doing so and accepting that there are penalties for not doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 07:18 AM

Point taken Lox! :-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 07:32 AM

It is a good idea when quoting either from what someone has posted, or from some other source, to indicate clearly which are the quotes (and where they come from) and which are the comments on the posts. Otherwise it gets a bit confusing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mayomick
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 08:44 AM

"Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.[1] The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers"...............From wiki

It doesn't have the same negative connotations as the word "atheist". I can understand religious people's annoyance a viewpoint that names itself in opposition to themselves and their own take on the world - a bit like people who eat meat calling themselves avegans . How many marxists would bother arguing the toss with people who called themselves antimarxists I wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 09:09 AM

Mayomicks comments have cause me to have the following thoughts..

An amoral person does not necessarily take up an opposing stance to a moral person, the word is just a descriptor used to describe someone without a moral stance.

Though on the other hand, if a person defines there moral stance as amoral, then that is a different thing ... they are using the word amoral to describe their moral position - which is a kind of oxymoron.

So a true Atheist is a person who doesn't have a religious position, as they are simply without God, and if someone proclaims Atheism as their religious position, then tey are not truly Atheist.

You get me?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 09:17 AM

I was wondering, do Christians on this forum believe everything written in the New Testament "chapter and verse" or do they "pick and choose" ?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 09:53 AM

"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

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!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 11:37 AM

my personal syllogism: (kinda hurriedly described, but you get the idea.. ;>)

IF there is a God who is all-powerful and omniscient, he must know that WE are weak and subject to confusion and capable of misunderstanding his 'word'.

If we are capable of misunderstanding, AND he wants us to conform to certain rules, he would need to remind us, clearly, more often than once in 2000 years or so, using his infinite powers to to communicate in all languages. (you know...like thunder and lightning and the clouds spelling out "Stop that evil stuff...right now!")

Therefore, since we continue to bicker over details and engage in threads like this in our attempts to convince others of the 'right' way to think, EITHER there is no God, or he has no interest in our daily affairs....or he is simply amused by watching us flail about....or one of a few other possibilities. (One element of being an agnostic/skeptic is that I admit the **logical** 'possibility' of all those options)

corollary: 'free will' to account for 'his' non-intervention would be a non God-like 'gift', since it guarantees non-compliance. IF we do, in fact, have free will AS a 'gift from God', it is no different than free will as part of plain old evolution, and means we just have to do the best we can with NO absolute rules except those we choose to apply to ourselves as some sort of 'pragmatic' guide.

(oh...one other aspect of my personal set of syllogisms, which caused no end of consternation to some VERY persistent Jehovah's Witnesses, was..."I don't wish to live forever in a Heaven run by a God such as you describe, and according to the rules laid out in your Bible". When presented with my assertion that I did not accept the Bible as 'authority' due to this reasoning, they went and fetched an 'expert' Elder who came and read me more and different Bible verses to counter my confusions! You-just-can't-win. I think they put my address on a "hopeless-don't bother" list, as they have not been back.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 11:49 AM

Charles Blow of the NYT offers this interesting discussion and colorful graphic chart describing the distribution of faith in the world compared against the distribution of income.

Maslow's spirit moves on the waters, lo.



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 08:14 PM

does religious belief by definition normally demand no doubts whatsoever?

Oh, I hope not. There are some church environments where it feels like that is the case. People who escape from those environments usually say that they felt like they had to pretend they had no doubts (and often no problems) and it just got too much for them. But there are a lot of churches where that is not the case.

Perhaps, as a believer, potential adjunct professor of philosophy and expert on epistemology, you could enlighten us as to the various meanings and objects of prayer.

That would rather require a prayerologist than an epistemologist. I have not made a study of the various meanings and objects of prayer. I can say what I have picked up along the way from talking with people, which is that it runs the gamut from people thinking that God helped them find a parking spot, to people thinking that the purpose is to change ourselves, not God (sometimes by "realigning" our thoughts to be like God's, whatever exactly that means), to people who don't know if it has any effect at all, but do it because we are commanded to in scripture. In at least one place, St Paul seems to indicate that the purpose of prayer is to engender inner peace in the person praying: "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, and with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. And the peace of God which passes all comprehension will guide your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 4:6-7)

Yes she does. You are demonstrating, perhaps unintentionally, in this remark the inbuilt certainty that blights religion. Anyone who comes to a conclusion of such certainty, either way, without sufficient evidence (and there can never be sufficient evidence for certainty) is not a freethinker.

Did I say certainty? If so I apologize. So what you're saying, then, is that if somebody concludes God doesn't exist, they're not "certain" but if somebody concludes God does exist, they are? Stringsinger said:

It means to me that the question of the existence of a god has been thought through and conclusions that are reached are that there is no god.

Bit of a double standard if you ask me. Maybe you and he disagree on that.

But if you conclude that there is a strong possibility that God exists (let's say, more likely than not) you are in danger of losing the badge as you are reaching conclusions that fly in the face of all rational evidence.

Such certainty. Tsk.

It's outrageous that we're defined by religion when religion has nothing to do with the way we live.

I'd say religion has a hell of a lot to do with the way Dawkins lives. Indeed I imagine he lives pretty high on the hog with the money he's made due to religion.

I think I may need to repeat (more clearly) that the concept of "prayer" in christianity, as allegedly prescribed in the Gospels by the Christian Gods alleged incarnation on earth (Jesus) does not involve 'asking' for anything.

That's a little disingenuous. Immediately after the quote you quoted Jesus goes on to say "pray in this way" and then recite what has come to be known as the Lord's Prayer or Our Father. Which includes the lines "give us this day our daily bread."

I was wondering, do Christians on this forum believe everything written in the New Testament "chapter and verse" or do they "pick and choose" ?

Are those my only two choices?

"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Hmm. Right. So if you *don't* go into your room, etc., do I take it that the Father will withold rewards?

That's the logical fallacy of negating the antecedent (or sometimes called "negating the antecedent and the consequent"). Consider the argument: If you're from Italy, you're from Europe. You're not from Italy, therefore you're not from Europe. Same form, same fallacy. (logic lesson no extra charge)

Maslow's spirit moves on the waters, lo.

That chart seems to say the opposite of Maslow. Maslow says you don't worry about stuff like spirituality until after you've got the food, shelter, and clothing thing nailed up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM

"Did I say certainty? If so I apologize. So what you're saying, then, is that if somebody concludes God doesn't exist, they're not "certain" but if somebody concludes God does exist, they are?"

Well, millions act that way. For example, by being so certain that they force their kids to attend religious schools in order that those certainties be perpetuated. So certain that all their prayers embrace certainty. Our Father who art in heaven... not much room for equivocation there!

" 'It's outrageous that we're defined by religion when religion has nothing to do with the way we live.'

I'd say religion has a hell of a lot to do with the way Dawkins lives. Indeed I imagine he lives pretty high on the hog with the money he's made due to religion."

Well, he certainly does! But Dawkins is one out of millions, and almost all the rest of us have to earn our crusts in other ways. Maybe you think there are millions of Dawkinses earning millions of quids writing millions of atheistic books. I wish!

[quote me]"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Hmm. Right. So if you *don't* go into your room, etc., do I take it that the Father will withold rewards?[unquote]

[quote you in riposte]That's the logical fallacy of negating the antecedent (or sometimes called "negating the antecedent and the consequent"). Consider the argument: If you're from Italy, you're from Europe. You're not from Italy, therefore you're not from Europe. Same form, same fallacy. (logic lesson no extra charge)[unquote you]

Where's the fallacy? God rewards you for praying - nice enticement. All I'm asking is what happens to the reward for praying if you don't pray? Far from being a fallacy, it's a dead giveaway. Pray and you get your reward. Don't pray and...well, if I speak fallaciously, you tell me! No reward? Pray = advantage, not pray =... er, what then? Don't muck about now. I want to know!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 12:10 AM

Where's the fallacy?

I showed you the fallacy. From

If P then Q

you cannot derive

If not P then not Q.

That's the fallacy. The sentence

If P then Q

Says what you can expect (namely, Q) when P is true. It doesn't say anything at all about when P is not true. I gave you an example showing quite plainly that this is a fallacious mode of argument. (I have a million of 'em, if that one didn't make sense.)

I don't know how much plainer I can put it.

As for your prayer thing, that's just silly. Do you want us to say, "Our Father who may or may not be in heaven"? We all act on knowledge/beliefs we're not certain of every day. I'm not certain that when I walk out of the door tomorrow morning, a meteor won't smash me all to hell. But I act as if it won't, because you can't go through life not doing anything just because you're not certain. Me, I'm not certain of anything. (This is one of the dangers of studying epistemology!) But you gotta live. You act on the things you believe to be true because, well, you believe them to be true. And that's all we've got.

You say you don't claim to be certain that God doesn't exist, but you live your life as though She doesn't. And that's as should be. I believe (but am by no means certain) that God exists, and live my life as if She does. Where's the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 02:50 AM

In reply to Mousethief: I asked

"I was wondering, do Christians on this forum believe everything written in the New Testament "chapter and verse" or do they "pick and choose" ?"

and she/he replied

"Are those my only two choices?"

What are the other choices?
Surely, as a Christian, the New Testament is "the Bible" for you, and you can either accept everything written in it or not accept everything written in it, which is surely "picking and choosing".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 02:56 AM

One thing about Christian belief which has always puzzled me is the fact that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah who would come and save his people ( i.e. the jews) but when he did come he was rejected by the very people he was sent to save! Now what was the point of that exercise? Was it a case of, if plan A doesn't work we'll move to plan B ( i.e save non-jews)? It all sounds very messy and ill thought out to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 03:26 AM

Well, Tunesmith, I think your last two posts do a good job of illustrating the Great Conflict that exists within religion: is religion some sort of blueprint imposed on humankind by an outside authority/God; or is it the coming together of people who share some sort of spiritual journey? I see it as the latter, and I don't want to have anything to do with an authoritarian view of religious faith.

For me, the "Bible" is both old and new testaments, and I accept it completely as a sacred book, the source document of the Christian faith. But mousethief is correct to hesitate when you say his only choices are "either accept everything written in it or not accept everything written in it, which is surely "picking and choosing." Fundamentalists dictate that only those two choices are available - the rest of us don't think that way.

I accept everything that is written in the Bible, warts and all. I accept the sometimes-cruel religious practices and ideas I read in the Bible, I accept Paul's misogyny, I accept the creation stories and the story of Noah's ark. I don't pick and choose - I accept it all because it is the sacred book of my faith.

Do I agree with the cruelty and misogyny and the silly rules and a lot of other stuff? No, of course not. What kind of dummies do you think religious people are?

Do I see the creation stories, and Noah, and Jonah and the whale, and the book of Job as historically factual? No, of course not - but all these stories teach powerful lessons.

To be understood and fully appreciated, the Bible has to be examined and questioned with every critical tool known to humankind - history, archaeology, literary and linguistic criticism, study of literary forms, the whole nine yards.

There are a few religious sects who look on the Bible as some sort of rule book for life, that has all the answers to all the questions that anybody would want to ask - but a whole lot of religious people don't think that way at all.

The Bible gives a very accurate picture of the faith of Jews and Christians, covering over a thousand years of faith experience - both the good parts and the bad parts of it. I accept it as a full and valid expression of their faith and as the roots of my faith, but I certainly don't see it as a rule book for how I should live my life or practice my faith.

As for Christ not being accepted, that's the whole conflict right there: the messiah was expected to be a manifestation of divine power, which was seen by many as military force. Power and authority and force are all that a lot of people understand. Christ was the manifestation of love and humility and suffering and compassion - not at all what people expected. Many "religious" people are still looking for a God who will do what they want God to do, to come with power and prove that everybody else is wrong.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 03:30 AM

Surely, as a Christian, the New Testament is "the Bible" for you, and you can either accept everything written in it or not accept everything written in it, which is surely "picking and choosing".

Denied. The dichotomy is between "accepting everything in it" and "not accepting everything in it." The latter is NOT the same thing as "picking and choosing."

"Picking and choosing" implies random or personal opinion-based selection. There are other methods of selection. And everyone uses some method of selection. It is a collection of religious texts, not a dictionary.

You are looking at the Bible like a teenage fundamentalist evangelical. Indeed that is exactly the argument that I have heard such people use -- "you either have to accept the whole thing" (by which they mean accept THEIR interpretation of it), "or you're just picking and choosing."

But it is a thing that requires interpretation. Like I said, it's a collection of religious texts. It's mythos not logos. Taken "literally" it leads to a dead end alley of contradictions and red herrings. NOBODY takes it literally. Really. Nobody. They may SAY they do, but they don't, and usually you can defuse their claims by a few well-chosen examples (these vary depending on whom you're talking to, but since usually it's fundie evangelical protestants, there are a few juicy verses from John 5 and 6 that they most emphatically do NOT take literally).

One thing about Christian belief which has always puzzled me is the fact that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah who would come and save his people ( i.e. the jews) but when he did come he was rejected by the very people he was sent to save! Now what was the point of that exercise? Was it a case of, if plan A doesn't work we'll move to plan B ( i.e save non-jews)? It all sounds very messy and ill thought out to me.

This is a common misconception (no pun intended). Jesus was not rejected by "the Jews". He was rejected by SOME (indeed arguably MOST) of the then-living Jews. But not by "the Jews" which without qualification means "all Jews". Some Jews accepted him. Quite a few, in fact. Buncha fishermen, for starters. Christianity was for some years considered a sect of Judaism. There's a reason for that. If I recall, the Christians were ejected from the synagogues shortly after 70 CE, and the two groups went separate ways. But before that Christianity was another sect of Judaism, not too unlike the Essenes in that sense.

But really after the destruction of the temple (70 CE), Judaism became quite a different religion. It moved from being centered around a system of ritual slaughter, to being centered on a constellation of family meals and prayers. It is not too historically weird to say that Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity are twin sons of Temple Judaism. And unfortunately their sibling rivalry has had some very terrible consequences down through the years. Hopefully they're finally learning to get along with one another in the last 60 years.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 05:01 AM

Mousethief wrote:

"If I recall, the Christians were ejected from the synagogues shortly after 70 CE, and the two groups went separate ways. But before that Christianity was another sect of Judaism"

If that is true, it raises a few points. Surely, Judaism would never accept Christianity as being "another sect" of its faith because at the core of Christianity is the belief that Jesus is God, and that would surely clash with what Judaism taught.
   But, of course, it would make sense if - at that time - Jesus was thought of simply as preacher. Which, of course, fits in with the idea that James "invented" Christianity, and transformed Jesus from a simple preacher into a god.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 05:03 AM

I think that should have been Paul - not James!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 06:04 AM

I believe (but am by no means certain) that God exists

Sorry, Mousethief, I think you just broke the first commandment.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 06:14 AM

I suppose now that Stephen Hawking has calculated that the big bang can be a natural physical phenomenon, we can say, in the wonderful words of the late Douglas Adams;

Well, that just about wraps it up for God.

Joe Offer points out that scriptures do not have to be a literal report of happenings in order to be beacons of truth. (Sorry if that simplifies it Joe, but it is how I interpreted your comments above.) Of course many people will find solace in scripture, knowing that for millennia, people have turned to the same words in order to help them get on. And that is something to consider, regardless of your belief or otherwise in intelligent design.

But as science slowly chisels away at the basis of belief, the question now has to be asked, "Will the idea of allegory supersede literal thought, or is religion becoming less important and more threatening to most people?"

Gullible and vulnerable people get sucked into deeds of others with religion as the carrot on the stick. Everything from TV evangelists funding their private hedonistic lifestyles to poor illiterate suicide bombers. The use and abuse of religion is very powerful, and that is why I for one never give it quarter, even the "respectable" end.

That is not to say I would condone bad manners. Many of my colleagues are Muslim and I went out of my way to help their working day fit better with Ramadan this year. Also, I needed volunteers for a bit of work the other Sunday and as I know four of the team I work with treat their church attendance seriously, I didn't compromise them by asking them to work. (Serendipity, a couple of the Muslims wander off for Friday prayers and I turn a blind eye work wise, hence they were more than willing to work a Sunday.)

Live and let live.

But of course, that is my way of seeing their religion as a lifestyle choice rather than an instrument of oppression.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 07:29 AM

Tunesmith said "One thing about Christian belief which has always puzzled me is the fact that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah who would come and save his people ( i.e. the jews) but when he did come he was rejected by the very people he was sent to save! Now what was the point of that exercise?"

Jesus was born and lived as a Jew. There was no Christianity until after his death. Nevertheless, he made it quite clear that he had come to save all men for all time from their sins. There are many references toward this in the Bible too, but probably the most important one is "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".

They believed him not back then no more than they believed it before or they would believe it today. Can you imagine if Christ did return today the reception he would get? Most likely he would be imprisoned again in so way or another. Johnny Cash singing "Jesus was a carpenter" says it far more eloquent than I ever could.

But as far as your puxxlement goes, I do believe the above answers your question from the position of Christianity

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 08:02 AM

Interesting post Willie :-)

"I suppose now that Stephen Hawking has calculated that the big bang can be a natural physical phenomenon, we can say, in the wonderful words of the late Douglas Adams... etc etc..."

Well not quite. My own personal examinations of this, in order that I may get to be able to accept a Christian life, is that maybe God was created with the Big Bang! One of my biggest questions, either with the possible existance of God or with the beginning of the universe, is those first few microseconds of creation. What was before it and how did it all come into being. Stephen Hawkins himself one replied to me that he was unsure about the first few microseconds. It calls for 'special pleading' simply because the physics of those first few microseconds were extremely different from the physics that have stayed the same since. So, my skeptically intellectual side says to me that even the initial spark is just as unfathomable as God's creation. It's just not satisfying to me to say that God has always been there because in my world all things need to be created somehow.

Evolution answers my questions about life on Earth perfectly. And I read Genesis and, poetically, it says nothing different than evolution does, except is uses days instead of millions of years. Dayos = a period of time I think.

And so, to satisfy my emotionally spiritual side I have been trying to get to somewhere in my head where I may be able to explain God's creation maybe at the same time as the Universe. Now I know some of you may think me crazy for this. That is fair enough. I do too sometimes! But I need to try and unite the two sides of my life - the spiritual and the intellectual sides - if I am to give God any credence. I DO want to have a spiritual life as well as a scientfic one, you see, but this proof based system I have on things needs more. This is a serach I have to do. Don't ask my why I want to believe. I just do. But I also want to be certain to.

In short.. for my own sanity, I have placed God's 'creation', IF he/she exists, at the time of the Big Bang.

On an entirely different side to Willie's post. How refreshing to read what you put about your Muslim colleagues. The voice of reason from the wilderness. Live and let live indeed.

Those must be the kindest words I have read in some while alongside the word "Muslim". It seems to create so much paranoia and distrust. It is extremely pleasing to read and hear of Muslims being treated so 'normal' and being allowed their own routines wityhout reference to anything else other than good deeds. I wish there were more such posts. Maybe there are and I have been reading the wrong threads.

You see, I also view other people's religions as mere roads of getting to their own heaven. We are all on a journey and many take different routes. As long as we all arrive to the place we are all heading to safely then so be it. What we see and do along that journey perhaps is just as important as the arrival at our destination.

And to Joe. What a wonderful statement from yourself. Open and honest. I fully respect where you are with it, though I cannot go that way myself, and find it almost a comfort to know how settled some are in their belief. The mentor I mentioned way back on this thread is very much of the same mind as you Joe. He and I had many a disagreement as to some things BUT we both respected where we both were with things. He is a brilliant man. His Christianity is so solid and yet not once have I ever known him to look down on anyone or judge a soul. Quite a hard act to follow.

It's hard to keep a grip in reality sometimes when reality means holding on to things that are quite unreal I find. It's worth the investigation for me though.

Jesus said "Unless you humble yourself as a child you cannot see the kingdom of God". How true I find that sometimes because being an adult can often obscure things we believed so much easier when we were young.

My journey continues with only a rough idea of directions at the moment

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 09:47 AM

This fallacy bit. If you go into your room to pray, God will favour you. So if I don't go into my room to pray, what happens then? If nothing, then the praying person presumably gets favoured whereas the non-praying person gets, er, ignored? Disfavoured? Still favoured if God's in a favouring mood? So what fallacy am I committing? I just want to know if praying gets you favours more than not praying, or wrong praying, that's all!


"As for your prayer thing, that's just silly. Do you want us to say, "Our Father who may or may not be in heaven"?
Why yes, I would much prefer it if you did, actually. Not in private, which is absolutely none of my business, but when praying in public where you may be heard by people not of your convictions or when you're getting your kids to parrot your prayers full of certainties. You know how it is. Get impressionable people to say the same thing over and over again a thousand times and they'll end up thinking it's true. It's certainly less hassle to get them to believe something that way than to equip them to ask critical questions in an unfearful way. It is not harmless to indoctrinate children with spurious certainties (whilst at the same time strongly discouraging them from asking questions or leaving the flock). I think we used to call it brainwashing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 10:07 AM

I commend you all to the hands of Michael Valentine Smith: THou art God.

It is fascinating the amount of energy has been generated over history in the quest to find this inner Thing in the shared world. If it is an inner thing--a thought or state of the deep inner being--then the dramatic quest to make it manifest in the commons is a tiny bit misguided in its precept.

This is a hard idea to swallow, but it is possible that instead of one exterior Infinite Being, we are talking to several billion interior infinities and (sometimes) going mad trying to make them match up to each other. This notion intrigues me, and I think it explains a lot.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM

Growing up, I began to have my doubts about religion. To start with, it was the way religion was delivered to me – with a Bible in one hand and a strap in the other. Then I discovered that there were lots of other religions and lots and lots of gods. Then I discovered that many religions deny the truth of other religions e.g. Judaism and Islam deny that Jesus is God.
I also became to notice that certain religions had certain episodes in common ( virgin birth, rising from the dead and so on), and, after much more reading, I came to the conclusion that if the writers of the Gospels were alive today they would find themselves in the High Court charged with plagiarism - and without a leg to stand on.
I also began to wonder about others who had followed the same – or similar – questioning path to me but still "believed". "How could that be?", I asked myself. And so I looked around at the believers that I know. One " believer" that I knew was scared of the thought of death but consoled himself with the fact that heaven would await him. Other believers told me that there must be more to life than our short earthly span. And so it went on. Every believer had a strong reason for not wanting to accept the obvious. And there – I would say – is the difference between those who follow a religion and those who don't!
A friend of mine believes that educated people who believe in religion must be "wired" that way. For him that is the only sensible explanation as to why they would cling to such primitive beliefs.
Maybe, one day science will trace this "irrational seed" deep inside genes or DNA – or where ever it resides.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 11:38 AM

I am very skeptical of the various dramatis perszonae, icons, and embodiments of various religious cultures, also. But I would be very careful before I threw out all spiritual insights, quests and worldviews. My own preference is to test and compare to my own experience before I reject anything whole cloth.

Babies and bath-water, baby...



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 02:42 PM

Bill says, of God: . . . or he is simply amused by watching us flail about . . .

Are you saying that Little Hawk is God??

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 04:12 PM

The Big Bang it turns out was not noisy. There are not many people who know too much about and certainly no eye witnesses. There is also no evidence to support that it was
"created" by anything. It happened by itself.

The idea that spiritual insights, quests and world views are valid because they may have existed is again an agnostic hedge against "being wrong". You could be just as wrong to
say they exist or that there is some will o' wisp out there floating around.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 05:39 PM

My beliefs, as they are, do not exist in order that I may be right. They exist because they are my beliefs. I claim no higher ground than anyome who has no belief. But surely believing in nothing is a belief nonetheless?

This is why I talk of *my* agnosticism. It is as unique to me as anyone else's thoughts on such things.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 06:43 PM

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. If you really twisted my arm I could tell you that I believed in the laws of physics as we understand them now and will be delighted, though not at all surprised, if and when new interpretations of them are demonstrated to be true. 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. It's a bit like Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot. The chances of its existence are, er, not 50:50, though I have to concede that there is a chance, no matter how vanishingly small, that it really is out there. I can't demonstrate, ever, that it isn't there (not helped by Russell's imaginary opponents shifting the goalposts, just as religion is serially wont to do), but I can say that the burden of proof is on you, not me. It's you who wants all the known laws of physics to be broken, not me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 07:53 PM

"Are you saying that Little Hawk is God??

Well, Little Hawk has been saying for years that ALL is God....so.... ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 07:57 PM

Most beliefs are symptomatic of delusions. To believe in something is to construct something that may or may not be true. You don't have to believe in a scientific fact
because it is since it has been proven. For example, you don't have to believe in evolution since it has been accepted and verified by the best scientists. It's a fact.

To denigrate Dawkins by some of those who are religious on Mudcat only shows that they
haven't read any of his works. He has not attacked anyone personally but merely the ideologies of theocrats.

Believing in a nothing is not a belief. Its as if you are saying that just because you don't believe in a magic castle sitting on top of the Empire State Building, that is a belief.
That doesn't constitute a belief but constitutes nonsense. Non-belief is not belief.
That's twisting words. It should be obvious to reasonable people that non-belief is not belief but the opposite.

Any belief is however a profession of being right. That is what constitutes a belief.
It must be right for you to believe it. Would you believe in something that you considered wrong? I don't think so.

It is not a matter of throwing out worldviews, insights or quests but proving that they
have any validity or truth. There is in most cases, no baby there.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 08:33 PM

Sorry, Mousethief, I think you just broke the first commandment.

Huh?

Surely, Judaism would never accept Christianity as being "another sect" of its faith because at the core of Christianity is the belief that Jesus is God, and that would surely clash with what Judaism taught.

The understanding of Jesus as God took a while to gel, I think. But at any rate, that Christians started being unwelcome in synagogues around 70 AD is pretty well established by scholars of the era. Maybe that's when the other Jews said, "Wait a minute. Jesus is what?"

Dayos

The Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis is "yom". (As in "yom kippur" -- the day of atonement.)

This fallacy bit. If you go into your room to pray, God will favour you. So if I don't go into my room to pray, what happens then?

IT DOESN'T SAY.

It is not harmless to indoctrinate children with spurious certainties (whilst at the same time strongly discouraging them from asking questions or leaving the flock). I think we used to call it brainwashing.

Let me get back to you on this.

There is also no evidence to support that it was "created" by anything. It happened by itself.

Did it? That's an article of faith isn't it? We have no evidence either way.

You don't have to believe in a scientific fact because it is since it has been proven.

This is not quite the case. Scientific "facts" get overturned all the time as new data come in and new ways are found to interpret them. No scientist I've ever spoken to would say that s/he has "proved" anything. Proofs are for mathematics. Science is based on verifiable observation and experimentation, and builds up models of the world based on those observations. The model gets tweaked as new data are discovered, and sometimes the whole model has to be scrapped and replaced with another (called a "paradigm shift") because the data overthrow the old model.

Evolution is not a "fact". "Close to the surface of the earth, given no huge updrafts or strong winds or anything of the kind, dropped things fall towards the center of the planet" is a fact. (Probably with other qualifications.) Evolution is much bigger than a fact. It's a model based on a ton of observation and experimentation, most of which (the model) we have, at this time, no reason at all to distrust. (There is always some newer stuff that the jury is still out on.) It's well-established and not likely to be overturned any time soon (barring some really weird and unforseeable discoveries, but the nature of unforseeable discoveries is that we can't predict or count on them). Denial of evolution to maintain belief in a certain interpretation of a religious text is wrong-headed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 08:48 PM

Scientists prove empirical experiments every day. Regardless as to new information, proofs are relative in science but nonetheless the only really reliable information about the physical world that we have. Dawkins refers to these as "Theorums". These are not mathematical constructs.

As to evolution, it surely is a fact recognized by reputable scientists. You can say that it is bigger than a fact, but it is a scientific fact nonetheless. Here, we quibble about semantics.
Until the fact of a known observation that is empirically proven, it remains a scientific
fact such as the law of gravity.

Science, fortunately, is more fluid than religious ideologies which are rigid absolutes.
Science changes as new information comes in but to deny empiricism as "fact" is to deny that there are any facts at all.

If you don't believe that evolution has as much scientific weight as the laws of gravity,
then you deny scientific laws of basic physiology and biology. This flies in the face of what most scientists who are reputable understand to be the principles underlying our existence as a species or genus.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 09:30 PM

If you don't believe that evolution has as much scientific weight as the laws of gravity

Where did I say that?

Scientists prove empirical experiments every day.

Scientists don't generally talk in terms of "proof" in my experience. It's the admirers of science who use such terms.

These are not mathematical constructs.

I know that. In fact I drew a pretty thick line between mathematics and physical science.

Here, we quibble about semantics.

Probably so. Although I think if we're going to talk about science, it's probably a good idea to use the terms correctly, inasmuch as we can. It's a mangling of terms to call something as huge and complex as evolution a "fact". Not because its various claims about the world are not true or well-established. But because that's not how "fact" is used. It's an artifact of the war between the creationists and the rest of us. Why should we mangle terms just because they do?

Evolution is a theory. There's nothing wrong with that, and just because some creationists don't know what "theory" means and think it means it's unverified and tenuous, doesn't mean we have to join them, and jettison the word. The theory of evolution is about as well-established as anything in the biological sciences is or can be. The mountain of evidence supporting the main tenets of the theory is ginormous, and comes from oodles of different disciplines including genetics, paleontology, botany, zoology, etc. etc. etc. So by saying evolution isn't a "fact" I'm not trying to put it into disrepute or say that I don't believe it's firmly established. It's just a note about the meaning of the word "fact".

Getting back to Steve as promised:

"As for your prayer thing, that's just silly. Do you want us to say, "Our Father who may or may not be in heaven"?

Why yes, I would much prefer it if you did, actually. Not in private, which is absolutely none of my business, but when praying in public where you may be heard by people not of your convictions or when you're getting your kids to parrot your prayers full of certainties.

Here again we are back to "certainty". I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either that or you just don't know much about Christians.

Do you tell your wife you may or may not love her? Or your kid that you may or may not pick them up after school? We humans just don't live that way. We stand on what we believe and aren't constantly having to re-test it or to remind ourselves or others that we realize we could come to change our minds some day. It's just not how people work.

You know how it is. Get impressionable people to say the same thing over and over again a thousand times and they'll end up thinking it's true. It's certainly less hassle to get them to believe something that way than to equip them to ask critical questions in an unfearful way.

Who says I don't do both? You make a lot of presumptions about how I live my life and raise my kids. My wife and I were always quite clear with our kids (in age-appropriate ways; some things a 2-year old just isn't going to grasp) that other people think differently, have different religions or no religion at all, and presented them our reasons for believing what we did. As they grew older we let them know that ultimately what they believe about such things is going to be down to their decision(s). I know we're not the only Christian parents who do this.

I think you, and a lot of people like you, see the fundy evos (especially the creationist ones) on TV and think that they represent all of Christianity (which they sometimes claim to do, the blackguards).

It is not harmless to indoctrinate children with spurious certainties (whilst at the same time strongly discouraging them from asking questions or leaving the flock). I think we used to call it brainwashing.

Back when we didn't know what "brainwashing" meant. Look, we don't think they're spurious, even if we realize they're not certainties in the way YOU use the term. Like I said, we act on what we believe is true. So do you. Don't come across all high-minded like you constantly live your life as if you don't believe anything is true. As for kids being locked into the church because of the brainwashing, time to learn something about the real world, friend. Kids are constantly rejecting their parents' religion. The "brainwashing" (improperly so called) just isn't as effective as you fondly imagine it to be. We teach our kids what we believe. So do you. You don't happen to believe some of what we believe. The reverse is probably also true (I am not, for instance, wedded to the philosophical idea of science being able to describe and catalog all of human experience, as you seem to be (I'm willing to admit I'm wrong on this, but that's how it looks from here)).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 01:39 AM

Steamin' willie asks: But as science slowly chisels away at the basis of belief, the question now has to be asked, "Will the idea of allegory supersede literal thought, or is religion becoming less important and more threatening to most people?"

Willie, I suppose you're assuming that the "basis of belief" is information about the origins of existence, the "creation stories." But is that what faith is all about, simply to discover our origins?

I don't think so. I think some "religious" people get obsessed with possessing Truth (and thus possessing Power), but maybe that's not the primary basis of religion. The obsession with creation misses the point of faith, which I believe is an exploration and appreciation of the meaning of existence. One way to do this is through the various religious traditions and practices, but there are certainly many valid non-theistic ways of doing this exploration.

But I come from a religious tradition, and I find that tradition brings rich meaning to my life. And the center of meaning for me, is what I call God.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:21 AM

Mousethief: But were you truly honest with your children? 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.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:49 AM

Tunesmith, you and others have questioned if it's appropriate to expose children to religious stories without explaining that they're not factual. Well, I taught my children bible stories the same way I teach bible study, and the same way I tell any story: I respect the integrity of the story - I just tell it, without any caveats or prior explanations or saying "this really isn't true."
I find that fiction IS true, often more true than non-fiction, because it expresses ideas rather than mere facts.
So, I tell the story, and then sometimes I work with the audience to explore the meaning of the story. I don't give caveats and consumer warnings when I sing traditional songs, either.

Part of that involves respecting the intelligence of my audience. Most people - especially children - seem to be able to tell fact from fiction, and they seem to be able to see the truth that can be expressed in fiction, without explanation.

So, I don't distract from the story by dwelling on what's factually true and what's not. In Scripture, it's sometimes not absolutely clear what's factual and what's not - and the factuality of the story is not the point. Now, if I brought my kids up to be fundamentalists and drilled it into their heads that every word in the Bible was factually true, that would be another matter. But I didn't. I taught my kids to think for themselves, and they did not grow up believing that the Scriptures were factually true, and I didn't have to warn them every time I opened my mouth to speak about religion.

Some people are literalists. They are only able to see the absolute, literal meaning of things, and they are unable to think their way down into the deeper meaning of stories and events and observations. They see only the surface, and they insist that surface observation must be the absolute truth. Many of the religion discussions here at Mudcat have been limited to that literalist perspective, dominated by people who insist that since something is not literally true, it must be false. This thread has gotten past that literalism to a great extent, and for that I am very happy.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 03:04 AM

Joe says, "This thread has gotten past that literalism to a great extent, and for that I am very happy".

But, But,But! the vast majority of Christians - and virtually every Christian child - do believe every word of the Gospels. And, if their clergy were to turn around and instruct their congregation to "get past the literalism in the Gospels"..well, I shudder to think of the reaction!

And, Joe, how far past the literal meaning of the Bible have you got?
Do you believe that Jesus was raised by Joseph and Mary? Do you believe he actually died and rose again from the dead? Do you believe in Mary's immaculate conception?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 03:22 AM

"But, But,But! the vast majority of Christians - and virtually every Christian child - do believe every word of the Gospels. And, if their clergy were to turn around and instruct their congregation to "get past the literalism in the Gospels"..well, I shudder to think of the reaction!" Tunesmith

But you, know, that just is not the truth. 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. I was taught that some things in the Bible were culturally appropriate.

And today it is most certainly not true. I don't go to church bur for several years I was secretary to an Episcopal church and one of the things I picked up about them was their willingness to examine uncertainties and to admit their questions. I admired that greatly.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 03:59 AM

I just wish that someone could tell me what happened before the Big Bang that caused the Big Bang....and where that 'happening' came from, because all these eminent scientists drone on about this and that, but bottom line is they haven't got a clue where the Universe came from, where the first atom came from, where we came from...

God may or may not exist, but it still doesn't explain where all of this around us and beyond us came from...No-one will *ever* be able to explain it either.

It is simpl...The Great Mystery of Life, which cannot ever be explained.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 04:13 AM

Tunesmith says: And, Joe, how far past the literal meaning of the Bible have you got?
Do you believe that Jesus was raised by Joseph and Mary? Do you believe he actually died and rose again from the dead? Do you believe in Mary's immaculate conception?

Well, yes, I believe that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary and was most probably raised by his parents. But he could have been raised by Bill and Fred - what difference does it make, what the names of his parents were? But yes, most children have two parents, one male and one female.

With regards to death and rising from the dead, I'd say I believe that because it's about the most central belief of the Christian faith. I don't dwell on the literal details, and I'm open to the idea that the risen presence of Christ may not be what I imagine it to be. But what's the meaning, what's the message of the story? - that not even death can conquer absolute integrity, is one message of many.

Mary's "immaculate conception" - that she was born without sin? Well, yeah, it's doctrine, so I suppose I accept it. It never has made a whole lot of difference to me. I'm not sure anyone is born with some kind of mark of sin on their soul, so why should Mary be born sinful?

But I suppose you're actually talking about the Virgin Birth, that Jesus was the son of a virgin. There again, it's a central belief of Christians, so I believe it - but I'm open to the possibility that the facts of the situation may be different from what I suppose them to be.

The stories of Scripture and the doctrines you describe are essential parts of the "founding myth" of Christianity, and I accept and believe that sacred myth. Once again, I respect the integrity of the story and the message and meaning it brings, so I don't go nitpicking every point. It is what it is.

This whole idea of myth is an important one. To understand it, it might be wise to listen to Joseph Campbell, not that I agree with him completely. One meaning of "myth" might be "an untruth that is commonly held," but that's not the only meaning. The founding myths of religious creeds are symbolic stories meant to lead people to a deeper truth. Most religious creeds have some variant of the Golden Rule ("do unto others..") as part of their founding beliefs, but religious faith is deeper than simply a moral code - it is an exploration into the essence of all that is.

So, once again, I must emphasize that I am not a literalist, and I do not speak in the language of literalism. I find that when I am forced to argue in the terms of literalism, I cannot convey the depth of meaning that I wish to convey.

I also have a strong belief in my imagination. After 25 years of employment as an investigator, I think my powers of observation are quite well-honed. But the more experience I had as an investigator, the more I became aware of the limitations of my posers of observation. My imagination, on the other hand, is not restricted by such limitations. Over the years, I have found that my unlimited imagination can lead me to a truth that is deeper than I can find with my limited powers of observation. I use those powers of observation to temper my imagination and keep it based in reality, but I never restrict myself merely to what can be observed and proven. I go much farther if my dreams are bigger.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 04:18 AM

Ebbie, you might have been told that certain events in ther Bible weren't to be taken literally, but I bet you weren't told that many learned people think that the Jesus - presented in the Gospels - is a fabrication!
Lizzie, 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!
And the answers won't include God!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 04:20 AM

Oh, by the way: Legalism is closely akin to literalism. Both of them exhibit a distinct inability to see the forest for the trees....

Tunesmith, you seem so sure that the story of Jesus is a fabrication. What do you mean by the term "fabrication"? Certainly, the founding myths of religious creeds must be rooted in truth. It might not be your truth, but it is truth for many, many people. And many, many learned people have taken the founding myths of the major religions very seriously.

I'm not sure that the it's relevant that some people don't believe a story, or that they call it a "fabrication." The question, is, what is the integrity of the story itself? Is it true to its intended purpose?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:36 AM

Me: Sorry, Mousethief, I think you just broke the first commandment.

Mousethief: Huh?

Mousethief: (previously)
I believe (but am by no means certain) that God exists

The First Commandment:
You shall have no other gods before me.

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

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 06:50 AM

Joe states:
    "Certainly, the founding myths of religious creeds must be rooted in truth"

I don't think so!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 06:53 AM

"Do you tell your wife you may or may not love her?"

No. What is love after all?

"Or your kid that you may or may not pick them up after school?"

No. But I might if I thought there a significant chance I couldn't make it that day.

So you think its valid to compare life-snippets of this kind that you have removed from their contexts with a whole body of "knowledge" passed on to the next generation as truth? 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.

"We humans just don't live that way. We stand on what we believe and aren't constantly having to re-test it or to remind ourselves or others that we realize we could come to change our minds some day. It's just not how people work."

That's right, and that's as it should be. But you wouldn't want anything less than a competent maths or science teacher passing on mathematical or scientific bodies of knowledge to your kids. Passing on knowledge in a formal manner, as opposed to the informal way in which kids accumulate it in everyday life, carries formal responsibilities. Only in passing on religious "knowledge," it seems, do we exempt the teacher from the need to be truthful. It may be very inconvenient, it may not fit your belief patterns and it may grossly interfere with your family life, etc., but if you're telling your children that you believe in a supernatural being who defies all concepts of time and breaks all the known physical laws you should also be saying, if you are being entirely truthful with your children, that the chances of his existence, in spiter of your beliefs, are very small, and you should be showing them how to look for evidence for themselves and allowing them to reach their own conclusions from an unafraid position of being fully informed. Now I'm not saying you don't (and I should addd that when I say "you" in my posts I am doing it to avoid keeping saying "one" and am not trying to make it personal).

" 'You know how it is. Get impressionable people to say the same thing over and over again a thousand times and they'll end up thinking it's true. It's certainly less hassle to get them to believe something that way than to equip them to ask critical questions in an unfearful way.'

Who says I don't do both? You make a lot of presumptions about how I live my life and raise my kids. My wife and I were always quite clear with our kids (in age-appropriate ways; some things a 2-year old just isn't going to grasp) that other people think differently, have different religions or no religion at all, and presented them our reasons for believing what we did. As they grew older we let them know that ultimately what they believe about such things is going to be down to their decision(s). I know we're not the only Christian parents who do this."

See above. This is not personal. That is a good model and you may not be the only Christians to do this, but surely you're not claiming that this is standard practice. That would be very naive.   

"I think you, and a lot of people like you, see the fundy evos (especially the creationist ones) on TV and think that they represent all of Christianity (which they sometimes claim to do, the blackguards)."

I tend to avoid watching them. They don't get the airtime this end that they do your end. But we do know that tens of millions of American Christians believe in creationism and tens of millions completely reject evolution. So not everyone is like you, it seems.

" 'It is not harmless to indoctrinate children with spurious certainties (whilst at the same time strongly discouraging them from asking questions or leaving the flock). I think we used to call it brainwashing.'

Don't come across all high-minded like you constantly live your life as if you don't believe anything is true. As for kids being locked into the church because of the brainwashing, time to learn something about the real world, friend. Kids are constantly rejecting their parents' religion. The "brainwashing" (improperly so called) just isn't as effective as you fondly imagine it to be. We teach our kids what we believe. So do you."

Best avoid attacks, I reckon. ;-) We are supposedly talking here about the dissemination of religious "knowledge". To me, that's not in the same category as all the hard factual rough-stuff that life tosses at me every day and through which I have to plough occasionally expedient furrows. 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. It's so right that I have no hesitation in signing my tiny infant children up to it, and, in the fullness of time, in passing it on to them as truth. Maybe that's not you or your more enlightened friends, but there's a lot of it around and it just ain't right.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 07:09 AM

"I'm not sure that the it's relevant that some people don't believe a story, or that they call it a "fabrication." The question, is, what is the integrity of the story itself? Is it true to its intended purpose?"
You have moved the goalposts of truth there considerably, I think. Yes, a story, even if totally fabricated, can have moral integrity. But we now have an extra layer of potential weakness that isn't there in the case of an historically-accurate account. We have a human being telling a story, not just relating facts, and this person may have agendas we can't detect. The story may well fit into our moral framework (most of what Jesus allegedly said will do me very nicely) and the fabrication may have been that of a very wise man or woman. But, as you give away, unlike an neutral, historically-accurate account, it has "an intended purpose". We are edging away from truth ever so slightly. I suppose that most historically-accurate accounts are also made by people, but at least we can grill them for evidence. I'll never let religion make me think that evidence is a dirty word!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 07:21 AM

"As to evolution, it surely is a fact recognized by reputable scientists. You can say that it is bigger than a fact, but it is a scientific fact nonetheless. Here, we quibble about semantics."

I'd go further. Evolution is true. Not in every nut and bolt of detail, but in its overarching context it is true. The basic idea of evolution is not going to be overturned. There are controversies within, sure enough. But the structure is impregnable. Insofar as we can say that anything is true, we can say it about evolution. I'm talking about its basic thrust, of course, as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, and anyone wanting to deny the truth of evolution needs to point to any of its basic tenets that, if demolished, would negate the whole theory, and show where they are fundamentally flawed. I think that's just about become an impossibility.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mayomick
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 07:28 AM

Myths are rooted in truth ,but the fabulous forms they take often obscure the nature of the original truth .Like dreams .

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 07:45 AM

"myths are rooted intruth". Really!
Take Zeus, for example, the only "truth" that Zeus could be rooted in is a "religious truth" that human life was created by an all powerful god - and that's no truth at all!

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!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:43 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: 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: 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 - 01:23 PM

OMG! my last post was 666

lol

mp

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 05:23 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: 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 - 05:30 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:49 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:15 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: 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: Ebbie
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:30 PM

See, Guest - it works!

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: 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: 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: 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: TheSnail
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:05 AM

The Nicene Creed (mousethief version)

I believe (but am by no means certain) in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

Lox

Snail

"So what do you think it says?"

Are you asking for my interpretation?

Well, it was a bit of a throw away rhetorical question late in the evening but I would be interested to hear any interpretation that allowed any uncertainty as to the existence of God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:23 AM

Well Joe, I think I was the first in the thread to say I thought evolution was true (in its basic tenets). As for religious stories, I've said that I agree that they can be inspirational and can inform our present-day lives (I said very nice things about what Jesus allegedly said, remember!) I accept your interpretation that stories can be true to themselves even if unfounded strictly historically. But I do think this needs to be stressed in the passing-on of these stories. If something is unlikely to be literally true, then I think it's incumbent on the narrator to make that clear to the recipient. This is so routinely not done in religious "education" that we even have such absurd phrases in our language as "the gospel truth." Far too many people believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Ironically, stories that are just so, stories, can have even more powerful messages when presented from the honest standpoint of their not being necessarily the literal truth, mainly because the veil of suspicion of deception has been lifted.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:26 AM

Well, Snail,

Those of us who allow for uncertainty, don't spend a lot of money on television time. But hey, look at Mark 9:24: Immediately the father of the child cried out, 'I believe; help my unbelief!'.

I came across a sermon on the passage at St. Bart's an Episcopalian church in New York that seems quite compatible with the faith of Christian Mudcatters. You won't find many Mudcatters associated with the megachurches.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:28 AM

[quote]"Your notion of God is an interesting diversion,"

What is my notion of God?

I'd love to know ...[unquote]

What I actually meant was "your notion that God exists is an interesting one..." It was gettin' late when I typed what I did.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:33 AM

Mousethief quoth: "You need to get out more."

Thanks for that. I'll bear it in mind. If you'd care to let me know when you're going to be getting out I'll try to avoid getting out at the same time.


:-(

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:34 AM

Personally for me I can no more believe in Christianity or God than Santa or Fairies at the bottom of the garden. As a child growing up it was taken for granted no question that I would be grow up to be a good Christian (whatever that means) mainly it was used to encourage us to behave and also to help explain the demise of a beloved pet or family member. But I respect the fact that other people do believe in something other than I do and I respect that, if they get comfort from it that is fine. It is the fundamentalists and fanatics from any belief or non-belief that is the danger.

Please don't put me on the same par as Hitler I find that very insulting, he was also a dog lover and a vegetarian but I don't point an accusing finger at them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:34 AM

Steve, I think some people are simply literal-minded. No amount of explanation is going to take them to any depth. And when literal-minded people get involved in religion, the results can be dangerous.
But people who are able to think beyond the literal meaning of things, usually don't need an explanation. And in many years of teaching kids religion, I've found that kids are less likely than adults, to get stuck in literalism. If you're a halfway decent teacher, they catch onto what you're trying to convey.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:44 AM

Well Joe, I'll take a lot of convincing that far too much of what is not certain isn't taught as certainties. Prayers, as previously and tediously discussed, seem to deal in certainties in their wording, and we all know how constant repetition can eventually erode doubt in the mind.

By the way, I taught in religious schools for 18 years, seven of them in a Catholic school with a fair contingent of priests and nuns at the helm, and there were plenty of obligatory church services, prayer assemblies and hymn-singing for the kids. Outrageously, I even taught religion for a year. It was in 1973 and much water has since gone under the bridge. Or down the plughole.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:52 AM

"your notion that God exists is an interesting one..."

Again Steve you have put words in to my mouth.

First, "the" notion that God exists existed long before I came on to the scene.

Second, I don't know if I subscribe to it.


On the subject of Popper,

"Popper is known for his attempt to repudiate the classical observationalist / inductivist account of scientific method by advancing empirical falsification instead"

Amongst other things.

His observations on scientific method are integral to its evolution in the 20th century.

Popper



Finally, I note with alarming regularity that both Josep and Steve have a well developed argument that refutes the existence of a specific definition of what God "is".

I find it interesting that those on here who are unsure one way or the other don't have such a clear definition of what God means.


If we agree that God is an intelligent being who thought about making a big bang and created the universe, then blah blah etc.

If we agree that helicopters have four legs and say "moo" then it is extremely improbable that they could ever fly.


Don't you find it odd that those on here who refute the existence of God appear to have the most clearly defined definition of who/what that is?


Observation takes many forms. All of them have to do with the way we perceive the world.

"I" perceives the world in many different ways.


Josep

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

But what it is is an example of how there are other ways of conceiving of what God is than just the simplistic straw man model that Dawkins knocks down with such confidence.

It also serves as a starting point from which one can realize that in fact the universe is conscious of itself.

We are not seperate from the universe but mere atoms within it.

It follows that if we are a conscious part of the universe, then the universe is conscious.

It doesn't mean that God exists (that is the imaginary Straw God created by Dawkins) but, in the tradition of all good science, it is observable, adds to our knowledge, and we may learn more that opens our minds to hitherto unconsidered possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:54 AM

Snail,

"Well, it was a bit of a throw away rhetorical question late in the evening but I would be interested to hear any interpretation that allowed any uncertainty as to the existence of God."

Well there's mousethief ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:57 AM

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

By discovering what it is, you open the door to endless possibilities of what could be and what it all means. In my opinion science and art (by that I mean 'the arts', all-inclusive) are the human races greatest achievements, and within those two areas of endeavour, amongst the multitude of scientific and artistic disciplines is a vast, clear space of dreaming and wonder, imagination and creativity, insight and knowledge.

"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?"

It's suitable for both, and each way of looking at it informs the other, illuminates some small part or detail or meaning . . . or reveals the complexity and beauty of the subject and also demands attention to the interconnectedness of the leaf . . .

How can we define this leaf? Well, we have a myriad of ways . . .

Like this?

. . .or this?

Or this from the modern bard that is Ted Hughes:

FERN

Here is the fern's frond, unfurling a gesture,
Like a conductor whose music will now be pause
And the one note of silence
To which the whole earth dances gravely –

A dancer, leftover, among crumbs and remains
Of God's drunken supper,
Dancing to start things up again.
And they do start up – to the one note of silence.

The mouse's ear unfurls its trust.
The spider takes up her bequest.
And the retina
Reins the Creation with a bridle of water.

How many went under? Everything up to this point went under.
Now they start up again
Dancing gravely, like the plume
Of a warrior returning, under the low hills,

Into his own kingdom.


Wonder and awe can be found in a blade of grass, a puddle on a street or the sound of laughter. But the more you know, the more you can understand and the more you can marvel at the wonder of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:22 AM

Jack,

You'd love Miroslav Holub

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mayomick
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:41 AM

Hs anyone considered the possibility that the exploding balls of Kronus myth could be the ancient world's equivalent to the big bang theory?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 06:08 AM

[quote Lox]"your notion that God exists is an interesting one..."

Again Steve you have put words in to my mouth.

First, "the" notion that God exists existed long before I came on to the scene.

Second, I don't know if I subscribe to it.[unquote]

Well I thought you did, because just up the thread you wrote:

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

OK. So as not to offend you any further, I'll reword it again: "the notion that God exists is an interesting one..."

I shall have to give up trying to elicit whether it's your notion as well. I thought it was, but there you go. It's still interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 06:18 AM

Joe Offer

Those of us who allow for uncertainty, don't spend a lot of money on television time. But hey, look at Mark 9:24: Immediately the father of the child cried out, 'I believe; help my unbelief!'.

Not sure what the television or megachurches have go to do with what I'm saying.

It sounds as if the chap is asking for his doubts to be taken away. mousethief seems to embrace his uncertaintity as part of his faith(and so do you if I read you right). Nobody has yet explained to me why the first commandment allows uncertainty.

I'm not really taking this very seriously, I just started this line of thought to prick the pomposity of someone who tries to use his self declared intellectual superiority as a cudgel to beat down his opponents. He declares uncertainty in his faith but shows none in his arguments.

I await mousethief's response with interest but there are some more interesting points about science to follow up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 07:44 AM

"OK. So as not to offend you any further"

No worries Steve - theres nothing on here to offend me - just a discussion that I find interesting.

"I'll reword it again: "the notion that God exists is an interesting one...""

Yup - enough to compel you and I to spend a long time on this thread - in fact, it would be fair to say that it is occupying a fairly large part of our respective universes - and fitting in quite comfortably - though I really should go and do the washing up ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 09:49 AM

Thanks for the Holub link Lox - excellent stuff and I'll be delving deeper into his work. Much of my work as an animator deals with subjects on the molecular level, and Holub's work seems to deal with that in ways I'd never realised before.

Thanks again!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 01:38 PM

Is teaching science teaching atheism?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 01:48 PM

A god is not needed to appreciate life, nature, and to have a sense of awe, respect for life
and imagination. Those that attempt to define a god are those who are interested in perpetuating that myth. Dawkins, to his credit, has not defined any gods in any way. He does however refute Creationism and Intelligent Design which are limited constructs.
It's interesting how Dawkins gets quoted without his having been read.

I think that I feel the responsibility to clarify the Freethought position as I see it.
I guess this is why this thread winds its way in a labyrinth of circuitous and abstruse
meanderings.

There are also many different ways of conceiving Santa Claus.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM

Many Kinds of Universes, and None Require God
By DWIGHT GARNER
Published: September 7, 2010

Stephen Hawking, the most revered scientist since Einstein, is a formidable mathematician and a formidable salesman. "I want my books sold on airport bookstalls," he has impishly declared, and he's learned how to put them there.



THE GRAND DESIGN

By Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow

Illustrated. 198 pages. Bantam Books/Random House. $28.
Mr. Hawking's "Brief History of Time," published in 1988, sold some nine million copies. (A typical science best seller will move a tiny fraction of that number.) It did so partly by leaning on his preoccupying personal story. Mr. Hawking's body has been wasted by Lou Gehrig's disease, while his mind is utterly intact, a pinging black box amid the physical wreckage. It was no accident that Mr. Hawking's wheelchair and elfin face appeared on that book's cover — a rarity for a book of serious intellect — rather than on its back flap.

In "A Brief History of Time" Mr. Hawking also dabbled in what the science writer Timothy Ferris has called "God-mongering." Mr. Hawking, a longtime professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, has hardly displayed a religious bent during his long career. (A memoir by his former wife outed him as an atheist.) But he ended "Brief History" by declaring that the discovery of a unified theory of physics could help us to "know the mind of God." It was a line that — cynically, some thought — allowed glints of fuzzy sunshine to warm the cold blade of his thinking.

Mr. Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," published yesterday, has already made headlines and been a trending topic on Twitter, thanks to a different sort of God-mongering. This time Mr. Hawking has, we're told, declared God pretty much dead.

His search for an answer to the question "How did the universe begin?" has led him to suggest that the creation of our universe and others simply "does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god." It's another canny move. Books about the God wars are easier to argue about than those that parse the finer points of quantum physics. As I'm typing this, "The Grand Design" is the No. 1 book on Amazon, one spot above "Freedom," the heavily hyped new Jonathan Franzen novel.

...

(New York Times review)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 03:57 PM

"Is teaching science teaching atheism?"

That's a good question. First, we need to discuss what "teaching science" actually means. At teacher-training college in the early 70s we budding science teachers were bombarded with the constant almost-mantra that "science must be caught, not taught." I always liked that. Of course there is a body of knowledge within any formal scientific discipline that has to be disseminated, but that is a long way from saying that science teaching is simply handing out knowledge. I could say, lamely, that science is a way of thinking, and that good science teaching aims to give children the skills to collect and critically assess evidence, and to work within the best-practice guidelines that are common to all good scientists: report your findings clearly and honestly, subject them to the rigour of statistical analysis wherever appropriate, invite and embrace peer review, ensure that data is repeatable, where appropriate, and that it is always verifiable. To that extent, you could say that science is not exactly teaching atheism but is countermanding, without concerning or engaging itself unduly, the methods of religious indoctrination employed by major religions. In religion, it is claimed that you may question the tenets, but the questioning allowed is severely ringfenced within the bounds of theology. In science, you may fearlessly bring the whole house down if you want. You may be opposed slightly by conservative scientists (no-one's perfect), but lets' not forget that many of the great pioneering scientists of the past were vilified not so much by their peers as by religion.

Whilst on this business, I've has a slight rethink about Mousethief's claim that the discussion of the existence, or not, of God is beyond science. I'll contradict my earlier self and say that I don't agree with this. I don't see why God should be put beyond science in this way. The existence or not of God is no different to the existence or not of anything else. God is not making any claims here. It's people who are making claims about him. No claim made by people should ever put in that privileged position beyond science. I'm saying that God should be subject to scientific exploration, applying all the laws that he himself allegedly fashioned. Why would he demur?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 04:11 PM

Teaching science is not atheism at all. It is teaching the working of man's mind(s) in coming to terms with the unknown aspects of the universe and has nothing to say about religious entities, except perhaps the statement that it has nothing to say about them.

As the notion of God is multiply defined, to begin with, and a cultural artifact, and further is a product of human minds and internal to them, and yet further is a concept that has no basis of testing, measuring, or disproving (falsifying), and finally is a set of attributes which themselves are highly unlikely to be falsifiable or testable or measureable, and since instances of His work or presence are entirely subjective, usually not reliably shared, and sporadic and generally non-repeatable, the notion of subjecting Godhood to science is risible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:09 PM

mousethief seems to embrace his uncertaintity as part of his faith

Your ability to ferret out what people believe from what they say is not terribly admirable.

I'm not really taking this very seriously, I just started this line of thought to prick the pomposity of someone who tries to use his self declared intellectual superiority as a cudgel to beat down his opponents.

You admit you're a troll. How sweet.

I think I'd better bow out of this one now. Apparently I am arousing ire and ill-will in otherwise good people, as religion is wont to do, if Dawkins is any judge. Heh heh. So goodbye. Stew in your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:33 PM

"Stew in your ignorance." Yes, last wordism strikes again! Sir, you diminish yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:56 PM

"But what it is is an example of how there are other ways of conceiving of what God is than just the simplistic straw man model that Dawkins knocks down with such confidence."

This individual was saying that chemical reactions created the "I" and why couldn't more complex reactions create a more complex "I"? My answer is that I don't know but the idea that god is simply a more complex human being or a superhuman is not tenable because god cannot be made of matter and yet be above it its pitfalls, shortcomings and temptations. But this person may have been implying that more complex reactions through perhaps evolutionary processes could someday create super "I". That I can buy. The person wasn't clear on what he was getting at.

"It also serves as a starting point from which one can realize that in fact the universe is conscious of itself.

We are not seperate from the universe but mere atoms within it.

It follows that if we are a conscious part of the universe, then the universe is conscious."

I think it much more likely that the universe is unconscious and dreaming reality and we are all bit players in the dream and therefore all part of the same dreamer. We are an "I" in the midst of a universe but also a consciousness in which the entire universe in contained. Consciousness is learning to become conscious by dreaming itself in myriad roles (myriad "I"s) of which you play one and "I" play another. Someday the Dreamer will wake up and there will be no more need for these roles.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 06:12 PM

OK, is teaching biology teaching atheism? How about astronomy? Geology?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 06:39 PM

I tried to answer. No it isn't. Showing children how to question fearlessly, and ask for evidence, is what good education is all about. I think that atheists and Christians are both capable of doing that. It's up to religion to decide whether it deals in good education. My view is that it has some way to go.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:16 PM

"Showing children how to question fearlessly, and ask for evidence, is what good education is all about."

Agreed

It's also what a great many agnostics do! (Those not looking for an insurance policy but answers)

;-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:29 PM

So when an agnostic asks for evidence, and inevitably gets none, what does he or she do then?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:41 PM

Alas, many people ask for evidence of all sorts of things. Some things will have no answers known for many a time to come... but that does not mean we should stop asking questions. I believe, given enough time, that all things will be known to man either by discovery or quest.

If I do not have an answer about something that does not mean no answer exists. If I have to await evidence to help me find that answer then so be it.

Most scientific endeavour is built on the same premise. So much starts out with some intelligent hunch that leads the scientist to look for the answers to 'prove' the hunch. Science still awaits many answers and, as such, evidence to back the answer up.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM

Mauve P. Evidence matters. But eyes and minds matter more.

Someone provided evidence of God, right here in this thread in a clear precise manner, yet no one even noticed.

While evidence matters, it seemingly doesn't matter very much.
People have been brainwashed to ignore evidence and conentrate on faith.

Your view on education sounds like you have seen an Haddsah in action.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:49 PM

What evidence was that, Donuel?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 09:28 PM

"Showing children how to question fearlessly, and ask for evidence, is what good education is all about."

But it sho'nuff ain't what religion is about!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 11:03 PM

I'm not sure what the etiquette is here. mousethief has left the scene leaving a trail of abuse behind him. Do I have the right of reply? What the hell; I will anyway.

Your ability to ferret out what people believe from what they say is not terribly admirable.

No ferreting involved. mousethief's statement of faith -

I believe (but am by no means certain) that God exists

mousethief

You admit you're a troll. How sweet.

To decide who is the troll, take a look at mousethief's first post and many after that. (Although the mangled syntax in that post makes it difficult to understand the point.)

Apparently I am arousing ire and ill-will in otherwise good people, as religion is wont to do, if Dawkins is any judge. Heh heh. So goodbye. Stew in your ignorance.

Nothing to do with religion. What aroused ire and ill-will was mousethief's constant resort to accusations of stupidity, ignorance and lack of understanding of epistemology. That and the total failure to respond to any of the points raised.

I have a friend who is deeply but quietly religious. When the subject of Dawkins' diatribe came up over the dinner table she said something along the lines of "It's not about evidence or probablity. It's about faith. I have faith. That is all I need." That is a view I can respect even if I cannot share that faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:18 AM

OK, settle down. We've come this far with hardly anybody calling anybody names. Let's keep it that way. I've found when Somebody calls another person "troll," we've started on our way downhill. Don't call anybody a "troll," even if they ARE a troll. It just causes trouble, and doesn't do any good.
And a phrase like the pomposity of someone who tries to use his self declared intellectual superiority as a cudgel to beat down his opponents isn't what I'd call peaceable, either.
So, cut that out.

---

And now, back to our previously scheduled program, which is in progress....

There are several statements above requesting evidence to support religious faith. Well, I suppose that in many ways, the evidence just ain't there, and never will be. If you're looking for literal, legal, logical stuff, it just ain't there. I think that true faith is experiential. First, you experience that you are loved. Next, you experience the love from beyond a single source. Finally, you experience that you are loved from a source beyond anything you can comprehend, and then you're hooked. It it's true faith, I think you're driven to express that love to others in ways you didn't think you were capable of.

Now, I think that this sort of spirituality is fully possible for those who do not believe in a god at all. Perhaps it's even possible that there are non-theistic mystics, people who are at one with the harmony of all, without having a god involved in the process. I come from a religious background and see things through theistic eyes, but other people have other paradigms. I come pretty close to non-theistic mysticism when I contemplate my favorite Ponderosa pine tree, especially when there's a beautiful sunset behind it.

Anyhow, it's something to think about.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:26 AM

In surfing about, I found this:

"Religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 06:01 AM

"Finally, you experience that you are loved from a source beyond anything you can comprehend, and then you're hooked."

There must be hundreds of millions of people, victims of mass rapes, people who have lost their whole families in conflicts, discriminated-against and repressed minorities, those in grinding poverty or smitten by horrid disease and squalor, who might just find it a little more difficult to detect that they're loved from a source beyond... I'd like to know why, apparently, God doesn't give everyone equal opportunity to detect this love. Why he chooses to test some people in this regard far more than others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 07:46 AM

Josep,

"the idea that god is simply a more complex human being or a superhuman"

Again you have extrapolated a straw man from a post that contained no such idea.

Please stop. I'm sure there are many flaws in my reasoning that you could draw attention to without needing to invent points of view to attribute to me.


Now to return to my point, which was that, just as we describe a person a conscious without distinguishing between the brain and body, we can describe the universe as conscious without distinguishing between us and the stars.


Its not what I believe, but it merely struck me as an interesting observation.



On the subject of teaching science,

This involves teaching a skill.

The skill to observe accurately, patiently and comprehensively, and to learn and understand the properties and qualities of the thing being observed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 07:53 AM

Joe Offer

OK, settle down. We've come this far with hardly anybody calling anybody names.

mousethief's first post.

---

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief - PM
Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:43 AM

If you think Dawkins is all about free thinking, look up what happened on the chat board on his website richarddawkins.net. He is a shrill little hatemonger who can't stand to have people disagree with him.

People who lash out at religion are no more "rational" than the people they apparently despise. And the idea that there is ANYBODY in the WORLD who only believes things based on reason, logic, science, and math is a moron. Complete, total, utter, mouth-breathing, knee-walking, nanocephalic wanker.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 11:21 AM

Ebbie, that is SO true. In fact, without religion, you couldn't HAVE the rich.

There are several statements above requesting evidence to support religious faith. Rather, I prefer to say that I cannot have faith, I have to have evidence, and while I consider that a strength, I understand that people of faith would consider it a weakness.

And they may be right anyway.

Someone also mentioned a friend who just had faith, no need for evidence. I have mentioned friends like that. I don't know of any atheist that would argue with that. *But* the argument seems to continue with the faithful who cannot, for some reason, accept that *they* just have faith, and instead persist in misapplying rational argument *to* their faith; those arguments are what my high school would have called Hors-Sujet - off topic, inapplicable, and thus way too easy to argue with. And fun, if you can keep your sense of humor.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 11:41 AM

Did you mean a Hadassah, Donuel? I do not understand what you mean in your post to me I'm afraid

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:27 PM

//Josep,

"the idea that god is simply a more complex human being or a superhuman"

Again you have extrapolated a straw man from a post that contained no such idea.

Please stop. I'm sure there are many flaws in my reasoning that you could draw attention to without needing to invent points of view to attribute to me.//

I also stated in the very next sentence that the person may not have meant that and that he wasn't clear on exactly what he did mean. Moreover, I didn't attribute any of them to you since you weren't the person who made the original statement unless you are using two IDs. That you so deftly ignored the full statement of what I wrote demonstrates that you read the first sentence and then went off on a diatribe without reading the rest in which case shame on you. Or you did read the rest but decided there was nothing there to argue with and so chose only to make an issue of the first part of the statement in which case shame on you. The only one setting up straw men is you and would you PLEASE stop that? Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:30 PM

I have a good deal of faith, none of which involves the personfified and iconized deities of any popular human religions. The two are not hard-coupled.

I think it bears repeating that all religious views are constructs in the spiritual or mental realm of an individual.

The reason the subject gets so volcanic sometimes is the confusion between the universe of one's own creations, and the universe of common agreement in which we strive to survive. Thinking that one is the other will lead to all sorts of difficulties which procceed from that single error.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:41 PM

An interesting essay on Mystery and Evidence (NYT) herewith excerpted:

"There is a story about Bertrand Russell giving a public lecture somewhere or other, defending his atheism. A furious woman stood up at the end of the lecture and asked: "And Lord Russell, what will you say when you stand in front of the throne of God on judgment day?" Russell replied: "I will say: 'I'm terribly sorry, but you didn't give us enough evidence.' "

This is a very natural way for atheists to react to religious claims: to ask for evidence, and reject these claims in the absence of it. Many of the several hundred comments that followed two earlier Stone posts "Philosophy and Faith" and "On Dawkins's Atheism: A Response," both by Gary Gutting, took this stance. Certainly this is the way that today's "new atheists" tend to approach religion. According to their view, religions — by this they mean basically Christianity, Judaism and Islam and I will follow them in this — are largely in the business of making claims about the universe that are a bit like scientific hypotheses. In other words, they are claims — like the claim that God created the world — that are supported by evidence, that are proved by arguments and tested against our experience of the world. And against the evidence, these hypotheses do not seem to fare well.

But is this the right way to think about religion? Here I want to suggest that it is not, and to try and locate what seem to me some significant differences between science and religion.

..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 12:56 PM

There are no new atheists. Just more vocal ones since atheists are a minority.

I think the right way to think about religion is to realize that it is a hypothetical construct that can't be proven. This is one of the major differences between religion and science.

Russell's reply is an indictment of the arrogance of so many religious people who expect that their claims to authenticity must be accepted. Imagine arriving at a place where expectations were met without evidence. That would be criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 02:01 PM

"On the subject of teaching science,

This involves teaching a skill.

The skill to observe accurately, patiently and comprehensively, and to learn and understand the properties and qualities of the thing being observed."

It's also about learning how to design and carry out experiments properly, and to collect, interpret and see the limitations of data. It's about making and testing hypotheses and collecting evidence to reinforce, or overturn, theories. It's about being able to communicate fairly and effectively your findings to your peers in order that they may make observations or carry out experiments to corroborate your data.

I see no reason why the existence or not of a God shouldn't be put under this kind of scrutiny. Even though he's a human construct, he appears to be in the privileged position of being able to jump from unsupported hypothesis straight to truth, skipping all the steps between. No wonder religion wants to keep him separate from science!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:53 AM

The trouble with testing the "God Hypothesis" using scientific means is that Science deals with the observable universe, whereas religion places God in a seperate universe, exempt from the laws of time and space. The only way to reach this 'world' is via death and ressurrection - except in rare cases when people allegedly shimmer in a halo of light before vanishing as though teleported.

In this respect, Science is working blind - and science can't work like that - it needs to have, at least, a base of accumulated knowledge or well tested theory upon which to build hypotheses of that which is beyond observation, but connected with the stuff we can see.

As scientists have no knowledge of "the other world" and no way of observing or testing it, they are unable to comment authouritatively on way or the other.

I suppose this could be viewed as religions 'get out clause' in philosophical terms, giving religious people a form of diplomatic immunity from the scrutiny of scientists.

On this basis I would say that discussion is pretty futile, unless you are actively intending to convert somebody one way or the other.

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

"As scientists have no knowledge of 'the other world' and no way of observing or testing it, they are unable to comment authouritatively on way or the other."

Hmm. Religion also has no knowledge of 'the other world', etc., but that doesn't seem to stop it from commenting authoritatively. Point not taken.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 10:48 AM

Steve,

Pardon me if this has been said already, but faith is a very important part of religion. There really isn't much point in having faith only in what can be objectively proven.

On the other hand fact if you only believe what has been effectively proved to your own eyes then you will believe in very little because you will not have the time or resources to repeat every experiment.

So in fact teaching science does not only involve

>>This involves teaching a skill.

The skill to observe accurately, patiently and comprehensively, and to learn and understand the properties and qualities of the thing being observed."<<

It also involves the students accepting as fact the observations of others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:44 AM

No it doesn't, at least not before there has been the opportunity to examine the evidence. Science is not about accepting stuff in an uncritical manner. I should also point out to you that science is not about objectively/effectively "proving" anything. Those who fear science's quite proper potential role in investigating God's existence frequently misrepresent science in this way in an apparent attempt to show that God must be outside its remit. When human beings claim the existence of something, then human methods - science, in other words - are the proper way to investigate it, no matter what it is. And that means seeking evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:52 AM

[Teaching science] also involves the students accepting as fact the observations of others.
Um, as fact, the replicable and demonstrable observations of others, not their opinions or beliefs without such replicability or demonstrability. You only have to accept the facts as facts, not the opinions. For instance, I don't have to *believe* in Australia, I can know it's there even though I have never seen it.

And it involves teaching KNOWLEDGE, not so much a skill. How DO cells work? How do methylation and acetylation affect the duplicability of a strand of DNA? What elements can be used to test the age of things that are too old for Carbon-14 dating? and so on.

Not to mention the evolution of humanity, sez I, mentioning it...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:56 AM

I would hazard that the methods of gaining the data--the skills--are far more important in educating the young than the particular data and models generated therefrom.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 12:09 PM

"It also involves the students accepting as fact the observations of others."

Human collaboration for the greater good - yes, non-religious people can be altruistic too.

Don;t confuse observation with interpretation. Scientists are taught to question the data (gathered via observation) of others and apply their own interpretations. Also, data that is not reproducible and open to close scrutiny is largely considered worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 02:29 PM

Steve Shaw, sorry I didn't answer you sooner.

You quoted me as saysing: "Finally, you experience that you are loved from a source beyond anything you can comprehend, and then you're hooked."

You responded: There must be hundreds of millions of people, victims of mass rapes, people who have lost their whole families in conflicts, discriminated-against and repressed minorities, those in grinding poverty or smitten by horrid disease and squalor, who might just find it a little more difficult to detect that they're loved from a source beyond... I'd like to know why, apparently, God doesn't give everyone equal opportunity to detect this love. Why he chooses to test some people in this regard far more than others.

---

Well, Steve, there are plenty of homeless mystics, and there are plenty of loveless billionaires. Study the people who are wise, serene, and loving. There are special people like that all around, not of any particular religious denomination, or perhaps having no religious faith at all. But somehow, they see a harmony and beauty that others don't have time to see.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 02:37 PM

"data that is not reproducible and open to close scrutiny is largely considered worthless."

Where does this place the reproduced data of generations of Buddhist students & masters? As I said before, those who commit to work with such systems tend to experience the fruits of their labour, rather than expect others to provide it to them.

Bearing in mind that the Western paradigm is after all, only a Western paradigm.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 02:49 PM

Crow SIster:

You put your finger on one of the great paradoxes of the material interpretation of scientific method. A lot of experiences are reproducible to a significant degree--such as guided meditation leading to uplifting insight among the Buddhist community, or the hemi-synch OOB experiments in Virginia run by Robert Monroe. But the degree of replicability is less, and the replication is still in the reralm of subjective reports, and therefore hard science rules go all awry trying to deal with it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 03:08 PM

Don't get me wrong Steve, I am all for the teaching of scientific method and applying it where it is applicable.

I just don't see it being useful in examining religion.

As much as I love science, Mrrzy and Crow sister each have made excellent points.

Science teaches how cells work, but the theories on how they work are an accumulation of theories proven to greater or lessor degrees. One cannot lean these mechanisms buy testing each theory upon which the theory is based. One must base one's acceptance of the theories based on the fallible work of others.

On the other hand much more human thought and effort have gone into the study of religion than all opf science combined. Is it wise to dismiss all of the findings of these people because you do not understand or like the methods.

Scientific method cannot be effectively applied to the larger questions of the social sciences such as Economics and Sociology.
Simple things like the so called "Law" of supply and demand can't be consistently proved in a controlled experiment, let alone the effect of monetary policy.
Does that make these studies moot?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 03:53 PM

Um, if it's reproduced, it's reproducible, no?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 05:02 PM

Its important to clarify a few things here.

1st, None of us, apart from those of us who are there now, "knows" that Australia is there.

What we can say is that the probability of it not being there is negligable, and it is realistic to expect it to be there based on the fact that so far, each time somebody has gone to find it, they have succeeded.

The experiment to prove that Australia is there is easily reproduced - you get on a plane or boat and fly/sail to where you predict Australia will be.

If it is there then the experiment can be said to have been a success.

If it isn't, then you check your methodology and check to make sure you didn't make any mistakes.

If you work out that your methodology was fine and that you made no mistakes, and it still isn't there, then it follows that your hypothesis was wrong and you should probably call somebody to let them know.

"Science teaches how cells work, but the theories on how they work are an accumulation of theories proven to greater or lessor degrees"

This is slightly inaccurate.

Scientific Theory is in fact an accumulation of Knowledge. The more we know, the more complex the theory gets.

A theory is not a hypothesis - this is a common mistake.


Scientific theory contains no knowledge of God. It follows that as God is not observable in the universe - insofar as Gods presence is not testable and no experiment has been formulated to test for God, nor has any other Scientific evidence of God been found - that he is not a part of the observable universe.

So, in scientific terms, if we go looking for God in the observable universe, we probably won't find him.

That is what is meant when Dawkins says "there probably isn't a God"

However, to be strictly accurate, he should say "in the context of everything that we know about the universe to date, there is probably no God".

If we accept that there is still plenty that we have yet to learn, then we must also accept that we cannot categorically say "there is no God".

In addition, most religious people would suggest that to find God you should not attempt to look for him in the observable Universe, but shuyld look for him elsewhere - in ones heart/soul - in the interactive dynamic of a group of people - as Joe says, in the sensuous quiver of a new leaf as it stretches for the springtime sun ...

There iis evidence that the universe is made of more than just impersonal physical and chemical activity operating in a beautiful cosmic dance - and it is called consciousness.

These things weren't "beautiful" until someone formed that opinion of them. They just happened. You may say "they were still beautiful, but you would be forgetting that beauty is in the eye of the beholder - so without a beholder there can be no beauty.

I am fascinated by the "I" anomaly and I am grief stricken by the possibility that "I" may well just wink out when I die, and with it the whole universe, which may as well have never existed.

We may try to pretend to be objective about it all ... but I think we would be deluding ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM

""I see no reason why the existence or not of a God shouldn't be put under this kind of scrutiny. Even though he's a human construct, he appears to be in the privileged position of being able to jump from unsupported hypothesis straight to truth, skipping all the steps between. No wonder religion wants to keep him separate from science!""

I have no problem with people wanting to keep him separate from science.

What I do have a problem with is the Christian right wing ideal of teaching creationism instead of science, in science classes.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 05:55 PM

Here in Atlanta Georgia they just had a report on the evening news about this nationwide group which seems to be active in protecting the rights of athiests. Check 'em out:


The Freedom From Religion Foundation. Org

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM

"I see no reason why the existence or not of a God shouldn't be put under this kind of scrutiny."

Its not about whether God should or shouldn't be crutinized, or whether religion and science should be kept seperate or not.

People keep making the mistake of attributing a point of view to science.

Science doesn't go looking for things to observe, it scrutinizes what it can see and it forms hypotheses to try to explain what it sees.


It follows that if Science has yet to see God, then it has yet to form a view on him.


What Dawkins is trying to do is discredit Religious belief in the metaphysical by referring to a lcak of physical evidence.

Its like taking someone to a footbal match to prove that there is no such thing as cricket.

As long as your view is limited to the confines of the football stadium while the football match is on, this, in context, is true.

But it might just be possible that there is cricket somewhere outside the stadium ... though a critic of this view would be right to point out that there could also be quidditch ... and that does indeed seem unlikely ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 06:05 PM

"Science teaches how cells work, but the theories on how they work are an accumulation of theories proven to greater or lessor degrees. One cannot lean these mechanisms buy testing each theory upon which the theory is based. One must base one's acceptance of the theories based on the fallible work of others."

But the whole essence of science is that the fallible work of others is written down, recorded in detail for scrutiny and entirely subject to reproduction by peers. If you study the scientific literature on cell biology, for example, you will find a body of work that contains abundant corroborations and detail that you may, if you have the resources, check for yourself. Science does indeed endeavour to teach the body of accumulated knowledge about how cells work, but, crucially, it also teaches how further enquiry can be made.

"On the other hand much more human thought and effort have gone into the study of religion than all opf science combined. Is it wise to dismiss all of the findings of these people because you do not understand or like the methods."

This is a completely unsupportable statement.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 07:54 PM

Much human thought has gone into the study of alchemy, astrology, Copernican theory of cosmology, and superstitions of all types. I think that the study of theology is important as a way to understand societies but by no means should it be uncritically accepted. The importance comes from how people behave and think and not because of the value of what they are thinking about.

Religion and philosophy at one time were considered to be science. This turned out to
be false. I think that one can dismiss the content of theology without dismissing the study of it. The study is important but it has to be informed and critical and not blindingly accepted as truth. Comparative religion(s) is a valuable university course as part of the humanities and there are those who know a good deal about it without having to subscribe to any of its tenets. Many of these people (scholars) know more about specific religions than their practitioners. This is particularly true of Christianity and other religions as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:11 PM

My old banjo player received a doctorate in theology from Harvard. What are your thoughts that a school of that caliber offers such a course of study? Does it validate it in any way? Or is Harvard out of touch with the real world? I'm curious what you think about that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:17 PM

Calling consciousness god is a cop out. It's NOT what people mean when they say "god." It may be your particular view and you are welcome to it but to say people who want to disprove the idea of a theistic or personal god are setting up straw men is invalid. The vast majority of people who believe in god believe in a personal, theistic type of deity and atheists have every right and indeed a duty to discredit this way of thinking.

If one believes that consciousness is god then one does not believe in a theistic, personal deity and by common sense should welcome and encourage atheists to destroy this view which serves only to hold humankind back. Yet Lox wants to play both ends against the middle. To him, consciousness is god and at the same time, atheists set up straw men by attacking belief in a theistic, personal god. This causes me to question what Lox puts forth as being a genuinely what he believes. He wants it both way and there is no reason why he should as it does not help him in the slightest. Quite the contrary.

As an atheist, I hold that the fundamental building block of the universe is consciousness not matter. Nor does science dispute this. If one thinks science does, one needs to bone up on Quantum Theory. As an atheist, I believe in reincarnation. If death extinguishes consciousness then you are not conscious right now and never were and never will be. Since you are, you will and must be for all eternity. And there's no getting off the merry-go-round--you have to keep coming back. Even if earth is destroyed, then consciousness will find somewhere else to be born. It has eternity to wait and so is in no hurry. It does not grow old, it does not change. It acts fundamentally upon matter but never is the reverse true. Consciousness is primal.

I could call it god but I find this to be as pointless as burning a Quran on September 11. It's the same as saying that I am god as are you. Well, that's a nice sentiment but it gets us exactly nowhere. Therefore, atheism performs a public service by demonstrating logically what god is not. As with Sherlock Holmes, once we eliminate everything that god is not, whatever is left must be god. It should not be a matter of belief because we all believe radically different things. We need facts to grasp and we need consensus. So if we cannot agree on what god is, let us agree on what god cannot be. Carry on, atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:20 PM

I think I may be a bit of an extremist when it comes to theology. The whole shebang is, to me, based on a completely bogus premise, that is that the existence of God, or at least the strong possibility of his existence, is presumed to be taken as read. I can't argue that many a good thought isn't thunk by theologians, all in good faith (ha!), but I can't help thinking that they could all be far more gainfully employed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:26 PM

Well, I've criticised religion's notion of afterlife for being the ultimate human conceit. We're so grand that we can't possibly be extinguished. I find the idea of reincarnation to be just the same. It won't do for me at all. I am stardust, and unto stardust I shall return, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:31 PM

"...uncritically accepted".   Another brilliant straw man.

But "delusion" goes beyond this. Dictionary: delusion: a "false persistent belief"

It therefore states that anybody who believes in God is dead wrong. That is the-- needlessly inflammatory, senseless, and obviously unprovable--assertion here.

That's the problem.

Except it's not "needless" for Dawkins. He "needs" to sell books. And senseless controversy sells.

Interesting that many scientists are not willing to go as far as Dawkins.   Maybe since their highest goal is not to sell books.

They are interested in other things. Check for instance what Einstein had to say.



It's also interesting that atheists--at least some on Mudcat--have the classic 'take no prisoners' attitude that even agnostics are somehow lacking, intellectually cowardly, or otherwise flawed.

No wonder atheists are so popular.

Then of course they whine about being lumped together--while somehow finding no problem lumping all Christians together and stereotyping them by the actions of a crackpot few.   I wonder why they don't like being stereotyped by the actions of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

But after 700 posts, I think we've seen this movie before.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:39 PM

I would feel the same way, Steve, except for some very convincing exposures I have had over the years to the more spiritual aspect of being. The keystone to the difference is the facility with which one identifies oneself with solids and elects them not just to represent you in life, but to actually be what you are.

If that identification shifts, authorship begins to assert itself and the whole question (and its concomitant can of worms) opens up in a new way.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:57 PM

Someone offer me an argument that death extinguishes consciousness. Let's see whose done their homework.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 09:02 PM

Let's start with grammar:   "who's"

A feeble grasp of grammar does not instill confidence that the person is even worth debating.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 10:49 PM

Someone offer me an argument that death extinguishes consciousness.

No proof available on that one, either way. Now, I suppose you could "dumb down" the definition of consciousness to a purely physical perspective, and then prove that consciousness ceases with death - but is that all consciousness is, a purely physical process? I think there's more to it, but I won't know for sure until after I'm dead.

I think there are some here who would "dumb down" the definition of religious faith and of God, to make them easier to refute. If God were the god of the fundamentalists, he/she/it would be relatively easy to disprove. But that ain't the case.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 10:57 PM

Joe, if your consciousness doesn't survive death, you won't know. There won't even be a chance for an "Oh well--whoops."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:11 PM

Well.....OK, Jeri. If there is no consciousness after death, it will be one of those "if a tree falls in the woods...." questions. And if such is the case at the time, I really won't care, will I?

Still, I don't think that science has a definition of consciousness that adequately defines consciousness in its fullness. Heck, scientific definitions of trees are painfully inadequate. My point is that it's clear to me that there is a dimension beyond science.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:33 PM

On that point I agree fully with you, Joe. Not sure what it is but I do know that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
than are dreamt of in your/their philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:50 PM

Joe is correct. Science does not know what consciousness is in full. In fact, science doesn't know what consciousness is at all. Ron Davies, who has apparently never misspelled nor misspoke in his life, is excused from this argument, we wouldn't want to bore him with our lack of education, would we?

So, with that said, we will have to agree on some basics of what it means to be conscious. I posit tnat, at its base, being conscious means that one has the ability to experience events and to remember those events. This must be because if one does not remember events, one cannot have experience. If one is told by another that one was present at an event of which one has no memory of any kind--nothing at all--then what does that say about the state of one's consciousness during that event? I say, one could not have been conscious during the event or one would remember something.

So when I speak of being unconscious, I don't mean sleep necessarily. One can dream and remember it and that is experiencing. However, a deep sleep where one falls into bed, snoozes for 8 hours and then is awoken by the alarm and swears that only a second had gone by experienced total or near total unconsciousness. One is aware of nothing, not even the passage of time. In fact, we can reduce complete unconscious to just that--missing time.

So there are degrees of consciousness and unconsciousness so let's get that out of the way. I refer here only to full adult consciousness rather than, say, baby consciousness since we can't be certain how babies experience events. And when I refer to unconsciousness, I refer to missing time. I will specify otherwise if and when necessary.

Does anyone disagree that the most fundamental trait of consciousness involves experiencing events and remembering?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 12:02 AM

Nope. Something missing in your figuring, Josep.

You say: "I posit tnat, at its base, being conscious means that one has the ability to experience events and to remember those events. This must be because if one does not remember events, one cannot have experience. If one is told by another that one was present at an event of which one has no memory of any kind--nothing at all--then what does that say about the state of one's consciousness during that event? I say, one could not have been conscious during the event or one would remember something."

Brain injury can rob one of the ability to remember recent events. I have a musician friend who, following an aneurysm some years ago, has very little 'recent' memory, even things that happened 15 minutes before. For instance, the other evening someone asked how he had gotten to the jam. He answered, I'm not sure. Maybe Bobi? (His wife). I told him that he was right, and added, Who was in the backseat?

He said, I can't tell you that. I don't know.

After some moments we established that it had been I in the car with him and his wife. He accepted it but he really didn't remember.

And yet, he was fully conscious.

There are many incidents like that in his life now. As I've said before, he can't tell you what he had for dinner- he can't even tell you if he *had* dinner.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 03:36 AM

"Calling consciousness god is a cop out. It's NOT what people mean when they say "god.""

Who are 'most people'? Shiva for example IS described as Universal Consciousness or Mind within which matter lies dormant. Matter or 'Shakti' is a subset of Mind, a material manifestation of Universal Consciousness. Not too far off what Lox was suggesting really. Not all concepts of God feature a grumpy old geezer in the sky, some are a little more elegant.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 03:53 AM

EDIT: I misquoted Josep, that should read:

Which 'people'?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 05:31 AM

"Yet Lox wants to play both ends against the middle. To him, consciousness is god"

Josep, you don't like being accused of using straw men, yet you put words in my mouth.

I haven't called consciousness God.

I've said a hell of a lot more than that.

Most skillfully neglected by you is my argument that you cannot observe or test the metaphysical in the physical world or use physical terms to prove or disprove metaphysical concepts.


Interestingly, while I haven't said what I believe, Josep has gone into great depth about what he believes.

He believes in reincarnation and in some kind of perpetual consciousness.

Fair enough.


"Someone offer me an argument that death extinguishes consciousness."


This is something that can neither be proved or disproved by science as it concerns Metaphysics and not physics.

From a scientists perspective, there is as much probability that consciousness continues after death as there is that God exists.

In scientific terms = 0

Any discussion about what exists outside the observable world is philosphy.


On the subject of consciousness, this is not the ability to experience or remember, but is the thing that actually does the experiencing or remembering.

The word "I" represents the conscious mind.

"I" remember ...

"I" don't remember.

"I" know who I am.

"I" don't.

"I" disagree

"I" experience x

"I" experience something else

"I" need to find myself

"I" am here


I am in a state of timeless Nirvana transcending physical perception.



             I - [verb]



"I" am curious about "I"

"I" make the mistake of trying to understand "I" by attempting to observe it objectively.

But "I" can't observe "I" without in fact needing to imagine a false abstract construct in my imagination which "I" then observe.

"I" just have to "be" and to "do" to understand "I" better, with every fibre of my existence.

"I" [verb]

"I" wonder whether "I" could exist if "I" was deaf, dumb, mute and had no sense of touch taste or smell.

Or does "I" require some kind of sensory input to exist.

"I" wonder if anyone has attempted any experiments to test that or if it would be possible to design one.

"I" don't know, but given that "I" am, in a way, the only thing "I" have, "I" think that steve is wrong to say that "I" am arrogant for wondering about whether "I" am either a temporary blip in the universe, or whether "I" will endure beyond the death of my body.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 05:58 AM

"Or does "I" require some kind of sensory input to exist.
"I" wonder if anyone has attempted any experiments to test that or if it would be possible to design one."

There are yogic techniques called Pratyahara involving intentional forms of sensory deprivation or 'withdrawl of the senses' to achieve 'liberation'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyahara

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

"If God were the god of the fundamentalists, he/she/it would be relatively easy to disprove."

Not so. No-one seriously believes in celestial teapots and most would consider their proposed existence to be a truly wacky notion, but that doesn't make it even the teensiest bit easier to "disprove" them.

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

"But "delusion" goes beyond this. Dictionary: delusion: a "false persistent belief"

It therefore states that anybody who believes in God is dead wrong."

No it doesn't. Even Richard Dawkins says he is not certain that God doesn't exist. The delusion refers to the whole world of belief, with all its ceremony and trappings and elaborate "theology", that revolves around a being whose probability of existence is vanishingly small as measured on any rational scale.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 06:49 AM

"No it doesn't. Even Richard Dawkins says he is not certain that God doesn't exist. The delusion refers to the whole world of belief, with all its ceremony and trappings and elaborate "theology", that revolves around a being whose probability of existence is vanishingly small as measured on any rational scale."

As far as I am aware, all Dawkins is saying, is that the scientific probability of Gods existence, based on the knowledge we currently have about the observable universe, is very low.

It follows that there remains a scientific possibility that he does exist.

So when he says that "he is not certain that God doesn't exist", he is merely reflecting the existence of that very small probability.

Beyond that, I don't think that Dawkins intends to invest any belief of his own.

He does of course, observably and understandably, invest faith and belief in the reliability and soundness of scientific methodology, but I have no way of knowing if he would admit to that. I suspect he would probably plead dispassionate objectivity as if he were some kind of vessel of scientific thinking and not a subjective human being.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 07:49 AM

Lox wrote "No it doesn't. Even Richard Dawkins says he is not certain that God doesn't exist. The delusion refers to the whole world of belief, with all its ceremony and trappings and elaborate "theology", that revolves around a being whose probability of existence is vanishingly small as measured on any rational scale."

As far as I am aware, all Dawkins is saying, is that the scientific probability of Gods existence, based on the knowledge we currently have about the observable universe, is very low."

And that is fair enough. If he would just stick to saying that. Where my upset is with what he says is about his comments about agnostics. He needs to cut people some slack for what they wish to believe in themselves... just because he cannot be certain himself. As I have said previously, I have lost all respect for him and believe me, I used to have him on a scientific pedistal. His attacks, while not personal to any ONE person, are still offensive simply because he cannot call others for being uncertain when he shows the trait himself... unless he joins in with them in uncertainty.

There is God's word and there is Dawkins. I cannot believe either of them no more when it comes to religion and the way it is presented. As such I simply have to find my own level to deal with this and I think a great many people do likewise. He really should not be so vociferous against those who differ from his dictates.

IMHO

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 07:52 AM

"Where does this place the reproduced data of generations of Buddhist students & masters?"

I've been quite involved in Tibetan buddhism (including receiving teachings from HH Dalai Lama on The Four Noble Truths) in the past and along with Zen buddhism I don't really regard these religions in the same way as the Church of England/Methodist/Free Church (I've done the lot) I was brought up with. The free and questioning nature of mahayana buddhism (I have not experience of theravada), it's total acceptance of science and scientific methodology make it by far the most open of 'religions'. Unlike the Abrahamic monotheistic religions it's not tied to a single text that is subject to individual interpretation or the dogma of a specific earthly authority; lamas like the Dalai Lama are guides rather than authorities in the sense the Pope is.

Buddhism is a philosophy, religion or a lifestyle choice - pick your favourite; it's quite possible to be non-religious and a buddhist. In terms of the reproducibility of the data you're correct that the western paradigm is unsuitable for assessing some of the data, but I'm sure if someone were to interview as many Lamas, tulkus and monks as possible and review the literature you'd find there is a mine of information that would stand up to rigorous western-style analysis. Having known various analysts over the years I feel sure that western techniques such as CBT (although very good) could learn a heck of lot more from a comprehensive review of Tibetan and Zen buddhist literature and teaching; they are virtually identical in places (visualisation exercises spring immediately to mind).

As for the buddhist ideal of Nirvana, to me it's one of the most interesting and profound concepts I've ever come across and whatever the state of enlightenment actually is, then it's something that if we could understand* might have profound consequences for us all.


*I realise this comment is a contradiction with regards to my earlier agreement on the western paradigm in a sense as it's a very western empirical statement; obviously buddhists do understand enlightenment but I wonder if there might be a new way of looking at the reality of the concept using scientific methodology. I also understand this might draw criticism for trying to turn everything into quantifiable data acceptable to scientists. In a sense that's a fair criticism but I would defend it by repeating that we stand on the edge of an ocean of knowledge and we can learn so much from other people's world views; as scientists we need to develop new methodologies and disciplines in order to study these new areas effectively. Exciting, isn't it!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM

Thanks, Sugarfoot--Interesting stuff.

The mystic zeroness of whatever this spiritual stuff is called, impinged on our drunken zoo of forms, is an endless cacophonic round of strange jokes.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 10:46 AM

Sorry, I do too know that Australia exists. It isn't posited or hypothetical or even theoretical, it's a fact.

Also, just because some scientists can't define consciousness is no reason to posit that it could survive the brain whence it arises. There is absolutely no earthly reason to think that could be possible. Now, to wish it, sure. But to believe it? Nah.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM

"...no earthly reason ..."

*grin*...and therein lies the rub. Those who begin with the assumption of the possibility of UNearthly reasons have no trouble plowing ahead with all sorts of opinions about consciousness, past lives, etc.

I do NOT believe I will have any residual 'consciousness' after death, and have noted many times that my big frustration is that, IF I am right, I don't get to say "I told you so!".


What is interesting to me is how people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. A lot of it is buried so deep in the very language they grew up with and use daily, that they often have little awareness of their own thought processes.

When I studied Philosophy, my major concern was to be able, as much as possible, to 'step back'...or sideways...or whatever... and get a sense of what the various opinions of human thought thru the ages were and have some way of evaluating them.

I argue that:-- the more one is able to do this semi-neutral evaluation, the less one will be inclined to accept certain beliefs and arguments that require premises with little or no verification.

When *I* am voted Emperor of the Universe, I will have kids very early begin to study about HOW to think and evaluate. (You can guess that with that kind of platform, I am not likely to get many votes... ☺)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 01:17 PM

"As far as I am aware, all Dawkins is saying, is that the scientific probability of Gods existence, based on the knowledge we currently have about the observable universe, is very low.

It follows that there remains a scientific possibility that he does exist.

So when he says that "he is not certain that God doesn't exist", he is merely reflecting the existence of that very small probability."

Indeed, a scientific possibility. I couldn't agree more. But see how believers try to put God beyond scienfic investigation. It seems to me that religion would rather not have God subjected to scientific rigour, and I think I know why.   



"He does of course, observably and understandably, invest faith and belief in the reliability and soundness of scientific methodology, but I have no way of knowing if he would admit to that."

I'm sure he would cheerfully admit to that (though I can't speak for him, of course), but he'd also qualify that with lots of caveats. There's nothing perfect about scientific methodology and nothing certain about its reliability and soundness. Science is a very human endeavour, and, as such, is to be celebrated. But what you call his faith and belief (I could call it "confidence in") is predicated on a solid bedrock of scientific rigour, in which he has been immersed, as an evolutionary biologist, for decades.


"He really should not be so vociferous against those who differ from his dictates."

I wasn't aware that he was dictating anything to anyone. We atheists can safely leave the dictating and authoritarianism to dogma-wielding organised religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 01:35 PM

Also, just because some scientists can't define consciousness is no reason to posit that it could survive the brain whence it arises. There is absolutely no earthly reason to think that could be possible. Now, to wish it, sure. But to believe it? Nah.

Anyone who would suggest that that was a valid reason would be brain-lame. There are OTHER data, though that suggest it far more strongly. Excluding such data from your thinking is also a form of bias. Such data include the large collection of reports concerning experiential OBE, NDEs, and recovered memories from previous existences which cannot be readily explained away by other means.

This is not to say such things will become subjectively apparent to someone just because they study the reports. The number of variables that make up an individual's scope of view is huge, more than I would care to go into here.

But as far as reasoning with avbailable data, it deserves looking into as to how extensive suvh reports are and what they cover.

A starting point, for example.

And another.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 01:45 PM

"On the other hand much more human thought and effort have gone into the study of religion than all of science combined. Is it wise to dismiss all of the findings of these people because you do not understand or like the methods."

>>>This is a completely unsupportable statement.

The above was a statement and a question. The statement is easily, easily supported. 1.2 Billion Christians in the world, a billion Muslims, hundreds of millions of Hindus, Buddhists, and others. All of them being taught their faiths, all of them comparing what they have been taught to their daily lives. Compared to that, how many taught the scientific method? About 20-25% of my well-equiped, Canadian, high school if that is any indication, I'm sure that the percentage is lower in the USA where I live now and see it deliberately avoided by many.

Then there are the theologists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, novelists, mythologists, Jungian psychologists, Storytellers, song writers, oral historians, who have studied religion. Then there are the scientists who have given it serious thought.

Again, Is it wise to dismiss the findings of billions of people?

The most compelling case for religion is that it works. It is the glue that holds successful societies together. Is there a "God" as defined by Moses, or Jesus, or Buddha? I agree that there is no way to test with a simple experiment. But to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of social science, it is very clear that there is a very powerful force in human society and that most human beings call that force "God" or "The Gods."

Steve,

You chose to ignore my other point. That social sciences cannot meet the burden of proof that you want to put on religion. That you cannot make reproducible experiments in fields such as Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, even to some parts of psychology and biology. I ask you again. Are you proposing that we throw Economics in the same trash can that we throw religion.

Steve,

People get their prayers answered every day. We can argue about the mechanism until the cows come home or until some philosopher can tell us exactly how many angels can dance on a pinhead. But an answered prayer, is a useful proof to those that have had a prayer answered. Just because you cannot reproduce it does not diminish that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 01:52 PM

Again, Is it wise to dismiss the findings of billions of people?

Can matters of fact be resolved by a democratic vote?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 01:57 PM

Ooh! 800! Eat your hat out, Leadfingers!

you cannot make reproducible experiments in fields such as Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, even to some parts of psychology and biology

'Tis true. Particularly with economics and sociology, which is why their findings are taken with a fair dose of caution by the experienced. Another lot of gobshiters are those "evolutionary psychologists" who propose a gene and an evolutionary just-so story for every nuance of behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 02:18 PM

"People get their prayers answered every day."

I defy you to offer any evidence at all that anyone has ever had a prayer answered.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 02:41 PM

"I defy you to offer any evidence at all that anyone has ever had a prayer answered."

Why, Steve! Several years ago, hurricane Isabel was threatening the East coast of the US, and in particular the area near Virgina Beach where Pat Robertson lives. He implored his followers to go out and 'pray' that it change course and, I guess, go hit someone less 'faithful'. I guess it worked, because *I* lost power for 5 days, and Pat & his gang were hardly bothered.

...silly, you say? Well, not to Pat! They took it as a sign... *wry smile*

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 03:12 PM

It is the glue that holds successful societies together.

This is a far-fetched conclusion. A structure of agreements as to what constitutes right action and acceptable social conduct holds societies together. This code may be embedded in an iconography of deities, or it may be slapped into childrens' heads as "the way we do things". It my be attributed to ancestors, angels, bogeymen or innate honor. What makes such a code work has nothing to do with whether it is includes religious symbols or icons, but whether it works among humans.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 03:54 PM

Well, how about the glue that allows societies to become too unwieldy to hold together successfully?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 05:28 PM

"I do NOT believe I will have any residual 'consciousness' after death, and have noted many times that my big frustration is that, IF I am right, I don't get to say "I told you so!". Bill D

And if you're wrong, Bill, I expect you to say, Well, Hi, Ebbie!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 05:40 PM

The day Bil finds hisself floating thirty feet out noticing all his friends weeping for his mortal shell, he'll be downright surprised, I reckon.

Just be sure and stay awake for it, Bill.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 05:46 PM

I will say "Imagine that, Ebbie!"¹...and I will eagerly await instruction from Amos on how to "stay awake for it".


1(actually, I have no idea what I would say, or if anyone 'says' anything in such circumstances.)

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

You will find yourself able to intend a lot, but "saying" aside from that telepathic mode will be a bit frustrating.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 06:17 PM

"You will find yourself able..."

I am glad to receive such authoritative assurance.

We will have to wait & see, hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 06:23 PM

If we made it the concern of our spirituality to consider the subjective needs & experiences of others, I reckon we'd be done with religion within the week.

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

And if you're wrong, Bill, I expect you to say, Well, Hi, Ebbie!

As I said to my mother when she was dying, if you're right, you'll be fine, and if you're wrong you won't notice the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 07:41 PM

//Brain injury can rob one of the ability to remember recent events. I have a musician friend who, following an aneurysm some years ago, has very little 'recent' memory, even things that happened 15 minutes before. For instance, the other evening someone asked how he had gotten to the jam. He answered, I'm not sure. Maybe Bobi? (His wife). I told him that he was right, and added, Who was in the backseat?//

We're not going to permit brain damage to enter to into the conversation because it is nothing more than a distraction. Maybe later but not now. We need to focus on simply what it means to be conscious in an ordinary, normal manner. Again, I say to meet that criterion one must experience events and, as a consequence, recall that event. This is something the vast majority of us can do without a problem. We simply can't be certain what goes on in the head of a brain-damaged person and so it is useless to speculate. As I said, there are degrees consciousness and unconsciousness but we're not going to mess with every degree. We must establish full consciousness and full unconsciousness first and foremost. So let's establish a base to work from and then we'll test it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 07:58 PM

//Who are 'most people'? Shiva for example IS described as Universal Consciousness or Mind within which matter lies dormant. Matter or 'Shakti' is a subset of Mind, a material manifestation of Universal Consciousness. Not too far off what Lox was suggesting really. Not all concepts of God feature a grumpy old geezer in the sky, some are a little more elegant.//

I used to believe that Hindus thought this way and I was set straight in a hurry when several furious Hindus informed me that Shiva is a god and not a metaphor for anything, Krishna is historically real, the Battle of Kureksetra actually happened. I was quite surprised at the time but no longer. I've traveled around the world and spoken with many people of different religions both in person and online and there is no doubt in my mind: The vast majority of people believe in a theistic, personal god.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 08:09 PM

//"Someone offer me an argument that death extinguishes consciousness."


This is something that can neither be proved or disproved by science as it concerns Metaphysics and not physics.//

Oh, it certainly can be proven. I intend to do just that on this very thread. It won't be empirically proven, true enough, but I will prove it is completely logical and death extinguishing consciousness is not.

//From a scientists perspective, there is as much probability that consciousness continues after death as there is that God exists.

In scientific terms = 0//

Here we go with the straw men. That is a total presumption on your part as there are a great many scientists who believe in continuance after death. Indeed there are scientists that are born-again Christians. Science, in fact, simply suspends judgment on these matters.

//Any discussion about what exists outside the observable world is philosphy.//

Which is why science suspends judgment. Individual scientists may dismiss it as poppycock but many do not.

//On the subject of consciousness, this is not the ability to experience or remember, but is the thing that actually does the experiencing or remembering.//

That's a mere quibble as I intend to show.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM

Moving along--since I have experiences, I am conscious. Or we can make Lox happy by saying that I am consciousness personified--makes no difference although it possesses a certain elegance.

If I recall an event, I was conscious at that event. If I was unconscious of that event then I do not and cannot recall it. If I do not recall an event, nothing concerning the state of my consciousness can be deduced. After all, I may eventually recall something. The 2nd and 3rd statements are not contradictory. There is a difference between not recalling a concert because I was passed out and missed it and not recalling it because it occurred so very long ago. In this 2nd case, the state of my consciousness at the time cannot be known--was I passed out or will a memory suddenly jump out someday? However, I was conscious of any event I recall.

As for experiences, they can only occur in the present moment and not in the past or future. In other words, it is always now. This is important to keep in mind because one of you is going to say, "What if you remember the concert 10 years from now but it never really happened? Then you really weren't conscious." My response is, it makes no difference at all. What matters is that I observe that I have a memories of this concert even if they are phantoms of an event that never took place. This is important because it separates absolute truth from apparent truth. Maybe my memory of the concert is hazy or even false even if I believe it to be true but what is undeniable is that I have such a memory. But that's not empirical, you say and I say, so what? The point is that I am conscious, not that I have a good memory.

Because it is always now, I am never unconscious. Why? Because if I was, how would I know? We can't experience unconsciousness. Total unconsciousness is missing time because if you were aware of the passage of time, you are conscious of something. Since it is always now, I cannot have awareness of total unconsciousness or I would be conscious--contradiction. Hence, I am always conscious. That is, my experiences only happen in the present moment. You can prove this to yourself. Recall a time when you were aware of absolutely nothing not even the passage of time. You can't. To your consciousness, your life has been a continuous, never-ending waking moment.

Ok, let's pause here for any questions.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 09:23 PM

That is, my experiences only happen in the present moment.

Josep- not so. All your (and my) experiences happen in the past. You can't even say you've experienced something until afterwards, but apart from tautologies, it's an experimentally measured fact. What's more, you continuously recreate experiences every time you remember them.

On an individual level, I remember my brother drowning. It must have been over 45 years ago, but the memory is still vivid. We celebrated his 60th birthday last weekend, with a really great ceilidh and sessions and walks. He was there. How so? It was a dream- but it's also a memory.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 09:31 PM

As a hypnotist who participated in past memory/life regression sessions I can offer only my opinion.

I think it is all wishful thinking.

That being said there are curious stories about children who claim to have a detailed experience that some claim is evidence of a deceased person in history. There are many explainations to account for these claims than just reincarnation or soul transferrence.

We may know children who seem to be old souls since they seem to have a level of sophistication that belies their years. We may be underestimating childhood consciousness or merely making a compariosn to other children who express less inate intelligence.

My wishful thinking opinion will naturally skew my perception of regressive hypnosis sessions that come claim as proof of a anachronistic consciousness. It is not proof but an opinion.

Giving extra attention to a child who behaves in a certain way is reinforcing of that behavior. It is also likely that an adult or parent have more to do with the unusual "phenomenon" than they will ever admit. Consider "baloon boy".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 10:14 PM

Recall a time when you were aware of absolutely nothing not even the passage of time. You can't.

Yes I can and I have.
Deep Somnambulism is funny that way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 10:52 PM

>>>This is a far-fetched conclusion. A structure of agreements as to what constitutes right action and acceptable social conduct holds societies together. This code may be embedded in an iconography of deities, or it may be slapped into childrens' heads as "the way we do things". It my be attributed to ancestors, angels, bogeymen or innate honor. What makes such a code work has nothing to do with whether it is includes religious symbols or icons, but whether it works among humans.<<

Far fetched Amos? Name me a successful society that has done this without religion.

If you name our society and called this fragmented, combative greedy destructive path to Armagedon we are on, successful, I will laugh out loud.

Theoretically, "the way we do things" can be "slapped into children's head" without religion. But you would have to show it working on a scale of more than a few thousand people at a time for me to think it is workable on the scale of whole societies.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 11:29 PM

//Josep- not so. All your (and my) experiences happen in the past.//

Experiences are present moment only. You can't experience what has already taken place. You may have experienced it when it happened but now that it is over, you cannot possibly still be experiencing it--it's over.

//You can't even say you've experienced something until afterwards, but apart from tautologies, it's an experimentally measured fact. What's more, you continuously recreate experiences every time you remember them.//

You never experience something until afterwards. You can only experience an event X as it happens. You reflect on it afterwards. Reflection is an experience of its own but is not an experience of X because that event has already occurred or you couldn't be reflecting on it. And you can't reflect on X if you didn't experience X.

//On an individual level, I remember my brother drowning. It must have been over 45 years ago, but the memory is still vivid.///

That's a memory, that's not an experience. Experiencing is inextricably tied to an event as it unfolds. Since that event is now in the past you simply cannot be experiencing it. You're simply remembering it. We're talking experience as a verb not a noun.

//We celebrated his 60th birthday last weekend, with a really great ceilidh and sessions and walks. He was there. How so? It was a dream-but it's also a memory.//

Right. A memory. Not an experience.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 11:40 PM

//"Recall a time when you were aware of absolutely nothing not even the passage of time. You can't."

Yes I can and I have.
Deep Somnambulism is funny that way.//

If you remember anything about this state then you were not totally unconscious. Common sense. If you experienced nothing not even time passing during a certain period then you cannot remember anything about it because you were not conscious--you were having no experiences during that time to reflect on. If there is something you can reflect on during that period then you were conscious to some degree. We are only interested in complete unconsciousness right now. We'll be dealing with degrees of consciousness later where I will demonstrate that they make no difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 11:56 PM

To demonstrate an example of missing time, I went to a bar in Canada with a friend in the early 90s, we're both from Michigan. I just got out of the service and I did something I should never do and mixed beers which really messes me up for some reason. After downing several Canadian Bradors after drinking Millers before crossing into Canada, I was piss drunk coming back to Michigan. Fortunately, my buddy was driving. The border guard asked us what citizenship we were. My buddy answered, I did not. The guard then asked me directly what my citizenship was. "Peoria!" I blurted and then broke into hysterical laughter. "PEORIA!!" I bellowed, laughing. Somehow, the guard let us pass. Why did I behave that way? I don't know because I have no memory of it whatsoever. I only know about it because my buddy told me about the next day as I nursed a murderous hangover. I remember leaving the bar. I remember being on the freeway just before tossing my cookies out the window. So how much time elapsed between those two events? For me, none. Everything in between is a total blank. Until I can recall something, nothing can be said of the state of my consciousness but we are free assume for now that I was not conscious or I would have a memory of the event and I have none whatsoever. It is missing time.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:32 AM

There is no rule that says you have to be forming memories to be conscious, is there? I mean, you can form memories in your sleep, so why not not form memories when you're awake?

(Anybody remember the logic of the Gollux?)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 02:59 AM

He's a point I'd like clarifying. Do Christians believe that animals (i.e. non-humans) have an afterlife?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 03:49 AM

There are mixed opinions on that, Tunesmith. All we know for sure is that with regards to dogs, they go where the good doggies go. After all, it says so in "Old Shep."

I tend to think that every sentient being has an afterlife of some sort, but I have no idea what that afterlife will be. I like to believe it will be a better place.
-Joe-

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

Better for us to make this place the best place rather than wait for another one to turn up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 06:47 AM

Tunesmith: The Bible says "Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them." and "Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."

I believe it is talking about the earth after Jesus returns. If I were Christian I would take it to show a sign that animals are indeed valued and may possibly have a soul of some sort.

I remember teaching some children one day in a Catholic school. It was the first time I had given my talk in a faith school and one child asked me... "Do you think that there will be animals in heaven?". My reply was that I certainly would hope so and that the bible's message is that predator will sit with preay. I also said I am not sure I would want to live in a heaven if there were no animals. He was happy enough with the answer at his young age of 6.

Thinking I would get shouted at by the attendant Nun she came to me at the end and said quietly "You handled that so well. It was a ice way to think of it^

In short I have no idea Tunesmith. I think many religions think we are above the animals and that they do not have souls. Anyone who owned a dog may think otherwise.... I would like to think they do.

I have seen animals showing soul where there has been none shown by the human. It makes you wonder. My answer is the same as I gave that young boy that day

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 07:01 AM

I like to believe it will be a better place.

I can't conceive of a worse way to spend eternity than with the righteous & religious; with those who have dreamed their lives away giving sycophantic praise to a vengeful God in hope of the rewards of a supernatural hereafter. Sounds pretty hellish to me!

Right now, sitting here listening to On The Corner, I feel a more meaningful human heaven (or hell) is right here & right now...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 07:10 AM

"I can't conceive of a worse way to spend eternity than with the righteous & religious; with those who have dreamed their lives away giving sycophantic praise to a vengeful God in hope of the rewards of a supernatural hereafter"

Not all people who believe in God are sycophantic or looking for some reward. They live that life in faith. They should be allowed to do so. Many know they are not righteous but strive to be so. Many non believers do the same too.

But, as you bring up conceiving of eternity you have given it some thought.. how do YOU see it being then?

:-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 07:34 AM

"All your (and my) experiences happen in the past."

I recommend Miroslav Holubs essay "The Dimension of the present moment" in which he pretty conclusively shows (scientifically) that the present moment isn't just an infinitesimally small and transitory point in time, but in fact is a chunk of time that lasts approximately 3 seconds.

It will blow your mind.



"And if you're wrong, Bill, I expect you to say, Well, Hi, Ebbie!"

I wonder - when we do do we go to the mudcat cafe?

And is that if we've been good or bad?



"Here we go with the straw men. That is a total presumption on your part as there are a great many scientists who believe in continuance after death."

Where did I say anything about what scientists do or don't believe?

I didn't.

I said "
//From a scientists perspective, there is as much probability that consciousness continues after death as there is that God exists.

In scientific terms = 0//"


The scientific probability of God or the afterlife existing and the details of what scientists do or don't believe are different things.

So you have attributed a straw man to me that I never created.

I wonder what the term is for that?

A double Straw man?

A reflexive Straw man?

Perhaps Josep isn't entirely clear about what a straw man is.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 07:39 AM

I'm hoping for Valhalla with lashings of good ale, songs and stories in the halls of my fathers (or, as my mum's Welsh, in the halls of Tir Na Nog which I know is Irish but there you go).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 07:52 AM

OMG Sugarfoot Jack! That place with all the men with pointy metal hats with horns on (though I believe vikings never actually wore horn), where women get dragged across tables and have kisses forced upon them by bearded beer drinkers (well, that's what it looked like Kirk Douglas was a Viking and his dad, Earnest Borgnine)?

We women will need a safer haven methinks ;-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 08:04 AM

Sugarfoot Jack,

I suspect you might yet have to do a bit of pillaging and raping if you hope to be admitted into Valhalla.

The Valkyries can be pretty picky and without a lot of blood on your sword they'd be unlikely to give you a lift ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 08:05 AM

But, as you bring up conceiving of eternity you have given it some thought.. how do YOU see it being then?

As a total materialist, & in the knowledge that matter can't be created or destroyed, I'll be happy to rejoin the cosmos via the flames of cremation and partake in the wonders of it all, albeit without consciousness or any subtive sense of ME which is a consequence of being human. Dust thou art and dust thou will return!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 12:06 PM

"I tend to think that every sentient being has an afterlife of some sort, but I have no idea what that afterlife will be.."

It's interesting...once you 'decide' to think that way, you are implicitly open to questions such as "how far down do consider 'beings' to be sentient?" Are mice? Cockroaches? Were dinosaurs in their time? Does this mean they have 'souls'?...or just 'essences' which survive.
And were those souls or 'essences' there before the physical being? That is, is there an infinite pool of mouse 'souls' just waiting for mice to be born? And after the mice (or men) die, does their essence/soul rejoin the pool? Did we have souls BEFORE we had a theology to categorize the relationship OF souls, both in 'that metaphysical place' and as manifested in a body?
   What WAS the status of 'morality' in our ancestors 10,000 years ago? Or 50,000 years ago...before we had books of instructions? Was killing immoral then? If not, when did it become so?
.....and dozens more.
Silly Bill D?? Thinking up all those irrelevant questions just to confuse us? Sorry, but **IF** you 'believe' there is some sort of afterlife and something about yourself, and perhaps your dogm that 'may' get to go there, you ARE subject to all those questions, and more--whether you choose to dwell on them or not.

And that IS my point... accepting certain premises leaves you in a linguistic Limbo...even if you pretend not to notice. This sort of a corollary to my oft repeated mantra: "From false premises, anything follows." That is, IF any of your assumptions are incorrect, you can derive almost anything from them...including a theory that cockroaches have something like souls and it would be a sin to squash one! Even sillier? Nope...read about Jainism. Or just ask certain Vegans why they worry about their diet. (I knew a woman who fretted about whether an egg has been fertilized before she ate it.) At least she tried to take her belief to its logical conclusion...even when her friends kept pointing out awkward points. (She had raoches in her house, but she would not stomp them or spray them...but she was seen scooping them up in a cloth and throwing them out in the snow. When it was pointed out they would die out there, she puffed up and declared, "I just want them out of my house...what God does with them after that is not my concern!"

So...once you decide that Fido gets an afterlife....or that YOU do, you gotta consider the implications.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 12:42 PM

Well Bill, the religion in which I was indoctrinated (RC) had a standard answer to any of those awkward questions ie there are mysteries which will only be revealed to us after we die - neat, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 12:54 PM

There'll be pie in the sky when you die (that's the lie!)... a little music in the BS thread, eh?

Where do those of you believe that your psychological self in any form can survive the death of your physical form, who talk of spending "eternity" in some fashion, think you were during the eternity *before* your physical self happened?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:06 PM

Guests, please remember that you are required to use a consistent name when you post.
I deleted a rather lengthy message posted at 12:44 PM by an unnamed poster. If the poster wants to retrieve the text, he/she may contact me by e-mail.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:12 PM

Lions and lambs are not able to lie with one another successfully. Lions have a genetic
predisposition to hunt prey. Lambs in a survival mode will have more sense than to attempt to lie down with a lion.

I don't believe in the theory of the argument of ontology. Souls are manufactured entities
by humans. There is no proof for the existence of a soul scientifically.

Dawkins explains in "The Selfish Gene" that neurologically, a chimp is capable of more
pain and suffering than a human fetus. If this is true, why is abortion wrong?
Rhetorical question, answer: religion wants to create more converts. I don't think
human fetuses have souls.

I also think that this thread has a life of its own. There are so many questions about the validity of religion that the subject will continue. It will not be resolved in terms of agreement but I think that it is an appeal toward tolerance. It has been stated that
religious people are offended because it seemed to them that they somehow were being attacked. I think that the situation today is mostly reversed. Freethinkers are attacked by religious people far more than the other way around. Richard Dawkins has not attacked anyone personally. He is pointing out the flaws in religious thinking as he sees them and not denigrating people for their beliefs. I think people have the right to believe what they want without hurting others physically or abusively. Some religious folks will be offended regardless because of their association with what religion they profess and who they are. I prefer to separate the two.   A good person is a good person no matter what they profess.

I think that the afterlife is a construct to make people feel psychologically comfortable about death. Whether it really does the job for people is another story. The reality is that all animals eventually die, human and otherwise. This is demonstrable. But in order to believe in an afterlife, a suspension of reality must take place. There is no evidence of an afterlife, just testimony by people who see lights and tunnels. There can be a biological
explanation for this.

I am not in favor of glorifying mysterious things. I find this counterproductive to appreciating the reality of what we have now. At the same time, I would not like to
see anger dominate this discussion. I bear no ill will toward anyone who believes in religion. If religion is used as a weapon, however, then I feel duty-bound to point that out.   A decent discussion on this topic may sometime lead to more tolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:24 PM

The afterlife is the domain of your descendents.

As for lions and lambs, diversity is celebrated by all children world wide but is demonized by some adults who worship exclusivity.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,I always fill this box in before I type a m
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:27 PM

Well, I won't type all that again, I have other things to do. If anyone is interested in carrying on the conversation in private, post your wish to do so here and along with an email address and we'll do it that way. This thread is getting too long anyway although you can cut and paste our email exchanges on the subject here if you wish. I have no objections to that.

josep

---

Here's your post, Josep. Please remember that every time you post, you are expect to put the name "Josep" in the "from" box.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

---

BS: The God Delusion 2010
RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
11-Sep-10

//From a scientists perspective, there is as much probability that consciousness continues after death as there is that God exists.

In scientific terms = 0//"

The above is not my statement, Lox, I was responding to someone else. Please pay attention to the brackets. I always put other people's statements in brackets so people won't think I said them but apparently it doesn't do much good.

Ok, moving on--How much time has passed between the beginning of time (and we're assuming there was one even if there wasn't) and the moment of your birth? Empirically, a huge, perhaps incalculable amount. But to your consciousness the answer is zero. Why? Because you weren't conscious during that period.

If you had been conscious, you would have remembered something from that period. You are the person you are because of the accumulation of your experiences, your reflection of them and the reactions you developed as a result. Suppose you stole something from a store when you were a teen and got caught. Your parents kicked your butt and you got into all kinds of trouble. After that, you decide you will never again steal something. The experience was the theft and everything that ensued as a result. The reflection of those events caused a reaction to those events--you will never steal anything again. You learned your lesson. If that event had never occurred, you would not be the person you are now.

Likewise, you will never forget that incident. It had an impact on your life. You not only can remember the incident, you can remember it as many times as you want-- an infinite number of times theoretically. In fact, if you are ever prevented from remembering, if it is wiped clean from your memory, you would once again be another person--a different consciousness. If you've ever watched someone you know well contract Alzheimers, you know the truth of that. The incident wiped from your memory now simply becomes missing time of which you can remember nothing.

An Alzheimers patient who is 90 and suddenly forgets her grandchildren becomes someone else--a stranger. All the memories she had of her grandchildren now become missing time. Now this is not an alteration of her consciousness per se. It is an alteration of her brain due to cellular deterioration. If those cells could be restored, she's be the person she was before. But what a true, permanent alteration of consciousness itself such as its being wiped out by death?

So let's suppose death extinguishes consciousness. You are born at T0 live 90 years and die at T1. During that period, you were conscious as we define it--you had experiences, you recalled them. Now you die. What becomes of your consciousness? T0 to T1 becomes missing time, total unconsciousness. Since you were conscious between T0 to T1--contradiction. Conclusion: death does not extinguish consciousness.

We'll pause here, we're not done yet. Mull this over and post your questions or counterarguments.

One toher thing--someone on this thread expressed the opinion that consciousness arises from the material brain. This is not only wrong, it is a rehashing of dualism which is discredited. Quantum physics has proven experimentally that consciousness collapses the wave function of a wavicle into a particle, into matter. So to hold that consciousness arises epiphenomenally from matter (i.e. it is a by-product of matter) is like saying the child gives birth to the mother. It's one of those weird things that science does--it tells the public something that scientists themselves do not actually believe.Matter is not the building block of the universe. DNA does not determine who you are and how you act and react. Homo sapiens sapiens did not descend ladder-like from H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilus, Australopithecus--in truth there is no evidence these left any evolutionary descendants whatsoever. These are things scientists in those fields know perfectly well and yet we are taught in school the opposite.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:53 PM

I have a couple of answers/hypotheses/conclusions that work for me.

* Do animals have an after life? I tend to think that everything that is capable of loving has a life beyond this one.

* Where do we go and what do we do after this life? I'm beginning to have the scary feeling that our lives and worlds get more complicated and demanding the higher we go. I say 'scary' because what if I don't measure up to the next level? At this point I see little hope of it and that means I'll be back. My conclusion accounts, I think, for the belief that many people have that we have to repeat and repeat this one.

* Where were we before we got here? A lower, less demanding level. (And we may have had to repeat that one as well!)

Well, like I said- it works for me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 01:57 PM

Well Ebbie your answers are all contained within a knowledge of procreation and evolution. If you demand a more spiritual answer than that then perhaps you are more of a church lady like your daughter than you care to admit.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 02:05 PM

Yep.. whatever works for you.

these folks go WAY beyond what you seem to need, though in the same general direction...(you want levels? They got levels!) but I guess it works for them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 02:12 PM

Oh, and Ebbie..."the belief that many people have that we have to repeat and repeat this one."

That sounds very like The Wheel of Saṃsāra in Buddhism. (I still remembered that from my first comparative religion class about 1958)

There are very few ideas that are not reflected in some formal religious system.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 02:20 PM

You don't have to - contact Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: romanyman
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 02:22 PM

I love this shit richard, its so full of crap i might go to church just for the laugh, when some one can prove to me there is a god , not just some prat saying god created this and that, no i want real hard on proof, until then. i say go shove your beliefs where the sun dont shine, not down my bloody throat, like the prats in the high street today, remember the inquisition was "gods will"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 03:15 PM

You are born at T0 live 90 years and die at T1. During that period, you were conscious as we define it--you had experiences, you recalled them. Now you die. What becomes of your consciousness?

It stops?

T0 to T1 becomes missing time, total unconsciousness. Since you were conscious between T0 to T1--contradiction. Conclusion: death does not extinguish consciousness.

Cobblers. It might, or it might not. I think it does, having seen nothing to the contrary, but certainty is currently impossible.

Quantum physics has proven experimentally that consciousness collapses the wave function of a wavicle into a particle, into matter. So to hold.. (etc.)

Quantum physics hasn't proven anything yet.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM

I don't read much theory about the afterlife, per se. My beliefs and 'hunches', as a man might call it, rather than the woman's 'intuition' tend to come more from my own observations and experiences (you needn't ask).

Donuel, I have never claimed that I am free of my indoctrination as a child. I only say that I didn't teach it - overtly - to my child.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 05:07 PM

//T0 to T1 becomes missing time, total unconsciousness. Since you were conscious between T0 to T1--contradiction. Conclusion: death does not extinguish consciousness.

Cobblers. It might, or it might not. I think it does, having seen nothing to the contrary, but certainty is currently impossible.//

Well, thanks for that. Try disproving the argument. "I don't believe your argument because I don't feel like it" doesn't solve anything. I just gave you a rationale for supposing that death does not extinguish consciousness, you must now DISPROVE that argument or bow to it--can't have it both ways.

//Quantum physics has proven experimentally that consciousness collapses the wave function of a wavicle into a particle, into matter. So to hold.. (etc.)

Quantum physics hasn't proven anything yet.//

Ok, we're done here. Thanks for responding but do some research because you're flat out wrong but I get the feeling you don't care.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 05:28 PM

If anybody cares, Quantum Theory has actually proved some important things. As I explained, QT has experimentally proved that consciousness collapses the wave function. It's funny that modern-day skepticism has gone so far overboard that it now dismisses science. I argued this with an atheist not long ago. He said "It's just quantum mystical gobbledegook." Really? Now the skeptics think they know science better than the guys who actually do it (yes, most professional skeptics don't know dick about science).

Another thing that QT has proven is the EPR Paradox. Einstein dismissed QT based on this paradox because it would show that something was traveling faster than the speed of light once two particles that were once in contact then separate. Alain Aspect experimentally proved the QT was correct and that something DOES travel faster than the speed of light. The following website has some scientific papers in pdf that will explain. It's complicated. But here's the synopsis of what it says about Aspect:

"The last was the paper written in 1982 by Alain Aspect and two others. It is known as Aspect. This is the paper that experimentally answered the original challenge [of the EPR Paradox] in a definitive manner. The actual results confirmed the statistical predictions of Quantum Mechanics - as formulated in the late 1920's - and ruled out Einstein's view of a more complete specification of reality. To paraphrase, a particle falling in the woods does NOT make a sound if there is no one to hear it. Strange - but true!"

http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm

If you're going to argue this stuff, please familiarize yourself with it first. To tell me QT has proven nothing is either so ignorant, arrogant or both as to beggar belief. I'm truly astonished that someone would say that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 05:30 PM

First of all, josep, you have an air of professorial certitude about your assertions and how they prove things that verges on the authoritarian,

Second of all, there are plenty of case histories where data is recovered from periods of unconsciousness as the term is usually used, through various techniques of regression or hypnosis or both. Your argument that this proves one was not "truly" unconscious is fine, except that it stretches the commonly used definition, but even if it does prove that a living organism still registers during period of apparent unconsciousness, this does not mean that that same mechanism extends prior to this lifetime or past the end of it.

Telling others they are flat out wrong is not conducive to good conversation, in case you hadn't noticed.

A

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

Which universe are we in? I'm just asking, because in the one I'm in most of the time, theories don't prove anything.

Amos, it's the certainty with which someone once told me I was really another person (whom I and the person telling me both knew, and who was in the room). The problem is that you play by their rules, and their rules are often slithy and their momes are wrathful.

Hey, it's either fun or it's Pecksniffian viscosity, with no redeeming impertinent whimsy, and you really need the impertinent whimsy!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 06:33 PM

Ignorant, arrogant, wrong..

Whatever, Josep.. You think you're right and I don't but it seems to matter to you a lot more than it does to me. I'll continue to read your stuff without making further comment. I get the feeling that you'd carry on the verbiage forever given half the chance so I'm happy to let your opinions speak for themselves. You are quite right; I don't care what you think.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 11:22 PM

//First of all, josep, you have an air of professorial certitude about your assertions and how they prove things that verges on the authoritarian,//

I think you need to look up the definition of authoritarian. Never mind, I'll do it:

Main Entry:au£thor£i£tar£i£an
Pronunciation:*-*th*r-*-*ter-*-*n, *-, -*th*r-
Function:adjective
Date:1879

1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority *had authoritarian parents*
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people *an authoritarian regime*
–authoritarian noun
–au£thor£i£tar£i£an£ism \-*-*-*ni-z*m\ noun

Now if you can show how that word applies, I'd be much obliged.

//Second of all, there are plenty of case histories where data is recovered from periods of unconsciousness as the term is usually used, through various techniques of regression or hypnosis or both.//

Once again, there are degrees of unconsciousness. I am talking total unconsciousness where nothing can be recovered because there is nothing to recover.

//Your argument that this proves one was not "truly" unconscious is fine, except that it stretches the commonly used definition, but even if it does prove that a living organism still registers during period of apparent unconsciousness, this does not mean that that same mechanism extends prior to this lifetime or past the end of it.//

Even if you could prove there is no such state as total unconsciousness, it doesn't matter because if death extinguishes consciousness, that would be an example of such a state so if that state doesn't exist then death does not extinguish consciousness.

//Telling others they are flat out wrong is not conducive to good conversation, in case you hadn't noticed.//

When they're wrong, they're wrong. Are you saying that Quantum Physics has proven nothing since we discovered it?? It HAS!!! So anyone who says that is WRONG. What do you want me to say???? He's right? He's not!! Be reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 11:37 PM

//You are quite right; I don't care what you think.//

And that's fine. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that you see fit to interject yourself into my argument when you admit you don't give a damn what I think and that, sir, IS arrogant and it is disrespectful and I would hope your parents raised you better than that. So would you PLEASE strongly consider butting out since by your own admission you have no reason for butting in.

Very respectfully,

Josep

(Ha, it didn't take my name again)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 11:48 PM

Oh, I started out caring - then I found I had a problem with your attitude, which I find arrogant and disrespectful, funnily enough. I'm quite happy to leave someone else the job of picking holes in your argument, there are people on here better equipped than me for that. It might be best to leave my parents out of this too; there's really no call for that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 11:49 PM

I'm getting way too much hostility for no reason here. I haven't flamed or insulted anyone. I've been accused of being "authoritarian" when I have asked several times for questions and counterarguments. I am by no means saying anybody has to believe anything I am saying. I am presenting a reasoned argument which means I have things to prove logically and to demonstrate. It doesn't mean it is unassailable. If you don't want to participate then don't. If you do you are welcome to. If we go around about a point or two and I continue on, it doesn't mean I am dismissing you, it means I want to present the rest of the argument once I answer those issues and that's regardless of whether you buy my answers--you are not obliged to.

I'd like to present the rest of it up to reincarnation but if people are going to get bent out of shape over nothing, I would rather not. I thought we could have a bit of fun and a bit of deep thought that enriches everybody discussing this argument. But if I'm going to get hostility then there is no point to it.

So I respectfully ask, would you like to read the full argument or should we just call it off and cut our losses?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 11:56 PM

Carry on teacher - I've already said I'll keep quiet. If disagreement is to be interpreted as hostility it should be good reading.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 12:01 AM

//Oh, I started out caring - then I found I had a problem with your attitude, which I find arrogant and disrespectful, funnily enough. I'm quite happy to leave someone else the job of picking holes in your argument, there are people on here better equipped than me for that. It might be best to leave my parents out of this too; there's really no call for that.//

Excuse me, sir, but you stated that you don't care what I think so would you please refrain from this harassment? Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 12:04 AM

Carry on..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 01:31 AM

What might be interesting - for about five minutes - is to hear Josep and Guest from Sanity in a discussion. Seeing whose hand ends up on top of the bat.

Josep, I'm with Smokey in that I really don't care either; your spirit is not one from which I'm likely to learn anything. So, I'll be on my way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 04:47 AM

J:

Proving there is no such thing as total unconsciousness during a lifetime does not prove anything about the state preceding or following that lifetime, logically. As it happens, I agree with what underlies your assertions, but your logic is flawed.

Proving there is no commerce of any sort on Sunday does not prove the non-existance of commerce, either.

Please also get clear on the meaning of "verges on". You are being insensitive to your own tone of asserting absolute factitude to your own conclusions. You'll learn, I guess. Mebbe.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 08:13 AM

Hey chill folks.

I think this is a storm in a teacup.

I think if you guys are honest about Joseps style, obvious intelligence and ability to reason coherently, notwithstanding what some clearly perceive as unattractive overconfidence, it is pretty clear that he has very little in common with GfS.

This is a genuine attempt to engage on an issue that he has spent a lot of time thinking about and feels strongly about, and his ideas are interesting and worthy of the proper scrutiny that he seems to be willingly inviting.

If GfS were on here, he/she would have told some outlandish lie by this stage and would be engaged in a very bitter and sarcastic war of words and not in the way that Josep and Smokey have been arguing here, but in a Hysterical manner.

Give 'im a chance - and if I'm wrong I have to become GfS's best mudcat buddy for a month.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 12:16 PM

Oh, I do hope you are right, Lox! :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 12:32 PM

"One toher thing--someone on this thread expressed the opinion that consciousness arises from the material brain. This is not only wrong, it is a rehashing of dualism which is discredited."


This is false information without any credible evidence to back it up. "Dualism" is a philosophical and not a scientific construct. Henry James, I believe.



" Quantum physics has proven experimentally that consciousness collapses the wave function of a wavicle into a particle, into matter. So to hold that consciousness arises epiphenomenally from matter (i.e. it is a by-product of matter) is like saying the child gives birth to the mother."

Consciousness is the ability of the brain to conceive of Quantum Physics. It doesn't exist outside of the human brain. Therefore, this sentence makes no sense.



" It's one of those weird things that science does--it tells the public something that scientists themselves do not actually believe."

This is an unsupportable conclusion and enters the realm of opinion, not fact.


"Matter is not the building block of the universe."

Who says?



DNA does not determine who you are and how you act and react.

It influences how you are biologically and it is not wholly a determinant as
to how you will behave. But it does play a great role in the human capacity
as to "fight and flight" which is a survival mechanism.


"Homo sapiens sapiens did not descend ladder-like from H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilus, Australopithecus--in truth there is no evidence these left any evolutionary descendants whatsoever. "

This is a misreading of the concept of Evolution. These examples are part of a tree
that when you go back far enough forms a basis for the branch called Homo sapiens.
There is quite a bit of evidence that these earlier forms had physiology that was similar
to present day Homo sapiens and enough so that it can be determined that there was a causal connection.




"These are things scientists in those fields know perfectly well and yet we are taught in school the opposite."

Again, this is an unsupportable hypothesis. Not all scientists know everything perfectly well. This sentence makes little sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 12:45 PM

"//First of all, josep, you have an air of professorial certitude about your assertions and how they prove things that verges on the authoritarian,//



1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority *had authoritarian parents*
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people *an authoritarian regime*
–authoritarian noun
–au£thor£i£tar£i£an£ism \-*-*-*ni-z*m\ noun

Now if you can show how that word applies, I'd be much obliged."

I think authoritarian also applies to a certitude that what one believes is correct regardless
of any extenuating arguments to the contrary. In a sense, this is a blind submission to
the authority of opinion. The definition includes an unwillingness to concede to any point that runs contrary to one's own and falls under the classification of dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 04:11 PM

Perhaps "verges on the dogmatic" would be better, J. It may be just a matter of style, but it is an abrasive tone.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 04:29 PM

If your death doesn't end your consciousness then then your life didn't begin it, so where was it during the eternity *before* your life began?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 04:47 PM

If your death does not end your consciousness, then it is more probable that it was not begun with your birth, I suppose. In that case, where it has been is a matter of memory, although possibly heavily suppressed or shut-down memory.

An alternate notion is that the I-ness of a this-lifetime identity is merely an instantiation of a Great Pool of Infinite Consciousness, into which it dissolves at death. I do not trust this model much.

But the notion of an essence transcending body life-cycles raises a lot of interesting questions, including what the potentiality of such an essence are, and how far they extend, and in what dimensions, if that is the right word.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 04:54 PM

Mrr says: If your death doesn't end your consciousness then then your life didn't begin it, so where was it during the eternity *before* your life began?

The part highlighted in bold is a logical necessity. Could be so, but why can't a life begin at some point and not end?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 05:15 PM

You mean a consciousness, I think Joe, but a good question. I suppose it's an extension of the presumption of conservation that lies at the heart of all scientific investigation. For something (making consciousness in some way a thing) to pop into existence makes the universe in principle inexplicable. So whatever IS, comes from what was before. Hence the conservation of mass and of energy, with Einstein's brilliant unifying modification of both through the equivalence of the two. The Big Bang (and its terminal counterpart if the Universe is closed, the Gnab Gib), are in three dimensions a singularity at which three dimensional physics fails- hence in part the many (~12) dimensions of theories which attempt to take science back before the singularity to the different things that existed then, and popped into three dimensions in what was Creation to us, but might be a perfectly mundane event in that physics.

And if consciousness isn't a thing, we have to find out how not- things can interact with things.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 05:39 PM

I tend to think that consciousness is no more than an illusion made necessary by our survival instinct reacting to the sea of cognitive dissonance that we continually try to rationalise. It's probably cobblers though..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 06:07 PM

"I tend to think that consciousness is no more than an illusion made necessary by our survival instinct reacting to the sea of cognitive dissonance that we continually try to rationalise."

Nice.

Its almost a pity to take issue with it.

However, I must!

The problem is, if its an illusion, who is experienceing that illusion?

I [verb]


Paul says:

"And if consciousness isn't a thing, we have to find out how not- things can interact with things."

And so saying, I think he has hit the ... erm ... enigma ... right on the ... erm ... you know ...

what I'm trying to say is ... good point sir!


The question is, am I a ghost in a machine or am I part of the machine ... and if I am part of the machine, why can't I be measured and quantified in the same way as the rest of the machine ...

This is the root - does "I" depend on the body for its existence, or is it merely inhabiting it.


"... These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
...Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind..."

from which shakespeare concludes ...

"... We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep ..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 06:52 PM

I could have sworn that said 'rounded with a sheep' - forgive me, I'm from t'north.

The problem is, if its an illusion, who is experienceing that illusion?

The problem is, we all experience our own.

"Ha! Whare ye gaun, ye crowlin ferlie?
Your impudence protects you sairly,
I canna say but ye strut rarely
Owre gauze and lace,
Tho' faith! I fear ye dine but sparely
On sic a place.

Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn'd by saunt an' sinner,
How daur ye set your fit upon her --
Sae fine a lady!
Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
On some poor body.

Swith! in some beggar's hauffet squattle:
There you may creep, and sprawl, and spr
Wi' ither kindred, jumping cattle,
In shoals and nations;
Whare horn nor bane ne'er daur unsettle
Your thick plantations.

Now haud you there! ye're out o' sight,
Below the fatt'rils, snug an' tight;
Na, faith ye yet! ye'll no be right,
Till ye've got on it ---
The vera tapmost, tow'ring height
O' miss's bonnet.

My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose ou
As plump an' grey as onie grozet:
O for some rank, mercurial rozet,
Or fell, red smeddum,
I'd gie ye sic a hearty dose o't,
Wad dress your droddum!

I wad na been surpris'd to spy
You on an auld wife's flainen toy:
Or aiblins some bit duddie boy,
On's wyliecoat;
But Miss's fine Lunardi! fye!
How daur ye do't.

O Jenny, dinna toss your head,
An' set your beauties a' abread!
You little ken what cursed speed
The blastie's makin!
Thae winks an' finger-ends, I dread,
Are notice takin'!

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!"

(Burns)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 07:23 PM

"creep, and sprawl, and sprattle", that should be. Dunno what happened there..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 04:44 AM

"The problem is, we all experience our own."

But it isn't the illusion that matters - its the "I" before "experience" - or if we are taking "experience" to be an event, "I Have" the experience.

It always reduces to "I" [verb]

So no matter what the verb, it can never be synonymous with consciousness, but is merely evidence for the "I" that precedes it.

So the illusion can't be the consciousness - "I" have an illusion

The experience can't be the consciousness - "I" have an experience

The memory isn't the consciousness - "I" remember/"I" can't remember/ who am "I"? ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM

Here's a long article about the 'puzzle' of consciousness by a philosopher, discussing the interaction of 'brain' and its awareness of itself.

Becoming a being which evolved to be able to reflect on our own nature, rather than simply manifesting ourselves, has led to a lot of confusion. The philosophical study of Phenomenology attempts to sort out some of the issues, but just constructing a shared vocabulary to do this makes the attempt awkward for all but a few.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 10:48 AM

Not quite sure what you mean there, Lox.. Bit of a rush, but I'll catch up later when I come back from corrupting my sons' minds.

What I meant was that "I" is the illusion. Despite the apparently dodgy grammar. An illusion of convenience.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:06 AM

What could be more oxymoronic than the assertion "I think consciousness is an illusion" ?

The core issue, as hads been indicated by several people on this thread, is that it appears irreconcilable to try and model a viewpoint in terms of mechanics; the I doesn't act like an It. The longest chain of compounded signals in the world has nomeaning and no communication to it until it leaps the gap to an understanding viewpoint. At that point, mirabile dictu! Communication, undersatanding, awareness, etc. all manifest.

Conversely the hugest pile of mechanical elements will lie idle and say nothing unless and until a spark of intent is injected into it, at which point, lo! it will send some sort of message.

To confuse these things to the point of believing that mud can produce intention and understanding leads directly to the sorriest mess of pottage imaginable.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:15 AM

"...believing that mud can produce intention and understanding ..."

Kind of a loaded metaphor, ain't it, Amos? That's not exactly what is claimed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:23 AM

suggested reading
Aquinas

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM

.The word delusion was obviously meant to be derisive and insulting to some.

I offer a sweeping apology to those who are directly hurt.

One should bear in mind that there is just so much pain and loss that a human being can endure and for those who are in need of a hope and belief in an afterlife and the like, should freely have the threapeutic benefits that such a God would offer.

Each of you have opinions of the world and your self that is basicly nothing more than the story you tell yourself is true. Change the story and you have changed yourself and/or the world. That is the psychological reality we share.

Still I believe that not all children or adults may need the kind of therapy that a God belief may offer. But for those who have encountered unfathomable loss, It can indeed provide great comfort.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: 3refs
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 03:29 PM

Through the eyes of a child:

The Children's Bible in a Nutshell
In the beginning, which occurred near the start, there was nothing but God, darkness, and some gas. The Bible says, 'The Lord thy God is one, but I think He must be a lot older than that.
Anyway, God said, 'Give me a light!' and someone did.
Then God made the world.
He split the Adam and made Eve. Adam and Eve were naked, but they weren't embarrassed because mirrors hadn't been invented yet.
Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating one bad apple, so they were driven from the Garden of Eden.....Not sure what they were driven in though, because they didn't have cars.
Adam and Eve had a son, Cain, who hated his brother as long as he was Abel.
Pretty soon all of the early people died off, except for Methuselah, who lived to be like a million or something.
One of the next important people was Noah, who was a good guy, but one of his kids was kind of a Ham. Noah built a large boat and put his family and some animals on it.   He asked some other people to join him, but they said they would have to take a rain check.
After Noah came Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob was more famous than his brother, Esau, because Esau sold Jacob his birthmark in exchange for some pot roast. Jacob had a son named Joseph who wore a really loud sports coat.
Another important Bible guy is Moses, whose real name was Charlton Heston. Moses led the Israel Lights out of Egypt and away from the evil Pharaoh after God sent ten plagues on Pharaoh's people. These plagues included frogs, mice, lice, bowels, and no cable.

God fed the Israel Lights every day with manicotti. Then he gave them His Top Ten Commandments. These include: don't lie, cheat, smoke, dance, or covet your neighbor's stuff.
Oh, yeah, I just thought of one more: Humor thy father and thy mother.
One of Moses' best helpers was Joshua who was the first Bible guy to use spies. Joshua fought the battle of Geritol and the fence fell over on the town.
After Joshua came David. He got to be king by killing a giant with a slingshot. He had a son named Solomon who had about 300 wives and 500 porcupines. My teacher says he was wise, but that doesn't sound very wise to me.
After Solomon there were a bunch of major league prophets. One of these was Jonah, who was swallowed by a big whale and then barfed up on the shore.
There were also some minor league prophets, but I guess we don't have to worry about them.
After the Old Testament came the New Testament. Jesus is the star of The New. He was born   in Bethlehem in a barn. (I wish I had been born in a barn too, because my mom is always saying to me, 'Close the door! Were you born in a barn?' It would be nice to say, 'As a matter of fact, I was.')
During His life, Jesus had many arguments with sinners like the Pharisees, the Democrats, and the Republicans.


Jesus also had twelve opossums.
The worst one was Judas Asparagus. Judas was so evil that they named a terrible vegetable after him.
Jesus was a great man. He healed many leopards and even preached to some Germans on the Mount.


But the Democrats, the Republicans and all those guys put Jesus on trial before Pontius the Pilot. Pilot didn't stick up for Jesus. He just washed his hands instead.
Anyways, Jesus died for our sins, then came back to life again. He went up to Heaven but will be back at the end of the Aluminum. His return is foretold in the book of Revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 03:35 PM

"What I meant was that "I" is the illusion"


This is only possible if we think of "I" in the abstract.

But in so doing we cease to think about "I" and instead think about a manufactured construct.

"I" observe an abstract construct which "I" have created and which "I" observe to be an illusion.

There is always an "I" behind each observation made.

No matter how I describe or define "I", it is always "I" who is making the observation, which means that the observation is in fact wrong as it is not in fact "I" that is beig observed, but something tha "I" have created.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 03:50 PM

Aquinas is a very tight system, with careful logic. It is interesting that the possible objection to Aquinas are contained in his own careful analysis, in that he explains very carefully that belief & 'proof' requires certain assumptions in order to proceed. The only way to seriously dispute Aquinas is just shrug and declare that you don't agree to accept the same premises. He, of course, thought that his premises were 'obvious' and inescapable....but that is itself a different debate.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 04:53 PM

Lox - I see the problem here. My "I" is an illusion perceiving itself as an illusion perceiving itself as an illusion perceiving itself as an illusion perceiving itself as an illusion ad infinitum, whereas you are just self-obsessed ;-)

My original comment was really only a thought about how humanity might have originally developed consciousness (or self awareness, perhaps?) - what we may have done with it since is another kettle of fish altogether, possibly even a horse of a different colour. I hadn't got that far.. I expect quantum mechanics has the answer, but I don't have the right spanners.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:35 PM

Nearly smokey ...

only that according to my model you can never be self obsessed, as to obsess about yourself you have to look from the other end of the telescope as it were, and suddenly it isn't you you are obsessing about but an alter ego.


As to your first sentence, you said:

"I see the problem here. My "I" is an illusion perceiving itself as an illusion ... etc ..."

If you look objectively at that sentence, your "I" was doing nothing of the sort.

Your "I" was busy seeing what the problem was here.

The only illusion was .. well ... your allusion to an illusion ...

now if you'll excuse me I have to do my nails ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:40 PM

PS - you may comment that I have argued in previous posts that objectivity is a myth, so how can I look at your sentence objectively ...


well I'm sorry about that but its just a necessary paradox.


I took your sentence to be the object and gave a subjective view about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:47 PM

I can't look objectively, I can only make imaginary subjective guesses at it, and you can hardly expect me to trust your opinion, being a figment of your own imagination.

according to my model you can never be self obsessed

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

Mirrors are better than telescopes anyway, though less telescopic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM

just a necessary paradox

As is consciousness..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:56 PM

The other roblem with looking at yourself objectively of course is that you'd have no way of recognizing yourself, having never seen yourself before ...


... and by the way, most modern telescopes are made using mirrors rather than lenses ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:59 PM

"just a necessary paradox

As is consciousness.. "


hmmm ... I'd have called it an anomaly ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM

"hmmm ... I'd have called it an anomaly ..."


   but not when I'm drunk as its harder to say then ...


.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 06:03 PM

The other roblem with looking at yourself objectively of course is that you'd have no way of recognizing yourself, having never seen yourself before ...

That was the point of the Burns.. sort of..

And don't telescopes have both?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 06:05 PM

"hmmm ... I'd have called it an anomaly ..."

Well. not everyone can be me..

And with that, I intend to go and eat sausages.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 07:26 PM

//"Homo sapiens sapiens did not descend ladder-like from H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilus, Australopithecus--in truth there is no evidence these left any evolutionary descendants whatsoever. "

This is a misreading of the concept of Evolution. These examples are part of a tree
that when you go back far enough forms a basis for the branch called Homo sapiens.
There is quite a bit of evidence that these earlier forms had physiology that was similar
to present day Homo sapiens and enough so that it can be determined that there was a causal connection.//

The remains of H. habilis and H. erectus unearthed at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania by Louis Leakey were found at the same level (Bed II) indicating they were contemporaries. H. erectus skulls found on Java in 1996 date only from 27,000 BP and were found alongside H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens. Harvard palentologist Stephen Jay Gould was moved by such discoveries to remark, "What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 07:56 PM

Dig it! (ha ha)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 08:16 PM

//J:

Proving there is no such thing as total unconsciousness during a lifetime does not prove anything about the state preceding or following that lifetime, logically. As it happens, I agree with what underlies your assertions, but your logic is flawed.

Proving there is no commerce of any sort on Sunday does not prove the non-existance of commerce, either.


A//

Perfectly true but that wasn't where I was going with it. IF you admit that there is no such state as absolute unconsciousness, then you are forced to consider that death does not extinguish consciousness. That doesn't mean that this is the case but you are forced to consider that it might be. If, on the other hand, you do concede that there is such a state, then it would be characterized as missing time.

Missing time is a hallmark of total unconsciousness since one could not have been aware of anything whatsoever. One was completely shut down, as it were. If this be the case, then it stands to reason that one could not be conscious during that period. Likewise, if death extinguishes consciousness, one's entire life becomes missing time meaning one was never conscious during that period. Since one was conscious during that period--contradiction. Conclusion: Death does not extinguish consciousness.

If your memories don't start accumulating until after T0 at birth and yet death wipes them clean at T1, then when do your memories accumulate? Yet to be conscious you must have the ability to remember events an infinite number of times if you choose and nothing can interfere with that without causing a radical alteration of your consciousness.

Here's a thought experiment that might better illustrate the point: Suppose a sadistic scientist invented a machine that could instananeously repair all physical trauma and totally erase all mental trauma and this machine truly does work. Now, he makes you an offer: For one million dollars in cash tax free, no strings attached, he offers to strap you down and torture you for 15 minutes. There will be a large clock there so you can watch the minutes roll by. The torture will be horrific and painful beyond anything any human has ever endured. It was be bloody, you will suffer the most excruciating dismemberment and flaying. Most importantly, you will be fully conscious the whole time and will feel everything and be spared nothing. At the end of 15 minutes, the machine kicks on and instaneously indemnifies you. Your body is perfectly healed and you have no memory whatever of being tortured. He unstraps you and hands you one million in cash.

The torture will be missing time. It will seem that he strapped you down and then the clock instantaneously jumped forward 15 minutes and then he unstraps you--none the worse for wear--and gives you your money.

Would you do it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 08:28 PM

Not without haggling.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM

Please provide link to substantiate your claim that Homo erectus still existed 27000 years ago. I thought he'd been extinct for about 700,000 years.

For why you don't tend to find intermediates in fossil records, buy yourself a copy of Origin of Species and see how Darwin confronts this. Most elegant.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 08:58 PM

If you were wise, you wouldn't do it all. The experiment rides on the idea of having permanent amnesia. This is simply not possible. If you get amnesia permanently in the future at time T, then you would observe the time to be at or later than T. Since you do not observe time to be at or later than T then you did not get permanent amnesia at T.

Now if death extinguishes consciousness, that is permanent amnesia and so your entire life has now been skipped over because you were not conscious at that time. You could not remember anything until after your death. Since you are conscious now, death cannot extinguish your consciousness.

Now, for all the readers--are you following my reasoning? Would you like more examples before I go on. Do you have any objections to what I've presented?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 09:05 PM

//Please provide link to substantiate your claim that Homo erectus still existed 27000 years ago. I thought he'd been extinct for about 700,000 years.//

I can give you so many, I don't know where to start. Here's what you do: go to Google and type "H. erectus skulls on Java from 27,000 BP" and take your pick. Other readers may also wish to do so to verify that I am not running you around in circles.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 09:23 PM

? If I am conscious while I am alive, how does that show that death won't end my consciousness?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 09:24 PM

I promised no further comment on your reasoning - please continue.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 10:42 PM

Well, J, you have already refused the normal working definition of unconsciousness, which is having no readily recoverable memories of Tn. But you are now saying that the state depends on what can be recovered, or not.

I appreciate what you are trying to prove but I don't think yuour "if...then" couplings are very tight.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:38 PM

//If I am conscious while I am alive, how does that show that death won't end my consciousness?//

Ok, fast forward to Dec 31st of this year and let's say you woke up that morning with a case of total amnesia--you remember nothing about your life, not a memory or anything, you're like a newborn infant. When did it seem that life began for you? Just that morning. Now, could this happen to you? Since experiencing always happens only in the present moment and you are conscious now and have memories, then no, it cannot happen to you. If you were going to get complete amnesia on Dec 31st, you could have no memories until Dec 31st or later. Since you are conscious now and do have memories, you will not get total amnesia on the Dec 31st or at any time in the future or you would not be conscious now.

Now, replace total ammesia with death (which is a form of total amnesia if it wipes out your consciousness). Remember: your experiencing is always in the "now," the present moment, and not in the past or future. Are you experiencing now? Yes. But if death extinguished your consciousness, the "now" cannot occur until after the amnesia occurs. But since death supposedly wipes out consciousness then "now" can't occur at the point either. It never occurs. You are never conscious. But since you recall all your experiences, you ARE conscious--contradiction. Death does not extinguish consciousness.

If you are conscious for even one second or a microsecond, then you are conscious for eternity.

Another way to look at it is to suppose that event X occurs now and you observe it. For you to be conscious, you must recall X at some future point which we'll call X'. X' is what binds future and present together as well as present and past. Without X', X never happened as far as you are concerned because you don't remember it. So if consciousness is wiped out before X' occurs, then you cannot be conscious now.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:08 AM

//Well, J, you have already refused the normal working definition of unconsciousness,//

It really doesn't matter if total unconsciousness as I define it is real or hypothetical since it's being used as a metaphor for the obliteration of consciousness by death. If one isn't real, then we have no reason to suppose the other is.

//which is having no readily recoverable memories of Tn. But you are now saying that the state depends on what can be recovered, or not.//

You appear to saying the same thing twice. If you can recover any memory of an event, then you were not totally unconscious at that event even if if it took years to receover it. I've made that clear fro the beginning and it hasn't changed. It doesn't even matter how accurate the memory is. It can even be a false memory because it still means you are conscious.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 05:44 AM

Sorry to gnaw away at this, but one can't really found any strong arguments one way or the other on the alleged human lineage as the details are far too controversial. Whilst I'll concede that my notion of the time of H erectus's extinction was out of date, there is no agreement that those later so-called Homo erectus fragments have been correctly assigned. Neanderthal Man is commonly assigned to our own species, sharing as it does 99.5% of its DNA with Homo sapiens (and there's good recent DNA evidence of some interbreeding). Gould seems to be picking up on something that needn't be at all controversial. There's no evolutionary reason why three lineages of Homo couldn't have coexisted, and they certainly needn't have been derived one from the other any more than modern-day humans are derived from chimpanzees. That isn't how evolution works. As for his claim (not entirely correct as it happens) that the three lineages showed no evolutionary trends, several things. Their tenures on earth were all relatively short, and add to that the long generational span of hominid species and you have limited opportunity for evolutionary change. Then the fossil record is relatively poor. There is some evidence that different races of H. erectus developed in isolation. Lack of intermediates in the fossil record is a common issue in evolutionary biology and it has been addressed, not least, as I said, by Darwin himself. It's a good read.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 06:19 AM

Come to think of it, Gould was playing devil's advocate. I need coffee.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 07:42 AM

Josep argues objectively that if we lose our memory then it does not follow that our consciousness didn't happen.

This is right.

Losing consciousness does not mean that we were never conscious, it just means that we have stopped being conscious in that moment.

But this does not help us on a subjective level.

I certainly see no link between this observation and the conclusion that consciousness can continue beyond the death of its "host" body.

It does raise the question though of what happens to "I" when a person loses consciousness.

Is it suppressed, put into some sort of limbo box between the body and the non physical world, or does it just flicker off, like a TV on standby - receiving no signal and emitting no picture, yet primed and ready to spring to life when woken up.

Is death the final unplugging ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 07:57 AM

Consciousness is not such a paradox.
IT is system of reflections and feed back loops that offer a perspective that is successful in perpetuating consciousness

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 08:08 AM

On the subject of memory,

My grandfather had a housekeeper for many years, who, in the last years of her life lost all her memory and didn't recognize anyone. I will refer to her here as Eva.

Once, an aunt of mine who had known here for mmany many years was visiting her. We shall refer my aunt as Caroline O'Reilly.

Well, Caroline was visiting Eva who had lost all useful day to day memory, and as usual Eva was busying herself to make Caroline feel welcome, as was her way.

They chatted about how eva was enjoying the home where she was staying and general other stufff that was of the immediate moment, but as far as Eva was concerned Caroline was just a kind stranger in a world full of unfamiliar things and people.

Suddenly, Eva turned to Caroline and said - in the manner of a barrister at law - "do you know Caroline O'Reilly" ...

To which my aunt replied "yes - I'm Caroline O'Reilly"

For a moment there was comprehension, then a mist of tears, and then the moment had passed and Caroline was a stranger again.

As I see it, in the ever changing present moment, Eva was never anything less than "I".

She was just "I" with no frame of reference to the world around her.

I think "I" can therefore exist without memories, being something of the moment, whether grappling to define terms in an inconsequential debate or whether trying to remember what it is you are sipposed to be doing, or trying to work out how to get the toast out of the clock radio.

When I was very small I did not understand the world around me, but I was definitely still "I". I don't agree that you have to be self aware to be "I".

"I" am conscious

"I" am aware

"I" ... float

"I" in isolation.


This of course still has no bearing on whether "I" can exist independently of the human brain or body.

But an interesting thought is this ... If the universe can expand from a singularity, then contract and expand again in an infinite gravity induced cycle, and spacetime can be recycled and reborn, then why can't all of its components - including human consciousness.

"I" am the essential ingrdient of the universe that I experience. Of that there is no doubt as without that ingredient I wouldn't be experiencing it.

So why shouldn't the laws of the ever reincarnating universe also apply to me?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 08:34 AM

Oh yes ... and another thing ...

There is a big difference betweeen the TV and "I" in this essential respect.

In the case of the TV, we can see a definite chain of thermodynamic events, involving the transformation of electrical energy into light, sound, kinetic and heat energy.

We know where all the energy goes.

There is no surplus and no deficit at the end.

What goes in, comes out, and the books are balanced.

The picture is light energy, the voice is sound energy, the cathode ray gun sweeps across the screen using kinetic energy, and the TV heats up and that energy rises and dissipates into the room, into the atmosphere and ultimately into space.


In the Brain, we see chamical energy turning into electrical impulses in the brain.

But what type of energy is "I" made of?

What are its properties?

and are the books balanced when it is factored into the brains thermodynamic cycle?

chemical energy goes in and is transformed into electrical energy, and of course heat, which again dissipates into the atmosphere.

But unlike with a TV, the "Image" is not a recognizable form of energy.

The electrical energy in the TV transforms into light ... thats the type of energy from which the image is composed.

The electrical energy in the brain transforms into ... a type of ethereal hologram? ... a "soul" ... certainly it correlates perfectly with "I"'s experience, both external and internal.

And when we die, where does this "I" energy go?

How much energy does an "I" need.


I believe that this is something that could be scientifically tested in an experiment.


The results could show whether I is defined by, or is independant of this universes thermodynamic cycle.


Which in turn could indicate whether "I" is an earthly 'product' of electrical impulses, or whether "I" is something else ... a ghost in a machine ... a partner in a symbiotic relationship between an organic host lifeform and an otherwise freefloating "I".


And who knows, maybe, if it cannot be explained where this energy goes when we die, then just maybe it doesn't rejoin the thermodynamic cycle of this universe as all the chemicaal energy contained in us does, but maybe it dissipates into a different universe/dimension/reality/world/afterlife.

Maybe a soul needs to inhabit an organic body to experience this universe.

Maybe we can experience other universes in other compatible vessels ...

Bill D ...

You're quite good at spotting shortcoming in ideas ...

Anyone ...


Spot any big flaws or unsupported premises?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 08:41 AM

"I believe that this is something that could be scientifically tested in an experiment."

This could be seen much like a human body energy audit.


Realistically, the human body is so complex, and contains so many variables, that such an audit could theoretically be impossible.

A person would have to agree to live in contraoole conditions, with a very strict routine, for at least a month.

Estimates would have to be made for how much energy was stored in the body in the form of fat ...

... maybe a mudcatter with an endless supply of tea and buscuits would be the ideal candidate ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 08:47 AM

"Consciousness is not such a paradox.
IT is system of reflections and feed back loops that offer a perspective that is successful in perpetuating consciousness"

Donuel,

But we cannot say with any conviction one way or the other whether any piec of IT has any sense of "I".


I can comment on what a piece of IT Does, but whether it just does it - fulfils a function, or whether it actually 'experiences' doing it are not observations that anyone has ever been able to make.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM

If the "I"-center, the viewpoint that is aware of its awareness, is in fact not of the brain but merely operates through it, the possibility is also introduced that in terms of mental energy it is an energy production unit as well. Which compares pretty well to experience, when you consider the various effects of self-talk in energizing the individual, mentally, and the wide array of placebo effects that the mind can have on the body.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:31 AM

Lox: You do a very good job of setting out some of the questions and speculations. Several of them come close to classic issues in Philosophy.

But the part I tend to agree with is the idea that IF consciousness ...the *I*... can exist independently, it is hard to imagine it without some form of energy comprising it...and we should be able to measure it.
What we DO measure is electrical energy in the brain when we stimulate an *I* with electrodes attached. Under different circumstances we get activity in different parts of the brain. I am never 'quite' sure why some are dissatisfied with exploring that and insisting "there MUST be something else", when we have no way yet to go beyond constructing linguistic models of our wishful thinking.

Now, you do say back there: " If the universe can expand from a singularity, then contract and expand again in an infinite gravity induced cycle, and spacetime can be recycled and reborn, then why can't all of its components - including human consciousness."

*shrug* Possible? Maybe...but it seems that under such a model human consciousness would have no meaning without the rest of the universe to ummm...'exist IN' and 'relate TO'.. If you even say that consciousness is a 'component' of the Universe, you are implicitly defining it as having some relation TO the physicality of the universe, whether you intend to or not.

I try every now & then to make the point in these discussions that we do get confused when we 'think' we have referred to 'something' by using a linguistic construction. (Kant referred to "the transcendental unity of pure apperception", but he KNEW he meant only a metaphorical construct to identify a relationship of ideas, not a 'something'.) Thus, it is my 'opinion' that having a complex language allows us to imagine and debate things that we can't quite be sure how to classify as to their status. (We know how to draw pictures of Unicorns, even though none has ever existed, because we construct their essence from known parts....whereas 'consciousness' as an independent entity..(singular or plural? eternal or temporary?)... is a will-o-the-wisp. It is linguistic cotton candy which melts when you try to pin it down.
   In some forms, it's great as poetry and metaphor... it is just awkward to base too much of our decision-making on as we struggle to cope with the daily reality we can't avoid.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:14 PM

BillD Said,


"*shrug* Possible? Maybe...but it seems that under such a model human consciousness would have no meaning without the rest of the universe to ummm...'exist IN' and 'relate TO'.. If you even say that consciousness is a 'component' of the Universe, you are implicitly defining it as having some relation TO the physicality of the universe, whether you intend to or not."


My post was not intended to be proof of any one specific idea, but was merely intended as a means for me to think through some ideas and see how they looked once they had been turned into text.

Consequently I made a couple of unconnected suggestions on the general theme of "I", the "ghost and host" versus "mind-body" quandary and the question of "afterlife".

My comments on the matter of consciousness being a part of a continually expanding and contracting universe, serve solely as a possible rationale for the existence of an afterlife in the form of reincarnation.

The question of "mind energy" was an unconnected point on the subject of the mind body problem.

Though my imagination compels me to say that they aren't incompatible as my consciousness iis only a small part of this universe, and my little spirit "I" might only flutter down to rest here for a briief time each time the universe expands.


Of course this throws open the idea of life being like groundhog day ... the same each time the universe re-expands ...

Maybe our "karma" affects subtle differences in the way it expands next time round ...

Maybe there is a whole cast of angels doing the can can on the head of my grans favourite knitting needle ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:22 PM

Amos,

Yes - in this context the matter of positive thinking does take on a new complexion.

All sorts of speculations about energy manipulation become possible.


Bill,

It seems logical to me that if the mind is comprosed of some kind of measurable energy, or at least if, when the body energy audit is done, a mind sized hole is found that can only be explained by the presence of a new different type of energy, then that would suggest that the mind is dependant on the brain and is part of its thermodynamic cycle.

If on the other hand, there is no need for the existence of a mind for the bodies energy accounts to add up, then that suggests the mind is not of the boody but comprised of a different type of energy.

I think that an experiment which could measure that somehow could be very useful indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:30 PM

I find this thread interesting to read and ponder although I have *no* understanding of it at all.

I do have one tangential thought to interject; I used to put it this way: There is no use wishing I had never been born because if the 'I' that I am had not been born, I would have born as someone else and therefore would still have been 'I'.

And that's all I have to say about *I*. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:47 PM

There is an antipathy to the idea that consciousness comes from the brain. There is always an attempt to claim that it emanates independently and theoretically you could make a hypothesis for this but it would still be empirically inconclusive, regardless of
the manipulation of philosophical terms.

Lox, atheism is not a religious position. Only religious people make that claim.

The "I"-ness that you all are talking about is a process of cognition, hence comes from
the human brain. It only exists if there is a consensus about what it is from others who perceive that with their brains.

Any concept of "unicorns" or other imaginary images are a product of cognition and don't exist outside of it. Theses images are generally formed by a cultural environment.

Because of the nature of DNA and evolution, to turn DeCartes around, "I am, therefore I think" rather than the reverse.

As to the testing of "I" consciousness, it leaves at death. There is no evidence available
to support otherwise.

Josep says, "Proving there is no commerce of any sort on Sunday does not prove the non-existance of commerce, either."

Either there is commerce or not. Can't have it both ways. Commerce is not a universal construct but only exists conditionally between the transactors. Hence, when memory is not present, it is not there. In the case of human psychology is has been shown that it comes and goes in some cases of amnesia. The question is can total memory be wiped by amnesia? Some things are remembered by amnesia victims such as how to play the piano or speak a foreign language.

Josep, one's death extinguishes consciousness in the dead person, not in those who are alive since their brains generally are operative. But for the dead person, consciousness
is not there and there is no "now". I don't believe in a universal consciousness. It is a matter of brain waves and neurons interacting.

Steve, Dawkins says there is really no missing link or gap as the Creationists claim. Every
bone discovered is a missing link in the grand design of Evolution.

I see the nature of an "afterlife" as being a flawed concept and psychologically motivated
by those who fear death. Memory for the living can return to those who have had it provided they are not brain-dead as Terry Shivo was. There are different forms of memory, some physical in the cellular structure and some having to do with the brain's imaging of past events.

There is a fallacy in Gould's argument.

"What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth."

There may be three existing lineages but nowhere is there evidence that one derived
from the other. But there is a strong probability in evolutionary terms that they all three had a common ancestral predecessor which was their root. This, as Dawkins has pointed out, is one of the misconceptions of evolution that one species or genus derives from another. To find the original river in the tributary or the original branch of the tree, you have to go back far enough to find the transitional antecedent.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:52 PM

I know *I* would sure welcome any way to measure that 'body audit' in order to approach the question. Right now physics and astronomy are certain that there is (so far) unmeasured energy AND matter in the Universe that is mathematically required to explain how things are as they are. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" seem to be taken for granted currently, but their composition and whether they can can help explain how there could be "a mind sized hole" seems to be beyond us so far.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:05 PM

"Because of the nature of DNA and evolution, to turn DeCartes around, "I am, therefore I think" rather than the reverse."

In fact, he never said "I think therefore I am"

To quote him accurately, he says:

"I am, I think."

This isn't the same thing as "I think therefore I am."

It isn't a logical construct.

It is a subjective experience described.

So to manipulate it as though it were an argument is not to deal with it at all, let alone counter it.


Now, if you read through my posts again, you will note that I am not expressing a view about what the mind is, though I allow myself the luxury of a few fun hypotheses.

I am on the other hand recognizing, as Bill confirms and as scientists are allegedly trying to measure, that if electrical energy is required for the mind to function, then it follows that that electrical energy is needed to fuel the minds energy, just as electrical energy is needed to fuel the light energy from which a TV image is formed.

So what does the electrical energy convert into?

What kind of energy is mind energy?

It isn't light, or sound, it isn't potential energy or kinetic ...

... but it does exist - how do I know? ... well ... because "I"/my mind very clearly exists.

Unlike a Unicorn, of whch I can conceive, but of which I have never had any experience, I experience my mind all the time, yet in a beautiful twist of reason, I am unable to conceive of it except in the realms of my imagination. I just am "it".

I [verb] - for all of us this is the premiss of every idea or bit of knowledge we have.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:07 PM

Well said, Stringsinger, with you all the way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM

Lox - what does 'ergo' mean then?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:21 PM

Therefore in Latin ..

Did Descartes write in Latin?

Or French?

I think he wrote in French and said "Je suis, Je pense".

I stand to be corrected

I don't speak Latin.

However, what I do know is that the academically accepted english translation, which I did study, does not say "I think therefore I am", but "I am, I think."

Based on that fact, I am forced to ask if the famous "cogito ergo sum" quote is accurate or part of the same mythology as "Ithink therefore I am."

I think that if it had been "cogito ergo sum" then it would have been translated as "therefore" and not the way you will find it if you look it up in "Les Meditations"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:25 PM

In French: "Je pense donc je suis".

I like Augustine though:

"If they say, "What if you are mistaken?" -- well, if I am mistaken, I am. For, if one does not exist, he can by no means be mistaken. Therefore, I am, if I am mistaken that I am, since it is certain that I am, if I am mistaken. And because, if I could be mistaken, I would have to be the one who is mistaken, therefore, I am most certainly not mistaken in knowing that I am. Nor, as a consequence, am I mistaken in knowing that I know. For, just as I know that I am, I also know that I know."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:36 PM

Puisque je doute, je pense;
puisque je pense, j'existe.

   then later

je pense, donc je suis

   is what he wrote. (Discourse de la Methode; Project Gutenburg.

However, most of his works were written in Latin, which was the international language of scholarship at the time.

but it does exist - how do I know? ... well ... because "I"/my mind very clearly exists.

You possibly are wrong there. You could be mistaken. That's Zen, and much of current thinking, with some experimental evidence. The funny thing is, it doesn't deny that you exist in the sense of being an objective entity; what it says is that your sense of individuality is a construct. It's a difficult thought to take on board, but it identifies the error in "because I think, I exist", as the 'I'. Perhaps the thought can exist, because that's what happens in physical systems with a certain degree and type of organisation, and the feeling is what happens to the matter involved in that system?

Thought exists, therefore something exists?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:43 PM

Evidently he did write in Latin, and it was later put into French.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:50 PM

"Descartes's original statement was "Je pense donc je suis," from his Discourse on Method (1637). He wrote it in French, not in Latin, thereby reaching a wider audience in his country than that of scholars. He uses the Latin "Cogito ergo sum" in the later Principles of Philosophy (1644), Part 1, article 7: "Ac proinde hæc cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima & certissima, quæ cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat." (English: "This proposition, I think, therefore I am, is the first and the most certain which presents itself to whomever conducts his thoughts in order.")."

"The phrase Cogito ergo sum is not used in Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, but the term "the cogito" is (often confusingly) used to refer to an argument from it. Descartes felt that this phrase, which he had used in his earlier Discourse, had been misleading in its implication that he was appealing to an inference, so he avoided the word ergo and wrote "that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (Meditation II.)"

(Wiki)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:52 PM

Thanks bill.

I would add that the phrase "cogito ergo sum" does not exist in that text.

"ergo" appears once, but as far as I can judge, not in that context - again I stand to be corrected.

Which begs the question again, why does the official Englis translation say "I am, I think" and not "I think therefore I am"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:58 PM

Paul, in the original translation on the link provided by Bill, my "control f" function finds the following phrases nowhere in the text.

"Puisque je doute, je pense;
puisque je pense, j'existe."

"je pense, donc je suis"

Are you sure you got these from the meditations?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:04 PM

Surely what matters is the context (The Meditations) rather than the translation of unitary single phrase?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:09 PM

Sorry, badly constructed:

Surely what matters in order to properly understanding Descartes meaning, is to place the phrase in context of Descarte's Meditations, rather than reducing his philosophy to various isolated translation of a single phrase?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM

Still crappily expressed.. Eh oh. Cider..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:14 PM

Here we are - Descartes argument and declaration - "I am, I exist!"

Latin:

"Haud dubie igitur ego etiam sum, si me fallit; & fallat quantum potest, nunquam tamen efficiet, ut nihil sim quamdiu me aliquid esse cogitabo. Adeo ut, omnibus satis superque pensitatis, denique statuendum sit hoc pronuntiatum, Ego sum, ego existo, quoties a me profertur, vel mente concipitur, necessario esse verum."

Or more specifically: "Ego sum, ego existo"

Ego - not ergo.

French:

"De sorte qu'après y avoir bien pensé, et avoir soigneusement examiné toutes choses, enfin il faut conclure, et tenir pour constant que cette proposition: Je suis, j'existe, est nécessairement vraie, toutes les fois que je la prononce, ou que je la conçois en mon esprit."

Or more specifically: "Je suis, j'existe"

English: "Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something. So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being maturely and carefully considered, that this proposition (pronunciatum ) I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me, or conceived in my mind"

Or more specifically "I am, I exist"


As I stated earlier, this is not a logical objective deductin, but an evidential experiential observation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:17 PM

Crow sister, the above distinction is a very important one as it clarifies whether Stringsingers rebuttal is relevant, or in response to a (non-deliberate) straw man.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:18 PM

Why on earth do you want a reference to it in a book that it isn't in, rather than references to two books that it is in?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:38 PM

It's a different statement - I was questioning what Lox said:

"In fact, he never said "I think therefore I am"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:39 PM

Paul,

Because "the meditations" Is a thesis on the mind body problem, which is the subject being discussed.

"A discourse on Method" is a thesis on scientfic method and therefore the quotes you refer to are in an entirely different context.

So if you want to know what Descartes analysis of the mind body problem is, you need to refer to the world which covers that subject.

As Crow Sister points out, he modified his language when he wrote the meditations to more accurately reflect what he had discovered, as he wanted to clarify that he was not merely assured of his own existance due to some logical word trick, but because he had applied his method of close and careful observation and scrutiny and found that there were no circumstances under which he could make any other claim.

In other words, no matter how much he tried to doubt "I", it always went and hid round the back of a verb ...

I doubt "I" ... oops - "I" just doubted something - empirically I have to admit that.

It is confusing yes, but nonetheless correct.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM

Smokey,

"It's a different statement - I was questioning what Lox said:

"In fact, he never said "I think therefore I am" "


OK - to clarify, ..

he never used the argument "I think therefore I am" as a means of solving the mind body riddle.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:47 PM

But he said it again in full, "cogito ergo sum" (now in Latin) three years after 'The Meditations' in 'Principles of Philosophy'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:50 PM

he never used the argument "I think therefore I am" as a means of solving the mind body riddle.

Ah, you obviously never went drinking with him.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:00 PM

Again Smokey, context is everything.

The point with descartes was that he wanted to break from prior philosphical method. The philosphy of his immediate predecessors was based on bold but doubtful premises.

He wanted to apply the type of thought to philosophy that mathematicians applied in Geometry.

His idea was that if he could prove one thing that ws beyond doubt, then he could build an understanding of the universe with that unshakeable truth as his first principle.

It is in the meditations that he attempted to demonstrate how his method of observation and analysis worked, by hopefully succeeding in finding that one doubt free first principle.

He found that while he could doubt everything else, he could not doubt his own existence, as in order to do so, he had to be doing some doubting .. so everytime he eclipsed himself in one place, he would turn around to find himself protected on the other side of the verb.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:05 PM

I don't doubt you there, Lox, but

To quote him accurately, he says: "I am, I think."

sometimes my pedantry gets the better of me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:07 PM

Stringsinger, I tried to find out more about that Gould quote (it's occasionally been quoted, disingenuously, out of context), which is why I said I thought perhaps he was playing devil's advocate. Certainly he had issues with Dawkins' selfish gene proposition, but he was far too good an evolutionary biologist to arrive at that elemental misconception about one species deriving from another. I think. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:10 PM

And I didn't even say that very well, but you know what I mean innit.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:25 PM

That Gould quote seems to be trotted out a lot on Islamic sites trying to discredit Darwin.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:14 PM

//Josep says, "Proving there is no commerce of any sort on Sunday does not prove the non-existance of commerce, either."//

I said no such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:22 PM

I said that. No commerce on Sunday make sno proof one way or the other about Monday through Saturday.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:29 PM

Stringsinger was quoting your quote of Amos but your post appeared to attribute it to you. Your method of indicating a quotation can be a little unclear at times.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:45 PM

//Josep, one's death extinguishes consciousness in the dead person, not in those who are alive since their brains generally are operative. But for the dead person, consciousness
is not there and there is no "now". I don't believe in a universal consciousness. It is a matter of brain waves and neurons interacting.//

That is the very thing that has to be proven not assumed. My argument is designed to prove your statement to be in logical error. My argument is constructed from the following:

i. I exist, I am conscious, I experience.
ii. I remember existing and being conscious and experiencing.
iii. If I (someday) recall an experience, then I was conscious of and during that experience. I was conscious at all the points I will (someday) ultimately remember.

There is no presupposing the conclusion that death cannot extinguish consciousness, it arises as a natural, logical fact when one takes the three statements above to their logical ends. Since they seem to be be a priori, my argument holds. It is not a matter of belief.

Permanent amnesia and death are not at all separate things if death extinguishes consciousness because to your consciousness they are indistinguishable. The dualists are right to a degree--the brain and the mind are separate.

So if you get total amnesia at some in the future, you cannot be conscious now. Why? Because consciousness skips over the events that cannot be recalled under any circumstances (i.e. permanently forgotten). The earliest recollection it can have is the instant the amnesia ends. Since this is not the case with you, then this event will never happen to you. Death would have the identical effect if it extinguished consciousness--you could not be conscious now. Since you are, death cannot extinguish consciousness. The death of the brain is not the death of consciousness. Couldn't be.

There IS a universal consciousness as Schrodinger's Cat proves but we don't need to go into that. I can prove my case without relying on it. I have already done so, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:57 PM

We've have a pretty good discussion thus far and I'm glad that people are mulling it over. It's worth thinking about. I want to make sure the reader understands the argument. I think at this point, it's been hashed out, although the reader may continue to post concerning it but I want to move one at this time and conclude the argument. My next post or two will deal with the afterlife by showing that--

a. There can be no heaven or hell.
b. The only logical choice is reincarnation.
c. The limitations of the argument.

And that will conclude the argument.

Whether there is a god will not be discussed because as some famous French guy told another, "I had no need for that hypothesis."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 10:35 AM

Josep:

That is the most circular, time-twisting reasoning I've ever seen.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 11:03 AM

"And that will conclude the argument.

Gosh...how wonderful! After 400-500 years of Philosophical debate...to have it all neatly summarized and finalized.

I am in awe.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 11:06 AM

The existence of parallel dimensions will continue to confound and amaze people with seemingly paranormal experiences that dwell primarily within consciousness.

More than just gravity may leak from this dimension, so close it is at the end of the Planck scale but impossibly far in terms of the infinite energy required to breach that infintesimal gap. Perhaps consciousness goes against the grain of space time in such a way that allows an ill defined glimspe into the brane of a parallel universe. Einstein said something very close to this.

This may also be at the heart of what others call the holographic universe. But for all my musings regarding a multiple dimensional reality I am just spitting into a contrary wind of opinions I normally expereince here.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 11:25 AM

The blending of past religious ideas and the future of scientific relatites is similar to the blending of the past exemplified by newspapers, and the future of blackberries and i pad/kendall readers for the desemination of information.

Some in the past will be put out of business and others will find new jobs. Still there will those who prefer to specialize in the fine arts and religions of the past that have evolved to such heights that they will continue to marvel and amaze for a long time to come.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 11:50 AM

Now I have to go plant 7 trees, 6 Mum flower pots, 100 bulbs and 2 rose bushes. I forsee that the trees, roses and daffodils will out live me. I will exist as a thought by someone else who will know that "someone" put those here. My children will have a more complete thought of who that someone was. Such is my idea of an afterlife.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 12:40 PM

Sorry Josep, but the argument will not be so conveniently ended.

"Reincarnation" is a religious concept. There is no scientific evidence for it.

"i. I exist, I am conscious, I experience."

This is because apparently mankind can interpret his existence through the
use of his brain.

ii. I remember existing and being conscious and experiencing.

Only to a certain degree. You can't remember existing thousands of years ago. You can however make it up but this would be madness if you believed it.

iii. If I (someday) recall an experience, then I was conscious of and during that experience. I was conscious at all the points I will (someday) ultimately remember.

Not necessarily. The mind or brain sometimes malfunctions. Memory is erased.
Sometimes entirely.

"There is no presupposing the conclusion that death cannot extinguish consciousness, it arises as a natural, logical fact when one takes the three statements above to their logical ends. Since they seem to be be a priori, my argument holds. It is not a matter of belief."

Your hypothesis doesn't hold. Death distinguishes consciousness for the dead.
Others may have consciousness while they are alive but there is no universal
consciousness. This has never been proven.

Philosophy is a strange subject. It is often manipulated by symbols such as in the Vienna Circle. The problem with it is that there are always counter arguments to those postulated. The "absolutes" are shibboleths that are destroyed by later philosophers.
This has been the history of a priori arguments.

With science, we see a flexibility that doesn't deal in absolutes but requires continuous verification. "Consciousness" has never been truly defined away from those who claim it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 01:06 PM

Given the volume of evidence that does suggest reincarnation, and taking it as sort of a hinge-point to this whole array of arguentums, what WOULD constitute "scientific" evidence of reincarnation? How would you establish controls over such an event?

It is amusing that social science reaches all sorts of conclusions by tallying up subjective views, and is acclaimed as at least sort of science, but somehow that doesn't work here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 01:59 PM

What "evidence" suggests reincarnation? I haven't seen or heard of any. On the other hand, I have heard a lot of stories, claims and myths about it. It's just another facet of the conceit of humanity - we're so good that we simply must carry on somehow, and if eternal life don't cut it then reincarnation might...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 02:40 PM

I doubt you have been looking hard; there are numerous instances of children, for example, coming up with hard data that seems very unlikely to come from any exposure they have had in their current existence, concerning events, languages, objects and people from earlier periods. In some of these cases, there has been an opportunity to verify the alleged memory.

You r readiness to dismiss it all as delusory is more a reflection on your mindset as an investogator than anything else.

I am not insisting that these constitute proof, merely evidence suggesting a possible explanation. For all I know they are tapping into the Akashic records using their DNA as antennae!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 04:59 PM

Its importanat to clarify again the difference between Scientific evidence and anecdotal evidence.

Witness testimony is anecdotal evidence.

Scientific evidence is evidence that withstands the process of scientfic testing and analysis.

Because we lack Scientific evidence, it does not follow that Anecdotal evidence is wrong, but scientific/forensic evidence is generally more reliable than witness testimony. Where it hasn't been reliable, it has generally been because mistakes were made, the methodology was flawed, signiificant variables were not factored in, or because of deliberate bias ... take the Birmingham Six ...

I have had experiences that I could never hope to replicate and which I didn't understand. I know what I experienced, and I know my testimony is true. But I can't prove it so I keep it to myself.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 05:15 PM

It seems to me that humans will convince themselves of any old tosh to avoid confronting the reality of actual death and the ultimate pointlessness of our existence. Little wonder, as it's not a pretty thought. It's time we grew out of it and started facing our responsibilities, i.e. future generations and the state of the planet.

By the way, if you know how, it's frighteningly easy to plant false memories in people's heads which are subjectively indistinguishable from the real thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 05:31 PM

"...it's frighteningly easy to plant false memories in people's heads ..."

And that's why it is very difficult to ascertain whether a 'memory' is of an actual experience, or assembled pictures and ideas from things they have heard about or dreamed about. We DO know of many verifiable instances of the latter, and can even work out much of the mechanism whereby it works, but how a memory can BE passed from one life to another is such a puzzle that buying into the idea is fraught with traps...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 05:44 PM

sticking my head above the trench,i am a"fundamental"christian .i never knew i was a right wing gay basher till this thread!seriously though my conversion followed reading about fulfilled bible prophecy which may not be accepted as proof of the bible here but i found it evidence enough.i am not a scientist but there are some who are very qualified who are creationists.i recommend [creation.com].idont consider it bigoted to share my faith but the loving thing to do if i believe in a judgement which christ saved me from-while respecting others the right to question/deny/reject the gospel message

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 05:51 PM

"...to share my faith.."

Some of that 'sharing' gets pretty pushy.....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM

It's the ones who are most insecure with their 'beliefs' who are the pushiest, in my experience. That goes for groups as well as individuals.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 08:38 PM

But I can't prove it so I keep it to myself.

I offer for consideration that this may be an important mistake in your strategy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 08:48 PM

"coming up with hard data"

Really? What does "hard" mean? Examples please! Incidentally, I don't want "proof." All I want is evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 09:17 PM

Re: evidence for reincarnation: there are numerous instances of children, for example, coming up with hard data that seems very unlikely to come from any exposure they have had in their current existence, concerning events, languages, objects and people from earlier periods. In some of these cases, there has been an opportunity to verify the alleged memory.

1) "seems very unlikely" is hardly evidence that it wasn't
2) if said verification had actually ever verified any, you wouldn't be using the hedge "alleged"

In other words, there is no more *evidence* for reincarnation than there is proof it doesn't happen.

The trick is, a reasonable person has no reason to postulate the possibility that it does, given the lack of evidence for it.

Furthermore, a reasonable person doesn't need proof that the unreasonable *isn't* what is happening, just because we don't know what is.

There is no earthy reason to posit the possibility, let alone the likelihood, that the individual human consciousness coming from a human brain can exist either before, or after, the life of that brain and its body.

That body may even be shared, as in conjoined twins who share a body but have separate heads; each head is known to have its own consciousness.

We *do* actually know that the brain makes the mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 09:34 PM

Perhaps consciousness was an evolutionary mistake and our self awareness will lead to our extinction.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 10:16 PM

Is there a heaven or hell? The answer by this argument is no. Consciousness survives death but does not get an eternal reward or punishment no matter how much it may deserve it. Heaven means different things to different people but basically it's a place of bliss. There can necessarily be no misery. Yet, undoubtedly, some who have died, while they may have been good people, lived miserable existences--an innocent child who grew up badly abused and died from the mistreatment, for example. What memories can this child have that are not painful? So he enters heaven at T1 where he can have no painful memories and yet nearly all his memories are painful and he has to remember them that way or his consciousness has been altered--contradiction.

If heaven is a place of infinite bliss, our consciousness cannot experience it. We max out at some point. A heaven of infinite, unlimited bliss would be wasted on us. If I attach you to a pleasure-giving machine, you will have pleasurable sensations initially but you will start to develop a tolerance to it. So I have to up the amount to keep you feeling the same amount of bliss but you will eventually develop a tolerance to that. So I have to keep upping the amount, at some point my machine maxes out and even if it didn't you would. You just can't keep on feeling unlimited bliss, you max out and it starts to decrease. All our sensations eventually decrease to zero after their limit has been reached.

Perhaps heaven is a place of a surplus of bliss. There must necessarily be more bliss than we experience now in order for it to be worthy of being called heaven. Even so, even our most pleasant memories during our earthly life seem less pleasant in comparison when we are in heaven because everything is more blissful there. Again, it would amount to an alteration of our consciousness.

And the same hold true for hell and eternal punishment.

But wait--the memory is still intact so it wouldn't violate the premise of this argument, we're still in heaven recalling our experiences, right?.....Except we're not. We are recalling experiences that we never had. The memory of them may be there but the sensations have changed and effectively made it a different experience.

Consciousness isn't just about recalling experiences. It is also about re-living sensations. Every experience is accompanied by a unique set of sensations. Sensations are qualia--feelings that we have that we cannot communicate to others. For instance, if I tell you the sky is blue, you have to know what blue is to know what I mean. If you don't, I can't explain it to you. Blue is just blue. If I am in pain, I can't explain the pain to you to make you feel it, you would simply have to feel it.

If you bungee jump off a bridge, it is heart-pounding the first time you do it. Later on, you don't simply recall that sensation. You remember how scared you were but you don't feel the actual sensation. In order to do so, you simply have to re-live it. When you bungee jump again, that terror will return but with minor changes because you gradually get used to it because all sensations eventually dwindle to zero. Now every time you jump, you will feel some degree of that fear (that's why those who jump do it all--for that thrill).

Ever drive down a slippery road and suddenly your car goes into a spin and there is that moment of panic when you realize the car's tires are not in contact with the road and you have become a huge hockey puck? What goes through your mind at the moment? If you think about it, what went through your mind was a memory of every other time you ever felt that panic. You remember all your previous spin-outs. Why? Because you were conscious during those experiences and the return of that sensation sparks that memory.

This is necessary because if you couldn't re-live sensations, you could not have been conscious during that initial experience. Without re-living the sensations of that experience, you have no way of know you ever felt them before. To be conscious you must re-live sensations.

Another example is when you hear a song from your childhood that you haven't thought about since you were that child. You seemed to have completely forgotten it. Now all these years later you hear it again and what happens? It's like a trip back in time, you not only remember things you realize you had nearly forgotten but the sensations are come flooding back--the way it made you feel good or the way it made you feel while riding the bus to school or the way it made you think of that girl or that boy in class that you had such a crush on--it all comes back in a huge rush. When you play that song for your kid brother or sister, you see that moment their eyes light up hearing that song again after all this time. If you could not re-live sensations, that wouldn't happen.

Just as your life seems to be one long waking episode because you can't remember blank spots of total unconsciousness, your life is also one long series of sensations. You never stop having them and will go on having them up to the moment of death.

But just as you must remember all your experiences, you must re-live all your sensations if you are a conscious being. So what happens if you die without re-living certain sensations? Since death does not extinguish consciousness, you must re-live them in a future time after your death. And how are you going to re-live them if not in a human body on a planet exactly like earth? That's how you experienced them before so that's how you must re-live them. But you've died so what must happen? Well, we know you don't go to heaven or hell and you can't re-live your sensations that way anyhow. So what then must happen? You guessed it--you have to come back. You have to reincarnate.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 10:50 PM

With all due respect, Josep, I don't think you've shown that death doesn't extinguish consciousness. Your reasoning just doesn't work for me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 11:12 PM

Excuse me, but we do not know that the brain makes the mind; we know that they are coupled, and many of us assume therefore the one makes the other.

The analogy that comes to mind is the notion that the cell phone makes up messages, or the television is full of little people. The connection is possibly misidentified.

I use the word alleged because the reports are, for the most part, anecdotal, recorded by non-scientists; but they seem genuine enough. Furthermore, in some of the case histories I have read it is extremely unlikely the individual would have been exposed to the data through any other identifiable means. I don't mind whether you accept this opinion or not.

There is very little in the human mind that has been subjected to the kind of rigorous evidentiary processes you have in mind. Rough correlations between dreams and sleep, and some tests about some brain areas mapping to some mental reactions, have been done, but nothing you could call definitive. as far as I know.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 11:34 PM

Amos is correct. To my knowledge, no one has proven the brain creates the mind. Science still doesn't even know what consciousness is or where in the body it resides which implies that it is not a gimme that it arises in the brain even if it has a material origin.

I brought up earlier that Quantum Mechanics has experimentally proven that consciousness, not the brain, collapses the wave function and wherever it collapses that is where we locate the particle. It is illogical in the extreme that a brain made of matter creates the very thing that collapses the wave function into matter. This was summarily dismissed by someone who simply said it ain't so.

The skeptics have become the thing they hate--creationists. Both reject science when it doesn't support them but will unhesitatingly shout it from the mountaintops when they think it does.

And remember, telling me my argument is tautological or illogical or unworkable is pointless without a counterargument to offer in its place. I have asked for them several times and have not yet received one. All I get it is, "Sorry but this just isn't right." Or I'm told science has disproven this or that notion when I know damned well it hasn't and no further information is offered by the poster.

I'm afraid I must DEMAND to be disproven not just dismissed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 11:36 PM

How did Schrödinger's cat prove there's a universal consciousness?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 12:42 AM

It is as impossible to disprove an afterlife as it is to prove one, which I think you have failed to do. However, the burden of proof is entirely yours and you have no justification for demanding anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 05:04 AM

Smokey,

"It seems to me that humans will convince themselves of any old tosh to avoid confronting the reality of actual death and the ultimate pointlessness of our existence. Little wonder, as it's not a pretty thought. It's time we grew out of it and started facing our responsibilities,"


I don't think this is a fair assessment of the actual issue.

Of course on any issue there are partisan people who form the majority of viewpoints and who swear blind loyalty to their opinions no matter what, and this issue is no different.


However, the matter of the mystery of "I", its place in the universe and its nature, lifespan, connection to the physical universe etc, is the fundamental first step in every line of enquiry.

Every subject you care to think of: philosophy, science, history, economics, music and maths, derive from this line of enquiry - as means of making sense of our lives and the universe we live in.

Science hasn't provided any more satisfactory answers than religion on the subject of "I" and the enquiry continues in increasingly complex and numerous ways.

To say that we should face up to the facts suggests that we know the answers.

To say that we should accept this or that conclusion is to suggest that we should discontinue our enquiries and be satisfied with what we're given.

Sorry, but this question is the petrol in my engine.

Which is interesting in itself ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 06:08 AM

"If I attach you to a pleasure-giving machine, you will have pleasurable sensations initially but you will start to develop a tolerance to it."

I'll take the risk. I'll order three, please.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:55 AM

Ha ha!

Me too!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 12:19 PM

"I don't think this is a fair assessment of the actual issue."

No, neither do I really, and I don't "swear blind loyalty" to it. It's only an opinion. It's the way I tell 'em.

"If I attach you to a pleasure-giving machine, you will have pleasurable sensations initially but you will start to develop a tolerance to it."

As a chat-up line, it leaves a lot to be desired..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 12:24 PM

lol, Smokey.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 12:38 PM

I should have said "specific" data, perhaps; a three- or five- year old describing the buildings and people in a village to which she had never been, to which her parents had never been, down to details of house colors and the occupations of her "past" family members, which when the adults finally were persuaded to take the trek over the mountains, were found to be exactly as she had described them. A boy describing WW II armaments with familiar precision to which he had not been exposed in any identifiable way in his current identity. These are two that come immediately to mind. Anecdotal, yes. But not unpersuasive except to the pre-concluding mind.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 12:42 PM

It is not for anyone to 'prove' that consciousness does NOT survive death, but rather for those who suggest that it DOES to offer evidence.

Skepticism is about just not being satisfied with unusual claims....if we skeptics were required to DISprove every metaphysical assertion, we'd never get anything else done.... and those who 'believe' would challenge each one. There's no end to the debate if anyone asserts that they know something to be true...or not true.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 01:34 PM

Well, Bill, I think you will allow that even the most hard-boiled skeptic has a viewpoint and generates decisions, considerations, opinions and intentions in order to communicate his skepticism to the world.

And he sees and to some degree understands things in the material space-time continuum, as well as in his own world of ideas. And also views, to some degree, and acts on his views of the opinions and agreements that are formed by others and sent his way through various means.

Yes?

In all this give and take, viewing and opining and intending and communicating, there is an awful lot which the skeptic has no viable explanation for. There is nothing droller, IMHO, than a skeptic saying "I don't think there is such a thing as thought" while carefully avoiding lookjing at what he is doing in the process.

I submit that although that qualitative leap I have often mentioned, between the mechanisms of transmission and the understanding of the viewer, is inescapable, some folks will go to hell and back trying to escape it anyway. That doesn't make their skeptical assertions true or even workable. It makes them look like contortionists.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 02:07 PM

An interesting --albeit shallow--article from the NYT on the rising interest in such beliefs.

Twenty-five percent of the US population is said therein to hold with the model of reincarnation. Not to mention the billions of Hindu and Buddhist subscribers to one or another form of the same idea.

In the comments received from readers of the NYT, though, the proportion of materialist skepticism was much higher.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 02:35 PM

Even if it were 99%, it doesn't mean any more than "100 Authors Against Einstein" did. Matters of fact can't be decided democratically.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 02:36 PM

Just a thought...

I wonder what the spiritual equivalent of homophobia is? You know how it goes. Often the one that shouts the most against something is the one that actually fears their own internal feelings and emotions on that subject.

I have met many believers, non-believers, agnostics and atheists who are more than comfy with their own particular stance without feeling the need to indoctrinate others of a differing mind. Where does discussion of a subject end and indoctrination begin with a subject such as religion?

As I have read and tried to catch up with thread my own conclusion is that I still cannot make any conclusion. Seems I am not alone :-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 04:16 PM

There is nothing droller, IMHO, than a skeptic saying "I don't think there is such a thing as thought" while carefully avoiding lookjing at what he is doing in the process.

You're right, but no-one's actually said it here.

I may be wrong, but I suspect you might be referring to my (almost) tongue-in-cheek suggestion about consciousness being an illusion, in which case it is my fault you misunderstood it. Your comment merely takes the irony seriously. I suppose if I were to make the effort to be serious about that line of thought, with hindsight I probably wouldn't use the word 'illusion' without further clarification as it obviously isn't quite adequate.

Blathero ergo sum.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 04:27 PM

josep-that for which you diamiss creationists also[and i suspect more often]applies to evolutionists.rather than accept invitations from well qualified creatiuonists they mostly dismiss them.if they are so certain they are right one would think they would welcome the chance to publicly prove it,considering how zealous dawkins etc are in trashing creationism

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 04:39 PM

"Twenty-five percent of the US population is said therein to hold with the model of reincarnation."

I wonder whether this 25% derives from that third of the US population who utterly reject evolution. I have no valid reason for saying that other than sheer whimsy.

"Not to mention the billions of Hindu and Buddhist subscribers to one or another form of the same idea..."

Billions? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 04:51 PM

well qualified creatiuonists

!!!

You can't be "well qualified" to present an argument that all the evidence is against. The childish arguments of twenty years ago (what's the use of half an eye? how could feathers have evolved if you can't fly until they are perfect?) were answered immediately, elegantly and easily. The attempt to sneak creationism in via "intelligent design" has failed, simply because they've never been able to produce a structure so "irreduceably complex" that there was no option but to admit that it had to be designed. Even their favourite, the bacterial flagellum, turns out to have evolved from a simpler structure which developed to solve quite a different problem.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 05:07 PM

Amos... "Yes?"

Yes, of course...but please be very careful about what you suggest skeptics are saying. I try over & over to clarify the difference between 'doubting' and 'denying'.

And just because "<...there is an awful lot which the skeptic has no viable explanation for. ", it does not follow either that 'believers' DO have a viable explanation or that the ultimate viable explanation is not rooted in natural 'physical' causality.

And I echo the points made by Paul Burke and Smokey.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 05:41 PM

Since when was scepticism a bad thing?

If we all never questioned anything, we'd all be full of sh........ er no, wait....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 06:07 PM

"telling me my argument is tautological or illogical or unworkable is pointless without a counterargument to offer in its place."

Josep, it is not possible to produce a counter-argument to something that doesn't appear to make sense in the first place. You know that full well. The three premises of the argument do not seem to lead to the alleged conclusion, and that is the only counter-argument I can offer. It is your responsibility to prove that they do, as that is what you are claiming. I don't need to prove that they don't, and until I hear a clearly understandable explanation to the contrary I stand by my comments.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 06:07 PM

Yeeee
1000

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 06:17 PM

I must add that I am basically sympathetic to josep's concerns, and agree with him on many of the details. It is only the claim to 'certainty' and 'end of discussion' that worries me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 06:28 PM

The old truism that "science is not democratic" is a two-edged sword.

Anyway, doubting is certainly different from denying, thanks for making the distinction.

Smokey, you are absolutely right that no-one said that. SOmetimes the sterner characters on these threads seem to be drifting pretty close, though; and the underlying point is still amusing. I wasn't aiming it at anyone in particular.

The reference to "billions" was actually worded as follows:

"But nearly a billion Hindus and a half-billion Buddhists Ñ not to mention the ancient Greeks, certain Jews and a few Christians Ñ have for thousands of years believed something entirely different. Theirs is, as the theologians say, a cyclical view. You are born. You live. You die. And because nobodyÕs perfect, your soul is born again Ñ not in another location or sphere, and not in any metaphorical sense, but right here on earth."


Of course there's a nasty bit of embedded baggage in the expression "your soul" is "born again". It sort of implies there is a difference between the "I" and the "soul of the I". I dunno if that's a distinction with a difference or not.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 06:44 PM

AN excerpt from the last page of the above citation:

"ON the fringes of legitimate science, some researchers persist in studying consciousness and its durability beyond the body. Though Dr. Tucker, who directs the Child and Family Psychiatry Clinic at the University of Virginia, has few kind words for regression therapy or its practitioners, he continues to be committed to the scientific study of what can only be called reincarnation.

He is carrying on the pioneering research of his mentor, Dr. Ian Stevenson, who beginning in the 1960s collected more than 2,000 accounts of children between the ages of 2 and 7 who seemed to remember previous lives vividly without the help of hypnosis.

Dr. Stevenson did most of his casework in Asia, where belief in reincarnation is common. There he found a child born with a deformed hand who remembered having his fingers chopped off in a previous life (Dr. Stevenson went to the village the child recalled and verified that such an incident had taken place), and Burmese children who said they had previously been Japanese soldiers killed in World War II and preferred sushi over their native cuisine.

Dr. Tucker studies American children and in one case found a young boy who started to say, around the age of 18 months, that he was his own (deceased) grandfather. 'He eventually told details of his grandfather's life that his parents felt certain he could not have learned through normal means,' Dr. Tucker wrote in Explore, which calls itself a journal of science and healing, 'such as the fact that his grandfather's sister had been murdered and that his grandmother had used a food processor to make milkshakes for his grandfather every day at the end of his life.'

Dr. Tucker won't say such cases add up to proof of reincarnation, but he likes to keep an open mind.

'There can be something that survives after the death of the brain and the death of the body that is somehow connected to a new child,' he said. 'I have become convinced that there is more to the world than the physical universe. There's the mind piece, which is its own entity.'"

---

It's odd that given case histories of this sort, which the mind=brain only model cannot account for, those who rebut the case as "anecdotal and therefore unreliable" do not have any other hypothesis to offer; they instinctively opt for the explanation that the data must be false, or cooked somehow.

Of course that implies a large number of people cooking up data around the same theme, if you delve into the number of case histories involved. Maybe it's a conspiracy???? :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 07:05 PM

Not a conspiracy...just a natural 'direction' and interpretation for hard-to-fathom events. I understand perfectly why certain anecdotes would be 'made sense of' in that way. (I can even offer hypotheses about how young children might report such things.)

However, it's not that the skeptics "do not have any other hypothesis to offer"...some do...*I* do...and my guesses are, obviously, also "unprovable", although much research into brain function IS providing some indications that my guesses are certainly not just wild fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 07:33 PM

I don't think human memory alone is generally reliable enough to draw any definite conclusions from. Neither is the notion of consciousness, given that most of our brains' activity is, by necessity, unconscious.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 07:49 PM

I too have had a little boy, not quite two years old, tell me something startling.

First he said that he used to be a big man once. That, in itself, is nothing at all unusual- most kids think something of the sort.

But then he said he used to have an airplane. Well, this is Alaska- kids know all about airplanes.

Then he said, matter of factly, It crashed. I crashed it. And I died.

I said, Oh, that's too bad. What happened?

He said, It had a fire. And they couldn't get to me fast enough.

Now, I agree that he could have overheard such a conversation at home. However, he was playing with some blocks at the time and his demeanor was, well, different.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:08 PM

>>josep-that for which you diamiss creationists also[and i suspect more often]applies to evolutionists.rather than accept invitations from well qualified creatiuonists they mostly dismiss them.if they are so certain they are right one would think they would welcome the chance to publicly prove it,considering how zealous dawkins etc are in trashing creationism<<

If you've been following the thread you will see that I DID attack evolutionists just as I have attacked skeptics. Creationists are the only people I haven't outright attacked. They are guilty of bad science but so are lot of skeptics. At times, both are identical and cannot be told apart.

As for evolutionists coming out and debating, many have. The problem is, whether they are right or wrong, creationism isn't going away. So what is the point of debating it? I can't see creationists saying, "Oh! I see, you're right after all. Ok then, sorry, we're disbanding and we won't make another peep." Is that ever going to happen? No. All science can do is try to keep it out of public schools where I agree that it has no place. My tax dollars should not have to pay for it. Evolution is an empirical view or at least it is supposed to be. While I don't think evolutionists have the slightest idea how humankind got here, I agree with the basic mechanism of evolution. Nor do I place much emphasis on Darwin. I think Darwin is overrated. But he wasn't wrong. Or at least he had the right idea. But to be placing that much emphasis on a 19th century man while ignoring far more recent evidence that evolution works more with cooperation than with struggle is typical of skeptics.

They're like Christians with Jesus. I don't know if they realize that it's the 21st century.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:23 PM

Mauvepink says: I wonder what the spiritual equivalent of homophobia is?

I think there's a salient point here. For a significant portion of humankind, "spirituality" consists of an organized expression of fear and disdain for other people. These people see it as their divine calling to condemn other people for this and that and the other thing. There's one woman in our bible study group who has that mindset, and I don't know how to deal with it - and I wonder when she's going to turn on me.

Still, I guess I have to say there's something to this "spirituality of fear," and I have to acknowledge it as legitimate. For many people, fear is their most common and deepest emotion - and so they see that as their "religion."

And I have no idea how to deal with that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:23 PM

///I too have had a little boy, not quite two years old, tell me something startling.

First he said that he used to be a big man once. That, in itself, is nothing at all unusual- most kids think something of the sort.

But then he said he used to have an airplane. Well, this is Alaska- kids know all about airplanes.

Then he said, matter of factly, It crashed. I crashed it. And I died.

I said, Oh, that's too bad. What happened?

He said, It had a fire. And they couldn't get to me fast enough.

Now, I agree that he could have overheard such a conversation at home. However, he was playing with some blocks at the time and his demeanor was, well, different. ///

When I was a boy I was haunted by snatches of memories of medieval Europe. It happened whenever I heard medieval music or saw medieval art. The feeling of recognition was overwhelming and completely puzzled me. At 4, I'm hearing medieval music on TV and thinking, "I know what that is!! But how could I know, I've never heard this before." Even weirder, I had memories or impressions that I couldn't make sense of until I got older--namely, I was a monk and an unhappy, dissatisfied monk at that. Could mean nothing. But suppose I had memories and sensations back then that I didn't get to recall or re-live? A stimulus in a new life triggers them no differently than when you hear an old song from childhood that you haven't thought about in decades--thought you had utterly forgotten it. Those feelings are not as vivid now but I still have a penchant for medieval music and art. And I still have no desire to be a monk.

And this boy you speak of--those may have been his final memories and sensations and then he died before he could remember and re-live them so it must happen now because he was conscious when it happened. But who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:31 PM

"I don't know if they realize that it's the 21st century."

It's always some century or other. But in principle that's no different from saying "I don't know if they realize that it's the 17th September." Relevant information for some purposes - eg when it comes to deciding whether some food has passed its eat-by date - but not necessarily too relevant in other contexts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:35 PM

"As for evolutionists coming out and debating, many have. The problem is, whether they are right or wrong, creationism isn't going away. So what is the point of debating it? I can't see creationists saying, "Oh! I see, you're right after all. Ok then, sorry, we're disbanding and we won't make another peep." Is that ever going to happen? No. All science can do is try to keep it out of public schools where I agree that it has no place. My tax dollars should not have to pay for it. Evolution is an empirical view or at least it is supposed to be. While I don't think evolutionists have the slightest idea how humankind got here, I agree with the basic mechanism of evolution. Nor do I place much emphasis on Darwin. I think Darwin is overrated. But he wasn't wrong. Or at least he had the right idea. But to be placing that much emphasis on a 19th century man while ignoring far more recent evidence that evolution works more with cooperation than with struggle is typical of skeptics."

I'm sorry, old chap, but you clearly have no idea at all what evolution is about. I suggest that you obtain a good tome that deals with it and have a really good read. I could suggest Origin Of Species for starters. It is written incredibly clearly and in simple language and will sort quite a few things out for you.

"I think Darwin was overrated." Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:38 PM

is overrated

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:43 PM

Er.. I suspect our man thinks he's cleverer than Darwin...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 09:10 PM

No, I don't think I'm cleverer than Darwin. But he lived over 100 years ago, folks! Over one hundred fucking years!! Meet me half way! Say, 1916?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 09:32 PM

///Josep, it is not possible to produce a counter-argument to something that doesn't appear to make sense in the first place. You know that full well. ///

Hmm, let's analyze that one. You can't offer a counterargument that makes sense because my argument doesn't make sense?? So if I argue that 1+1 = 3, you can't offer a counterargument because mine doesn't make sense?

Just say you don't have a counterargument--it wears better.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 09:41 PM

You can't offer a counterargument that makes sense because my argument doesn't make sense??

No, I just can't offer a counter-argument. That's not unlike saying I don't have a counter-argument. I told you why I don't have one.

If you argue that 1+1=3, I'd probably say "cobblers", doubtless due to my bad breeding.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 09:49 PM

Moreover, I never "end of discussion." I don't mind if you take issue with something I said but will you PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth just to have something to argue with?? I said please.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 10:01 PM

Josep, so far as I can see, your premises don't lead to your conclusion. The only explanation for this that I can see is that either your conclusion is wrong or your premises are wrong. By all means explain yourself to my satisfaction, and I'll be happy to admit that I was too stupid to understand your original explanation. I don't mind being proved wrong, as it means I've learned something, but until then my opinion is that you have largely been talking bollocks. I mean no personal offence by that, by the way, and I'm not particularly dismissing all the elements of your argument, but the overall conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 10:15 PM

will you PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth just to have something to argue with?? I said please.

That wasn't me, but you're a fine one to talk - that's exactly what you did with me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 10:32 PM

I'm afraid that was me mis-stating josep's remarks... I try not to do that, but didn't take enough time to look for the exact quote, which was:

" My next post or two will deal with the afterlife by showing that--

a. There can be no heaven or hell.
b. The only logical choice is reincarnation.
c. The limitations of the argument.

And that will conclude the argument."


I interpreted that to indicate that he felt that his logic would leave no room for disagreement. Did I misread that, josep?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 10:42 PM

Aye Bill.. 'conclude' could be, at a push, interpreted as 'end'. In the context of Josep's general demeanour I think you were justified in your interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 11:44 PM

I was just looking for the mathematical 'proof' that 0=1 with a view to demonstrating that 1+1+0=3 (as you do) when I found this, which rather tickled me:

"Proof by intimidation is a term used mainly in mathematics to refer to a style of presenting a purported mathematical proof by giving an argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results, so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding. The term is also used when the author is an authority in his field presenting his proof to people who respect a priori his insistence that the proof is valid or when the author claims that his statement is true because it is trivial or because he simply says so."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 11:52 PM

Ebbie:

AN interesting example, one out of thousands. Probably not one that would be easily trackable or verifiable. But interesting in that accepting his words as true to his actual perceptions is beyond some folks. Others put it in the "cannot be resolved one way or the other" box. Others come up with fancy explanations that will adhere to their previous models of a maore material sort. In the middle of it, here's this moment in which the boy says something extremely intriguing, innocent, and full of possible mystery.

Anyway, thanks for the story. He is not alone.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 02:10 AM

Smokey, it's a surprise to see that "proof by intimidation" exists in Mathematics. I thought that was one discipline where people could have a truly civil discussion and come to a friendly conclusion that would be accepted by all.

Now you're telling me that math can be every bit as contentious as religion. I had considered spending my Sundays peacefully doing math problems, but now you've pulled that carpet out from under me.

I'm crushed.    ;-)

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 04:44 AM

If someone states that 1+1=3, it is redundant to present a counter argument.

All that I would say is - "your argument doesn't add up" and ask you to go and check it.

If you kept insisting that 1+1=3 I would conclude that you weren't thinking your arguments through.

It would not be for me to start explaining what 1+1 does equal, as I might have my own point - I might be trying to explain that 2-1=1.

What 1+1 equals is your point, and it is for you to work out how to answer before you go round telling people it equals 3.


For Smokey to say "sorry mate, but your argument doesn't add up" is sufficient - if you provide a clearer explanation of your thinking, it is easier for people to either see why you are right, or where you have made a mistake.

So it your responsibility to you to clarify how your argument adds up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 05:03 AM

In the same way (he said disingenuously), we should ask believers for evidence when they claim that God exists. If you attempt to engage the 1+1=3 man in sensible argument you have either already gone more than half way to letting him think he has a good point, or you are humouring him, or you are patronising him. None of these is a good solution. All you can usefully do is to ask for more clarity before you engage. Atheists should never answer the improper question "Do you believe in God?" for the same reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 05:52 AM

Poem 154 of 230: GETTING TO KNOW GOD

God lets us go
    Our own way -
Until the Day;
    Now and then, though,
He has a Say
    In His own Way -
Prophets to Sow,
    Deserts to Pay.

(C) David Franks 2003
From http://walkaboutsverse.webs.com (e-scroll)
Or http://blogs.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse (e-book)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: s&r
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 06:26 AM

The eighth post of this one on mudcat....

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 09:38 AM

1+1=3 is equivalent to 3 - (1+1)= 0 or 1=0

That's a counterargument.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 10:04 AM

OK, you give me one grand and I'll give you none back. Deal?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 10:37 AM

If there is a god who sees all and knows all, he must be highly amused by now at the direction of all this.....including some very un-godly math.

Why I can even 'prove' that half of twelve is seven!



































XII..... then.... XII top half=VII

Cute, but not really relevant, I agree.

Point? Many strange claims are either tricks or special cases or just simply poor understanding of math, logic, language or facts.....or just emotional committment to the 'strange claim' that prevents some from even considering counter arguments to their pet theories.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 10:37 AM

Well, it's all context, you see...1 + 1 only equals 3 for very large values of 1.



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 10:50 AM

Or... ♂ + ♀ = 3...and sometimes more than 3.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:28 PM

"Thirty-all" is, in effect, "deuce" (from here).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 03:01 PM

"Poem 154 of 230: GETTING TO KNOW GOD

God lets us go
    Our own way -
Until the Day;
    Now and then, though,
He has a Say
    In His own Way -
Prophets to Sow,
    Deserts to Pay.

(C) David Franks 2003"

Burma Shave!

We can let god go
    In our own way
Until the day
    That we have equal say-
It profits no one so
Desert the display!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 03:11 PM

" However at least in the United States, it is a pretty well established fact that Christians and other religious people give a lot more to charitable causes than Atheists do."

This is only because there are more Christians and religious people than atheists.
Someday this might change.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 03:36 PM

...and I would think that atheists make their charitable contributions through non-religious organizations that are not necessarily atheist. They don't make their donations in the name of atheism, like a religious person would do if contributing through a church.

I would hope that most religious charities for the poor use their money to help poor people, rather than indoctrinate them. Most of the anti-poverty charities of the "mainline" churches are very good about refraining from evangelization, but I don't trust the born-again charities to do that. I cringe when family members get taken in by their compelling advertising and make a contribution to a born-again charity.

For those who want to donate without religious or political connections, I would recommend The Hunger Project in the U.S. I'm sure there must be similar non-religious charities in the UK - I suppose Oxfam would be one.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 05:42 PM

To the best of my knowledge, religious charities are perfectly happy and able to collect money from anyone; they don't tend to ask what one believes in. It's rather sickening to think someone was actually small minded enough to even try to calculate what overall proportion is donated by atheists to charity.
...................
Joe - sorry to mess up your Sundays ;-)
...................
McGrath - "1+1=3 is equivalent to 3 - (1+1)= 0 or 1=0"
Dammit, you've proved I have to be reincarnated, you swine.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 07:00 PM

///I interpreted that to indicate that he felt that his logic would leave no room for disagreement. Did I misread that, josep?///

Yes. I still have another post to go concerning the limitations of the argument after which it is concluded meaning I have no posts that mill bring in any new points. I'll still post to answer questions or defend the argument but there will nothing further for me to add to it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 07:09 PM

///1+1=3 is equivalent to 3 - (1+1)= 0 or 1=0

That's a counterargument.///

Precisely. Somebody gets it. No mathematician would tell me it doesn't add up. He would present a proof to show my equation is in error. You must ALWAYS be able to offer a proof otherwise it's the same as saying, "Take my word for it, you're wrong." I will take your word for it as soon as you offer a proof. And he would certainly say that he can't disprove my equation because it doesn't make sense. The above proof works to my satisfaction.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 07:22 PM

You must ALWAYS be able to offer a proof otherwise it's the same as saying, "Take my word for it, you're wrong."

So take a leaf out of your own book and give us the proof you first promised.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 07:26 PM

there will nothing further for me to add to it.

If there was anything in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 07:48 PM

Somebody asked how Schroedinger's Cat (which I will hereafter refer to as SC) proves there is Universal Consciousness.

Well, we know that the cat is in an opaque box containing a decaying radioactive substance that will trigger a hammer that will smash a jar of cyanide that will spill into the box and kill the cat. So we put the cat in the box and a few hours later we come back and prepare to open the box. What are the chances the cat is alive or dead? It's 50-50. However, the cat is a quantum object (just as all objects are quantum objects) meaning it is a wave function which is only collapsed by consciousness.

Since we do not know the state of the cat, by Quantum Theory, it is not 50-50 that it could be alive or dead but rather it is 50% alive and 50% dead in potentia. This is called a coherent superposition. It is transcendent and so cannot be perceived by us. What must happen is that consciousness must observe the cat which will collapse the wave function of the cat into a perceivable state of alive or dead or what we call an immanent position. The 50-50 state of the cat is called a dichotomy.

Suppose we put a geiger counter in the box? Now we look at the counter and if it registers a particle then we know the state of the cat. But here's the problem: the counter picks up the dichotomy. Before we look it it, it is in a state of both 50% tripped and 50% untripped in potentia. Ok, so we add a second counter after that to tell us the state of the first counter. Then the dichotomy is transferred to the next counter and so on.

The only thing that transforms the coherent superposition into immanence is consciousness. We have to open the box and look.

But suppose two people each have a camera in the box that they can look through and see the cat and let's say they cannot see or communicate with each other in any way. Both look through their respective camera viewers at exactly the same moment. Which one collapses the wave function and why didn't the other person get any say?

Neither person gets any say. This is called observer invariance. One observer is all observers and all observers are one observer. We all will see the same thing--the cat is either alive or dead. One observer won't see a live cat and the other sees a dead one. If the universe worked like that then when we approach a stoplight, you would see a green light, I would see a red, someone else would see a yellow and we'd all be right--and we'd all be dead. But we know the world doesn't work like this. Observer invariance sees to that.

But WHY don't we all see something different? WHY is there observer invariance? The only answer is because all consciousness is one or unitive as QM likes to say. SC proves that your consciousness and mine are not separate but identical. Then why are we all different? Because we are in separate bodies doing different things and experiencing in different ways i.e. we have separate egos. But what allows us to do that is consciousness and it is unitive, indivisible. To put it mystically--we are all illuminated from within by the same light source.

The ancient peoples knew this--you find it in Buddhism, Hinduism, Gnosticism. Heck, read the opening chapter of the gospel of John. It tells you what Jesus Christ actually is--not a creature of history but the light that illuminates us all. Paul said the same thing when he wrote that "Christ is risen in me." I'm not proselytizing but merely demonstrating that what modern Christianity teaches is NOT what was really meant by the people who wrote that stuff. They were WAAAAAY out there. They'd laugh in embarrassment to see what pap their writings and philosophy is used for nowadays.

Now for some real fun, puzzle out what would happen if we put a conscious human in the box. Yes, that was thought of and we know the answer and it changes nothing but see if you can puzzle it out.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 08:05 PM

Thank you very much for your explanation Josep, but could you perhaps now explain how your original three premises lead to the conclusion that consciousness survives death?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 08:22 PM

I've never understood why you just can't say, "Maybe the cat is dead and maybe it isn't, and I don't know which until I open the box - but whichever it turns out to be is how it was all along."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 08:46 PM

///So take a leaf out of your own book and give us the proof you first promised.///

The argument is the proof--which you have stated more than once you do not accept. Which is fine. But the proof is stated and that's all I can do without a counterargument being offered. If you're looking for scientific evidence, I've provided a scant amount but this is a logical argument and I want to stick to logic and use science to back it up only if it makes my point easier to get across.

Logical proof is of a different nature than scientific proof. A logical proof has to hold in every facet but it sometimes throws people for a loop as it has with you. For instance:

I. My name is Josep, I am a nuclear physics graduate and I authored the argument that appears in this thread. (TRUE)
II. If I am the author of the argument in this thread then my name is Josep and I am a nuclear physics graduate. (TRUE)
III. So, my name is Josep and I am a nuclear physics graduate if and only if I am the author of the argument in this thread.

III is true but it makes you pause a moment, doesn't it? That's how my argument is structured. It is logical but you have to read it carefully and make sure you understand it. Think it through.

The only thing I have left to do is state the limitations of the argument and I may as well do that now.

The argument does not tell us if there is a god. Reincarnation could happen by some automatic mechanism.

Is there an end of time by this argument? Yes, but it is asymptotic. We get closer and closer to it but we will never reach it. Although consciousness is eternal, eternity has an end.

PROOF:
Assume eternity has an end:
a. But we know memory eventually becomes static and unchanging--the story becomes set, so to speak. And we know all sensations dwindle to zero eventually. Nothing changes for the rest of time and since time is characterized by change, time has ended.
b. But eternity has no end so there must be some memory modification and sensations not at zero.

Contradiction between a. and b. so the assumption that eternity has no end is in error because a. is undeniably true.

But since consciousness can never end, the end of eternity is purely mathematical and it is an asymptote our consciousness can never reach. So what must happen? We can't go on being reborn in new bodies because eternity ends but we can't stop existing because consciousness can never end.

What happens is that we simply go back and experience our various succession of lives all over again exactly as before. Analogous to a vinyl record on your old stereo. The songs are your different lives, the tone arm is your consciousness tracking through them and the spinning record is time. When tone arm reaches the end and then it returns to the beginning and plays the same sequence of songs over and over and over again.

Do we get off this merry-go-round of birth-death-rebirth? No. Hindus and Buddhists call it samsara and it is eternal. Once you're on the ride, you're always on the ride. You can never jump off.

Wheeeee!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM

One last thing I forgot to mention:

If at the end of eternity, everything just happens all over again exactly as before couldn't that have already happened?

Yes. We have no way to know. All we can say is that the effects of eternity are always acting upon us.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 09:34 PM

The argument is the proof--which you have stated more than once you do not accept.

I don't think you would accept something that didn't make sense to you, would you? No, because you're not that stupid.

I. My name is Josep, I am a nuclear physics graduate and I authored the argument that appears in this thread. (TRUE)
II. If I am the author of the argument in this thread then my name is Josep and I am a nuclear physics graduate. (TRUE)
III. So, my name is Josep and I am a nuclear physics graduate if and only if I am the author of the argument in this thread.

III is true but it makes you pause a moment, doesn't it? That's how my argument is structured. It is logical but you have to read it carefully and make sure you understand it. Think it through.

I follow that fine, thanks, but can you demonstrate it clearly with your original argument? Maybe it would help to put the whole thing in one post.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 09:52 PM

I. My name is Josep, I am a nuclear physics graduate and I authored the argument that appears in this thread. (TRUE)

That 'truth' being a temporary act of faith on my part.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 11:33 PM

Just assuming for a minute that reincarnation is as you say, where do all the 'new spirits' come from to account for population growth? I'd suggest Diageo, but it would be too flippant.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 12:05 AM

///Just assuming for a minute that reincarnation is as you say, where do all the 'new spirits' come from to account for population growth?///

If you're suggesting new spirits are being created all the time, where is the energy coming from since it can never be created or destroyed? So if a fixed amount of energy can accomodate all these new spirits, so can a fixed amount of consciousness. By what method, who knows? We don't have enough information to bother worrying about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 12:13 AM

///I follow that fine, thanks, but can you demonstrate it clearly with your original argument? Maybe it would help to put the whole thing in one post. ///

I've already demonstrated it. I can't do anymore than I already have except to keep explaining the same thing over and over again. I'm not here to tell you you have to accept this argument. If you don't, you don't. I can live with that. Offer a counterargument and I can do something with that but to keep explaining the same thing ten times over is pointless. If you don't buy it now, you won't buy it the 10th time I explain it. I'm not proselytizing so I would say let sleeping dogs lie and everybody's happy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 12:40 AM

No need to explain it over and over - once will do. It's not a matter of me not accepting it - if that was the case I wouldn't be asking you to explain it. If you are right about this, I want to know, but I also want to be certain.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 04:23 AM

josep-apologies for not fully representing your views though that does not invalidate my post i trust.christians also pay tax and they dont think creation is bad science.as i pointed out before qualified scientists represent both sides of the debate.the presuppositions determine interpretation of the data.obviously christian fundamentalist would tend to be upfront on their worldview but occasionally even atheist scientists have admitted to embracing evolution because the alternative is unacepptable to them-not because its provable.details available at creation.com.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 05:46 AM


PROOF:
Assume eternity has an end:
a. But we know memory eventually becomes static and unchanging--the story becomes set, so to speak. And we know all sensations dwindle to zero eventually. Nothing changes for the rest of time and since time is characterized by change, time has ended.
b. But eternity has no end so there must be some memory modification and sensations not at zero.

Oi vey.

josep, I suggest that you take a short course in elementary logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 06:19 AM

In modern England...

Poem 169 of 230: PERFIDA GENS - SUMMER 2001

On the estate:
    Abuse by day,
Banging at night -
    Sleep wars, I'd say.

Attempts on a car:
    Repaired by day,
Inflamed at night -
    Revenge, I'd say.

A gran's garden:
    Well-clipped by day,
Flame-scorched at night -
    Disgrace, I'd say.

Summing this up:
    As in Bede's day,
Manners are free -
    Faithless, I'd say.

(C) David Franks 2003
From http://walkaboutsverse.webs.com (e-scroll)
Or http://blogs.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse (e-book)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 09:04 AM

Paul,

The problem here is that Josep is basing his arguments on some pretty "out there", but extremely useful, quantum physics.

To scrutinize his views I, for one, would have to do some reading in the areas he's referring to and they are pretty complex.

I am interested, but I don't have the time.

I don't accept that he has proved anything, but I gind his ideas thought provoking.

Joseps observations on tiime are not that far removed from some of the stuff thats coming out of astrophysicists mouths.

I'm not convinced he entirely understands it all though.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 10:25 AM

I don't care whether he's using quantum theory or sudoku. What bit of that can be construed as an argument at all is simply begging the question.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 10:47 AM

Josep:

Your explanations of late are much easier to follow than they were earlier. Thanks for the extra effort.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 11:15 AM

All this is fascinating but bears an amazing resemblance to "angels on a pin." As Lox has pointed out, it proves nothing.


We are talking about something which is by its very nature is unprovable.

The main problem with this thread originates in-- surprise-- the title.

Words mean something.   Delusion according to my dictionary:   "false, persistent belief".

That's the crux.   The word "false" conveys certainty.   There is no certainty in this question. Therefore this language--the very title of the book, and of the thread--is inflammatory. As are remarks like "imaginary friend".

Even to those of us who are not religious but are willing to admit the existence of God is an open question.

So the question becomes:   are Mudcat atheists willing to concede that these are the wrong words to use--for several reasons?

If they are not willing to do so, that tells us all we need to know about them--and their striking similarity, in that event, to religious fundamentalists.   Both being equally desirable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM

///PROOF:
Assume eternity has an end:
a. But we know memory eventually becomes static and unchanging--the story becomes set, so to speak. And we know all sensations dwindle to zero eventually. Nothing changes for the rest of time and since time is characterized by change, time has ended.
b. But eternity has no end so there must be some memory modification and sensations not at zero.

Oi vey.

josep, I suggest that you take a short course in elementary logic.///

That was a typo. The assumption was supposed to read "Assume eternity has NO end." I posted this yesterday and for some reason it didn't stay up. Must have forgotten to put my fucking name on it some pain-in-the-ass thing like that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 12:51 PM

///The problem here is that Josep is basing his arguments on some pretty "out there", but extremely useful, quantum physics.///

This is why I wish I didn't drag QM into this. This argument is NOT based on quantum physics. Quantum physics just happens to support it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 01:22 PM

///No need to explain it over and over - once will do. It's not a matter of me not accepting it - if that was the case I wouldn't be asking you to explain it. If you are right about this, I want to know, but I also want to be certain.///

There is no certainty here. There's no way to prove empirically that consciousness survives the death of the body so I have relied on reason instead and tempered it with quantum physics where it clarifies the points of the argument. But because something is logical doesn't mean it's true. We simply don't have a lot to work with so we have to take educated guesses based on our present experience.

So my argument has to be taken with a grain of salt. You just can't throw all your belief in it and I would never want you to. My point is, because it's logical, it's worth considering over purely religious dogma or knee-jerk atheism that can't think past "death is final and life is a pointless joke." One thing that strikes me hard about near-death experiences is not seeing the light tunnel and all that--most people don't see anything. But what most of them also say is that when they were in the process of dying, they felt terrible regret that they didn't do more with their lives. So it's best not to waste your life poring over old translated writings you've only been taught to interpret superficially or deciding nothing is worth the effort because you lose it all in the end. You will take something with you--and you'd best be sure it isn't useless baggage.

Learn and do as much as you can.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 01:54 PM

Maybe you should have said all that at the beginning - your liberal use of the word 'prove' has been a little misleading to say the least, and in my opinion your logic and reasoning leaves a lot to be desired. However, you are probably more interesting than WAV's poems.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 01:54 PM

///josep-apologies for not fully representing your views though that does not invalidate my post i trust.christians also pay tax and they dont think creation is bad science.///

As theory, it isn't science at all. As practice, it's bad science--atrocious really. Creationism has never proven anything. At best, it pokes a few holes in science but we could have done that without an erroneous belief system to go with it. Science doesn't know everything--how could it? No shame in that. That shame is when people who embrace science treat it with the same attitude of inerrancy that religious people treat their scriptures or clergy.

///as i pointed out before qualified scientists represent both sides of the debate.the presuppositions determine interpretation of the data.obviously christian fundamentalist would tend to be upfront on their worldview but occasionally even atheist scientists have admitted to embracing evolution because the alternative is unacepptable to them-not because its provable.details available at creation.com.///

I accept evolution but I don't believe that science has explained human origins worth a crap. I'll state it up front--I don't believe we descended from H. habilis or H. ergaster or H. erectus. Those were offshoot of the same tree we sprouted from. There's lots of anomalies out there that science can't and doesn't try to explain and I find that troubling.

It has nothing to do with science--it's purely political. Science still teaches "ladder evolution" of the human race not because it really believes it but because to deny it is to give ammo to the creationists. The danger is that what does science do if a whole new scenario emerges that is undeniably true and it trashes the current view they have been swearing up and down is true? Suppose, for example, that we should learn that the human race is far, far older than science officially allows for and reached shocking heights of technological prowess long before science says it was possible that human beings could have walked this planet? It doesn't hurt the creationist view which doesn't prove anything anyway but it will destroy the current view science puts forth as the official version of "the way it is." And then it becomes a credibility issue and and funding issue.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM

Science still teaches "ladder evolution" of the human race

To paraphrase Smokey, bollocks. It doesn't. Eveolution has no hierarchy; survival is the only criterion. In many ways we're failed bacteria, in that in order to survive we had to erect a whole pile of structures that they have got on happily without for a few billion years, and the way we're going they'll outlast us by the same margin.

josep, you claim to be some sort of scientist, so your ignorance of almost all science is disturbing. Are universities even worse than they were back in the day?

Oh, and 1066. My name's Norman.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 02:23 PM

I always thought 'ladder evolution' was the simplistic impression that was generally formed by those who had never really thought about or been taught evolution. Any fool can see that it couldn't be so, but one has to actually bother thinking about it for two minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 02:27 PM

I've never worked in science. I've worked technical fields most of my adult life. I have never been a scientist. You have to be a certain type of person to survive in a university setting. My brother is good at it but I'm not. I have a brother and nephews and a niece who are all degreed biologists but I am but a lowly technician. I don't even work in a nuclear physics related area anymore. Now it's mechanical engineering for the military.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 04:06 PM

"which by its very nature"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 04:08 PM

Well I have worked in science (as a science teacher), and I can assure you that only dolts teach evolution as a ladder. Homo erectus, etc. and modern humans have a common ancestor. The genus Homo and the genus Pan, to which chimps and bonobos belong, also have a common ancestor, but you have to go back a little further. And so on. This is the Darwinian model for evolution and it has been overwhelmingly shown to be true. Darwin's contemporary detractors tried to pin ladder-evolution on him, just as the Daily Mail would have done had Darwin been here today. At least one cartoon of the time depicted Darwin as half-monkey, half-man. Contemporary science journalism was even worse than religion when it came to misrepresenting Darwin. But Darwin never subscribed to this ridiculous ladder idea. Not once, ever.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 04:17 PM

Ron wroite "The main problem with this thread originates in-- surprise-- the title.

Words mean something.   Delusion according to my dictionary:   'false, persistent belief'.

That's the crux.   The word 'false' conveys certainty.   There is no certainty in this question. Therefore this language--the very title of the book, and of the thread--is inflammatory. As are remarks like 'imaginary friend'.

Even to those of us who are not religious but are willing to admit the existence of God is an open question." [unquote Ron]




[quote Steve, a week ago] Ron: "But "delusion" goes beyond this. Dictionary: delusion: a "false persistent belief"

It therefore states that anybody who believes in God is dead wrong."

Steve: No it doesn't. Even Richard Dawkins says he is not certain that God doesn't exist. The delusion refers to the whole world of belief, with all its ceremony and trappings and elaborate "theology", that revolves around a being whose probability of existence is vanishingly small as measured on any rational scale.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 04:56 PM

///Well I have worked in science (as a science teacher), and I can assure you that only dolts teach evolution as a ladder. Homo erectus, etc. and modern humans have a common ancestor. The genus Homo and the genus Pan, to which chimps and bonobos belong, also have a common ancestor, but you have to go back a little further. And so on.///

I found a chart that shows that H. sapiens descended from H. ergaster. It's still being taught. Maybe you should correct them.

///This is the Darwinian model for evolution and it has been overwhelmingly shown to be true. Darwin's contemporary detractors tried to pin ladder-evolution on him, just as the Daily Mail would have done had Darwin been here today. At least one cartoon of the time depicted Darwin as half-monkey, half-man. Contemporary science journalism was even worse than religion when it came to misrepresenting Darwin. But Darwin never subscribed to this ridiculous ladder idea. Not once, ever.///

Whatever Darwin taught, he's overrated. Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck is the man who actually came up with evolution 50 years before Darwin and he was likely more on target. He said evolution was based on "instructive" cooperation. Cell biology has more in common with the ideas of Lemarck than Darwin.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM

ladder1


ladder 2

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 05:24 PM

ladder 3

ladder 4

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 05:25 PM

ladder 5

And so on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 05:48 PM

"If we humans evolved from apes,
Why on earth are there living apes?" (from Paradigms).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 06:36 PM

Those are not ladders, they are diagrams based on known archaeological findings which you have removed from their original context.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 08:17 PM

Well Josep, Lamarck was a fine fellow whose ideas contributed greatly to the debate on evolution, but his notions were comprehensively superseded by Wallace's and Darwin's. His proposition about how traits are passed on has been comprehensively debunked, and it's worth remembering that he believed in spontaneous generation and alchemy. I've said it before and I'll say it again: your understanding of evolutionary theory is very shaky, and you really need to go off and read a good book about it. On The Origin of Species would be a good start. Incidentally, Darwin didn't "teach" anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 09:12 PM

As Smokey said, those are not true 'ladder' charts.... they 'indicate' the best current guesses, given the sparsity of archeological evidence. Anyone who looks at one and suggests or believes that "science is sure it was that way" mistakes how science works.
And if those who made those charts think that way, they will likely have to eat one of those charts some day.
The charts and evidence ARE getting closer...I remember when Piltdown Man was still taken seriously, and I have seen the TV documentaries on evolution and cosmology revised over & over just in the last 20 years.

Sadly, I have not seen theology change much in that time.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 09:14 PM

Just as a passing amusement -

The integers are -
1
1+1
1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1
etc.

Clearly, this would become cumbersome. A convention has arisen to substitute symbols for each integer such that -

1+1=2
1+1+1=3
1+1+1+1=4
11+1+1+1=5
etc.

If we state that -

1+1=3, then there are two possibilities. 1) we are defining a new representation of numbers in which 1+1=3 is true or 2) we are making a statement under the accepted convention.

If 1) nobody who isn't familiar with the new representation is going to know what you mean.
If 2) then the statement is easily disproved by substituting back 3=1+1+1 giving -

1+1=1+1+1

which reduces to 0=1. A contradiction proving that the statement was false.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 07:27 AM

1+1=3 is a well-known phenomenon to listeners to The Archers. Whenever two characters are having a conversation, a third person will always arrive unexpectedly and sidetrack the chatter.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 09:33 AM

"If we humans evolved from apes,
Why on earth are there living apes?"

If we humans evolved from bacteria, why on earth are there living bacteria?

Dumbo.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 11:57 AM

mp,

Dawkin's newest book is a must read for anyone who gives any credence at all to the Creationist theory. Also, he does always stick to science. The fact is he believes that
science and religion are at odds with each other is to my mind indisputable. Any criticism of religion will be perceived by religious people as an "attack" and this is a misinterpretation of Dawkins and his intent. The "attackers" are the defensive religionists
who probably doubt their own beliefs deep down so find it necessary to accuse those who reject their claims as "attackers". No one is being attacked here. Maybe you could make the argument that outmoded ideas of religion which have no basis in reality are being "attacked" in the same way that drug addiction or prostitution is being "attacked". But this has nothing to do with personal attacks on any one. This idea of "attacking" is a specious argument that begs the question and is an ad hominem as well.

I personally know a lot of religious people and wouldn't dream of attacking them in any way however I don't agree with their religious views. Many are fine and decent people in my book and I respect some and love others. This is not a war about people. It's a war of ideas and should remain on that level otherwise the discussion degenerates into name-calling. It is unfortunately a war that is instigated by religious people in power who want to enforce their ideas on everyone else. National Day of Prayer for example by the US Senate and Congress. What was Billy Graham doing advising presidents? His son is now an advisor to the Tea Party. BTW, take "god" out of the Pledge of Allegiance since this discriminates against non-believers. Take it off of our coins, as well.

"Cell biology has more in common with the ideas of Lemarck than Darwin."

Not true. Evolution was presented as a dramatically different idea when it was presented. Studies of DNA and RNA confirm Darwin's great theorum. It's too bad he didn't live to see them materialize.

Lamarck apparently bypassed any genetic information which was not available at the time of his suppositions. Now, with knowledge of genetics, Lamarck's theories are disqualified. The stretching of giraffe's necks have to do with genetics, not totally environmental factors.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mr Happy
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 12:44 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Pick one, enjoy!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 02:39 PM

///"Cell biology has more in common with the ideas of Lemarck than Darwin."

Not true. Evolution was presented as a dramatically different idea when it was presented. Studies of DNA and RNA confirm Darwin's great theorum. It's too bad he didn't live to see them materialize.///

Well, you'll have to take that up with Dr. Bruce Lipton. I'm not a biologist"

"Interestingly, Lemarck's hypothesis about the mechanisms of evolution conform to modern cell biologists' understanding of how immune systems adapt to their environment as described above."

As for the people insisting those charts I posted aren't ladders--it was the very thing I was describing earlier in this thread that you insisted was not true. It was these so-called human ancestors that we already discussed as having left no evolutionary trends. Now you're saying it is true except for one guy who took a more novel tack by saying my posting these charts was taking them out of context.

But have it your way. They're not ladders--they're charts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 02:40 PM

///Incidentally, Darwin didn't "teach" anything. ///

No kidding.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM

///Lamarck apparently bypassed any genetic information which was not available at the time of his suppositions.///

Apparently?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM

"the greatest hoax on earth"counters dawkins book point by point.the author-johnathan sarfati-is a scientist who BTW is a former australian chess champion .i would love to see him take on mr dawkins in debate but i doubt it will happen!.                         i feel some sympathy for josep.we all speak from our limitations but was half pleased by the admission that evolutionists adhere to their doctrine for not entirely science reasons-if i understand you correctly josep.to those alleging macro evoluton as established fact, to me illustrates the truth of the above book title. dogmatism on both sides?it seems the most ardent evoluttionist will admit some possibility of God-as long as he needed evolution to create us ,though dawkins has been critical of theologians who compromise what the bible plainly states!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 03:31 PM

One more thing concerning my argument I need to bring up--brain damage. I told someone we would discuss it but I forgot.

I know a guy who had a heart attack and died for a short time. When they revived him he had no short term memory. To him, every morning he wakes up it's still 1986.

Does this invalidate my argument? Let's see.

I said that if you get complete amnesia, your consciousness skips over events no longer remembered. Due to his brain damage, he does get complete amnesia concerning everything that happens after his heart attack in 1986. So what happens? His consciousness skips over it.

Suppose it was the opposite and he had long term memory loss? Then it would be as I already described--his consciousness skips over everything that happened before the amnesia occurs. To him, life began in 1986.

But he was conscious before that so my statement that if you get amnesia at T1 in the future then you can't be consciousness now is in error, right? Wrong. He may been conscious before but to his consciousness as it is, he still can't remember it. He still doesn't notice becoming conscious until T1 or later. That he must remember at some point in the future is unprovable in the case of brain damage because the brain was damaged. Maybe in the next life, the recollections of these memories will come back him in disjointed bits and pieces.

Consciousness is unaffected and timeless. It works as well as it ever did after the brain damage except the brain doesn't work right anymore. This is no different than energy working the same as ever even though the muscles it is being focused through are racked with MS or something.

So if you're shot in the head and you're brain dead, it would be like death if it extinguished consciousness, you'd have no ability to recollect or re-live and it's as though you never existed.

But other people would remember you and have memories of you.

But that's their consciousness not yours. Yours never existed as far as you are concerned. Effectively, there is no "you." But maybe you'll remember things in the next life in bits and pieces.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 03:58 PM

///we all speak from our limitations but was half pleased by the admission that evolutionists adhere to their doctrine for not entirely science reasons-if i understand you correctly josep.to those alleging macro evoluton as established fact, to me illustrates the truth of the above book title. dogmatism on both sides?it seems the most ardent evoluttionist will admit some possibility of God-as long as he needed evolution to create us ,though dawkins has been critical of theologians who compromise what the bible plainly states!///

The problem is that one of those charts I posted (I won't call them ladders and offend anyone), explains very well the problem--there is no agreement on where very hominids of the past fit in. Some insist this or that hominid was a dead end but other think it lived on and contributed the the formation of H. sapiens. And they can't agree when these groups walked the earth--differences of a million or more years depending on the source you consult. Well, that's too much!!! A difference of 20,000 years is too much if the evolutionists are to be believed since modern humans came about in less time than that and built this civilization in half that time.

Human evolution is a shambles and it's about time they admit is a shambles. It's like one of those huge jigsaw puzzles and they have only a dozen or so pieces locked together and those aren't even locked to one another. Moreover, there's pieces of other puzzles mixed in that will have to be eliminated at some point. That's why that one chart differentiates between hominids and hominins. Hominids present extraneous pieces and we can't even agree on which groups belong in which category.

But to the public, they present this seemingly united front while behind the curtains it's a free for all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 04:14 PM

I was going to post a reasoned argument- that you'd just proved via the example of your friend (I have a similar one) that memory, the spirit, the soul, depends critically on a continuous supply of oxygen, and when it loses that, it goes. No reincarnation, not even in this life.

But then you posted that ignorant crap about evolution, and I lost the will to talk to you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 05:19 PM

It seems to me that consciousness and memory are two separate things, and if we get amnesia we are simply not conscious of a particular set of memories. Our memories are mostly always retained during unconsciousness and one does not affect the other. Our memories don't have to be real ones either, they can be planted or self-fabricated. Time doesn't ever disappear, it is independent of consciousness or memory. When we die, I think we lose both. I think we are dead. There is so far no real evidence anywhere, logical or scientific, to indicate otherwise. Any belief to the contrary has to be based on faith, and I have none. Maybe Josep actually has faith in his 'argument', I don't know, but I remain unconvinced. I take it as he now recommends, with a (huge) grain of salt. I would dearly like to see how it was received in an actual scientific or philosophical debate. I don't particularly consider myself highly educated but I think I can recognise shite when I see it. It would seem both the Faithful and the sceptic can rest easy in their beds.

My 'umble verdict.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 06:08 PM

Serendipity, I suppose, but shortly after reading the final page (so far) of this seemingly interminable argument, somebody made a comment about an entirely unrelated matter, which seemed apposite.

"Anything is possible, if you don't know what you're talking about!"

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 06:17 PM

Amos: we do not know that the brain makes the mind.

Sure we do. What else could reasonably do which part?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 06:22 PM

Mryzz, there are still a couple of things we don't yet know. It appears, for instance, that the skin on one's body either *hears* or facilitates hearing. Who'd a thunk it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 07:37 PM

Each hominid that was found was tested and genetic modifications were found. The idea that Evolution is a shambles is unrealistic. Each bone found, each species and genus studied shows that there is a ladder of development but again, one species does not produce another. They must all have a common root ancestor.

The idea that a god has any part in this is completely irrelevant to what Evolution is.

The idea that Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals is not generally accepted in scientific circles. Neanderthals died out. There is no trace of Neanderthal genetic material in Homo Sapiens because they were a different grouping of a species. They have a common root ancestor, though, and this is amply shown by anthropological studies through biologists and paleontology. There are a lot of suppositions about what actually takes place in the study of Evolution in laboratories by non-scientists.

What really is a "shambles" is the lack of information about Evolution today and what has been accomplished through genetic testing, carbon dating and tree rings as well as methods in embryology. The fact that not all scientists don't agree doesn't invalidate
any of the legitimate findings in Evolution today. There will always be a scientific minority who challenge prevailing "theorums" and this is healthy. But the burden of proof to disqualify any of these "theorums" is on the dissenting scientists.

As to the mind vrs. brain controversy, only those with a propensity for seeking religious or philosophical answers to scientific methods would separate the mind from the brain. Any attempt to mystify the workings of the brain by attributing to it an outside "mind" has no basis in any scientific finding.

Of course there are many things we don't know and are learning every day. Suppositions
based on lack of scientific information do no good in interpreting Evolution or the mind vrs. brain controversy.

Theological or philosophical constructs serve no purpose in identifying scientific evidence.
Since evidence is fluid and not rigid, the idea that any evidence of this nature is dogmatic is specious. It is not "faith-based". The only reason that those who say it is do so because of their theological bias which is generally dogmatic and not based on scientific
evidence but solely reliant on their "faith".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 07:55 PM

"There is no trace of Neanderthal genetic material in Homo Sapiens....."

"Researchers compared the Neanderthal genome with the genomes of five living people: one San from southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese and one French person. Scientists discovered that 1% to 4% of the latter three DNA samples is shared with Neanderthals — proof that Neanderthals and early modern humans interbred. The absence of Neanderthal DNA in the genomes of the two present-day Africans indicates that interbreeding occurred."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 08:08 PM

Mrrz, my friend, your question begs the entire discussion, for goodness sake. You are making a circular argument.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 08:16 PM

What bobad says is generally accepted these days, I think (I like saying "I think" because that's what Charlie Darwin put, self-effacingly, on top of his famous tree diagram).

"///Incidentally, Darwin didn't "teach" anything. ///

No kidding."

NO, Josep, really no kidding. Darwin was not a teacher.

"I know a guy who had a heart attack and died for a short time. When they revived him he had no short term memory."

*sigh* Well, he didn't really "die" then, did he? I suggest that his memory loss was due to his brain being deprived of oxygen for a short time while his heart was temporarily stopped. Sometimes the most boring explanations have a far better chance of being the truthful ones. That philosophy, if it is one, is what makes us atheists tick. The whole world is so...wonderfully ordinary...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 08:21 PM

Mryzz, there are still a couple of things we don't yet know. It appears, for instance, that the skin on one's body either *hears* or facilitates hearing. Who'd a thunk it?

Sure - but no researcher is saying that anything but the *brain* is doing the hearing, regardess of where the input originates. What else could possibly be doing it?

And what is circular in this statement? I'm certainly not saying that the mind makes the brain.

Also, just because we don't know everything *about* how the mind comes from the brain, doesn't detract from the knowledge that it's doing it somehow. Again, what else could reasonably be hypothesized?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 08:51 PM

The most fundamental division in perspectives in the entire thread, and all the others like it down the decade, is whether the entire spectrum of phenomena ranging from dense solids to organic development to emotion, attitudes and opinions to the highest tendrils of thought itself are a single continuous spectrum, or whether there is a qualitative division in it.

Fer goo'ness sake.

As to what is circular, if you assume that there is nothing but material elements in the phenomenological universe, then it is obvious and irrefutable that brains produce thought. If you do not accept that assumption, it is possible that brains merely reflect thought, amplify and channel it.

These are two entirely different world-views. One of them accounts for the range of variations in phenomena such as apparent past-life memory, instances of telepathic linking, precognition, remote-viewing, OOB experiences, NDE's, and other "fringe" phenomena.

The other model has no explanation for these things and tends to dismiss them as highly improbable events, anecdotal, and probably delusory. One paradigm includes the physical, the emotional, the mental, and the spiritual; the other includes the physical and considers emotion, thought, spirituality as by-products and minor disruptions.

Pay yer money, and take your choice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 09:41 PM

"Leakey believed that habilis was a direct human ancestor, with erectus out of the picture. While H. habilis is a generally accepted species, they opinion that it was a direct human ancestor seems to be in question. There are now at least two species of early Homo (whether habilis and rudolfensis or an undescribed species) living prior to 2.0 myr. In addition, H. erectus (which is almost universally accepted as a direct human ancestor) continues to be pushed further back into the paleontological record, making it possible that it is the first Homo ancestor of modern humans.

"Other problems include that some people see KNM-ER 1813 as a near perfect erectus, except for its small brain and size. It could be an erectus that was at the small scale of a wide variation of traits, or it may belong to ergaster, which some believe to be the ancestor of erectus. The questions are far from solved, and new specimens are needed. Homo habilis may be a direct human ancestor, a dead-end side-branch that leads nowhere, an invalid species whose designated examples belong in other species, or Wolpoff may be right, and all these species are basically part of one highly variable widespread species." –C. David Kreger

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homohabilis.htm

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 09:43 PM

"Despite its distinctively human cranium and its chronological position near the origin of the human line, habilis had a fairly apelike physical form: its arms were almost as long as its legs. It is therefore a controversial species. Similar in physique to the australopithids, without a clear evolutionary descendant, and appearing highly variable in the fossil record, habilis raises more questions than the available fossils are able to answer."

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/hfs4.html

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 10:03 PM

///"I know a guy who had a heart attack and died for a short time. When they revived him he had no short term memory."

*sigh* Well, he didn't really "die" then, did he?///

Well, fuck, I don't know--do you?? He was pronounced dead and then he was revived and when he woke up, he had no short-term memory. Am I going too fast for you??

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 10:12 PM

////Also, just because we don't know everything *about* how the mind comes from the brain, doesn't detract from the knowledge that it's doing it somehow. Again, what else could reasonably be hypothesized?////

Except you haven't hypothesized anything. You're making a dogmatic statement and apparently expecting people to buy it. Either you have a scientific experiment that proves your assertion or you have a logical argument.

The only thing that has been experimentally proven is that consciousness collapses the wave function into a particle, into matter. That HAS been experimentally proven. So it is highly unlikely that the brain-which is matter-produces the agent necessary to create matter from quantum waves. If this doesn't prove that the brain does not and cannot make consciousness, it very strongly indicates it. Now, what do you have to proves this not to be true? Just saying "what else could it be?" won't cut it. It could be a lot of things. You have to make a case.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 19 Sep 10 - 10:51 PM

You have to make a case

You don't seem to have made yours to anyone's satisfaction yet.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 07:45 AM

GUEST,josep

The only thing that has been experimentally proven is that consciousness collapses the wave function into a particle, into matter. That HAS been experimentally proven.

You keep saying things to that effect, but try as I might, I can find no evidence to back it up. Could you give us some references?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 11:13 AM

Conjoined twins with two heads have two minds, no matter how conjoined they are. Those with one head have one mind.

No, I didn't do the experiment, Nature did.

Again, what else could *reasonably* make mind, other than brain?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 11:26 AM

stringsinger-if your post included answer to mine,it appears to me you missed my point.the dissenting scientists do present evidence countering evolutionary theories but these are dismissed on philosophical grounds.they[i suggest]cling to a dogmatic faith position as much as the creationist though darwin may be the nearest they get to religious devotions.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 11:55 AM

"*sigh* Well, he didn't really "die" then, did he?///

Well, fuck, I don't know--do you?? He was pronounced dead and then he was revived and when he woke up, he had no short-term memory. Am I going too fast for you??"

No, but perhaps the docs were going too fast for him. They didn't need his kidneys by any chance, did they? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 12:01 PM

since modern humans came about in less time than that (20,000 year)

GUEST,josep

I don't suppose you have a source for this?

My understanding is that genetically we have been "Homo sapiens" the species we are now for for longer than 100,000 years.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 12:03 PM

"...they[i suggest]cling to a dogmatic faith position as much as the creationist ..."

This is simply an equivocation on the notion of "dogmatic faith". Scientists do not employ "dogmatic faith" if one does, he is not acting as a scientist at the time.

(Equivocation--"misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time")

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 12:28 PM

"those alleging macro evoluton as established fact"

That would be unscientific, wouldn't it?

I think the difference is in the paradigm of belief rather than any single fact or set of facts.

I know that I can't take genesis as a literal description of modern science. That falls apart in the first few hundred words.

There was light, day and night and thriving plant biology before there was a sun?

The stars were created 4 days after the earth and apparently the stars were visible at that point, even though the closed is so far away that its light would take 4 YEARS to reach the Earth.

If you accept physics and cosmology, It is wise to accept biology is well. But more importantly, if the bible refutes Darwin, it equally refutes Kepler, Copernicus, Newton and Einstein.

I believe that "Creationists" are bearing false witness. If you have enough knowledge to make a science-based argument for creation as literal truth, and you do not have the courage to also defend the first few hundred words of the Bible as literal truth.

One of the most wonderful things about the Bible, is that it is written in a way that enlightens the truth seeker in every age and at every age.

The story of creation tells the child or the person of remote time past all he needs to know. But to the curious, the logical, knowledge-based seeker, The first few words have a completely different message. It is saying. "You cannot take this literally as science. You must search for deeper meaning."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 12:42 PM

Again, what else could *reasonably* make mind, other than brain?

Well, start with what constitutes a mind. Is it the neurons themselves? What does a neuron "mean"?

If it is not the structure of the brain, then perhaps it is the mental impressions and pictures we use to sort out who's who and what came from where and so on. Most people have HUGE collections of these images of mental impressions, which get called up for remembering, and used in calculations. If these are the mind (the content of it) then why assume they are generated by the brain rather than by the conscious spirit of the owner/operator of the brain? This model adds spirituality into the mix, which is of course anathema to those whose sole training in science is in materail practices and who cannot gettheir wits around non-material existence and reasoning about same, but that is not the point. For some people, you are a spiritual being having a phsyical adventure. For others you are purely a physical structure who occasionally has a spiritual delusion.

It is short-sighted, IMHO, to assume that one or the other of these views should be left out of the range of possibilities.

If by your question you mean "what other physical thing" could make the mind, there are possibilities. For example, the fields of themind might be electromagnetic waves hologramicazlly interpreted by the brain, not generated by it, a sort of sea of solitons generated by ... oh, wait, there we go again.. by folksingers!!! Voila!



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 12:43 PM

There is certain Dogma in science. There is also a requirement for some degree of faith.

But both are a result of too many enthusiastic scientists, trying to make mark by being the first to point something out.

You need to have a certain degree of faith in the process, because you cannot test every thing yourself. If you bring up something outside of accepted theories, you are likely to be met with dogma because of the amount of work that went into establishing the theories in the firsty place.

I can't think of a field where this is more true than Evolutionary Biology. Given the amount of time and effort that has gone into this debate, I cannot imagine that any theory of biblical creation has not been analyzed thoroughly to the full extent that it can be. Scientists had looked at this pretty thoroughly by the time of Darwin's death. In the intervening years pretty much every piece of significant evidence has been looked at through that lens. The evidence is just not there.


Carl Sagan said it very well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 12:53 PM

Amos,

Mind without a brain? It's not a scientific question. Its philosophy. The "mind" is not even a scientific concept is it?

Science is about what can be measured. The question would be more like what computational tasks is the organism capable of? On the other hand, I don't think having a brain alone is enough to allow one to have a mind. Lots of critters have brains without having a mind, and even we react to our environments without engaging our brains. At the very least, a human mind requires a complex endocrine system to add the dimension of emotional response.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 12:56 PM

>>>"*sigh* Well, he didn't really "die" then, did he?///

Well, fuck, I don't know--do you?? He was pronounced dead and then he was revived and when he woke up, he had no short-term memory. Am I going too fast for you??"<<<


Obviously a lot of the debate over the so called "God Delusion" stems from changing knowledge of an ideas about concepts like Death.

It is certain that such concepts were much less murky 2000 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 01:01 PM

Jack:

We're talking about a whole different topic here; to put it another way there are two views of what a person is (maybe more, but two major ones): one is that a person is merely a body with a complex computer on top, and a lot of experiential wetware patterns that add up to what passes for thought.

Another view is that a human being is a spiritual being running a mind and a body complex.

In the latter model, minds (complexes of thoughts and pictures and methods for using them) are a byproduct of thought by the being, not a product of meat. And in that model, an OOB individual, for example, thinks quite well. Those who have had NDEs while flatlining a brain-monitor and have then come to also report they had a continuous mental life throughout, regardless of the flat-line monitor.

Go figger! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 01:20 PM

Amos, LOL, folk singers?

Again, though, I'm not saying HOW brain makes mind, only that we know it does.

Life is biochemistry, mind is electrochemistry. Life makes brain, brain makes mind. That is why there is no life before or after death of the mind. There are, however, memories of the dead in the mind of the living, and if you can keep *that* up, you can live forever - in the mind of others. And not knowing abou it.

That is why I want to live forever.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 01:56 PM

I would think that a near-death experience, where the heart temporarily stops feeding oxygen to the brain, would affect the electro-chemical processes of the brain in ways hard to predict, but like physical inputs during dreaming, would cause strange patterns as the brain tried to cope with it all.
Upon resuscitation, I'd imagine there would certainly be 'unusual' memories of it, like intense dreams. *I* have had many flying dreams, and in a couple of them I seemed to 'see' myself floating.....though most were just seeing the landscape from 'above'. In no case was I near death.
I know that's not nearly as interesting a theory as 'having a spiritual side' that is not dependent on the brain, but it certainly is easier to explain!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 02:13 PM

Life is biochemistry, mind is electrochemistry

Well there you have it in a nutshell, don't you!

Man from mud, and Mozart from a very large number of molecules and a dash of lightning.

The subtle paradox of thought characterizing itself as matter --humorous though it is-- seems to escape your radar for some reason.

Never mind, I am not about to try and convince anyone of anything. I just think you are leaving the largest half of existence completely out of her calculations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 02:38 PM

>>Another view is that a human being is a spiritual being running a mind and a body complex.<<

That may be a view, but it is in no way scientific.

A brain is a body part.

A mind is a philosophical construct. I don't believe in the mind as an existential thing any more than I believe Karma, the Id or the Ego.

But all are useful words to describe small portions of much more complex ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 03:04 PM

Amos

Man from mud, and Mozart from a very large number of molecules and a dash of lightning.

Yes. Wonderful, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 03:22 PM

That may be a view, but it is in no way scientific.

A brain is a body part.

A mind is a philosophical construct.

Right. No pictures, Jack? No images of data? Pfft.

As for this being in no way scientific, you have just defined yourself out of the conversation, with the same circular reasoning I protested about up thread. "Science deals with material things only. Scientific method only applies to material objects. Therefore no assertion about non-material existance is scientific BECAUSE it is not material." THat's a foolish logical chain, IMHO.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 04:25 PM

Science deals with material things only. Scientific method only applies to material objects.

That would mean science couldn't deal with this chain of computer programs I'm writing this on. Which is clearly tosh. The hardware or the disc or the disc image isn't the program; only the process allows me to type here and you to read it there.

So science CAN deal with abstract chains of events; for example memories and minds.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 04:27 PM

If a mind were merely an abstract series of events, how could you see your own memories?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 04:35 PM

"Therefore no assertion about non-material existance is scientific BECAUSE it is not material."

No, It is not scientific, because it cannot be observed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 05:17 PM

Wal, I dunno; first of all, every phenomenon that has been reported HAS been observed, but it's the kind of observation science gets jittery about because it is individual rather than shared as common. But the realm of shared common perception is the commons of space-time. Individual perceptions aren't replicable in the same way.\

It is well and good to say such things are "not scientific" in the sense that they can't be hard-metered the way light, gravity, mass and other attributes can be. But it is a serious error to move from that position to saying they do not exist.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 05:44 PM

Indeed, it IS wonderful!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 07:24 PM

I get very suspicious when anyone declares that anything at all is beyond science. Science isn't a bunch of boffins in white coats filling up test-tubes. It's us and the way we think about the world, how we investigate it, gather evidence about it and how we reason. I can't think of a single thing that we should properly regard as beyond science, and especially not God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 08:08 PM

///The only thing that has been experimentally proven is that consciousness collapses the wave function into a particle, into matter. That HAS been experimentally proven.

You keep saying things to that effect, but try as I might, I can find no evidence to back it up. Could you give us some references?///

It's called the Delayed-Choice Experiment and it was formulated by John Wheeler. It's complicated and requires diagrams but wikipedia shows it pretty well. It builds on the slit experiment. The slit experiment was simple--when we fire electrons through single slit with some film behind it, the film shows impact patterns meaning they were particles. But when the electrons are fired through two parallel slits, they form an interference pattern meaning they were waves.   

What Delayed-Choice did was emit a beam of light onto a a half-silvered mirror M1 and split it at angles and then both beams are reflected off regular mirrors such that they converge at a point P. Now we put a half-silvered mirror M2 at P which forces the beams to interfere constructively at one side of P and photon counter there will register a tick meaning we are registering a photon.

At the other side of P, the beams interfere destructively and a photon counter there registers no tick meaning we have a wave. For there to be interference means that the photon is split at M1 and travels BOTH routes not one or the other. Otherwise there could be no interference. And interference pattern indicates a wave.

To register the particle aspect of the wavicle, we simply remove M2 and let one or the other counter register a tick and that path has the particle--either the transmitted one or the reflected one.

Now suppose we decide at the last pico second (and this was actually done in the laboratory) to remove the half-silvered mirror M2 at P1 to measure the particle even though by then, the beams are converging to interfere as waves. What happens? Both counters tick one at a time. No interference. That is, we still register a particle if M2 is removed at the last possible moment. This should be impossible. It means that even though we had a split wave packet at M1, it somehow retroactively went back and changed to a particle along which ever path we register the particle on. It seems that causality was violated. The photon seems to respond to our delayed choice retroactively.

The delay really has nothing to do with anything. It just illustrates the point that the collapse of the wave packet is, as they say, non-local--action-at-a-distance without signals. The split at M1 was only in potentia--nothing had been "decided." Nothing really happened in space-time. It was just possibilities. By choosing when to remove the mirror, we can choose to see a particle or a wave because we are collapsing the wave function in one beam which automatically negates the possibility of the particle einb in the other beam.

Getting back to Schroedinger's cat, the wave function is collapsed by conscious observation but there is only one path that will contain the particle. The other paths, which were only possibilities are now negated. So if 100 people look in the box at the exact same moment, they will all see the same thing. Consciousness must be a unity. Therefore it is impossible that the brain manufactures consciousness or all consciousnesses would see something different. That they can only see the same collapsed wave function, the same state, each and every one, each and every time, could only be because consciousness is a unity. If consciousness is a unity, it cannot be manufactured by the brain. If it is not manufactured by the brain, then consciousness is separate from the brain.

In other words, there is no fixed objective world but neither is there a separate world for each consciousness because there is only one consciousness and objective reality is its dream.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 08:15 PM

///since modern humans came about in less time than that (20,000 year)

GUEST,josep

I don't suppose you have a source for this?

My understanding is that genetically we have been "Homo sapiens" the species we are now for for longer than 100,000 years.///

Yes, it's a bit confusing. I agree that H. sapiens has been around closer to 200,000 years but I was referring to us specifically--the present human race and the only surviving primates of the Homo line.

"Are we genetically different from our Homo sapiens ancestors who lived 10-20,000 years ago? The answer is almost certainly yes. In fact, it is very likely that the rate of evolution for our species has continuously accelerated since the end of the last ice age, roughly 10,000 years ago. This is mostly due to the fact that our human population has explosively grown and moved into new kinds of environments, including cities, where we have been subject to new natural selection pressures. For instance, our larger and denser populations have made it far easier for contagious diseases, such as tuberculosis, small pox, and the plague, to rapidly spread through communities and wreak havoc. This has exerted strong selection for individuals who were fortunate to have immune systems that allowed them to survive. There also has been a marked change in diet for most people around the globe since the last ice age to one that is less varied and now predominantly vegetarian with a heavy dependence on foods made from cereal grains. It is likely that the human species has been able to adapt to these and other new environmental pressures because it has acquired a steadily greater genetic diversity. A larger population naturally has more mutations adding variation to its gene pool simply because there are more people. This happens even if the mutation rate per person remains the same. However, the mutation rate may have actually increased because we have been exposed to new kinds of environmental pollution that can cause additional mutations.
It is not clear what all of the consequences of the environmental and behavioral changes for humans have been. However, it does appear that the average human body size has become somewhat shorter over the last 10,000 years, and we have acquired widespread immunity to the more severe effects of some diseases such as measles and influenza."

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 08:16 PM

"Every phenomenon that has been reported HAS been observed"
Is this true? I suspect not so.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 08:32 PM

Ed:

Well -- it has been perceived in some manner. The problem of perception and postulated realities is dicey as hell, really--they get entangled.

Josef, here's an interesting article warning about putting too much emphasis onto consciousness and quantum mechanics.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 08:40 PM

"it has been perceived in some manner. The problem of perception and postulated realities is dicey as hell, really--they get entangled"

Agree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 09:14 PM

I reckon consciousness is a state, not a thing, so it can't be separate from the brain. Destroy the brain and consciousness is lost. I need a volunteer and a large hammer to demonstrate this. (I happen to like cats.)

So if 100 people look in the box at the exact same moment, they will all see the same thing. Consciousness must be a unity. Therefore it is impossible that the brain manufactures consciousness or all consciousnesses would see something different. That they can only see the same collapsed wave function, the same state, each and every one, each and every time, could only be because consciousness is a unity. If consciousness is a unity, it cannot be manufactured by the brain. If it is not manufactured by the brain, then consciousness is separate from the brain.

Or... they all see the same thing because the moggy is either dead or alive and can't be both.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 09:17 PM

Although the cat in question was of course only theoretical, and so could be both dead and alive.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 09:22 PM

////Josef, here's an interesting article warning about putting too much emphasis onto consciousness and quantum mechanics.////

It looked to me more like an article about not letting new-agers bullshit you by cloaking their agendas behind QM. I never brought them up, I brought up actual experiments performed by people who were the prime formulators of QM. QM isn't like string theory. QM has been tried and tested, has plenty of math to back it up, has made predictions that came true and it is here to stay.

I read papers and books by qualified people. Deepak Chopra is not a physicist to my knowledge. I probably have far more nuclear training than him and I'm not good enough to be a physicist. But I know when I'm reading or watching bullshit. I laughed through "China Syndrome" which was so full of crap and I was working in a nuke plant at the time: "The generator tripped off the line causing the reactor to scram." Really? So if the generator needs to be repaired, we can't trip it off the line without scramming the reactor, eh? Well, that's a real problem and an incredibly bad design for a nuke plant. I wonder how it passed inspection because I would have failed it big time.

But who would believe a paper on nuclear physics written by a Hollywood script-writer?

But John Wheeler, Werner Heisenberg, Neils Bohr, Erwin Schroedinger, Yukawa Hideki--those are some heavy cats. REAL heavy cats.

Btw, Neils Bohr was knighted in Denmark for the Copenhagen Interpretation (which you REALLY should read up on) and have you ever seen what he chose as his coat-of-arms?

Neils Bohr's coat-of-arms

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 09:46 PM

///I reckon consciousness is a state, not a thing, so it can't be separate from the brain. Destroy the brain and consciousness is lost. I need a volunteer and a large hammer to demonstrate this. (I happen to like cats.)///

Consciousness is outside space-time. That's why it collapses the wave function. Nothing material can do that. Anything material picks up the dichotomy, what we call a von Neumann chain. Consciousness needs the brain because that is its gateway into space-time.

////So if 100 people look in the box at the exact same moment, they will all see the same thing. Consciousness must be a unity. Therefore it is impossible that the brain manufactures consciousness or all consciousnesses would see something different. That they can only see the same collapsed wave function, the same state, each and every one, each and every time, could only be because consciousness is a unity. If consciousness is a unity, it cannot be manufactured by the brain. If it is not manufactured by the brain, then consciousness is separate from the brain.

Or... they all see the same thing because the moggy is either dead or alive and can't be both.////

That's the classical physics way of thinking and it won't hold up against quantum physics. The physical world is composed of quantum objects. It's been proven. It's indisputable. Quantum objects are just waves in potentia until specifically regarded. If you don't like that, go fight with Murray Gell-Man and David Bohm and Jack Sarfatti. It's out of my hands.

Even classical physics can throw you for a loop. Take four cannonballs that weigh a pound each. Add their weights together and what do you get? 4 lbs. Now weigh them all together at once and what do they weigh? 4 lbs. Now take a nucleon with an atomic weight of 1. Add up four of them and what do they weigh? 4. Now combine them into a nucleus--helium in this case--and what do they weigh? Approximately 3.97 or so. Yes, they weigh less as a nucleus than they do weighed separately and then summed up. That's called mass defect? How can it be? It's perfectly logical once you know the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 10 - 11:41 PM

The notion that consciousness is a state -- or a class of states--of the body+mind state machine--is intriguing from an informational perspective, I agree, Smokey. But there are a couple of kinds of events which tend to disqualify that model. One is the connection of the state with information from beyond the scope of interaction of the state machine; simple knowing about a remote loved one, or memories of data from prior to the specific machine's existence, and so on. This kind of violation occurs with many of the various spiritual phenomena that have been touched on in these threads--NDEs, OBEs, mystic connections of various kinds.

The other is the simplest kind of understanding, and how such a state machine could actually modulate from complex nets of transmission to a bubble of clear comprehension--an "aha!" moment--and how it could generate understanding mechanically given how distinctly unmechanical understanding itself is.

Rule all those non-conforming data out, on some grounds, and of course you have a neat and complete model.

Why you would want to just forcibly rule out data that was anomalous to your model, I am sure I don't know though. The anomalies are always the most revealing sort of data, because they tell you where your paradigm is leaking.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 12:16 AM

I'm apt to opt for the (arguably) more likely down to earth explanations of 'spiritual phenomena', Amos, and I think the "aha!" moment is when the brain detects the pattern which makes sense of the information. Not always correctly, I'll grant you..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 01:24 AM

Well, be sure and thank your brain for doing all that detecting of patterns for you. It certainly keeps life interesting.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:19 AM

Here's a fascinating review of a book by a woman who got caught up in the Suppressed Childhood Memories movement of the early '80's and discovered she had been (according to her suppressed memories) abused by her father as a child. She went on record, accusing him, which caused them (understandably) to become very distant from each other.

Later, when the movement of pop psychology shifted to False Memories Syndrome she realized that it was all false, and she had generated a lie with some telling consequences. She patched things up with her father. She talks about other men, though, who spent twenty years in prison on false charges from the same wave of popular thinking.

The story demonstrates how plastic the mind can be, and how treacherous the mesh of group agreement can become. I suppose there's a lesson in it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:22 AM

Perception of the same stimulus by multiple people as the same perceived (i.e. created by their mind) thing is hardly evidence that it wasn't their brains *with which* they perceived that stimulus.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:30 AM

hi jack-pleased to see you have some reguard for the bible .the apparent problem of light is not new but if you believe in God light is no problem-he has been the source of the stuff from eternity.it crops up miraculously often in the narratives.possibly the reversed order emphasizes God as creator and sustainer rather than a deified sun .as reguards the other scientists-you assert but dont specify .i think that you are quite right in that evolution is well established-and that would make it harder to dismantle.as i said before presuppositions determine the interpretation of the evidence,and problems are overcome by recourse to further theories on one side and theology on the other.this not to say that creationists dont tackle science-they do and are keen to debate on that level.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 12:06 PM

Not enough is known about quantum mechanics to make definitive assertions. The scientists who are exploring it, warn us about that.

"The story of creation tells the child or the person of remote time past all he needs to know. But to the curious, the logical, knowledge-based seeker, The first few words have a completely different message. It is saying. "You cannot take this literally as science. You must search for deeper meaning."

I believe that the meaning is obfuscated by religious agendas. The injunction is inferred
that you must give this biblical nonsense some credibility as having "a deeper meaning".
The meaning is implicit. Believe in this or else. All religions have this at the base of their
tenets. There is no room for non-belief in these tenets.

As to deeper meanings, I think we will have to look for these in science and not in religion which is varied degrees of dogma. Mythology may tell us something about the behavior
of humans but in no way should it be interpreted as being physically or scientifically "true". One can juggle scientific descriptions around as economists and others do with statistics but the implication that these formulations which are spouted hold absolutely in most cases is specious.

There are some "theorums" that we do know that have nothing to do with religion.
1. Gravity. 2. Evolution 3. Big bang (which is still being explored).

The god delusion is where there is an attempt to offer religious contradictions to science.
Stephen J. Gould wants to separate the two. NOMA (no overlapping Magesteria). Dawkins wants to investigate the scientific validity of religion by examining it using scientific methods. When this is done, religion falls apart as a useful device except as a device
for interpreting human behavior.

Deepak Chopra tries to obfuscate by declaring that there are religious bases for scientific conclusions and he offers his resume for weight to his arguments. I don't think any scientist who has studied quantum mechanics would lend any credence to Chopra's arguments.

I reiterate. People have the right to believe that the moon is made of green cheese and the earth is flat if they want to provided they don't attempt to pass this off as a true
scientific finding.

When you "attack" an idea, this is not the same as attacking on a personal level. A person is not wholly what they believe. A lot has to do with how they behave. Well you can see that can't you? There are a lot of bloodthirsty Christians professing that their beliefs and only their beliefs are true. Not just Christians of course.

Why does religion breed violence and war? Rhetorical question, this is what dogma does.
And conflicting dogmas.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 12:51 PM

Perception of the same stimulus by multiple people as the same perceived (i.e. created by their mind) thing is hardly evidence that it wasn't their brains *with which* they perceived that stimulus.

Well, I don't think anyone claimed it did, Mrz. So... But here's a question. How do you know it's the same perceived thing?

And look, it is obvious the brain is intimately involved with sensory systems--sight, tactile, sound, temperature, tastes, etc.
I don't think anyone questions that at all.

The boundary is where the proposition arises that not only organic stimulation but thought itself are alike S_R mechanisms; that's where I get off the train.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:01 PM

Sure they did, whoever said that proved that consciousness was unity and therefore not brain.

And I don't, I was going with what the aforementioned person said wrote.

Nor did I say that perception of stimuli was "like SR mechanisms" - let alone that thought/consciousness was/were. Are. Whenever.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:06 PM

No you didn't say it was S-R, I stand corrected; but if you really believe thought is a by-product of chemicals, what other position could you take?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:15 PM

Dawkins wants to investigate the scientific validity of religion by examining it using scientific methods. When this is done, religion falls apart as a useful device except as a device
for interpreting human behavior.

Not true Strings my dear friend, there are many many top scientists that are men of faith because their scientific views lead them to the existence of God. On cannot make general statements about scientists. For everyone that says no there is another that says yes. It is impossible to prove of disprove hence it is simply down to faith. Likewise someone said no one can claim atheism as a faith since it is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Not true, I know for a fact stamps exist. However since it is impossible to determine the existence of God then it is simply a belief system. Hence a faith ..

my take anyway and it is not meaning to offend anyone

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:17 PM

I am a fervent non-collector of stamps. Just so you know to be careful what you say, Dan. I am also a passionate non-collector of hand-crafted knives, poison-tipped Uruguayan arrowheads, rare Dutch ceramic representations of peasant girls in traditional dress, and plates with pictures of queens.

I avoid these things like the plague, as an article of faith.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:33 PM

The story demonstrates how plastic the mind can be

And how often it's wrong. Perhaps it's wrong about thinking it's conscious, too?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:33 PM

As an ardent aphilatelist I have to agree with you Amos. We seem to share quite a few interests, oddly enough.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:37 PM

Perhaps it's wrong about thinking it's conscious, too?

I've only ever been wrong once in my life, when I thought I was wrong about something and it turned out that I was right.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 03:10 PM

I can hardly wait till there is no need to *be* an atheist as it would then be the default value, like being an aphelatelist. Or an apaphelatelist, who doesn't care what stamps you collect...

I mean, everybody nowadays is an atheist about all the *other* religions' gods, like Zeus and Anubis and so on...

And once you get into the human brain chemistry you have a lot of recursive circuits so that the perceptions themselves become stimuli, and then things gan really take off, because of chaos theory and sensitivity to initial conditions, so no need to go beyond SR to get to wild and craaaaaaaaaaazy thoughts...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 03:13 PM

Well, the mind that is wrong about thinking it is conscious could not be, or it wouldn't be, obviously... :D


Cogito cogitens, ergo, conscio?



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 03:31 PM

Mrrzy:

The argument that recursive complexity produces the qualitative leap necessary to account for the difference between stimuli and understanding is a "black box" and an article of faith. It still does not address the deeply important difference between What and Who.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 03:46 PM

LOL, Amos and you would be wise to avoid such also ... :-)
poison tipped arrows ... that would a problem requiring divine intervention if you got whacked with one ... LOL

I use to collect stamps as a kid ... loved em now I have a non collection of stamps ... gave them all to the neighbors kids

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 03:58 PM

I've still got mine.. just in case..

Don't come crying to me when we get taken over by militant philatelists. They're out there.. waiting..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 04:25 PM

How do we really know that we are not already dead and in heaven, mas promised by some,and that, "this is as good as it gets"?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 04:33 PM

If this was heaven, I don't think I'd have two accordions.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 05:19 PM

The argument that recursive complexity produces the qualitative leap necessary to account for the difference between stimuli and understanding is a "black box" and an article of faith. What do you mean? I meant the curling of the brain that brought the hindbrain into proximity of the forebrain so that we can perceive our emotional responses which evolved for motivation, e.g. motion. No black box, no faith, that I can see.

But does one see a black box? Heh heh...

It still does not address the deeply important difference between What and Who. - irrelevent to whether it's anything other than brain making either whom or what. Irrelevant? My spellcheck is out. All I'm saying is There is nothing of your mind that didn't come from your brain and its history of interactions with that brain's body's environment. Nothing of you before your brain. Nothing of you after your brain. This is the only life you, as an entity, get to be perceiving in.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 05:40 PM

As demonstrated by Smökey's hammer experiment.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 06:21 PM

"If this was heaven, I don't think I'd have two accordions"

Would one of those accordions be signed by Dolly Parton? If so, it may be a collector. I understand Dolly had one as a young girl, and sold it later when she "matured", as it became more difficult for her to use.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 06:53 PM

Former stamp collector here, (specialized in Hungary) I gave up stamps for Philosophy, so now I am stirred by comments like this: "One cannot make general statements about scientists. For everyone that says no there is another that says yes."

I simply don't think that's accurate in that form. Of course there are scientists who are secular and others who are religious, but I'd be willing to bet that, as a general statement there are WAY more who are secular. If I am right, it proves nothing except a statistic, but it does indicate that in general, those who seriously do science tend to be less inclined to accept the claims of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:12 PM

Odd, then, that you can be aware of both those parts. Which one of them is you?    Or is there no point of receipt for arriving information?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:20 PM

I gave up stamps for Philosophy

Philosophy will get you nowhere. (Trad. arr. Smokey)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:31 PM

Was that question directed to me, Amos? I didn't quite get the direction of it, if it was. Can I be aware of both secular & religious attitudes & reasoning? Sure...my brain sorts it out. ;>)
------------------------------------------------------------

well, Smokey. I made 'almost' as much from Philosophy as my education cost...but that was in 1969.

Stamp collecting got me an education in Geography and economics....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:32 PM

I understand Dolly had one as a young girl, and sold it later when she "matured", as it became more difficult for her to use.

Shrinking strap syndrome. Mine have done that too. The space in the leather atoms slowly evaporates due to the energy input involved in the action of unpumping.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:49 PM

No, Bill, it was an aside directed more to Mrrz. This notion of a self analyzing a complex process which produces the illusion of a Self is quite tricky, like the Chinaman who a handsome pigtail wore...



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:56 PM

Why do we have consciousness at all? One might say, "Well, if I didn't feel hunger, I wouldn't eat." True. But why couldn't the brain simply take note of the low-fuel situation and tell the automaton body to eat? Think of the problems that would be solved. The brain wouldn't allow junk food into the system, since it would only want the healthiest and most beneficial foods. We would have no anorexia or overeating. The brain could just monitor the intake and when the internal gauge hits the "F", it tells the body to stop eating and the body simply obeys. If the muscles are too soft or the body too hampered by excess weight, the brain would just make the automaton body exercise and stay peak-performance strong.

The need and desire for sex causes unbelievable problems in this world. Certainly the brain could do a much better job than to allow the body to go around raping people or having sex with children. When the best time of year for mating arrived, the brain would seek a suitable mate (say, wide hips for child-bearing or big muscles for vitality and endurance) and say, "Procreate with that organism to keep the species surviving and strong, fit and resourceful" and the other organism would respond based on how its brain perceived the organism making the mating sound or dance. If the other organism decided no, he or she would simply walk away and the first organism would simply cease the mating ritual and seek another potential partner. No rejection, no hurt feelings, no stalking, no unwanted pregnancies, no abortions. Simple, easy, efficient.

Why should an electro-chemical reaction in my brain register as a sensation in my consciousness from which I choose from a palette of possible reactions? Why doesn't the electro-chemical stimulus by itself spur the body to take the best course of action automatically?

This is what happens in the cockroach. It doesn't need to think about anything. Some have as many as six brains and don't think with any of them. The brain in the back end can perceive a threat without the brain up front suspecting anything and the back legs are running before the front legs even move. Of course this happens very quickly so we can't really notice this but that is what happens. It works very well for the roach--they've been around far longer than we and will be around long after we're gone so consciousness is not necessary for survival. Often inimical to it actually.

If the brain creates consciousness--for what possible purpose that couldn't have been accomplished in far more efficient and more organized ways? After all, we're just another animal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 08:12 PM

"An evolutionary mistake which may lead to our extinction." I forget which notable scientist said that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM

Why doesn't the electro-chemical stimulus by itself spur the body to take the best course of action automatically?

It might do - the choice could be an illusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 09:07 PM

Yeah, right--choice is an illusion, perception is a reaction, understanding is an illusion, honor justice, beauty, right action, and the pursuit of happiness are mere sound bytes in a sea of clanging cymbals and collisions of dullwit matter.

What a herd of beefalo!! I swan.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 09:12 PM

On a more musical note, it don't mean a thing if it ain't got rhythm, according to Science:

"(PhysOrg.com) -- When it comes to conducting complex tasks, it turns out that the brain needs rhythm, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.

Specifically, cortical rhythms, or oscillations, can effectively rally groups of neurons in widely dispersed regions of the brain to engage in coordinated activity, much like a conductor will summon up various sections of an orchestra in a symphony.

Even the simple act of catching a ball necessitates an impressive coordination of multiple groups of neurons to perceive the object, judge its speed and trajectory, decide when it's time to catch it and then direct the muscles in the body to grasp it before it whizzes by or drops to the ground.

Until now, neuroscientists had not fully understood how these neuron groups in widely dispersed regions of the brain first get linked together so they can work in concert for such complex tasks.

The UC Berkeley findings are to be published the week of Sept. 20 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...."

Full story here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 09:22 PM

What a herd of beefalo!! I swan.

I only said 'could be', and I should have added 'for all we know'. I certainly wouldn't recommend acting as though it is..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 09:32 PM

We've already established the human mind's capacity to deceive itself - how are we supposed to know when that is happening and when it's not?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 10:26 PM

A very good question indeed. And I apologize for my little outburst. Wasn't aimed at anyone in particl'r.

A model or analysis which aligns with other data is more likely to be "true" than one which continuously runs into contradictions or misalignments of various sorts compared to other data.

A piece of information is as useful as it seems to impart value to other information. Newton's laws are --by this test--much more important and valuable than Sarah Palin's shopping list.

Monotheism as espoused by, say, the Baptist Church could seem to be terribly valuable because it offers one explanation for everything. Trouble is, there is too much other information that doesn't line up, such as the fossil record, or the strange condensation of time and hashed-up sequence of events in Genesis, for a couple of examples.

There are a lot of other indexes you can use, as well; they can serve to improve the certainty with which you hold a given datum or set of data, but in the final analysis, data is never absolute. So you do the best you can with gradual approximations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 10:46 PM

Did I answser your aside?:

Also - a quote from Tim: Fuck philosophy.

Or not...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:03 PM

Yer not wrong, Amos, but I was talking more about making 'internal' choices - the possibility of conscious decision making being illusory. I'm sure I've read something about that recently but unfortunately I can't remember where.. something about the unconscious mind having made its decision before the conscious mind has apparently gone through the motions of assessing the data, and we only think we are thinking about it consciously. I'm sure it involved an experiment, but until such time as I can provide a reference we should perhaps regard it as quantum information, in a state of both bollocks and unbollocks simultaneously.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:19 PM

a sea of clanging cymbals and collisions of dullwit matter.

Have you worked with many drummers, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:27 PM

"...'internal' choices - the possibility of conscious decision making being illusory..."

This discussion is heading close to certain concerns in Phenomenology, in which an observer attempts to 'run around behind himself' and examine his own internal reactions to his own thought processes....as in asking oneself "Am I aware of my own motivation...and is it possible to tell if I am honest with myself in my own conclusions"
This process falls broadly under the header of performing an "Eidetic_reduction", although there is some disagreement as to whether such can actually BE done. (Sort of like the concern that just observing microscopic organisms affects and changes them.)

When we debate all these issues and air our differences and come to different conclusions, I often find the most interesting question is not "Who is correct?", but rather, "How is it we can all look at the same data and use the same words and come to different conclusions?"

Debates over Religion and God and the Nature of Mind are only some of the more abstruse concepts we embroil ourselves in as we strive to look AT human concerns from within the confines of being Human.....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:34 PM

"How is it we can all look at the same data and use the same words and come to different conclusions?"

It seems to point strongly towards there not being a universal consciousness.

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

We're not all looking at the same data, Bill. Look at the back ground information and the predispositions it brings about. For example, a child raised wholly within the Electronics age may have a very different impression of humanity than a child raised in the pre-transistor era.

One man's history is another man's wrong answer. By which I mean, there's a lot more going on in a viewpoint than just the present data under discussion.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 10:40 AM

Why do we have consciousness at all? One might say, "Well, if I didn't feel hunger, I wouldn't eat." True. But why couldn't the brain simply take note of the low-fuel situation and tell the automaton body to eat? Think of the problems that would be solved. The brain wouldn't allow junk food into the system, since it would only want the healthiest and most beneficial foods. We would have no anorexia or overeating. The brain could just monitor the intake and when the internal gauge hits the "F", it tells the body to stop eating and the body simply obeys. If the muscles are too soft or the body too hampered by excess weight, the brain would just make the automaton body exercise and stay peak-performance strong.

That is what happens in most mammals, but in people, bipedalism put the hindbrain riht under the forebrain instead of way out behind it, and suddenly you have "I" because we perceive our emotions as readily as our environment. Other animals just have them but don't *think about* having them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:04 AM

While the legacy of structural elements in body design is undeniably interesting, I think it is a flawed approach to assume structure monitors function. I suspect function, on the contrary, monitors structure.

In the case of mind/body issues, thought tends to steer structure. That doesn't mean we should all become Christian Scientists, but the difference between healing by pills alone and healing by pills with positve suggestion, as well as by placebo effect, means this is a serious question that has not been answered.

I don't think the Mrrzy Loop works.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 12:20 PM

amos-as i understand it,the fossil record is not as neat and tidy as commonly believed ie fossil specimens in the wrong strata.i would be interested to know how you account for fossilised trees through several geologic ages ie not rotting away.in case you havent guessed,the creationist answer is rapid deposition in the global flood.bill-sure there are more secular scientists like their are less christians period.some of these secular scientists have been honest enough to admit they are evolutionist philosophically rather than scientifically convinced.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 01:08 PM

fossil specimens in the wrong strata

Give us an example.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:57 PM

>>>>>>"Every phenomenon that has been reported HAS been observed"
Is this true? I suspect not so. <<

Possibly so, but Amos' conjecture that a person is a spiritual being operating a physical body is not an observable phenomenon. It may be paradigm useful in reconciling peyote based "observations" from the burning man festival. but it is NoT scientifically observable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:27 PM

Well, I dunno, Jack. How would such a proposition BE "scientifically" tested, anyway? If it is outside the frame of "scientifically" testable propositions, which sometimes seems to me to be the case, that does not mean it is outside the realm of true propositions, unless you start from the assumption that only scientifically testable propositions can be true.

WHich you may well do, but this leaves you in the far reaches of almost absolute materialism, which I think (myself) is a pretty thin bet.

Now, there are to her ways to test things, of course--the notion of meditation being a repeatable experiment on the basis that a significant per centage of those doing it have similar experiences was discussed upthread, I believe. Why this doesn't count as science, I am not sure; there is nothing inherent in the fundamentals of scientific method that rules out experiential results. But pushing that line over into accepting only material results is kind of a popular (if deadening) idea these days.

Babies and bathwater, amigo. I think it is wise to be skeptical about conclusions and opinions, but to carry skepticism into the realm of jaded cynicism is bad for the heart.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:50 PM

Quel est ce Mrrzy loop?

Not that I'm not loopy...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:11 PM

I thought it would honor you to name it that, Mrrz. I guess we're all loopy in our own special ways, though!! :D

It is the process of generating a set of mental objects to view, and then analyzing them without including one's own generative energy as part of the field of discourse, thus creating a synthetic set of objects and their generated and assigned attributes which are peculiarly sourceless (since one has left one's own generation out of the subject) and then using them to prove that they cause the very perception of them one is using as a basis for discussing them.

Thus one can establish that non-sentient components, if added up in complex enough ways, can somehow bring about perception, intention, and understanding, and prove it satisfactorily as long as one leaves out the fact that a self was present to create and set up the initial conditions of the discussion.

This is a very long way to describe the Mrrzian Loop. Thinking about ways to avoid thought, a short variation on the theme. Sourceless sourcery, if you will.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:24 PM

///That is what happens in most mammals,///

No, this does not happen in mammals. You've obviously never had a pet. Mammals have distinct personalities. The type of automaton body with a a utilitarian brain directly interfacing with no personality in between is typical of insects. Even then, it doesn't always hold true. A bee colony, for example, has a personality, a mind. And, no, they are not all the same. Some colonies are procrastinators, some are highly motivated, some are lazy preferring to steal honey from other hives. No two are alike.

When they cloned a cat not long ago, the two were totally different in build and disposition. All they shared were the same markings. Clone two insects or two spiders and they are indistinguishable. In fact, female walking sticks usually give birth spontaneously without fertilization. The offspring are almost literal clones. Only like 1 male per 1000 females--just enough to introduce some variation in the species to keep it viable. Bees are clones pretty much. Thousands of identical sisters with one mother.

Mammals can't reproduce like this. Incest has no real effect on insects. Incest has devastating effects on animals.

The more complex a living creature is, the more it seems that it MUST have a personality--a true consciousness. This couldn't be an evolutionary mistake. We evolve FOR consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:44 PM

///"How is it we can all look at the same data and use the same words and come to different conclusions?"

It seems to point strongly towards there not being a universal consciousness.///

No, it points strongly towards it. There isn't a universal consciousness residing somewhere amidst the universal matter. The building block of the universe is not matter, it is consciousness. The universe IS the consciousness. How?

It is analogous to dreaming. The UC dreams reality and everything in it. We are all bit players in the dream. That's why consciousness is a unity. We're all part of the Dreamer just as all the characters you dream about are just part of you. And do those characters live in perfect harmony and act like one mind? No. They usually don't. The horrifying monster that makes you wake up with a start and your heart pounding was just you playing another role.

This is why an omniscient god can't exist. It would know everything that has happened, is happening now and ever will happen. But the UC isn't omniscient. In order to know itself, it must break its own unity and play different roles. It can't know love if it doesn't know hate. It can't know nobility if it doesn't know degradation. It can't know fulfillment if it doesn't know want. it cant know purity if it doesn't know lust. So it dreams characters that play all these roles and interact.

It could learn nothing if every character was identical and agreed on everything. It can only now harmony by also know dischord. It has to wear every hat.

Since everything in reality is part of the Dreamer, everything is inside everything else. The part is in every whole, the whole in every part. And when physicists bash particles together, that's what they find--the whole in every part like a Chinese puzzle box. There is no final bit of matter to arrive at because matter is really consciousness. Doesn't seem that way but it is. Just as we differentiate solid objects and space. Solid objects ARE space.

So row, row, row your boat...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:58 PM

You can have a personality without having thoughts of "I" - especially with a normal mammalian brain. Personality is how you behave and feel, which can only be really different in humans (and maybe dolphins and African elephants) but not in, say, horses or zebras. How they feel IS how they behave - if frightened, shy, if hungry, graze. And feel good doing it.

TWithin that framework there is enough play for you to still have personality and be a nice and industrious individual or a mean and lazy one, or myriad other IDIC.

And I cringe whenever anybody says we evolved "for" something - evolution has no direction, in just takes whatever isn't being used right now and turns it into something more useful. Yes, it's a happy accident that we can actually think about all of this. Way cool.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:08 PM

>>
Well, I dunno, Jack. How would such a proposition BE "scientifically" tested, anyway? If it is outside the frame of "scientifically" testable propositions, which sometimes seems to me to be the case, that does not mean it is outside the realm of true propositions, unless you start from the assumption that only scientifically testable propositions can be true. <<

In my mind the issue is that since it cannot be proved, we cannot KNOW that it is true. But if it useful for you to believe it then by all means, you should believe it.

As I said before , Jung's theory of Id, Ego and Superego, in my opinion is equally unscientific, equally unprovable. But they are sometimes useful in understanding certain behaviors and even in treating some mental conditions. Its not necessarily scientific, but it ain't chopped liver either.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:29 PM

"Incest has no real effect on insects. Incest has devastating effects on animals."

Stick to physics, mate.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:31 PM

///You can have a personality without having thoughts of "I" - especially with a normal mammalian brain. Personality is how you behave and feel, which can only be really different in humans (and maybe dolphins and African elephants) but not in, say, horses or zebras. How they feel IS how they behave - if frightened, shy, if hungry, graze. And feel good doing it.///

You've never been around horses much, have you? They have a mischievous sense of humor. Then again, most animals do. And the idea that they have no sense of "I" is pure hogwash. You remind me of the caninologists who insist that dogs can't smile. Anybody who has ever owned one knows that they do. Raise some animals some time. You obviously haven't.

///And I cringe whenever anybody says we evolved "for" something - evolution has no direction////

That's debatable but I have no interest in that particular argument simply because consciousness DOES have direction and that's all that matters.

///in just takes whatever isn't being used right now and turns it into something more useful.///

Your definition of "direction" must be highly irregular.

Main Entry:di£rec£tion
Pronunciation:d*-*rek-sh*n, d*-
Function:noun
Date:15th century

1 : guidance or supervision of action or conduct : MANAGEMENT
2 archaic   : SUPERSCRIPTION
3 a : an explicit instruction : ORDER b : assistance in pointing out the proper route — usually used in plural *asked for directions to the beach*
4 : the line or course on which something is moving or is aimed to move or along which something is pointing or facing
5 archaic   : DIRECTORATE 1
6 a : a channel or direct course of thought or action b : TENDENCY, TREND c : a guiding, governing, or motivating purpose
7 a : the art and technique of directing an orchestra, band, or a show (as for stage or screen) b : a word, phrase, or sign indicating the appropriate tempo, mood, or intensity of a passage or movement in music
–di£rec£tion£less \-l*s\ adjective
–di£rec£tion£less£ness noun

>>Yes, it's a happy accident that we can actually think about all of this. Way cool. ///

Considering we're a product of forces with no direction.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:38 PM

///Stick to physics, mate.///

I do. And you stick to...uh...er....hoo-boy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:48 PM

Well I don't claim to be anything more than a curious musician, but isn't evolution about survival?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:55 PM

"...but isn't evolution about survival? "

It's about adaptation....survival is a byproduct of adaptation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:03 PM

But a necessary one..
Isn't that a bit 'chicken & egg'?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:10 PM

Well, depends on what you're trying to prove, explain or debate. 'Adaptation' is what is generally described as the basic process.....thus, if an organism adapts to awkward situation X, survival is more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:13 PM

It is about reproduction, survival and adaptation in evolution are to that end and that end only successful genes are those that are passed on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:20 PM

Smart choices make for better survival. One of the reason people dominate the animal kingdom is because they adapt to conditions and can predict consequences on better than stimulus-response basis. They can pose problems and see how various solutions will play out, probably, which many animals can't do. Some can.

Humans also have a stronger sense than most animals about wide-spectrum survival, thinking about families, groups and the species as a whole, and how to have better futures for them. While dogs will always recognize dogs, I doubt me that they think of dogdom very much, or make plans for the good of dog-kind.

There's not much said in Darwin about survival decisions beyond the individual organism, AFAIK. Doesn't mean he was wrong, though. Maybe just incomplete.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 04:39 AM

You could argue that insects dominate the animal kingdom. It isn't their fault that they're only little. They've been around for hundreds of times longer than us and there are millions of species and insects are found in almost every habitat bar deep oceans. As for adapting to conditions and predicting consequences, let's see how we're getting on after another hundred years of global warming.

Darwin worked on the natural selection of heritable traits, not survival decisions. The only sense in which his work was "incomplete" is that he didn't have access to information about genes and genetic codes carried on DNA.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:15 AM

GUEST,josep

It's called the Delayed-Choice Experiment and it was formulated by John Wheeler.....

Getting back to Schroedinger's cat, the wave function is collapsed by conscious observation but there is only one path that will contain the particle.....

Thank you for that Josep. So much more useful to give references than dogmatic unsupported statements such as "As I explained, QT has experimentally proved that consciousness collapses the wave function.".

Sorry for the delay in picking this up; I've been busy in real life.

Let's get a couple of things clear. The Delayed-Choice Experiment and Schrödinger's cat are thought experiments. No actual moggies were harmed. The Delayed-Choice Experiment was eventually carried out and produced the predicted behaviour for the photons. Wheeler just about lived to see this, but since he would have been 97 and in the last year of his life, we cannot know whether he appreciated this.

You say at one point "That's the classical physics way of thinking and it won't hold up against quantum physics." as if you believe that quantum physics supercedes classical physics. It does not. Both work pretty well in their own domain. Classical physics can accurately detect whether a cat is alive or dead and describe the behaviour of an apple falling from a tree, a planet orbiting the Sun or light bending round a distant massive galaxy. Quantam physics can describe the behaviour of a photon passing through a double slit. The problem arises when you devize experiments that attempt to combine both sorts of physics.

That is what Schroedinger was doing. Believing that his thought experiment "proves" that consciousness decides the collapse of the waveform shows a spectacular failure to understand the point he was making. You say " the cat is a quantum object". No, it isn't. That is precisely the point. It is a macroscopic object that obeys the rules of classical physics. It does not exist in a superposed state of dad and alive. It is one or the other, we just don't know which until we open the box. As Einstein said "Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.". Except you, apparently.

I must admit I had never come across Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Experiment before. It sounds very interesting but the idea that it proves that consciousness collapses the wave form is, shall we say, not widely accepted. His extrapolations from the experiment have more to do with metaphysics than physics. He went even further than consciousness collapsing the waveform. Google on "Participatory Anthropic Principle" if you want your mind to be truly boggled.

I'm sorry, but your contention that "QT has experimentally proved that consciousness collapses the wave function." involves a lot of wishful thinking on your part very much in line with the link Amos posted earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:00 AM

The sad truth is any argument can be destroyed by nihilism...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:53 AM

Destroyed? Not exactly... maybe confoozilated.

The little cartoon makes some of it's points with clever use of equivocation...on 'pragamtism' and 'evidence' for example.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:53 AM

Adaptation is about becoming an ancestor.

And yes, horses, dogs, lots of mammals have personality, but still, if they are hungry, they seek and consume food, without thinking about it. When in heat, females seek mating. When around a female in heat, males seek mating. No thought involved... unlike poor us.

They don't think about their personality, either. They just have it. Like their emotions/motivations/motives - they just have them, and act upon them, in their playful/lazy/whatever their personality happens to be, way.

The trick with evolution is that it has to have variation from amongst which to select, so of course individuals are different. Has nothing to do with consciousness, though, till you get to the animals who perceive their motivations rather than just having them, and for that, on this planet, you need a brain curved into a loop to accommodate bipedalism. It just happened... and look what happened next! Folkies and 'Catters and threads, oh my!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 01:12 PM

but still, if they are hungry, they seek and consume food, without thinking about it. When in heat, females seek mating. When around a female in heat, males seek mating. No thought involved... unlike poor us.

Was that intended to be ironic? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:54 PM

Mrrz:

Your attributions are quite definitive, but in light of your skeptical perspective about consciousness I wonder how it is you have come to these conclusions about what animals think, or do not think. I just don't see where you could get such certain conclusions from about their internal processes.

I am sure there haveen times in your own life when you were busily reflecting on some situation or oher, with all kinds of variables and possibilities, while you were physically doing something quite mundane and semi-automatic, such as walking down a road or chewing on lunch.

What evidence would an observer have as to the depth or lack thereof of your internal world at that time?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 03:03 PM

Sure, Amos, I autopilot a lot - the difference is, sometimes I don't. I can think about how happy I am, and feel the happiness of a dog being patted, but I really don't think said pooch can be thinking about how happy *they* are. But boy, are they happy. I can also think about going on a diet, fates preserve me. My happy theoretical pooch can't, doesn't need to, and lacks nothing for it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:01 PM

Bringing this back to the origin of this thread.

Emotions such as happiness, sadness, fear, anger, stress, even grief and greed are emotions felt by most mammals and are due to infusions or the lack thereof of serotonin, adrenaline, dopamine and other nerve acting chemicals.

The major difference between animals and humans on this issue is the human's ability to be self aware of these effects and to manipulate them. In all ancient cultures and many modern ones this is done through religion.

Meditation, confession, ritual, putting your faith and worries on a higher power are all more or less proven ways to decrease adrenaline and increase serotonin.

Is civilized man only a superior brain with a greater degree of control of his endocrine system? Amos would certainly disagree. In fact I don't fully agree with that myself. But it is an illustrative paradigm and it does explain most things.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:36 PM

Jack the Sailor

Bringing this back to the origin of this thread.

Really?

Take a look.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:47 PM

>>>> Bringing this back to the origin of this thread.<<<<


And inserting my opinion of it

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 06:34 PM

Jack the Sailor

And inserting my opinion of it

Can't see the connection myself, but who cares? This thread has taken some entertaining byways.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM

It is well documented that elephants honor/mourn the dead.

I have been clearly shown several times that dogs understand their own upcoming death. Can't say any more about that, at the moment.

I have seen a mother dog grieve over the grave of two of her pups, although the pups were long past weaning and she really had nothing to do with them.

And I know of at least two dogs that understood that they were about to die. In both cases - and years apart - they were shot by a brother and a brother in law respectively after their owner gave up on their sheep-killing and/or chicken-killing proclivities.

Given all that, I fail to see where I can draw the line as to where and to what they are not able to cogitate and perceive.

It is my own opinion that if there is an afterlife any animal that is capable of loving will survive; and for all I know,the ability to love is not the criterion for their survival. I don't know that much- and I don't know anyone else can claim to.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:11 PM

///The Delayed-Choice Experiment and Schrödinger's cat are thought experiments.///

Schroedinger's Cat was obviously a thought experiment. I never said otherwise. Delayed-Choice was done in the laboratory according to Hellmuth, Zajonc and Walther in "Realizations of the Delayed Choice Experiment" p. 108 put out the New York Academy of Science, edited by D. Greenberger.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:51 PM

///You say " the cat is a quantum object". No, it isn't. That is precisely the point. It is a macroscopic object that obeys the rules of classical physics. It does not exist in a superposed state of dad and alive.///

You seem to think that there is a rigid difference between quantum and classical. Anything that can be explained by classical physics can be explained by quantum physics. The reverse is not true. That's why there's quantum physics in the first place. Classical physics breaks down on the subatomic level. Quantum physics does not break down at the macrophysical level. We don't really need two system. We use classical physics at the macro level because it is easier and yields the same answers. But classical physics is incomplete!!! It is just a quick shorthand for quantum physics on the macro level!!! My goodness!!!!!!

"Any macro body (the cat or any observing machine), however, is ultimately a quantum object; there is no such thing as a classical body unless we are willing to admit a vicious quantum/classical dichotomy in physics. It is true that a macro body's behavior can be predicted in most situations from the rules of classical mechanics. (Quantum mechanics gives the same mathematical predictions as does classical mechanics in such cases--this is the correspondence principle that Bohr himself pioneered.) For this reason we often loosely refer to macro bodies as being classical. The measurement process, however, is not such a case, and the correspondence principle does not apply to it. Bohr knew this, of course. In his celebrated debates with Einstein, he often invoked quantum mechanics for describing macro bodies of measurement in order to refute the acute objections that Einstein raised to probability waves and to the uncertainty principle."

--Amit Goswami, Ph.D. physics professor at the Institute of Theoretical Sciences at the University of Oregon.

And yes the cat is 50% and 50% alive simultaneously in potentia before we open the box to look. If you don't understand this, I can only wonder in utter bewilderment what you're reading.

Dr. Goswami also writes, "The paradox of a cat that is dead and alive at the same time is a consequence of the way in which we do our calculations in quantum mechanics. However bizarre its consequences, we must take this mathematics seriously because the same mathematics gives us the marvels of transistors and lasers."

He also states, "Since our observations magically resolves the dichotomy of the cat, it must be us--our consciousness--that collapses the cat's wave function. Material realists do not like this idea, because it makes consciousness an independent, causal entity; admitting that would be like putting nails in the coffin of material realism. Materialism notwithstanding, such luminaries as John von Neumann, Fritz London, Edmond Bauer, and Eugene Paul Wigner have endorsed this resolution to the paradox."

Any other questions--ask away.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Mrrzy chez a friend
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:07 AM

Ever read the Adventures of Dunno and Dono? There was a achracter there called Trickly Sweeter; I am reminded of that when I read such wishful thinking as If it can love it will survive death...

And, yes, back to the thread, indeed. Concsiousness was quite a detour, via Life After Death being a delusion too, which certainly is helped along by religion but doesn't require it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Mrrzy, confused
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:09 AM

That was quie a tricky blicky, where was it meant to go, or did I miss an obvious irony?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:09 AM

The idea that consciousness is an accident of evolution virtually destroys the concept of evolution. Consciousness is a powerful tool. But it is a double-edged sword. It can make you well when you're sick but it can also make you sick when you are well. It is something that has to be controlled. We have not yet learned to do this except on a very rudimentary level. That's why I tend to stay away from political arguments when they start getting too nasty. This conservative-liberal hatred is pointless and stupid and cannot end well as long as one side thinks it will vanquish the other. It is as stupid and counterproductive as Sunnis and Shia killing each other in Iraq.

It's not what we believe about others that will enable us to control consciousness for our benefit--it's what we believe about ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:15 AM

My happy theoretical pooch can't, doesn't need to, and lacks nothing for it.

Well, you haven't answered the question as to how you can postulate the internal states of these "others" with such certainty. You have no idea, for example, what it is like to see in smell the way a dog does. And their non-verbal communication with their own species is outside your ken, to a large degree. Yet you seem content to inform me what they do or do not feel or think.

I am not sure that is good science at all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 03:03 AM

"I am reminded of that when I read such wishful thinking as If it can love it will survive death..."Mrrzy

You might note, Mrrz, that I said IF there is an afterlife. Slight difference there.

I - very often - like how your mind works but when it comes to this subject it seems to me that you have an actual - and very strong - need to convince others - and yourself, perhaps? - that you are correct in your belief.

I don't know why that should be. I like Bill D's attitude better. The way I understand him is that he thinks that there probably is no afterlife, attendant with all its trappings, but that he would love there to be and still has hope that there might someday be convincing evidence to support such a belief. In the meantime he is comfortable in his non-belief.

You don't strike me as comfortable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:23 AM

hi paul burke.ichthyosaur in natural history museum olten switzerland.discovered nose down well preserved beak to part of rib cage in 3 "ages"suppossed million years.rapid burial is the obvious reason but im sure that will be avoided by a more improbable explanation.i hope this suffices-time consuming research but i wanted to oblige if possible.creation.com has the real scientists[i admit not my gifting!]

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Bill D--testing new browser
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:18 AM

That's pretty close, Ebbie....but wishing FOR an afterlife now is pointless unless I knew how it was arranged and what my place would be. I don't really like many of the claimed versions. What I'd really 'like' is for some of the earthly metaphysical claims to be true...telekinesis, precognition, etc....but yep, I am comfortable with just waiting to see. ;>)



however:
"I know of at least two dogs that understood that they were about to die"
That's pretty broad. I can well imagine a dog realizing he's about to be punished in some manner, but I can't be sure he can internalize the concept of his own death. If he had seen some other animal shot, the sight of a gun pointing at him, along wish olfactory clues dogs can pickup on 'might' cause him increased stress...*shrug*....

I do know that dogs 'grieve' in some manner when they refuse to leave a grave, etc....but it is hard to know exactly what they are aware has happened.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM

"The idea that consciousness is an accident of evolution virtually destroys the concept of evolution"

Evolution is not an "accident". It is a scientific process. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the nature of Evolution.

I would say that the notion of a god is a historical "accident". Dawkins calls it a "meme".
Consciousness and unconsciousness has to do with the function of the brain and studies
working with electrodes on the brain substantiate this.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM

Well, I don't know about any "after life" as far as bouncing among clouds or the like is concerned, nor would I hazard to make any assertions about 'em. I personally think a lot of the assertions made by various faiths concerning such are pure-dee pie-in-the-sky bunkum and snake oil, such as the woefully mis-translated promises of Muslim virgins and so on. I don't play the harp and have no desire to learn--I'd prefer hell for the company and heaven for the climate, but I don't think either of these environments are anything more than speculative metaphors.

But in more concrete terms the puzzle of knowing what a dog thinks is an interesting one. From our own experience in trying to communicate I think most any of us is familiar with the state of having a huge array of impressions, conclusions, speculations, insights and feelings that are woven around some moment or subject and about which the prospect of communicating it all seems overwhelming, or at least extraordinarily difficult, the subtleties of our internal landscape being so difficult to cram into ordinary language.

The possibility exists that dogs are in a similar quandary relating to humans, especially constrained by such different vocal equipment, such different sensory emphases, and such different instinctual inputs. Who knows what their internal horizons look like? It's a good bet they HAVE such horizons and visualizations--anyone who has seen a dog chasing a rabbit in his sleep would likely conclude dreaming is in progress. But what are the colors of the subtle smells? What are the shapes in a world where every blade of grass can have a different signature and there are no verbal safeguards to lump things together?

It is possible then that like ourselves at some moments a dog's behavioural array of gestures and sounds is the narrow end of a very long funnel(if that is the right word) which is fed by a huge array of "mental" scapes and energies, much too large to fit through the funnel in any coherent way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:05 AM

Let me say that I have a totally different view of the afterlife. I think the idea of eternal bliss is the pie-in-the-sky that is so often mentioned.

Rather, I think of it as another level of learning. Which is where reincarnation comes in- you wouldn't send the typical third grade kid directly to the second year of high school, for instance.

Dogs understand death, their own as well as that of others. That is one thing I am sure of.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:00 PM

Well, 7*Pete, I don't know that particular case, but there seems to be someone who does: A plesiosaur fell down a hole?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:03 PM

"(Consciousness) can make you well when you're sick but it can also make you sick when you are well. "

That attribute is usually applied to the unconscious- the placebo effect and the like. It's a rare person who can reason himself well.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:14 PM

I'm *not* comfortable, I live in the southern US! My kids have bible quotes in their history books as if they (mythological characters) were historical, atheism is not viewed as a possibility let alone a sensible alternative possibility, my mom's a Holocaust survivor despite having had a secular family, my dad failed to survive the first carbombing of our embassy anywhere by islamic fundamentalists despite being a pacifist atheist Quaker, sorry, religion is way too tolerated here, this place puts a parent's determined (and pigheaded) disbelief in the biological reality of our species ahead of a child's right to education, the time is way past comfortable.

Whew. I feel better now.

But I did see your *if* and I meant to say so, but upon rereading, you're right, I didn't. But ew ick, loving surviving death, Treacly (not Trickly) Sweeter it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:27 PM

Love surviving death happens all the time--ask any widow! :D

Whether it is reciprocal (also continuing in the "departed") is another question.

Some people hold that you can be driven into a real spin by unexpectedly meeting someone in this life that youhad an undying affection for in an earlier one. I can see how that could impose some extreme distortions on your present time frame, if true.

It would certainly explain a few oddball spins I have known folks to take from time to time.
:D

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM

"Dogs understand death, their own as well as that of others..."

Well, pigs are said to be as smart or smarter than dogs.... that would sure give bacon & ham a different aura.

What elephants or dolphins understand is equally of interest. I don't know how we'd prove opinions one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 03:17 PM

Well, we get all involved in the forms, differentiating between aardvarks and, say, wild boars. But in terms of their imagninative abilities, their internal landscape, maybe there are not fifty million different types, but a continuous gradation of degrees of ability, as a separate set of variables from brain function or number of synapses, etc. Thus some horses (with medium brains) act much smarter than some people with large ones (relative to body mass). Likewise some dogs can outsmart some cows. But not all dogs, and not all cows.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:05 PM

"Thus some horses (with medium brains) act much smarter than some people with large ones ..."

Ya' know, that is a good thing to keep in mind....ummmm...

It might explain some thread around here.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:39 PM

Well, Bill, jokes aside it is an interestingly different model.

Just because the luminiferous ether was "disproved" by the Michaelson-Morley experiments (about which Einstein warned "we have not disproved the ether, only that we don't need it for computation") that doesn't mean that Žlan vital has been abandoned. A universal gradient index of life-force endowment for each bee, boar, dog, whale and barracuda!!!

That means every organism should have three scores: their endowment of life force, their brain ratio (to body mass) and the net combination they make of these two things, indicating how good they are at broad survival. This scoring system would put an end to species-ism and establish a global meritocracy across all species, and possibly revolutionize our notion of who is entitled to what civil rights!!!

V_i=B_i x EV_i

Voila!! The future is assured!


:D

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:49 PM

their brain ratio (to body mass)

Why should brain mass/ body mass be a criterion? Unless brain cells are smaller for smaller creatures.

Does a bigger body require a bigger brain to do the same things? If not, whatever is left over after doing the same motor and reflex functions as a smaller body is available for being clever.

I think I have an answer.. what's yours?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 05:42 PM

Here's a bargain for y'all - be quick while it's going cheap.

'The Quantum Activist Course'

Dr Amit Goswami

Click

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM

wow...what a bargain! And I note that he is also active in other media... "Dr. Goswami has appeared in the movie "What the Bleep do We know?"

I wonder if I can save my pennies to get Amos a copy before the prices goes up....after all, there is a picture of the good Doctor smiling like he just swallowed a happy pill and with the caption:

"Consciousness is the ground of Being"

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

Just looking round the site, it's full of such gems; I have to say I've not laughed so much in a long time.. I'd wager they're not going hungry, either.


"Licensed Quantum Healer™

This educational program will prepare you to become a Licensed Quantum Healer™. IQUIM has the only Licensed Quantum Healer™ program approved by the Quantum Healer Licensing Board."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 06:13 PM

They also appear to be oblivious of the meaning of the word 'quim', otherwise they'd have surely chosen a different name..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 06:28 PM

I wonder what an UNlicensed Quantum Healer does? I'll bet the Quantum Healer Licensing Board would sue 'em if they catch 'em falsely healing quantums!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:09 PM

For snail:

Quantum mechanics and classical physics

Predictions of quantum mechanics have been verified experimentally to a very high degree of accuracy. According to the correspondence principle between classical and quantum mechanics, all objects obey the laws of quantum mechanics, and classical mechanics is just an approximation for large systems (or a statistical quantum mechanics of a large collection of particles). The laws of classical mechanics thus follow from the laws of quantum mechanics as a statistical average at the limit of large systems or large quantum numbers.[30] However, chaotic systems do not have good quantum numbers, and quantum chaos studies the relationship between classical and quantum descriptions in these systems.

Quantum coherence is an essential difference between classical and quantum theories, and is illustrated by the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Quantum interference involves the addition of probability amplitudes, whereas when classical waves interfere there is an addition of intensities. For microscopic bodies, the extension of the system is much smaller than the coherence length, which gives rise to long-range entanglement and other nonlocal phenomena characteristic of quantum systems.[31] Quantum coherence is not typically evident at macroscopic scales, although an exception to this rule can occur at extremely low temperatures, when quantum behavior can manifest itself on more macroscopic scales (see Bose-Einstein condensate). This is in accordance with the following observations:

    * Many macroscopic properties of a classical system are a direct consequences of the quantum behavior of its parts. For example, the stability of bulk matter (which consists of atoms and molecules which would quickly collapse under electric forces alone), the rigidity of solids, and the mechanical, thermal, chemical, optical and magnetic properties of matter are all results of the interaction of electric charges under the rules of quantum mechanics.[32]
    * While the seemingly exotic behavior of matter posited by quantum mechanics and relativity theory become more apparent when dealing with extremely fast-moving or extremely tiny particles, the laws of classical Newtonian physics remain accurate in predicting the behavior of large objects—of the order of the size of large molecules and bigger—at velocities much smaller than the velocity of light.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:11 PM

For whoever it was that said QM has proven nothing (source is same as above):

Quantum mechanics had enormous success in explaining many of the features of our world. The individual behaviour of the subatomic particles that make up all forms of matter—electrons, protons, neutrons, photons and others—can often only be satisfactorily described using quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has strongly influenced string theory, a candidate for a theory of everything (see reductionism) and the multiverse hypothesis.

Quantum mechanics is important for understanding how individual atoms combine covalently to form chemicals or molecules. The application of quantum mechanics to chemistry is known as quantum chemistry. (Relativistic) quantum mechanics can in principle mathematically describe most of chemistry. Quantum mechanics can provide quantitative insight into ionic and covalent bonding processes by explicitly showing which molecules are energetically favorable to which others, and by approximately how much.[40] Most of the calculations performed in computational chemistry rely on quantum mechanics.[41]
A working mechanism of a resonant tunneling diode device, based on the phenomenon of quantum tunneling through the potential barriers.

Much of modern technology operates at a scale where quantum effects are significant. Examples include the laser, the transistor (and thus the microchip), the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging. The study of semiconductors led to the invention of the diode and the transistor, which are indispensable for modern electronics.

Researchers are currently seeking robust methods of directly manipulating quantum states. Efforts are being made to develop quantum cryptography, which will allow guaranteed secure transmission of information. A more distant goal is the development of quantum computers, which are expected to perform certain computational tasks exponentially faster than classical computers. Another active research topic is quantum teleportation, which deals with techniques to transmit quantum information over arbitrary distances.

Quantum tunneling is vital in many devices, even in the simple light switch, as otherwise the electrons in the electric current could not penetrate the potential barrier made up of a layer of oxide. Flash memory chips found in USB drives use quantum tunneling to erase their memory cells.

QM primarily applies to the atomic regimes of matter and energy, but some systems exhibit quantum mechanical effects on a large scale; superfluidity (the frictionless flow of a liquid at temperatures near absolute zero) is one well-known example. Quantum theory also provides accurate descriptions for many previously unexplained phenomena such as black body radiation and the stability of electron orbitals. It has also given insight into the workings of many different biological systems, including smell receptors and protein structures.[42] Recent work on photosynthesis has provided evidence that quantum correlations play an essential role in this most fundamental process of the plant kingdom.[43] Even so, classical physics often can be a good approximation to results otherwise obtained by quantum physics, typically in circumstances with large numbers of particles or large quantum numbers. (However, some open questions remain in the field of quantum chaos.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:28 PM

Look, josep, it's not enough to say QM trumps everything and no one understands the world, therefore what I say is as good as what you say. You've got to make a (preferably falsifiable) prediction from that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM

Ok, tell me who understands the world and give me proof.

It ain't me, babe.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:27 PM

Wasn't it Feynman who said, Nobody understands quantum physics?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:37 PM

That could be the one thing it's actually proved.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 02:06 AM

BEsides, although QM may have demonstrated some really wild things about very very small-scale physics--entanglement and FTL information transfer foremost among them--it has yet to prove--in a rigorous scientific sense--anything about consciousness.


As far as I know.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 04:37 AM

The problem with studying consciousness is that no one has come up with anything that approaches a definition of it, or even a description of any consciousness but their own. You can't even prove to another person that you are conscious.

The flying saucer test:

A flying saucer lands nearby. A door opens, and The Thing From Outer Space comes out.

How do you know if it's an intelligent, sentient, feeling alien, or a sophisticated robot, or an intelligent life form which nonetheless is not conscious? How do you find out?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 05:26 AM

hi paul.i read your link which you posted without comment.im not qualified to rebutt it except that even as a non scientist i would question quite a lot of it.there may well be those who can/have done so and hopefully without the slander [lies accusasion]contained therein.perhaps your lack of comment signifies your disassotiation?.reading between the lines and comparison of your posts i suspect you already knew of some bones of contension but put the bait out for this fish to bite.as far as i can see, my point about fossil record not neat and tidy and presuppositions still stands.ps puns attempted herein intentional-spelling mistakes not!.God bless you[even if you dont accept his existence!]

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 10:05 AM

? Intelligence without consciousness? What would the intelligence *work* on?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 11:26 AM

Well, what do you mean by intelligence then? Can you come up with a description (I'm not even asking for a definition) that isn't circular?

Here's Chambers 1972 for a start:

Intelligence, intellectual skill or knowledge: mental brightness;... a spiritual being..

Intellect, the mind, in reference to its rational powers; the thinking principle; meaning (Shak)...

Mind, memory;.. thought: judgement: opinion: inclination: attention: direction of the will: state of thought and feeling: .... consciousness: (etc. etc.)

Conscious, having feeling or knowledge of something; aware; having consciousness...

Consciousness, the waking state of the mind; the knowledge which the mind has of anything; awareness; thought.

So consciousness is the waking state of consciousness....


In fact, nobody seems to use those definitions of intelligence post- computers. We usually mean rich, adaptive, complex behaviour... when we don't try a circular definition like "intelligence is what intelligent beings have".

Think to yourself, choosing your own (hopefully consistent) meaning of "conscious":

Is a person conscious?
Is a chimp conscious?
Is a cat conscious?
Is a bird conscious?
Is a lizard conscious?
Is a butterfly conscious?
Is a planarian conscious?
Is a Euglena conscious?
An archaean?
A bacterium?
....
A supercomputer?
A bee colony?

And wherever you draw the line, try to decide what is the difference in testable terms (chemical, physical, behavioural, whatever terms, as long as you can come up with some criterion by which you can say consciousness exists somewhere over here, and not somewhere over there.

If a spider isn't conscious, couldn't you have an alien race of super- spiders? If a spider seems too programmatic for you, try creatures that definitely have complex and adaptive behaviour, like termites or cockroaches.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 11:26 AM

..unless you just 'define' a chess-playing computer program as 'intelligent'. If you go there, you can assert almost anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 01:42 PM

///The problem with studying consciousness is that no one has come up with anything that approaches a definition of it, or even a description of any consciousness but their own. You can't even prove to another person that you are conscious.///

That's solipsism. People have been brainwashed into believing it has been disproven but that is not true. Solipsism is found in virtually every epistemological argument that I know of. Beyond that, you are correct. No one can prove what consciousness is or where in the body it actually resides. However, that doesn't mean it is unknowable. We can test its effects and various properties or traits.

///BEsides, although QM may have demonstrated some really wild things about very very small-scale physics--entanglement and FTL information transfer foremost among them--it has yet to prove--in a rigorous scientific sense--anything about consciousness.///

Whether people like it or not, the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most widely accepted in physics concerning QM. The other theories are even worse--multiple universes, local realism, consistent histories, hidden variables, etc.

But I was responding to the person who said, "Quantum mechanics has proven nothing." He is flat out wrong. It is the cornerstone of all our sciences--period.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 02:02 PM

You can't even prove to another person that you are conscious.///

That's solipsism.

It's actually the opposite of solipsism, which is the postulation that YOU are the only conscious entity in the Universe.

But I left the Solipsist Society when it split.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 02:48 PM

Actually Josep, what I said was "Quantum physics hasn't proven anything yet", and it was specifically in direct response to your comment that "Quantum physics has proven experimentally that consciousness collapses the wave function of a wavicle into a particle, into matter." I regard that as an unproven but nonetheless interesting theory which, as such, provides no real evidence for the survival of consciousness after death, let alone proof, as you have claimed. As I understand it, QM doesn't set out to prove things, but to attempt to explain them. It has a long way to go before it is established and agreed upon even amongst its own proponents before it is in any position to actually prove anything independantly. I like to know at least how many legs a horse has before I back it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 02:55 PM

Pardon my use of the old-English spelling of 'independently'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Romans 14 v
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 03:12 PM

11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 04:00 PM

Putting aside the theological horsepucky, I have to side with Josep on this issue. It is a fact that beings communicate, and arrive through communicating at understanding. Given this the argument that you "cannot prove" you are conscious to another being is specious, a sort of antagonist Turing test assertion which relies for any weight on a completely unnatural state of mind, burying the natural attention behind a synthetic erection of shallow pedantic logic.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 04:21 PM

For Beethoven he spake, "Oh man, help thyself."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 05:55 PM

///Actually Josep, what I said was "Quantum physics hasn't proven anything yet",///

Well, you're wrong.

////and it was specifically in direct response to your comment that "Quantum physics has proven experimentally that consciousness collapses the wave function of a wavicle into a particle, into matter."///

Well, you're wrong there too. It HAS been proven. I already mentioned the experiment of Alain Aspect who proved the EPR Paradox really does happen and that it does not violate Special Relativity as Einstein said it would. Ironically, it was Einstein who formulated the paradox to disprove QM and ended up proving it. The same with Schroedinger's cat--it was supposed to disprove the idea of wave functions and ended up proving it. But then EPR and Schroedinger's cat are closely related thought experiments born from the same type of thinking. They were wrong. QM is not only valid, it is more correct than any other theories currently out there. Certainly not all physicists buy the same interpretations and that's good because someone may come up with something better. But for now, the Copenhagen Interpretation fits the data better than any other interpretation. I'll easily grant you that it is not likely a complete science. I would be disappointed if it was but it works well enough for now.


///I regard that as an unproven but nonetheless interesting theory which, as such, provides no real evidence for the survival of consciousness after death, let alone proof, as you have claimed.////

That's because you let Lox throw you off saying my argument was based on QM and I tried to make clear that it was not. It has nothing to do with QM. Some of the side arguments such as universal consciousness have a case with QM which lends credence to my argument but the argument itself is COMPLETELY STAND-ALONE It is purely logical and requires nothing else to make its case.

///As I understand it, QM doesn't set out to prove things, but to attempt to explain them. It has a long way to go before it is established and agreed upon even amongst its own proponents before it is in any position to actually prove anything independantly. I like to know at least how many legs a horse has before I back it. ///

"Set out to prove things" is a vague phrase. QM didn't set out to prove that classical physics was useless at the subatomic realm because they already knew that such was the case which is why QM came into being at all. The stuff about wave functions and theories championed by Gell-Mann, Bohm, Yukawa, Bell, Scroedinger, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Sarfatti, Feynmann and others arose long after Planck first proposed the existence of quanta. No one saw any of that coming. That's just standard science. Newton couldn't have foreseen relativity even though both his system and Einstein's are considered classical physics. There were plenty of physicists saying, "I'll stick with Newton. If people expect me to believe identical twins age at different rates in different relativistic frames of reference and that time is the fourth dimension they must be on dangerous drugs."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 06:04 PM

///You can't even prove to another person that you are conscious.///

That's solipsism.

It's actually the opposite of solipsism, which is the postulation that YOU are the only conscious entity in the Universe.///

It's the same argument. If you can't prove to another that you are conscious, he can't prove to you that he is. Therefore, you are free to assume that you are the only conscious being in the universe. But then he's free to assume the same about himself.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 06:19 PM

Well, you're wrong.

Yes, Josep, you said that already, and I don't begrudge you your opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 06:47 PM

Thinking about "consciousness" brings to mind how this can be delusional. If the brain is dysfunctional, then "consciousness" might possibly be an illusion. This, then would mean
that any attempt to prove an independent "consciousness" from the physical working of the brain might be an establishment of a deluded outcome. Logic is peculiar in that there are those who are in mental institutions today who claim their logic is infallible. They tend to be absolute in their authoritarian opinion about how things should be. They can prove it to you by their logic. Logic has to be tempered with observable facts, not philosophical manipulations. The first giveaway of a dysfunctional mind is an opinion that won't be tempered by new information.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 09:45 PM

So, I take it we're agreed that faith is not rational, which is why we're off on this tangent?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 10:41 PM

Well, whether or not it is delusional it cannot be argued that it is consciousness, since even if if what it is being conscious of is a delusion, the act of being conscious of it is still occurring. The notion that all experience and all experiences are just delusions, and nothing is really experiencing anything is absurd, in my view. The other thing to bear in mind is that agreement on an illusion beings about reality. As long as we can get a consensus about the solidity of solids and the visibility of light and so on, it doesn't much matter whether it is "illusory"/

From what point of view could you sort out whether it was real or illusion? It's a silly circular chase.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM

///Well, whether or not it is delusional it cannot be argued that it is consciousness, since even if if what it is being conscious of is a delusion, the act of being conscious of it is still occurring. The notion that all experience and all experiences are just delusions, and nothing is really experiencing anything is absurd, in my view. The other thing to bear in mind is that agreement on an illusion beings about reality. As long as we can get a consensus about the solidity of solids and the visibility of light and so on, it doesn't much matter whether it is "illusory"/

From what point of view could you sort out whether it was real or illusion? It's a silly circular chase.///

It's the old brain-in-a-vat argument. You're nothing but a brain suspended in a vat wfilled with a solution in a laboratory somewhere and a mad scientist is stimulating that brain with electrical impulses to simluate all your life experiences. Even your reading this right now is just an illusion caused by the mad scientist. How can you prove that you are not a brain in a vat somewhere?

I used to have a similar thought when I was very young after watching "The Wizard of Oz." I wondered, "What if I'm really in a coma right now and none of this is happening and when I wake up, I'll be a grown man who is just dreaming all this and all the people I know then will be people I knew in this dream."

So how can you prove you are not in a coma right now just dreaming all this? You can't, just as you cannot prove that you are not a brain in a vat. But that doesn't mean that because you can't disprove the notion that you should then put any stock in it.

Someone insisting consciousness is an illusion is proposing the brain-in-a-vat argument. Consciousness is an illusion so everything that occurs in consciousness is likewise an illusion. Since you can't disprove consciousness is an illusion, you should therefore conclude that consciousness is an illusion. But since the person making the claim is doing so within my consciousness, he too is an illusion and his assertion that consciousness is an illusion is an illusion therefore consciousness is real. Kind of like, "Everything I tell you is a lie." It's the worst kind of sophistry and sheer nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 12:59 PM

There is no scientific evidence to support that we are a brain in a vat. This is a construct
that has never been determined by the study of biology, physiology, embryology or any of the legitimate physical sciences.

The burden of proof is on the person stating that consciousness exists outside of the physical brain. The illusion of consciousness outside of the brain can never be reasonably established since it is unmeasurable. Activity in the brain, however, is measurable and different states of consciousness can be manipulated by electrodes to the brain including a sense of god and religion. The idea of an external "consciousness" is pure nonsense. The illusion of an external consciousness is something that can be manipulated by stimulating areas of the brain.

The idea of an external "higher consciousness" is even more ridiculous. It assumes the existence of a "higher power" that guides the human thinking process. This is true sophistry. If there can exist a "higher consciousness" that is absolute, it can be argued
also that there is a "lower consciousness" that negates any "higher consciousness". It's the old argument that because one conceives of a god, it must exist. The classic refutation is that if one doesn't, then it doesn't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 02:14 PM

///The illusion of consciousness outside of the brain can never be reasonably established since it is unmeasurable. Activity in the brain, however, is measurable and different states of consciousness can be manipulated by electrodes to the brain including a sense of god and religion. The idea of an external "consciousness" is pure nonsense. The illusion of an external consciousness is something that can be manipulated by stimulating areas of the brain.///

Suppose you have extremely complex technology and mathematics that enable you to map in very minute detail any given brain state—color, shape, texture perception as well states of fear, joy, sorrow, terror, ecstasy, anger, jealousy, contentment, boredom, pain etc. No matter how many people you test, the results are generally the same with minor variations. So is your knowledge of brains states complete? No. We are dealing with perceptions called qualia which involve perceptions and feelings that we all have but which we cannot communicate to others. You cannot communicate your perception of the color blue to someone else. You simply tell them it is blue and they must simply know what you mean. So in evaluating qualia of your test subjects with your super technology, your knowledge is incomplete because you must evaluate your own role as the observer. Your evaluation cannot be part of an objective brain state because your own observation is inherently subjective. There must be another consciousness to evaluate your role as observer but whose? Since everyone else's brain states are no more complete than yours and yours no more than theirs, then you would have to conclude that your study of the brain states is incomplete simply because consciousness was excluded from them altogether. Consciousness cannot be included because it is outside the objective reality being studied. Hence consciousness is not epiphenomenal and is primal.

In short, your assertions are bogus.

///The idea of an external "higher consciousness" is even more ridiculous. It assumes the existence of a "higher power" that guides the human thinking process. This is true sophistry. If there can exist a "higher consciousness" that is absolute, it can be argued
also that there is a "lower consciousness" that negates any "higher consciousness". It's the old argument that because one conceives of a god, it must exist. The classic refutation is that if one doesn't, then it doesn't exist. ///

Huh, what? What was any of that supposed to mean?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 02:53 PM

"Hence consciousness is not epiphenomenal and is primal."

josep... unfortunately, the logic you employ to come to this conclusion is fraught with embedded assumptions and equivocations. It would take an houur or two to dissect your paragraph and list all the problems, and I don't have the time, and you would no doubt just reject them..(we humans are ABLE to deny or accept such 'proofs'...it's part OF being human)

It is true that a conscious being cannot objectively access all the causes and processes which comprise 'its' awareness and motivation (as I mentioned in my post about the "edietic reduction"), but neither does awareness itself logically imply that "..consciousness is not epiphenomenal and is primal".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 04:18 PM

Frank's argument is similar to the "my cellphone generates all kinds of interesting messages" assertion. The wiring may definitely be mappable to the sending of messages, but that is no certain demonstration that it generates them. It could similarly be argued that asserting that understanding is brought about solely by brain mechanics is comparable to asserting that your cell phone understands the messages people leave on it, and saves them and relays them to you with comprehension, which is silly on the face of it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 04:44 PM

If you took all the logical fallacies from this thread and laid them end to end, it would be longer than the thing that won the 'World's Longest Thing' competition.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 04:46 PM

If consciousness is not primal, how would we now?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 06:08 PM

The same way we know that not all leprechauns are gay.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 07:15 PM

"If you took all the logical fallacies from this thread and laid them end to end, it would be longer than the thing that won the 'World's Longest Thing' competition..."

Ha! String theory again!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 10:45 PM

///josep... unfortunately, the logic you employ to come to this conclusion is fraught with embedded assumptions and equivocations. It would take an houur or two to dissect your paragraph and list all the problems, and I don't have the time, and you would no doubt just reject them..(we humans are ABLE to deny or accept such 'proofs'...it's part OF being human)///

Sorry Bill D but there is nothing wrong with the logic I employed. Studying subjective brain states with a subjective brain state is self-referential--it goes nowhere.

Once I argued with a self-styled "atheist" who told me the best argument atheists can offer against the existence of god is "Can god make a stone so heavy even he couldn't lift it?" He said that statement disproves the notion of god. I tried to tell him that he was going to make atheists look like utter fools if he thinks he can go into a debate armed with that as his logical proof. The statement is self-referential. It compares god to god and nothing useful can be gotten from comparing a thing to itself. It's not a valid comparison.

A statement has to go somewhere. It has to go from A to B. Statements like the one quoted above go nowhere. A circles around and comes back to A. No different than "Everything I tell you is a lie." It is circular, it goes nowhere, i.e. conveys no useful information as opposed to, say, "Everything josep tells you is a lie." Whether it's true or not is beside the point, it conveys something useful because it isn't circular.

You can't use your subjective brain states to study someone else's subjective brain states and call it an objective study. It can only be objective if an outside consciousness validates your conclusions but that outside consciousness would also be subjective. So consciousness was never addressed in your study and this is necessarily so because we can't get outside our own consciousness to study it objectively. That's pretty much the cornerstone of every epistemological argument.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 06:12 AM

A bit of an Aunt Sally there with your self-styled atheist. I haven't met an awful lot of atheists who want to put up arguments that disprove God, to be honest. The sheer illogicality of God is that he has been invoked to explain a complex universe whilst being far more complex and inexplicable himself than the thing he's supposed to be the explanation for. It hardly helps that, in order to exist, he has been excused all the rules of physics and the need to have any evidence for his existence. This particular self-styled (what IS that anyway?) atheist has concluded that, from all this, the chances of his existing are vanishingly small, but I really can't be arsed to try to disprove his existence, either to myself or to anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 09:43 AM

Smokey

Here's a bargain for y'all - be quick while it's going cheap.

'The Quantum Activist Course'

Dr Amit Goswami

Thanks for that, Smokey. Absolutely delightful. I think I might try some of that Quantum Naturopathy.

I notice Josep has made no further reference to Dr Goswami.

Thank you, Josep, for your postings of 24 Sep 10 - 08:09 PM and 08:11 PM. Might I suggest you read them and make an effort to understand them?

I would particularly draw your attention to -

"The laws of classical mechanics thus follow from the laws of quantum mechanics as a statistical average at the limit of large systems or large quantum numbers."

For an idea of what "large systems" means, take a look at this - http://www.av8n.com/physics/quantum-classical.htm

Ammonia is small and behaves as a quantum object, methylethylamine is large and does not (both at low temperatures) so a cat at room temperature (or above if it is alive)...? Taking atomic nuclei as single particles for the purpose of this argument, I reckon ammonia has 10 particles, methylethylamine has 37. A cat is going to be in the order of Avogadro's number per 10gms, about 10 to the power of 25 particles.

A cat is composed of quantum particles. It is not, of itself, a quantum object.

For whoever it was that said QM has proven nothing

Quantum Mechanics has not "proven" anything. Not because there is anything wrong with it but simply because it is a theory and that is not what theories do.

"Quantum mechanics had enormous success in explaining many of the features of our world."

"Quantum theory also provides accurate descriptions for many previously unexplained phenomena "

Theories explain and describe. They make predictions which can be tested by experiments which will either disprove them or provide supporting evidence (but never actually prove them to be true).

I suggest that you do some reading up on the theory of science before making pronouncements that Quantum Mechanics has proved anything about consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 12:02 PM

I talked to a theologian the other day, who said that philosophy doesn't consider the question of the existence of deity.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 12:45 PM

Often, it doesn't even include the existence of the philosopher!

They do the loop (shoop-shoop!)
They do the Mrzzy loop!
They do the loop (shoop-shoop!)
They do the Mrzzy loop!
It makes a soup (shoop-shoop)
That does a loop-di-loop!
The Mrzzy loop!
That Mrzzy loop!

(Shanana chorus fades out...)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 02:12 PM

"The last few decades have seen a surge of invention of technologies that enable the observation or perturbation of information in the brain. Functional MRI, which measures blood flow changes associated with brain activity, is being explored for purposes as diverse as lie detection, prediction of human decision making, and assessment of language recovery after stroke. Implanted electrical stimulators, which enable control of neural circuit activity, are borne by hundreds of thousands of people to treat conditions such as deafness, Parkinson's disease, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. And new methods, such as the use of light to activate or silence specific neurons in the brain, are being widely utilized by researchers to reveal insights into how to control neural circuits to achieve therapeutically useful changes in brain dynamics. We are entering a neurotechnology renaissance, in which the toolbox for understanding the brain and engineering its functions is expanding in both scope and power at an unprecedented rate.

This toolbox has grown to the point where the strategic utilization of multiple neurotechnologies in conjunction with one another, as a system, may yield fundamental new capabilities, both scientific and clinical, beyond what they can offer alone. For example, consider a system that reads out activity from a brain circuit, computes a strategy for controlling the circuit so it enters a desired state or performs a specific computation, and then delivers information into the brain to achieve this control strategy. Such a system would enable brain computations to be guided by predefined goals set by the patient or clinician, or adaptively steered in response to the circumstances of the patient's environment or the instantaneous state of the patient's brain.
..."


Article here at MIT Tech magazine.

Wow. Programmable hoomings.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 05:14 PM

LOL!

Not to mention that if they'd have had fMRI when I was in grad school they'd have had to use a much bigger crowbar to get me out...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 07:19 PM

Need a little empathy? Feel a bit too shy to post?

This may be for you?

oxytocin

Next thing will be a religion tonic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 08:12 PM

"...philosophy doesn't consider the question of the existence of deity."

Then why did I have to grade 75 freshman papers on it in 1968?

Well, what was assigned was to write a short paper showing they they understood the status of the claims and history of attempting to answer the question, and Epistemology IS a valid philosophical question.
What we (meaning the dept. head who chose the topic) didn't anticipate was that it was way too difficult define the topic in such a way as to just elicit an understanding of the issue. This was **Kansas** and many kids took it as an opportunity to 'defend' their belief system....and I had to give too many 'C' grades to kids who got 'A's on multiple choice tests....The issue was just too 'loaded' for beginners.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 08:34 PM

MAybe so, but it would have made a lousy multiple choice test...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:15 PM

It? You mean " the question of the existence of deity."?...naawwww, the tests were on all the other stuff of Phil. 101. The paper was an attempt to see if they could do anything except regurgitate information.....most could not.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:41 PM

Well, I think it is a silly question to begin with. I doubt anyone who would bother trying to answer it in would be in any shape to do so, and anyone who WAS, wouldn't.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 09:09 AM

Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

By Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times

If you want to know about God, you might want to talk to an atheist.



Heresy? Perhaps. But a survey that measured Americans' knowledge of religion found that atheists and agnostics knew more, on average, than followers of most major faiths. In fact, the gaps in knowledge among some of the faithful may give new meaning to the term "blind faith."



A majority of Protestants, for instance, couldn't identify Martin Luther as the driving force behind the Protestant Reformation, according to the survey, released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Four in 10 Catholics misunderstood the meaning of their church's central ritual, incorrectly saying that the bread and wine used in Holy Communion are intended to merely symbolize the body and blood of Christ, not actually become them.



Atheists and agnostics — those who believe there is no God or who aren't sure — were more likely to answer the survey's questions correctly. Jews and Mormons ranked just below them in the survey's measurement of religious knowledge — so close as to be statistically tied.



So why would an atheist know more about religion than a Christian?



American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.



"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."



Atheists and agnostics also tend to be relatively well educated, and the survey found, not surprisingly, that the most knowledgeable people were also the best educated. However, it said that atheists and agnostics also outperformed believers who had a similar level of education. ...

(LA Times)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 10:27 AM

I don't really think that anyone will truly ever agree about the beginning of the world or whether God exists or not no matter how many scientists and theologians argue and debate. Every time a new so called theory comes to light another skeptic will disagree about either side. Not all scientists deny God either so there you are. It is a wonder and a mystery because the world is such am amazing place apart from the manmade catastrophes. Could it be that we are just fortunate that we are on this planet? At the same time I don't appreciate anyone forcing any view down my throat i.e. Jehovah's knocking at my door or preachers in the street, people should be left alone to believe what they want quietly.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM

Well, religion has long had this habit of not leaving people alone to believe what they want. No child raised from birth as a Christian, Muslim or whatever religion was around them by sheer chance of birth was ever left alone to believe what they wanted. Adults forcing religion on children is no different from those Jehovah's Witnesses you don't like, except that at least you can tell the Witnesses to go away. The world is certainly a place of wonder and mystery but we have yet to find anything hereto unexplained that needed to be explained with magic or the supernatural. Revel in the glorious ordinariness of it all and admire the laws of physics!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 11:40 AM

admire the laws of physics

In the sure certainty they will not reciprocate...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 11:51 AM

Amos

In the sure certainty they will not reciprocate...

But neither will they cast you into eternal damnation and nobody will burn you at the stake if you don't believe in them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 11:56 AM

Welll, I wasn't worried about THAT!! LOL! I do think it is important to notice, however, that admiration is a capabililty that is found in lots of life forms (dogs and humans most immediately come to mind) that does not occur in physics.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 11:58 AM

Touché!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 12:11 PM

The Ten Commandments may not admire me very much, I think I've broken several.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 12:26 PM

Yeah! Gluttony, sloth and lust! My favorite pastimes!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 12:44 PM

This post is from Ebbie. -Joe Offer-

"No child raised from birth as a Christian, Muslim or whatever religion was around them by sheer chance of birth was ever left alone to believe what they wanted. "Steve Shaw

I don't agree with you, Steve S. Unless you mean it in the sense that parents teach their children not to steal or break in or burgle or torture another living being, or to be a person of one's word, or honoring the ethics of commitment or of supporting one's family, whether financially or otherwise.

We all teach our children, both overtly and below the level of conscious thought. Surely that is not a bad thing. I fail to see why a parent's views on religion or their own version of it should be so damaging to a child. I know that in my own case, my own brand of unconsciously transmitted religious undoubtedly presented the Protestant view rather than Roman Catholic or Muslim or Hindu or that of the Jew, but consciously i taught respect for one's right to make their own decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 01:14 PM

"Gluttony, sloth and lust! My favorite pastimes!"

...not necessarily in that order.....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 01:22 PM

Yeah! Gluttony, sloth and lust!

They are from the Seven Deadly Sins. I think I've done all of them. Not becessarily at the same time; some of them are mutually incompatible.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 01:25 PM

some of them are mutually incompatible

You obviously need more practise :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 02:02 PM

I find it tricky doing sloth and lust at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 02:10 PM

Try thinking of Margaret Thatcher naked.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 03:17 PM

"a. But we know memory eventually becomes static and unchanging--the story becomes set, so to speak. And we know all sensations dwindle to zero eventually. Nothing changes for the rest of time and since time is characterized by change, time has ended.
b. But eternity has no end so there must be some memory modification and sensations not at zero."

We don't know that memory becomes static and unchanging. This is a hypothesis that has not been tested. It's an assumption. We do know that memory is tied to the brain and is constantly changing as our perceptions of what we see in life change.

We don't even know physically what eternity is. If the universe(s) collapse, which is
theoretically a possibility, then what eternity is there? And if it's not there, why would it not have ended?

Once again the attempt to prove logically an argument is reliant on the agreement of premises and those you offer are unprovable by scientific means. They haven't been tested. They are assumptions.

The problem for the argument of a super "consciousness" that extends beyond the brain is not provable and one's experience of this supposed "consciousness" can only be supposed and not proven.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 03:19 PM

.....I didn't mean immediately...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 03:21 PM

The reason that religious teaching that is force on a child is harmful is that it doesn't accept the ability of a child to make up his or her own mind to believe or not. This is
a form of mental abuse. Religious training offers nothing concrete in determining whether behavior will be moral or anti-social. Much of this comes from life's experiences and choices that have little to do with religious dogma. There are plenty of examples of moral and socially-conscious people who help society without being religious.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 03:24 PM

"Suppose all religion really is a delusion.
Dawkins should apply his understanding of selection and evolution."

Evolution is not a belief. It is a scientific fact. The evolution-deniers are delusional in this regard.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 03:40 PM

"Frank's argument is similar to the "my cellphone generates all kinds of interesting messages" assertion. The wiring may definitely be mappable to the sending of messages, but that is no certain demonstration that it generates them. It could similarly be argued that asserting that understanding is brought about solely by brain mechanics is comparable to asserting that your cell phone understands the messages people leave on it, and saves them and relays them to you with comprehension, which is silly on the face of it."

Amos, your analogy doesn't hold. A cellphone is a mechanical contrivance that if it doesn't serve by sending messages, why even bother with one? The brain, by contrast, is capable
of understanding messages that is not like the physical principles involved in the cellphone.
To claim that the cellphone can of itself comprehend messages is fallacious, of course, but the human brain is not a cellphone. The brain can comprehend a message and respond to it whereas a cellphone can not. The human brain can generate messages and without its activity, there will be no sending of messages on a cellphone. The human brain is genetically mapped to send and receive messages unlike a cellphone.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 03:44 PM

"Next thing will be a religion tonic."

This effect can be accomplished by certain electrodes placed on the brain.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 03:55 PM

"...my own brand of unconsciously transmitted religious undoubtedly presented the Protestant view..."

Protestant view of what? Morals? God? What did you do to present them with equally-valid views that were other than protestant, including atheism, to level up the playing field? Did you check that their teachers were transmitting it equally unconsciously and that they were giving that balance?

"Children, some people believe in God or gods, supernatural beings who are supposedly separate from all the rules of nature we tell you about in science lessons and that you can often work out for yourselves. God, or the gods, created the universe, according to these believers, and they watch over us and one day will judge us. Believers don't ask for evidence for their gods - they rely on faith. The churches, synagogues and mosques you see around us are the places these believers go to in order to worship their gods. A lot of people, on the other hand, think that the laws of nature are all we need to explain everything, including the things we're not clever enough to explain just yet. They insist on having clear evidence for everything anyone tells them and regard faith alone as being nowhere near enough to believe in supernatural beings. Here are the facts about these two opposing sets of people... When you have these facts you can decide whose side you're on, but it's a good idea not to decide at too young an age either way. It takes a lot of thinking about. One thing is certain. It doesn't matter which side you're on - you can end up being good or bad either way. Neither believers nor non-believers can tell you they know best about that because being a good or a bad person has nothing to do with religion. Finally, you are free to choose or reject religion, and you will be fully respected for the decision you arrive at."

Well, I can dream.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 04:08 PM

Frank:

Your assertion is that it is the brain (and only the brain) that crosses the bridge between transmission (of the chemical and electronic sort) and understanding.

In making this assertion you are endowing a biochemical complex with the attribute of understanding.

When I say this is _comparable_ to asserting that a cellphone understands, I am saying that there is _a_ similarity--that of attributing understanding to an electronic and chemical device.

In disputing this similarity by asserting that the brain can too understand you simply repeat the orginal assertion/assumption in a circular fashion.

My claim is that there is a qualitative difference between mechanics--even complex mechanics such as those of our wetware--and understanding, a leap from one whole kind of phenomenon to another.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 04:27 PM

That's not a fair comparison, Amos. The brain is, in most cases, billions of times more complex than a mobile phone.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 04:40 PM

LEt me repeat myself, if I may. I know there is a large difference in the order of complexity. I am saying that the error made in assuming that this complexity accounts for the difference between transmission and understanding is COMPARABLE to the obviously flawed assumption about a cellphone.

Remember, it was not that long ago that the notion of that much switching power crammed into something smaller than a bar of Ivory Soap would have been unthinkable! To have seen such a thing at that time would have beenm mystifying and bewildering, and one might well imagine a non-technical person succumbing to the temptation of saying the little talking box understood what you said to it. How else could you account for the appropriate responses coming back?

Well, OBVIOUSLY that interpretation relies on a lot of ignorance. But I don't see that simply multiplying the number of switches by a couple of orders of magnitude so that it becomes "unfathomably complex" is really an explanation for the difference between switches, transmissions and understanding, anymore than it makes sense to say the complexity of a cell phone accounts for it.

Xerox the word "understanding" ten thousand times and make a HUGE pile of it and see how much understanding it generates.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 05:02 PM

I am saying that the error made in assuming that this complexity accounts for the difference between transmission and understanding is COMPARABLE to the obviously flawed assumption about a cellphone.

I don't think it necessarily is though - that's all I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 05:12 PM

The similarity is that you endow a complex physical object with understanding. How is that not comparable? Just because of the "billions and billions" factor?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 05:48 PM

Just because of the "billions and billions" factor?

Yes, possibly. We don't really know what 'understanding' actually is, only what it appears to be, and that seems to vary ludicrously from person to person.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 07:11 PM

"...you endow a complex physical object with understanding."

Ya' know, Amos, that is no stranger than positing an entire realm of 'beingness' that we can't see, describe, examine or demonstrate.

WE do not 'endow' anything...we merely note that brains that GET beyond a certain size & complexity are able to achieve understanding and self-awareness.......and at that point, we are also able to imagine states of being that we can't pin down...except linguistically....and even that distinction is not clearly explicated by those who LIKE the concept.

I am not 'against' the idea of metaphysical concepts, I just see most of them as artificial ways of expressing subjective feelings.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 07:22 PM

I like to think that we developed the arts to express that which we perhaps cannot express any other way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 07:48 PM

Indeed, Smokey...and as poetry and metaphor, metaphysical ideas fill some of those needs quite well.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 08:13 PM

Well, of course, if you can't experience beingness, it woudl escape you entirely that there is such a thing.

Chacun a son mauvais gout, I always say.

In other news a recent science report concludes that people choose brands to be loyal to for the same reasons they choose religions. Things go better with ____. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 08:22 PM

///I notice Josep has made no further reference to Dr Goswami.///

AH! That's what I was waiting for. Your attack on Dr. Goswami is ad hominem. It is invalid and betrays a complete inability to argue his statements.

You remind me of a Christian who attacked Robert Green Ingersoll because the man was a ruthless lawyer who ruined people and enjoyed it. My response? SO WHAT???? What has that got to do with the man's attacks on religion??? Nothing.

What has your attack on Dr. Goswami have to do with the statements by him that I quoted? Nothing. You left those statements unaddressed because you can't attack them. Then you think you can attack the man and that somehow validates you. It makes you look like a petty idiot.

So, yes, I refrained for your sake from further mentioning Dr. Goswami--whose personal endeavors are no business nor interest of mine. He is a qualified physicist and so if he says there is no such thing as a classical object, then it's worth considering. If you choose not to because you are not versed enough in science or philosophy to even be participating on this thread, I thought I would save you the trouble of further embarrassing yourself. And I wasn't going to say any of this as long as you had the sense to shut up after your ad hominem attack--I knew you never think to apologize for engaging in it but I had hoped you might be intelligent enough not to resort to it again. You're not. So this time I won't let it slide.

Yes, that's right. I had you pegged the day you quoted that ad--waiting for you to keep dragging it up until I had to set you straight but I had hoped you'd grow a brain in between. You didn't. So keep attacking Dr. Goswami, who is infinitely more qualified and more intelligent than you--but then who isn't? If that's how you think you can one-better people but you're only proving they are better than you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 08:25 PM

"..if you can't experience beingness, it woudl escape you entirely that there is such a thing."

I'll see your tautology, and raise you a a better one: "Being is as Being does."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 08:32 PM

Well, of course, if you can't experience beingness, it woudl escape you entirely that there is such a thing.

You lost me there, Amos - isn't that self-evident? What's 'beingness', and what does bad taste have to do with it?

Interesting link btw - not surprising results.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 08:35 PM

Well, of course, it is not a tautology, Bill. At least not to those who have experienced it!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 08:37 PM

///We don't know that memory becomes static and unchanging. This is a hypothesis that has not been tested.///

It's self-evident. Every memory you have eventually reaches a point where it will not change. Early on it will change. But at a certain point, it becomes set. You recall it over and over and it's the same. Early on, the memory was fresh, vibrant. But as time wears on, details of that memory drop out. Sensations invoked by that memory fade. Whatever confusion you had about the order of the events and the events themselves have long been resolved. Probably not all the accurate but that's beside the point. Think back to a memory you had at 7. Does it change now? No, not unless you remember something that you never before considered but that is virtually never going to happen. The memory is set now--all you remember are certain essential bits because you were conscious of them when they happened. 20 years from now, that memory will still be the same and even if it isn't (it may in fact grow even dimmer) it just means it hasn't reached the stabilizing point yet but it will. It has to.

At the end of time, all memories will have become set and unchanging and all sensations will have dwindled to zero. If that were not the case, it wouldn't be the end of time.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM

Josep, you appear to think you are quoting my post, but you aren't. Kindly take your childish smugness elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 08:51 PM

I'm referring to your post of 08:22PM

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 08:58 PM

josep

Would you please quote anything I have said which you consider constitutes an ad hominem attack on Dr. Goswami?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 09:03 PM

There's only been one ad hominem attack around here..

I posted the link because I thought people would be interested, and because it amused me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 09:44 PM

Here you go, Josep, a bit of light reading for you, mate.

Click

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 11:56 PM

If memories crystallize into an unchanging state, that argues that they are recorded as some form of matter rather than ad momentum creations.

In any case, I do not think they become unchangeable; but I think we do tend to regard them as solid fact, rightly or wrongly. That doesn't mean they aren't plastic, just that the belief that they are static is part of the process of looking at them..


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 12:08 AM

Sorry, I tripped. Guest at 12:44 was me.

Steve S., you quote me and then continue "...my own brand of unconsciously transmitted religious undoubtedly presented the Protestant view..."

"Protestant view of what? Morals? God? What did you do to present them with equally-valid views that were other than protestant, including atheism, to level up the playing field? Did you check that their teachers were transmitting it equally unconsciously and that they were giving that balance?"

You know, suddenly I don't think you deserve an answer from me. But let me say - in case you are in a more receptive mood than it appears to me - that when I said that I undoubtedly transmitted a Protestant view to my daughter I meant that as a non-Catholic I didn't, inadvertently or otherwise, mention masses, the Virgin Mary, priests or any of a number of other signature words and phrases. Neither did I yell 'Allah' when something went wrong. Nor did I bring up Wiccan holiday observances.

I did say 'God' at times.

See, I thought my reasoning was self-evident.

As for what was subliminally taught her in school, as they said in the 80s: get real.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 05:45 AM

I challenged you to show how your child received a balanced and fair view of religion in order for them to make a free and informed choice about how they should go on to live their lives, i.e. to embrace religion or fearlessly reject it. Note, informed. That would involve one giving correctives to any unconscious one-sided view one admits to passing on to them and checking and balancing what they were getting in religious "education" in their schools. It happens to be my model for the only right way for parents, religious or not, to deal with their children apropos of religion. Giving children one view of religion (and perhaps doing all the churchy stuff like christenings, weddings, carol-singing etc.) then telling them they're free to reject it is not the same thing at all - but it's a cop-out claimed by an awful lot of people. I actually think (as an atheist) that there isn't anywhere near enough religious education. But then I'm using the word "education" in its strict sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:20 AM

Question: Do you have children, Steve S? Or are you the proverbial childless auntie who knows it all?

In my case, as I've written before in other places, my daughter at the age of 12 started going to church. I didn't discourage it but I never went with her; as it happens I don't go to church, per se, and haven't since I left home the last time when I was 19, and I'm coming on 75 now.

So I have little patience with your stance. It reminds me more of propagandizing on a theme than of normal role modeling.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 12:19 PM

///Josep, you appear to think you are quoting my post, but you aren't. Kindly take your childish smugness elsewhere.///

Smokey, if you were worth the trouble, I might actually get pissed off at your bullshit. I was quoting snail so how in the hell did your obviously overblown ego translate that into me quoting you at 8:22??? Did you write what I quoted??? No? Was it addressed to you?? No? Did I stick your moniker in there anywhere? No?? Do I find you so interesting that every post I make is addressed to you?? No.

Stay out of it. It's between me and snail. Why would you even think to insert yourself in something that doesn't concern you? Are you even in your right mind? Go away.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 12:57 PM

Bill:

WE do not 'endow' anything...we merely note that brains that GET beyond a certain size & complexity are able to achieve understanding and self-awareness

May the circle be unbroken, pal!!

Let me put this another way, as you are being unusually obdurate about NOT getting what I am saying. You observe a complex, physical device. You observe a correlation in said device and moments of understanding. You conclude that the understanding is inherent in the device. You therefor conclude that the device is itself DOING the understanding.

In my somewhat sarcastic analogy, the device is a cellphone. Thirty years back it could have been a transistor radio or a television set.

In your world-view the device is a wet-ware one rather than a hardware one.

So far the only defense of this conclusion, contrasted with a cellphone, is a couple of orders of magnitude in complexity.

I would rejoin that complexity alone cannot explain a phenomena that is profoundly, qualitatively different in nature. You could hook up all the gears, chains, wheels, valves, lightbulbs and switches ever built into a gigantic electromechanical system and never get it to tell you a story. Even a fairy-tale like "once there was a pile of meat that woke up and understood things...".


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 01:08 PM

The idea that children are not indoctrinated in religious views at an early age just shows how some parents have already been brainwashed. Children should be allowed to make up their own minds when they reach the age of reason. In the meantime, going to church may not be the best thing for them. However, they might want to experience it and then make up their own minds.

Memories change all the time. What you think you remember might not be actual.
Memories can easily be distorted. History is replete with distorted memories and actual falsehoods. There is no universal memory. Memories are relative to the experiences of people that have them. Trying to make a universal concept out of memory or consciousness is propaganda to deny evolution, the function of the brain and modern
physiological scientific studies in order to foster a Teleological view of the world. It's
a form of theological proselytizing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 01:21 PM

"The idea that children are not indoctrinated in religious views at an early age just shows how some parents have already been brainwashed." Stringsinger

But Frank, no normal child is brought up in a laboratory; they - and we - are exposed to the implicit and explicit views of those who rear us and to the views of those around us. There is no 'ideal' world, such as some would wish for. And I say, Thank God! :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 01:33 PM

GUEST,josep

I was quoting snail

Indeed you were but you went on to say -

Yes, that's right. I had you pegged the day you quoted that ad--

I didn't quote the ad, Smokey did. You continued -

waiting for you to keep dragging it up until I had to set you straight but I had hoped you'd grow a brain in between. You didn't. So keep attacking Dr. Goswami, who is infinitely more qualified and more intelligent than you--but then who isn't? If that's how you think you can one-better people but you're only proving they are better than you.

How about that for ad hominem?

Could you please explain why pointing out that Dr Goswami is on the faculty of The Quantum University through which he sells The Quantum Activist Course constitutes an attack on him? Could you also, as I have already asked, quote anything I have said that you consider to be an attack on Dr Goswami?

TheSnail BSc., BSc., MSc., MCP, RYA(Yachtmaster)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM

"Question: Do you have children, Steve S? Or are you the proverbial childless auntie who knows it all?

In my case, as I've written before in other places, my daughter at the age of 12 started going to church. I didn't discourage it but I never went with her; as it happens I don't go to church, per se, and haven't since I left home the last time when I was 19, and I'm coming on 75 now.

So I have little patience with your stance. It reminds me more of propagandizing on a theme than of normal role modeling."

I find it depressingly frequent that religious people have little patience with the atheistic stance. Oh, well. As I only ever post under my real name on forums I'm a bit reluctant to share certain elements of my private life but I'll make one small exception. Yes, I have two children, aged 30 and 31. They went to schools at which religious worship was foisted on them (and some rather more enlightened religious education, I should add). We had no choice in the matter of schools as we live in a remote rural area with few schools within a reachable radius. We discussed whether to exercise our right to withdraw them from the worship, but we decided that this would have set them conspicuously apart from their fellow pupils (and the children agreed). It would have been a very uncomfortable arrangement for them, as you can imagine, what with them sitting outside the assembly hall on their own every morning. Pragmatism had to outweigh principle, and I should like to thank you for challenging me on this: it gives me this perfect opportunity to show how even we "militant atheists" can be horribly squeezed by organised religion.

I'm sure you worked your own conscientious path with your daughter. It isn't easy, any of this, for parents with consciences, and it's organised religion that, alone, creates the difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 04:15 PM

Smokey, if you were worth the trouble, I might actually get pissed off at your bullshit. I was quoting snail so how in the hell did your obviously overblown ego translate that into me quoting you at 8:22??? Did you write what I quoted??? No? Was it addressed to you?? No? Did I stick your moniker in there anywhere? No?? Do I find you so interesting that every post I make is addressed to you?? No.

Stay out of it. It's between me and snail. Why would you even think to insert yourself in something that doesn't concern you? Are you even in your right mind? Go away.

Josep, in that post of 08:22 you said: "I had you pegged the day you quoted that ad--waiting for you to keep dragging it up until I had to set you straight but I had hoped you'd grow a brain in between."

TheSnail didn't quote that ad, I did. There was no ad hominem attack on Goswami, particularly as the bit I quoted was not even by him, it was merely on the same website as his advertisement. You are merely trying to wriggle out of making a fool of yourself. You owe me an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 04:43 PM

Memories are re-created every time you recall them. That is why Alzheimer's and stuff - memories aren't, cannot become, static.

(Take a bunch of cognitive psych classes and you'll see.)

Are we still having fun? I am!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 04:45 PM

but Amos..(if you are not already on a plane)...

you once again say something like "... as you are being unusually obdurate .... That doesn't do justice to my position OR intent.

When you say: "I would rejoin that complexity alone cannot explain a phenomena that is profoundly, qualitatively different in nature." it 'feels' like a creationist saying "I can't imagine all this complexity being just a random series of events...it MUST be 'intelligent design!"

Well...*I* can't imagine a mind or entity being complex & powerful enough to design all this stuff!....and neither can I imagine the metaphysical entities you argue for......and..... I suspect that if I DID have an experience such as you suggest would change my ...ummm... attitude, I think I would look for causal explanations first....who can say what they would do *if* they had an experience they can't even imagine yet?

But I can assure you, I am NOT intentionally mis-understanding your points...or metaphors. I simply see logical problems with some of them......(read the exchanges between Ebbie & I on the "Open topics' thread...)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:08 PM

What? Who said anything about design?? We are talking about functional capability.

I am all for the notion that evolution is the descriptive path that explains what it does in terms of structure, don't get me wrong.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:13 PM

(PhysOrg.com) -- The rules that govern the world of the very small, quantum mechanics, are known for being bizarre. One of the strangest tenets is something called quantum entanglement, in which two or more objects (such as particles of light, called photons) become inextricably linked, so that measuring certain properties of one object reveals information about the other(s), even if they are separated by thousands of miles. Einstein found the consequences of entanglement so unpalatable he famously dubbed it "spooky action at a distance."

Now a team led by Yale researchers has harnessed this counterintuitive aspect of quantum mechanics and achieved the entanglement of three solid-state qubits, or quantum bits, for the first time. Their accomplishment, described in the Sept. 30 issue of the journal Nature, is a first step towards quantum error correction, a crucial aspect of future quantum computing.

"Entanglement between three objects has been demonstrated before with photons and charged particles," said Steven Girvin, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics & Applied Physics at Yale and an author of the paper. "But this is the first three-qubit, solid-state device that looks and feels like a conventional microprocessor."
The new result builds on the team's development last year of the world's first rudimentary solid-state quantum processor, which they demonstrated was capable of executing simple algorithms using two qubits.

The team, led by Robert Schoelkopf, the William A. Norton Professor of Applied Physics & Physics at Yale, used artificial "atoms"Ñactually made up of a billion aluminum atoms that behave as a single entityÑas their qubits. These "atoms" can occupy two different energy states, akin to the "1" and "0" or "on" and "off" states of regular bits used in conventional computers. The strange laws of quantum mechanics, however, allow for qubits to be placed in a "superposition" of these two states at the same time, resulting in far greater information storage and processing power.

In this new study, the team was able to achieve an entangled state by placing the three qubits in a superposition of two possibilitiesÑall three were either in the 0 state or the 1 state. They were able to attain this entangled state 88 percent of the time.
With the particular entangled state the team achieved, they also demonstrated for the first time the encoding of quantum information from a single qubit into three qubits using a so-called repetition code. "This is the first step towards quantum error correction, which, as in a classical computer, uses the extra qubits to allow the computer to operate correctly even in the presence of occasional errors," Girvin said. ... (PhysOrg)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:41 PM

"Who said anything about design?? We are talking about functional capability."

*sigh*..that was an attempt to compare 'style' and argument form....I never tried to suggest you were with the 'intelligent design' folks. I am suggesting a similarity in cognitive correlation of supposed evidence.

Now who is misunderstanding whom?

(and I am not qualified to even comprehend the details of quantum entanglement, much less discern whether it is supposed to be related to our discussion.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 11:31 PM

Poster identified as Ebbie. -Joe Offer-

---

Now I am really confused. Where in the world did your children who are now in their 30s go to school? When I was a young'un, they had already dropped prayer and religious classes of any sort - on campus.

When I was in fifth grade, about 10 years old, - in a small rural school - they started a Bible study class at a local church basement. I don't know how many schoolmates attended but most of them went.   Those of us who did not attend - I was one of them - had study period in that same time period.

You go on to say that your children would have felt it was a very uncomfortable arrangement to be released from the worship.

Well, reared as I was, I was often set aside, because I wasn't like the others. The very worst was when my parents refused to give me a dime to donate to the American Red Cross fund drive. Their decision came about because it had been documented that the RC in some military units was charging soldiers for things that people had actually donated, but that didn't matter to me - I felt like everyone could tell that I hadn't donated- besides, everyone was wearing the little red and white buttons for their dime.

I stole a button as I went by the teacher's desk- and then was miserable. I couldn't wear it because "everyone" knew I hadn't donated. The next really bad thing was to replace the button in the box but I managed it. That was an awful day

I suppose that the reason that my grammar school years were mostly happy ones was because the 10 or 11 Amish kids in that school happened to be good students and were stars in the various ball games we played. None of us were allowed by our parents to attend out of town games so none of us were ever captains of the teams but at home, ah, we shone. :)

All that is pretty far afield of what you were saying but your last post made me like you a lot better. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:37 AM

I live in the UK. Religious worship is a legal requirement in state schools. Some schools do the bare minimum and get round it quite nimbly, and blind eyes are turned, but many schools, including the ones my kids went to, were more enthusiastic. Parents have the right to opt their kids out of the worship but in practice very few do for the reasons I stated. That's just the way it is here. I was a teacher myself in a state school (not a faith school) in which all the members of the senior management team were devoutly religious. I had many a stand-up battle to exempt myself from attending prayer assemblies, harvest festival thanksgiving services and carol concerts, etc. I tell you, you couldn't make it up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:42 AM

are more enthusiastic

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:16 AM

(That last guest, of course, was me)

Hmmmm. Interesting. What makes it especially interesting is that the US, as a whole, is far more 'religious' than the UK is and, I understand, most of Europe.

What is the rationale, I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:03 PM

""What makes it especially interesting is that the US, as a whole, is far more 'religious' than the UK is and, I understand, most of Europe.

What is the rationale, I wonder?""

That's easy Ebbie.

We tend to be a little more laid back in our approach to religion in the UK. There is much less here of what I would call aggressive evangelism, which has led to a decline in church attendances in adulthood.

Happy Clappy churches are a comparatively new phenomenon here, and our major churches tend more toward dignity and decorum, which makes them rather dull.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:30 PM

well, the USA is where some fairly fundamental church goers went in order to BE fundamental. Their decendants are keeping up the tradition. There are shelves of books written to explain the history and politics of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:30 PM

it has been faintly amusing to read the good upright atheists slagging each other on this thread.im sure some"religious"people are abusive as well,but unless ive missed it,i havent read any on here!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:05 PM

Sheesh, Pete *******, I must have missed it- I didn't notice any atheists slagging or abusing each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM

Pah - the God I don't believe in is far superior to the God you lot don't believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:29 PM

Going way back into the thread about conciousness and spirit. You do do worse than listen to this . I just heard it on the radio driving home and is available for the next 7 days only. It touches on many points about our human existence and state of being.

Hope it helps

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:57 PM

interesting listen mauvepink.at least i could understand what ted h was saying-though more questions than answers.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:01 PM

oh yes! But what an interesting lot of questions and philosophical reasoning

No conclusions... just pure opinions that I found most refreshing and thoughtful

:-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 04:47 PM

MP, he lost me on the "soul" part. The dualism is antiquated today. Abstract thoughts are often misleading assumptions. I think that "heart" is often subject to interpretation. I don't think that this "heart" exists beyond the brain. "Heart" is an abstract that is questionable because it means different things to people. Some take "heart" in warfare. Some take "heart" in competition. "Heart" for many is based on a religious conviction which I don't share.


The human body is not necessarily a masterpiece of creation. Evolution has changed the functions of the human body over time but improvements have not been made altogether.
Medical science is truly wonderful in that it sometimes can address these deficiencies.

I think the most important part of philosophy is "ethics" because it questions how as a species we will live together.

His views elude me on the assumption that the mind and the brain are separate.
Of course, his supposition that there is an out-of-body mind is conjecture and not supportable by what we know of science today.

We can equally presuppose that aliens are out to help us or that a sky-god will or won't throw a thunderbolt in our direction.

Hanging on to antiquated messages from the past to soothe humans from the inevitable death they will have doesn't seem particularly either useful or helpful. Death is part of life and the realization of it helps us appreciate life so much more than being lulled to sleep by the notion of an afterlife or heaven. The more sinister elements of this is when you consider the fundamentalist view of religion in which you will be rewarded by insane behavior in the "hereafter".

Oh that's just the "Fundies" you say. Well they are being enabled by the concepts of
religion that have no basis in science or reality.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:35 PM

if there is God creation is his work.if there is not, everything came from nothing.dont sound very sc ientific to me-albeit a highly developed theory that evolves itself.stringsinger is entitled to dismiss God or rant on about "fundies"but it gives this fundamental christian no pleasure in believing that the mockers will pay a heavy price for it-but if they are so sure in their antitheism what do they care-or why so zealous in their opposition?just maybe they are not so sure, but it lulls them to sleep with the notion that there is no judgement to come.rant at my post at will but i am only responding to past post as graciously as i can.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:45 PM

It's impossible to be an antitheist if you don't believe in God, Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:33 PM

God didn't do much for your grammar and punctuation, did he? You'd have thought he'd supply his followers with a somewhat more cogent manner of communication.

Hey, Pete...what if the mockers lead really good, moral lives yet continue to mock? Will they pay a less heavy price? I think we should be told!

Also, I think you'll find that most of us atheistic types sleep well without the need for lulling. We do have the advantage of not needing to waste precious kip-time at bedtime saying our prayers.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:42 AM

////GUEST,josep

I was quoting snail

Indeed you were but you went on to say -

Yes, that's right. I had you pegged the day you quoted that ad--

I didn't quote the ad, Smokey did. You continued -

waiting for you to keep dragging it up until I had to set you straight but I had hoped you'd grow a brain in between. You didn't. So keep attacking Dr. Goswami, who is infinitely more qualified and more intelligent than you--but then who isn't? If that's how you think you can one-better people but you're only proving they are better than you.

How about that for ad hominem?////

In that case, I stand corrected. Smokey is a total asshole after all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:48 AM

Before you guys start crying, that was just a joke. I was wrong. I admit it. I haven't checked it but I'lll take you wrd for it. smokey may have been pointing it out for fun and I have no probem with that. But nevertheless anyone who uses the ad to discredit any statement made by Dr. Goswami is engaging in an adhominem attack.

But neither of you guys are assholes. Of course that sentence wont' do any good since you're only going to read the previous post because that's how mucat rolls.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:06 AM

"God didn't do much for your grammar and punctuation, did he?" Steve Shaw

And atheism hasn't done much for your 'heart' either, has it? What does grammar and punctuation have to do with ethics, beliefs or stance?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM

Josep, it's such a relief to know I'm not a total 'asshole', but I'd strongly advise that you brush up on your logical fallacies.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:05 PM

Stringsinger: I posted the link as an opportunity for folks to listen to something from outside of Mudcat. I was not intending it to prove something one way or another. I was meant as something interesting to listen to that covered some of the philosophical arguments we often have here. It is open to several interpreations by indivisuals.

The individual who produced was having his say by essay on it is all :-)

Opinions vastly differ with us all and I find that quite 'miraculous' for many reasons

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM

It was interesting, mp, and on the whole I took it to be reasonably impartial, for what it's worth.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM

I thought some of you would want to know that Richard Dawkins will be a guest on Bill Mahrs talk show next Friday night. Here in the states it comes on at 10:00 PM EST on HBO. I'm pretty sure you can access the show on the HBO website and even send in questions the same way.

For those of you who don't remember it was a mention of an appearance by Richard Dawkins that got this thread started many moons ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 04:37 PM

Interesting article on qubits, Amos, but surely you know that superposition states are just quantum goobledegook that haven't been proven and haven't contributed anything to our knowledge or technology. Don't you know Schrodinger's cat proves there is no such thing as a superposition that this hasn't been proven in a laboratory? That's probably just something you made up--just admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 06:14 PM

thanks ebbie.glad you dont iose any sleep steve.as to your question-the teaching of jesus does indicate degrees of punishment and thankyou for[unintentionally!?]giving me opportunity to give you the gospel message in way of answer.all are sinners and unable to stand before a holy God.the giving of jesus life on our behalf also pays the heavy price we are due.this applies to those who believe in him-others are judged according to their works-of which mocking is one among many on the negative side.probably you have heard this before,but since you asked....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 06:55 PM

"God didn't do much for your grammar and punctuation, did he?" Steve Shaw

And atheism hasn't done much for your 'heart' either, has it? What does grammar and punctuation have to do with ethics, beliefs or stance?"

Ha ha. Come off it. This bloke just can't be arsed to put in his capital letters, spaces and correct punctuation marks, yet he can evidently write fluent English. The guy's taking the piss. God gets a capital G but poor ol' Jaysus has to put up with a little j. You're defending the indefensible. It's all about just spending a bit of time going back over your post to ensure that the poor buggers who have to read it don't have to waste their time mentally processing it. We call it good manners in these parts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:24 PM

lol Good manners, huh.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:52 AM

If I am offending you Steve by butchering the Queens english I humbly apologize.You see I have made a special effort this time.I should hate to think you might dismiss my Saviour on account of his follower,s grammer.Truth to tell,I am no whizz on technology so I am unlikely to maintain this standard and anyway have you never seen the example of mixed up spelling ,but which most people can read none-the-less.I suspect my post simply annoyed you, so you resorted to ridicule.Following the teaching of my Lord Jesus Christ I shall do the opposite-bless you Steve[ oh and by the way,I said one for you-as they say in these parts!].

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 07:43 PM

Josep, I'll ask again -

"Could you please explain why pointing out that Dr Goswami is on the faculty of The Quantum University through which he sells The Quantum Activist Course constitutes an attack on him? Could you also, as I have already asked, quote anything I have said that you consider to be an attack on Dr Goswami?"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 08:31 PM

"If I am offending you Steve by butchering the Queens english I humbly apologize.You see I have made a special effort this time.I should hate to think you might dismiss my Saviour on account of his follower,s grammer.Truth to tell,I am no whizz on technology so I am unlikely to maintain this standard and anyway have you never seen the example of mixed up spelling ,but which most people can read none-the-less.I suspect my post simply annoyed you, so you resorted to ridicule.Following the teaching of my Lord Jesus Christ I shall do the opposite-bless you Steve[ oh and by the way,I said one for you-as they say in these parts!]."

I am neither offended by your butchering of the queer old dean's English nor am I annoyed by anything you say in your posts (perplexed by your utterly cloudy thinking, perhaps). Carry on. But, whilst I am not personally offended by it (I'm far too busy being amused), I think it is generally offensive to patronise people who disagree with you by telling them that you're blessing/praying for them. Bless me and pray for me as much as you like (you could far more profitably be drinking single malt in front of a good western, but hey), but keep it severely to yourself is my advice. But it's a free country and you're free to make an arse of yourself in that way if you really want to.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 08:49 PM

///Josep, I'll ask again -

"Could you please explain why pointing out that Dr Goswami is on the faculty of The Quantum University through which he sells The Quantum Activist Course constitutes an attack on him? Could you also, as I have already asked, quote anything I have said that you consider to be an attack on Dr Goswami?"///

I said forget it. You didn't quote the ad, right? So forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:39 PM

I quoted it, Josep, so tell me where the ad hominem attack is.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:01 PM

There is no ad hominem attack. I thought one person had quoted the ad and then said I never mentioned Goswami since then. That's an ad hominem attack. It's saying that I am conceding that Goswami is wrong not for what he says about physics but because of some silly ad. But one person quoted the ad for whatever reasons of his own which he didn't elucidate and which I diden't comment on because I didn't know his motivation. But someone else implied I was conceding that Goswami is not a worthwhile source because of the ad which I was not doing because regardless of the ad, he's still a qualified physicist.

So there was no fucking ad homimen--just get off it. thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:33 PM

It's a pity you don't have the common decency to apologise for your own personal attacks, even though you now claim not to know who you were intending to insult.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:02 AM

It was me that said you'd never mentioned Goswami since then. It looked as if you found his association with the Quantum University a bit of an embarrassment. Do you or do you think it enhances his reputation as an authority on quantum mechanics?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:16 AM

glad you are not offended steve-just your style i suppose.all the best-if thats not patronising ,that is!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:50 PM

I thought one person had quoted the ad and then said I never mentioned Goswami since then. That's an ad hominem attack.

No it isn't, or wouldn't be. It's a repudiation of your appeal to authority. An 'argumentum ad hominem' would have been if someone had posted a link to a similar advert of yours. No-one is arguing with Dr. Goswami, they were merely providing a reference from which people can judge for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:27 PM

"complexity alone cannot explain a phenomena that is profoundly, qualitatively different in nature."

Ah - emergent behavior - which is qualitatively different in nature, and often profoundly counter-intuitive, comes out of complexity in a functioning system. :-)

Read Hofsteader's Pulitzer Prize winning Book "Escher, Godel & Bach - an Eternal Golden Braid ". He goes into some detail, especially in Computing, a field where it was recognized as being as fundamental to how the whole Universe, not only computers, works.

On the main example he quoted, the number of users able to run in the Operating system is not a property of any part of the system - you can't go in and just change a magic number somewhere. The emergent behavior is only displayed when the system is actually running. The aspect called 'intelligence', is only displayed when the system. eg Brain, 'Black Box', traffic flow on a motorway, etc is functioning.

QUOTE (Wikipedia)
On its surface, GEB examines logician Kurt Gödel, artist M. C. Escher and composer Johann Sebastian Bach, discussing common themes in their work and lives. At a deeper level, the book is a detailed and subtle exposition of concepts fundamental to mathematics, symmetry, and intelligence.

Through illustration and analysis, the book discusses how self-reference and formal rules allow systems to acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself.

In response to confusion over the book's theme, Hofstadter has emphasized that GEB is not about mathematics, art, and music but rather about how cognition and thinking emerge from well-hidden neurological mechanisms. In the book, he presents an analogy about how the individual neurons of the brain coordinate to create a unified sense of a coherent mind by comparing it to the social organization displayed in a colony of ants.
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:53 PM

Bon - so, we seem to be aqgreed: there is no manifestation of deity within the realm of sensation, so, anyone who feels/perceives deity is deluded.

Nice to have a conclusion...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 09:12 PM

smokey and snail.


I am oh-so-very, very, very sorry for my attack which must have stung you so deep that neither of can shut up about it.

I AM SORRY I AM SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY


SORRY


SORRY

SO: VERY SORRY

I,M SORRY I'M SORRY SORRY SSORRY SOORRYU'

ok?

jeesh.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:44 PM

Robin:

I've read GEB twice and Wolfram's massive tome on the same field, and others. I understand emergent behavior and complexity theory, as a lay person anyway.

It does not address the point I raise. Circuitry can imitate understanding, once that understanding occurs, of course.

But the key ability itself, I think not.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 11:06 PM

"Circuitry can imitate understanding, once that understanding occurs"

Ah - once again we stumble on the semantics....

Once upon a time, Man was defined as 'the only tool making animal' ... till those pesky field workers came up with documentation of monkeys washing potatoes in the sea, using sticks to poke ants out of nest, killing young babies, and all that stuff.

So it became necessary (if one wanted to progress and not just deny it all) to rethink the semantics of many concepts, such as what is a 'tool', what is 'making of a tool' - is biting off a length of twig 'tool-making', just what is 'learning' anyway - do we analyze it on the basis of observed external outputs, and which ones, and how do we measure them, it goes on - once all that 'convoluted nonsense' was just for Philosophy students, now the damn cat is out of the bag and many scientific fields have to grapple with these confusing and often apparently contradictory concepts.

Emergent behavior is just as counter-intuitive as quantum theory, and yet many people are able to happily accept the unquestioned existence of invisible omnipotent entities 'beyond all human understanding' (I was brought up Fundamentalist Lutheran, you see!).

The emotional problem arises when we come up slap bang against something that we know (based on life experiences - it's all right - we already know about the sky fairies!) cannot be happening cause it does not make sense in light of our previous experience - we've also just gotten used to those pesky sleight of hand magicians over the centuries, you see...

I remember the look of amazement/horror on the face of my very young goddaughter who had refused to believe that 'the big sandpit' - her term - called 'the beach' existed till she first physically experienced it. "yeah mum, you're pulling my leg again" was always her attitude prior to that moment ... :-) She loves it now ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 11:25 PM

Btw, Amos,

once all those pesky questions about man not being the only tool making animal, and thus 'superior' (as God had made him!) started to surface, the sky fairy proponents started frothing at the mouth, as usual, denigrating the mental state of those commenting on, or even making the observations in the field (they must be lying, making it up, insane, spawn of the devil, they could not possibly understand etc) but you've seen all that predictable behavior here in these threads...

:-0

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:56 AM

i must have missed somrthing on this massive thread.i,ve not seen anyone using such language except unbelievers in God,and mostly abusing each other!-though steve did have a go at me,bless him.admittedly i do believe evolutionary theory is the greatest hoax on earth and is of the devil, but i have not been abusive to anyone here despite some -lets just say insentitive-postings.if you dont believe man is superior [even as an evolutionist]i fail to see your resoning.the examples of monkey "tools"seems to me nothing compared to what humans acheive even if you deny a creator

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:20 PM

///i do believe evolutionary theory is the greatest hoax on earth and is of the devil, but i have not been abusive to anyone here despite some -lets just say insentitive-postings.if you dont believe man is superior [even as an evolutionist]i fail to see your resoning.the examples of monkey "tools"seems to me nothing compared to what humans acheive even if you deny a creator///

White supremacists use the same argument:

i do believe evolutionary theory is the greatest hoax on earth and is of the devil, but i have not been abusive to anyone here despite some -lets just say insentitive-postings.if you dont believe the white man is superior [even as an evolutionist]i fail to see your resoning.the examples of non-white "culture"seems to me nothing compared to what whites acheive even if you deny a creator.

What is achieved is deceptive measure. One guy told that the white man was right to take the land from the Indians because "They weren't doing anything with it." What would that be? Raping it for oil, covering it with strip malls, burying countless tons of chemical waste in it, paving it over to make room for more and more humans the earth frankly doesn't need?

Hunter-gatherers led the least intrusive lifestyles. Among many tribes words as lie, cheat, steal, guilt, etc. did not exist. The land and its varied flora and fauna was kept pristine. So did the white man REALLY prove himself superior at anything? He placed a premium on technological advancement at the expense of pretty much everything else. He's now destroying himself with a technology he cannot live without.

So is man superior to chimps or gorillas? In terms of living a fulfilling life, continuance of the race or species, etc. I would say no. To say we're better because we evolved more is like saying a horse is superior to an alligator. Humans evolved more but it means nothing except that--we evolved more.

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

I can't tell what point you're making. If what you are trying to say is that complexity really does account for the qualitative leap betweentransmissionand understanding, because emergent behaviours typically arise when a critical number of transactions occur within a limited set of rules and an unlimited number of nodes, why then I have to simply differ with you.

Most routine human behavior might be explicable that way, but there is definitely a range of human quality where something else is happening. Jaded materialism doesn't cut it when you get into such a range. There, you find things being created, and the dominant tones are aesthetics, justice, recognition, understanding, integrity, and a number of other things that are not just emergent complex behaviors. There you find states of high affinity between beings and very high-grade communication that opens up vistas of understanding and connection. Attributing these qualities to mere complexity (to my way of thinking) is degrading and inaccurate.

A


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:25 PM

"i do believe evolutionary theory is the greatest hoax on earth and is of the devil, but i have not been abusive to anyone here"

No but you're being abusive to the memory of Charles Darwin, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, and a thousand evolutionary biologists after him, by accepting total nonsense as received wisdom. I think, you should make up for it by actually reading some books about evolution instead of listening to ignorant rants against it. You will learn some very surprising things.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM

"To say we're better because we evolved more is like saying a horse is superior to an alligator. Humans evolved more but it means nothing except that--we evolved more."

No we didn't "evolve more". We evolved from an ancestor common to other great apes. We evolved differently, but not "more". That simply doesn't mean anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:39 PM

How in the world could evolution be a *hoax?* All the data from cosmology, physics, chemistry, geology, and biology all agree, as well as astronomy and probably other sciences as well, not to mention the common sense of anybody who looks at comparrative anatomy. You'd have to have way more than a conspiracy... maybe divine intervention (is that what you are positing, josep?) to get something like that to work!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:59 PM

One logical snare that comes up over and over again in these threads is the dichotomy that God created the universe OR nothing created the universe, it just growed from material interactions.

This is a very shallow set of choices. The creationists in general prefer their view because it accounts for the impression of teleos, that evolution seems to be heading for something rather than just happening. Of course, pure Darwinists will reply that that is just an optical illusion because survival is the reward for adapting, or evolving well rather than badly.

But there is a possibility that a more Bergsonian model might be a workable middle ground; it requires no deity but speaks to the possibility that there is such a thing as elan vital, the non-material energy from which intention, aesthetics and ethics are born, and which is distributed in various degrees through all forms of life. No Godhead--just the "kingdom" within each of us to possibly unlimited degree.

I kind of like the idea that DNA is merely an antenna for life force's transmissions. The more you have, and the more complex it grows, the more of themessage you can receive, assuming you bother staying tuned!

:>D


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:00 PM

Have you ever noticed that Creationists have a mean streak?

an exclusive sneak peek
http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/evolushun.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM

I kind of like the idea that DNA is merely an antenna for life force's transmissions. The more you have, and the more complex it grows, the more of themessage you can receive

OK, without special pleading, tell me if you think gorillas are more or less "tuned in" than humans. And guinea pigs. Funnel- web spiders? Lungfish? Salamanders?

All these organisms (and hundreds of others that have been measured) have at least as much DNA in their genome as humans. Some have more than a hundred times as much.

And if it's total quantity, some weigh more than we do too. Especially that funnel-web spider JUST BEHIND YOU....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:41 PM

I would like to think along the lines that Amos proposes because I suspect that neither creationists nor materialists know it all.

By the way, 1400.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:41 PM

Oh, yes, and everybody's been evolving for the same amount of time.

I read the latest Dawkins book - man is he hard to read, he is SO full of himself - about the evidence for evolution. Some good points:

-No species is stable, all forms are "intermediate"" between what they came from and where they will end up, if they continue to survive

-The congruence of evidence for evolution comes from many, many disciplines beyond/other than biology

-Denying evolution (Note: Not "not believing in it") is to deny history, geography, cosmology, astronomy, and so on.

(Poor points include Dawkins' repeated phrasing indicating his beleif that only he can explain this stuff, and that the poor dumb reader shouldn't strain their little brain trying to understand it elsewhere.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:59 PM

where do i start?talk about cat among the pigeons!despite regarding my position as nonsence you keep coming back.welcome one and all.josep-you use a decietful analogy especially as evolutionist adherents have developed those white supremist ideas.hi steve-certainly darwin was a learned man but not infallible and the same applies to creatoinist scientists.you have no hesitation in insulting them -i say again,i have used no such demeaning words about you or darwin.you are quite correct in assuming i,ve not read darwin et al though i have watched dawkins programmes and evolution permeates the media.the "rants"you refer to are articles by qualified scientists and i cant recall any of the ill will on them as is often exhibited here.i dont suppose if i read dawkins you would read sarfatis "greatest hoax on earth"?mrrzy-thats your position.as already intimated others may interpret the data differently.donuel-that was a cariculture that is sometimes true but not in respect to those on creation.com.im sure it works both ways too.hi ebbie-i agree that neither camp has all the answers but i suggest its wise to look for them-not just what appeals-BTW thanks for being a pleasant poster!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 06:37 PM

There are no creationist scientists. Oxymoron par excellence, with the emphasis solidly on moron. I have absolutely no hesitation in insulting people who pose as creationist scientists. They are nasty, wicked charlatans, and they wouldn't recognise proper science even if it reared up and bit them on their faux-celibate cocks. Evolution "permeates the media" because it happens to be a fact, something you would glean if only you would open your mind and read your Darwin. And try reading some Dawkins. Never mind watching a few bloody YouTube videos or whatever it is you claim to have watched.   He writes well, he doesn't deal in polemic (honest) and he will certainly make you feel uncomfortable in his challenges to your received wisdoms (he does that to me even). If you really are a man of conviction you should easily be able to take it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM

Steve:

Why are you mincing your words? Say what you really think...



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:19 PM

///No we didn't "evolve more". We evolved from an ancestor common to other great apes. We evolved differently, but not "more". That simply doesn't mean anything.///

I know it doesn't mean anything. That's what I said. Take a hike.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:34 PM

No you didn't. And you'll be taken more seriously if you refrain from insulting people who take you on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:56 PM

"Hunter-gatherers led the least intrusive lifestyles. ... The land and its varied flora and fauna was kept pristine."

Totally delusion emotive 'fuzzy feeling' belief, sorry - the documented evidence shows the land did not remain the same, it kept changing - at a much slower rate only because they had less destructive power than later arrivals.

Even Australia's fauna and flora has changed over the alleged 40,000+ years of since human arrival towards a type of fauna that burns more easily, and results in the land being drier, driving out the rain forest ecology, due to the 'fire-stick farming' practices, which caused a new living balance. When left alone, the land rapidly becomes clogged with highly flammable materials which causes greater devastation to the fauna, and has the long term potential, depending on the right weather conditions, to lead to massive erosion and eventual desertification.

There is evidence that similar changes have occurred in the continental USA.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:04 PM

"i must have missed somrthing on this massive thread.i,ve not seen anyone using such language except unbelievers in God,and mostly abusing each other!"

response to

"once all those pesky questions about man not being the only tool making animal, and thus 'superior' (as God had made him!) started to surface, the sky fairy proponents started frothing at the mouth, as usual, denigrating the mental state of those commenting on, or even making the observations in the field (they must be lying, making it up, insane, spawn of the devil, they could not possibly understand etc) but you've seen all that predictable behavior here in these threads... "

This thread is a microcosm of the world - while you may think you be correct about this thread (people who read it can decide for themselves) - you are are also trying to deny what happened in the real world at the time of those ground breaking discoveries that have changed they way - thus confusing two different things - not much of a useful contribution to this debate, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:08 PM

"i must have missed somrthing on this massive thread.i,ve not seen anyone using such language except unbelievers in God,and mostly abusing each other!"

response to

"once all those pesky questions about man not being the only tool making animal, and thus 'superior' (as God had made him!) started to surface, the sky fairy proponents started frothing at the mouth, as usual, denigrating the mental state of those commenting on, or even making the observations in the field (they must be lying, making it up, insane, spawn of the devil, they could not possibly understand etc) but you've seen all that predictable behavior here in these threads... "

This thread is a microcosm of the world - while you may think you be correct about this thread (people who read it can decide for themselves) - you are are also trying to deny what happened in the real world at the time of those ground breaking discoveries that have changed the way that many such questions way beyond the immediate such topics are now considered (an overhaul of the Philosophy of Science) - thus confusing two different things - not much of a useful contribution to this debate, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:44 AM

repent
study
repent
study
repent
study

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

after your rant in response to my post it seems hypocritical steve to criticise josep, and gives me permission not to take your assertions seriously. any other fairminded readers can judge for themselves.i take it you only give challenges-never accept them.BTW the dawkins tv were full length programs on UK tv.foolsetroope-you are no doubt least to some extent correct as to history but not as far as you had accused creationists of being abusive on this thread.if there is an instance,post the date of such and i will apologize.steve has just given an example of how its done and what it looks like,bless him.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:45 AM

sorry FT it was not you-you were quoting i believe

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM

As regards the relative superiority of one species or another, I don't know on what moral grounds one can claim an elephant is better than a fox or a hound dog better than an aardvark. But it is unquestionable that there is one species that defines the survival of every other within reach, and that is the Tool Maker. The food chain is not a moral scale, but very few whales have eaten humans, and a good many humans have lit their way to bed at night with the oil of slaughtered whales.

So although we are surely not the best species, we tend to being the dominating species.

This has nothing to do with God, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 02:24 PM

ALL species determine the survival of every other within reach. The hooves of the herbivores keep the grasses healthy, etc. Nothing evolves in a vacuum - genes code for a response to an environment, which inevitably includes all the flora and fauna therein.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 02:34 PM

No question, Mrrz. But ours is the only one that can selectively weed out species we dislike. I don't think this is necessarily always a good thing, either, don't get me wrong. I was simply commenting that the notion that we are "at the top of the food chain" has some factual basis.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 02:40 PM

"The hooves of the herbivores keep the grasses healthy" Mrrzy

Surely that is a misunderstanding. The hooves of herbivores tend to kill the grasses. Far more apt to say it is the teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 05:14 PM

"after your rant in response to my post it seems hypocritical steve to criticise josep, and gives me permission not to take your assertions seriously. any other fairminded readers can judge for themselves.i take it you only give challenges-never accept them.BTW the dawkins tv were full length programs on UK tv.foolsetroope-you are no doubt least to some extent correct as to history but not as far as you had accused creationists of being abusive on this thread.if there is an instance,post the date of such and i will apologize.steve has just given an example of how its done and what it looks like,bless him."

This is just dense, cloudy nonsense. One day perhaps you'll tell me what you were on about. And who cares about creationists anyway?

"So although we are surely not the best species, we tend to being the dominating species.

This has nothing to do with God, though."

Yep, that's it. Anything bad happening on God's watch and he's off the hook. Tee hee.

"The hooves of the herbivores keep the grasses healthy, etc."

The shit of the herbivores does it even better.

"genes code for a response to an environment"

No they don't. Genes code for amino acid sequences in the manufacture of proteins in cells. Let's not get carried away.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 07:06 PM

"There are no creationist scientists. "

ummmm... I know what you mean, but like earlier remarks, context is crucial.

There certainly ARE those who do various types of science, who then take off their science hat, put on their personal hat and declare themselves to 'believe' that some creator made it all... insofar as they do this, they are not acting as scientists.

In my opinion, this is the ONLY way to handle 'belief' that does not involve logical error....and they might be right...*shrug*. Even then we are still confronted with the question "Why was there a 'god' before anything else existed?" I will grant certain 'creation' theories might be right, but belief in them is circular. Still, it is possible to hold one of them on Sunday and still do science on Monday.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 07:25 PM

"There certainly ARE those who do various types of science, who then take off their science hat, put on their personal hat and declare themselves to 'believe' that some creator made it all... insofar as they do this, they are not acting as scientists."

Absolutely Bill, and I have no problem with this attitude (was that way myself, till I got tired of the ignorant bully by those with an agenda to push, and started to think more about the situation - you could say that I was pushed along the path to disbelieving!) - but after Darwin it became fashionable by the non-scientists (many of them clerics - but many clerics had made, and continued to make scientific advances - look at the Jesuit Astronomers!) to mungle belief and 'Science'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:07 PM

///No you didn't. And you'll be taken more seriously if you refrain from insulting people who take you on. ///

Now, I'm insulting you, is that right? As for taking people on, Shaw, you're a one-trick pony. You just go around "correcting" everyone and yet you have never actually provided any proof to back up anything you say. At least I quote sources and that takes guts in here because the instant you do 30 yay-hoos in here are doing frantic internet searches on ways to tear your source down and vomit it in your face. The only one you name is Darwin Darwin Darwin. Your inerrant, unquestionable Darwin. What's wrong, Shaw? That all you ever read? What are you? Physicist? Biologist? It's very impressive how you're able to pontificate so authoritatively about any and every branch of science anyone brings up without ever quioting a source. It just came out of your own little brain? You must hold several Ph.D's by now.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:36 PM

Josep:

A tip about this forum: don't take any of the slings and arrows personally. Waterproof thyself, me duck, and it will save yourself endless stress. Honest, man.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:39 PM

Tee hee. Biologist. But, clearly, you won't be able to read that answer due to the steam coming out of your head. You did tell me to take a hike, remember? Good luck to ye, mate.


And you may call me Steve. Or Darwin's bullfrog.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:51 PM

"me duck" - I love it! I only know one person who uses that expression and she's Devonian. Are you thusly?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:51 PM

///Tee hee. Biologist. But, clearly, you won't be able to read that answer due to the steam coming out of your head. You did tell me to take a hike, remember? Good luck to ye, mate.///

No, wait wait!! So what degree do you hold? Biologist. What level? High school? Junior college? University? Written any papers? Come on now, don't be so tongue-in-cheek. This is finally starting to get interesting. I have several family memebers with degrees in biology--two are teaching and two are working on post-graduate degrees and doing a lot of field work.

///And you may call me Steve. Or Darwin's bullfrog. ///

I think Shaw is sufficient. Or is that Professor Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:04 PM

Why should I have to tell you, jojo? I have a biology degree from Imperial College. I have a postgrad certificate in education. I taught science in secondary education for 25 years. I was a chief examiner in 'A' Level biology for the University of London. Fer Christ's sake, I'm telling you more than I feel I need to tell my wife. Honestly, jojo, I don't even want to ask you what you do. By their fruits shall ye know them. All I'm getting from you is two unripe plums (undropped?) in the knicker department and a handful of sour grapes. Don't ask questions you might not like the answers to. I'm guessing you're young. Grow up. Ta ta!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:15 PM

genes code for a response to an environment"

No they don't. Genes code for amino acid sequences in the manufacture of proteins in cells. Let's not get carried away.

Genes only code for amino acid sequences in the environment of a cell with those amino acids avaiilable ANSD all the other stuff one would expect - e.g., a response to an environment.

That is why your DNA has you make kneecaps after you start walking, not before. It codes for bones to be built up if there is gravity, and resorbed if there isn't any gravity. And so on. 'Tain't as simple as "amino acid sequences" - although that is the small picture. What sequences when is where the response to the environment comes in. That's why you make eyeball proteins in your eyeball environment, dn not elsewhere, and kneecap proteins in your knee-of-a-walking-person-with-gravity-around,, and not otherwise.

That is the key to embryology, which is the key to evolution. The only thing actually tinkered with is the embryology - a little more here, a little less there, and the fish is now a person. But we still go through the fish stage to get to the proper environment to grow a person.

I wonder what the anti-choice people would think of the idea that, at the fetal age you normally abort if you're going to abort a pregnancy, that fetus or probably embryo is actually a fish, not a person - gills etc. That's my new bumper sticker to counter the people who say It isn't a choice, it's a child - It isn't a child at 5 weeks post-conception, it's a fish. Darwin fish! Hee hee!

I'm interested in josep's age, too.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:57 PM

///Why should I have to tell you, jojo?///

That's the smart answer but somehow I don't think you're going to stop there.

///I have a biology degree from Imperial College. I have a postgrad certificate in education. I taught science in secondary education for 25 years. I was a chief examiner in 'A' Level biology for the University of London. Fer Christ's sake, I'm telling you more than I feel I need to tell my wife. Honestly, jojo, I don't even want to ask you what you do. By their fruits shall ye know them. All I'm getting from you is two unripe plums (undropped?) in the knicker department and a handful of sour grapes. Don't ask questions you might not like the answers to. I'm guessing you're young. Grow up. Ta ta! ///

I don't know why you told me this either except that I figured you have such a big ego that wouldn't be able to stop yourself. Sorry, I shouldn't have asked. Do not use your real name online, do not tell people what you do, do not tell people where you went to school, or what town you live in or any of that. You really should have just told me to fuck off because it is none of my business what you do or where you do it. For me to bait the hook and trick you is one thing but for you to willingly take the bait knowing full well what you were doing is a perfect example of...never mind. I shouldn't have done it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 12:11 AM

///I wonder what the anti-choice people would think of the idea that, at the fetal age you normally abort if you're going to abort a pregnancy, that fetus or probably embryo is actually a fish, not a person - gills etc. That's my new bumper sticker to counter the people who say It isn't a choice, it's a child - It isn't a child at 5 weeks post-conception, it's a fish. Darwin fish! Hee hee!///

I would say anybody who aborts a fetus on those grounds SHOULD be tried for murder. Regardless of what the embryo is at that stage, the correct answer is that it is the woman's choice to abort it. Period. There's no need to rationalize the status of the fetus which is a very weird thing to do. The woman who carries it has the right to abort it. It is her decision and hers alone whether we agree with it or not and that is the end of the argument.

///I'm interested in josep's age, too.///

Get over me. I don't give that kind of information out. And as weird, dogmatic and authoritarian a misfit as you come across online, I don't care to know anything more about you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:38 AM

The test of if a biological unit has 'independent life' is if it can survive in a basic sense on its own - may still need nurturing such as a kangaroo young, but that is still surviving apart from the mother. A fetus, by definition cannot. It is only with the most advanced SCIENCE and medical intervention that premature human babies can survive - all the theists were ever able to do was pray over it, which never did much but make them feel better.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:53 AM

"You really should have just told me to fuck off"

In thousands of posts over many years I've got by without saying that to anyone. Actually, I've never even typed the word. Apart from that, I like you in a weird, sympathetic sort of way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:57 AM

Nice twisting, Mrrzy. Yep, switching genes on and off and all that rigmarole is complicated stuff. But genes code for amino acid sequences whether we like it or not!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM

admittedly not a scientist mrrzy but is not the DNA already encoded in the feotus.it is baby/child/adult in the making.surely this is not your justification for killing unborn babies.as for a womans choice that is the law pretty much at the moment but people of other convictions are entitled to campaign provided it is done lawfully.this is what wiberforce did as regards slavery when whites often reguaded blacks as subhuman.steve-such an educated man but you dont know what im on about?!you seemed to understand enougth to "answer"me prevviouly.BTW is bullfrog a play on bulldog=huxley i believe who took darwins ideas further than darwin intended.bill-i guess you are being halfway charitable but i think you understood that i was referring to scientists who not only uphold creationism from a solid biblical foundation but give extensive scientific reasons to do so.not that i could develope it fully but to give an example-the strata explained by evolutionists as formed over aeons is alternately explained by catastrophism as in a global flood.best wishes to all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:40 PM

"solid biblical foundation "

Amigo, I am sorry to tell you, but this is an oxymoronic proposition.

It is an assertion that requires such extreme convolutions of rationalization as to go beyond the pale of meaningful statements.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:45 PM

scientists who not only uphold creationism from a solid biblical foundation

Such as?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 03:34 PM

Even educated people occasionally require clarification from someone who writes gobbledegook. In fact, I believe it's a mark of good education so to do.

"but people of other convictions are entitled to campaign provided it is done lawfully"

True enough. But I do object to their calling themselves "pro-life," as if people like me are somehow "anti-life." Of course, they can't really call themselves "anti-abortion," because everybody's anti-abortion anyway (at least I don't know of anyone who thinks it's a marvellous thing). Quite, let them campaign lawfully, but there is also a moral argument about them berating women who choose not to do things their way and about how their wishes, if fulfilled, would condemn thousands of women to deprivation and poverty, or suffering through back-street abortion. It's amazing how so many so-called pro-lifers also oppose contraception and good sex education.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:17 PM

Ah - Steve, what these narrow minded clowns forget in their arrogant pontificating, is that 'abortion' is their God given way of ending many potential pregnancies, thus they (and it is mostly guys) condemn every female as evil... but they have for millennia anyway - just read The Book about treating women as evil contaminating beasts at certain times of the month ...

It's in The Book! :-)

(Apologies to Johnny Standley!)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:48 AM

95 Theses nailed to the wall, take one down, pass it around Hic!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 12:11 PM

Nice twisting, Mrrzy. Yep, switching genes on and off and all that rigmarole is complicated stuff. But genes code for amino acid sequences whether we like it or not!
What twist? yes, for polypeptides (amino acid sequences) *in an environment* - not in a void.

If your solid foundation is biblical it is, by definition, not scientific, and thus, scientifically speaking, not solid.

admittedly not a scientist mrrzy but is not the DNA already encoded in the feotus.it is baby/child/adult in the making.surely this is not your justification for killing unborn babies.
Sure, in the making, but the way it's done is to start making a fish, change directions into a reptile, change directions again into a mammal, tweak that into a primate, and de*that* into a person. At the time a pregnancy is willfully terminated, it is generally still in the fish stage, sometimes in the reptile one. I don't perform abortions, but I firmly believe in the rights of women to decide for themselves if they want to have a baby at the end of all that, or not. If not, they can get rid of the fish or lizard if they so choose, why every not?

And we know why all civilizations have flood myths - most of humanity was wiped out in the formation of the Black Sea. To those who survived it would certainly have seemd as if the gods just filled their world with water, which over thegenerations of telling the story could easily turn into 40 days and 40 nights of rain, or the Flolod myth of the Navajo, or any of the other flood myths that abound. But it is certainly not the case that a world-wide flood is AS GOOD an explanation as reality for what the strata tell us in the fossil record.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 12:31 PM

That is just about the wackiest post I've ever read. Getting rid of fish or reptiles - heheh! And that flood idea. Not really, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 01:05 PM

"...-the strata explained by evolutionists as formed over aeons is alternately explained by catastrophism as in a global flood.

No, it is not. You simply cannot create the strata as we find them today by means of a 'flood'...no matter what size. It-don't-work-that-way!

I'm sorry, pete from 7 stars, but you are beginning with the assumption that stuff in the bible is literally true, and then twisting, shoehorning, stuffing and forcing all subsequent information into compliance with the biblical model. You do this by taking a book that has been edited, translated, revised and altered by men...for political, personal, and theological purposes... and then USING what others have told you about that book, and your own flawed reading & interpretation, to claim things about the physical sciences (including biology) in order to uphold your own 'assumption' that I mention in the beginning of this long paragraph.
   That is called 'circular reasoning', and it includes the fallacy of < a href=http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html>"assuming the consequent".

You can construct a nice, clear logical argument of the form:

"IF God made us and IF he decided we should have 'immortal souls' and IF he inserts a soul into every fetus at conception, THEN we should not tamper with God's plan by occasionally terminating a pregnancy."

...but all of this depends on those big "IFs"...and the problem is, *IF* any of your assumptions are incorrect, *THEN* the rest of your conclusions are not supported. There is a logical law about this: "From false premises, anything follows!" This means that, if any of your assumptions are incorrect, anything 'could' be claimed about them, and you will see in the hundreds of religions and various interpretations OF religions, that many, many strange and incompatible things HAVE been claimed. They cannot all be right.

No one can force you to believe any of this... no matter how we explain science, but...no one can force anyone else to accept your basic premises either.....so, in matters such as making decisions about abortion, the only way to proceed is for everyone to decide personal matters personally. When you say "... people of other convictions are entitled to campaign (against abortion)provided it is done lawfully.", you are using a concept of "lawfully" which was designed BY those who accept all those "IFs" I noted. This is unfair and interfering...especially when the decision is very hard to begin with.

Believe what you wish, but be VERY careful of how you present those beliefs to others who may not buy into YOUR basic assumptions.
"Belief" is a valuable word....it means accepting stuff that is NOT 'proven'. If I told you that I "believe" that elves live in my garden and chase away the neighbors cats, you'd see my point quickly.

...so...I didn't intend to type so much, but it is difficult to make certain points without elaborating.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM

Yes, really, Steve. They've dated it. I wish we could archeologically dig under that sea!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 01:28 PM

Mrrzy...they HAVE done some underwater exploring in the Black Sea and discovered artifacts and an ancient 'shoreline'. It is almost undisputed now that The Bosphorus was once a barrier to the sea, and that it allowed huge changes at one time. Whether it was 'catastrophic' is being debated, but all it would take is ONE major event to start a legend. What IS clear is that there was never enough water to cover 'everything' on Earth, and that legends must be interpreted in terms of who promulgated them...& when.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 04:01 PM

Well, whatever interesting thing happened to the Black Sea, one thing that didn't happen as a result was that it wiped out "most of humanity." A glance at a world atlas will tell you that. In the scheme of things the Black Sea is fairly little.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 04:32 PM

must admit im getting over my head with the science but i take the view that higher education does not mean monopoly on truth.all of you atheists agree on the concept of evolution but that seems to be about all, going on the bitching among yourselves.is it unreasonable then that you are wrong on beginnings? yes i do take the bible as truth .i would believe that ,even if there were not scientists who also do, as already cited and present scientific reasons.yes,they start with assumptions but so do atheists/evolutionists.paul-i have already mentioned one, and remembering that your last challenge resulted in your posting a link that slandered men not on here to defend themselves i shall not address any further what i suspect is a mischievous request.on abortion may i remind you, it was not me that introduced the subject.steve you put your point very well and without the former abuse-thankyou-however despite having sympathy with women in difficult circumstances i dont accept it as moral.all kinds of evil has been rationalized by appeal to undesirable percieved consequences.of course it is quite logical evolutionally but why stop at, destroying babes in the womb ,next the elderly ,disabled etc?its been done before.amos-talking of assertions you deserve an award in creative verbage.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 04:57 PM

pete from seven stars

Higher education does not have a monopoly on truth but atheists are conversant with a wide range of topics which include both science and religion. Most atheists know more about religion then most "believers".

As to the beginning of the universes, through the Big Bang theory, Hawkings put it very well. Religion is irrelevant to the science of how life began.

Assumptions are O.K. but they are not fact unless verifiable by science. Atheists are not prone to make assumptions about things that are not verifiable. "Belief" in any religion is an assumption that is not verifiable.

The science on abortion is this, there is more neural development in a chimpanzee than as a fetus which is not fully developed enough particularly in utero at early stages. In fact,
the fetus which is not developed does not have the feelings of a sentient developed mammal.

You can't compare a newly formed fetus with a human life such as an aged person.
The newly formed fetus is not developed enough to feel and think. The comparison
doesn't work.

The destruction of a fetus is not the destruction of a fully developed baby. In short,
a fetus is not a baby until it emerges as a living entity that can survive by itself outside of the womb.

What is immoral is the notion that is now claimed by Christine O'Donell and Sharon Angle
that a woman should give birth to a child when she has been raped.

The problem I see with the anti-abortionists is that they base their conclusions on theology rather than science. This will always work against them.

No woman wants to have an abortion. The idea that it is a convenient and pleasant experience is just not true. That accusation given women who have them is from those who hold theological views which really have no relevance to the formation of human life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 06:53 PM

Well, whatever interesting thing happened to the Black Sea, one thing that didn't happen as a result was that it wiped out "most of humanity." A glance at a world atlas will tell you that. In the scheme of things the Black Sea is fairly little. Ah, but there weren't people all over the world yet back then, at least, not people who would become our modern people's ancestors. We are not talking just the other day, here.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:46 PM

Well, one thing's for sure. Most of humanity was not huddled round the shores of the badly-behaved Black Sea. No, it wasn't just the other day, but it was supposedly 5,600BC and the world was already full of modern humans by then. Yes, all over the place. Some of those wonderful ancient civilisations were already coming and going. In fact, all the, er, non-modern humans had died out long before that. A little chronological fact-checking wouldn't go amiss here. You'll be telling me next that Ursula Andress really was nearly eaten by dinosaurs.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 08:02 PM

Hee hee - (in a gravelly voice) The name's Rex... T Rex.

Hmmm - I will check my notes. Most likely I have the wrong sea, then.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 08:07 PM

"must admit im getting over my head with the science"

Good. Honesty is the best policy.

"all of you atheists agree on the concept of evolution"

Not just atheists. The difficulty for those Canute-like evolution-deniers is that evolution has gone way beyond being just an interesting idea. It's a fact. It's true.

"but that seems to be about all, going on the bitching among yourselves."

Show me where we atheists have bitched among ourselves. Watch it -we're a comradely lot, you know.

"despite having sympathy with women in difficult circumstances i dont accept it as moral"

Well I'm sure they're all so grateful for your sympathy. I'll tell you what. Get your nose out of your bible for half an hour, open your eyes and unclasp your hands. Put your God on the back-burner for a little while and have a look at the real world, the one in which women have been serially treated as third-class citizens in a world in which they do three-quarters of all the manual work and do nearly all the child-rearing. In which they are kept min poverety through inequality ignorant through lack of decent schooling and denied access to sex education and contraception. In which religion condemns them for taking any control at all in these matters and serves, deliberately, to perpetuate that ignorance. Men like you do all this then give them "sympathy." Well done. Why not go a step further and give them back control over their bodies, of which you clearly know very little? The God you believe in aborts embryos and foetuses all the time. So where's your moral high ground?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 08:11 PM

"In which they are kept min poverety through inequality ignorant through lack of decent schooling and denied access to sex education and contraception."

Translator's note:

In which they are kept in poverty through inequality, kept ignorant through lack of decent schooling and denied access to sex education and contraception.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 02:43 AM

QUOTE
Most of humanity was not huddled round the shores of the badly-behaved Black Sea. No, it wasn't just the other day, but it was supposedly 5,600BC and the world was already full of modern humans by then. Yes, all over the place. Some of those wonderful ancient civilizations were already coming and going. In fact, all the, er, non-modern humans had died out long before that. A little chronological fact-checking wouldn't go amiss here. You'll be telling me next that Ursula Andress really was nearly eaten by dinosaurs.
UNQUOTE

HAHA - this one's for you Steve (and all the others of open mind) - nobody else (most especially narrow minded followers of The Bible!) can read it - it may just hurt their head! :-)


We Are the Other People by Oberon (Otter) Zell

It's far too long to post here.... enjoy!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:22 AM

Hey, didn't anybody think my Ursula Undress with the dinosaur funny was funny?

Ancestors of people, maybe; ancestors of culture, though?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM

FT, an amusing story. I note, however, that he evidently did not greet Yahweh's Witnesses at the door while in the nude. What's up with that?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:56 PM

Two men knocked on my door last Sunday morning. All they wanted to talk about was vacuum cleaners. "That's all I need," I thought. "Bloody Jehoover's Witnesses."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 01:16 PM

steve-you not bitching each other?was that a serious assertion?you and josep oct 6 just to start with.i suppose you could say it was,nt bitching but sure looks like it to me.i shall take it as just another assertion-just depends on how you interprete the data i suppose.same applies to beginnings!.no doubt it is too simple for you but it would seem creation demands a creater and despite widespread acceptance of evolution ,creationism is not everywhere accepted as fact ,and that due to scientific arguments ,despite your denials.it seems you know more about me personally than i know myself and i suspect that carries over to your science.if you can make assuptions about me beyond the evidence,why not on evolution on which you are, i think more zealous.stringsinger-you may wish for an atheist state but for many people theological reasons are not irrelivant.just to clarify-are you claiming no unborn feels the pain of being ripped out the womb or just very early stage,and is this from all experts or just some.thanks

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 02:20 PM

I don't know who josep is but he's not one of my allies, I can assure you.

"are you claiming no unborn feels the pain of being ripped out the womb or just very early stage,and is this from all experts or just some.thanks"

You appear to be doing that typical pro-life thing, resorting to emotion. I can't have a debate on that level. I'd much rather talk about treating women like human beings, a concept not well understood by many organised religions and particularly by so-called pro-lifers.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 03:14 PM

""A rare Japanese flower named Paris japonica sports an astonishing 149 billion base pairs, making it 50 times the size of a human genome Ñ and the largest genome ever found. The genome would be taller than Big Ben if stretched out end to end. The researchers warn however that big genomes tend to be a liability: plants with lots of DNA have more trouble tolerating pollution and extreme climatic extinctionsÑand they grow more slowly than plants with less DNA, because it takes so long to replicate their genome.""

Well, it would seem the quantity of base pairs is not the key attribute to the antenna's bandwidth and frequency capabilities.

Unless this is one helluva enlightened flower... ;>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 06:36 PM

"GUEST,pete from seven stars link"

If you continue to post while deliberately flouting polite conventions of paragraphing, punctuation and possibly spelling (I don't know about that cause my brain shuts down while trying understand what you post), I will be just ignoring your input. Sorry about that.

I can read at a massive speed 'normal text' - having learned to 'speed read' while young. I cannot read your posts in that manner, as I need to go back to the way I read in primary school, even reading out loud to try to get comprehension - it takes me many times longer. If you have a developmental reason for posting in the way you do, you have my sympathy, but not my full automatic future attention. If I can grasp only some of what you say, I may misunderstand you what you intend as your meaning anyway, which would only upset you. Sorry about that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 07:26 PM

What Foolestroupe is trying to say is that using the shift key and a bit of spacing.... and breaking up of long posts into paragraphs would seriously help people follow what you are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM

Thanks Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 05:27 AM

Mrrzy

Hey, didn't anybody think my Ursula Undress with the dinosaur funny was funny?

Very old joke and you can't help wondering if her agent knew that when they chose her professional name. The problem is that, if what people are talking about is the wonderfully awful "One Million Years BC", that was Raquel Welch.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 12:12 PM

yes-iam tecnologically challenged-sorry for the inconvenience.i have trouble understanding/following some posts also being less scientific.i shall not be offended if im not responded to. steve-and you are not resorting to emotion?.would my enquiry have been answered if i used the nice clinical word "termination"?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 12:19 PM

Who among you can prove delusion?

Specifically the claims made by Edgar Cayce.

Now prove the delusion of the next evangelist who claims that God has told him to tell y'all about such and such.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 12:40 PM

Cayce was a mish-mash of perceptions and subjective overdubs. A phenomenal collection of data, but only a small portion of it is capavble of being substantiated.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 01:09 PM

I thought the James Bond dinosaur imitation was VERY droll, Mrrz.

Do you do a suave baritone like Sean Connery?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 01:21 PM

Cayce??? That lunatic? Jaysus, next it'll be Nostradomowitz.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 05:22 PM

Being ripped out of a womb is a gross exaggeration about abortion. It's a projection of someone's opinion onto a fetus that has comparatively little neurology and feeling compared to that of a sentient being.

Rather than advocating an "atheist state", I would prefer that rather than forcing my opinion on someone else, I would like to see an intelligent dialogue about the role of religion in society. This is becoming increasingly more important as there is a civil war broiling on this issue that allows murderous anti-abortionists the excuse of killing and bombing or Fred Phelps appearances at military funerals..

There is a lot of fear and anger about Islam without regard for the hateful crimes done in the name of Christianity. Religion often supports a primitive tribalism. There appears to be a contemporary religious "crusade" that is being carried out by the US military and to such a ridiculous degree that Lloyd Blankfein can claim god for his decisions about Goldman Sachs and robbing of American taxpayers.

How can anyone not see the dangers of religion on the public societal sector?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 06:13 PM

"steve-and you are not resorting to emotion?.would my enquiry have been answered if i used the nice clinical word "termination"?"

No, abortion is fine by me. As for not resorting to emotion, well I'm not Mr Spock as it happens. But if you want to talk to me about abortion I'll pick you up straight away if you start playing the emotion card. This is not an emotional nor even a moral matter. It's a practical issue that requires practical solutions. That means fighting inequality and sexism, confronting poverty, and ensuring that all young people have that best kind of sex education (and step away, pastor) that equips them to respect themselves and others and enables them to make good life-choices for themselves. It's bad enough that anti-abortionists (which is what they are but not what they want to be called) call themselves, utterly dishonestly, "pro-life." Yuk. Nasty people.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM

Not to mention that it has been demonstrated that fetuses at the usual abortion ages lack any possible capacity to feel pain.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:38 PM

Abortion certainly is a moral issue.
So is reckless premarital sex.
So is telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.
So is bring and unwanted baby into the world and raising it as such.
So is getting pregnant to keep from losing a boyfriend.

I know a woman, and atheist, who got an abortion when young and regretted since on moral grounds.
I know another woman who got an abortion without a second thought, partly because she didn't know if the father was her boyfriend or the married man she was cheating with.

The people who see easy, black and white answers to others' moral and personal problems on both side of the issue are the ones who scare me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:44 PM

"The people who see easy, black and white answers to others' moral and personal problems on both side of the issue are the ones who scare me."

With you there Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM

One of the points about this conversation is that no one is going to convince anyone else
that their position is the "right one". I agree that there are no easy answers to moral and personal problems and atheists are no different from believers on this. The inference that atheists are of a single mind (which may or may not have been stated) is simply not true.
Atheists can disagree sometimes vociferously on morals, or social issues. One of the advantages of being a free thinker is that you can sort through the dogma and come to your own conclusions.

Abortion has been made to be a moral issue due to conservative religious ideology. It is at the base of the "civil war" on morality. Actually, it needs to be restated that women do not prefer abortions. This is a myth generated by fundamentalist preachers as if women are trying to get away with something.

Morality should be tempered with a concern for ethics. A lot of what religion has to offer in my opinion is unethical. (Punishing gods, mass destruction, meaningless platitudes etc.)

The study of ethics is probably the most relevant part of philosophy. It informs how we behave in a society.

Morality (like beauty) in the "eye of the beholder" is subject to interpretation. I have no doubt that Hitler thought of himself as a moral person.

A few choice words by Frank Herbert (1920-1986) US writer

"Religion often partakes of the myth of progress that shields us from the terrors of an uncertain future."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM

"Abortion certainly is a moral issue.
So is reckless premarital sex."

Well, these things tend to be moral issues for people who think they're wrong. Moralise at people about them and they'll carry on doing them. Treat them as practical issues requiring practical solutions and you will reduce the incidence. And why did you put "premarital" into that sentence? Hmm...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM

Morals and ethics are fighting cousins; they are often mistaken for each other, but deep inside they are not all that compatible. Morals, generally, depend for their existence on agreement, and what is moral for a Yank may be abysmally immoral for a Hindu. Ethics depend for their existence on clarity of perception and individual thought about what makes right action, what constitutes good consequences, and what goals bring about the best long term broad survival for individuals, groups, species and life at large.

I recognize that this semantic distinction is not necessarily widely accepted, but I think the two things really need to be separated out from each other. Of the two the individual sense of ethics is by far the most important. Moral codes are a dime a dozen. You can get a new one just by packing up and moving to the Kalahari or Kandahar or Kalamazoo. But the sense of ethics is a precious channel of perception, which once sold out is very hard to restore and cannot be easily replaced.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM

steve-my point is that you also utilized emotion,appealing to womens misery and by attempting to belittle those opposed to your position on the subject-despite my having been very positive in the way you previously presented your position.if you cant debate without such tactics,you either already lost the argument or render it not worthy of consideration.to the other more civil posters-i condemn also those who resort to violence to anyone.while we are considering religious violence,how about the great atheist states records on the subject.on my original enquiry i have yet to get a straight answer,though my reasons for being pro life are mainly theological,though i found it interesting,jack,that you know an atheist disturbed by abortion.on islam-i understood the USmilitary were bending over backwards to not offend muslims?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 04:32 PM

Sex is not a *moral* issue unless you believe in a deity whose followers claimn it's sinful.

Nothing wrong with it in the real world.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Sian H
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM

Aren't religion based discussions such as this banned on Mudcat? Shouldn't they be? They are banned on progressive music forums.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM

"though my reasons for being pro life are mainly theological"

Might I suggest that you dump the theology and actually address the needs of those real human beings who constitute half the world's population, aka women? Incidentally, I'm just as pro-life as you are. I oppose the culling of badgers, I belong to three conservation bodies in the UK, I garden organically, I oppose the death penalty. I even think, shock bloody horror, that abortion is a very bad thing and that we should be doing our utmost to reduce its incidence. Unlike you and the pope, however, I happen to know that banning it is just about the least effective way of doing it. It's been tried and it does a lot worse than not work. And apart from that I don't think it's a matter for anyone to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. That would be immoral.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 06:33 PM

Oh, I forgot. I never kill spiders. I've just picked up a huge black ground beetle from my rug and put him gently outside the front door.

I would not enter on my list of friends,
(Though graced with polish'd manners and fine sense,
Yet wanting sensibility) the man
Who needlessly sets foot upon a worm.
An inadvertent step may crush the snail
That crawls at evening in the public path;
But he that has humanity, forewarn'd,
Will tread aside, and let the reptile live.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:37 PM

Interesting thing from the Global Warming thread ...

Those of you who can see the relevance will smile, others may howl ...

Posted by GUEST TIA
QUOTE
Sorry it's so long, but it has beautiful metaphors describing the nonsensical nature of the denialist arguments...

"Suppose a bloke drifts up to you and says, "Apples don't exist"... While your eyebrows are still rising, he adds, "but they grow naturally on trees!"

What?

"Apples don't exist but they grow naturally on trees?" Surely you wouldn't trust that bloke with the lives of your children if their future depended on logical coherence.

Now suppose you walk down the street and some other bloke sidles up and says, "The price of sheep is unknown, but I'd buy some now because they are cheap."

'Scuse me?

The price of sheep is unknown but they are cheap? No point trusting that bloke with your kids' lives either, if their future depended on logical coherence.

Now here's a surprising fact: Your kids' future, and the future of their kids, very much depends on logical coherence—very much hinges on protecting them and their future from the incoherent claims of so-called climate "skeptics."

One of the reliable insights of philosophy of science is that scientific knowledge is virtually never incoherent. In science, a hallmark criterion of whether you can possibly be right is whether or not you are coherent. If you are coherent, you might be right. If you are incoherent or contradict yourself, then you are most likely wrong.

The beauty of this is that you don't even need data or peer-reviewed science to be sure: If an argument is incoherent or mutually contradictory, then you can be fairly confident that it is wrong or stated for entertainment purposes only.

What does this have to do with so-called climate "skeptics?"

Everything.

Because the sum total of so-called "skeptic" arguments is an incoherent muddle of contradictions.

On a Monday morning your resident "skeptic" might tell you that global warming does not exist. On the Monday afternoon, she may tell you that the warming is all natural, just the same way that non-existent apples grow on trees.

Nothing this incoherent can be right.

And on Tuesday, a so-called "skeptic" may drift into town and make claims about the temperature record not being accurate. He might also assure you that there is nothing to worry about because it hasn't been warming in the last 23 days anyhow. So the sheep are cheap but no one knows their price.

Nothing this incoherent can be right.

By Wednesday morning, your excited "skeptic" may have invented the possibility that the sun is causing global warming, and by afternoon tea time it might be cosmic rays, or El Niño, or Inspector Clouseau or whatever.

Now, you may find it hard to believe that anyone could be so muddled, but in fact, it takes little effort to go to a "skeptic" website and dig out dozens if not hundreds such contradictions. Hundreds of instances in which apples were said not to exist but then happily grow on trees. Hundreds of clear indications that this so-called "skepticism" amounts to little more than muddled mutterings.

There is, of course, a coherent alternative. It is the coherent and overwhelmingly supported scientific fact that the Earth's climate is warming and that humans are largely responsible for it. That is coherent, backed by peer-reviewed science, and endorsed by all major scientific organizations in the world."

source text and podcast
UNQUOTE

So you might guess why i posted this in this 'delusion' thread, not in the 'true atheist' thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:52 AM

Steve Shaw makes the point that you can't legislate morality but some bad laws impose
it on others.

Abortion is like Prohibition. Once you ban it, it will be rampant.

Drugs are a big business precisely because they are banned by law.

So don't try to ban religion or atheism unless you support a civil war.

Banning pornography makes it more alluring to porn addicts.

If you want a lot of people to read a book, ban it. (Salman Rushdie for ex.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 03:06 PM

its all relative but i would say that here in the UK[except S.ireland]where abortion is legal, and often encouraged, it is pretty rampant!    steve-i[and probably most women]believe that when a woman is pregnant,another life ,dependant on the mother is involved so it is not just the womans body in question.many may not question aborting their child/feotus but many suffer pychologically afterwards especially if they have been pressurized into the "operation",though i accept others may think their life ruined by having the child.on a lighter note-we finally have something in common, as i also tend to rescue spiders and bugs

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:04 PM

"its all relative but i would say that here in the UK[except S.ireland]where abortion is legal, and often encouraged, it is pretty rampant!"

Abortion is not encouraged. That is a dreadful misrepresentation. It is very common (though not "rampant"). That is something that we all need to address. Making abortion illegal and all the moralising in the world do not reduce the incidence of abortion. The only thing that will work is good education for girls, good sex education (free of moralising and religion-inspired hectoring), including free access to and advice on contraception, and education, through the whole school curriculum, to give young people self-respect and respect for others so that they can all make good life choices. And a drive to end poverty and social inequality would be good. Call me idealistic, but better that than sterile, repressive pronouncements from stupid right-wing popes and their intellectual-dullard fellow travellers from whatever religion you care to name.

"steve-i[and probably most women]believe that when a woman is pregnant,another life ,dependant on the mother is involved so it is not just the womans body in question."

Yes, but the obstinate fact from your point of view is that it isn't your body. You have no say, and that's exactly as it should be.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:42 PM

SianH asks:

Aren't religion based discussions such as this banned on Mudcat? Shouldn't they be? They are banned on progressive music forums.

We do not allow religion-based discussions in the music section of the Mudcat Discussion Forum. If they pop up, we move them to the non-music (BS) section. Still, as a religious person, I have a near-uniform dislike of the religion threads here. I post to them quite frequently to plead for fairness, but I find my pleas unheeded.

-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:55 PM

Rates of abortion are fairly steady whether they are legal or not (I have seen data on this - google it). What changes is the proportion of women dying in botched illegal ones, which should be 0.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 08:08 PM

Agreed. Which is why abortion should be available on demand, no time limits (so much is made of the minuscule numbers of late abortions), no preachifying, no limitation according to means. But the real key is good education which nurtures and celebrates tolerance and self-respect.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:19 AM

Here's an eye opener.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM

Joe, as a non-religious person I think these posts have been fair. Your pleas
are unnecessary.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:26 AM

The logic breaks down when you try to defend the "life" of a sperm that doesn't make it to the Ovum. This is a religious issue, not a moral one. Here is a case where religion runs counter to morality.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM

as i said,its relative.i note mrrzy not quite agreeing with steves assertion on abortion rates ,though qualifying the outcome of legal or not.not much more to add except the poster who asserted it as fact that babes in the womb/feotus feel no pain, has not replied to my enquiry as to wether all experts take that position.as yet i dont know the answer but may research it depending on response or otherwise.       joe-hopefully nothing i,ve posted has been unfair,though i know you dont share my stand on biblical authority etc.for myself i can take insults and keep sharing my faith all the time unbelievers keep coming back to me-bless em !

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

Have not seen any inquiries directed to me, sorry! What is your question? Is there one about abortion rates?

Meanwhile, 'twas I who posted that fetuses, *at the stage of most abortions* (stress original), lack any capacity to feel pain. That's because they are still unformed. I also asked you to google the reference yourself - a pedagogical fault of mine, perhaps.

Joe darling, what is unfair about these threads? It can't be that most atheists consider the rational point of view distinct from that of faith, such that discussions about faith are hard to make rational. At least, that's not unfair of the humans doing the discussing. It may be the case that it's unfair of life to make faith a matter of, well, faith, but that's like saying that it's sexist of life to only let women have wombs.

If there is something else that you find unfair, though, please let us know.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 03:50 PM

Oh, yeah, and I teach most mornings, Mudcat time.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 06:11 PM

Every abortion thread gets this stuff about foetal pain. It is simply not the issue. It's the unanswerable question. It is an appeal to emotion. We need to discuss the nitty-gritty, the practicalities, why young women in socially-disadvantaged setups (which can have many hues) become pregnant in the first place and how we can best address that, without moralising and preaching godly shite at them. If I were demented enough I could well begin to believe that Ratzinger and his benighted crew actually rather like the high abortion figures, as it gives them something solid to moralise against. For what is Catholicism if it can't harangue us all (from birth - original sin, anyone?) about what worms we all are?   Grrr.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:27 PM

In Queensland, Australia, a man and a woman have just been found not guilty by a jury on a charge of attempting to obtain an abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM

I find it also odd that there is a movement to suppress *executions*...even with drugs...on the 'moral' grounds that it 'may' be painful.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:57 PM

There is nothing odd about questioning capital punishment. It has been shown not to work
since it has not deterred people from killing one another but made it excusable to do so.

"executions" are the stock and trade of institutionalized religions.

Abortions are not executions in the sense of taking a sentient life of a human being.
This is anti-abortion rhetoric. Abortion has to happen sometimes. I don't like it but I think that it is often necessary for the survival of the mother both physically and psychologically.
The reason we are talking about abortion here on this thread is because the issue has been co-opted by religionists.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 11:20 PM

Here is an interesting report:

"Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564"

Who once claimed that there can be no thought, no experience, without the brain? Does it follow that when one does have a brain that there is thought and experience?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 11:29 PM

"Does it follow that when one does have a brain that there is thought and experience?"

More semantic 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' games.

What 'experiences' will the fetus itse;f tell you about when you ask it questions?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:04 AM

I don't know, Frank. I hope the answer is "nothing". I don't know that, though.

Just as there are reported near-death experiences, might there be 'near-life experiences'?

I don't have a real problem with abortion- as many spontaneous abortions as there are, I have no doubt but that if a person is meant to be born, that person will be born some time, and I do feel strongly that an abortion is between a woman and her doctor- and her beliefs. Like they say, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. But if a fetus is aware and sensitive I dislike very much the idea that it feels pain.

We know that a fish feels pain, for that matter, I have no doubt but that an earthworm feels pain. Incidentally, I should mention that in my opinion Mrrzy's blithe dismissal of the fetal process is just a touch over the top.

See, our problem, Stringsinger, is that we are not only not on the same page, we're not in the same book.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:12 AM

Pain is just your body telling you to try to stop something which may be harmful. You get over pain. You don't get over death. In my opinion, in capital punishment and in abortion, pain is the smallest consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:31 AM

1500!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:40 AM

Spiritualists, you see, believe that some magic sky fairy from some other realm/plane in some way beyond all human understanding, at some undetermined time, steps into the invisible drivers seat (but the controls are magically invisible) inside the human brain and pushes the start button, then floats out in some form of magical ectoplasm when the organism stops functioning (this only applies in some magic way beyond all human understanding to just humans [they are 'special' you see!], not any other living organism - and by extension this can not happen to any alien life form too).

A-spiritualists don't.

That was one line of thought in philosophy a long time ago, but has fallen out of favor.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:16 AM

Rigid materialists, Fooles, to my mind, are sadly impoverished, unable to feel and absorb nuance and depth. When it comes down to it, what harm is done by those who do believe there is much more to be experienced than is discerned or admitted by a-theists?

Like anything else, the misuse of 'spiritual' gifts is the issue. NO ONE should go to war, for instance, in the name of their god nor, on a smaller scale, should anyone resort to violence in arguing their belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:21 AM

thanks ebbie for something helpful on feotal pain as opposed to all the other evasions.    stringsinger-just to clarify,it was,nt a "religionist"who introduced the subject of abortion to this thread as i recall .now i see executions is added to the mix with the charge of this being a religious issue-well if so i hope you are including atheistic communism,as numerous political and religious people have been executed only for beleiving what the state outlawed on philosophical grounds.   mrrzy-you did,nt reference your asertion on feotal pain,unless it was on another post!...jack-i thought your comment very insightful,though the issue of pain is relevant,i believe,as the "pro choice"have been claiming absence of pain and by extension lack of personhood.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM

pete

Obviously pain does not mean person hood. Any organism able to twitch when you poke it is experiencing some level of pain.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:52 PM

It's hardly blithe, and there are data shold you care to look for them.

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

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 03:28 PM

Guest Pete, Stalin as atheist was an anomaly. He was one in say maybe thousands or even a million. Besides, Communism can be defined as kind of a "religion". And Stalin as a young person had a theological and clerical background. This helped him in becoming a "god".

As to the issue of abortion being "painful" particularly to the fetus at the beginning stages,
prove it scientifically.

Ebbie, rigid materialists do not exist. What you call "rigid materialists" are those who don't accept spiritism or theological otherworldlyness and they are just as capable (if not more so) of nuance and depth. This statement not only doesn't add up but is an intolerant assessment.

As for the exalted "experience" of those who believe, much of this is responsible for wars and devastation in the name of their belief. Bush "experienced" us into Iraq. Bush would have probably referred to his "experience" as "spiritual gifts".

Those who claim "spiritual gifts" as if they were some exalted and privileged few are perpetrating a kind of hoax. This kind of otherworldly superiority is offensive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

point taken jack,i ov erstretched that point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So was Mao.

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

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

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

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

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

Aside from this, atheism has been just wonderful.

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

Ron:

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

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

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

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

Nor would conversion have cured them of it.


A

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

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

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

Non-atheists have a mixed record.


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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I may well have been speed-reading, though!

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

But somehow I think you can struggle on without me.

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

Have fun, kids.

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

One more thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"we are of course all guilty before God"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

Mrrz:

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


A

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

Amos, you're a riot!

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

Pete,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are not adequately informed on points 6 and 7.

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

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

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

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

4-rational reasons as you know are not lacking

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

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

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

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

Pete--

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

A

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

"list of proven atheist composers".

It appears the poster has a comprehension problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Steve Shaw,

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

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:22 AM

Hey folks, please stop talking about each other and discuss the topic.

Ron, PLEASE get involved with the conversation we're actually having here. Or go start a thread about atheists and their lack of contribution to classical music and your list of atheist atrocities.

Christians, I ask again:
I like a good debate with people who have different viewpoints than mine, but this debate keeps stopping at the point where Christians say, "It's not irrational" and atheists saying, "Why do you say that?" and the Christians simply not having an answer. Do you have one?

Anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:31 AM

John P,

There are billions of religious people in the world, there are converts every day. People who join are expected to contribute, even without the financial costs there are often social costs. People would not join without a perceived benefit, people would not stay without a real benefit.

The argument for religion, and for believing in God is that it works for people. Millions of people. Most people.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:45 AM

"...clutter the airways..." .   So sorry you are being forced to listen to religious broadcasts.

If you are by some chance not forced, your rather intemperate comments on them seem to fit snugly into the category of paranoia.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:01 AM

Also, one of the brilliant atheists we are privileged to have on Mudcat made the assertion fairly recently that Stalin was an aberration. I responded to that.

My point in that regard--and no one has even started to rebut it--is that Stalin is all too typical of an atheist regime.

You are always welcome to provide the name of an atheist regime which treated its people well and was successful in general.

As I said, non-atheist regimes have a mixed record.    Atheists in power have been unmitigated disasters.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:03 AM

Jack, yes, of course religion works for people. There are lots of great things about it -- being part of a community, having a venue for doing good works, taking time to focus on the spiritual. That can all take place without irrational belief being in the picture. Why the belief? How is it not irrational? Do you really think there is an omnipotent being with a personality and conscious thoughts who pays attention to prayers from individuals? Or that a virgin gave birth? If so, why? If not, what do you believe and why do you believe it?

I have no problem at all with people believing things that seem impossible. I do have a problem with people who say their belief isn't irrational, and then are unable or unwilling to offer any rational reasons for the belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:48 AM

John P.

I don't think about whether it is rational or not.
That is not important to me.
I will say that a lot of things that many Atheists say do not seem rational to me. You don't have to go further than this thread to see a lot of those things.

Certainly the benefit I gain is rational enough and that benefit is diminished by questioning when praying would be of benefit.   

I think that in life, and in this thread, Atheists and Theists talk across each other asking those they are talking with at the time to explain and excuse statements from the fringes.

I tell you what. I won't ask you to defend Dawkins point of view if you don't ask me to defend William Jennings Bryant's or Pat Robertson's.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM

I have no desire to defend Dawkins's point of view. I don't even know what it is. And I don't want you to defend Robertson's, since I already know enough about him. They are not in this discussion.

Shall I take it then, that you also can't explain the rationality of believing things for which there is no evidence? If you don't think about the rationality of your belief, why are you in this discussion?

I will say that a lot of things that many Atheists say do not seem rational to me.

What are those things and why don't you think they are rational? Please be very specific. Let's discuss the relative merits of each argument.

I'm tired of a general discussion that goes nowhere -- either there is logic involved or there isn't. If there isn't, that's fine, but that is what this whole discussion is about. There's not much difference between saying "there is no rational explanation" and saying "rationality isn't important to me". Either statement brings us back to the concept that it is irrational to believe as fact the specific tenets of any religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:18 PM

It is not irrational to believe when that belief helps you deal with alcoholism or drugs or anything else that a ten step program requires you to "Acknowledge a higher power" to deal with.

It is not irrational if it simply helps you put your fears and ego aside and deal with the problems of the day.

Since it works for me and a couple of billion others it is not irrational.

"What are those things and why don't you think they are rational? Please be very specific. Let's discuss the relative merits of each argument."

I have done so and dealt with those things on this and other threads. I have no interest in having you try to defend other posters.

Of course God is not a proven fact. If God were apparent to all then we wouldn't need faith and without faith religion does not work and thus offers no benefit.

I have not been on these threads to try to argue non-believers into belief. I am on these threads to talk about what interests me.

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

>>>>Subject: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:23 PM

Dawkins was on More 4 TV tonight (25th Aug 2010).

I'm inclined to go with him that religions are all dangerous.

In his programme the scariest were the extreme Muslims - but it's all in the editing and indeed who is selected for interview. <<<

By the way John, above is the first post of the thread and the title of his most controversial work is the title of the thread. I have been operating on the assumption that this particular discussion has been about Dawkins.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:07 PM

I'm never quite sure how it ties in, but I always feel that the sensation and quality of 'love' is somehow relevant to this discussion. Materially speaking, love does not exist other than in its basic form of ensuring reproduction and protecting those who may reproduce your dna and species.

And yet, we know that love is so much more. There is the altruistic love we feel for those less fortunate and in need or the joy we take in the sudden good fortune for someone whose situation had seemed impossible, and the love we feel for those who meet our needs and the (irrational) love we feel even when we try to argue ourselves out of it, as to an inappropriate object like a married target or obvious incompatibility or across wildly different ages/cultures/interests/character/beliefs. Love is an intangible but has tangible outcomes and results.

Now. If we substitute the word 'God' for 'love', where does it lead us?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:41 PM

Well. I put up a fairly relaxed post about why it isn't atheists who are aggressive or paranoid, following accusations of same, and whaddya know? Two Christians pop up, one calling me nasty and the other calling me paranoid. Lovely stuff from those who profess to follow the teachings of the Prince of Peace!

"It is not irrational to believe when that belief helps you deal with alcoholism or drugs or anything else that a ten step program requires you to "Acknowledge a higher power" to deal with.

It is not irrational if it simply helps you put your fears and ego aside and deal with the problems of the day.

Since it works for me and a couple of billion others it is not irrational."

Well, there are lots of people who overcome tribulations just as well without God. Perhaps believers could learn a few lessons from them about the strength you can gain from learning to stand on your own two feet. Rudders trump crutches. Not knocking what you claim, but it's a thought isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM

"I don't think Atheists as a group would be very proud to have an anti-theist as nasty as you claiming to belong in their group."

We don't have groups. And, in all the years I've been discussing this on various forums, I've yet to come across an atheist who has distanced him or herself from my views, with the possible exception of josep, and even he seems to agree with me on occasion. No doubt he'll pop up and deny that, but, well, josep is josep...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:26 PM

"Rudders trump crutches"

Beautifully put, Prof.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:29 PM

Steve Shaw,

I've read some of your thoughts on this thread. You have consistently lumped one Christian in with all and made your comments accordingly. You complain about things people have not said rather than addressing what they have said. You consistently avoid tough questions by addressing trivia like grammar and spelling or which of your posted names is used.

I did not say that one could not "stand on ones own two feet" when dealing with such things. I did say that a lot of people find relief by believing. I did say that it helps them. Finding help for such things is rational when it works and for many people it does work. Many of those people, including myself, have tried all of the Atheistic solutions and found them lacking.

My choice was God or suicide. I chose God.

A former friend of mine, from East London, UK, faced with the same choice, hung himself.

I don't mean to try to scare you or win you over when I say this but I do feel obligated to say it. Your words and attitude are virtually identical to his. I am concerned about you. Good luck to you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:34 PM

That rudders vs crutches thing is all very witty. But since you ignore all questions about your rudder, I wonder if you have one.

I also wonder why you appear not to understand the difference between the two. Is not obeying the commandments (the Christian's rudder) the price payed for receiving the crutch? (The relief provided by faith)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:50 PM

hello john.way back on this thread i did mention the reasons why i turned from adolescent atheist, to mental assent, to christian,though not in much detail-no one was that genuinely interested [as you profess to be]
the process was both spiritual and reasoned persuasion.of the latter the militant atheists would obviously argue against ,but i found it convincing enough to continue at church till i was ready to put faith in Christ.
i read literature that demonstrated the absurdity of evolution -that is, macro evolution .as far as i know there are no intermediate forms-at least as proven so.though evolutionary scientists aplenty ,there are many scientists that disagree and present scientific reasons for their dissention .even if you are an evolutionist a first cause somehow got it started,but for me a creator is the most reasonable.creation.com has lots of science on the subject,though rubbished by atheists.
the 2nd thing was bible prophecy.i read of cities and nations that fell according to prediction .old testament predictions of Christ referring to his birth,life,death and ressurection.of course i cannot claim these are indisputable-the militant atheists are committed to dispute any evidence!they are entitled to do so but i trust it goes some way as answer to your question.
having established for myself that God is creator and the bible is trustworthy,it is no problem believing in the virgin birth and resurrection.
admittedly there are few miracles now[or are hotly disputed if claimed]i like the story of the child told that Jesus did,nt really turn water into wine,replied"why not-he turned beer into furniture with my dad".apocryful story maybe but there are countless stories like it.
jack-would you care to adequately inform me?
mrrzy-if there were rational arguments for atheism,there would be no christians either!as you imply i,m entrenched in my position-as you are in yours.
steve-interesting you being affronted by all these churches-did,nt i read somewhere that you like to visit them[historical heritage],not to mention an interest in religious classical music?!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:15 PM

>>jack-would you care to adequately inform me?

No I wouldn't but if you were to read the science itself an not the criticisms of it you might have a different opinion.

Flock of Dodos is a good place to start if you want to know what evolutionary biologists actually think.

This is clearly nonsense,

>>>i read literature that demonstrated the absurdity of evolution -that is, macro evolution .as far as i know there are no intermediate forms-at least as proven so.though evolutionary scientists aplenty ,there are many scientists that disagree and present scientific reasons for their dissention .even if you are an evolutionist a first cause somehow got it started,<<<

And at the risk of sounding like Steve Shaw, I think you would be taken a little more seriously if you were to make an effort to use proper punctuation and capitalization.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 06:32 PM

Is not obeying the commandments (the Christian's rudder) the price payed for receiving the crutch? (The relief provided by faith)

It seems to be for some, but not everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM

"i read literature that demonstrated the absurdity of evolution -that is, macro evolution .as far as i know there are no intermediate forms-at least as proven so.though evolutionary scientists aplenty ,there are many scientists that disagree and present scientific reasons for their dissention .even if you are an evolutionist a first cause somehow got it started,but for me a creator is the most reasonable.creation.com has lots of science on the subject,though rubbished by atheists."

You're clutching at straws. Darwin's simple explanation of evolution by natural selection explains the whole of life on earth in a way which can be expressed in a single sentence. Nothing in his theory needs extra explanation. It takes nothing for granted. It uses only evidence. Yet here you are trying to bolt on a Godly first cause, one which is so complex that we'll never be able to explain it, let alone actually get any evidence for it, which we can't and never will be able to. It's a cop-out, Pete. The onus is on you to try to justify this intellectual dereliction (there's no way of putting it any more kindly than that). Oh, and if you actually take the trouble to read your Darwin, you'll find that he addresses the issue of the alleged lack of intermediates most elegantly. That one's belly-up, I'm afraid.

"having established for myself that God is creator and the bible is trustworthy,it is no problem believing in the virgin birth and resurrection."

Where's your evidence that the Bible is trustworthy? Why do you really *want* to believe in the completely unnecessary and patronising myth of the virgin birth? And wasn't Jesus already good enough for you without the jiggerypokery of an alleged resurrection? Why do you need that?

"steve-interesting you being affronted by all these churches-did,nt i read somewhere that you like to visit them[historical heritage],not to mention an interest in religious classical music?!"

I didn't say I was affronted, did I. I merely accused religion of being arrogant enough to flaunt its iconography in all our faces, whatever our creed or none. But architecture and art is as much my heritage as it is yours. I think you'd rather like to me say that I want all cathedrals demolished. Sorry, can't oblige there. Exactly the same with my religious music. Why, only this afternoon I was singing along lustily with the fugue at the end of the Gloria of Mozart's C minor Mass. Annoying bugger, aren't I? Would you Christians like to claim it exclusively for yourselves?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 08:20 PM

"I've read some of your thoughts on this thread. You have consistently lumped one Christian in with all and made your comments accordingly. You complain about things people have not said rather than addressing what they have said. You consistently avoid tough questions by addressing trivia like grammar and spelling or which of your posted names is used."

I'd like you to show me where I've done that lumping, please. I'd also like you to demonstrate where I've criticised people for what they have not said. As for ducking questions, well I don't know how many times I've posted to this thread by now but I've tried to stay focused. Just once I railed at someone's accusations of my poor English when his was laughably worse, and I think I might have asked Pete, along with several others, to just try a little punctuation and spacing now and again, a perfectly reasonable request to someone who is apparently being lazy to the point of rudeness in the way he posts. Pick out a couple of posts out of many dozens all you like, but all that shows is that you've run out of ideas and now wish to resort to petty matters. And I have only one posting name and always have had, so I don't know what that particular bit of your litany is supposed to refer to. Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:07 PM

>>Is not obeying the commandments (the Christian's rudder) the price payed for receiving the crutch? (The relief provided by faith)

It seems to be for some, but not everyone. <<

I meant that the above applied to Christians, of course if you do not want the "crutch" then I would imagine the commandments are not a concern.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:23 PM

I wouldn't say all Christians use their faith as a crutch, but I regard the (what I would call) 'non-religious' commandments as no more than common sense - they don't need religion to be credible. The Church needs that element of common sense in there to be able to sell its more 'supernatural' aspects to a wide enough clientele.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:44 PM

Smokey, Its not a laughing matter. If you are strong enough not to need that crutch, bully for you. But a lot of people do need it and are grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:08 AM

I'm not laughing, Jack, and I'm not disputing that it suits some. Nor am I claiming to have extra strength, I don't think. People differ, that's all. Each to his own.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:24 AM

The people who allegedly need the crutches have been thrown them by religious leaders and told they can't do without them. They are not advised by those leaders to look around at the people who have won through (and who have sound "moral codes") without them to see how you can gain strength by standing on your own two feet.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:12 AM

accusing "religion of being arrogant enough to flaunt its iconography in all our faces..."

I don't see how the poster can possibly stagger through life with this terrible burden.

The poster might possibly want to be aware that Kendall might come by to warn him that there is a $5 fine for whining. Don't know what that is in GBP these days, but I hope the poster can afford it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 10:05 AM

I think it is perfectly possible for a pure atheist to enjy the beauty in the BEatitudes or the applicable Commandments and decide they were good principles, and live his life accordingly, without having to take up any of the clutter and luggage. Good ideas are like that. You can recognize them through the power of your own perception, and apply them if you will through the exercise of your own integrity.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:59 AM

Amos, I'd like to second that motion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:54 PM

Ron Davies, what's your opinion of the atheist advertisements that have drawn so much heat lately, the ones that encourage people to do without religion? Are you one of the many people who has spoken out against them, accusing the atheists of rudeness and "being a religion" for putting them up?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:15 PM

jack-saying that creation science is clearly nonsence,is hardly constructive ,as is the link to a trailer ridiculing ID.frankly i was surprised at you resorting to this,when you usually have reasoned arguments.no,i have not read darwin et al,which creation scientist did you read before pronouncing it nonsence?.as to grammer,i already posted my slowness typing so i am not changing that im afraid.read if you wish or ignore if you wish.most of my previous post was to ,and in answer to johns enquiry anyway.
steve-asking about the need for the virgin birth and the resurrection-shall i explain the gospel again ?!
i dont see why asking if there is a creation why there should not be a creator.
again you put words in my mouth which i did not say.i am not claiming our christian heritage as only for christians.i am glad you find something agreeable in it .i just found it ironic,and was only making a good humoured jibe-no offence intended.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM

There is no such thing as creation science or a creation scientist. And creationism/intelligent design is clearly utter nonsense and it isn't unconstructive to say so. It happens to be true. They are inventions of the highly-irrational. And there is nothing ironic in the fact that I enjoy sacred music or cathedrals with amazing architecture. These things are as fully a part of my heritage as they are of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM

I have to agree with Steve Shaw about Creation Science. There is no science in it. If you understood the science you would know that.

Creation Science. I just Genesis dressed up with scientific-(ish) lingo and anyone, anyone, ANYONE who says that he agrees with it who was awarded a degree in science from a reputable university is lying or insane.

Josep,

If you can't take the time to write properly, I don't feel inclined to read what you write. If you are worried about your typing then be more concise, write and format what write with respect to those reading.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM

I don't think ID is a product of the highly irrational. It is produced by the highly cynical who make a very good living from it.

Joesp. "Flock of Dodos" if you rent it will give you the other side of the argument in a light and entertaining way. You will be surprised at who the film maker calls Dodos and you will learn something.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 03:09 PM

You don't mean josep, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 04:00 PM

I see nobody has answered with any rational evidence for deity.

I do see many people having reasons to believe in their deity. None ofof those reasons, however, are data-based.

So although yes, billions believe in deity, and yes, those same billions find it "better" to do so, there is still no rational reason to posit the existence of deity.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 04:47 PM

Mrrzy,

I'm too tired to discuss the meaning of the word "rational" with you. But I believe the definition I have been using must be more accurate than yours.

Actually all of these definitions support my arguments better than yours. My argument is that it is rational to believe because it is personally beneficial.

ra·tion·al
   /ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2.
having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3.
being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4.
endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5.
of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6.
proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
7.
Mathematics .
a.
capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers.
b.
(of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials.
8.
Classical Prosody . capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:17 PM

predictable responses of total intolerance to an alternative view .i shall be away most of this week.maybe catch up later though it,s hard to debate with people who just make assertions and accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM

Re:   "atheist ads":

For my money the ads are pointless.    I don't care what somebody puts on the side of a bus.   It's faintly amusing, and absurd for anybody to get bent out of shape about it. I note that in fact some religious people have no objection to them. It is starkly different from "The God Delusion".    Corresponding thread would be "The God Improbability". That is not a value judgement, as "delusion" is.

Words mean something--even if some Mudcat atheists don't seem to recognize that fact.

Also, as I understand it, the bus ads are not in fact "atheist ads".   The word "probably" is used.   That makes it agnostic, not atheist.

Agnosticism makes perfect sense.   Atheism makes no sense--as well as being the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.

You asked for my 2 cents.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:18 PM

Being a staunch Dumptyist, I'm of the opinion that words ultimately mean what the user intends them to mean whether we like it or not, but I'm not entirely clear just what is meant by atheism and agnosticism here. I can't imagine a sane atheist who would not be persuaded by clear evidential proof, yet such a person seems to be classed here as an agnostic. Distinguishing between the two using the criterion of willingness to believe looks rather meaningless to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:23 PM

"My argument is that it is rational to believe because it is personally beneficial."

And my argument is that it's irrational to not look at all those people who win through in life without God and to consider how they have possibly managed it. If you can see that there are two routes through the rocky road of life, one with God (burdensome, what with all that ceremony, dogma, commitments, family pressures, mythology, threat of hellfire and bogus tradition) and one without (completely free of all aforementioned burdens but every bit as effective), and you choose the God route, you are indeed being irrational. Stop talking as if there's no alternative. Of course, organised religion force-feeds its followers with the false notion that there are no alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:30 PM

Gee, I can't tell you how surprised I am that some of our delightful atheists want to muddy the water on the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

It's getting a bit boring--in fact I've dealt with it before--say about 500 posts ago or so.

But if somebody were in fact interested in distinguishing between the two, there is in fact an aid which could be used. It's called a dictionary.

Webster's New World:

atheism:   the belief that there is no God or denial that God or gods exist.

agnosticism:   the belief that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena.

It's pretty clear which position makes more sense.


No surprise, then, that Darwin and Einstein, for instance, were agnostics, not atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:41 PM

"Also, as I understand it, the bus ads are not in fact "atheist ads".   The word 'probably' is used.   That makes it agnostic, not atheist."

No it doesn't. Atheists are realists. We understand that there cannot be proof of the non-existence of God. Even Dawkins thinks that. To say that God definitely doesn't exist would be like saying that the cosmic teapot definitely doesn't exist. You simply can't say it, even though the likelihood of the existence of either is vanishingly small. The atheist says that the upshot of this is that God and cosmic teapots can, in effect, be totally disregarded. Neither is a notion that can even remotely influence the way we live our lives (except for all that ubiquitous iconography rubbing off - believe it or not, we atheists are only human). We have better things to concern ourselves with. An agnostic is a completely different animal. They believe that there is a real possibility that God exists and that nothing currently known can prove him one way or the other. They are fence-sitters. Actually, there are probably very few of them. Most so-called agnostics are probably people who simply don't give a bugger one way or the other.   

"Agnosticism makes perfect sense.   Atheism makes no sense--as well as being the worst thing to ever happen to humanity."

Atheism was the only sense for millions of years until you believers, you Johnny-come-latelys, showed up! We did muddle through reasonably well even without you before that, remember. Better, probably.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:42 PM

Yes Ron, I looked them up too. I'm trying to see clearly, not muddy the water. Agnosticism does indeed make more sense, but only if you assume the atheist position is unshakable by proof, which I maintain it isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:56 PM

Well, I cross-posted with you there, Ron. Having read those dictionary definitions, followed by my post, I suspect that you need to get yourself a more reliable source. Atheists neither believe that nor do they deny stuff. We think that you have an interesting notion but it isn't one we feel is particularly exciting, still less plausible. We might be more inclined to listen were you able to produce evidence for your God. It's a reasonable and oft-repeated request that, sadly, never gets fulfilled. Until it does we'll just carry on as normal. There you have it. Atheism in a nutshell. No hint of that worrisome agnosticism there!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:01 PM

Sorry, Steve.   Atheism conveys more of a degree of certainty than is justified.

By the way, if you think the human mind can in fact know if there is a God or gods--a subject on which by definition there is no proof-- I'd have to say your arrogance is quite striking.   Just as that of religious fundamentalists--to which your attitude is indeed the perfect flip-side.   

Which is not surprising. What a surprise you do not acknowledge it.

And it's also a blazingly clear reason why discourse with you is likely to be a black hole of time--just as it is with religious fundamentalists.    A conclusion I am likely to reach rather soon.

Reminds me of Henry Ford:   "You can have any color Ford you want, as long as it's black."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:06 PM

"No surprise, then, that Darwin and Einstein, for instance, were agnostics, not atheists."

Show us where either of these blokes ever showed their hand. You know, really said it, and not some tortuous interpretation of yours of out-of-context quotes!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:12 PM

Is then the difference down to atheists saying 'I require proof' and agnostics saying 'there cannot be any proof'?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM

"Atheism was the only sense for millions of years until you believers, you Johnny-come-latelys, showed up! We did muddle through reasonably well even without you before that, remember. Better, probably." SS

It is quite likely that you are being hyperbolic but I feel like I want to respond to this statement anyhow.

By all accounts and judging by long-found relics, long before there was religion in the organized sense, certainly before Judaism Christianity, superstitious fear was rampant. Do you feel that blaming or crediting one's state of mind brought about the destruction of a village was a healthy state of affairs? Do you really think that casting nubile maidens into a volcano to appease the goddess who dwelt there was preferable to today's belief in a supreme deity?

Methnks life today has gotten much tamer and safer than that of a thousand years ago, give or take a thousand.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:19 PM

"Sorry, Steve.   Atheism conveys more of a degree of certainty than is justified.

By the way, if you think the human mind can in fact know if there is a God or gods--a subject on which by definition there is no proof-- I'd have to say your arrogance is quite striking.   Just as that of religious fundamentalists--to which your attitude is indeed the perfect flip-side.   

Which is not surprising. What a surprise you do not acknowledge it."

In your blind quest to shout me down, Ron, you fail to take the elementary step of actually reading what I've typed. Atheism conveys no certainty at all. No atheist worth his or her salt will ever tell you that there's definitely no God. He simply can't be disproven, any more thsn that cosmic teapot can be disproven, and we're honest about that. On the other hand, the religiosity that you're so keen to defend is absolutely riddled with the arrogance of fake certainty. Why, you even get little kids to parrot things like "Our Father, who art in heaven..." - no sign of equivocation there! Not much room for doubt! You have it arse about face. It's religion that's replete with unsupportable, irrational certainty. We atheists tell it like it almost certainly is. Get the "almost" there, Ron? As a religious man, you probably don't. Close your eyes and join your hands.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM

"Do you really think that casting nubile maidens into a volcano to appease the goddess who dwelt there was preferable to today's belief in a supreme deity?"

Depends on whether I was lurking in the volcano at the time...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM

The (or a) question is, has religion made us more civilised, or have we developed religion because we have got more civilised, or are the two unrelated?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM

"Is then the difference down to atheists saying 'I require proof' and agnostics saying 'there cannot be any proof'?"

I think that misses the severe scepticism of atheism. I can't pretend that we're sort of neutral observers who would be easily swayed one way or the other given the production of proof. We ask for proof knowing full well that it can't ever be delivered. It's our way of showing how irrational religious belief really is. But it isn't wicked and nasty to ask for evidence of God. Given all the problems that religion can cause in this world, it's a perfectly reasonable request. Atheists would readily back off if organised religion backed off, but we all know that that isn't going to happen, so we just have to keep on making the case. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is fence-sitting. An agnostic will tell you that there's no way of knowing whether God exists or not, but he will fail to give you the dismally-remote odds, taking into account the lack of evidence and the blatant breach of all the laws of physics that God requires. It isn't a very honest position, and, as I said, there are probably very few anyway, most of those who declare themselves thus being simply uninterested in religion (and some may think that "don't know" equals "insurance policy...")

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:51 PM

I don't think religion has made us either more or less civilised (and I have to suspend uncertainty for a minute about what "civilised" means). I suppose that religion will claim it gives us a moral code to live by, which in the end makes us more civilised, but I don't agree with that as I see lots of people living exceptionally fruitful and "moral" lives in spite of their lack of religion, and that, to me, is far more meritorious than relying on the crutch of religion to make you good. And then I think of the 20th century, the most brutal by a country mile of all centuries in human history, and I wonder how we can apply a religious overlay to all that...can't get my head round it really.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:13 PM

All fair comment, Prof, and I take your point about "civilised".. We haven't really improved much, overall.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:36 PM

Ron, I know you've said you're not a religious person, but you're the current one who's saying that gods are possible. What is the logic and evidence for your theory?

Please note that I'm not asking for scientific evidence, and that I think it's clear that lots of things exist that can't be described in a scientific way. I am a deeply spiritual person with a brain that requires things to make sense. Why does the idea of god make sense to you?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:53 PM

>>>Stop talking as if there's no alternative.

I have not talked that way at all. I have acknowledged a couple of time on this thread that not everyone may need the "crutches" that Christianity provides.

It is you the supposed "open minded" atheist who has been talking in absolutes. Since you clearly have not paid any attention at all to what I have said except to cherry pick criticisms, I'll not be wasting any more time reading your nonsense.

You are not on this thread to explore or convince or even for a lively discussion. All you are doing is meanly and illogically beating on believers, I will not feed your apparent addiction to bulling behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 10:15 PM

So, Steve, how long have you had this serious problem with uncertainty?   Are you so uncomfortable in accepting a large degree of uncertainty that you are indeed off Mudcat the control freak you appear in this thread?   And if so, I wonder how your family and acquaintances deal with it.

The agnostic has no problem with a large degree of uncertainty.   You, on the other hand seem very ill at ease with anybody who does, and of course particularly anybody who believes the opposite of your view.

How's your blood pressure, by the way?

And just where did the persecution complex come from (threatened by the fact that religious broadcasts exist)?    Sorry, they do, but I assure you they can do you no harm as long as you are not subjected to actually listening to them.    Of course who knows what irreparable damage might be done to you if you actually did hear one.

Control freak with a persecution complex.   An interesting study.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 10:32 PM

The agnostic has no problem with a large degree of uncertainty.

Assuming from that that atheists have a lesser degree of uncertainty, would it be fair to assume a similar scale of uncertainty on the religious side of the graph? It would be interesting to know what sort of curve the graph would produce.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:33 PM

Ron,

There seems to be a bit of a range in the amount of skepticism inherent in both "Agnosticism" and "Atheism." I think that may negate the value in arguing about how any individual on this thread self labels. The applies especially to those unwilling themselves to discuss things calmly, rationally and without insult.


Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claimsâ€"especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsâ€"is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869. However, earlier thinkers and written works have promoted agnostic points of view. They include Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher,[2] and the Nasadiya Sukta creation myth in the Rig Veda, an ancient Hindu religious text.[3] Since Huxley coined the term, many other thinkers have written extensively about agnosticism.




Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.[7]

Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nonreligious.[8] Between 64% and 65% of Japanese are atheists, agnostics, or do not believe in God.[9] In Europe, the estimated percentage of atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers in a personal god ranges as low as single digits in Poland, Romania, Cyprus, and some other countries,[10] and up to 85% in Sweden (where 17% identify themselves as atheists), 80% in Denmark, 72% in Norway, and 60% in Finland.[9]

Atheists tend to lean toward skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Atheists have offered several rationales for not believing in any deity. These include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[11][12] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[13]

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be exclusively irreligious or unspiritual.[14] However, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, some forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods,[15] and Hinduism that holds atheism to be valid but difficult to follow spiritually.[16]

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:55 AM

I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between agnostics and believers. Either there are reasons to believe in something or there aren't. Any one who can say "I don't know" on this questions is really saying they believe -- or at least, from my point of view, they are guilty of the same irrationality that believers are.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

Then John P, what is the source of your rationality? All of science is "I don't know" "But here is the best theory we have so far."

On the other hand...

Those who believe they believe in God but without passion in the heart, without anguish of mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, and even at times without despair, believe only in the idea of God, and not in God himself. --Madeleine L'Engle

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:28 PM

A poignant moment in my own reaction came about when I realized that my bedfast and diminishing, deeply devout mother facing the moment of her own death was afraid.

I drove away from my paents' home devastated and railing at 'God', saying She believes in you - You had better be there!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM

Ebbie,

My Grandmother died at peace.

I still railed a bit.

But they played "In the Garden" and "Softly and Tenderly" at her funeral by her request. I felt much much better.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 05:29 PM

Then John P, what is the source of your rationality? All of science is "I don't know" "But here is the best theory we have so far."

Simple. In either a scientific sense or a non-scientific sense, I've never been given any reason to so much as entertain the possibility that gods exist. There is no real theory that supports the idea, so it's not a question of "the best theory we have so far", but rather, "why would anyone believe such a thing?" It is, of course, impossible to prove a negative, but there should be a least some evidence -- scientific or otherwise -- or logic behind a proposal for it to even be on the table. The possibility of there actually being a god is so remote that I'm comfortable saying there is no realistic chance.

From the standpoint of saying either "this is possible" or "the chances of this are so remote that we may as well say it doesn't exist", there is no difference between an agnostic and a believer.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:08 PM

I suspect that the majority of self proclaimed 'believers' are actually agnostics just going through the motions. Unprovable, I know, but almost everyone has a bit of common sense somewhere that knows full well that something with no supporting evidence whatsoever is not likely to exist. 'Faith' seems to be no more than hope, in many cases.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:57 AM

It seems to me that Agnostics sit on the fence a bit it is easy to go one way or the other depending on the circumstance

It is funny how Christian parents all over will be sending out their children to knock on doors dressed as vampires, little devils and suchlike. I don't deny children having fun at all but it seems hypocritical to believe one minute in God and then sending children out trick or treating looking like the something from the cast of Thriller.

That reminds me must have some treats ready, I don't want a floury doorstep.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 12:22 PM

Ron Davies says: :And just where did the persecution complex come from (threatened by the fact that religious broadcasts exist)?    Sorry, they do, but I assure you they can do you no harm as long as you are not subjected to actually listening to them.    Of course who knows what irreparable damage might be done to you if you actually did hear one."

Ron, you beg the question, how is religion harmful to the non-believer? Atheism is the new "Gay" or in more terms of Civil Rights, the new "black".

And there are plenty of religious nut-jobs out there who attack atheism and sometimes with violence. The Pope recently went on about the evils of atheism and this is harmful since he occupies an "exalted" position among some believers.

You don't think that atheists suffer harm at the hands of religious people? Declare yourself an atheist in public and see how far you get.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 12:27 PM

Ebbie says, "Methnks life today has gotten much tamer and safer than that of a thousand years ago, give or take a thousand."

Not sure about this when we have nuclear weapons that could annihilate the world as we know it. They haven't been tamed yet.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM

>>Not sure about this when we have nuclear weapons that could annihilate the world as we know it.<<

I am sure that they are one of the factors that have made things tamer.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM

At best that is enforcing order by means of fear. It is immoral and very wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:50 PM

They didn't make the weapons to create more peace. It was a side effect at best.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM

"Atheists tend to lean toward skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Atheists have offered several rationales for not believing in any deity. These include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[11][12] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[13]"

This is such a bunch of cobblers I don't know where to begin. We don't "tend to lean", we utterly reject supernatural claims, for exactly the reason you quote, that we ask for but get no evidence (and that such claims are childish and insult the intelligence). We don't "not believe in deities", so we don't develop rationales. The deities are your problem, not ours. The problems of evil/inconsistent revelations, etc., are entirely issues for believers to grapple with, not atheists. They are irrelevant to us. There is no use for those arguments in atheism. All we want believers to do is produce evidence. The dismal lack of evidence for God is all we need. We don't adopt atheistic philosophies because none are possible, and, to reword the last sentence in the quote, there is no ideology or set of behaviours to which any atheists adhere. None of this is to say that we don't find it interesting to argue with believers - after all, we see the damage and the intellectual stunting that religion perpetrates, and we have just as valid a right to take a view on these things as anyone else. At the end of the day all the arguments are easy because they boil down to one simple thing: show us your evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:00 PM

So, Steve, how long have you had this serious problem with uncertainty?   Are you so uncomfortable in accepting a large degree of uncertainty that you are indeed off Mudcat the control freak you appear in this thread?   And if so, I wonder how your family and acquaintances deal with it.

"The agnostic has no problem with a large degree of uncertainty.   You, on the other hand seem very ill at ease with anybody who does, and of course particularly anybody who believes the opposite of your view.

How's your blood pressure, by the way?

And just where did the persecution complex come from (threatened by the fact that religious broadcasts exist)?    Sorry, they do, but I assure you they can do you no harm as long as you are not subjected to actually listening to them.    Of course who knows what irreparable damage might be done to you if you actually did hear one.

Control freak with a persecution complex.   An interesting study."

Poor Ron. What a terrible, awful, bitter, vitriolic and utterly childish post. Please leave it in place, oh moderators, to stand forever as testament to Ron's bilious frustration.

...................................................................

However. Ahem. I truly don't have a problem with anyone wishing to label themselves agnostic, but I will (if they want) give 'em a damn good squabbling. I'm not talking about that vast number of apathetic almost-ex-believers, the lapsed majority, who don't give a monkey's bloody mickey for religion one way or the other but who, if pressed, may demur in the final analysis from calling themselves atheists (religion, unfortunately, has, in a quite unjustified manner, forced people not of its persuasion to waste their time rationalising their demurral). I happen to think that such apathy is totally justified and meritorious and I applaud it for putting religion into the place it truly deserves. But I'm not really talking about them, even though they probably form the vast majority of "agnostics." I'm talking about the few who actually profess to have thought it all through but still claim not to know and that they can probably never know. I find it very odd that they seem to have suspended belief in the laws of physics and to still have lent credence to the possibility of a being who is far more complex and inexplicable than the things he was invented to explain. Now I can't know that that isn't true, either, and neither (he admits cheerfully) can Dawkins, but we *can* weigh up the odds, and the odds just have to be vanishingly small (or long?? - I'm not a betting man). Agnosticism is either an intellectual sidetrack or it's intellectual dishonesty. It also gives succour to believers, in just the same way as Nick bloody Clegg and his right-wing morons give succour to the Tories. That doesn't annoy me but it is very disappointing to see in intelligent people. Watch out there, agnostic - there's a believer round every corner waiting to put his arm round your shoulder!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:37 PM

"Please note that I'm not asking for scientific evidence, and that I think it's clear that lots of things exist that can't be described in a scientific way."

I don't know. I've recently come round to thinking that it's valid to ask for scientific evidence. If we allow believers off the hook of needing to provide scientific evidence we're sort of letting them put the argument entirely on their terms. I've never seen a single phenomenon that science couldn't either already explain or which science, plausibly, will one day not be able to explain within the known laws of physics (in other words, I've never seen magic). I don't see why we shouldn't hold believers to the same stricture (but I suppose I'm a hard man...)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:43 PM

>>This is such a bunch of cobblers I don't know where to begin. We don't "tend to lean", we utterly reject supernatural claims, for exactly the reason you quote, that we ask for but get no evidence (and that such claims are childish and insult the intelligence). We don't "not believe in deities", so we don't develop rationales.<<

I am so proud to share a forum with the self-appointed pope of the Atheist Church.

Why don't you show a shred of humility and speak for yourself. If you can't do that, I think you need to show us a few tens of millions of sworn affidavits from your fellow atheist attesting that you are entitled to speak for them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:02 PM

Actually, I wish I was better read, so I do tend to end up speaking for myself. As I've said before (it's the nature of the beast that I keep having to say things that don't appear to register with you), I've been posting about atheism on all manner of websites for donkeys' years and I've yet to have an atheist pop up and tell me to shut up. Well, there's always josep I suppose but he's enjoyably different to the rest anyway. Struggle on, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:05 PM

If you measure agreement by whether or not people tell you to shut up. I can see where your cognitive problem lies.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:07 PM

>>>
This is such a bunch of cobblers I don't know where to begin. We don't "tend to lean", we utterly reject supernatural claims, for exactly the reason you quote, that we ask for but get no evidence (and that such claims are childish and insult the intelligence). We don't "not believe in deities", so we don't develop rationales. The deities are your problem, not ours. The problems of evil/inconsistent revelations, etc., are entirely issues for believers to grapple with, not atheists. They are irrelevant to us. There is no use for those arguments in atheism. All we want believers to do is produce evidence. The dismal lack of evidence for God is all we need. We don't adopt atheistic philosophies because none are possible, and, to reword the last sentence in the quote, there is no ideology or set of behaviours to which any atheists adhere. None of this is to say that we don't find it interesting to argue with believers - after all, we see the damage and the intellectual stunting that religion perpetrates, and we have just as valid a right to take a view on these things as anyone else. At the end of the day all the arguments are easy because they boil down to one simple thing: show us your evidence. <<<

If the above is your idea of speaking for yourself, you need some pronoun lessons.

You really are loony.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:51 PM

I think Steve is entitled to assume he's not the only atheist on earth, Jack..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:20 PM

Can we stop making unfounded assumptions about the inner emotional state of Steve? Please stick to the topic and leave the armchair analysis for people who want you to interact with them that way. It's way too easy to say "you're crazy so I don't have to pay attention to what you say." It makes you (that's Jack and Ron) very unpleasant to be in a conversation with.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:59 AM

Don't worry about 'em, John. In real life I'm the most affable, cheerful, harmonica-playing bloke you could ever wish to meet. I enjoy these threads (being a bit of a pervert I suppose) because they always end with these Christians, their specious arguments totally exhausted, huffing, puffing and stooping to childish insults. Jack insults me now in just every post. I hope Jesus isn't watching him. Tee hee.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM

just about, huh.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:54 AM

Hey Jack, it's my risk if I seem to be speaking not just for myself. Content yourself with the thought that we both know I'm definitely not speaking for you.

Loony? Nice one, Jack. Keep 'em coming. They make you look really good, honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:00 AM

>>I think Steve is entitled to assume he's not the only atheist on earth, Jack.<<

It is also safe to assume his use of the pronoun, "we" when referring to all atheists is unfounded. There is no way for him to know what all atheist think. Intense irony is added to this by his assertion that Atheists are not organized.

So disorganized Atheists who are no coordinating with each other and without joining groups are some how telling him how they feel. I am sorry to disagree with you but that is loony behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:06 AM

His test of whether all Atheists agree with him is whether or not Atheists have told him to show up. Yet he has also argued that true atheists are disinterested.

I think this says it all.

Tee hee.

If you care about him, get him some help.

Or at least stop enabling.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:32 AM

Deliberate misrepresentation spiced with disingenuousness there from Jack. It is perfectly possible for atheists to all think more or less the same way yet not be be organised into groups. I know loads of atheists round here and I don't think any of them are in atheistic groups of any kind. The central point about atheists is that there isn't much to what they think on this topic anyway. It's a bit like Darwin's big idea: you can sum it up in a sentence. I'm sure there's lots of waffle around the edges, and it's all very interesting, but there's one big idea: the likelihood of the existence of a being who breaks all the laws of nature, who is far more complex than the complexities he's supposed to be there to explain, and for whom there is no evidence, is infinitesimally small. I can see other ways of expressing it, and there may be differing shades of perspective, but I have a shrewd suspicion that that's about it for most atheists. They may join clubs, they may not. They may go out in big Christian-hunting posses for all know, but I've never seen 'em. There's no big atheist conspiracy going on. Just a bit of free speech, that's all. We don't need big groups but I'm sure they're out there for those of gregarious nature. You can collect stamps on your own or you can gang up with hundreds of others of like mind. Less of the dark side, please. There isn't one.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:39 AM

"His test of whether all Atheists agree with him is whether or not Atheists have told him to show up."

You mean shut up I assume. Not so. I talk to atheists quite a lot (face to face) as it happens. You do get a feel for the consensus, you know (if you listen).

"Yet he has also argued that true atheists are disinterested."

Huh? Where did this come from?? A quote would be useful. As you probably can't see your computer screen for smoke I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:13 AM

My arguments are not exhausted Steve Shaw, You have not even read my arguments.

John P, Smokey, any one else on this thread.

Before you defend the sanity of his behavior read what he has said.

>>>Don't worry about 'em, John. In real life I'm the most affable, cheerful, harmonica-playing bloke you could ever wish to meet. I enjoy these threads (being a bit of a pervert I suppose) because they always end with these Christians, their specious arguments totally exhausted, huffing, puffing and stooping to childish insults. Jack insults me now in just every post. I hope Jesus isn't watching him. Tee hee. <<<

>>>In real life I'm the most affable, cheerful, harmonica-playing bloke you could ever wish to meet.<<<

Has he been affable or cheerful here? Why is he not showing his affable side here? Why the difference? Why is he being the opposite here?

>>>I enjoy these threads (being a bit of a pervert I suppose<<<

He is admitting to less than sincere motives.

>>because they always end with these Christians, their specious arguments totally exhausted, huffing, puffing and stooping to childish insults.<<<

He, unlike the rest of you has ignored all arguments "specious" or not.

He is acting crazy and I am saying so. That is not childish. It is the truth. I seriously hope that he goes and gets himself some counseling.

>>>Jack insults me now in just every post. I hope Jesus isn't watching him. Tee hee. <<

This has been his tone since post one. Saying things to other people (not me) things like "Your God didn't help you with your spelling." and such in quest to defend what? Logic?

He doesn't use logic or ask reasonable questions as you all have done.

I think the "Tee hee" says it all.

Have you come to this thread to bait and to harass and to rant until others lose patience then to say "tee hee" when they do? Do you think that saying "tee hee" in this context is a sane and reasonable thing to do? Does that reflect your character or position?

If you identify your self as and Atheist he claims to be speaking for you. He also claims that he is only speaking for himself. Then he uses the pronoun "we". When confronted on that, when asked where he gets the authority, he says that he has ranted on lots of "Atheist forums" and no "Atheist" has told him to shut up.

Isn't that loony on the face of it?

First of all, if what he has ranted about atheism is true, that there is no movement, that there is no organization, who would feel that they have the authority to tell him to "shut up" on behalf of atheists? Secondly "Shut up" is his choice of words. "Shut up" is a pretty rude turn of phrase in any circle. So his logic is basically that he can speak generally for the entire group of unorganized unaffiliated Atheists as long as they do not cross the line of rude behavior to tell him to stop. Finally, he is apparently doing this for an audience. On this thread his audience is you. He apparently sees himself as a warrior fighting for Atheism by whatever means is the most fun for him, (hence the "Tee hee") and the bragging about his other "conquests" "I enjoy these threads (being a bit of a pervert I suppose) because they always end with these Christians, their specious arguments totally exhausted, huffing, puffing and stooping to childish insults."

The question is do you enjoy or agree with what he has brought to these threads? He is telling us that you're not telling him to "shut up" means that you agree with him. Atheism is supposed to be a rational point of view. How can it be defended by irrational ranting?

If you want Steve Shaw to continue to wink at you, to claim to speak for you, and to say "Tee hee." Just keep doing what you are doing. By his own statements, he is going to continue to do this until you tell him to shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:58 AM

Yawn . . . .

I know! Let's talk about theism and the reverse!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 12:28 PM

>>Yawn . . . .

I know! Let's talk about theism and the reverse! <<

If there is something that has not been covered I would be happy to.

But please note that he plans to bait insult and rant until you tell him to shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM

Well, at least we have consensus. Neither beleivers nor atheists have any rational reason to believe in deity. So, the atheists don't, but the believers do anyway, because they have faith.

Also, some atheists and some believers take these data personally. But the atheists make more sense, even if only to those who don't rely on faith to reach conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:05 PM

Quoth Jack: "'Shut up' is a pretty rude turn of phrase in any circle."

Note that I haven't told anyone to shut up. Jack, old boy, considering all you've said about me in this and that other thread, I find your apparent total lack of irony in typing that sentence to be enormously touching.

May I ask in passing if all Christians are like you? Scary... Tee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM

I told you he wasn't reading other people's posts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:21 PM

>>Neither beleivers nor atheists have any rational reason to believe in deity.<<

I am sorry, but we do not have consensus on this point. I believe the benefit I derive from believing to be a very rational reason for belief.

>>But the atheists make more sense,<<
No consensus here either I can point to an Atheist or two on this thread who hasn't made much sense at all.

>>even if only to those who don't rely on faith to reach conclusions. <<

That's a bit circular isn't it? You are just saying that the people start with the same assumptions are likely to reach the same conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:33 PM

"I am sorry, but we do not have consensus on this point. I believe the benefit I derive from believing to be a very rational reason for belief"

You say this and in the same post accuse someone else of circular argument. Very droll. Presumably you started to have your belief before the benefits set in (otherwise you couldn't exactly claim that the benefits derive from the beliefs). So, presumably, your beliefs, pre-benefits, were irrational in the first instance, only becoming rational once the benefits kicked in. I mean, how lucky was that. Did you predict the potential benefits before adopting your belief, and is that why you adopted them? I do love a gambling man. Your knickers appear to be somewhat in a twist on this one, Jack old bean.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:37 PM

You see? I told you he was insane.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:39 PM

"I told you he wasn't reading other people's posts."

Not only do I read them but I frequently take the time to quote them and answer them point by point. I don't always feel the need to do that with yours, Jack, old fruit, 'tis true, but then why would I. But the rest of what I say is self-evident. Scroll up and see for yourself if you can be arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:43 PM

Answer the accusation of circular argument, Jack, instead of just name-calling, something I don't have to resort to. You're not looking good.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:44 PM

Now, Jack, chill out. Steve is not insane by any measure of the word. It does raise an interesting question but, ya know, Steve, a belief can have benefits not realized until the belief is taken on; you have to do some things on the odds and trust they will turn out all right. Trusting bankers is an example...

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:48 PM

I am sorry, but we do not have consensus on this point. I believe the benefit I derive from believing to be a very rational reason for belief.

We do too have consensus. Benefits derived after the fact of belief are *in no way* evidence in favor of that belief.

There are no rational reasons for faith or (a)you wouldn't need faith to believe, nor (b)would there be any atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:04 PM

Mrrz, dear, you are not quite making sense.

Someone tells you that you will feel better if you believe X. You agree to try that. You feel better as a result. You credit that belief with those benefits.

Makes perfect sense, no?

It does not mean "X" is true. mind you. I have no doubt that belief in the Great Father Sky brings about a comfortable sense of relative certainty in the world in place of great gnawing uncertainty. Or at leastr feels as though it does. Doesn't mean GFS is real or true. Same for Jahweh or Baal.


A



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:16 PM

>>You say this and in the same post accuse someone else of circular argument. Very droll. Presumably you started to have your belief before the benefits set in (otherwise you couldn't exactly claim that the benefits derive from the beliefs). So, presumably, your beliefs, pre-benefits, were irrational in the first instance, only becoming rational once the benefits kicked in. I mean, how lucky was that. Did you predict the potential benefits before adopting your belief, and is that why you adopted them? I do love a gambling man. Your knickers appear to be somewhat in a twist on this one, Jack old bean.<<

Amos how is this sane? I make a perfectly valid point that you understood and he generates all of this presumed facts not in evidence bull shit, not to refute it, but to try to stir me up. His behavior is classic insane definition #3 3.irresponsible; very foolish; stupid.

Really, I ask you. Who's knickers are twisted? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:18 PM

For the record, Steve seems perfectly sane and affable to me. As I've said before, I think I agree with what he says about atheism, etc., and I like his sense of humour - it's much needed around here.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:20 PM

Mrrzy are we using the same definition of rational?

proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning


Believing does me good. Therefor I believe. What could be more rational?

I know a guy who didn't believe, wasn't happy, saw no point in living on this Earth if it would only lead to death in the end. He killed himself. This is a true story. Who is more rational? Me? Or him?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:23 PM

>>>From: Smokey. - PM
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:18 PM

For the record, Steve seems perfectly sane and affable to me. As I've said before, I think I agree with what he says about atheism, etc., and I like his sense of humour - it's much needed around here. <<<

Maybe rather than mocking people you and he should go and start a joke thread?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:41 PM

I'm not specifically here to mock, I'm here because I'm interested in the subject. However, I maintain that mockery is far preferable to bitter slanging and unfounded personal insults.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:03 PM

Cheers, Smokey. I'll put a pint of Doom Bar in your fist any time. I daren't speak to "scary Jack" any more. Could you please tell him for me that I'm like that Jeremy Kyle bloke - I don't wear knickers. But going Commando don't mean I'm brave like a Commando...

Tee h....(no, stoppit, Stevie boy...)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:05 PM

No, Please, go have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:10 PM

back again briefly and scanned through mostly bickering.
john had asked what evidences there are for God and the reply i offered was ignored by him and rubbished by others.having evidence to believe may not be accepted ,but to just dismiss it and deny it only confirms that there is an unwillingness to discuss anything as far as some posters are concerned ,rather they just sound off.
BTW i hear that some christians were actually glad of the opportunities presented by the atheist bus ads.here in the UK we tend to be less forward than seems to be the case in the USA.The adverts provided a talking point for christians to share their faith/convictions-but most of us will accept a refusal[preferably polite!]and not buldoze our faith on people.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:16 PM

It's truly heartwarming to see all this Christian tolerance and understanding at work.

It looks like remarkably hard work, this 'faith' lark.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:21 PM

No, really, Pete, let's have the evidence, chapter and verse. I promise to give it all the consideration it deserves (you may care to look up "evidence" in a good dictionary first, however).

"but most of us will accept a refusal[preferably polite!]and not buldoze our faith on people."

The big religions make a big thing of bulldozing the faith on children. If they didn't actually do this there would *be* no big religions at all. Yeah, I took an opportunist quantum leap there, but I couldn't resist pointing out that religion is not always very nice, keep-it-to-myself stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:49 PM

Don't worry Pete, Shaw does not use the dictionary himself ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:03 PM

See other thread, chaps. Jacko is skating on very thin ice considering all the spelling and grammatical blunders he's made throughout these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:43 PM

See the other thread your self.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:56 PM

"insane"--that's a bit harsh.

It's certainly possible, as I hinted, that counseling might be in order, of course.

Gee, Steve, you were going to tell us exactly why you are such a control freak--threatened by anybody else's view's on religion that differ from yours. Interestingly enough, not just a Christian's views but also those of an agnostic. It would indeed be interesting to know how your family and friends deal with this.

Live and let live, as I noted earlier, seems to be a totally foreign concept to you.    Thus, as I also observed, your attitude bears an uncanny resemblance to that of a religious fundamentalist. And just as charming.   A particularly intriguing element in your case is that you don't seem in the least to realize this.

Of course, I note your own word to describe yourself --and I have admit I was surprised to see this--was "pervert".   Of course since you have waxed lyrical on philosophical questions, I'm sure you have taken to heart the philosopher's injunction to "Know thyself".

And you were also going to tell us exactly the origin of your persecution complex. Perhaps you could tell us which has traumatized you more deeply--the existence of religious broadcasts or the "iconography" of religion.   Inquiring minds want to know. You do seem deeply scarred and it's a real shame.

Or maybe you'd just like to lie down on the couch. Or possibly listen to the Brahms Requiem. It certainly does seem you need some peace in your life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:59 PM

"...anybody else's views..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:03 PM

Mrrzy are we using the same definition of rational? Proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning? Yes.

Believing does me good. Therefor I believe. What could be more rational?
What would be more rational would be having a rational reason to believe in the first place. What you have is a justification, after the fact, for your *comfort* - not for your belief.

Faith is the belief in the absence of rational reasons to believe.

Having no rational reason to believe, many don't.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:12 PM

No Mrrzy,

>>What would be more rational would be having a rational reason to believe in the first place. What you have is a justification, after the fact, for your *comfort* - not for your belief.<<

That is not the case. I was an Atheist before I chose to believe and the reason was self preservation. The choice was certainly before the fact.

Please don't assume anything about what my *comfort* is. You obviously have no idea.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:14 PM

"...I have to admit..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:08 PM

Jack's assertion is that there are benefits to having belief that make belief rational. That's a good point. My only problem with it is that it isn't the point we've been talking about for days. The fact that it is rational for Jack to have belief because non-belief is worse in his life does not mean that the tenets of the belief itself are rational on their own merits. In other words, the fact that belief in God improved Jack's life doesn't prove that God exists.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:16 PM

the fact that belief in God improved Jack's life doesn't prove that God exists.

It could be seen as the placebo effect - which, as any doctor will confirm, is very real and not to be underestimated.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:25 PM

john had asked what evidences there are for God and the reply i offered was ignored by him and rubbished by others

Pete, I didn't answer because so many other already had. They weren't rubbishing you -- they were responding to what you said. They were disagreeing with you, a very different thing than rubbishing. I'm afraid the truth is that your arguments can't hold any water. They are self-referential, circular, and depend on faulty data. Rather than moan about being ignored or trashed, perhaps you could reply to the rebuttals with more convincing facts and logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 11:33 AM

Sorry, by your "comfort" I meant only the benefit you had already described, which I understood to mean that belief in your deity comforted you. I use asterisks instead of html out of laziness. Didn't mean to upset you or assume anything about you, I was just going on what you said.

You say yourself that you "chose" to believe, out of self-preservation.
Again, if you had had a rational reason for the *belief* you wouldn't have had to choose; you could have come to a logical conclusion.

What you are describing is a rational reason for *making the choice* and *not* for the belief.

You rationally decided to believe in something for which there is no rational basis for belief. That makes your choice rational, I agree.

It does not make your belief rational, however.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:46 PM

For the life of me, I can't see how it's possible to just choose to believe in something without the introduction of some kind of evidence. People appear to, I know, but I can't fathom the mind which can do that and be anything like 100% convinced of their new 'belief'. It must take quite a degree of mental strength to overcome such a fundamental hurdle. I couldn't do it, however great the potential resulting 'comfort' may seem to be. Each to his own, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

the fact is -despite denials on this thread there are highly qualified people that believe in creation and they are not leaving their brains at the church door.occationally dawkins etc have debated them-so saying there are no creation scientists is just burying your head in the sand.you may disagree with them but denial of them is not an option if you want me to take you seriously.
not time enough to say more till next week,and maybe try offering some more specific items-just in case anyones interested!.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM

Smokey, I'm with you, but that is what it means to have faith. I don't have it, and some people do. I don't get it either.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 03:54 PM

Pete, I think we're all aware that there are scientists who are creationists, but how credible are they, and how seriously are they taken by mainstream scientists? There are even, as we have seen, scientists who believe in reincarnation and the beneficial effects of yogic flying, but that doesn't mean they are credible or that their theories are widely enough accepted to be considered remotely sensible. Not by me, anyway..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:40 PM

that is what it means to have faith

I call it hope. They call it faith. To have 100% unquestioning faith would be, at best, delusional, and at worst, madness.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:59 PM

Right, smokey, bang on!

But what is the distinction, since you put the nit out there to pick, between delusion and madness? Merely one of degree? Or a qualitative one?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:09 PM

Probably politeness :-)

Seriously though, I suppose madness would be the dangerous version, particularly when combined with intelligence - Hitler being the obvious example. Perhaps we need someone with a dictionary..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:14 PM

The creationist scientists are probably good in a particular area of their expertise.
But combining creationism with science is a fool's project. Creationism is based on the bible and has no scientific validity whatever. There may be some scientists who are qualified in a particular field but not overall in terms of what real science is about.
It has nothing to do with any god or bible. Any "scientist" that tells you that it does is a fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:25 PM

Religion as a comfort is the same as drug taking to relieve discomfort. It is a kind of mental drug that alleviates disturbances in a life. I'm not unsympathetic to this, however, if a person is really distraught and needs religion then it becomes a kind of medication for them. When people reach a certain age and death is imminent then they turn to religion for solace. I can understand this as death is something that is fearful and mysterious for many.

However, that's what religion is and that's what it does.

It has to be said, however, that life's discomforts do not need religion to salve them.

Seeing death as a part of life is an important aspect. The concept of life after death doesn't need to be there for comfort.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:58 PM

Apparently, according to a gaggle of hospice nurses I used to drink with, dying is generally far more comfortable if you don't believe all the religious stuff. I won't tell exactly what I was told, but that was the gist of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 06:18 PM

"highly qualified people that believe in creation"

Fine. Now all you have to do is name names and list their qualifications. Ha bloody ha.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:35 PM

I have no problem with anyone wanting to believe in creationism. I will not, however, tolerate it being taught in the classroom "alongside evolution" unless the school that does this is privately funded. In a public school where my tax dollars go, whether I want them to or not, I am not funding creationism. You may not want to fund evolution but evolution is science and it has evidence behind it so it should be taught in a science class. Creationism is religion and does not belong in a science class. In short, evolution is fact, creationism is belief. So all of society should fund science in the classroom and that must include evolution. If parents wish to further fund creationsism, then they should found a school specifically for that purpose and fund it themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:53 PM

"It's certainly possible, as I hinted, that counseling might be in order, of course.

Gee, Steve, you were going to tell us exactly why you are such a control freak--threatened by anybody else's view's on religion that differ from yours. Interestingly enough, not just a Christian's views but also those of an agnostic. It would indeed be interesting to know how your family and friends deal with this.

Live and let live, as I noted earlier, seems to be a totally foreign concept to you.    Thus, as I also observed, your attitude bears an uncanny resemblance to that of a religious fundamentalist. And just as charming.   A particularly intriguing element in your case is that you don't seem in the least to realize this.

Of course, I note your own word to describe yourself --and I have admit I was surprised to see this--was "pervert".   Of course since you have waxed lyrical on philosophical questions, I'm sure you have taken to heart the philosopher's injunction to "Know thyself".

And you were also going to tell us exactly the origin of your persecution complex. Perhaps you could tell us which has traumatized you more deeply--the existence of religious broadcasts or the "iconography" of religion.   Inquiring minds want to know. You do seem deeply scarred and it's a real shame.

Or maybe you'd just like to lie down on the couch. Or possibly listen to the Brahms Requiem. It certainly does seem you need some peace in your life."

I tend to quote whole posts only when I want to break 'em down point by point for response, but in this case I think I want to leave Ron's horrid and intemperate attack to stand in its entirety as testament to his bile. His characterisation of me would be completely unrecognisable to everyone who knows me in person, though y'all will have to take my word for that. Suffice to say that this disgusting and splenetic tirade says absolutely nothing about me but it does speak volumes about poor Ron. I hope it will be allowed to remain in place in the thread as an outstanding example to everyone of how not to behave in debate if you care anything at all for the outcome you desire.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:05 PM

////His characterisation of me would be completely unrecognisable to everyone who knows me in person, though y'all will have to take my word for that.////

You're finally right about something.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:28 PM

You have yet to convince me that you can ever be right about anything, joeyboy, but I suppose I always have to keep at the back of my mind that you profess to be an atheist, so that's progress of a kind I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:58 AM

Suffice to say that this disgusting and splenetic tirade says absolutely nothing about me but it does speak volumes about poor Ron.

Worse still, it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion we're having.

Ron: I'm tired of asking people to stop talking about each other and keep to the discussion at hand. You're being a jerk. If you think ad hominem attacks are showing anyone that you are intelligent, witty, or are making your case, you are deeply wrong. At this point, jerk is too mild a term. Asshole fits it better. Get on board or get the fuck out of our discussion.

Steve et al: How about if we just totally ignore personal attacks? If no one feeds the trolls they might go away eventually. I know it's almost impossible to avoid defending yourself when someone attacks or misrepresents you. I fail to avoid that on a regular basis myself, but it only encourages them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 12:36 PM

I'm so damn weak though, John. Point taken though. You'd have thought by now that the likes of Ed, jojo, Jacko and Ron would have exhausted the store of trollish contumely. Wishful thinking on my part again, I s'pose.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:42 PM

Steve et al: How about if we just totally ignore personal attacks? If no one feeds the trolls they might go away eventually. I know it's almost impossible to avoid defending yourself when someone attacks or misrepresents you. I fail to avoid that on a regular basis myself, but it only encourages them.

Agreed, John. Trouble is, I have little willpower and some of these people are master-baiters.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:08 PM

I'm butting out of this and that true atheists thread. Let the eejits fester on their own. I hope that bona fide Christians will look at the bile being spewed out on these two threads and take it up with their gobshite compatriots. What a bloody disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:25 AM

"...horrid and intemperate attack..."

Temper, temper, little man.

Gee, Steve, I'm hurt.   After all, I defended you, pointing out that "insane" is putting it a bit too strongly.

So sorry you don't like your own words quoted to you.   Just imagine, all you would have to do is think before hitting "send" and you would have far fewer problems to deal with.   "Pervert" was, after all, your own name for yourself. I don't have to make up my material; I just read what others have written.    And am rarely disappointed.

Interesting, you were telling us how much you enjoyed this sort of thread.   Now, all of a sudden, the bloom is off the rose. Wonder how that happened.

Earlier, I pointed out that some Mudcat atheists don't seem to believe in live and let live.   While Mudcat Christians don't try to convert unbelievers, some Mudcat atheists think it great sport to ridicule religion and the religious.

In response, Mr. Shaw gave us the following litany:   "peppering the world with churches, synagogues, mosques, and what have you, along with all the profligate iconongraphy that goes with with 'em. We don't force-feed our captive children with very dodgy one-sided doctrine in "faith schools" (not much live and let live about that!).   We don't clutter the airways with our equivalent of Songs of Praise or stuff the House of Lords with the atheistic equivalents of archbishops"    I'd call all that lot pretty aggressive behavior in the promotion of something that's entirely without evidence. Wouldn't you?"

I'm so sorry I neglected to give a direct answer.

Here it is, belatedly:   no.



We are somehow to understand that the above outrages, which well-adjusted people have managed to live with for quite a while, give atheists carte-blanche to ridicule and attack religion and the religious on Mudcat.   Since we know this list couldn't possibly be just a generic whine (and a fine whine it is).

So let's examine the list.

Peppering the world:   as far as I know you have not been forced to enter any of the above buildings. As I recall you have already contradicted yourself by claiming some cathedrals as part of your cultural heritage.   So you seem to be a bit confused on this point.

Iconography and religious broadcasts:   still waiting for an answer on which of these two has traumatized you more.

Force-feed our captive children:   those captive children have in the main turned out rather well.   Can it be that they are stronger than your patronizing attitude would indicate?

And the House of Lords: :your rambling about that toothless institution is, I'd have to say, a bit baffling.   Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the dire threat posed by the Lords.   Since I'm sure it's not just your imagination. Heaven forbid.





To be continued--but that's a start.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:40 AM

Now, earlier, I noted that atheism has been the worst thing ever for humanity, since more people have been killed under atheist regimes than any other kind in the history of the world.

I asked quite civilly, and more than once, for the name of an atheist regime which can be seen as successful and which treated its own people well.

A deafening silence was heard.



The argument was put forward that somehow Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not head atheist regimes.   Stalin and Mao committed their atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology which was explicitly atheistic. This ideology posited a religion-free utopia.

As for Hitler:   "by their fruits ye shall know them".   Anybody who does not realize that Hitler exploited everything and everybody to his own ends needs to read a bit more.    So Hitler was raised Catholic? Stalin was raised Orthodox Christian and Mao as a Buddhist.

Na und?

Anybody who still believes that Hitler's regime was Christian is invited particularly to research the term "Gleichschaltung".   Then come back and the class will discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 12:11 PM

I also noted earlier that neither Einstein nor Darwin were atheist, but rather agnostic--the sensible choice of the two.. Let's start with Einstein.

The poster who quibbled with my assertion--no fool he---made sure to say that any evidence I might bring up could not be "out of context".   Thus giving himself an easy out to claim that anything I might cite was in fact "out of context".

Recognizing therefore, that talking to that person might possibly be talking to the wall, here are a few quotes from Einstein himself.   You are welcome to provide your own quotes, realizing of course that, like you, I will also be interested in the context.




"The bigotry of the non-believer is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer."
(Quoted in:    Einstein's God (1997)

Excellent point, Albert, and wonderfully applicable on this thread.   Especially since the bigotry of the believer has not been in evidence on the thread.



"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.   You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

(Letter to Guy H Raner, Jr. 28 Sept 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in "Skeptic" Vol 5, No. 2.)

"crusading spirit of the professional atheist".    I wonder if any of our Mudcat atheists' ears are burning.

Mr. Dawkins has a good excuse;   after all, his main goal is to sell books; he doesn't have to necessarily believe anything of what he writes.




"There are people who say that there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

Source:   Hubertus Loewenstein:   Toward the Farther Shore, 1968, p 156.




"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."


Source: The Diaries of Count Harry Kessler,   (published 2002)






The ball is in your court.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:49 PM

Ron, Elvis may have left the building. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 03:39 PM

Before we get too "atheism bad" here let's remember that there are more people in psychiatric treatments due to religion than due to atheism.

Let us remember that while the Nazis were douchebags, they weren't raping children and covering it up. Neither was Mao or Stalin. And even if they were, how long could it have lasted? With organized religion, it went on for centuries unchecked.

When atheists get overzealous they just become a pain in the ass a la our own professor shaw, rarely is anyone ever hurt. When religious people get overzealous, not only are they a pain in the ass but rarely is anyone not hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 05:27 PM

Oddly enough I agree with Josep here although I think he's too hard on Steve Shaw who in my opinion has articulated his point-of-view with clarity.

Mao and Stalin were atrocious tyrants.

Atheists have a right to defend their position without being belittled and called "a pain in the ass". One person's concept of "overzealous" might just be another's reasonable expression of concern.

Ron Davis, Richard Dawkins doesn't need to sell books to correctly identify why religion has in many cases changed the brain and corrupted logic and reason. That's the old ploy when you don't agree with someone. "Oh they're just trying to sell books". He passionately believes what he writes about and your accusation that he is somehow insincere and just wants to make money from his ideas is specious and ridiculous. If he wanted to make money he could write a book called "The Purpose Driven Life" although Rich Warren may actually believe the garbage he writes.

Hitler decried atheism in the same way that the Pope does today. They had that in common.

It should be mentioned that many Agnostics are Atheists. It's a big tent.

Darwin was never talking about religion in any of his scientific treatises so that the idea that he was an agnostic was never really verified. At the time, it would have been dangerous for him to declare any form of atheism. This is true with many scientists who worry quite reasonably about their public acceptance and ability to procure grants for their research. In this, he was not that far away from Gallileo.

Einstein, however, thought that organized religion was not useful. He was closer to a pantheon view of religion like Spinoza and would have considered Christianity useless particularly as a method of interpreting science.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 10:34 AM

1) " (Hitler) decried atheism."    If you believe what he said in public, rather than how he acted.       If so, I have several bridges to sell you.

Far more instructive is the quote from the song sung by the Hitler youth, the citation I gave several eons ago on this thread. As I recall it's along the lines of "We follow Horst Wessel, not Christ."   That's the real attitude of Hitler's regime.    Anybody who does not believe that Hitler encouraged the idea of substituting Nazi "saints" for Catholic ones, and himself for God, needs to do a bit more reading.

Of course history never was a strong suit for many Mudcat atheists.    Perhaps because it is inconvenient for their assertions.

And on the scale of death, it should be obvious to any thinking person--perhaps that excludes some atheist Mudcatters--- that the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao hugely outnumber any deaths caused by religion.




2)   I never claimed that religion was a good method for interpreting science.   Nor do such religious Mudcatters as Joe, I suspect. Both he and I lean more towards Einstein's declaration of why and how he is religious.   I am probably more skeptical in general.   

But not an atheist.    Agnostics have a healthy sense of what man does not know.   
Atheists--especially some Mudcat atheists, it seems (aside from Bill D and
Amos)- tend more towards an unjustified arrogance on many questions.    And they could use a dose of humility.

In fact, religious people have one more plus over atheists.   The religious are honest enough to admit their religion is at base grounded on faith.   Atheists claim to have all the answers, but when push comes to shove, there are still some questions science can't answer.    I 've watched with amusement while Mudcat atheists have come upon this problem in this very thread.

Einstein, and sensible people like him, have, faced with this, acknowledged the mystery.   But some Mudcat atheists have not.   They have blithely assumed that science does have all the answers. That is, they have faith that it does.

But they have not been honest enough to acknowledge that this belief is faith.    So, to add to their charms, they are intellectually dishonest.

Face it, there are approximately zero positive aspects to atheism, as compared to both religion and agnosticism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 10:52 AM

"many Agnostics are Atheist".   Drivel.

Words mean something. I refer you to Mr. Dictionary.

I've given the definitions for the two from my dictionary, earlier in the thread.

If you ask an agnostic if he or she is an atheist, how many do you think will say yes?   Pick a small number.

Most are very likely sensible people, like Einstein, who in general wanted it clear he was agnostic, not atheist.

As I said, agnostics can live with a large degree of uncertainty on many philisophical questions.   Atheism assumes more certainty than is justified.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:26 AM

Ron, do have any evidence that the atrocities caused by "atheistic" regimes or the atrocities caused by "religious" regimes were anything other than power-hungry monsters doing what power-hungry monsters do? Gordian's Knot would suggest that, since there is no preponderance of atrocity on either side of the religion issue, that being the sort of person who seeks that sort of power might be the answer, not whether or not they are religious. Your asking for evidence that will prove you wrong is an attempt by you to force the conversation onto your ground. Most of us -- including the religious folks here -- think you're on the wrong ground to start with, so why should we provide evidence to disprove an obviously faulty assumption?

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop referring to "Mudcat atheists" or "most atheists". Lumping people into groups and making assumptions about them once you have placed them in your groups is very bad conversational technique. It allows you to ignore and belittle people and the things they say because, in your mind, they are by definition worthless. You're still being a jerk in this regard.

Quoting famous people to make your points is pointless. Guest from Sanity already did that, and we already showed how meaningless they are. It's easy to find a bunch of anti-atheist quotes on the internet. It's a bit more difficult to examine the actual value of the quotes within a discussion. Perhaps you could give it a try, though.

Atheists--especially some Mudcat atheists, it seems (aside from Bill D and Amos)- tend more towards an unjustified arrogance on many questions. And they could use a dose of humility.

Please show me where I've been arrogant. Please read all the posts by the religious folks to ensure that there is no hint of arrogance there. Please get a sense of humor -- most of the stuff that Steve has said that has pissed you off so much was obvious light-hearted playing with the ideas. Please explain how you would avoid being a bit bitter if you were surrounded by a society that, in general, believes you are going to hell because you can't believe in impossible things.

I've asked you this before, speaking of deafening silence: if you think belief or agnosticism are smarter than atheism, give your evidence for the possibility of the existence of god. Steve wants scientific evidence. I can see his point, but I would settle for any evidence whatsoever. Logic is also a fairly big deal for me. Present the evidence. That's all any of us in this thread have been asking for. Either you have evidence, or the belief is irrational. There's nothing wrong with irrational belief -- as has been said many times, folks are free to believe anything they want. But if you want to claim that belief is rational, you have to actually provide evidence and logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:51 AM

////Anybody who does not believe that Hitler encouraged the idea of substituting Nazi "saints" for Catholic ones, and himself for God, needs to do a bit more reading.////

Sir, perhaps you should do some reading of your own. The Nazis and the Catholic Church were complicit in Germany. It is doubtful the Nazis could have risen to power without the help of the Church.

You may further want to read about the ratlines of the Vatican which ferried Nazis out of the Germany or Europe after the war and hid them in places as South America (and also North America). An example is Paul Touvier, a French Nazi of the Vichy govt.

His father was devout Catholic who pushed his son into the joining the Nazis. He was discovered hiding "in the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) Priory in Nice. The SSPX stated at the time that Touvier had been allowed to live in the Priory as "an act of charity to a homeless man."[1]" where he been for over 20 years.

At his trial, "A Traditionalist Catholic priest of the Society of Saint Pius X sat beside him at the defense table, acting as his spiritual advisor."

After his death, "A Tridentine Requiem Mass was offered for the repose of his soul by Father Philippe Laguérie at St Nicolas du Chardonnet, the Society of St. Pius X chapel, in Paris."

Paul Touvier

It is one example among literally thousands of how the Church rescued and shielded Nazis from justice.

From a Wiki article on the ratlines:

"The origins of the first ratlines are connected to various developments in Vatican-Argentine relations before and during World War II.[2] As early as 1942, Monsignor Luigi Maglione contacted Ambassador Llobet, inquiring as to the "willingness of the government of the Argentine Republic to apply its immigration law generously, in order to encourage at the opportune moment European Catholic immigrants to seek the necessary land and capital in our country".[3] Afterwards, a German priest, Anton Weber, the head of the Rome-based Society of Saint Raphael, traveled to Portugal, continuing to Argentina, to lay the groundwork for future Catholic immigration.[3] According to historian Michael Phayer, "this was the innocent origin of what would become the Vatican ratline".[3]

Spain, not Rome, was the "first center of ratline activity that facilitated the escape of Nazi fascists", although the exodus itself was planned within the Vatican.[4] Charles Lescat, a French Catholic member of Action Française (an organization suppressed by Pius XI and rehabilitated by Pius XII), and Pierre Daye, a Belgian with contacts in the Spanish government, were among the primary organizers.[5] Lescat and Daye were the first able to flee Europe, with the help of French cardinal Eugene Tisserant and Argentine cardinal Antonio Caggiano.[5]

By 1946, there were probably hundreds of war criminals in Spain, and thousands of former Nazis and fascists.[6] According to US Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, Vatican cooperation in turning over asylum-seekers was "negligible".[6] According to Phayer, Pius XII "preferred to see fascist war criminals on board ships sailing to the New World rather than seeing them rotting in POW camps in zonal Germany".[7] Unlike the Vatican emigration operation in Italy, centered on Vatican City, the ratlines of Spain, although "fostered by the Vatican" were relatively independent of the hierarchy of the Vatican Emigration Bureau.[8]"

The entire article is damning:

Ratlines

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:00 PM

An excellent article on the ratlines

When one reads just how complicit the Church was in assisting the Nazis before, during and after the war, one must conclude either the Nazi anti-Christian bent was a front for the Church or the entire Church from the Vatican on down was a front for Nazism.

In the book, Unholy Alliance, about the ratlines, which I read several years ago, there is actually photograph of Martin Bormann (a man who once said that Nazism and Christianity were incompatible) in South America wearing the garb of a Catholic priest.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM

Of course, the Society of St. Pius X has no canonical status within the Catholic Church, and its leaders were excommunicated...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 06:07 PM

//"1) " (Hitler) decried atheism."    If you believe what he said in public, rather than how he acted.       If so, I have several bridges to sell you."

His statement is in Mein Kampf. How he acted is no different than some Christians have acted in the past.

//"   Anybody who does not believe that Hitler encouraged the idea of substituting Nazi "saints" for Catholic ones, and himself for God, needs to do a bit more reading."

This is not necessarily clear. It's an interpretive opinion. A lot depends on not just reading but what you read and whom you choose to believe.

//"Of course history never was a strong suit for many Mudcat atheists.    Perhaps because it is inconvenient for their assertions."

History is often confused with opinion. Historians rarely agree on anything. Knowledge of the bible is not a strong suit for most Christians let alone history.

//"And on the scale of death, it should be obvious to any thinking person--perhaps that excludes some atheist Mudcatters--- that the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao hugely outnumber any deaths caused by religion."

This is incorrect if you figure the advent of religion over the period of history. Far more deaths were caused by Auto-de-fes, Purges in the Crusades, Burning of witches advocated by Martin Luther and John Weseley and Constantine. Religion has left a bloody wake throughout history that eclipses what Hitler, Stalin and Mao have done.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 06:29 PM

Ron, which dictionary do you like? Webster's? the OED? Funk and Wagnalls?

Agnosticism and atheism do overlap. You can be both. There are those who declare themselves to be so. The only difference is in a matter of degree.

It is unclear just what Einstein actually believed. He has said many things which comport with the views of an atheist.

As to arrogance, Christians are notable for their arrogance in the denial of anything except what they believe which is true of most religious believers. The defense of religion as being anti-atheist is in itself an arrogant assumption. It seems that religionists could use a strong dose of humility before they start in on atheists.

You say, "Atheism assumes more certainty than is justified." A lot has to do with who evaluates what is just and for what reason. People were put to death historically because religious leaders had more certainty that was justified, if we are to talk about justice.
The bloodletting of religion was done by religionists who had "more certainty than is justified".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: InOBU
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 07:02 PM

Dear Richard: Having seen you stray down the road of Nationalism, let me offer this to thy statement of the danger of Religion...
"At times, orthodox and free thinking folks come to the same conclusions (though free thinkers can't really be said to come to conclusions more than pauses on the road.) Both would reflect that even a broken clock is right twice a day. However, the free thinker would acknowledge both clocks are likely wrong most of the... time." - Lorcan Otway from "The pride of always being right."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:44 PM

"far more deaths" caused by autos da fe, etc.

Patently false. For the obvious reason that there just weren't enough people alive long enough in the world before the 20th century.

If you want to quibble with my dictionary's definitions of atheism and agnosticism, I'm not about to dredge up those old posts.   If you'd like to, we'll go from there. And please provide your dictionary's definitions--and the name of your dictionary.

Re: Catholic complicity in the Jews' annihilation.    It's not that simple, by a long shot. I wonder why some Mudcat atheists like a simplistic approach to history.    Are they against research, and prefer bumper-sticker solutions to problems?

If I get a chance I will try to explain the history there a bit--but I have a heavy rehearsal schedule til Wednesday. Endless wrangling on Mudcat is somehow not my top priority.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that
Einstein had it right, regarding why he could be considered religious--or agnostic. In general, not atheist.

Because he was smart enough--and humble enough--to realize what he didn't know.

Both of which some Mudcat atheists could try=-rather than their pseudo-scientific efforts in their version of cramming angels onto the head of a pin.

To be continued.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:27 AM

As I've said, the main difference between atheism and agnosticism is the degree of certainty asserted by each.   Atheists--certainly some Mudcat atheists-- are more sure there is no God than agnostics are.

Do you agree with this distinction? Yes or no?--though I know atheists have a vested interest in muddying the distinction.

And it is the Mudcat atheists who are most sure there is no God who are the ones who stridently attack, smear, and ridicule religion.

Those are the ones who need to first recognize that this is not a live and let live attitude--and they need to change their approach.   Especially since the religious on Mudcat are willing to live and let live.

It's somewhat amazing to see that some of the most aggressive atheists live in a country where there only about 5% of the population attend church on a regular basis--the UK . Their attitude can only be described as extreme paranoia.   

US atheists have less to complain about under Obama than probably any other president--they'd best hope Palin does not get in--but that does not seem to keep them from also feeling persecuted, for some reason--a persecution which seems to be overwhelmingly in their heads--and for which they have provided precisely zero evidence.   And they do not seem to realize they are not exactly winning friends anywhere by constantly smearing religion and the religious.




As an agnostic, I don't have a dog in this fight. I can see clearly that atheism has virtually nothing to offer culturally---unless you are a really really big Frank Zappa or Sartre fan. Actually I--and quite few others, I suspect-- could remarkably easily live without either Frank Zappa's or Sartre's contributions to the richness of life.   But not without the glorious musical literature based on religion.

And on top of that, atheism has been the worst disaster ever for the world--for reasons I have gone into more than once.   

It is obvious to the objective observer---though, not, it appears to some Mudcat atheists--that, as I've said over and over, Hitler exploited anything and anybody.   Does anybody deny that?

By the way, have you atheists done your homework and found out about Gleichschaltung?. In a nutshell, it means that if you did not fit the 3rd Reich's view of an issue, you were marginalized or eliminated. Quite a few religious people did not agree--and paid the price.

Do you believe that the 3rd Reich sought to replace Catholic saints with Nazi "saints", Protestant leaders with Nazi leaders, and God with Hitler?    If you don't understand that, you will be hopeless in understanding almost anything about the regime.

To say that the 3rd Reich was Christian in any sense whatsoever betrays a staggering ignorance of the situation.

But it's not surprising to hear from some Mudcat atheists. Not that they have an obvious motive for this assertion. Of course not.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 09:33 AM

Ron,
You're talking like a bigot. No, that's incorrect. You ARE a bigot. Bored now.

Getting back to the actual topic of this discussion:
If you think belief or agnosticism are smarter than atheism, give your evidence for the possibility of the existence of god. Steve wants scientific evidence. I can see his point, but I would settle for any evidence whatsoever. Logic is also a fairly big deal for me. Present the evidence. That's all any of us in this thread have been asking for. Either you have evidence, or the belief is irrational. There's nothing wrong with irrational belief -- as has been said many times, folks are free to believe anything they want. But if you want to claim that belief is rational, you have to actually provide evidence and logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 10:41 AM

John P,

Way more than 3 billion people have religion of one kind or another. If that is not evidence enough for you then you are using some kind of very specific, evidence excluding, version of logic that I would not care to hear.

Prove your case that there is no God or stop demanding something from others that you, yourself are unwilling or unable to provide.

Steve is a troll. A troll who seems to limit his trolling to a specific topic but a troll nevertheless. If mockery and off topic insults become a legitimate form of debate, his words may have some value.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 01:13 PM

if steve is still peeking in,here is one scientist [among others]that disputes evolution :dr matti leisola-i first read of him in creation magazine,but seeing you call creationists frauds i also checked on internet.wiki lists a string of credentials to his credit.
his expertise in biotechnology ,i dont think makes him a"moron"in countering evolutionism.
asking humbly of you learned scientists-what is the evolutionary take on DNA which i understand is composed of so many parts it surpasses a hi tech factory and of which each has to be in place to function.how does evolution propose an upward path in such mechanisms that apparently may lose or transfer information but are not known to gain it?sorry if its a bit muddled but hope you get the drift
ron-must admit that it may be innacurate to say dawkins motive is money.having seen him on tv a few times,i think it more likely he is genuinely paronoic about God!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:02 PM

Steve is still peeking in but Steve doesn't talk to brainless muppets these days.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:19 PM

Way more than 3 billion people have religion of one kind or another. If that is not evidence enough for you then you are using some kind of very specific, evidence excluding, version of logic that I would not care to hear.

Yeah, not good enough evidence for me. Just because a bunch of people are superstitious doesn't mean that I have to be, or that I have to accept their superstitions as evidence of anything.

Prove your case that there is no God or stop demanding something from others that you, yourself are unwilling or unable to provide.

Very easy to prove that god doesn't exist: there is no evidence. Besides, I don't need to prove anything. The folks that say that belief in god is rational need to prove that it is. If you believe in god, that's fine. Just don't say that it's a rational belief unless you can convince me of the rationality of it without referring to The Bible or the faith of others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:28 PM

Hi y'all, I've been gone at the Sanity rally in DC, what fun fun fun. My personal favorite sign: I disagree with you but you make some valid points.

Very few of the atheists I hang out with or listen to, with the exception of George Carlin whom I adored and miss terribly, state their certainty of their being no deity in real life.

Almost all say that they do not believe that any deity exists, and many (and all the scientists+) *also* say they see no reason to posit the possibility, given what is known about the world through actual human observation. These observations can be learned by reading or listening to cosmology, biology, psychology, geology, speleology, and a bunch of other -ologies except astrology, so astronomy. I am confident enough in human intelligence to conclude that the way the world is, to us, in real life, is the way the world looks to all these diverse points of view of that real life.


+By "all" the scientists, remember, I'm talking about *among* my atheist friends, not the world.


I live in the good ole US of A, which I wouldn't trade for anything despite being very glad that I grew up in post-colonial West Africa back when it was deep and dark, so I know juat how bloody lucky I am. I will vote tomorrow reminding my kids that there are people whom I could have gone to school with their aunts or uncles or elder cousins or something getting their fingers and hands chopped off with machetes trying to vote, so it's not so much a right as a privilege and a duty.

I opine that freedom of religion, freedom from religion, and the rest of the 1st amendment (well, pretty much the whole Bill of Rights, actually) - are great ideas, and wholeheartedly support people's right to an *informed* opinion...

***BUT***

*I can no longer be silent* when my fellow Americans (and I never hear anybody else do this, perhaps because I don't hang out with people from official theocracies) spout myth and nonsense that flatly contradicts actual, known, reality, nor do I believe that they have the right to have such opinions *respected* just because they come from the (I would say deliberately uninformed) individual spouting the nonsense's dogma.

The harm is going to be incalculable, and I'm not just talking about my kids' highschool HONORS history text:

Here is judaism, when it started and what its followers believe.
Here is islam, when it started, what its followers believe.
Here is christianity, and we know it's true because the Bible says so, and here are the following facts to learn(quoting chapter and verse). *Nothing* about what its followers believe, like the other religions. *No* historical rationale even for the historical Jesus, let alone any possible doubt about his divinity.
And when I got to the top of the food chain in the education system, I was metaphorially patted on the head and told but of course we know it's true, silly, or we wouldn't have the religion.
I am quoting the Superindentent of Schools, just before she won some national award.
I'm sorry if it appears as if my intolerance for this willful more-than-ignorance, and especially its harming of children's right to a decent education in this {the best/richest/whatever we here in the US have kind of country}{place} seems to spill over into a general intolerance for faith or religion in even more general.

Oh, yes, and I am also no longer able to allow people within hearing/reading-shot to attempt to reason unreasonably. If you're going to attempt rational discourse, you have to do it rationally, and while I'm sorry if this upsets anyone, I don't consider my intolerance of this small thing unreasonable.

And quibbles about semantics (my favorite thing!*) notwithstanding we all know what I mean by the terms reasonable, rational, and faith.

*A reference to a great joke about cats and dogs. Obviously, I'm quoting the dog there.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:32 PM

That joke. Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 04:19 PM

So John P your argument is it is superstition because you say it is?

OK. Lets leave it at that.

Mrrzy

You can find many Christians and other people of faith who agree with your stand on how history should be taught. I would not be surprised if some of them were ACLU lawyers. But if you are lumping ALL Christians in with that school superintendent then you and I have a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 04:46 PM

And since I have reepetedly both claimed not to, and refrained from doing so, why bring it back up? I do find many people of many faiths that agree with reality. I don't argue with them.

But I get in trouble for not "respecting" beliefs that nobody in their right mind *would* respect if they (the beliefs) weren't backed up by dogma.

Sorry, I can't respect the willful denial of reality > ignorance.

Much "inferieur a" (forgot how to do html accents, helpul bilingual clones go ahead)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 04:55 PM

Ignore him, John. He's not worth it.


Tee hee...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 06:12 PM

I think that the point is that atheism has a right to exist without religionists condemning it because they have the hubris to think that they are right. It really comes down to a personal approach to life. The issue is not one that can be approached by proving or disproving because there is no basis to test such a thing. It can't be done scientifically without calling into question an evaluation of someone's mental state.

I have no problem with people who believe whatever they want to as long as they don't sit in judgement with people that don't agree with them. I can even accept a flat earth society as long as I don't have to agree with it. I may think that it's crazy but the right to believe what you want is important to me as an American.

When someone condemns atheism because they somehow think that it's harmful or wrong, then I have a problem with them. There is nothing on this thread that has been said that is going to change someone's mind about what they believe or disbelieve. Absolute statements about atheism by someone who doesn't share that disbelief comes under the heading of arrogance. Saying that atheists are "stupid" or "narrow-minded" or "wrong" says more about the one making that claim than those they make the claim against. Insisting that there is only one way to believe or disbelieve is the problem.

You mentioned Jon Stewart's rally. I think the premise is correct. A civil dialogue on a subject is not as some have put it a distraction from evaluating important issues. It is identifying a process in the exchange of information and ideas. When the discussion takes place without name-calling or vituperative table pounding, then something enlightening can come from it.

Remember, though, that tolerance cuts both ways for those who believe and those who disbelieve.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 07:00 PM

So John P your argument is it is superstition because you say it is?

Nope. Try again. Or not, I don't really care.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 08:30 PM

"It is only the savage, whether of the African bush or the American gospel tent, who pretends to know the will and intent of God exactly and completely."

H.L. Mencken

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 11:10 AM

"It is only the savage, whether of the African bush or the American gospel tent, who pretends to know the will and intent of God exactly and completely."

It is only the Mudcat "Atheist" who is as certain as those two.

-------------------------------------------

>>>So John P your argument is it is superstition because you say it is?

Nope. Try again. Or not, I don't really care. <<<

In that case how clever of you to hide you persuasive arguments and only present us with your crap. Is your "logic" that the good stuff can never be challenge if it is not presented? How clever for you to try to turn it so only the other side has to back up what they say with evidence. Did you learn that one from Glenn Beck?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:40 PM

Sorry, Jack, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It sounds like you want me to present evidence for the fact that there's no evidence for the existence of god. How droll! You seem to be missing the basic concept: I don't need to present evidence for the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence. Can you present your evidence that proves there is no giant teapot orbiting the moon?

If you, however, want to say that there is evidence for the existence of something, you actually have to present that evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:53 PM

Pastafariansare making as much sense as anybody these days...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:29 PM

The entire surface of the moon has been photograph to a high resolution. No teapot has been found. No one is claiming to have experienced moon based tea. There are not 3 billion people who believe that there is a tea pot.

Now your turn.

Prove to my satisfaction that there is no God.

Or take your arrogant self-centered "logic" and place it where it belongs.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:38 PM

Yes, God believes he exists.

When asked by Britain's Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, "It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:39 PM

Calmly, Jack, calmly.

The teapot can't be seen in photographs, silly! What are they teaching kids in Teapot Sunday School these days?

OK, here's my proof that there's no god: There is no evidence to suggest that there is. Side note: evidence isn't something you get to vote on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:48 PM

Here is my rebuttal.

There is plenty of eye witness testimony. That is evidence.

Now try again. Prove there is no God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 02:05 PM

Prove to my satisfaction that there is no God.

If it's not too much trouble, please specify the proof that you require for your satisfaction and your rationale for not believing in all the other gods.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 02:44 PM

Sorry Smokey.

But that is not fair. John P. is asking for "evidence" that he will accept without specifying what evidence he will accept. I pointed out that 3 billion believers is evidence. He asked me to take his word that each and every one of those people were acting solely on superstition without offering a shred of proof that they were.

"Because I say so." Is not a logical argument.

He needs to prove his argument before demanding that I prove mine. That said, I can say right now that it is impossible to prove that there is a God or not.

>>please specify the proof that you require for your satisfaction and your rationale for not believing in all the other gods.<<

I have long ago addressed this matter on one of these threads. If you were too focused on your own "side" to remember, you will just have to do without hearing from me again.

Also Smokey. I need to point out to you that you have allied yourself here with someone who is clearly only here to mock and who travels the Internet to mock as a bit of a hobby. You have already received more reasonable attention then you deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 02:55 PM

>>John P - PM
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:39 PM<<

>>Calmly, Jack, calmly.<<

I've been calm. Is the evidence that makes you believe that I am not calm coming from the same place as your evidence that there is no God.

>>The teapot can't be seen in photographs, silly! What are they teaching kids in Teapot Sunday School these days?<<

I didn't go to teapot Sunday school.

>>OK, here's my proof that there's no god: There is no evidence to suggest that there is. Side note: evidence isn't something you get to vote on. <<

There is no evidence which you will accept. Obviously there is plenty of proof that BILLIONS of others will accept.

You have proved that you do not believe in God. You have not proved that billions are wrong. And I am confident that you cannot prove that.

Aren't you the one who said that visits from Aliens are more likely than God?

Show me your evidence for that. There is much more evidence for God than there is of visits from Aliens.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM

You have already received more reasonable attention then you deserve.

Thank you for being so reasonable, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:11 PM

I know it isn't much. But why put in real effort only to get "tee hee" in return?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:19 PM

I don't think I have ever written that. No matter - you answered my question adequately.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM

is not positing teapots on the moon a red herring or straw man or something evading the point.back to basics-nothing is known to create itself and for millions a creator requires less faith than the belief that it just happened.the claim that evolution is a fact is one worldview interpreting the data according to the a presupposition,but unfortunately they dont [largely ]allow other scientists to do the same without mockery or even persecution.
i hear that a top scientist in israel was sacked for being a skeptic on global warming and evolution.he apparently committed the unforgivable sin of suggesting teaching alternatives as well as evolutionism.and what is so dangerous about that?.whether taught in religious or science class as long as the science is tackled ,why the objection?.
atheists often decry religion in the school but insist on their faith position being taught exclusively.[if that position is as unassailable as evolutionists assert,what are they so worried about?]

yes,but thats science you cry, but my questions to you are not answered,except directing me to darwin and dawkins.well it might go over my head but a former teacher like steve ought to be able to help me understand the logic of your position,even if i dont accept it.o k you are not teaching now and you have no time for me,even though i have consistently responded to you-without insults and mockery.
someone earlier compared creation scientists to scientists believing in reincarnation.i dont believe in that and i shall have to take your word that they exist,but if they can present scientific reasoning, as creation scientists do on their subject,they should at least be respected,though not agreed with.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:32 PM

Pete,

If you want me to read your posts, or anyone to understand them, you need to use proper punctuation and formatting.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:36 PM

Smokey,

Correct me if I am wrong.
You have been egging on the Tee Hee guy.
You have said you agree with everything he has said on this topic.

And Yes. My reasonableness tank on this topic, toward certain speakers, is quite depleted.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:49 PM

If that is what you believe, so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:59 PM

Cool!

Thank you for the reasonableness.

(I meant the above, no joke.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:04 PM

Aren't you the one who said that visits from Aliens are more likely than God?

Actually, I said that there is more evidence for intelligent beings on other planets than there is for god. The logic seems pretty straightforward to me -- we have hard evidence that it is possible to have sentient life on a planet. It's not a big stretch to imagine that it might exist on more than one planet.

There is no evidence which you will accept. Obviously there is plenty of proof that BILLIONS of others will accept.

As I've said many times, I will accept lots of things as evidence, even evidence that wouldn't be at all scientific. All those billions of people who believe in god -- what's their reason for doing so? Is it based on anything other than being told that there's a god when they were children? What's your evidence? Why is this such a hard question for you? Why believe in something when there are simpler reasons for the observed phenomena?

I repeat: evidence for the existence of something isn't something we get to vote on. I'm not at all swayed by your argument that the majority opinion should hold sway. A majority of people once believed that the world was flat. By your reasoning, the world was flat back then.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:17 PM

>>>I said that there is more evidence for intelligent beings on other planets than there is for god.<<<

There is no evidence. None. Zero. Yet you say that there is. What does that say about the "reason" and "logic" you claim? Speculations that there may be billions of planets which you will never see is NOT evidence. Yet YOU accept these speculations as evidence.

I can go around my neighborhood and find people who can tell me about specific prayers they have had answered. I have shared that experience on these threads myself. You dismiss this testimony based on YOUR subjective evaluation of what is more "likely."

I am not saying that the majority opinion should hold sway. I am say that the fact that billions believe is evidence. It is evidence that you cannot dismiss just by calling it superstition. If I need to PROVE what I say SO DO YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:29 PM

>>>I said that there is more evidence for intelligent beings on other planets than there is for god.<<<

I think that you actually said there was "HARD EVIDENCE"

And in the way you replied to what I said, without qualification, you certainly implied that you disagreed with my point that a host of aliens had visited this planet was unlikely.

I have come to believe that you are not well informed enough to tell me what is "likely." That brings you contention that 3 billion people are "superstitious" into question. Prove me wrong if you wish. Or not. I really don't care.

>>>From: John P - PM
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM

They would say it was space aliens, as if a host of beings traveling over light years of distance were less unlikely.

We actually have hard evidence that there is sentient life in the universe. With what we know so far, aliens are a LOT more likely than gods. <<<

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:41 PM

We are that hard evidence, aren't we?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:57 PM

Are you saying that we are hard evidence that there are Aliens that we can't see?

lol

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 05:00 PM

No, I'm saying that we are the evidence of sentient life in the universe. Personally I'm extremely doubtful there is any more, but I'm open to empirical evidence if or when it turns up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 05:10 PM

Ah! you are right. He didn't say "other."

But still, the likelihood is with our present knowledge far beyond proof.

>>Personally I'm extremely doubtful there is any more, but I'm open to empirical evidence if or when it turns up.<<

Are you open to "empirical" evidence about God? What I mean is, Would similar evidence convince you that God existed?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 05:15 PM

I think so, yes. I don't think I've ever said otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 05:22 PM

Smokey,

I think you and I have reached an accord.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 05:46 PM

Indeed, all us so-called "rational" atheists, those who see no rational reason for believing in deity, would certainly believe in deity were there any actual rational reason.
Nobody has seen deity, so there isn't even the eyewitness testimony that is so impossible to useas data anyway, once you understand perception and memory.
The finding that life began on this planet long before the planet finished forming is evidence for the likelihood of life on any "goldilocks" planet. Whether any of that life became macroscopic is doubtful, given how very little of ours has. Whether any of that macroscopic life developed intelligence is even more doubtful, given how very little has here.
But there are gazillions of planets. Gazillions of infinitesimal chances start to add up to pretty close to one...
So I would agree that there is much more evidence for life, even intelligent life, on other planets, than there is evidence for deity, since there hasn't been any of the latter yet. Not even probabilities...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 07:40 PM

>>So I would agree that there is much more evidence for life, even intelligent life, on other planets, than there is evidence for deity, since there hasn't been any of the latter yet. Not even probabilities.<<

It really comes down to point of view and what you accept as "evidence."

There is Zero actual evidence of life on other planets, No bones, no bodies, no radio waves. There is zero evidence of intelligent life on other planets, no bones, no bodies, no radio waves.

There is conjecture about all of those things. But there is also conjecture about God. But even accepting your unproved point that there is no evidence for God. Zero is not "much more" than zero so you are incorrect.

It shows that you are not speaking from knowledge. Perhaps you are expressing what you want to believe rather than what you know.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 08:30 PM

"Steve is a troll... If mockery and off topic insults become a legitimate form of debate, his words may have some value."

Well, here's a short collection of valuable words, all from the keyboard of wacko Jacko:

"an anti-theist as nasty as you"

"I'll not be wasting any more time reading your nonsense."

"I will not feed your apparent addiction to bulling [sic] behaviour"

"I am so proud to share a forum with the self-appointed pope of the Atheist Church."

"You really are loony"

"If you care about him, get him some help."

"Before you defend the sanity of his behavior read what he has said."

"He is acting crazy and I am saying so. That is not childish. It is the truth. I seriously hope that he goes and gets himself some counseling."

"Isn't that loony on the face of it?"

"But please note that he plans to bait insult and rant until you tell him to shut up."

"You see? I told you he was insane."

"His behavior is classic insane definition #3…"

"Steve is a troll. A troll who seems to limit his trolling to a specific topic but a troll nevertheless."

"you have allied yourself here with someone who is clearly only here to mock and who travels the Internet to mock as a bit of a hobby"

"What you have been saying seems like a cry for help. Or maybe like a young male trying to get the attention of a young woman by dipping her pigtails in an inkwell."

"You are not an atheist. You are a loon."

"Shaw,
You need counseling. You really do. There are plenty of places to get it besides church. Go get some."

"Smarty Shaw"

No mockery or off-topic insults there then, Jacko. Tee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 09:07 PM

"I can go around my neighborhood and find people who can tell me about specific prayers they have had answered. I have shared that experience on these threads myself."

Not evidence. Merely claims made by people who actually said prayers hoping to get them answered. Your only "evidence" is that they're friends of yours whom you consider to be nice people, so you'd rather believe them than not believe them. They are biased (or deluded, or lying, or just got lucky). Go round your neighbourhood and find people who have had specific prayers NOT answered. I bet you never ask. Your sharing your experience doesn't mean we have to believe you. You're biased. It isn't evidence without corroboration. It's just claims. You can only give us uncheckable claims. Tell you what. Show us someone with one leg who went to Lourdes, prayed for a new leg and grew one. Now that's what I'd call evidence. Sadly...

As for three billion believing, well you need to provide accurate, checkable stats on that. In any case, three billion believing (as you claim) still leaves over three billion not believing. I won't even bother showing you where that argument goes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 09:38 PM

Just to be clear, I don't have any idea whether or not there is intelligent life on other planets. It's one of those questions that are unanswerable. There is no information available to us. What I did say is that we know that intelligent life has appeared at least once, so it is possible that it appeared more than once. More likely than the existence of gods, for which we don't have the same sort of hard evidence that we do for the possibility of sentient life evolving.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 09:39 PM

"There is Zero actual evidence of life on other planets, No bones, no bodies, no radio waves. There is zero evidence of intelligent life on other planets, no bones, no bodies, no radio waves.

There is conjecture about all of those things. But there is also conjecture about God."
Indeed, no actual evidence. But you are being slightly disingenuous putting conjecture about those things on a parallel footing with conjecture about God. We live on a planet of a particular size a particular distance from a star, and there's life on it. We have already discovered 30 planets belonging to neighbouring stars that are in the ball-park as compared to the Earth in terms of size. Extrapolation from this suggests that there are probably several billion such planets in our galaxy alone (and tgere are billions of galaxies). Now that is not evidence of life beyond the Earth, but it does strongly point to the possibility, within all the laws of physics (a crucial point). I'd say it was almost worthy of a scientific theory. Now none of this applies to speculation about God. There is no evidence that he exists here or anywhere else so there is nothing to extrapolate from. There is certainly nothing in the laws of physics that points to him. There is no starting point at all (except for claims about answered prayers, tradition, ancient stories, God of the Gaps, etc.). Your attempt at comparision is bereft of all logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 09:43 PM

We can be as clear as we like, John. The prospect of a response that acknowledges the clarity is remote, sadly. Still, where there's life there's hope.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 10:00 PM

God grants everyone's prayers - the results are so chaotic it just looks as if he ignores them, aside from the generally underestimated number of mathematically certain coincidences - the absence of which might, ironically, go some way to providing evidence for his existence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 10:23 PM

>>God grants everyone's prayers - the results are so chaotic it just looks as if he ignores them, aside from the generally underestimated number of mathematically certain coincidences - the absence of which might, ironically, go some way to providing evidence for his existence. <<

If you would care to prove that it is coincidence you would be on to something Smokey. You have no proof or evidence or studies of what you said above there just conjecture.

If you can prove that people are claiming that their prayers are answered are wrong and show how they are wrong that would be nice.

But saying that it is more likely to be coincidence is not proof. I don't think that it is possible to prove that there is a God or not. I said that when I entered these threads. I certainly have not seen any hint of such proof from any of you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 11:01 PM

I can't prove anything, Jack. I'm not really in the business of proof, only understanding. I see the phenomenon as naturally occurring coincidence and you don't - I really don't have a problem with that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 11:20 PM

The point I was making is that an absence of those inevitable 'coincidences', would, at least to me, look far more mysterious than what actually happens.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 12:14 AM

If you can prove that people are claiming that their prayers are answered are wrong and show how they are wrong that would be nice.

Some of them have to be wrong, simply because coincidence exists... innit?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 02:14 AM

What does knowledge look like?

How do we know it exists if we can't see it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:42 AM

If you claim that you had a prayer answered there's nothing anyone in the world can do to prove you wrong. If you say there's a God there's nothing anyone in the world can do to prove there isn't. If I tell you that a blue china teapot is in orbit around Mars there's nothing you or anyone else can do to prove there isn't. Geddit, Jacko? But making claims is easy and lazy. Anyone can claim anything. I can claim I saw a ten-foot jellyfish flying over my garden a minute ago and there would be nothing you could do to prove there hadn't been. I don't happen to think that the celestial teapot is there, but if I did and I said so wouldn't you think it reasonable to put the onus on me to provide evidence? Likewise, the burden of providing evidence sits on the shoulders of both those who claim God exists and those who claim they've had a prayer answered, not on those who demur. Calling on sceptics to provide "proof" is just putting the whole issue arse about face. It's a dishonest ploy to divert attention from the real issue, which is your lack of evidence. I've been ticked off for requiring scientific evidence for God's existence. I'm sticking to that but I'll compromise. Any evidence that's objective and independently-verifiable will do me. Something concrete would go quite a way (like that Lourdes person growing a new leg, a flesh-and-bone one I hasten to add, not a concrete one). But large numbers of people making unverifiable claims is not evidence, nor is the fact that religion has been going a long time, nor is the fact that some people of old wrote down stories, nor is the fact that we have magnificent cathedrals... All that is just what people do. You need to show us what God can do and it has to be verifiable by independent persons with no axe to grind. So far, there's nothing in the universe we know of that can't be explained, either right now or in the future, unless we invoke God. And science is relentlessly closing the gaps in understanding all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 12:11 PM

>>If you can prove that people are claiming that their prayers are answered are wrong and show how they are wrong that would be nice.

Some of them have to be wrong, simply because coincidence exists... innit? <<

I will say that some of them probably are coincidences, but what you say does not follow.

They are not wrong because coincidence exist. Coincidence occurs in many areas of life that are not prayer. Also what you are implying here is that coincidence occurs they cannot tell the difference between cause and effect. That is a pretty big leap of faith on your part considering that you haven't talked to them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 12:14 PM

As I was scanning for other posts to read I noticed the word "Jacko" in a Shaw post. I wonder if he does not realize that I have given up reading his posts for reasons explained earlier?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 12:36 PM

The interesting thing would be to compare how many prayers are reported as answered to how many don't get answered. If we're looking at answered prayers as evidence, the unanswered ones need to be part of the equation. I'm guessing something like a million unanswered prayers for every answered one. If you take out anything at all for coincidence, that doesn't leave much of a positive ratio.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 12:49 PM

Yes, You ARE guessing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 01:05 PM

"As I was scanning for other posts to read I noticed the word "Jacko" in a Shaw post. I wonder if he does not realize that I have given up reading his posts for reasons explained earlier?"

Excellent. Then I can expect a better chance of my posts being allowed to stand without a load of brainless, angry, Christian insults levelled against 'em. Jacko, if one of your "scans" happens to accidentally cause you to read this, d'ye think you could persuade Ron, Ed and gun-totin' Guest ex-Sanity to send me to Coventry too? Tee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 01:20 PM

I don't see how it would ever be possible to do a prayers answered/not answered survey. The level of honesty required would not be attainable.

On this business of prayers, and I'm assuming we're discussing prayers that ask God (or one of his henchmen/women) for something, as opposed to those which just thank or praise the Lord in all his glory, etc.(those ones don't require answers), it always strikes me that they are the most un-Christian thing. If you ask God for something, someone else will have to have that something diverted away from him. If you ask God to let someone not die, or get better, you are asking him to unreasonably swell the world's population (it exacerbates the situation when you consider that many of these self-same people also oppose contraception and abortion). Asking God to not allow nature to take its course seems unreasonable to me. Liverpool are playing Chelsea this weekend. If I pray that Liverpool win I'm also praying that Chelsea lose. I mean, how fair would God be if he granted my request? If he did, would I be able to claim it as a prayer answered? No wonder the bugger doesn't answer prayers!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 02:08 PM

steve-did,nt think you would stay away long!so now evidence is no longer enough.yes i did look in the dictionary and it does,nt seem to be the same as the absolute proof you and john seem [to claim ]to require.
prayers answered according to the believers request is a case in point.evidence but not proof,but it seems you are implying that jack and his friends are not being truthful when claiming specific answers.
"verifiable evidence by independant.."i suspect means there is nothing you will accept-you would only say it was not independant because it challenges your position!
science certainly closes gaps all the time and thankfully there is more of that now to counter evolutionism
john-seems to me you have backed down on you aliens claim but without admitting it!
jack-am i really that unintelligable?be that as it may,i will dip in and out anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 02:13 PM

It really comes down to point of view and what you accept as "evidence."

No, it doesn't. "Evidence" has a definition which is not dependent on point of view.
There *is* a difference between logically concluded, data-based knowledge and belief without such evidence.

There *is* data-based evidence (I know, that's redundant, but I'm emphasiziong here) that life began on this planet before it (the planet) had finished forming.

It *is* therefore likely that there is life on other planets. Note: likely. Not definitely yes or definitely not, but more likely there is life than not.

There are no data that support the hypothesis for deity. None. If there were, I repeat myself ad nauseum here, we would all know that deity existed and the believers would have no need of faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 02:38 PM

Mrrzy,

You are going to believe what you wish.

You believe nonsense like this.

>>There *is* data-based evidence that life began on this planet before it had finished forming. <<

No there isn't. That is ridiculous. What evidence? 4 billion year old "fossils" of microbes? In lava or magma or whatever it was? microbes do not have bones. Carbon bonds could not survive the heat. There *is* conjecture. There *is* no way to know.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM

"so now evidence is no longer enough.yes i did look in the dictionary and it does,nt seem to be the same as the absolute proof you and john seem [to claim ]to require."

W i l l y o u p l e a s e l i s t e n.

I have made it abundantly clear that I am not interested in "proof." You can't prove there's a God and I can't prove there's no God. I've said it 'til I'm blue in the face. Evidence is not proof. I'll believe in God if I have evidence. Simple. The main problem here is that you don't appear to know what "evidence" means.

"prayers answered according to the believers request is a case in point.evidence but not proof,but it seems you are implying that jack and his friends are not being truthful when claiming specific answers."

Fanciful, imaginative, hopeful, in denial, deluded, misled...call it what you will. I don't call people liars unless I know they're lying. Bottom line? You're trying to convince sceptics about something and all you can come up with is unverifiable claims about prayers being answered. That is not evidence. Two men have cancer. One prays that he won't die and the other doesn't. Two years later they're both still alive. So that was a prayer answered then, was it?
   
"i suspect means there is nothing you will accept-you would only say it was not independant because it challenges your position!"

Try me.

"science certainly closes gaps all the time and thankfully there is more of that now to counter evolutionism"

You'll never see the day. Evolution is true, old chap. You admit you don't read about it. I suggest you put that right. It's a massive hole in your education.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 03:19 PM

"No there isn't. That is ridiculous. What evidence? 4 billion year old "fossils" of microbes? In lava or magma or whatever it was? microbes do not have bones. Carbon bonds could not survive the heat. There *is* conjecture. There *is* no way to know."

When I was at university I studied sedimentary rocks from Australia which contained fossil prokaryotes (bacteria or cyanobacteria - it's been a long time...) which were three billion years old. Sediments were forming very early in the planet's life. There are indeed no fossils in igneous rocks, but even way back then not all rocks were igneous. The only reason we haven't got more fossil evidence from so long ago is that the rock cycle has destroyed most of it. The Earth was a very different place at that time. There was no oxygen in the atmosphere for a start. Life on earth has played a big part in forming thge environment we have today. There's good evidence for everything I'm saying. Incidentally, you don't need bones for fossils. That's another simplistic Jackism. It's a chilly night so I think I'll just top up the fire with that boneless fossilised wood (coal), or fire up the central heating with that fossilised boneless liquid stuff (oil). At university I also studied soft plant tissue from the Carboniferous, right down to cellular morphology. I have some lovely scanning electron microscope pics of leaf-surface cells from 200 million-year-old ancestors of modern-day conifers. All off the bone.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 03:34 PM

Thanks, Steve, kept me from looking things up.

I am refraining from typing We do toooooooooooooooo!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 03:56 PM

The oldest undisputed fossils, stromatolites, are about three and a half billion years old. As I said, extremely early fossils are very rare because the older the rocks are the more likely they are to have been destroyed by the rock cycle. It isn't beyond imagination that even older life existed - evidence for it, for the same reason, would be pretty tough to come by. We're already, with the fossils we have, only just over a billion years from the formation of the Earth, and who's to say there wasn't life much earlier. Mrrzy's point, that "life began on this planet before it (the planet) had finished forming", isn't too far-fetched. It's also worth pointing out that life has existed on Earth through some extreme environmental changes, which you could argue means that life on other planets is all the more likely. Life is resilient and not too fussy (as long as it has liquid water, on the whole). For billions of years it even got by very well without free oxygen. There are plenty of opportunities for it out there. All we need now is the evidence. I can wait for that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:28 PM

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Is it not? Your contention is that it took 1 billion years to form?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:38 PM

So when do you think it "stopped forming," Jack? Care to put a date on it? It certainly wasn't settled in terms of geology, topography and atmosphere after one billion years. It was still a-rockin' and a-rollin' like mad. You could argue that it isn't stable today, but it's as nothing compared to then. I could wish that Mrrzy had said "almost before...", but, like I said, the statement wasn't too far-fetched.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:38 PM

Look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:42 PM

And, like I said, it isn't beyond imagination that life was present a long time before those first fossils we have. Not only were those tiny organisms extremely unlikely to be fossilised anyway, the very oldest rocks have mostly gone, thanks to the rock cycle.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 05:16 PM

Since you are just talking about the atmosphere and perhaps tectonic shifts, you can say that it is still forming now. Most people would not, most people, even most scientists would consider the "formation" of the planet to be a far more dramatic event. But what most people do, how they use words, what has been accepted, has not influenced you to this point. Why should it now? By all means continue with your own faith based belief system with its own interpretation of words. That is what most people do.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 05:45 PM

"And, like I said, it isn't beyond imagination that life was present a long time before those first fossils we have".

We have some posters who cite scientific deduction to challenge a "belief" in a God, (any God,but mostly christianity, btw) now citing "imagination" as a source to base a point on?

What will they think of next?

Using illogical thinking when is convenient to make a point, at that time, hardly seems like anything anyone would look up to.
LOL

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:35 PM

They are not wrong because coincidence exist.

Not what I meant. I meant the existence of coincidence must mean that some of them are wrong - given a large enough sample, of course. That doesn't mean they are consciously lying, because I doubt it would be possible for them to tell the difference. If their prayers appear to be answered that is how they will interpret it because they have faith. The only point I was trying to make was that statistically some of them have to be wrong. My own opinions on this are irrelevant, as is the existence of God. If someone with faith prays for something and it happens, they aren't likely to attribute it to coincidence, they are far more likely to let it strengthen their faith, otherwise what would be the point in praying for it? They might as well do what I do, and just hope. Even if I prayed, the laws of probability won't go away - I'd still attribute it to coincidence because it would not be credible evidence.

Personally, of course, I think it's all coincidence, but that's beside the point. Whether or not God exists, at least some of it must be coincidence, therefore some of them must be wrong. The end result is the same as long as they think their prayers were answered.

Coincidence occurs in many areas of life that are not prayer. Also what you are implying here is that coincidence occurs they cannot tell the difference between cause and effect. That is a pretty big leap of faith on your part considering that you haven't talked to them.

I'm saying they can't tell the difference between God causing something, and a random coincidence causing it. I know I can't - stuff just happens. I have actually talked to some, contrary to your assumption, and it's entirely their faith which convinces them - there appears to be no other available explanation. Are we not agreed there is no actual proof? There is, however, proof of coincidence - unless one is to claim that God controls the laws of probability, and if that was the case I'm not sure where it would leave the gambling industry...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:43 PM

IMO, anyone that says they have experienced or expects a God to intervene in any worldly matter is in dream land. The same for any folks who say that they have experienced a God experience, because they preyed, had faith, or whatever. To me, it is clear bunk...much like astrologg, or dozens of other "bunky" myths put forward by alternative theory folks.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:44 PM

"Since you are just talking about the atmosphere and perhaps tectonic shifts, you can say that it is still forming now. Most people would not, most people, even most scientists would consider the "formation" of the planet to be a far more dramatic event."

I actually said that. It'll be really good when you stop scanning and start reading. Duh.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:51 PM

"And, like I said, it isn't beyond imagination that life was present a long time before those first fossils we have".

We have some posters who cite scientific deduction to challenge a "belief" in a God, (any God,but mostly christianity, btw) now citing "imagination" as a source to base a point on?

What will they think of next?

Using illogical thinking when is convenient to make a point, at that time, hardly seems like anything anyone would look up to.
LOL"

Keep on lolling, babe. It is actually a statement of fact that there is a possibility of even older life than those earliest fossils. It would be a fool who supposed that, bearing in mind that fossilisation is extremely rare, and that almost all early sedimentary rocks have been destroyed by the rock cycle, the oldest fossils we have were representatives of the very first organisms to inhabit the earth. I'd rather believe that you merely don't get science than to believe that you are a fool. My belief could be misdirected. Try harder, sourpuss.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:52 PM

OK you are saying that claimed something extraordinary and decided that in your opinion it was coincidence?

That is valid in my mind, rather than saying that it must be coincidence because coincidence exists.

There are also a lot other factors, if you believe including what you believe.

Lots of people pray for success while at a gaming table. In my experiences their rate of success is pretty close to those prescribed by the probabilities of the particular game.

People who pray for enlightenment, for guidance, for patience, for forgiveness, even from others, often receive it. I realize the psychological implications of the above. On the other hand, no religion I know of promises that you can influence dice with prayer.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:59 PM

Please give us more folksy, selective "imagination" stories, Steve. It enhances the space between "name calling" and anti believer dogma versus logical discourse.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:06 PM

People who pray for enlightenment, for guidance, for patience, for forgiveness, even from others, often receive it.

Yes, but the question is, where from? They will assume from God, whereas I would be inclined to think that the mental discipline of praying has focussed their mind and they have done it themselves. That is only my opinion though, based on my own experiences and observations. What others may think is very much their own affair.

OK you are saying that claimed something extraordinary and decided that in your opinion it was coincidence?

I don't understand that question, Jack.. Could I ask you to rephrase it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:09 PM

Were you saying that your opinion about coincidence was from something you witnessed rather than from the fact that coincidence exists?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:11 PM

No, I wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:15 PM

>>>Yes, but the question is, where from? They will assume from God, whereas I would be inclined to think that the mental discipline of praying has focussed their mind and they have done it themselves. That is only my opinion though, based on my own experiences and observations. What others may think is very much their own affair.<<<

Well I think the question is "If it works, if it requires faith, if it is a benefit that people have enjoyed for thousands of year, if it is a net mental health benefit, how can it be a delusion?"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM

So you think that people who pray are wrong because coincidence exists?

If so I disagree, coincidence exists and colors the results of virtually every form of statistical study especially when all other facts are not known.

My grandfather smoked and drank until he died at 86. That is NOT evidence that smoking and drinking are healthy. The other factors that allowed him to live that long could be viewed as coincidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:40 PM

"Please give us more folksy, selective "imagination" stories, Steve. It enhances the space between "name calling" and anti believer dogma versus logical discourse."

I don't understand this ill-worded post, I'm afraid. I can probably glean from it, just about mind, that you wouldn't understand "logical discourse" even if it reared up and bit you on the cock. Now, what were you saying...?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:50 PM

"My grandfather smoked and drank until he died at 86. That is NOT evidence that smoking and drinking are healthy. The other factors that allowed him to live that long could be viewed as coincidence."

You don't appear to know what "coincidence" means.

"Well I think the question is 'If it works, if it requires faith, if it is a benefit that people have enjoyed for thousands of year, if it is a net mental health benefit, how can it be a delusion?'"

Simple. If it's wrong, factually incorrect, utterly misleading, false, a downright lie, it's a delusion. The benefits you claim for religious belief are available without that belief. No faith required. Lots of us have tried it and it works. Rudders, not crutches. Religious belief often comes with an awful lot of strings, some of which are used very effectively (and deliberately) to strangle the intellect. As this thread shows in abundance.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:59 PM

"'People who pray for enlightenment, for guidance, for patience, for forgiveness, even from others, often receive it.'

Yes, but the question is, where from? They will assume from God, whereas I would be inclined to think that the mental discipline of praying has focussed their mind and they have done it themselves."

Absolutely right. What we should be talking about is whether God answers prayers for people who badly need enlightenment, guidance, patience and forgiveness, but who don't ask for it themselves but who, unconsciously, rely on others to ask on their behalf. Y'know, third-party stuff. I doubt that the results would be very impressive.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 08:20 PM

Delusion = belief in the demonstrably untrue, no?

Who put the Demon in Demonstration, anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 08:44 PM

So you think that people who pray are wrong because coincidence exists?

Jack, you said:

"If you can prove that people are claiming that their prayers are answered are wrong and show how they are wrong that would be nice."

And that's what I did, even allowing for the existence of God. Coincidences are a fact of life, and unless you are claiming that they stop happening when people pray, at least some of those apparently answered prayers are coincidences. I don't see how my opinion is relevant. You asked for proof, and you got it.

Well I think the question is "If it works, if it requires faith, if it is a benefit that people have enjoyed for thousands of year, if it is a net mental health benefit, how can it be a delusion?"

If it really is a mental health benefit, it doesn't really matter. To me though, it seems to be the placebo effect.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:11 PM

"Who put the Demon in Demonstration, anyway?"

Dunno, but the devil's in the detail...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:15 PM

I don't understand this ill-worded post, I'm afraid. I can probably glean from it, just about mind, that you wouldn't understand "logical discourse" even if it reared up and bit you on the cock. Now, what were you saying...?

Sorry Steve, Good try. But it does not work.

Does not work. Attempts to "recover" and bring grudges from other posts...where clear anti-christian prejudices, elitism and illogical reasoning were held to account.

Try content on the topic, rather than name calling and childish posts....if you actually want someone to take you seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:18 PM

"Yes, but the question is, where from? They will assume from God, whereas I would be inclined to think that the "mental discipline of praying has focussed their mind and they have done it themselves."


Now that makes no sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:20 PM

"talking like a bigot.... You are a bigot"

Indeed?   May we please have direct quotes from my postings to support this?   Otherwise it bears all the hallmarks of another fine whine by a Mudcat atheist.   Atheists seem to be expert vintners of this libation.

And "atheism is the new black". Spare us.   Or perhaps you'd like to tell us about how you were refused employment because of your atheism, forced to live in a certain part of town, prevented from voting, etc. because of your atheism..

Sounds like it's time to start a thread titled "The Atheist Paranoid Delusion"

And Elvis--what a pleasant surprise to see you back here. Ebbie was afraid you had left the building but I had faith--hope it doesn't pain you to hear the word--that you were still on the premises.   And here you are, back again--like a moth to the flame.

Perhaps you're ready to tell us about which has traumatized you more deeply:   religious "iconography" or religious broadcasts. And please don't forget to tell us about the heinous crimes perpetrated against you by the House of Lords recently.   I'm sure you recall your litany which "proved" that religious people did not believe in live and let live.    It was in fact quite instructive in your standards for proof.   

To be continued

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:28 PM

Look, Jack has it exactly right. Religious people don't have "proof" there is a God, nor do atheists have "proof" there is no God.   

So it's time to get on to another topic.


It is however clear that on Mudcat religious people refrain from trying to convert unbelievers, while some atheists continually attack and ridicule religion and the religious.

That is to say:   the religious on Mudcat believe in civil conduct and live and let live.   Some atheists clearly do not.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:30 PM

Ed, you wouldn't recognise "on-topic" if it hit you between the eyes. You have a jaundiced, preconceived, ill-conceived, anti-intellect, anti-atheist agenda. It ain't my fault that you write dense, cloudy "English" as in that quoted sentence. As for content and name-calling, my recent posts (and most of my others, when I managed to avoid the temptation of having a good time at your and your mates' expense) are full of tightly-argued content (not saying for one minute that I was ever right), and it's painfully clear from your totally content-free efforts (as above) that you have nothing but brainlessly-snide remarks to offer in return. I'm very disappointed, Ed. It's like talking to a child. Actually, no it isn't. Most children are honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:37 PM

Ah, "brainlessly snide"---the previous poster must be looking in the mirror.   To define this term, he might want to peruse some of his own postings. Wonderful illustrations there.

But of course the poster, being rigorously logical and strictly scientific, never stoops to personal attacks. Perish the thought.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:43 PM

"And "atheism is the new black". Spare us.   Or perhaps you'd like to tell us about how you were refused employment because of your atheism, forced to live in a certain part of town, prevented from voting, etc. because of your atheism.."

Christ on a bike. This "witty" guy doesn't even know what the expression "the new black" means. Back to the drawing board! Tee hee!

"Perhaps you're ready to tell us about which has traumatized you more deeply:   religious "iconography" or religious broadcasts. And please don't forget to tell us about the heinous crimes perpetrated against you by the House of Lords recently.   I'm sure you recall your litany which "proved" that religious people did not believe in live and let live.    It was in fact quite instructive in your standards for proof."

You forgot to quote the bit where I said I don't give a monkey's bloody mickey for that stuff, and I'd like to finish with your dreary, witless post by asking you why you put "proved" in quotes above. That is actually a serious question (though you don't deserve seriousness), as it asks why you choose to misrepresent people in that way in order to to make your lost case. I think you should answer, or forever be ridiculed. You're on the brink, old chap! Tee bloody hee!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:47 PM

"Look, Jack has it exactly right. Religious people don't have "proof" there is a God, nor do atheists have "proof" there is no God."

I said that, you big muppet. Jack hasn't got exactly anything. I know how inconvenient all this must seem. Try reading posts. Lift up the veil.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:52 PM

"But of course the poster, being rigorously logical and strictly scientific, never stoops to personal attacks."

Cast out the beam, Ron, cast out the beam. I'd love to say tee hee, but why defile the tragic element...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 09:56 PM

Prayer may be pointless, but, why should one care? The value of prayer will likely never be settled.

It's natural for friends and family to hope for the best for sick family and friends. If praying is an expression of hope, is it worth proving that it works or not?

Doctors encourage patients and families maintain hope while being realistic about the situation. Just because prayer defies logic or known scientific principle, why discredit a source of hope? Its unlikely to settle anything.

When a person is ill, it may be comforting for them to know that others are praying for them. People praying also may feel that they are doing something to help, and at a minimum cost.

Many religious people feel that prayer has a positive influence on health and recovery. But, IMO few actually believe it has an effect on the "hard" medical endpoints. At a minimum, prayer may help sick people cope and maintain a positive outlook.

Is the value of prayer a myth? Maybe so. But, its unlikely there will ever be a universally accepted answer that question. Is that a big problem? No.

So, in most cases, there's little risk associated with prayer. And, it offers a measure of comfort to the people praying and the people they are praying for. Why not?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 10:10 PM

"it's painfully clear from your totally content-free efforts (as above) that you have nothing but brainlessly-snide remarks to offer in return. I'm very disappointed"

bla...bla bla...That what that sounds like to me, Steve.

So, Steve, if you actually feel your intellect and reasoning are so superior, and mostly it seems to those who disageee with your theories, (and you are so uneffected by such), why do you take every effort to respond to those confronting your logic (or lack of)? Why run running off in a mane calling tantrum-rants when the cards are stacked against your (IMO   hardly well written or logically tight) posts? Why do you make every attempt to sneak biased anti christian rants into the logical discussions of others?

Why not just ignore it...or ran away from other posts when firmly confronted by such antics?

In frustration?

Maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 10:50 PM

"Yes, but the question is, where from? They will assume from God, whereas I would be inclined to think that the mental discipline of praying has focussed their mind and they have done it themselves."

Now that makes no sense.

I wrote that, Ed, in response to:

"People who pray for enlightenment, for guidance, for patience, for forgiveness, even from others, often receive it." (Jack)

Tell me what part/s you don't understand and I'd be happy to clarify it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:25 AM

"Prayer may be pointless, but, why should one care? The value of prayer will likely never be settled.

It's natural for friends and family to hope for the best for sick family and friends. If praying is an expression of hope, is it worth proving that it works or not?

Doctors encourage patients and families maintain hope while being realistic about the situation. Just because prayer defies logic or known scientific principle, why discredit a source of hope? Its unlikely to settle anything.

When a person is ill, it may be comforting for them to know that others are praying for them. People praying also may feel that they are doing something to help, and at a minimum cost.

Many religious people feel that prayer has a positive influence on health and recovery. But, IMO few actually believe it has an effect on the "hard" medical endpoints. At a minimum, prayer may help sick people cope and maintain a positive outlook.

Is the value of prayer a myth? Maybe so. But, its unlikely there will ever be a universally accepted answer that question. Is that a big problem? No.

So, in most cases, there's little risk associated with prayer. And, it offers a measure of comfort to the people praying and the people they are praying for. Why not?"

I can actually go along with most of this. It sort of fits with my bottom-line sentiment that your personal religion is your business and that's great as long as you don't try to pass it on as truth to other people (or annoy atheists by publicly telling them you're praying for them - yuk!). I only recoil from the bit that says there's little risk. There's a big risk, actually. Prayer is not action and the risk is that it will replace action. You can pray 'til you're blue in the face that, for example, famine in Africa will end, but your prayer won't make the slightest difference to the famine, nor will it particularly give comfort to people thousands of miles away who neither know nor care that you're praying for them. Your prayer gives you a far greater feel-good factor than it does them. Getting off your fat arse, campaigning, money-raising, getting involved in the politics, even going over there and helping out in person, dammit (which I've never done) are what'll make a difference to the famine. Of course, all that can go alongside the prayer or not according to your predilections, and it'll do just as much good in either case. As long as actually you do it and don't merely bask in the comfortable glow generated by the feeling that your prayer has done your bit for you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:43 AM

you actually do it

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 07:09 AM

"So, Steve, if you actually feel your intellect and reasoning are so superior"

I don't, I never did and I never even hinted that they were. I can't help it if you choose to hide yours under a bushel and thereby cast me in a good light.

"and mostly it seems to those who disageee with your theories, (and you are so uneffected by such), why do you take every effort to respond to those confronting your logic (or lack of)?"

How many times do I have to say it. I don't have "theories." If anything I say appears to you to lack logic, please address it as a specific point. Anyone can make lazy accusations of that kind. Examples with your corrections, please, or just knock it off, I suggest.

'UnEffected??'

"Why run running off in a mane calling tantrum-rants when the cards are stacked against your (IMO   hardly well written or logically tight) posts?"

And the translator's note is...

What was that bit about "hardly well written [sic]"? Tee hee!


"Why do you make every attempt to sneak biased anti christian rants into the logical discussions of others?"

In order to add even more logic. Why else? And of course I'm biased. I'm a bloody atheist for Christ's sake!

"Why not just ignore it...or ran away from other posts when firmly confronted by such antics?"

Because I know how much I annoy you and it's quite good fun.

"In frustration?"

Well, it can be frustrating trying to discuss things when a few permanently-blinkered people keep wading in with their inanities, I'll admit that. I can run but I can't hide.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:00 AM

Ron, on whether or not he's bigoted against atheists:
Otherwise it bears all the hallmarks of another fine whine by a Mudcat atheist.

You do get the tragic irony there, don't you Ron? Lumping a bunch of individuals together into a group and then making decisions about them based solely on their membership in the group . . .

PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS AS IF THEY WERE ALL THE SAME!!!

PLEASE STOP GIVING YOURSELF PERMISSION TO BELITTLE PEOPLE AND IGNORE WHAT THEY SAY BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF A GROUP YOU DON'T LIKE!!!

PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND INSTEAD OF RUNNING YOUR PET PEEVE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Religious people don't have "proof" there is a God, nor do atheists have "proof" there is no God.

Ron, you seem to be continually missing the point. Atheists don't need to prove anything; we're not the ones making the fantastic claims. The complete lack of evidence is enough proof that god doesn't exist. Also, most of us have said over and over: we don't care if you believe. Just don't tell us it's a rational belief unless you can offer some evidence.

So here it is again. I've asked you many times and you've never answered. You just go away for a couple of days and then come back with more of your anti-atheist polemics. If you think belief or agnosticism are more rational than atheism, show us your evidence that there is any possibility that god(s) exist. Just do it now. Or please, please please shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:34 AM

perhaps you'd like to tell us about how you were refused employment

I was once refused employment because I didn't profess my faith during the job interview. Yes, it really happens. Again, that's not what this discussion is about.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 10:29 AM

Haven't been on this thread since the summer. Takes a bit of time loading now, which is time I should be spending on my new religion!!

I have just found out about Frankism. Presently compiling a list of taboos and then check them off as I taboo my way to enlightenment.

Good fun this religion lark!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 10:50 AM

Hi, Steve, Thanks for the tips on typos. I suggest you try and focus on the doughnut, not the hole.

I doubt that it is news to anyone that you admit to being biased against Christians. But, it is nice to see you come out of the closet at this point in life, while there is still time to deal with it. I suspect it is some of the reason that your logic credibility is on the lower side of the scale.

I limit my respect to atheists who have the wisdom to posts views on Mudcat with a truly logical open mind.
Why not join that group of fine contributors?

Anyway, John P said it better than I can. So< I repeat his advice, this time for you:

PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS AS IF THEY WERE ALL THE SAME!!!

PLEASE STOP GIVING YOURSELF PERMISSION TO BELITTLE PEOPLE AND IGNORE WHAT THEY SAY BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF A GROUP YOU DON'T LIKE!!!

PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND INSTEAD OF RUNNING YOUR PET PEEVE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 10:56 AM

I was once refused employment because I didn't profess my faith during the job interview. Yes, it really happens.

Same here. I was being interviewed for a job teaching biology in a Catholic secondary school in 1980. Up to that point I was still a Catholic of sorts but was definitely losing it by then. The interview had gone very well right up to to the point when the priest who was chairman of the Governors asked me, out of the blue, whether I would be prepared to study for the Catholic Teaching Certificate. My "no" answer was the most catastrophic conversation-stopper in the history of the universe. Yep, it happens all right! I'm humble enough to think that I might not have been the best candidate anyway, but at least I hadn't looked too bad on paper next to the others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:08 AM

Ed, Ed, Ed, Ed. I respond to people's individual posts and I tend to respond point-by-point. I hardly think that I treat everyone the same (for example by talking about Mudcat Christians). I note you didn't read the bit of my last one to you that asked you to stop making lazy, unfocused accusations about illogicality (so easy to make). Pick me up on specific points of logic where you think I'm falling short and we'll chew it over. You won't because you can't, I know that. You're not up to it. As for typos, your post was riddled with all manner of errors, not just typos. At least two lines of it were virtually incomprehensible, thus:

Why run running off in a mane calling tantrum-rants when the cards are stacked against your (IMO   hardly well written or logically tight) posts?

and:

Why not just ignore it...or ran away from other posts when firmly confronted by such antics?

Perhaps you were tired and a little emotional when you typed it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:15 AM

And note that I've just learned how to do italics. I started a thread on it, and even on that totally-uncontroversial topic I came in for a coshing from some muppet. They must have known I was an atheist. Heheh.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:36 AM

Hmmmmm

I think that there are certain reasonable requirements for teachers in religious institutions. Likewise for priests and preachers and for science teachers at other professionals at secular institutions.

A your woman was recently threatened with expulsion from a North Carolina University. I don't recall exactly which University. I believe it was UNC Chapel Hill. That detail is not important to the case. She threatened to sue the University for religious discrimination because she was saying Homosexuality was a sin and wrong and Gays should be told that. The University replied with, (I am paraphrasing from memory.) "If you want to get a degree in psychological counseling, you need to follow the standard practices of the psychological counseling community and you will tell them no such thing. Furthermore you will have to take sensitivity training and prove to us in your behavior that you have learned the lessons therein.

I believe that when a person's expressed beliefs violates the core values of an institution, then that institution should be allowed to refuse entry to that person because of those beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:48 AM

Well that didn't apply in my case. In 1980 I was still a Catholic, though on the drift. Four years earlier I'd got married in a Catholic church and I was already teaching in a Catholic school in east London when I applied. In 1973-74 I'd even taught a few lessons in religious education. I didn't see why a science teacher needed to do the Catholic Teaching Certificate. It wasn't a condition of employment. I was fully qualified and experienced for the job I was applying for.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 12:02 PM

>>>Ron, you seem to be continually missing the point. Atheists don't need to prove anything; we're not the ones making the fantastic claims. The complete lack of evidence is enough proof that god doesn't exist. Also, most of us have said over and over: we don't care if you believe. Just don't tell us it's a rational belief unless you can offer some evidence.<<<

John P.......

Look at the title of the tread. You atheists still arguing on this thread are defending the proposition that 90% (and I am being generous to your side with that estimate) 90% of all the people who lived in the history of the world are delusional.

Really?   90%. Really?

Who is making the fantastic claim?

I have said that it is a rational belief because it is beneficial to the individual. I have said that I know this from personal experience because I have experienced it. The fact that I experience this benefit is evidence.

Apparently you have this strange personal definition of the word "rational" which perhaps you share with other people on this thread who have stooped to (CAPSLOCK) shouting and mockery. Perhaps you should share that definition and try to rationally discuss it. Otherwise the thread is going to keep coming back to the nonsense of yours that I just quoted. If it does come back to that, you are not going to convince anyone because your argument is half baked. If your goal is simply to irritate people because they are Christian, perhaps you should have a strategy session with Shaw to coordinate your efforts toward that common goal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 12:05 PM

>>I didn't see why a science teacher needed to do the Catholic Teaching Certificate.<<

Obviously, if you have related the story accurately, the interviewer saw it as necessary. He was making the decision.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM

Ron, Ed T,

I think it is pretty obvious that Shaw has a chip on his shoulder that extends way beyond the current topic of discussion. He also has made it clear that he doesn't want to talk about it. It is clear that he is trying to wind people up and get them to post angrily. He actually said that to me. I am not telling you what to do. But you might deny him some satisfaction by taking down the rhetoric a notch or two.

By the way Ron. There are some very reasonable and intelligent "Mudcat Atheists" who have expressed their views calmly and long left this conversation. When making blanket statements about a group, one needs to keep in mind the reasonable, rational, folks who are not in the heat of the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 01:04 PM

You atheists still arguing on this thread are defending the proposition that 90% (and I am being generous to your side with that estimate) 90% of all the people who lived in the history of the world are delusional.

90% eh? Where does that come from? It was three billion yesterday! In any case, where did they get their belief from exactly? They were told it by parents and men of the cloth. Told what to believe. The only variations were those brought about by accident of place of birth.

I have said that it is a rational belief because it is beneficial to the individual. I have said that I know this from personal experience because I have experienced it. The fact that I experience this benefit is evidence

We've already been here. It wasn't rational because you had to have the belief already in place before you knew what benefits might accrue. You had to guess and hope. Irrational.

Obviously, if you have related the story accurately, the interviewer saw it as necessary. He was making the decision.

Well, I was there and you weren't. There's nowhere else to go on this one.

He also has made it clear that he doesn't want to talk about it.

Talk about what? I'll talk about anything. You start...

It is clear that he is trying to wind people up and get them to post angrily. He actually said that to me.

Of course I didn't. Stooping to untruths in unworthy of you, Jacko.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 01:07 PM

is

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 01:32 PM

Steve, I wasn't talking to you. don't feel obligated to put on a defense.

3 billion are just the nominal Christians and Muslims on the Earth today. There are and always have been other religions, other gods, other "delusions".

>>We've already been here. It wasn't rational because you had to have the belief already in place before you knew what benefits might accrue. You had to guess and hope. Irrational. <<

I also said that I was and Atheist, actually and Anti-theist like you before hand so.. No. It was not a belief already in place. It was not something I had learned as a child. A lot of Christians try your way before making the rational, adult, decision to choose Christianity.

>>It is clear that he is trying to wind people up and get them to post angrily. He actually said that to me.

Of course I didn't. Stooping to untruths in unworthy of you, Jacko. <<

It is there to read for anyone who takes the trouble. You also bragged about winding people up on other forums throughout the Internet. You also started to say "Tee Hee." soon after you said that. It might have been in the same post. Your pattern of behavior and lack of logic, is very clear throughout these threads.

Like implying that you lost a job for your atheism then describing how you lost it for refusing to get a qualification as a Catholic Teacher. No I wasn't there. That's why I said "if you have related the story accurately," But at the time I could read what you said. I still can. It is still there in your post.

>>>Well, I was there and you weren't. There's nowhere else to go on this one. <<<

This is your main method of argument. You say something that you have clearly NOT backed up with reason or logic. When someone questions that you call them stupid for not understanding.

Keep in mind that the title of this thread sets the parameters of the
conversation. As far as I am concerned, I am arguing against the position that believing in God is delusional. The burden of proof for that position is on those who argue the other side. I wouldn't be bothered arguing that the existence of God cannot be proved with evidence that bitter fallen Catholics will accept. So please stop arguing that position and please show some dignity and end the mocking.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:10 PM

Jack the Sailor,
Your point is well taken. Good advice.

I shall take your advice, for the benefit of others, who are not interested in such foolish stuff that some posters try and stimulate.

I do notice that most of the religion threads do get sidelined by a few of the same posters who "try hard" to stimulate off topic emotion rather than content..for whatever their personal reasons. Most of these threads wind up to be name calling by less than a half dozen folks. Pay particular attention to the Moral Atheist one that was quite interesting until those folks began to get involved.

Thanks for the wise suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:22 PM

Err... don't wish to be pedantic, but can you revise that 3 billion to a figure a wee bit lower?

You see, The Church of England says in their annual report last year, (a relative works for his diocese and sent me a copy out of devilment...) that 92% of the English population are Christian.

Don't want to shit on their iced cake here, but I assume they include everybody who is christened? Everybody who doesn't state any other religion? You see, I have the sneaking feeling that the vast majority of the population, who are not anti religion, but never give religion a second thought, are included in their delusional figures. I had my two sons baptised but that is because a christening is a family affair, a tradition. It doesn't mean parents buy into non rational nonsense.

Not ranting against them, just pointing out that whilst I don't know how many English citizens are religious, even Church of England, I do know that less than 1% attend a church so howsabout either side in this stop claiming indifferent people as their own?

I am not an atheist for the simple reason that atheism seems to considered a stance and I would prefer to be classed as indifferent to cults I am not a member of. So irreligious is a far better stance than atheist.

(That said, when something affects me, such as shops having limited hours on a Sunday or Bishops being able to vote in our upper house for the reason of being a Bishop alone, then I feel entitled to question the logic of society allowing superstition to dictate things.)

Oh, and before anybody points out my hypocrisy here, YES I signed up to The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, mainly to wind people up, but secretly because I am a Pastafarian!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:27 PM

No Willie, I am not willing to revise down. The percentage with some sort of "God Delusion" of people, all the people who have ever lived, is very high. Your version of Atheism is a fairly recent idea, going back only a few hundred years.

And I am not claiming indifferent people as my own. I am saying that well more than 90% of people who have ever lived have lived in such a way as to disprove the argument that believing in what he thinks is not rational is delusional.

But lets, not dwell on that, saying that each one of 300 million protestants, 1.2 billion Catholics, or 1.5 Billion Muslims is DELUSIONAL is still a "fantastic claim" it seems that way to me.

I'm with you on the Sunday and Bishops things. I believe in separating Church and government and I don't believe in forcing my religious values on others. If someone want to work on Sunday or shop or dine out on Sunday, I think they should have that right.

So if you are not saying that religious belief is delusional, then you and I have reached an accord.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:33 PM

Of course people throughout prehistory had to believe in deity, we hadn't invented enough science yet to debunk the idea.

Now we have, and there is no reason to assume that just because the ignorant throughout history have believed in something doesn't make it reasonable to believe in that something now that we know how the world actually works.

You don't need thunder gods. We know how thunder works.

You don't need fertility gods. We know where babies come from, and crops.

Why do you think you need any deity at all? What possible hitherto unanswered question does it answer?

Whenever anyone says But people have always believed in deity, they can't all be wrong, I am reminded of the parent who asks If your friends all jumped off a cliff, would you go too? when their teenager is saying But all my friends dooooooooooooooo...

Not to mention that adherents to any single faith tend to believe that adherents to any OTHER faith must be wrong - all of them.
Atheists just go one belief further.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

Given that any of what you just said is true, Mrrzy, and no doubt there is some grain of truth in it. Isn't it a fantastic claim to say of all the people who lived in the history and believed in a deity that they are and were delusional?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 04:22 PM

"Of course people throughout prehistory had to believe in deity, we hadn't invented enough science yet to debunk the idea.
You don't need thunder gods. We know how thunder works."


Yes, people believed in some pretty strange stuff in the far past, whether it be related to a God, or some pretty strange stuff in science.

I suspect in 2000 years, or so, people will reflect in amusement at what science, tells us today.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:51 PM

steve-i can see where some of your earlier anti catholic rants come from now.thats not a judgement on my part-we do get some knocks in life that colour our outlook.if not for my faith system i would have some bitterness too.[not claiming all atheists are bitter]
once again you give challenges,which you decline yourself.if i read greatest show in history-would you read the greatest hoax in history?.being so scientific,it would be easier for you than me.

john talking of fantastic claims-how about all came from nought with out any proof,or even much idea how?God of the gaps?-would that be mine or the great theory of evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:21 PM

Isn't it a fantastic claim to say of all the people who lived in the history and believed in a deity that they are and were delusional?

No. Nor do we really have the faintest idea what they actually believe/d, only what some of them said they believe/d. All belief in the supernatural is delusional - if it is genuine belief. Belief in the 'little people' was just as widespread, (even without the use of torture or the threat of hell) but it doesn't make fairies real. If and when empirical evidence to the contrary comes along I'll be happy to eat my words, but until then I strongly recommend that people do not take offence at my disbelief, it's a waste of effort.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:34 PM

part 2
steve-i actually think you make some good points about prayer on your post yesterday,[just above mine].in doing so you inadvertantly explain why comparing statistics on whether prayers are answered is a fruitless exercise
likewise you have a point about involvement in our needy world.the fact is-christians have a pretty good record of doing just that.even the atheist roy hattersly interviewed about the salvation army confessed that it was their convictions that was the cause of their continuing good works.do you want to deny the many benefits of such religious practice?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM

Well you sure seem to have quite a handle on what is sane, rational and logical or not.

Yes of course, nearly everyone else is mentally ill but fortunately you, and your small minority are the only ones who are sane. But don't forget those in the past the undocumented "sane" who did not share the delusion but did not speak out. "Logically" they must have existed even though there is little or no evidence that they did.

Of course it is not a fantastic claim to set the norms of sanity to include only the the enlightened few. How nice of you to be so favored to uniquely hold this wisdom.

How uncivil and really stupid of us not to think of ourselves as having a delusion.

Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions[1] in the absence of any other significant psychopathology. Non-bizarre delusions are fixed beliefs that are certainly and definitely false, but that could possibly be plausible, for example, someone who thinks he or she is under police surveillance. In order for the diagnosis to be made auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, although olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM

Yes of course, nearly everyone else is mentally ill but fortunately you, and your small minority are the only ones who are sane.

I didn't say that, I haven't mentioned sanity or mental illness. When I use the word 'delusion' here, I mean no more than 'mistaken belief', and not necessarily in a derogatory sense. Lay off the fantasising and we might manage to have a sensible conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 07:16 PM

What on earth made you look up 'delusional disorder' in Wiki, Jack? I don't think psychiatric diagnosis is particularly appropriate here, though I do recall you calling Steve a 'loony'.. Could we perhaps maintain at least a token assumption of sanity all round, if only for the sake of a constructive discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 07:21 PM

Me: Of course I didn't. Stooping to untruths in unworthy of you, Jacko.

Wacko Jacko: It is there to read for anyone who takes the trouble. You also bragged about winding people up on other forums throughout the Internet.

It is not there to read at all. Stop being so bloody lazy - quote the passage, please, otherwise stop slandering. And, while you're at it, quote the bit where I bragged about winding people up. You make things up as you go along. Now I am expecting you to produce two specific quotes from my posts to support what you say. If you can't, or won't, I suggest you shut your filthy, slandering mouth once and for all. Come on, Jack - piss or get off the bloody pot. It won't surprise you to know that I'm not holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 07:25 PM

The last bit wasn't intended to be in italics. I'm still a learner in that department. Apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 07:44 PM

There are a lot of more appropriate and less loaded and derogatory ways to say mistaken beliefs.

The choice of the word "delusion" by Dawkins is not accidental.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:05 PM

Come on, Jacko - the quotes from my posts please. Don't make yourself even more disreputable than you've already shown yourself to be. I'm waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:15 PM

"do not take offence at my disbelief, it's a waste of effort"

Personally, I don't, and never have cared what ones own belief (or disbelief) is,nor do I waste any effort trying to convince anyone otherwise, unless it is asked (or, being debated) And, I don't understand why anyone would. I don't even care if people promote their belief, or disbelief. I normally just tune them out.

However, it is a different matter if people belittle, or disrespect others for their beliefs, or disbeliefs. That does matter to me, and I normally speak up when I see it happening, in either case.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:33 PM

You're my bloody hero, Ed. Off your pedestal, please.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:44 PM

There are a lot of more appropriate and less loaded and derogatory ways to say mistaken beliefs.

There are indeed other ways, but if I'd used them it wouldn't have been relevant to the quote of you I was answering or to the title of the thread. I have never regarded the word as either 'loaded' or necessarily derogatory so I didn't treat it as such. I'm sure Mr. Dawkins chose it with great care.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:44 PM

"There are a lot of more appropriate and less loaded and derogatory ways to say mistaken beliefs.

The choice of the word "delusion" by Dawkins is not accidental."

"The mistaken beliefs about God." Yep, has a real ring to it, Wacko. I suppose you also think that "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" should really have been called " A Few Tunes From The Lads Done With George Martin's Able Assistance."

Actually, I don't think you really understand even the title. Maybe one day you'll read the book. But, of course, you already have.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 08:49 PM

Jack the Sailor -Note I do not take the bait :)

Smokey
Don't misinterpret my last post to say you have belittled or disrespected others...I have not observed you to do so. Just wanted to make that clear.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:01 PM

Good of you to say so, Ed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:06 PM

He don't take the bait. No wonder. That bloody pedestal is so high that even the longest fishing rod can't reach up.

nor do I waste any effort trying to convince anyone otherwise, unless it is asked

I normally just tune them out.

I normally speak up when I see it happening

All in one short post. Pomposity personified!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:27 PM

"Persistency is a fool's best asset"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 09:36 PM

Nah. That would be cloudy thinking, disingenuousness and unfocused accusations. I'd have thought you, of all people, would have known that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 10:54 PM

Smokey,

Give me an example of one person telling another that they are delusional where it is not derogatory?

Surely no one thought that I was saying that Shaw should be locked up for being loony or insane. Yet, in a thread where Christians as a group were being called delusional, a few of you complained that I was going too far.

Yes Dawkins knew what he was doing when he chose that word. He was being deliberately insulting and picking a fight. He was saying that that to be a follower of a theist religion is to be mentally ill and that is as far as I can see is the theme of the book.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:28 PM

A delusion can have a few meanings. For example, it can mean holding a false belief, or refer to a symptom of a mental illness.

Giving Mudcat posters the benefit of the doubt, I suspect the first meaning is intended.I suspect "entertainers" focused on selling books, would want to sensationalize the issue by using this word, to get more attention.

But, it clearly has negative overtones in many English speaking societies today. So,IMO, it would be best to avoid the term, as it can quite easily be seen as an insult.

Why not choose a more accurate word to refer to those suspected (or accused) of holding a false belief, as it can be perceived as an insult?

If one wishes to skirt with a potential insult to others,I suspect they run that risk, as seen here.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 11:42 PM

Jack, with the best will in the world, I have no control whatsoever over what meaning you ascribe to other people's use of words.

To say a particular belief is a delusion is not the same as one person telling another that they are 'delusional'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 12:46 AM

"To say a particular belief is a delusion..."

Not so, as Ed has calmly explained.    As I also noted about 300 posts ago, ""delusion" is a loaded term.    In fact since it entails "false" belief, the speaker is setting himself up as authority on the subject, and denigrating somebody else's belief.   In this case, with no grounds to do so.


Anybody who speaks English should easily be able to recognize this.    I'm sure Mr. Dawkins did--and besides it helps him sell books.

But anybody who did not want to be inflammatory would, as Ed notes, choose a different formulation to describe religious belief.

So the question is whether the speaker wants to be inflammatory or not. And the reader can easily tell the intent of the speaker by the words chosen. As I noted earlier, words mean something.   We're not all Dumptyists.

And that is the origin of the dispute--which of course started with the first post, several eons ago.   You might call it "original sin", but it's possible that term is already spoken for.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 12:51 AM

We're not all Dumptyists.

Aint it the truth..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 12:56 AM

Can you think of a non-inflammatory way of saying religious belief is without foundation? Concise enough for a book title, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 02:57 AM

At least he didn't call it "God's Bollocks".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:30 AM

Isn't it a fantastic claim to say of all the people who lived in the history and believed in a deity that they are and were delusional?

Pedant alert: If they are dead they aren't anything, you have to use the past tense.

And Delusion is Dawkins' word. I said they were wrong. The original question was, they can't all have been wrong, could they, and my answer is sure they could.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:14 AM

>>
Can you think of a non-inflammatory way of saying religious belief is without foundation? Concise enough for a book title, of course. <<

Less inflammatory..
Less insulting..

The God Mistake
The old Paradigm
Belief in God, No longer needed?
Rethinking God.
Questioning the Belief in God
The Origin of the Species?

Note that these are all from a point of view of intellectual debate rather than immediately going to the insults.

My point is that it is a fantastic claim to say that hundreds of millions of people of faith are and were delusional. It is perhaps slightly less fantastic to claim that they are/were mistaken. But nevertheless even that is a a pretty fantastic claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary "evidence" do they not?

And my only reason for bringing this up is that some Atheists (Anti-theists) on this thread seem to have the delusion that the great metaphysical questions of the ages can be boiled down to..

"Write down complete "evidence" here on the Mudcat, that I will accept because I am "rational" and you are not. (Definitions of the words in quotes are subject to review by the questioner.)

As I said before and as Dawkins says, albeit reluctantly, in his book, there is no proof one way or the other.

As I have said before, the benefits of religion which I derive do not accrue without faith, in this case, overt proof would undermine faith.

Religion is a lot more than a big "Monty Python" style God up in the clouds smiting people, it is a profound inner experience. I know this from personal experience. If you think the question hinges on whether this or that miracle happened or exactly what happened before the big bang, then you are really missing out.

Most Japanese will say that they don't believe in a god. Yet they carry on their rituals and continue to refine them. It seems rather mistaken to me to put many hours of study into how to pour tea. But it seems to work for them so I am not going to call them delusional.

I think that calling ordinary people, going about their lives, delusional is bad manners.
I think that saying that calling the child of Muslims a Muslim child or calling the child of Christians and Christian Child is "evil" as Dawkins says in the book in question is rude.

Dawkins may not like how people raise their kids but he has no business telling them how.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:19 AM

>>>Isn't it a fantastic claim to say of all the people who lived in the history and believed in a deity that they are and were delusional?

Pedant alert: If they are dead they aren't anything, you have to use the past tense.<<<

Try reading til the end of the sentence, the second last word is "were."

>>they are and were delusional<<

Those that are alive are delusional (supposedly);
those that are dead were delusional (supposedly).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:33 AM

Rudeness is excusable; toleration of many of these beliefs leads to irreparable harm. Rudeness is not irreparable.

It is *necessary* now to be rude to believers in the many things that really, truly ARE known not to be. I refer of course to evolution-deniers, people who keep their children out of science classes, and people who believe that if they fly planes into these particular buildings they will get more virgins to deflower in heaven.

If more people would point and laugh when these people spout their idiocies, fewer of them (the believers) would be taken seriously.

Dawkins may be rude, but he isn't wrong.

People who believe that the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah/Talmud (I *still* can't tell those 2 apart) is 100% literally true, are. Wrong, that is.

People who simply believe in deity without buying into all the dogma of the major monotheisms are not the problem, here, although they are still irrational. They may be right, they may be wrong, there is no proof either way, indeed.

But there is *no* *rational* reason for their faith. There *are* *rational* reasons to disount the possibility of deity. As in, I have no need of that hypothesis, to quote LaPlace to Napoleon, again.

Which is fine, it's faith, after all. Again, if they were rational, you wouldn't NEED faith for those beliefs.

And raising children right is everybody's responsibility. If I see a parent whacking (not one whack for attention, but really hitting) a child, I say something. It may be rude, but it would be a crime to ignore the abuse, and besides, the parent likely needs some support.

I may say Wow, I remember when I wanted to do that with my kid, or something, but I will not stand by just because speaking up would be Rude. And I always try to get the parent to laugh. In fact, I do that when I see a parent *about to* lose their temper with a kid.

And I chastise children misbehaving in public. If their parent minds, too bad; I'd rather be thought Rude than allow my child to be mishandled.

I particularly enjoy letting children know that there are people who don't believe in their parents' deity. Many here in the US haven't even heard of the possiblity of nondesim.

He he he.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:53 AM

>>toleration of many of these beliefs leads to irreparable harm.<<

Mrrzy,

That's as far as I am willing to read. Toleration of religious belief is one of the great foundations of this country. Intolerance of the beliefs of others is the major motivations of pretty much every major crime committed in the name of religion.

If you think intolerance with avert major harm, you will have to do it outside the laws of this country. Also keep in mind that the people whose views you are planning not to tolerate are much better at dealing with the intolerance game than you. Most have played it from both sides. I am certain that we need more tolerance. not less.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 01:17 PM

"But there is *no* *rational* reason for their faith"

Of course there is a "rational reason" for beliefs that are mostly passed down from parents. For example, there are many many traditions and cultural beliefs that are passed down from generation to generation. Would one say that these are not rational? Of course not!

Asians use chop sticks, because their parents did. That's the rational reason they do it. I this use more "rational" than using forks and knives to eat? I suspect not.

Claiming that there is no "rational reason" to believe in something is a much different case than claiming that there is little evidence to support the belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 01:43 PM

Somedthing here for all to consider:

Logical Rudeness versus logical etiquette

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 02:09 PM

Very interesting. Thank you. Ed T.

I think that "Logical Rudeness" is what brought me into this conversation in the first place. "The God Delusion" as a title pre-insulating Dawkins from criticism and seeing comments in the threads such as "Your God didn't teach you how to spell."

I didn't have a name for what was angering me before I read your link. Now I do.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 02:20 PM

I find it amusing that a chap who worries about a word in the title of a book being "derogatory" can also refer to someone who disagrees with him thus:

"an anti-theist as nasty as you"

"I'll not be wasting any more time reading your nonsense."

"I will not feed your apparent addiction to bulling [sic] behaviour"

"I am so proud to share a forum with the self-appointed pope of the Atheist Church."

"You really are loony"

"If you care about him, get him some help."

"Before you defend the sanity of his behavior read what he has said."

"He is acting crazy and I am saying so. That is not childish. It is the truth. I seriously hope that he goes and gets himself some counseling."

"Isn't that loony on the face of it?"

"But please note that he plans to bait insult and rant until you tell him to shut up."

"You see? I told you he was insane."

"His behavior is classic insane definition #3…"

"Steve is a troll. A troll who seems to limit his trolling to a specific topic but a troll nevertheless."

"you have allied yourself here with someone who is clearly only here to mock and who travels the Internet to mock as a bit of a hobby"

"What you have been saying seems like a cry for help. Or maybe like a young male trying to get the attention of a young woman by dipping her pigtails in an inkwell."

"You are not an atheist. You are a loon."

"Shaw,
You need counseling. You really do. There are plenty of places to get it besides church. Go get some."

"Smarty Shaw"


As for this gem from Jacko:

"Yes Dawkins knew what he was doing when he chose that word. He was being deliberately insulting and picking a fight. He was saying that that to be a follower of a theist religion is to be mentally ill and that is as far as I can see is the theme of the book."

I have the book and that is not in the remotest sense the "theme" of it. You should also know, Jacko, that "delusion" does not refer to mental illness unless it refers to a specific person in a specific medical context. It is perfectly clear, though it may not suit you, that its use in the title of the book has nothing to do with mental illness. I suggest you get a copy and try reading it. Nowhere in The God Delusion does Dawkins accuse believers of being mentally ill.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 02:31 PM

Of course I did make some frank points to Shaw in an effort to shine a light on his logical rudeness.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 02:35 PM

"The God Delusion" as a title pre-insulating Dawkins from criticism

And the translator's note is...?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 03:40 PM

Ha. You call that tirade "shining a light?" Lovely bit of self-justification there, Jacko! Tee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 03:46 PM

As you may have gathered, he is not one to take a hint or to cheerfully swallow his own medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 04:54 PM

Of course there is a "rational reason" for beliefs that are mostly passed down from parents. For example, there are many many traditions and cultural beliefs that are passed down from generation to generation. Would one say that these are not rational? Of course not!
Just watch me. Belief in the teachings of authority is not data-based, and thus is not rational in the narrow sense that I mean, as in, a logical conclusion based on data. Very little about manners is rational, not the hand you hold the fork in, nor the choice of using chopsticks. It's just manners.

... Toleration of religious belief is one of the great foundations of this country. Intolerance of the beliefs of others is the major motivations of pretty much every major crime committed in the name of religion. Exactly. Intolerance of others' beliefs ities is the problem. But nobody is killing atheists for not believing in any deity; instead, believers of one are slaughtering believers in another, wholesale. Time to stop putting up with that nonsense as "freedom of religion." Where is freedom FROM religion?

If you think intolerance with [I assume the poster meant "will"] avert major harm, you will have to do it outside the laws of this country. Nonsense. There is no law against laughing and pointing when someone says something ridiculous. Only the *government* is supposed to stay out of people's religions, not the other people.

Also keep in mind that the people whose views you are planning not to tolerate are much better at dealing with the intolerance game than you. Most have played it from both sides. I am certain that we need more tolerance. not less. Well, I guess nobody *you* know was actually slaughtered by the above-mentioned religious people whom you think should be tolerated. Don't you know any jews?

If we *all* start the point-and-laugh thing with all silly beliefs (again, NOT just faith in deity, but denial of evolution, belief that women should be sewn shut till marriage, etc etc etc) then we will all be better off, and they will be better educated.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 04:58 PM

>>Nonsense. There is no law against laughing and pointing<<

You think laughing and pointing helps while claiming to be the "rational" one, enough said.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 05:36 PM

Oh, buggers, the bold was supposed to stop after that one word. So much for my html proofreading...

And I've tried reasoning with the unreasonable, it doesn't work, so pointing and laughing actually is a thought-out logical next step.

What would YOU do to stop the silliness that kills people?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 05:49 PM

Mrrzy, From what I can gather, from what you have said, I am one of the people you call silly people but I don't think that my beliefs are doing any harm.

I thought Bush was one of the dangerous religious people. I campaigned and supported Obama who I think is one of the NOT-dangerous religious people. I think that the right wing in Israel are dangerous religious people. I have written to politicians asking that my tax dollars not support them.

I support teaching Evolution in science class and religion class.

There are other things, but I do what I can when I can. I don't oppose anyone having any particular belief. I oppose them forcing their beliefs on others.

Smokey's point about the Sunday closings is interesting. I agree that anyone should have ability right to do what they want on Sunday, including work and shop, especially the Jews, Atheists and Seventh Day Adventists, but if a community decides they want everybody to have a single day of rest during the week, if the majority wants it, it is hard to argue with that.

I think that tolerance is important and that laws and rights should be enforced equally for all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 06:16 PM

"Just watch me. Belief in the teachings of authority is not data-based, and thus is not rational in the narrow sense that I mean, as in, a logical conclusion based on data. Very little about manners is rational, not the hand you hold the fork in, nor the choice of using chopsticks. It's just manners"

My only response to that one is HUH?

I suspect we are on a parallel discussion on that topic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 06:52 PM

mirrzy-i hope no one falls for your tactics,equating creationists with suicide pilots etc.
seems like your other line of attack,continuing on this thread is assertion.no other attempt as far as i can see to present logical argument for evolution.
while on the subject can you present any benefit accruing from evolutionism.as far as i can see it has been a green light for untold atrocities.the jews among others were victims of the evolution embracing nazi.
still waiting for answer to previous post-but then no one will blame you intelligent materialists for ignoring a fundamental believers point,will they?!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 07:16 PM

as far as i can see it has been a green light for untold atrocities.the jews among others were victims of the evolution embracing nazi.

Pete, are you saying 'evolutionism' had a hand in the holocaust? If you are, I'm obliged to express my utter disgust, and request that you take your offensive drivel elsewhere. If that theory is seriously being touted by creationists as an argument against evolution, then it's time you were stopped. I don't care how intolerant that might sound, the world would be a better place without such poisonous filth.

If I have misunderstood you about that, then I offer my sincerest apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 07:21 PM

Smokey, I congratulate you for having read that far without punctuation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 08:51 PM

Chaps and chapesses, I remind you that Pete has not read anything about evolution. He doesn't know what the term means. Smokey, you are one hundred percent right to condemn this ignorant man for that disgraceful post. Evolution theory was deliberately misinterpreted and usurped by the Nazis in their persecution of the Jews. To blame Darwin, or the theory itself, for the harm that the misinterpretation caused is just wicked. Hitler also used the Ode To Joy theme from Beethoven's ninth at various times during his regime, but we don't blame Beethoven for Hitler, do we? Pete, evaporate please.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 08:56 PM

"As you may have gathered, he is not one to take a hint or to cheerfully swallow his own medicine."

You didn't make a hint. You're not anywhere near subtle enough to do a subtle thing like making a hint in any case.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 09:40 PM

we don't blame Beethoven for Hitler, do we?

We'd better not, not unless we want to see Smokey really go berserk :-)

Seriously though, these people are stuffing their children with that sort of shit - it's abuse, pure and simple. To use an event like the holocaust to further their agenda like that is beneath contempt. I can dismiss the odd 'caused by atheism' claim as relatively harmless twattery, but not this. This is dangerous, and it's the same sort of unreasonable twisting of reality that actually did play a part in it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 09:56 PM

On a totally unrelated note. I think some "Christians", On-line ones anyway, believe that the best Christians are persecuted so they make outrageous statements to bring ridicule on themselves.

I believe that if one were to encounter such a Christian, the best approach would be not to feed their complex. The worst situation of course being the confrontation and a sarcastic, bullying anti-theist. There is a creepy psycho-sexual vibe to such encounters.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:04 PM

I believe that if one were to encounter such a Christian, the best approach would be not to feed their complex.

Interesting observation and fair comment, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:06 PM

"...these people...".    And who are "these people", pray tell?.   I'll tell you, virtually every non-atheist--Christian or agnostic on Mudcat--and huge numbers outside Mudcat--who reads that crackpot theory of a connection between evolution theory and the Holocaust--will see it for the dangerous tripe it is.   No educated person will make any link between the Holocaust and Darwin.

The fact remains that one of evolution's bastard children, eugenics, was used for revolting purposes--and not just by Hitler in Germany.

That is, evolution was abused, not used.   Interesting that the idea causes such outrage in some of our stalwart atheists. Who are only too willing to see any abuse of Christianity, for instance, as an unavoidable and integral part of religion.   An attitude-- fondly held by some of our cherished atheist Mudcatters-- which is just as much dangerous tripe as the Darwin-Holocaust theory.

Not that the dear atheists in question can ever be expected to see this--much less admit it.

But maybe it will do you good to have the shoe on the other foot for once.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:24 PM

And after all, the link between Hitler and atheism is far stronger than the absurd theory just discussed.

After all, as I noted earlier, the 3rd Reich made every attempt to supersede religion--- to substitute Nazi "saints" for Catholic saints, Nazi leaders for Protestant leaders, and Hitler for God--especially when dealing with the young.

And of course Stalin and Mao sought, in theory, to fashion utopian societies free from the curse of religion.

For all three, the ideal was a religion-free state.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:39 PM

I don't think Hitler was atheist

On the surface at least, he sucked up to the Church. There seems to be little evidence that he used atheism as a weapon of influence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 10:59 PM

None of them actually committed their various atrocities in the name of atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:26 PM

"one of evolution's bastard children, eugenics"

Selective breeding was used with plants and livestock way before evolutionary theory was thought of.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:28 PM

'"in the name of atheism".   Wonderful sophism.   Are you by some chance a lawyer?   Try again.

No, just in the name of a religion-free ----i.e.--atheist--state.


And anybody who thinks Wiki is the last word on this needs to read a bit more--to say the least.

If you don't think Hitler and the Nazis launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken Christianity--and gave short shrift to any who opposed them-- you need to read at least one book on the period--sounds like you have never read one.

Have you never heard of the Nietzschean-- (that's right, the 'God is Dead' man) -- superman? If you don't think the Nazi ideology was a secular one which deified race over creed, your education is lacking. But that of course never stops Mudcatters, it seems.


Still waiting for the name of any atheist state which has been successful and treated its people well.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:33 PM

"selective breeding". So you see no connection between evolution theory and eugenics? Many people writing at the time disagree with you--they found a strong connection. No surprise you want to deny it,

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:47 PM

Ron's on his hobby horse again. Ride away now, you're boring. We've all heard what you have to say about 90 times now.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 11:53 PM

Change the record, Ron..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 12:14 AM

"'in the name of atheism'.   Wonderful sophism.   Are you by some chance a lawyer?"

Not a phrase you'd ever use then, Ron?

"By the way, people don't have to be tortured on killed in the name of atheism in order for their deaths to be chalked up to atheism."

Er no.. obviously not..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 12:29 AM

Mom's family was wiped out for being jews *based on christian dogma* and not in some idealistic vacuum, sorry. Much as you'd like to believe that Hitler wasn't christian, he was. Yes, he tried to appeal to all; much of his rhetoric lacks direct reference to deity. But he was still christian, not atheist.

And no, you can't equate people being killed ONLY for their belief in a different deity with people being killed for behaving against "the state" just because that state is atheist. It *does* matter whether you're killed in the name of atheism or not. Otherwise you have to add all non-deity motivated crime to atheism. Son of Sam on one side, Ted Bundy on the other. Not fair at all.

And it occurred to me later that it IS rational to point and laugh at grownups who spout fairy tales as if they were history or biology. Maybe not polite, but rational.

Well, certainly not polite. Grant you that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 02:46 AM

Was that WW2 Mrrzy? I'm so sorry.
Excellent post.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 07:03 AM

The Nazis did that thing with evolution theory that lots of other ignorant people do - they applied it, improperly, to fields of human discourse way beyond what Darwin applied it to. Natural selection operates within species, not between species. It doesn't operate in the market place or commerce for example, "survival of the fittest companies in this dog-eat-dog world." Acceptance of this woolly thinking helped to allow the Nazis to make their obscene justification for the Holocaust. It also allows ignorant people like Pete, who admits to not even have read Darwin, to make vile assertions such as "as far as i can see it has been a green light for untold atrocities.the jews among others were victims of the evolution embracing nazi." It wasn't evolution the Nazis embraced, not by a long chalk, but a deliberate perversion of it. It is also a lie that eugenics is the "bastard son of evolution." That is a quite unjustified slur on the theory. It implies that Darwinism is capable of spawning that horrid perversion. It is inherently not capable of that. It is only possible in the minds of people who want to pervert the theory and turn it on its head.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 07:24 AM

Who are only too willing to see any abuse of Christianity, for instance, as an unavoidable and integral part of religion.   An attitude-- fondly held by some of our cherished atheist Mudcatters-- which is just as much dangerous tripe as the Darwin-Holocaust theory.

Not that the dear atheists in question can ever be expected to see this--much less admit it.

The Darwin-Holcaust connection is made by people who misinterpret, either deliberately or ignorantly, Darwinism. Criticism of religion on the grounds that it is based on a delusion misinterprets nothing. You are making links where no links exist. Critics of religion challenge believers to show that they are rational. To demonstrate that we who believe that the delusion is there are wrong. That requires evidence for the existence of God. I can't see how asking perfectly proper questions like that is "dangerous." Irritating, annoying, uncomfortable, challenging, inflammatory to people with closed minds, etc., but "dangerous?" Maybe you don't think we should be asking questions at all. And it would serve your argument better if you were to avoid the pejorative "abuse" when you mean criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 07:30 AM

"to not even have read Darwin"

eek. "to not even having read Darwin"

And I can spell Holocaust too.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 07:37 AM

The worst situation of course being the confrontation and a sarcastic, bullying anti-theist. There is a creepy psycho-sexual vibe to such encounters.

So now we're sexual deviants as well! Nice one, Jacko. Don't forget to accuse us of eating babies while you're at it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 08:22 AM

It is not reasonable to say that people are more likely to commit a crime because they are Atheists nor followers of a God. If one looks at the dogma behind most beliefs, IMO, they stand more for good than bad.

However, there are many examples of peoples in history having done very bad things in history while claiming to represent an organized religion with a belief in a God (for example, crusades). Humans can (and do) take innocent writings and interpret them to suite their cause, good or bad. I also suspect there are people who had no beliefs in a God who did bad things.

But, does that logically prove that a personal belief in a God, or a non-belief is good or bad, or makes a good or bad person? Not to me. I submit there is no logical case to prove it true in either case.

People just do-good things and bad things, some happen to have a belief or a non-belief in a God. There are bad and good people in both camps, and I suspect they would be the same, even if they change sides (if I can call it that).

I am not a follower of any organized religion, because I see no need to do so. I have seen many do well and do bad. I have not determined whether there has been more good than bad. But, I suspect it would be pointless to engage in an undertaking to try and tally it up.

I do not see the point in the current attempt to tie really bad things to a belief, or non-belief.

IMO, it is a no win discussion, that will only piss off people and contribute to rude comments.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 08:52 AM

as to whether darwins theory could logically lead to eugenics as practised by the nazis i am not qualified to say.i did say it gave them the green light to do so.i am quite confidant that darwin never intended any such thing.but dont you get upset when your devotions are even hinted at as even indirectly accountable for attrocities?!.
yet when it comes to my God,disrespect[to put it mildly]is fair game!
i notice you claim that the nazis misused the theory, yet are not ,im sure using that same principle when attacking religion for its crimes,the scriptures in those cases being misused for evil purposes.hitler was certainly not a christian.nominal affiliation at best.i think ron has explained that very well and hope he continues on the same old "record" till he gets his question answered.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 12:16 PM

Yeah, long before I was born.

On the other hand, my dad was killed by islamic fundamentalist terrorists between the end of college classes and my graduation ceremony. I remember that.

And that was back in the early 80's, in the first embassy carbombing ever. You'd think with all the others, and the blown-up planes and assassinated university presidents and all that we would have learned something by now.

Sadly, even 9-11 didn't teach us anything, apparently. We, in this case, being the Americans as represented by our elected government.

Sigh.

But thank you. It was late Friday night...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 01:13 PM

I am very sorry for your loss Mrrzy.
Your point of view has become much clearer.

If it is any consolation, I know some Muslims who are against fundamentalist terrorists, just as you are.

I know of Muslims who were killed for their version of Islam.

I know of Muslims who were killed for oil.

Dr Robert A. Pape has some interesting things to say about the roots of suicide bombings. That they are not religious by nature.

Here is a clip from his Wiki page.

Pape's Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005) contradicts many widely held beliefs about suicide terrorism. Based on an analysis of every known case of suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2005 (315 attacks as part of 18 campaigns), he concludes that there is "little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions... . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland" (p. 4). "The taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism," he argues; it is "an extreme strategy for national liberation" (pp. 79–80). Pape's work examines groups as diverse as the Basque ETA to the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers. Pape also notably provides further evidence to a growing body of literature that finds that the majority of suicide terrorists do not come from impoverished or uneducated background, but rather have middle class origins and a significant level of education.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 01:44 PM

Mrrzy - I'm surprised you can even bear to read some of the stuff that's being spouted here. It must be painful, and you have my admiration for even bothering to contribute. I hope my own rantings have not offended you in any way.

Steve - thanks for the Darwin information, I'm ashamed to say I haven't actually read it either, only read about it. Maybe now I will..

Pete, Ron - I now realise I was wrong to dignify your posts with a response. Please, please take your poison elsewhere, preferably dark and quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 01:53 PM

Nothing said here has offended me. Some has surprised me, some has disappointed me, much has made me laugh.

Your last point is why I'm not bothering with the counter-thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 02:01 PM

Ah yes.. just seen the other thread.

'Get thee behind me, Santa.'

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 02:05 PM

Here are some direct quotes from Hitler's speeches (translated into English), containing his reaction to atheism:


Hitler often associated atheism with Germany's communist enemy. Hitler stated in a speech to the Stuttgart February 15, 1933:

"Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany's fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."

In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated:

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

In a radio address October 14, 1933 Hitler stated

"For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion. We owe Providence humble gratitude for not allowing us to lose our battle against the misery of unemployment and for the salvation of the German peasant."

In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler states:

"There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."

During negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of April 26, 1933 Hitler argued that

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."

*****

I have posted the above not as a comment for or against either religion or atheism, but strictly for the benefit of Ron Davies. ;-)

I might also mention that every soldier in the German Army wore a belt buckle with a slogan inscribed upon it. The slogan was "Gott Mitt Uns". It means "God is with us". Germany was a consciously Christian nation during the Nazi era, while simultaneously turning its leader into a virtual demigod and its ruling political party into a virtual church, and while also kindling a sort of strange mystical revival of the Nordic god traditions, AND while worshipping philosophies of the Superman as expounded by Nietsche, AND while worshipping what they called the "Aryan race", AND while promoting Catholicism in the conquered areas of the Reich. Hitler proudly imagined that he was defending Christendom against "godless" Communism.

YES.   People are entirely capable of simultaneously worshipping many different "gods" and even many different gods which in some regards contradict one another. They do it just by focusing on whichever one they want to at the moment and not thinking about the inconsistencies. That even happens within an organized religion like Christianity, which is itself rife with inconsistencies and has, like the Nazis, sometimes committed great crimes against humanity.

It is asinine to assert that the Nazis were an atheistic movement just because you don't like the Nazis. They were a movement full of unconscious hypocrisy, that's all, and such movements are really very common, but they're not always quite that dangerous. They took naturally to religious mysticism of many sorts, and they made much use of their alliance with the Catholic church and the public's fear of atheism, as espoused by Stalinist Russia at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 02:23 PM

"YES.   People are entirely capable of simultaneously worshipping many different "gods" and even many different gods which in some regards contradict one another. They do it just by focusing on whichever one they want to at the moment and not thinking about the inconsistencies. That even happens within an organized religion like Christianity, which is itself rife with inconsistencies and has, like the Nazis, sometimes committed great crimes against humanity".

Let's take reference to God an put in government in it's place (as I have done below) to see if the conclusion drawn holds true. IMO, they seem much the same.
Could it be that humans use organizations to do wrong? I submit that a belief in a God, nor a non belief, on their own, have little to do with the crimes against humanity?


YES.   People are entirely capable of simultaneously worshipping "many different forms of government" and even many different "forms of government" which in some regards contradict one another. They do it just by focusing on whichever one they want to at the moment and not thinking about the inconsistencies. That even happens within "an organized government, like democracy", which is itself rife with inconsistencies and has, like the Nazis, sometimes committed great crimes against humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 04:46 PM

If it is any consolation, I know some Muslims who are against fundamentalist terrorists, just as you are.

I have news for you. Muslims are very peace-loving people. Almost every Muslim on the planet is against fundamentalist terrorists, not just "some." You only have to look at the Middle East. The belligerence there comes almost entirely from Israel and the west. Iran is one of the most demonised nations on Earth. Tell me when Iran last mounted an invasion against its neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 05:10 PM

Shaw, Shaw, Shaw... Oh P-Shaw...

I know all of that about Muslims. But I was talking about the Muslims that I know, and then only the ones who have shared their opinion on that issue.

That's why I said "some."

Does your lack of logic know no bounds?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 05:19 PM

Quite, Jacko, but your clumsily-worded post suggested otherwise. And what has logic got to do with struggling to understand exceptionally-poor wording?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 05:31 PM

The wording is plain enough.

I am not qualified to speak for all Muslims. It is puzzling that you are considering you are arguing that they are delusional in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 05:38 PM

I took the main argument to be that it was belief in God, and not 'they', which is/who are delusional. I still think there is a distinction between the two. One delusional belief doesn't mean someone is completely delusional or certifiable. Or as Shakespear put it, "One pork pie doth not a picnic make."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 06:08 PM

Come on Smokey....
Who is kidding who here?

One who harbors a delusion as the center of one's life is not delusional?

Particularly, one who prays to a delusion five times a day is not delusional?

Five pork pies a day, or in this example, five Hal al meat pies a day is plenty for a picnic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 06:21 PM

Who is kidding whom, indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 06:21 PM

All I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily mean they are delusional about everything else. That's only my take on it - I can't speak for anyone else, but that is my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM

In my opinion, if you say someone's core belief is a delusion, you are saying that they are delusional. That's my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 06:44 PM

Not if I say it. Maybe if you say it that is what you mean, but it isn't necessarily what I would mean. I don't think it's generally fair to judge someone on just one aspect of their existence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 07:12 PM

You made an excellent point about the contradictions inherent in "democracy" (or any other governmental form) as well as in "religion", Ed! People are masters at fooling themselves, and most of them can engage in contradictory thinking and behaviour without a moment's hesitation. They never seem to see it in themselves, though, only in their "enemies".

That is mainly because most people's attention is directed outward at other people and the world, rather than inward. They live the unexamined life. It's interesting that the greatest spiritual figures like Jesus, Buddha, Lao-Tse, or Krishna all advised people to look within themselves to become enlightened! Dispassionate self-criticism and honest self-observation will get any person a hundred times farther down the road to maturity and compassion than doing what most people do instead, which is: they criticize and observe everthing outside themselves. By so doing, they never know themselves, and they stay largely ignorant and reactive. They do not question their own bad behaviour. This is also generally true of political systems which reflect the reactive state of mind of most of their citizenry. I think the human race is in a condition at this point in history which could be described as "late adolescence". We haven't grown up yet, but we've developed terrible weapons. That's a dangerous combination.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 08:34 PM

In my opinion, if you say someone's core belief is a delusion, you are saying that they are delusional. That's my opinion.

No, no, a thousand times no, Jacko. You want to take this position because it paints atheists as saying that anyone who believes in God is a deluded person. Mentally ill even, I think you were saying on that other thread. Nice Aunt Sally, but utterly transparent coming from you. Our slings and arrows, unfortunately for your analysis, are not aimed at individual people (though there are some who argue the fat for belief with blinkers fully on, and they may well qualify as delusional). The delusion in question is the one propagated by organised religion. It refers to that whole world of faith constructed round false dogma and "theology," all that tradition and mythology, all that stuff about witness and visions and miracles and answered prayers, etc. That's the mass of stuff that is propagated with the deliberate intention of controlling people, in other words to delude them into shape. Millions of perfectly good people have been hoodwinked thus, just as millions of people were hoodwinked into supporting Mao and Hitler. Think about that for a minute. You hoodwink people by giving them persuasive, superficially-attractive "facts" (actually stories, myths, tradition and fanciful accounts of visions and other such non-evidence), but you deny them truth. That is exactly what religion does. It's actually the biggest lie in history, and it dresses itself up in myriad other lies (aka doctrine, theology, scripture, catechisms etc.) in order to perpetuate itself. You can't blame people for falling for this, especially as the vast majority of them have been firmly told what to believe, as little children, by their parents, schools and clergy. The delusion lies in the whole setup of religion, not with individual people. Try to grasp this once and for all, Jacko, before one of us actually dies.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 08:47 PM

Don't go worrying about death Steve - remember, Schrödinger's cat proves we are all going to be reincarnated.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 08:57 PM

Fair enough, but don't even begin to think that I'll consent to coming back as a slug.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 09:23 PM

Hmm.. tricky one.. Possibly Katherine Parkinson's dog...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:17 AM

"The delusion lies in the whole setup of religion, not with individual people. Try to grasp this once and for all"

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:35 AM

>>>I don't think it's generally fair to judge someone on just one aspect of their existence. <<<

Smokey,

That is hokem, plain and simple. You pray every day, you get on your knees, You say grace, You say "God Bless." You read the bible. All for a delusion but you are not delusional?

I have you say you have a unique and very compartmented way of seeing things.

>>You want to take this position because it paints atheists as saying that anyone who believes in God is a deluded person.<<<

Yes! Steveo! Yes! I believe that is what Dawkins is saying in his book. I believe that he would like to Christain and Muslim and Jewish kids taken away from their parents if the parents insist on raising their kids in that faith. He thinks it is child abuse to pass on the delusion. I think that he thinks you can learn a mental illness in Sunday school. Frankly Steveo, from some of the things you have said, I don't think you and he a far apart.

And you may think that Atheism is a small part of your life, and it may be, but it is not that way for a believer.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:47 AM

I'm not sure I understand why you would want me to believe you had a mental condition. Indeed, if you had, I wouldn't hold it against you - it's nothing to be ashamed of.

I have you say you have a unique and very compartmented way of seeing things.

Thank you Jack, I try to.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:49 AM

Steve, don't worry about coming back as a slug. You've already moved to a considerably more complex level than that, me lad! ;-) No sense reverting back to one's very early origions, is there?

You see, Darwin's theory proposes physical evolution...which seems self-evident to me. The theory of reincarnation proposes spiritual evolution. As far as I'm concerned, the two would go hand in hand and are twin reflections of the same process, simply manifesting at different levels, so to speak, but definitely interconnected.

I do not regard a belief in evolution as being antithetical to religion...only to very primitive forms of fundamentalist religion. All the religions of the East have evolution bound up inherently in their whole concept of spirituality.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:55 AM

Actually, I say "God bless' quite a lot and I'm sure there are believers who've read the Bible less than I have..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:06 AM

>>>Actually, I say "God bless' quite a lot and I'm sure there are believers who've read the Bible less than I have.<<

Ah...

So I take it you don't mean it?

You are telling me that you tell people that you want God to bless them but that you do not believe in God?

That is pretty compartmentalized. A little disappointing too if I may be frank.

I am at a loss for words.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:21 AM

So I take it you don't mean it?

Not literally, no. 'Quite a lot' is stretching it a bit, come to think, but sometimes it seems appropriate.

You are telling me that you tell people that you want God to bless them but that you do not believe in God?

I don't, but the sweet little old lady giving me a cup of tea probably does.

Though you might call it cynical manipulative deception. Go on, if it makes you feel better :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:17 AM

Hypocrite, perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 09:17 AM

You pray every day, you get on your knees, You say grace, You say "God Bless." You read the bible. All for a delusion but you are not delusional?

I have you say you have a unique and very compartmented way of seeing things.

Ha. I know lots of Christians who go to Sunday mass and come out and act very unchristianly for the rest of the week. General Franco, that paragon of democracy, virtue and fair play, was a daily communicant. There are plenty of avid Church-going Christians ripping people off in the City and in politics (plenty of non-Christians and atheists too, of course). Nah. Compartmentalising is not unique. It's actually par for the course for many fervent believers the world over in case you haven't noticed.   

Yes! Steveo! Yes! I believe that is what Dawkins is saying in his book. I believe that he would like to Christain and Muslim and Jewish kids taken away from their parents if the parents insist on raising their kids in that faith. He thinks it is child abuse to pass on the delusion. I think that he thinks you can learn a mental illness in Sunday school. Frankly Steveo, from some of the things you have said, I don't think you and he a far apart.

Thanks for the compliment. Those things are not in my copy of The God Delusion. Can you give me the page numbers? Certainly Christopher Hitchens has asked the question as to whether religious indoctrination is child abuse. My view is that that is the wrong way to put it. Child abuse has accreted very negative connotations of physical and sexual miususe of children and you don't win arguments by insinuating that parents forcing religion on their kids are in that league. I do think it's wrong, however. As I've said.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 09:27 AM

You seem like an honest, creative person, with an impressive vocabulary surely you could find another way to be nice to little old ladies without feeding their (non-medical) delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 10:37 AM

I avoid using the word bless. For sneezes there is gesundheit, which means health, ie a wish that you aren't becoming ill.

I also try to avoid using "god" (or any variations like jeez louise) "damn" "heaven" and "hell" in my swearing, which reduces me to "shit" "fuck" and "very" - practically paralyzing.


We need better swear words that don't perpetuate the myth.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:00 AM

"I'm probably more famous for sitting on the toilet than for anything else that I do".

Frank Zappa July 1, 1983: Interview on Nationwide (YouTube)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:13 AM

>>I also try to avoid using "god" (or any variations like jeez louise) "damn" "heaven" and "hell" in my swearing, which reduces me to "shit" "fuck" and "very" - practically paralyzing.<<

Larry Niven had his characters use TANJ

There
Ain't
No
Justice

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:14 AM

"I also try to avoid using "god" (or any variations like jeez louise) "damn" "heaven" and "hell" in my swearing, which reduces me to "shit" "fuck" and "very" - practically paralyzing."

I'm sure you don't say 'goodbye' then, Mrrzy. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:19 AM

I think "Goodbye" is OK, it is a long way from its roots.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:35 AM

Jack, I'd not really thought about it until now - most of the time I'm not even conscious of the beliefs of the individuals I interact with in the real world. However, I don't see it as 'feeding their delusion' so much as 'not shattering their illusion'.

I know a few people socially who are 'believers' but the subject seldom arises in conversation. Dedicated threads like these are not, in my experience, representative of interaction in the real world. I think I mostly agree with Steve on the bigger issues, particularly education, but socially it just isn't an issue unless people start preaching, in which case my reaction can vary according to the situation. In real life I would, however, normally rather avoid 'preachers' of either persuasion. Good manners cost nowt, as we say round here.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:40 AM

And one can hardly say "shit", "fuck", or "goodbye" to a cup of tea from a sweet little old lady :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:45 AM

How about "thank you. This is lovely tea?"

I don't think it is honest to give her the illusion that you are Christian. Maybe better to stick to the subject at hand.

Words have meaning and they to tend to reinforce ore corrode beliefs. That is why Dawkins wants you tho think of my beliefs as delusion.

On the other hand, if you want religion out of the schools, you can start by removing it from your every day life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:49 AM

It doesn't make any difference what words people use unless you develop an obsessive reaction to it due to some kind of chip on your shoulder, in which case it's not their problem, it's yours.

Everyone means different stuff anyway when they say something like "Oh, my God!" or "Omigod!". One person may be consciously invoking a deity, another may be invoking nothing but a sense of surprise, astonishment, chagrin, pleasure or elation...and you can figure that out easily by their tone of voice and their expression and the general situation, NOT by the specific words they use.

It doesn't matter if they use the word "god" or not, it doesn't hurt you if they do, it's not your business to correct them, and you don't necessarily know why they're doing it anyway. Why not just mind your own damn business for a change, and let other people use expressions that they are comfortable with?

You're not in this world to control and manage everyone else and make them be like you. You're in this world to control and manage yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:00 PM

And I don't think we're in this world to be controlled and managed by religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:29 PM

Smokey, I'm sorry you had to accuse Pete of posting poison. I know him, and though I totally disagree with his angle on evolution, I know he is totally lacking venom. He's a thoroughly decent guy, doing good in his life, influenced by the group he worships with to think that those of us who read and study widely, and so reject the conclusions of those he accepts, have been brainwashed, but incapable of being nasty about it.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:33 PM

We're not in this world to be controlled and managed by anyone but ourselves, Steve. That is my point. I don't follow religions, I study and apply spirituality, and spirituality is a self-governing pursuit.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:34 PM

Another Frank Zappa: (could be seen as relating to Mudcat):

A wise man once said, "never discuss philosophy or politics in a disco environment."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM

Ed - BINGO! ;-) Pearls before swine, and all that....

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:06 PM

I am for tolerance of beliefs and punishment for those who break the law.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:15 PM

Dawkins has maintained that there are no Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim etc. children and they should not be force fed religion by their parents but allowed to make up their own minds. Force feeding religion Dawkins has said is a kind of "child abuse".

I avoid all references to religion in conversations. I have changed "omigod" to "omidog".
"Goodbye" is apparently a contraction of "god be with ye" which has been assimilated into the language to the extent that it is used without thought. I usually say "bye bye".

I like to reframe language whenever I can.

Still, I reiterate that if people want to believe in Santa Claus or in a Flat Earth Society,
that's their choice as long as I don't have to.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:28 PM

There are no Republican, Democratic or Communist children either. There are no "white" or "black" or "yellow" children. There are no Canadian, American, Chinese, or Trinidadian children....just children, period. They all start out unbiased by cultural labels.

So why is Dawkins not all worked up about all the other common forms of arbitrary identity that are "forced" upon (planted in) children, usually unwittingly, by their parents? Why does only religious programming concern him? Do I see a gigantic chip resting on Mr Dawkin's shoulder...or is that just a very large parrot or a huge piece of birdshit? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:40 PM

"Well you say that it's gospel,
But I know that it's only church."
— Tom Waits

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM

Sorry - there *are* black, white, and mixed-race children. There are also American and Chinese children. You don't get to teach children their nationality or race, only their creed (well, the parents' creed). That is why Squawkins is so up in arms about that one.

If you want to pretend that your child doesn't belong to your racial family, you're welcome to do it, but rational people will likely not join you in that particular delusion.

Right, smokey, that's why I use "very" (or, in your example, thanks).

My swearing has been pertty much eliminated; if I do use "blasphemy" (god, damn,etc) then my kids KNOW I'm royally pissed off and haven't the time to search for a better expostulation.

Punishment for those who break the law is less desirable to me than enforcing reparation to the victims. Punishing the wrong-doers without making reparation smacks of "eye for an eye" which is more judeochrislamic than anything else.

Goodbye is OK since I do want them to have a good departure, or bye.

I am also willing to say For pete's sake, since I believe in peters (small p!), and don't really care about the history of which Peter was originally intended.

But I usually say My word!

I am also willing to say Man oh man, since I believe in men, although that one is sexist and bugs me slightly.

And I use "bloody" a lot, since I also believe in blood. Earlier references to whose blood don't worry me.

But avoiding god, damn, heaven and hell avoids perpetuating the myth that there are real deity and afterlives, and that you can get deity to send people to the "bad" afterlife.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:13 PM

>>Punishing the wrong-doers without making reparation smacks of "eye for an eye" which is more judeochrislamic than anything else.<<

Hmmm I am not suggesting for example that rapists should be raped or indeed that reparation is even possible for that crime and many others.

Who do you make reparations to for a crime where no one is hurt?

I'm saying that a person's beliefs and how they raise their children as long as it is legal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:33 PM

Mrzzy, children don't know that they are White, Black, Asian, American, British, Somali, or anything else like that until older people tell them that they are! That's when the programming begins. And that was my point.

Everything you model to your children in terms of cultural behaviour and belief is shaping whom they will become, and there's no way of getting around that. Race doesn't matter. It's an arbitrary idea, because we are all human. Children know that at a very early age, because they're still innocent, but the adults soon pass on their race consciousness to the children, and that's where the trouble starts.

You seem to want to continue believing in every form of human brainwashing except religion, it seems to me, and so you are carrying that giant parrot of prejudice on your shoulder too, just like Dawkins is. Religion is the monster that haunts your anxiety closet. That's not religion's problem. It's your problem.

You have no basis for believing there is no deity, anymore than someone else has a basis for believing there is one. You just want it that way because you're hung up on the subject for some reason.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 04:15 PM

LH I disagree. Dawkins is not prejudiced because he denies the possibility of religious
behavior. He accepts that religious habits prevail and has mentioned in his book that he
will give a kind of benediction or social words of a religious nature when in an environment where he doesn't want to be confrontational. Your assessment of him is grossly unfair.

He doesn't believe in these words but out of courtesy he will offer them as a custom at a particular function. He understands the ritual.

There is a perfectly good reason for believing that there is no deity because no one has
successfully proved that there is one. We don't believe that gravity can be repealed.
We don't believe in a flat earth or Copernican view of cosmology. (Although there are those who do).

The reason that people get hung up on the subject of religion is because so often these ideas are forced down the throat of society and one is expected to accept them.

Dawkins is basically a scientist in a particular field, not a political activist. He is concerned with the education of science and how it has been corrupted by religion.


There is no correlation between one's racial characteristics which are not really that scientific as there is overlap between racial groups, and religious training which is generally force fed to children. Racial characteristics are interpreted by those without a real understanding of physical anthropology. Racial characteristics are often confused with cultural traits which are not specifically biologically determined in DNA.

The reason that this thread is so long is that people today are questioning the authoritarian views of religion that have permeated contemporary society. These are pernicious and need to be addressed. Dawkins is at the forefront of this (for lack of a better term) "battle". Perhaps a better term would be an appeal for reason in the face of delusion.

The accusation that he is intolerant is unfounded and is specifically an opinionated
assessment. I suggest that the intolerance comes from those unwilling to hear his point of view and evaluate it rationally.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:25 PM

Okay, Stringsinger, maybe I have misjudged Dawkins.

I also question the authoritarian views of religion. I've always questioned them and have always rejected them. I reject ALL forms of authoritarianism.

Now let's have a look at this paragraph you posted:

"There is a perfectly good reason for believing that there is no deity because no one has successfully proved that there is one. We don't believe that gravity can be repealed. We don't believe in a flat earth or Copernican view of cosmology. (Although there are those who do)."

To have a firm belief in the NON-existence of something, because no one has proven it exists is illogical. It may still exist regardless. All you can do is express probabilities about it. All you can say is, "We have no proof that it does exist thus far."

Now...how exactly would one go about proving that something which isn't physical and doesn't manifest here in the physical universe as we know it exists???? There is no way of proving or disproving such a concept...because we cannot STEP outside of this universe as we know it. If a "God" exists, then he, she or it is either:

1) in some completely different dimension of reality from our physical universe...

or...

2) is omnipresent.

And I tend to feel that what people are really reaching for in their minds when they speak of "God" is something omnipresent.

If it's omnipresewnt, then it's part and parcel of everything, contained implicity in everything, therefore is not separate from the observer, therefore cannot be observed.

You have to stand apart from something to observe it. If you can't get apart from it, you can't see it. Therefore, if "God" is omnipresent (as is asserted in many religious beliefs at the more advanced level) then God is unobservable...not separate from anything...not possible to define or measure in any way.

Such a presence cannot be proven or disproven, it can only remain a mystery. You can believe in it if you are inclined to, and no one can disprove it. You can ignore it if you want, and it won't matter.

You seem to imagine a concept of a God that makes God separate from people...therefore provable or not provable. I don't. I don't see "God" (the Spirit of Life) as separate from anything. The Spirit of Life is just as present in Mr Dawkins, for example, as in anyone else, but he can't see it, because he cannot make himself separate in order to observe it. He's PART of it.

What Dawkins is questioning is organized religion. I question it too, but I am not its enemy. I just don't follow it, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:36 PM

If no one is hurt, why is whatever you're talking about a crime?

Of course children know what color their skin is. They don't CARE, sure, until someone makes them, but they do know, it's right there on their bodies. I remember my kids calling people by the color of their clothes, as in, look at that white guy (about anybody wearing white, no matter how dark their skin).

You don't have the choice of growing up without a skin color.

And what country they "belong to" is also not a matter of opinion, but also of fact. Even if their parents don't indoctrinate them with patriotISM, when they get a passport they will know what country is on it. (Anchor babies are for another thread.)

You don't have the choice of growing up without a country (stateless doesn't exist anymore).

Religious upbringing, in contrast, is not fact-based. And it's possible to grow up without religion. That is the choice that is so often taken off the table by the judeochrislamic near-monopoly on thought.

I just invented the word judeochrislamic. I kind of like it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:43 PM

>>If no one is hurt, why is whatever you're talking about a crime?<<

Drunk driving?
Speeding?

Lots of things are crimes because someone MIGHT get hurt.

If you attempt suicide to whom do you pay reparations.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:48 PM

Jack -

How about "thank you. This is lovely tea?" I don't think it is honest to give her the illusion that you are Christian.

I was brought up in a Christian household in a Christian society, with what Christians call 'Christian moral values'. Culturally speaking I am a christian, I just never believed in the supernatural side of it, even as a child. To the best of my knowledge, I have never deceived anyone on that score, and my conscience is clearer than a great many believers' from what I can see, up to and including the Pope. To question my honesty over what I regard, in this instance as an insignificant point seems to me to be unnecessarily confrontational.

Little Hawk -

It doesn't make any difference what words people use unless you develop an obsessive reaction to it due to some kind of chip on your shoulder, in which case it's not their problem, it's yours. (etc.)

You appear to have a commendable and all-too-rare understanding of what I call Dumptyism, LH. It's a shame more don't understand it, because it's there whether or not one agrees with it..

Penny S. -

Smokey, I'm sorry you had to accuse Pete of posting poison ...... incapable of being nasty about it.

Okay, I believe you. I shouldn't have implied he was purposely or personally being malicious and I'm apt to be tetchy about such things around Armistice Day. Sorry Pete, although I still think you are very misguided.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM

So why is Dawkins not all worked up about all the other common forms of arbitrary identity that are "forced" upon (planted in) children, usually unwittingly, by their parents? Why does only religious programming concern him? Do I see a gigantic chip resting on Mr Dawkin's shoulder...or is that just a very large parrot or a huge piece of birdshit? ;-D

To echo Stringsinger. Dawkins comes from a scientific background in genetics and evolution. He sees the attack by religion, as exemplified by the groundswell anti-evolution and pro-creationist movement in the US, and his riposte to that derives from his specialism (and, of course, his own atheism). It ill behoves anyone to criticise him for not blasting out at every other kind of related injustice. You don't criticise Beethoven for not writing rock and roll and you don't criticise Bob Marley for not writing string trios. Critics of Dawkins should actually read the book (and watch his documentaries and YouTube forays even). You'll find a man who is cool, measured and reasoned in his approach, even if you still end up violently disagreeing with him. Don't fall into the trap that commonly ensnares religious people who are confronted with argument, that those who disagree have chips on their shoulders or are rabid, militant ex-Christians. It's tiresome and it's pretty lame. And usually not true.

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

To have a firm belief in the NON-existence of something, because no one has proven it exists is illogical. It may still exist regardless. All you can do is express probabilities about it. All you can say is, "We have no proof that it does exist thus far."

Several things. No atheist worth his or her salt requires believers to prove that God exists. Atheists require evidence for the existence of God, not proof. Likewise, atheists acknowledge that God cannot be disproved. Yes, God may exist, as you say, regardless. But when you say "all we can say..." etc., you're wrong. We can say much more than that we have "no proof it exists thus far." We can say that the probability of the existence of a being who breaks all the laws of physics, and who has to be, in order to explain all the things he's been invented to explain, so huge and complex and inexplicable in himself, is infinitesimally small. And we can cheerily cite the total lack of evidence for him to support our point of view. God can never be disproved, but the chances of his existence are so remote (we reckon), applying whatever logic you like, that we (atheists) can easily afford to completely disregard him. That's atheism. Well, that's my atheism anyway. If I hear any atheist rabbiting on about requiring proof, etc., I promise to put him right.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:22 PM

Drunk drivers should work for MADD, not go to jail.

Speeders pay fines, that IS reparation; the fines go to pay for the highways being destroyed by overuse.

Suicide attempters should be cured, not punished. After all, successfully committing suicide is hardly a crime.

And atheists *do not have a firm belief in the nonexistence" of deity. They simply have no belief, firm or otherwise, in its existence.

And given the myriad things that *used* to be attributed to deity, like weather, climate, gravity, etc., and which are now known, not theorized but known, to have natural, not supernatural, causes, it is illogical to continue to posit the possibility of deity as an explanation for anything natural.

Given that there is no reason to posit its possibility, why believe in it? Because you have *faith* - ie. belief in the absence of evidence.

Are we there yet?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:27 PM

I donno Smokey. If you agree with Shaw that it is wrong to indoctrinate kids then you probably shouldn't be helping spread the lie.

I also don't see it as confrontational. I just see it is as interesting that you pretend to little old ladies that there is a God while you argue here that it isn't. And I don't see what is compelling you to say "God Bless."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:37 PM

"If I hear any atheist rabbiting on about requiring proof, etc., I promise to put him right."

See below:

From: Stringsinger - PM
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:15 PM

"There is a perfectly good reason for believing that there is no deity because no one has successfully proved that there is one".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:50 PM

I donno Smokey. If you agree with Shaw that it is wrong to indoctrinate kids then you probably shouldn't be helping spread the lie.

Saying nice things to little old ladies is scarcely a matter of propagating "lies." Potential outcomes are what we should regard as being at the heart of the matter, not the beaming smiles that will be the very most one could expect to come out of these trivial, friendly exchanges. Your average little old lady (I'm getting fed up with myself for using that unhelpful expression) is exceptionally unlikely to be further indoctrinated by such pleasantries, let's face it. But children in schools and religious households are an entirely different matter. They are subjected to a constant barrage over many years of myths-as-truth, and, well, I won't go on about it all over again... Suffice to say there there is a difference, though black-and-white Jacko might not discern it even if it reared up and bit him on the cock.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:59 PM

"If I hear any atheist rabbiting on about requiring proof, etc., I promise to put him right."

See below:

From: Stringsinger - PM
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:15 PM

"There is a perfectly good reason for believing that there is no deity because no one has successfully proved that there is one".

Oh lordy, Ed. There you go again. Stringsinger did not say that he required proof. He said that there was no proof and that that is a perfectly good reason for not believing. Well of course it is. For millennia people have been trying to force God on other people but, despite the passing eons, they have never provided one scintilla of evidence for his existence. The problem that religion has, of its own making, is that it speaks in rock-solid certainties about its God. He art in heaven, not maybe he art in heaven. If you want to deal in certainties then you really ought to have proof. But atheists, including Stringsinger (if he is one), will not ask for proof, and, in return, we don't expect to be asked for negative proof either. It's a conversation that traditionally gets no-one anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 08:17 PM

Two posts ago, "that there is," not "there there is." There there, Jack. That's what must have subliminally brought that on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 08:26 PM

I donno Smokey. If you agree with Shaw that it is wrong to indoctrinate kids then you probably shouldn't be helping spread the lie.

I can't see how I'm spreading anything by saying "Gor bless yer, missus" in gratitude to an old lady who already believes in God anyway. How on earth d'you work that one out? Incidentally, I'm pretty careful about what I say in front of children, mine and others'.

I also don't see it as confrontational.

You would if I questioned your honesty, and if I did, it would be.

I just see it is as interesting that you pretend to little old ladies that there is a God while you argue here that it isn't.

I'm not pretending there's a God to them though, just using a familiar and comforting expression which may mean more to them than it does to me. If there is any pretence involved, it has already been done by the church and the clergy. I suppose it could be said that I am pretending to go along with that pretence, but as I said, in those circumstances I regard that as insignificant, as I suspect would the little old lady upon being rigorously interrogated. (It's no good being too soft on 'em.)

And I don't see what is compelling you to say "God Bless."

It's not a compulsion, sorry to disappoint you.. I'm just as likely to say 'Thank you very much', or 'ta, me duck', or 'what about some biscuits you mean old bitch'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 10:23 PM

Smokey, it is interesting to me that you, an avowed atheist, would even think of saying 'God bless you', much less actually say it. I, a more wishy-washy middle-of-the-roader never use it. Partly because, I guess, if I spoke their language they then would feel justified or even compelled to conjecture whether I was one of 'them'. And then they would decide that I cannot be; after all I have been seen in places or doing or saying things of which they disapprove. (There aren't many more judg(e)mental people than Christians, in my experience.)

I have family - very conservative, very religious - to whom I never say anything of the sort. Even when I somewhat agree with what they are saying. Because I know it very likely would be misunderstood.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:32 PM

>>I donno Smokey. If you agree with Shaw that it is wrong to indoctrinate kids then you probably shouldn't be helping spread the lie.<<

Its a lie to tell someone something that isn't true. If you are saying God Bless you. You are telling her that you wish God to bless her. Because you know that is not possible, you are telling her a lie. In my opinion that is what is happening. You have another point of view. God Bless you. But it is certainly not the first time you and I have disagreed on the usage of a word.

I think that usage is important and has consequences, for instance I would never say that someone I was talking to was suffering from a delusion of any kind unless I was deliberately trying to see if they would get angry.

I have gathered that you and Shaw feel differently and see a whole clever range of delusional states and don't see the need to differentiate between them.

It is kind of like lies, fibs, white lies and things you just say to old ladies.

I guess I am glad you watch what you say around kids but that makes it all the more puzzling that you are willing to say things that you don't believe around old ladies. My experience is that old ladies are pretty sharp. They can tell if someone is being sincere or not. So if I were to say something I thought they wanted to hear just to please them, I think they would pick up on that. So I don't. I always try to say the most pleasing thing that I can that I believe to be true. Your mileage may vary.

I may seem to be belaboring this point but that is because I think it sheds light on something that I thought all of the Atheist on this thread knew, but apparently some don't.

In the battle for hearts and mind, for most people the little incidental gestures and words are many times more potent than the Big Arguments. People put up there shield up to protect themselves from the big statements like "There is no God because there is no scientific proof!" but the little "God Bless You's" and "Hail Mary's" and such soothe the heart and build up that shield.

If you or Dawkins want to build the case for Atheism, I think your time would be much better spent going out and showing your love for your neighbours without invoking God than arguing with people who are ready for your arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:34 PM

'Atheist' is a label of your choosing, not mine - let's be clear about that, although I've usually no particular objection to someone else calling me that or an agnostic. Call me anything as long as it's not early. I just don't have any belief in the supernatural. I regularly use the word 'god' inadvertently in conversation, God knows why; just common usage, I suppose. I don't see there's any harm in it. Maybe attitudes aren't the same here as they are there? There are judgemental atheists as well as Christians - they both irritate me, as does anyone (including me, at times) who is overly judgemental.

I used to have an Atheist acquaintance, the religious sort, who felt compelled to lecture me at great length at every available opportunity despite my established lack of belief. Upon receiving the long awaited and hard earned cup of tea, I would say "May God Bless Your Immortal Soul" just to watch the silly bugger wince.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:37 PM

My last post referred to Ebbie's.. hadn't seen yours Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:49 PM

>>I would say "May God Bless Your Immortal Soul" just to watch the silly bugger wince. <<

LOL!!
IMHO That is a very appropriate use of the phrase for a non-believer.

Pardon Me Smokey, if you are talking to me about the word Atheist, but all I really know about your beliefs is that you have said that you agreed with pretty much everything Steve Shaw said up to the point I stopped reading his posts. In my opinion, that puts you pretty squarely in the Atheist camp. Shaw has been very stridently and clearly not just an Atheist but IMHO he has been the religious sort, like your friend. I wonder how long you would have to wait for tea in his house.

Cheers mate. You seem to be a good man, and funny too.

BTW true story, one of the most embarrassing days of my life was when my Grandfather told me what "bugger" meant because I had said it in front of him. The irony, if it had been one of Carlin's seven, I would have known.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:51 PM

If you are saying God Bless you. You are telling her that you wish God to bless her.

Well, if anything, I suppose I'm telling her that I want her to feel blessed by the god that she believes in. With respect, your opinion is irrelevant in a transaction between me and a little old lady. I get on fine with them, and yes, they are often very sharp indeed and seem to know my intentions are sincere. Words are just words; anybody can say words. Actions speak.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:44 AM

I wonder how long you would have to wait for tea in his house.

Trust me Jack, there's no similarity between Steve and the bloke I'm talking about. I'd stake my life on that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:29 AM

Jack. your legalistic fault-finding isn't doing you any favors. It just sounds like you're attacking the way people use words because you can't come up with a decent response to what they're actually saying.

Our society culturally Christian. It really shouldn't surprise you -- or bother you -- if people use common phrases in social situations. I'm almost afraid to tell you this, but Christmas is my favorite holiday.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:06 AM

It's that common usage I've been trying to avoid for about 15 years now... and still the first swear words I think of involve deity!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:15 AM

Desperado Jacko continues his pursuit of the trivial, I see. I must take his advice and extirpate all mention of deities and their hangers-on from my vocabulary. Why, I've even discovered that "bloody" comes from "By Our Lady!" So that's another swear-word gone fer Christ's sake. Oops, for heaven's sake. No, no, I mean.... Jaysus, Mary and Joseph, what do I mean...? I mean...

Actually, Jack, as you're in pin-down mode on the vocab front, perhaps you'd care to edit that tirade of loose pejoratives that accumulated earlier, the one in which I listed all your insults. You know, the one in which you were kind enough to analyse my mental health. Some rewording there would be apposite...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:45 AM

Please don't feel attacked. I realize that your morals are different from mine. I'm not saying better or worse, especially for you. Just different.

I am, very interested by the way something that would cause huge internal conflict for me, seems insignificant to you. I am much more interested in that aspect of your spirituality (sorry about the choice of word, I could not think of a better one) than I am in repeating arguments that I decided were unprovable when I was making them more than 30 years ago in my late teens.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:51 AM

Why the FLIP don't youse people get a life, eh?

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:42 PM

George you smug bastard, surely you have better things to do than dressing up in metaphorical costume and passing judgment on others.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:01 PM

believing in GOD, Surely is believing in the spirit of goodness.
clearly people have different ideas of what is God.
THE JEHOVAHS WINESSES God is quite different from the God that the Quakers believe in.
personally I believe God exists, I have no idea how the world started, but i can believe in God[ or the spirit of goodness], without believing or disbelieving the creationist theory.
Humanists dont believe in GOD AS A PERSON, but they share the same principles as myself ,they just choose to call them by a different name.
it does not matter what a person chooses to call them selves, atheist humanist, christian, what matters is how they behave.
there are christians who do not behave in a christian manner. is the church investing in stocks and shares christian? it doesnt seem to correspond with jesus christ oveturning the money lenders tables does it?
God was a great harp player, the problem was he had to keep nipping down below because lucifer had all the best tunes

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:32 PM

God has the best tunes.

Lucifer's are just easier to dance to.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:51 PM

If God is omnipresent, then Lucifer is either a part of God...or is just an illusion in the minds of those who have imagined Lucifer. If God isn't omnipresent, then God is limited. Would that make any sense?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:02 PM

And how many Lucifers could dance on the head of a pin assuming that they are all infinitely slender and nimble?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:38 PM

Seriously, belief in deity is not belief in goodness, spiritual or otherwise. It is belief in the supernatural. Atheists, agnostics, humanists, whatever the nonbelievers choose to call themselves, they don't believe in deity, that is all. It says nothing at all about what else they believe in or anything about goodness, spirituality or anything else. They, we, youse guys, whatever, don't believe in deity, that's all.

Why would Lucifer be slender and nimble? Isn't gluttony a sin, so he should be fat, no? Couch-potato reflexes? Fat, lazy, and horny, my favorite state of sin! (Well, I like gluttony, even if not its results...)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:04 PM

An infinite number, Jack.

Mrzzy - "The Supernatural" is generally an expression people use for natural stuff that they don't understand yet. Another expression they use for natural stuff they don't understand yet is "magic", and another is "a miracle". If something exists, it's natural. If you don't understand it yet, you just don't understand it, that's all. A deity is a symbol people use for a whole bunch of stuff they don't understand yet, and a whole bunch of questions they can't answer yet. If they start to believe a lot of strange stuff ABOUT that deity, and that causes them to behave destructively...THEN it's a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM

>>"The Supernatural" is generally an expression people use for natural stuff that they don't understand yet.<<

It is also an expression for crap that people make up.

If you believe in everything then you believe in nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:45 PM

Mrzzy - "The Supernatural" is generally an expression people use for natural stuff that they don't understand yet. Another expression they use for natural stuff they don't understand yet is "magic", and another is "a miracle". - BINGO! Another word is deity, too!

If something exists, it's natural. Are you saying that unnatural and supernatural are equivalent? I don't agree. There are unnatural things that exist, we humans make them every day, don't we?

And can't something be natural but not exist? How about my grandchildren?

If you don't understand it yet, you just don't understand it, that's all. A deity is a symbol people use for a whole bunch of stuff they don't understand yet, and a whole bunch of questions they can't answer yet. If they start to believe a lot of strange stuff ABOUT that deity, and that causes them to behave destructively...THEN it's a problem. Bingo again - that is exactly the problem with believing that deity is *real* - instead of a tentative explanation.

And another issue is that there isn't anything left, really, that can't be understood without deity. So why cling to the supernatural to explain anything at all?

Even more important, why cling to the supernatural when it doesn't explain anything even to the believer?

Especially when that belief leads to all that nastiness you were talking about, from people thinking they know the mind of their supernatural explanation or security blanket - and then telling other believers what to believe, and how to behave, based on that superstition?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:11 PM

2000

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:21 PM

They got it all wrong, anyway.. If the souls of evil people went to Heaven to be given eternal bliss and general niceness by God, and all the 'nice' people ended up in Hell (or Derby, as we call it round here) being tormented by Satan, it would be much more logical and both G. and S. would get far more job satisfaction.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:35 PM

"slender and nimble"

Are you not confusing it with "Jack be nimble, jack be quick, Jack jumped over the candle stick?"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:32 PM

"If you or Dawkins want to build the case for Atheism, I think your time would be much better spent going out and showing your love for your neighbours without invoking God than arguing with people who are ready for your arguments."

Jack, since you probably haven't read Dawkins, you intimate that he doesn't show love
for his neighbors, to be fair, you might want to leave him out of your accusation.
There is no case that has to be built for atheism or as I prefer to call it, FreeThought.
It is there and will remain. The burden of proof is on those who are believers.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:48 PM

"Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit."

(The proof lies upon he who affirms, not upon he who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:53 PM

When we get to 2010, do we stop?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:56 PM

smokey-thankyou for the apology,following pennys post.such graciousness is much appreciated when most others here are demonising me and each other for their opinions and beliefs.we can go on thinking each other misguided-respectfully.
penny-been awhile since the folk sessions!.thanks for the character reference.it is such a blessing having someone else vouch for me especially when not agreeing with me yourself.
mrrzy-i appreciate your sharing of a very painful event in your life.it is helpful to know the reason for the force of feeling
i agree that much that was once explained only by reference to deity is now understood in science,the beginning though is not so explained.everything that has a beginning must have a sufficient cause.if that cause is natural,it too would require sufficient cause.therefore that cause must be supernatural/spiritual.
if my logic is faulty,i am open to correction/understanding of alternative position.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:16 PM

Mrzzy -

"Are you saying that unnatural and supernatural are equivalent?"

No. I'm not. I'm saying that nothing is supernatural, everything is natural, but if people don't understand some natural (or technical) process or device they might think of it as "supernatural" or "magical"....simply because they don't understand it.

"There are unnatural things that exist, we humans make them every day, don't we?"

You could say that, I suppose, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Whether something is "unnatural" or not in that sense is a matter of opinion. If it exists, it is occuring and manifesting in the natural world. Is a squirrel's nest unnatural? Is a glass bottle unnatural? Is an A-bomb unnatural? Is a shoe unnatural? That all depends on your perspective, and it's a matter of opinion as to whether any manufactured thing is natural or unnatural, but in any case it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.

Mrzzy...to be clever is not to be wise. This forum is full of people who pride themselves on their cleverness as they can come up with infinite petty arguments and nitpicking of anything anyone else says, but that is not wisdom. Wisdom seeks accord. Wisdom seeks common ground. Cleverness seeks petty victories over perceived opponents.

All I see most of the time here on this forum is very defensive egos engaging in cleverness. I see little goodwill, little attempt to understand what someone else is saying, little desire for finding things in common with others, little friendliness, little constructive comment....but instead a ravening thirst for some petty verbal victory over the other person.

It doesn't help anyone.

It's also what's poisoning the political dialogue in our societies.

And it is the very heart and soul of what is negative and unhelpful about most of what has been posted on this thread, most of the other religious threads, and most (if not all) of the political threads.

Anyway...moving on to what else you said:

"why cling to the supernatural to explain anything at all?"

Why indeed? I don't. You don't either. But so what? Why worry about other people who do...if it makes them feel happy and they aren't hurting anyone? Surely it's their business, isn't it? Who is hurting you, Mrzzy? Or who did? And when? And why this continual reactiveness against other people's spiritual beliefs on your part? What business is it of yours what they believe or do not believe? Is it their problem or is it yours that you react to their belief?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:46 PM

Why indeed? I don't. You don't either. But so what? Why worry about other people who do...if it makes them feel happy and they aren't hurting anyone? Surely it's their business, isn't it? Who is hurting you, Mrzzy? Or who did? And when? And why this continual reactiveness against other people's spiritual beliefs on your part? What business is it of yours what they believe or do not believe? Is it their problem or is it yours that you react to their belief?

Well yes, all this is fine, except for one teensy detail. Believers, or at least their organisations, do sort of insist on passing it on. To their kids, at home, in schools and at church. Nobody, but nobody, is going to complain about someone else's private God notion, as long as that is what it is - private. Of course, that will never happen. Organised religion knows that it can't afford to wait until children are mature, thinking adults before forcing the message on them. It has to indulge in this immoral game of giving myths-as-truth to children in order to survive at all. And yes, I know there is a difference between the ordinary believer-in-the-street and big religion. But the former, en masse, connive in the latter (with a few honourable exceptions) like mad. Atheists are not interested in attacking people's individual, private convictions (though, of course, they're fair game if they stick their heads above the parapet on discussion threads), but they do see the tremendous damage that religion can do and has done. That's definitely worth a bit of a barney I reckon.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM

i agree that much that was once explained only by reference to deity is now understood in science,the beginning though is not so explained.everything that has a beginning must have a sufficient cause.if that cause is natural,it too would require sufficient cause.therefore that cause must be supernatural/spiritual.

Terrible logic. Utter non sequitur. You try to explain something that is (admittedly) difficult to explain by inventing something that is itself impossible to explain, and, worse, for which you have no evidence. Of all the answers you could come up with for your conjecture, you pick what is by far the most improbable.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM

"The burden of proof is on those who are believers"

Oops, off goes the proof buzzer again:)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:46 PM

"All I see most of the time here on this forum is very defensive egos engaging in cleverness. I see little goodwill, little attempt to understand what someone else is saying, little desire for finding things in common with others, little friendliness, little constructive comment....but instead a ravening thirst for some petty verbal victory over the other person"

Right on LH. You normally have an eye to see through the BS.

I would expect that a purpose could be to learn from others through reasonable debate. However, those interested in that have mostly left the thread awhile back...mostly to those who wish to win an argument on a position they already have firm opinions and others who innocently stumbled by, and are seen as fresh fodder to prove a point. And there are those who either don't get it, or actually enjoy the abuse :).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:59 PM

"The burden of proof is on those who are believers"

Oops, off goes the proof buzzer again:)

That Latin one was better: "The proof lies upon he who affirms..." The moral is that it's better not to affirm, that is, deal in certainties. It's a sin serially committed by religion but never by any atheist worth his or her salt. If you claim certainty, that is, if you affirm, you leave yourself open, justifiably, to being asked for proof. If you merely declare faith (in public), you'll simply be asked for evidence, not proof.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 08:31 PM

"The moral is that it's better not to affirm, that is, deal in certainties"

Whew, that's a personal relief...'cause I don't recall experiencing certainties on many aspects of life....except that I would certainly sacrifice my life for my immediate family....as most here would also do.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 08:42 PM

I just don't see Little Hawk's arguing about the arguing, or meta arguing if you will, serving any purpose other than making him look smug. No one is forcing him to read any of this. If he thinks that someone is breaking the rules of the forum, he should point that out otherwise what he is doing is just irritating and rude. He should either join the conversation or find something else to do. Are we consuming electrons that he has a better use for? I think not.

Little Hawk, or anyone else who doesn't like the conversation is free to sod off.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 08:49 PM

I think your time would be much better spent going out and showing your love for your neighbours without invoking God than arguing with people who are ready for your arguments."

You know that there are other things in that post that directly applied. The clip is hardly in context. If that is the way you read it, you have little idea what I said.

anyway,

Above are two suggested ways of spending time. One of them is trying to argue people into Atheism. The other is trying to bring them into that school of thought with compassion and a good example. I am suggesting that the latter is more effective. Though I will grant that it is not the best way to sell books and get on TV.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:01 PM

But Ed, religion deals in certainties all the time. Our Father who art in heaven...yeah? Prove it, mate! "There's probably no God..." (said the bus ad) - now you can't really ask anyone to prove that, can you? Atheists who deal in certainties are not my kind of atheists. They don't half muck up the argument. You can't prove there's no God any more than you can prove there is a God. Atheists are occasionally tempted to rattle on about proof and express themselves in certainties by believers who like to pounce on the non-certainties and say, well, you can't really be an atheist then, can you - you must be an agnostic! They don't know what they're talking about, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:07 PM

"But Ed, religion deals in certainties all the time"

Maybe so.

But, I don't follow, or have much time for any religion.

They may be "all right for some, but not all right for me"

Others may be a better source of inspiration on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:47 PM

Wisdom does not seek compromise with foolishness. Wisdom seeks knowledge and how to use it; compromising with the dogma-ridden is hardly wise.

How many ways do they hurt me? Well, let's see, where to start.

The chistians who murdered my maternal family for being jewish hurt me, by making my mom the way she is and by stealing my grandparents, cousins, uncles and aunts from me.

The moslems who murdered my father for being, as they thought, christian, even though he was actually a pacifist atheist, hurt me terribly by murdering my father just before my college graduation, and hurt my children and their cousins by stealing their grandfather from them.

The christians who put deity into my children's history books -but only for christianity, not islam or judaism, to boot! - as if the Bible were an historical text are hurting my children and all the kids in the class by not teaching them history, and calling their dogma history when it isn't.

Having my President say that atheists certainly can't be patriots, and he isnt' even sure they can be citizens, hurts me.

Having christians (I never get this from jews or moslems or any other religions, for that matter) look down on me for not believing their particular fairy tales and Just So stories now that I'm a grownup hurt me.

Every time I hear someone deny evolution, I and my children are hurt, by the abject ignorance displayed both by that position and by its being considered reasonable by other adults.

Having evolution denial being brought into actual science and history classes hurts everybody, especially the children, in my society.

We Must Stop Putting Up With This CRAP. Really. I just don't see how all the intelligent people in this forum can keep defending this kind of willful ignorance being imposed on children!

And you say it's WISE to just say OK, freedom of religion is more important than reality? What planet are you ON?

It's the harm, people, it's the harm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yes, I am having a personally bad day, but still.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:56 PM

Oh, yeah, and I didn't even COUNT 9-11, which sent my surviving family into post-traumatic shock, nearly caused one of my sisters to commit suicide, put me back into the depression I'd barely been climbing out of from Daddy's death, and killed three of my colleagues who were on one of the planes. Not to mention what it did to thousands and thousands of other families.

No, religion is nice and fluffy and comforting, so it's ok, none of that counts, if you're wise, yeah, right.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:24 PM

Thank you, Mrzzy. I now understand exactly why you have such a personal hostility toward religion.

The only observation I'd make about it is this: The problem in the world that has afflicted you, your family, your cultural community, and your nation is not religion, per se....it's extremism. When people take either religion or any form of politics to extremes, they become dangerous. I've known so many good, kind, and harmless religious people in my life that I cannot judge people on the basis of religion, any more than I would judge them on the basis of national identity or gender.

It is extremists of all types who commit the violent acts and engage in the harmful activities you allude to...usually for a political cause, sometimes for a political AND religious cause. Some extremists are religious, some are atheists, some are agnostics, some are communists, some are fascists, some are nihilists. The problem is not what they have faith in, the problem is that they go to a ridiculous extreme and then use their faith to justify extreme and violent behaviour.

However, your own personal history has shaped your reactions to religious things, so I don't expect you to alter your viewpoint.

I have never been personally hurt by any religious people in my entire life...nor had religion forced down my throat by anyone, was never made to go to church by anyone, and that's why I don't join you in your holy crusade against religion, but I will join you in opposing ANY form of extremism...religious or otherwise.

And, YES, I do understand how you feel and why you feel that way now that you have explained that stuff in your last 2 posts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:19 AM

Oh. I've splained a lot, not just in those posts. You must not have read a lot of what I've said over the years... and I had explained my personal horror stories previously.

And of course expremism is worse than middle-of-the-road-ism, but even without all the death and dismemberment, denying evolution hurts all American schoolchildren. Replacing historical and biological fact with religious dogma hurts all American schoolchildren. Demonstrations at funerals that Yay, your loved one should be dead because there are gays in the military hurt all service members and all their families, and that's the christians. The unavailability of abortions hurt all women and all families, not just those who can't get the abortion they nd their medical practitioners have decided would be best for them and their families.

And that's the regular, run-of-the-mill, mainstream American christians. None of that is considered "extreme" by modern standards.

My crusade, as *you* call it, isn't against religion, nor even against faith. BUT - those are the only things that can make good people do evil things; nothing else would work.

My argument has always been against those who try to justify their faith with rationality. It's faith, people, you have to take it on faith. As soon as you start bringing logic and intelligence into it, you are out of the realm of faith and should stop spouting dogma. THAT is what I fight - the mirage that faith in dogma is rational.

Without dogma, you couldn't HAVE religious extremism, and without religious esxtremism, you can't have good people doing evil things.

The people who flew the planes on 9-11 were god-fearing, loving sons, fathers and brothers, who believed what they were told in the absence of evidence. They were happy and comforted by their faith, and looking forward to their virgins in the next life. No, that was not a victimless crime.

Where do you live that you think you have never been personally hurt by dogmatic belief? 9-11 didn't hurt you? The Holocaust didn't hurt you? None of the planes being blown up or assassinations or the North ireland bombs have affected you in any negative way? Don't you know any women terrified of getting pregnant since they could never have an abortion? Know any men terrified of getting someone pregnant since they (the someones) could never have an abortion? Know anybody killed by a drunk driving teenager, since puritanical laws prevent the moderate daily drinking with meals that is known to be healthy and does not promote the binge drinking that gets you drunk in the first place?   Again, what planet do you think you are living on? How can you just ignore all the harm and say well, it isn't touching me?

Name me one extremist about anything who wasn't motivated by dogma.

One.

How can you even get to an extreme of sensible intelligence? What is the extreme of thoughtful inquiry? MAD THINKER! RUN! They might draw a pointed conclusion!

And sorry, no, you don't understand how I feel if nobody you loved dearly was ever killed by religious dogmatics.

Nor do you understand what I write if you think that I am against religion rather than against the idea that belief without evidence should be as *respected* as rational, thoughtful and intelligent pondering.

Especially in the school system. Man, that chaps my ass big time.

And I was against dogma long before any of this happened, except the Holocaust. I have never thought it made any sense to pretend that any grownup's belief in the supernatural made enough sense for me not to laugh at it, although for politeness' sake, before all this other nastiness, I was willing not to. Now, I consider it less polite to pretend it's OK than to laugh at the silliness, as it rationally is considered.

Luckily, Mom was an atheist who did not consider herself jewish anyway, since her family had been secular, so at least I didn't grow up knowing she was a Holocaust survivor. That only came out when I was about 17.

So both the christians who murdered my mom's secular family and the moslems who killed dad were after people of other faiths, and got secular atheists instead.

I have many friends of faith who are good and kind and know full well that their faith is faith-based, not rational, and who can't say why they still believe. No problems there. Since they aren't buying into the dogma but instead into the deity, they would be hard to pursuade into terrible actions based on what radicalizers claim the diety wants.

Without that rational thought, though, you are wide open to that radicalization. I mean, why not? It's what authority says your deity wants, right? Who are you to argue with that, unless you are allowed to think?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:32 AM

Sometimes I've thought I was the only one who thought it worth railing against the indoctrination of children. I regard that as among the nastiest things religion does, not only because it's done it an awful lot but also because it cheerily goes on doing it and has deliberately blinkered itself to the damage it does. This particular delusion is so comprehensive that millions of decent people can't see anything wrong with it and defend the practice to the hilt. In the UK we even force children to pray every day in school, and taxpayers fund faith schools almost without demur. I feel fortified by all the things you say (and I'm quite cuddly really). Cheers, Mrrzy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 08:33 AM

Daddy, You go to church, why can't I go to church?

I'm sorry son, I can't take you to Church, you will have to wait until Steve Shaw and Richard Dawkins say it its OK.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 09:18 AM

Daddy, You go to church, why can't I go to church?

I'm sorry son, I can't take you to Church, you will have to wait until Steve Shaw and Richard Dawkins say it its OK.

Daddy, You go to the pub, why can't I go to the pub?

I'm sorry son, I can't take you to the pub, you will have to wait until the entirely sensible law of the land, that wiser people than I have set up for your protection, says it's OK.

Or betting shop, or casino, or polling booth, or 18-certificate movie, or battle front...

Yes, I really do believe that religious indoctrination is something that children need protecting from until they are old enough to be able to weigh, without pressure, the pros and cons. It's what a responsible society does about the things we decide are best suited to adults. I firmly believe that religion is one of those things. Indoctrination has the potential to damage children (wanna deny that, Jacko?). Of course, I don't mean religious education in its true sense. That is mandatory I reckon, and it would be a very good preparation, if properly delivered, for that day when the young adult is finally exposed to the doctrine. This won't work very well for religion, of course, which is why daddy thinks it's OK to take sonnyboy to church. The priest has told daddy so.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:00 AM

Oh, The kid will end up in the Pub.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:14 AM

Yep, when he's 18 he can go on his own. That's about right. I'd say the same for church services. Maybe 21. The difference is that he will want to go to the pub, which for most people is a jolly good thing to want to do. He won't be anywhere near as keen to go to church though. That's why religion likes to get 'em early. There is absolutely no other justification when you think about it. When you think for yourself about it. But at least religion would get the people who make a free choice, like you choose to go to the pub. That way it'll be leaner but fitter.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:58 AM

You're WAY off on the isolated end of the shaky limb you have chosen to go out on in life, Mrzzy, but it's impossible for us to resolve it in posts on this public forum. PMs would work better, but would probably not solve it either. Therefore, I shall leave you happily to your particular concerns here and do something else instead for a bit. Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 11:18 AM

A couple of thoughts here:

Steve Shaw, you say 'he will want to go to the pub, which for most people is a jolly good thing to want to do.

Quite apart from all the violence, broken homes, disease, bankruptcies and murders that have been a direct result over a thousand generations of pubs and its equivalents, you accept drinking as acceptable and fun and part and parcel of a normal society. Why is that?

As far as going to church because the priest tells you to is concerned, many people get great comfort and peace and an affirmation of a sense of community from their attendance at church. The fact that they believe they got the comfort from their God should not be your concern.

Some people from time to time get not only comfort and peace but are inspired, sometimes almost against their conscious wills, into participation in causes they had considered too dangerous to join. Who are we to say that that inspiration did not come from somewhere outside themselves?

It may be somewhat the same thing many people get from a session of deep meditation but the end result is indisputable. Many a decision is made on metaphorical knees.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM

Yep, booze can do all that. So can Macshiteburgers, milkshakes, pizzas, fries an' all that cause mass obesity, suffering 'n' early death, as well as environmental devastation. So can fundamentalists harass women who need abortions and so can popes consign millions to misery through wicked edicts about contraception in third world countries. So can presidents take us to war because they say God has spoken to them. Yeah. You say religion can do good. I don't doubt it for a minute. I say booze can do good too. We gotta be careful that we don't turn the world into an even greater vale of tears than it already is. A minority of people abuse alcohol. That is no reason to get all apocalyptic about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 01:16 PM

>>So can presidents take us to war because they say God has spoken to them.<<

Wasn't that guy also and admitted alcoholic?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 01:29 PM

I'm not entirely convinced that comparisons between religion and alcohol are relevant or productive.. As far as I'm concerned, children should be protected from both, and neither should be supported by the education system at all. That aside, one of the most important things a child can learn is the difference between fact and opinion. I was lucky, in that I seemed to work it out for myself at a very early age and my upbringing was not oppressive in any way. A great many children are not that lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:02 PM

As far as I'm concerned, children should be protected from both, and neither should be supported by the education system at all.

I think the parents can be trusted to impart the values, religious or otherwise that they see fit.

I see a lot evidence that children are damaged by their parent's alcoholism. I see little that they are damaged by their parents' faith. I think that you, Shaw and Mr. Dawkins, need to find some evidence to back up your wild claim.

People can and often do choose to diverge from their parents as they approach the age of majority. It is their choice then.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:28 PM

I see a lot evidence that children are damaged by their parent's alcoholism. I see little that they are damaged by their parents' faith.

As I said, the two are not related and alcoholism is not relevant to this discussion.

I'm not sure what you mean by my 'wild claim'. Do you think children should not be taught the difference between fact and opinion and not encouraged (or equipped) to think for themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:42 PM

I think that you, Shaw and Mr. Dawkins, need to find some evidence to back up your wild claim.

Damage? Ask the victims of Catholic child abuse about that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:50 PM

I think the parents can be trusted to impart the values, religious or otherwise that they see fit.

I couldn't agree more. Of course it's the parents' right and duty to impart values. I don't even doubt that religion can and does impart good values (though the same good values can also be imparted without religion every time). But we are not talking about values, I'm afraid. We are talking about religious dogma, myth wrapped up as truth. I don't think anyone is entitled to tell children lies. This is what I object to, not the imparting of values. The Big Lie in religion is the certainty with which it is propagated. I think it's particularly immoral when children are involved.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:52 PM

And what "wild claim" was I supposed to be making?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

Our Landlord
Which art in the Rose and Crown
Harold be thy name
Thy will be done
In the snug as it is in the taproom
Give us this day our daily skinful
And forgive us our indiscretions
as we forget those who blather against us
Lead us not into sobriety and deliver us from reality
For thine is the license, the beer and the ashtrays
But probably not forever
Amen

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 03:52 PM

I see little that they are damaged by their parents' faith.

I have seen plenty of bright minds bent around an axle because they were thrown such wild curves by religious teachings. Since so much of religion is metaphorical it should be taught only when the young person is able to differentiate between reality and metaphor.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM

You're WAY off on the isolated end of the shaky limb you have chosen to go out on in life, Mrzzy...

Getting less and less shaky all the time, Little Hawk! Maybe you're not perched on it yet, but I have hopes...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 04:05 PM

"I don't think anyone is entitled to tell children lies"

I suspect the first big hurdle to persuade people and families that such things are lies. The second would be to have a gigantic intervention in the family unit.

Russia was officially an atheist state for 70 years after WW1. The government attempted to erase most aspects of religion. They were not successful, as many Russians declare themselves believers today (most tied to the official church, as in England). This shows some big resilience with religion, even with big government and social intervention.

So, if it were up to you, specifically what are your concrete suggestions to ensure that parents don't tell children such religious lies", (your interpretation), who would do it and how, and who and how would it be enforced in any country?

Now I am not say'in it can't be done...I'm just giving some perspective before you give us your strategy on how to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 04:10 PM

"You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan"

Revolution, The Beatles

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:25 PM

how are children to make informed decisions if the militant atheists succeed in removing instruction from them?.at the same time they insist macro evolution be taught as fact despite other scientific opinions ,which they deny but are there -like it or not.
surely access to all sides should be afforded our students so they can decide for themselves.
steve-i dont see my logic as terrible but thankyou for you answer.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:03 PM

So, if it were up to you, specifically what are your concrete suggestions to ensure that parents don't tell children such religious lies", (your interpretation), who would do it and how, and who and how would it be enforced in any country?

It isn't my interpretation. It may be, on the other hand, a less than diplomatic way of putting it, but when children are being peddled myths as truth I don't feel like being diplomatic. If you tell children that this and that is in the Bible, and tell them that the Bible is very old and incomplete and not always even in agreement with itself, good. But if you tell them that the Bible is true, you're lying to them. If you tell them that many people think the Bible is true but some others ask questions, good. If you tell them that the Bible is the word of God, you're lying to them. If you tell them that a lot of people think the Bible is the word of God, but that other people have these doubts, good. As for solutions, that is not easy. I think that states should have nothing to do with religion. There should be no taxpayer-subsidised faith schools or similar institutions. There should be no "Church of England." There should be no religious leaders in public positions of influence, in the House of Lords for example. The BBC should not be broadcasting, at taxpayers' expense, religious broadcasts of any kind. Religion get a privileged, free ride all too often. That would be a good start. And very fair.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:33 PM

how are children to make informed decisions if the militant atheists succeed in removing instruction from them?

How are children to make informed decisions when they are routinely told that the religion they had the mischance to be born into is the one, true faith? That they will be forced to sit in classrooms under crucifixes and periodically made to bow their heads down in prayer? You've unintentionally put your finger on the problem. It isn't "instruction" they need. It's education.


at the same time they insist macro evolution be taught as fact despite other scientific opinions ,which they deny but are there -like it or not,

We insist that evolution is taught in a scientifically-honest way and not put side by side with utterly bogus, non-scientific "alternatives" such as intelligent design/creationism. And if you think there are "other scientific opinions" that deny evolution, let's have 'em please. And don't waste your breath telling me that there are "creationist scientists" out there. You've tried that one before.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:58 PM

"Religion get a privileged, free ride all too often. That would be a good start. And very fair."

Clumsy wording from me. I meant that all the other stuff I suggested would be a good start, not religion getting a free ride.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:00 PM

OK Steve, what you suggest seems reasonable.Not sure it presents a solution to issues you seemed to raise earlier, but would likely have some impact.

No state involvement in religion. I don't believe this is an issue where I live, as I see a clear separation. But, I see this is not the case in all countries.

A fair interpretation of the Bible is reasonable. It could possibly be encouraged in homes, eventually making some impact. But, making an impact in churches is likely problematic. But, if I understand trends, churches have less influence on today's young anyway...though I am unsure if that's true in non-western nations?

Because it was seen a good course at the time, we mostly followed what you put forward while raising our two children. My son is an Atheist. My daughter is a believer in a God, but not a member of any organized religion, much like me and the children's (now young adults) mother.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM

some of your suggestions seemed more reasonable than i expected,though couched in rigidly atheist terms.
it is probably not uniformly practical but presentations to older children from both ends of the debate would seem fair.
my citing creationist scientists is at least as reasonable as the assertions you continually make.you may recall that i invited evolutionists to give me their take on the complexity of cells.how do mechanisms that are not known to gain information provide an upward evolutionary path?.why is it not more reasonable that such complexity is created ?.dr matti leisola realized this even while a student and asked his professors how evolution could create biological novelties:"they of course had stories but when it came to mechanisms (which science is all about)of evolution they had no real explanations.later i started to present evidence for the limits of random change in scientific conferences of my own field and till now nobody has disagreed"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:26 PM

Citing creation scientists is way, way far from reasonable. Unless you are citing them as idiots.

Read "the greatest show on earth" - or just leaf through it - if you want hard data on evolution.

Watch out, though, it's authored by Dawkins and he is an impossible read.

What mechanism besides selection within variation do you need?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:34 PM

If Parents want to send their kids to a privately funded religious school. That's cool.


If you are saying that the only two things they should be educated about are Atheism and whatever religion they are raised in, I disagree on two fronts. First I want to see the Atheist convention where Atheist beliefs are universally agreed upon. Then I would like to see all other faiths covered in a way that satisfies all.

If you can't do both, the ways it is done now is better.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 05:38 PM

Pete, you are asking questions that Darwin answered and which have been backed up by science ever since. There's no point even trying to respond unless you promise us you'll read On The Origin Of Species, or at least a modern digest of it. And just cut out the creationist scientist bit. It's the king of oxymorons.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 05:44 PM

If you are saying that the only two things they should be educated about are Atheism and whatever religion they are raised in, I disagree on two fronts. First I want to see the Atheist convention where Atheist beliefs are universally agreed upon. Then I would like to see all other faiths covered in a way that satisfies all.

Where does this come from, Jacko? Did Aunt Sally tell you this?

So you don't want to see a faith convention where religious beliefs are universally agreed on. I simply love the way you set the bar at equal heights for both. :-)

Also, would you care to tell us where you've seen big discrepancies in "atheist beliefs?" Answers, Jack, we want answers!! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 09:14 PM

They don't need to be educated *about* atheism. They just need to be educated, the lack of belief in deity will follow logically. They should certinly be educated about what all religions teach, but they will be if they take philosophy or history.

Atheists don't have beliefs, anyway. At least, not "atheist" beliefs, that is oxymoronic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 10:18 PM

You two have some pretty odd ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:18 PM

Um, which two?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:25 PM

Which two do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:28 PM

What funny ideas are you talking about? It's hard to respond to such a general statement . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM

If you are at a poker table, look around for the suckers. If you don't see any, its you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:03 PM

You and me?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM

I am descending into whimsy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:49 PM

steve shaw, a bit of advice stick to playing the harmonica, something you know a bit about

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 04:31 PM

Dick, I'd rather hack my own nads off with a rusty machete than take any advice from you. Now, me lad - have you a contribution to make or not?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 04:32 PM

Another sane statement from the Atheist in Chief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:15 PM

steve-i love a bit of harmonica on my gospel blues songs!
i rather suspected you would evade my question again.i shall be charitable and accept that its too complicated for a scientist/teacher like you to explain evolutionary theory to a simple man like me.
like i said before:you like to issue challenges but wont accept them.
if i read greatest show on earth,would you read the greatest hoax on earth?
mrrzy-as above.
jack-perhaps i was unclear.i was really just reflecting on steves post.in mentioning both ends of the discussion,i was not intending to suggest anything else should be left out.i would not want to exclude the beginnings debate either.IMO an unchallenged theory retains its supremacy under false pretenses.i certainly think that is the case in UK education.
you mentioned atheist conventions.i understand the creationists offered to pit their best available men against the cream of the worlds atheist evolutionary scientists at the world atheist convention in australia last year.apparently the offer was declined.
just think-here was their opportunity to expose all this "oxymoron creationist nonsence"in public debate!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:30 PM

Pete, scientists don't debate with Creationists because Creationism isn't science. There is no controversy about this outside the minds of people like yourself. If you want to take part in discussions outside your church, you need to get educated. Creationism is the exact opposite of science because it starts with a conclusion and then assigns "evidence" to support it. Completely backwards from the scientific method. There is no such thing as "Creation Science" and it's a waste of everyone's time when you keep trying to insert it into a serious discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:46 PM

This is a serious discussion?

LOL,

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:50 PM

Guest Pete,

It's really futile to discuss or debate religionists about atheism. There's really no there, there. What's the point of an organized debate when nothing is provable? I don't know about a book called the Greatest Hoax on Earth but the title itself suggests a one-sided view of a subject that attacks rather than illuminates. (It would be helpful if you would use punctuation to clarify your ideas, BTW.)

Seeing both sides of an issue doesn't mean that one side is necessarily right or wrong.
Objectivity in the debate between Creationism and non-belief is impossible.

It has been suggested that Darwin and Einstein were agnostics and not atheists. This simply isn't something that can be reasonably corroborated. In Darwin's day, to say you were an atheist meant that no one would take Evolution seriously. Einstein was conflicting in his statements about a deity. He certainly was not a fan of organized religion which he considered to be foolish. That much can be brought to light. His view of a supreme being was not monolithic. In this way, it is thought that he suggested Spinoza's "god" which were really "gods", kind of a pantheon.

The atheists that I know would never inflict their views on their children. It's against the whole ethic of free thought. Many of the atheists I know have allowed their children to attend Sunday School or investigate religious practices on their own. Most religionists will not allow any deviation from their point of view with respect to their children.

There are no so-called atheist conventions but there are free thought societies and conventions that accept agnostics, atheists or many forms of secularism. Lectures and educational materials are presented in an un-dogmatic manner despite the misinformation about it here. The atheist is generally a proponent of not being dogmatic.
Dogma is the property of religious belief.

To insist that atheism is a form of "belief" is placing a religious value on it which doesn't apply. For most religionists, belief is essential to their point of view and non-belief is foreign to them. Therefore, it's not possible for a "believer" to understand non-belief because they think everyone must believe in something.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:51 PM

Of course it is, Jack, Schrödinger's cat proved that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:01 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_religious_views

>>Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[13] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[14] Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7] He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."[15]<<<


6. Albert Einstein: Nonbelievers Can Be Bigoted Like Believers

    The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.

    - Albert Einstein, quoted in: Einstein's God - Albert Einstein's Quest as a Scientist and as a Jew to Replace a Forsaken God (1997)

7. Albert Einstein: I am Not a Crusading, Professional Atheist

    I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

    - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

ATHEISTS SELECT DES MOINES, IOWA, AS VENUE FOR 2011 CONVENTION

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:02 PM

>>Of course it is, Jack, Schrödinger's cat proved that. <<

A talking cat!!! Cool!!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:24 PM

I din't "inflict my views" on my kids, I just taught them all the mythologies, including the judeochrislamic ones. Every time they would come home with a question about deity, usually from school, I would answer it with reality and facts. They have never seen the need to posit deity either.

I never used the sentence There is no such thing as deity. I merely removed any need for it in their education, while making sure that they weren't religiously illiterate.

And when their history book told them that while other religions were myths but christianity is true and we know it from the bible I hit the ceiling, not because christianity isn't true, but because the bible is not an historical text. They understand the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:25 PM

the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth

I don't actually know anyone like this. It sounds like an attempt to denigrate the opinions of atheists by assigning negative emotional baggage to them, making it easier to ignore what they have to say.

"professional atheist"?????

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:28 PM

>>I don't actually know anyone like this.<<

Perhaps you and Albert Einstein have not traveled in the same circles?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 07:57 PM

Wacko Jacko's best contribution by far thus far:

This is a serious discussion?

LOL

Jack, if you don't think this is serious discussion, why are you so deeply involved in it? Do you think that's a particularly sane approach, old bean??   Now don't go running away with the idea that I'm questioning your sanity (as you did mine). Heaven forfend! I just wondered, though, going from this interesting post of yours, whether you're questioning it yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:04 PM

It's amusing to read these persistent attempts to bring great scientists of the past on board the non-atheist wagon. I'm fully aware, nay, in awe, of their scientific credentials, but as arbiters as to the existence or not of God, well, perhaps someone else could tell me how they're more qualified than anyone else to pronounce on the matter. And, Jacko, if they were here today I think they'd probably be embarrassed that you were using them so. They'd be wishing they'd kept their big traps shut, I reckon.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:21 PM

Perhaps you and Albert Einstein have not traveled in the same circles?

You're the one who inserted it into the discussion, Jack. If you don't think it and are unwilling to discuss it, why do so?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:28 PM

i shall be charitable and accept that its too complicated for a scientist/teacher like you to explain evolutionary theory to a simple man like me.
like i said before:you like to issue challenges but wont accept them.

Pete. For Pete's sake, Pete. I've typed stuff about evolutionary theory on these threads till my bloody fingers bled. You've abundantly proved that you don't listen anyway. However. Here's the theory of natural selection in a nutshell (I wouldn't bother normally, but Darwin's big idea is so devastatingly simple that you can put it into one sentence). PETE, CAN YOU HEAR ME OUT THERE?!! Here goes. And thanks to Richard Dawkins for this definition, which I couldn't possibly better.


"Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design."


There you are, Pete. It's all about the non-random survival of attributes which can be inherited. That's what makes species change. Non-random is the natural selection bit. Miscopies are what we call mutations. Sufficient time means about four and a half billion years (it doesn't work if you think fossils are God's playthings, or that the Earth was created in 4004BC, or that the only creatures to survive were the ones that boarded a small wooden ship two-by-two). Yes, Dawkins' definition is deliberately tendentious, but it's highly accurate nonetheless.

Now go and get yourself a book about Darwin (or even Darwin's own) and flesh it out for yourself, instead of coming on here and asking daft questions with that faux-innocent "simple man" bit. Any more of this and it won't be simple man, it'll be simple-minded.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:46 PM

man, that Dawkins is a terrible writer.

How about since there is variation, and some of those variations are better suited to becoming an ancestor, over time those variations do become ancestors and others don't?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:52 PM

You need to much clearer about what you mean by variation, for a start. You might not care much for Professor Dawkins' atheism, but don't forget that his day job is as an evolutionary biologist. I wouldn't care to take him on in that particular field!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 12:01 AM

John P,
I don't feel obligated or qualified to defend Einstein's words but thank you for thinking I know his thoughts better than you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 09:52 AM

I don't feel obligated or qualified to defend Einstein's words but thank you for thinking I know his thoughts better than you.

Jack, I'm not asking you to defend Einstein's words. I made that very clear. I'm asking you to defend your use of them in this discussion. If you don't agree with them, why post them?

I never had any idea that you know anything at all about Einstein's thoughts, nor did I say that. You are getting more and more into deciding that someone said something that they patently didn't say and then responding to them as if they actually said it. Get off it.

I'll try again:
You posted this quote from Einstein: the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth

Do you actually know anyone who fervently espouses atheism (and that doesn't include having a discussion about it on Mudcat) because they were traumatized by religious teaching as a child? Are there really any "professional atheists", and even if there are does anyone take them seriously?

It's perfectly OK to say, "I just found an interesting quote and posted it. I don't really agree with it, though." But the absence of such a disqualifier in the face of being asked about it pointblank really makes it sound like you agree with Einstein and was trying to make a point. Which is it? If you were trying to make a point, what was it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:39 AM

Oh, no, I love his atheism. It's his writing I can't stand.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:45 AM

Whether I agreed with it or not, why on Earth should I be expected to defend Einstein? If you don't like what he said, if you know better than he, then disprove what he said. Or leave it as is. He said he knew professional Atheists. You said you don't. Leave it at that if you want.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:53 AM

BTW if you were to read the post in the context of those preceding it you might have a clue why it is there. You might not at least take it quite so personally. If you think back as to how Einstein has been used by your allies in these threads, you might also have an inkling.

also BTW, This is not a cross examination. You are not a prosecutor. Ask point blank all you want. I am not obliged to answer. Especially when being accused to denigrate etc.

Steve Shaw. Taking a discussion like this seriously is insane.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:55 AM

You know, I have no argument with evolution as such; we see its results every day.

But here is a (simplistic) question I have never seen debated - this may be the perfect spot for it:

When a bicycle, say, rusts away into the ground, the rust does not rise up and become a building; a wheel that has lain there for 100 years has not become a wagon; a human skeleton does not, by itself, become more complex.

To me, it appears that everything becomes LESS complex but more basic. In what way does evolution accomplish the opposite?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 12:13 PM

Ebbie,

What you describe is entropy. In general all thinks go from a higher state of potential energy to a lower one and from more complex to less complex.

Think of the Biosphere of Earth as a complexity engine. The fuel is energy from the sun. Plants, animals and humans use this energy to grow and reproduce creating more complexity. Humans build things (like bicycles) which eventually decay. All this is due to the massive amounts of energy created by the entropy of the Sun.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 01:21 PM

Jack, again and again and again and again, I never asked you to justify Einstein's words. I just asked why you quoted them. If there wasn't any particular reason, fine, just say so. In most cases, when someone introduces concepts into a discussion it's because they think those concepts are pertinent to the discussion. If you want to post things that you think are meaningless to the discussion you should be prepared to get called on it.

And yes, introducing the concept that atheists are bitter about being brought up in religion IS an attempt to discount the words of the people you are talking to. It's making judgments about their emotional state without having any actual information about it.

I know this isn't a cross examination. It's a discussion. I'm just asking you to pay attention to that fact, which, for me, includes meaning what you say and supporting your statements if they are shown to be off base.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 03:06 PM

>>I just asked why you quoted them. If there wasn't any particular reason, fine, just say so. In most cases, when someone introduces concepts into a discussion it's because they think those concepts are pertinent to the discussion. If you want to post things that you think are meaningless to the discussion you should be prepared to get called on it.<<

you didn't ask, you demanded. You still are demanding. It is you that is saying that the quote is meaningless and not pertinent. I think it stands on its own and does not require a defense.

BTW if you were to read the post in the context of those preceding it you might have a clue why it is there. You might not at least take it quite so personally. If you think back as to how Einstein has been used by your allies in these threads, you might also have an inkling.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:02 PM

1. I'm not taking it personally.

2. I'm not demanding anything; I'm just trying to get a fix on what you are saying so I can respond appropriately.

3. If I get to be the one who decides whether or not the quote you posted is relevant, I say it's not. So why did you post it?

4. I haven't used Einstein in this discussion.

5. I don't have allies in these discussions. There are some atheists and some believers. We're not a club.

6. If you are going to post comments about atheists in general with no indication that you are not talking about me personally, expect to get called on it.

7. Be easy, dude!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 05:44 PM

thank you for you explanation re-evolutionary theory.however i think i more or less already understood that much.it was not the question i originally asked.howbeit i suppose it may be too complex to answer on here.i shall just have to leave the question hanging.
ebbie-what do you mean re-see results of evolution every day.do you mean micro evolution?eg darwins finches developing diferently via natural selection to suit environs.no argument there,but they are still finches.no observed macro change.
john-of course creationists start with presuppositions.so do evolutionists.its the same data variously interpreted.
stringsinger-are you claiming that dawkins gives a 2sided presentation that doesnt attack religion?sure did,nt look that way to me when i watched his series on UK tv.
johnathan sarfati,s book is a answer to dawkins book.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 08:05 PM

BTW if you were to read the post in the context of those preceding it you might have a clue why it is there. You might not at least take it quite so personally. If you think back as to how Einstein has been used by your allies in these threads, you might also have an inkling.

also BTW, This is not a cross examination. You are not a prosecutor. Ask point blank all you want. I am not obliged to answer. Especially when being accused to denigrate etc.

Steve Shaw. Taking a discussion like this seriously is insane.

If anyone can enlighten me as to what this post actually means I'd be glad to hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 08:22 PM

Gosh, I've been out a lot today and I've only just realised that Wacko Jacko is actually Nobody. I note that, in spite of his very numerous and contentious posts to these threads, he still denigrates others who post for taking the threads seriously. Again, he questions the sanity of those who, just like him, post to such threads. I'm trying to get my head round what this might actually say about Wacko. It isn't easy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 10:52 PM

Shaw, I said that you were insane to wind you up. Little did I know that you would be so easy to wind.

Are you trying to make be believe that I was right?

Certainly, it is astounding that you consider these threads a serious matter given your tone and what you have said.

What "serious" goal is accomplished by saying childish, silly, mean and rude things like "Your God didn't teach you how to spell?"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 05:28 PM

jack-i seem to remember steves jibe was directed at me.just to say-im ok with it on my own behalf, though i would that some posters had been more respectful about my God at times.im sure im not the only one steve has been[shall we say]direct with!
hopefully we can get back to respectful debate/discussion.
i half heard a discussion programme on premier radio today[you,re unbelievable] and was struck by the total non aggression of the opposing participants.surely this is what this thread ought to be like.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 05:44 PM

...and don't call me Shirley!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:22 PM

Pete I am not OK with it. I would like to know what serious purpose it served. I would like to see all of his snide remarks and silly nicknames explained in light of this odd odd statement that he made.

>>if you don't think this is serious discussion, why are you so deeply involved in it? Do you think that's a particularly sane approach, old bean??   Now don't go running away with the idea that I'm questioning your sanity (as you did mine). Heaven forfend! I just wondered, though, going from this interesting post of yours, whether you're questioning it yourself. <<


What is serious about taunting people? About disrespect? About degenerating a conversation into name calling?

Tell us, please.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:55 PM

Disrespect and taunting are very serious. Ever heard of bullying?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 06:55 PM

Delusions in Pursuit of Theory

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:59 AM

>>Ever heard of bullying? <<

Until Steve Shaw, I've never heard it defended as serious discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 12:10 PM

Well, now that I think about it, I'm one of those who hopes that if we point and laugh at the silly superstitions, maybe they will all go away... and I am serious about that hope.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 01:03 PM

2100!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM

"stringsinger-are you claiming that dawkins gives a 2sided presentation that doesnt attack religion?sure did,nt look that way to me when i watched his series on UK tv."

Pete, I am claiming that Dawkins is far more sympathetic to religious delusion that you give him credit for. Have you read any of his books? He hasn't attacked anyone personally but
always confined his discussion to religion and not the religionists. This is intelligent conversation and not the ad-hominem crap that you find on Mudcat.

The argument is not whether people who practice religion are good or bad people. It's about religion itself and there is no 2 sides to delusion. It's crazy or it's not.

The reason it's deluded is that it is a system of practice that can claim no reality that can be proven but just an opinion that has been handed down from generation to generation like a disease which Dawkins refers to as a "meme". It's kind of like a computer virus that hits the net and is given the misnomer of "fact".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 08:47 AM

Can the Vietnam War be (also) seen as a Chriatian (RC) versus Buddhist religious war under France and US Kennedy?

Vietnam

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 08:49 AM

From the link above:

"Approximately 70% of Vietnam was Buddhist, however the under the rule of the French and Diem there was significant favoritism shown to Christian followers, particularly Catholics. Vietnamese were encouraged to convert in order to get jobs or avoid harassment from government officials. A well known Vietnamese proverb of the time was "Turn Catholic and have rice to eat." Oppressive laws were passed against non-Christian religious practices. Monks were sent into exile and those that attempted to practice their Buddhism in spite of laws against it were harassed and even killed. In 1963 American backed Vietnamese forces opened fire on South Vietnamese demonstrators that were demonstrating for religious freedom. Nine people were killed".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 12:52 PM

stringsinger-i dont think i claimed that dawkins attacked personalities.but since you mentioned it .im sure he has attacked the pope.there have been some bad popes but i dont know if the currant one is bad.
i fail to see that believing in a creator God can be delusional when atheists maintain that matter and life happened by itself.atheist delusion indeed!.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 07:08 PM

i fail to see that believing in a creator God can be delusional when atheists maintain that matter and life happened by itself.

I don't think that is actually claimed, Pete, it's just not known, but consider this: If nothing can 'happen by itself' and God made the universe, what did he make it from, who made that, and who made God? As far as I can see, creationist theory gives rise to a lot more unanswered questions than that which is currently accepted by mainstream science.

As for the present Pope, there is no doubt whatsoever that he has been despicable in the past, that is a matter of record. True, he could now be a changed man, but for me his crimes are unforgiveable. There is no excuse for knowingly preventing the discovery and prevention of child abuse. At the very least he should be in prison.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 11:21 AM

hi smokey-seems i have limitations in science and you in theology.i think dawkins makes a similar argument.he either lacks understanding on that subject or perhaps ignores it.

the creator God described in the bible is eternal so no one made him.being all powerful he spoke creation into being.i am quite aware that this is a non provable doctrine scientifically but perfectly reasonable if the existence of God is at all allowed.evolution certainly has no proven answer either.as i posted earlier,everything that has a beginning must have a sufficient cause.that cause would need to be spirit/supernatural or would itself need creating,thus pushing the problem further back and unresolved
i am aware that atheists dismiss this as "god of the gaps"but they have nothing better to offer.

i should mention that i am not defending the pope.i am not qualified on that subject,though you may well be right.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 11:46 AM

I would respectfully disagree that Dawkins suppressed any thinking about religion. He is a critic, not a suppressor. However, the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists have suppressed thinking for years. They have labeled, as most all religionists do, critical thinking as heresy. Critical analysis or contradictory thought is not suppression. That's a religious fallacy. The reason that religionists use that as an argument is because they can't conceive of any idea that doesn't conform to their so-called "faith".

I think most FreeThinkers have examined religious thought thoroughly. They don't arrive at this position capriciously as suggested by the "faithful". Most of them know more about the bible then those who criticize them for being dogmatic.

It's a reflexive stance by the religionists who instead of seeking actual information from Freethinkers, atheists or agnostics, they choose to arrogantly demonize them. Dawkins doesn't demonize any one but examines the issue of what religion is as a scientist would being presented by any idea. Hence you have a thread called "the atheist delusion".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 12:30 PM

Well, he may not *demon*ize them, ha ha, but he does call them as he sees them, which is as delusional. I would call them instead irrational (i.e., poor) thinkers, but and therefore we both find them likely wrong.

And these nonthinkers do demonize, or attempt to, we atheists/free thinkers.

But we don't know yet how time, which we perceive as space, began, which does not mean it had to be created, by an agency (defined above as intender, if you will).

Then again, Hawking's latest book may explain even that. It's on my Solstice list.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM

From any given viewpoint time appears the moment more than one particle exists and is in motion relative to another. From this perspective it is an artifact imposed by the viewpoint, and requires the assertion that particles persist (which they appear to do at our scale, anyway). This may not be fundamentally "true". though. Maybe the hologram is a petaherz regenerative display scheme, for example.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 07:46 PM

>>Ever heard of bullying? <<

Until Steve Shaw, I've never heard it defended as serious discussion.

Poor old Wacko. He's forgotten that bullying tirade, that sheer litany of insults he entertainingly indulged in a few short weeks ago when he repeated posted that I was insane and in need of psychiatric help (for disagreeing with him). Stuff that would have got him permanently dumped off quite a few forums I know, it was that bad! Somewhere down one of these threads it's all collected together for general delectation (and Jacko's mortification). No matter how much you now want to whine about "bullying", Jackie Tar, this will forever come back to haunt you. It's so hard to unsay things you've said, innit? Of course, you could always admit to the assembled brethren here that you were stupid and wrong to indulge in such bad, bullying behaviour, and we can then drop the whole thing. Until such times, your squirmy moans about bullying carry precisely zilch credibility (a bit like your "arguments", actually).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 07:48 PM

repeatedly.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 08:49 PM

hard to bully someone who won't read your posts, though!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 11:26 PM

I didn't say he was bullying me. Though he has certainly tried.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 05:33 AM

He reads my posts all right, Mrrzy. It's just that he replies to them as though a middle man has read them out to him. It's quite droll, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 09:10 AM

If they are short enough they might get read.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 09:33 AM

Would that be a reflection of your education or your attention span?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 09:58 AM

It is a reflection of the amount of effort your posts are worth.

Also I find that the more you type the less sense you make and the meaner you get.

Short and pithy is better than long winded ranting.

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

Well, YOU'VE certainly piled an awful lot of emotion into replying my posts, even going so far as to ask others to try to get me psychiatric help for my insanity (aka "disagreeing with Jacko"). As for how pithy you want 'em, do you have limits for word-length, number of syllables per word, sentence construction? I'm not wanting to over-tax you, you know. I'm that kind of guy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:13 AM

Sorry, only got to the end of the first line. You are back to ranting again.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:21 AM

*Sigh* Just trying to be nice to you. Oh well. I have to chop trees before it goes dark. You may entertain me again later.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:31 AM

Back to the thread, children, don't make me get a switch...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 11:31 AM

You are one to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 11:38 AM

stringsinger-was your last post in ref to mine?if so the connection seems a bit loose,at least i failed to comprehend it
nevertheless,some random thoughts.
did i say dawkins "suppresses" religious thinking?
i understood that the vatican historically sponsered scientists?i also understand it accepts evolutionism-sadly IMO.
are you saying i am arrogantly demonising atheists etc just because i disagree,and debate [as much as i am able].
atheist delusion is at least as valid as God delusion.
respectfully pete

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 11:52 AM

Pete, If you were being respectful you would properly format your writing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 12:59 PM

Nonsense, Pete. A conclusion based on data is always more valid than an unbased belief. But you know that...

In the post 2525!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 01:40 PM

"stringsinger-was your last post in ref to mine?if so the connection seems a bit loose,at least i failed to comprehend it"

The latter is more likely, Pete.


"nevertheless,some random thoughts.
did i say dawkins "suppresses" religious thinking?"

Maybe not you if you say you didn't. But others here infer that.



"i understood that the vatican historically sponsered scientists?i also understand it accepts evolutionism-sadly IMO."

There is no evolutionism. Only evolution. If the vatican sponsors scientists then they wouldn't be as adamantly opposed to abortion. They may sponsor scientists that they feel agree with them.

That said, there are many Catholics today who do not agree with the Vatican such as on issues of abortion, priests being allowed to marry and the coverup of child abuse.


"are you saying i am arrogantly demonising atheists etc just because i disagree,and debate [as much as i am able]."

I'm not sure if you are or not. Are you?

"atheist delusion is at least as valid as God delusion."

No this is a false equivalency. It is not a delusion that any god can't be proved. This is fact. There is no balance in this argument. The delusion of god stems from a belief system that is untenable because it has no basis in scientific fact. Atheism is not a delusion because it does not profess belief but merely states that without proof, a god probably doesn't exist. This is not a belief system operating on faith but on fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 01:48 PM

One of the new ploys of the Religious Right will be for the Greedy Old Party in the House to investigate global warming scientists in an effort to prove that global warming is fraudulent.
Issa (R) will head the investigation.

There are two basic reasons for this obstruction and waste in the congress.

1. The global warming deniers receive money from the energy corporations that
they are attempting to defend by persecuting scientists (ala Joe McCarthy)

2. There is a religious bias at the base of this since some of the deniers have claimed
that their god would not let global warming happen therefore the scientists must be in error.
It's a variation of the infamous Scopes Trial in which science is once more being denigrated in favor of religious belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 05:22 PM

stringsinger-i hope you have always found me to have been polite and respectful,despite my poor formatting,and our opposing positions.

the reason i say that atheist delusion is at least as valid as God delusion is that the straightforward reason a creation is,is that there is a creator.to posit matter and then life just happening sounds a lot like a faith position ,and not grounded on any observable science.

i am not definate on global warming,but is,nt it true that there have been fluctuations of temperature in history?.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 05:52 PM

Some reject the concept of a God because it fails to correspond with man's (their, or someone elses) current knowledge and reasoning.

Is this not the same as happened with many concepts rejected in the far, and not so far, past...some of the same concepts that we see as proven concepts today?

Is man's current knowledge the ultimate authority on what is not a fact, what is a mistake, or what is, as some choose to call it, a lie?

I find it difficult to see logic in the statement that "there probably is not a God, therefore it is a fact that there is no God".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 06:02 PM

I find it difficult to see logic in the statement that "there probably is not a God, therefore it is a fact that there is no God".

With all due respect Ed, you made the statement, no-one else has.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 06:52 PM

Is man's current knowledge the ultimate authority on what is not a fact, what is a mistake, or what is, as some choose to call it, a lie?

Not at all. I don't think anyone thinks we currently know everything there is to know. Most knowledge is still in our future. In the case of god, however, it's not a question of what we know but rather what is possible. The fact that we can look forward to all sorts of new knowledge doesn't mean that we should accept the possibility of something for which the chances of existence are vanishingly low. Speaking non-scientifically, one of the things we know is that the existence of god is not possible. Or, more accurately, there is no reason to entertain the notion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 07:04 PM

Note this statement

"Atheism....merely states that without proof, a god probably doesn't exist. This is not a belief system operating on faith but on fact"



fact - a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 07:09 PM

"In the case of god, however, it's not a question of what we know but rather what is possible"

Would that be "What science currently knows as possible"?

Is it not just as reasonable that what we now see as possible could change or be broadened in the future?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM

The fact in question is that there is no known evidence for the existence of gods, not that there aren't any gods - that is only a reasonable conclusion drawn from the available facts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 08:47 PM

Right; deity is possible, just not worth positing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Nov 10 - 10:40 PM

I don't know whether deity is possible, but nothing has ever convinced me of anything resembling a likelihood. I can clearly remember when I was little, coming to the conclusion that they were all just pretending. To a five year old it was the only reasonable explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 09:43 AM

Not only is it a fact that there is no evidence, it is also a fact that any God, in order to exist, would be in breach of all the laws of physics, and it is also a fact that he must be far more complicated and inexplicable than all the complicated and hard-to-explain things we already know about and struggle with. He's just an intellectually-dumb bolt-on that puts us in severe danger of being satisfied with third-rate non-explanations of the universe. If God is seen as the answer to anything at all he's going to stop us looking for the real answers. And that search for answers needs that mighty brain that God's followers allege he endowed us all with. So let's invent a God that gives us our mighty brain and then stops us from using it. Wow, what a guy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 11:52 AM

steve-of course God is beyond the laws of physics as an eternal spirit.as for believing being an obstacle to scientific research;historically science is indebted to a number of christian creationists for their imput,and current creationist scientists still do useful science.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 12:29 PM

You're just trolling now, Pete. How many more times... "creationist scientists" is virtually the expression that defines "oxymoron." If you wish to be taken seriously, once and for all give me the names of these creationists to whom science is indebted. And how arrogant to make up a new law that negates all the laws of physics, which, unlike them, has no observational or experimental evidence to support it!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 12:56 PM

Hey, where di my post go? I had said it better before...

I was saying that deity is possible the way the flying spaghetti monster or the ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil are possible - anything is possible.

But none of the above are *reasonable* possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 01:35 PM

You're just trolling now,

lol

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 02:34 PM

"Wow, what a guy"

And, what does that mean?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 02:44 PM

Not only is it a fact that there is no evidence...(that there is or ever could be a god, I assume is meant), it is also a fact that any God, in order to exist, would be in breach of all the laws of physics"

Would it be more accurate and reasonable to say "under the Laws of physics, as we understand them today"?

If it is a fact (that no god exists), can it be proven to be so?

Most would likely cooose to say it is probably a fact (as noted below), given current science understanding, not that it is a fact...that can be seen as stating that it is known beyond any probability?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 03:29 PM

Even though there is no proof that there is no god, (you can't prove a negative, this is a logical fallacy) there are a great many scientific theories that many have tried to prove and not been able to. So it is right that we dismiss them as being invalid. The same goes for any hypothesis about a deity.

The existence of a deity is therefore is not a fact but a fallacy.

Atheism remains simply the recognition that a deity can't be proven and that is a fact.

As to "Creationist scientists" it is possible that a scientist can be effective in a limited range of expertise and also become a "mad scientist" by attempting to prove what he/she believes to be true such as "cold fusion" or "spiritualism".

Science is not at the service of religion otherwise we would be living in primitive times
where people believed that darkness was evil and sunshine good.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 04:39 PM

Stringsinger

I suspect we are not on the same groove. Possibly, I did not explain my interest well. I will give it another try.

Your original statement that I referred to was:

"It is not a delusion that any god can't be proved. This is fact.
(There is no balance in this argument. The delusion of god stems from a belief system that is untenable because it has no basis in scientific fact. Atheism is not a delusion because it does not profess belief but merely states that without proof, a god probably doesn't exist. This is not a belief system operating on faith but on fact".

And, you recently state, "Atheism remains simply the recognition that a deity can't be proven and that is a fact"

I have no interest in joining a debate on defining Atheism, whether it is a faith or not, or what it contends to be a fact or not (though some seem to have such an interest). I feel it has been beaten to death, and see it as pointless, as I would see a debate on what theists believe or not.

My interest is investigating the logic in statements that seem to say a belief in a God is a fact, or not so, and statements that (sometimes at the same time) that the existence of a God is "probably" a fact, or not. It puzzles me why one would add this important word, "probable" in some cases and omit it in others?

I also feel, for accuracy purposes, it is important to add that it is based on current knowledge. To me, whether scientists feel researching a belief in God is important or not is not important to this matter.

I note that people frequently seem all "fired up" and defensive (and sometimes nasty) when one raises a question. Be assured, I am in no way trying to change (or take away) anyones belief, (or lack of one) or opinion (or conclusion) on what they see as facts.

Just trying to get closer to a statement that seems logical...which I suspect some others are doing, maybe in a different way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 10 - 09:19 PM

Would it be more accurate and reasonable to say "under the Laws of physics, as we understand them today"?

No it wouldn't. The laws of physics have abundant evidence to support them. What you seem to want to do is to invent a new law, for which there isn't the slightest scrap of evidence, that says that all the other laws may be circumvented in order to accommodate your God. We try to get to the bottom of the laws of physics in order to explain the universe as we see it. You want a new law that unexplains everything in one fell swoop, innocent of all evidence. It's so easy to do, isn't it? And cloudy and lazy and intellectually-stunting to boot.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 12:21 PM

i went on a pro darwin site yesterday and found it gave the same information about evolution as creation.com.in fact less.what was the same was the evidence for micro evolution that darwin discovered.there was nothing attempting a mechanistic explanation for macro change.
seems to me that this amounts to"no observational or experimental evidence".just what you charge theists with.
at least stringsinger followed the argument,though being predictably dismissive in his responce.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 12:49 PM

The question here is being "begged". The issue is not about opinion or the existence or non-existence of a god but the inherent harm it causes when religious evangelists attack atheists for example as does the Pope. The delusion enables so-called religious moderates to enable the fanatical to voice their disapproval without rebuttal by insisting that their views are correct and atheists are wrong.

History is rife with religious persecution by the religious rather than the Christians that Constantine decided to embrace. It goes on today with the murder of abortion doctors, the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment by church goers and preachers, the hiding of abuse of children and others, the insistence that their laws trump those of the U.S. government, the austere pronouncements of authoritarian self-styled pundits and preachers, and the economic plutocrats such as Falwell and Robertson who have polluted the discourse with their smothering blanket of media ownership.

The bible has been used as a weapon to silence dissent, promote racial segregation, subject young men and women to fight in futile wars, and stop free thought.

Other religions do similar things as the atrocities in the Mid-East and Israel attest.

"seems to me that this amounts to"no observational or experimental evidence".just what you charge theists with."

This statement only shows ignorance of scientific findings of the Twentieth century. You can find all kinds of rubbish on the net. This statement doesn't take into account the accomplishment of hard-working scientists to improve the human condition

This is the era of deniers. Holocaust, global warming, evolution, reproductive science deniers have thrown the world back into the nineteenth century.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 12:53 PM

Sorry Steve, my question was to another poster.

But, thanks anyway.

Good luck with that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 01:24 PM

I can respond to any point in any post I like, I think. That's the interweb for ya.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 01:52 PM

Organised religion seems to depend on the fact that the existence of God/s cannot be proved. From my own, admittedly cynical, point of view, the scam just wouldn't work if there was a real god with actual power.

That aside though, I can't see how the known laws of physics could ever change enough to accommodate what seems to be commonly posited as 'God'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 02:57 PM

"I can't see how the known laws of physics could ever change enough to accommodate what seems to be commonly posited as 'God'."

We'll Smokey, many people in past made similar personal observations, (not being able to see future change, of course) and were proven wrong. Inclluding, but not limited to, the flat Earth folks, and scientists adhering to the RC church :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:06 PM

"I can respond to any point in any post I like, I think. That's the interweb for ya."

Yes,and I see ya feel free to do so. Anyone can also loudly fart in public, not take showers, smell and look like a skunk, and call folks rude names, if they want. Imature kids rudely interupt folks in discussions clearly directed at others, and, most often get away with it. That's life and what most of us we must deal with, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:13 PM

There were far fewer known laws of physics in the past, but nevertheless gambling on a rank outsider seems illogical to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM

"There were far fewer known laws of physics in the past"

Smokey:
Maybe so, but, folks in the future may say the same of us in a few hundred or thousand years, as scientific progress seems to be moving at a faster pace. It wasn't that long ago when Einstien indicated that what is current known in some areas of science was not possible.   

"nevertheless gambling on a rank outsider seems illogical to me"

Smokey:

What seems "illogical" to you obviously is not seen in the same light by many in the world (right or wrong).

So, what is the actual risk ( as you note) of such a gamble to a belief in a God? And, I do not mean following the dogman of an organized religion, which I do see as, in many cases, as having many risks for society.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

folks in the future may say the same of us in a few hundred or thousand years, as scientific progress seems to be moving at a faster pace.

I expect they will, providing we're still here. In the meantime we have to make the best of what we know.

So, what is the actual risk ( as you note) of such a gamble to a belief in a God?

I never actually mentioned a risk; I was talking about odds and logic, but since you ask, the track record of religion so far hasn't exactly been trouble-free.

On an individual basis, however, so long as people keep their beliefs to themselves and don't seek to control, influence or assume superiority over others I don't think it's a problem. Unfortunately that isn't what happens, and there's your risk.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:04 PM

"I never actually mentioned a risk; I was talking about odds and logic, but since you ask, the track record of religion so far hasn't exactly been trouble-free.


Smokey

OK, my mistake. However, as I indicated, I agree that religion has a very risky track record. I will take it much farther than your modest assessment.

"On an individual basis, however, so long as people keep their beliefs to themselves and don't seek to control, influence or assume superiority over others I don't think it's a problem. Unfortunately that isn't what happens, and there's your risk."

Smokey
I suspect that most individuals who believe in a God (the thread topic) do keep their religious belief to themselves, as do most individual Athiests. As to organized religion (not the thread topic), there lies the risk, but I suspect it is mostly limited to those (who claim to speak for others) at the extreme end.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:21 PM

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are easily led.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:22 PM

Ed, if you wish to have a private conversation with someone, have a bloody private conversation. You have email. You don't have to post it up here. If you do post it up here you can expect people to wade in. That's what it's all about. I know you find it inconvenient, but if you don't like it you should ask yourself whether posting on public forums is such a good idea for you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:24 PM

Aren't the obvious risks to society of which you wrote enough?

The risk if you believe in deity are twofold; one is that your susceptibility to believe things for which there is no evidence may be a symptom of an inability to think critically or rationally at all; and the other, your susceptibility to believe *one* thing for which there is no evidence leaves you susceptible to believe *other* things for which there is no evidence.

Especially if the persuader claims to backed up by the deity in which you already believe.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:45 PM

"Aren't the obvious risks to society of which you wrote enough?"

If you are asking me: I did not give any risks related to a belief in a God? Please do not confuse this with risks from organized religion.


"The risk if you believe in deity are twofold; one is that your susceptibility to believe things for which there is no evidence may be a symptom of an inability to think critically or rationally at all; and the other, your susceptibility to believe *one* thing for which there is no evidence leaves you susceptible to believe *other* things for which there is no evidence"

Beyond your suggestion, can you provide any evidance that the two matters (the condition you describe) you bring up are in any way related? Or, that a "cure" of this affliction would be for a person to abandon a belief in a god?

I suspect that thinking in a manner that you describe would fall more closely under the category of a "prejudice" against those who believe in a God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:50 PM

"Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are easily led"

Well said, Smokey, by many organizations, societies and goverments. Many of these stating to the gullible masses that they represent something which they do not. Religious organizations are indeed among them. But, it is surely not limited to these groups.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:53 PM

Mrrzy, that's exactly why it is better for organised religion if there is no evidence to support God's existence. Whilst it may be possible to manipulate free-thinking, critically-thinking cynics, it's a hell of a lot more difficult and they don't part with their money or personal freedom anything like as readily.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:55 PM

it is surely not limited to these groups.

No, it's certainly not, but we aren't discussing the other groups.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:14 PM

Right, Smokey; it should take faith to have faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:16 PM

No, it's certainly not, but we aren't discussing the other groups.

Sorry, Smokey,in case you did not notice, I was actually agreeing with you.

IMO, it is very appropriate to add a broader perspective that any organization is open to similar risky behaviour...whether it is based on a god belief or not.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:19 PM

the last word on the subject

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:28 PM

LOL, LH

Or, "What the fuck am l here for"?
Pretty much sums it up beyond 2000 posts, or so, ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:33 PM

Sorry, Smokey,in case you did not notice, I was actually agreeing with you.

I know, Ed. I was agreeing with you too.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:34 PM

"I know, Ed. I was agreeing with you too"

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM

You any good at arm-wrestling?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 12:04 PM

Heh heh heh, reminds me of a great cartoon I saw once, you know the typical amoeba to human transitional forms idea, each with a thought bubble:

Amoeba: eat... survive... reproduce...
Fish: eat... survive... reproduce...
Lungfish: eat... survive... reproduce...
Mammal: eat... survive... reproduce...
Primate: eat... survive... reproduce...
Human: What's it all about?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 12:08 PM

Que voici.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:03 PM

stringsinger-i am not denying religious abuses and would agree to a large extent with your listing.however,since that is again wheeled out as though that is an argument against the existence of a creator God,i again remind you that the record of deity deniers and evolution embracers has been far from pretty.[not that i think darwin envisioned his doctrine used thus].
i note that you did not address my point directly but merely comment on my ignorance.nonetheless i am heartened that you concede the pro darwin BBC site is"rubbish"!.

ed-i had to LOL at one of your posts,though i probably did,nt ought to.i wont say which one!.

mrrzy-at least you appear to accept that humans are separate from other life inasmuch as we engage in thought other than"eat,survive,reproduce"?.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM

i again remind you that the record of deity deniers and evolution embracers has been far from pretty.[not that i think darwin envisioned his doctrine used thus].

There are no deity deniers. There are deity pushers, like you, who have no grounds for the pushing but who push blindly on anyway. Evolution embracers, a term which I presume is your weak attempt at being pejorative, are people who realise that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that says evolution is true. And what right have you, who cheerfully admits to complete ignorance of Darwin, to pontificate as to how he envisioned his doctrine? You are a complete fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 10:31 PM

mrrzy-at least you appear to accept that humans are separate from other life inasmuch as we engage in thought other than"eat,survive,reproduce"?. - well, we have a different degree/type of consciousness, but so may have dolphins and african elephants; separate, as are all other species, which is to say, not very.

But eat, survive, reproduce is where it's at, man!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 11:01 PM

"We are ugly, but we have the music" (Joplin via Cohen)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 12:30 PM

do you have anything intelligent to add,steve

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 07:06 PM

Whether you think I have anything intelligent to add is entirely up to you to judge, Pete, old boy. The points I try to make are based on knowledge that I have painstakingly acquired (which doesn't mean they're correct, of course). In contrast, and most frustratingly, you make the same ridiculous points about creationist scientists and you pontificate on Darwin, about whom you have admitted you know nothing. And you do it over and over again. If there really is a God he'd be bloody embarrassed to see what you are up to down here. In fact, I think you are running the risk of turning him into an atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 07:40 AM

as far as my comment about darwin is concerned,steve;i merely indicated that i did not apportion blame to him for the atrocities the worst of his adherents used his theory for.if you object to that,, i bow before your deeper knowledge of the man if you think he did forsee it thus used.
i actually hear of him as being kindly.i understand that he wrote off some islanders as hopeless savages on one voyage but later when through missionary work these people were transformed from what they were,he became a lifelong supporter of that missionary society.
i guess it also indicates a measure of humility on his part.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 09:14 AM

This is going away from the God Delusion thing but apparently Darwin was one of the biggest male chauvinists going and ironically treated women (family members) exactly in the same way as in a religious household back then. It seems he had the need to go with the mode of the times in his private life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 09:49 AM

It is getting away from the topic, but just to say that isn't what I've read about him. It's probably fair to say, going from the troubles and doubts with his theory we know he had, which weighed heavily on him all through his life, that he wasn't an instinctive revolutionary, and, as such, was hardly the man to initiate Victorian Women's Lib. I'd never presume to defend the man's private life, as that isn't what really interests me most about him. Newton was apparently an absolute shocker of a chap, but his science wasn't too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 09:55 AM

the atrocities the worst of his adherents used his theory for

Like the Nazis for example. You could argue that they were not adherents of his theory at all, but adherents of a very perverted version of it, brutally and deliberately misinterpreted to suit their own ends. We have done this one before.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 10:50 AM

No I suppose you are right everything changes with time. I only mentioned it because of something I read about women in the Victorian household discouraged from education etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM

Darwin's relationship with his wife was complicated. She was religious. He was not.
He loved her and respected her throughout his life. She finally realized that Evolution was something to be respected and supported her husband in later life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM

What atrocities? I mean, really. Do you really think one on one you'd stack up those slaughtering babies *in the name of Darwin* against those onward Christian (or pick another deity) soldiers? I point and laugh in your general direction, if that's the level of your argument.

But if you want to make sensible and reasonable discourse, this would be a good place for it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM

steve-i understand that hitler etc were admirers of darwin,but im sure the favour would not have been returned.as you have read darwin and i not ,i am happy to accept that the megamaniacs interpreted darwin for their own ends.the same could be said about "christian" atrocities,certainly not following Christs example.
mrrzy-as above.this theme came up again following a post earlier from stringsinger.i think that those using evolution as their rationale for their crimes do excel those using religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 12:21 PM

They didn't interpret Darwin. They deliberately and mischievously misinterpreted Darwin. There is a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 12:41 PM

Darwinian theory and the kind of genetic super-race manipulation used as rhetoric by the Nazis are about as closely related as Torquemade was to Jesus. They may have used similar words, but viva les differences!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM

It all comes back to God in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 10:45 PM

any religions offers plenty of positive incentives to their followers Ð the promise of life after death, for instance. But why have religions that involve self-sacrifice and punishment survived? The link between support for a religion and a willingness to inflict punishment may point to the answer.

To study this link, Ernst Fehr at the University of Zurich in Switzerland and his team enrolled 304 people, mainly students. They were sorted into pairs and played 20 rounds of a game in which the first player was shown a monetary reward and had to choose one of two ways to split it with their partner: they could either share it equally or take a greater share for themselves.

The second player then had the option of punishing the first one by deducting from their reward. Dishing out punishment came at a cost, however: the punisher lost a reward unit for each three units they deducted from their partner.
Subliminal words

Fehr wanted to find out what motivated people to punish others. Before deciding on the punishment, the second player was subliminally shown a group of words. These either related to religion Ð like "divine", "holy", "pious" and "religious" Ð to secular punishment, or were neutral words like "tractor".

After the game, all players were asked if they had donated money to a religious organisation in the previous year. The team found that those who had donated Ð about 15 per cent of participants Ð exacted the most severe punishments, but only after they had been shown the subliminal religious cues. When primed in this way, this group deducted roughly three times as many points on average as other players.

"We think that the cues give them a reminder they are being watched," says psychologist Ryan McKay of Royal Holloway University of London, who co-led the study with Fehr. "To please the supernatural agent they worship, they exact higher punishments. The other possibility is that the cued words awakened the concepts of appropriate punishment in their minds."

New Scientist

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 10:47 PM

It all comes back to God in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:09 AM

LOL! Good cartoon, Amos. There's no getting rid of something that's infinite, is there?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 11:05 AM

dont stop some people trying though!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 11:37 AM

"Our study offers compelling evidence that it is the social aspects of religion rather than theology or spirituality that leads to life satisfaction," said Chaeyoon Lim, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who led the study. "In particular, we find that friendships built in religious congregations are the secret ingredient in religion that makes people happier."

In their study, "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction," Lim and co-author Robert D. Putnam, the Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, use data from the Faith Matters Study, a panel survey of a representative sample of U.S. adults in 2006 and 2007. The panel survey was discussed in detail in the recently published book American Grace by Putnam and David E. Campbell.

According to the study, 33 percent of people who attend religious services every week and have three to five close friends in their congregation report that they are "extremely satisfied" with their lives. "Extremely satisfied" is defined as a 10 on a scale ranging from 1 to 10.

In comparison, only 19 percent of people who attend religious services weekly, but who have no close friends in their congregation report that they are extremely satisfied. On the other hand, 23 percent of people who attend religious services only several times a year, but who have three to five close friends in their congregation are extremely satisfied with their lives. Finally, 19 percent of people who never attend religious services, and therefore have no friends from congregation, say they are extremely satisfied with their lives.

"To me, the evidence substantiates that it is not really going to church and listening to sermons or praying that makes people happier, but making church-based friends and building intimate social networks there," Lim said.

According to Lim, people like to feel that they belong. "One of the important functions of religion is to give people a sense of belonging to a moral community based on religious faith," he said. "This community, however, could be abstract and remote unless one has an intimate circle of friends who share a similar identity. The friends in one's congregation thus make the religious community real and tangible, and strengthen one's sense of belonging to the community."

(PhysOrg)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 12:43 PM

i thought this thread had expired!

thanks amos for a fuller picture of these findings

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 01:52 PM

Yah. Anybody watch House? The patient, who was being willing crucified annually to keep his daughter cancer-free, said that faith was not a disease. House answers No, but it is transmissible, and it does kill an awful lot of people...

And note that the above adds to the evidence that the intangible isn't helpful in real life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 12:04 PM

"Social Darwinism" in the 1900's was introduced by robber barons who used the phrase "Survival of the fittest" to rationalize their exploitation of poor people. The term "Survival of the fittest" did not come from Darwin but the philosopher Herbert Spencer.

This is part of the reason for misinformation about Darwin.

Remember that "strengthen(ing) one's sense of belonging to the community." could easily be applied to the rise of Nazism. I suspect that there was a strong religious component to those times.

Amos, I take exception to your source, "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction," Lim and co-author Robert D. Putnam, the Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University" and take it with a grain of salt. This is pure opinion based on prejudicial research.

Of course you are going to find conclusions in research based on what you are looking for.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 01:25 PM

Hell, Frank, I didn't say you had to agree! I do think though that the basic hypothesis that it is the social web of agreement that makes religion compelling topeople is an interesting one, and has merit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 01:38 PM

is,nt it true that darwin incorporated "survival of the fittest" in a later edition of "origins....preservation of the favoured races.."i could be mistaken?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 02:10 PM

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is commonly used in contexts other than intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.

Herbert Spencer first used the phrase — after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species — in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape" [4]. Hence, it is not a scientific description.[5]

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" — bigger, faster or stronger — or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.[6].

An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7]

(Wikipedia)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 06:32 PM

Natural selection has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest individual" or race, or species. It is all about traits within a species (species show variation due to sexual reproduction) that confer some advantage making it more likely that the traits are passed on. Hence the references to differential reproduction. Darwin did not disapprove of the term "survival of the fittest", even though it wasn't coined by him, but he was acutely aware of the potential for its misinterpretation and was at pains to point out that the concept referred to differential survival within a species and not between species (or races).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Dec 10 - 05:56 PM

thanks gents.
presumably this has a bearing on nazi et al[miss]interpretation of darwin?.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 10:10 AM

Merry midwinter, y'all! Solstice is just around the corner... for all of us, whether we believe in it or not!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 11:10 AM

Confusing Darwinism with eugenics is a serious mistake, yes. Eugenics rhetoric fueled the stupidity of the Nazis' race policies and the parochial insanity in the United States along similar lines.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 11:52 AM

One should not forget Alfred Wallace:

Alfred Russel Wallace

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 01:15 PM

I am happy that this thread is growing longer. Although no one's mind is going to be changed, a discussion of this is productive because it leads people to think about the issue
and question their basic emotional values.

My observation is that people are wedded not to logical reasoning but emotional reactions determined by their upbringing, as they are molded by their parents and environment, clay statues unable to move, and yet full of vituperative opinions.

Much of the discussion of "faith" is about emotional feelings and conditioning while moving beyond faith will open new vistas of how we as humans get along with each other.
Religions, as politics, tend to solidify lines-in-the-sand opinions that require a defensive posture.

Through Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Baha'i, Sidha Yoga, and all other manifestations of the organized branches of religion, I have been a weary traveler and have found peace and rest by rejecting all of them.   I am sympathetic to those still on a religious path, there are so many thorns and brambles to scar you, so much dogma to weigh you down, and hope that you can lift the burden on your minds, free yourself from the prison of sanctimonious pronouncements and arrive at a place of freedom where your mind is clear and at the same time open to a morality and social conscience that doesn't require icons and places of worship.

I won't try to disabuse anyone that wants to believe anything that doesn't harm others.
As a strong proponent of the Separation of Church and State, the right to discover, explore, survey and question is an inalienable right of every American citizen, also, the right to reject and resist polemical indoctrination on the part of the "faithful" of any branch of religion.

So I submit to you as your inalienable right if you choose, "keep the unfaith".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 01:38 PM

"I am sympathetic to those still on a religious path..."

"I won't try to disabuse anyone that wants to believe anything that doesn't harm others".


Those do not seem to jive.

The first does not seem very respectful, nor would encourage respectful dialogue, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 02:46 PM

What is disrespectful about sympathizing with those on a religious path?

It seems the second is entirely consistent with such sympathy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 02:51 PM

If you are saying (in other words) "I know my position better (superior), you simple Fuck" in a conversation...which some here have come very close to saying (without actually saying it)..of course, it is disrespectful and will not likely stimulate discussion. More likely, it will cause folks to leave or be more firm in their position...possibly counter to what some want, but not everyone.

And, I sympathise with those who think that way...:)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 03:16 PM

in the spirit of inclusiveness likewise mrzzy and seasons greetings to all.

though not offended by stringsingers post;i do suspect that if i wrote similarly from a christian perpective,i would likely be attacked as being patronising-
and yet he is somewhat correct ;as to be uncertain about the fate of others who may not be believers is not easy.or to do the right thing when you want to do the wrong,and dare i suggest an unbeliever might rationalize.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 03:45 PM

Patronising, what a great word to describe why so many good thinking Mudcat people have left this discussion thread!

It seems to have been mostly left to a few people who share similar thinking. And, a few innocents offererd up as fodder.

"How dare you believe! Where is your evidence, you moron!" And, laughably some call that fruitful discussion. What a pity. It could be so much more.

Oh,well:)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 03:58 PM

Well, Ed, it is hard to have such a discussion when the rules of evidence are so variable. A moment of intuitive insight is not acceptable as evidence, even when the subject is the nature of intuitive insights, for example. And there is something deeply ironic about individuals making statements about their understanding that there is no such thing as understanding, and doing so with full intention to get you to understand that they know intention does not exist.

Hmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 04:17 PM

Amos, Well, I guess it is not a discussion then....exactly my point.....what's the point then?

Could one say "Once a duck, always half the same"? (to quote a wise saying from another much longer thread).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 05:22 PM

I don't get the logic here. I am quite respectful of many whom with which I disagree.
I didn't say that I pity those on a religious path nor did I say that I thought I was better then they. Respect is given by those who honor a view that opposes their own.
I believe I did that. I stand by my statements.





"I am sympathetic to those still on a religious path..."

"I won't try to disabuse anyone that wants to believe anything that doesn't harm others".


Those do not seem to jive.

The first does not seem very respectful, nor would encourage respectful dialogue, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 05:27 PM

"And, laughably some call that fruitful discussion. What a pity. It could be so much more. "

The ball is in your court to make this a fruitful discussion. I would welcome that.
Picking up your marbles and going home accomplishes nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 06:00 PM

"The ball is in your court to make this a fruitful discussion. I would welcome that.
Picking up your marbles and going home accomplishes nothing."

Precisely, that is the attitude that drove people away.
The ball is not in any one participants court in a meaningful discussion....one where there is a real interest in a view you do not hold.

This one time interesting discussion has been turned into a Kangeroo court (by a few like thinking mudcatters) using a scientific validity test on individual beliefs. Even the wisest scientists were wise enough not to go dawn that road. Where did you think that would lead?

Additionally, a fruitless discussion results from folks who browbeat others away, leaving it to two or three people with the same opinions. So, why bring it back...let it die, like other fruitless threads? As I noted, it is merely pointless.

The marbles are yours. You persist, while others have left. take them home, if it makes you folks feel superior. While it likely made some agressive posters feel surperior nbeings, with superior opinions, what did it prove? Nothing to most.

Welcoming discussion differs from setting the stage for meaningful discussion, where folks (regardless of their opinion) feel "welcome" to express their views and inner feelings and beliefs without being belittled and taunted.

Sorry to have singled you out...but, you seemed to ask.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Dec 10 - 09:14 AM

sorry amos i did,nt understand your post,so hopefully its not a point i was supposed to get.

stringsinger-i accept you intended no disrepect,though it does come across as ed describes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 19 Dec 10 - 05:37 PM

Ricky Gervais tells us why he is an atheist:http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 12:39 AM

While musing about The Law of Fives, and how our prejudices influence our Perceived Peality, Banjo Patterson poem came to mind...

QUOTE
Around me where I sit the wary wombat goes
A beast of little wit
But what he knows, he knows.
The very same remark applies to me also
I don't give out a spark
But what I know, I know.
UNQUOTE

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 02:10 PM

with ref to link.science is not a person that comes to conclusions.it presents the data and people interpret.and even those who are on the same bias often vary.

sounds a sensible quote,foolestroupe.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 05:26 PM

Science doesn't even present data, if you want to be pedantic, people do that too.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 05:37 PM

Ahhhh.....Sh...............

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 07:48 PM

10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 12:47 PM

Of course, some of us will disagree with some of those 10 things... most of which have already been thrashed out here.

Last night watching the lunar eclipse I was filled with delight that I live in an age where we know, from our own investigations, that these things will happen and why they are happening, so I didn't have to use superstitious dread to fill the void left by WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MOON??? as I would otherwise have been stuck with...

Aah, the joys of secular knowledge! Absolutely *fulfilling* and exhilarating! Love that right temporal hemisphere kicking in!

Love knowing how religiousesque ecstasy is wired in the human brain!

We really do have to get rid of myth as an explanation for anything real, before it kills us all, now *that* I can get behind.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 01:32 PM

myrrzy-point taken re;people present facts.ricky g,s personalizing science may be just a turn of phrase,but maybe deliberate to make believers look unscientific/deniers of "facts"

foolestroupe-i was pretty much on board on every point,though i might want to clarify some points.generally good article;i thought.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 04:03 PM

For those of you who adamantly think you know Professor Dawkins, here is something
I think you should read.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1100842/Why-I-celebrate-Christmas-worlds-famous-atheist.html

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 04:07 PM

However, I personally like Jingle Bells and Rudolf along with the other beautiful more traditional carols. I like Mel Torme's "The Christmas Song" and "Let it Snow", "Silver Bells",
"Winter Wonderland" and I see this holiday as nice.

I still honor "Peace on Earth and good will to men (and women".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 04:36 PM

Love knowing how religiousesque ecstasy is wired in the human brain!

We really do have to get rid of myth as an explanation for anything real, before it kills us all, now *that* I can get behind.

Do I detect an orgasm..maybe a multiuple...a science one, of course:)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 05:06 PM

Christmas for me is a nice tradition and not a religious holiday. It extends beyond those narrow parameters.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 05:09 PM

It isn't religiousesque, Ed. That's just a delusion. People were having a good and merry solstice time without the help of religion millennia before the bloody Victorians got hold of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 05:39 PM

Sorry Steve, I can't take credit for the first part. I failed to add cthe quotqtion marks. The first, that your comment relates to was Mrrzy, one of your athiest, (aka, anti delusion) kin. Read down a bit...."caught'ya on that one."   LOL

"Love knowing how religiousesque ecstasy is wired in the human brain!

We really do have to get rid of myth as an explanation for anything real, before it kills us all, now *that* I can get behind".

Do I detect an orgasm..maybe a multiuple...a science one, of course:)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 07:41 PM

Well Mrrzy was being scathing but you appeared to be embracing the concept. Pouncing on it, sort of thing. Don't come Mr Innocent with me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 08:31 PM

A third goating of Steve"O. Oh my!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 11:49 PM

Don't look now, 'wannabe folk heavies'....

..another 'deluded'(?) reference........

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 11:45 AM

I would like to rewire this statement.

"Love knowing how religiousesque ecstasy is wired in the human brain!"


The human brain is hardwired to cling to dogma, memes and religious edicts, but also has the capacity to overcome this affliction. It well may be that dogma can actually alter the human
brain and cause reactions that are inherently conditioned by training which explains why so many cling to their ideas regardless of the logic they engender.

This is how people vote, pray, and organize. It often has nothing to do with reason or
scientific investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 12:05 PM

Guest from Sanity,

I love Pete Seeger and his songs are brilliantly conceived but in regard to Ecclesiastes,
I find that passage to be prosaic and not terribly informative suggesting a false equivalency between war and peace. I think it was written to appease the gods of war who permeate religious doctrine, the so-called "just war" idea. I have misgivings about Turn Turn although I may have the distinction as being the first person to record it with Pete on Columbia Records for John Hammond prior to Byrds and Judy Collins. The melody and chords of the song are of course wonderful.

I don't consider the bible to be great poetry or especially insightful about the human condition. The King James Version was a slapped-together meanderings of former scribes and an appeasement to the warring religious factions of the time. I'll take Shakespeare over it any time.

Pete has espoused the bible recently and I must say I am disappointed in his endorsement.
But Pete remains a great man, a great performer, an underrated musician and profound influence on folk music. Even though I don't agree with his new-found religious ideas, I am still a folkie acolyte.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 05:29 PM

sorry;that was me yesterday.

not sure why you should think we should find dawkins enjoying xmas surprising,stringsinger;especially when presenting himself in the media.
as to dogma clung to illogically-the 5,s could figure any way you want,seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 06:11 PM

Stringsinger: "....Pete has espoused the bible recently and I must say I am disappointed in his endorsement....."

Do you think, at his age, he may have seen something, about what was residing in that little engine of his all, along?...and certain things make sense to him, after MANY thoughts and experiences, in his lifetime, and through his filter?

Maybe to himself, it makes the most sense. Makes sense to me....

ASK.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 09:50 AM

ASK.

OK. Why do you believe in God? Can you square those beliefs with any logic or facts?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 11:08 AM

John P:

Beliefs in ANY structure beyond the space-time-matter contimuum are not subject to logic, and do not involve facts in the normal sense. Why even pose the question? It's like challenging the physics of a ROad Runner cartoon--wrong universe of discourse.

Spiritual phenomenology is not common ground, and therefore cannot be wrestled into an evidentiary framework the way common space-time events can be.

This is not a reflection on their worth or merit or even their validity for the universe of discourse concerned. But that universe of discourse can only be accessed one individual at a time. Well, not at a time in the usual sense, but you may get what I mean anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 12:09 PM

Spiritual phenomenology isn't really the issue. I have no problem accepting widely experienced phenomena as evidence. I still like it to make sense, however. My question is about the conclusions that are drawn based on the phenomenological evidence. How do you get from a spiritual experience to a virgin birth and a being that, at will, alters the basic laws of nature that (s)he supposedly set up in the first place? Perhaps there are other conclusions that could be reached that would explain the phenomena without resorting to conscious beings that are outside the space/time continuum and/or belief in events that clearly can't happen?

I understand that lots of people believe in gods and don't feel any need for proof. To that, I say, "Fine, just don't try to force your beliefs on me." My questions are for those who claim that their belief is rational. Being irrational can be a good thing -- I do a fair bit of it myself. But if someone tells me that something that looks irrational is, in fact, rational, I want the chain of logic laid out.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 12:36 AM

John P: "ASK. OK. Why do you believe in God? Can you square those beliefs with any logic or facts?"

Well, as NOT to confuse anyone, 'believing in God' does NOT mean subscribing to a religion.

Believing in God is hardly a choice, to those who have had an experience, in which 'God', makes itself plain and obvious...and yet, still, NOT as portrayed within the confines of a denominational slant. Its bigger!....and unless you've experienced that experience, or one that comes to you, in whatever form it takes, I'd just be another person, giving a 'rap' that another may not understand. Seeger seems to have had 'something' that made a connection for him. It's rather personal...but, "The children of light will be, permitted to look through each others eyes"-- Paul 'Biff' Rose (another one, and friend of mine, from the past).

But 'prove it'?...I've given a lot on that, but then you'd have to go back into some earlier posts, in which the 'adamantly argumentative' get into absurdity trying to discredit(read: 'preposterous excuses'), of justifying their particular boneheaded stubbornness....and I don't want to open the post up with a 'battle of wits with unarmed people'.

So, all I can say is 'ASK'. Sincerely ask, If you get no answer, blow it off.....but if you keep getting little answers, and keep ignoring it..well..that is your own stupidity. Just ask!..Its up to you to 'plug in' not up to me to talk you into anything. If I can talk you into something, then somebody can talk you out of it! So, ask for real, and pay attention. If you get answers, as to 'God' revealing something to you....hey, pay attention. The rest is between you and 'God'.
Maybe you might want to ask Pete, and find out how it came down to him...you ain't going to believe me!

Happy Looking!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 08:08 AM

GfS,
Are you talking about experiencing the oneness of the universe, and being aware of the power that animates it? Or are you talking about worshiping a conscious being that chooses to be involved in our lives, had a human son with a virgin mother, and generally conforms to the mythologies of various religions? My question is how anyone gets from the first to the second.

I consider myself a deeply spiritual person, and that means that I have had deeply spiritual experiences. It is a capacity that humans have, and it has been documented extensively in most cultures and can be taught to most people. But the most important thing is that it is a deeply moving, often life-changing experience that brings the perception of greater awareness, of being plugged in to the whole cosmos in some way. If that is how you are defining belief in god, then we are in agreement and just need to work out the terminology.

But if you want to say that it is rational to believe in three-in-one, Satan, rose from the dead, god wrote the Bible (or said anything at all), then we have source of serious disagreement.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Brian May
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 10:34 AM

Wow, this thread took some reading.

However, I'm left with the opinion I started with.

I've absolutely no problem with a 'God' in all his/her guises.

I have BIG problems when people 'interprete' God and practise religion based on their beliefs rather than anyone else's.

Whenever I hear the word 'religion' I know that intolerance will follow hot on its heels (one way or another).

Religion in all its flavours has a lot to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 02:37 PM

I'll go a step further. Religion is the cause of most wars. History will bear this out.

The notion of a god is so amorphous that it can't be rationally discussed. Everyone seems to have a different meaning for it.

GfS, I have known Pete for a long time and he is consistent. He has probably had his religious notions for some time. Wisdom, of course, varies because there is no rule that establishes age or experience as an index to it.

"Spirituality" is one of those buzz-words that mean different things to everyone, also.
To me, it is redolent of ghosts and misty clouded thinking.

But I maintain there are some myths worth preserving such as the concept of "Peace on Earth, and Goodwill" to humans and animals which is often attributed to Christianity but I believe it predates this religion and is hard-wired into our DNA. This may be a trait that can be cultivated to ensure our survival as a species.

One way to achieve this is to eschew notions of spirits and gods and focus on what makes a decent society work and return to the noble idea of Democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Brian May
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 04:34 PM

I think the 'religion' and the 'cause of all wars' is that religion is used as a tool to further the power and money aims of those in control.

It also appears to be areligious (if that's a word). You see it in extreme Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc. It does not seem to appear to my knowledge in Buddhism.

I watched the wonderful Riverdance recently and the reply to 'how did Irish dance evolve with only legs moving - the reply was the Catholic priests dictated that the dancers were not to appear to be enjoying themselves! Power again. RC priests presumably were at work in Spain where Flamenco was practised with all its flamboyancy. I know - different priests.

It is convenient, in the pursuit, of these two aims, to spout 'God DEMANDS that we act to redress whatever slight we care to highlight'. Normally they are called moral entrepreneurs.

Just examine the latest outrages done in the name of religion (doesn't much matter which one) and assess for yourself it it's not some platform to achieve, power/control and money (as much as that is publicly eschewed in a lot of religions).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 07:28 PM

Nope Politics, the re-allocation of limited resources is the cause of all wars.

Religion is is sometimes an excuse or a rallying point but war is always motivated by greed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Dec 10 - 05:35 AM

Both religion and politics are the biggest frauds perpetrated on the human race, to control masses of people!

That being said, it does not mean there is 'no God', or people can't find a way to live civilly with each other. There are the 'manipulators', the profiteering controllers, who establish 'qualifications' and 'regulations' as not to let people free from his grip!

When we speak of 'God', aren't we referring to 'Light', 'Love' to be the origin of life...and what all things are made of?..or the marriage of the two??? If its 'Love', isn't love conscious? Could there just be a link to that love, and light, that links us together...and it IS conscious??...and we can tap into it?...and be in consistency with its attributes?

I think it's possible..not only do I think its possible, I think its a form of 'death', not be at peace with that..or separated from it...not only that, just plain stupid!..and self absorbed. You think you are an island, detached from every energy, seen or unseen, in this dimension???
Think about it!
...and if it is a conscious energy, communicate with it...manifest it, and don't limit your access to it, with block-headed opinions. Maybe listen to what 'IT' has to communicate to you!

I'm sure Pete, in his deepest private moments has his 'communications', and possibly sees some consistencies with things in the Bible. I wouldn't take it as a 'disappointment'...by the way, Dylan is sayin' the same thing, now..Biff Rose, for years! Sting, another, all of 'Celtic Woman'..along with others. It hasn't hurt their artistic abilities..in fact, just the opposite! Doesn't 'God' have creative attributes???..How much are they creating??? How much are you?? how much does it touch people? How deep? Don't you think if you could tap into the 'Big Consciousness', you'd find anything, common among mankind?..then speak it it??..deeper??

I certainly wouldn't let someone elses spiritual tap, threaten YOUR view of them...maybe you're the one who doesn't get it....but hold onto your closed off trip.
Just a thought.

Then again, if there is a conscious energy, Love,and Light and you wanted to 'get acquainted' with it, why should it,(Love)refuse an honest request, from a sincere heart????

Ask...and watch. Maybe we're not all wrong. Maybe its cool! No where in the Bible, does it say that we're 'going to heaven', which is a popular distortion, by the 'manipulators'.....BUT, it DOES say, that heaven is coming to us!!...(and they even bullshit you about what that is, too!)

Find out yourself.
Once you do, you'll know..and know why.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Brian May
Date: 25 Dec 10 - 06:05 AM

GfS

Well said - that'll do for me. For the first time in years, I received an email to me, my wife and one daughter from the 'other' daughter.

The email contained fun, humour, care and love - that was heaven for me.

Have fun all and appreciate those close to you if you can, it's SOo easy to concentrate on what niggles you when we have so much that doesn't.

God knows, if I can do it, then there's hope for us all . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 03:27 AM

Thanks, Brian. Sometimes common sense, and simple logic is just too hard, for some, to understand. Was honored, to share the meal.
Merry Christmas.

Guest from Sanity

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 02:18 PM

"When we speak of 'God', aren't we referring to 'Light', 'Love' to be the origin of life...and what all things are made of?"

When who speaks of a god?

"Doesn't 'God' have creative attributes???..How much are they creating???"

Delusion after delusion, a will-o-the-wisp, a "spiritual" grasping at straws, a false sense of security, a dogma tree with vague branches, a miasma of irrelevant ideas, a "holy"
realm of superiority embodies this kind of thinking.

What logic?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 03:00 PM

Sounds like it's early, and you're still groggy..maybe after you wake up a little more...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 10:35 AM

When we speak of 'God', aren't we referring to 'Light', 'Love' to be the origin of life...and what all things are made of?..or the marriage of the two??? If its 'Love', isn't love conscious? Could there just be a link to that love, and light, that links us together...and it IS conscious??

So, that would be a yes, you think god is conscious and communicates with us. What did he have to say last time you heard from him? What form does this communication take? How do you know that it is god talking to you? Why doesn't god talk to everyone?

What does "isn't love conscious?" mean?


....but hold onto your closed off trip.

Please tell me what you know about my spiritual experience and why you think it's a "closed off trip". If I agreed that god was talking to me, would that make my trip not be closed off? Why?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 12:44 PM

John P.: "What did he have to say last time you heard from him? What form does this communication take? How do you know that it is god talking to you? Why doesn't god talk to everyone?
What does "isn't love conscious?" mean?"

All I can say, from those who have, and from personal experience, is Love will communicate to those who it wishes to manifest itself to, in different ways, to those who 'hear', The best way I know, is to ask, like I said. ..after that, let that spirit, communicate to you, the way it knows. It will be personal, deeply personal...and it will show you the rest of the way through.
If I give you a 'formula', I become just another restricting, constricting, and conflicting denomination...and honestly I'm NOT into starting another damn religion!!
That being said, once the journey picks up, pay attention. It may lead you into places you'd never suspect, places you'd suspect to reject, down a path you can't detect.
...but once you pick up the phone, don't think the call is over..once you hang up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 12:45 PM

Well, at least 2010 is almost over, even if the delusion and th debate aren't...

Unless you do the solstice thing in which case it already is the new year, and we should start a new thread.

And for the people who say well, if you do the solstice how can you use the year 2010, since that is the Christian calendar, I reply that 1.5 billion and change rounds OK to 2,010.