BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:34 AM

"The only way to the father is through Jesus."

Not sure what this has to do with an alternative to science. Most people in scientific fields I come across have some degree of religious conviction. They just don't let it get in the way of the day job.

If you take pete's "father" as the ultimate answer blah blah, then he is wrong in saying a historical member of the human race with supernatural powers attributed to him knows the answers. Not even Einstein got all of it right, so what chance would Jesus have without the outpouring of discovery immediately prior to Einstein et al?

So..back to my original point. To push religion as a moral compass, somewhere to get a cup of tea on a Sunday etc is all well and good. But to decry the progress of civilisation for no reason that "2,000 year old science" is seen to be way off the mark? It needs exposing for the paper tiger it is. If not for any other reason, so that respectable people with faith don't get too associated with idiots...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:56 AM

""My 'bet' is based on my personal feeling that *IF* there is a heavenly afterlife, 'leading a good life' should be enough to get me in without 'believing' a 2000 year old book and all the varied interpretations. "Jesus alone is the only way" feels very awkward to me.""

And from one who does believe in a deity, AMEN to that.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 01:28 PM

Being a devotee of religion doesn't make you a good person.

Science is neutral in that it can create medical breakthroughs or bigger bombs.

It has a beautiful side when you consider how much the chemicals in our bodies
emanate from stars and comets.

One of the most beautiful forms is "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

Also, the Hydrologic Cycle is beautiful.

And Darwin's discoveries are lovely.

The more we know about the human mind, the richer and imaginative science becomes.

Dogma and doctrine stifle creativity, beauty and art.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 02:24 PM

Well, Stringsinger, you know me, unreconstructed pagan that I am, but I can't bring myself to think that dogmatic belief has always stifled art. I've been inside some stunning cathedrals (and much smaller churches) in my time that have contained overwhelmingly beautiful art. Last October I was in the Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta, Torcello, Venice, gobsmacked by the enormous and astonishing 12th century Byzantine mosaic of the Last Judgement. The next day I gazed for a full hour at a Titian Madonna and Child in the Accademia, trying to absorb the miraculous work in front of me. And you won't catch me ditching my Giulini Bach Mass in B minor and I just might sanction Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus at my otherwise strictly non-religious funeral. I think that a fallacious view of the world, brought about by dogma and doctrine, could stifle the appreciation of beauty and would certainly stifle enquiry by leading it up the garden path.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 11:27 AM

What dogmatic belief stifles is curiosity, imagination and individuality, because that is precisely what it is designed to do.

The problem is that these are exactly the qualities which are the motive force behind human achievement and technological progress.

They are also the basis of creativity, which is why I don't rate the religious icons and statuary of the renaissance as particularly great art, but rather very fine draughtsmanship.

Others' mileage may vary, but I see no originality, only imitative excellence, allied with improved anatomical knowledge.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:30 PM

thanks bill-since you wondered;-i am happy to give some background.
i was not raised in a christian family.i had a very brief spell in sunday school but got bored.age 15 a friend invited me to a youth service at a pentecostal church and i went, and continued to do so though counting myself an atheist at the time.it was some time later[about a year i think]that i accepted Gods existence followed by an expression of repentance and faith in Christ.
during this time i had read material that countered darwinism and some about bible prophesy .
i also had a very strong experience of speaking in tonques-no doubt that could be explained away by unbelievers but i was / am sure of that experience.

indeed to sit and chat with you would be nice were it geographically possible.
best   pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM

Fascinating, Pete... because I WAS raised in a generally religious family. (Methodist), although they were not 'fundamentalist'.. I went to church and Sunday school in the 3rd & 4th grades and was duly baptized. When we moved, my parents didn't find a church they liked, and we gradually stopped regular attendence. So.. when *I* was about 15, I started reading various things and at 17 found a book on Philosophy.
I LIKED 'thinking' and questioning and decided to major in philosophy in college, and took courses in comparative religion as well. It may have been all that information about how overwhelmingly many religious beliefs there were that showed me the folly of picking just one.

I do think, Pete, that a year of constant exposure to Pentacostal teachings can be pretty ...ummm... influential..... just as years of studying philosophy can be, in another direction. I, of course, defend the wider view as a more reasonable approach. ☺

It is at least as interesting to learn HOW people got to their viewpoints as it is to unravel the details of what they DO believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 05:28 PM

Very interesting, pete (doesn't make any sense to me - but interesting).

Now! Back to business. Any chance of giving me an example of an "evolution believer" who has committed an atrocity?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 12 - 05:39 PM

Not a good question, Shimrod... atrocities are not limited to ANY belief system, or lack thereof...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 03:56 AM

I quite agree, Bill. But further up the thread pete accused "evolution believers" of committing atrocities, and subsequently, I asked him to give me an example. In spite of repeated requests to provide me with an example he refuses to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 10:57 AM

'You might think you can tell me that you are just as imaginative, creative and poetic as a free thinking atheist, but you would be wrong'.

That sounds to me like a very closed mind indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 11:39 AM

I see your point, Shimrod... but I don't see why naming 'one'.. or even several... would make a difference to Pete's assertion.

He simply said: "atheist / evolutionary believers have inflicted countless atrocities." Even *I* realize that. Pete doesn't win any particular prize for noting an obvious fact, but making a list won't make it any clearer.... and his point doesn't alter the fact that believers/creationists have done the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 01:20 PM

interesting the points of correspondence bill,-albeit the diametricaly opposed paths thereafter.of course you far exceeded me academically.
the point about atrocities followed don t acusing religion of countless atrocities [hopefuly not misquoting him !]
to clarify-my contention is that more deaths ensued from atheist,darwin believers in the 20th c than the entire history of christendom-perhaps of the major religions included.
other than that i did not intend to pursue that point as it was covered extensively in previous threads.
pete

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:00 PM

Certainly I agree with you, pete, that in the 20th century atheist regimes committed many atrocities. But was that because they were atheists? Or was it because they were fanatical, political ideologues? Regimes like the Nazis, in Germany, also claimed that they drew inspiration from evolutionary science. In fact they distorted evolutionary science to their own ends ... actually, they appeared just make it up as they went along (I suspect that Darwin would have been horrified!).

I actually believe that the only sane, reasonable and acceptable reaction to any form of religious teaching or political ideology is healthy scepticism. I suspect that I would soon have been thrown out of that Pentecostal church that you went to.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:07 PM

Shimrod, I don't think any atrocities were committed because of religion either, though I'll grant it many were "justified" through it.


The crusades were an excuse to loot. There is nothing in the Bible calling for the torture of heretics. Certainly Jesus did not teach that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 12 - 02:49 PM

"...-my contention is that more deaths ensued from atheist,darwin believers in the 20th c than the entire history of christendom-perhaps of the major religions included."

Ah, pete... I must take issue! Please realize that sheer numbers only make a partial point. Stalin was responsible for many millions of atrocities... but the Crusades, percentage-wise, may have done more. There are simply more people available to inflict atrocities on these days.
   Right now in Africa, there are horrendous atrocities being committed by a few groups who claim Christian links. Joseph Kony

There is no way to settle such issues by 'body counts'.... we need to look at the basic nature of people and their defense of their attacks on 'other people'.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 11:56 AM

""the point about atrocities followed don t acusing religion of countless atrocities [hopefuly not misquoting him !]""

If you think that statement of yours is true Pete, please reproduce the post in which I claimed ""countless atrocities"" by anyone at all.

I never used that phrase or anything that could be so construed, so yes, you have misquoted once more.

What I actually said was:

""I am aware that these are minorities of the three religions, but you cannot deny that they have the greatest prominence and are, as the authors of most of the atrocities of the modern world, the greatest threat.""

I went on to say that:

""Until the weight of the majority of moderate believers is thrown against them and they are ejected, they will destroy any chance of accord and harmony, not just between faiths, but between nations too.""

This is absolutely at odds with your quote, which totally ignored the fact that my comments were about the minority of fanatics in those religions.

Can you, in all honesty, looking at what has happened in the last 40 years, tell me that I'm wrong.

Sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland, still breaking out through the actions of splinter groups.

Jew versus Muslim in Palestine, Gaza, The West Bank.

Sunnis versus Shiites in Iraq, more killing than in the Iraq war.

And on, and on, and on.

The fact that religion is, in some cases, merely an excuse is neither here nor there.

These occurrences are being perpetrated in its name.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 12:50 PM

I should also like to point out that any correlations between religion and atrocities or no-religion and atrocities doesn't imply a causal relationship between religious stance and propensity to commit atrocities. Hence the Crusaders, the Inquisition or Al Quaeda probably didn't commit atrocities primarily because they were religious but because they were interested in acquiring (earthly) political power and justified their actions on religious grounds. Hitler and Stalin, on the other hand, were atheists (i.e. couldn't give a toss about religion) and justified their actions on political grounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 07:07 PM

ok don;-seems my paraphrase of your comments was not in accord to the original.i shall endeavour to avoid reponses to yourself in future to be on the safe side.

bill-certainly is a unsavoury mixed up man.would you say he was a christian?
i agree that it is difficult to use stats to establish conclusions over history.obviously most atheists dont commit genocide-or most christians atrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 09:29 PM

Sadly, Pete, Christians are usually lumped together by what they SAY they believe. If we start taking surveys, some groups will say all the other groups are NOT Christian.

That guy is obviously a mixed up case, but he is claiming to follow Christianity... just as the Spanish Inquisition did.....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Oct 12 - 09:40 PM

""ok don;-seems my paraphrase of your comments was not in accord to the original.i shall endeavour to avoid reponses to yourself in future to be on the safe side.""

I beg your pardon?

I thought you just said that if you can't change the meaning by "paraphrasing", you won't respond at all.

That says a lot about the validity of your stance.

Surely Pete, that can't be what you actually meant.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 07:48 AM

"Surely Pete, that can't be what you actually meant."


I suspect that pete may no longer know what he means because he's been brain-washed by fundamentalist pentecostalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 08:39 PM

'You might think you can tell me that you are just as imaginative, creative and poetic as a free thinking atheist, but you would be wrong'.

That sounds to me like a very closed mind indeed.

If your imagination, creativity and poetry are driven, or significantly influenced, by your religion, then 'tis you who has the closed mind. Your imagination is severely ringfenced. You won't be able to see past a perverted view of the world and the universe, with all its diversity and beauty staring you in the face, purportedly created by a rather abject, inexplicable being. That is false and it can't help but close off that part of your mind that should be free to contemplate nature as the source of edification through joy - and knowledge. You're adding an extraneous layer that is a bit like putting a very beautiful duvet over your loudspeakers when you're listening to Mozart. So beguiling in itself but, ultimately, serving to do nothing save hide the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:19 AM

You know, there is no such thing as a Christian, or a Muslim, or an atheist.

They are all people.

And if someone uses anything intangible to either further or justify their cause, it is the person doing it, not some supernatural construction.

Of course, supernatural constructions were always built in order to stifle dangerous individual thought in the first place, but that's another matter...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:24 AM

***************************NEWS ALERT************************

The Republican Party has just added a plank to their platform
that outlaws all science and declares Columbus a fake...

***********************Details at eleven*********************

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 09:55 AM

Steve Shaw, like I said, a very closed mind indeed. You know what you think, how you respond, what moves you and what leaves you cold. You have developed opinions based on your experience and you have accrued a level of knowledge and understanding. So do and so have other people. I can only gauge who you are or what you are by what you say and do. Your belief that you know what is going on in other people's minds better than they do without knowing them demonstrates either arrogance or stupidity, probably both. You really have no idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 12:25 PM

Heheh. I take it you're no atheist, Brendan. You appear to have come up with an accurate description of yourself and applied it, bitterly, to me. Incidentally, show me where I ever said or implied that I know what is going on in other people's minds better than they do without knowing them. Before you are tempted to misquote, do note the "if" at the very beginning of my last post. It applies to the whole content of the post. If you really are content to settle for creation by an inexplicable and improbable superbeing, well all I can tell you is that you're missing out on a wonderful alternative line of enquiry that really is worth living for. There was another "if" there, note.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 01:27 PM

Steve Shaw - JS Bach was a devout Christian, as was Michaelangelo, as was Milton. You are, in your estimation, more creative than any of them because, according to you, their creativity was severely ring fenced.
Where can I find evidence of your enhanced creativity?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 01:42 PM

Alternative to Science?? .....

Political agendas and their rationale!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 01:52 PM

Ah but was Bach a Christian?

If you listen to the wonderful use of cadence in his work, you have the most accurate interpretation of infinity you could ever ask for.

And in those days that was heresy. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 01:56 PM

"JS Bach was a devout Christian, as was Michaelangelo, as was Milton."

Again we have a confusion between correlation and causation. I very much doubt that the three individuals you refer to were talented solely as a result of their faith. I suspect that they would have been talented if they had been born into cultures in which supernatural jelly babies or phantom bicycle pumps were venerated.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 02:20 PM

Shimrod, I couldn't agree more. I was responding to what seemed to me to be a rather fatuous posting from one Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 02:39 PM

Greg F: "Outnumbered only by those inflicted by "Christians"[sic]."

Who said anything about the 'churches' being Christian??
That is as ridiculous as political parties claiming to be 'for the people'...it's just like the phony do-gooders who believe in their rhetoric and can't/won't can't see it!!

Fhe fundamental law of Christianity is "Love God above all things, and love others as you would yourself"...No matter what a 'church' or organization claims, if it ain't doing that, it ain't Christian!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 03:55 PM

It matters not a jot whether Bach, Michaelangelo or Milton were Christians. It mattered not a jot whether Einstein believed in God. What I said mattered was in the post that Brendan is taking such exception to:

If your imagination, creativity and poetry are driven, or significantly influenced, by your religion, then 'tis you who has the closed mind. Your imagination is severely ringfenced. You won't be able to see past a perverted view of the world and the universe, with all its diversity and beauty staring you in the face, purportedly created by a rather abject, inexplicable being. That is false and it can't help but close off that part of your mind that should be free to contemplate nature as the source of edification through joy - and knowledge.

It would be very arrogant indeed to assume that the artistry of Bach, Michaelangelo and Milton were driven, or significantly influenced by, their religion. I should like to know how you can possibly know that. On the contrary, it is well known (excuse weasel words there...) that, for example, many great composers wrote their most cheerful works when they were often struggling with things going wrong in their lives. Mozart wrote The Magic Flute in the final year of his life, when he was burdened with financial worries and poor health. Beethoven wrote some of his most sublime pieces, the supremely lyrical and upbeat quartets in E flat and C sharp minor for example, and the witty Diabelli Variations, after he had completely lost his hearing and was ground down with distressing and chaotic circumstances in his private life. Great artists are well able to stand outside themselves. Whether Beethoven believed in God or not is a moot point, yet he wrote the amazing Missa Solemnis. Shimrod is correct in saying that these men were not solely (if at all, I'd add) talented as a result of their faith. He could easily have added that it's perfectly possible to deliver oneself of great art in spite of faith. And why not.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:04 PM

I quoted the sentence which I found fatuous in a previous post. You're a slippery little devil aren't you Stevie?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 04:14 PM

When asked how Beethoven wrote such beautiful music, Beethoven answered, Ludwig van Beethoven: "The vibrations on the air are the breath of God speaking to man's soul. Music is the language of God. We musicians are as close to God as man can be. We hear his voice, we read his lips, we give birth to the children of God, who sing his praise. That's what musicians are."

I couldn't agree more!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:08 PM

Beethoven was much given to somewhat overblown phraseology. I could remind you of the time when one of his compatriots said to him "The work will be finished on time, with God's help" to which Beethoven replied sharply "Oh man, help yourself!"

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:22 PM

I quoted the sentence which I found fatuous in a previous post. You're a slippery little devil aren't you Stevie?

If anyone is being slippery, 'tis thou. The quote you lifted out of context was from a post that derided people who put forward poetry, creativity and imagination as equivalent alternatives to science. There is a damn sight more poetry in nature, there for the seeking, than in any poetry anthology or ancient book of myths.

What I said, and I'm sticking to it: It is common for believers to put science alongside their belief system as some kind of equivalent alternative. That is a very poor way of seeing things. Moreover, anyone who thinks that they can put imagination, poetry and creativity forward as alternative perspectives to science has it arse about face.

Those amazing true gods of sound and stone and word and tint were just fine, with or without religion. Their art was free of the shackles of whatever faith they might have entertained in another part of their being.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:32 PM

Stevie Dingleberry, Who in their right mind would take your overblown self absorbed word about music or God????..Are you alluding that you know more about music or God than Beethoven??
Sometimes you make such an ass of yourself!!

Go impress yourself in front of a mirror...then destroy the mirror!

All hail the wisdom and great mouth of dorko!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:54 PM

Hey Ludwig, "Where did you get that inspiration for composing such unbelievable music?"

Ludwig: "I don't know..haven't got a clue, ask Steve, He knows everything about nothing! Me?..I just am a stooge next to him..I'm still trying to figure out how he gets such a big head up his ass!"

So am I.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 07:51 PM

Well guess who's here to raise the tone! Do put me right, point by point, or simply retreat into your over-gusty insanity.

I'm of a similar view, actually, when it comes to music as Vladimir Ashkenazy. It's a complete bloody mystery to me. Of course, if you have evidence that Bach, Beethoven or anyone else wrote music driven or significantly influenced by their faith, let's have it! Let's agree, though, that the fact that a bloke took communion and/or played the organ in church, or even that he composed music around religious subjects (they, er, had to do that to make a living...) is not that evidence, as much as many a faith-wallah would like to claim it to be so. I'm actually telling you what I don't know, if you think about it. Which you don't, cos you can't! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:08 PM

I never said it was as a result of his 'faith'. He was asked, and he gave the answer..If you don't like it, too bad. Maybe he told the truth..and those who know what he's talking about, knows that he answered correctly. If you can't realize that, well, you can always just listen to all those voices in your head...we can't see them either...but it doesn't mean they don't exist!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:49 PM

Who said I didn't like it! I like it when people are true to themselves, not saying what I expect 'em to say. Anyone reading your two posts above your last one would think 'twas you who's addled with voices in the head, suddenly swanning in like that with your silly, demeaning verbiage. Are you sober? Or maybe thirteen?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:54 PM

*************************NEWS ALERT***************************

                  Global warming a hoax....

***********************Details @ 11***************************

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 12 - 10:02 PM

...and 95% of all forest fires are cause by trees!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 04:34 AM

Is there an alternative to contradiction masquerading as debate?

Thought not.

Older people of today were brought up without knowing the existence of so many ruddy galaxies, or that the internet could or would transform their lives, either actively or passively. So how the Hell could Beethoven and Bach have known that the God delusion could be challenged? We are all creatures of our day and the limit of understanding of that day.

A bit deep for me, that. Here's a joke about a greyhound having a shit...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 06:15 AM

That is entirely correct. A man of his time indeed. Beethoven was baptised a Catholic but he was not a regular churchgoer. What we know of him suggests that he embraced a personal god, or perhaps a higher power to which he may have looked for inspiration, but not God as characterised by the God squads of his time (and ours, for that matter). Denying God in those times and in his circumstances would not have been so easy in any case, even if he'd wanted to, which he may not have done. Certainly, many other composers of his time or earlier would have been expected to embrace Christianity almost as a condition of their employment, which muddies the waters somewhat when it comes to assessing their true degrees of devotion.

It irritates me quite a lot when I see people trying to claim the talents of great artists as the spawn of their faith. No-one would try to deny that religious tradition did not inspire specific works of art to be produced, but that is as much as it is possible to claim. Religion claims so much, yet rejects inconveniences such as the horrors perpetrated "in the name of religion" (I have a lot of sympathy with religion over that, actually). I attended a funeral of a lifelong friend a little while ago. The pastor, in his eulogy at the service, did not hesitate to claim my friend's long and virtuous life (which he did indeed live) to be a product of his Christianity. In the many decades I knew him he never attended church nor ever expressed the slightest interest in religion. So another claim that was a bit of a stretch at best.

There's another point to be made. Bach, Beethoven, Einstein and you name 'em were giants in their fields. In their fields. They were ordinary people in other areas of life. Beethoven drank too much and was extremely quarrelsome and unhygienic. Mozart was full of dirty jokes and Schubert loved to consort with prostitutes who were not necessarily grown up, shall we say. Bach didn't know when to stop having kids and Einstein famously frustrated his violin teacher, who accused him of not being able to count. There's many a superb scientist who is also a believer. The two can be divorced for the purpose of everyday life. Who's to say that the Missa Solemnis could not have been composed by a Buddhist? Vaughan-Williams was an atheist but he wrote a wonderful little mass, one of my favourites (Mass in G minor). "There is no reason why an atheist could not write a good Mass," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 11:53 AM

Apologies for the extraneous hyphen in Vaughan Williams. I've just worked out why it didn't look right.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: BrendanB
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 12:08 PM

I made the point in an earlier post that some atheists seem to have a very rigid view of what constitutes religious belief. Basing my judgement on Steve Shaw's posts over a considerable time to various threads I believe him to be guilty of this. I recall one occasion when I responded on another thread, I believe courteously, to an equally courteous query about my beliefs from another poster, Steve Shaw reacted with a sneering post telling me to 'get up of my knees'.

Not every believer is an anti-logic, self-deluding fundamentalist. I suspect (but I cannot know) that I derive at least as much delight from science, from the natural world and from humanity's ingenuity as he does. My enjoyment of art in all it's forms is not tempered by the artist's beliefs or lack of belief. I am fortunate in having a wide circle of friends - I am unable to say in every case what beliefs they may hold because I do not find it necessary to enquire. Some I know are atheists, but so what? I am open about my beliefs but do not feel the need to force them on anyone else.

Steve, I feel that you are very keen to pontificate and you appear to have a visceral hatred of religious faith; sometimes you give the impression that you extend that hatred to individuals who hold such beliefs. My beliefs, and the beliefs of many others, are one facet of our personalities. Just as your beliefs contribute to your personality.
They do not of themselves make us any better or worse. How we behave determines that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 12 - 03:04 PM

Don't be so bloody silly. Most of my friends are God-fearers of various levels of conviction. I don't hate them or anybody else. You sound so stupid when you say that. And I'm fully aware that not every believer is an anti-logic, self-deluding fundamentalist. I've never claimed they are. They are, however, all deluded. I suppose I could put that slightly more diplomatically, but I say it that way in response to you. You are fairly typical of the attack-mode type of believer who appears to feel threatened by atheists who state their views from the hip. Don't worry. We're all fluffy bunnies really.