BS: The God Delusion 2010

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:13 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: mauvepink
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 07:18 AM

Point taken Lox! :-)

mp