BS: The Pope in America

Subject: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:07 AM

Not much traffic on this forum regarding the Pope's visit.

Did he strike the right chord after his visit to Cuba, or was it a PR Operation?

Seems to me that he could have said so much more concerning modern society and politics. The issues have become so important to the future of mankind, that a few sound bites on us ALL being "foreigners" etc seem a little inadequate.

Whit dae ye's think?   'An nae insults please!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:16 AM

Hard cases, soft faces, hit you with their deadly smile...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:21 AM

Haven't paid much attention, I am afraid. But Pope Francis says a lot through actions, like declining the limousine and arriving at the Whitehouse in the sort of car normal people drive.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:26 AM

Well D, as devils advocate, that could all be part of the window dressing that has become common place.

Its hard to avoid the conclusion that the Pope is being stage managed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:00 AM

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but he appears to be doing his damnedest to put a friendly sheen on an authoritarian organisation that has some pretty ropy policies and which is largely run by manipulative old men. But any evolution is a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:14 AM

I don't think so, Ake. "Being stage managed" implies a passive role where some unnamed other is doing the managing. Which would imply these others were around but ineffective for the last Pope. At risk of a limo-based joke slipping in, I do think the Pope is in the driving seat of this one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:24 AM

Thinking about it, there's a heck of a lot of similarities between Pope Francis and Jeremy Corbyn. For example, how the bulk of the MPs or cardinals got to where they are by following and being wedded to an approach that the new leader thinks misses the whole point of the organisation ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:31 AM

I think it remains to be seen whether that's actually what the Pope is thinking!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:39 AM

There is a fair amount of evidence on that, Steve, though obviously not as much as you would like. For example, he wrote and published a draft of a document on relationships that was welcomed by the various gay communities as the most positive thing they had heard from the Church ever, but then it got blocked and watered down by the cardinals - a problem Corbyn will hit, I am sure. He speaks out on the side of tolerance quite often, while the church has a long history of intolerance. Again, I am sure he does not go anything like as far as you would like, but, as you say 'any evolution is a good thing'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:57 AM

Point taken. I do suspect that a significant number of the Church's most illiberal policies, regarding sex education, gay marriage, birth control and abortion, will never be changed. After all, religion's obsession with people's sex lives is well-grounded as a major instrument of control of the flock. Remember that we are all miserable wretches owing to Eve's sin, saved only by the crucifixion of Jesus. What more fertile ground for giving us rules that are hard to keep than sex? The only bigger one is fear of the hereafter. I'll change my mind when he rescinds the prospective sainthood of earlier popes' main sexual hit woman, Mother Teresa, for the right reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:23 AM

The cardinals did choose him** so some of his views must be shared.

** even if they think god made them do it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:36 AM

Conservative dissent is brewing inside the Vatican

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:39 AM

Excellent, Guest!

Some of those topics may well take an inordinate of time to revisit, Steve, I agree. Many may depend upon new cardinals appointed during this papacy, rather than on Francis directly. But the area is not immovable as a recent announcement of changes to divorce procedures indicates (link and there is a conference on some of these topics next month. No-one should anticipate huge changes, I would say, but I'd be surprised if nothing at all happened.

Some may consider the divorce changes tiny and a few decades too late. For the former, I'd say it is something that is terribly difficult for an outsider to understand but is huge for some of those going through it. As for the second, I'd agree but it is still early in this papacy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:52 AM

" Laudato si' " is a great encyclical from Francis. Anyone wishing to read it can do so at

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/

I am far from being a religious man, so I skipped the 'praise the lord' parts of it. His indictment of capitalism and our abuse of this planet is severe and timely. I like the guy and have no doubt he's got the good of humanity at heart. He comes across to me as sincere in his views, and along with Corbyn and Sanders I don't doubt he's waking up millions of people in the world. YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:06 AM

I am now wondering if Corbyn, should Labiur get elected, will insist on cycling up the Mall to speak to the Queen....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:36 AM

Well, I'm very conservative ...for an atheist; and don't believe that the church's teaching should be re defined, or changed out of all recognition just to satisfy media fashion.

the Church should give moral and social guidance to society....it is up to us whether we accept that guidance or not.

I did not presume that the Pope was insincere, but in a huge organisation like the Catholic Church, or the Democratic Party, the decision makers are never the "front man".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:59 AM

Bill Maher on Pope Francis: "He opposes gay marriage, he opposes gay adoption, he opposes transgender rights, against all forms of contraception, against all forms of abortion, ruled out women priests. He's more like Rick Santorum than Bernie Sanders."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 09:22 AM

Cute comedy, but read the encyclical as a stand-alone piece of writing. The guy makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Elmore
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 09:59 AM

He and the late Utah Phillips really appreciate the work done by Dorothy Day.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 10:07 AM

I'm afraid Bill Maher is spot on. And, though some people take heart from recent statements about divorce, etc., the changes are headline-grabbing but, ultimately, piffling. The Catholic church's stranglehold on people's sex lives is not only one of its biggest trump cards, it's also the main characteristic which sets Catholicism apart from other, more benign forms of Christianity. As soon as the Catholic Church allows real debate (which means debate with at least some prospect of sea-changes at the end of it) on real sex education, gay marriage, birth control and abortion, it ceases to be distinguishable from the other variants. Oh, I know about the twaddle regarding transubstantiation and all that, but at least that doesn't make millions of people miserable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:11 AM

I'll be interested to see what the proper Catholics on this forum and the US intellectuals say about the visit.

Oh and I agree with DMcG and the similarity to Mr Corbyn's position.....but I'm afraid if Jeremy gives to much rope to the "liberals" they may just hang him :0(
The same "liberals" will hang the Christian Church and poor old Pope given half a chance.

Although an atheist I believe the world needs social and moral order and the Church performs that purpose well.
I am prepared to be convinced as to the existence of a "God", be it a deity, nature, the life force the Sun.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:20 AM

You are an exceptionally confused man.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:29 AM

I think you are wrong Steve, but what would I know? :0(

Miss Cooper and her ilk, see Jeremy as very much a conservative dinosaur she despises his views as much as you despise the views of the Catholic Church.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:34 AM

The changes are not piffling, Steve, even if we can both easily think of things that are much bigger. I know you would agree they are not piffling to those affected, so I assume you mean piffling "in the great scheme of things." But they aren't there either, I would say. I am a practising Catholic but support the laws enabling gay marriage (and not a quotation mark in sight!). But if you compare the number of gays who want to marry with the number of Catholics who want or are divorced, I would guess the divorce number is much larger. And I do not downplay the mental anguish involved. Imagine you have lived in some society for all you life and still want to belong to it, but are rejected. That is going to be painful however you cut it.

And there are similar changes going on in other areas, you know. The church opposes abortion and I know a lot of people who are much fiercer critics of it than the pope appears to be. But even there, if you look, there is a lot happening to stop women who have had abortions being excluded. You and Bill M would want the church to stop opposing it, and I don't think that likely for decades or more, but I see it as substantial progress to move from "this is an absolute horror" to "this is something we think wrong but in the real world circumstances mean it happens, and we must treat those who choose it with respect". From what I hear, the second is the Pope's stance, which is very different to some other parts of the church say, and I don't see it helpful in the long run to behave as if the church uniformly thinks the former.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:55 AM

The Church is the archetypal dragger of feet. The changes you refer to are reluctantly yielded and are the Church's way of stringing the flock along. There will never be significant changes to its stance on the sine qua non major sexual issues but tweaking around the edges will always prove useful and heartening to the Church's members who will naturally pounce on any chink of light. As for abortion, I remind you that the woman who told us that abortion is the biggest threat to world peace is still lionised by the Church and is but a single miracle away from sainthood. We won't even mention her horrid institutions and her sucking up to vile dictators.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:56 AM

Abortion is a hugely complicated issue, we are moving towards "abortion on demand", which would be a real horror and would probably signal the end of civilised society.

Homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" is also hugely complicated, would we expect the Pope to bless the large rates of open "marriages" we see within male homosexuality, or polygamous ones, or close relatives?....Who draws the lines, should it be the media or the church?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 01:37 PM

Thanks for deleting my admittedly sarcastic response to that. Instead, am I allowed to say that that is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read??

---

No posts have been deleted in this thread. Your message probably didn't "take." -Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 02:11 PM

Akenaton: "Homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" is also hugely complicated,...."

No it isn't, it's just another sexual behavior that was made 'complicated' by a political agenda, trying to make it out to be something that it is not!...Simple as that.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 02:31 PM

He seems to be receiving the warmest of welcomes in US, from Catholic and non Catholic alike.
As ever, opinions expressed on this forum do not represent real people in the real world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 03:16 PM

What the people in the richest country in the world think of a Pope whose policies most severely affect the poorest people in the world, who the richest people in the world don't see very much, might not be the last word on the matter, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 03:33 PM

Somebody above quoted Bill Maher: He opposes gay marriage, he opposes gay adoption, he opposes transgender rights, against all forms of contraception, against all forms of abortion, ruled out women priests.

While he does hold all those positions, he doesn't expend a lot of energy expressing his opposition to those things. In fact, no pope in the last two centuries has focused very heavily on any of those things. Yes, there has been strong opposition to abortion in large portions of the Catholic Church, but the popes haven't spent much energy on those things. While I may not agree with the popes on those issues, those issues have not been their main focus. Fundamentalists focus on condemning the supposed "sins" of others, particularly sexual sins.

On the other hand, Francis and his predecessors have spoken firmly and often against the sins we all bear responsibility for: the oppression of the poor, the immigrants, and the workers - and Francis is now speaking on behalf of the environment. No matter what I may think about Catholic teaching on gender and sexual issues, I think the popes have made sense with their teachings on social justice.

So, I let the popes say what they will about sexuality, and I will continue to respectfully disagree - knowing full well that there's not much popes can do about people's sexual conduct, anyhow. But I'm proud of what they've been saying about social justice.

I'd like to quote what Francis said to the U.S. Congress about fundamentalists. I wonder if Catholic fundamentalists (and fundamentalists in Congress) heard what he's saying. Here's his statement (underline is mine):

All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps. We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place. That is something which you, as a people, reject.


Our response must instead be one of hope and healing, of peace and justice. We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments, and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples. We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.

The challenges facing us today call for a renewal of that spirit of cooperation, which has accomplished so much good throughout the history of the United States. The complexity, the gravity and the urgency of these challenges demand that we pool our resources and talents, and resolve to support one another, with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience.

In this land, the various religious denominations have greatly contributed to building and strengthening society. It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each society. Such cooperation is a powerful resource in the battle to eliminate new global forms of slavery, born of grave injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social consensus.

Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in this effort.

Can anyone here disagree with any of that? I know the absolutists and demonizers will disregard everything Francis says because they disagree with his positions on their pet issues, but those pet issues are not his primary focus. What he says about social justice and the the environment, makes a lot of sense.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 04:04 PM

Here's an interesting piece about Pope Francis

It's from the Guardian, written by Canon Giles Fraser, the Anglican Canon at St Paul's Cathedral, who was so fed up at the way the Cathedral treated the Occupy protest camp he resigned.

Here is the headline on his piece, to encourage clicking on the link -"For the red pope, being pro-life is more about social justice than abortion". And he rightly focusses on the way the Pope ranked Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker, up there with Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Thomas Merton as great Americans who showed the way, in his address to Congress.

The only problem for me with Pope Francis is that he's 78. It takes time changing things that need changing, and we'll be lucky if he has the time. Someone presciently wrote that it's a mistake to try and place him in terms of conservative or liberal - he's a radical. And his radicalism is very much based on radical traditions within Catholicism which break out every now and again - as with Dorothy Day.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 04:45 PM

I think that you make a good case, Joe. Yes, the present Pope has shown a good deal of humanity and political understanding in a good many areas of human endeavour. I welcome that. It's just that when you say So, I let the popes say what they will about sexuality, and I will continue to respectfully disagree I can't quite get my head around why you should be so respectful about attitudes that are so disrepectfully illiberal. OK, tactics, outcomes. Bit slow though, innit?

Kevin, Giles Fraser is a man with a conscience all right but he is a loose canon if ever there was one ( sorry...)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:00 PM

'Loose canon' is Fraser's byline in general, and even on that article.

I've heard him speak a few times, and he was a panellist on the one occasion I got to be a member of BBC's Question Time audience. As a rule, I think he makes good sense. Now in this article he raises the relationship between pro-life/pro-choice and left/right, and in particular that it is the opposite of what you might expect when you think more widely than abortion . I see what he is getting at, I think, but feel it introduces more heat than light, as they say.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:35 PM

Steve Shaw speaks of a Pope whose policies most severely affect the poorest people in the world.

I suppose Steve is talking about birth control. Last time I heard, the decision to give birth to a child is usually the result of the decision and action of one man and one woman. Since Alexander VI (1431-1503 - father of Lucretia and Cesare Borgia and many other children), few popes have had any direct involvement in the procreation of children.

Oh, I'm sure that church policy has an effect on population control attitudes and practices, especially in the declining number of areas where churches can successfully lobby governments to outlaw contraceptives. But I can't believe that church policy has ever been the primary reason why families have many or few children. Culture has a lot to do with it, too. But in the end, the choice is up to individuals.

I'm one of the few Catholics I know who actually knows what the Catholic Church teaches about sex and contraception. That being the case, I can't see how the Church can have the dramatic effect on these issues that Mr. Shaw and Mr. Maher seem to think it does.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:54 PM

More heat than light? I'd put it the other way myself, which makes a nice change in this context.
.................
I was pleased to see Pope Francis making that criticism of all kinds of fundamentalism.

Sometimes I think there's a strange parallelism between a kind of fundamentalism that would try to impose religiously based obligations on a secular society, and a kind of fundamentalism that expects that religious traditions should conform at all points to the values of that secular society.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:07 PM

Steve, I've never thought of the Catholic Church as being a particularly good or realistic advisor on sexual issues. I have no doubt that plumbers had some knowledge of carpentry, but I rarely go to plumbers for advice on carpentry - or to celibate males for advice on sex.

Since the sexual molestation scandal in the Catholic Church, I have taken the obligation upon myself to remind young priests, particularly Third World priests in the US, that I see no reason why they should be considered to be credible advisors on sexual issues. One young Filipino priest unfriended me last month over the gay marriage issue, but I hope he learned from what I had to say to him.

Although what the Catholic Church says on sexual matters gets a lot of press and a lot of (justified) criticism, sex is a relatively minor part of the teachings of most churches. There is very little about sex in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or in the Bible. Yes, there are some sex-crazed fundamentalists that make a big deal of it - but for the most part, sex isn't what religious faith is all about.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:09 PM

Correct Mr McGrath, We can change laws at will to make legally acceptable what has been unacceptable for centuries.
But the Church does not deal in laws, it deals in sin.
What was a sin fifty years ago and a thousand before that, must surely still be a sin, if the Church is to retain any sort of moral credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:12 PM

I had a quick look at attitudes to Catholic strictures on contraception in an idle moment this afternoon (sitting in the sun, a rare opportunity this rotten summer, with me iPad). Well, the attitude of the church hierarchy is, as we know, unbending. But nearly every Catholic woman in the US in the modern era has used contraception. Most of them think that it makes them sinful, but onward they go. The Church has lost its grip, and a bloody good thing too. I need a lot of convincing that the poor in central and South America, and in many African nations, have made such progress. The Church still has a cast iron grip in so many places but I don't hear your protests. It's all very well quietly demurring, Joe, but quietly demurring tends to get nobody anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:58 PM

Frm what I see on TV, his mere presence seems significant to many in the US of A, even many who are not RC. If it was the last Pope, I suspect it may havd been different.

This Pope seems to hit a good chord with regular people, making him more like a celebrity - and we know how this culture likes celebrities.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:42 PM

Steve Shaw, the "poor in central and South America, and in many African nations" have more crucial things to do than argue with priests about birth control; and the priests have more crucial things to deal with, also. And I haven't encountered any U.S. Catholic women who have expressed any particular feelings of sinfulness for having used birth control. Birth control is more-or-less a forgotten issue in the Catholic Church, and has been for over thirty years.

There's no more argument about birth control in the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI issued his Humanae Vitae encyclical in 1968, which included maybe a paragraph on contraception and a mildly-worded statement that said the Catholics were not allowed to use "artificial birth control." There were some rumblings for a while, and then the issue was forgotten.

Give me some evidence to the contrary.

Oh, and give me some proof of this "cast iron grip" that you imagine.

Ake, I suppose you're right that the Catholic Church doesn't change what's moral and what's not. But when its interpretation of moral principle isn't working, the interpretation is gradually forgotten. And then, one day, the Church says that "we never actually taught that." That's how Limbo gradually disappeared from Catholic teaching, until the day that Pope Benedict declared that wasn't really what we had been teaching.

And the birth control think is not a basic moral principle. It's an interpretation (an official interpretation). It's clear to me that the birth control interpretation is now in the process of being forgotten. I predict that in the near future, Catholic prelates will forget what they said about gay marriage.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:44 PM

You'll get there in the end, Ed. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:54 PM

I thought it might be some new term I hadn't come across, like chad.

Good word, potentially, could maybe mean something like a chord that cheered people up. In which case it'd be pretty appropriate in this contact.
.................
I'd suspect large families among poor people in Africa and Latin America probably has a great deal to do with the fact that child death is much more part of normal life, and without any welfare state or equivalent, family is likely to be the only source of help and support in sickness and trouble.

The Catholic church I go to is fairly working class, with a very high proportion of first generation immigrants from all over - Africans, South Asians, Filipinos, Poles... Wherever they come from, local or abroad, the general pattern is two or three children.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:00 PM

Joe, the best way to prevent the transmission of HIV is condoms. Now that's me speaking as a lusty sort of bloke who is clinging on, successfully so far, to the notion that good sex is for everyone, including me, even in my mid-60s. But your Church still condemns condoms as evil and states that abstinence is the way to go. Old men in frocks telling young people in the 21st century that abstinence is the way to go. If you think they are wrong, which I believe you do, well all I can say is that it's your club. So why are you so soppy about letting them get away with such nonsense?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:22 PM

There's an awful lot of misunderstanding about this, Steve. In fact there isn't a ban on condoms as such, when used as prophylactics.

Here's a quote from Pope Benedict back in 2010: "While he restated the Catholic Church's staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage.

Pope Francis would probably put it better, he's a better communicator. And a Jesuit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:30 PM

Tortuous talk, Kevin. Do you think the average Catholic thinks it's OK to use condoms when he's in bed with the missus or not?? I think he should be told straight, not have to interpret obscurantisms.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 09:02 PM

Benedict was very much an academic of a particular kind, and they often talk tortuous. Even when what they are saying is straightforward it sounds complicated, and that's even worse when it is complicated to begin with. There are other people who do it better, and can translate. And Francis is great at getting what he means across..

It doesn't help to have the media repeatedly trumpetting out over simplifications about absolute bans on condoms.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 09:27 PM

Steve Shaw says: Do you think the average Catholic thinks it's OK to use condoms when he's in bed with the missus or not?? I think he should be told straight, not have to interpret obscurantisms.

I think, Steve, that the average Catholic doesn't know and doesn't care. Statistics show that Catholics practice birth control at about the same rate as everybody else.

Pope Benedict gave a wise, nuanced, intelligent statement on the subject. You want a yes-or-no answer, but the answer depends on the circumstances. And that's the case with every moral decision - decisions need to be made within context. A person has to weigh all the circumstances, and then make a decision. It's called thinking - and a lot of people don't want to bother to do that.

But if you want a straight answer, I'll give you one that Benedict and Francis will agree with: a man with HIV/AIDS should never has sex without a condom unless he's sure his partner also has HIV/AIDS.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 09:40 PM

Two points:

First: According to Pew Research (no matter what the name says, it's not affiliated with any church)

For instance, the recent Pew Research survey finds that U.S. Catholics are divided on homosexual behavior, with 44% saying it is sinful and 39% saying it is not – a figure that rises to 51% among Catholic adults under age 30. And majorities of Catholics say that living with a romantic partner outside marriage (54%) and getting a divorce (61%) are not sinful. About half (49%) say remarrying after a divorce without first obtaining an annulment is not a sin.

In addition, fully two-thirds of U.S. Catholics (66%) say using artificial birth control is not a sin. Even 57% of the most devout Catholics – those who report attending Mass at least weekly – say using contraceptives is not wrong.

Those who attend Mass weekly or more are divided over the sinfulness of cohabitation (46% say it is sinful, 45% say it is not). But these Catholics also are more likely to agree with church teachings when it comes to abortion and engaging in homosexual behavior: 73% and 59%, respectively, say these are sins. Indeed, a majority of all Catholics, regardless of whether they attend Mass regularly, say abortion is sinful (57%).

Second: Burke said that the Pope isn't all-powerful. Burke should know better. Francis can speak ex cathedra and then:

Ex cathedra is the theological term for a teaching that has been declared infallibly by the Roman Pontiff. In short, ex cathedra means that the pope can explicate an article of divine revelation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in full possession of his role as Peter's successor. When he does so he is protected from error. This ex cathedra possibility was supported by the Second Vatican Council. However, this does not mean that every time the pope speaks he is speaking infallibly.

Even though only two doctrines have been declared ex cathedra, there are many others that the church professes must be believed. Some of these are laid out in the 1998 "Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei" issued by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

According to this document, many teachings are "irreformable" and "definitive" and as such can be seen as possessing the binding quality of an infallible doctrine, although not necessarily proclaimed ex cathedra. That is, they aren't promulgated by the pope himself but by the larger magisterium of the church. The lineup of "irreformable" teachings—ones divinely revealed—include those regarding Jesus, Mary, sin and grace, the sacraments, the primacy of the pope, and the doctrinal formulations of the ancient creeds.

The lineup of "definitive" teachings on faith and morals—ones the church holds to be logically derived from divine revelation—include teachings such as the doctrine of papal infallibility, the immorality of abortion and euthanasia, the communion of saints, and others. Assent of "intellect and will" to both categories of teachings are required for full communion with the Catholic Church.

If Big Frankie ever came out and say, ex cathedra, that the thoughts contained in "Laudato si" were what Catholics must believe, that would be that. No further argument possible. And as it is, he chose an encyclical, and the next step up is ex cathedra.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Sep 15 - 10:13 PM

That's a pretty good summary, Rapparee. I think there are a few more steps between encyclical and "ex cathedra," but the general idea is correct. the "ex cathedra" stuff is not open to change or discussion, but it's rare and it's a complicated process. The last clearly ex cathedra statement was 1950, although there's contention that John Paul II's prohibition of ordination of women has that status. The decision on birth control was not "ex cathedra."

So, the point is, there's a lot more discussion and a wider variety of opinions in the Catholic Church, than the absolutists would have us think.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:11 AM

Quite so, Joe. And to some extent that answers your point I don't hear your protests. It's all very well quietly demurring, Joe, but quietly demurring tends to get nobody anywhere, though I stress this is my view which Joe may or may not agree with.

The protests you are seeking are essentially when one party says 'I am right and the rest of you must get in line with me'. Which is, when put that way a pretty grandstanding and authoritarian approach. And the church has many centuries of experience of the problems of insisting on uniformity which has encompassed everything from expulsion to war, to schisms and the Magdalene laundries. So many members do their best to bring about changes in a quieter way, working at a local level - because whatever you may see in terms of a hierarchy, it is at the local level the effects arise. And that means recognising everyone in the pew with you has views that are likely to be slightly or even substantially different from you, but you seek to find ways to work together. Having blazing rows with the guy at the end who you think is antediluvian is not really a very productive route way forward.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:16 AM

"And the birth control think is not a basic moral principle. It's an interpretation (an official interpretation). It's clear to me that the birth control interpretation is now in the process of being forgotten. I predict that in the near future, Catholic prelates will forget what they said about gay marriage."

I've no doubt that you are correct Joe, but it will be because of people like Steve and other opponents of Christianity, not people like you.

If the Church is to eternally evolve in step with society, its real purpose evades me.

Whether or not "birth control" is a moral sin needs proper debate, much of the world still sees having many children as a survival tactic. there is no chance of reasoned debate on any of these subjects within this present society.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:45 AM

The short answer, ake, is that as the world changes it is necessary to see how the existing moral code should encompass that change. It would be silly for the church to say there is nothing in the bible or traditional teachings about genetic modification so we cannot have an opinion. No, you apply your understanding to the new area.

But moral codes do not give yes/no answers, so I am afraid a lot of stuff I was taught as a child (This is a sin, that is not) fits into the category of "When I was a child, I thought like a child. Now I am a man I have put aside childish things". Let me tell you a short tale a priest visiting from a poor backwater of India told me. He had come across cases where parents deliberately maimed their babies because they could get an income as a beggar whereas they were likely to starve any other way. "And don't tell me", he said, "that what they did was wrong or immoral."

So I am not really interesting in whether or not birth control 'is' a moral sin, since as with that infant such simple yes/no answers don't help. A discussion is another matter, as that helps us to see that simple answers won't cut it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:53 AM

What the people in the richest country in the world think of a Pope whose policies most severely affect the poorest people in the world, who the richest people in the world don't see very much, might not be the last word on the matter, Keith.

It does happen to be the subject of the thread Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:56 AM

"You want a yes-or-no answer, but the answer depends on the circumstances. And that's the case with every moral decision - decisions need to be made within context. A person has to weigh all the circumstances, and then make a decision. "

The whole premise of this is false. Wearing a condom is a matter of practicality, not morality. It's a matter of knowing what you're doing, knowing how to do it and knowing why you're doing it. Not giving your partner a disease or getting them pregnant at the wrong time are the moral issues and condoms are just one of several ways of expediting their accomplishment. You know and I know that there is absolutely no problem with condoms. If there is a moral issue, it's the Church failing to make that crystal clear in simple words to everyone. Why, that might even save lives. Now that would be moral. In wishing to acquire another instrument of control, the Church has turned artificial means of birth control into a moral issue, one that elderly celibate men can use to increase the average Catholic guilt quotient that bit more. The fact that the average Catholic bloke in bed with the missus neither knows nor cares, as you say, has everything to do with impatience with antediluvian notions and nothing to do with clear and enlightened statements from the Vatican (there never are any, just coded obscurantist waffle to pick the bones out of if you're intelligent enough).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 06:38 AM

Yes D, but society does not always move in positive directions and is now very susceptible to manipulation, through the "social" and mainstream media.
Society no longer evolves change just happens without debate or due consultation.
In society "the family" is an extremely important constituent, the Church champions "family values", yet is under attack from so called progressive elements on all sides.
The negative connotations of homosexuality and abortion on demand have been detailed regularly on this forum. I just fail to understand why people like you and Joe, who are obviously sincere Christians, can promote ideas which run counter to family values and wider society?

The Corbyn analogy becomes apparent again, the "liberal" reformers think they can "manage" capitalism......Thechristian reformers think they can re-define sin. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 06:49 AM

"It does happen to be the subject of the thread Steve."

Er, you made a belittling remark about the people on this forum not being representative of real people in the real world. Well I'm a real person and, last time I looked around, I was in the real world. On this forum I try to represent myself if I can. One can do no more. There are lots of Catholics in the US so of course he's going to get a warm welcome, enhanced no doubt by his cheerful and avuncular persona. It's all good stuff. I was simply making the point that his warm reception is not an indicator of his organisation suddenly turning benign. If you thought that were all going to applaud and let the thread die happy, you must be getting a little naive in your old age. I doubt that somehow. It'll be something else, I expect.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:00 AM

I don't think I promote ideas like that, Ake. I do accept them and am in agreement, though. And the reason is that blooming second greatest commandment "Love your neighbour as yourself". It is a lifelong task to try and understand what that means, and a great many times you have to look back and say, yep, I got that one wrong. But a good starting point is always to say If that was me, how should I be treated"   It's not infallible of course, but in the case of gay marriage I find it clear enough.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:00 AM

I was not aware that homosexuality or abortion were, even in the slightest way, a threat to family values, whatever they are. Maybe you could tell us. Hang on, let me have a guess: a man, his wife, two point four happy children, dog optional, a nice semi in the suburbs: am I getting warm? Did we arrive at it, or whatever your version of it is, by debate and due consultation? Would a committee be the way to go? And what country are we talking about here? Can we bring pretty young ladies cycling across the village green and the gentle thudding of leather on willow, not to speak of warm beer, into it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:10 AM

I think you rather dodged that one D.

In society people do not always behave in a positive way, do you mean that you accept any sort of behaviour no matter how detrimental it may be to society.....because you yourself conform?

Isn't that a bit, "Pontius Pilate"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:30 AM

I didn't mean to dodge anything, so I'll have another attempt. Society changes and at the moment homosexuality is considered acceptable. A few decades ago, it wasn't tolerated. A few decades before that, it was accepted provided nobody mentioned it. Oscar Wilde was well known to be gay but no one talked about it. Once it was forced into public debate, people found themselves obliged to be shocked and Reading Gaol beckoned. So I think we all agree society is a constant state of flux about this and other matters. I have said before that I am absolutely certain that there are ways you and I, Steve and Joe behave today that in 50 years people will regard with astonishment that we could behave so atrociously.

Now, is the church of absolute and unvarying truth in these matters? At the level of that second commandment, I'd say yes. But when it comes to what that rule means when you apply it, I'd say no. Thomas Aquinas was a clever old chap, but he lived a long time ago and only knew Aristolean logic. So when he talked about all sorts of aspects the church he backed it up with Aristotle. And we know know that what Aristotle thought about a great many things is about as reliable as his thoughts on medicine - that is, not very reliable at all. So consequently a lot of the thinking of the church, though founded on that excellent principle of the second commandment, is pretty suspect when it comes to how to apply it. This means I have great respect for what the founding fathers of the church tried to do, and how committed they were, and how carefully they reflected on things, but I still don't necessarily think they came to the right conclusions for now, however right they may have been for then.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:32 AM

As I explained earlier Steve, "the family" is a strong component of society. It is championed by the Pope and all Churches.
Homosexual "marriage" and" abortion on demand, both negatively affect society. Firstly by redefining the meaning of marriage to encompass relationships other than "one man one woman", which removes procreation and the construction of family out of the equation.
One man one woman may of course choose not to procreate, or be unable to do so, but that would be personal choice, not edict.
It also opens the door to other forms of relationship claiming validation by use of the institution.

Abortion on demand weakens society in that life once created can be disposed of in the manner of a useless commodity, to serve PERSONAL convenience.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 07:39 AM

Thanks D, I think we'll agree to differ for present:0)
I would just remark that homosexuality is acceptable only in a very small part of the world and only to a transient small majority.
Homosexual "marriage" is still illegal even in part of the wicked old UK.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 09:00 AM

"This is my simple religion. No need for temples. No need for complicated philosophy. Your own mind, your own heart is the temple. Your philosophy is simple kindness."  
Dalai Lama

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 12:44 PM

"...but it will be because of people like Steve and other opponents of Christianity, not people like you". Wrong there, aken. Change is organic, it happens from within, from people's lives, far more than it ever does in response to well meaning kibbitzers from outside.
...............................

As for the subject of this thread being how Americans find Pope Francis, that is only part of it. It's as much about how Pope Francis finds America, and about what people outside America learn about America and about Pope Francis and what he represents.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 12:55 PM

The last two posts from akenaton are among his worst ever, which is saying something, not worth taking on. I don't know what society he's talking about, but it isn't the one I belong to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 01:14 PM

Steve,
Well I'm a real person and, last time I looked around, I was in the real world.

Yes you are, but the "remark about the people on this forum not being representative of real people in the real world." was true and worth pointing out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 01:24 PM

Who is representative then? You appear to want to shut down a large part of the discussion about the Pope in order to keep the thread cosy. Is that what your belittling remark is implying?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 02:13 PM

Steve, your inability to grasp any point outwith your own blinkered world view is legend on this forum.

Unfortunate,......but as they say, "get used to it"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 02:19 PM

What I will say is that this Pope does seem to be addressing, however obtusely the real problems in society, poverty, war, the effects of different economic systems etc.
They don't of course make such good headlines as marriage rights of sexual minorities, but on the scale of importance they are miles higher.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 02:43 PM

Steve,
You appear to want to shut down a large part of the discussion about the Pope in order to keep the thread cosy.

Of course I do not!
I come here for the discussion and want everyone's views to be heard.

I merely point out how skewed the debate here is.
I may be wrong, but I think you sometimes forget how unrepresentative your views are, and I think that is why you object to that fact being mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:07 PM

My views represent me. Maybe you think your views somehow represent some kind of mythical mainstream. I haven't got that sort of ego myself. Just allow people to express what they think, Keith, and quit your abominable habit of appealing to majorities/historians/authority. Stand on your own two feet. As for you, akenaton, I'll simply take that as a compliment and move on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 03:58 PM

Steve Shaw says: The Church still has a cast iron grip in so many places but I don't hear your protests. It's all very well quietly demurring, Joe, but quietly demurring tends to get nobody anywhere.

Believe me, Steve, nobody in the Catholic Church accuses Joe Offer of being "quietly demurring." More often, I'm viewed as some sort of heretic.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 04:13 PM

Mind you, the same goes for Pope Francis, Joe, it appears, among some Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 04:33 PM

"Jesuits stand out among Catholics in a world where faith and science often seem to be in conflict"




Jesuits and current Science? 

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 05:25 PM

Keep it up, Joe. I'm a big believer in fighting from within. I didn't bother myself because, well, I found myself not believing in God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 05:41 PM

The giveaway word in the quote, ed , is ......seems......       I doubt there is a conflict between the christian faith and science, though of course there is conflict over the interpretation of the data.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 05:51 PM

Dmcg, whilst acknowledging that some ethical issues are not cut and dried, to quote the second greatest commandment as though it negates other clear commands , prohibitions and teaching, is a case of presenting false choice.   Surely a Christian should seek to consolidate the whole teaching of scripture, rather than take one passage and claim it allows, or nessecitates change in others.    Only where the bible indicates change, is that correct, as for example in the ot food law being modified in the nt.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 06:19 PM

Translator's note, please. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 09:40 PM

Okay, here's some more food for thought:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

                   --DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS, NOSTRA AETATE, PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965.

No room here for all of it, but you might read Gaudium et Spes, promulgated December 7, 1965.

You might also read Big Frank's Christmas Speech 2014.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 15 - 10:36 PM

My views represent me.
So do mine. Exactly the same.

Maybe you think your views somehow represent some kind of mythical mainstream.
No, but they are much more mainstream than yours. That is just a fact.

I haven't got that sort of ego myself.
I have no sort of ego.

Just allow people to express what they think, Keith,
You should take your own advice Steve.
I would never ridicule and be belligerent to people who disagree with me.
You do that all the time, even though your views are so unusual.
I have complained before that it drives decent people away from the forum.
We actually saw it happen last week on the bugs thread.

and quit your abominable habit of appealing to majorities/historians/authority. Stand on your own two feet.

Before quitting, I would have to start.
I have never done that.
Just made up shit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 02:49 AM

I watched the mass today on television. Very interesting.

One of the commentators - practicing Catholic - that he sees no hope of the Catholic church allowing women priests any time soon. His view is that churches that ordain women allow their priests to marry, which automatically raises women's status in the church.

In his opinion, until Catholic priest are allowed to marry, there
will be no women priests the Catholic church, although he thinks they may well come up in rank in the meantime.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 03:33 AM

I'm more optimistic. I think the Catholic Church will ordain women in about a hundred years - 150 years after it should have.

Our new Filipino priest gave a sermon on why the Church will never ordain women a couple weeks ago - at the Sisters of Mercy convent, a place full of nuns who are twice his age and more, and far better educated. The nuns said it was cowardly of him to make such a statement from the pulpit during Mass, in a situation that didn't allow for disagreement. They want him to return and discuss the matter over lunch. I gave him a little lecture about the matter this morning, but I don't know if it sank in.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 10:22 AM

The Roman Catholic church has ordained women, under extraordinary circumstances, as in Bulgaria during the Communist regime. But in the Celtic Catholic Church (done in by the Synod of Whitby) women were not only priests, but bishops (e.g., Bridget of Kildare). There were co-ed monasteries, even. It was not unusual for a monk and nun to set out on journeys together. A nun could be a lawyer, a physician. But this wasn't in the "Roman Empire" model adopted by the RC church and so...Whitby. Sure, the date of Easter and the type of tonsure are important, but it was the forcing of the Celtic church into subservience that was the actual agenda of the Synod. It could be argued that the Synod was the actual beginning of British dominance of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 01:32 PM

I didn't say it negates anything, Pete, and in particular it does not negate the requirement to use your whole mind in the first of the greatest commandment. But there are other passages in the New Testament, as you well know, where Jesus berates people for slavishly following the words of the regulations while forgetting the intention. So yes, you have to reflect on it all, but the touchstone for resolving things are always those two commandments in my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 01:40 PM

And, by the way, what else would it mean to say they are the greates commandments?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 01:51 PM

Thread Drift Alert - Sort Of:

The Pope made a pretty sunstantial mistake recently by canonizing Junipero Serra, a.k.a. St. Genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 01:58 PM

Hadn't heard of Junipero before, Greg, but from the wiki page and a few other things that came up in a search I agree it sounds a mistake. A Bright PR idea gone wrong, by the feel of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:26 PM

Well the case against Mother Teresa is rock-solid, yet she's almost there. An organisation that would venerate the likes of her has got a lot to learn and can't claim to be in any way progressive.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:40 PM

"The case against Mother Teresa" is pretty specious. As is the case against Junipero Serra, when you drill down into the facts and the circumstances.

I'd say what Francis said at the ceremony actually stands up well: "Junípero sought to defend the dignity of the native community, to protect it from those who had mistreated and abused it. Mistreatment and wrongs which today still trouble us, especially because of the hurt which they cause in the lives of many people." That doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes, like everybody else, and that there wasn't harm mixed up with the good.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:40 PM

"The case against Mother Teresa" is pretty specious. As is the case against Junipero Serra, when you drill down into the facts and the circumstances.

I'd say what Francis said at the ceremony actually stands up well: "Junípero sought to defend the dignity of the native community, to protect it from those who had mistreated and abused it. Mistreatment and wrongs which today still trouble us, especially because of the hurt which they cause in the lives of many people." That doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes, like everybody else, and that there wasn't harm mixed up with the good.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:46 PM

The creature intends visiting Ireland, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:52 PM

Then do try to drill a bit deeper, Kevin. She said that abortion was the greatest threat to world peace, she told the people of Bhopal to accept their lot, she told the poor that their situation was virtuous and she sucked up to the vile dictatorship in Haiti. And that doesn't begin to describe the horrors of her institutions, in which unqualified people abused the patients and let them waste away in neglect and squalor, whilst at the same time she was siphoning donors' money away to fund the expansion of her convents. You call that specious? I call that damning, both of her and of the institution that lionises her.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:14 AM

Steve, I call that Mother Teresa stuff propaganda, concocted by Hitchens and his ilk. A minimal amount of fact and a maximal amount of "spin." She was an old nun, born in Albania in 1910. You won't find many people born in Albania in 1910, who would be supporters of abortion.

Bhopal? Here (click) is a 1984 NY Times account of Teresa in Bhopal, and here (click) is an account of the same thing, with a heavy dose of "spin" added. The second article derides Teresa for encouraging people to "forgive" those responsible for this disaster. That's a Christian thing, forgiveness - letting go of one's anger after an injury, so that one can go on with life instead of being consumed and destroyed by the anger.

And yes, she told the poor and suffering that their situation was virtuous - certainly more virtuous than that of the rich and comfortable and wasteful, one would think. Many people think that there is dignity and value in a life lived without material comforts. Is that such a horrible thing for a poor or suffering person to discover his/her own dignity and value?

That being said, it's clear that she was a Catholic traditionalist, and I probably wouldn't get along with her very well. She was a product of 1910 Albania, a very inauspicious and traditional origin. Considering that, I think she did a pretty good job of her life.

As for Serra, he built 9 of the 21 California missions, beginning with San Diego in 1769. Note that for the most part, Serra built his missions away from existing military garrisons, apparently to remove his parishioners from the influence of the Spanish army. If his goal was oppression and subjugation, why not locate them near the soldiers so they would be easier to control? Serra died in 1784, so most of the history of the missions took place after his death.

There's no doubt that Serra was a product of his time and culture, so it's unlikely that he could be considered "kindly" in his treatment of Native Americans. Still, California State Parks historians say the greatest suffering among Native Americans occurred after 1833, when the Mexican government secularized the missions and expelled the Franciscan priests.

I don't know why I bother defending Mother Teresa or Junipero Serra. Neither one is an inspiration to me. I'd much rather see Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day recognized as saints. But conservative Catholics do find inspiration in the lives of Mother Teresa and Junipero Serra, so why not let them have their saints?

Frankly, I don't believe the efforts that have been made to demonize Mother Teresa and Junipero Serra. Nobody could be as bad as their detractors make them out to be, so therefore I tend not to believe anything the demonizers say. Say what you may about Mother Teresa, one big thing remains: she brought the world to know about the suffering of the poor of India. The same could be said of Serra - his interest in the native peoples of California was primarily spiritual, not military or economic or political. Most likely, their fate at the hands of military and political powers, might have been far worse.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:50 AM

And come to think of it, I think that the importance of Junipero Serra and Mother Teresa is in what they symbolize, far more than what they were as individuals. Like it or not, Mother Teresa is a symbol of all the suffering people her sisters have served, in India and all over the world. Despite (or because of) their conservatism, those nuns have lived austere lives that show solidarity with the poor and suffering. Because of Mother Teresa, the people of the world are aware of the poverty and suffering that exists in this world.

And those 21 Franciscan Missions in California are not primarily a symbol of Spain, or of the Catholic Church. They are a constant symbol of a very important truth: the Mexicans were here first. Californians harbor a lot of prejudice against Hispanic peoples, and it's healthy for California to have a reminder that the Mexicans have as much right to be here as the Anglos. The Spanish came and left, but the Mexicans are still here - and most of those missions are now functioning as Catholic parishes with primarily Hispanic congregations. Not rich folks, not even in Carmel.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 03:43 AM

"And yes, she told the poor and suffering that their situation was virtuous - certainly more virtuous than that of the rich and comfortable and wasteful, one would think. Many people think that there is dignity and value in a life lived without material comforts. Is that such a horrible thing for a poor or suffering person to discover his/her own dignity and value?"

Very well said Joe. These sentiments are likely to be required more often as we come to terms with the economic changes which must inevitably happen.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 05:03 AM

Well I'm reeling from the most avid defence of the indefensible that I've ever read. Sorry, Joe, but you accuse others of spin, yet your post regarding Mother Teresa is just one huge piece of Catholic spin, a classic in its way. Nothing that Hitchens said about her was untrue, nothing. All well-documented. In fact, looking back at my post, the one you responded to, I was being far too generous to her. Pretending that the uncomfortable truth is "propaganda" is the ultimate in denial.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:09 AM

"I can believe things that are true and things that aren't true and I can believe things where nobody knows if they're true or not. 

I can believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Beatles and Marilyn Monroe and Elvis and Mister Ed. Listen - I believe that people are perfectable, that knowledge is infinite, that the world is run by secret banking cartels and is visited by aliens on a regular basis, nice ones that look like wrinkled lemurs and bad ones who mutilate cattle and want our water and our women. 

I believe that the future sucks and I believe that the future rocks and I believe that one day White Buffalo Woman is going to come back and kick everyone's ass. I believe that all men are just overgrown boys with deep problems communicating and that the decline in good sex in America is coincident with the decline in drive-in movie theaters from state to state. 

I believe that all politicians are unprincipled crooks and I still believe that they are better than the alternative. I believe that California is going to sink into the sea when the big one comes, while Florida is going to dissolve into madness and alligators and toxic waste. 

I believe that antibacterial soap is destroying our resistance to dirt and disease so that one day we'll all be wiped out by the common cold like martians in War of the Worlds. 

I believe that the greatest poets of the last century were Edith Sitwell and Don Marquis, that jade is dried dragon sperm, and that thousands of years ago in a former life I was a one-armed Siberian shaman. 

I believe that mankind's destiny lies in the stars. I believe that candy really did taste better when I was a kid, that it's aerodynamically impossible for a bumble bee to fly, that light is a wave and a particle, that there's a cat in a box somewhere who's alive and dead at the same time (although if they don't ever open the box to feed it it'll eventually just be two different kinds of dead), and that there are stars in the universe billions of years older than the universe itself. 

I believe in a personal god who cares about me and worries and oversees everything I do. I believe in an impersonal god who set the universe in motion and went off to hang with her girlfriends and doesn't even know that I'm alive. I believe in an empty and godless universe of causal chaos, background noise, and sheer blind luck. 

I believe that anyone who says sex is overrated just hasn't done it properly. I believe that anyone who claims to know what's going on will lie about the little things too. 

I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies. I believe in a woman's right to choose, a baby's right to live, that while all human life is sacred there's nothing wrong with the death penalty if you can trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system. 

I believe that life is a game, that life is a cruel joke, and that life is what happens when you're alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it." 
― Neil Gaiman, American Gods

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:15 AM

"Beliefs are your business but facts are facts because they are checkable" -- Eric The Red

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:46 AM

Change hands...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 07:29 AM

""Eirikr rauði Þorvaldsson (approx. 950-1003 AD) was called Erik the Red because of his red beard and hair and perhaps also because of his fiery temper.

It is said that he was a particularly hot-headed fellow who, after being exiled from first Norway and later Iceland for murder, and finally settled in Greenland.""

"Let's face it, he was no Mither Teresa

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 10:04 AM

Nobody could be as bad as their detractors make them out to be, so therefore I tend not to believe anything the demonizers say.

Now THAT, Joe, is a particularly horryfying perspective on your part. By the same specious logic I suppose you give Pol Pot a pass, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 10:30 AM

I will grant you Greg that you are an expert on specious logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 10:40 AM

Maybe the "demonisers" could never be as bad as their detractors make them out to be. On the whole, though, the "demonisers" tend not to be Catholics, so maybe they can be as bad.

I'm not going to, but I could throw a dozen real Mother Teresa quotes at you to show what a horrid person she was. You can watch the footage of her institutions which shows that they were every bit as dreadful as the "detractors and demonisers" claim. Not because I'm a detractor or a demoniser, but because I for one have sought to get round the Catholic spin machine (so effective that she could easily become the fastest-tracked saint in history) and get at the truth about her. It isn't difficult, unfortunately for her legacy. I don't have a problem with the poor deluded souls that want her for their saint, but I do have an issue with a massive political institution like the Catholic Church that can spin like crazy to persuade the world that we have an accommodating and progressive Pope whilst simultaneously and furiously indulging in brainless sycophancy with regard to this deeply wicked woman. There are words for it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 10:44 AM

"I will grant you Greg that you are an expert on specious logic."

Well let's hear some of your logic then.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Mrr at work
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 11:04 AM

I like this pope, and I'm an atheist. I'm just glad he didn't get shot while here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 12:38 PM

The Hitchens brothers were good entertainers and rhetoricians (Peter Hitchens, the far right one, back in England, still is). But I wouldn't rely on either of them for any reliable guide to anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:06 PM

Mother Teresa's comments, activities, dealings and institutions are all well documented. It is not difficult to fjnd corroboration of Hitchens' claims about her. She was in cahoots with the Duvaliers and she praised them. She spirited away millions from donors to fund her convents whilst her institutions for the sick were a scandal. Her aim was to convert, not minister. She was a fundamentalist of the very worst kind when it came to birth control and abortion. She told the poor not to fight. She told the people of Bhopal not to fight. When she herself was sick, she paid for the best healthcare available. Had Hitchens not put this together in one place there would have been plenty of others to do it. Face up to it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 04:34 PM

Notice that Steve Shaw said he could come up with "a dozen real Mother Teresa quotes at you to show what a horrid person she was." But he's not going to do that. He prefers to re-state what she said.

Then he says my "post regarding Mother Teresa is just one huge piece of Catholic spin, a classic in its way" - by he is mysteriously unable to back that statement up with anything specific.

My contention is that both Mother Teresa and Junipero Serra had plenty of flaws. If you look at the lives of the saints, you'll find all sorts of fascinating weirdnesses. And yeah, I freely admit that Catholics ignore a lot of the shortcomings of the saints. I hope that I, too, with be judged for the good things I've done and that the bad things will be forgotten or at least understood. I'm sure that my grandmother had her faults and I know that she had a rocky relationship with my grandfather, but to me she was the most wonderful woman who ever lived - and I consider her to be a saint.

Now it's clear that for Steve, a person's ideology is a very important factor in that person's character. And since he disagrees with Mother Teresa's ideology, he finds her to be a horrible person. I don't agree with her ideology, either; but I think she did the best she could with her life within that context. I'm sure that if Mother Teresa and Junipero Serra were in my congregation, we'd have frequent, bitter disagreements. It's a real stretch to be able to find goodness and value in people I disagree with - but I think that's what people have to do if they want to see harmony in this world.

And I keep trying. Heck, I've even succeeded in being able to not consider Steve Shaw to be a horrible person....

So, and then there's Greg F, who brings up Pol Pot as an example of somebody whose evil even the demonizers couldn't exaggerate. And I suppose he's got me there, but Mother Teresa and Junipero Serra were no Pol Pot. Greg calls Serra "St. Genocide." Very clever, but rather unsubstantiated.

Still, I think that what the Americans did to the Indians WAS genocide. The Spanish conquest of California was one part of that genocide, but the guilt for the genocide must be borne by all people of European ancestry - on both sides of the Atlantic. I suppose we could place the blame on the Ruling Classes, and thus escape any clout of responsibility inherited from our ancestors, but would that be accurate?

I think we're best off admitting that none of us have ancestors who were perfect - and our descendants will someday realize that we weren't perfect, either. So, then, how should we deal with the truth that our ancestors were flawed? Is it wrong for us to cherish their memory. How should we regard anyone who has done something wrong, sometime in their lives?

I think we should cherish the memory of what they meant to us, of the good things they have done. And perhaps we should forgive their faults, since we all have faults.

I will repeat: despite her faults, Mother Teresa called the attention of the world to those who were poor and suffering. And Fr. Serra built 9 beautiful missions, a lingering reminder to us that somebody was here before we got here. Some people cherish their memory.

Oh, regarding Mother Teresa, Steve Shaw says "she could easily become the fastest-tracked saint in history." John Paul II died in 2005. He was declared a saint in 2014. John Paul, by the way, single-handedly dismantled many of the accomplishments of Vatican II. Mother Teresa died in 1997, and she's not a saint yet. Do the math.

That's Steve Shaw for ya. All spin, little fact. And he can't do the math.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 04:53 PM

Joe, accepting the limitations imposed on persons by the context of their times and viewing them within that context is one thing.

Elevating a person to "sainthood" in PRESENT times, knowing what we know now about their activities, and "that the bad things will be [should be?] forgotten" - is quite another.

"The bad things" NEED to be remembered, if not to the exclusion of, then in conjunction with, the good things and an intelligent assesment be made in our OWN time.

This was NOT done with and Teresa & Serra.

And by the way, I LIKE this pope - best thing since John 23rd & the best of a bad lot. That don't mean he gets carte blanche & shouldn't be called out when he screws up.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 05:10 PM

That's Steve Shaw for ya. All spin, little fact. And he can't do the math.

Maybe not, Joe, but he does speak English :-P

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 05:16 PM

Greg, a declaration of sainthood is not a declaration that a person was perfect. In fact, most of the saints were kinda weird. The canonization efforts for Mother Teresa, Junipero Serra, John Paul II, and Pius XII have all generated interesting and fruitful discussion - and not all that discussion was positive. I hope we've learned from that discussion.

Part of life is failure. There was failure in the lives of all four of these people. I hope we learn the lessons they have to teach.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 05:30 PM

People talk loosely about canonisation as "making someone a saint". That's not actually what it's about. It's about official recognition, and the rationale is, as Joe Offer said, about symbolizing something seen as significant rather than everything about the individuals themselves. Rather the same way Pope Francis turning up to the White House in that little Fiat. That wasn't about endorsing Fiat cars as such, it was about saying in cconcrete terms some things that needed to be said.

Most "saints" no one ever heard of outside a small circle, and they never got canonised. Like Joe's grandmother.

And the one's that did get canonised weren't perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 05:39 PM

People talk about canonization as "making a saint", but that's not at all what it's about. And it's not about saying they were perfect. It's about picking out officially someone who can provide a symbol for something that is seen as needing to be symbolized. Rather like Pope Francis rolling ip to the White House in that little Fiat. That wasn't about identifying that car or Fiats as uniquely great cars, it was a way of saying something that needed to be said, in concrete terms

Most saints never get canonized, and no one much ever heard of them. Like Joe's granny.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:05 PM

Ah, I forgot about John Paul II. I can do the sums but I forgot about him. Actually, there's another whose sainthood throws the Church into disrepute. Think of all those child abuse issues that got swept under the carpet on his watch. You'd have been better off not mentioning him, I reckon. Oh well. Still, I admit you got me on the maths there. As for the rest, a bit snide there, Joe, for such a Christian fellow. I try not to smear you, but I suppose I don't care if you don't return the compliment. The reason I spared the thread a litany of awful Teresa quotes is that anyone who wants to find them can easily do so. To be honest, I'd rather fill my post with my views. But tell me to do and I'll do it. You may get more than a dozen. As for not being able to back up my assertion that your post was just a load of spin, well what do you think I've been doing? I've given you specific examples of the woman's awfulness, so I assume you are either in denial or you don't believe me. I can back up everything I say about her (not that I should need to, as it's all on public record, whether you've looked for it or not), so be careful what you wish for. Instead, I suggest that you cast off the blinkers, get honest and do your own collar work. It won't be edifying. Your long post is pretty desperate. Do your homework and reflect on it. You are defending a woman who was everything you claim to oppose, and her attributes were extremely damaging, both to Catholicism and to the thousands of her victims.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:11 PM

Actually, come to think of it, I take pleasure from the fact that in your long post you riposte by attacking me and signally failing to defend her. A failure of nerve there, Joe. Deep down, you really do know how rotten to the core she was, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:30 PM

Well, Steve, I'm not really interested in defending John Paul II, Mother Teresa, or Junipero Serra. I've stated their flaws, and I've stated their good points. None of them are particularly inspiring to me, although I find all three to be interesting personalities - and they are inspiring to many people.

And I don't like to get into defending/attacking mode. That's not my way of thinking. I find it destructive and negative. If I get myself pushed into it, it puts me in a mode akin to anger. I generally find my life to be fuller if I direct my mindset toward exploring and appreciating things and ideas. Defending/attacking is a form of battle, and I don't find that to be particularly useful. Defending/attacking is what fundamentalists do, and I hate myself when I get sucked into that mode - so I'm usually pretty good at deflecting it.

So, yeah, all I want to say is that your depictions of Junipero Serra, Mother Teresa, and now John Paul II are almost cartoonishly exaggerated. But that's apparently the way you like to live life - in absolutes, seeing all good or all bad. Good luck with that.

As for me, I prefer to explore the greys and pastels. It's a different mindset. You probably wouldn't understand it.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:30 PM

Mother Teresa's Cookbook

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:32 PM

Part of life is failure. There was failure in the lives of all four of these people.

Yup- and apparently some feel the need to celebrate and validate that failure, instead of condemning it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:33 PM

I suppose you give Pol Pot a pass, eh?

St. Chomsky does so why should he not.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:35 PM

for something that is seen as needing to be symbolized.

Like genocide, perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 07:21 PM

Well I haven't even mentioned Junipero-whoever-he-was, so I hardly think I've cartoonishly exaggerated anything about him. As for your grey and pastels, well sometimes you really need to lift that particular veil in order to see the truth. Mother Teresa was a very simple case. She was not interested in improving the lot of the most deprived people. She was obsessed with converting them. Nothing else mattered to her. She took money from dictators and praised them. Instead of ploughing that money, and the money of many well-meaning donors, back into her institutions for the sick, she ploughed it into her convents. I'd be happy for you to bring evidence that denies this stuff in which case I'd eat my hat. But you know it's true, don't you (I note your serial inability to address this). It's all very well painting over blackness with grey and pastels, but by so doing you are doing a major disservice to the Church and to Teresa's thousands of victims. All I ask you to do is to look at the facts. So far, you have used every argument under the sun to explain why you shouldn't have to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 07:23 PM

I suppose St. Chomsky is Noam Chomsky. Yeah, he gets a pass. He's an interesting person who gives people a lot to think about. I would consider him for sainthood. Why would he need a pass?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 07:31 PM

Incidentally, -Defending/attacking is what fundamentalists do

Well not really. That is a pretty poor characterisation of fundamentalists. But, if you insist. Do you think that Mother Teresa's gratuitous attacks on women who have abortions are fundamentalist? Or maybe you haven't read about them, not wanting to ruin your rather romanticated view of her? How about her telling the poor that their poverty is a virtue, not to be opposed? I won't go on. Though I could, if you really insist.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 07:40 PM

Yes, Steve, there is virtue and dignity to be found in poverty. A poor person should not look upon her/himself as somehow less worthy than a person with money.

And yes, Steve, Mother Teresa opposed abortion. I haven't found any quotations from her where she attacked women who had abortions. Apparently, you haven't either - since all you can do is resort to paraphrases.

And I don't think I have a "romanticated" view of Mother Teresa. I don't think I'd like her, personally. Too rigid a personality. Too likely to see things as black-and-white. More your kind of person, I think. Maybe you'd like her.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 07:42 PM

"I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury." Noam Chomsky in 1993.
........................

Reverse hagiography is at least as prone to distortion - or spin, to use the vogue synonym - as hagiography.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 08:20 PM

Yes, Steve, there is virtue and dignity to be found in poverty. A poor person should not look upon her/himself as somehow less worthy than a person with money.

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

And yes, Steve, Mother Teresa opposed abortion. I haven't found any quotations from her where she attacked women who had abortion.

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? ... By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems."

You're not really digging, are you, Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 08:36 PM

Yep, Steve, it's very clear that Mother Teresa didn't like abortion. Neither do I, although I word my opposition a little more gently and I don't think abortion should be prohibited by law.

Nonetheless, can you name me some mothers Mother Teresa attacked?

To me, abortion is the taking of a life. War is, also - but sometimes it's justified although deeply regrettable.

And I'm sorry, but I can see nothing wrong with opposing abortion. As a Planned Parenthood doctor once told me, "Abortion is never a cause for celebration."

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 08:50 PM

"Abortion is never a cause for celebration."

Agreed. But nor should it be a cause for condemnation, especially by religious bigots. Especially where it is legal.

And its also none of anyone's business but that of the woman involved.

And now, back to Saint Bigot & Saint Genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 09:04 PM

Correct, Greg. The hypocrisy here is that Mother Teresa opposed sex education (abstinence was one of her big things) and she opposed birth control. As such, she didn't oppose abortion at all. She positively encouraged it. She was the world champion of abortion in that she opposed every possible means of avoiding unwanted pregnancy. Ignorance plus no contraception equals unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancies equal abortion. I'll tell you summat, Joe Offer. I'm a hundred times more opposed to abortion than Mother Teresa ever was. I want equality, not poverty. I want education, not ignorance. I want universal access to birth control, not abstinence. She didn't care about the abortion statistics. She needed abortion as a big stick with which to attack women. Open your eyes. You are exonerating pure evil.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 01:48 AM

Steve, my friend, you're the one who said that Mother Teresa favored abstinence from sex. Well, ya know, if you do it (abstinence), it's a very effective method of birth control. Women who abstain from sex, rarely have need of abortion...

But in reality, I agree with you more than you think. I've often said that if the Catholic Church truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions, it would drop the prohibition against contraception and form an alliance with Planned Parenthood. Contraception eliminates the need for abortion almost as well as abstinence - and abstinence just ain't practical.

I can't really believe that Mother Teresa would want people to be poor or ignorant. That's spin again. Why would anyone promote poverty and ignorance? That just doesn't make sense.

And as for her opposition to abortion and opposition to sex education, I can't believe these were defining aspects of her life. If they were, wouldn't the anti-abortion movement be using her as some sort of poster girl? All I ever heard her talk about, was caring for those in poverty.

Mother Teresa started out as a Loretto nun, a member of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary (IBVM) that was founded in England to specialize in educating young ladies. In 1950, she founded a separate religious order, the Missionaries of Charity. Wikipedia says the order now has 4500 nuns, active in 133 countries. They wear white saris trimmed with blue as their religious habit. I've met a few of them. They're usually young and very pious. It's hard to talk or joke with them because they are so serious about themselves. But they do get in and do the dirty work in situations of dire poverty, so I have to give them credit for that.

My boss at the women's center is an IBVM, and she wears normal clothing and has worked with the poor and homeless for over thirty years. And she loves to chat and joke and get goofy. She invited a homeless man to her house on Saturday to take a shower and wash his clothes, and then spent last Sunday afternoon on a social visit to his homeless camp, so she could meet his friends there. Her homeless friend needs a hip replacement and eye surgery, so she is working to get that arranged for him. He keeps telling her she should get a thong bikini and get divorced from Jesus...

But as for Mother Teresa and abortion, I'm not sure I believe it was a major issue for her. She seems to have placed her focus on poverty and the illnesses of the poor. But for me, she was too serious, too severe. I like my boss better.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Megan L
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 03:25 AM

Joe advise her against the thing those things are just plain uncomfortable to wear,especially the tweed ones that oaks and Severn were designing in the chat room a few years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 03:33 AM

Hmmmm. Megan, I don't know how to respond to that....I could get in BIG trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:19 AM

You make some good points, Joe. Yes, too serious, too severe. As yet, you haven't said much about her paean to the Duvaliers. Was that wrong-headed, naive, devious, or was it because their modus operandi chimed with her? Well, she was also an admirer of Enver Hoxta and she supported the contras in Nicaragua just as their death squads were at their height. It seems be stacking up just a little that she was rather fond of extreme right-wing dictatorships. Of course, that would be well in keeping with her ultra-authoritarian and fundamentalist takes on birth control and abortion. She even tried to intervene in the debate about divorce in Ireland. Perhaps she thought that everyone was Roman Catholic, or at least damn well ought to be. As for "caring for people in poverty", well I'll grant her this much: her words (concerning the virtuous nature of poverty) and actions (maintaining terrible conditions in her homes, with unqualified and uncaring staff, the absence of even basic hygiene, refusals to provide medical attention for people in mortal agony) are certainly in harmony. Reflect on the rather awkward fact that this multi-millionaire was the past master when it came to squirrelling away money, given in good faith by donors who had fallen for the spin, in order to expand her convents, the chief aim being to expedite the conversion of as many as possible to Catholicism, especially the poor and vulnerable. And what was that about baptising dying babies...?

However, it's undeniable that her legacy has some good things. There are lots of people in this world wearing her badge doing lots of good work, as you describe. Most of them are better than me, definitely. But a couple more points to reflect on. Do we need badness for goodness to emerge? Had mother Teresa never existed, would there be fewer people doing that good work? Since the Holocaust, there has been far more revulsion and protest against antisemitism (another area in which the Church has dragged its feet, incidentally). You could say that, in part at least, the Holocaust facilitated that revulsion and protest. Good coming out of bad. But not one person here, I'm sure, is going to say that that justifies the Holocaust. Your pious young nun doing such admirable work does not justify or exonerate in any way Mother Teresa's wickedness. There are other ways.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:32 AM

Earlier, you suggested that I couldn't back up my claims about her. Here's a snippet I meant to include, so I couldn't resist posting it now.

When the International Health Organization honored Teresa in 1989, she spoke at length against abortion and contraception and called AIDS a "just retribution for improper sexual conduct".

You OK with her concept of justice?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:41 AM

You OK with her being "honoured" by the IHO?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 10:15 AM

The Guardian
Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Rome, Harriet Sherwood in London and Calla Wahlquist

Wednesday 30 September 2015

Pope Francis allegedly thanked Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licences on religious grounds, for her courage after reports say the pair had a private meeting. "Pope Francis thanked me for my courage and told me to 'stay strong'," said Davis.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 10:22 AM

Meeting Confirmed
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/county-clerk-kim-davis-who-denied-gay-couples-visited-pope.html?_r=0

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 11:24 AM

Sorry, Keith, but I find Joe's posts to be sincere and very challenging and I'm trying to have a proper conversation (if he wants to keep going) if you don't mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 11:26 AM

By their fruits, Greg, by their fruits...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 05:23 PM

while I would not know if there was misappropriation of donations , it is clear, steve, that your criticisms of Teresa are to a large extent ideological. she may not have been very delicate in expressing her moral outrage ....but then, she is a saint compared to your outpourings at times !....., but essentially she is in agreement with both Christian thinking on the sanctity of human life , and logic in saying that the woman having an abortion is killing her baby. and having Christian convictions does not make someone wicked , except maybe in the mind of hardened atheists . and on what authority do you call something wicked , other than your own subjective......or dare I suggest it....historically Christian imbibed, values.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 05:57 PM

Well, though abortion is a subject that is difficult to avoid in any discussion about Mother Teresa, this is not a thread about abortion. Start a thread about abortion and I'll take you on any time. The reason that you do not know about the misappropriation of donations is that you haven't bothered to look into it. My criticisms of her are entirely factually based. If you wish to challenge anything I've said about her, let's be having it please. It's so easy for charlatans such as yourself, who do no research, to accuse people with whom you disagree of being "ideological", isn't it. As for her agreement on the sanctity of human life, well if only we could ask some of the victims of her homes for the dying, who were subjected to squalid conditions, who suffered neglect, who were refused medical interventions and many of whom undoubtedly died either prematurely or unnecessarily. Of course, we can't ask them, because they're dead. If that's your idea of Christian thinking on the sanctity of life, well I'll stick to my non-Christian version if you don't mind. I'd add, finally, and not for the first time, if you really want to get rid of abortion, you'd be condemning her out of hand for campaigning against real sex education and contraception. I'm not hearing that from you. Perhaps, just like her, you're actually rather in favour of abortion so that you can have a nice big stick to bash us pro-choicers with. I think we call that hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:25 PM

"Misappropriation of donations" means that donations given and received specifically for one purpose are diverted to be used for another purpose. It doesn't mean that critics might believe the money should have been spent in a different way, or even that donors might believe that.

I take it that you are talking about cases where such misappropriation has been proved to have taken place, instigated or approved by Mother Teresa.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 07:01 PM

I invite you to look into it. It's all out there. One of the big problems with being an iconoclast is persuading the already-persuaded to do their own digging in an honest and dispassionate way. In the age of the internet, as long as you know how to discriminate, it's easier than ever. It's a very uncomfortable exercise and it's no wonder that many would rather not go there. But far better that you do it yourself then listen to me giving you a ton of links that you can then call biased or ideological. Here's your starting point. Mother Teresa attracted many millions of dollars in donations. I invite you to examine the extremely dubious sources of some of them. Over a million dollars, for example, came from a man who had come about the later-to-be-donated money by criminally-fraudulent means. Mother Teresa knew this but did not pay the money back. Look into her dealings with the Duvaliers, about whom I surely need to say no more. Here's the thing. She had millions with which she massively expanded her convents, yet het her homes for the dying were squalid slums. When she got sick later in life, she purchased the best health care for herself that money could buy. Please do your homework on this. Honestly, every word of it is true. I fully understand that loyal Catholics don't want to hear it. Too bad. But please don't argue back until you've checked it out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 07:17 PM

One other thing that you'll discover if you do your own delving. Most of the accounts of the dreadful conditions in the homes run by this multi-millionaire come not from outside observers but from good-hearted volunteers who worked in those homes and who were shocked by what they saw. As I keep saying, it's all out there - if you really want to cast off the blinkers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 07:57 PM

What to do when it turns out a donation comes from a crook can be a dilemma, especially if it's been spent or earmarked. It's not what I'd call misappropriating donations.

Many, perhaps most, people with access to large amounts of money - directors of big corporations, politicians - are probably exceedingly shady characters. Does that mean that money is tainted so it cannot be used?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 08:58 PM

Point taken, but this woman is a step away from sainthood. Dodgy expediency in a saint would have shocked my old granny.   I think that she would have expected better. And there is not a scintilla of doubt that she used most donor money for her convents.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 09:05 PM

Beatification six years after her death? Why?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 09:32 PM

That's a good, thought-provoking article which should have thinking Catholics lusting for more information about her, and it doesn't deny the positives in her legacy. It isn't ideological to take off the blinkers. It's honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 10:34 PM

I am amazed that her beatification came just six years after her death. Usually the Catholic Church moves very s l o w l y on such matters.

The churches--meaning not just Catholic--would be of greater help to the poor were they to pay their fair share of taxes just like mostly-honest people and corporations. I say that because while one might argue the taxes on money given to churches has been paid by the giver, that fails under scrutiny because those same givers are entitled to receipts for tax purposes that essentially cause others to pay more in tax than they otherwise would.

I will never understand why she was so honoured. She did some seriously bad stuff in her pursuit of something or other, but had she not been beatified she'd likely be remembered by history as another Lucrezia Borgia. I am not wise enough to know whether the good she did outweighed the bad, but I am wise enough to know that saints ain't supposed to come from neocons and capitalists, and she was both. Of course, the world being what it is today I'm not surprised. We've come to revere money and remain subservient to the power money buys, so shocked I'm not.

--------------------------

I'm very disappointed that the Pope visited and encouraged Kim Davis. Made his visit seem tawdry. If there really is a division of church and state, the division line sure is getting blurry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 10:35 PM

Sorry. Last post was me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:07 AM

Yeah, but that eurekalert.org link is just a regurgitation of the so-called "expose" from Hitchens. There really has been no such information in the legitimate press. As far as I can see, the primary sin that Steve Shaw has uncovered in Mother Teresa is that she was an aged Catholic who espoused the thinking of Catholics of her time. I get annoyed at such thinking, but I don't think it's particularly horrible. My saintly mother-in-law was born about the same time, and had similar annoying ideas - but she was an exemplary mother and grandmother despite her antiquated ideology.

I don't know what interaction Mother Teresa had with the Duvaliers of Haiti, so I can't comment on that. I do know that she wanted to establish a convent in Haiti so she could work with the poor people there. To do that, she had to negotiate with the Duvaliers, and it's quite possible that they said nice things about her.

In my own work with homelessness and criminal justice reform in my county, I've found that I have to negotiate withe people I may not always respect - and I have to be nice to them. To serve the poor, you have to get your hands dirty.

It does appear that the Catholic Church is going back to the practice of declaring sainthood within a relatively short time after the saint's death. Saints are chosen because of the lessons they can teach people. They are far more relevant in their own time, than they are a hundred or two hundred years later.

I think the Pope has canonized enough people to keep the conservatives happy for a while. He's canonized only on my list of favorites John XXIII. I'd like to see him canonize Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, and Joseph Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago.

It appears to be a fact that the Pope met with Kim Davis, the recalcitrant anti-homosexual county clerk from Kentucky. We don't know the circumstances of the meeting, or what was said - but it's clear that Ms. Kim has put her own "spin" on the encounter.

If I were Pope, I'd meet with Ms. Davis, too. I'd tell her that it is a good and admirable thing for her to have a strict moral code. If she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, then she should follow that belief very strictly, and she should not ever consider getting married to a woman. But she should understand that other people have different moral codes that they must follow, and she should not interfere with them. She should support them in living their lives the way they believe they are called to live.

I'm guessing the Pope said something very wise to her, but I don't know that we'll ever know what he said to her.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:43 AM

Here's a brief excerpt from the eurekalert document - it's a quote from Hitchens quoting Mother Teresa:

"There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering," was her reply to criticism, cites the journalist Christopher Hitchens.

Trying to find value and meaning and dignity in suffering has long been part of the tradition of Catholic spirituality, and probably also in other schools of spirituality - the Book of Job, for example; and the rabbi who wrote Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People. And forgiving the person who causes the suffering is part of it.

That's not the same as condoning or encouraging or promoting the injustice that caused the suffering, but that appears to be the implication from Hitchens. There is no evidence that Mother Teresa condoned or approved such injustice, and it is ludicrous for Hitchens to condemn her for doing so.

And as for the accusations of unsanitary conditions and improper medical practices in the facilities Mother Teresa operated - Princess Diana visited some of those facilities and promoted the work of Mother
Teresa. No doubt, Diana was accompanied by many reporters and photographers from the legitimate press - why didn't Diana and her reporters uncover these abuses, if they existed?

Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity have founded convents and facilities for the poor in the United States. I know only of their operations in San Francisco and Sacramento. They have a reputation for being spartan, but fastidiously clean. And the nuns are not lavish or wasteful in any way. They know how to stretch their financial resources.

Then again, I don't particularly like them because they're far too conservative for me - but I can't find fault with them otherwise.

In my experience, most people who work with the poor, are good folks - even if I don't agree with their ideology. I don't agree with the Hitchens propaganda for the simple reason that it just doesn't make sense - what reason would Mother Teresa have to be as wicked as Hitchens describes her to be? Why would being so wicked be to her advantage?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:49 AM

" But she should understand that other people have different moral codes that they must follow, and she should not interfere with them."

Surely not?...The Church is in the business of defining morality as guidance to society.
The Catholic Church opposes homosexual "marriage" and the Pope was perfectly correct to speak to the lady concerned and thank her for her brave stance.

Does one expect the Church to validate "open" marriages, polygamous , or same sex ones, just because a tiny portion of society wishes to avail themselves of this form of relationship.

The Church has championed the family, first and foremost as the best way of constructing a sustainable society.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:56 AM

Yes, Ake, many Catholic bishops have actively opposed gay marriage, and lobbied hard for government prohibitions against gay marriage - but the Pope hasn't done that. I think he has a different view of morality. He expresses the moral standard, which is opposition to gay marriage - but it's up to individuals to live up to those standards and not the duty of the state to force people to follow moral standards.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 04:23 AM

I'm not talking about government Joe, I'm talking about the stance of the


   Church.   Government laws come and go according to fashion or political expediency.

The Church defends moral values as the Church sees them.but it's up to individuals to live up to those standards and not the duty of the state to force people to follow moral standards.

"but it's up to individuals to live up to those standards and not the duty of the state to force people to follow moral standards."

Perhaps that should have read "immoral standards"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 04:36 AM

Sorry about that mixed up layout, but I'm sure you get the jist.

The Church has no power to force people to do anything, all they can do is persuade.

All the force is used by "here today gone tomorrow" politicians in thrall to a despicable media.
People no longer possess free will, they are led like sheep by people who are determined to destroy traditional society and above all the Church that you so obviously love.

I find your stance on the issue almost unbelievable, given that you have such an understanding of theology.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Megan L
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 05:12 AM

My mother who came from an area where people still worshipped in the covenanter tradition used to tell me to use a lang stick when measuring the lives of others. This came from the big rulers used on blackboards.

They were a yard long often marked in inches,as you moved to other classroom rulers the marks got closer together quarter, eighth,twelfth, sixteenth and thirty seconds of an inch.

The bigger the stick the more forgiving the measurement. Her words were a Scottish paraphrase of the text judge not lest ye be judged for as you judge others so shall ye be judged. The bible also says that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The slippy stane

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 06:48 AM

The abuses are undeniable. It's just that you don't want to see. As I said, the whistleblowers were mostly people who had worked in the homes. Do some honest delving. No amount of my telling you will convince you. If that's how you want to turn away from stark reality, then you're even more religious than I thought you were. You're trying to turn this into a Hitchens versus Teresa war. Well it isn't. It's the scrap between truth and denial. Last time Lady Di come round to your house with armies of cameramen on a visit planned months in advance, did you forget to pick your dirty undies up off the floor and clear away the sinkful of washing up? Sheesh!

Now as for Ms Davis and her moral code, I'd have thought that her first moral duty in the post she held was to carry out the law of the land that had been arrived at via democratic means. Her refusal to issue those licences was illegal and vexatious, yet she was in a post that required her to issue them. As for the other element of sneakiness that appears to be creeping into this thread, the usual conflation of sex 'n' morals (particularly the "morality" of what consenting adults do in private, or whether they want to be married), let's just see whose moral code we are discussing here. Would it by any chance be an imposed and arbitrary moral code, arrived at by celibate men with little or no experience of sexual partnerships and who have lived a life untypical of the vast majority of their flock? Well I'll tell you what I think of moral codes. Real ones are not designed to keep people under control. Real ones start with the premise that what you do should not do harm either to yourself or to others. That you always aim to do what's good, not just for you but for everyone else. Then amplify that by never getting in the way do other people who are sticking to that tenet. Your moral codes that seek to instruct people how they should conduct their private lives are simply immoral. The Catholic Church's moral code relating to gay marriages, contraception and homosexuality is highly immoral, and insiders who care should be fighting it like mad. Not enough of you are seen to be doing so Secretly using condoms in contravention of the code is lily-livered. Let's hear you shouting it from the rooftops! Mother Teresa's moral codes were also highly immoral. It doesn't matter whether you yourself disapprove of abortion or homosexuality. Mother Teresa did not see room for compromise. She called mothers who had abortions murderers. She said that gay people who contracted Aids were getting their just desserts. Just saying those things is highly immoral in itself. I'm not having it that she was a simple Albanian nun who was of her time. You can absolve any wrongdoer in history with that horribly flawed approach. She was a scheming, capitalist fundamentalist who made millions by misrepresenting her work to the world. Simple Albanian nun my arse. And stop offending Albanians. That's just immoral.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 08:16 AM

I am amazed that her beatification came just six years after her death.

Its a good thing proto-Saints have to be dead to be beatified - otherwise apparently we'd be facing a "Saint Davis of Kentucky".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 11:25 AM

Mother Teresa, from her posthumously published letters, didn't believe in the god for whom she professed to be working. Just sayin'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 01:34 PM

She seemed to believe in the god of money, the god of capitalism, and she wasn't too fussy about her worship methods.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 02:35 PM

"I am the master of this college.
What I don't know is not knowledge" ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:04 PM

Gee,. Steve,, did you type all of that at 06:48 AM in a single breath?

I see you still haven't been able to find anything from the legitimate press to back up your accusations.

Sexual morality is a difficult thing to discuss. There is a sacredness in the sexual relationships between persons, and respecting that sacredness can be a good and healthy thing. But there are no absolute answers to most of the questions, and everybody has a different opinion. I have no objection to churches voicing their opinions, but I don't thing it's appropriate for people to condemn or attack the private sexual conduct of others.

And for the most part, I do not see public condemnation or attacks from the Catholic Church about the sexual conduct of its members or of others. Here and there, you'll find a rogue priest or nun or somebody who will get on a kick about something sexual, but it is generally considered in bad taste for priests and nuns to speak publicly about sexual conduct. The standards are in the Catechism for people to read.

Even abortion is not spoken of from the pulpit very often in most Catholic churches.

For Pope Francis, as it was for Mother Teresa, the big message is justice for the poor. Francis doesn't let other issues get in the way of his primary message. For the most part, it seems to me that Mother Teresa was the same way.

Tell me, Steve, on what occasions did Mother Teresa speak out against abortion?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:08 PM

well steve , since you are so keen on moralizing about others , what is your objective standard for what is wicked, immoral and wrongdoing.
oh and btw, I do agree though, and thought the same,
when I read joes post, that if a royal visit were expected that there would be a tidy up......whether standards were as best as possible or not.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:34 PM

So Joe, why is the Pope supporting Mega-Bigot Davis? He' just lost all of the credit he previously piled up for me. And if this pope is anything, he's not an idiot. He knew exactly what he was doing in annointing Mrs. Piece Of Filth.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:43 PM

Calm down Greg, you know the Church opposes Homosexual "marriage", so why is the lady a "Piece of filth" for supporting her church's views?

You are being unreasonable, if you wish to rant do it against Church policy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:58 PM

Look, Joe, all this stuff is out there in the public domain. It's no good asking me when you know full well that you will deny everything I say. Apparently without even checking. I'll tell you what. As an exercise, take any specific point I've made about Mother Teresa. You have quite a few to choose from. Then look in your "legitimate press" (whatever that is), or anywhere else you like, and find the evidence that refutes what I've said. You told me earlier today that you didn't know much about Mother Teresa and the Duvaliers. Well why's that then? Not hard to find, the answer to that, is it? You haven't looked into it, that's why not! Wassup? Don't want to know the reality, that's why not!   As for her message being justice for the poor, she spent her life telling the poor not to seek justice but to accept their lot. Another example of you refusing to dig below the spin. And sexual morality is quite a simple thing to discuss, actually. Your priests and nuns may want to make it difficult, but I can make it really easy for them. Unless there is abuse going on, it's none of their business. Any kind of sex you like with any partner you choose. Any kind of contraception you like. If there's no abuse and no exploitation, it's none of your business. And if there is abuse or exploitation, then the very last people you want poking their noses in are priests and nuns. The Church has made sexual morality its business because it sees sex as an instrument of control over its flock. And Mother Teresa, your simple Albanian ASEXUAL nun, was the very worst offender. As for her pronouncements about abortion, they are all out there. The last person you want to be relying on for information is me. Fortunately, it isn't hard to find lots of sources. Go for it. Until you do, quit denying what I say. You are arguing from ignorance, and that does not suit you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 04:05 PM

One very good example, pete, of what is wicked, immoral and full of wrongdoing is to ignorantly deny scientific endeavour in favour of creationism and try to persuade people to follow you on your trail of prejudice. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 04:23 PM

It's very easy to find highly partisan stuff about Mother Teresa online - denunciations about everything she ever did, and about how she was about the most wicked woman ever born, on the lines of Steve; and the hagiographic equivalent about he a flawless and perfect. But it's by no means easy to find anything that tries to give the facts without spin, leaving it to those reading to make their own minds up.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 04:26 PM

""I have as much authority as the Pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it.""
― George Carlin

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 04:54 PM

Well what else can you do, Kevin? Why do you think I'm telling Joe to do his own looking? "On the lines of Steve" is hardly fair. I invite anyone who thinks I'm making it up to do some digging. Joe is showing every sign of avoiding that like the plague. But there is plenty about her that is incontrovertible. Many of her quotations are on record verbatim. Context is everything, of course, but when someone says that Aids is your just dessert for being homosexual, or that mothers who abort are murderers, or that the poor shouldn't fight back, it's quite hard to find any context that mitigates. But you're right. As with any controversial matter, you have to apply your judgement about stuff you find online with skill and wisdom. But it isn't impossible. It does require removal of blinkers, however. And that isn't meant as a barb. It's meant as a plea.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 07:59 PM

Enormous numbers of quotes from Mother Teresa are of course online. The mass of them show her in a very good light indeed. No doubt there are others, and you refer to a number which you see as uncontrovertible evidence that she was a dyed in the wool villain.

But as you say, context is everything, and I'd question your evaluations.. For example to class abortion as murder is an inevitable conclusion of a definition of murder as the act of terminating a human life. I would take it that you would hold to a different definition, but Mother Teresa was hardly unique in accepting that definition.

That does not imply that she can be assumed to have dealt with women who had had abortions in an accusing or punitive way. Mothers who kill their infant children are rightly liable to be treated with compassion and sympathy rather than punitive blame, and the act is likely to be termed "infanticide".

Again, how poor and weak people should behave in the face of injustice is not a simple matter. People have to judge how far fighting back is the right way for them to deal with their situation, and it can be a choice between doing so and surviving. There are times when we have to just have to endure. "Offer it up" is the traditional counsel Catholics have often been given in such sitiations, and I believe it is good advice - even when we are engaged in fighting back, because that does not in any way remove the need to endure suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 08:16 PM

And now for something completely different. Except that it's not. The name of Dorothy Day has come up a few times in this thread, thanks largely to the fact that Pope Francis cited her to congress as an example of a great American. Though I'm pretty sure she would have cropped up anyway. But it was wondersful tor have the Pope in that setting directing attention to the anti-war activist who set up the radical Socialist Catholic Worker.

Here is a articleabout her, specifically in the cntext of the kind of issues this thread has honed in on

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 08:42 PM

"But as you say, context is everything, and I'd question your evaluations.. For example to class abortion as murder is an inevitable conclusion of a definition of murder as the act of terminating a human life. I would take it that you would hold to a different definition, but Mother Teresa was hardly unique in accepting that definition. "

Of course. But I'm Steve, with an audience of ten ( if I'm lucky). She was Teresa, with an immediate audience of tens of thousands and an ultimate audience of tens of millions. I can't manipulate anybody. She could manipulate millions. She utterly failed to exercise the responsibility that came with that power. She would far rather exploit that power.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 11:39 PM

I've done my own looking, Steve. I've found your accusations and partial quotes repeated over and over and over again, but only on muckraking sites, not in the legitimate press.
So, how can I find what isn't there?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 03:17 AM

I think you are being disingenuous, Joe. It took me about 30 seconds to find this article in the Globe and Mail , Canada's second largest daily paper. It refers to research by the University of Ottowa and provides a link to The Times of India. None of the three can be fairly described as 'muckraking sites' and they all confirm Steve's views.

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 03:21 AM

Sorry - Looks like the click was truncated. C&P the following instead -

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/mother-teresa-was-anything-but-a-saint-new-canadian-study-claims/article9317551/

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 04:24 AM

It appeared in that paper, but is just a rehash of pieces originally in The Times of India, and Religieuses, a French-language journal of studies in religion and sciences.

It does not "refers to research by the University of Ottowa" but to a study by three people from the education departments of two different Universities.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 04:39 AM

Nit picking.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 05:33 AM

Muckraker: person who you disagree with who digs up inconvenient truths.

Whistleblower: person who you agree with who digs up inconvenient truths.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 06:23 AM

That piece briefly recapitulates the allegations Steve has given, but doesn't set out to provide any evidence. It's easy enough to find sites where that is done, but not sites where actual evidence is presented so people can make up their own minds. Even the quotes tend to be summarised interpretations of what she actually said, rather than her actual words.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 06:32 AM

Sorry, Kevin, I can only suggest getting hold of quoted academic paper which will cite it's sources as evidence. I don't know how to do that but, in the meanwhile, I can only assume that a 'team of Canadian researchers' will have done their homework. Should someone post a link to their report on here, it would become apparent whether they have done a thorough job or made it up :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:12 AM

Not taking sides, or saying it was good research-but, a link to the paper noted:

Mother Teresa 

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:14 AM

Wouldn't it be great if people of faith set their evidence bar just as high for the stuff they profess to believe in? As the Merkins say, just sayin'...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:22 AM

Costs $30 to read it, Ed. Can't afford it. I've just given my last $30 to a Mother Teresa charity. Damn.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Monique
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:22 AM

I could only find the original version of this 2013 study.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:58 AM

Thanks, Monique. Good to see you about and still posting :-)

To those who have not opened the link, it is in French and if, like me, your French has not passed schoolboy stage, you may struggle. However, the list of references at the end is impressive and a lot is in English. Gives us further evidence that that they were not making things up anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Monique
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 08:44 AM

Well thanks Dave, I veeeeery seldom post in the BS section but it doesn't mean that I'm not around or that I don't read anything there. I've tried to copy and paste a part of the pdf into Google Translation and it'd want a lot of work to get it translated because the accents come out separated from the letters they should be upon (é comes out as e' etc. and the translator can't work properly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 09:12 AM

And now, today's nomination for the "Pull The Other One Its Got Bells On" Award:


Vatican: Pope's encounter with Davis not a form of support

Nicole Winfield, Associated Press
Friday, October 2, 2015

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican on Friday distanced Pope Francis from Kim Davis, the focal point in the gay marriage debate in the U.S., saying she was one of dozens of people the pope greeted in Washington and that their encounter "should not be considered a form of support of her position."

Maybe the Pope is an idiot after all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 09:42 AM

Teresa-believers should be careful what they wish for. The insistence on such high standards of evidence (which, I note, they never apply to anything in their own belief systems, oddly) for what she said and did merely serves to sting us to into finding even more murk. I came across this when following one of the references at the bottom of Monique's article. Mother Teresa appealed, successfully, for the reinstatement of one of her favourite priests, Donald McGuire, after he had been found to have been involved in child abuse. Her success enabled him to go on quite a little spree of further abuse. I'd say that, like many in the Catholic hierarchy of the time, steered of course by the ever so saintly John-Paul II, she was far more concerned for the reputation of the priesthood than she she was about the wellbeing of children. Once again, it's all out there. Don't take my word for it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 10:16 AM

How can the Pope's encounter with Kim not be seen as support for her position?   It is also the official position of the Catholic Church!

And quite right too!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 10:28 AM

As little as I like the practical operation & hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, bigotry and ignoring the law of the land are NOT "official positions".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 10:31 AM

I can only assume that a 'team of Canadian researchers' will have done their homework.

Why?
What might have motivated Serge Larivée and Genevieve Chenard from the University of Montreal's department of psychoeducation, and Carole Sénéchal of the University of Ottawa's faculty of education to write this report?
What has it to do with their specialism?
It is just a hatchet job, and they could only get it published in a very obscure journal.

Had The Times Of India not searched it out, would anyone know about it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 10:39 AM

Now, c'mom KoAH - they're eminent, they're alive, their works are available in regular bookshops, and they pick their noses with the left hand.

By your own criteria, they should obviouisly be believed as gospel (as it were).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 10:56 AM

It is just a hatchet job

Is it? Where is your proof? I have no idea where academics get stuff published and have no knowledge of French Canadian research. Do you? I assume that they have done their homework because of the sheer volume of references they provide. I am pretty sure that if any of the references were unhappy with the research they would have complained.

Enough now though. As I said earlier, just nit picking. And now looking for a fight. Boring. Did you have anything to do with boring a hole in St Albans by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 11:16 AM

I have no idea where academics get stuff published

Have you ever heard of a "team of academics" researching the activities of any other nun?
Or any charity.
Why do you suppose that they chose that subject?
Theirs is education and psychoeducation.

You expect investigative journalists to do that kind of work.
Does it not seem at all strange to you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 11:18 AM

I am pretty sure that if any of the references were unhappy with the research they would have complained.

If they happened to flick through "Religieuses" a French-language journal of studies in religion and sciences.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 11:23 AM

Sorry, which bit of "Enough now" is so difficult? I am not getting involved in this sort of derailing as it will only lead to closure of this thread as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 12:23 PM

Not for you to decide Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 12:27 PM

Muckraker: person who you disagree with who digs up inconvenient truths.

Whistleblower: person who you agree with who digs up inconvenient truths.

Hatchet-jobber: person who digs up inconvenient truths who you think should have let sleeping dogs lie, no matter how scrofulous, mange-ridden and rabid the dogs were.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 12:33 PM

Hectorer?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 01:44 PM

Beer o'clock?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 05:00 PM

So Steve , what I believe is wicked, immoral and wrongdoing !? . That is your opinion, for which you offer no ultimate criteria and authority.   Sounds more like illogical, ideological ire.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 05:01 PM

This post will go down extremely badly with Teresa fans, but here goes anyway. You really do need to watch Christopher Hitchens' Hell's Angel. It's less than half an hour long and it's on YouTube. Nine minutes in, you can see her pronouncements on abortion and contraception from the horse's mouth. 14 minutes in, you can hear her telling the Bhopal victims to "forgive". Regrettably that clip could have been longer, but hey ho. Straight after that you can watch her legitimising the Duvaliers. Shortly after that you can watch her laying a wreath on the tomb of that evil sod Enver Hoxha. See her dealings with the criminal Charles Keating at 21 minutes. Hear her bragging about her convents, paid for by donations from people who thought they were giving to help the poor, at 22 minutes. If you don't watch it, sorry, but you can't knock it. It's not definitive, but it does have stuff that you will find hard to refute.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 05:10 PM

What you believe is what you believe. You are one of the most deluded people it's been my misfortune to encounter, but I defend to the hilt your right to harbour your delusions. You also have the right to say ridiculous and offensive things about hardworking scientists on an internet forum, but you not have the right to expect protection from criticism or ridicule for so doing. Nor do your remarks always deserve dignifying responses. That's where I am with people like you. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 05:38 PM

Well, Steve, I guess by the same token, you have the right to say ridiculous and offensive things about the scientists who don't believe what you do about origins........and can I take it.....since you keep evading the question.....that you don't have any ultimate authority for pronouncing on what is wicked, immoral or wrongdoing ?    Pretty arbitrary it seems to me.    And I don't look for protection from mockery , because should anyone look in with discernment, they might see that you have little more than mockery to offer as argument.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 06:34 PM

Fine!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 06:35 PM

Excellent repost pete, but Steve also has a VERY obvious agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 06:46 PM

How can the Pope's encounter with Kim not be seen as support for her position?   It is also the official position of the Catholic Church!

It has been reported that he also met with a same sex couple prior to his meeting Kim.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:21 PM

Hmm. Maybe one day someone will tell me what my very obvious agenda is. It would be nice for me to know.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 15 - 07:42 PM

So Steve , what I believe is wicked, immoral and wrongdoing !?

No, what you believe is nonsense.

Which, as it plays out in real life, is a lot worse than wicked, immoral and wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 05:03 AM

"It has been reported that he also met with a same sex couple prior to his meeting Kim."............                      Nothing wrong with that, one of the homosexuals was an old friend.

THE ISSUE IS, AND WAS FOR KIM, "HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE".

The Catholic Church does not forbid FRIENDSHIP with homosexuals.
It teaches that homosexual practice is a sin and it refuses to validate "marriage".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 05:59 AM

Good job you're an atheist then, innit.

"Kim's" job was to issue marriage licences. She had no right to refuse to issue licences that fully complied with the law of the land. Her only proper recourse would have been to resign from her job. I suppose I could have pretended to be a believer, become a priest, stood at the altar then refused to say the mass. Got a job in a bar as a teetotaller and refused to supply anything other than soft drinks. Become a Muslim, get a job in a burger bar and refuse to cook pork sausages. She had plenty of time to see same sex marriage coming and consider her position. Instead, she chose to go large with her personal prejudice. She's a scoundrel and a charlatan who could use a lesson or two in democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 12:32 PM

Why then does the Church have a dispensation on performing homosexual "marriage"?

If the Church is allowed to break the law why not a private citizen?
She is only acting on her religious beliefs as defined by the Church.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 01:15 PM

A church marriage, performed by the Catholic church, in England, is not a legal marriage so, over here, they are not breaking any laws anyway! Marriages can only be legalised by an official registrar or, I believe, a C of E vicar. I don't know the position in the US but I guess that Davis is the equivalent of a registrar and, as such, was breaking the terms of her contract. I am sure a US friend will correct me if I am wrong. Comparing the Catholic church with a civil registrar is silly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 01:38 PM

Its more than silly, its ignorant and idiotic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:15 PM

A church marriage, performed by the Catholic church, in England, is not a legal marriage

Yes it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:16 PM

Didn't she lose her job? I can imagine that if a sweet shop started to sell cigarettes, quite legally, a shop assistant who had strong principles about that might decide, rather than resign, to refuse to sell tobacco to customers, in order to make a point, knowing that they could anticipate being sacked.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:40 PM

Well perhaps the pro cancer stick lobby would be campaigning for said salesperson to be sacked, and she should have resigned !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 03:10 PM

We were married in 1973 and the Catholic priest could not officiate. We had to have a registrar to make it official. As far ad I am aware, nothing has changed ant,therefore, I believe that a marriage conducted by the Church is still not official in law. I am happy to be corrected if that is no longer true,

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 03:38 PM

At the risk of hair splitting, a registrar is essential at a Cathloic wedding to make it legal. On the other hand the actual declaration using the legally prescribed words is administered via the priest. So whether a Catholic wedding is a legal marriage depends very much on how you want to view it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 03:44 PM

Hair splitting is what Keith does best, D. :-( A Catholic wedding without a registrar is not a wedding in the eyes of UK law. Which is what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 03:59 PM

Huh? We were married in a Catholic Church in 1976 but there was no registrar present, unless Father Burke was also a registrar or something. I have an exceptionally official-looking marriage certificate ( er, somewhere...). Have I lived in sin for 39 years? I want all those bloody anniversary presents back!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 04:19 PM

Checked up after that, Steve, and it seems some but by no means all priests are licenced to act as registratars. So your marriage is legal.


I assume you are happy to hear that!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 04:33 PM

At a Catholic wedding in England a registrar will be present to register the wedding, after the couple have made their vows. If he or she drops dead before that has been done, they would still be married in the eyes of the Church, and presumably themselves, but if they wanted to make it legal, they'd have to pop round to the registrars.

If they had a big row before doing that and split up, they'd have no need to get a divorce. But they wouldn't be able to have a Catholic wedding to anyone else unless they were able to get this one annulled by the Church.

I think the same kind of thing would apply for all religions in Englad, apart from Angiicans, whose vicars can register marriages themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 04:57 PM

Yep, that was my understanding, Kevin. If a Catholic priest is also a registrar, fine. But it still means that it is the state, not the church that makes the marriage legal. Which is the point I was making. The church has no status in law but the registrar does.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 08:02 PM

And vice versa. The state makes the marriage legal, but the church makes it valid, for Catholics.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 06:21 AM

Exactly, Kevin. The point being is that the two are entirely different things. Unless of course he priest is also a registrar as stated above. A registrar refusing to do what they are supposed to do is in breach of contract. Likewise a priest. Either can get sacked for it but a priest is not expected to perform same sex marriages while a registrar is. Comparing the two is, as I said before, silly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 01:25 PM

I'm pretty certain there won't be any cases of a priest being a registrar. Either in England, where they are appointed as a job, or in the States where they get elected. (I gather Kim Davis was elected as a Democrat.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 01:46 PM

Elected as a Democrat (whatever relevance that has) and proven to be a bigot, to have abdicated the responsibilities of her job, to have violated the law of the land, and to have refused other Americans their Constitutional rights.

And all to the greater Glory of God.

Hallelujah.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 01:53 PM

I'm pretty certain there won't be any cases of a priest being a registrar.

In England, many (most?) are.
The priest who married Steve would have been one, as was the (Catholic) priest who married one of my sons.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 02:04 PM

I stand corrected. I've never been to a Catholic wedding where a registrar wasn't there on the wide to do his stuff after the couple had said their vows.

In any case there'd be no requirement to carry out a civil wedding on request.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 02:06 PM

I hope we are not about to get into the difference between "licenced to act as a registrar for marriages" and "being a registrar". :(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 02:36 PM

I suspect we are, D. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 04:29 PM

Mr McGrath has the grace to say that he "stands corrected".

Some thing alien to Mr Shaw or Mr Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:20 PM

It's the Jeremy Corben effect... For a kinder Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:48 PM

and very effective, if I may say so!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:50 PM

If I make a mistake on this forum I always admit to it and apologise straight away. I have done this a good number of times. All my posts to this forum are available to you if you have the energy to research. You should do that before guessing or lashing out. I would thank you for not misrepresenting me if you don't mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 03:51 AM

What Steve said.

Ake. We have been asked to go easy on you because you are having a bad time. I am more that happy to do that as you well know but when you purposely pick fights it does not help anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 04:49 PM

Not picking fights,

just stating a fact, a fact that is obvious on every thread.

My problems are my affair, I have confided a medical problem pertaining to a family member to a moderator who is an expert on the subject and two trusted friends. I would be interested to know where you get your information.

"We have been asked to take it easy on you"..... only one thing worse than condescension, condensation!

I don't need any of your kind of easy.....I congratulated Steve on becoming a grandfather and received nothing but a stream of abuse on other threads, you never admit when PROVEN wrong, and have not an original idea in your head. I have said you are a troll and I see nothing to make me change my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 05:02 PM

You told me that you had a problem, ake. Remember? It was Keith who asked us to take it easy as you had enough on your plate. Remember? I will continue with my part of the bargain, even though you feel that it gives you the right to misrepresent me and what I say. I realise that you have no idea what the term troll means in this context and I understand that you have difficulties with today's world so I will make allowances. Maybe you can understand that other people may not?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 07:26 PM

"just stating a fact, a fact that is obvious on every thread."

As I don't post on anything like every thread, it can't possibly be obvious on every thread. Also, as I post to threads that are entirely non-controversial, such as the 2015 joke thread for example to name but one, your stricture would not apply in those cases. As I have often corrected myself or apologised for something I've said, to stand corrected is not an alien concept to me at all. As usual, you think you have a monopoly on the truth and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. As one of the people here who have the most to apologise for or correct themselves over, it ill behoves you to level that particular criticism at anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 09:13 PM

I have seen a theory that the Pope was left unbriefed on the Kim Davis issues by a malcontent within the US catholic church, as part of opposition to the Pope's wider agenda which seems at times to advocate social justice.

It seems that the Pope or his spokespeople have denied the words allegedly attributed to him by Kim Davis. I'm more likely to believe him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 07:00 AM

And before Michael wades in, I acknowledge the solecism in my last post. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 08:54 AM

Going back to the subject of this thread, what puzzles me is: why, in the 21st century, is anyone paying attention to the pronouncements of a glorified shaman?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 09:39 AM

...the Pope or his spokespeople have denied the words allegedly attributed to him by Kim Davis.

Kim Davis is a proven liar several times over, no problem there.

HOWEVER, the Pope meeting with her AT ALL is an act of extreme stupidity on his part.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 10:52 AM

why, in the 21st century, is anyone paying attention to the pronouncements of a glorified shaman?

Because he is a person of great influence with millions?
Should anyone pay attention to your pronouncement on him?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 11:50 AM

"Because he is a person of great influence with millions?"

Why?

"Should anyone pay attention to your pronouncement on him?"

Of course they should ... but I'm sure that they won't!

I believe, Keith, that one should question everything. Asking questions is not a crime - although, I suspect, that you would like to make it one (?)You think that asking questions is presumptuous, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 12:35 PM

"Because he is a person of great influence with millions?" quoted KAOH

For once I completely agree with Keith.

I doubt if there's another single person with so much financial clout.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 12:51 PM

"Because he is a person of great influence with millions?"

People with great influence with millions: Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet, Ayatollah Khomeini. Yep, that's the criterion we should apply before we listen to people, Keith. Their "great influence with millions." Good job we hang on to their every word and act according to their edicts, eh, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 01:43 PM

I would pay attention to the pronouncements of any of those Steve.
Shim, you ask why he has influence with millions.
It is because he leads are church with millions of members. I am surprised you did not know that.

I also question everything Shim, but I would not pronounce someone revered by millions to be a glorified shaman.
If I did, I would not expect anyone to pay attention.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 02:59 PM

Dave the Gnome's link to the article in the Globe and Mail was simply a restatement of the Hitchens "expose," so I tend not to believe it. To me, it seems to be more of the same exaggerated muckraking.
Although my sense of fair play demands me to defend her, it's hard for me to defend Mother Teresa with much enthusiasm. I didn't like her, and I was not inspired by her, and she was a standard bearer for the conservatives who expend so much effort me make me feel I don't belong in the church I was raised in.

And the same goes for John Paul II.

For both of them, it seemed that their faith was based on the dark side of spirituality. Both seemed to base their faith on the cross, not on the incarnation and the resurrection. There was gravity and severity and defensiveness to their faith, not the joy and openness and generosity that I experience. Mel Gibson is another one with their mindset.

But yet, I can't say that their approach to faith is invalid - it's just that it is very different from mine. I think their approach should be considered - not condemned and (I hope) not espoused.

I guess I'm just not "into" condemnation. I can only walk in my own shoes, so I'm careful not to condemn the path that others choose.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 03:27 PM

I doubt if there's another single person with so much financial clout.

Now wait a minute, what about Donald Trump?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 03:31 PM

Stop wriggling, Keith. You know very well what Shimrod meant. "We hear you, Mr Pope - we can hardly avoid hearing you - but we do not necessarily have to act on what you say. There may well be qualitative differences between you and a Shaman, but there are plenty of similarities. For a start, you both promote belief in things that are not there."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 03:38 PM

Mother Teresa's faith was her affair. It is what she did that matters. If there are positive sides to her legacy, I applaud that. But her actions in life did not inform that legacy. I repeat. Watch the Hitchens video from start to finish. Much that it contains is incontrovertible, whether you like it or not, and whether you like him or not. To refuse to see it is sheer denial.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 04:51 PM

"Shim, you ask why he has influence with millions.
It is because he leads are church with millions of members."

As a wise man once said: "Eat shit - a million flies can't be wrong!"

"There may well be qualitative differences between you [the Pope] and a Shaman, but there are plenty of similarities. For a start, you both promote belief in things that are not there."

Spot on, Steve! That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Religious faith = A fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for the existence of which there's no evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 06:28 PM

Is this the first cuckoo of spring?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/06/armageddon-christian-group-predicts-end-world-wednesday_n_8251552.html?1444143180

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 12:58 AM

I tend to think that some Shamans can be a font of wisdom, learned from generations of tradition and experience. Those who expect wisdom to be expressed only in their own terms, isolate themselves from a wide spectrum of thought.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 05:03 AM

Popes, Shamans, Albanian nuns and archbishops of Canterbury can all be fonts of wisdom. Only a fool would dismiss everything they said or did as idiotic or evil. Even Mussolini got the trains right. But you don't need to expect wisdom to be expressed only in your own terms to see that they can also all be fonts of damaging nonsense. What you need is those skills that religious instruction seeks to deny you: the ability to be critical and discriminating. To demand evidence and to sceptical. To sort the wheat from the chaff. The freedom to think for yourself, not to accept the things you're being told that are based merely on tradition, hearsay, edicts from holy men, witness, miracles or selected ancient texts of dubious authorship.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 05:44 AM

With reference to Richard Bridge's 'First Cuckoo of Spring' posting above, I'm completely relaxed about religious nut cults predicting the end of the world (they consistently get it wrong because they're nuts).

Nevertheless, if, in the next few days, the Turks shoot down a Russian Mig fighter, that has strayed into Turkish air-space from Syria, all bets are off!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 06:51 AM

Q

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 06:56 AM

Q?   Dunno how that happened. Another post lost to the ether.

What I said was I told the chimney sweep this morning that it wasn't worth paying him, as the world was about to end and he'd have no use for the money. Unfortunately, he asked for evidence, and all I could muster was the pronouncements of a man I didn't know. Damn. I think I'm going to have to give up this religion lark.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 08:10 AM

Shimrod asked why anyone should pay attention to the pope.
My answer was reasonable. He has influence with millions. Much more than many or most politicians.

Remember that atheists are a minority in every country.
You express contempt for religious belief, but many believers are even more intelligent than you!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 09:10 AM

"Remember that atheists are a minority in every country."

That's debatable. Have you got any evidence to back up that statement, Keith? Off the top of my head and, admittedly, without evidence to hand, I thought that, in this country (UK) at least, church attendance has been falling, consistently, for decades?

And priests are a minority in every country ... so to follow your 'logic' we must ignore them too!

"You express contempt for religious belief, but many believers are even more intelligent than you!"

There are lots of people more intelligent than me Keith (why, there may be some who are even more intelligent than you!)but does that mean that I should not have an opinion? Are people with exceptionally high IQs the only ones entitled to an opinion?

I also wonder what mental gymnastics one has to go through to be both intelligent and gullible?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 09:35 AM

" I thought that, in this country (UK) at least, church attendance has been falling, consistently, for decades?"

Just because persons do not belong to, or even attend, a church, it does not automatically put them in the "Atheist" camp. It may merely mean that some, or even many, no longer have a need to follow an organized religion, nor visit a church to satisfy their "God believing" needs. There are more accurate avenues to determine belief statistics than this single one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 10:15 AM

Bums on Sunday pews is about the most objective measure of a country's religiosity. Which makes the UK a very irreligious country. Atheism is an artificial construct in the minds of believers. They invented us. You could say that every animal and plant and microbe becomes an atheist as soon as someone comes along to say that there's a God. Then the more deluded of them, all humans as it happens, join that someone's club and stop being the thing that the club had to invent. Suppose there was a planet out there inhabited by super-intelligent beings to whom the possibility of a God's existence had never occurred. There would be no atheists on that planet. But as soon as one of them declares that there's a God, then anyone who doesn't sign up with him is an atheist. He invented atheism on that planet. You can't have atheists without believers. When you invent God you also invent atheists. Oddly, the new atheists won't feel any different, do any different or think any different, even though they are now something they weren't before. Anyone who says they are certain there is no God isn't thinking straight. I'm an alleged atheist (I don't know of any more convinced ones than me) but I don't know whether there's a God or not, and Richard Dawkins agrees with me. So there really isn't much point asking people if they're atheists. They may not know. More likely, going from the pathetic bums on pews figures, they may not care. They'll say anything just to get rid of the interviewer. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 10:21 AM

Playing numbers games isn't really too relevant here.

It's questionable whether the primary reason it can make sense to pay attention to what Pope Francis says, even when you aren't a Catholic, is because there are a billion or so Catholics on the planet. The Dalai Lama doesn't have those millions, and yet writing off as "a shaman" would be a bit silly (even aside from the distinctly dubious ideology implied by the use that term in that sneering sense, as Joe tactfully pointed out).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 10:36 AM

Have you got any evidence to back up that statement, Keith?

Yes Shim.
I discussed this exact issue with Musket some months ago, and produced evidence from polls, surveys and the census.
I could soon find it again if you like.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 10:42 AM

"To sort the wheat from the chaff". This religious stuff does keep on sneaking in, doesnt it, Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 11:49 AM

Oh, I wouldn't like to put you to any bother, Keith! Actually, I tend to agree with McGrath that: "Playing numbers games isn't really too relevant here."

I also agree with Steve (I agree with him a lot!) that God botherers invented atheists - hence, I do not accept the label "atheist".

Finally, describing the Pope as a "shaman" was supposed to be provocative! But why should it be offensive? After all, aren't shamans supposed to be intermediaries or messengers between the human world and the supernatural world? Isn't that what Christian priests claim to be?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 11:58 AM

I use the term "atheist" to describe those who have no faith or spiritual belief.
They are a minority in this and every other country.

Why do you need to be "provocative" about belief?
What were you hoping to provoke? An argument?
That being so, what is your objection to me challenging your pronouncements?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 12:47 PM

Have you got any evidence to back up that statement, Keith?

Evidence? EVIDENCE !?? He don't need no steenkin' EVIDENCE!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 12:48 PM

Steve Shaw says: the ability to be critical and discriminating. To demand evidence and to [be] skeptical. To sort the wheat from the chaff. The freedom to think for yourself, not to accept the things you're being told that are based merely on tradition, hearsay, edicts from holy men, witness, miracles or selected ancient texts of dubious authorship.

Interestingly, that's a pretty good summary of the Jesuit philosophy of education, which emphasizes "critical thinking."

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 12:50 PM

the Jesuit philosophy of education, which emphasizes "critical thinking."

Only up to a point, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 12:58 PM

That's the philosophy, Greg. That ideal is not always achieved.

It's true that attendance has gone down in "mainline" churches in Europe and North America over the last 50 years. Social obligation no longer demands church attendance. As a result, it seems to me that the people who go to church, are there because they want to be. That lack of social obligation makes for a deeper spirituality.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 01:00 PM

"What were you hoping to provoke? An argument?"

No, I was hoping to provoke thought.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 01:10 PM

No, I was hoping to provoke thought.

Thought? Keith?

Now THERE'S yer problem...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 01:46 PM

To say that believers invented God , seems to me to be begging the question. As historically the existence of God has been obvious to the majority, I think , there is nothing amiss about evidence deniers being termed atheist. Of course, if you can demonstrate a universe from nothing I shall have to desist challenging your assertions.....................joe can I infer that you do traditionally believe in the incarnation and resurrection from your comments. And as to condemnation, " there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus ...."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 01:48 PM

As historically the existence of God has been obvious to the majority

Say whut? Evidence, please.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 01:57 PM

Well, I don't think anyone would deny having a "god" Greg....just means different things to different people.

My "god" at present is the sun, as in Scotland it is all powerful and almost always invisible   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 03:18 PM

Oh dear. Here we go again!

"To say that believers invented God ,..."

No, Pete, people invented God and then people (not necessarily the same people) chose to believe in Him.

"Of course, if you can demonstrate a universe from nothing ..."

The scientific evidence, SO FAR, suggests the possibility of a universe from nothing (or something similar)but I'm sure that there's lots more theorising and evidence gathering to go. On the other hand, there's no evidence for the existence of a creator ... Of course, Pete, if you can demonstrate that a creator exists ...?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 05:19 PM

Hmmm. If that's the philosophy of Jesuit education, there wouldn't be any Jesuits.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 06:37 PM

Well, I don't think anyone would deny having a "god" Greg

Guess again - billions would disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 08:04 PM

You mean because you believe that a philosophy if education like that has to mean concluding that you are right and those who see things differently are wrong, Steve?

The trouble is, whatever you believe you find yourself having to decide that things that seem completely impossible are somehow true. That applies every bit as much to a God-free understanding of the world as to a God-centred understanding

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 09:16 PM

What I mean is that a philosophy that requires real evidence as its sine qua non would rule out God as a likely entity. Nothing ever put forward in the history of humanity comes anywhere close to passing the evidence test. If what Joe claims about the Jesuits is even remotely true, the members would abandon the order in droves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Oct 15 - 10:28 PM

Steve, I don't know how to answer that without running around in a circle with you, like two dogs chasing each others' tails.

It seems to me that if what I said about Jesuits is true, then Jesuits would be a happy lot, proud and content to be members of a religious order that treasures wisdom so highly. I know a lot of Jesuits, and most of them are congenial, happy, interesting people with fascinating intellects. Generally, they enjoy being Jesuits and enjoy living in religious communities that are active in education and in social justice activities. To my mind, they're good people who love a good, intelligent, open discussion.

Over the years, I've known some Jesuits who are arrogant sons of bitches - but not many of them.

But that's my experience. Your results, no doubt, may vary.

---

And yes, Pete from Seven Stars Link, I believe in the incarnation and the resurrection. All Christians do, and it's quite insulting to imply otherwise. As for condemnation, it does seem that for some Christians, a primary pastime is condemning the actions of others while failing to examine the morality of their own actions.

Pete says: To say that believers invented God , seems to me to be begging the question. That's true, but I'd avoid using "majority belief" as proof of the existence of God. If there is no God, then believers must have created God (or however the straw-splitters want to parse that concept). But if there is a God, then God exists independent of belief. Neither side can prove itself right, or the other wrong. Proving non-existence is a well-nigh impossible task, as is the converse.

e.g.

I don't experience God, therefore God must not exist. And those who claim to have experienced God or God's work, are inventing both the god and the experience.

Conversely (more or less):

You haven't experienced or observed God, but my logical system and interpretation of my experience say there is a God; therefore, God must exist and you should believe as I believe. And on top of that, you're going to Hell for your unbelief, so there!

I don't buy either argument. It's a matter of believing or not believing. And not something worth arguing about, because the argument is circular and therefore futile.

Don't judge me on what I believe. That's my business. Judge me on who I am and what I do. Yes, my beliefs are part of that - but not really something that anyone else can understand with any degree of adequacy or fairness.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 03:57 AM

Pete, you wrote: "Of course, if you can demonstrate a universe from nothing ..."

Well rather us going round and round in boring circles, here's a bit of homework for you. If you REALLY want to know if a universe can come from nothing, try reading a book called, "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss. The publisher is Simon & Schuster UK and the paperback edition is readily available on the British high street. The author is Foundation Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and the Physics Department at Arizona State University.

1. If you DO actually read it and you have any questions then, in the first instance, I suggest that you direct them to Prof. Krauss and then report back to us on his answers.

2. I bet that you DON'T read it because it might contain concepts that you DON'T want to know about.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 07:54 AM

Citing a holy book as evidence is no more conclusive when it's written by an eminent scientist than in any other case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 09:25 AM

I's a bit odd that so many god-botherers seem to feel that their fantasy allows them to dictate what others do and should believe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 09:40 AM

Do they Richard?
And why the sneering, contemptuous language against people of faith?
I do not see such venom from the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 10:43 AM

I do not see such venom from the other side.

Then you've got your eyes closed, Professor.

The Westboro Baptist Church and the clowns with their faked Planned Parenthood videos & campaign are but two examples of an untold many.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 10:49 AM

I meant on this forum Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 12:15 PM

"Citing a holy book as evidence ..."

I am not citing the book, that I recommended to Pete, as "evidence". He continually questions whether the Universe can have come from nothing. Modern cosmology suggests that, at the very least, it might well have done. I thought that, rather than tying myself in knots trying to convey my imperfect understanding of modern cosmology to Pete, he get 'chapter and verse' directly from the pen of an expert. Anyway, if he is presumptuous enough to challenge the findings of modern scientists he should at least make the effort to find out for himself what their findings are and how they interpret those findings (rather than relying on heavily biased 'interpretations' posted on creationist websites).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 12:21 PM

Would it completely wrong to suggest that, like most of us, Shimrod, you can't actually get your head round that stuff, but that to a considerable extent you accept it because you put your trust in those who do appear to understand it?

In some ways Cosmology is a branch of Metaphysics.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 12:43 PM

Would it be wholly wrong to suggest that because YOU can't get your head around it, you prefer to dismiss science as a "holy book" to be "believed" rather than a rational, fact-based explanation of what actually is?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 02:49 PM

Wait! Wait! I can't watch the game without a scorecard.
Who's dismissing science?
McGrath?
I don't think so.

-Joe-

---

Richard Bridge sez; It's a bit odd that so many god-botherers seem to feel that their fantasy allows them to dictate what others do and should believe

I don't think it has anything to do with being a "god-botherer." Some people are just so absolutely sure they're right, that they're absolutely certain everybody else must be wrong. It's a phenomenon common to all who see only black and white, no grey.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 03:06 PM

I think Greg was referring to pete Joe, but there isn't really ANY science about how the universe originated. In fact Creationism is as good a theory as any scientific one.

As I said before we shall be extinct before we come anywhere near acquiring scientific knowledge on what it is all about.
It involves problems and consequences that humanity is much too puny to even contemplate

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 03:22 PM

Not sure if it means anything to Americans, Ake, but the phrase "lighting the blue touch paper" comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 03:41 PM

Well I was intending to "retire" :0(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 03:51 PM

Creationism is not a theory. Get your own word for it. A theory requires a large body of evidence. That is not possible for creationism.

" Some people are just so absolutely sure they're right, that they're absolutely certain everybody else must be wrong. It's a phenomenon common to all who see only black and white, no grey."

Very true. No true scientist is ever absolutely sure they're right about anything. No true atheist (not forgetting that we're your invention, by the way) is ever absolutely certain that there is no God. I'm supposed to be one of them thar militant atheists, but I don't know whether there's a God or not, and neither does Richard Dawkins. The people who express certainty are the people of religion. You start your day with "Our Father who art in heaven". No maybe, no quite possibly, no probably. Worse, you teach your children to chant those self-same words of absolute certainty as well, even though you have no evidence that there is either a heaven or a God. It's good to agree, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 05:00 PM

Well, to take an example - who, apart from god-botherers dictates either that contraception is wrong, or that sex outside marriage is wrong, or that abortion is wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 15 - 05:12 PM

True enough, no true scientist is ever absolutely sure they're right about anything. (That's one reason Jesuits are quite often scientist.) But there are a fair number of people who are, and sometimes they get hyperactive trying to "dictate what others do and should believe".

"Yes, I'm right! - and you are wrong!" Sometimes it's about believing in God, sometimes it's about it being shamefully crazy to believe in God. Perhaps more often it's the latter variety on the Mudcat, but who knows? In fact, who cares?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 02:29 AM

" ... no true scientist is ever absolutely sure they're right about anything."

No argument there.

"Sometimes it's about believing in God, sometimes it's about it being shamefully crazy to believe in God."

Who, exactly, has accused anyone of being "shamefully crazy", McGrath?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 02:43 AM

Steve and Richard, primarily.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 06:40 AM

I have never said that belief in God is either shameful (it isn't) or crazy (ditto). My view is that it is a delusion because there is no evidence for it and it breaks all the laws of nature. I've always been careful to add that you can be perfectly rational in all other aspects of your life yet still harbour a delusion. I still support Liverpool. I rest my case. It would be good if akenaton would desist from the same kind of slanderous behaviour that he so frequently accuses others of.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 07:55 AM

Not crazy, but in the grip of a delusion...

Hamlet summed up the situation of being deluded only part way, "I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I can tell a hawk from a handsaw". Check the etymology of "crazy", perhaps. Crazy pavements can provide an excellent support, but they are still full of cracks, which is why they are called crazy.

But I wasn't pointing a finger at anyone in particular. I do think that the view that people who believe in God should know better, and that they let themselves down, is very clearly implied in the words of such critics as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. I don't think there is anything shameful in their saying it, or that it's an unfair thing to say they do. (I would actually object to the reverse accusation, where non-belief was seen as shameful. )

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 08:04 AM

The people who believe in God CAN know better, if only they would apply the same critical faculties with regard to evidence that they apply to the rest of their thinking. Whether they should know better is up to them. It's there for the taking, and life in the atheistic sunlit uplands is happy and free, I assure you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 08:27 AM

That's the true Revivalist spirit, Steve. Alleluiah!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 09:53 AM

Quote of the day in my eyes -

God exists as an idea. Regardless of if its existance or non existance as a deity. There is no conceivable way to ever know.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 10:34 AM

The people who believe in God CAN know better, if only they would apply the same critical faculties....

If only we were as clever as you, O wise Steve.
Then we would all know better about God, and him not existing.
We are not worthy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 10:54 AM

We are not worthy.

Dunno 'bout "we" Professor, but YOU got that right.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 10:55 AM

A bit sarcastic keith........but probably justifiable in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 11:33 AM

It isn't particularly clever to apply the same requirements for evidence that you'd apply to the other aspects of your life, such as checking your Sainsbury's receipt, or going down the builders' yard to check that the builder isn't overcharging you, or having a good look at a used car before you buy it, or looking up other sources to make sure that Keith/akenaton/the Daily Mail aren't lying to you (vital). None of that is clever, just sensible. It's odd that you could accept without checking for evidence that there's a supernatural being who's all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, who never had a beginning and who created everything, all contrary to the laws of nature that he presumably instituted, yet who's never been seen and who can't be explained, and all this just because somebody told you it was true without offering you a scrap of evidence. I don't call questioning that clever. I call questioning that normal and rational. Very ordinary really.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 11:50 AM

But Steve, that's not the only, or even the main way people act. Science is about things that are known unambiguously (leaving aside the usual caveats in the interests of simplicity.) So is checking your Sainsbury's bill.

But actually the vast majority of your decision making is based on judgements without adequate evidence. Second by second while you drive you are making assumptions about what all the cars and pedestrians nearby are about to do: it is all based on assumption not evidence. Holiday planning, investments and loans, travel arrangements and expected time of arrival, the list goes on for ever.

Nor can we can avoid this using probability - since we are dealing with individual events, not statistics. It matters not that probability of a person stepping into the road without looking is X; all that matters is whether that person there is about to, which is not statistical in nature. The probability of horses wandering over the M25 on a typical journey must be extremely low, but it still happened to me a few months ago.

So all our thinking is sometimes evidence based, but sometimes not. And, to coin a mischievous phrase, it is the Scientific Delusion to think otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 11:50 AM

We make those kind of decisions on the basis of a mixture of evidence and feeling.("Would you buy a used car from this person?") But very largely on pragmatic stuff - what works for.you.

And that's how it goes with religious belief. Does it work for you. And the evidence appears to confirm that on the whole , for many people (arguably most people) it does.
Doing what works is a very rational thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:05 PM

"But actually the vast majority of your decision making is based on judgements without adequate evidence. "

Er, but this is not what we're talking about   We are talking about accepting without demur a highly-improbable notion that is at odds with everything else we experience and for which there is NO evidence. I know I set the bar high for evidence. But no higher than for anything else. And if it works for you, fine. I can't argue with that. What I can argue with is passing it on to others as if it were truth. Someone did that to you, which is why you believe. And millions of people are trapped in belief systems that do NOT work very well for them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:08 PM

The origins of the universe are well beyond science I believe they involve things which humanity would find impossible to understand.
For example the extent of the universe, does it really go on for ever?
Are we equipped to deal with the concept of "for ever"
Isn't that concept more alien to humanity than a concept of "god"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:21 PM

Very defeatist. We have to keep looking. But we won't find out anything useful, unless we demand evidence. We call it scientific endeavour, which, along with culture, is the greatest attribute of humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:22 PM

Who put, that bloody comma, in there...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:34 PM

"Someone did that to you" - a bit of a negative way of expressing things, you know. And not one you have evidence for as it happens. There are people like CS Lewis, for example, who moved from an atheist position to a believer, though the majority of the movement is certainly in the other direction. So isn't it an assumption I am a birth-Christian rather than choosing it later in life?   

As it happens, you are right in that I was brought up Catholic, and though a Catholic primary and secondary school. But you are quite wrong to imagine I accept these ideas without demur. You brought up some time ago the topic of transubstantiation. And I can see, wearing a science hat, that's there's something wrong there. Indeed, I could see it at seven year old. Now, the superficial thinker either rejects that out of hand, or accepts it uncritically. The deeper thinker says there appears to be something wrong, so maybe I am just not understanding it properly. Which leads you into exploring Aristotle and Plato and the discovery that, not only is the term 'substance' in transubstantiation dramatically different to the same word in the scientific sense (being closer to the sense of 'the substance of an argument') but that transubstantiation in the Aristotelian sense happens the whole time in ordinary life, such as when a person leaves work where he has the substance of 'call centre operative' and walks into a club he gains the substance of 'folk singer'.

Not that the well meaning nuns who taught me appeared to understood any of that. But I say it just to illustrate the point that things are not necessarily just 'accepted without demur'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:40 PM

and all this just because somebody told you it was true

No.
No-one can tell you it is true.
No evidence.
All anyone can do is open your mind to the possibility.

It is not about evidence. If it is true, there would still be no evidence.
Not the kind you mean anyway.
Most believers will tell you that they have their reasons, but personal.

And, like you, we never stop questioning.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:51 PM

"And if it works for you, fine. I can't argue with that. What I can argue with is passing it on to others as if it were truth. Someone did that to you, which is why you believe. And millions of people are trapped in belief systems that do NOT work very well for them."

There's an assumption here which is pretty questionable. Pretty well every Catholic I know, including priests, have lapsed for a period before returning to practising. They don't believe because they were programmed into it as children and have never questioned it. From the childhood experience they bring an awareness of the Church, and this can become relevant in later life, should they so choose, on the basis of later life.

In some ways there's an analogy with what happens to children of parents immersed in folk music. They get taken to festivals and so forth, and hear the music around the house. Typically they grow up and react against it. Then often enough they get back into it. Because it works.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:51 PM

I found those thoughts on transubstantiation helpful, dmcg , though not an RC , as I think it shed some light on the way Jesus obviously spoke symbolically in johns gospel.    Steve implies that God believers set the evidence bar low, but in my many discussions with him he has never produced evidence for his position, other than that which is open easily to the creation model interpretation also.   Darwin himself conceded as much.....and , if anything, scientific progress has only made evolutionism more improbable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 12:58 PM

Joe , no offence intended. I genuinely did not know if you accepted the miraculous from what I can recall of your previous posts. I am encouraged that you do, as there have been many who would call themselves Christian while demoting the resurrection to merely spiritual or a trick with bones.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 01:14 PM

It matters not that probability of a person stepping into the road without looking is X; all that matters is whether that person there is about to, which is not statistical in nature.

If you don't know anything about 'that person there' then the probability of 'a person' doing it (ideally in a situation like the current one) is what you have to go on. That the probablity is known to be more than zero might be relevant in court.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 01:15 PM

How do you know that a large body of evidence is not possible for creationism, Steve.? Have you actually looked ?    The truth is we all have the same evidence , it is the interpretation that makes the difference. The claim that the body of evidence supports one belief or the other is meaningless.    The crucial thing is ....can you substantiate what you say is true/validated by the evidence.    And as theists admit the limits of demonstrating a belief whereas you ,and your fellow atheists claim the intellectual high ground, it is more incumbent on you,s to demonstrate that you really do set the bar high......when it comes to your biased view.   I won't hold my breath !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 01:26 PM

So shimrod, you want me to read a book that you yourself are unable to come to grips with ! And you a scientist an all!.   As usual, you present no argument from science at all.....just the usual implied argument from authority.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 01:26 PM

as I think it shed some light on the way Jesus obviously spoke symbolically in johns gospel

Most Christians think it is symbolic, but it would be a mistake to assume that follows from my argument (which would, I am sure, have got me burnt a few centuries ago!).

Think about my person who was a call centre operative and than transubstantiated into a folk singer. He was not symbolically a call centre worker. He actually was one. Equally, he was not symbolically a folk singer, he actually was one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 02:01 PM

Very few people out the seven billion on this planet came up with the God notion by themselves. The vast majority are believers because they were told about it by someone else, or read about it, but mostly told it. A very large number of those, including me, were told that they'd better believe it under pain of sanctions. Hundreds of millions are told that public demurral could lead to death. In my case, it was hell fire even if I neglected to take part in regular worship, let alone failed to believe. I understand that slightly more enlightened attitudes are afoot these days (though for every newly-enlightened one I can show you half a dozen unenlightened ones that haven't budged). The evidence for God, or that religion is right, is not evidence at all. St Bernadette is not evidence. It could not be corroborated. When someone says something outrageous to you, you don't take them at their word, even if they're innocent little shepherdesses. The sky shimmering at Knock or moving statues are not evidence. The Bible is not evidence because, even if you you accept the authorship of the writings, what the authors wrote cannot, in most cases, be corroborated. In fact, the four Gospels, the "best" selection of a large bunch of gospels most of which are suppressed, are replete with inconsistencies. The Immaculate Conception is, in effect, an edict from the Vatican, one of the infamous ex cathedra pronouncements. It is actually a perfectly ludicrous proposition that casts the Church into disrepute. It certainly isn't evidence just because a pope said so. Great cathedrals (which I love), high masses with grand vestments, chanting and incense, are not evidence, imposing though they are. That would be like saying that the Mayday parades of impressive weaponry in Moscow were evidence that the USSR was the greatest nation. Prayers and hymns, whatever their aesthetic value, are not evidence. Papal speeches on Easter Sunday calling for world peace are very fine, but they don't amount to a hill of beans in the evidence stakes.   Looking all around you at the marvels of nature (always the opening gambit of my good friend, the local Jehovah's Witness), and claiming that there can be only one conclusion, a creator, is not only seeing evidence for God where there isn't any, but is also a complete dereliction of the human intellect.

I really try, honest. I don't accept anything without evidence, not even from Hitchens and Dawkins (they are usually careful to support any claims, mind you). I always read Watchtower and Awake! cover to cover and am currently perusing the Jehovah's Witnesses' book on what the Bible really teaches. The last time he came round we walked round my garden chatting about stuff and I gave him two big bags of apples. I don't care what people believe and I know that what diminishes people is the stupid things that they say or do, not what exists in the privacy of their minds. All I say is be careful who you pass it on to. You have no monopoly on the truth, in spite of your prayers and hymns riddled with certainties, and neither do I. You may not have noticed it, but I don't start threads on religion or atheism. I just react.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 02:02 PM

Not so, guest. If you relied on the actual probability of the person stepping into the road then you would have to drive as if every body was bout to step into the road, or that no one was, neither of which would be sensible. Instead you make snap judgements after looking at them for perhaps a tenth of a second based on gut feel.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 03:18 PM

point taken, dmcg, I made an unwarranted extension of your thought there.
you certainly write with great flourish steve . however , a lot of it seems to be straw man argument. I don't recall myself, or anyone else using these arguments. as I said earlier, we cannot make a complete case for our faith , but seems to me it is not in conflict with observational science , whereas, what you believe is , and rests on the interpretation of data that can be as well if not better interpreted by creation and intelligent design.
you don't seem to have taken on board either, earlier comments, that many believers went through doubt or even rejection of their faith, but returned to it later. and though there may be many who simply adopted the faith of their parents, many [ including myself ] became Christians without the benefit of believing [or rather practising Christian] parents.
have you been tackled on evolution by your watchtower visitors. as I understand it from also reading some of their stuff, they reject it, though accepting deep time !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 04:21 PM

I do not write with any flourish. I write the way I've always written. It probably doesn't represent the rather shambolic me very well. But that's how it is. Take it or leave it. I know no other way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 04:42 PM

Hmm. I take it that you're hostile to Jehovah's Witnesses. They seem to me to be a little confused over creationism/evolution. That's really their problem, easily resolved if only they'd rely on evidence. I care not a jot. Far more important is that my friend, very elderly now, is a good man with a message. I am a pretty good test for him, I suppose. He knows that his ideas are falling on stony ground on my doorstep, but he isn't pushy, he listens to what I have to say (just like here, I'm very gentle) and I'm not going to stand there and mercilessly demolish him. He is a great bloke to chat to, he appreciates nature in all its glory, he likes a cup of tea and I suppose he'll be back for more apples any day now. Damn good crop this year. He isn't a complicated man. I haven't a clue whether other Jehovah's Witnesses are like him. I don't care, really. I just like talking to real people, and he's one of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 06:19 PM

"So shimrod, you want me to read a book that you yourself are unable to come to grips with !"

Where did I say that I was unable to come to grips with the book, Pete?

By the way, have you read it yet?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 06:25 PM

....hostile....certainly not, though as you will know I suppose, that I would differ from them on some quite important theology.   Used to get quite a lot knocking on the door and I often had discussion with them but it dropped off, and lately they have taken to setting up displays in town.                                                                                              Congratulations on the apples.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 06:53 PM

I haven't a clue as to whether you'd differ from them on "theology" and, frankly my dear, I don't GIVE a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 08:15 PM

The Immaculate Conception a "perfectly ludicrous proposition", Steve? I'd have thought you'd actually agree with that one. It declares that the mother of Jesus was completely free of "original sin", and since I rather suspect you might disagree with the notion of "original sin" in the first place, you'd surely have no reason to take issue with that.
.................................
As for the suggestion that very few people have come up with the idea of God de novo, you are likely right. But then, if that idea is already all around them, how could they?

However the suggestion that if you leave the idea of God out of it, things fall into a neat comprehensible pattern doesn't really stand up too well.

Here's a chunk from an article about Cosmology. (Which incidentally shares my suggestiin that cosmology can be seen as a branch of Metaphysics) It is interesting to click on that, if only to see its summary of an imposing list of som 44 Cosmologies that have floated around over the centuries, most of them put forward by scientists in the last century. I very much doubt if many people will have come up with any of those on their own either.

Cosmology deals with the world as the totality of space, time and all phenomena. Historically, it has had quite a broad scope, and in many cases was founded in religion.[citation needed] The ancient Greeks did not draw a distinction between this use and their model for the cosmos.[citation needed] However, in modern use metaphysical cosmology addresses questions about the Universe which are beyond the scope of science. It is distinguished from religious cosmology in that it approaches these questions using philosophical methods like dialectics. Modern metaphysical cosmology tries to address questions such as:

What is the origin of the Universe? What is its first cause? Is its existence necessary? (see monism, pantheism, emanationism and creationism)
What are the ultimate material components of the Universe? (see mechanism, dynamism, hylomorphism, atomism)
What is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe? Does the cosmos have a purpose? (see teleology)
Does the existence of consciousness have a purpose? How do we know what we know about the totality of the cosmos? Does cosmological reasoning reveal metaphysical truths? (see epistemology)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 08:40 PM

Well, I am utterly uninterested in notions that the cosmos is beyond science, because, quite simply, it isn't. The only things that are beyond science are the things invented by deluded minds. This universe operates according to the laws of physics, some of which we haven't yet got our heads round, but none of which, so far, have ever been breached. And I'll tell you summat else. If your God has, in his infinite wisdom, given you the wherewithal to ponder such conundrums, then I think he would be fully expecting you to use that intellect to the full. The very last thing he would be expecting is for you to look at a tree and declare that it's so wonderful that only a creator could have come up with it. He would be fully expecting you to use that mighty brain of yours to explore the wonders of evolution, the fact that a billion tiny changes over three billion years resulted in that tree. How bloody marvellous is that, and how redundant does it make your God. In fact, beside that wonder of nature that is evolution, he pales. He's a hopeless explanation that can't even, himself, be explained.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 08:57 PM

As for the immaculate conception, well now here we have a number of complications. Not the least of which is that sex is just a bit evil, which is why Jesus, that most perfect of all fellows, simply had to come about without it. Hence, immaculate. Unblemished, unspotted, unsullied by those disgusting sperms. A very convenient way of setting up a belief system that is largely predicated on making people feel guilty, and what better to make them feel guilty about than bonking!   Fantastic instrument of control! Christ, man, why can't you see that! Of course, the other complication is that the immaculate conception is possible by miracle only. Another great handle for the purveyors of the faith. Imbue the thing with guilt and make it miraculous to boot. A superb double whammy! No wonder it's ex cathedra! Joseph must have been incredibly gullible, or a complete wimp, or, as I suspect, both. The archetypal cuckold! He'd have been better off had he never existed. Which he probably didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 09:12 PM

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing whatsoever to do with virgin birth.

As I said, it's about an absence of "original sin".

You aren't the first person to make that mistake, and you won't be the last.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 09:31 PM

Quite so. Though I'm mistaken in the detail, I'm not mistaken in the substantive, that Jesus was supposedly conceived without the intercession of Joseph, poor chap. The miracle stands, as does the point about the evils of sex and the purity of Jesus conceived without it. I hate to weaken my case by such errors, but I don't really need to change the argument. Point graciously conceded! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Oct 15 - 10:12 PM

The only way, Steve, that you can say the laws of science have not been breached according to the general theory of evolution, is to hope there is a law of science yet to be discovered to counteract the laws of science that the GtE does breach !          You know, stuff like the law which says that any effect must have sufficient cause, and life only comes from life for starters.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:35 AM

" ... stuff like the law which says that any effect must have sufficient cause, and life only comes from life for starters."

Which 'laws' are those, Pete? And who formulated them? And if there is such a thing as the first law, what effect caused God?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:44 AM

this cause and effect thing is tricky. Most of the time , science does assume all effects have causes - it would be difficult to formulate most scientic laws otherwise - but there are exceptions. Things we call 'random mutations' in genetics are one example. Yes, if you really want to you might say it was caused by a specific genetic blip, but you would then have to trace those back and say they were caused by an interaction with a bit of background radiation, say, and that only gets you into the whole quantum uncertainty palaver.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:46 AM

I'm not mistaken in the substantive, that Jesus was supposedly conceived without the intercession of Joseph, poor chap.

Christianity teaches that there was an "intercession."
Just not by Joseph.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 05:14 AM

With apologies to Tim Hardin:

If I was the holy ghost
and you were our lady
you could marry a carpenter
but you'd still have my baby

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 05:40 AM

The only things that are beyond science are the things invented by deluded minds.

Tell that to the psychologists.

How many people have not cursed at an innaminate object that would not 'do what they wanted' ? How far is it from fearing a predator in the dark from fearing the dark and what it may hide. Is a mistaken perception agency in thunderstorm so surprising ?

Superstition happens, it is part human nature. How many societies have not invented or adopted a god ?

And scientists study it/them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 05:44 AM

Have you read that book that I recommended yet, Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 06:32 AM

Christianity teaches that there was an "intercession."
Just not by Joseph.

Quite. That makes poor Joseph a bit of a mug really, though, I suppose. Anyway, the story goes that Jesus came about without the intercession of one of those filthy sperms that came from a nasty, furtive bonk, which sets him slightly above the rest of us, which is the intention I guess. Unfortunately, no-one told the creators of this yarn that the blackfly on my broad beans are conceived in exactly the same way. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 06:43 AM

The assumption that the account in the Gospels about this has anything whatsoever with the notion that there is something unsavoury about sex is completely without any foundation. Not a hint of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 07:22 AM

Then why does the Catholic Church make such a huge thing about sex then!   Why is Mother Teresa heading for sainthood! Poking its nose Into people's private lives and finding sin in sex wherever it can has been the time-honoured numero uno blunt instrument of control over the flock for centuries. Lessee, masturbation, gay sex, anal sex, using contraceptives, having impure thoughts, gay marriage, abortion, divorce, lusting after you neighbour's wife, etc., all sins, some for all time, some for at least nearly all of the last two thousand years. The Church will find unsavouriness in sex wherever it can (unless it's covering up child abuse, of course). I think that refusing to accept that the one and only non-sexual conception in the history of humanity hasn't got everything to do with putting Jesus above sex is highly disingenuous. The gospels didn't even have to say it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 07:57 AM

I don't think disagreement should lapse into accusations of insincerity.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 09:53 AM

Quite so. I think you know that I respect your views on most things and appreciate the measured way you express them. I didn't really mean to play the man there, though I can see that that's how it may have come across. To put the point more diplomatically, I think it's rather a stretch to deny that Jesus' uniqueness in being the only person ever to have been born of a virgin has nothing to do with putting him above the murky and sin- filled world of sex. Of course that was the idea. The Church needed Jesus well clear of that world so that it could exploit it as an instrument of control, unfettered by direct divine carnal involvement. By the Church's fruits shall we know it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Monique
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 02:07 PM

Miraculous births.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:06 PM

The significant thing really isn't about any absence of sex, it's about Jesus being the son of God. The rest is incidental. How far the doctrine has impacted on attutudes towards sex in later millenia is an interesting question, but far less than you assume.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:22 PM

I agree with McGrath about the significance being Jesus as the son of God, and there are other theological implications as well.....but we know your attitude to theological distinctions.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:29 PM

Well I think you're putting a brave face on it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:41 PM

No, I have,nt. have you shimrod ?.i do know though that Krause redefines ....nothing....to have at least some properties, and that he builds his argument on unsubstantiated ideas like dark matter and energy.......otherwise known as fudge factors.    Now, I do realise you are the one with the scientific training and I a poor layman , so perhaps you can briefly describe how his ideas are so compelling, if not for me then others here brighter than myself !    Btw, I still remember you admitting that your own field has no bearing on evolutionism, so I guess that means you just accept the evolution story on faith.       And if you like to recommend books, so do I. Evolutions Achilles heels, is written by several PhDs scientists explaining the fatal flaws in the theory.   But I doubt you will expose yourself to such a challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 03:42 PM

And far be it from me to tell Catholics how to run their religion, but I'd have thought that a proper, one hundred percent earthly Jesus, one of us, warts and all, the product of a good hard bonk, would have been a far better bet. The inventors of the virgin birth may well have got it right for most of the last two thousand superstitious years, but it ain't going to work so well in the age of questioning in which we now, thankfully, find ourselves. In other words, the whole concept is a load of unnecessary old rubbish, and I suspect that you suspect it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:03 PM

"Btw, I still remember you admitting that your own field has no bearing on evolutionism, so I guess that means you just accept the evolution story on faith."

Hmmm. Not very discriminating, are you? Evolutionary biology was a major part of my graduate studies, yet you say the same about me. You don't really care about anyone's academic background, do you? Let's face it. You can only be a scientist if you're also a God-botherer, can't you, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:06 PM

Not sure if I fully follow you dmcg , as I understood that mutations don't spring from nothing but are rather something broken or a malfunctioning switch for example.   Or am I missing something?.......and that is not addressed to the mockery merchants !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:17 PM

You're missing everything. You just don't understand the thing you're trying to criticise. A very disreputable approach, exactly what one expects from a creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 04:31 PM

" ... so I guess that means you just accept the evolution story on faith."

Unlike you, I don't accept anything on "faith"!

Lets put it this way: do I give credence to the translated, re-translated and mis-translated myths and legends of some Bronze Age, Middle Eastern goat herders or the model of reality being slowly built up by some of the finest minds of the last 300 years or so? You, and your co-religionists, have arbitrarily decided to view the former as an expression of absolute and inviolable truth but science is an on-going, open-ended ,open-minded and painstaking quest for truth. Concepts such as dark energy and dark matter are not "fudge factors" but genuine discoveries which have yet to be fully explained and are currently the subjects of intensive research. It's easy to pick a few myths, slap the label "absolute truth" on them and then switch your mind off. Contemporary science is in a whole different Universe of thought, striving and effort! Scientists are actually using the brains that 'God' is supposed to have given them. If I was God, I'd give the scientists an 'A' for effort and re-cycle you lot!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 05:11 PM

It is not true that I don't respect your academic achievements Steve . It is true however, that I don't accept your conclusions. It is one thing being achieved , but quite another being able to defend what you claim is true, rather than appealing to authority and numbers as you and shimrod have just done.          Interesting that dark matter and dark energy are " genuine discoveries " despite what I have read from a cosmologist.   But of course , as he is a creationist he is a priori an idiot to your mind whatever qualifications he has. !      As I said before , we admit the faith factor while you deny yours , but are unable to demonstrate that which you assert is so.      So I take it, you still think I should read Krause , even though you are unable to articulate how he asserts the plausibility of a universe from nothing.    I don't think so.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 05:25 PM

When have I ever appealed to authority or numbers? Kindly do not confuse me with Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 06:02 PM

It is not directly an answer to your question, Pete, but it an important first step. A mutation is nothing to do with something malfunctioning or being broken. That contains all sorts of assumptions about something being right or working properly which is a completely wrong way of approaching genetics. All a mutation is is a difference; good and bad as value judgements don't come into it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 06:19 PM

'Krauss' not 'Krause'. You're so contemptuous of scientists that you can't even spell their names right!

And what's all this nonsense about "appealing to authority"? Do you expect Steve and I to, independently, re-discover everything that has been discovered by scientists (real scientists - not creationists) over the last 300 years? It's not about appealing to authority - it's about credibility.

And while we're on the subject of appealing to authority, you and your co-religionists have completely surrendered your intellects to the authority that you imagine lies within the pages of an old book! As my old mum used to say: "That's the pot calling the kettle black!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 07:47 PM

It's probably a good thing that I was so busy the last few days, else I'd have used all my time getting in the middle of this....


But as a dedicated debater of Pete for several years....

Pete... you said: "The truth is we all have the same evidence , it is the interpretation that makes the difference."

That's a good point, but it stops a bit short of THE point, which is that there seems to be a bit of disagreement about HOW to recognize, evaluate and interpret data, in order to give it the status OF evidence.
   We have had the various versions of 'what constitutes good science' at length, but you still insist on calling your general opponents 'confidence' and 'acceptance' of many tenets of science *faith*.....This is a major sticking point, and there's really no way to reach anything like understanding if you take that viewpoint.
   Do not be deceived by words... saying "I believe what good, competent scientists tell me." is NOT the same thing as saying "I believe in what the Bible tells me." They are, flatly, NOT the same sort of thing. \

The former is making an assumption that most scientists 1) do not lie, 2) are competent, 3) have looked at as many possible bits of data that they can find, 4) compared various interpretations of that data, 5) given the best interpretation they can make about the data the status of evidence... and finally, 6) being always ready to re-evaluate their conclusions in the light of new data/evidence.
The latter is (usually) accepting one interpretation of one translation of one set of human copied documents as providing data/evidence of a metaphysical concept as being *truth*. What it is evidence of, is that a couple of thousand years ago, various scribes copied some things they were TOLD... and that they probably believed what they were told. These writings are stories.... many are fascinating & inspirational stories (though not all). The stories are filled with magic & wonder, and if repeated often enough, will of course be believed as *truth*. Even when the details of the stories differ (and they often do), people come to accept and **believe** the basic ideas in the stories, and..... this is the crucial point... they are usually NOT willing to entertain any doubt of the basics about metaphysical happenings! Thus... science & theology are not both 'faith'...(even if some careless scientists occasionally seem to act as though they 'believe' some stuff almost like theologians).
   Even Rene Descartes, when trying to 'prove' the existence of God rationally, to add to pure 'faith' got in trouble with the church for daring to even propose formal doubt as a starting place! The church had no place for disagreement... as Copernicus & Galileo discovered.
   Now we have the similar situation in discussions of evolution, the age of the Earth, paleontology...etc. Because certain bits of carefully done scientific data/evidence do not fit with someone counting 'years' in Genesis, (as translated from some old text..), some people whose day job is in a scientific field spend a lot of time looking for ways to discount the data/evidence that has been generally accepted, and theorize in some strange ways about weaknesses in any scientific theory that does NOT jibe with their notion of what they already believe by 'faith.
   Finally... the idea of "something coming out of nothing" is just not relevant. If YOU can't accept that we just don't know, as Steve Shaw put it so well above, well... *shrug*...."something coming out of nothing" is no odder than the idea that there was a 'spirit' that existed before anything existed.... and that this spirit 'created' everything OUT of nothing. Our minds cannot really handle those ideas. We can form sentences referring to what we can't know... but putting names to concepts does not confer reality on them! It's just that some of us don't LIKE not knowing... we want answers... and we'll by golly find answers, even if we have to make them up, then repeat them to our children for a few hundred generations. Can we be right about the basics of those stories? *shrug* maybe...but let's not kid ourselves about the ultimate status of those stories.... believe what YOU 'need' to believe, but don't mess with the workings and procedures of science in indefensible ways...............

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 08:12 PM

I still remember you admitting that your own field has no bearing on evolutionism

Pete, once again, there is no such thing as "evolutionism".

There are, however, such things as ignorance and stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: LadyJean
Date: 10 Oct 15 - 08:39 PM

Every time I see the guy's picture, I try to remember a Marais/Miranda song that began "Oh Francis oh Francis oh please tell me why. Your mother is calling and you don't reply". I can't remember all of it, and it's driving me a little batty.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:33 AM

AN APOLOGY

Can I apologise to all and sundry that in giving an example of effect with cause I chose one mentioning genetics.

If I had paused for a moment before that, it should have been obvious the consequence would be that we immediately transformed the thread in to that same old stale discussion where we all know who will take part and what they will say so well we could each write the rest of the thread by ourselves up to the point it gets closed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:38 AM

Good try, Bill D, but I suspect that we're all wasting our time with Pete. I think that he's probably allowed himself to be brainwashed by Creationists and is now incapable of stepping outside of the Creationist bubble. Notice that when I challenge him to read a popular account of modern cosmology, by Lawrence Krauss, all he can do is parrot back at me a 'critique' of Krauss's work which is obviously derived from Creationist sources.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 04:30 AM

It's hard for me to participate in a discussion such as this, because the understandings of religious faith are so far from what is my reality. Steve Shaw asks, "why does the Catholic Church make such a huge thing about sex?"
Well, in my experience of 67 years as a Catholic, 8 years of seminary, and various periods of church employment, I haven't seen this "huge thing." It's there, and some individuals make a "huge thing" of it, but most priests I know are very critical of priests who speak about sex from the pulpit.
And the God that is argued about here, is a very simplistic God that is very foreign to the concept of God I learned in seminary.

Some people say I'm some sort of mystic, and I suppose I am. I think I prefer the word "contemplative." There are times when I put myself in a space where there is nothing but God...or maybe there's just nothing. But at the same time, everything is there, and I let it run past me and I contemplate it. That's what I do when I have the luxury of sacred space and sacred time. When I'm finished, I find I have a deeper appreciation of all that surrounds me, and I'm able to approach reality with deeper insight.

As I go through life, I encounter experiences and ideas that I consider to be significant, and I take them with me into my contemplation. And in that contemplation, I find an essence of things that I see to be divine, or to be an expression of the divine. I see the same things that everyone else sees - but in the essence of these things I see, I find something sacred, something that I see as divine. Others can look at the same things and not see divinity - and I accept that their perspective is legitimate but different from mine.

And part of my perspective is the tradition and teaching and ritual that I come from. I don't want to argue about this or prove anything - this is simply my perspective, and it means a lot to me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 04:43 AM

No, shimrod, I don't expect you to rediscover anything.....just to make your arguments from experimental, testable, observable science. For example, there is no debate now that allegedly deep time artifacts like dino bone contain soft tissue that according to measured rates of decay should not be there. That is an argument from the data that accords with testable etc science. Deciding that evolutionism is true, therefore there must be another explanation is a faith factor IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 05:04 AM

Well said, Joe. I am a few years younger than you but in my life there have been almost no occasions the church (or indeed my schools) said anything about sex. In fact the last time I heard anyone speak from the pulpit about sex was around five years when the sermon was given by a married deacon who talked about the distortions that many people have of the church's views on sex and that all of this stuff about sex being sinful is hogwash, misunderstanding and distortion.

He is still a deacon, so no-one took him off to be burnt, or excommunicated ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 05:16 AM

Joe, you have a year or two on me but my catholic upbringing taught me quite categorically that sex outside of marriage was a sin.

Fortunately for me the priest who used to drink my Dad's whisky also used to slag off my Dad. Like any five year old my Dad was my hero and therefore I took a dislike to the priest and to the church.

I had managed by the age of ten to distance myself from the church although that meant I had a very rough time at my Grammar School run by Monks. It must have taken a further 30 years before I finally managed to shake off all the shackles. (I think)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:13 AM

Joe, you have a year or two on me but my catholic upbringing taught me quite categorically that sex outside of marriage was a sin.

Everyone knew that thanks Rag.
What has it to do with anything Joe said?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:19 AM

" ... just to make your arguments from experimental, testable, observable science."

You don't know what "experimental, testable, observable science" is, do you, Pete? In fact, you quite obviously don't know what science is. What science most definitely isn't, is a competing dogma to religion! All you can do is parrot stuff from, so-called, 'creationist scientists'. But if you had even the remotest understanding of science, you would know that the term 'creationist scientist' is an oxymoron - like 'kind sadist' or 'blind cyclist' or 'inland submarine'. A REAL scientist doesn't start off from a position of 'absolute truth' and work backwards from there. A real scientist doesn't expend all of his efforts trying to discredit the work of other scientists whose findings happen to conflict with his notions of absolute truth. A real scientist does often challenge the findings of other scientists - but that's called 'peer review' and it's a key aspect of modern science. What also drives modern science forward is uncertainty, unexpected findings and competing interpretations of data. Just because a particular scientist finds something puzzling or seemingly anomalous, doesn't mean that every scientist then has to pack his bags, throw in the towel and declare: "Right this means God did it after all and we should all go home!"

Imagine for a moment, Pete, sitting before a panel composed of such luminaries as Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac, Edwin Hubble, Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and telling them: "I read on a website that your all wrong and God did it really!" A little presumptuous perhaps? What do think they would say to you (if they could be bothered to speak to such a breathtakingly arrogant idiot at all)?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:35 AM

Just for you Professor and only because I realise you frequently fail to understand things that are written down. From Joe:

"Well, in my experience of 67 years as a Catholic, 8 years of seminary, and various periods of church employment, I haven't seen this "huge thing." It's there, and some individuals make a "huge thing" of it, but most priests I know are very critical of priests who speak about sex from the pulpit"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:40 AM

I sent that before I'd edited or checked it, so please ignore and read this one instead (if you can be arsed):



I'm going to take you on over several things, Joe. First, sex and the pulpit. There are several reasons why priests don't preach about sex from the pulpit. First, they are single men preaching to a largely married audience, and you don't have to be that bright to see that you would would have zero credibility as a bedroom advisor or pontificator. Second, most congregations will contain young children or elderly people for whom priestly sex talk would be highly inappropriate. Third, the Church's many edicts on sex are so well-established and so set in stone that there is little need for further priestly elaboration. The implication that the Church isn't too bothered about sex because it isn't good pulpit material is, therefore, misplaced. You and I both know that the Church is heavily into people's sex lives. It has strictures in place about contraception, abortion, the purpose of intercourse, homosexuality, gay marriage, masturbation, divorce , etc., that are seriously at odds with liberal thinking, even with some other Christian organisations. That is quite a hefty list of control orders for an organisation that purports not to make a "huge thing" of it, I'd say.

I would also take you up on your use of "divine". I have no clue as to whether I contemplate things more, less, or the same amount as you do. I love the world and I love nature, I marvel in it and I study it. I can look at a flower and revel in the thought that it took three billion years of evolution to make such a simple, beautiful and perfectly functional thing. I love not quite being able to get my head round it, but I can study the evidence and keep trying. I can look at the sky and celebrate not even beginning to get my head round the immensity of spacetime from my little scrap of a planet and the few puny years I have on it. It's all amazing and overwhelming and almost incomprehensible. But only almost, because I'm going to keep looking, even though I know I'll never get there. What I'm scared to death of is thinking that I've found something sacred or divine that stops me looking. I don't want answers that explain nothing. I'd rather do without answers at all and be able to keep looking. That's what I believe I'm here for, if I believe anything. The difference between you and me is that you are after deeper insight and appreciation, whereas I want to KNOW stuff and be edified through knowledge and be frustrated by the challenges of the search. Not mutually exclusive by any means, but different perspectives. You may call that earthbound, but I call it my intellectual challenge. I can't get that by seeing sacredness. Too much old baggage there for me. Not for you, which I do respect in spite of what I'm saying.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:56 AM

When traditional teachings of the church on sexuality are being discussed it makes sense to treat the ages before and after reliable contraception differently, especially as the vast majority of the teachings were formulated before that point. So that has led me to look at the website for Durex. It is a bit surprising that they say and I quote "1960s - The world's first anatomically shaped condom is released by Durex". Makes you wonder what shape they were beforehand! Equally, the company itself was only founded in 1915 and lubricated condoms became available in the 1950s.

Just something to mull over, bearing in mind that the teachers of the cardinals and popes, as well as many of the more elderly clergy were raised well before that date.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:18 AM

Perhaps I need to emphasise the point that being the right shape and lubricated both have a direct bearing on whether the condom remains in place and hence its reliability as a method of contraception.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:11 AM

Well that's an interesting diversion, but I'd remind you that the Romans may have used condoms made of animal skins. Condoms made of intestines were certainly used in the Middle Ages. A bit like swear words, these things often a enjoy greater antiquity than we may at first suppose. Nothing new under the sun. In any case, your argument should perhaps be that these are hardly matters that should be decided by elderly celibate clergy, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:27 AM

Yes, Steve, you are right that condoms of some form are ancient. But my point was about reliability (and availability), not existence. And without reliable contraception the relationship is far from even handed, as we all know. So it is perfectly reasonable for a group to say you should not enter into this lightly, whether that is a church or the families or whoever. And that is why I make the distinction between before and after reliable contraception, because after that the relationship is effectively even handed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:33 AM

Ah, the importance of punctuation. When I said "know. So" I of course meant "know, so"....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:42 AM

Richard,
who, apart from god-botherers dictates either that contraception is wrong, or that sex outside marriage is wrong, or that abortion is wrong

Stalin's Russia.
Mao's China.

Rag,
We all knew that it is on the list of sins, but Joe said that it is not seen or treated as "a big thing."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:44 AM

Fair amount of conjecture creeping in here, I suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:48 AM

What's with this "it"? The list of sexual strictures is a long one. Rolling them into one, as if there's just a single rule, is highly misleading.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:55 AM

Really, Steve? I don't see it. I am not making claims about the Church being all-knowing and all-wise, or having no other motivations. Just that as I see it that is a reasonable way for a church or family to behave in those circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 09:03 AM

A wordy post from shimrod evidencing nothing except his opinion . I fear.                           Bill, once again I find that you seem to not quite read me, and maybe I am not precise enough.   Whilst I do take the bible as evidence for myself , it should be obvious by now, that I do not use that in defending creationism here. You also still don't seem to see what I mean by interpretation of evidence. If you dig up a fossil.....that is the data, when you assess the age, your presuppositions and worldview influence your finding. I have afore provided quotes from evolutionary scientists admitting this. When you see strata layered, I say it was laid down by the flood, whereas you might say it was deposited over millions or yr...... You imply that creation scientists search for evidence to overturn the evolutionary paradigm , as though evolution believers don't try to do the same ! Well of course creation believers will find the gaping flaws in evolutionism.....the question is, can you answer them.   The evolutionary paradigm may be most believed by most scientists, but if that had been that's that then , in history, we would,nt have made much progress.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 09:15 AM

Here's a list of sexual matters that trouble severely the Catholic Church.

Abortion (you are excommunicated)

Homosexual acts (it's okay to be homosexual but you are still objectively disordered and are called to chastity)

Any kind of extra-marital sex

Pornography

Any kind of contraception

Condom use to prevent HIV transmission

Coitus interruptus

Masturbation

Anal sex

Prostitution

Divorce

Gay marriage

Adultery

Lust (I think I may have called that impure thoughts in an earlier post)

Rape

Sexual intercourse that does not have the twofold significance of union and procreation (otherwise, you should be abstaining, so simple fun is out of the question)

As I say, a hefty list. The obsession with sex is even troubling the Pope. But he has yet to soften the stance very much on any of the above. Note that I didn't exclude stuff that I agree with just to make a baddie-only list. I recognise that some of these areas leave scope for interpretation and the exercise of conscience. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't good enough. The good Lord said let your speech be yea yea, nay nay. It's about time the Church followed the advice of the boss and let its members know exactly where they stand. No double-entendre intended.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 09:22 AM

And before I get picked up for my mischievous use of the words of the Lord, yes I know. ;-)

But he was a simple man who taught in simple terms, not tortuous bits of cod-theology that his followers found hard to unravel.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:08 AM

Interesting that you admit religion & god-botherers to be on a par with Mao's China and Stalin's Russia, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:08 AM

"When you see strata layered, I say it was laid down by the flood, whereas you might say it was deposited over millions or yr.."

Well I rarely take you on over your inane burblings these days, but I have a minute or two. I live on a coastline made of cliffs of alternating massive sandstones and thin shales. The layers are twisted and contorted and faulted like mad. Some of the layers now even stand perfectly vertical. Geologists come here from far and near. Now these layers were laid down in flat layers horizontally or, at worst, on gentle underwater slopes. To get them into their present conformation they had to undergo incredible sideways and vertical forces. That is not possible on the earth's surface; the beds had to be buried under several kilometres of further sediments which later had to be eroded away. The neat anticlinal folds could be created unless the layers were deeply buried and subjected to considerable pressures, otherwise the infilling and consolidation at the fold apices would not have been possible.

Takes time, pete. And study and a bit of thinking. And looking for evidence (we know now that the intense folding happened in a period of huge mountain-building in the Carboniferous, the Variscan phase - there is corroboration from other parts of the UK and Europe). Laid down in the Flood doesn't begin to cut it. It doesn't explain anything about the rocks round here. And a flood as described in the Bible could not have produced the thousands of metres of sediment in the first place. Sediment is formed only by stuff being moved by water, wind or gravity from one place to another. A single flood event that Noah might have endured could not remotely have managed it. There simply wasn't enough water, enough stuff to move and nothing like enough time. And you need to explain where all that stuff that needed to be moved in order to make those layers came from in the first place. Of course, if you believe only in miracles, anything is possible. Good for you. I suppose it saves you ever having to actually use your brain. I don't think Jesus would be very proud of you for that. One day St Peter will be asking you why you never used the greatest gift that God gave you. What are you going to say?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:11 AM

I forgot ice.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:17 AM

The reason abortion is opposed isn't to because of anything to do with sex, but because, as with euthanesia, it is seen as an act of killing a human being, but at a different stage of life.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:19 AM

Folds could NOT be created. Damn.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:23 AM

"A wordy post from shimrod evidencing nothing except his opinion . I fear."

What utter bollocks! I suppose that you don't have any opinions, do you, you arrogant holy fool!

"You imply that creation scientists search for evidence to overturn the evolutionary paradigm , as though evolution believers don't try to do the same !"

Do you really think that evolutionary scientists spend their careers searching for ways to refute creationism? I would guess that most REAL scientists couldn't give a flying f*ck about creationism!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:25 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the view of many anti-abortionists is that abortion is often used as a means of birth control. Divorcing abortion from sexual activity is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Especially when you consider that the Church's attitude to contraception doesn't exactly help to reduce abortion numbers. In my view, contraception and abortion go somewhat hand-in-glove.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:30 AM

"utter bollocks...you arrogant holy fool...flying fuck"

Slightly over-excited there, I suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 10:41 AM

but at a different stage of life.

What stage might that be? The bi-cellular stage perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 11:14 AM

Any chance of deleting my 06.29am post, if there's a mod about? The preview button is very close to the submit button and I've got big fingers!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 11:33 AM

I'd say you are also lumping a lot of things together as 'being about sex' which, while including sex, are objectionable on other ground entirely. Adultery, for example, pretty well invariably involves lying and deceit with one part of the couple being exploited, and I'm not in favour of that. Prostitution can be between totally consenting adults, but has always included a background of pimping, violence and other exploitation of the woman, and in modern times sex-trafficking. 'Any other form of extra marital sex' can again be entirely consensual, but equally can fall into the kinds of objections to the first things I listed. Abortion a lot of people find objectionable for the reasons Kevin gave and it is reasonable for a church to express a view, whether you or I agree with it or not.

I won't go through your whole list, because like you there are some things in it which I think are right to object to and some I don't. But I do think that it is a good idea to ask whether each is objected to 'because it is about sex' or whether it is reasonable to object to it on wholly different grounds, such as one person exploiting another.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 12:04 PM

Yes, there's little doubt that the Catholic Church takes a rather conservative view of sexual morals. Steve's list is a fairly accurate representation of "the rules." But people weigh the consequences and choose to ignore rules all the time. It's not a horrible thing to have rules, guidelines, ideals, what have you. And "the rules" are presented as a discussion, not as edicts.

My point is that the Catholic Church does not make Steve's "huge thing" of the "rules" for sexual conduct. That's not a primary focus. It's not what the Catholic Church is all about.

It's a matter of balance, Steve. But then, absolutists aren't very good at understanding balance.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 12:24 PM

There are also huge negatives associated with male homosexuality.
Abortion may be necessary in certain circumstances, but abortion on demand is killing another person for personal convenience...and the Church is correct to oppose it.

Trouble is, some people believe that there should be no constraints on society, even when some behaviours are proved to have a negative affect......The reason is an on going campaign to weaken and destroy the Church, which they see as the home of social conservatism.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 12:38 PM

Pete.... I know exactly what you are trying to say in this: "when you assess the age, your presuppositions and worldview influence your finding. I have afore provided quotes from evolutionary scientists admitting this. "

and I do understand it and its implications.... but that is an example of exactly what I said in my long post above. I requote it: " saying "I believe what good, competent scientists tell me." is NOT the same thing as saying "I believe in what the Bible tells me." They are, flatly, NOT the same sort of thing. "

My presuppositions... about the importance, use and value of science are so radically different from your presuppositions that it's almost a different language.... it certainly displays a different "worldview". I am at a loss as to how to explain the significance of that difference without resorting to technical terms in logic & philosophy which you often remind me you have not studied.
   Let me try this.... if I told you that I recite a little magical phrase before turning on my kitchen stove before turning it on, to ensure it lights, you'd probably tell me that magic has nothing to do with it; that it's just physics of electricity. Perhaps my mother always told me that. (There may be cleverer metaphors).
The point is, YOU use, or would use for everyday stuff, , the same argument I did above. My *presupposition* that a magic phrase is required is totally subjective, arbitrary and non-essential to explain the phenomenon. You might even be able to tell me how it really works... or at least refer me to someone or some book which does.You might tell me that the presupposition required is an understanding of natural processes. YOU understand what it means to keep superstitions and family or cultural 'stories' out of making odd guesses about natural laws of science. The issues is... in one area, you don't use that reasoning. You have already accepted one 'story' as truth, and because there is no way to really test it scientifically, you therefore MUST find ways to defend it."
My claim... and the claim of others... is that the story is so compelling emotionally and psychologically that it just 'feels good'.. and it is a shortcut to an answer and implies other comfortable answers (like an afterlife- good or bad). Now....perhaps it IS true, and I cannot disprove it, but it requires suspension of the reason you use everyday, usually without thinking about it, for other things.
   The thing about human beings is that they CAN **rationalize** to get answers they like! If I keep reciting a magic phrase to ensure my stove lights (or..old joke... "snapping my fingers to keep tigers away" [it's worked fine all my life... ☺]) you can only shrug... it makes little difference.
   But deeply held beliefs about some things cause we humans to behave differently and choose very different things than those who do not believe them.... and history shows the results. In 1600, Giordano Bruno was executed for not believing what he was told... and Galileo avoided the same fate by some careful wriggling. Bruno and the Catholic hierarchy had different beliefs even though they started with similar premises...they all were religious, and Bruno was a Dominican priest. The point is, when widely different views come from the same presuppositions, the first logical step should be to suspect something about one or more premises. Science does this constantly... religion very seldom. Religion rearranges concepts constantly... and gets hundreds of different views, each of which is suspicious of the others..... and there is no central formality to resolve disputes. The scientific method, carefully applied IS a way of constant self-correction. Theology, as usually practiced, is merely a very, very complex rationalization. (old remark: " Metaphysics !s the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct; but to find these reasons is no less an instinct.") People just WANT certain types of answers!

So... as I have said before, believe as you will.... but you should at least try to understand why so many get kinda argumentative when you challenge their acceptance of science as the best way to deal with certain data.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 12:49 PM

believe as you will.... but you should at least try to understand

Belief and understanding in this instance are antithetical concepts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 01:38 PM

I tried to make the list accurate and complete. I could easily have just listed the things I don't agree with. I agree with the Church about rape and pornography. I have some issues with one or two other things and I vehemently disagree with others. Joe Offer, "disagreeing with Joe" is not synonymous with "absolutist". I could have given a different list and gone off on one. I didn't. I rather like discussing it all, actually, and I'm not swearing these days. But hey.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 01:50 PM

The restrictions on birth control were primarily a survival plan. The more people in our 'gang' the safer we are. Same for ensuring by that the children brought about by the lack of contraception remain part of that gang. No need for it nowadays but sadly old habits die hard :-( I may get in lumber for this but I see the dress styles of orthodox Muslims as a similar ploy. The more people can see how many Muslims there are the safer they will feel and the more annoyed the bigots become. Those old blokes in frocks must be rubbing their hands in glee and sadly many still fall for it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 02:03 PM

Actually every aspect of human existence is associated with sex. No sex, no human existence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 02:58 PM

Unless you happen to be Jesus. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:00 PM

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:27 PM

"Belief and understanding in this instance are antithetical concepts."

No... they are not- unless that's another swipe at Pete. It is quite possible to understand another's position without agreeing with him...... in fact, you cannot adequately argue with him unless you make the effort to comprehend his position & reasoning.

   One reason Pete & I go over the same ground again & again is that he really does not...by his own admission... understand the technical points. He repeats HIS reasoning, and makes links to Creationist reasoning, and he is satisfied to stay where he is.... and that's fine for private beliefs. I merely feel obligated to lay out stuff *I* have studied in detail when confronted by certain assertions in a (this in particular) public forum.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:29 PM

Actually, Dave, I think it's a combination of that (evidence? Why, sign 'em up as early as you can, preferably at the mewling and puking stage) and of its being a very useful instrument of control. If there's one thing most people can't manage without, it's sex, so what better area of human activity for shoving your oar in and making a set of almost impossible to keep rules, retaining, of course, the double whammy of guilt and the threat of hellfire for failing to comply. And, for the anti-absolutists among you who think that, well, yes, there are rules I suppose, but we can take or leave 'em, tell us this: what sort of an organisation is that! With hundreds of millions of members, ranging from the very savvy in the wealthy West to the poverty-stricken and uneducated villagers in Africa, Central America and the Far East, don't you think that this attitude that the "rules are there to be interpreted" is just a little bit arbitrary and disingenuous? And, in the case of forbidding condoms even for the prevention of HIV transmission, ever so slightly murderous? Still, it's your club...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:56 PM

The thing is, bill, I do believe what good competent scientists tell me, and I presume you would say the same.   However, I try not to rely on the fact that I do trust them, but rather try to only use arguments I can use with at least some understanding.   I might be as frustrated as you in your not taking my pov on board. You present this as a science against creationism debate , and I could make a reverse simplistic equation.   Both sides are influenced by a worldview that influences how data is interpreted, and both sides endeavour to present scientific arguments to affirm theirs and detract from the other. You mention the scientific method. Would you care to explain what you mean by that, and how that informs origins science?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 03:59 PM

Don't you think this attitude... Is abut disingenuous?

That's a fair enough question, Steve. It is all to do with who, in the last resort, is responsible for my actions. Can I, in fact, appeal to the defence "I was just following orders?" I don't think so, which I have no alternative to being able to justify then to myself. Buttons raises a separate and equally important aspect: soean't that mean I am just doing what I want anyway? And that is a genuine risk. So it is actually the slow rate if change of the church that helps. You have already deal of what in the legal world would be case law and precedent and whatever I decide to do needs to be weighed against that. Not that I always agree with it, but I try keep the idea I may not be right.

As to use of condoms to prevent HIV I agree with you. As, you will recall from an earlier post of Joe's, did Pope Benedict.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 04:02 PM

Blooming Autocorrect on this phone again. "But that means" for wxamplw

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 04:09 PM

Arggh
I give up until I get near a real keyboard

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 04:45 PM

It's all very well popes agreeing with it, but they appear to lack the power, or the will, or both, to change it.

Commiserations apropos of the technology. I spend more time amending my posts than I do dreaming 'em up!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 05:06 PM

"Abortion may be necessary in certain circumstances, but abortion on demand is killing another person for personal convenience...and the Church is correct to oppose it."

As far as I'm aware, the Church does not allow abortion under any circumstances. Of course, this law is a complete ass, as millions of Catholics demur and a good number ignore it with good conscience. As for your emotive claim about abortion on demand being done for personal convenience, you are declaring a blanket judgement on millions of people which simply can't be justified. In other words, you're guessing, and it's a pretty lousy guess.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 05:23 PM

" One reason Pete & I go over the same ground again & again is that he really does not...by his own admission... understand the technical points."

Then he needs to educate himself before he starts arguing about science!

"The thing is, bill, I do believe what good competent scientists tell me, ..."

You mean 'creationist scientists', don't you, Pete? In other words people who spout pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo on creationist websites and tell you the sorts of things that you want to hear. A 'creationist scientist' is an oxymoron - remember? Like an 'inland submarine'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 05:42 PM

Well Steve , neither you, me, or anyone else alive now was around at the flood/Carboniferous, depending on presuppositions but I am sure both sides will offer an explanation of how features form. I would guess that folded solid strata was effected under intense heat. I don't see any reason why that should not happen under the massive upheavals in the flood year. Perhaps you have some idea of a tranquil rising of water rather than the geologic activity hinted at in scripture and part of the flood geology model.   One thing I would suggest is impossible is for trees to be preserved (that is..the same trunk) in more than one layer if each layer represents vast time periods, yet this is what is found, but it certainly fits the flood model where layers were laid down in quick succession.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:29 PM

Pedantic point: There is nothing oxymoronic about "inland submarine". There are some pretty sizeable lakes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:30 PM

The scientific method is well defined...you can Google it and get a far better phrasing than I can type quickly........... but briefly, it means to me being not only open to new data and analysis, but also understanding what sort of detail, processes and techniques are necessarily involved in objective analysis. The key is 'objective'... as close as humans can get to unbiased, objective treatment of data... as well as considering ALL relevant data.

Now you keep referring to this " Both sides are influenced by a worldview that influences how data is interpreted, and both sides endeavour to present scientific arguments to affirm theirs and detract from the other."

And here I must disagree... science, properly done, does NOT seek to detract from 'the other side'......... it seeks to give as much credence to ANY side until the evidence and analysis seems to point in one way and not another. I'm not sure how to put this, but good science has, built into it's own basic procedures, the tests for accuracy and examination. When we ask "how long has mankind been mankind?", we should not assume any answer in advance. If someone starts with 6000 years or so, that needs to be tested against answers that go to 3-4 million years or so! When the test assumes 6000 to be the answer, because calculations from Genesis give that answer, THEY are then trying to " affirm theirs and detract from the other" When they do this, they are only partially acting AS scientists, no matter what credentials they may have. Other scientists, using many, many criteria just cannot cram all the evidence into such a narrow view... several different techniques for measurement demand "millions" of years.
What more can I say?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 06:45 PM

"There is nothing oxymoronic about "inland submarine". There are some pretty sizeable lakes."

How about contributing to the debate, McGrath, instead of being a sarcastic, grinning smart-arse on the sidelines?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:02 PM

Save your abuse for someone who hands it out Shim.

Mr McGrath simply has a better than average irony level. Some people never manage to grasp the humour.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:20 PM

"Well Steve , neither you, me, or anyone else alive now was around at the flood/Carboniferous, depending on presuppositions but I am sure both sides will offer an explanation of how features form. I would guess that folded solid strata was effected under intense heat. I don't see any reason why that should not happen under the massive upheavals in the flood year. Perhaps you have some idea of a tranquil rising of water rather than the geologic activity hinted at in scripture and part of the flood geology model.   One thing I would suggest is impossible is for trees to be preserved (that is..the same trunk) in more than one layer if each layer represents vast time periods, yet this is what is found, but it certainly fits the flood model where layers were laid down in quick succession."

"Well Steve..." Blimey, I've read some ignorant garbage in my time, but this truly takes the biscuit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:27 PM

Discussions lose an awful lot when they degenerate into debates.

In a debate we argue for a predetermined position, and set out to overcome the other side, scoring debating points along the way. The aim is to win. Enjoyable enough as a sport.

In a discussion we try to explore points of difference, looking for points where people actually agree, and try to build on that. The aim is greater understanding of the way other people see things, and greater understanding of what we actually believe, which may get modified in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:36 PM

We can do that privately, Kevin, whilst still being forum bastards. Human nature, innit. I can't tell you how much I've learned from the banter here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:49 PM

So single-celled organisms, and/or the many fertilized eggs that are not implanted in the placenta but are regularly sloughed off, are "human beings".

Fascinating.

In that case, every woman alive who has had sex is to be prosecuted for murder.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 07:52 PM

Far more valuable to do it collectively. It needn't rule out irreverant banter. But we could do without the aggression and hostility. If we can dig down far enough there is almost always some shared ground.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 15 - 08:57 PM

I was describing the way it is, not the way it should be. It takes two hundred to tango.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 02:34 AM

Steve Shaw, in reference to Pope Benedict's statement about condoms preventing transmission of HIV: It's all very well popes agreeing with it, but they appear to lack the power, or the will, or both, to change it.

Change what, Steve? It's an interesting challenge to carry on a debate with Steve Shaw. He has an annoying tendency to ignore two things: facts, and logic.

Steve, Steve, Steve, you must be getting your information about the Catholic Church from Murdoch or Reuters or some other horribly unreliable source. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever about Catholic moral teaching. The Catholic Church does not issue a list of rules that one must obey or go to hell - if that's what you want, you have to go to Reuters. And you're right - even the Pope can't change what's said in Reuters. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the basic document of Catholic teaching. It has a lengthy section about sexuality, a very rational and balanced discussion of sex as a sacred and beautiful gift that must be handled with care. It does present Catholic Church positions on various moral issues such as masturbation and homosexuality and sex outside marriage, but it does this within a discussion of the pros and cons. And yes, as Ake says, it errs on the side of conservatism, and rightly so. If one wishes to preserve something that is sacred, a conservative approach is often a good idea - adjusting for individual circumstances, of course. The Catechism makes no mention of punishment for any transgression of the church positions on these issues - it simply discusses them and states the church's opinion. Hellfire isn't mentioned at all.

Now, Steve, I admit that your presentation was dramatic and entertaining. However, it was a tad inaccurate.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 03:25 AM

Who decided sex was sacred?

I would have thought it was not only enjoyable but the most successful way of ensuring your genes were passed to the next generation.

Sacred? Really.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 03:42 AM

Try having sex with somebody you really love, Raggytash. Then maybe you'll understand how sex can (and should) be sacred.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:10 AM

That is an awful thing to say, Joe. To imply that someone does not really love their partner when you cannot know them that well is below the belt. Why on earth would you make that suggestion?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:28 AM

And who decided that masturbation and homosexuality were moral issues? And whatever you say, the Church does NOT sanction the use of condoms for HIV prevention. If two intelligent and highly educated western blokes can't agree on that, how's it going to go down in remote African townships where HIV is epidemic? Play safe and avoid sin, do what the priests say, die...? Now that's what I call a moral issue.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:39 AM

And please don't tell me that priests don't overstep the mark. I've heard priests telling people to vote Tory, telling a young woman with a crying baby to leave the mass, telling us to use newspaper to wipe our bottoms.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:49 AM

Just for the record Joe my wife and I have been together for nearly 37 years. Ups and downs through thick and thin. Do NOT preach to me about loving someone. The audacity ...........

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 05:34 AM

From the website catholic.com:

Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience."

Now I haven't a clue how legitimate this lot are. Could be a bunch of nutcases for all I know. But a Catholic who wants clarity on the matter and who googled like I just did would likely come up with this too. Sinful or not? Don't you think the Church, after all it's said down the years about contraception, owes its members clarity? It seems to me that leaving things vague and open to interpretation is the Church's evasive way of avoiding looking like the dinosaur ort really is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 05:36 AM

It really is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 07:47 AM

I'm sure Joe did not mean his remark to be taken personally you are too quick to jump into "highly offended mode"

Joe has no way of knowing the depth of any of our relationships...and I'm also sure you knew that very well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 07:57 AM

From Ake: "I'm sure Joe did not mean his remark to be taken personally you are too quick to jump into "highly offended mode""

The post from Joe read: "Try having sex with somebody you really love, Raggytash. Then maybe you'll understand how sex can (and should) be sacred"

Just how more personal can you get than to mention someone by name.

You are correct about one thing though Ake, I am highly offended.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:41 AM

Well in the last couple of days St Joe has called me an absolutist who doesn't understand balance and has accused me of being bereft of facts and logic, and has patronised me with a "Steve, Steve, Steve...."


Nobody's perfect I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 09:21 AM

(still using my phone!)

Whatever the topic, simply searching the Internet and hoping it gives some sort of authoritive answer is asking to be confused. But if you were to look at Wikipedia 'catholic church and HIV/aids' there is a reference to Benedict's 2010 statement. Not that you should accept Wikipedia either but that gives q clue how-to track down the actual article.

As a Catholic I'd be automatically wary off any article that says something is declared infallibly because few things have. So that would be enough to make me suspicious of the site Steve quoted.

I totally agree about priests over stepping the mark. Even if we had no other examples, Raggy's account of how a priest treated his father would be enough, but we all know it goes far wider than that.

And it continues. I heard of a priest in a nearby parish at.the weekend who is mid thirties but insists on practices that were dropped in Vatican II

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 09:25 AM

... Ie in the early sixties, some two decades before he was born. And I find it difficult to find any rationale for that except a list for power over his parishioners.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 09:30 AM

It would have to be a list DMcG because lust is a sin!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 09:56 AM

The audacity ...........

Audacity? Naah, that's WISDOM! See other thread.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 10:18 AM

I would point out, just in case, that I was not quoting that website to further my argument about the Church's position but to show the lack of clarity about what Catholics should and shouldn't be doing. This notion of saying something vague and circumlocutory in a catechism, or in Humanae Vitae, or anywhere else, in order to conceal the real feet-dragging dinosaur inside, placing all the onus on the flock who are then frequently at the mercy of priestly middlemen, displays a basic dishonesty. Many millions of Roman Catholics are simple souls who need to have things put to them in simple, straightforward language. It wouldn't hurt the cleverer ones either, come to think of it. We're not all products of years in a seminary or lengthy courses in theology and philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 10:25 AM

"The Church's official position is to discourage the use of contraception. But, as long as you carefully consider your own context and read the reasons for the Church's stance (here's a link...), and always act with good will and conscience, you will not be condemned for going against this position, and you will not be in sin."


There. That'll do. Meet Pope Steve I.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 10:35 AM

The irony of that thread has not escaped my notice Greg. I am more than a little pissed off by Joe's pontification. An apology would not go amiss.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 11:19 AM

Sorry, Steve, you will have to be Pope Stephen X. The earlier ones are all taken

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 11:34 AM

It would look like I'd be signing off my encyclicals with a kiss though. How's about Pope Stevie G I?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 11:34 AM

The oriiginal meaning of "pontification'" is as it happens "bridge building". Which is quite a good summary of what Joe's posts do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 12:37 PM

Methinks some have trouble discerning between venom and irony . Sex as God intended is sacred in Christian theology. The first sexual thought anyone had was GodS!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 12:43 PM

I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding, Raggytash. Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the word "sacred."

My dictionary gives this as one definition of "sacred": highly valued and important : deserving great respect

If you and your wife have been together 37 years, then I would expect that the marriage would be sacred to you, and so would the love and sex you share with your wife be sacred.

I intended no offense, and you know damn well that no offense was intended. I congratulate you on your 37 years.

But I can't understand how, after 37 years, you can't see sex as sacred. All I can say is that we must have different understandings of the word. If you want to battle over semantics, I don't want to fight. But I do wonder why you scoffingly pontificated against my considering sex between lovers to be sacred. Who's the one pontificating, Raggytash?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:03 PM

Well bill, as you suggested, I looked up the scientific method, which you say scientists, and presumably yourself claim to employ . About halfway down in the process is .....test your hypothesis by doing an experiment.......    This of course is to be expected with observable, teatable repeatable Science , but is obviously severely limited with origins science....evolution or creation. The past is gone , and any attempted measurements are interpretive of the data and have often been spectacularly out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:10 PM

Steve Shaw, in his usual fashion says: And who decided that masturbation and homosexuality were moral issues?

Any time somebody questions whether something is right or wrong, it becomes a moral issue. This is not a big deal. You just consider both sides of the discussion, and make up your own mind what you should do.

And again: And whatever you say, the Church does NOT sanction the use of condoms for HIV prevention.

Prove it, without quoting St. Hitchens.
See this article (click) dated 20 Nov 2010. Again, please take heed of the fact that Catholic moral teaching is presented as a discussion backed by reasoned statements, not as a list of do's and don'ts. In November 2010, Pope Benedict made a carefully reasoned statement about the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Thus far, no one of equal authority has issued a statement to contradict him, so his statement holds.

Click here for a major part of the official Catholic discussion of sexuality. Mind you, I take a far less conservative view of such things myself - but what is presented in the link is the official presentation. I take this into consideration, and then decide how to live my own life. Note, however, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells me that my supreme moral authority is my own conscience, not some list of rules that Reuters or St. Hitchens deceptively presented as a summary of Catholic teaching.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:18 PM

"The first sexual thought anyone had was GodS!"

What??!!

"Well bill, as you suggested, I looked up the scientific method, which you say scientists, and presumably yourself claim to employ ."

Scientists don't "claim" to employ the scientific method - they EMPLOY IT!!

"The past is gone , and any attempted measurements are interpretive of the data and have often been spectacularly out."

More grotesque and heavily biased generalisations from a scientific ignoramus who is parroting stuff from a creationist website!

Pete, is modern science a massive secular plot to discredit Christianity or not?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:21 PM

Actually the principle has long been accepted that, where an action has several effects, the more important should be given priority. It's the same principle that means that when faced with a starving family, a parent has a right, even a duty, to steal in order to get food to eat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:44 PM

Part 2......you say the evidence demand millions of years, but how do you know if you cannot present that evidence yourself? ,!, seem like a case of one branch saying it is the other branches that have the conclusive evidence. That seems to be shim rods approach as he has previously let slip that his branch has no bearing on origins.          the fact is , no matter how much you say the evidence demands it , it is bluff and bluster if you cannot substantiate it yourself.    Meanwhile, creationists demonstrate with observational testable evidence that millions of years are not only not demanded, but that there is considerable evidence against the paradigm.      You insist that scientists ....by which you probably mean evolution believing....don't start with presuppositions. However, that seems somewhat of a simplistic belief in our evolutionary indoctrinated culture, and I have already quoted honest evolutionists that have recognised the power of the paradigm, and the refusal to consider anything other than naturalistic causes, whatever the evidence.   I don't know what else I can say either bill !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 01:45 PM

I am sure Raggy can speak for himself, Joe, but the most insulting part of that statement was nothing to do with the word sacred. You said, unequivocally, Try having sex with somebody you really love, Raggytash. How can that imply anything other than Raggy has either never loved anyone he has had sex with or he has never had sex with anyone he loves. But, hey, if Raggy accepts your apology, I shall have no axe to grind but I must point out that I cannot understand how an educated man such as yourself could have failed to see what you were suggesting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 02:42 PM

" ...you say the evidence demand millions of years, but how do you know if you cannot present that evidence yourself?"

Because I'm not a practising paleontologist/geologist you idiot! But then, neither are you!

Oh right! I see! I've got to go out into the field and painstakingly dig up evidence for you to inspect ... and no doubt sniff at ... while all you have to do is to (ineptly) copy stuff from a creationist website! You are incredibly arrogant in your ignorance, aren't you, Pete?!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 02:44 PM

Actually Pete it was the other way round. Before Darwin and Hutton the scientific community was indoctrinated with a young earth attitude and it was evidence that slowly and painfully persuaded them otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 03:07 PM

Joe, I have absolutely no desire to fall out with you and accept your, albeit hedged, apology.

However Dave the Gnome has hit the nail on the head.

I, and others, took your comment to mean that my good lady and myself didn't either:

1. Love each other

2. Didn't know what love meant

3. Understand the meaning of the word

I can assure you on each of these you are utterly wrong.

My wife is my friend, my companion, my lover and my rock. I am a very lucky man to have such a wife, I know this.

I would wish it for everyone, sadly that, due to individual failings can never be.

I, AND my wife do not need any church or religion to tell us how to behave or how lucky we are to have found a lifelong companion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 03:25 PM

Point taken Dmcg, but that was a long time past and there is more evidence now, and much of the former evidence used to support the GTE, is now dropped or discredited even by evolutionary scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:08 PM

"Any time somebody questions whether something is right or wrong, it becomes a moral issue."
What absolute nonsense. A completely wrong-minded clot can question whether something is right or wrong. I think that it's wrong that all black men are not hanged. I haven't created a moral issue. I've created a mental illness issue (mine). Someone arbitrarily decides that masturbation is wrong and they have no reason for saying it and no evidence for it. The issue there is their stupidity, not the immorality or otherwise of masturbation, a perfectly normal, natural and beneficial activity. Go on, google it. I do realise that you may wish to dignify the ecclesiastical old fools that come out with that stuff. Very valiant of you. Religions make "moral issues" out of sexual matters in order to have instruments of control. Making people feel guilty about masturbating by saying stupid things about it, now that IS a moral issue. Whoever decided that being homosexual was a moral issue? Whoever decided that every sex act should leave open the potential for pregnancy? If you're telling me that those are moral issues, I'm telling you to get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:22 PM

Here's the Catholic Church making up moral issues as it goes along. From the catechism:

"2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability."

I note the sanctioning of the judging of masturbators and remedial "pastoral action." That's a good laugh is that!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:32 PM

Really, Pete? The geological society has been publishing the gsa bulletin since 1890. Perhaps you could give a reference to an article in that that says the previous ideas were wrong and that the earth is actually less than

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 04:46 PM

... Say one million years. And I mean that journal, or perhaps one published by the Royal Institution, backing up the idea much has been overturned in the sense a young earth better fits the facts than an old one. I don't consider an estimate from.say 1900a that the earth was say a few hundreds of millions being overturned ny another saying it is billions as helping your case, by the way!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 05:49 PM

Regarding masturbation Steve, If I remember correctly you or your friends on this forum are very fond of using the word as a term of abuse, why is this OK when applied to such a " natural and beneficial activity"?........puzzling contradiction there surely?

Is homosexuality "moral"   depends on your definition of moral. It is certainly dangerous to those men who practice it and has very sexual health associations.
I think the Church is correct not to promote homosexuality as it runs contrary to their teaching of "family values", a teaching which is beneficial to society.
Same with the issue of abortion, most liberals believe it should be solely the choice of the mother, but the issue is much more complicated.
A fatal failing of the left is over simplification of complicated and nuances subjects......reliance on ideology, especially ideology based on emotion rarely produces positive results.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 06:00 PM

I think there's a very strong possibility, DMcG, that Pete has never even heard of The Geological Society or the Royal Institution - let alone read any of their bulletins or journals. I think there's strong evidence, from his posts, that he gets all of his 'information' from 'creationist' sources.
When he makes statements like: "and much of the former evidence used to support the GTE, is now dropped or discredited ...", he means that he's read something to that effect in an article written by a, self-styled, 'creationist scientist' and posted on a creationist website.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 06:09 PM

I think there's strong evidence, from his posts, that he gets all of his 'information' from 'creationist' sources.

Stupid is as stupid does. 'Twas ever thus.

Now, how about we move on to Holocaust denial? Or climate change denial, or flat earthism & etc.............

You cannont reach a reasoned accommodation with a crazy person.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 07:01 PM

Masturbation and homosexuality are normal and healthy. In mischief mode I can add a moral dimension to cleaning my teeth, having a wee, watering my petunias, staying up too late, watching Bakeoff, forgetting to turn a light off, putting a bit too much butter on my crumpets, lighting the fire, having a glass of wine, using a dishwasher. Go on, try every one of them. Shall I start you off? It's a really easy game. Cleaning my teeth? Think of the energy that went into making that brush and think of its impact when it goes to landfill! Think of the lamentable waste of resources that went into that toothpaste tube! Think of those microcellulose beads that get my teeth nice and shiny then go into the sea with the sewage to kill the fishes! And the waste of water! And I could have cleaned my teeth with a twig and given the money to Oxfam! There, I'll leave you to do the others.

Yep, could sit here all night turning every conceivable activity into a moral issue. Might as well curl up and die a miserable guilty wretch. Easy-peasy! That's what the Catholic Church does with aspects of sex. They turn normal things like being gay, doing a bit of harmless self-pleasuring and trying not to get pregnant too often into guilt fodder. Things that people can't help doing become things that you should be avoiding like the plague 99%-plus of the time. And it's really hard to find out what the Church really thinks or whether it's changed its mind. Which it almost certainly hasn't, deep down.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 07:55 PM

Raggytash, you say: My wife is my friend, my companion, my lover and my rock.

That's admirable, and I congratulate you. But it seems to me that you're saying that your relationship with your wife, including your sexual relationship is sacred to you. Isn't that correct?

My point is that moral codes, whether or not you agree with them, are based in reality, (usually) not in arbitrary religious legislation. They are based on "natural law," which applies to everyone and not just to people of one religious denomination or another. Most moral codes have reasons behind them, and are not purely arbitrary. Therefore, it is of value to explore widely-held moral codes and understand the thinking behind them, whether or not one agrees with the codes.

Too often, those here who consider themselves to be "enlightened" take the same approach as those who consider themselves "conservative" - defend the ideology you already hold and attack all other trains of thought. I submit that a more productive method of discussion is to be slower to attack and quicker to listen - look for the truth in what the other person is trying to express, even if you don't think you're likely to agree. Don't be so quick to find fault with the method of presentation.

Pete holds to some premises that the rest of us aren't likely to accept: that the Bible is literally true in every sense, a scientifically valid explanation of all aspects of life and the functions and history of the universe. And also, that God can do anything, even if it doesn't make sense - so the Bible describes how God did things. According to those premises, what Pete says is true, and we're not likely to shake his thinking. So, rather than trying to fight with him or disprove him, why not just take what he says as how Pete sees the world? Then we can deal with him within the context in which he lives. Then the goal becomes to figure out how to coexist in society with someone whose thinking is so radically different from ours. I live in an area where the majority of people think Pete's way, so I can either learn how to coexist, or I can heed their instructions to move elsewhere - as has been stated directly to me more than once in the Letters to the Editor of the local newspaper.

Most of us here seem to accept a more permissive moral code, and to hold to a cosmology that is more-or-less in accord with the writings of Darwin. I hold to a belief in a God who is the essence of the cosmos, and the essence of every individual being in the cosmos. As such, I view myself as surrounded by sacredness, but living in a world that is completely in accord with the tested discoveries of science. Two songs that do a pretty good job of expressing my thinking are Peter Mayer's (Everything Is) Holy Now and Iris DeMent's Let the Mystery Be. To my mind, most everything has a divine aspect that is a holy, sacred mystery....or not. But whether that holy mystery exists as a separate entity or not, that's how I see it. That perspective works for me, and I see no need to defend it as long as people understand what it is and don't try to redefine me as something else. I think I should feel free to speak from my perspective without having my perspective attacked - but I also feel obliged not to attempt to impose my perspective on anybody else.

I do not seek to condemn or attack anyone whose thinking is different from mine, but I also expect to be able to live in this world without having my guiding principles condemned or attacked. I hope to learn from the thinking of others, and I try to avoid doing battle.

Still, it really pisses me off when people try to redefine and destroy my thinking instead of trying to understand what I'm saying. When that happens, I find myself forced into battle mode - and that's a place where I don't like to be. I like constructive discussion and exchange of ideas, not destructive battles.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:03 PM

Every conceivable human action is potentially a moral issue. By that I mean that in principle there could be an argument as to whether it is right or wrong. It's an essential consequence of it being a human action. So you couldn't have an argument about whether having indigestion is right or wrong, but you could about whether having a bacon sandwich is, maybe with a vegetarian or a Muslim or Jew. A Mormon might argue similarly about drinking coffee. The fact that we may think that some activity is a perfectly legitimate thing to do means that we are treating doing it as a moral issue, just as much as if we had the opposite view.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: frogprince
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:30 PM

". The fact that we may think that some activity is a perfectly legitimate thing to do means that we are treating doing it as a moral issue, just as much as if we had the opposite view."

I really think that that easily becomes stretching a point to where it is meaningless. Most of us do vast numbers of things which we, or no normal person we have ever known, have never even thought of as "perfectly legitimate"; non issues, plain and simple.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: frogprince
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:35 PM

Ain't nothin' like a garble of double negatives to try to make my point, I guess...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:51 PM

Yeah, Frogprince, I think you're trying to make a point, but I don't get it yet. Please expland (mixing explain & expand should do the trick).

You know, it might be a good idea for everybody to have a broader view of morality. I know plenty of religious people who take a very narrow view of morality - they seem to think it has to do with other people's sexual conduct (not their own, of course), and not much else. Oh, except abortion - that's an important issue to them as long as they're not the one who's pregnant. They can tend to get irritated if they are told that morality should have an impact on their business decisions, that cheating a customer or oppressing an employee can be far more immoral than fornication. Plenty of Catholic Republican politicians (and some Democrats) got irritated with Pope Francis when he questioned their attitudes toward the poor, toward other nations, toward global warming and the ecology, and toward warfare and capital punishment. The Catholic Church has been moving steadily toward a pacifist, anti-capitalist stance and complete opposition to capital punishment. That makes a lot of Catholics, particularly American Catholics, very nervous. Whatever position you take on these issues, it's clear that they are moral issues that may well be far more important than sexual conduct - and the Catholic Church expends a lot effort teaching about these issues, far more than it does on sexuality.

Steve Shaw, I'm having a hard time understanding your definition of morality. Please explain.

Is there a difference between morality and ethics? I don't think so, but I'm sure some will disagree. Why?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 15 - 08:59 PM

Pete... you simply define your way out of dealing with my explanations. Shimrod & DtG have made certain points about science... I won't repeat those. I will just tell you again that you break the rules of standard discussion when you say " it is bluff and bluster if you cannot substantiate it yourself. "
   I would ask if you are willing to apply such a strange requirement to YOUR premises. No one can   "substantiate" religious beliefs. I don't even ask them to try. That past is indeed past! As I have said many times, there is a reason why the word 'belief' is used. You believe certain religious claims. The only thing that can be dated is the age of some manuscripts...

But in science, all sorts of things about the past can be tested in several ways. I am not the one who does all the testing, but neither are you the one who translates old manuscripts...or who interprets those translations in complex theological tomes. The problem is not me..or others... going out of the way to disprove the Bible... it is rather people who go out of the way to create & use sites like Creation.com to disprove scientific findings accepted by 99% of scientists. The data used in science is not **for the purpose** of arguing with religion... that is a mere side effect which some are more concerned with than others. But you DO upset them when you deny the accuracy of careful experiments based on NOT SO ACCURATE experiments and careless interpretation. (Details? Read 27 old threads... the points about carbon dating...etc... were made a dozen times.)

I can't do much more than explain a point..... if you just repeat the same flawed reasoning to counter them, I can't figure to where to go. I know where some have told me I'm going....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:55 AM

Sacred is not a word I would use Joe. Sacred has too many religious connotations in my personal lexicon.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:37 AM

In my book, off the top of my head at 6.30 in the morning, morality is an approach to life in which you seek to be happy in yourself and to have as positive an effect on the other inhabitants of this planet, and the planet itself, as you can humanly manage. There, tried to say that without once rattling on about avoiding sin or obeying rules or being bad.

Yes Kevin but what a terrible strategy for life, finding a moral issue in everything. That's exactly what I was trying to say. Just remember that not one of us can walk a few yards without unintentionally squashing a minibeast on the path. That doesn't mean we can't go for a walk and enjoy it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:45 AM

Sacred: connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

My marriage of over 42 years definitely has nothing to do with an imaginary friend, Joe. My friend, partner, lover and mother of my children may well deserve veneration but she is definitely real.

Ake. Let me help you out. The term wanker, as I use it, has nothing to do with masturbation. It simply means that you please no one but yourself. In is a metaphor rather than literal. In just the same way, if I was to say you are a stupid fucker, I would not mean that you are practicing procreation in a nonsensical manner.

Which brings me back to sacred. If you mean sacred in a metaphorical manner, Joe, just say so. But it still does not excuse suggesting that people do not love each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 03:52 AM

"You cannot reach a reasoned accommodation with a crazy person."

Is Pete crazy? Well, we have to admit the possibility ...

What he is though is the most stubbornly, wilfully ignorant person that I have ever encountered! There is much on this thread about sin and morality. In my book, wilful ignorance - the refusal to use the brain that nature gave you - is a sin! You're a sinner, Pete, but, then, you Christians love to wallow in your sinfulness, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 05:16 AM

I can understand that, Raggytash, so let's bury the hatchet.

I know that you crave combat, Dave the Gnome, but I'm not going to give you the satisfaction. Your definition of "sacred" is just one of several legitimate definitions listed in my dictionary. And the suggestion that specific people don't love each other, is yours alone. My intent was merely to broaden the definition of the word "sacred," as it is found in countless dictionaries.

Why do you have such a craving for causing trouble? You sound so much like a church lady I once knew - very pious on the outside, but just itching to cause a fight wherever she was. She was the most hateful person in the congregation, but she tried so hard to maintain a pious facade. Sounds just like you.

Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 05:36 AM

I fully accept Pete has a different world view to most people here. I debate with him primarily to increase my understanding of that. But I do expect him and others to be prepared to support their statements or to agree they got a bit carried away. In this case Pete said "Former evidence (ie that used to convince scientists software following Hutton that young earth theories can't work is dropped or discredited even by evolutionary scientists." I interpret that last bit as meaning scientists who aren't creationists. Now if that statement is true, you would expect the evidence in the journals they use and gsa bulletin can be considered as the historical record of how the thinking has changed. So it would certainly contain articles in support of Pete's statement. So I am not challenging Pete's beliefs at all, just asking him to support a statement about what non creationists think

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 05:49 AM

Joe I too have no desire to get into a slanging match but I took your comment about my wife and I as a personal attack.

Dave obviously thought the same and now you have made a personal attack on him. I know Dave slightly, we have met on occasion and even shared a pint or two. I can assure you he is delightful company.

I would have thought as an albeit ex-moderator you should have led by example and refrained from such comments.

That is my final comment on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 05:52 AM

I admit that I have trouble with Pete's redefinition of science, just as I have trouble with people's redefinition of what I believe myself.

I see the Genesis creation stories as a beautiful, poetic expression of the intimate and eternal relationship between God and Universe. I see Pete's pseudo-scientific approach as stripping the awe and beauty of the Genesis poetry and replacing it with a vain attempt to distort science to support his insistence on literalism.

And even for those who don't believe in a God, there is much awe and beauty in our universe. We all see the same things. Some see these things as wonderful, and some don't. Whether we see a God in it or not, is mostly just a difference in perspective and not the vast chasm some people on both sides of the spectrum take it to be.

-Joe-

P.S. Raggytash, I suppose you don't know the American TV character Eddie Haskell from the Leave It to Beaver show. Mr. Gnome is a perfect reflection of that character, and has been for years - feigning innocence while doing his best to cause a fight. It's time somebody called his bluff. And since I'm music editor and no longer a moderator, I can do that. Have I insulted him, or have I simply told the truth? He may well be delightful in person, but he plays disruptive games online, and always has. I think it's time for him to stop those games, once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:42 AM

Joe, I am happy to respond here so there was no need for a PM stating exactly the same thing as you did in the thread. I don't understand what you were trying to achieve with that. Anyway...

In answer to one of your questions. At certain times of day, when there is little on at work, no. I'll let you figure out which one. To address a different point, you were the only one that said "Try having sex with somebody you really love" so how can that be anyone's suggestion but yours? I certainly don't see pointing out my interpretation as combative or causing trouble. I do see trying to place the blame for your own statements on someone as not having an adequate argument. Still, it is water under the bridge and Raggy is happy so, like him, that is my final word.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:56 AM

If anyone has been combative and negative combined in this thread it's you, Joe. You appear to be operating outside your comfort zone and it's making you tetchy. And no, it's a vast chasm. "Seeing God in it" is a product of your conditioning (most of us suffered it but some of these us wrestled ourselves free) and is a dereliction of intellect, a refusal to look for the true explanations which are a hundred times more wonderful in the searching than the dismal God who explains nothing and who is beyond explanation himself. That's not a difference in perspective - it's chalk and cheese.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 07:20 AM

Joe combative!
You hate filled people are beyond parody!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 07:28 AM

Uh-oh. Here we go. Another 300 posts on the meaning of combative I suspect...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 07:40 AM

You lay out a clear and constant view of morality, Steve, which does in fact imply that every action we do has a moral dimension. It's perhaps the most basic criterion of being human.

Insofar as we become aware of that quality in an animal, or maybe in some robot or alien in a science fiction story, so that what it does is seen as moral or immoral, we regard it as sharing that humanity. We wouldn't see a tree that fell on us as acting immorally. We might see a man who chopped down a tree as acting immorally, depending on circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 10:23 AM

Shimrod...Pete is not crazy... he is not stupid... as to "willfully ignorant", that depends...he is committed to a set of beliefs that most of us find to be at great odds with reason & science, but he does not hold them "in order to BE ignorant"...he is only one of many who take a literal view of one version of one religious text... and he does a pretty good job of listing the claims & arguments necessary to defend his set of views. He is emotionally committed to that interpretation, and all *I* do is present the countering views?

You want serious examples of warped logic in defense of religious thought? The following were posted here at Mudcat a couple years ago by a former member who has since moved on.....even Pete didn't try to emulate this degree of narrow thinking..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning"

"What evidence would be required for me to abandon my belief that God created the earth as He says He did? Prove to me that God doesn't exist and I'll recant everything I've said. It's an impossible task. You can't disapprove the very Being who created you! "

"Righteousness is defined by God, because God is the definition of goodness and righteousness. Therefore, stoning adulterers, homosexuals, et cetera, is not unrighteous because the righteous God has commanded it."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 10:28 AM

That might be the implication but it's no way to live one's life. What frogprince said. Life can be tough enough without inventing moral mazes for ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 11:09 AM

Dave, I told you, you were a troll!.....So don't act so bloody innocent.

Well said Joe, the "biter bit" in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 11:28 AM

It may not be the way you wish to live your life, Steve. But millions of people do live their lives in a faith centered way. They are not fools or buffoons, nor are they stupid. They are simply people who see the world differently from you. That IS allowed. I don't think you come for debate, you come for combat and it gets very tedious.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 11:40 AM

Sorry bill, but you are still not reading me accurately. I have never denied the faith factor in my belief , though holding that it is not unreasonable faith.   You,s all however are claiming the intellectual high ground for what I say is a philosophical stance rather than an objective scientific and logical position. So the greater onus, I suggest rests on the evolutionist here to provide far more evidence than the argument that most scientists accept it. I am not claiming that I can prove, or give enough evidence for my position, other than point out where yours is contrary to the scientific method ( btw, I see you bypassed my point on that !) , which of course does blow a hole in yours, if I can demonstrate the force of the argument against your belief and thus open the way for alternative answers.    Your dismissal of creationist sights as opposing "science" seems very self serving.    It is no use dismissing them as contrary to accepted science if you cannot argue the points they raise. .....Consensus" science "is not science.            And the careful experiments you mention, when applied to origins science are 1 interpreted according to assumptions that cannot be verified.....because the past is gone. And 2, the dates arrived at by different methods have often give wildly conflicting results, sometimes spectacularly out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:07 PM

1/2 K!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:14 PM

Your view is neither here nor there, ake. Neither is mine. Nor Joe's. It is facts that matter and the fact is that I have not, as far as I can remember, started an argument from scratch. I have responded to many and that may be viewed by some as combative. I will stick by my original point that addressing what I see as an inaccuracy or a piece of misinformation is neither wrong nor aggressive. How people react to my reaction is entirely up to them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:19 PM

Well Dmcg, I am afraid you have the advantage in that challenge, as unlike you as an avid reader of geological journals and me a poor layman! And the royal society?.....I got an idea that was begun by the creationist Isaac Newton . But anyway, the general theory of evolution (GTE) encompasses much more than geology , but perhaps you will know from those journals what their take is on some things ,like, tree trunks buried across supposed millennia rather than the initially exposed upper parts rotting away. Or how fine detail in soft organisms could be preserved if not buried quickly as would be consistent with the flood event.    I realise of course, that geology and associated evolutionary ideas does now accommodate some catastrophism.....WHICH ADDS A LEVEL OF A GET OUT IMO. Anyway since you ask for chapter and verse, I will ask the same . Well actually I don't expect it.....and neither did you did you !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:21 PM

... assumptions that cannot be verified.....because the past is gone.

Now we're descenting into REAL idiocy......

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:23 PM

since you ask for chapter and verse, I will ask the same .

You've been given it ad nauseum and you dismiss it out of hand.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:38 PM

Pt 2 for dmcg.   The evidences discredited or dropped..?......there are many but here are a few once used to prove ? Evolutionism.       Piltdown man..........is it Nebraska man that turned out to be the pig tooth.........hacklyes fraudulent drawings .........racist ideas that Negros and aboriginals were inferior to the white man..........vestigial organs (supposedly!). ........junk (supposedly ) DNA .      And specifically in geology the idea that uniformitarianism is the only process forming features........ think you get the idea.   I am sure I will get lots of flak about how science corrects itself,   But I merely answered the challenge!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 12:39 PM

"You,s all however are claiming the intellectual high ground for what I say is a philosophical stance rather than an objective scientific and logical position."

What??

So ... is your position (according to you) "philosophical" or "objective scientific and logical"? I'm struggling to follow that sentence.

Can I offer an alternative (for your position)? How about: unbelievably silly and purely based on something you've read on a creationist website which supports your desperate need for the biblical account of 'creation' to be literally true?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:16 PM

To be clear, HiLo, I was responding to McGrath. In a measured way too, if I may say so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:31 PM

Pete, the point is the examples you have given were shown to be and have been acknowledged as fakes or hoaxes. Science itself has discredited them.

If and it is an "if" further fakes and hoaxes are recognised science will again discredit them.

Creationists on the other hand rely in the first instance on books written nearly two a millennia ago probably in Hebrew initially, then translated into Greek and Latin, later translated again into other languages.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:34 PM

I'm a bit bemused, or amused, or somethin' by the fact that it was Steve Shaw who apparently "got" my last post, while Joe didn't.

Joe, Raggytash, may I try somethin' here?

I really think Joe just did something which I'm more often prone to than Joe is; he stuck his foot way down his throat with a slip of phrasing that really did lend itself to a meaning he never intended. Joe, would it not be fair to say that your intention would have been better conveyed by "Try thinking about the times when you have sex with someone you really love" ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:35 PM

Measured indeed, and that is duly appreciated, Steve. A choice on your part to do that, and that is what I mean by life being made up of moral issues. Not a moral maze, torturing ourselves over whether all our actions are right and wrong, but making choices, and when we make choices much of the time we are choosing between what we see as right and wrong, whether we use those terms or not. Most of the time for most of us that's a relatively tiny part of what determines the choice, sometimes it can be a major part.

I would suggest that when we follow a story, in a book or a film or whatever, most of the time what we are interested in are the moral choices.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:48 PM

Pete, it's much easier to buy the simple Biblical view of creation:

• God is all-powerful, and can do anything
• Every word in the Bible is true, in every sense of the word
• The Bible says that God created the world in six days, so that has to be the way the world came to be.

If that's what people believe, that's fine. It violates any number of scientific principles and very sensible discoveries of fossils and geological plates and such. But if God can do anything, then certainly God can defy Science and create the universe by shortcutting the natural processes that were also created by God (or so we believe).

But when you drag science into the picture and make a vain attempt to scientifically prove all this stuff, doing all sorts of dances to make observable facts fit your preconceived notions, it gets a little crazy.

So, if you believe a 6-day creation, believe it. But don't try to prove it. And don't try to use your distorted, pseudo-scientific calisthenics in a vain attempt to disprove what legitimate science says. If you don't believe science, then don't try to twist it to "prove" your point of view.

As I've said before, I believe that the Genesis creation stories are a beautiful, poetic description of the intimate, eternal relationship between God and creation, a creation that God saw as good. The universe came about in a way consistent with scientific discoveries, but (according to my belief) God has been the essence of the evolution of creation from the very beginning.

I can't prove my belief, but it makes sense to me and to many generations before me. If others don't hold that belief, that's fine. But my belief system is how I make sense of the world, my perspective. There's nothing for anybody to disprove or for me to prove.

To me, my approach seems to make much more sense than trying to distort science (and the beautiful, powerful poetry of Scripture) to "prove" what cannot be proved.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:50 PM

when we follow a story, in a book or a film or whatever, most of the time what we are interested in are the moral choices

Nah. I'm interested in the Zombie apocalypse/Mega death ray/Decapitating Goblins scenes :-)

(Sorry to be trite. Can't help it at times.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:55 PM

Decapitating Goblins I should have thought that was a little too close for comfort. How many people know the difference between a Goblin and a Gnome.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 01:58 PM

Oh, I wouldn't defend my statement, frogprince. It could have been said better. But within context, it should have made sense to the readers unless they were prone to nit-picking and seeing offense where no offense was intended. I was merely trying to reach consensus on the meaning of the word "sacred." There was no reason for me to insult anyone's marriage, so it wouldn't make sense to interpret what I said as an insult - even if what I said could have been said better.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 02:02 PM

Thank you, Pete, for responding. I gather that when you say you "sure I will get lots of flak about how science corrects itself" you already anticipate that the list will not do, so let's assume we have already had the discussion about fakery and all that; there's no need to repeat it.

But let me question those examples from a different perspective, and to do that please bear with me while a repeat part of the discussion so far.

I said: "Actually Pete it was the other way round. Before Darwin and Hutton the scientific community was indoctrinated with a young earth attitude and it was evidence that slowly and painfully persuaded them otherwise."

You said: "Point taken Dmcg, but that was a long time past and there is more evidence now, and much of the former evidence used to support the GTE, is now dropped or discredited even by evolutionary scientists."

I said: "Perhaps you could give a reference to an article in that that says the previous ideas were wrong and that the earth is actually less than say one million years."

So that's what we are looking for. Evidence that was used to convince scientists to drop young earth ideas in favour of a much older earth.   Does proving Piltdown man a fake give evidence that the earth is less than one million years? Clearly not. Ditto Nebraska man, and everything else in your list. All interesting stuff that does demonstrate science has a level of dubious characters like everything else, but nothing to indicate an earth of less than 1,000,000 years. And remember you said 'much of the evidence', not 'there are a small handful of instances'.

Finally, let's just address your remark "I am afraid you have the advantage in that challenge, as unlike you as an avid reader of geological journals and me a poor layman". Fortunately, neither you nor I have to be an avid reader. This is an example of looking for evidence. Let us assume your assertion that much of the evidence has now been rejected. We both know that a website run by creationists would not convince anyone here. But if we can get an independent article that supports your view it would be 'gold dust' for you. Now, where might that exist? In the academic journals created specifically to record such things. You see? we can work out where it will be without reading a page of it.

Now how do we find it? That's a little more tricky, so we can only reach a high probability of finding it if it exists, not certainty. But I am quite content to think that if there is an article in a peer reviewed geological paper in something like the bulletin the references will be prominent on lots of creationist web sites, so it should be quite easy for you to find.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 02:03 PM

Gnomes are more prone to nit-picking apparently, Raggy :-) I am sure there are worse offenses than pedantry and people who are better at it than I though.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 02:08 PM

BTW, Joe.

Try communicating properly with somebody you really love. Then maybe you'll understand how communication can (and should) be clear. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 02:20 PM

I'm sure that you are interested in who wins in the entertaining mayhem, Dave. Even if you decide to be on the side of the zombies.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 02:59 PM

Sure, life is full of choices, some easier to make than others. But we needn't get into a moral morass over each individual one. I don't wrangle over the tiny choices I make hundreds of times when I'm driving my car or playing a tune on the harmonica. That's because I'm experienced in those areas and my brain can be committed but in overdrive. So it is with the ups and downs of life. My experience in that regard is a function of my upbringing, my education and my sense of what's good for me and for other people. I have to trust to that so that I'm able to sail through life without agonising about choices a hundred times a day. There will be mistakes either way but I'd rather just tread lightly. Those who take it upon themselves to draw up moral codes are likely to make far more serious ones.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 03:08 PM

True, Kevin. Not sure about the Zombies but the Goblins are, generally, a good bunch to have a pint with.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 04:51 PM

That all sounds like what I'd think of as an excellent moral code to me, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:05 PM

Well dmcg, it seems that you are restricting where the evidence should be sought, ie you are asking for it from the very bodies that will not publish papers from a creationist viewpoint unless it slips through unnoticed . Before anyone asks, I don't have details to hand so take it or leave it. Be that as it may, it is still evading the issue. Either the creation sites are lying about the evidence (as the more fanatical atheists might think!) or they misinterpret the evidence. In which case , how do you interpret it...   Mostly I just get pious words about science being willing to live with uncertainty etc etc , when evolutionists don't have an answer for findings that contradict the paradigm. The mindset seems to be...we know evolution is true, so we shall have to wait for an answer as to why experimental science contradicts it...   And in defence of it little is offered except arguments from authority and numbers.                   You make much of my use of...much...    Perhaps I could have been more guarded but some of the points were pretty prominent in evolutionism, so I think it reasonable.       As to whether the list will do, I certainly think it will, as I understood the challenge. No list, and no evidence , and no argument will convince the entrenched believer !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:06 PM

Well it's not much of a code as I have to keep changing it as I get older and, er, wiser and make evermore cockups. It's a far more movable feast than a code. Codes tend to become certain people's treasured babies, hard to wrestle away from them. The Catholic hierarchy, for example. People live longer, there are too many mouths to feed, more babies survive than ever before, we've had sexual liberation, we have epidemics of HIV, but the Church will simply not say that it's OK to use condoms, even though all sane people know that it is. That's codes for you. They can turn into unreasonable edicts wrapped in illogical and nonsensical and outmoded reasoning. Times change fast but codes are clung on to by the men of marble. I won't be writing mine down anytime soon.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:22 PM

Joe, you also are not reading me well it seems. Yes, my trust in God and his revelation to us is primarily why I am a creationist, but you know very well that that is nottheargument I use much here, except sometimes when someone claims it is not saying what it clearly is.                How about you tell me what scientific principles are broken by creationism, as you claim ?      I can list a few that evolutionism breaks.....but after you !             You seem to be suggesting that I believe in a god of the gaps to account for creation, but really you,s are appealing to an evolution of the gaps, and yourself personally grudging God his omnipotence in favour of a godless theory that you cannot substantiate. I am sure you will say it is not like that, but that's how it comes across to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 06:31 PM

I don't think we need to go further on this, Pete, thanks. I just asked you to back up your statement that the 'former evidence has been dropped" and to my mind the only people who can drop evidence are those who were using it - it can't be dropped by someone else, so that's why I was restricting it to those who used it.   Potentially, though, anyone can discredit evidence, so that is a wider remit. On the other hand that's ground we have all been over many times, so I see little point in pursuing it again. Now you are clearly happy you have justified your statement and I am clear that it goes nowhere near the claim that evidence for an older earth has been dropped. Now it is up to other readers to decide what they think.

Yes, I put a lot of weight on your use of 'much', to me, that means quite a lot of information: It's misleading if you really only mean some or a little. A careless reader might even assume you meant 'most' or 'almost half'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 08:35 PM

Codes don't change? They most certainly do. What do you think Bletchley Park and Enigma was all about?

That's a bit of a debating point answer maybe. But in all kinds of ways codes of conduct change all the time. And the same actually goes for the kind of codes of canon law that you might be thinking about , all kinds of changes take place.

As St Paul put it "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 08:46 PM

Well, those codes are not quite the same thing as the ones we're allegedly talking about. St Paul's words were wiseenough, but I see very little sign of their having been adopted by the Church.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 06:01 AM

" ... it seems that you are restricting where the evidence should be sought, ie you are asking for it from the very bodies that will not publish papers from a creationist viewpoint ..."

So I'll ask you again, Pete. Is modern science a giant conspiracy against the biblical story of creation and creationism? If it is then vast sums of money are being spent, world-wide, on a rather silly and pointless exercise and I think that science is a more important and significant (by several orders of magnitude)activity than that! I go through my life without even thinking about the Bible and the myths it contains - and I'm sure that many thousands of practising scientists do to. You should also remember that if the Bible contains all of the answers, there's no point in doing science.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 06:19 AM

It's 9:00 am and we're in Professor Satan's office in the Militant Atheist University of Bastardshire; Dr Doubt enters.

Satan: Morning Doubt. Good news: the Research Council have awarded us a MASSIVE grant to give those pesky creationists a bloody nose!

Doubt: Excellent! When do we start?

Satan: A week next Wednesday.

Satan: Changing the subject, have they made any earth-shattering, paradigm destroying discoveries recently?

Doubt: Yes, they've just found a fragment of pterodactyl bone in a Sainsburys' pork pie.

Satan: Drat! Can we discredit it?

Doubt: Shouldn't be too difficult. For a start, I think that it might actually be a Morrison's pork pie.

Satan: Good work! Just make sure they're not able to publish anything.

Doubt: Don't worry, I slipped the journal editor a couple quid and he owes me a favour anyway.

Satan: Right, lets start some preliminary work on this project. Bloody creationists - we'll show 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 09:02 AM

a song of welcome to His Holiness

https://soundcloud.com/denise_whittle/the-day-delaneys-donkey-had

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 10:51 AM

It's misleading if you really only mean some or a little.

Or none!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 02:21 PM

...and despite Steve Shaw's protestations that it's not allowed in the rule book, it's clear that both the Pope and Delaney's Donkey would be permitted the use of condoms - depending on which side is which....

I have to say that there are lots of things in this discussion that I just don't understand:

• When is it that a right-or-wrong decision is not a moral decision? And why?
• Is one required to be religious if one uses the word "sacred"?
• Where can I get a copy of this list of logic-defying Catholic rules that Steve Shaw is always referring to?
• If the Pope says that condoms can be used for prevention of the spread of HIV/AIDS, where can I find the rules that Steve Shaw says invalidate the Pope's declaration?
• If some people believe that the world came to be by a 6-day intervention by God, what harm does that belief create that it must be opposed and attacked so vehemently? In other words, whether evolution created or God created, why should anybody care?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 02:49 PM

I don't think I am attacking anything vehemently, Joe. In fact, I haven't questioned anything about creationist's beliefs in this thread as far as I remember. What I questioned was a statement that non-creationists have dropped much of evidence they used to rely on. That is something that could be checked, verified or discounted, and fully answered and discussed without mentioning creationism at all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:09 PM

Moral codes are sets of evolved agreements which may or may not have anything to do with ethicality. It is a sin in some circles to eat bacon on certain days, or at all, because it violates agreements that have been established for some groups. But there is nothing ethically flawed about eating bacon, or carrots, or even cats or dogs, in the business of bodily survival. If you can choose a more broadly beneficial way to fuel a body, then, you may find a more ethical formulation, but it has nothing to do with agreements or moral codes.

Choosing right action--whether it fits into some code of agreement or not--is an individual act of consciousness, and as such it can be marred, flawed, or completely inverted depending on the state of awareness of the individual.

Keeping to a moral code is a matter of compliance, or maintaining agreements once made, whether actually ethical or not. The only thing that might be considered unethical about departing from a given moral code is any upset caused to those who expected you to keep it. Among rational beings, of course, this can be remedied by civil communication and mutual respect.

The crutch of using a moral code instead of selecting right action based on one's own sense of good consequences is a popular crutch, indeed, because it saves you from doing all kinds of work, mentally and spiritually.

But that don't make it good! :D

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:12 PM

Just my answers. Others may disagree

1. I don't know. Sorry.
2. The word sacred has religious connotations to MOST people.
3. I think Steve has posted a link to a web site.
4. See 3.
5. There is no harm believing it. Teaching innocent children that it is the absolute truth is unforgivable.

Just off the top of my head.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:46 PM

One unexamined assumption that deserves examination is that when children are raught something this determines what they believe in later life. That just isn't the case in most people's experience, including many who protest At this most stringly.

As we grow older we recognise that people taught them what they believe is the truth, and we decide for ourselves whether we believe it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:57 PM

Dmcg , I doubt joe meant you, and for What it's worth, I consider your posts have been civil and friendly disagreement.   There has been though, it seems to me, misunderstanding about what we thought each other said. Perhaps I was not clear enough in expressing that the things once thought as evidences for evolutionism by its adherents being dropped or discredited, meant not just the initial proposers. A little reflection, however, might have helped though, as for example, I very much doubt that hackle discredited his own fraud !. In theory, there may have been some that published in a journal retracting their former supposed evidence , and if I realised that was what you were asking, I would be, indeed hard pressed to supply what you were asking!       If as you say , you do go no further , fine , and thanks for courteous discourse.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:57 PM

That is a very good point indeed, Kevin, and one I should have thought of. I was brought up in a very religious way and have now reasoned differently. However, it did take an awful long time and my early life was marred by it. I do concede that religious education, certainly in local Catholic schools, is now a far dry from what it was in the 50's and 60's. I still think it is unforgivable to teach children that God and/or creationism is an absolute truth though. Teaching them that Father Christmas exists is only a minor sin though... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 04:04 PM

In the home, parents will tell their kids what they believe is true, and hopefully give them logic and Science to sustain the children's belief in the face of a culture that suggests, if not insists, that evolutionism is an absolute truth. In school, at least in the uk there don't seem to be much alternative to Darwinist dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 04:10 PM

Thanks for that, Pete.

You may be right that we have not been clear enough. I meant I was going no further on that specific point. I have little doubt we will have other things to discuss in the future!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 04:21 PM

No shimrod, I do not think modern science is a conspiracy against creationism .....but we are not talking about science, we are talking about philosophical belief systems in conflict. And since you are unable to offer any evidence from your own disciplines or others, any claim to the contrary rings hollow........as also is your claim that you go through life never giving a thought to the bible.....you have spent hours on mudcat slagging it off !.    And as to your little drama mocking the concept of dark powers at work in evolutionism, it sounds like you been reading screwtape letters by that creationist nutter c s Lewis !    Methinks you doth protest too much.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 05:01 PM

Oh, and I should add that many great scientists have been spurred on in their science by the bible, rather than digging no further than the bible. They accepted its narrative as historical , not as a science textbook and viewed scientific research as part of the creation mandate.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 05:25 PM

a culture that suggests, if not insists, that evolutionism is an absolute truth

No one has suggested evolution (ism or otherwise) is an absolute truth. The clue is in the phrase "theory of evolution". Get it? Theory,         hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation etc. etc. None of them mean the absolute truth. Now, if everyone were to say that god and creationism were theories as well we would have no argument. But they don't. You don't do you, Pete? You insist that god and creationism is a fact. Therein lies the difference between men in lab coats and men in frocks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 05:54 PM

Please provide chapter and verse on the Pope's clear declaration that the use of condoms is acceptable for preventing the transmission of HIV. I've searched for this in vain.

I have not referred to a Catholic rule book. I've linked to the Catechism, and a weird website that, in spite of its strangely absolutist stance, doesn't seem to contradict the Catechism, and referred to Humanae Vitae. The Catholic church has been an authoritarian organisation for hundreds of years. Even in my childhood and teenage years, and I'm not that old, teachings about sex and contraception (not to speak of eating meat on Friday and the mortal sinfulness of non-attendance at Sunday mass) were effectively dictats. A softening of the approach is welcome, but, in the substantive, the Church has moved very little. So give me the link. I've been rattling on about this for days but all you seem to do is issue snide contradictions to what I say without providing hard evidence that I'm wrong. I was a fervent Catholic for 35 years, over half my lifetime, so I'm not particularly open to being bullshitted about the ways of the Church. So demonstrate to me that the Pope has said to his flock, in plain and simple terms, avoiding the usual encyclical-style circumlocutions, that he promotes the use of condoms in order to prevent HIV. If you can convince me, and I am an honest man, I promise to eat shit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 06:11 PM

(From the Why Do I Bother Department at the University of Questioning One's Own Sanity...)

"Oh, and I should add that many great scientists have been spurred on in their science by the bible, rather than digging no further than the bible."

Name them. As you say "many", I'll accept a list with as few as six on it.

"... as part of the creation mandate."

Gosh, I'm so confused, so could you please define "creation mandate" for me?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 06:18 PM

CS Lewis a creationist? Questionable. He went on record as recognising that Christians can accept evolution and saw the suggestion that he should argue against it as "a temptation to fight the battle on what is really a false issue".

And of course most Christians have no problem in seeing no clash between belief in God and whatever science reveals, and in recognising tyat the Biblical creation stories are not historical accounts.

Bibliolatry is a Temptation that needs to be resisted. It can be a form of idolatry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 07:13 PM

Ive said it several times before. Religion and science scarcely concern each other at all except at the very front edge of knowledge. That's a place that most working scientists don't go very often, especially not when they're at work. You can do your science perfectly according to the tenets of the scientific method, then go off to Mass that evening and no-one would bat an eyelid. To think anything else is to misjudge the prosaic nature of most of the science that's done. We're not all science-philosophers at the very front edge of knowledge. Those with the time to delve a bit deeper will see clashes. Most scientists couldn't be arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 08:34 PM

Science does not usually explore metaphysics, because for many scientists the scientific method requires the kind of reproduceability that only material particles demonstrate. Thought does not cleave to the same repeating laws that matter does and may not give a brass farthing about responding the same way to the same situation twice in a row. That does not mean that the universe of thought cannot be explored scientifically, but it does mean that it is tricky and difficult to explore it if you treat it like matter.

Religion wanders straight into metaphysics, but unfortunately tends to substitute revelation and derivative dogma for clear thinking and open-eyed exploration. Dogma is the antimatter of discovery and the bane of new understanding.

So neither hard-core materialism OR normal religion will discover any workable truths about religious questions as they are now practiced, in the main.

But that does not mean that individuals exercising their best abilities cannot do s, at least for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 09:01 PM

Steve, I gave this link on 12 October; but I'll give it again, just for you:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/21/pope-benedict-condoms-hiv-infection

Yes, I know the Catholics have all sorts of rogue bishops and armchair "apologists" who are trying to explain away what the Pope said in 2010, but his statement still stands.

The Catholics have a problem: all the good domain names were bought up by the right-wingers long ago - catholic.com, catholic.org, catholicinfo.com, all of them. Oh, and the "Catholic League," which the U.S. networks like to consult for advice. And they all claim to speak with the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. But in reality, they express only the right-wing agenda, and that's very misleading. The Jesuits and Franciscans are far closer to the truth.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 09:49 PM

If anyone ever had the impression Catholics are lined up like soldiers on parade marching to the same drum, just have a look at the site of the National Catholic Reporter, and the comment threads beneath the stories...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 02:02 AM

"...but we are not talking about science, we are talking about philosophical belief systems in conflict. And since you are unable to offer any evidence from your own disciplines or others, any claim to the contrary rings hollow..."

We are not talking about "philosophical beliefs" in conflict! We are talking about a dogmatic belief that myths recorded in an old book represent absolute truth vs a methodological approach to the investigation of reality which has just happened to reveal, in passing, that the myths in the old book do not represent any sort of absolute truth. Any normal person would tend to think: "Oh well, never mind, I always thought those myths were a bit dodgy anyway. Now let's get to grips with important stuff like relativity and quantum mechanics and evolution etc." But a small coterie of fanatics and fundamentalists - who appear to have brainwashed you, Pete - are still, in the 21st century, getting upset and waving their arms about!

And no, I'm not going to present you with any evidence because to do so would be a complete waste of time because you'd only dismiss it out of hand (unless, of course, it 'proved' that the myths in the Bible represent absolute truth!).

If you want to discuss science YOU need to improve your scientific understanding. This means that YOU have a HUGE amount of work to do. First, you're going to have to get your head out of 'Creation.com' and put the Bible in a drawer and forget about it for the couple of decades that it will take you to get your head around science and real scientific thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 02:48 AM

Steve asked for a list of six great scientists who have been spurred on in their research by the bible. Unfortunately, that is too vague to be answerable. Prior to say the late 1800s the majority of scientists in the west would have called themselves Christian with various degrees of enthusiasm. In many cases, for example, it was a condition of employment as a lecturer or teacher. And many of them would be involved in religious services frequently, whether at church, university formal meetings or other such things, where they had frequent exposure to Bible readings. So finding six hundred people should not in itself be too difficult. The crux really is whether that 'spurred on" their work, and I can't see how that is decidable. Remember it is 'spurred on', not actually a part of the research or even directly inspiring the work. Even a general concept of 'improving the world' could in part by spurred on like that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 04:17 AM

that would be an ecumenical matter....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:29 AM

Joe, I read that link the first time. I honestly can't see what you're getting so excited about. Only a year before, Benedict was saying the precise opposite. The 2010 remarks, regarded as so significant, are very grudging, and are not exactly the clear green light I was hoping you'd show me. The only specific case he mentions is that of a MALE prostitute. Well male prostitutes can't get pregnant, so allowing them to use condoms (and he wasn't exactly getting excited about it, was he?) does not get in the way of the Church's position of sex having to have the potential for procreation. That much of what he said was a bit of a sideshow. You need to be asking yourself why he specified just male prostitutes. One of the biggest health issues in many parts of Africa is heterosexual HIV transmission. The fact that he specified male prostitutes speaks volumes. I've already acknowledged the welcome softening-up of the attitudes expressed by the Vatican. But you've far from convinced me that the Church is doing anything other than dragging its feet. The shit shall remain uneaten for the time being.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 05:54 PM

Bluff and bluster again shimrod. The details may change , and they have to or evolutionism would have sunk a long time ago. But the basics of the GTE are not open to negotiation any more than I as a creationist am likely to entertain evolutionism. Fortunately that is not difficult for me as there is so much evidence that evolutionism is impossible. Some of which I have posted here , and of which you have not countered , except by bluff and bluster

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:12 PM

Oh dear, I must be turning thick in my old age. I can't seem to remember any of this evidence that evolution is impossible. Could you refresh my memory?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:15 PM

Oh, I forgot to mention it: what does "GTE" mean, please?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:22 PM

Fair enough McGrath re Lewis. A quick search seems to indicate I was a bit wrong there, in that he appears to have accepted evolution until later in life when he moved away from it, but seems never to have been a YEC.                Sure Christian accept the findings of science, but I suspect you mean accept evolutionism .       And how do you define bibliolatry. In the context you seem to suggest that I am idolatrous for believing the bible !   Most Christians recognise biblical stories are not historical ??.   
Maybe in the circles you move in !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:26 PM

You are wrong Steve, even in Africa the rates of infection for the MSM demographic are many times higher than in the general population.

Even taking into account that only a small minority will describe themselves as homosexual. The real infection rates in Africa are likely to be similar to those pertaining to every nation in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:39 PM

"Fortunately that is not difficult for me as there is so much evidence that evolutionism is impossible."

I don't know whether "evolutionism" is impossible or not but I do know that it doesn't exist. Pete ... listen to me ... there - is - no - such - thing - as - "evolutionism".

Oh yes, and I very much resent you characterising my carefully worded posts as "bluff and bluster". I'm also flabbergasted by your casual dismissal of the works of the great scientists of the last few centuries, people whose work has so illuminated the world and the universe around us. They are among some of the greatest and smartest human beings who have ever lived and a little respect is in order!   

I repeat: "If you want to discuss science YOU need to improve your scientific understanding. This means that YOU have a HUGE amount of work to do. First, you're going to have to get your head out of 'Creation.com' and put the Bible in a drawer and forget about it for the couple of decades that it will take you to get your head around science and real scientific thinking.

Oh yes, what DOES GTE mean?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:47 PM

""The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.

"Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve." Pope Francis speaking at Pontifical Academy of Science in 2014.°

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 06:56 PM

....general theory of evolution....as defined by Gerald kerkut as .....the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source, which itself came from an inorganic form.....          I think there is also that which is called the specific theory of evolution, which deals with what is observable changes in organisms.                         The GTE is impossible according to the scientific method , as only limited change within kinds is observable, and experiments have failed to turn anything into anything else.....less you can show otherwise ?    Evolutionist tend to cite changes within kinds by natural selection for example as though it evidenced change from one group of organisms to another.    But has any evidence been presented that shows that the information in a lower organism can be increased, even ever so slowly to provide added information for the higher organisms ?          Of course, I suppose you could say that all the things that are evidence against evolution do not prove it is impossible, only that you don't know how yet !       Almost midnight I ought to get to sleep, goodnight .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:06 PM

"...whether evolution created or God created, why should anybody care?"

Come on Joe. We should care because one is the truth and one is a myth. It's important to recognize the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:13 PM

"You are wrong Steve, even in Africa the rates of infection for the MSM demographic are many times higher than in the general population."

As I didn't give comparative figures, I can't be wrong. I simply said that heterosexual transmission of HIV in parts of Africa is a serious issue. I did not mention same-sex transmission as it wasn't the point I was trying to make. Take off your homophobic blinkers and concentrate on what people actually put in their posts, then I won't have to waste my bloody time having to correct idiotic posts like yours.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:24 PM

The rest of your post illustrates you meaning Steve, don't make the mistake of assuming others are as dense as you and your friends.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:27 PM

Well, Kevin, I'd reply to the Pope that he's got bit the wrong way round. It would have taken some kind of mysterious Big Bang to create a creator. Unless he has a better idea. As for conflating creationism with evolution, that's very valiant of him but he's catastrophically wrong. There is not one single aspect of evolution that requires any kind of magical intervention. Everything can be explained perfectly by the laws of nature. An immovable tenet of evolutionary theory is that evolution has no predetermined direction and no goals, which is completely at odds with any notion of the intervention of a creator, whether you see him as having kicked it off, driving the process or inserting pieces like a Lego model. The Pope's perfectly welcome to devise his own theory to explain life on earth, of course. I'd be interested to hear his evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:32 PM

"The rest of your post illustrates you meaning Steve, don't make the mistake of assuming others are as dense as you and your friends."

Ladies and gents, I invite you to read my post of 07.29 am, then make up your minds as to the particular point on the scale of wilful illiteracy at which we should position this vexatious man.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:39 PM

There are no such things as the general theory of evolution or the specific theory of evolution. It is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If you can't get even this basic starting point right, it's hard to see how absolutely anything else you say can carry any credibility at all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:47 PM

"It's important to recognise the difference". Not really, michaelr. It's interesting enough for those of us who are interested,, but it's all a bit remote from the issues of real life.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 07:51 PM

It is not remote from the issues of real life. Real life involves using your brain and refusing to abandon your intellect. The myths that drive religious belief have caused a lot of trouble for humanity and they continue to do so. There's a quite a lot of real life involved in that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:01 PM

Michaelr, some people firmly believe in a literal understanding of the biblical story of creation. No matter how long or how hard you battle against them, they're not likely to change their minds. Rather than maintain a constant state of conflict with them, might it not be better to make peace and talk about other things - baseball scores, or something?
What good does constant battle do?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:12 PM

Well, it doesn't have to be a battle and there's no reason on earth why we should abandon the promotion of evidence and reason, even if you think that makes us sound like Mr Spock. Religion is very damaging on the whole, narrowing people's minds and giving them false hopes and false certainties, and that's just the more benign aspects of it. It doesn't deserve respect and the arguments against it will not go away, neither should they. You want us to leave you alone. The very last thing religion does is leave people alone, sadly. We think it would be wrong to leave it like that. There's still room to talk about other things. We can and we do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:12 PM

You bet, Joe - just give in to the Holocaust deniers as well & discuss sports with 'em.

Sounds good to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:13 PM

"An immovable tenet of evolutionary theory is that evolution has no predetermined direction and no goals." The concept of an "Immovable tenet" doesn't really have any place in science.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:17 PM

You bet, Joe - just give in to the Holocaust deniers as well & discuss sports with 'em.

Godwin's Law strikes again...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:25 PM

That is not Godwin's Law invoked. Look it up.

Yes it is an immovable tenet, because without it the theory collapses. The whole concept of natural selection requires no goals, no end-points, no directional driving force and no striving for perfection. Remove that and you have no theory.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:31 PM

A long time ago, I learned that there are people on the internet who won't recognize truth, and if you jump through the hoops they hold out for you, and just hold out more hoops, or when they make up their own rules concerning evidence, proof, or whatever, you can't ever win the argument, and if they're very good or you're very dense, you can't even stop trying. Some have a tenuous grasp of reality and some are deliberately trolling you, but whatever their intentions, once you engage, they own your ass.

You also won't ever convince somebody who's clueless and/or crazy enough to deny the Holocaust that they're wrong...because they're clueless and/or crazy. If you like hearing yourself talking to clueless, crazy people, keep on trying... forever. Because they own your ass.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:38 PM

The point about Holocaust deniers is not necessarily that you try to convince them of anything. The point is that, in the name of humanity, the counter-argument has to be put. They are putting their foul notions out there, and those notions have to be counteracted. It's called civilisation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 09:26 PM

"a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" I'd count bringing in Holocaust deniers in this context as qualifying. Daft notions are not the same thing as foul notions.
...................

Nothing unscientific about having fundamental premisses. Immovable tenets are something else, and I can't see how they have any place in science. If a fundamental premiss turns out to be unsustainable, the theoretical structure changes to accommodate that, and the premiss is adjusted/replaced.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 03:51 AM

"....general theory of evolution....as defined by Gerald kerkut as .....the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source, which itself came from an inorganic form.....          I think there is also that which is called the specific theory of evolution, which deals with what is observable changes in organisms."

I 'googled' Gerald Kerkut and it appears that he was a British scientist who published a book called 'The Implications of Evolution'. In this book he pointed out the gaps in our knowledge of evolution and these gaps have been eagerly seized upon by creationists as support for their case that evolution is impossible and that ... errr ... God did it!

And when did Kerkut publish his book? In 1960 that's when! 55 years ago! 55 years is an awful long time in terms of advances in scientific knowledge.

So, Pete, what's the current status of Kerkut's work among evolutionary biologists (not creationists)? I'll let you do the work.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 04:17 AM

I really wanted my kids to know about evolution because I wanted them to grow up enlightened, so I spent a lot of time discussing it with them.
Know what?
They found it boring. They didn't care.

I warned them that if they didn't pay attention, they'd grow up to be born-again Christian Republicans. But they still didn't care.

And to this day, I don't know what they know about evolution.
But they aren't Christian.
And they aren't Republican.
And they're good musicians.

So, I think I did something right.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 04:38 AM

Evolution is the most non-boring subject on earth. It explains, in searingly simple terms, everything about the staggering beauty, complexity and diversity of life on earth. It opens your mind to joyful celebration of nature and makes you want to know more and more. Next to that, God is a sidelined, miserable wretch.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:18 AM

Agreed. But what is rather boring is when it gets treated as a battleground. As Joe says, some people are tied into a way of thinking that doesn't allow them to accept it. So what? There are flat-earthers, there are no doubt some people who think the sun goes round the Earth, or that Elvis Presley lives. Some people like eating sushi. Takes all types.

The more interesting thing to talk about is the ways in which scientists are finding ways in which the traditional version of how biological evolution works is too simple. I mean stuff like how different life forms have got entangled in each other at a cellular level, and the role of epigenesis. Complications that don't "disprove Evolution", but do make it even more interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:34 AM

""Sometimes I think it is my mission to bring faith to the faithless, and doubt to the faithful.""
― Paul Tillich

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:52 AM

That GUEST post at 07:18 AM was mine.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:57 AM

Those things are interesting to talk about. Darwin's big idea was too simple in many regards if we look at it from the modern standpoint, and in another hundred years no doubt scientists will be saying that about our version of the theory. He got a good few things wrong too. He had never heard of genes and DNA and cellular chemistry was in its infancy. But he got the basics right.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 08:46 AM

I thought I hadn't posted that yet and I hadn't finished it (I did enjoy the fish finger wrap in between!)

Dunno how appropriate is to get too deeply here into the details of modern developments, interesting and exciting though they are. The lamentable fact is that over half the US population don't think that evolution is the best explanation for life on earth. Four in ten US Catholics don't think it either. Seems that dads like Joe give up a little too easily. If a person thinks that God created everything, that person has actually stopped thinking. That is so sad. The truly exciting thing is to recognise that the truth is out there for the taking. It takes a lot more mental wrestling than believing in God, but think of the rewards. Chaucer said it well:

The life so short,
The craft so long to learn,
The assay so hard,
So sharp the conquering,

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 09:11 AM

It's a shame so many Americans are like that, and of course it could be not so much a shame as a disaster, if it feeds into climate change denial etc. But arguing about it here with Pete isn't going to change minds, including his, so turning to the more interesting aspects of stuff like evolution makes sense, rather than going through the same revolving door repeatedly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 09:24 AM

Well I don't waste anywhere near as much time on him as I used to. It's interesting to see from the back seat how he totally blocks off the good cop/bad cop Bill/Shimrod onslaughts. As a matter of fact, when I was looking up those stats this morning I accidentally found a creationist website that could have been pete himself talking. Same phraseology, same facile points put in the same way. He hasn't got an original or independent thought in his head. But, as with the Holocaust-denier point, it's vital that the counter-argument is put. These people are not harmless. As you point out, if you're capable of swallowing one false argument it will soften you up for others. What we right-minded militants are very bad at, I'm the first to admit, is tactics. Does that matter? Probably!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 10:12 AM

Daft notions are not the same thing as foul notions.

Well, Kevin, since we're discussing religion, I think it germaine to reflect that the Holocaust was fueled by the sincerely held biblical belief tha Jews were sub-human and should be wiped off the face of the planet.

Also to reflect that often people scream "Godwin's Law! as an excuse for not discussing reality.

Also that mindlessness is mindlessness, and that's how "daft" notions rapidly morph into "foul" ones.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 11:02 AM

On a technical point, whilst some Holocaust deniers may be Nazis, far from all of them are. I know two holocaust deniers, both of whom are detestably antisemitic but a long way from being Nazis. Then there was Bishop Williamson, a nasty piece of work who was nonetheless reinstated by a weak-kneed Benedict. Still not exactly a Nazi, however. We shouldn't unjustly extrapolate Godwin's Law. If Godwin were dead today he'd be turning in his grave.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 03:00 PM

Bringing in the Holocaust as a parallel involves bringing in the Nazis without any implication that the deniers must be Nazis, or even have any sympathy for Nazism. (After all, it'd be wonderful to wake up and find out that the Holocaust never happened, and it was all a misunderstanding.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 03:08 PM

Therefore not Godwin's Law! (nothing to this thread for hours, so you must think I'm here all the time ready to pounce. Not so - I just had a minute before serving up the smoked haddock dauphinoise..).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 05:05 PM

Well of course I might be sounding like a creationist website , steve, we all get our info somewhere. And do you know how much like Dawkins you sound !   But be that as it may...or not, it does not constitute a logical argument. In fact the only argument I recall you using which was,nt just assertions and appeal to numbers and suchlike was the geological features of your locale. Credit where it's due !       Oh, and it's encouraging to hear you admit finally , that Darwin got some things wrong.   Of course, he never knew the cell was a complex information bearing thing , and assumed something simple evolving.    He also never knew that the ...imperfections of the geologic record....would not be much better now. What he did know though, and conceded was that the data used in his theory could be otherwise interpreted.   Never mind, shimrod, just say....err..evolution" done it "

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 05:12 PM

Greg says thar"daft" notions mirth into foul ones.    Too true,   As Gould said, something about ,there has always been racism, but it increased by order of magnitudes with the theory of evolution....    Let's not give in to holocaust deniers eh !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 05:24 PM

So shimrod, which part of kerkuts definition did you take issue with.. Seemed to me to be an accurate, concise description of what you atheists believe.   Though of course it does highlight the unproven, dependant on interpretation nature of your belief.   I don't recall appealing to anything else Kerkut said , so your challenge seems quite irrelevant. And as to increase in scientific knowledge, how's about you tell us how that helps your cause "I,ll let you do the work", and then I will tell you again how new discoveries make evolutionism even more unlikely !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 05:29 PM

I sound like Dawkins then, do I ? So tell us what Dawkins you've read, pete. Why, you haven't even read Darwin, the guy you diss so much!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 05:40 PM

Oops ....should have been ...morphed into...       And Greg ...biblical belief that Jews were sub human...?       Chapter and verse please, or just admit that you sure shooting your mouth off !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 06:24 PM

Note to Pete: Piss off. I'm not about to play games with intellectual kindergarteners like yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 06:44 PM

" ... which part of kerkuts definition did you take issue with.. Seemed to me to be an accurate, concise description of what you atheists believe."

I didn't take issue with any of Kerkut's definitions - I merely pointed out that after 55 years they are probably out of date. And I have few 'beliefs' when it comes to evolutionary biology - just an interest in the science and an open mind.

"And as to increase in scientific knowledge, how's about you tell us how that helps your cause ..."

I don't have a "cause" - except, perhaps, an antipathy towards religious dogma. Nevertheless, real science does not involve dogma but does involve a continuous advancement in human knowledge through collaboration, deep thinking and hard work.

""I,ll let you do the work", and then I will tell you again how new discoveries make evolutionism even more unlikely !"

You mean you will 'parrot' stuff from 'Creation.com' - which is all you're capable of? Any idiot can do that! Pretty Polly, pretty Polly! Squawk, squawk!!

You accuse me of "bluff and bluster" but your latest load of tosh would win a gold medal in a 'bluff and bluster' competition! You have no idea what the current status of Kerkut's work is among evolutionary biologists, do you, Pete? And you don't have the faintest clue about how to go about finding out!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 06:53 PM

Note to Greg ...picking up his ball and going home, having shown himself up .                      Steve, did,nt you know Dawkins is often on tv and on you tube. And I suspect that I have read more of Darwin than you have of the scientists you atheists slag off. I read enough to know he was less dogmatic than his followers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:09 PM

So shimrod, on the one hand you have no issue with the definition, and on the other you think it out of date. Apart from the seeming inconsistency , what has changed to make it out of date.?    And supposing I do " parrot " stuff from CMI........you ain't answering it...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: michaelr
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:30 PM

Steve's 08:12 post said it better than I could have. And that's the extent of my contribution to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 08:41 PM

Pete, my poor deluded fellow, you've admitted time and time again that you have not read Origin, so kindly spare me the bullshit. As for Dawkins on Youtube, well give us a link or two, preferably annotated with your wise takes. I'd really like to know exactly what it is he says that raises your hackles so. I ask only because I need you to disabuse me of this ever-so-slight suspicion I seem to be harbouring that you're full of shit. Any help you could provide in this regard would be appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 08:42 PM

Cheers, Michael, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 10:11 PM

On a positive note, I'd like to say that the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution has a wonderful display on the evolution of humanity. When I visited the museum, I wondered how American creationists would react to it. Steve Shaw says the lamentable fact is that over half the US population don't think that evolution is the best explanation for life on earth. Four in ten US Catholics don't think it either. I don't know where he gets his data, but note that Steve doesn't exactly say that all those people take a literal biblical view of creation.
Well, probably I fall into Steve's ignorant group, since I see evolution as a divine action. I don't believe in Steve's rather fundamentalist concept of God, though.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:23 AM

"So shimrod, on the one hand you have no issue with the definition, and on the other you think it out of date. Apart from the seeming inconsistency , what has changed to make it out of date.?"

For a start, Polly Pete (squawk, squawk) it was you who introduced Kerkut's work into the discussion. Second, books, papers etc. on evolutionary biology are NOT 'holy writ' like the Bible (God didn't chisel them into tablets of stone and hand them to some bearded, bronze age, middle eastern goat herder who could then stumble down the mountainside with them shouting Hosanna!!). The field is continually - well - evolving and older works can easily become out of date. In the last 55 years (an eternity in terms of modern science) there have been HUGE advances in fields as diverse as palaeontology, cell biology and genetics. So here's what I suggest you do, Polly ... err ... Pete: Go back and read Kerkut's book, note the gaps in the 55 year old evolutionary model that he delineates and then check the status of those gaps in the light of recent discoveries; can you do that? Can you do it without parroting stuff from 'Creation.com'? I'm not holding my breath!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:13 AM

The 8:12 post? Well, I agree 100% with the first sentence:
there's no reason on earth why we should abandon the promotion of evidence and reason.   But it starts to go downhill a bit after that: Religion is very damaging on the whole, narrowing people's minds and giving them ... false certainties.

It certainly can do that, but it can also do the exact opposite. The bit I omitted was 'false hopes and' because that is actually the whole "Does God exist and what do you mean by God in the first place?" bit, which is far too much to take on here. And Dylan Thomas wrote "No man believes who cries not 'God is Not!'" Doubt, not certainty, is an important part of religion.

But let's look at narrowing of minds. I'd say the opposite personally: it continually challenges people to remember that they don't always get it right, that they don't know it all, that 'they see in a glass darkly'. Like any complex subject, it can take you to all sorts of places you never anticipated, like the greek philosophy I mentioned, or social anthropology, or how religion understanding has altered thoughout history. I consider that mind expanding, not narrowing. But it is a personal choice whether allow religion top expand or narrow your mind.

Science is also a rich subject, of course, so it can also narrow or broaden your mind, but the vast majority of people are not scientists and can live their lives happily enough without giving much thought to evolution, geology, quantum mechanics etc, etc, etc. I have a friend who is a keen amateur photographer and about every other day posts fantastically beautiful photos of sunsets on Facebook. I have little doubt she thinks of neither God nor the scientific causes of them. And while she certainly could, I see no reason why she should.

So I don't it is right to say religion itself causes narrow-mindedness. What does, though, is inculcating an attitude of "accept what you are told, don't think for yourself, we know what's good for you, and will tell you everything you need to know". And I fear that while the way religion is frequently taught makes it especially vulnerable to that, it is true for every subject, including science. What proportion of people have never questioned a scientific 'fact' they were taught at school, even when the science community passed it by decades ago? How many people still think the Rutherford atomic model is 'right'? Do people habitually question advertisements on whether the science and statistics claimed have any validity?   A few years ago we had a vote on the Alternative Voting system and one of the key objections raised again and again by the No lobby was that it was too hard to understand.   I think we need to look very hard at our education system if it is true the majority are incapable of understanding something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:36 AM

Another random thought! In February this year I went to the Galapagos Islands, and I reckon there are an awful lot of scientists who would like to do that as well. But the relationship between going to such an important place in the history of science and going on a pilgrimage is worth mulling over...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:03 AM

Seems to me , that it is the evolution side which wants me to abandon reason and evidence and just take theirs and the authorities they lean ons word for it. The basic idea is not that complicated as Steve often says, but demonstrating it seems to be !   And if you cannot demonstrate it, it becomes a philosophical position or religious viewpoint, IMO.   And the more militant voices here only serve to confirm this opinion!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:31 AM

"Seems to me , that it is the evolution side which wants me to abandon reason and evidence and just take theirs and the authorities they lean ons word for it ... And if you cannot demonstrate it, it becomes a philosophical position or religious viewpoint, IMO.   And the more militant voices here only serve to confirm this opinion!"

This is, again, what you'd call "bluff and bluster", Pete - and what I'd call "pure bollocks"! Remember, you've not "demonstrated" anything - just parroted passages from 'Creation.com'.

How are you getting on with re-reading Kerkut's book, by the way?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:35 AM

"to abandon reason and evidence and just take theirs and the authorities they lean ons word for it"

Is this not exactly what you do with the bible Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:44 AM

.....going on a pilgrimage.... Like it, lol.            As for shimrod, I think I shall stop responding to him, as his language is vulgar, and he just keeps repeating himself anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:10 AM

Some of my Galapagos photos if anyone cares!

Just in case you get misled, pete and others, I am not saying Darwin is any kind of saint or God. But purely scientifically speaking, there is no justification for anyone except certain specialists going there. If you want to consider the magnificence of evolution, as Steve would say, you can just look out the window. So whatever the appeal of going is, it is something other than scientific.

There were one or two people on the trip who did have very clear reasons for going, even if they were dramatically inadequate. I overheard one person say "I'm glad it is sunny, that's why we came" which is a bit like making the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela because you like the cakes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:45 AM

"As for shimrod, I think I shall stop responding to him, as his language is vulgar, and he just keeps repeating himself anyway."

Oh! Poor sensitive Pete - can't cope with the odd f**king swear word! And we do keep going round in circles, don't we, mainly because of your pathetic 'bluff and bluster' and the fact that you can't respond to my challenges. I bet you don't even have a copy of Kerkut's book, do you?

As they say on 'Top Gear' - LOOOSSSSER!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:07 AM

As for me, I don't take anyone's word for it, authority or not. Time and time again I've said that Darwin got some things wrong. Time and time again I've said that education is about making children curious and persuading them never to take anyone's unsupported word for anything. And that includes God. I don't know whether there's a God or not, but what I do know is that he is not exempt from the same kind of critical enquiry that everything else should be subjected to. Unfortunately, exempting God is exactly what religious instruction in schools does. The reason for that, of course, is all too clear: God would fail the test at the first hurdle. Always ask for evidence. Not "proof", evidence, just to make sure that your source is at least above-board and a person of good will. Bishops, priests, rabbis, imams and ayatollahs would be instantly out of a job if every child in every school was persuaded to subject God to the same critical enquiry that they are told to apply to what they see in a test tube or down the microscope or on a nature ramble.

A thoughtful post, DMcG, but much to disagree with. Though I do agree that religious education is absolutely crucial. The history of religion, comparing the philosophies and belief systems of the major religions and the role of religion in human endeavour, vital. I'm a great admirer of ancient churches, cathedrals and monuments myself. They are as much a part of my heritage as they are of the most fervent believer's. I've even been known to put a quid in the donations box. But that is not the kind of religion I'm talking about really. I'm talking about the kind that declares God to be the explanation for everything, the great originator, the creator. If you settle for that, let's see where that leaves you. It means you can't accept evolution for a start, because if you insert a creator into evolution the whole theory collapses. Evolution can't work with a big bang and a guiding light, as much as some believers valiantly try to espouse it. It leaves you with an explanation that is completely at odds with all the laws of nature. We can see how life develops and evolves, but you don't want any of that. You want someone to have kicked it all off with some kind of wave of a wand. Well that isn't a explanation at all. There is no evidence for that. Worse, God himself simply can't be explained. If he's really there, he'd be pissed off about that and very annoyed with the religious authorities who have deliberately put him beyond explanation.

So you have science, that gets things wrong, that makes progress, that constantly modifies its ideas, that never reaches its goals, but which is replete with evidence. Along with culture, science is the ultimate human endeavour. It never ends, it's terminally curious, it stimulates our minds and it gives us joy through that curiosity. Then you have God, a permanent mystery, who no-one has ever seen or heard from, for whom there is no evidence and who himself can't be explained. An explanation for everything that can't be explained. I find that dismal. I feel that this God wants me to stop thinking, to accept childish explanations for the world of the kind I gave up on once I realised there was no Santa or tooth fairy. In fact, a real God would be very annoyed if I stopped thinking, seeing as how he's given me a mighty brain. He'd want me to keep looking for real explanations and he'd give me a good bollocking for believing in magic.

One more thing. Science is not a subject. You are doing science a thousand times a day as you look found you and try to make sense of even the most mundane things, like why this copy of The Guardian couldn't get the staples in the right place. Science began when the first humans on earth looked at the moon and wondered what it was. They probably got completely the wrong idea, but they were still scientists as long as they kept on wondering and working our better ways to find out (do note, by the way, how religion has constantly tried to get in the way of scientific enquiry. Pete is still doing it). Science won't allow you to stop asking questions. Religion would rather you avoided the awkward ones.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:21 AM

Lovely pics, dmcg, some interesting specimens. Was that a rose at the bottom ? . Did you identify any of the joint offspring from marine and terrestrial parents ?.            When you look out of your window and consider the magnificence of evolution, you are making an assumption about the past that is not verified......especially by just seeing what's outside your window.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:39 AM

Well raggytash, at risk of repeating myself........I consider my faith to be reasonable , but still admitting the faith factor.   The atheist constantly has to adjust the evolution story but essentially affirms evolutionism as fact and not faith.   Therefore , claiming the intellectual high ground . However providing little evidence to substantiate it, and sidestepping counter evidence.    Steves post seem to be a wordy extension of raggys, but with the added dimension of of stressing the inconsistency of theistic evolutionism.......a sentiment I rather sympathise with !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:41 AM

"Science is not a subject". I more or less agree, but actually if you are an Y-sit at heart then Y is not a subject. My mother in law was a historian by qualification and inclination and saw history everywhere. I'm essentially a mathematician and see maths everywhere. I get the impression that is how you are with science. For each of us that topic is 'not a subject'.

But whether we like it or not, that's how these things are taught in schools and if it doesn't rock your particular kayak, a subject it what it is in your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:39 AM

"I consider my faith to be reasonable , but still admitting the faith factor."

Faith is the fervent and unquestioning belief in the invisible for the existence of which there's no evidence." That's not reasonable - it's plain f**king stupid! Oh I swore again - how awful - I'm a dreadful sinner!

"The atheist constantly has to adjust the evolution story but essentially affirms evolutionism as fact and not faith ..."

The evolution model changes periodically in the light of new evidence. That's how science works - you ignorant numbskull!

"However providing little evidence to substantiate it, and sidestepping counter evidence."

The evidence is out there in many, many popular and technical accounts. You expect people on here to read this material for you and then to re-gurgitate it so that you can sneer at it. Why don't read some of this voluminous mountain of material for yourself? I can supply you with a reading list if you like? No? Afraid that you might learn something that you don't want to know? OK, bury your nose in cretinous 'Creation.com' - see if I care!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:49 AM

Joe suggested that you have a fundamentalist concept of God, Steve, and that seems right. so it's no wonder you reject it. That includes a way of understanding words like creation and creator. The kind of thing Pope Francis was talking about in saying ""When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,"

"We're here, because we're here, because we are here..." Is not really an explanation of how it is we are here. Nor does the notion of God provide that kind of explanation. But nor does it imply that we should ever stop working away looking for greater understanding of how it is - albeit with no expectation of ever getting a final answer.
..........
God didn't chisel them into tablets of stone and hand them to some bearded, bronze age, middle eastern goat herder who could then stumble down the mountainside with them shouting Hosanna!

Of course then Moses promptly proceeded to smash the tablets, a bit like the Labour Party with the Ed-stone... But most of the Ten Commendments, I doubt if too many people would actually disagree with them as a guide to how we need to try to behave to each other. (Where does using "bearded" as an insult come from anyway?)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:20 AM

Pete asked if the flower in my photo was a rose. You get to the Galapagos via the Ecuadorean mainland, and ecuador is huge exporter of flowers in general, but roses in particular. Mainly to Russia for some obscure reason.


pete asked if I saw a creature with marine and terrestrial parents. Oddly enough. In a way I did. Not that Pete would see this as evidence, or course, but marine iguanas only exist on the Galapgos and are only species of iguana that can tolerate that level of salt. Evolutionary thinking would suggest they must have come from the land iguanas which are much more like the iguanas found elsewhere in the world. So, yes, I would say it is very likely indeed I saw iguanas that were more salt tolerant than their parents.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:31 AM

Just looked it up! Marine and land iguanas can interbreed and their offspring has charactistics of both. So, yes, Pete, I did literally see offspring of land and marine parents!

Thank you for increasing my knowledge!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:57 AM

A valiant effort, but if you recall:

"You cannont reach a reasoned accommodation with a crazy person. "

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 10:01 AM

I haven't really got a concept of God at all, actually. All I'm doing is responding to the most basic, and, to my mind, the most mind-numbing and damaging concept of a God, that he is a supernatural being who is the creator of everything. That isn't my concept. That's my perception of how a lot of people perceive God. I'm perfectly aware that there are many shades and embellishments of that perception, that he's a force running through everything, a sort of spiritual presence in our lives, that he came to earth as Jesus, etc. I'm also aware that many people make a living out of him, often by dressing in strange ceremonial clothing and talking about God in dense, obscurantist circumlocutions (I think they call it "theology"). If I reject God I have to also reject all of that. You might as well say in that case that every atheist is a fundamentalist. Well, that's no more than a nice try at an insult, based on the old canard that atheism is some kind of an equivalent to a religion. It behoves critics of atheism to be a little more imaginative than that. Insulting atheists by calling them fundamentalists or accusing them of espousing an atheist belief system smacks of frustration and a lost argument. If you find the terms creation and creator a little uncomfortable, and you really are looking for deeper understanding, your search will inevitably make you abandon God eventually. There really is no further understanding to be gained by following a sterile path with no possibility of finding any evidence save suspect revelation. And I know you're not going to tell me that religious contemplation helps you to find those deeper truths. That would be so arrogant (pardon the pre-emptive strike!). Those truths can be equally well discovered, maybe better, via contemplation unhampered by a deity, a point that seems to me to be lost on a good few believers.

DMcG, 'twas you who made religion and science into equivalent subjects. I agree that maths and history permeate our lives, just like science, and I revel in finding that irresistible. Unfortunately for religion, the same can't really be said. For a start there are too many different species of religion. Then there is no religion. I know you may think that religion seems to permeate my life even though I'm supposed to be an atheist, but that's really only true for the small parts of the day when I'm testing my own mettle in these threads. Then you have working scientists who have to ditch religion, at least temporarily, in order to not jeopardise the scientific method. Life has to go on in spite of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 10:09 AM

"Steve Shaw says the lamentable fact is that over half the US population don't think that evolution is the best explanation for life on earth. Four in ten US Catholics don't think it either. I don't know where he gets his data, but note that Steve doesn't exactly say that all those people take a literal biblical view of creation."

I got my data from wikipedia and I was careful to phrase the statement in the same vein as there. I invite you to do the same, or better if you have the time. Your last remark is a non sequitur.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 10:49 AM

'But most of the Ten Commendments, I doubt if too many people would actually disagree with them as a guide to how we need to try to behave to each other."

Well I certainly disagree with commandments that tell us that there is one true God and you must have no others, that you are not allowed to have graven images (think of all that religious art that we must destroy!), that we must keep one day a week "holy", that we should honour our parents in order to gain greater advantage (yes, that bit really is in there!), that we should treat our women in the same way as our goods and chattels and that mere thoughts can be sinful. And it's hard to take lessons on killing from a murderous man who condoned a public stoning "on God's orders" (I believe that one was for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Something like that). Nice. And so much is missed out. Hate me all you like for suggesting this, but go on to YouTube and search for Christopher Hitchens revising the Ten Commandments. As he says at the end of the short video, don't swallow your moral code in tablet form!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 10:55 AM

I wasn't saying you were a fundamentalist there, Steve. I was saying that the notion of God, and of creation, which you are focussing on, is a fundamentalist God, and a fundamentalist notion of creation. So essentially I am saying you are an anti-fundamentalist in terms of religion, but that you are focussing your attention on a kind of Aunt Sally.

Incidentally that last remark by Joe which you accuse of being a non-sequitur isn't a sequitur or a non-sequitur. It's an observation, which doesn't on the face of it set out to settle an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 11:51 AM

'Twas you who made science and religion into equivalent subjects

I'm sorry if I gave you that impression, because I don't think that a comparison like that has any meaning. They are not 'equal valued' because they address different things and they don't attempt to give the same kind of answers or explanations. It is like asking whether I prefer my chair or my computer. It is answerable but doesn't really have any solid meaning.

You have said that you don't mean religion in the wider sense I referred to, but specifically the creator-creation stuff [There are other topics we know as well, but let's keep to one topic at a time.]. I don't imagine the sort of creator-God-as-magician you seem to mean either , nor as far as I can tell do Joe, or Kevin, or Pope Francis. Pete, I think, does, You say rejecting that concept of God necessitates rejecting everything else as well. I don't doubt that is true for you, but I don't see it. It would be as if discovering Godel's Theorem meant we should shut maths down, or the discovery of chaotic behaviours led us to shutting down whole branches of science.

And, for what it is worth, I don't think religion permiates your life as you suggested I/we might think.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 11:57 AM

I tried to keep it simple, a supernatural God who created everything. That's about as inclusive a definition as I could muster, which is what I was trying to do, and I'll warrant that most believers believe in that kind of a God. Not necessarily for his advocates on Mudcat, who may well be a bit more sophisticated. ;-) Where's the fundamentalism? Where's the Aunt Sally? I acknowledged the vast scope for nuance too. I don't really do tactics much in my posts, not on purpose anyway.

It does not follow that non-believers in evolution necessarily take a literal biblical view of creation is what I meant. I can see that he didn't quite mean it the way I took it. Perhaps the word "exactly" threw me a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 12:11 PM

Well, once I've decided that there's probably no God there's not a lot of sense In clinging on to all the ceremony and theology (though you won't keep me out of cathedrals). I'm not just ditching a particular concept of God, remember, because I haven't got one. I'm just looking at other people's really, clearly a hazardous pursuit. I'm in a constantly-ducked state here.   

Right, God-as-magician may appear to be trivialising a certain concept of creation. But you either believe that God created everything or you don't, surely? If so, didn't he do it from nothing? Against the laws of nature, etc., utterly counterintuitive? Gotta be some kind of magic in some sense, hasn't it? No Aunt Sally intended, just an invitation to clear this up. Did he or didn't he? And if he didn't, what did, and what is the point of him?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 12:22 PM

I'd put it more as "creates".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 12:50 PM

I can only give you my view, Steve. I purport to speak for no-one except myself.

Almost every word in the question puts you into the same position of the people who wrote Genesis. "He". A bit anthropomorphic don't you feel? Aren't you straight into God and man in the same image before we have got more than a word into the thing? "Created" Our best understanding of time is that it did not exist until after the Big Bang. So a word like "created" which embeds time within it doesn't really work. Remember, I do not put science and religion into opposition as you do, so I have no more difficulty ( than anyone else!) having the idea of time starting but we are inheritly limited by language which does not have that concept.

'Did he or didn't he?" Are you sure there's no excluded middle? Maybe he both did and didn't depending on how you think about it. Did a gardener grow that flower, or did the flower grow itself? Yes and no, both and neither in isolation.

A lot of people think science is about what actually IS in the world. In my view, that's not so. Science is about building models that describe the world to a greater or lesser extent, but it is about models, not actuality. So people say, to take an example, that the earth goes round the sun. We are all taught that. But as a good scientist you know that is only a simple model and our best understanding of what actually occurs is far more complicated. And it is not that the earth going round the sun is the simplest model: it is for some problems but not for others. For many real world problems it is a much better model to have the sun going round the earth. Hence why even the most scientific pedant in the world will still talk about sunrise and sunset.

All of that may seem a diversion. It isn't. We use models to help us understand and encapsulate ideas and concepts and to enable us to make decisions and predictions. I see Genesis and similar accounts of creation (Ash and Elder anyone?) as similar to the models. Are they literally true? Not in my mind. Do they contain truths? Yes. Did God create the world? I find that a useful model for some things. Does that mean I don't accept the Big Bang as our current best scientic model? Of course I accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 01:36 PM

Sometimes the lack of an edit facility is a problem here. Please read 'in the same position as the people who wrote Genesis' as 'in the same difficulties ...'

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 02:00 PM

I thought I'd asked a simple question. Do you think that a supernatural God (in whom you surely believe in some form or other, otherwise you'd be an atheist like me) created the universe/universes/earth/us/everything? I must confess that I don't understand the mincing of words here. Excluded middle? Both did and didn't?

Science is about what's in this world. Models, or theories, try to explain the reality before us. The models explain the actuality, but the actuality is what we have. The cave people saw the moon, the actuality, and devised a model to explain it. Actually, the simplest of models can work the most perfectly. There is nothing wrong with the simple model of the earth going round the sun. It is abundantly verifiable and works perfectly within its own terms. Complicated models, such as the ones meteorologists use to predict the weather, are fraught, as we know. I think that comparing Genesis to scientific models is fallacious. Genesis is an account that might be 100% historical, 100% myth, or any point in between, and cannot be corroborated. Models or theories are capable of being modified, added to or ditched, according to the accretion of evidence. And terms like "he" for God, and sunrise and sunset, keep scientists within the realms of human beings, rather than in the realms of Mr Spocks. No harm in that. I'm not up for going around having to explain my complicated language to everyone. I'm a botanist and I know the Latin name of every British wildflower. Would you enjoy a nature ramble with me if I used them exclusively instead of the less scientifically-useful English names?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 02:12 PM

I didn't think I had written anything complicated either. Shows how wrong we can be!
I thought I had quite a good example with that gardener and his flower to show how deciding which is responsible for its growth depends on what point we want to examine.

As for the excluded middle: It is whenever you are given a list of choices as if it is complete, but there are others that are not presented. If BillD turns up I am sure he can give a fuller and better account.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 02:17 PM

Hey! Steve, I'm a botanist too! We must exchange notes.

Anyway, characterising God as a 'he' (a big human?) has always seemed to me to be wildly anthropomorphic and parochial. Remember, it's a big universe out there and we're in a tiny, insignificant little corner of it and in the midst of a brief flicker of time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:01 PM

Models predict is what I should have said. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:25 PM

....increase my knowledge....that's gracious of you dmcg.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:28 PM

I did that 2.00 pm post just as I was at the mantecura stage of my risotto, and didn't have time to check it properly. I can't believe I kept saying that models explain. Bloody idiot, Shaw. Dammit.

Every time I type "he" for God I feel awkward. But to do anything different would look a little bit pretentious. I call God "he" for convenience only, to keep it short, and because everybody else does. I could reconstruct my sentences so that I can say "God" every time. I utterly refuse to type "He", however. Always "he". I know I don't know whether a God exists or not, but I won't accord him (oops...) that honour.

Damned fine risotto, by the way, even though I say so meself!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:46 PM

Did a gardener grow that flower or did the flower grow itself? Well, the gardener cultivated that plant. He facilitated its growth by sowing the seed, providing good compost and other growing conditions and keeping pests and diseases at bay. But the cell elongation and division, the differentiation and the enlargement were done by the plant, with the aid of suitable conditions of light, moisture, temperature and nutrients. Growth means a specific thing to a biologist. Not quite same thing as cultivation. Generally speaking, plants manage fairly well without too much human intervention. That gardener was indulging in a little bit of artificial selection.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:49 PM

Absolutely right, Steve. That's the biologist's view. A gardener sees it differently. One view does not invalidate the other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:22 PM

Yebbut it all hinges on how we use the word growth. This is a language issue, not a philosophical question. Unless you want to turn it into one!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:53 PM

I don't think it is about linguistics. It is whether there is only one valid way of looking at the world, or whether we can legitimately have several and draw on whichever is most appropriate for whatever we are considering. Hence my example of whether the sun goes round the earth or vice versa. They are absolutely contradictory but we choose which is appropriate to the context. While these are both from science it doesn't seem self-evident they would have to be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:19 PM

In the case of the growth of the plant, both the scientist and the gardener are right. There is no conflict, just different takes on the same phenomenon. In the case of the earth going round the sun, there is conflict because one of the two notions is demonstrably wrong. In the case of whether there is a God who created everything, well we can argue all night about shades of meaning of the word "create". But the vast majority of people, I'd say, don't wish to be confused by arcane redefinitions of the term. That's falling into the theology trap. Keep it simple (especially for me). If you want to redefine the word, let the rest of us hang on to its traditional meaning and get yourselves a new word. Traditional meaning? Making everything from nothing, if it's God we're talking about. If that isn't what you think God did, then clear it up for us. Words of one syllable would be good.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:43 PM

Believe it or not, Steve, I am not in an argument with you. I have presented my view and tried to explain it. That's what there is, and I'm sorry if it's not good enough for you. That you are only prepared to have explanations on your terms is a pity, but it is not really my problem.

I am not angry, or being defensive, or refusing to answer or avoiding the subject. It is simply that ii have told you how I find the idea of the-magician is an inadequate way of thinking that almost all the Christians on this thread also regard as inadequate. There are only two people, or possibly three, on this thread who seem really committed to that perception..

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:33 PM

Strictly speaking, in terms of relative motion and location, it's as true to say the Sun goes round the Earth as the Earth goes round the Sun.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:36 PM

Gee, Steve Shaw, there were a number of points in your last few messages that I actually agree with.

The trouble is, you're inconsistent. Your usual mode of discussion seems to be argumentum ad absurdum. You redefine everything to the point of stupidity, and then argue with the stupidity. There's no doubt in my mind that stupid people are stupid, but then there's no point in arguing with them. But most people are simply not as stupid as the imaginary friends you argue with.

The faith of most religious people cannot be defined in the simplistic terms you use. And very few religious people have the unquestioning faith you speak of. As DMcG said so well, "Doubt, not certainty, is an important part of religion."

When my kids were teenagers, they seemed to think that everybody else was stupid. Now that they're hovering around the age of 40, they have a far more generous view of humankind, and occasionally even admit that their parents aren't stupid, either. So, Steve, don't go thinkin' everybody else is stupid. Otherwise, people are going to start thinkin' you're a teenager. Or are you?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:21 PM

Let's see if I can go a little deeper. I think that for the most part, people choose a path of faith because they see something of profound depth in what surrounds them, and they seek a deeper appreciation of that profundity. This certainly won't work for everyone, but people of faith find depth in ritual, tradition, ancient writings, a religious community. It's not so much that they seek answers - they seek an understanding and appreciation and kinship with those things that surround them that they see as profound. I see faith as an exploration, not as certainty.

I think faith could be compared in some ways to a study of a work of art. If I find something profound in a work of art, I am drawn to explore it more deeply, to learn the stories behind the artwork and its Creator. I may spend most of my time simply gazing at the artwork, contemplating it without attempting to define or describe it - knowing that any attempt at a description of definition of the artwork would fall short of what it means to me. And I bring my own self and my own experience to my exploration of the artwork. It may have valid meaning for me that is completely different from what the artist intended. And if the artwork is ancient, it may have many generations, many traditions of understanding for me to build upon.

Now, it's true that most people can live full and happy lives without taking time to contemplate that particular piece of art, and that artwork may be completely devoid of meaning for most people. But that doesn't detract at all from the profound value of my own exploration of the artwork.

There's something to my appreciation of that artwork that's sacred to me. While others may not share my appreciation and may indeed have valid criticism of the work of art, I think it's important that my own appreciation be respected and not ridiculed.

Until I reached the age of about 40, I thought that art museums were more-or-less a waste of money, something built to bolster the egos of rich people. I think differently now. I don't know why, but I do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:37 PM

DMcG, your arguments are plenty good enough for me, thanks. They are arguments, not pontifications. There is no need for you to get so defensive. But the thing is, you have not really answered my very simple, child-like question (not childish, I hope). Do you think that there is a God, a supernatural being, who created everything? That's what your religion teaches, whether you like it or not. Please don't make me quote all those Catholic prayers and hymns, let alone scripture. You know what I'm like. I really will if I really have to. Either you accept these things or you don't. Look here, I'm a really simple chap. I can't keep up with half the arguments on other threads with Rapparee, Donuel, gargoyle, Bill, Teribus and a good few others. I have trouble keeping up with Jim, one of the very finest people to post here (in spite of his lack of tactical nous, an attribute which I'm proud to share). What you see me saying is at the very limit of my intellectual capabilities. I am not trying to set you a booby trap. You appear to be a believer, and I'm trying to elicit, in simple terms that eschew the claptrap of theology, whether or not you think that there is a supernatural God who created everything. Don't tell me if you don't want to. I have to go to Asda tomorrow because they have nice wines on special offer. To me, alongside that, God has to take a back seat. That's me. Dead simple.

By the way. If you accept that God created the universe, etc., you are also accepting a suspension of all the laws of nature while he got on with it. "Magic", to you, appears to be a pejorative term. So how else would you characterise it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:47 PM

God is better seen as creating the universe right now, at all times. No suspension of "the laws of nature", the reverse in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:51 PM

But most people are simply not as stupid as the imaginary friends you argue with.

Most people, in this day and age of rabid anti-intellectulism and proud to be ignorant and uneducated are considerably MORE stupid, Joe.

Have you read "Idiot America" yet???

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:06 PM

"The trouble is, you're inconsistent. Your usual mode of discussion seems to be argumentum ad absurdum. You redefine everything to the point of stupidity, and then argue with the stupidity"

Examples, please.

". There's no doubt in my mind that stupid people are stupid, but then there's no point in arguing with them. But most people are simply not as stupid as the imaginary friends you argue with."

What imaginary friends? Please apprise me.

"The faith of most religious people cannot be defined in the simplistic terms you use. "

Well tell me what your terms are. I do need a starting point, however. Do you, or do you not, believe in a supernatural God who created everything? What's so hard about that?    It's what your religion teaches, you know (I know, because I was in it for thirty-five years!) Please do not try to blind me with science here. "Steve, you don't get it because it's too complicated for you." Really? Try telling that to "most religious people", hundreds of millions of Catholics in Latin America, the Far East and Africa. Blimey, if they don't all get it, what chance does Stevie-boy have! Get real, Joe. And, for once, look outside your own little bubble.

"And very few religious people have the unquestioning faith you speak of. As DMcG said so well, 'Doubt, not certainty, is an important part of religion.'"

Well if you were sincere about that you would refuse to say almost all the prayers and to sing almost all the hymns of your faith, let alone go to mass. Almost every one is replete with certainty, as unquestioning as you like. Unfortunately, not only do you not refuse them, you also force them on your children. So please spare me the pious nonsense about your doubt, eh?

"When my kids were teenagers, they seemed to think that everybody else was stupid. Now that they're hovering around the age of 40, they have a far more generous view of humankind, and occasionally even admit that their parents aren't stupid, either. So, Steve, don't go thinkin' everybody else is stupid. Otherwise, people are going to start thinkin' you're a teenager. Or are you?"

Perhaps you would kindly tell me what any of that has to do with religion. And I won't dignify your insults with ripostes. I hope you're OK with that. Typical Catholic... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:06 PM

Aw, Greg, you're too cynical. My copy of Idiot America arrived this week. I intend to read it over the next coupla weeks, so have patience.
On overview, it does seem to be a bit too cynical for my tastes. Kinda like my teenage kids who thought everybody else was stupid.

Steve Shaw didn't ask me, but here's his question and my answer:

Q: Do you think that there is a God, a supernatural being, who created everything?
A: Yes, I believe that there is a God, a supernatural being, who created everything through the wonderful, natural process called "evolution."
If God created/creates everything, including natural processes, why shouldn't the origins of things come through those same natural processes? If natural processes are part of God's creation, why would God circumvent those processes? That being the case, isn't evolution a wonderful thing?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:20 PM

"God is better seen as creating the universe right now, at all times. No suspension of "the laws of nature", the reverse in fact."

Well that looks mighty profound on the surface of it. Frankly, though, it's doesn't really matter when he created, or creates, it. The laws of nature do not provide for supernatural beings that never had a beginning nor end, nor do they provide for amazing creations from nothing. Worse, and unfortunately for poor old God, the laws of nature can explain everything we see in all its ordinary glory. So there is stuff we have yet to get our heads around, it's true. But there is every justification for saying that we will never give up looking, and no justification at all for saying that anything we can't currently explain is down to God. That's been tried down the ages and found horribly wanting. Use your brain for what it was meant to be used for, not for inventing fairy tales.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:22 PM

Re: Steve Shaw's post, 17 Oct 15 - 08:06 PM

Steve, Steve, Steve...

For a moment, I saw a glimmer of hope, but then it died....

If one starts a discussion with the premise that "everyone other than myself is stupid," it gets really hard to carry on an intelligent discussion. And somehow, you don't seem to be able to get beyond that premise...

All my life's a circle;
Sunrise and sundown;
The moon rolls thru the nighttime;
Till the daybreak comes around.

All my life's a circle;
But I can't tell you why;
The seasons spinning 'round again;
The years keep rollin' by.

Steve, until you can get past your fundamentally faulty premise, you'll find yourself eternally lost in circular arguments.

And you'll continue to wonder why people get so frustrated with you.

Think about the questions you posed in your post dated 17 Oct 15 - 08:06 PM. Those questions have all been answered in this thread, intelligently and honestly. But you didn't hear....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:26 PM

Yes, I believe that there is a God, a supernatural being, who created everything through the wonderful, natural process called "evolution."

Then you haven't got even the beginnings of an understanding of evolution. You're
right down there with pete. I've covered this in this thread. Sorry if you're not happy with it. Unfortunately, it happens to be my subject.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:30 PM

""In the land of Gibberish, the man who makes sense, the man who speaks clearly, clearly speaks nonsense.""
― Jarod Kintz, This Book Has No Title

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:35 PM

...and I owe it to ake and Pete from Seven Stars link and others, to say that their perspective is not as simplistic as some would think it to be, either.
Ridicule of one's opponent is not a particularly effective tool for debate. It works every once in a while, but not if it's used constantly. In the end, it often backfires.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 08:52 PM

Steve's perspective, on the other hand, is every bit as simplistic as one would expect it to be. He can't get past condemning the anthropomorphic Man with the Beard that nobody believes in anyhow.

Steve, open your mind for a change and read what I said about appreciation of art. I have a particular appreciation for the works of Edward Hopper. You may not share that appreciation. That's OK, but why ridicule mine?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:02 PM

Well, Joe, you are clearly getting so uncomfortable with this that you are trying to goad me into insults that will get the thread closed down. Well you're not getting that. What you are getting is the fact you are clearly resorting to lies because you are way out of your comfort zone. I've seen this defensive attitude with so many religious people, which is a shame really, because I also know many people of faith who are pretty good at retaining their dignity in the face of argument. That I can respect. I asked you above to defend your unjustified comments about my mode of argument. You have not responded (why am I not surprised?). I'm now asking you to demonstrate with evidence that, as you allege, I start with the premise that everyone bar me is stupid. Let me just say this: I've expended thousands of words in this thread, closely arguing my point of view. I've taken people on, told them in some cases what respect I have for them, agreed with some points and disagreed with others. Even apologised for mistakes. Yet you appear to claim that I take everyone for a fool. Well I can tell you this. Were that the case, and having spent all this time posting, I'd be taking myself for a fool for wasting all this time. Isn't the truth, Joe Offer, that you skim the thread, you look for snippets here and there that seem to confirm your prejudices, then dive in without thinking? That you feel terribly threatened by atheists and automatically hate their guts? May I get slightly biblical with you?: By his fruits shall we know him...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 09:13 PM

Simplistic, moi? What can be more simplistic (oops, I almost said simple-minded there...) than believing in a creator who explains nothing and who can't himself be explained? (actually, I say that quite a lot, and no-one ever addresses it). Still, it must feel good to have allies like pete and akenaton on board. Well done!

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -- Douglas Adams

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 02:28 AM

Me: I am not angry, or being defensive, or refusing to answer or avoiding the subject

Steve's response: There is no need for you to get so defensive

Once again, I am not being defensive. I have tried to make my arguments. But let me try to give you an idea of what it feels like from this side. You are trying to give someone the vaguest inklings that quantum mechanics exists. They do not have years of training in maths and physics so you can't go down those routes but you do your best: There are many descriptions of the two slit experiment in 'popular science' as you know. Then you meet someone who has read a description like that that you wrote and he insists on it being explained to him in terms of snooker balls. You try to explain, again and again that it can't be done that way. Doesn't matter: that's how he wants the explanation. You try again, with different examples, and showing that there are things in his life which, while not the same as quantum mechanics = what is? - have some features in common. Doesn't matter, he keeps coming back to those same snooker balls.

It is not defensive to think maybe you have reached the end of the line and will have to leave this guy with his snooker ball view of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 03:07 AM

Steve, open your mind for a change and consider what I said about appreciation of art. I have a particular appreciation for the works of Edward Hopper. You may not share that appreciation. That's OK, but why ridicule mine?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:27 AM

I don't recall ridiculing your appreciation of art. This is a very strange tangent you're taking. My mind is wide open to art in all its manifestations as it happens. Telling me I condemn a man with a beard is also somewhat odd, as I think there almost certainly isn't one (and I haven't mentioned beards once). There's just a little bit of ganging up going on here isn't there? You are both insinuating that I have such a ridiculously simplistic view of God that you somehow can't discuss this. But I think we all know what's really going on here. I've asked you a straight down the line child-like question: do you believe in a supernatural God who created everything? I haven't even mentioned gender in that question, let alone beards. Either you do, you don't, or you have some wildly different concept that you think I'll ridicule. Or that I won't be clever enough to get. Go on, try us. Just telling me that it isn't as simple as that, ha ha, is making both of you look a bit daft, to be honest. You're the ones that have, on the face of it, the outlandish concept, not me. If it is so dear to your hearts, which I can clearly see that it is, you shouldn't be worrying about feeling foolish by elaborating. Elaborate away. I'm interested and I'm listening. And it would be nice if you could avoid the rather unchristian-sounding insults.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:40 AM

When I leave that guy with the snooker ball view of the world, I fully expect him to keep shouting as I walk away "you still haven't explained it using snooker balls"...


It is, really, very simple. I am not out to prove you wrong. What is the value in that? I offer a description of the world as I see it, for you to ignore, or abuse, or take on board, or to learn about even if you disagree with it, all as you think fit. It is entirely up to you. My core assertion, is that there is more than one way of thinking about the world. You seem to disagree as you say believing in a creator God automatically means you haven't got to stage one in understanding evolution. So we disagree. That's all there is to it. There is no need for either of us to keep insisting on our view as if it is the only possible interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:49 AM

667! Let's move this thing on!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:34 AM

Well maybe you want a snooker ball version of evolution. I really have tried to explain this. It's irreducible: natural selection has no direction, no goal, no end point, no drive towards complexity, no drive towards perfection. That is the whole point, one hundred percent. It leads to failed branches, blind endings and extinctions as well as to successful (for a time) species. Almost all mutations are failures. It is predicated on massive over-production of offspring, most of which don't survive. It simply can't be kicked off, driven along, tweaked, overseen or have bits added by a creator, even one who works in mysterious ways. I'm not trying to keep your Godly vision of the world and evolution at arms length from each other. And it isn't my opinion. it's the way it is. Insert a creator or driving force and you lose the whole explanation for life on earth that has so much evidence going for it. You simply can't have your cake and eat it here. I know that many people of faith believe in evolution, but trying to marry evolution to God just won't wash. I take no pleasure in that, no matter how much it makes you cross. You can have both, but only if you allow evolution to get on with it unfettered. That means no creator, I'm afraid. If that means emasculating God, so be it. You're scientifically-minded, so think it through like a scientist. You both think I'm too simple-minded to understand your concept of God/world view, however you want to put it. Well try constructing one in which God is the spirit that fires all, an inspirational force, but without making him a creator or a magician. Even I could swallow something along those lines. Of course, you're entitled to your own theory to explain life if you think you can do better. And if all that jars with your world view, that isn't my doing. Don't shoot the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:39 AM

Arguing by saying people are just being argumentative is not a particularly good debating tactic either. Still, if nothing else, this thread has taught me that even saints have their off days:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:51 AM

And even those near-saints like Pius XII, John-Paul II and Mother Teresa!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 07:28 AM

667! Let's move this thing on!

Have to agree with that one, Jack!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 12:49 PM

I took that to mean two-thirds of the way to a grand. Either that or to get us off the Number of the Beast. A bit of superstition is hardly amiss in this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 02:46 PM

The beast plus one:-( Scary stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 02:52 PM

The term "laws of nature" is a very strange expression, the more you think about it. Indeed the very concept that there could be anything described as "the laws of nature"...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 03:01 PM

The term "laws of nature" is a very strange expression, the more you think about it

Only if you are unfamiliar with the different definitions of the word "law".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 03:21 PM

Well that's a good point. As a biologist, I prefer laws of nature to laws of physics, though, in the end, the terms mean the same thing. I like "nature" because it's a bit more inclusive, involving a bit of chemistry and a bit of biology. We don't understand all there is to know about the laws of nature, and who's to say that there are not others that we've yet to discover. As scientists, we're open to all that. But the laws we do know, and understand enough about, exclude timeless beings that are all-seeing, all-knowing but ultimately undetectable. It's not that we haven't found laws yet that could embrace such a fellow. But the laws we do have militate against him, ninety nine point nine nine percent. In the same way, EXACTLY the same way, they militate against leprechauns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, Santa Claus, seven-legged blue men residing on Saturn's rings and teapots in orbit in the asteroid belt. It's fine to cling on to our imperfect understanding of the laws of nature as a get-out for keeping God in the frame (or in the gaps) as long as you realise that, by so doing, you are giving him as much legitimacy as the fairies and leprechauns and the little blue men. You put him there, not me. I doubt whether he'd love you for that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:43 PM

Darn, Steve, I thought you'd be happy that some people have a concept of God that is compatible with the principles of evolution. I thought you'd be happy to see that there are people who believe in God who do not see themselves as superior to those who don't - they simply have a different perspective, not superior or inferior.

But no, you're just an absolutist like the fundamentalists. You can see only one possible perspective, all other perspectives being wrong.

And based on Pope Benedict's use of the example of a male prostitute and my comparison of art appreciation to faith as an appreciation of what surrounds us, you have no ability to listen to an example and apply it to a comparable situation. Just like the fundamentalists, you can accept thinking only if it is literal, specific, legalistic, and identical to your own train of thought.

A respectful and open exchange of ideas is a concept totally foreign to you. You only know how to defend yourself and attack others. That sounds like the fundamentalists, too.

Sad, I think.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:43 PM

Oops, the rest of my last post went missing. Never mind.

I think your expression "laws that could embrace such a fellow" is interesting. I get the impression the concept of God that you are tackling is that there is a supernatural being which is fancied as stepping in and suspending the laws of nature by which everything is governed. Reasonably enough, you reject that concept.

But there is an alternative way of seeing things, in which the world is seen as sustained and constantly created by God, with all the laws of nature not suspended arbitrarily from time to time, but constantly maintained.

True enough, there's no explanation there of how such a God could be. But the same is just as true of the world itself, the whole universe, all of creation as it is often called even by people who don't believe in a creator, such being the extent to which God centre expressions permeate through language. Cosmologist neo-metaphysicians can come up with fascinating scenarios about nothing giving rise to everything, or multiverses and branes and so forth, but even if they stand up, they just push the regression further along. As the expression goes, it's turtles all the way down.

So you pays your money and you makes your choice. One way mind and consciousness is the froth on a mindless everything, the other way mind and consciousness is an echo of a mind and consciousness underlying everything. The choice really isn't about which is more rational, it's about what makes sense to us, as the individuals we are.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:52 PM

In a sense I agree with Steve ( not that he would thank me for it !) in that I understand that the theory of evolution is undirected and unguided , so I suppose that if you make God instigator or hidden mover in it, it becomes a different theory. And I can see how it can be viewed as having your cake and eating it.   I understand that Darwin made mention of a creator at the end of origins , but later wrote to a friend regretting the "penteteuchal" reference. Not that I would agree with it, but in theory why should not theists adapt Darwinism to be directed and guided.......though , presumably, it could not then be truly called Darwinian evolution.               Steve alleges that having an uncreated creator is contrary to the " laws of nature " but unless you are somewhat selective with what those laws are, it is the general theory of evolution that is contrary to what is known from observable, testable, repeatable science.   And while a supernatural, creator who called all things into existence, including those natural laws cannot be proven , I fail to see how that can be more illogical than believing in a universe from nothing via no one.   The fairies and leprechauns are just as much, and more in your backyard !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:08 PM

I am a very simple man, Kevjn. I can't pick the bones out of your last two paragraphs (I respectfully wonder whether you can, actually).   But this:

...there's no explanation there of how such a God could be. But the same is just as true of the world itself, the whole universe, all of creation as it is often called even by people who don't believe in a creator...

...is a mischievous equivalence. Absolutely right, there is no explanation of how such a God could be (but you managed to invent him anyway, and you ignore the mountain of evidence, not least arising from evidence and reason, against him). But the same is simply not true of the world and the universe (I'll leave creation, if you don't mind). There is abundant explanation in the form of science, and by saying there is none you not only insult every scientist who ever drew breath (every curious mind, in other words) but you also reject completely the value of human intellect and curiosity. We can't explain everything and never will, but there is a lot we can explain and we are closing in. There is a joy in that that you seem to be missing. One thing we will never do is explain anything with an explanation that can't be explained. Enjoy whatever reverie makes sense to you (we all do it), but leave room for evidence and reason. It's why we're here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:16 PM

I am not selective about the laws of nature. We have what we have. That will change. There is definitely more to know. But I can't select from fresh air. And the theory of evolution is not undirected and unguided. You may use those terms to characterise natural selection if you really must and I won't argue. But the theory is simply an explanation of the phenomenon of evolution which employs a very large body of evidence. It would help if you could de-woolify your terminology. I shan't be holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:43 PM

Darn, Steve, I thought you'd be happy that some people have a concept of God that is compatible with the principles of evolution. I thought you'd be happy to see that there are people who believe in God who do not see themselves as superior to those who don't - they simply have a different perspective, not superior or inferior.

But no, you're just an absolutist like the fundamentalists. You can see only one possible perspective, all other perspectives being wrong.

And based on Pope Benedict's use of the example of a male prostitute and my comparison of art appreciation to faith as an appreciation of what surrounds us, you have no ability to listen to an example and apply it to a comparable situation. Just like the fundamentalists, you can accept thinking only if it is literal, specific, legalistic, and identical to your own train of thought.

A respectful and open exchange of ideas is a concept totally foreign to you. You only know how to defend yourself and attack others. That sounds like the fundamentalists, too.

Sad, I think.

-Joe Offer-

Negative, patronising, sarcastic, supercilious, dismissive, superficial, bitter, trolling. All the signs of a beaten man. Well done, Joe. You're right up there with those near-saints I mentioned. How was Mass today?   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 06:59 PM

Mass was just delightful today, thankyouverymuchsteve. On the spur of the moment, we celebrated the presence of so many young people with babies, which was very touching. The music, as usual, was excellent.
So nice to be in the presence of friends who can enjoy each other and exchange ideas without fighting - people coming together to celebrate the joys and sorrows of life.
Try it sometime.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 07:19 PM

It seems to me that "an explanation that can't be explained" is precisely what we get from the cosmologists to whom you refer. The conflicting elaborations are fascinating, Some of them could well turn out to be provisionally true, and long may the search for more profound interpretations of how things are continue. But ultimately they aren't explanations. They are turtles standing on turtles, and we should all appraciate the turtles.

Basically, as I said, it comes down to whether we believe that consciousness is an emergant phenomenon in a mindless universe, or whether it is a foundation of the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 07:33 PM

"So nice to be in the presence of friends who can enjoy each other and exchange ideas without fighting - people coming together to celebrate the joys and sorrows of life.
Try it sometime."

Oh, don't you worry. I've tried it quite a lot. I couldn't help noticing at times that some of those people were like that on Sunday mornings only.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 07:41 PM

That's right, Steve, some people are nice only on Sunday mornings. But if you judge the whole on the basis of the actions of the few, you're most likely to have to live with a constantly negative view of life. Myself, I prefer to look on the positive side.

Back to the original topic - I think Pope Francis did a pretty good job of bringing joy, wisdom, and compassion to the U.S. Is he perfect? - no. Am I perfect? - no.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 08:17 PM

There is a vast chasm of difference between an explanation that can never be explained and one that, though it has yet to yield up its secrets, is at least vulnerable to scientific enquiry. Actually, God SHOULD be very vulnerable to scientific enquiry, though his advocates ardently try to keep him from it. Sadly for him, the enquiry may conclude that, due to lack of any evidence, he almost certainly doesn't exist. And I'm afraid I don't swallow such arcane concepts as mindless universes. I like to keep me feet on the ground if I can, not even on turtles' backs. Science does it best for me. It's sheer joy, in fact, as un-Spocklike as can be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 08:26 PM

Well, Joe Offer, you didn't exactly do a spanking good job at 05.43 pm of looking on the positive side, did you now? And, as appears to be your wont, you misrepresent above what I said, which is that SOME of those people were like that on Sunday mornings only. Hardly judging the WHOLE on the actions of the few, eh? That is never what I do and I'll thank you for refraining from insinuating it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 08:43 PM

You don't swallow the arcane concept of a mindless universe, Steve? Perhaps you might elaborate on that? Of course there might be numrous other cases of species in other parts of the universe who've evolved to a state where they have minds, but do I take it you mean that even prior to that having happened it wasn't a mindless universe.

I accept that you like to keep your feet on the ground, and that's an excellent thing to do - but the ground on which we keep our feet is of course a very local phenomenon, floating in a much bigger universe. Can't escape those turtles.

Scientific inquiry is great, and it's fascinating. Mathematics is fascinating too. But there will never be a largest prime number, or an ultimate value of Pi. My instinct is that the same goes for explaining reality. The more it gets explained, the bigger it gets

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 08:48 PM

Am I perfect " ...No but I am, ask me Mammy.

   Anyway.. " Basically, as I said, it comes down to whether we believe that consciousness is an emergant phenomenon in a mindless universe, or whether it is a foundation of the universe. " ..
    Yes but too many here are fast thinkers and can't get past their personal filters to do this subject justice.
    Most external problems in society stem from the dis-ease that bubbles under the surface within most of mankind. Pope Francis understands this, I personally don't give a shit what route a person chooses as long as it delivers.
      Steve the Chaucer quote takes on a slightly different flavour when you take into consideration he was a freemason, and the word "craft" doesn't mean what you may think it means.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 09:04 PM

But at least you can go on explaining. With God there is nothing to explain. We're stopped in our tracks. Nowhere to go except to look for even more inwardness with a spicy bit of revelation thrown in. Talk of consciousness pricking a mindless universe hasn't got much to do with flesh and blood, whether on this planet or a million others. It's just rather high-flown cod philosophy. Why not just have some nice conjecture on the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere. If it's there, my bet is that it will be different to ours but just as ordinary (tangentially, I also think that it will have developed by some form of evolution by natural selection, but hey). I absolutely love that the wonderfulness of life is so ordinary. That's what I mean by keeping me feet on the ground. A bunch of hairy-arses here on earth thinking about other bunches of hairy-arses and revelling in the imagination. No need to go off half-cock talking as though the universe is some kind of super-organism that could do with a bit of spiritual awakening. It's wonderful enough without all that. You're putting fairies at the bottom of the cosmological garden. I'll set Douglas Adams on you one of these days.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 09:09 PM

Explaining things isn't the only thing. Which I take it from the rest of your post Steve, is what you actually believe as well.

Anyway, it's time to sleep here. Night all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 09:23 PM

"personally don't give a shit what route a person chooses as long as it delivers."

Delivers what? A good bloke who's nice to his kids? Someone who gives to charity? A member of the Green Party? A harmless type whose main purpose in life is keeping pews warm? Don't you think that we are here to be multi-faceted, not only to be good, kind, moral citizens (none of which needs religion, by the way), but also to use our brains? Are you saying that it doesn't matter how people turn out whether they've used their brains or not? Dammit, I don't get that. Delivers what exactly? What criteria would you adopt in order to know whether a particular person's route has delivered? And what is this dis-ease of which you speak?
As for Chaucer, I don't give a damn whether he was a freemason or not. Freemasonry does not mean the same as it meant centuries ago. Mozart was possibly the greatest composer, yet was a freemason all his adult life. So? As for craft, I quoted a piece of prose with a general message. Be kind enough to pick it to pieces for me if you like. You may note before you do it that I don't care much for being bullshitted.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 10:36 PM

Steve no I'm not going to pick your post to pieces although I could, but the desire isn't there.
       I read the thread and got drawn in like a fool, but consciousness is a subject I've been interested in since childhood,nothing I type is bullshit but your posts on this particular topic are from a place of ignorance.
       I'm about 15 years younger than you at a guess and your spiel reminds me of the thinking my generation did at school. The debate you want to have is decades out of date. Words like God and terms like Spiritual awakening are meaningless,they have too much baggage.
       You could not be trusted in your current mindset for me to explain what "delivers" means ( it's physical). Anyway far better you do your own thinking. Here is a starting point though..it removes your personal baggage and delivers a wider more informed perspective on what it is to be human in this big fat beautiful thing that is existence. It also hammers home, consciousness is not what we currently believe it to be.
       I do agree that religion is more hindrance than help.
Now off to bed with my man flu.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 10:51 PM

Sorry but a quick correction... "I do agree that religion can be more hindrance than help "
   Night night

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 02:23 AM

Steve Shaw sez: Well, Joe Offer, you didn't exactly do a spanking good job at 05.43 pm of looking on the positive side, did you now?

Well, Steve, I usually try hard to see the positive side. But how does one see the positive side of something negative? If you reverse polarity, you'll blow up your car battery. Where have you said anything positive about religious believers? And if I'm a religious believer, how do I respond positively to your barrage of negative statements about believers? Steve, you have used many of the 696 posts in this thread to attack religion and religious beliefs and believers. I'll agree that religion warrants rational criticism, but not your shotgun approach.

I guess, though, that maybe this is good therapy for you. That's positive, isn't it? Go ahead, let it out, Steve. Then I'll pat you on the back and tell you Jesus loves you.... Shall I give you a hug, too?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 03:52 AM

" Then I'll pat you on the back and tell you Jesus loves you.... "

How do you know?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 04:46 AM

I wonder if you God botherers realise that when you pray and stuff what you're actually doing is making obeisance to the Roman Emperor Constantine? You see, in the 4th century AD, Constantine did two things:

1. He established Constantinople, on the Bosphorus, as the new capital of the empire and 2. he adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

I suspect that the two are connected. By moving the capital to the eastern edge of the empire (probably a rather silly thing to do in retrospect) he was in danger of losing control. Then he, or more likely his advisers, had a brainwave: he, or they, realised that you could use religion as a means of social control. In fact, this wasn't just a brainwave, it was a stroke of pure genius - as brilliant as some of the scientific discoveries which came much, much later - but much less benign.

Anyway, they searched among the various alternatives available and finally chose some obscure middle eastern effusion called Christianity - which they had, hitherto, persecuted - but which, they realised, had all the elements that they needed (or could be tweaked to include them). For a start, it was monotheistic with an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful God like an idealised Roman Emperor (i.e. this God-Emperor had all the qualities that Constantine wished he had). Almost in passing this super-being had, of course, created everything ... or 'fathered' everything? ... let's not go there! In addition, Christianity contained this highly useful concept called "sin". According to this religion all people are inherently sinful and need to be absolved of their sins - otherwise they go to a terrible place called Hell when they die. Everyone fears death but under Christianity its even more scary!

So, they set up Christian churches in every settlement in the Empire and appointed priests to intercede with God and 'help' people to absolve themselves of sin.

Soon, everyone was so pre-occupied with sin that they were much less likely to rebel against the Emperor.

But, God botherers, Constantine's been dead for around one and two thirds millennia - you don't have to kneel before him any more! That people still do, just goes to show what a powerful concept he latched onto, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 04:58 AM

Well, Time Stamp, whoever you are, I must say that you produced a great post that asserted your intellectual superiority in arcane matters without actually saying a bloody thing about them! I was very disappointed. There are plenty of people around who can become such experts on bullshit that they can discuss it in impressively complex terms. Let's hear your take on conscious universes then. Can't wait!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 05:37 AM

It is good and useful to be reminded of that, shimrod. There has always been a complicated interplay between civil and religious power and, as far as I know, that applies to all religions. If anyone wants an example look at County Durham where the road signs announce it is "The land of the Prince Bishops"; or look at the fortress of Salzburg. Or the temples of Egypt or Mexico or elsewhere.

But it going a little too far to quite identify one with the other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 05:49 AM

Oh, I'm perfectly happy to go 'too far', DMcG. I'll even go as far as to say that all religions are probably human inventions!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 05:56 AM

An institution of sheer filth. Bishop Casey, Brendan Smith are prime examples, abusing children and altar boys falling congregation figures shows people no longer prepared to listen or accept their vile excuses.

Look at that case in Greenbay Wisconsin, my God almighty stomach churning.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 06:30 AM

"Well, Steve, I usually try hard to see the positive side. But how does one see the positive side of something negative? If you reverse polarity, you'll blow up your car battery. Where have you said anything positive about religious believers? And if I'm a religious believer, how do I respond positively to your barrage of negative statements about believers? Steve, you have used many of the 696 posts in this thread to attack religion and religious beliefs and believers. I'll agree that religion warrants rational criticism, but not your shotgun approach."

Well here's exactly how I see religion. Cards on the table. gloves off.

First, by any measure of evidence and reason, you are wrong. There is almost certainly no God. I'm fine with that, actually.

Second, your personal, privately-held delusions are of no concern to me as long as that's how they stay.

Third, religion has held sway on this planet for plenty long enough. It stops people looking for real answers, it subjects them to arbitrary "moral codes" which are often the most immoral things imaginable, what with bans on contraception, abortion, homosexuality and the subjugation of women, hallmarks of most of the major religions. The penalties for apostasy range from social exclusion to having your head cut off.

Fourth, religion likes to get you early so that you find it hard to escape. Those who do the entrapping will often claim that their children "have the choice to leave" when they get older. This is always a lie. Imagine if my dad had signed me up to the Conservative Party as soon as I'd been born. For the next twenty years I get bombarded with Tory Party literature and get frogmarched to weekly meetings at which I'm told that only the Tories know truth and that all other persuasions are evil. Each meeting contains selected chants from the Tory manifesto and we round the thing off, under a large portrait of the Queen of course, with a few choruses of Land Of Hope And Glory. After twenty years of this maleducation, I'm told, reluctantly ( probably only if I bring it up), that I can choose to leave. Very funny! But that is what some big religions do, and some don't even give you that choice. If you think that's right, I'm not with you.

Fifth, and to my mind worst of all, you are so certain of your faith that you have no compunction in passing mythology as truth down to your children. You may defend this by saying you tell them that we can discuss it openly and give free rein to doubts and worries. Well that's a bit like sitting in the Man U dressing room trying to discuss how great Man City are. I think it's wicked to send children to religious schools, where you haven't a clue what they're going to be told and where, for significant parts of the day, they will subjected to instruction and ceremony designed primarily to keep them in line.

Sixth, more of an annoyance than anything, I have no desire to be constantly subjected to public displays of huge crucifixes on the outsides of your places of worship or your wayside pulpits or Thought For The Day or Songs Of Praise or unelected archbishops in the Lords or people on online forums telling me they'll pray for me (do something constructive instead, buggering off for example!). Stop acting as if you have a monopoly on the truth. You absolutely haven't, and a bit more religious humility, a quality promoted by Jesus that appears to be lost on some of you, wouldn't come amiss.

Is it fair to attack religion?   Absolutely it is, at every opportunity. It's bad for world peace, and it's bad for children, women and poor people. Everything you say that's good about religion can be achieved without it. We're a lot better off standing on our own feet. Kick the crutches away!

Is it fair to attack believers? It's fair to express an opinion on belief. It's fair to attack people who propagate religion in the ways I've described, every time. It's fair to vehemently attack those unthinking people who subject children to nonsense. It's not fair to attack fair-minded people who keep their beliefs strictly to themselves. It's fair to attack wicked and damaging people who are lionised by believers, at least three recent Popes and Mother Teresa for example. And, before you say anything, what I am is not equal and opposite to what you are. You put me here by dint of your religious bad behaviour, remember. In a world of dignified, quiet, private belief, I wouldn't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 06:38 AM

I know. shimrod. but even if they are both human inventions they are two different ones that sometimes align and sometimes compete. So even in the purely secular interpretation I don't see it quite accurate to consider Christianity as primarily leftovers of Constantine's management

but I repeat: it's important to be reminded of this stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 06:47 AM

Incidentally, Joe Offer, there HAS been constructive discussion in this very thread between atheism and belief. But not involving you. You have chosen to distance yourself from it by making misrepresentations and being extremely defensive and not a little snide at times. That's your problem.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 06:52 AM

Careful, Steve. I feel a drive-by character assassination coming on ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 06:56 AM

Let me take my agreement with shimrod one stage further. I do think it quite possible misthrasism or something else would have dominated Europe with Christianity a very small or dead sect if Constantine had chosen differently

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 06:57 AM

I have a hide like a rhino's, Dave. If Joe can tell it like it is (he thinks) well so can I. Religion doesn't deserve a tenth of the respect it thinks it does.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 07:53 AM

I'm sure you're right, DMcG.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 12:51 PM

Regarding Steve Shaw's post 19 Oct 15 - 06:30 AM - most of what you say about religion is true, Steve - in certain instances. I'm sure it is a truthful reporting of your own experience and observation. But my experience of religion is quite different from what you describe. Isn't it possible that BOTH are true? Lots of people practice religion - billions, they say. I would submit that your one-size-fits-all condemnation does not apply universally.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 01:35 PM

Steve, I see you continue suggesting that belief in God limits or eliminates scientific enquiry. Firstly, this is clearly a false notion since in history, and at present, there are many who research and believe in God.      Secondly, it is evolutionism that has at least delayed research because of a mindset that did,nt look because of the evolutionary paradigm . So called vestigial organs from our evolutionary past found to have purpose, same with suppose junk DNA . Then of course there is now a " mountain of evidence " of soft tissue etc that though experimental science limits how old they could possibly be , is still held to be millennia older because the paradigm demands it. And it bears stressing that the soft tissues, blood vessels etc in dino bones were only discovered by accident , not deliberate research.                                                                                     Joe, there was in fairness one instance where Steve said something positive about a religious person, the JW that visits him , though I seem to recall it was used to have a dig at me for something.......but just to be fair.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 01:38 PM

It is not a one-size-fits-all condemnation. Time and time again I've said that privately-held personal beliefs are respectable and dignified. I'm guessing that that covers huge numbers of people of faith. You can see from my post who I criticise. I'm careful to avoid the broad brush, as you'd see if only you'd read the posts instead of reacting to the first thing you think you see. I also note the semi-concealed barb about my "experience". My take on religion is predicated on evidence and reason. What's yours?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 02:05 PM

Steve Shaw sez My take on religion is predicated on evidence and reason. What's yours?

A: Same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 02:46 PM

. And it bears stressing that the soft tissues, blood vessels etc in dino bones were only discovered by accident , not deliberate research

I am not sure of your point, Pete. For ease of communication I will label 'research' as about looking for something you expect (or to check it isn't here) whereas 'discovery' is finding something unexpected. That is an incredibly crude approximation, but it does allow us to make the distinction I want to examine. Now, it is not really practical to do entirely speculative research because of limits on resources. The large hadron collider, for example, wasn't built like that just on speculation: there was a lot of information on what Higgs must be like and how it must behave if it existed so you knew the sort of detectors that would be needed and so on. It wasn't just built on a vague hope. Similarly, it would not be practical to search for surviving DNA unless you had a good idea where it would be, what would be needed to detect whatever the surviving amount would be and so on and so forth. Then there is what is called the 'opportunity cost': people who are busy searching through piles of bones can't do other work which has a better prospect of finding something. So reality does limit prospects for research.

On the other hand if a scientist notices something unexpected, in the ideal world they would then take it, investigate further and so on. That's what I mean by 'a discovery' and a heck of a lot of things have been found that way.

Then I say "in the ideal world'. Like the rest of us, whatever you imagine from films and tv, scientists also live in the world of time sheet filling, pointless meetings, monthly reports into bureaucracies and all that palaver. And that bureaucracy often limits the ability to explore discoveries. Let me repeat: it is not the scientists choosing not to do the research, it is organisations saying we are funding you to research into medicines to deal with Ebola, or whatever; we don't authorise you to look into something off the side just because it interests you.

So that is why I am not sure of your point.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 03:59 PM

It suddenly hit me this morning, Pete! I know what you are! You're a computer app, written by creationists, to take part in on-line discussions about evolution. Unfortunately, you're not perfected yet because (a) the only data you have available is piffle from 'Creation.com' and (b) a lot of your contributions are garbled and make very little sense.

After that particular revelation another thought struck me: If you are, in fact, a real person, then you may be the only human being in history to FAIL the Turing Test!

Both possibilities are equally remarkable!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 04:16 PM

Or did I mean, the only human being in history to PASS the Turing Test? Sorry, I've been poorly and now I've had a couple of glasses of Bells ... for medicinal reasons ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 04:18 PM

I have to be honest (as ever, regardless of what other people say) and admit that I like to hold a belief that there is something outside my limited intellect that will see my consciousness beyond this mortal coil. What it is, I have no idea and I also fully admit that it is a hope rather than any reasonable thought. I would not dream of foisting that hope on my kids or anyone else as the truth though. Unless it was to sell more bingo tickets of course...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 06:00 PM

One of religion's trump cards is the offer of an afterlife. TimeStamp's fanciful speculations about consciousness tie in nicely with that. All the talk of multiverses, an ever-expanding bubblebath of universes, etc., given credence by quantum physics (and I'm not arguing with that), has also thrown up the speculation that consciousness is, er, sort of immortal. So you get your afterlife (and forelife) even if you think religion's a pain in the bum. What's not to like!

Well here's what I think. I am not hitching my wagon to that stuff just yet. I need to know more (and TimeStamp thinks I'm too thick to take it in). If you're reading this you're a winner. Your father produced hundreds of billions of sperms and the one that made it to one of your mother's tens of thousands of eggs was the one, along with that egg, that made you. The chances of what should have been you turning out to be somebody else were overwhelming, but you beat the odds and here you are. And even that's nothing when you multiply the odds-against down the thousands of generations of humanity. Makes winning the lottery a dead cert in comparison. So you've done really well but that still isn't enough for you. You want an afterlife on top, maybe a bit of resurrection on judgement day. Well I feel a bit sorry for the countless billions of might-have-beens myself. When I've had my shot of life on earth that'll do me. Wanting a bit more beyond the tomb feels a tad selfish to me! My bet is that the numero uno enticement of religion is that afterlife. Without that, God would be a bit pointless. We'd lose that eternal happiness and we would never be reunited with our loved ones. And the flip side is that religion couldn't threaten you with eternal perdition. The concept of an immortal consciousness without religion is equally enticing. I don't like the idea much, but I'll admit, even to TimeStamp, that it has a damn sight more balls than God. Of course, it still has the potential to delude, just like anything else that entices, though not to disappoint, as you'd never find out that it was wrong all along. As Basil Fawlty might have said, cle-ver!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 06:01 PM

Digging myself deeper (golly, that Bells was good) IF you're a human being (rather than an app) you give a good impression of being a computer programme - one that's been written with the aim of spewing out creationist piffle, from 'Creation.com', over and over and over and over again. That's because your ONLY data source is 'Creation.com'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 06:30 PM

Steve, you still seem to have the impression that being exposed to religion ss a child means you are indelibly imprisoned in it for the rest of your life. Which just isn't the case for the overwhelming number of people I know - and clearly isn't the case for you either. Though perhaps the hostility you feel obliged to express to it might reflect a kind of reverse case of that. (It doesn't apply in the analogy of politics either - how many people who were raised in very polotically active families turn up in the opposite camp in adult life.)

If you are involved with religion in adult life, I would suggest, on the basis of my own experience, and that of people I know, it's because you gave made that choice in adult life.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 07:24 PM

How would the view that irreligion should be OK, but only if it is held as a private belief, strike you Steve?

I haven't seen any posts here denouncing and jeering at people who don't hold with religion. And if there were I'd be writing posts disagreeing strongly with them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 08:37 PM

The argument about children being forced Into faith very young has to be teased out a little here. Some religions force people into faith. Others, such as Catholicism, don't use force generally speaking, though there is often coercion in the form of family pressure and pressure in those horrid faith schools, not to speak of coercion coming from the fear of the Almighty. Force and coercion are not confined to childhood of course though, to me, they seem particularly cruel when applied to children. My point about children is that it is wrong to give them myths as truth when what we should be doing is EDUCATING them. I've done this to death, so, very briefly, education is about giving children the skills and enthusiasm to acquire knowledge. That includes being encouraged to ask for evidence for things they are told are true. No-one ever got educated by having knowledge poured over them, and, especially, no-one ever got educated by being given unsupportable "information" that they are expected to give undue respect and reverence to and not ask awkward questions about. If you think that's a bit of Steve hyperbole, go into your nearest Catholic primary school and look at what's on the walls and blackboard and in their exercise books. If anything, I'm probably understating the case (actually, years ago I had occasion to visit some schools in Harlow). Don't be fooled too much by the pretty colouring in. During religious instruction and services in school time, children are not only not being educated in the true sense, they are in effect being told, confusingly, to put those critical and questioning faculties on hold. There is no other way that you can tell children that there is a God and that Jesus was his son who worked miracles and came back to life. If you think that's a fair way to treat children, then I'm not with you.

Incidentally, you're doing a bit of a Joe when you suggest I'm saying you are indelibly imprisoned for life, etc. I have never actually said that, have I? What I will say is that religious indoctrination of children is worse than a bloody waste of time.

Your reversal scenario simply doesn't work because your position is a belief system whereas mine isn't. I don't know how many hundreds of posts I've sent on this topic, but I never instigate these threads. My position on religion is entirely predicated on yours. Without your religion I wouldn't be here. I am not an equal and opposite. I have no equivalent belief system to yours and all I can ever do is question yours, which I think is misguided, as articulately as I can manage. For all the reasons I've given, I think that yours is ultimately very damaging to many people and that it needs to be attacked. You can call me insulting, heretical, disrespectful, whatever you like, to your religion but you can't really do that back in the same way because I haven't got anything you can attack. Just my demeanour, that's all. Unlike Christianity, I haven't got a message to propagate. I just question yours. And why, after all the harm religion has done and is still doing, should I pull my punches?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 09:03 PM

"I haven't seen any posts here denouncing and jeering at people who don't hold with religion."

Oh, there have been plenty of those. You're forgetting the great days of Sailor Jack's bash-an-atheist-a-day threads! But we're not bitter!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 09:14 PM

Maybe we use language differently, but I would definitely describe your position as a belief system, and I wouldn't see that as any criticism. I wouldn't dream of attacking you for it, or looking for equivalent sneers on the lines of "god botherers" and "invisible friend".

Children are indeed taught that certain things are held by their parents and teachers are true. That applies to all kinds of things, as well as religion. As they grow older their ability to evaluate what they are taught develops, and good schools, including religious schools encourage this. Naturally enough, the physical environment in a school is likely to reflect its culture. A Catholic school will have Catholic symbols. In the same way, when my son was in the Woodcraft Folk, the song book contained The Red Flag.

People who are hostile to religion will also seek to communicate this to their children, I would suggest.

In both cases I doubt very much if adults feel compelled to follow their parents views.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 09:24 PM

Hmm. Sounds like damage limitation thinking to me. Now I don't care if you think I have a belief system. So tell me what its tenets are. Start with the positive ones. Do you think you're half a step away from saying that my atheism is a religion in itself?

Actually, I don't believe in atheism. I have this huge problem, shared with Richard Dawkins, that I don't know whether there's a God or not. I keep saying that but nobody listens!

(Of course, I don't know whether leprechauns are real or not either...)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in Amer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 09:37 PM

When I said "here", I was primarily thinking of this thread, with its 700 plus posts. I never came across "Sailor Jack", and I can't recall any threads like that. If I had, I think I'd remember, and would have made my views about that sort of thing clear. Can't begin to keep up with all the threads, even if I wanted to.,

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 01:47 AM

Addressing somebody (McGrath?), Steve Shaw said: Incidentally, you're doing a bit of a Joe when you suggest I'm saying you are indelibly imprisoned for life, etc. I have never actually said that, have I? What I will say is that religious indoctrination of children is worse than a bloody waste of time.

...and if I copy-paste his exact words, he'll still say he never said that.

...and then he says: Your reversal scenario simply doesn't work because your position is a belief system whereas mine isn't. I don't know how many hundreds of posts I've sent on this topic, but I never instigate these threads. My position on religion is entirely predicated on yours. Without your religion I wouldn't be here. I am not an equal and opposite. I have no equivalent belief system to yours and all I can ever do is question yours, which I think is misguided, as articulately as I can manage. For all the reasons I've given, I think that yours is ultimately very damaging to many people and that it needs to be attacked. You can call me insulting, heretical, disrespectful, whatever you like, to your religion but you can't really do that back in the same way because I haven't got anything you can attack. Just my demeanour, that's all. Unlike Christianity, I haven't got a message to propagate. I just question yours. And why, after all the harm religion has done and is still doing, should I pull my punches?

Let me see if I understand this correctly. It appears to me that Mr. Shaw is far more zealous in opposing religion, than anybody here is zealous in promoting religion (or even merely defending the right to practice religion publicly). And Steve seems to think it is offensive to promote, defend, or practice religion anywhere he might notice, although it's OK to build pretty cathedrals as long as they're not too religious in appearance.

And with all his missionary zeal, Mr. Shaw says he hasn't got a message to propagate, although he prattles on and on about "all the harm religion has done and is still doing." But no, he has no message to propagate. Isn't a negative message, still a message?

The guy really confuses me.

I wonder if he has any understanding of the word "tolerance."

-Joe, doing a Joe again-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 01:56 AM

Atheism is not a religion any more than not playing tennis is a sport (due thanks to a recent correspondent to 'New Scientist' magazine).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 02:04 AM

Messages, like beauty, are very much in the eye of the beholder. It matters not a jot whether Steve or Pete or you or I think we are promulgating a message. What matters is how others perceive it. And whatever your intention Steve, you do appear to at least some others as strongly promoting a particular anti-religious message.with what can only be described as fervour. no one suggests you aren't entitled to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 03:43 AM

Simple really, what annoys Steve is the fact that the Church makes moral pronouncements, which many people adhere to...and the fact that most churches are socially conservative organisations.

Steve is a "liberal" one of the group who has no tolerance of anything which he construes as a danger to his ideology.

Steve says he has no idea whether there is a God or not so why else would he be so vehemently "anti"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 05:44 AM

Cheers, Shimrod. The sword of truth. That is so good I could leave it at that, but you know me...


What anti-religious message? What do I keep saying? Privately-held religious belief is respectable and dignified. It's what hundreds of millions of believers do. Beyond reproach. I have neither the right nor the desire to attack people who harbour private convictions, whether I agree with them or not, that do no harm to other people. Shall I put that at the top of every post so that you won't forget? What I object to is the improper practice of religion. All those things that arrogant believers say and do because they're so convinced that they own the truth, many of their practices so damaging (some are merely annoying and others are just downright amusing). And, Joe Offer, if you haven't spotted by now that you can't offend me, you haven't been keeping up. If, to you, a message is attacking a message, have it your way. If I really wanted to insult me, I'd accuse myself of coming out with long-winded ripostes to someone else's message. All I do is respond, not promote. I haven't got anything to promote. Address the substantive if you don't like it (there is very little of that going on in this thread - no surprise there. Not much to say about what goes on behind closed faith school doors or the penalties for apostasy? Just that I want my cake and eat it with pretty cathedrals. Ha!). The middle man really isn't anywhere near as important.

As for being zealous about opposing religion, I'm not. I don't give a damn about your religion. I give a damn about what you may choose to do with it. The distinction is glaring, though you persistently refuse to see it. It's almost as if you want to make me offend you just so that you can have it back. Just have a little moment with that idea. Good luck with it.

Joe, I'm not going to campaign to have the medieval stone cross on our village church demolished. I rather love it, actually. Incidentally, I've never seen a pretty cathedral. I've seen grand, resplendent, awe-inspiring and architecturally-magnificent cathedrals (and one or two ugly and overblown ones). They are mine as much as yours (I suspect that my tax money may help to sustain some of them, which, in spite of religion's almost boundless riches, I don't object to, as I like having a stake). They were never just yours to magnanimously share out. They are part of my heritage. Hands off. I suspect you know full well that that was not my point. The public promotion of your religion, which you think is harmless, is both tasteless and imperialistic. There is a world of difference between magnificent ancient edifices that grace our cities or villages and the ugly scene of violence, aka crucifix, or that tawdry slogan board, that some eejit has planted outside its entrance. Any argument that maybe I shouldn't want to have any of it if I don't like some of it is a little childish.

I've posted in a lot of detail about what I don't like about religious practices. I'm in a bit of a minority which makes me want to be a loudmouth. Good. I'm proud if you think that's zealous. You religious lot don't have to be zealous in promoting your nonsense because religion is already the default position. We're supposed to either espouse it or live with it, certainly respect it, or face outrage if we demur apropos of its graven images stuck up everywhere. Ironic, huh! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 06:10 AM

"what annoys Steve is the fact that the Church makes moral pronouncements, which many people adhere to"

I'm far more annoyed about the immoral pronouncements. I'm utterly cool with the Pope doing what he should be doing, calling for world peace (I'll give him the benefit and assume that he's calling for an end to his own organisation's bellicose history). I'm not cool with Mother Teresa declaring that abortion is the biggest threat to world peace, or that Aids is just retribution for homosexuals, or that poor people should stop complaining and celebrate their lot, or celebate popes and cardinals declaring that contraception is wrong. If you call those things moral pronouncements, then I'm scratching my head.

As for not having a clue about whether there's a God or not, well I do have a sort of clue because, as you know, I seek evidence. My position on the fence is one that might pull out my fingernails but it won't split my scrotum in twain.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 06:25 AM

I haven't remarked on it before but I really don't get this idea that you find religion ok as long as the religious don't talk or teach anyone about it. I grant you that I don't get in-your-face door to door evangelism either, and I think we have already agreed that I think a lot of the church teaching on contraception is positively harmful (and if we haven't let's do so now)

But even granting all that I can't get my head round the idea religion is ok if you keep it to yourself. It makes as much sense to me as saying concern for human rights is fine as long as you keep it to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 06:36 AM

Who said don't talk about it? Not me! Teach about it? Great. Every child should know about world religions, their tenets and their history. An education without that is not education. There is plenty of scope for not keeping it quiet. You know very well what it is I'm against, and it's absolutely none of that. As for your human rights point, well promoting human rights is more akin to the atheistic standpoint, and the abuse of human rights is more akin to improper practices of religions. Not all practices of religions and not the practice of religion, I hasten to add. Not a great parallel for making your point, I suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 06:56 AM

To ask the Christian to keep his faith private, is actually asking him not to practise his faith, as sharing his faith is part of his faith. That , of course does not mean, say , in private conversation, that he will insist on talking about it if the other person asks to both stop talking about it..         Dmcg, on earlier post, I was anticipating the objection that it was evolutionist scientists that self corrected. The point still holds that the evolutionary mindset has hindered science.    It also holds that the paradigm keeps them from accepting the valid conclusions of experimental science .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 07:05 AM

The parallel I was seeking is that it is inherent in the idea of both religion and concern for human rights that it not just kept to yourself. If you do it really ceases to be, in any meaningful sense.

The extent to which each is "A Good Thing" is a different point to the one I was attempting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 07:05 AM

Interesting analogy , Steve, re sperms. Adapting it perhaps. It could have been one of many sperms that made it, but there is a very good chance of one of them making it , because everything is already in place.   When it comes to origins , once there was absolutely nothing in place and no place either, no nothing,.......except the theist says that there was God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 07:23 AM

When I said "inherent in the idea of religion" I should course have said Christian religions. I am not knowledgable enough to make such a generalisation of religions as such.


(My son married a practising Hindu last year in the uk and they will have a Hindu wedding next year. I have a 900 page book to get through on what all the bits of the ceremony are about. Wish me luck!)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 07:37 AM

"To ask the Christian to keep his faith private, is actually asking him not to practise his faith, as sharing his faith is part of his faith."

Well there is a distinction between sharing your faith and propagating your faith. I hope that you're not conflating the two, taking advantage of the fact that "sharing" sounds like such a nice thing to do, from the generosity of your heart, etc. Talking about your faith in gatherings of like-minded people, or debating faith with other mature adults, what's to object to? But if you think that telling little children about how Jesus came down from heaven, raised the dead, turned water into wine, was killed in a horrible way, then came back to life is sharing your faith, I'm not with you. That is not sharing. That is indoctrinating. And most people who allege that they are Christians don't share their faith much, as the pathetic Sunday morning bums-on-pews statistics show. It doesn't seem to me that sharing is a sine qua non of Christianity at all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 04:26 PM

So would I be right to understand your position as being that it's morally objectionable for an adult to tell a child that those things are true? But that it's OK if they tell the child that they believe those things are true, and that the Church holds them to be true, both of those being statements of facts?

A fine distinction. But I strongly suggest that the latter way is frequently the way it actually happens.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 04:30 PM

"The point still holds that the evolutionary mindset has hindered science.    It also holds that the paradigm keeps them from accepting the valid conclusions of experimental science ."

That point certainly does not "hold" anything - except maybe a lot of piss and wind! The science of Evolutionary Biology has annoyed a bunch of religious fanatics, styling themselves 'creationists', who have set up a website containing a lot of heavily biased distortions and misinformation. This website is your SOLE source of information, Pete - admit it - and you think that reading the material on this website, and parroting it, makes you some sort authority on Evolutionary Biology!! Whatever happened to Christian humility - you pathetic tosser?!!

And show me the results of an experiment which demonstrates the existence of God and follow those results with the results of another experiment which demonstrates that God created everything.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 04:40 PM

It's still a tendentious approach, Kevin. Context is everything. If you were telling children that in the context of educating them about world religions, great. But your approach sounds a bit like sneaking it in to me. Too much scope for input of personal predilections. It's a delicate issue. Neutrality of approach is everything.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 05:04 PM

People who believe the earth is only 6000 years old do not merely have a different opinion. They are - as someone on another thread has styled at least one of the U.S. Republican presidential candidates - batshit crazy.

Evolution is not something one "believes in" or not - it exists and functions in the real world.

As with Holocaust deniers, Scientologists, moon landing hoax advocates and Raelians (are there still Raelians around?) et. al., there is no point trying to hold a rational discussion/dfebate with them.

They are batshit crazy. Full stop.

All attempting to engage tham in rational debate does is tend to legitimize their batshit craziness, as if their insanity and delusion were worthy of serious consideration.

Enough, already.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 05:45 PM

Childremn learn to talk in a particular language, and not generally in the context of other languages. That can come later- and if you haven't learnt how to communicate in your own language, you'll find it very hard to manage to make head or tail of any others.

But of course it's good to do so. In fact it improves your ability to use your own language.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 06:24 PM

So let me get this right. You think it could be OK to talk about a miraculous Jesus who came down from heaven, worked miracles, raised the dead, died nailed to a cross and came back to life, all in a really simple form of English, postponing till later the complicated world of telling them straight about what billions of people believe? Well, to be honest, I find the latter scenario a hundred times simpler then the former, and, strike me down if I'm wrong, but I think I'm a bit more sophisticated than the average kid!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 07:23 PM

"Evolution is not something one "believes in" or not - it exists and functions in the real world."

You just can't tell some people this, Greg. Evolution is a fact of life and is THE explanation for life on earth in all its diversity, complexity and beauty. It was amazing that it took until the nineteenth century for someone to explain this. The theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the most elegant, sublime and beautiful products of the human mind. In contract, religious objections to it are ignorant, desperate, petty and prejudiced. I feel a bit sorry for the well-meaning but misguided people of faith who valiantly try to espouse it. That just doesn't work. Darwin was a very diplomatic fellow and would never have said that evolution and creationism were incompatible. But I'm the great-great-great-great-great-great grandson of Darwin's bulldog (in spirit at least), and I'm saying it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 08:05 PM

At least Raelians are getting laid.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 08:17 PM

Yes, Steve. That's what many, maybe most, parents do and have always done. We grow up into a family, and we grow up into a religion. Maybe we decide to give up the religion, for good and all, or for a time. Either way very likely it is still part of our culture.

And we learn about at least a sample of the innumerable things other people around the world believe and do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 08:33 PM

This was in today's Guardian, a lovely peace by Mark Cocker. I know I'm not supposed to reproduce stuff like this in full, but in mitigation I beseech you to buy Mark's sublime book, "Claxton: Field Notes From A Small Planet". You might well decide that it's the most beautiful book you'll ever own. Anyway, savour this lovely writing and ponder the complete absence of or need for magic!

As I sat in the garden I could hear what seemed like the rustle of some mysterious animal right behind me. That puzzle continued for a while until the penny dropped: the noise was not in the hedge but on top of my head. So I painstakingly lowered my cap until, sure enough, there was a common darter dragonfly blithely sunning itself still in my cradled hands.

I could appreciate how the faint rubbing of those plasticised wings was the source of the intermittent message. And as we observed one another I wondered what its compound eyes, inheritance from the Carboniferous, made of its admirer.

I doubt there was much sentiment on the part of one of us, but I was moved. Why are these moments of close connection with wild creatures so special? Yet they are. On his Twitter page, a friend still commemorates the moment a lime hawk moth deigned to use his nose as a perch. Thoreau had a sparrow land on his shoulder and "felt that I was more distinguished by that circumstance than I should have been by any epaulet I could have worn".

The best story of this kind I've heard recently was one by John Lister-Kaye of his friend, the naturalist and writer Gavin Maxwell. The former had found a fox with its leg cheese-wired in a snare. Despite his best efforts he couldn't free the snarling, man-hating beast and went to Maxwell, who leapt into the boat to go to the rescue.

When they approached the wounded animal there ensued the same routine of agonising interspecific bad blood. But slowly, Maxwell, talking, reassuring all the while, moved closer and closer and, as he spoke so he soothed the victim, until eventually trust blossomed and the man painstakingly opened the wire and freed his friend.

Maxwell's private and business life were a trainwreck, but with this tale he has never seemed more admirable or more human. It's not just that we join the other animals in such moments, it's that we lose that birthright, old as a sharpened stick, that all our species inherits.

I was so moved that I added a comment on the Guardian website. If I have a religion at all, this article is a bloody good articulation of it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 08:34 PM

Grrr. "Piece!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 09:13 PM

"Peace" works as well. Lovely.

Mind, while it's true to see it as the barrier we identify berween us and other animals being put aside, it's equally true to see it as an instance of a human acting in a way that only a human could. And there's no contradiction between the two ways of seeing it. Having that barrier down enabled Maxwell to be even more truly human.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 09:30 PM

There's not an awful lot we can do about how families influence their children, and a good thing too. No-one has the monopoly on what's the right thing to do. We can hope that a well-educated populace will generally try to do their kids justice. Schools have a big part to play. That does not mean that we can't have an opinion about what goes on. Unsentimental discussion, from the hip, can play a significant part in persuading parents to give more consideration as to what is influencing their children, and how. It's not about being prescriptive (I'll leave that to big religion). It's about being alert and caring. And wanting your kids to grow up free-thinking and fair-minded. You won't get that by giving them shackles to wear.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 10:30 PM

@ Steve "Unsentimental discussion ' But you can't do that, that's your whole problem. There is a coin you are one side Pete is the other. Data driven, not dogma driven is what is needed. You by picking a team and fighting imaginary battles are part of the problem. I am not btw talking about proving the existence of a God or creator or any such. What I'm talking about is common knowledge in a lot of circles and has been with us for ever.
    Fact 1 (not rhetoric) There is a physical process some people from each generation go through that expands their awareness.
--
    Fact 2 It is in all cultures and always has been, and nobody owns it.

--    Fact 3 Regardless of culture or tradition the end product is the same..universal.
    Inconvenient for you I know but there ya go

Now the logical route is to assume it's psychosis,well research it that doesn't hold water. The next step is to assume it must be fantasists passing down a meme, that won't fit either.No matter how you try dismiss it, it won't go away (been there). You have to stop debating this for a while and start contemplating it properly. Accept the the facts above on your own away from the net until you have digested them and the implications,that may take a while. Then you will have a more informed view and we could move on and it gets interesting. I piss everybody off with my approach,the athiests and the religious because I have no team. I have two more free days and if you post anything relevant, I'll discuss with you.The last time we tried you dodged by insinuating I was thick,well I have a pretty hefty IQ and I'm only mentioning that to put you right. Now really am going to sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in Americ
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 10:50 PM

Nothing in that last post of yours I'd take issue with, Steve. Of course we might not see eye to eye on what free-thinking and fair-minded mean.

"Shackles" minded me of William Blake's "mind forged manacles" in "London". Now there was a free-thinking and fair-minded man, and in no one's team...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 02:01 AM

I've mentioned before that my daughter now works in Thailand and the village have given her a nickname which roughly translates as "woman with open mind and open arms."

Doesn't sound as if I have shackled her too much, I would say.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 03:56 AM

"They are batshit crazy. Full stop.

All attempting to engage tham in rational debate does is tend to legitimize their batshit craziness, as if their insanity and delusion were worthy of serious consideration.

Enough, already"

Yes, Greg, you're right - enough already!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 04:40 AM

Time Stamp. What does What I'm talking about is common knowledge in a lot of circles and has been with us for ever mean? Would you care to share with us what that 'common knowledge' is? What is this physical process that expands awareness? It seems, to me, that you are hinting at things that may be deemed mystical in some way. Are you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 06:30 AM

Until Mr Stamp cares to elucidate further on his wacky notions about awareness and consciousness (which have probably got a lot in them, but terms like baby and bathwater spring to mind), there's not a lot to be said. If we judge a person by their accuracy, however, he falls a little short. I am extremely alone posting on this topic and do not "pick teams"; I recoil furiously at all times, as you know, from silly talk of "proof"; and I didn't call him "thick", though he did insinuate that I was ignorant, without revealing why he thought so. I'll put that down to faulty memory. Not the sort of thing you expect from someone with such a hefty IQ!


[Actually, I did the IQ test myself at university, which I rapidly became ashamed of when I found out about Eysenck's despicable right-wing predilections and views on race, and discovered how you could coach yourself to get good scores in the IQ test. Uncoached myself, I too emerged with a hefty IQ (confirming the astronomical score I'd achieved when tested at 11 years old) which I've long regarded as completely valueless as a measure of anything at all. I find it surprising that anyone needing to promote their intellectual credentials would want to pull that one out of the bag. Doesn't seem a very intelligent thing to do to me!]

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 06:48 AM

Ah, IQ tests! Such a simple idea in principle and such a great example of how an idea with a highly suspect foundation can dominate so much - education policy, recruitment, promotions... A bit like our modern obsession with BMI whose chief merit seems to be it is easy and cheap to calculate.

I now await Steve pointing other things with at best suspect foundations being treated with more respect than they deserve...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 06:50 AM

I never said that having religion around in a family represents shackles. Shackles are things that tie you down. They make it hard to escape. Things like the threat of social ostracism, shaming family honour, physical punishments for apostasy. The Catholic Church is relatively benign (though I would never had dared tell my gran that I wasn't a Catholic any more - she'd have been devastated. My dad isn't too happy with my stance on belief either. Paths of least resistance can be shackles too), though not as benign as the CofE. I know a family in which one parent is a devout Catholic, the other ignores religion altogether and the four children have happily been allowed to choose whatever paths they wanted. We told our kids that it was best that we didn't exercise our right to exclude them from religious instruction and ceremony at school, but we could talk about it at home. But the way you end up is not always necessarily an indication of how you were treated as a child. Kids are resilient creatures who pick up influences less and less from parents as they grow up and more and more from peers. Sometimes the most free-thinking people come from the most illiberal backgrounds, in the words of that great mafioso, they did it their way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 06:55 AM

"I now await Steve pointing other things with at best suspect foundations being treated with more respect than they deserve..."

Perhaps later. And "suspect" doesn't even begin to cut it!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:00 AM

Well to be perfectly honest Steve what you typed about IQ tests is what I've been saying for years,or very similar. All we have though, was just trying and obviously failing in keeping you focused.
    No harm you carry on my instincts were right you're not interested in trying to understand.Bye

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:15 AM

Before I opt out the thread for good I have to quote this from the poster Ebbie.." It is amazing that we don't yet accept how much on our side our brains and bodies are. " That simple little quote there is the wisest thing I have ever read on this forum. "Enlightnment" is exactly that, the intelligence of the body coming to the fore and "you" getting out the way. Regardless of whether Ebbie agrees with me or not in this context, that quote is spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:35 AM

So, dip in with a mystic quote or two, don't explain anything and then bugger off. Religious leaders have done that for years. Old hat and no real intelligence required to do it.

Going on about physical processes that lead to common knowledge is pretty poor anyway. If you want to go for real deep and meaningful stuff, I prefer "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." Or "Why, certainly, I'll have your whelk. How do we do it? Volume!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:45 AM

Well Dave, he did sting me into looking up the stuff he goes on about. I don't think he actually understands it well enough to articulate it clearly to us is what I concluded. And it's odd that he agrees with me about the uselessness of IQ tests yet chose to beat his chest over his own hefty score. His hobby horse is interesting but he's declined to enlighten us on it (another irony, if you take the play on words).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:10 AM

"Enlightnment" is exactly that, the intelligence of the body coming to the fore and "you" getting out the way.

Hunh? And in English that is...?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:29 AM

I have a friend, who shall remain nameless although I don't think he is daft enough to come on here. We were out walking, in a group, and reached the top of Ingleborough in beautiful weather but quite thick snow. I know the routes very well and 3 or 4 of us headed back down as we we were old and knackered while my friend and a couple of others were much younger and raring to do more.

When they had not appeared in the pub after dark we began to worry and contemplated calling mountain rescue but shortly after they turned up. Having been led miles out of their way by my friend who was using his inner enlightenment and gut feelings on how to get back to Ingleton. He didn't half have the piss taken out of him.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:44 AM

Many of us are indeed dazzled by how enlightened we are :)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 11:50 AM

Steve, as I hold that the bible and the gospel are true, I am obviously going to communicate that to my kids ( also part of my faith !) , but I suspect with less fervour than you share your faith......of course, you say it ain't faith though, even though you have far from evidenced its truthfulness.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 12:43 PM

In fairness Greg I can see how that could seem vague, so lets try clear it up a bit, it does deserve answering.
    If a human being can relax their body enough and quieten their thoughts,after a period of time a process kicks in. If they maintain it long enough something happens in the brain. If you're a meditator and you have your eyes are closed it's an explosion of light, if you have your eyes open there is an explosion of light around you.It's the brain releasiing Dmt. That's as simple as I can get it and barely scratches the surface,but you're not really interested anyway.
ps. Just because someone has this experience doesn't make them better than anybody else.Most only sustain it for a short while anyway.
    Now back to your comfort zone 8)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 01:17 PM

That's as simple as you can get it, eh? Shame the scientists can't get it then! Pure speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 01:37 PM

Do you know, just about the time I had to go out this morning - around 11:50 AM - I swear I caught a whiff of bat droppings (how strange). I remember reading somewhere - can't for the life of me think where - that crazy people often smell like that ... I wonder if that's true?

Anyway, must clean out that belfry ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 01:38 PM

Steve, as I hold that the bible and the gospel are true, I am obviously going to communicate that to my kids ( also part of my faith !) , but I suspect with less fervour than you share your faith......of course, you say it ain't faith though, even though you have far from evidenced its truthfulness."

Huh? I thought the gospel was the Bible. Oh well. As for what I've got, think about what you've got. Then think that what you've got is what I have not got. I can't be fervent about what I have not got and it can't be my treasured baby because, well, I haven't got it. Actually, there IS no "it", that's the issue. But clearly I post a lot, so I must be fervent about something. The thing I'm fervent about, pete, is not what I have not got, but about what you have got. I'm fervent about you misusing the thing that you have got. I'm not at all bothered that you've got the thing you've got. That's not my business. I'm bothered about what you do with what you've got, certainly not about what I haven't got, which is what you've got. Got it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 01:45 PM

I meditate. Have done since I was about 15 - Almost 50 years ago. Can do it for hours. Also practice Tai Chi and Chi Gung. Certainly very relaxing and helps me considerably but I cannot say it has ever enlightened me about anything metaphysical. It has made me realise that all the arguments people get into are pointless. Is that what you mean? Or are you going to use the old snake oil salesman's excuse that if it has not happened I cannot be doing it right?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 01:46 PM

BTW, Mr Stamp, thought you had gone? Maybe you are not quite as composed as you thought...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 01:59 PM

What he's saying is, well, like, you've got this, like, magic mushroom sort of thing in your brain, and if you relax enough it can, er, make you hallucinate sort of style, and if you nearly dIe but not quite die the same thing happens, sort of, and you don't panic, and you see funny animals and stuff, but you can only tell us all that if you nearly die but not if you actually die. Failing that, take LSD. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 02:05 PM

Thumbs up like sort of thingy


Man...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 07:27 PM

Maybe we're being a bit hard on him on reflection. It's fine to challenge yourself by exploring ideas that have yet to find general acceptance. There's been some research, there's some literature and there have been speculative links made between consciousness outside the body in the universe at large that transcends the human body's puny lifespan. What we have may be not all there is and you don't need God for it. The challenge to the intellect is considerable, though a lot of the stuff plumbs the murky depths of popular science. Just a couple of things about it all, though. First, we need evidence. Not anecdotes, not witness (which, unfortunately, is what stuff like near-death experiences can only be until we have a ton more corroboration than we have now). A pile of St Bernadettes won't cut it. And linking speculative notions to other speculative notions, such as multiverses and expanding foam universes, simply multiplies the chances of going USCWAP*. it's a damn sight more likely to have truth in it than God, because the speculation at least doesn't defy the intellect by requiring magic and the quantum physics connection is not implausible. Of course, there are ways and ways of presenting it. Another thing is the all-trumping enticement of the afterlife, or whatever you might want to call the non-death of consciousness. That can make you believe stuff that maybe you ought to be questioning a bit more.

In the meantime I prefer to fight for my personal enlightenment in ways other than quasi-druggy mind alteration!

*up shit creek without a paddle

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 08:17 PM

Sometimes the most free-thinking people come from the most illiberal backgrounds, in the words of that great mafioso, they did it their way. Though it often works the other way too. One way and another people often react against their parents and background.

As for IQ tests, when I was a id doing 11+ we used to have coaching in doing IQ tests. After a bit we could get perfect scores remarkably easy. Of course sometimes you could be too clever by half, and lost points because the markers hadn't spotted a correct alternative answer.

Yes, we all know there are religious traditions which are brutal in how they treat "apostates". You get it in other areas too, like religion. Even in sport. That's not really about religion, politics or sport as such. It's a kind of mobbing, and other species do it too.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 08:42 PM

True enough. But I thought the idea was to try to be civilised.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:12 PM

Guest was me on wrong computer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 03:11 AM

As I said, Steve, I was speaking from a position of some considerable experience. When I first came across the idea of meditation, particularly transcendental, I was around 15 and quite impressionable. My first foray into that field were the books by T Lobsang Rampa. I subsequently spent many years following Buddhist and other teachings to achieve enlightenment. It did prove to be somewhat elusive but the meditation techniques did give me an insight into the workings of my own mind and eventually gave me the truth that "the truth" is within. Sorry to be somewhat mystic about it but I cannot honestly say that if you were to get the 'flash of light' that Mr Stamp was on about it would be the same one or ones that I have had.

You quite probably have had them. Flashes of inspiration. Quick glimpses into something that us old hippies may call the cosmic conciousness (Oh, yea, man...) Whatever people call it, it can be very enlightening to the extent that you realise that there is something beyond what you have been taught or can reason. There is nothing mystical about it really and I am sure that it is part of the human mind that we simply do not yet understand. As there are so many thing that science has yet to discover. One thing I can be pretty sure (but not certain) of. It is not an external super being of some sort.

The only time anyone else has ever made me one with everything was at the hot dog stand... ;-)

One little meditative trick that I came across in the last few years that made a difference to me and others may be interested in. Prior to meditating make sure that you are not doing it just for yourself. You are doing it to become calmer or happier or more enlightened or whatever is your motive. But that does not just help you. It benefits those around you as well. You are doing it for them too. It is far easier and usually more satisfying to do something for someone else that it is to do it just for yourself.

Enough philosophy from me for one day :-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 03:37 AM

I have often wondered if at one stage in human development we had more than the five senses we acknowledge today, sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell.

I wonder if, before we could communicate verbally and then later in writing, the human species had an ability to transfer thoughts in other ways, e;g telepathy.

I wonder if as we have become more sophisticated we have, for the most part, lost other abilities as the need for them diminished.

Could it be that people who "know" things are merely getting "flashbacks" of an ability that we all once had.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 04:00 AM

BTW - talking of near death experience. I suffered from obstructive sleep apnoea for years. Never revealed anything to me ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 09:17 AM

We've got more than five senses anyway. Try touching your index fingers behind your back, for example. That's "proprioception".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 11:31 AM

I suffer from epilepsy. I think that I may have had it as an infant but it came back when I was in my fifties. If you are epileptic, you can have two types of seizure - 'petit mal' or 'grand mal'. If you experience the latter type, you just lose consciousness and fall over (now I'm on medication, I occasionally lose consciousness but don't fall over - go figure!). But it is the former type of seizure which is most puzzling. Sometimes I find my mind sort of 'chasing-its-own-tail' trying to solve a non-existent puzzle but other times I have a sort of 'deja-vu' type of experience in which I visit another reality. This reality is very ordinary and mundane but its not the one I normally experience. Afterwards, I can't remember any details. During one of these experiences am I just recalling a chunk of my earlier life, having a waking dream or temporarily visiting another me in a parallel universe (probably not)? This is all down to neurons mis-firing in my brain but I do know what 'altered consciousness' feels like.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 01:20 PM

Dtg - "There is nothing mystical about it really and I am sure that it is
part of the human mind that we simply do not yet understand "

Yes I would go with that too. Although the word mystical can cover
many things,but yes I think I agree.


Just as many people have this happen that don't meditate/pray so
it's hard to pin it down.Totally agree with your thoughts on meditation but I never found it useful,except as a quick recharge/refresher, if meditation is what I was doing, and it was only for a week or two. A lot of people naturally just sit back from their thoughts anyway.
So, now slag me for opting back in the thread 8) I found your post surprisingly reasonable for a gnome.
    Few myths to dispel,Hallucinogens and ingested dmt will not deliver what I'm talking about completely different animal. Even if we find that naturally occurring dmt does not play a role looking at the pineal and it's role in this is the way to go imho.
    Another myth, it has to be tortuous, it's a self induced near death exp, both wrong assumptions. Although I suspect similar probably happens at death the healthy waking process is different. They reckon people who have had OBE'S can slip into it easier. They being the people who've had it.
    So can we get close to accepting there maybe enough data from history and present day that there is an energetic process that human beings can go through that cumulates in brain activity that involves a brilliance of light ie lightbulb space (sorry my clumsy term) which in turn leaves the person "elevated/lightened" for a time
afterwards ? .. No..ok worth a stab though.
To me it's blatantly flaming obvious,regardless of any of our thoughts
on its benefit
      Steve when the coroner sends the bits back I'll be attending a
woman of 37 yrs of age funeral. Addiction killed her, no blood
relation to me, we all loved her despite her addiction. The Mrs
and I raised her two kids to adulthood,adopted them. I've lost say
20-30, old friends to addiction and hiv caught through addiction.
So believe you me you dopey fekin eejit 8) I'm not advocating
anybody to use drugs. You couldn't possibly know my views
on drugs and why I have them,so I know you mean't no harm.
Just that hair trigger of yours again..oh I'm joking.
      Taking a step sideways, when drug addicts get clean
they are told they have a lifelong disease, "the monkey"
Addicts call periods of clean time white knuckling they exist in a
chi-less world constantly dropping into adrenal fatigue,they just have
to cope and many admirably do.There is no medical cure except
low opiate maintenance and many can't accept those handcuffs.
    The only thing that I have ever seen flush the monkey
out of people is this process I'm talking about. We all have
our little monkeys,addicts have gorillas. So you see, forget God
forget cosmic consciousness the very fact that it can heal
addiction if the addict can be made to understand, which is rare
unfortunately,the relief is available. AA and NA can
trigger it but like religion doesn't deliver enough.
    Nothing I have typed is outlandish and very reasonable
based on scrutinising all sorts of data,if anyone else does
the same you would have to agree there is a process and it does
have value regardless of personal circumstances (state you're in)
      Now for the religious. I am not reducing God to a chemical
phsical process, and you can only take this so far until you hit
the source question, that, nobody now or ever has known.
    Peace n shit (just to keep the hippie vibe going)
ps
Can't see me getting time to indulge anymore,but I hope I
don't make too many waves as not my intention.Relax..digest
what you've learnt 8) ok bad joke.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 01:23 PM

I didn't format like it appeared. apologies 8)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 01:52 PM

No slagging off, TS but I am disappointed. Not at you coming back, but at the whole 'my instincts were right you're not interested in trying to understand.Bye ' thing. It was very provocative, dismissive and far from the standing back and thinking about things that you were advocating only a few posts back. Still, we all make mistakes. Me being amongst the bigger culprits so you are in good company ;-)

And I'll have you know that us Gnomes are eminently sensible. All that standing round ponds with fishing rods gives us the patience of saints...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 02:20 PM

Yep point taken. I always get the urge to fackawf when I feel it beginning to get shitty. Because I know I feel shitty afterwards if I do shitty.Shit innit

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 08:50 PM

Christ on a bloody bike. Where to begin?

First off, Time Stamp, you are a very complicated person, not at all like me, who is very very simple. Let's get one thing straight. I would never deny that people might have out of body experiences. But here's the thing. We have their word for it. We can collect a dozen, a hundred or a thousand such anecdotes. But I've been educated as a scientist to dismiss witness as evidence. You see, what happens here is that a few people describe in colourful words their alleged experiences, and a bandwagon starts to roll. Which is not for a single second to say that I'm calling them liars, etc. But how hard it gets to sort the wheat from the chaff. There may well be a lot in it for all I know. But there is no evidence that meets the standard for evidence required by science. That standard is there for a reason, the reason being that we don't make progress in the accumulation of knowledge if we rely on hearsay or witness.


"So can we get close to accepting there maybe enough data from history and present day that there is an energetic process that human beings can go through that cumulates in brain activity that involves a brilliance of light ie lightbulb space (sorry my clumsy term) which in turn leaves the person "elevated/lightened" for a time
afterwards ? .. No..ok worth a stab though..."

You may think it's worth a stab but I don't think it's worth a hill of beans without evidence, and your attempt at ratifying your strange notions by saying that "we're close to accepting..."is pseudoscience at its most blatant.

As for your rant about drugs, which appears to cast me in something of a false light in view of what I actually posted (I'm not bothered), you appear to have had a career in dodgy substances that I haven't had. Well good for you. I don't want this to sound too intolerant, which it probably will, but I have no desire to define the philosophy of life in terms of substance abuse. To me, that informs nothing at all apart from the predilections that some people have to pollute and degrade their mental attributes. "Altered states of consciousness", etc., can be, in certain hands, a game attempt to describe pissed or stoned in a more respectable way than is deserved This is not a really a thread about drug abuse. If you really want to talk about mind-altering or different states of consciousness, you need to define your terms first and then demonstrate how it actually happens, not come up with some bullshit about brain DMT producing shafts of light, etc., that you can't substantiate. Your ideas are very interesting, but you shit in your own bed by being abrasive towards people who haven't yet come across your particular brand of new ageism. Give me your email and I'll send you some lovely pics of Bude Canal. A lot has changed in recent years.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 02:28 AM

I admit I can't get much out of Timwstamp's account, either, but that last post from Steve appears to boil down to it is not scientific so it's without merit. And I don't agree for several reasons including that no one claimed it was scientific. Timestamp appears to regard that as inhibiting the way you look at things and i agree with him/her that it can. And so do you, I think, as you often refer to lack of rationality to supporting the football club you do. But also I think it underrates the importance of anecdotal information in steering more formal science, if only its role identifying something "that might be worth exploring"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 03:16 AM

If you can't see it Steve then fine no big deal. GL carry on

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 03:31 AM

I had no Internet service for a few days, and Steve Shaw posted this:

Thread #158223   Message #3745529
Posted By: Steve Shaw
20-Oct-15 - 06:24 PM
Thread Name: BS: The Pope in America
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America


So let me get this right. You think it could be OK to talk about a miraculous Jesus who came down from heaven, worked miracles, raised the dead, died nailed to a cross and came back to life, all in a really simple form of English, postponing till later the complicated world of telling them straight about what billions of people believe? Well, to be honest, I find the latter scenario a hundred times simpler then the former, and, strike me down if I'm wrong, but I think I'm a bit more sophisticated than the average kid!

I don't think kids are the literalists that some people take them to be. They seem to have an innate understanding of fiction, and don't really need to be told specifically that stories are stories. And they seem to be able to see the truth in fiction and the falsehood in "fact." To my mind, "fact" can be deceptive, since "factual" reporting often disregards implications and the possibility of a variety of perceptions.

I think that literalism is a learned trait, resulting from a gradual closing of the mind.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 04:00 AM

Joe, I don't know if teaching of the catholic church has altered radically since I was a child in the late 50's early 60's but the "stories" you refer to were told as the absolute truth then and God help you if you didn't believe them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 05:06 AM

DMcG, that's not really fair. I've actually been very careful not to be dismissive. But he's throwing his toy out of the pram every time his postulations are challenged. I've been told that I'm arguing against him from ignorance, that we're not interested, etc. I have, actually, spent time looking into his stuff. There is not much evidence for anything he claims and there is no general acceptance of any of it. I've invited him to expand on his take on consciousness beyond the confines of the human mind (the most interesting thing he's touched on) but he won't bite. We castigate Pete for his refusal to embrace science. This chap castigates us for refusing to cast science aside in order to embrace his speculations. It's called throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 05:21 AM

I've invited him to expand on his take on consciousness beyond the confines of the human mind (the most interesting thing he's touched on) but he won't bite.

I can't give you what you want. My only solution would be to talk to the many who have experienced what a fuller conscious experience feels/looks like. I want what you want, for science to understand it. I want it mapped, one day we WILL have a fuller understanding. All we can do is wait and not bite down too early.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:00 AM

But you said it was a lifelong interest of yours. It is interesting. Even my hero Carl Sagan found it interesting. You're being evasive!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:28 AM

Ok, if I seems unfair I apologise. It was unintentional. I certainly don't support a rejection of science ever. It is without doubt the most successful technique we humans have ever discovered. I just resist the assumption that it can do everything and explain everything. Leaving God and religion and magic mushrooms out of it, we have if you like two domains - the firat is 'reality' as observed through our senses augmented by microscopes, radiation sensors and everything else but always in some sense "perceived". The other is a scientific representation which we know is incomplete but extends continously. Now is it self evident that the second can completely cover the former in principle? I grant you we know of no exceptions of major significance but things like turbulent flow could well prove to be inherently beyond science, not just our current techniques. So I see it as an open Question: are there aspects of reality that are inherently beyond science? I would say possibly, but on our current understanding they must be exceedingly rare.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:32 AM

Actually yes I am 8) because any further discussion between us would be fruitless. Like you said you're a simple man,me too,just I can't simplify this anymore I've already reduced it as far as I can. I could point you in the direction {and have done) of many who are trying to make scientific sense of it, but it would be lost on you and I totally understand. Can't think of anything else to say, you either see it or you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:54 AM

"I don't think kids are the literalists that some people take them to be. They seem to have an innate understanding of fiction, and don't really need to be told specifically that stories are stories."

Right. I told my two that Santa was bringing them presents. I also told them to put their tooth under the pillow and they'd get 50p. By the time they were seven or eight I cheerfully released them from these two fantasies and we have a good laugh about to this day. In fact, we still go through a charade every Christmas Eve in which they leave a mince pie, a carrot for Rudolph and a tot of whisky for Santa on a saucer at the bottom of the chimney. Naturally, they come down next morning to find that the goodies have been consumed, and there's a note left on the crumby saucer from Santa, strangely enough in my handwriting, usually complaining about bellyache from the 17000th mince pie of the night and can we please make it Talisker next year, and signed "Satnav" (we've concluded that Santa is dyslexic).

Mr Spock would probably find my pathetic reasons for pursuing these fantasies to be indefensible. But the crucial thing is that eventual release is automatic. I'd have been very worried indeed had either of my two somehow failed to ditch them (in spite of prodding in that direction) and I'd have swanned in quickly to disabuse them. But your stories are not the same thing. They are tendentious (look it up). Eventual release is not the intention. Whether they take every scrap of the tales literally is beside the point. Children are expected to hang on to the stories for life. To a Christian parent it's disappointing if the kids ditch the yarns. To some Muslim parents in certain countries, it could be the trashing of family honour at best and seeing your child's head cut off at worst. Millions and millions of people the world over take those biblical stories to be true in the generality if not in every detail, and they are probably wrong. Because you can't see that you're probably wrong yourself, you find it easy to defend the practice of, how best to put this, telling children lies. You don't even know whether Jesus existed at all (there is evidence that he likely didn't). But either you refute that doubt or it simply doesn't trouble you. I'm not going to reject everything I read in the New Testament as mythology. I'm sure that real people wrote it all down and, buried in there somewhere, there is some genuine history. But Christianity has real trouble accepting uncertainty as uncertainty. I come back to all your prayers and hymns, drilled into your children so that they can trot them out parrot fashion, chock full of certainty. The Lord's Prayer is possibly the most egregious example. The tales you tell them are not harmless fun. They are intended to stick. And there is no reason on earth why you should be doing that. No good can come of misleading people deliberately. The truth about the world is plenty wonderful enough. Douglas Adams again.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:09 AM

"I grant you we know of no exceptions of major significance but things like turbulent flow could well prove to be inherently beyond science, not just our current techniques. So I see it as an open Question: are there aspects of reality that are inherently beyond science? I would say possibly, but on our current understanding they must be exceedingly rare."

We shouldn't say that anything is inherently beyond science. Not even God. It's simplistic but true to say that the more we get to know, the more we find even greater complexities to solve. It's my guess that that will go on until the end of time. We don't know all the laws of nature and we haven't cracked all the mysteries of the ones we do know. Science is a never-ending process that, er, requires scientists (us). It isn't a static entity that things can be permanently beyond. It doesn't look for proofs or final answers. So I don't believe that anything is beyond that process. God is supposed to be. The people who put him there, by so doing, make him look so idiotic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:25 AM

"Actually yes I am 8) because any further discussion between us would be fruitless. Like you said you're a simple man,me too,just I can't simplify this anymore I've already reduced it as far as I can. I could point you in the direction {and have done) of many who are trying to make scientific sense of it, but it would be lost on you and I totally understand. Can't think of anything else to say, you either see it or you don't."

Sounds like a copout to me. What about this notion of the universe's ever-increasing consciousness? I came across this after you'd stung me into looking things up. I think there a lot in it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:38 AM

I go on a bit about godel's incompleteness theorem but it is relevant because it talks about the limitations of mathematics and therefore, in a sense, a limit on science (not on the process

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:39 AM

What about this notion of the universe's ever-increasing consciousness? I came across this after you'd stung me into looking things up. I think there a lot in it.

   Do you know what Mr Shaw, the human being has the potential to feel
that expansion ..no, be that expansion and it's huge and it is just beautiful sweet potential..the sweet sweet nothing. Is that what you're after 8)

Imho you're on the right track with that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:42 AM

I might be but I've seen it more clearly articulated than that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:43 AM

(damn phone again!)

Not on the process but on what can be achieved through the process)! I am certain such a limit exists to scientific modelling of the world. What I am not certain about is whether that is a mere theoretical limit that is of no practical consequence or whether some of reality is outside the boundary.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:47 AM

Well just think back to 100, 50, 20 years ago of the stuff we couldn't have dreamed of doing then that we're doing today.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:16 AM

Truw

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:29 AM

Why does this b@#@( phone have the erase and enter key next to each other?

As I was Saying: true, but that is a bit different. I will have one more bash and then leave it. There are lots of things we know don't exist, such as ten euclidean solids. It doesn't matter how long we search we won't find one. We can definitely prove there are no more. There are a number of unsolved mathematical problems where we don't know whether a solution is feasible or not. And they may have no solution. I just admit the possibility that there might be analogies in the real world that are inherently beyond the scientific method however long we look. There may be none. There may be lots we just haven't spotted because we imagine they will yield to a little more of the same method we are using.

None of which says we should devalue the scientific method.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 09:06 AM

I'm not laying out my thoughts Steve because we then have to get into what is consciousness and reality then quantum physics and we would be all over the place, it would turn into a mess. John Hagelin yt him he has some interesting informed thoughts. I'm offline now until tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 09:10 AM

Rembrant and Mozart aren't "beyond science", but scientific methodology is pretty irrelevant about them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 09:35 AM

That's right, but you said it: not beyond. As for mathematics, unlike science, there can be proofs and end-points. Mathematics is there for us to discover and tease out; science is a very human process which can have neither proofs nor end-points.

When it comes to art and music, they can be studied on many levels, or not really studied at all, just enjoyed. Personally, I want to know all there is to know about Beethoven because I want to get closer to gleaning how that flawed human being could deliver himself of some of the greatest art that humanity has ever produced. But the music, on at least one level, is enough in itself to satisfy aesthetic need. In that regard it can temporarily part company with science. In science, the next step of the enquiry is always The Big Thing. But, in music, the more you know, the more sharply you can respond. There's a bit of a parallel with the scientific process there.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 10:52 AM

My point being that while science is fascinating and productive and all kinds of great things, it's only part of the picture.

All kinds of things about how we live in the world are only peripherally related to scientific methods and purposes. It's possible to be scientific about sentence structure and body language, and the way we communicate and so forth, and that could even help us do it better, but it wouldn't touch on what human relationships are really about.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 12:52 PM

Raggytash says: Joe, I don't know if teaching of the catholic church has altered radically since I was a child in the late 50's early 60's but the "stories" you refer to were told as the absolute truth then and God help you if you didn't believe them.

That was certainly true in some parishes, Raggytash. And there were some dioceses that were dominated by that sort of mindless literalism. But even in the most rigid dioceses, there were parishes where thinking was much more directed toward the spiritual meaning of the ancient writings. And conversely, the most progressive dioceses have had pockets of stern rigidity. The Catholic Church is not monolithic, and never has been. Catholic thinking covers a broad spectrum, and official doctrine is far less restrictive than one might think.

Still, the rigid literalists were a pain in the ass - and still are. Even those near-heretical Jesuits have a few literalists in their midst.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 01:07 PM

I don't know why you are separating science from all the best that's in humanity. Scientific endeavour is the most human of all our activities along with culture. You may not consciously apply the scientific process in all its elements to looking at sentence structure, but, just like science, you are looking for patterns and processes and applying previously-gained knowledge and experience. Science is the most fun thing imaginable. It fires curiosity and imagination and promotes a deep appreciation of the world. It isn't all boiling tubes and lab coats!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 02:04 PM

Joe, we are obviously discussing 2 different implementations of the catholic faith. I have no idea how the catholic schools were run in the USA and you have no idea what it was like in Catholic schools in England in the 50s and 60s. I can confirm what raggy says. As I am sure Steve can and many others here. The rules were horrendous, as were the enforcement of them. The punishments for not attending communion on a holy day ranged from 30 minutes kneeling in front of a statue to expulsion for repeated offences. This was for 5 to 11 year olds. Until you understand what the abuse that some suffered you will never understand why so many feel that religion is such a bad thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 02:34 PM

If mindless literalism is such a bugbear, then why do you risk its perpetuation by telling children that myth is true? Why not just tell them the truth? There's a piece in tomorrow's Guardian by the food critic Jay Rayner, railing against the dismal practice in some eateries of having a "children's menu". Children are more than capable of eating food from the grown-up menu, and he proved it by taking his kids to the Fat Duck, which has has one of the most sophisticated menus of any restaurant. Making them eat eat bland, safe food is bad education in enjoying food.. So give your kids the grown-up stuff. Tell them the truth, that much of the Bible may be based on myth, that Jesus may or may not have existed, that they should ask for evidence about God. Kids can take the truth and they'll trust you for ever if you give it to them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 02:42 PM

That was your experience, Dave, and that's how you recall them. Mine was different.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 02:46 PM

Anecdotal evidence isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 03:37 PM

I'm not "separating science from all that's the best in humanity". It's part of the best in humanity. So are other lots of other things. No need to see it as a competition.

As for "science is the most fun thing imaginable", good for you. Playing music with friends I'd rate higher, but who's measuring these things anyway?

The thing about myths is that they are a way of saying true things. At least, that's one definition of myths.

I suspect that parents who go in too hard with your approach, Steve are only too likely to find their kids turning out to be Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientologists.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 03:52 PM

It is anecdotal indeed, Greg. Does that make it any less valid?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 05:17 PM

"The thing about myths is that they are a way of saying true things. At least, that's one definition of myths."

That works really well as long as you know that myths are myths. I learned a lot as a little lad from Aesop's Fables but I knew damn well that the stories were made up. Christianity tells stories that it does not tell children are made up. The opposite, in fact. The teaching, the hymns and the prayers all assert the truth of the stories. You are asking an awful lot of little children when you expect them to separate reality from mythology when confronted with that context. They have not got the life experience to make the distinction, and it is more than reasonable to suspect that Christianity rather likes it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 05:52 PM

There isn't always such a clear difference between the myth and the historic facts. A real person and real events can take on a mythical status. Che Guevara for example.

It seems to me far more reasonable, on the basis of the evidence, to accept that Jesus existed, and taught, and was crucified, rather than that it was all made up by some imagined fraudster with a golden tongue who managed to convince a load of naive people to throw over eveything and go and get killed for a fiction.

How far the words and the events in the Gospels were historically accurate, and how far they are reconstrunctions for kerigmatic exposition is unknown and unknowable. But it is reasonable to recognise them as having a powerful and continuing mythological force,
whatever we might think about that unknown.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:13 PM

Joe, your post on 12:52 pm, is an example of the sort of post that caused me to question whether you believed in the ressurection, and to which you seemed to be offended by ,stating that all Christians believe in the ressurection.   But if you think the gospels are myths and not fact, how do you know if you can reliably believe in the ressurection. I suppose you will think me a pain in the ....., for asking !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:17 PM

"There isn't always such a clear difference between the myth and the historic facts."

Fine. I accept that. So why don't you explain that to children? I certainly wouldn't have had any difficulty with my two. Convince me please that the Catholic Church is so concerned about the wellbeing of children that it does all in its power to be as honest as it can be about its teachings. My view is that the Church's priority is to keep up the numbers by filling kids' minds with myths that are terribly hard to shake off.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:23 PM

Well Steve, I would go along with kids questioning unproven religious beliefs , especially when they are presented as science . Any thing presented as fact without evidence that can only be interpreted in only one way, is religious in nature in at least some respects. I rather suspect evolutionists like it that way.....ie kids just taking it on faith!.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:26 PM

It is anecdotal indeed, Greg. Does that make it any less valid?

Yes. It does. Research it for yourself, and you'll find that is indeed the case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:35 PM

That should be.....that it can only be....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:43 PM

I am absolutely not in the remotest bit interested in anyone proving anything in science or religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:44 PM

Anecdotes are of course evidence. Just not in themselves authoritative evidence. If enough anecdotes reinforce each other, the evidence becomes stronger.
..............
You still seem convinced, Steve, that children are completely malleable at first, and then become fixed in whatever they are told as children. It just ain't so, as you yourself surely know from your own experience. That applies just as much whether they are taught the stories they are told are true or that they are open to doubt, or even that they are not true. What they believe as adults, or as teenagers, will be what they believe as adults or as teenagers. Or even as children.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:46 PM

Some posts up Steve says " we don't know all the laws of nature and we have,nt cracked all the mysteries of the one we do know ".    If that is so , then how can you say that a creator breaks the laws of nature. But at the same time, such suggestion serves as a get out for when evolutionism DOES break known laws of nature !. " the people who put (it) there, by so doing , make (it) look idiotic."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:27 PM

On Aesop:

... like those who dine well off the plainest dishes, he made use of humble incidents to teach great truths, and after serving up a story he adds to it the advice to do a thing or not to do it. Then, too, he was really more attached to truth than the poets are; for the latter do violence to their own stories in order to make them probable; but he by announcing a story which everyone knows not to be true, told the truth by the very fact that he did not claim to be relating real events.

[Apollonius of Tyana, 1st century AD]

So, Aesop could do it, and I could do it with my kids. Use a story to illustrate a truth, but being abundantly clear that the story was a story, just that, not something that actually happened. I ask again: Christianity, wassup with you? Why are you so scared of telling children the truth? Don't you believe that they can take it? Isn't it a damn sight harder for them to swallow your myths and then, untold, have to try to sort out myth from reality themselves? Why do you put such a burden on your children? You have absolutely no reason to lie to your children, so the only conclusion is that you are indulging in child abuse in the cause of keeping up the numbers. Here's your truth: there may have been no Jesus. There is no contemporary Roman record of Jesus, which is too amazing to be true (except that it is). The Romans wrote so much down about everything, avidly. But no mention of a Jesus. The only mentions are by his followers. Yet it was the Romans whose noses he supposedly got up. Have you told your kids this?
Or have you just stuck to water to wine, Lazarus up from the dead, crucified then back to life? Really, how honest are you with your kids? Have you told them how much the much-vaunted four gospels disagree with each other? Have you told them about all the other suppressed gospels? Why won't you be straight with your kids? Do you really think that they won't be able to see reality unless it's presented as myth?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:35 PM

"then how can you say that a creator breaks the laws of nature"

Very simple. No law of nature that we know of permits a supernatural being, all-seeing, all knowing, all-powerful with no beginning and no end, to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:11 PM

f enough anecdotes reinforce each other, the evidence becomes stronger.

But it doesn't become valid.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 09:01 PM

Spot on. Validity comes from corroboration.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 02:46 AM

There is not a clear line between anecdote and verified fact, or repeated observation and a 'law'. I recommend people read Hume's "On Miracles". No matter how often we observe something happening or not happening it is a leap to say it always/never happens.


And talking of anecdotal evidence: my experience of UKCatholic primary schools iwas nothing like that of Dave and Raggy, and my honest assessment is that I would probably have 'left the church' as well if it had been. We all fall short when it comes to "practicing what we preach" but there is a point where they are so far out of line that the whole caboodle becomes intolerable and I quite believe that's how I would have felt as well with the experience they both had. Yes, there were oddities like processions through the town every Corpus Christi but actually that was seen as an event for the whole town with a huge turn-out of people watching, big spreads in the local paper and what-not, but odd nevertheless.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 03:38 AM

DMcG It was not just primary school it was also Junior School and the Grammar School (run by monks) I attended.

The Jesuits have a statement attributed to them "give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man"

This, to me, demonstrates quite clearly the indoctrination of the catholic church on young and impressionable minds.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 04:03 AM

I don't know why, but I always lump primary and junior school together in my mind: if I say one I almost always mean both.

My time at a Catholic grammar school was 'interesting'. Apart from the daily assembly and a couple of RI classes a week there was little religious bent. Some teachers opened their lessons with a prayer, but these were the minority and it was perceived as more of a quirk of that teacher than anything else. The headmaster changed in my second year and it certainly moved in the direction of being less authoritarian than it had been before. There was physical punishment in the form of a leather strap on the hands, but that was mainly for failing to do homework or on occasion behaviours. I do remember one lesson in particular where the teacher was late and so people started talking. When he came back he complained about the noise, lined us up outside and spent the entire forty minutes walking along the line strapping each person in turn. Sounds bad, I know, and definitely part of the school culture, but religion based? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 04:25 AM

I note that the batty shitty smell is back again - and just when I thought that I'd cleaned up that belfry!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 05:08 AM

Well I can't say that my experience was overly traumatic. Indoctrination was rife and daily, however. Its ineffectiveness on the rebel me (I started early) is reflected in the fact that I can recall the detail mostly of the stupider things that were said, Catholics being superior to everyone else and unbaptised babies never seeing God, etc. At frequent intervals the timetable was suspended to make way for "retreats" in which we were told to pray to Our Lady and gaze heavenwards whenever we were washing our private parts. There was not a female of any description in the school except for the matron, and her fierce demeanour cast doubt on even that. I didn't stop being a devout Catholic for quite a few years after that. That "education" sowed seeds of a slowly-increasing derision for the doctrine and a loss of trust later on in the people of the cloth in my seven years' teaching in a Catholic school. It was a long haul but life is so much nicer here in the sunlit uplands!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 05:32 AM

No - don't get me wrong - my experience was not traumatic either. I was just saying what I know went on. Luckily I was happy to tow the line all the way up to my teens when I realised there was something not right so I was never subject to the wrath of some of the teachers. I also know that other teachers were equally disturbed by this indoctrination and would have no part of it. There is also 50 years between me having left junior school and now so my memory of it could be tainted. I do know however that it affected some people in a far worse way than it affected me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 06:13 AM

What, like you mean they stayed being Catholics?. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 06:15 AM

I can think of several people the "education" had a severe effect on. Even today I can go up behind one person in particular and whisper four words "****(his name)to the office" and make him a shivering wreck.

He is an intelligent man who has had a relatively successful career and can still be brought down by four words.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 08:38 AM

Steve - :-D

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 10:27 AM

"Validity comes from corroberation" Which is what I meant by the way anecdotal evidence can be reinforced by subsequent anecdotes. A single observation is an anecdote.

It's just not the case that the Romans kept detailed records about trials and executions, at least none that have survived. After all, this wasn't even about a Roman citizen.

An awful lot of the issues about things that happened a generation or so back are primarily about how things generally were in institutions like schools, nothing particularly to do with the religious ethos. Physical punishment and authoritarian teaching was how it was, and Catholic schools reflected that. Things have changed - and in a few years down we'll have people writing about how rotten it was back now, for different reasons. Swings and roundabouts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,apostated
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 10:40 AM

Stop sniveling about your horrible educations, scheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 12:30 PM

I got my 16 years of Catholic education in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, and it was a good experience for me. We had capital corporal punishment in one school that I attended from age 10-14, and not in the other schools. In that one school, the only corporal punishment was a swat on the butt with a canoe paddle, administered by the principal, a nun with a sense of humor who administered the punishment very gently. It was a "red badge of courage" to get the canoe paddle, but I never did.
In the other schools, the worst punishment was detention - staying after school for an hour or less, usually having to write something over and over.

I know a lot of Irish-born priests and nuns, and their experience in school was similar to mine - perhaps a bit stricter, but not harsh. The only American Catholics I know from England are of Irish ancestry, and their experience was the same.

I know lots of former Catholics from the U.S., England, and Ireland who had a bad experience in Catholic school. Is it any wonder why they aren't Catholics any more?

I have no doubt that a harsh Mother Superior or a dictatorial pastor can turn an entire institution into a hellhole - but a lot of Catholics had a much more positive experience. And many had a mixed experience, where the good outweighed the bad.

And many who are prone to absolutist, literalist thinking left the Catholic Church because they could not understand the nuances and abstractions. We've had many neoconservative movements within the Catholic Church, since Vatican II - and one neoconservative Pope, John Paul II. They have tried their best to impose absolutist thinking on the Church - but so far, their results have been mixed. Can't say I know which side is winning - but I doubt that either side will ever win full control. Like it or not, churches are political institutions that will forever shift from one perspective to the next.

---

Pete, you have no doubt noticed that the Gospels do not describe the conception or birth of Jesus, his childhood, or his resurrection. Those things are left to the imagination. I'm sure my imagination understands these mysteries and others differently from the way yours does. I believe all the basic doctrines of the Christian faith, but I'm sure I understand many of them differently.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 05:12 PM

Corporal punishment was still routine in boys schools in England in the fifties, and for years after. There was almost a kind of rivalry about knocking up a score. Probably worked better as a threat hanging over you than when actually used, when it rapidly ceased to affect your behaviour too much. I suppose it made us less disruptive in class. Nothing to do with religion, either way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 06:15 PM

Joe, I,m none the wiser from your answer to my question, but I suspect further probing will not produce anything to answer the question.               And why tell me Steve, why the laws of nature cannot allow an eternal creator God, who creates those laws, along with the substance of them as relating to said laws.   On the contrary, the laws of nature as we know them , as best I can see, does not permit life arising from non life , or an effect without a sufficient cause. Such considerations of origins , is consistent wth there being an eternal creator God, but inconsistent with evolutionism claiming to be operating according to laws of nature.       Your oft repeated charge that the Romans must have written about Jesus in his earthly lifetime is an argument from silence , and does not address the many instances of non biblical ....as well as biblical....quotes relating to Christ and the early church not so ling after.   And if you want to teach kids the supposed evidence against the gospels, then teach them too the evidence against evolutionism.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 06:18 PM

teach them too the evidence against evolutionism.

Yup. Batshit crazy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,apostated
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 06:23 PM

Apologies for the blunt posting. No excuse.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 07:56 PM

"And many who are prone to absolutist, literalist thinking left the Catholic Church because they could not understand the nuances and abstractions."

This is arse about face. The Church encourages literalism by refusing to discuss nuances and abstractions. When I say refuses to discuss, I mean in classrooms and from the pulpit, where the teaching is of certainty, not in your ecclesiastical ivory towers surrounded by theology tomes. Giving people too many nuances leads, in the Church's opinion, to a potential loss of discipline by the flock. Too much room for interpretation. The reasons people leave the Church are because they become totally pissed off with immovable and illiberal doctrine, or a loss of belief in God, or, preferably, both. They rarely delve into the convoluted and ringfenced world of theology, nor should they.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 08:22 PM

That just doesn't reflect my experience, Steve. It's a construction made up of fragments which are authentic enough, but put together in a way that does not match my experience. Which is not in a world of ecclesiastical ivory towers surrounded by theology tomes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 08:42 PM

"Validity comes from corroberation" Which is what I meant by the way anecdotal evidence can be reinforced by subsequent anecdotes. A single observation is an anecdote.

A thousand religious people reporting that they saw a statue move at Knock may well add up to a thousand anecdotes, but that does not add up to the phenomenon they claim to have seen having been a thousand times more likely. Corroboration requires a little more than anecdote piled upon anecdote. True corroboration leads to the increasing likelihood of verification, not the creation of a bandwagon.

It's just not the case that the Romans kept detailed records about trials and executions, at least none that have survived. After all, this wasn't even about a Roman citizen.

If we are to believe that Jesus was an important political figure in an area under Roman jurisdiction, we would expect him to crop up frequently in contemporary Roman writings, which are abundant. But he doesn't. There are two mentions by the Jewish historian Josephus, writing at least sixty years after Jesus's alleged death. One of these references is regarded as so unreliable as to be worthy of dismissal and the other is, at best, controversial. Look them up. There is one brief mention by Tacitus, writing 80 years after Jesus's alleged death, in a passage about the burning of Rome, in which he mentions the "extreme penalty" suffered by "Christus" at the hands of Pontius Pilatus. That's yer lot. That passage may well be authentic though it is disputed by a number of historians. I've tried to be as honest as possible about that. There is nothing else in all the masses of Roman literature, yet there are hundreds of references in contemporary writings by his alleged followers. In effect, there is an argument for claiming that Jesus was a myth in the minds of his followers. I'm not hanging on to that personally. But please admit that an awful lot points to the possibility that Jesus never existed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 08:49 PM

Well, Kevin, your experience is that you stayed in the club. Mine is that I extricated myself. We are bound to have different perspectives, not to speak of different encounters along the way. I know why I left, but you haven't left, so either you believe me or you don't!

Subject: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 10:15 PM

RC Bushops suggest a few small RC changes to Pope Francis.
Recommendations to Pope

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 01:01 AM

Joe says there are nuances and abstractions in Catholic teaching.

Steve says the Catholic Church refuses to discuss nuances and abstractions - in classrooms and from the pulpit.

I suppose there's some truth to that. When I've tried to teach nuances and abstractions in a classroom or a lecture or reflection, I've failed. People just don't "get it" in that sort of situation. It has to be presented individually or in small group discussions, or in a book. Nuances and abstractions cannot be understood in one-sentence sound bytes, and that's all the farther many people can listen nowadays.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 01:16 AM

Give it a rest, Pete! No-one's listening to your obsessive, ignorant, bat-shit crazy nonsense!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 04:20 AM

After centuries of authoritarianism, Catholics expect simple rules, not shading. That's an issue the Church has created for itself. Expecting people to interpret softening-ups of doctrine from vague circumlocutions is expecting too much. You can't turn every Catholic into a theologian.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 04:37 AM

"You can't expect every Catholic to be a theologian"

No, but you can try to encourage everyone at all times to think more critically. And to appreciate that 'critical thinking' is not about crossing out everything people say that you disagree about with red pen and writing 'See me' at the end. It is much more about criticising your own perspective And while it has certainly got horribly confused with searching your actions for "sins", at the heart of it the self examination Christainity encourages is valuable. A lot of people, Christian or not, get it out of proportion and develop a sense of inferiority, of course, and that needs to be avoided. But it's no bad thing for a person to be critical of their own sense of superiority.

And I am not aiming that at anyone: we all are like that at times.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 05:45 AM

Self-examination is indeed valuable, but it doesn't take Christianity to achieve it. Better without, I'd say, as Christianity has a habit of setting the criteria for you according to its own tenets. Whilst I agree that critical thinking should be encouraged (in which I would always include asking for evidence for things you're told), I don't think that it's exactly the Catholic Church's strong point. The apparent limited loosening of doctrine is hardly a shaft of theological enlightenment, more a grudging response to the information and social media age and the freer and more open atmosphere of criticism. You can put lipstick on a brontosaurus but it's still a brontosaurus.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 07:35 AM

Steve Shaw says: After centuries of authoritarianism, Catholics expect simple rules, not shading. That's an issue the Church has created for itself. Expecting people to interpret softening-ups of doctrine from vague circumlocutions is expecting too much. You can't turn every Catholic into a theologian.

Thank you, Steve. That's exactly my point...more or less.

It's not about rules. It's not about doctrine. It's not about theology. All those things are ancillary. And my attempts to teach abstractions and nuances were bound for failure because they weren't the point, either.

And Pete's attempts to prove the historicity and scientific factuality of the myth miss the point, too.

There are people of faith in all religions who get the point, but the focus of faith isn't in any of the things I've listed above. Faith involves "ancient mysteries" that defy explanation or definition. Faith is an exploration of the meaning and depth and infinite expanse of what is beyond science. It's not a matter of intellectual study. It's something that is more suited for simplicity and silence, not intellectuality and wordiness. It is best explored and experienced through myth, and ritual, and tradition, and community gathering to share this experience.

Churches present the myth in doctrinal form. For the Catholic Church and most Christian churches, the basic doctrine is the Nicene Creed, and I accept that creed without question. The doctrine cannot contradict science or history, because it is not in the realm of science or history - so Pete's attempts to present doctrine as science and history and Steve's attempts to refute doctrine in terms of science and history, are both futile. But doctrine is not the myth itself, and it is not the Truth. The Judaeo-Christian myth is best presented in the Scriptures and rituals and traditions, as the myths of other denominations are best presented in their own sacred writings and rituals and traditions. But the myth is only a gateway to the object of faith, which is beyond all and is essentially unexplainable (inexplicable).

Most people, even most religious people, never quite "get" what faith is all about. They get bogged down in all that other stuff, the explaining and defending and arguing. And then they fail to see what it is that they're seeking. But a few people in every generation of every faith tradition get glimpses or visions of what it is they're seeking, and those few people set the mark for the rest of us. For those few people, all the denominational squabbling and pettiness is left behind.

Now, Pete and Steve will probably have no idea what I'm talking about, but I hope some of you will see some of it. It's best understood in simplicity and silence, not in rules and doctrines and proofs and arguments.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 08:12 AM


Self-examination is indeed valuable, but it doesn't take Christianity to achieve it.
No, indeed. Of course anyone can undertake regular self examination, it doesn't need them to be a Christian. But there is one difference, I'd say. Nothing in the non-religious world encourages it as a matter of course. It is more a reaction to an event, say after an argument. When non-religious people do so as a regular matter of habit, it tends to be linked with something with lower-case-religious-overtones, like meditation.

Only my view, of course.

A brontosaurus? I thought you would have gone for an Apatosaurus (especially as it translates to 'deceitful lizard', I believe *smile*)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 08:55 AM

"Churches present the myth in doctrinal form. For the Catholic Church and most Christian churches, the basic doctrine is the Nicene Creed, and I accept that creed without question. The doctrine cannot contradict science or history, because it is not in the realm of science or history - so Pete's attempts to present doctrine as science and history and Steve's attempts to refute doctrine in terms of science and history, are both futile. But doctrine is not the myth itself, and it is not the Truth. The Judaeo-Christian myth is best presented in the Scriptures and rituals and traditions, as the myths of other denominations are best presented in their own sacred writings and rituals and traditions. But the myth is only a gateway to the object of faith, which is beyond all and is essentially unexplainable (inexplicable)."

Hmm. Unfortunately, this is precisely one of those hazy circumlocutions I was talking about, and you're not getting away with that "Steve wouldn't understand it" line. I "understood it" well enough for the first half of my longish life, you seem to forget. You appear to be saying that doctrine can't be within the realms of science or history. Oh yes it can. Science is not an immovable body of human knowledge. It is a human process and you don't get to put anything outside it, not even God. If you want that kind of immunity from enquiry, your solution is very simple. Predicate your doctrine on truth, the real truth, and stop telling the flock that biblical improbabilities are certainties and stop telling children lies dressed up as fairy stories that they can ditch. They can't. The real, historical, scientific truth is much more wonderful, and much more honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 09:40 AM

H.L. Mencken:

By what route do otherwise sane men come to believe such palpable nonsense? How is it possible for a human brain to be divided into two insulated halves, one functioning normally, naturally and even brilliantly, and the other capable only of such ghastly balderdash which issues from the minds of Baptist evangelists? Such balderdash takes various forms, but it is at its worst when it is religious. Why should this be so? What is there in religion that completely flabbergasts the wits of those who believe in it? I see no logical necessity for that flabbergasting. Religion, after all, is nothing but an hypothesis framed to account for what is evidentially unaccounted for. In other fields such hypotheses are common, and yet they do no apparent damage to those who incline to them. But in the religious field they quickly rush the believer to the intellectual Bad Lands. He not only becomes anaesthetic to objective fact; he becomes a violent enemy of objective fact. It annoys and irritates him. He sweeps it away as something somehow evil. . .
-       The American Mercury, February 1926


It is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false. To admit that the false has any standing in court, that it ought to be handled gently because millions of morons cherish it and thousands of quacks make their livings propagating it—to admit this, as the more fatuous of the reconcilers of science and religion inevitably do, is to abandon a just cause to its enemies, cravenly and without excuse. It is, of course, quite true that there is a region in which science and religion do not conflict. That is the region of the unknowable.   
-   "The American Mercury " May 1926

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 10:14 AM

How is it possible for a human brain to be divided into two human halves?

There is lots of evidence and situations where people do that all the time, including the relatively trivial occasions where we buy something "that we know we shouldn't". But the problem with that question is that it is not really how it is. I know it is difficult for many to people to get this, but it is not some schitzoid existence, the two approaches are integrated. It is really hard to get across, I am afraid, except by analogies that only touch on it, but it is more like a sound engineer appreciating the music and the underlying sonics at the same time; or a paint manufacturer in the National Gallery aware of the technology behind the oil paints as well as the painting. True, both approaches are rarely in perfect balance so that at any instant one or other is to the fore but both are there all the time.

For me, anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 10:23 AM

We are bound to have different perspectives, not to speak of different encounters along the way. I know why I left, but you haven't left, so either you believe me or you don't!

More a case of come back than stayed, Steve. But in no way am I saying that I don't believe what you say, just that I don't agree with it. There's a difference.

There's also a difference between "getting it" and going along with it.

As for Science and you can't put anything outside it, how I'd put it is that science is a method, and a method you can apply to anything, and an extraordinarily powerful and often beautiful method, but it won't tell you everything about the things you apply it to, and often not the most important things.

You can apply scientific methods to a musical performance - the way the sound travels, the relationships between the sound waves and the sound heard, the musical conventions applied, even the chemical and electrical processes in the brain as we listen, and so forth. But those things aren't the music.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 10:23 AM

Sorry for the errors in the quotations in my last two posts, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 10:31 AM

"Science is not an immovable body of human knowledge. It is a human process and you don't get to put anything outside it, not even God."

I agree. It is highly likely that everything is measurable - even human love and and the appreciation of art and music. Nevertheless, one can have a debate around whether or not one SHOULD attempt to measure such things (except, perhaps, within the realms of a justifiable research project).

" ... but it is more like a sound engineer appreciating the music and the underlying sonics at the same time; or a paint manufacturer in the National Gallery aware of the technology behind the oil paints as well as the painting."

There's nothing in those two examples that is beyond the reach of science or outside of nature.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 10:39 AM

I didn't intend to suggest imy examples were beyond science, shimrod. I was trying to explain why Mencken's question was a bit of a straw man, since it was trying to challenge a way of looking at things that is not really 'how it is'. I don't object to any idea being challenged, but it does not do to say how People 'must' see things and then attack that without actually checking whether they do see it like that in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in Americ
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 11:25 AM

Clearly just about anything, including human love and the appreciarion of art and music can be measured. But the measurements don't bear much relationship to the experience.

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.
I love thee to the level of every day's
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for right.
I love thee purely, as they turn from praise.
I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints. I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.

The counting there isn't really much to do with science.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 11:41 AM

...as for explaining the myth to children so they'll know it's false, that's not the point, As I said above, children have an innate ability to understand fiction and to see the truth in it - and to know that it is NOT false.

It always amazes me that people who call themselves folksingers and folklorists, have such a hard time understanding religious faith and seeing the wisdom in it. In this day and age, many Europeans have a drive to reject their own ancient Judaeo-Christian myth, while embracing the ancient myths of other cultures. They apply the "scientific method" to refute and reject the Judaeo-Christian, but somehow they're smart enough not to do the same thing to the myths of other cultures. For those open to understanding, there is unity in all the ancient myths.

There is ancient wisdom in the myths of all cultures, if we understand it as it's meant to be understood. Myth is not "only a myth," and myth is not false. Myth is a means of expressing profound wisdom and mystical experience of Truth that is beyond scientific understanding - but not in conflict with Science in any way. It is an exploration of that which cannot be understood.

Myth guides the believer to something that cannot be codified into simplistic rules and doctrines.

And no, I don't think that Steve and Pete will be able to understand this.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 11:47 AM

One guy feels a pink flower is the most beautiful, his mate feels the same about a yellow one.

What has science got to offer to this dilemma? Or, does some things actually reside outside science, for one reason or another?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:00 PM

Exactly....and both the pink flower and the yellow flower are expressions of Beauty. Some see Beauty as an aspect of The Divine. Some see Beauty as a separate god/goddess. Whatever the case, Beauty defies scientific explanation while not conflicting with science in any way.

In general, people of European ancestry don't/won't understand. Perhaps that's why European conquest so often worked to destroy the myths and beliefs and wisdom of the aboriginal cultures they conquered. If they couldn't make a profit from it, the Europeans couldn't understand it - so they destroyed it, as they politicized and codified and rationalized and destroyed their own faith and myth.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:05 PM

Nice open minded posts from Joe, guest and Mr McGrath.

How refreshing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:27 PM

" ... does not do to say how People 'must' see things and then attack that without actually checking whether they do see it like that in the first place."

Where did I say anything about compulsion?

"Clearly just about anything, including human love and the appreciarion of art and music can be measured. But the measurements don't bear much relationship to the experience."

I totally agree! Where did I say that I didn't agree?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:46 PM

I am a bit lost, shimrod. I was commenting on a quotation from Menckin that Greg posted. No-one, as far as I can tell, said you had said anything about compulsion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:56 PM

Of course science won't tell you everything. Once everything is explained, science is redundant. That will never happen. That is not the intention of science.

And Joe Offer, stop making scientists who dare to stick their noses into the realms of religion into Mr Spocks. Once you put things "beyond scientific understanding" you make a fool of yourself. You make the application of "the scientific process" into such a sinister-sounding thing instead of what it really is, the way that rational humans think about and interpret what they perceive with their senses. The only bit of the scientific process I wish to apply to religion is to ask you for evidence for what you tell your children. So far, none has been forthcoming, though there's been plenty of evasiveness. I don't want to hear about how myths that children can't unentangle (like most of the contents of the Bible which, in turn, informs all your doctrine) can instil deeper truth than actually telling them the truth, that there might not be a Father in heaven, there might not even be a heaven, and there's a very good chance that there was no Jesus, and even if there was, he almost certainly didn't swan around working miracles and coming back from the dead. My challenge to you is to tell children the unvarnished truth about the stuff you are hoping will shape their lives. It's just as intriguing as the pack of lies that they currently have to endure.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 01:28 PM

These endless debates about science vs religion, objective vs subjective etc. always remind me of my working life. I was a measurement specialist, working within the consumer products industry. Early in my career I was sent on a course about experimental design and statistics. This course was a complete revelation to me and I understood the significance (geddit?) of the course material immediately and began to apply it as soon as I got back to the lab.

A couple of years later, I lost my job to redundancy and began to look around for another. I was offered the first job that I applied for because that company's Technical Director was looking for someone who understood experimental design and statistics. This director always expressed satisfaction with my work but I was not so lucky with my immediate management and many of my colleagues. I soon realised that they felt threatened by my knowledge and expertise. Many of them seemed to think that writing test methods and analysing test results was a matter of individual 'creativity'. As a result they usually produced over-complicated methods which generated meaningless random numbers. They resented the fact that I usually proved them wrong. What they refused to acknowledge was that working within a rational framework can be just as creative and usually generates meaningful results - complete with probability estimates!

I also realised that it was not all down to individual 'creativity'. In fact I was, as the saying goes, 'standing on the shoulders of giants'. The techniques and concepts that I was using in my day-to-day job had been developed by some of the greatest minds of the last 200 years or so. And these techniques were not just 'technical' and intellectually demanding they were also, at the same time, beautiful and pleasing.

My experience strongly suggests that the rational and the subjective can easily co-exist. This debate is usually framed in terms of rational = narrow and constricting; subjective = FREE (wheee!!!) and broad-minded. It ain't necessarily so!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 09:24 PM


My experience strongly suggests that the rational and the subjective can easily co-exist

I can't imagine disagreeing with that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 07:03 AM

One guy feels a pink flower is the most beautiful, his mate feels the same about a yellow one.

What has science got to offer to this dilemma? Or, does some things actually reside outside science, for one reason or another?

Science can actually offer a lot here. Why does one like pink and one yellow? Why is one colour more pleasing to some than the others? How does the brain decide in these cases? Is the fact that some colours are preferred anything to do with anything significant? Can this help in treatment of diseases? Could understanding peoples likes and dislikes prevent violence? And so on. But it is besides the point anyway. As far as I know, no one has ever killed someone else over the colour of flowers. Unless you want to stretch a point and mention the war of the roses?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 08:39 AM

Oh mention it Dave cos Yorkshire cum second !!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 11:56 AM

...And the point is not to discount science in any way. It is simply to state that there are other means of exploration that are worthy of pursuit. Shimrod asid it all: My experience strongly suggests that the rational and the subjective can easily co-exist.

Steve Shaw, on the other hand, says: And Joe Offer, stop making scientists who dare to stick their noses into the realms of religion into Mr Spocks. Once you put things "beyond scientific understanding" you make a fool of yourself. You make the application of "the scientific process" into such a sinister-sounding thing instead of what it really is, the way that rational humans think about and interpret what they perceive with their senses. The only bit of the scientific process I wish to apply to religion is to ask you for evidence for what you tell your children. So far, none has been forthcoming, though there's been plenty of evasiveness. I don't want to hear about how myths that children can't unentangle (like most of the contents of the Bible which, in turn, informs all your doctrine) can instil deeper truth than actually telling them the truth, that there might not be a Father in heaven, there might not even be a heaven, and there's a very good chance that there was no Jesus, and even if there was, he almost certainly didn't swan around working miracles and coming back from the dead. My challenge to you is to tell children the unvarnished truth about the stuff you are hoping will shape their lives. It's just as intriguing as the pack of lies that they currently have to endure.

I had a friend who was a silviculturalist. He taught me a lot about forestry, and we always had a great time in the woods together. Once I told him, "Ken, the difference between you and me is that when I go into the forest I see Beauty, and you can't help seeing board feet."
He laughed. I knew he could also see the beauty, but he couldn't help seeing how this timber could be marketed.

Sometimes, it's valuable to drop everything else and just see the Beauty...and then go back to figuring how to put food on the table.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 12:05 PM

Joe, I,m not so sure that we don't understand what you are saying.....or just don't see the logic of it, and maybe you say that is the same thing. If you accept the nicene creed I should have thought you were accepting historical biblical data as fact. Any mysticism , to have any basis in reality, must have some kind of historical data and/or teaching, otherwise it would seem to just be meaningless subjective experience. It seems that you are advocating an unstructured, indefinite, faith without firmly held beliefs . As you will know, much nt teaching on how we ought to live , proceeds from the doctrinal.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 12:21 PM

Pete says: If you accept the nicene creed I should have thought you were accepting historical biblical data as fact.

Pete, the Bible is a document of faith, not history - although it is written in a historical context. It follows the style of presenting history that was used at the time the Bible was written, and much of it (including the creation and flood stories) is not intended to be historic at all. It does not follow modern practices, so it is important to understand the Bible within its own context, including the time when it was written. The Nicene Creed was written much later (325 AD is the usual date given, but the document evolved over a couple or three centuries). It was written in theological language, while the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) was written in the language of epic poetry - akin to Homer, but not as deliberately poetic.

Myth and fiction are terms that are often misunderstood. They are not false, and they would not be accepted if there were false. They use the methods of storytelling to tell the truth. Shakespeare wrote within a historical context. His work did not stray far from history, but he altered history here and there to make his point more effectively. The point of the Bible is not history or science - it's faith. It's meant to help people come to know got, not to know the science of the beginnings of earth and the beginnings of history.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 12:39 PM

If the scriptures are just myth and storytelling, joe, on what basis do they tell the truth....or what is this truth if it is not founded on what is held to be facts.                            Steve alleges that only Josephus and Tacitus attest to Jesus , however there are others also who mention him ,....Pliny the younger in a letter to emperor   Trajan, a Syrian,mara serapion in a letter held at the British museum, and Suetonius in the life of Claudius.. In addition there are hostile witness text to Christ. That is considerably more than the couple of contested quotes Steve admits.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 02:17 PM

References please.

There is myth. Great when it's recognised as such. There is fiction. Great when it's recognised as such. Then there are downright lies. Peddling myth as truth is lying. Religion lies wholesale to children all the time. It is disingenuous and thoroughly dishonest to pretend that little children have the skill and the experience to discriminate. Religion wants children to believe those lies. Jesus came back from the dead. Jesus turned water into wine and brought people back to life and cured diseases with one touch. Mary was a virgin. Lies, lies, lies, and plenty more where they came from. The evidence for that is the billions of people who grow into adulthood still believing them. And they believe them so completely that they don't even realise that they are lying to their own children when they pass them on. This is the modus operandi of religion. It can't survive any other way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 04:22 PM

The Pentateuch poetry !!?   Surprised at you joe. Beside the narrative, there is civil and religious law, prophecy and yes poetry. But even where poetry is used, say perhaps the parallelism of gen 1v 27, it relates to the historical narrative which runs from creation through to the lives of the patriarchs. One clue of the continuity is the expression.....these are the generations of.....used a number of times.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 05:48 PM

I did not "contest" any quotes. My remarks reflected the majority opinion of commentators. If Jesus really is an historical figure it matters not a jot to me. It won't change a thing. What I would like YOU to accept is, as I keep saying, that there is a good chance that he never existed. It's the only honest path for both you and me ,and I'm taking that path. Tell the children that a lot of people believe that there was a holy man called Jesus, that there are lots of stories about the wonderful, even miraculous, things he's said to have done, but, though they are good stories that can teach us certain things, they are not true stories. You should always ask anyone who tells you new things that you want evidence, especially if those things are surprising, such as stories about someone who can work miracles or come back from the dead.

Will someone please tell me why anyone can think that this is worse then telling lies?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 05:49 PM

Worse than. Obvious I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 07:32 PM

"Will someone please tell me why anyone can think that this is worse then telling lies?"

- Because God, who probably doesn't exist, will not be happy?

-Because God, who probably doesn't exist, wants you to tell lies in these particular circumstances?

-Because God, who probably doesn't exist, wants you to turn off the brain, that He may well not have given you, and just get on with telling those lies?

-Just emulate His servant Pete, and stop thinking so much, Shaw!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 07:34 PM

Pliny's letter to Trajan, 80 years or so after the alleged death of Jesus, mentions "Christ" several times but not in an historical context. Christianity was already in existence and Pliny was referring to their Christ, not to a figure whose historicity he was confirming in any way. The Mara Serapion letter is of uncertain date. It does not mention the name of the "wise king of the Jews", who he regards as having been unjustly executed, and the letter appears to contradict the resurrection. There really is very little in it to hang on to.   The Suetonius reference is very odd and is the subject of many an historian-style squabble. Suetonius knew about "Christians" and it is unlikely that he would have made the careless misspelling "Chrestus". Chrestus was a very common name in Rome and the passage could just be referring to an agitator called Chrestus in Rome.

I'm not saying that these are not interesting sources. They are. But not a single one fits the bill as an undisputed, or even mildly disputed, non-Christian reference to Jesus. Read all about 'em - they're all over google, as you'd expect. They might not exactly be clutching at straws but they're not far off, and good evidence of the certainty of Jesus's existence is still eluding you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 07:50 PM

I haven't got anything against telling people what has been written about Jesus. I just think that you should always be saying that someone wrote it and it may not be true and that you should do your own digging for evidence. I'm struggling to see why it's supposedly better to make it hard for children to see the unadorned truth through all the mythology instead of just telling them the truth in the first place. But then I'm a simple man who goes around the place in awe of the wonderful beauty and sheer non-miraculous ordinariness of the world. I don't want nature described as some kind of allegorical fairy tale that I can't easily pick the bones out of. I trust it to be every bit as marvellous, and a damn sight more comprehensible, without that. Even spiritual.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 03:15 AM

I'm struggling to see why it's supposedly better to make it hard for children to see the unadorned truth through all the mythology instead of just telling them the truth in the first place

There's so much in that sentence! But the biggest problem with it is that you set out with the view that Pete and co are deliberately lying to their children. They are not. They are telling what they believe to be the truth. Equally, they are convinced that if they taught evolution as 'the truth' that would be a lie. I fall into a different camp: I see evolution as true (to the extent any scientific theory is ever sensibly labelled as 'true') but there are other ways of looking at the world that do not invalidate that truth.

I can only refer to the anecdotal account of my own children, but they were a damn sight more sophisticated at five than you seem to give children credit for! They had (children's versions of)some of Shakespeare's history plays which they loved and were quite able to appreciate them as stories at one level, and historical true and historically false at parts at another. In a child's way, of course, but it is not to be trivialised.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 04:09 AM

I'm not ascribing malice to parents who tell them them that Baby Jesus is true. I said, if you look back, that they often don't realise that they are telling lies because of the way they themselves have been fed the myths as truth. The deliberate lying comes from your religious elders who tell the tale that way in spite of years studying theology. And I have never said that the theory of evolution is true. Evolution is true and the theory is a very good explanation for it (very good because there are masses of evidence). Yes we tell children stories, but we set them in the context in which they will know that they are just stories, very good ones at that. But you expose children to religion in a way that removes that context. In evidence, I present you with every prayer and hymn that you ever get them to say or sing. They are replete with assertions and certainty. And even if you yourself inculcate that open-minded approach, which I don't doubt, you may send them to schools at which those things are completely out of your control.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 12:07 PM

Right, that's what you believe Steve. Would it be right to take it that you don't believe it is a view which should be imposed on other people other than by persuasion? Or do you see involvement in religion during childhood as a form of child abuse which society should seek to eliminate?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 12:36 PM

religion during childhood as a form of child abuse

In some cases and in some sects it most certainly is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 12:36 PM

DMcG....quite often I am pleasantly surprised by your stance on issues like religious belief. I find myself totally in agreement with your last post and it is couched in the most rational of terms.

If the haters of religion here would stop and read what you write they would be better and wiser people....Ake.......still an "unbeliever", but prepared to be convinced of my error. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 02:15 PM

Er, what exactly are you telling me I believe, Kevin?   Whilst I'm not the sort of bull that reacts too strongly to that sort of red rag, I'd far sooner you picked apart my points one by one. And yes, telling children lies, not giving them the wherewithal to tell lies from mere storytelling, and discouraging them from shedding those lies (evidence? Look at all those millions of adults who still believe them) - that is child abuse by any measure. Just tell them the unvarnished truth. As yet, no-one has told me why this is worse than telling them lies.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 02:30 PM

I taught my kids the bible stories - without trying to belabor what was myth and what was factual. I also taught them about evolution, and made sure their Catholic school science teacher (who lived across the street) did the same. The kids seemed to do just fine with this. My kids did not end up rigidly fundamentalist, and neither did their classmates. There were a few kids from staunchly conservative families that ended up staunchly conservative, but they were the minority. They didn't think I was a very good Catholic.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 02:41 PM

Well Steve , you conceded more than I expected , and of course I expected you to say these quotes were insufficient. But I am satisfied at least that there are more contested sources granted by you than the two insufficient and contested, originally claimed as the only ones.   So , according to you , evolution is true , but you claim less certainty for the theory of...   Firstly, can we agree on what we mean by evolution, which is why I have been trying to get an agreed definition, and I suggested kerkuts.   And secondly what is your evidence that evolution is true....and that has gotta be a whole lot more than appeal to numbers of academics subscribing to it.   Thirdly , as I have presented a few evidences that evolutionism is contrary to observational, repeatable, testable science, you need to deal with them . An admission that you don't have an answer will be a good start !.    As to what I believe , I have never claimed exhaustive proof or evidence that can only be viewed one way, though I am confident that my faith is reasonable. You, however are claiming intellectually , scientifically validated standing for your belief, and therefore the greater onus is on you to demonstrate it.......or else admit that it is rather philosophically held belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 02:53 PM

evolutionism is contrary to observational, repeatable, testable science

Yup - batshit crazy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 04:57 PM

"Thirdly , as I have presented a few evidences that evolutionism is contrary to observational, repeatable, testable science, you need to deal with them ."

You have parroted stuff ("evidences"!!??), that you don't really understand, from a website run by batshit crazy people! You constantly demand (who the f**k are you to demand anything?!) that we supply you with the evidence for evolution. There is a vast mountain of evidence out there - it's just that you refuse to engage with it.

How about you show us the "observational, repeatable, testable" ... eerrr ... 'evidences' for the existence of God.

What's that, Pete? Did you say something? No, there's a deafening silence ... and a faint odour of bat droppings ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 05:37 PM

The quotes are insufficient in the extreme. Any assertion that Jesus was real requires you to give historical references and some corroboration, if you are to have any credibility. I've been honest enough to research whatever there is and to address the rather poor examples that you added to the mix. There is not a single convincing non-Christian reference to Jesus. That is quite amazing. Take any other significant historical figure and show me a similar paucity of references. Quite simply, you can't. A fairly kind conclusion could be that the tendentious-minded and proselytising early Christians, with their gospels and epistles, wanted to flood the world with Jesus references, and who's to blame them? Pity that the other prevailing forces of the time seem to, er, have overlooked the poor fellow! Please don't take this as a denial of his existence. It isn't. It's a sort of null hypothesis that you really need to address. Is it important? Why, yes it is, because, after all, you tell your kids that that there was a Jesus, born in a stable to a virgin, who raised the dead, turned water to wine and came back from the dead. You also tell them that there's a Santa. By the age of seven or eight, they are allowed to ditch Santa and laugh. But you really do not want them to ditch Jesus, and it's no laughing matter.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 06:16 PM

Again, for pete. The phenomenon of evolution is incontrovertible. It happens. It is true. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the explanation of evolution. It's a very good explanation because it uses a lot of evidence from many branches of science. The theory itself cannot be said to be true. Scientists simply don't talk that way. But theories are not someone's hobby horse. A theory is not a theory unless it contains a good deal of evidence. Not your kind of evidence. Evidence that science sets a very high bar for. Evidence that has to pass tough tests. Not hearsay, witness, edicts, ceremony, tradition, biblical writings of dubious authorship or something the Pope or St Bernadette said. One fine day you'll get it. It'll still be a fine day even if you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 06:32 PM

"I taught my kids the bible stories - without trying to belabor what what myth and what was factual."

Why do you think that it's belabouring to tell the simple truth? I'd have thought that telling them myth that they then have to pick the bones out of, a problem compounded for them by the uncontrolled nonsense that they might be told at school without your knowledge, is far more belabouring.

"I also taught them about evolution, and made sure their Catholic school science teacher (who lived across the street) did the same."

Well it depends what you told them. What you've posted here on that topic before doesn't fill me with confidence. Perhaps I should have taught my children some theology. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 08:30 PM

What I was referring to was your strongly and repeatedly expressed view amounting to the principle that children should not be exposed to religious practice or teaching without a firm health warning attached at all times. Which you reiterate in that post.

Fair enough. My question was whether you think society should seek to require that those parents who disagree with it should conform to it. Not in any sense intended as a red rag - it's a genuine question.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 10:13 PM

I don't think that children should be formally exposed to religious practice at all. I think that all children should be taught about religions. There's no need for health warnings if that's done honestly. What parents do is different. I have opinions on that but I know I can't enforce what I think to be right, nor would I wish to. By making my points about that on a Mudcat thread I'm venting my spleen, no more than that really. I think there should be no faith schools and I would do away with the silly and illiberal requirement for a daily act of worship in schools, on the grounds that schools are places of education, not indoctrination. I hate the concept of parents opting their kids out of religious instruction and worship. We had that choice as parents and we didn't exercise it, as we had no desire to have our children singled out. It's wrong that we should have been in that invidious position. The default position in a fair society should be no religion unless you opt in. Not BE opted in by parents or anyone else, but you yourself freely opting in. I'm not quite sure what else I can say on this, but feel free to ask!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Amos
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 12:33 AM

Religion should be perpetually relative and never absolute., Most religions strive to be perpetually absolute. And therein hangs a tale...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 04:25 AM

Amos says: Most religions strive to be perpetually absolute

That may be true for fundamentalists, Amos, but certainly not for all.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 06:13 AM

I know I keep giving the same challenges, but it don't hurt to let anybody fair minded see that the evolutionists here are not meeting them except by repeated recourse to numbers of authorities subscribing to their religiously held belief........not religious ?, fine demonstrate it is verifiable ?!    Now I don't mind kids being taught this myth in school. Just don't tell them it is fact when you cannot demonstrate it.   But you are entitled to your secularist religious ideas !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 06:27 AM

You are trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 07:21 AM

I understand what you'd like to see, Steve. You'd like to see some parents change their ways, and you'd like to see an end to faith schools, and you'd like to see opting in by children at all ages rather than opting in.

But that wasn't my question. Would you wish society, and the state, to set out to bring about those changes? And if so, how should it be done?

It's interesting to note that in the USA where official efforts to exclude religion from schools are the policy, religious practice is far more prevalent than in the UK, and its impact on politics far greater, often in ways that I suspect neither of us see as healthy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 07:30 AM

I am reminded of an Oldham Tinkers song one verse of which reads

Well then entered big lord mayor
o'er his shoulder he'd a club
he first pushed into a long white shirt
an' then he took topmost tub
he preached 'bout good folk goin' to 'eaven
an' bad folks goin' to 'ell
I said sit thee down thee silly owd bugger
tha's ne'er bin there thee self.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 08:06 AM

I don't want to see ANY children opting in. The only way a child can opt in is by being persuaded. No-one should be persuading anyone else, especially children, that it's a great idea to live your life by fairytale.

I don't how to bring about these changes except by making the argument and the changing of mindsets. What I do know is that most people are not that bothered about religion, creating a sort of vacuum of complacency that religion cheerfully fills in order to bag the default position. It's dishonest in the extreme, just like most other aspects of religious faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 08:29 AM

And you also need to consider why a lot of non-religious people go to great lengths to get their children into schools they perceive as better. Why they are perceived like that and whether the fact they are faith schools contributes to the ethos in a way seen as positive are important questions because if it is a factor rather than any of the many other possible reasons for it getting rid of faith schools could cause bigger problems than the one so many non-religious parents are willing to cope with.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 10:07 AM

"I know I keep giving the same challenges, but it don't hurt to let anybody fair minded see that the evolutionists here are not meeting them except by repeated recourse to numbers of authorities subscribing to their religiously held belief..."

No-one is playing your stupid game, Pete, whereby someone avails you of their understanding of evolutionary biology and you 'refute' that understanding by delving into 'Creation.com' and parroting something vaguely relevant that you find there! Let's get this straight once and for all:

- You are a fundamentalist religious maniac and that only qualifies you to discuss religious mania.

- It is blindingly obvious that you have no understanding of science, or the philosophy of science, whatsoever. Therefore, you are not qualified to even discuss science - let alone pontificate about it!

- Reading 'Creation.com', and being a religious maniac, does not make you any sort of authority on evolutionary biology and renders your pronouncements on the subject meaningless!

- You are not in a position to demand anything of anyone, or to challenge anyone, because you are an ignorant monomaniac.

- Each time you post on here you only tend to confirm the view of myself, and several other posters, that you are "batshit crazy".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 10:24 AM

I was a teacher in a Catholic school in London for seven years. I can assure you from my experience in that part of London that parents' perceptions of schools bore little relation to what actually went on in them. The faith side of things tends to blind a certain kind of receptive mind to criticism. It made things very difficult for the schools that were perceived, usually unjustly, as not as good. Wholesale cheating went on with teachers and parents conniving in getting children's assessments adjusted, often downwards, to get them into the school of their choice, the intake quotas being thereby circumvented. So the faith schools got a better quality intake and would be able to claim, dishonestly of course, that the better results they got had something to do with the faith ethos. If that's the system you want to defend, I'm parting company with you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 10:25 AM

Even when someone with whom we are arguing in keeps on saying stuff we think is absurd or irrelevant, it is never the right thing to do to be offensive in response. That even applies when they are offensive, but in fact Pete never does that.

Best thing to do really when there is a evidently irreconcilable difference of opinion is to wind up the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 11:27 AM

I can take absurd or irrelevant any day, but the constant berating of "evolutionists" as people with faith-related belief systems, in spite of his having had it explained to him a hundred times, is trolling. He is pointlessly trying to goad us into responses that we've already given ad nauseam and it's about time he stopped doing it. I've done the best I can to address the matter of his evidence for the existence of Jesus in as respectful a manner as I could muster. I'm trying to avoid calling him names. By calling out blatant trolling, one could hope to stem the troll-feeding a little. Doesn't always work.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 11:29 AM

Sorry, should have looked at the post timings. I thought you were telling me off for calling his behaviour trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 11:42 AM

I'd question whether there's any significant difference between the extent of that kind of cheating between faith schools and others. To the extent that any school, or any type of school, has a reputation as a good school, parents are more likely to try to get their children to be admitted, and that can mean a sort of positive feedback.

One noticeable thing with our local Catholic comprehensive is that it has a noticeably higher proportiont of children from African and Asian families, many of them non-Catholic or non-Christian. I had a Muslim friend who sent her children there, and she was asked to supply a note from the Iman to confirm their religious status.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 11:51 AM

Well you can question it but I saw it in action big-time. The pull of the faith factor for a certain type of person is very strong. I'm sure it does happen in other cases too, though, in the case of faith schools, the skulduggery looks even more sharply unchristian. Of course, these days we have grammar schools and free schools and a slackening of any idea of quotas based on ability, all in the name of "choice", one of the biggest of all the big Tory lies.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 12:28 PM

I did try to cover off those distinctions. Which is why it all got a bit laboured on the distinctions between perception and actuality and even if it is the case in some situations that the faith school is actually a higher standard you can't immediately conclude that is why it's higher because there are so many other possible factors.

However it is still the case lots on non-religious parents choose to send their children to faith schools because they perceive that specific school as best.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 12:54 PM

I'm not denying that perception. I've seen a lot of it. Much of it is based on very shaky foundations, that's all. Sometimes a child's education may be better for its not being executed in a single-sex school or a faith school or a grammar school, but for being experienced in an environment with a good mix of kids from all walks of life. Who's to say that a school with a good collection of hairy-arse teachers, a few Tories in their midst and a few socialists and a few geeks in the mix, isn't better for kids growing up than a school with a fierce Mother Superior scowling at you at prayers and constant visits to the chapel and frequent halts for prayers and hymns? No matter how nice and orderly it looks from the outside?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in Americaf
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 02:01 PM

Earlier I seem to remember you warning against anecdotal evidence, Steve...

That first school you described there sounds more like the Catholic Schools I've come across in recent years than the second. Which doesn't actually sound too much like the ones I remember from pre-Vatican II days. But of course there are all sorts of schools around.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 02:32 PM

Who's to say that a school with a good collection of hairy-arse teachers, a few Tories in their midst and a few socialists and a few geeks in the mix, isn't better for kids growing up than a school with a fierce Mother Superior scowling at you at prayers and constant visits to the chapel and frequent halts for prayers and hymns?

And who is to say the opposite? It's been several decades since I've had to be involved at this level, but then talking to parents the words being given as reasons for choosing faith schools were not subject-related (eg standard of teaching of art, history, science, whatever) but attitude words (ethos, discipline, respect). And whether they actually achieve it or not, those are the areas religion should concern itself with.

McGrath has it, I am afraid. If you do want to propose a change from the status quo, personal anecdotes won't cut, especially against a large body of non-religious parents for whom the "pull of religion" can't be much of a factor. We clearly can't get to the standard of evidence the science requires, but we can still seek the best we can and try not to get too swayed by individual experience.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 04:21 PM

My personal anecdotes are just that. However, I saw the same thing going on when we lived in Loughton when D******* F********n was the school of repute. Getting your kid in reputedly meant doing some string pulling. We know about parents who move house to be in a certain desirable catchment. We know about parents who suddenly become rather Christian, cynically attending the local church in order to qualify their kids for the associated faith school. Donations to the church might be involved. My personal anecdotes count for very little except to confirm in my mind the corruption that goes on. They tend to blunt the temptation of denial. I thought I'd tell you about them anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 06:27 PM

It is true, Steve, that you looked up the quotes I mentioned, and as I previously mentioned I am not claiming them as absolute proof and irrefutable evidence of the existence of Jesus, though I certainly think they point that way. But equally, to a committed unbeliever they will be unsatisfactory to that conclusion.   But that was not the issue with which I challenged you with. You do claim that evolution is true and verified by science. I notice you ignored the request to agree on what you mean by evolution which I suppose gives you some leeway . For example, appealing to natural selection as evidence of microbes to man evolution is just bait and switch, as there is no evidence .....less you can cite otherwise......., of anything evolving beyond the limits of its kind. Natural selection is part of the creation model , as a process that eliminates and removes information, rather than adding the masses of information that would be needed for changing one kind of organism into another. I would expect some kind of argument beyond appeal to authority and numbers , if it is not a philosophically held religious position you are committed to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 06:44 PM

I'm a bit intrigued by this removal of information approach. You may know Pete that there are very precise definitions of the amount of information in a system. It's all to do with sizes of alphabets and possible combinations and has a relationship with entropy. So when you say 'removing information' do you mean it in an informatics theory sense, or do have some other definition?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 07:47 PM

So which page of 'Creation.com' did you parrot all that gibberish from then, Pete? Why not just supply us with the link to the relevant page? When you quote/parrot from this single source, aren't you just appealing to authority - or what you mistakenly believe to be authority?

By the way, what, exactly, is wrong with appealing to authority? What's the alternative?

Are you ever going to move beyond 'Creation.com' and read something written by a real evolutionary biologist?

Oh yes, and weren't you going to show us the "observational, repeatable, testable" ... eerrr ... 'evidences' for the existence of God?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 07:51 PM

"...as I previously mentioned I am not claiming them as absolute proof and irrefutable evidence of the existence of Jesus, though I certainly think they point that way."

They do not in any way point to absolute proof or irrefutable evidence. At best, they are a vague indication that he may have existed. But a neutral observer, taking the evidence you've presented, would probably put it at less than 50-50. I have no dog in this fight, as the historicity of a Jesus, or not, makes not a jot of difference to me. The lack of certainty on my part is irrelevant. The lack of certainty on your part is far more problematic, because everything you want to tell people about your faith is predicated on certainty. I have no desire to prove that Jesus never existed, but I have every desire to get you to admit that there is a distinct possibility that he didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 08:05 PM

Various dodgy ways are used when people want to get their kids into a school they believe is particularly good. Going to church, or for that matter mosque or synagogue in an effort to get your child into a school where that helps up the chance of getting in is one.

So of course, as you say, does the practice of buying a house in the catchment area. The difference being that you have to be pretty well off to go down that road. Is that really better?

I think it unlikely that children from a family cynically gaming the system in this way are that likely to be the kind of brainwashed pew fodder you seem to think religious schools turn out. In fact I would have thought that you might even welcome their being part of the school, as a way of diluting the religious ethos.

This kind of thing only happens because some schools have significantly better reputations than others. How far this can be a consequence of having a religious ethos is not clear. Undoubtedly are many very good schools which do not have such an ethos, and some "underperforming" schools which do. .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 09:49 PM

Hmm. As for diluting the school's religious ethos, I might respectfully remind you that it's the kids who attend the school, not the parents! As for faith schools churning out pew fodder, I'm fairly confident that faith schools generally fail abysmally in that regard. It's not really the point. It's that the existence of faith schools, as with public schools, creates a lust in those parents who can wield influence that distorts the country's education system for the worse.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 02:37 AM

Seems a bit overstated that, Steve. It is very easy to demonstrate public schools (gee paying for Us readers) are over represented in Oxford and cambridge, big business, the media and boardrooms. I'm not aware of that being the case for people attending faith schools.

We.need to be careful. Parents who can will always try to get their children into.what they see as the best schools. That happens even in areas where there are no faith schools nearby. It is not caused by the existence of faith schools and it would not be cured.by eliminating them as long as some schools are.perceived as better than others. Which gets us back to why faith schools are.often, but by no means invariably, as better.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 03:10 AM

Notes to self:
A) never type in bed on your phone without glasses.

B) remember your cookie had gone yesterday and you still haven't reset it.

Sorry, folks, I was that guest again

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 04:01 AM

Perhaps we need to find out if Steve agrees that faith schools are often better, as I imagine that being faith schools , they are a priori deficient in his estimation !....though I presume he agrees that many parents perceive them to be better and who want their kids to do well and/or be grounded in a possibly more disciplined environment.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 04:12 AM

On the contrary, Steve, I think there is very little possibility that Jesus never existed. And I doubt you are the ...neutral...observer you claim...or maybe think ...you are. Also when I said ...point that way....I was referring to the fact of his existence, not to those quotes as being absolute proof thereof. I am acknowledging that there will always be some lack in that, even though I am personally convinced of it.   It is you who are the one claiming evolution though is irrefutably true....but not demonstrating it to be so. Therefore IMO, a faith position.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 04:34 AM

Dmcg, sounds like I have a different, less technical , less precision idea of information. This is how I understand it. Every living thing is DNA coded, the system of which decodes and implements the information (and much else involved too ). If for example there is in an original pair of birds with information encoded for a range of beak sizes and shapes, but their later offspring find themselves in an environment where the food source is favourable to one type of beak the information encoded for that favoured type will be preserved and passed on. Another with a beak unable to do well in obtaining the available food source will perhaps die out, and the information for that beak shape may be lost . As far as I know however, there has never been any system demonstrated for the information for any organism to become a creature of a different sort. I realise that the theory goes that the steps are so slowly incremental that they are invisible, but then, so is the theory...it cannot be evidenced and neither can it be falsified.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 05:42 AM

It would be nonsensical to "eliminate" faith schools. What needs to go is the indoctrination. Why, they'd probably be even better schools without it as they'd be spending more time on education. The issue of parental choice is separate once you take that out the equation. The inequities would certainly not go away simply by taking religion out of schools without an overhaul of the system, as you've pointed out. But that's probably for another thread. For me, getting rid of religion from schools is a matter of principle. Schools are not there to peddle mythology as truth to children.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 05:48 AM

Evolution is not a scientific principle, any more than going for a pee is a scientific principle. Like going for a pee, evolution definitely takes place. What is not irrefutable is the theory of evolution, which is a very good explanation but not perfect, and it never will be. I'm getting slightly fed up of telling you this.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 06:22 AM

That approach would not work, Pete

To begun with you could be asked to demonstrate all the beaks shapes existed beforehand and I have no idea how you propose to do that. Creationists often complain of gaps in the fossil records for evolutionary theory but I hadn't appreciated they require a gap that's many hundreds of thousands of times greater

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 07:00 AM

That's probably for a different thread

Indeed so. The whole education or indoctrination thing is a huge, but fortunately separate, discussion. It is by no means restricted to religious matters.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 08:59 AM

Maybe not, but (a) religious indoctrination is by far the biggest culprit, (b) just because there are other culprits doesn't mean that religious indoctrination is any less egregious. It's easy to get away with being a priest, a nun or an RE teacher in a school, but you just try being a commie agitator.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 09:11 AM

That's for a separate thread, Steve, if we can face it. Indeed what is acceptable politics and economics were two things that sprang to mind. And I am by no means convinced attitudes inculcated in those are less significant than religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 09:29 AM

Pete... among the ideas on which I have debated you is this one:

" As far as I know however, there has never been any system demonstrated for the information for any organism to become a creature of a different sort. "

I don't know how to put it so that you will actually see the point, but you are twisting the entire concept of what 'change' means in evolutionary theory. NO ONE is claiming anything like "ostriches turn into tigers" or any other silly combination. That IS a "straw man" fallacy. You are taking the way small changes DO happen, sometimes over a fairly short time sequence...(those finches in the Galapagos, for example)... and asserting that this DISproves general evolution. You are either ignoring what is actually being claimed, or misunderstanding it because your religious beliefs demand an entirely different set of premises.
*IF* you believe that a god created all species in 6 days, and decreed that 'change' would occur only as minor adaptive variation within a species, then you logically cannot comprehend what science has worked out from huge amounts of research!

Evolution is a bush, not a set of straight steps. Once a species has its own branch of that bush, it does NOT jump over to another branch. You are correct that bandicoots do not become giraffes.... but 'something' similar to bandicoots did change over the eons to become the bandicoots of today. Unfortunately, they did not die conveniently in some place so as to provide us with examples of the many intermediate steps.

We DO have some very clear intermediate steps that we CAN show to be links... even in the most important case.... us! DNA proves that that this happens, and because our species was endowed with lucky attributes like bipedal motion and larger brains, some of our ancestors did get buried in places like caves where we can study a few of the intermediate steps of the last 2-3 million years. We are still working out the exact ways our part of the bush branched, and probably never will find all the pieces... but we do have enough to inductively draw a decent picture of the basic bush.

Denying that picture because of a story that 'sounds' more ^uplifting is denying what our eyes and our evidence shows!

And when you describe the logical inferences in science as 'faith', you are committing the fallacy of equivocation on the word 'faith'... you are simply defining concepts to fit several unsubstantiated premises.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 11:25 AM

he existence of faith schools, as with public schools, creates a lust in those parents who can wield influence that distorts the country's education system for the worse.

How so, Steve? As you said, parents are liable to use various ways of helping get their children into schools that are seen as better. The existence of faith schools doesn't create that "lust". Take them away and it would persist, so long as this discrepency exists, and there is any element of choice. All that would be different is that one possible way to try to cheat would be removed, one which is not restricted to wealthy people.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 11:29 AM

I don't know how to put it so that you will actually see the point

Uh, Bill, there IS no way to put so that pete will see the point ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 11:53 AM

Rather than you demanding that others respond to your posts, Pete, may I ask you to have a go at answering the following questions, please?

- What, exactly, is wrong with appealing to authority? What's the alternative?

- Are you ever going to move beyond 'Creation.com' and read something written by a real evolutionary biologist?

- Can you please show us the "observational, repeatable, testable" ... eerrr ... 'evidences' for the existence of God?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 01:34 PM

Shimrod... as concerned as I obviously am with the issue, it is really irrelevant to ask anyone to show 'evidence' for religious beliefs. They just are beliefs, and Pete has acknowledged as much. I am more concerned with his trying to drag me/us to the same level by calling acceptance of various scientific theories 'faith'.
   That is a specific, logical error which 'might' be resolved someday, unlike the existence of a 'god'. Perhaps there was a god who kick-started everything *shrug*. What is important is careful study of **what is**, no matter how it originally came into existence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 01:43 PM

I don't disagree with you, Bill, but please make some allowances for irony!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 01:50 PM

Irony is seldom obvious in print like this, and almost never gets the attentions of those to whom it is directed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 01:52 PM

I should also point out that if someone wilfully, or through ignorance, refuses to acknowledge the difference between scientific theories and religious faith then they can hardly complain if they are asked to provide ("observational, repeatable, testable" sic) evidence in support of their religious beliefs!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 03:09 PM

They just are beliefs,

Uh Hunh - beliefs - like the Holocaust never happened, the moon landing was faked, Obama is a Muslim and not a U.S. citizen, Blacks are sub-human & etc............

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 03:52 PM

"All that would be different is that one possible way to try to cheat would be removed"

Of course. I'm rather glad that you see that (ab)using your faith to get your kids into the best schools is one possible way to cheat. Because it just happens to be one way of cheating among all the others doesn't mean we should just let it go. Any Christian arguing for that would clearly have no sense of irony. As I said, for me removing religious instruction and worship from schools is a matter of principle. I'm not exactly over the moon either that my tax money is used to pay for faith schools, in the same way that I'm not over the moon that my tax money helps to keep private schools as charitable institutions. Seven hundred million quid a year so that rich parents can eschew those crummy comprehensives that most of those people who pay the tax have to send their kids to. Nice.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 04:20 PM

"Abusing your faith" means picking up going to church for reasons other than wanting to go to church? The pragmatic Catholic view might be, if it means the kids get a good education in a school underpinned by a Catholic religious ethosthe motives of the parents are a secondary matter.

But you've indicated that what you want to see is for people to change your minds about religion, of their own free will (assuming that free will is a meaningful concept). So what's this about "removing religious groups nstruction and worship from schools is a matter of principle"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 05:13 PM

I repeat. To me it's a matter of principle because schools should be about education, not indoctrination. To reiterate, I am in favour of religious education, which, to me, means telling children about world religions and their impact in history and on the present day.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 05:24 PM

What I meant, you can have aspirations and hopes about what other people do, and you could have it as a matter of principle that you retain those aspirations and hopes - but you can't have a principle about what other people do, just about what you do.

In the same way you can be determined to try and stop global warming, but you can't have a principle thst it does.n

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 06:28 PM

I honestly can't see your argument. A more productive thing would be to tell me what you disagree with about the substantive points I've made over the last few days. I'm a simple chap. Tell me what's good about religious instruction and religious worship in schools and we'll take it from there. So far it would appear that you'd rather deflect the discussion away from that and towards what you see as my mindset. That doesn't play too well with me. I won't be so unkind as you suggest that you can't address the substantive argument. Onwards and upwards!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 06:29 PM

Grrr. So unkind as TO suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 06:48 PM

That doesn't sound very productive to me, Steve, since it basically just an argument. What would be better would be to recognise that an awful lot of non-religious parents choose faith schools. Why they do that is nothing to do with my opinion, or McGrath's or yours. So since there undoubtedly is something in those schools they find attractive the worthwhile thing to do is to work out what it is and then try to reproduce 'the whatever' in the secular schools they decided against. You find the indoctrination a severe problem, but the evidence seems to be that all these other non-religious parents aren't too bothered by it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 07:06 PM

You are sidetracking like mad. The parents you are talking about are the ruthless, pushy, unprincipled buggers who will do almost anything to get their kids into a school that they think has the good local reputation. They don't care whether their kids are indoctrinated or not. It's not even particularly about results. It's about snobbery and the desire not to be tainted by the bog standard comprehensive down the road. It's so hard to go to your dinner parties and show that off.   Their priority is to get any advantage they can for their kids regardless of the effect on other schools in the area. And the school they apply to connives in all this, as long as the kid has ability and the parents seem respectable. In a funny way you can't blame the parents. But don't pretend this doesn't happen and don't imagine for one minute that all this is done with the highest principles in mind. Let's get real about this, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 07:08 PM

i was just checking whether it's just that you'd like people to thnink the same way about these things, or whether you think something should be done to make them change.

Because while I'm perfectly happy with the first, I'd have serious difficulties with the second.

I think that a world view without God is ultimately every bit as impossible to comprehend and make sense of as the notion of a world centred on God. There's a choice between two absurdities, and I've made my choice, and it's the one that makes sense to me.

And when it comes to living, there are so many things about my religion that work for me that I'm happy to stick with it, warts and all, and since it's a communal thing, and not just individual, I value such expressions of that as are found in liturgy and education. And I think the schools on the whole work better than the secular alternative, and that's essentially thanks to the religious ethos.

I've tried doing without it, and that's over and done, I believe and hope.

And I've no expectation or desire to change your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 07:15 PM

Dinner parties??? The schools round by you must be different to those near me if they gain you entrance to those!

I am not sidetracking. I want all schools to be as high a standard as possible. If the faith schools are perceived as better I want to know why and want all the secular schools to benefits rom whatever it is. That the pushers and social climbers think a certain school is something worth moving house to be near that to me says nothing more than that school has something to offer that could benefit other schools.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 07:45 PM

I missed out a couple of words in that firstsentence - it should have read "I was just checking whether it's just that you'd like people to think the same way about these things as you do, or whether you think something should be done to make them change.
............
The only social difference about our local Catholic comprehensive seems to be is that it's probably a good bit more multicultural than the rest - Poles, Africans, Filipinos and so forth. Maybe that might help head of the dinner party snobs you're worried about, Steve. I'd hope so anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 08:22 PM

I'm surprised and disappointed that you choose to fall back on God to make your argument, Kevin ;-). By the way, I come to BS Mudcat to vent my spleen. exercise my poor brain and try to state my opinions as articulately and in as unprejudiced a manner as I can muster. I never expect to change anyone's opinions.

As for the perception of schools, I've tried to explain that what may be perceived is seldom in touch with the reality of what goes on. Not only that, the alleged perception is strongly coloured by self-interest. Every area I've ever lived in or worked in (greater Manchester, Loughton, Walthamstow, Poplar, Stepney, Bude, west Devon) has had those schools that have been seen as ultra-desirable. As an insider in the teaching profession for many years, I see reputations that are ill-deserved, both good ones and bad ones, and in very few cases have I seen reputations or perceptions that match the reality. That's my anecdotal stuff, but at least I know I'm honest, even if YOU don't think so! And the elephant in the room is the parental pushiness that chucks any semblance of objectivity right out of the window. If there's one thing that many schools are quite good at, it's putting a gloss on what they get up to that is designed to deliberately confuse parents. And governors and Ofsted come to think of it. Why, when I contemplate that, I wonder what chance parents have got!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 09:42 PM

Here we have a few of the statements of aim of Kevin's much-vaunted local Catholic school (if I've got the wrong one I apologise).

"Welcome to St Mark's West Essex Catholic School website. St Mark's is a successful, well-ordered and caring Catholic school... Our aim is simple; to facilitate academic and personal success in a rigorous learning community and in a culture which embraces the Gospel values of – serving others, tolerance, trust, respect, prayer and forgiveness...

...Learning together in a Catholic community..

...Developing a love of learning, a love of Christ, and a love of each other...

.Our Catholic school is one in which Gospel values inform all aspects of community life."

Well if my experiences of Catholic schools (considerable) are anything to go by, this is utter bullshit, and the school will proceed about its daily business pretty much like any other state school. However, there will still be a veneer of indoctrination and enforced worship. I am still waiting for my two estimable friends, Kevin and DMcG, to tell me straight whether they think that this is acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 10:32 PM

"I value such expressions of that as are found in liturgy and education."

Liturgy, fine. Whatever stirs your loins. Education? Well what's your idea of religious education? Would it by any chance include sitting under a classroom crucifix, chanting mindless prayers parrot-fashion and being herded off to services? That is exactly what happens in Catholic schools. Are you happy that impressionable, immature children should be subjected to that? Yes or no, please, or would you rather do a Joe?

"And I think the schools on the whole work better than the secular alternative, and that's essentially thanks to the religious ethos."

Evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Oct 15 - 11:58 PM

Steve Shaw says: The parents you are talking about are the ruthless, pushy, unprincipled buggers who will do almost anything to get their kids into a school that they think has the good local reputation.

Yes, Steve, I suppose UK faith schools have a few parents like that. US religious schools have a few wealthy parents who are annoyingly demanding to the point of being litigious...and they never seem to be available to help with the volunteer efforts that make tuition affordable for us normal folks (not that they offer to pay higher tuition). Such people are indeed a pain in the ass - but they are a small minority, the exception and not the rule.

Such is the case with all your rash generalizations, Steve. They're true, but they don't tell the whole story. All you see is the negative side of the things you don't espouse. For some of us, religion has been a very positive experience, something that does not limit the breadth of our thinking whatsoever.

Yes, Steve, I know you taught in a faith school for a number of years. I wonder how you could have prostituted yourself like that.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 03:36 AM

That's my anecdotal stuff, but at least I know I'm honest, even if YOU don't think so!

I don't doubt your honesty. and I don't think anyone else does either. I hope that is mutual.

However, there will still be a veneer of indoctrination and enforced worship. I am still waiting for my two estimable friends, Kevin and DMcG, to tell me straight whether they think that this is acceptable

I think we have both done so several times, but I will do so again. In many cases, but by no means all, faith schools are seen by large numbers of people as better. And that is a matter of evidence in the form of the extent to which they are over-subscribed. The words people use to describe why they choose the school tend to be words like ethos and discipline. And better discipline gives less class disruption which helps better teaching. So many non-religious parents regard that as a price worth paying. Now, let us imagine that was not in the school, so that it became effectively a non-faith school. Would that improve things? Well, the best assumption we can make is that it would become very similar to all the existing non-faith schools, which are precisely the ones less favoured if a parent chose a faith school. So the best assumption we could make is that yes, the school would be worse without it.

so let me summarise that as the straight response you are seeking: I, and many other including a lot of non-believers, believe that might be a price worth paying.

I am not being glib about that. It has dangers and I am well aware of that. Nor am I saying 'indoctrination' is acceptable in general. We are well aware of how that has been used over the 20th century to enable no end of horrors. But 'indoctrination' is a loaded word and should not really be used for just for teaching people ideas you personally disagree with or you eventually find yourself in company with pete's claims that people are indoctrinated with a belief in evolutionism (I know, I know)...)


As to the validity of the evidence on over-subscription, I find it a bit astonishing that you think the majority of non-religious parents are prepared to pick schools they know are damaging for their children just so they can name-drop the school at the local golf club. Yes, such people exist, but my anecdotal evidence is that many more non-religious people put themselves through years of attending a church they don't believe in and what-not precisely because they believe it is best for the child.


"And I think the schools on the whole work better than the secular alternative, and that's essentially thanks to the religious ethos."

Evidence?

Well, let's adopt the scientific approach we both love, and reject all the subjective anecdotes we would not accept in science. We have evidence of popularity in terms of over-subscriptions. We have an informal view, which could be statistically verified if need be, that there are correlations between being popular and being a faith school. We have outcomes in the forms of league tables and academic results that could also be statistically correlated. (This last one, by the way, I have no idea whether there is a positive, negative, or zero correlation, but it could be done.)

So we have all the raw data for the calculations and it is am informal perception of all that that makes these people believe one school is better than another. If could all be formalised, but I don't think anyone has done so.

All that is objective (or in the case of Ofsted reports at least formal) Against that we have honestly made but subjective anecdotes. Wearing your scientist's hat, Steve, which would you go for?

By the way, I come to BS Mudcat to vent my spleen. exercise my poor brain and try to state my opinions as articulately and in as unprejudiced a manner as I can muster. I never expect to change anyone's opinions.

I agree (except for the spleen bit) I don't expect to change your opinion, nor pete's, nor Joe's, nor McGrath's nor anyone else on this thread. I have no interest in doing so. What I get out of this is a better understanding of other people's views, which I believe enhances my own understanding in general.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 04:30 AM

Watched a remarkable film last night - would recommend it to anybody with and doubts about giving the Church uncontrolled access to peoples' minds
CONSPIRACY of SILENCE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 05:51 AM

I haven't seen that film Jim, but it is a bad idea in general to let any group have uncontrolled access to people's minds. Many places including Ireland have suffered really badly when religion comes to dominate. I'm not at all in favour of that. I think religion should be part of the mix, others don't, but the mix needs to be much richer than any single set of views.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 11:21 AM

What an incredibly unpleasant post from Joe Offer. I was a practising Catholic during all the years I attended as a pupil and taught as a teacher at the faith schools I was connected to. I left the secondary faith school I taught at in 1980, a few years before I gave up on religion. I've recounted this time scale several times, including in an allusion in this thread. Your use of the word prostituted is negative, inflammatory and trolling.

As for this:
Such is the case with all your rash generalizations, Steve. They're true, but they don't tell the whole story. All you see is the negative side of the things you don't espouse. For some of us, religion has been a very positive experience, something that does not limit the breadth of our thinking whatsoever.

It's hard to see how rash generalisations can be true. Perhaps you you were using American English. As for religion not limiting your thinking, well it's certainly got you thinking about evolution arse about face, something you've already demonstrated in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 12:01 PM

Ah, Steve, sorry to have been mistaken about the timeframe of your teaching in Catholic institutions. With the expertise you feign, I thought your experience had been far more recent. You must have been a mere child at the time of your experience. Too bad you didn't have the opportunity to develop a more mature view of religion.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 01:02 PM

An even sillier post and completely unapologetic for the disgraceful use of the word prostituted. I should like you to reflect on whose views are the more immature. For your reference, my time frames are as follows. Ages four to 11, Roman Catholic primary school. Ages 11 to 18, Roman Catholic grammar school run by Salesian fathers and brothers. Ages 18 to 22, university and teacher training. Ages 22 to 29, teacher in a Roman Catholic comprehensive school in East London. Age early thirties, dropped religion. After 1980, when I was 29, teaching in non-faith secondary schools in Walthamstow then west Devon. No clashes there between me and religion. Not a prostitute in sight. Do you have confessions still in America?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 02:11 PM

Thank you for you careful and civil response, DMcG. It's good to see that at least one person, maybe two, can disagree without making snide and uncalled-for remarks! Much to disagree with still, however.

"In many cases, but by no means all, faith schools are seen by large numbers of people as better. And that is a matter of evidence in the form of the extent to which they are over-subscribed."

I don't take over-subscribed to be much of a measure of anything. What parents, governors and even Ofsted inspectors perceive is usually at odds with what actually goes on in schools. Successive governments have encouraged a sickening atmosphere of competition by publishing league tables, which are just about the worst measure of whether a school is giving children a worthwhile, happy and edifying experience. You appear to have been suckered into that ethos, unfortunately. There is widespread cheating in key stage testing that is connived in by teachers, head teachers and school governors. When you know it goes on, you either join in or you suffer. As for over-subscribed being a measure, well most boy band gigs are over-subscribed within seconds of the tickets going on sale. As our merkin cousins might say, go figure.

"The words people use to describe why they choose the school tend to be words like ethos and discipline. And better discipline gives less class disruption which helps better teaching. So many non-religious parents regard that as a price worth paying. Now, let us imagine that was not in the school, so that it became effectively a non-faith school. Would that improve things? Well, the best assumption we can make is that it would become very similar to all the existing non-faith schools, which are precisely the ones less favoured if a parent chose a faith school. So the best assumption we could make is that yes, the school would be worse without it."

I find that to be getting more and more convoluted by the sentence. I can't argue that good discipline and a positive ethos are not good things, but I'm failing to see how on earth you can connect those things to religion.

"so let me summarise that as the straight response you are seeking: I, and many other including a lot of non-believers, believe that might be a price worth paying."

You are unconsciously conflating two very distinct groups of people here under the banner "non-religious." There are those who detest religion of any kind and who would not on principle send a child to a faith school. Then there are the couldn't-care-lessers about religion. I know that church attendances are dire and I don't think that we are exactly overrun by militant atheists either, so let's be outrageous and estimate that the vast majority of people couldn't give a stuff. In that case, I think that very few people come into your category of thinking that faith schools are "a price worth paying". Whether it's a faith school or not doesn't really come into their thinking at all, does it? They want the school with the local good name, and principles don't come into it.

"I am not being glib about that. It has dangers and I am well aware of that. Nor am I saying 'indoctrination' is acceptable in general. We are well aware of how that has been used over the 20th century to enable no end of horrors. But 'indoctrination' is a loaded word and should not really be used for just for teaching people ideas you personally disagree with or you eventually find yourself in company with pete's claims that people are indoctrinated with a belief in evolutionism (I know, I know)...)"

Well let's take a look. Your religion is wholly predicated on your belief in God. You have no evidence for a God, you've never seen him, and all you have is ancient writings often of dubious provenance, the edicts of holy men, your ceremonies and traditions, the say-so of several demented witnesses who spoke to the Virgin or saw a statue moving and the confused writings of theologians. On top of that, your main man is supposed to have been the product of a virgin birth, who could raise the dead, turn water into wine and come back from the dead. You are so certain of all this that all your prayers and hymns assert the literal truth of it all. Now all this is what teachers tell children, from the age of five upward, in religious instruction classes. There will probably be a crucifix on the classroom wall depicting a scene of obscene violence that probably never happened, and there will certainly be the chanting of some of those prayers and the singing of hymns. You think that it's all right to do this to children regardless of their age and regardless of the truth, which is that most of what you're telling them is actually not the case. But you think that this is better that telling them the actual unvarnished truth, that there are severe doubts about all of it. You think that avoiding the real truth will help them to lead better lives and see deeper truths. Well excuse me for thinking that it all adds up to indoctrination. When we see other belief systems making similarly-unsupportable assertions we call it radicalisation. Ok, it's easier to get out of Christianity, but that's a pretty threadbare reason for commending that approach.

"As to the validity of the evidence on over-subscription, I find it a bit astonishing that you think the majority of non-religious parents are prepared to pick schools they know are damaging for their children just so they can name-drop the school at the local golf club. Yes, such people exist, but my anecdotal evidence is that many more non-religious people put themselves through years of attending a church they don't believe in and what-not precisely because they believe it is best for the child."

Well, view all that from within the context of ruthless competition among schools, and the fact that most non-religious people don't give a monkey's, and it all looks a little less principled and virtuous.

"And I think the schools on the whole work better than the secular alternative, and that's essentially thanks to the religious ethos."

Unsupportable.

" We have outcomes in the forms of league tables and academic results that could also be statistically correlated. "

What with? These assessments are fatally corrupted by poor and often dishonest marking (in order to get your kid into the desired attainment level), inconsistent teacher preparation, extremely poor moderation (that was the bane of my life), coaching and prompting during the tests. All anecdotal, of course. It's in everyone's interest to connive and in no-one's to blow the whistle. Maybe it's too corny for words to say it, but maybe you just have to have been there. Just like me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 02:30 PM

That's a long and detailed post, Steve, and I am my way out shortly. Please excuse me if I don't get back to you until at least tomorrow. And since my wife has been away in Thailand and gets back tomorrow, maybe it will be longer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 03:37 PM

Taking it that Joe appears to have understood that you'd been teaching in Catholic schools feeling the same way about them that you do now, I can't see his comment as anyway out of line, or anything to get hot under the collar about.

A misunderstanding, but not an unreasonable one. If someone as hostile to Catholicism and all religious belief as you are now were to teach in a Catholic school for years on end, and go along with all the stuff you detest, wouldn't you see it as a bit off?

I quite accept that the kind of official evidence that you mention can be questonable. I've known cases where what seem to be pretty good schools have been downgraded in ways I thought were unfair. Likely enough it happens the other way too. I know it does in other fields, notably the Care Quality Commission, which has given favourable reports on some shocking care homes.

But the favourable reports on Catholic schools have been a bit too consistent to dismiss them out of hand, and throw them over in favour of anecdotal evidence - though I don't dismiss anecdotal evidence, which can be crucial in setting off alarm bells. But I think it's rreeasonable to accept that these schools do perform well in educational terms.

It strikes me that "serving others, tolerance, trust, respect, prayer and forgiveness" are a pretty good set of criteria", leaving aside "prayer" for you, and including it for me. These kind of blurbs for schools inescapably tend to be a bit pompous and remote, but St Mark,s seems a pretty decent school.

As for "falling back on God" What could I have been thinking of!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 04:07 PM

I'm sorry, but I've made it clear several times that my giving up religion came well into my thirties. Saying that I prostituted myself was a rush to judgement before checking the facts. Completely unjustified and unnecessarily nasty to boot. The facts were eminently checkable. All he had to do was ask. But he didn't bother. A number of his recent posts have been similarly goading. It's hard to avoid the feeling that what I have to say makes him defensive. You'd have thought that a theologian ought to be far more inside his comfort zone than that when attacking the likes of me.

As for Catholic schools performing well, I didn't say that they haven't or couldn't. I'm trying to get you blokes to put at least a credit card between good achievement and catholicity. Neither of you at present seem to accept without demur that you can actually have one without the other, and that it often happens, and that it's actually better when it happens. I am primarily arguing against any religious indoctrination in schools at all, on the grounds that it is anti-educational and highly untruthful, not what schooling should be about. And I'm hanging on to the word indoctrination. I characterised Christian proselytisation in my long post above. I invite you to disagree with it point by point, not in some hazy generalities, or by telling me that it works for you, or that it reveals deeper truths (as if you need religion for that anyway. You don't). We are talking here about what you tell children to believe. I think that we should show them how to find out things for themselves, to be curious, and to question everything. Why not? You won't get that with an immutable Godly starting point.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 05:12 PM

There are masses of posts from you on this great long thread. It's unreasonable to expect people to check and cross reference things we've said and doing some kind of textual analysis. I'm pretty sure you've mentioned working in a Cathollc school more often and more recently than the fact that you only turned against religion in later years, and that most of the mentions have been in a context of bitterly criticising that kind of education.

Seems a perfectly reasonable misunderstanding, and Joe's comment, on that basis, doesn't really seem excessive.

As for the rest, there's a real disagreement between us. What you see as indoctrination I see on the whole as perfectly appropriate and valuable. Essentially, where you see false I see true. Point by point or generalisations.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 15 - 06:10 PM

"There are masses of posts from you on this great long thread. It's unreasonable to expect people to check and cross reference things we've said and doing some kind of textual analysis. "

There is a gulf of difference between expecting people to cross-check, etc., which I don't expect, and refraining from calling people prostitutes on the basis of some hazy and inaccurate feeling of timings which you can't be arsed to check. If I called you a prostitute you would expect me to have bloody solid grounds for saying it, otherwise you'd expect me to keep my big mouth SHUT. You are defending the indefensible. Please don't make me think that it's two Catholics closing ranks. I expect better of you than that. I actually expect better of myself for thinking that thought. However, it's still nowhere near as bad as calling an honest bloke a prostitute.

"As for the rest, there's a real disagreement between us. What you see as indoctrination I see on the whole as perfectly appropriate and valuable. Essentially, where you see false I see true. Point by point or generalisations."

OK, so you can't address this. I get that. You think it's true that Jesus was born of a virgin. That he turned water into wine. That he came back from the dead. If you see these things as the truth you really should be able to support them. I think they are not true, and I'm more than happy to support that, point by point. I don't really care what people see as true. Or false. I do care that some people, including you, see no problem in peddling unsupportable myth to children as truth. I think that if there was a God he'd regard that as sinful in the extreme. Perhaps you could tell me, even if you don't like dealing in things point by point, what is so wrong with telling children the truth. I think I might have asked this a few times now. I await.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 01:44 AM

It seems, Steve, that somehow you think yourself to be entitled to set the rules for the discussion. I said you prostituted yourself by teaching in a Catholic school while being an atheist. I did not call you a prostitute - and you would have read me the Riot Act if I had pulled a similar switcheroo. And with all your verbiage and switch-hitting, it's easy to get confused about what you've said and what your personal history is. If someone is able to refute something you've said, your usual response is to contend that you never said what you said. If someone does a reasonable paraphrase of what you've said, you play games and pick at their paraphrase instead of their point. You don't play fair.

None of the people here who professes religion, with the possible exception of Pete, has claimed that their religious denomination is without fault. They have chosen to practice their faith within a given denomination for a variety of reasons. Their faith is something they treasure, something they consider to be part of themselves, something that they have chosen for deeply personal reasons that they really can't explain - especially if they are under attack.

My faith is a matter of the heart, just as my choice to love my wife is a matter of my heart. I can't defend my love for my wife, and I can't defend my faith - and it's an insult and an offense for someone to attack either my love or my faith. Such matters are not and should not be within the realm of attack and defense. The exception would be if I were to proselytize here or use my faith as a springboard for attacking somebody else, and I have never done that.

You may claim I've attacked you, but that's not true. I've merely attempted to fend off your constant stream of attacks. I've never attacked anyone's atheism, and I don't believe that McGrath or DMcG have attacked anyone's atheism, either - I would suppose that all three of us have considered ourselves to be atheists or at least agnostics at some times in our lives.

We have disagreed with your constant and vehement attacks against religious belief. Somehow, I guess, attacking your attacks is against your rules. Such is life.

But you attack religion like a dog attacks a bone. You put so much energy into your attacks that it started long ago to seem really weird.

You taught in a Catholic school until you were 29 years old, in 1980; and you "dropped religion" a few years later. So, that's about thirty years ago, right? That's a long time ago, Steve. One could wonder why you maintain such animosity after all these years, and why you expend so much time and energy energy expressing that animosity. Why can't you find it in your heart to say, "Religion is not my thing," and then drop it and focus your energy elsewhere? Why not try some positive endeavor, rather than spending your time attacking what others hold sacred?

I'm sure you "dropped religion" for valid reasons. Sometime in their late teens or during their twenties, people go through a "crisis of faith" where they have to decide to accept or reject the faith they were brought up with. My four children all rejected the Catholic faith, but they don't harbor any animosity toward it like the animosity that seems to govern so much of your life.

Maybe something bad happened to you in a Catholic institution. I wouldn't blame you for "dropping religion" for that, either. Some people do bad things, even within the context of religion - but most religious people do nothing harmful in the name of their religion, so it's unfair to attack religion based on the misconduct of some believers.

Steve sez:

OK, so you can't address this. I get that. You think it's true that Jesus was born of a virgin. That he turned water into wine. That he came back from the dead. If you see these things as the truth you really should be able to support them. I think they are not true, and I'm more than happy to support that, point by point. I don't really care what people see as true. Or false. I do care that some people, including you, see no problem in peddling unsupportable myth to children as truth. I think that if there was a God he'd regard that as sinful in the extreme. Perhaps you could tell me, even if you don't like dealing in things point by point, what is so wrong with telling children the truth. I think I might have asked this a few times now. I await.

Yes, you addressed this comment to somebody else, but it applies to my faith, too. Yes, those are more-or-less the things I believe. They are an integral part of my faith, and the faith of all Christians. They are things that I cannot explain or prove, and I can only imagine what they mean or how they happened. They are not something to be proved or disproved. They are something I ponder and pray about, not something I seek proof for. All I know is that my faith has been a rich and deep experience for me, and so I practice it - and it's sacred to me. If you attack what is sacred to me, you attack me.

The same thing applies to what Europeans have done to the religious practices of all the peoples they have conquered. They don't appreciate or respect what others hold sacred, so they attack and attempt to destroy it.

So, no, I wouldn't dream of defending my faith to you. And I wouldn't dream of trying to convert you or anybody to Christianity. If somebody sees my faith practice and it makes sense to them, then I'd welcome them to join me - and I'd tell them the truth about what I believe, warts and all. But I don't expect that of you. All I expect is for you to respect me for who I am and what I hold sacred.

I consider your continued attacks to be highly offensive, so I speak out against those attacks on occasion.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 02:19 AM

 "nothing can ever separate us from God's love which is in Jesus Christ our Lord."
--Francis

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 04:18 AM

Joe you stated "My faith is a matter of the heart, just as my choice to love my wife is a matter of my heart. I can't defend my love for my wife, and I can't defend my faith - and it's an insult and an offense for someone to attack either my love or my faith. Such matters are not and should not be within the realm of attack and defense. The exception would be if I were to proselytize here or use my faith as a springboard for attacking somebody else, and I have never done that"

Yet you find it acceptable to attack and even question my love for my wife. Pot, kettle and black spring to mind. Oh and by the way I can defend my love for my wife, very easily in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 04:23 AM

I'm trying to get you blokes to put at least a credit card between good achievement and catholicity. Neither of you at present seem to accept without demur that you can actually have one without the other, and that it often happens, and that it's actually better when it happens.

Still not time to properly respond, but I am quite happy to put not only credit cards but the entire Encyclopaedia Britannia between good achievement and catholicity. I can accept without demur that you can have without the other and that it often happens.   I can even accept without demur that for an atheist it is better that it happens. But you must expect any person of religion, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, to think, all other things being equal, that a school aligned with their faith is better for them than one which isn't aligned at all, and the unaligned one is far better than one actively opposing their faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:34 AM

Right, I can finally get back to Steve's larger post now. As what we are about is an exchange of views, not saying one of us is right and the other wrong, I think it would be silly to go through it point by point, then have Steve respond to that point by point, and me do the same until one of us dies of exhaustion. So what I will do is pick out one or two points where I don't think there is actually very much disagreement between us, but would benefit from being fleshed out a bit.

You are unconsciously conflating two very distinct groups of people here under the banner "non-religious." There are those who detest religion of any kind and who would not on principle send a child to a faith school. Then there are the couldn't-care-lessers about religion. I know that church attendances are dire and I don't think that we are exactly overrun by militant atheists either, so let's be outrageous and estimate that the vast majority of people couldn't give a stuff. In that case, I think that very few people come into your category of thinking that faith schools are "a price worth paying". Whether it's a faith school or not doesn't really come into their thinking at all, does it? They want the school with the local good name, and principles don't come into it.

That may be. But what I was really trying to do was say that it is hardly surprising people of a given faith would want to go to a school of that faith, so we cannot regard them as particularly relevant for the popularity stakes. Removing these from consideration gives what I meant by non-religious: everyone who actively chooses the school for reasons other than religion. And, true, a great many don't give a toss at all. I'd be astonished if many people who hated the whole idea of religion actively chose to send their child to a faith school but the world is a weird place sometimes and there can be reasons even for that. And as I said in the bit you found convoluted, we can determine if there is a correlation between faith schools and ones selected because they see them as 'good schools'. That's correlation, not causation.

Successive governments have encouraged a sickening atmosphere of competition by publishing league tables, which are just about the worst measure of whether a school is giving children a worthwhile, happy and edifying experience. You appear to have been suckered into that ethos, unfortunately.

We are getting a heck of a long way from the Pope in America here, I know, but before I can answer that, we need to have covered a bit of preparation. I am confident Steve could write this bit better than me, but here goes.   There are a number of conflicting things a school is supposed to do, and most people do not have a settled view on what a 'good' school is because of that.   Picking three things out of many: (a) 'Educate': That is, if I remember correctly, from the Latin 'educare' which means to draw out. In essence, this is getting the child to develop their innate skills. If they are artistic, help them to be better artists. If they are interested in poetry, to be better poets, or be able to explain poems to others well. It is essentially nothing whatsoever to do with being employable except by coincidence. (b) Be Employable: This is all about grades in the 'right' subjects. Concentrate on getting the child to be able to do things, by rote if necessary, to get a high score on the test. Understanding what it is about, or whether they have a talent for it, is not really that important. Results are what count. (c) Be socialised: Be able to relate to other people, understand how 'the system' works, know what is and is not acceptable behaviour. Again, this is not really much do to with the other two.

Now back to Steve's opening point: league tables.   They are all about the grades: a school is considered highly performing if it has excellent grades even if every child turns out a sociopath and none of the student's actual abilities have been noticed.   The grades are also very susceptible to rote learning rather than understanding. Moving away from schools into Universities, there are now stories every year about students feeling aggrieved that there are questions on papers that were not covered on syllabus. The year before last there was such a complaint from final year economists for a question I reckoned I could get at least half marks on despite having never studied any economics. But what bothered me more was that these graduates hoped to get employed within a month or two. Did they imagine their employer would be happy with the answer "Sorry, can't help you there, it wasn't on my syllabus?".   That's an illustration of why we need to be careful not to be suckered into treating grades too seriously.

But ultimately it means we have this choice. Either we look at the league tables and results and degree level , holding them at arm's length and wearing a nose-peg if we have to. Or we have no guidance at all. And as Steve says league tables, which are education type b, are an extremely unreliable guide to types a and c.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 07:08 AM

Well I don't really want to get into this big league tables thing too deeply for fear of being anecdotal, but they're worse than useless. They unhelpfully give schools with struggling reputations even worse ones and they take no account of the ability of the intake. The tests that lead to their construction are blunt instruments which are fatally corrupted by the bad practice I've described. Most teachers treat them with derision, seeing them as unfair and an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on their time. Hoops to jump through with more attention to their reputations (after all, Ofsted are around the corner) than to informing what they do next with their children, which is the whole point of assessment, and which the system dismisses out of hand. This government carries on with a one-size-fits-all Key Stage 4 assessment regime that is continually interfered with and tweaked and subjected to ideological interference. League tables are not better than nothing. They are worse than nothing.

I'm quite happy to think that you have now divorced good schooling from catholicity. Reading your posts over the last few days, that hasn't really come across.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 11:44 AM

'm quite happy to think that you have now divorced good schooling from catholicity. Reading your posts over the last few days, that hasn't really come across.

I think that is probably because we have been talking a lot about faith schools that are perceived as good. If that gave the impression I thought only faith schools could be good it was unintentional. That is not something I have just worked out in the pat few days! It reminds me of the old joke about the mother who gives her son two ties for Christmas. He dutifully comes downstairs wearing one to be asked "And what's wrong with the other one?" Addressing one, be it tie or type of school, doesn't really say anything about the other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 12:04 PM

Raggytash: Yet you find it acceptable to attack and even question my love for my wife. Pot, kettle and black spring to mind. Oh and by the way I can defend my love for my wife, very easily in fact.

You're really stretching things, Raggytash. I didn't know you were marrried, and wasn't sure whether you were male or female. But since you couldn't refute my point that sex should be sacred, you tried a flank attack by condemning my failure to know you were married. Much like Mr. Shaw's condemning my failure to know that he "dropped religion" thirty years ago and still claims expertise on Catholicism.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 12:11 PM

"I said you prostituted yourself by teaching in a Catholic school while being an atheist. I did not call you a prostitute - and you would have read me the Riot Act if I had pulled a similar switcheroo. And with all your verbiage and switch-hitting, it's easy to get confused about what you've said and what your personal history is."

Hmm. That woman prostituted herself by having paid-for sex with lots of men. That woman is a prostitute because she had paid-for sex with lots of men. Not a huge amounts of difference, Joe. Why don't you just admit that it was a bloody stupid thing to say, especially as you failed to check the facts that rendered it entirely inappropriate in the first place? There is no confusion of the sort you allude to arising from my "verbiage". Generally, I manage to express myself all too clearly and directly for some of you. You should have checked your facts before you made that horrid remark. Grown ups don't make horrid remarks without doing that first. And you have the nerve to call me highly offensive. I'll get back to that in just a minute.   

" If someone is able to refute something you've said, your usual response is to contend that you never said what you said. If someone does a reasonable paraphrase of what you've said, you play games and pick at their paraphrase instead of their point. You don't play fair."

If you can present me with a single instance where this claim is borne out I'll eat my hat. It's just frustrated, utter rubbish, and you know it.

"Their faith is something they treasure, something they consider to be part of themselves, something that they have chosen for deeply personal reasons that they really can't explain..."

But even though you can't explain it you have no compunction whatsoever in justifying passing it on to children as truth. Well, anyone who tells me that I should believe something, as you do in faith schools, etc., had better be able to explain what it is I'm supposed to believe first, otherwise I might just have to take him for a fool.

"My faith is a matter of the heart, just as my choice to love my wife is a matter of my heart. I can't defend my love for my wife, and I can't defend my faith - and it's an insult and an offense for someone to attack either my love or my faith."

I wouldn't dream of attacking your choice to love your wife, though I seem to recall an intrusive and not-unconnected remark along those lines that you made to someone else recently. Your faith is immune as well, as long as you keep it as your faith and don't try to spread it around as truth, as happens in those faith schools. That's when you are deserving of attack. I have always been at great pains to keep that distinction very clear. Of course, if we're going to discuss religion we are going to get people who don't think your faith falls within the realms of evidence and reason. It can be quite amusing to see rational people, confronted with that, retreating to the realms of matters of the heart. It may surprise you to know that we heathens have hearts just as big as yours, but perhaps we try a little harder to keep them free of bullshit.

" Such matters are not and should not be within the realm of attack and defense. The exception would be if I were to proselytize here or use my faith as a springboard for attacking somebody else, and I have never done that."

You're not going to do much harm proselytising here, except to yourself, as pete does. That is not the argument for me. Rather, it's the justification for proselytising to children in faith schools. I keep on asking the very simple question, among all my verbiage: why do you think it's better to tell children things that are partly or wholly untruthful instead if telling them the unvarnished truth? I wonder whether it could just be that believers are so brainwashed themselves that they can no longer separate fantasy from reality.

"You may claim I've attacked you, but that's not true. I've merely attempted to fend off your constant stream of attacks. I've never attacked anyone's atheism, and I don't believe that McGrath or DMcG have attacked anyone's atheism, either - I would suppose that all three of us have considered ourselves to be atheists or at least agnostics at some times in our lives."

Why don't you sign them up into a gang? It's quite a popular pursuit around here. You may care to ask yourself why my exchanges with them, though bathed in absolute disagreement about many things, are far less abrasive than my exchanges with you. Seems ironic that an atheist should be asking a Catholic to examine their conscience...

"We have disagreed with your constant and vehement attacks against religious belief. Somehow, I guess, attacking your attacks is against your rules. Such is life."

Not so. I have the hide of a rhino. But when people say stupid things about me, as you've done, generally they can expect a bit of comeback. Such is not life. Mudcat threads are not life. Go to the back of the class and write that out fifty times.

"But you attack religion like a dog attacks a bone. You put so much energy into your attacks that it started long ago to seem really weird."

Nice gambit but no cigar. I'll be back to that one.

"You taught in a Catholic school until you were 29 years old, in 1980; and you "dropped religion" a few years later. So, that's about thirty years ago, right? That's a long time ago, Steve. One could wonder why you maintain such animosity after all these years, and why you expend so much time and energy energy expressing that animosity. Why can't you find it in your heart to say, "Religion is not my thing," and then drop it and focus your energy elsewhere? Why not try some positive endeavor, rather than spending your time attacking what others hold sacred?"

Because religion does not deserve a comfort zone. It has done too much damage and has stunted too much human endeavour.

"I'm sure you "dropped religion" for valid reasons. Sometime in their late teens or during their twenties, people go through a "crisis of faith" where they have to decide to accept or reject the faith they were brought up with. My four children all rejected the Catholic faith, but they don't harbor any animosity toward it like the animosity that seems to govern so much of your life.

Maybe something bad happened to you in a Catholic institution. I wouldn't blame you for "dropping religion" for that, either. Some people do bad things, even within the context of religion - but most religious people do nothing harmful in the name of their religion, so it's unfair to attack religion based on the misconduct of some believers."

Lost to you in all my verbiage are a number of references to the fact that nothing bad ever happened to me (except that I had to waste thirty-odd years saying prayers to nobody). How kind of you to project your psychological skills on to me. Unfortunately, there's nothing in it. A bit like calling me a prostitute. You could have checked, but I'm not bitter.

"If you attack what is sacred to me, you attack me."

Well then, isn't it a shame that we no longer have heresy laws. You really haven't worked out yet what exactly I'm attacking, have you, in spite of my explaining it so many times among all my verbiage? And you use of "sacred" is getting tedious.

"So, no, I wouldn't dream of defending my faith to you."

I don't want you to and never have done. But I challenge you to defend the practice of lying to children on the grounds that it's better than telling them the plain truth. If you don't rise to it, I won't die exactly.

[I notice that I've just edited out two more " sacred" references...]. :-)

"I consider your continued attacks to be highly offensive, so I speak out against those attacks on occasion."

But you don't regard calling me a prostitute or playing the amateur psychologist without first checking your facts to be offensive. Religion needs to be put under constant attack because it isn't true and it does a good deal of harm. I'm rather tempted to put you on a Christian pedestal in order to knock you off it, just like pete does to atheists and scientists (which I note, incidentally, that you're very indulgent towards), but, at the end of the day, and of this over-long post, we're all flawed human beings who need to cast out a plank or two. And I think that's rather Christian of me actually. And stop getting offended. If your faith is really so strong you should be able to laugh off people like me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 12:20 PM

"You're really stretching things, Raggytash. I didn't know you were marrried, and wasn't sure whether you were male or female. But since you couldn't refute my point that sex should be sacred, you tried a flank attack by condemning my failure to know you were married. Much like Mr. Shaw's condemning my failure to know that he "dropped religion" thirty years ago and still claims expertise on Catholicism.

-Joe Offer-"

Well you really ought to be checking your facts before opening your mouth. Begod, my dropping of religion in my thirties has even been mentioned higher up in this 'ere very thread. Not good enough, Joe Offer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 12:39 PM

Mr. Shaw, perhaps you need to learn English, or at least learn how to understand metaphor. It might even help you learn how intelligent people think.

Unless one is a strict literalist unable to comprehend word meanings beyond the dictionary's first definition, "To prostitute oneself" does not necessarily have anything to do with sex or prostitutes. It refers to compromising one's values, as a confirmed atheist would do if he were to teach in a religious school.

Look it up, and don't act the dunce quite so often.

-Joe Offer-

P.S. In this thread, which has 990-something messages, where was it that I was supposed to find out when you quit teaching in church schools?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 01:03 PM

The use of the word was provocative and highly inappropriate, especially as the context you chose for it was invalid in any case. If you really think that my illustration of its use in connection with working girls meant that I thought you were making a sexual reference, it's you who's having problems with English, old chap. However, we all know that when the word is used in a pejorative context, there will be at least a subliminal flash in many people's minds in that direction. Maybe that's what you intended, maybe it wasn't.

On this rather tedious matter of my timelines, let's just say that you had three choices:

1. You weren't sure of your facts so you wouldn't make the reference.
2. You checked your facts and made the reference (had you not wanted to be arsed to check threads, you could have asked. I'm a nIce bloke).
3. You could have failed to check your facts and made the reference anyway, thereby taking something of a risk.

It was your call and you got it arse about face. It happens.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 02:57 PM

"I have the hide of a rhino." You mistake yourself Steve, unless rhinos are much more thin-skinned than I have been led to understand.

Words really do extend their meaning. If I accused someone of being a silly bugger it would not be a comment on their sexual inclinations. A journalist writing a dishonest advertising supplement could very likely find themselves accused of prostituting their talents, and deservedly so, though it would indeed have been pejorative. And no subliminal flash in either case.

When you accused Joe of being "arse about face" I take it you were not discussing his anatomical arragements, or talking about sexual antics. No subliminal flash there either, I would confidently say.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 04:05 PM

Reserving judgment on whether joe legitimately used the contentious word, rather, Steve, I would ask if you have something against prostitutes , or think that such an analogy is insulting. On what basis would you think , either the profession it self, is shameful or wrong, or that allusion to it to yourself is insulting ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 04:17 PM

Joe, Does it matter if my wife is actually male or female or even sky blue pink with yellow dots on. I'm afraid you are showing an element of (I'll not use the word ...yet) which I would think you would appalled by if you cared to think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 04:58 PM

Let me just make summat clear. When a bloke like Joe, whose chinks have been showing an awful lot recently, makes an unwise remark, I can't pretend that I don't take pleasure in rubbing his nose in it somewhat. He can call me whatever he likes. It'll always reflect more on him than on me.

I don't usually call prostitutes prostitutes, pete. Sex workers maybe.

And Kevin, it would have to be "buggerer".   And have a little think about arse about face. Not a good comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:13 PM

Bill , interesting you should use the word ...concept.....as until you are able to demonstrate that evolution of the microbes to mudcatters idea is true, it is merely a concept.   Am I getting it wrong and twisting that concept, I don't think so !   The concept does teach that over countless generations complete body plans change, does it not into vastly different organisms ? How many time have I been told that we got dinos on our bird table ?.       And science has not worked out anything , but scientists do make discoveries, and if more scientists than not interpret the data as evolutionism, that proves nothing other than that is the paradigm at present. Scientists are not impartial, as , IMO, the many recent discoveries illustrate. They point to a far more recent creation, but because the paradigm rules ,the evolutionists are searching for some way that the obvious conclusions from measured rates of decay can be disregarded or reinterpreted.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:13 PM

No, I try to use language correctly, and bugger is the right word. And I did think about the possible connotations of arse about face. Whether you did, I couldn't say.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:17 PM

Think you got 1,000, McGrath !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:19 PM

1,000 up! Do I get a coconut?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:24 PM

Yes

Here you are

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:35 PM

No, Kevin. To bugger is the verb. Also, a noun. You daft bugger. It's a right bugger is that. But a person with a predilection for the particular activity in question can't be just a bugger. A person who's inclined to wander is a wanderer, not a wander. A person who's inclined to bugger is a buggerer, not a bugger, at least in intent if not in practice. Of course, a buggerer can also be a bit of a silly bugger as well. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:40 PM

I'm glad my thread made 1000 posts, but sorry that a good man has been taken to task for his beliefs by a group who have neither knowledge of the subject, nor the manners to keep their mouths shut about the religious beliefs of others.

Simply mind your own business, no one is advocating that you should hold similar beliefs.
If a person wishes to teach his children how he came to be a Christian then that can only be a positive thing.....we should ALL be proud of the teachings of Christ, whether we be atheist or believer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:53 PM

Daddy! why have the dancing ladies got soot on their faces??

There'yare, a hole in one!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 05:56 PM

Part 2 bill. The fact that only small changes contained within a type of organism indeed does not ...disprove...evolutionism, but it sure don't prove it. It is however an unwarranted connect to say those changes can account for microbes to man concept. As you say, all those creatures did,nt die in places where you could dig them up and line up the transitional links, so I suppose you have to imagine them. I was aware btw, that evolutionism postulates a bush (tree-Darwin?) rather than straight lines. But as you say there is evidence of links in our own supposed ape to man, please do tell me what they are. I am sure you know there have been many before that have gone into the evolution dustbin , but if you got something that does fill the gaps.... Chances are, it will either be ape or human, and if you can point me to an evolutionary bush that has not got lots of dotted lines indicating tenuous linkages....ie imagined...         You say I am committing a fallacy by describing your evolutionism as a faith position. Till you demonstrate otherwise I don't think so. And the logical conclusion of science would be that which accords with observable, testable,repeatable experiment, something not amenable to origins science, so the equivocation is rather yours.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:00 PM

On what basis would you think , either the profession it self, is shameful or wrong

What does the Bible say on the subject, pete? Particularly the old testament.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:05 PM

"we should ALL be proud of the teachings of Christ, whether we be atheist or believer."

I completely fail to understand the "logic" of this statement. Could anyone please elucidate?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:13 PM

I'm a bit puzzled why Steve thinks that telling your children that you believe something is true that you believe is true is iniquitable.

One noticeable thing about Christianity is that it centres on an expression of belief - "I believe", the creed, not an assertion of the indisputable character of that bellief. In that it contrasts with the Muslim equivalent "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:22 PM


On what basis would you think , either the profession it self, is shameful or wrong

What does the Bible say on the subject, pete? Particularly the old testament

I somehow think that the Bible would not be a relevant basis for the person being addressed in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:28 PM

No need to be puzzled. You're not just telling them what you believe. You're telling them what to believe. There is no other way that we have a billion Muslims who are scared of apostasy and a billion Christians who believe that they are condemned by original sin unless they join the club or of possible hellfire if they break the rules. Tell children the real truth, that, in spite of your beliefs, that there is almost certainly no God, that no miracle has ever been verified, that much of the Bible is of dubious authorship and is not inspired by God, that St Bernadette, etc. were manipulated myth-tellers, and all the rest of the tawdry nonsense that you hold sacred, and we would have a far more honest world. What are you so afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:34 PM

Dmcg, did,nt understand your last post to me. What is the multi times gap you accuse creationists of ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:39 PM

Unless I misunderstood you, Pete, you seemed to be saying all the earlier forms must have existed to be subtracted from. If so, we would expect to see some of them in the fossil records. And where a Darwinian approach needs one ancestor for many species, you need many different ones for each species.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:51 PM

And by the by, 'accuse' is the wrong word. I am not accusing you or creationists of anything. I am simply exploring the point than inherent in the idea of subtracting something is that you had more of it before. And since you are not using an information theoretical notion of information I wonder how someone can tell you had more information before unless it is evident in the fossil records.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 06:56 PM

Christians will teach their kids what they believe is true, and you do the same with evolution. Are you gonna tell the kids that evolutionism has never been demonstrated, that despite Darwin putting his faith in future generations finding graduated transitional evidence there are only a few doubtful examples. Are you going to tell the kids that the odds of even the simplest living cell evolving out of some warm little pond are so high as to be deemed impossible etc etc.......

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 07:30 PM

Steve, I'd like to introduce you to some Catholics who share your narrow, polemical perspective of Catholicism. They're the "team of apologists" at the Catholic Answers, http://www.catholic.com//. Just like you, they claim to know everything there is to know about Catholicism, and they're ready to fight to the death to prove they're right. The neoconservative Catholics grabbed up all the best domain names long ago: catholic.org, catholic.com, and a number of others. I'm surprised they didn't get http://www.vatican.va. I guess somebody else beat them to that one...

I don't like being put in a position where I'm forced to fight about my faith. I think that sort of approach is poison, destructive to all sides - so I avoid it as much as I can. These Catholic Answers people love to fight, and I've been forced into a fight with them once or twice. Just like you, Steve, they see no value in tolerance.

As for me, I'd rather fight against mass incarceration or homelessness or poverty. Leave my faith alone - it's sacred to me.

So, go to Catholic Answers, Steve. They're your kind of people.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 07:35 PM

Nope. I told my children in school about Charles Darwin, that he tried to explain a phenomenon that we see all around us with what turned out to be a rather good theory, but that it was still just a theory, not proof, and I showed them the evidence that supports the theory, and invited them to explore that evidence by observation and experiment, and also to explore all the competing ideas. I also told them that the scientific method does not seek proofs, nor does it expect anyone to "believe" anything without evidence. In fact, the scientific method requires you to dismiss anything that is suggested to you unless it can be supported by evidence. We sometimes call that the null hypothesis. Lets do a little game. Let's suppose that God isn't beyond science at all (I don't think he is). As no-one can prove either way that God exists, let's apply the scientific method (and why not? After all, science, along with culture, is by far the greatest achievement of the human mind, so let's put our brains to this, shall we?). Right, so you propose this notion of a God. As a scientist, I propose the null hypothesis, that there is no God. Taking it from there, your task is to give me evidence to reject the null hypothesis. I'm quite prepared to help you with that as long as I feel that you're an honest broker.

OK, off you go. I await....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 07:59 PM

That last one was my very polite reply to pete. Not that he particularly deserved it.

"Steve, I'd like to introduce you to some Catholics who share your narrow, polemical perspective of Catholicism. They're the "team of apologists" at the Catholic Answers, http://www.catholic.com//. Just like you, they claim to know everything there is to know about Catholicism, and they're ready to fight to the death to prove they're right."

You are breaking your own fourth commandment. Show that I'm wrong, and reproduce any post of mine that even begins to suggest that I know everything there is, etc. You really are getting desperate.

"I don't like being put in a position where I'm forced to fight about my faith. I think that sort of approach is poison, destructive to all sides - so I avoid it as much as I can."

I don't ask people to fight about their personal beliefs. I am asking you to justify telling children to believe in a miraculously-conceived Jesus who worked magic and who came back from the dead. In your heart of hearts, you know that that is just nonsense. But you think that telling children that is better than telling them the truth. I note that you never address this. Your prerogative, of course.

"Just like you, Steve, they see no value in tolerance."

Apprise me as to the tolerance you show children in faith schools when you make them say prayers and sing hymns full of certainties that you can nowhere near verify. You are one hundred percent intolerant of uncomfortable truths.

"Leave my faith alone - it's sacred to me."

Your sacred faith has thrown up popes who collaborate with Nazis and who have connived in centuries of antisemitism, and which has caused misery to millions of people with its illiberal teachings. It doesn't deserve to be left alone. It deserves to be thoroughly got at, big time, and made to answer for itself. You've shown yourself to be a pretty poor spokesman in that regard. Could be a failure of nerve, I suppose, or just sheer boredom. And there are far fewer of me than of you, so stop worrying.

By the way, I've been to Catholic Answers many times and found that I don't need allies like that. Unlike what I get from you and pete, what you get from me is authentic and original. I'm that honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 08:04 PM

Essentially, Steve, you seem to think that we should tell our children "this is what I believe, but it probably is not true, and this is what I do not believe, but it probably is true."

I have to admit that I can see some problems with that.

I'd sooner read them John Betjeman's "Christmas"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 08:29 PM

Don't complicate things! Either you know that there are doubts about all the tenets of your faith, or else you're pete. Now if you're an honest man you will want neither your school nor you yourself to be telling your child that these doubtful things are so true that he should not only believe them but also that he should live your life by them. Unfortunately, that is precisely what faith schools do. I'm asking a really simple question: do you think it is better to tell children that extremely dubious things are true, and that they'd better believe them, than telling them the truth, which is that lots of people believe these things, there is no evidence for them, especially the bits that appear to deal in miracles, and that you should of course live a good and virtuous life and perhaps make your mind up about religion (a very grown-up thing) when you're grown up? I mean, what are you so scared of? Children are a bit like me, simple beings who thrive far better when adults are honest with them and gain their trust by legitimate means, not by dealing in fables that they later have to pick the bones out of. And no, those fables are not a means to an end. The searing truth is the only means to the end which we call the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 08:31 PM

live HIS life by them

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 09:17 PM

I bought two lovely second-hand books of Betjeman's poetry last year, beautifully illustrated. I think that his paean to Miss Joan Hunter Dunn might be my favourite. His grave, half an hour's drive from my house, is in a most beautiful setting in the churchyard of St Enodoc's church, near Polzeath, overlooking the Camel estuary towards Stepper Point and Pentire. I visit it at least four or five times a year on our favourite walk, which starts at Trebetherick, where he lived, crossing St Enodoc's golf course which goes by the church and on to Rock. That church has suffered my rendition of Amazing Grace on a G harmonica on many occasions. If we're short of time we walk back to the car over the sands of Daymer Bay, but if we have more time and the tides are right we take the ferry across to Padstow and buy a pasty at the Chough bakery, one of Cornwall's finest pasty shops. Then back across, and back to the car along the beach. It's alleged that the weather on the day of Betjeman's funeral was terrible, and there's no road access to the church. He would have liked that.

He was a fine Christian man, but, like all honest men, he struggled with his doubts. What better than wiki:

Betjeman was a practising Anglican and his religious beliefs come through in some of his poems. He combined piety with a nagging uncertainty about the truth of Christianity. Unlike Thomas Hardy, who disbelieved in the truth of the Christmas story while hoping it might be so, Betjeman affirms his belief even while fearing it might be false.[5] In the poem "Christmas", one of his most openly religious pieces, the last three stanzas that proclaim the wonder of Christ's birth do so in the form of a question "And is it true...?" His views on Christianity were expressed in his poem "The Conversion of St. Paul", a response to a radio broadcast by humanist Margaret Knight:

But most of us turn slow to see
The figure hanging on a tree
And stumble on and blindly grope
Upheld by intermittent hope,
God grant before we die we all
May see the light as did St. Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 09:20 PM

Grr, sexist. Honest people, not men.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 10:35 PM

Example of Steve setting the rules for discussion: Either you know that there are doubts about all the tenets of your faith, or else you're pete.

Of course there's doubt, Steve. That's what faith is all about - exploring what is beyond one's understanding.

If one looks on faith as "facts" to be accepted or rejected or to be true or false, then you would be right. But maybe, just maybe, religious faith is not about "facts." Maybe it's beyond the realm of facts. I look on faith as a a context for exploration, a perspective from which a person explores the meaning of what is. To me, faith isn't about answers - it's about exploration of the questions. Meaning, significance, and value are all beyond the realm of facts. They are something to ponder, not something to prove.

If you want facts and true/false and proof, go to those mindless Catholic Answers people. They speak your language, Steve.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 15 - 10:49 PM

Yes indeed, John Betjeman doubted at the same time as believing, and believed at the same time as doubting. As we all should.

That's essentially what I implied when I pointed to the creed as the key summary of Christianity, a declaration of belief by individuals. Not even "We believe" - it's "I believe".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 03:42 AM

"Christians will teach their kids what they believe is true, and you do the same with evolution. Are you gonna tell the kids that evolutionism has never been demonstrated, ..."

And STILL you're stuck in your groove, aren't you Pete? Repeating your self over and over and over again about stuff that you don't understand and don't want to understand. All that you've managed to convince me of is that you're so narrow-minded and obsessional that you're not worth arguing with. Congratulations!

In my opinion (and I'm sure it's an opinion that you will completely ignore) if you really want to know the answers to the questions that you ask over and over again you should stop reading stuff which merely confirms your prejudices and read some modern, up-to-date texts on evolutionary biology. Then - and only then - come back here and talk about evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 04:55 AM

Children are a bit like me, simple beings who thrive ...

I know you don't intend this, Steve, but there's one other person on this thread who claims his simplicity and wants everything explained in simple terms.

not by dealing in fables that they later have to pick the bones out of. And no, those fables are not a means to an end. The searing truth is the only means to the end which we call the truth.

So you go straight in with relatively from day one rather than teaching Newtonian physics even though you personally know it isn't true? Of do you confuse all your students by explaining you know Newton physics isn't really true but you will teach this even no scientist believes in it?


A bit of a silly example, I know, but I think we need to be aware that there is an important distinction between saying or teaching something that is false and lying, and that distinction is the intention to deceive. Newtonian physics is not 'true', but there is no intention to deceive when it is taught. Equally if a sincere atheist were to teach there was no God and then God turned up they would have taught something false but it would not have been a lie because there was no intention to deceive.   And for people of faith there is no intention to deceive when these 'fables' are taught.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 04:59 AM

"with relativity from day one" Sigh...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 05:39 AM

Other examples: spin doctoring is, in many cases, lying because while what is said is almost always factually true, the intention is to deceive the populus into being unaware of the implications. "Being economical with the truth" is lying because the intention to deceive is there.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 06:24 AM

Leave my faith alone - it's sacred to me.

In a discussion the other night with a deeply religious Roman Catholic family member they were making a lot of claims for the progressiveness of Catholic thinking in recent years - eager to stress that the times they were a-changing. Then it occurred me - why should it change? Roman Catholicism is defined by the 2,000 years of history by which it is known. You can't change that, so why even try? Of course one may change oneself - one can choose to be part of it, or not. One can choose to nail one's colours to the mast in which homophobia, misogyny, institutionalised child rape, the definition, persecution & mutilation of non-believers & heretics, and the routine withholding of painkillers from the dying is integral to the theology - OR one can can opt out and join the real world which regards such practice as running contrary to the common good. But for the RCC to CHANGE its very nature - yeah, the very bedrock of its foundation - is an insult to the countless millions who have suffered under its righteous yoke for the past two millennia.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 06:33 AM

Surely Jack the RC Church has constantly changed it's stance on many issues over the past 1700 years since it was adopted by the Roman Empire back in the 4th century. It's adapted to survive and frankly has been very good at adapting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 06:37 AM

That's a really good question, Jack. And there are a lot of conservative Catholics who are adamant it should not change. There were a bunch of these in the recent Synod on the Family arguing against whether divorced couples should be fully part of the community or not.

I disagree with them, as you might imagine. The Church, to my mind [and this is true of Judaism and Hinduism and all the rest] is about trying to understand the relationship whatever-God-is and the world. And therefore, as the world changes, the relationship changes even if God does not. What happened in the past may well have made sense to the people at the time, but we should not preserve it just because of that if it no longer makes sense today.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 07:04 AM

Well there's one measure of the rapidity of change, the Church's attitude to science. In the 17th century good science was liable to have you put under house arrest. In the 19th century the big guns were fully out against Charles Darwin, demonising what was one of the greatest ideas in science ever. In the 21st century the Church gets in the way of the science that could revolutionise the treatment of many devastating diseases by opposing embryonic stem cell research on "ethical" grounds (conveniently overlooking the fact that God disposes of thousands of times more embryos than scientists ever could). Oh, and that Catholic USofA still has almost half its population not believing in evolution. Can't entirely blame catholicity for that last one, of course, though it's notable that even some who do "believe in evolution", including our head poncho Catholic here, can't leave God out of it, thereby trashing the whole idea. To parody: my science is sacred to me. leave it alone. :-)

(Please don't!)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 07:35 AM

DMcG, I'd sack any science teacher who told his children that any theory was true, or that they'd better believe something they were told. Your comparison collapses on those grounds alone. Newtonian physics, or the theory of evolution by natural selection, are attempts to explain phenomena in the world and universe. They must be able to be modified, incorporated into new ideas as knowledge advances, or, ultimately, ditched. They must be supported by real evidence (don't make me define it again). We do not tell children that they should believe extremely doubtful and unsupported assertions as true before we can move on. We would rather not move on at all than do that disservice to young minds. Comparing science education with religious instruction is a time-honoured way of lending undeserved dignity to the latter and is mischievous. If you tell your children, either directly or by implication via compulsory prayers and hymns, that Jesus was born of a virgin and whose supernatural father lives in heaven, that he fed five thousand people on a few scraps, that he bled water on a cross and later came back to life, and that we should worship him as the saviour of us all, you are not telling them the truth, are you, to put it mildly. Yet this is standard practice. Either you intend to deceive them, for the nefarious reason of keeping them in the flock, or you are so deluded yourself that you do actually think that this unnecessary nonsense is true. What makes it all even worse is that you only tell them all this because you happened to be born here. Had you been born in India the story would be different. In the Australian outback, different again. In Iran, different yet again. To you, though, these considerations are minor inconveniences. But you have the neck to convince them that they will find deeper truths and happiness if only they espouse this nonsense. It's in your heart, it's sacred to you, you don't need to defend it, etc. Yet it's indefensible, even if you're a believer. Tell them the truth, that some people believe those things, they may live their lives by them, but you shouldn't believe it at all: you should find out for yourself what's true by having a curious mind and by always asking for evidence (evidence, not proof), and that you should always be suspicious of anyone who tries to tell you something that he can't support.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 08:31 AM

That's essentially what I implied when I pointed to the creed as the key summary of Christianity, a declaration of belief by individuals. Not even "We believe" - it's "I believe".

But you believe it so comprehensively that you have no compunction in instructing children in it. Perhaps you could add a rider at the end of the Creed, "This is what I believe, now you're going to believe it too."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 08:43 AM

"Example of Steve setting the rules for discussion: Either you know that there are doubts about all the tenets of your faith, or else you're pete.."

Well I'm at a loss to see how that is setting rules. The only person around here who's set a rule is you: "My faith is sacred to me. Leave it alone."

"If you want facts and true/false and proof, go to those mindless Catholic Answers people. They speak your language, Steve."

If there's a more avid and consistent campaigner on this forum than me against asking for proof of anything, tell me who they are, please.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 08:56 AM


DMcG, I'd sack any science teacher who told his children that any theory was true, or that they'd better believe something they were told

How precise are we being? I would, I agree, sack any teacher who insisted a theory was itself an absolute truth rather than the best approximation or description of all we have observed to date. But I don't think I have heard of a science teacher who starts every class with a declaration to that effect. No, throughout all the classes and throughout the year he or she says this "is", or this "isn't", which perhaps the occasional diversion into explaining the best approximation stuff.

Or mine did anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 08:59 AM

I am saying that a teacher who makes unsupported assertions to children isn't teaching science. There are charlatans and ignoramuses even among science teachers, of course. Why, some of them even go to church! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 09:04 AM

What makes it all even worse is that you only tell them all this because you happened to be born here. Had you been born in India the story would be different.

Oddly enough, I've never denied that. I've even suggested (to Shimrod I think) that in other circumstances I reckon most people who are now Christians would be perfectly comfortable as followers of Mithras. I don't see that as big a problem as you do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 09:43 AM

Not a problem for me. However, you can't really gloss over the fact that the major world religions and the factions among them have different sets of "truths" that are often at odds with one another. Most people who espouse those of the Catholic Church do so because their parents were Catholic, in the scheme of things a complete accident. Had you been born to Muslim parents in Tehran, you'd probably be espousing certain "truths" that are fairly hostile to Catholic ones. Some of you could be right, or you could all be wrong, but you can't all be right. But what you are is, for most people, an accident. That should inform what you tell your children, otherwise it simply isn't honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 09:56 AM

I don't see that as big a problem as you do.


Not a problem for me

Sorry, I will rephrase it. I don't see that as big a problem as you appear to think I should. Is that better?



But what you are is, for most people, an accident. That should inform what you tell your children, otherwise it simply isn't honest.

True enough, it is an accident. And also true enough that there has been a long history of antagonism between the religions some of which really about land and possessions and the right to rule, and some which is about much more abstract things. So the world is a messy place and lots of the people who get power at various times are pretty dubious characters. I don't think either of us find that in the least surprising.

Some of you could be right, or you could all be wrong, but you can't all be right.
Or we could all have an imperfect understanding of the same right thing, and that failure has let us fool ourselves into thinking 'we' are right and 'they' are wrong so let's try and solve it with aggression.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM

So we come full circle, and I have to ask you again: why is it OK to promote doubtful ideas to children as certainties, instead of telling them the unvarnished truth?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 10:14 AM

If we have come full circle, then I suppose the same answer as I gave last time!

More seriously, I think it boils down to you seeming to me to want to live with a true-false view of the world where's I want to live with the two-dimensional (true-false, lie-not lie) interpretation There is simply no way to make those two fit together neatly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 10:23 AM

You'd sack any teacher for saying that a theory was true, Steve. But you cite Galileo's house arrest, which actually happened more or less for that reason. There was no problem with his proposing a theory about planetary motion, but he insisted on saying it was true, rather than provisional, which at the time it actually was. (And I'm not defending his house arrest, even if he was being a wee bit unscientific. The Church had no business getting involved in controversies about science.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 12:19 PM

"More seriously, I think it boils down to you seeming to me to want to live with a true-false view of the world where's I want to live with the two-dimensional (true-false, lie-not lie) interpretation There is simply no way to make those two fit together neatly."

Well I think it boils down to a choice. Here's an illustrated example.


(A) There was a man called Jesus whose mother was a virgin and whose father was God in heaven. Jesus worked miracles such as walking on water, changing water to wine and bringing Lazarus back from the dead. He was killed by the Romans but came back to life and he did this to save us all from sin. Now I think that all this is true, so much so that I'm signing you up to my religion so that you can also accept these stories and follow Jesus like me, which involves saying prayers to Jesus and singing hymns.

(B) There are stories in a book about a man called Jesus, but he may not have existed, as the Romans never mentioned him, and in any case the book was written by people who wanted to start a new religion based around Jesus. One story is that his mother didn't have sex with a man, but was miraculously made pregnant by God. This has never been known to happen either before or since, and, as you probably know from science lessons, human babies are always produced from an egg and a sperm. Other stories tell of Jesus working what we'd call magic today in order to solve problems he came across, such as changing water to wine for a wedding and bringing his friend back from the dead. In the end he was killed by the Romans, but a couple of days later, so the story goes, his tomb was empty, and shortly after he appeared to his followers, back to life. For some reason, we're told that he did this to get forgiveness for our sins, yet the world didn't seem to become a better place. Now I'm telling you this because a lot of people believe that it's true. I might believe it's true as well, but that's beside the point. You may think that the stories are too far-fetched, and I wouldn't blame you for thinking that. But you shouldn't just ignore them, instead you should read about them for yourself to see if you can find anything to back them up, and not just in the books written by Jesus's followers, as they may be a bit biased. And you should read about the other religions too.




The first is what the Catholic faith does to children, along with similar setups in other faiths. The second is telling children the truth. As you can see, it takes a little longer to tell the truth, and you can't be so free with words. So I ask you again. Which approach is fairer to children, which is more honest, which one is designed to get them thinking - and which one is the morally correct approach?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 12:38 PM

First one, clearly, is more likely to get them thinking, and maybe asking questions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 01:05 PM

You know I will say that's a false dichotomy, don't you? Anyone who teaches religion like that is a fool. Possibly a well meaning one and possibly there are a look them, but a fool none the less. That is teaching religion as a kind of history rather than about the here and now.

And don't really see much evidence of the second branch either. Titles like "The God Delusion" (which I have read by the way) don't suggest the author is going to be very inclined say believers have much to offer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM

(phone again!)


.. Possibly there are many like them...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM

Er, that is precisely the process. Without that, you'd have very few Catholics indeed. The people who propagate religion ARE fools, but they have ways of ensnaring people. As for this method making them think, it does that all all right. About the severe disapproval of their parents, their church and God if they don't stick to the rules, possibly even hellfire. And they do have to stick to those rules. After all, they were signed up shortly after birth by a man in a frock dousing them with holy water, and sent to a faith school which spent years reinforcing them. .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM

Ever since your "full circle" comment, Steve, I've been wondering if we have actually said all there is to say on this topic. So I think it is probably time to thank you for the discussion, to hope each of us has learned something, and to move onto other ground.

No doubt we'll talk again soon!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Noctes
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 02:15 PM

Regarding Catholic websites: fisheaters.com
Could use a shot in the arm by a guy like Joe

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 03:22 PM

"But you cite Galileo's house arrest, which actually happened more or less for that reason. There was no problem with his proposing a theory about planetary motion, but he insisted on saying it was true, rather than provisional, which at the time it actually was."

I'd be grateful for a link to this. I can't find it. We have to be slightly careful here to distinguish unassailably true phenomena from the theories that set out to explain them. I've been castigated so many times here for saying that evolution is true, which of course it is, as true as the fact that my left leg is next to my right leg. But the theory of evolution by natural selection, the explanation of evolution, will never be true, because scientific explanations, or theories, are never claimed to be true, for the reason that they must always be susceptible to new evidence that may lead to revision.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 06:10 PM

Not sure how you see the difference between evolution, and the theory thereof, except that with the theory the details have to be moved around or deleted when new data arises , which gives you the liberty to claim that though the theory is continually revised, evolution itself is true. Which brings us back to the question, how do you know it is true ? . And as you say , Steve, anyone who says something is true without evidence should be sacked.   I am glad to hear that you allowed some lea way for doubt in your teaching days , but you seem very sure now. Can you tell us why it is true, without falling back on the numbers of academics who agree with you as the being the reason ? .as regarding evidence for God as a scientific experiment, there will never be enough to satisfy the committed atheist, and if said atheist cannot evidence the creation of a godless universe , why should he expect the Christian to provide enough evidence for God.    However it may be worth exploring. So, a question, ....we know you say null hypothesis, but would you grant that the universe consists of more than matter and energy, or do you say that there is nothing else?.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 06:49 PM

Gee, Noctes, that fisheaters.com could make me swear off fish (and Catholicism) for a lifetime!

Every once in a while, Steve Shaw posts a snippet of something that makes me think he's almost on the brink of understanding all this. Example: What makes it all even worse is that you only tell them all this because you happened to be born here. Had you been born in India the story would be different. In the Australian outback, different again. In Iran, different yet again. To you, though, these considerations are minor inconveniences. But you have the neck to convince them that they will find deeper truths and happiness if only they espouse this nonsense. It's in your heart, it's sacred to you, you don't need to defend it, etc. Yet it's indefensible, even if you're a believer.

But then he posts another twenty posts that show he still doesn't have a clue. It's true that every culture has sacred stories, sacred myths, that form the basis of the religious practices of that culture. And while these stories/teachings/myths may not be "true" in Steve's semi-scientific understanding of the word "true," these stories hold and convey profound truth drawn from many generations of the wisdom of that particular culture. It's a challenge for people of one religious culture to accept and learn from the wisdom of another religious culture, but it does happen - and it seems to be happening more and more in the current age. I wonder if it will ever happen that our "born-again" atheists, Christians, Muslims, or whatever will be able to learn from religious thinking of various cultures with the realization that they can learn from others without being required to espouse their belief systems.

As I've said before (and Steve has not responded), Europeans tend to disregard and destroy the wisdom and religious practices of every culture they have conquered, attempting to replace such "primitive" thought with their own "enlightened" thinking - just as they have politicized and destroyed the ancient wisdom of their own culture. Alliance with European government has not done Christianity any favors, and Christianity is finally learning that lesson after being in bed with government for most of the last 1500 years or more.

As I've said so many times before, there is much wisdom in the world and through the centuries that is not in the realm of scientific inquiry. It is not in conflict with science, but it is in a different realm.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 07:52 PM

"Not sure how you see the difference between evolution, and the theory thereof, except that with the theory the details have to be moved around or deleted when new data arises , which gives you the liberty to claim that though the theory is continually revised, evolution itself is true. Which brings us back to the question, how do you know it is true ? . And as you say , Steve, anyone who says something is true without evidence should be sacked.   I am glad to hear that you allowed some lea way for doubt in your teaching days , but you seem very sure now. Can you tell us why it is true, without falling back on the numbers of academics who agree with you as the being the reason ?"

You are rather confused, I fear. There is a world of difference between a phenomenon, not a scientific principle, and the theory that explains it, a scientific principle. Let's try a simple example. It's been a lovely, sunshiny day today in Bude, better than most days we've had all summer. As I type this, there is a beautiful last-quarter moon ascending in the south-eastern sky. Now that moon is definitely there, unless I'm hallucinating (I checked with Mrs Steve, and yes, she could see it too). The moon is true, and only a demented fool would deny it (though you never know on Mudcat). The moon is not a scientific principle, any more than the fact that I possess two testicles is a scientific principle (don't ask me to prove it). Ancient people looked at the moon and must have wondered what it was, and probably came up with plausible but (to us) off-beam ideas. Later, early astronomers worked out a pattern in the moon's phases and timings over long periods, put two and two together, and came up with better ideas about how far away it was, how big it was and how its apparent motion could be explained. Then telescopes were invented, and we got to see features on the moon that we needed to try to explain. Some of those explanations were probably wrong (Patrick Moore was convinced that the moon's craters were mostly volcanic, for example). Then men walked on the moon (though my dad thinks it was all staged in Nevada, but hey ho). They brought back samples that enabled us to discover more about the moon's structure and history, though probably not really enough. There are lots of other ways of finding out stuff about the moon, such as studying closely its orbit with sophisticated modern instruments and viewing it during eclipses. We can bounce laser beams off the moon and obtain extremely accurate measurements of its various properties. A big picture eventually builds up that enables us to draw up theories about the moon's structure and origin. In spite of all this, there is still an extremely remote possibility that the moon is made of green cheese. Good, honest science can't help that, and holds up its hands and admits that proof can't be possible. At that point, the superb human qualities of evidence-seeking and reason kick in, at least if you're a scientist. Every time, we find that the best explanations (the ones that already have all the evidence needed to do all the explanatory heavy lifting) are more convincing, more rational, more imaginative, more inspiring and more wonderful than any of the wacky, mind-limiting alternatives. So it is, in precisely the same way, with evolution. Evolution is not a scientific principle, as much as you'd like to turn it into one in the cause of your nefarious and dishonest arguments. Evolution is true. It happens. Only demented fools deny that. Not even Joe Offer and popes deny it, though they get it lamentably wrong in their valiant but misguided efforts to reconcile it with their religion. But the explanation of evolution, the theory that Darwin delivered, is just that, an explanation. Those with open minds can't avoid seeing that there is far too much evidence for evolution for it to be lightly dismissed in favour of creationism. Now I'm trying very hard to accommodate your problems with science. In my head, I call it "doing a Bill D". Within the next four or five posts to this thread, I'm almost certainly going to wonder why I bloody bothered. But, for the second time, hey ho.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 08:23 PM

"Every once in a while, Steve Shaw posts a snippet of something that makes me think he's almost on the brink of understanding all this. Example: What makes it all even worse is that you only tell them all this because you happened to be born here. Had you been born in India the story would be different. In the Australian outback, different again. In Iran, different yet again. To you, though, these considerations are minor inconveniences. But you have the neck to convince them that they will find deeper truths and happiness if only they espouse this nonsense. It's in your heart, it's sacred to you, you don't need to defend it, etc. Yet it's indefensible, even if you're a believer.

But then he posts another twenty posts that show he still doesn't have a clue."

Well, you clearly don't have much of a clue about arithmetic, or for that matter honesty. In fact, between that post and this one, I've posted eight times.

"It's true that every culture has sacred stories, sacred myths, that form the basis of the religious practices of that culture. And while these stories/teachings/myths may not be "true" in Steve's semi-scientific understanding of the word "true," these stories hold and convey profound truth drawn from many generations of the wisdom of that particular culture."

Well here we go again with Joe's favourite buzzword "sacred", clearly intended to invest his statements with a veneer of authority that is meant to keep us at arm's length. I bet he wishes we still had heresy laws. That would keep us pesky purveyors of evidence and reason at bay!

"As I've said before (and Steve has not responded), Europeans tend to disregard and destroy the wisdom and religious practices of every culture they have conquered, attempting to replace such "primitive" thought with their own "enlightened" thinking"

Well, Joe, just replace "Europeans" with "Catholic imperialists" there and you have it about right!

"...there is much wisdom in the world and through the centuries that is not in the realm of scientific inquiry."

No there is not. All the wisdom in the world (to use your language, not the way I'd put it, but hey) comes from science and culture, reason and evidence. There is no wisdom to be gained from delusions and lies, none whatsoever, however "sacred" you hold those things to be. They simply get in the way of wisdom, stunt the mind (as you frequently demonstrate, for example with your nonsense about evolution) and make the world a much worse place. You can have some wisdom predicated on stories and mythology, as long as you fully recognise them as stories and mythology, but not only do you not recognise that, you pass the nonsense on to your children as truth. Mother Teresa and John-Paul II espoused your brand of wisdom, lest we forget, not to speak of those popes who variously espoused antisemitism and who were in hock with Hitler and Mussolini.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 08:26 PM

Testing, testing..

Yes, I can confirm that the guest posts were me, not some nasty militant atheistic charlatan...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Noctes
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 08:43 PM

Was worth a shot boss
Keep up the good-fight

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 09:01 PM

Don't mention it. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 10:17 PM

Mr. Shaw, what ever they're paying you...

it's not enought ( - :

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Noctes
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 11:19 PM

Also as a favor to my poor eyes could break up those large text blocks?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 11:47 PM

Joe sez: But then he posts another twenty posts that show he still doesn't have a clue."

Steve sez: Well, you clearly don't have much of a clue about arithmetic, or for that matter honesty. In fact, between that post and this one, I've posted eight times.

I'm still counting, and it's past twenty now and he still holds tight to his "There Is No God But Science" theory....

And I combined a couple of his posts so they'd all be identified by name. Otherwise, there'd be two more.

---

So, as I was saying about these sacred stories or myths (although Steve's rules don't allow me to use the word sacred). So, as I was saying, the various cultures "believe" or "hold" or "hold sacred" these stories or myths. For the most part, they think of these stories as true, but they do not hold onto them as tightly as Steve and the 20/21st century fundamentalists would have one think. These stories form the context for their exploration into the meaning of the undefinable mysteries of life that surround us - life, love, death, peace, and the reason why things are. Again, these explorations are believed, but for the most part not held tightly.

When we look at the sacred stories of various cultures, we encounter many generations of wisdom; and a respectful study of these sacred stories can lead us to a profound respect for the wisdom of other peoples.

I thought Egyptian mythology was just governmental hoo-hah of the pharaohs...until I went to Egypt. When I saw the paintings and carvings and temples and pyramids in their home environment, I saw something much deeper. I was particularly fascinated by the Horus-Isis-Osiris myth (click). With the help of the Beatles and others, many of us have become familiar with the sacred stories about Gautama Buddha and the wisdom that has flowed from that myth. And there is much to learn from the poetry and practices of Sufism, and from the Qur'an, if one studies them with an open mind. And of course, the Judeo-Christian Bible offers much wisdom, although Europe currently seems to have a self-loathing that does not allow it to appreciate the stories it once held sacred.

None of these stories and writings have much scientific value, but they offer infinite wisdom to those who approach them humbly.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 02:03 AM

"Can you tell us why it is true, without falling back on the numbers of academics who agree with you as the being the reason ?"

Why are you so against arguments based on authority, Pete? Did you read "arguments based on authority are BAD!" in 'Creation.com' and then decide to parrot it without (as usual) thinking it through? Very few, if any, of us on here have personally gathered data on evolutionary biology - so we have no choice but to rely on authority. Have you, personally, gathered any data on evolutionary biology, Pete. If you have, perhaps you might like to summarise it for us ... ?

Of course your ramblings rely completely on (what you believe to be) authoritative sources i.e. the completely biased nonsense in 'Creation.com' and the Bible!

"as regarding evidence for God as a scientific experiment, there will never be enough to satisfy the committed atheist,..."

If God exists then performing 'experiments' on Him are almost certainly out of the question, just as we can't perform experiments on the Galaxy in Andromeda. Nevertheless, we can observe the Galaxy in Andromeda and measure its properties. To date, no-one has observed God ... or measured His properties. The "committed atheist" is still waiting for ANY evidence for the existence of God!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 06:24 AM

Right, Joe. Here's what you said.

-Every once in a while, Steve Shaw posts a snippet of something that makes me think he's almost on the brink of understanding all this. Example: What makes it all even worse is that you only tell them all this because you happened to be born here. Had you been born in India the story would be different....[etc.]

But then he posts another twenty posts that show he still doesn't have a clue.

Now as an aficionado of English as she is both spoken and written, I'm just going to hang on to that little word "then" in that last bit there. To me, and to anyone else with even a vague mastery of this fine language of ours, that little "then" denotes something to follow in temporal terms Steve's quoted "snippet." So I went back and counted the number of posts I made in this thread between the snippet in question and Joe's post referring to it. It is eight. Just the eight, Joe.

Joe, you accused me a little while back of not understanding plain English or something, playing the dunce, etc.,something along those lines. Well I must say I ought to thank you for this oh so erudite illustration of your far superior powers over mine apropos of our beloved tongue (it's sacred to me). An alternative explanation has just occurred to me, however. You have deliberately presented us with a myth about my postings out of which we are to glean deeper truths. As eight can become twenty, so one God can become three people. Saying the mythological twenty instead of the truthful eight is so much more honest Ah yes, I can see it now. That'll be it. Thus endeth Joe's lesson in how to present deep and sacred truths. Tell fibs and expect the flock to dig among them for the truth! Cle-ver!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 06:57 AM

Joe Offer tries to depict science as aloof from imagination and storytelling. That's one little step away from creationism, despising of all things science. Not only is that arrant nonsense, he is also trying to deflect from the substantive point that the only thing wrong with myths and stories is the way that people with certain predilections abuse them by telling their followers that they should believe that they are true. The ancient Greek art, poetry and sculptures and all the rest, including the mythology, are wonderful in their own terms and are pinnacles of human culture. Culture and science are the twin peaks of humanity's endeavours. But you are misusing your own cultural icons, which is a tragedy. You talk about being open-minded. But your faith does not teach you to be open-minded. Precisely the opposite. The only way you could even remotely claim to be open-minded would be to say that you are open-minded within the extremely constricting ring fence of the bottom line of your belief system. You tell children that there is certainly a God in heaven, that the virgin birth happened, that Jesus worked miracles, that he came back to life, that there was a real Noah's ark and a real flood (at least some of you!), that we are all stained with original sin unless we sign up, etc., and to make it palatable you dress it all up with pretty details about Angel Gabriel, shepherds, wise men and King Herod killing babies, all of which did not actually happen. This is all fine as long as every child is told from the outset that none of these things is true but that the stories can tell us good things (I suppose even Harry Potter can do that, at least if it only means that someone reading it isn't actually shooting at somebody). I read all of the Aesop's Fables that I could get my hands on when I was a little lad and they fired my imagination and probably instilled some ideas about morality in me, but I always knew that they were just stories, told by a wise man. The difference is that your stories are promoted as the truth, and the people telling them are not wise men but men like popes, bishops, priests and cardinals (and an evil old Romanian nun, lest I forget) with seriously ulterior motives.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 08:49 AM

"Very few, if any, of us on here have personally gathered data on evolutionary biology - so we have no choice but to rely on authority"

I have!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 12:50 PM

None of these stories and writings have much scientific value, but they offer infinite wisdom to those who approach them humbly.

All of these stories were made up by human beings more often than not to justify the merciless oppression of other human beings. There is no inherent wisdom here, infinite or other otherwise, just cunningly contrived narratives with no intrinsic value whatsoever other than in helping us to appreciate just how good we are at a) making this shit up in the first place and b) convincing ourselves it is true in the second - much less putting men, women & children to the sword if they happen to see things differently. Their ultimate value, of course, lies in enabling us to see that, as with the stories, we made up the characters too; we invented every god and demon, even unto the God of Abraham himself, flinging our stories into the darkness of our ignorance and only managing to make things even darker.

We approach them humbly if only to remember that darkness, which lingers even unto our times, in which people are routinely savaged, maimed, tortured, oppressed, persecuted - and all because of a bunch of stories we made up long ago - a bunch of lies basically, lived with in lieu of truth, because we knew (just as many of us today have elected to know) no better.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 02:26 PM

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Noctes - PM
Date: 01 Nov 15 - 11:19 PM

Also as a favor to my poor eyes could break up those large text blocks?

Seconded!

If I were to that you have posted a million times, Sreve, that would clearly mot bbe about numvbers. Nor was Joe's "twenty posts" who's counting? Both numbers would just be a way of saying "frequently"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 03:07 PM

Are you Joe's uncle, Kevin? He said twenty posts, not about twenty posts, not it seems like twenty posts, not it feels like twenty posts, not shit too many posts again, not a ton more posts, not blimey does he never stop posting, not gawd I've lost count of his infernal posts. He said TWENTY posts and he tried to back it up by doing a not-so-subtle time shift on his counting period. I honestly don't care any more. Joe made an arse of himself on that one and fine if you want to join him!

As for my text blocks, sorry about that. I type fast but one-fingered and I tend to do all the revising when I'm done. There are plenty enough glitches to fix without having to split it into paragraphs as well and my eyesight is quite poor when it comes to the little text box on this forum. I've been bollocked for it for years. Must try harder. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 03:51 PM

So if I said you've posted a million times that would be making a false accusation, but if I said about a million, that would be OK? I'd put it the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 04:06 PM

I'm sure you've been told a million times not to exaggerate.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 05:13 PM

It depends on whether you think eight is about a million.

Still, if we continue to discuss Joe's terrible comprehension of both English and arithmetic, I'm sure we'll eventually reach a million posts. Or thereabouts. Maybe even more, twenty perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 05:38 PM

People believed in gods or A god long before they learned to write, or influence others through writing.....it had more to do with survival than anything else....and a way of calming the wild beast within us, the reason we bother to construct a society.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 06:03 PM

Yes, that true. For example, I believed in God at the age of three but couldn't write a damn thing until I was five.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 07:01 PM

Full marks , Steve ,for creative flourishes in your wordy response. I have no doubt that the moon is there. By the simple experiment of looking up at night. Yes it is true, it is observationaly verified. And I can repeat the experiment most nights. It is testable, some have even been there. Evolution , ie, microbes to man story is not observable, testable and repeatable subject of experiment. The past is gone, and the data left behind is subject to interpretation. Historical science cannot be verified conclusively either way.   However, one side may be able to demonstrate where the other sides theory does not work in the light of observational, experimentally vErified science.....and I think creationists are achieving this quite a lot.             And, again Steve, do you think that matter and energy is all there is in the universe ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM

I'm also wondering how come God or gods failed to calm the wild beast inside al Shabaab, Boko Haram, the Taliban, al Qaeda, IS, the Crusaders, the Catholics and Protestants in theThirty Years War and the religious wars in 16th century France, the combatants in the Lebanese civil war and the Israel-Palestine conflict and the factions in the civil war in Sudan. Then there's the Muslim Conquests and the constant warfare in Spain in medieval times, and, well, lots really. If there's one thing God's not very good at, it's persuading his various flocks to keep the peace.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 07:43 PM

Looking up at the moon is not an experiment. When a scientist repeats an experiment or sets up controls he or she does indeed hope to get some consistency, otherwise either the null hypothesis prevails or else the procedure has flaws that must be addressed. Verification comes from corroboration. From just looking up at it, the moon could be a rather large illuminated contraption half a mile above ground with an intricate internal lighting system that mimics phases and occasional eclipses. The whole shebang could be a hoax perpetrated by clever aliens. A sort of celestial Trojan horse, out of which hundreds of little green men will all surge one day to come and get you. Now you can look up at the moon every night for years and your huge number of repeat observations will fail to enlighten you further. You have to do more. You have to be curious and find some ways of getting more information to support your quite reasonable hypothesis that the moon appears to be a big rocky shiny thing that goes round the earth. You have to do some thinking to explain why it changes shape every night. Do some measurements and timings. Why does it lag by almost an hour a day? Get some technology to amplify your eyes. Send a rocket up to land on it to make measurements. Send up some astronauts, even better. Bring back some rocks. It's brilliant, all of it. It's science. Of course, you could ditch all that, cut out all the curiosity and the thinking, and declare that God put it there. Sorry for the bloody text block.

You've made a good start. You think the moon is genuine, not green cheese or put there by aliens. Those are very unlikely explanations and you can say that just by looking at it. There is still a chance that they may be correct, though. You have to do the science, not to prove them wrong, but to find a way towards the true answer. If you're absolutely convinced that it's made of green cheese, you stop right there. Nothing will ever get you to move on. What stunts you is that in the same way you refuse to do the science in your thinking about God. Compared to the moon, he hasn't got a chance. At least you can see the moon, that there's something there to work on. You choose the most unlikely, outlandish and unreasonable explanation for the world you can think of, then you refuse to investigate whether something else can get you nearer the truth. That's what's up. I can't really discuss science properly with you because you've closed off your mind to it. Too bad.   Well I've done God and I've done science and I can tell you which has been a damn sight more fun and more edifying. But you won't believe me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 15 - 10:18 PM

And now for a Musical Interlude

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 01:55 AM

I know that you're ignoring me, Pete. Is it because I was a bit rude to you or because you can't answer the various questions I put to you? Of course because I was rude to you, you've got an excuse for not responding to my questions but I think you're not responding to me because you can't answer my questions - but hey ho - see if I care!

Anyway, you wrote:

"I have no doubt that the moon is there. By the simple experiment of looking up at night. Yes it is true, it is observationaly verified. And I can repeat the experiment most nights. It is testable, ..."

But Pete (are you there, Pete?) you can't "look up at night" and see God, can you? And God is not observationally verified, is He, Pete?

"The past is gone, and the data left behind is subject to interpretation. Historical science cannot be verified conclusively either way.   However, one side may be able to demonstrate where the other sides theory does not work in the light of observational, experimentally vErified science.....and I think creationists are achieving this quite a lot."

Of course data is subject to interpretation, you silly person! But "I believe that God did it because I really, really want to believe that God did it" is not a scientifically valid interpretation! And creationists are achieving nothing except tying themselves in knots in a vain attempt to confirm their preconceptions.

Finally, Pete, could you find your way clear to letting us know what is wrong with basing one's arguments on authority? And when you cite the 'work' of creationists and what's written in the Bible, aren't you basing your 'arguments' on authority?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 02:03 AM

Has Steve reached his twenty posts yet, so he can post one message that makes sense? His fixation on that number twenty certainly proves my contention that he's a literalist.
I think he's starting to foam at the mouth...

I wonder if he could accept and respect religion if it were dumbed down to his specifications...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 03:27 AM

Shimrod, where I live, I CAN look up at the night sky and see God. Our clear, black night sky makes me pause and ponder. I see God there. Some people don't. But we're both seeing the same thing. And it's OK either way. That's the lesson I hope people could learn from this thread.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 04:32 AM

Well I can look at a statue of Bill Shankly and see God. I hope that Chelsea fans (poor deluded fools) can see that it's OK either way.

Perhaps someone can tell us if there's anything more dumbed down than a notion than the whole universe can be explained by a supernatural being who defies every rule there is, who has never been seen, for whom there's no evidence and who can't be explained. His fan club contains some pretty dodgy characters as well!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM

I doubt that you could have had much belief in god at three years old, the concept is not as simple as you would like to believe, just as the concept of Santa Claus is not as simple as it is portrayed by the commercial media.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:09 AM

Steve,
If there's one thing God's not very good at, it's persuading his various flocks to keep the peace.

Not His job.
We are not puppets.
We have free will.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:25 AM

How do you know what gods job is????

Have you ever seem him/her/it.

Have you ever had a conversation with him/her/it.

Do you know of any concrete evidence of him/her/it.

Surely you are playing god yourself by deciding what the role should or should not be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:28 AM

I am describing Christian belief Rag.
Other faiths also acknowledge that humans have free will.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:38 AM

It's akenaton you should be telling that to, Keith, not me. The consideration don't really apply in my case if you think about it.

Akenaton, I was of course taking the Mick out of your sloppy use of English. But there's a slightly serious side to your intervention. The Godly concept, as you rightly say, is not so simple. Neither is the language of James Joyce or Shakespeare, which is why we tend to postpone their study until the children are quite a bit older. But the complicated concept of God can't wait that long (and complicated it is: people study it for years in seminaries and you can even get degrees in it. Ask Joe, he'll tell you). Children simply have to be incorporated very early, by being baptised or circumcised practically at birth. Then, as soon as their schooling starts, they have to sing childish hymns and say childish prayers to baby Jesus (putting their free will on hold, of course). As they grow older, the more complicated bits kick in, especially the parts that tell us what miserable, guilty wretches we all are and how the only possible salvation is keep the club rules and worship Jesus. At least we're allowed to let go of Santa.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:53 AM

No Keith you are describing what PEOPLE have said gods role should be.

You have nothing from god to say what he/she/it thinks about it.

The entirety of your rules (and the rules of any religion) are made by PEOPLE not by a god.

If perchance you have any evidence to refute this I'm sure I will listen attentively.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:55 AM

Though I do find it amazing when I think about it how all that serious academic study of belief that goes on in theology can still end up with someone looking up to the sky and imagining that they are somehow seeing God. What you're actually seeing is the moon, the planets the stars and the galaxies, all of which we've gone a long way towards explaining after centuries of hard work, wrong notions, blind alleys and religious interference. There is so much more to find out, and the quest is a wonderful and entrancing one that has fired human curiosity and imagination like nothing else. But then we stick God in there, the most dismal, abject and disappointing bolt-on that it's possible to conjure up. Well, with him there we might as well stop wondering about it all. Just spend the rest of our lives wondering about him instead. And there's plenty to wonder about. And no answers. The reality is at least a million times more wonderful. Or twenty times anyway. OK, I'm humble, as you know, so maybe only eight times more.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:06 AM

I suppose it's more than likely that large numbers of those who were circumcised at birth don't bother as much with baby Jesus as I seemed to be implying. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:11 AM

Rag,
No Keith you are describing what PEOPLE have said gods role should be.

No.
I was replying to Steve who said that God was in the business of "persuading his various flocks to keep the peace."

Why not criticise Steve for his presumption to know what God does?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:18 AM

Not puppets, Keith? Those blokes who parade around in high masses wearing colourful "vestments" and peculiar hats, clanking a hollow ball on a chain that gives out smelly smoke and all chanting the same pidgin Latin, not puppets? You could be right. I've looked hard but I've yet to spot the strings.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:23 AM

Once again you are trying the move the goalposts. The post in question was:

" Steve,
If there's one thing God's not very good at, it's persuading his various flocks to keep the peace.

Not His job.
We are not puppets.
We have free will"

You made a statement and only you said it was not his job, now tell me how you KNOW that to be the fact.

As for Steve, we know he doesn't believe in your god so how could he possibly be presumptive about him/her/it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:27 AM

A couple of things, Keith. First, understand sarcasm. Second, if I talk about God persuading, I'm not talking about his denying free will, am I? Suppose I see you heading for a public lavatory in Hertford that I know hasn't been cleaned for weeks and is full of germs and I try to persuade you not to use it, but you go and use it anyway. I haven't negated your free will, have I? Typical Keith. Deliberate mischaracterisation gets us enmeshed in a load of nonsense. Move swiftly on, Keith. You're USCWAP.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:36 AM

Gotta be careful, Guest. God can't be entirely ruled out. I know this because I apply the scientific method to him, and that strategy as we know doesn't deal in certainties. He may be as likely as a green cheese moon, fairies at the bottom of the garden or a duff bottle of Hirondelle, but one can never say never. I must admit that it could be a bit of a bugger when my final curtain is rung down if I then have to face him. My only defence would be that at least I've always tried to use the brain he gave me to work things out in an honest manner and not listen too much to fools. It might not work, which could be slightly problematic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:00 AM

Does anyone claim that we are all God's puppets?
No.
So what have I said that either of you disagree with?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM

Once again you are trying to move the goalposts. Twice in as many posts.

You made a statement and only you said it was not his job, now tell me how you KNOW that to be the fact.

Tell me how you know that, answer my question if you can.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:08 AM

Move swiftly on, Keith. God may be watching you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:20 AM

If God created us, he created us with free will.
We can choose to be good or bad, nice or nasty, believers or unbelievers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:28 AM

I'll try again (after you've tried for the third time to move the goalposts.

The original posts was:" Steve, If there's one thing God's not very good at, it's persuading his various flocks to keep the peace"

to which you categorically stated

" Not His job. We are not puppets. We have free will"

You said it was not his job, no one else. My question was and still is how do you KNOW.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 09:55 AM

Not only that, what has free will got to do with what I posted in any case?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:01 AM

I recognise that "style" Keith, that is a pin dancing troll for sure. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:09 AM

oh no kenny baby, its just me trying to get a straight answer to a straight question. do you really have a problem with that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:17 AM

No way to keep up, as I was away doing a craft show all weekend, and monitoring repairs to my house for the last 3 weeks... there were several posts that I ought to reply to... but I can't imagine finding the time these days.

So...

"Doing a Bill D"

I'm flattered...I think... to have an entire method named for me. I do suspect it is a very localized technique used in a very specific set of circumstances, but fame is fleeting and I've already had 10 minutes of my 15.
----------------------------

So, Pete... you say: "The past is gone, and the data left behind is subject to interpretation. Historical science cannot be verified conclusively either way."

The first sentence is essentially a tautology and tells us nothing significant. (example... when you look at the moon, you don't **conclusively** know it is still there, as it takes several minutes for the reflected light to reach us... and you 'know' is that it was there several minutes ago. We can, however infer that is probably still there.)
   Now, the 2nd sentence is either true or false depending on how you read it. But is IS just plain misleading. Just as we may infer something about the status of the moon from repeated observations, we may also infer things about the past based on testing and comparisons to what we see today. The evidence OF the past is still there, and much of it is way easier to get data about than the moon. Geology has all sorts of things we can look at... like this folded rock layer. Surely we can infer a few things about it just from looking... and more by chemistry and radio-carbon dating. We KNOW that it takes forces to do that to a bunch of rocks, and it isn't done in a short period of time. "Historical science" can be verified in ways that are useful and... the important point.... predictive. We can use data from historical science to tell us how to do...or not do.. relevant things in our lives. In fact Pete, YOU use it and depend on it everyday... except when you find some of it **seems** to be at odds with something you 'believe' about the past that is even harder to verify!
You use selective dependence about various scientific data and deny perfectly good science...often by referring to dubious science.

   There is no reason you cannot have a basic concept of Creation and 'believe' that a God started it all.... but you gotta use the brain the God gave you to discern the complex stuff that has happened in the universe after God gave it it a kick-start.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:25 AM

You may take "doing a Bill D" as a compliment, Bill. It means patiently, repeatedly and exhaustingly trying to explain something to someone whose head is full of nonsense, knowing that you probably won't get anywhere but regarding the journey as somehow worthwhile. For now...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:48 AM

the brain the God gave you

Assuming facts not in evidence, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 12:29 PM

Oh, I can infer a brain being used in order to even be used fallaciously,,, *grin*...there's nothing wrong with Pete's brain... he is simply being human and doing what we all do at times-- using free will to selectively pick which premises to use.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 12:48 PM

Rag,
You made a statement and only you said it was not his job, now tell me how you KNOW that to be the fact.

Since we have free will, and are not puppets, it is not anyone else's job to make us good.

Steve,
what has free will got to do with what I posted in any case? (If there's one thing God's not very good at, it's persuading his various flocks to keep the peace.)

Why do you think he tries to persuade us to do anything?
We have free will.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 02:03 PM

Popped in to see if the conversion had got of the rut!

I think it worth reminding everyone that ' free will' is a tricky concept. Theologically it has been a problem for centuries if not longer (whether the mother of God had the free will to say no and wreck God's entire scheme is, for example, not an easy one). But just as interestingly there has been scientific studies over the last few years suggesting it might be an illusion of the conscious mind. And as Bill D will confirm, it's had its fair share of consideration in philosophy as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 02:38 PM

Somehow, whatever scientists might come up with claiming freewill is an illusion, nobody has ever believed that for a moment in real life.

And yet in the totally mechanistic cosmos which seems such a simple and obvious reality to Steve, I find it hard to envisage how there can be any meaningful sense in which anybody has freewill.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 04:48 PM

My masters thesis was to be on a 'possible' way to resolve the free will/determinism issue. I intended to show that the ONLY possible resolution would be in a system much like the concept of "actual entities" in the writings of Alfred North Whitehead... which had some real similarities to today's quantum physics.
I'm sure my thesis committee would have grilled me over it, but at least they approved the topic...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 04:54 PM

There is nothing simple about the cosmos, which is why we have to keep God, ironically the arch-simplifier, out of it. The quest for truth will never end, no matter how sophisticated our technology or how advanced our thinking. That's how "simple" it is. God not only gives simple-minded people a simplistic answer, he infantilises the whole concept of the universe. I'm absolutely amazed that anyone who proposes a Godly explanation can accuse anyone else of being simplistic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 04:58 PM

"Why do you think he tries to persuade us to do anything?"

I don't, Keith. Do think before you post rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:07 PM

Have you thoughts on free will, though, Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:09 PM

No. My wife won't let me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:11 PM

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:19 PM

Oops, sorry. As I was trying to say, that was supposed to be a joke. The whole free will thing was started off by Keith misrepresenting something I said. I've been to the flicks tonight to see Suffragette and I'm far too obsessed with the fact that all men are complete bastards to contemplate heavy and rather pointless philosophical issues.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:32 PM

Tried to see that on Sunday and because there was a match on there was nowhere to park so had to abandon it.

But it is not a pointless philosophical discussion in my view. The science seems to be heading towards the position that there is no free will. I think that puts scientists in a really difficult position, since it means they have to behave as if we have free will - laws, for example, require it - while actually being certain that is no free will at all.   And it is hardly being "simple and honest" to act as if there is no problem.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:43 PM

For 'certain' read 'personally convinced as a result of all available evidence' .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 05:54 PM

I wasn't saying you thought the cosmos is simple, Steve. But you do think that it is simple and obvious that the notion of God can have no place in reality, and that the cosmos exists and came into existence, entirely of itself, and that our consciousness is a transient and essentially meaningless ripple on the surface of a completely lifeliess reality.
...............

Good film. One thing that struck me and my wife looking round at the audience when we went was that I seemed to be about the only bloke present. Surprised really the film hasn't set off a thread here talking about related issues. Which would no doubt end up pretty fierce.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:05 PM

I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I just find some of these tedious philosophical squabbles to be a bit pointless.

But let me see now. Free will. Means I can do what I want when I want, is that it? Well what I think is that many things tug me away from being unfettered like that. What things? The whole context of my life, my relationships, my instincts, my conscience, the law of the land, my undisputed drive towards diplomacy. Frankly, I'm not getting warm, am I?? As far as this business of God and free will is concerned, well the God of religion is a thoroughly cruel bastard. He kills children with terrible diseases that he himself has invented and presides over horrendous wars fought in his name. He could intervene and make the world a garden of Eden, but he's decided to not do that, apparently by giving us the free will to be even bigger bastards than he is. Great guy. What I think about that kind of thinking is that it's a great big dishonest let-off for God.

Number one. There almost certainly is no God anyway, so none of that applies. Number two. You asked so I've told you, and probably haven't advanced the argument one jot. But I'm bloody knackered so pass the corkscrew.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:20 PM

But you do think that it is simple and obvious that the notion of God can have no place in reality, and that the cosmos exists and came into existence, entirely of itself"

Well I do think that. All of it. If you disagree, you have to tell me where God came from. Dozens of people on this board have asked that very simple, childlike (not childish) question. Sometimes the most cutting questions are the simplest. As yet, no-one has even begun to answer it. With science, we have at least begun to answer some of the mysteries of the cosmos, and we find that the enquiry is far more beautiful and edifying than any inexplicable Godly intrusion, which is entirely your invention, without supporting evidence. Try it some time.

"...and that our consciousness is a transient and essentially meaningless ripple on the surface of a completely lifeliess reality."

Well this is a very interesting topic, and I've been reading a lot about it ever since that puzzling fellow TimeStamp brought it up. So I disagree with your characterisation. Another time maybe. This Nero d'Avola is delicious.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:22 PM

If you say that, all our minds are,       Shuffle chance of chemical change.         Why should anyone, trust anything you,re saying.          Yer brain just might need a rearrange !.             No time for anything else tonight, but can you tell me where the folded rocks are and of what rock they consist, bill?.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:43 PM

Shaw said: "all men are complete bastards"

You may be but I'm not.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:02 PM

Joe Offer wrote:

"Shimrod, where I live, I CAN look up at the night sky and see God. Our clear, black night sky makes me pause and ponder. I see God there."

When I look up in the night sky I see the moon, in its various phases, and lots of points of light. I certainly don't see a gigantic, quasi-human father figure!

I have it on good authority (are you listening, Pete?) that the points of light are either planets in orbit around the Sun, and shining as the result of reflected sunlight, or stars. Our Sun is a star and it consists of a a gigantic accretion of gas and dust which is undergoing nuclear fusion and is held together by its own gravity. The distances between the stars is beyond comprehension - the nearest star to our Sun, Proxima Centauri, is (if I've got my calculations right) around 25 million million miles away. Some stars are so far away that their light has taken many, many thousands of years to reach us. Nevertheless, stars themselves form unbelievably vast accretions - or islands - of stars called galaxies.

Now, conventionally, all of these facts are supposed to evoke awe and wonder and thoughts about God (who probably doesn't exist) etc. But as I get older what they do for me is to provide a rather terrifying perspective on my life and the future prospects for my species. When our planet Earth is viewed from space it is shown to consist of a relatively smooth ball of rock with a thin 'rind' on the surface. This rind is the 'biosphere' and, as far as we know to date, it is the only place in the entire, inconceivably vast Universe in which our species - and other Earth-bound species - can survive. And what our species is currently doing is destroying this biosphere so, probably in a small handful of generations (an infinitesimally minute fraction of a cosmic 'microsecond'), there will be NOWHERE in this vast Universe where we can survive! In my humble opinion, this horrifying prospect - and what to do about it - is far, far, far more important than fretting about whether God exists or not!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:12 PM

Shaw said: "all men are complete bastards"

You may be but I'm not.

Well, between you, me and the gatepost, neither am I, but I was trying not to exhibit favouritism. :-)






(Er, you are a man, are you...?)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:24 PM

Well, Shimrod, we could always ask God instead to help us out. Unfortunately, while we praise him to the rafters for this amazingly wonderful world, with its beautiful land and seascapes and its fantastic diversity and complexity of lifeforms, all of which he's supposed to have created, we say nothing about the fact that he appears to be letting us wreck it all on his watch, even though, we're told, he's all-powerful, etc. Odd chap, this God, but let's not think too much about it. Let's just settle for the fact that he works in mysterious ways. Yeah, that's all the explanation we need!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 07:56 PM

Pete--- the rocks are near the San Andreas fault in California...:they are sedimentary layers that were first laid down in the ocean, then exposed and hardened, then folded as explained below.

"Shown above are exposed sedimentary layers that have been drastically deformed by movement on the San Andreas Fault. The location here is a freeway road-cut on SR-14, just north of the Avenue S off-ramp in Palmdale, California -- the camera is looking east. The San Andreas Fault is an approximately 700 mi (1,127 km) stretch of the boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. It's a right lateral transform fault (one of the longest in the world) and has played an important role in the geologic, as well as the human history of California." Palmdale, California Coordinates: 34.562907, -118.132587

they are sedimentary layers that were first laid down in the ocean, then exposed and hardened, then folded .

They are similar to these:also in California...long explanation on the page. (rocks in the 2nd page are described as "sandstone, siltstone and limestone."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 08:01 PM

(and I don't understand your remarks about 'our brains')

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 09:17 PM

The simple answer to "where did God come from", which I recognise won't in any way satisfy you, is God didn't come from anywhere. He is He who is. Or She is She Who is.

Here is a photograph of God from Thomas Merton

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 09:24 PM

I couldn't agree with you more. It doesn't satisfy me in the least. What's even more puzzling is that your epic piece of obscurantism should satisfy you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:15 PM

A little boy was drawing in school with crayons. The teacher stopped by and asked: "What are you drawing, Johnny?"

"Oh," said the boy, "I'm drawing a picture of God."
"But, " said the teacher, "nobody knows what God looks like."
"Well, they will after I'm done."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 11:05 PM

Joe sez: As I've said before (and Steve has not responded), Europeans tend to disregard and destroy the wisdom and religious practices of every culture they have conquered, attempting to replace such "primitive" thought with their own "enlightened" thinking - just as they have politicized and destroyed the ancient wisdom of their own culture. Alliance with European government has not done Christianity any favors, and Christianity is finally learning that lesson after being in bed with government for most of the last 1500 years or more.

Steve finally does respond: Well, Joe, just replace "Europeans" with "Catholic imperialists" there and you have it about right!

But note that Joe, a Catholic, has a respect for the ancient religious traditions of the various cultures of the world. Steve, an atheist, does not. Steve's attempt to limit blame to Catholics, is a failure to acknowledge that as Europeans, his own ancestors share the responsibility for the destruction of the wisdom which conquered aboriginal peoples held sacred.

---

I attended a retreat today that was directed by one of the Sisters of Mercy. The theme was "thanksgiving." Here's an Iroquois prayer from the handout given us by Sister Diana:

We return thanks to our mother,
the earth, which sustains us.
We return thanks to the rivers and streams
which supply us with water.
We return thanks to all herbs, which furnish medicines
for the cure of our diseases.
We return thanks to the moon and the stars,
which have given us their light when the sun was gone.
We return thanks to the sun,
that he has looked upon the earth with a beneficent eye.
Lastly, we return thanks to the Great Spirit,
in whom is embodied all goodness,
and who directs all things for the good of his children.

Full text here: http://www.worldprayers.org/archive/prayers/celebrations/we_return_thanks.html

This is a very anthropomorphic view of both nature and divinity, but I see value in it. It establishes a kinship between humankind and the rest of creation - and between humankind and The Divinity. And if one recognizes that kinship, one is likely to respect and appreciate those other aspects of creation (and yes, I'm sure that some of the hairsplitters here won't like the word "creation.") Nonetheless, if one recognizes the anthropomorphism for what it is, it can be a helpful tool for appreciation of what surrounds us. There are other ways to appreciate what surrounds us, but that doesn't mean the anthropomorphism is "wrong." And whether one sees God in our surroundings or not, it is worthwhile to view our surroundings with awe and respect and humility - to see something beyond the self is to broaden our horizons infinitely.

The use of metaphor is a very effective tool that can enable us to see beyond our own, narrow perspective. Belief in a God is one metaphor that is very useful to many people, but of course it is not useful to those who claim to be atheists. What I seek to do is not to convert atheists to belief in God. I ask only that they see belief in God as a different perspective that is not necessarily incorrect.

Whether God is metaphor or real, is a question I do not care to address. I find it most effective to me to accept the religious tradition I was raised in, and to be somewhat literal in my acceptance - knowing full well that my tradition may be more metaphorical than real, or maybe not. As I tell people in the Bible studies I teach, it is important to respect the integrity of the story and not to intellectualize it too much - knowing full well that there is legitimate discussion whether the story is real or metaphorical.

Now, Steve wonders how this "faith" that can invite lengthy discussion by theologians, can be relevant to people who are not drawn so such academic exploration. That's the beauty of expressing faith by sacred stories instead of by doctrines and theological discussions. Stories can be understood by everyone, at whatever level they're at - both children and college professors. I think that's why Jesus preached in parables.

Steve wonders why Jesus didn't get more "press coverage" in Roman documents. To most Romans, Jesus was just another Jewish preacher. There were lots of them, and many were executed as revolutionaries or zealots. Why should the Romans take any special notice of this Jesus?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Noctes
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 01:29 AM

Joe Offer, they say the Atlas Mountains has the most spectacular night sky

The ancient Greeks saw God as the author of the book of nature

"If you can't explain it simply you don't understand it"
(or something like that)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 02:17 AM

You will remember from 1984 that Winston says "Freedom is the right to say 2 + 2 = 4. If that is granted all else follows".The point being that if is not granted all else collapses.

As said, we are talking science. All those
Constraints on acting freely Steve mentioned are predicated on the assumption that beneath it all we could freely choose
But the science isn't about the social constraints. It is whether we have free will at that basic 2 + 2 level. For example one experient asks people.to choose between say blue and green and we can now determine how a subject will decide by monitoring brain.activity and hence obtain their decision before they have decided. That's why they concluded free will appears to be a construct of the conciouws mind.

It is rare for a single experiment to be a game changer so.this oan't either. But the evidence is building that science may disprove free will at that fundamental level. Which, as Orwell points out, impacts all the rest.

It is the implications of this science for scientists I was interested in your views on, Steve, not a general discussion which we could have had decades ago before the sciencific studies had been done.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 02:50 AM

Which reminds me: is Hannibal Lector Cockney rhyming slang for The Elector of Hanover?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 03:49 AM

I should say that I'd also love to have a discussion on the philosophical side with Bill d (Pity you never wrote that paper, bill, I be glad of a copy) and the theological side with Joe, mcgrath and Pete, but I think it's best to stick to the science implications with Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 04:46 AM

Steve, I did not misrepresent what you said, and you just said it again.

"appears to be letting us wreck it all on his watch, even though, we're told, he's all-powerful, etc."

We know right from wrong and we are responsible for our actions.
Why blame God for what we do?

If He exists, He has clearly chosen not to control us, giving us free will instead.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 05:24 AM

Very strange creature this God. I'll build a beautiful plant and inhabit it with a vast array of beautiful creatures and create wonderful landscape. Then I'll put people on it. Lets see, I'll put some in land "A" and some in land "B" and let them fight and try to destroy not only each other but the land around and I'll sit back and watch.

Interesting theory about something that is supposed to be the supreme being because to me that looks pretty dumb.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:00 AM

I don't care whether you blame God or not. I happen to be almost certain that there is no God so I can't really waste a awful lot of time on that one.

As a biologist who studied evolution quite a lot (though I don't keep up with the detail as much as I should), I like the idea that beauty in nature is the synergy of form and function. By form, I don't just mean physical shape. I mean all the attributes of morphology, anatomy, physiology and biochemistry from the macro level right down to the level of organelles and cell chemistry. And also those things that are slightly harder to get a handle on, such as the mental processes in animals that inform behaviour. I don't care much for philosophical ramblings, but I suppose we are talking about things that we have, so far, got only rudimentary information about such as altruism and, er, free will. In any attribute of a living thing I'm looking for some selective advantage. That butterfly may send you into paroxysms of poetic delight (and why not), but, the last I heard, there isn't too much evolutionary advantage for an individual butterfly in looking pretty to a certain kind of receptive human eye (I might come back to that). In other words I'm looking for a a good reason for having every attribute. We can see a lot of apparent waste in evolution, though the struggle for existence requires that "waste" (even though it makes God look like a prize shit, something that, thankfully, keeps theologists off the streets as they twist around looking for excuses for him). There has to be economy in evolution that ends in every trait of every organism having the potential at least to impart evolutionary advantage. Changes in the environment can make advantages into liabilities, which is integral to the process. So, if you posit free will as a genuine attribute, look for evolutionary advantage in it! Over to you...

As for that butterfly's subjective beauty, well it has pretty colours and an agreeable shape for very good reasons relating to increasing its chances of mating and passing on its genes. We see its beauty contributing to our own sense of wellbeing in a slightly different way (those poetic raptures again). There's something to build on there, not just something for our own aesthetic delight. Real appreciation of the natural world means increasing real knowledge of it. The more we know, the more fiercely we'll try to protect it. The more we protect it, the more likely we are to survive as a species. This needs work and a true understanding of evolution, not prayers. The greatest destroyers of the environment in Victorian England forced their employees to chapel on Sundays.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:27 AM

Looks like I'm wrong and that Jesus is real after all.

A drunken man staggers out of the pub into the path of a priest. He says to the priest in a very slurred voice, "Oi, padre, I'm Jesus Christ!"

The priests smiles and says "My son, of course you're not Jesus Christ. You're deluded, but never mind!"

"I can bloody prove it!" says yer man. "Just come in here and I'll show you!"

So they walk into the pub, and the barman looks at the drunk and exclaims "Jesus Christ, you're here again!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:49 AM

If God exists Rag, why would you expect to understand His ways?
Even believers acknowledge that it passes all understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 07:06 AM

where I live, I CAN look up at the night sky and see God. Our clear, black night sky makes me pause and ponder. I see God there.

A lovely image! Here in the light-polluted NW (UK) seems I must do most of my star-gazing in magazines, but we do keep a nice pair of 15x70s in the car for those times we're in the dark places and the clouds clear long enough to catch a glimpse of the majesty of it all.

I don't see God though, but if I stand there long enough I might realise that for most the time it has taken for light to reach us from the Andromeda Galaxy (2.5 million years) humanity & human culture (language, music, architecture, religion, science, spirituality etc. etc.) didn't exist.

On the one hand, I think we've done The Cosmos a grave disservice seeing God in the stars, but, on the other, when one looks long enough to tremble in the face of it all, it's easy to see why we put him there.

*

But note that Joe, a Catholic, has a respect for the ancient religious traditions of the various cultures of the world.

Maybe so, but Catholicism hasn't. Its ruthless persecution of ancient religious traditions is one of the things that define it. Indeed, if it wasn't for Catholicism, and (let's face it) Christianity as a whole, we'd have a whole lot more.

But such traditions are of the past; we've transcended them, historically, scientifically, happily and inevitably. Thus the Atheist is an optimist who lives in hope of an ultimate objectivism, where subjective spirituality might be celebrated in human terms, rather than those founded on religious dogma & supernaturalism.

The great Atheist hope is that humanity might one day collectively tremble afresh beneath the stars in a different awe entirely to the desperation in which we created God and, in our arrogance and ignorance, saw ourselves as the centre of it all.   

As Carl Sagan said : The cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff, we are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 08:01 AM

"Even believers acknowledge that it passes all understanding"


I find it incredible that people can be so gullible as to accept such a statement. Therefore you pass the responsibility of everything to an imaginary friend in a fairy story you've read.

Bonkers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 09:04 AM

an imaginary friend in a fairy story

We created God especially for that very purpose -because we needed something greater than we were - greater indeed than nature - a literal All Mighty Father Figure so we might feel cared for, and that our otherwise meaningless lives and deaths had an ultimate purpose.

That they DO have a purpose is something we're only just beginning to figure out in terms of a more existential / empirical understanding of the cosmos, but we're barely scratching the surface here. The human adventure is quite literally only just beginning. Whether one accepts Homocentricity or not (and it's certainly implied in Carl Sagan's star stuff) the fact is we each reside at the centre of our own universe, which begins at birth and ends at death and around which everything else is relative.

We are but subjects of a greater objectivity. In the light of that, it's easy to see why we've given it an all too human face (created, naturally, in our own image) and why the idea - the folklore of the thing - persists into these more enlightened times.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 10:52 AM

DMcG.... I wrote only the 1st third or so of my paper, describing the issue and the flaws in the standard attempts to explain why it 'feels like' we have free will. If I had finished it, I would no doubt have been continuously revising it as quantum physics and brain chemistry...etc. were advanced in the last 40 years.
   The point is that it 'may' be that science can actually describe how choice actually happens, and at the same time show that certain categories are free.



"For example one experiment asks people.to choose between say blue and green and we can now determine how a subject will decide by monitoring brain.activity and hence obtain their decision before they have decided. That's why they concluded free will appears to be a construct of the conscious mind."

However..IF the very elements that make the mind not only conscious, but also self-aware, deliberative and reflective/contemplative can be shown to be related to the same phenomenon that makes photons passing thru a grating behave randomly, then it becomes possible to theoretically describe how the very randomness becomes, by definition, subject to interruption by ...ummm... it's own processes. (much like the theory of Hawking radiation contradicting the idea that nothing can escape black holes.)
   There have been recent studies in how memory is actually stored and accessed in the brain that may provide additional evidence that 'choosing' among memories is not necessarily deterministic.

[You can see that whatever form this idea takes needs more than a few paragraphs to develop]

"It is rare for a single experiment to be a game changer so.this can't either. But the evidence is building that science may disprove free will at that fundamental level."

So... it will be interesting to see just how we can define fundamental level as more experiments are done.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 11:05 AM

Interesting stuff bill and I quite agree that developing a thesis via posts on a bulletin board is not likely to be a good way! But from the brief post so far it sounds like you concentrated on where the variation comes from, which is a little different. These experiences appear to show that at some level the brain has decided on the choice but the concious mind then continues to 'decide' and several seconds later reports what the brain settled to. Which is, to use the formal.scientific term, damn peculiar.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 11:57 AM

I'm wondering if free will is more a matter of creativity, rather than choosing right or wrong. Could it not be, that my will is truly free when I am making creative choices?
In moral choices, I think that most people are disposed to choose what they see as right and good - even if that right or good is not for the benefit of all.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 12:23 PM

Hmm. In moral choices, a lot of people are choosing what someone has told them is the moral choice.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 12:40 PM

Rag,
I find it incredible that people can be so gullible as to accept such a statement.

You feel confident that if an omnipotent God existed, he would be just like you.
He would probably seek your advice on how best to order things in His multiverse.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 01:17 PM

Steve Shaw says: In moral choices, a lot of people are choosing what someone has told them is the moral choice.

I don't believe that's true. A moral choice is a choice between something that is harmful or not harmful, constructive or destructive, good and bad. Most of us adults are smart enough to figure these things out without having somebody tell us.

I suppose there are a few "sheep" who are dominated by external forces, but I think most adults do quite well making such choices by themselves.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 02:41 PM

Well, a good moral choice would be to accept that there is almost certainly no God, which evidence and reason tells us is the case. This would have some excellent effects, such as an end to lying to children about bogus supernatural forces, a big step towards ending misogynistic mindsets and the liberation of people's minds so that they may better explore the real truth about the world and the universe. Of course, there would be a downside. All those poor priests, imams, rabbis, ayatollahs and popes would have to think about doing an honest day's work for a change. Theologians and all the other self-interested hangers-on wouldn't come off too well either, I suppose. The fact that billions of people have yet to make this choice gives the lie to your claim about how we're all so good at making our own minds up, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 04:15 PM

I don't often differ with Joe in explicating this sort of thing, but Joe... 'moral choices' have been defined subjectively forever, even as intellectuals such as Kant tried to define them formally and objectively. When this is done we get rationalizations to justify almost any behavior. Certainly, some 'know' what is morally wrong, but 'choose' to ignore it; but many do apply premises that make heinous behavior seem 'right' to them.
It is an awkward fact that many issues in human behavior are always a matter of personal, subjective choice....such as abortion and capital punishment and WAR in general. "Thou shalt no kill" has a myriad of exceptions for the majority of humans.

   Ask a Jain about what he is allowed to eat.....

(Or have I missed your point, Joe?)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 04:34 PM

Well Steve, evidence and reason tells me that the evolution story is impossible. And to ask who made God is a non sensible question as the God Christians believe in did not need making , and is eternal uncreated spiritual, as you have been told often, and of course you will remember that from when you used to accept that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 04:43 PM

Hi, Bill-
There will be differences of opinion on some moral issues, especially in matters like abortion and warfare and capital punishment - matters where there are good points on both sides of the discussion. But in most situations of moral choice, people of good will will agree, and will usually choose the same thing.
I think that perhaps there is no "free will" in most situations; but perhaps there are "crisis moments" in our lifetimes where we make the free choice of one mindset or another - and the long-range mindset we have chosen then predetermines our semi-automatic response to immediate situations.
For the most part, I think that bastards choose to be bastards.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 04:43 PM

Heheh.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 05:51 PM

Thanks bill. You may know more about geology than me, but I would have thought that rock layers would only bend before hardening . Has there been any observational evidence of rock layers folding without cracking once hardened?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:00 PM

The heheh was for pete's less than erudite contribution. As for moral issues that generally end up with people of good will making the same choice, it's rather unfortunate that you brought abortion into the frame. Catholicism, and it's not alone, is on extremely shaky ground here. The promotion of ignorance about sex, the pointless advocacy of abstinence, institutionalised misogyny and the ban on contraception go a huge way towards creating what you call the moral issue of abortion. And it strikes me that it's the very last thing that has attracted people of good will to find common ground, and anti-abortionists find considerable succour in the Church's illiberal stances on sexual matters. Fitting bedfellows indeed. Religion is crazily mixed up about all this and it's about time we made it take a back seat as any kind of moral arbiter. We'll find our own morality without you, thank you very much. You're just lousy at it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:01 PM

"But in most situations of moral choice, people of good will will agree, and will usually choose the same thing."

Hmmm, Joe... isn't that a way of defining people who do "choose the same thing" that we approve of as people of good will"? ;>)

...and "I think that perhaps there is no "free will" in most situations;.."

   That is certainly one way to look at possibilities... was it freely chosen? ;>)

Seriously, I don't think free will can be so easily relegated to just odd moments. Obviously, prior events and various peer group pressures influence our decisions in various complex ways, but assigning determinism to 'most' of them is a stretch. Determinism is usually...(in philosophy)... an all or nothing position. The concept of tabula rasa in Psychology suggests that we are born "open" to all possibilities, and stuff immediately starts happening that affects everything we do. What it doesn't explain clearly is how we can even reflect on that idea if we are "determined".

I claim that a lot of the argument is just linguistic....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:04 PM

"Thanks bill. You may know more about geology than me, but I would have thought that rock layers would only bend before hardening . Has there been any observational evidence of rock layers folding without cracking once hardened?"

You thought wrong. The process is perfectly well understood. Do some homework.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:24 PM

"But note that Joe, a Catholic, has a respect for the ancient religious traditions of the various cultures of the world. Steve, an atheist, does not."

Well I don't respect human sacrifices, the brutality of Moses that somehow manages to get him a bye, inquisitions, torture, stonings, antisemitism, the exclusion of women, circumcision, waging imperialistic wars and quite a few other religious traditions that I won't go on to list. You respect 'em if you like.

"Steve wonders why Jesus didn't get more "press coverage" in Roman documents. To most Romans, Jesus was just another Jewish preacher. There were lots of them, and many were executed as revolutionaries or zealots. Why should the Romans take any special notice of this Jesus?"

You don't know that that's what the Romans thought as there was no press coverage. Stop making it up as you go along. The more likely explanation is that there was never a Jesus as we know him. Of course, I don't know that for sure. Reading your paragraph, it seems that you have that certainty that only comes with faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:39 PM

" ... evidence and reason tells me that the evolution story is impossible. And to ask who made God is a non sensible question as the God Christians believe in did not need making , and is eternal uncreated spiritual, ..."

Absence of evidence - and reason - tells me that that a God who did not need making and is "eternal uncreated spiritual" is impossible! Or rather such a God sounds like something invented by people who desperately want Him to be exist and who are prepared to re-define what is "sensible", or reasonable, in a vain (and very dim-witted) attempt to deter others from asking obvious questions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 06:51 PM

Steve sez...do some homework...    Well maybe bill will answer the question, unless of course there is no observational evidence for hardened rocks folding without cracking. And I still reckon, that as the moon has been visited, samples collected, and measurements calculated or whatever else in observational , repeatable science, that it's present .....or minutes recent !.......consistency and features can be pretty confidently settled. Contrast that to collecting data about the long gone past from what's been left to the present, is open to different interpretations ....even among evolution believers...   Added to that is the added problem for evolutionists of not having explanation for when experimentally verified science contradicts the evolution story.          Steve sez....no evidence for God. Tell me please, do you think that all there is in the universe is matter and energy ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 07:00 PM

Ah, the good old God of the Gaps. So Bill will tell you, eh? Do you sit around waiting for people to tell you stuff all the time, or do you ever grab knowledge for yourself? No, don't bother answering that. We already know.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 07:08 PM

Do you work at being a prick or does it come naturally? No, don't bother answering that. We already know.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 07:54 PM

". Has there been any observational evidence of rock layers folding without cracking once hardened?""

Golly Pete... that is, by definition, not possible for humans, as we only live for a hundred years or so. (and not only that, but 'hardened' is a relative term for some types of sediment. Just imagine rocks mixed with clay... you can bend a layer s-l-o-w-l-y AS it hardens)
You keep returning to that theme about everything related to 'very old earth' and evolution. It is a nice convenient argument to deny or cast suspicion on processes that **science** shows us took a long time, but you can't disprove lots of scientific evidence by just demanding that it MUST happen as we watch. What do you want...video of evolution and geologic processes? (You actually can have that when large earthquakes happen and one piece of earth rises several feel above another)
   You are using very awkward and artificial criteria for your criticism. I could use the same type of argument about other things in everyday life, and you'd immediately see why it was not fair... but you NEED that demand for 'observational evidence' in real time to support your primary premise of 'creation' being only a few thousand years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Noctes
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 10:17 PM

ProBably ( - :

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 11:41 PM

The End of Night  

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 02:29 AM

Isn't it extraordinary? Pete has set himself up as some sort of 'expert' or 'authority' on evolution when it's become very, very obvious that all he's read is 'Creation.com' and the Bible! It's also become very, very obvious that he knows nothing about science or how it works. One thing that REAL scientists DON'T do, Pete, is to immediately attribute any odd/inconsistent/inexplicable/equivocal evidence to God! They look for more evidence to clarify the situation and during this process they keep an open mind. As I have told you in the past and Steve has just told you, you need to do a LOT more homework. If all of your information has come from a heavily biased source and an old book, you have NO credibility whatsoever!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 02:44 AM

Joe: "But in most situations of moral choice, people of good will will agree, and will usually choose the same thing."

Bill: Hmmm, Joe... isn't that a way of defining people who do "choose the same thing" that we approve of as people of good will"? ;>)

Bill, I look on "people of good will" as people who have a reasonable amount of concern for other people. I think most people are "people of good will." For the most part, they won't hurt other people, or steal from them, or do other things to cause others harm. And I don't think they do it because of fear of punishment.


Joe: ...and "I think that perhaps there is no "free will" in most situations;.."

Bill: That is certainly one way to look at possibilities... was it freely chosen? ;>)

Seriously, I don't think free will can be so easily relegated to just odd moments.

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I think that most of our actions are automatic, or semi-automatic. We don't have time to think deeply about how we will respond to a particular situation. But I think we DO have times when we can reflect and decide freely how we will respond to situations in the future. As I said, bastards choose to be bastards...and "people of good will" choose to be the way they are.

---

Steve Shaw hasn't said anything reasonable for quite a while, so I don't think I'll take the time to respond to his blathering....

But Steve, just to assure you, I also "don't respect human sacrifices, the brutality of Moses that somehow manages to get him a bye, inquisitions, torture, stonings, antisemitism, the exclusion of women, circumcision, waging imperialistic wars and quite a few other religious traditions that I won't go on to list." Why in the world would you imply that I would respect any of these atrocities? You're blathering, Steve, so your comments are not worthy of response.

Can't say I have much to say in response to Pete, either. To me, plate tectonics just makes sense - as does evolution. Here in California, it's very easy to see the action of plate tectonics along the San Andreas Fault. Just about twenty feet to the west of the San Juan Bautista Mission, the ground drops off dramatically - that's the San Andreas Fault. Other missions were destroyed by earthquake and destroyed. It makes me wonder why Junipero Serra and the Franciscan padres built their missions along the Fault - almost all of them are in constant danger of destruction.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 03:09 AM

Well yes bill, if the folding only happens over deep time, I can see that it can't be observed, and you have to then interpret the data. Now you say , or imply , that ...science....shows us this happened,,however ....science....has shown us lots of geologic processes before ( supposedly ) that have turned out to be wrong in light of subsequent geologic activity or experiments conducted . ...science...has also said lots of things cannot happen quickly, but then had to revise when it did.. ( of course, if Steve or shimrod ask me for examples or "reference please"...just" do your homework" !) the fact is you need to come to the conclusions you come to, whether current or the ones revised now, because you require deep time for your belief. It is your "primary premise"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 03:54 AM

Joe: "But in most situations of moral choice, people of good will will agree, and will usually choose the same thing."

This is an interesting though Joe. In the USA a Gallup poll indicated that 61% of people supported the Death Penalty.

Gallup Poll

In the UK in a poll earlier this year the figure was 48% and would seem to be falling

UK Figure

Given that the chice of a Death Penalty is very much a "Moral Choice" here we have a situation were "people of goodwill" are opting for two very different and very stark options.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 04:30 AM

Not denying plate tectonics joe . In fact catastrophic plate tectonics is a flood model. And if evolution makes sense to you , you don't seem to have explained why , other than just accepting the ruling paradigm because it is the ruling paradigm !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 05:03 AM

Well, the things I listed are religious traditions. You didn't qualify your statement. Perhaps you'd care to give us a list of the traditions you do approve of.

"To me, plate tectonics just makes sense - as does evolution."

Well I'm glad you think they make sense. Now the job of science is to explain them. I hope that plate tectonics makes a bit more sense to you than evolution does and that you can manage to leave God out of it.

By the way, I was wondering why you have so far failed to delete the obnoxious Guest post from last night. Is he a fellow Christian?

---

Where've you been, Steve? Max moved me to the Music Editor position two or three years ago. The Moderation Team deletes objectionable posts as they see fit. I don't have that job any more. I think you own me an apology for your cheap insult.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 05:14 AM

"In fact catastrophic plate tectonics is a flood model."

Plate tectonics is a phenomenon that is well explained by a good theory. It is not a model. As a flood involves water, and rocks are heavier than water, it is not ... Bugger, why am I bothering...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 08:42 AM

evidence and reason tells me that the evolution story is impossible

Sorry, pete, but creationism is the antithesis of reason and is based on no real evidence whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM

While genesis is history rather than science it does allude to geologic activity in the flood account. A lot of the water came from below.   And just as a sideline, a lot of rushing water can push heavy rocks and transport them distances.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 01:21 PM

While genesis is history rather than science

Sorry, Pete, "Genesis" is not history in any way, shape, or form. Its a fairy tale.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM

Face it, Pete! All you (think) you know about plate tectonics, and other geological phenomena, comes from 'Creation.com'. The authors of that stuff are extreme religious fundamentalists who are pissed of with science because it demolishes their pious 'certainties' one by one. If all you can do is parrot the words of those sad 'fruit loops' you cannot be surprised if no-one takes you seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 02:05 PM

Maybe pete could explain to us why the plates are still observably moving after all this time. Are they floating on Noah's floodwater? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 03:48 PM

Well maybe it's a bit like your Big Bang and rapid expansion ....slowed down now !    And of course the floodwaters are in the oceans now....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 04:53 PM

Looks like Pete and Dr. Batshit Crazy have a lot in common!

Egypt's pyramids were built by the biblical Joseph to store grain and were not, as archaeologists believe, tombs for pharaohs, Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson has said.

"Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs' graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it.

"And I don't think it'd just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain."

Asked on Wednesday if he still held these views, Carson told CBS News: "It's still my belief, yes."


Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 06:07 PM

Raggytash sez Joe sez: "But in most situations of moral choice, people of good will will agree, and will usually choose the same thing."

Raggytash sez: This is an interesting though Joe. In the USA a Gallup poll indicated that 61% of people supported the Death Penalty.

Note, Raggytash, my entire paragraph and not just the one sentence: There will be differences of opinion on some moral issues, especially in matters like abortion and warfare and capital punishment - matters where there are good points on both sides of the discussion. But in most situations of moral choice, people of good will will agree, and will usually choose the same thing.

There is no broad consensus on the issues of abortion, warfare, and capital punishment. The argument has not been settled, so people are likely to respond in a wide variety of ways until consensus is reached.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 08:40 PM

It just keeps getting better!

THIS really DOES sound like pete!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 09:04 PM

Consensus on abortion is impossible while the Catholic Church, along with other big religion, sticks its interfering and unhelpful nose into the issue. Abortion is the tip of a very large iceberg that is largely of religion's making whether you like it or not. Almost all those horrible people who harass women outside abortion clinics are members of your club. But the people like them who hector decent people about abortion are the self-same people who oppose birth control, unfettered sex education in schools, equality for women in the Church and society and who, ludicrously, are the arch-advocates of "abstinence". If you want a constructive consensus on abortion, these revolting people, and their cheerleaders such as every pope and that disgusting Romanian nun, seriously need to be sidelined. They are the champions of abortion. While their ignorant views prevail, abortion numbers will remain high. You don't get rid of abortion by criminalising women, sending them down the back streets by having draconian time limits or other barriers, keeping boys and girls ignorant about sex, trying to persuade people to go against perfectly good and normal human nature, banning contraception and making saints out of nasty and highly-illiberal people. You in your Church are the problem, absolutely not even in the remotest sense a part of the solution.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 09:45 PM

No Pete... "a lot of the water" did NOT "come from below". That is a wild guess trying to account for 'water covering the entire Earth'...which simply did not happen! There was no flood deep enough to cover all the Earth and over the mountain tops!
At some time in the past, there was some sort of local event...**probably** when this happened! There have been searches of the bottom of the Black Sea that found artifacts dating to that era. It was a HUGE event, and with no TV coverage, stories would naturally grow about 'water covering everything'. Maybe someone with a boat actually escaped with his family & some animals, but NO actual writings cover it, as writing barely existed back then.

You cannot just toss in bad science to explain bad theology!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 10:09 PM

Yes he can! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 10:58 PM

Yes... that's called 'preaching to the choir'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 12:51 AM

Steve, it seems to me that you see all of life as ideology and indoctrination, and you want to make sure everyone has the correct ideology. I suppose those people demonstrating outside the abortion clinics have the same mindset - but in their case, opposition to abortion is the only correct ideology. I can't venture a guess what percentage of people have that ideological mindset, but I'd say it's significant. Still, I never worried that I might harm my children by exposing them to my beliefs and religious practices as they were growing up. They grew up to be non-ideological, which is what I hoped they would be.

But then there are many others of us who aren't so sure about things. We have the nasty habit of seeing both sides of an issue, so we're not so eager to take a rigid stand on issues. I believe the choice to have or not to have an abortion should be up to the pregnant woman, but I also think that abortion is the taking of a life - and the taking of a life is always regrettable. I am generally a pacifist, but I don't know if I'd be much of a pacifist if my town were under attack. And I oppose capital punishment, but I can understand how the family of a murder victim might want the murderer to be executed. So, for me, such decisions are difficult because there is no right answer.

Most of the time, I have a reasonable amount of faith in God, but sometimes I'm an atheist or agnostic. And I could never bring myself to believe in the simplistic, anthropomorphic God that you and Raggytash describe. Don't ask ME to define or describe God - my thoughts on that change from one moment to the next, and I like it that way. Defining or describing God forces me into a rigid, limited understanding. That's not real to me, and I don't want to go there.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 03:34 AM

Joe, you miss my point you said:

"But in most situations of moral choice, people of good will will agree, and will usually choose the same thing"

I used the illustration of varying degrees of support for the death penalty to show that other factors must be at play.

I have no reason to doubt that people on both sides of the pond are of good will so that the reason for the difference in attitude to the death penalty must be ascribed to something else.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 03:45 AM

I dunno, Raggytash. I think we're agreeing. When issues are complex, then opinions (and moral choices) will be all over the spectrum.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 04:33 AM

There was no flood deep enough to cover all the Earth and over the mountain tops!

Creationist flood-lore makes for fascinating reading. In their version of things, the pre-flood Earth was a paradise of one continent, with no mountains, shallow seas and a sort of water globe surrounding the earth. It was steamy, tropical, moist and it never rained. Furthermore, it can all be accounted for by scripture.

The flood was brought about by the collapsing in of the water sphere, thus flooding the entire planet. Afterwards the excess water was dealt with by tearing the continent apart, sinking the sea depths, raising the mountains and freezing the polar caps.

Oh, and all of this happened in the year 2304 BC.

Before we laugh too much, it's worth noting that there are schools in the UK & USA where this stuff is being taught as a science.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 04:47 AM

there are schools in the UK & USA where this stuff is being taught as a science.
Not in UK.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 05:08 AM

Wrong Again

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 05:20 AM



Try again

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 05:24 AM

The article I was trying to link to was from the Daily Torygraph of all papers.

I typed "creationism schools UK" into Google, it was the second article that came up. Dated 02.05.2015 so very recent.

Don't know why the links wouldn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 06:45 AM

"Steve, it seems to me that you see all of life as ideology and indoctrination, and you want to make sure everyone has the correct ideology. I suppose those people demonstrating outside the abortion clinics have the same mindset - but in their case, opposition to abortion is the only correct ideology."

Your mission in life seems to be to paint people whose thinking opposes your own personal and very simple-minded ideology as equivalent, opposite to yours and with theirs wicked to yours good. The people outside the clinics are wicked people, not because they oppose abortion but because they are outside the clinics. Mother Teresa was a wicked woman not because she opposed abortion but because she preached the virtues of ignorance and poverty to women and practised what she preached. I have every respect for people who oppose abortion. In fact (and I don't know how many more bloody times I have to say it), I'm a thousand times more opposed to abortion than the withered old virginal nun ever was. She loved abortion so much that she enthusiastically promoted all the policies that serve to increase its incidence. She wanted ignorance, poverty, abstinence, and absolutely not a hint of birth control of any kind. Her message, a bit watered down, is the same as the one your Church still promotes (and you love her so much that she's about to be sainted). The Catholic Church would be lost without sticks like abortion with which to beat its flock into line, and those people outside the clinics are its cheerleaders. You are doing a very grave disservice to every woman on the planet by indulging them in the way you do. You are allowed to condemn. As you're a Catholic, I'm amazed you don't do it more often. In sum, I want as few abortions as possible and I want the real means to achieve that, not silly dressed-up men in pulpits or hateful old nuns in hock with fascists preaching the wrong messages, or people standing outside clinics using every ugly tactic they can conjure to intimidate women who are in an extremely vulnerable state. And as a man I should really be minding my own business about what women decide what to do with their own bodies, but at least I try not to poke my interfering nose in too much to add a sanctimonious layer of my own personal moral compass on their every move. If you really don't like abortion as much as you say, well tell me how you're FIGHTING your Church's rotten policies that encourage it, instead of just gently advising its members that they can, well, interpret the rules (in other words, break them) according to their consciences.   Don't say that too loud, though...

"But then there are many others of us who aren't so sure about things. We have the nasty habit of seeing both sides of an issue, so we're not so eager to take a rigid stand on issues. I believe the choice to have or not to have an abortion should be up to the pregnant woman, but I also think that abortion is the taking of a life - and the taking of a life is always regrettable."

Condemnation in such gentle words: it's your choice, of course, but to me you're taking a life, and that's regrettable." Not a bloody word about the doctrines that do nothing except help women to get to that point in the first place.

"And I oppose capital punishment, but I can understand how the family of a murder victim might want the murderer to be executed. So, for me, such decisions are difficult because there is no right answer."

Yes there is a right answer, and it is that justice is not served well if victims of crime get the first word on retribution. Another part of the right answer is that capital punishment is completely immoral and should never be used.

"Most of the time, I have a reasonable amount of faith in God, but sometimes I'm an atheist or agnostic. And I could never bring myself to believe in the simplistic, anthropomorphic God that you and Raggytash describe."

Well I call your God "he" purely for convenience, and any image of him that I characterise in my remarks is not mine, I assure you. I don't carry around in my head an image of something that doesn't exist, thank you. You've studied theology. Most Christians haven't, and it's a good bet that the vast majority of them either don't think much about a God at all or have the simplistic picture in their heads that you deride and which you condemn Raggytash and me for depicting. I think we're ten times more on the ball in this regard than you are, frankly.

"Defining or describing God forces me into a rigid, limited understanding."

But you see him when you look at the starry night. You don't want to limit your understanding of him, but you don't object if he stunts your understanding of the universe. Odd.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 08:58 AM

but I also think that abortion is the taking of a life

Define "life".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 10:13 AM

I'm no good at doing links but I found the Telegraph article. Much of it is to do with the threats to withdraw funding from schools that teach creationism which haven't been carried out and I've left most of that out. Here are the bits that show that creationism is all too alive in UK schools
. Creationism is still taught in dozens of faith schools despite Government threats to withdraw their funding, the Telegraph can disclose.

Last August Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said schools found teaching creationism as scientific fact would not be eligible for any money from the taxpayer.

Yet a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests show that 54 private schools are still being funded by local authorities, while continuing to teach that the Earth began with Adam and Eve.

....The campaign group [British Humanist Association] also found that some faith schools' science departments were teaching pupils to identify what happened on each of the days of the creation.

The curriculum of one group of religious schools reads: "Creation stories give a holistic image of the origins of the earth, plants, animals and human beings."

In another, it says that 'The Darwinian mechanism delivers clarifying power within a certain range of phenomena, but it is rooted in reductionist thinking and Victorian ethics and young people need to emerge from school with a clear sense of its limits.'

Separately, the Christian Schools Trust's current guidance to their schools says: "Young children within the schools would learn from the start of their schooling that they are created beings, that they are very valuable to God and that they are made in His image.
"They would be taught that He is the Creator of all things, including all living things, and that He has designed this Earth to be their home. They would also learn that creation was originally good but that it is now flawed as a consequence of sin introduced into the human race by Adam and Eve."

The BHA investigation also found five schools under the US firm Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) are also teaching creationism as science. In the past, ACE has allegedly used the Loch Ness monster to discredit evolutionary theories, according to the BHA.

Its content reads: "Some scientists speculate that Noah took small or baby dinosaurs on the Ark. Are dinosaurs still alive today? With some recent photographs and testimonies of those who claimed to have seen one, scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence.
"Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland?
'Nessie', for short, has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

The group has explicitly discredited evolution in its various textbooks, according to the BHA.
Another excerpt reads: "No branch of true science would make these kind of impossible claims without proof.
"Because evolutionists do not want to believe the only alternative - that the universe was created by God - they declare evolution is a fact and believe its impossible claims without any scientific proof."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 11:06 AM

UK state funded schools are not allowed to teach creation as science.
No school is legally teaching it in UK.
OK?
Of the 24 thousand plus of schools, only a few have yet to comply.
You can not instantly close down a school, but it is being dealt with.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 11:25 AM

I am reminded of a kids video that my younger ones used to enjoy when they were little. I can't remember exactly what it was but the song went 'first he's there, then he's not. What a complicated life he's got'. It was describing something that changes to and fro as you watch. Can't think what reminded me...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 11:51 AM

OK?

Not OK. Not OK at all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/creationism-taught-at-durham-free-school-10080714.html

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 12:08 PM

Attempting to change the Professor's mind with facts is a futile effort, Blandiver.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 12:23 PM

Keith: "there are schools in the UK & USA where this stuff is being taught as a science."
Not in UK.

Keith, a few hours of facing the facts later: No school is legally teaching it in UK.
OK?
Of the 24 thousand plus of schools, only a few have yet to comply.

In other words, YES in the UK, Keith. You were wrong. You're really not going to admit it, are you, Keith? I feel a Wheatcroft moment coming on...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 12:36 PM

Please do not let the truth come between the Professors "facts" and reality

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM

Oh, sorry, I forgot we're not supposed to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 03:19 PM

Thread #158223   Message #3748902
Posted By: Greg F.
06-Nov-15 - 08:58 AM
Thread Name: BS: The Pope in America
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America

but I also think that abortion is the taking of a life

Define "life".

---

I dunno, Greg, but I knows it when I sees it. Multiplying cells are a pretty good indication of life. What's your definition?

Please note that the squashing of an ant is also the taking of a life. I did not say whether taking a life is right or wrong - it all depends on circumstances, and even then I would hesitate to give an absolute answer.

---

Steve's 6:45 AM post was just more bigoted blather, so there's not much I can say in response. I didn't particularly like Mother Teresa or her conservatism or her preaching against abortion, so I don't see why I should be obliged to defend her. All I can say is that I don't think she was a wicked woman. I wouldn't vote for her to become a saint, so why blame me if she becomes one? I don't expect to pray to her, ever in my lifetime. Well, I don't usually pray to saints, anyhow...

Steve, let me remind you of your list of condemnations, I also "don't respect human sacrifices, the brutality of Moses that somehow manages to get him a bye, inquisitions, torture, stonings, antisemitism, the exclusion of women, circumcision, waging imperialistic wars and quite a few other religious traditions that I won't go on to list." I ask again, why in the world would you imply that I would respect any of these atrocities?

What makes you think that you have the right to condemn me for the misdeeds of others? I have not denied any of the misdeeds of religion - but neither do I espouse them. To blame and condemn me for the misdeeds of another, is the very essence of bigotry. And you, sir, are guilty.

---

Most of the time, the naysayers here are the ones who attempt to define what it is that believers believe, and then they rush to condemn what they have defined. But is that really what believers believe? For the most part, I don't think so. Most people just aren't as stupid as other people think them to be [Yes, Greg_F, I am reading Idiot America, and it does make some good points]. Still, there's plenty of stupidity to go around, I guess...

So, what is it I believe? I suppose if it all boils down to the basics, I believe in Good, which I personify as God. Whether Good/God is a real or metaphorical person, is something I won't answer. But whatever the case, my basic choice of faith is that I choose to believe in Good. St. John says God is Love, and that has meaning for me, too. One could say that God is the perfection of all superlatives that lead to Good, and I'd buy that.

Karen Armstrong says that all of the great religions were formed in the Axial Age a term coined in 1949 by the German philosopher Karl Theodor Jaspers ("Achsenzeit" - "Axial Age" or "Axis age" in English) to describe a time between approximately 900 - 200 BCE when "The spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently and these are the foundations upon which humanity still subsists today."

Armstrong says all the religions were established to express some form of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). I'd say the Golden Rule, some form of basic morality, is but one aspect of religious faith. I think the more fundamental basis of faith is to seek the elusive Good, whatever that is.

Others may see it otherwise, but I insist on being judged and heard only by my own words and thoughts and actions, and see no reason why I should be blamed for or required to defend the words and thoughts and actions of others. I'm sure that I have plenty of flaws in my own thinking and actions, without having to be blamed for what other people say and do. I suppose my thinking is annoyingly optimistic, but I think maybe I don't mind being deemed a Pollyanna.

I see all things as seeking good, not that they necessarily achieve it. And I believe that somehow in the end, all beings will be absorbed into the Good, whatever that is. Christians call it the Kingdom of God, but others have other concepts that are just as valid.

Now, Good is an elusive abstraction, and it can be well-nigh impossible to grasp or to define - or to experience. I think that people have developed traditions and rituals and sacred stories in an attempt to grasp this elusive Good/God. They are all attempts to reach out and at least partially and temporarily touch this elusive Whatever - and I think that people of all cultures and traditions regularly achieve some sort of contact with or experience of this elusive reality that is beyond all and within all.

Another reality is, of course, that people often go astray in their quest for this elusive and undefinable Good. So, Steve's list is certainly not invalid - it just can't be applied universally to all religious endeavors. But religion does go astray, there's no doubt about it. All people go astray at times, even Enlightened Atheists. Not to say that there's anything wrong with atheism. Atheists are individuals, and all individuals deserve to be judged according to their own faults and merits - and their own thinking.

So, that's the thing. My faith is very simple, as is the basic faith of every believer. I believe in Good, personified as God. That's all. Theology is the exploration of that belief and its implications, and doctrine is the explanation of that belief, not the faith itself. And I admit that my faith perspective is annoyingly simple and annoyingly optimistic. But that's who I am.

There's good reason for us all to be pessimistic and cynical and untrusting, but that is not who I am.

I'll probably burn in Hell (or Whatever) for annoying Steve and Raggytash and others. But it's kinda fun....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link.
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 03:37 PM

That's a lot of primary premises in there bill !. They are just the opposite ones to mine. How do you know there was not enough water below to augment that from above. I know because it is in the narrative that waters come from below. And though I don't have the ref to hand I seem to remember that traces of water was found locked in deep rocks. As usual, don't prove the flood but just maybe consistent with it......what a shame for evolutionism believers that so much of observable science is such a challenge to the paradigm!.   Yes, there is not enough water to cover the ....current...high mountains, but as you know, they were not always so high, which is why marine fossils are found on them so often !. If you read to the article you linked to, you will see how dr Morris' explains it.    You can't just toss in bad science to correct unsupported ideology !   To turn your remarks on their head !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 03:53 PM

Blandiver, just like many evolutionist ideas are now jettisoned some creationist models are also out of favour now. The vapour canopy being one such , as it is now thought that it has little explanatory power , though possibly contributory.    I won't laugh, but I hear that many schools teach that mankind arose from microbes over eons , and that life somehow arose from non life despite there being no evidence of this or of how it could be possible.   Thankfully there are some, albeit very few, that resist this indoctrination.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 04:25 PM

Your simple faith sounds complicated to me joe. You seem to see God in the abstract rather than a personal being, yet you say you believe in the resurrection. How do es that work out ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 04:47 PM

"...and that life somehow arose from non life despite there being no evidence of this..."

Well God creating us all from nothing is life created from non-life if ever I've met it. Now all you have to tell us where God came from, you buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 05:40 PM

"Steve's 6:45 AM post was just more bigoted blather, so there's not much I can say in response."

Becoming a little mantra of yours this, isn't it Joe. Beats sensible response any time and please don't tell me that you can't respond to my blather. I take up your points and closely argue them and you don't like it (I'm glad about that). If you'd like to tell me what I say that is bigoted, I'd be glad to address it with you. How about this. You remain a Catholic because you were born a Catholic to your Catholic family and you haven't bothered to investigate whether a principled move away from that wouldn't be the proper thing to do. In fact, you remain a Catholic, thereby supporting an organisation that is corrupted by scandal, preaches illiberal and harmful nonsense, espouses mysogyny and makes saints of people who have harmed millions with their dishonest and misguided teachings. And which damages millions of children by peddling myth as truth. And it's an organisation with a centuries-long history of antisemitism. But you're still in it. Anyone who pretends to be thoughtful and reflective who can stay in with that shower is a bigot. And you call ME a bigot. Nice.

" I didn't particularly like Mother Teresa or her conservatism or her preaching against abortion, so I don't see why I should be obliged to defend her. "

I haven't asked you to. Stop playing the bloody victim.

"All I can say is that I don't think she was a wicked woman. I wouldn't vote for her to become a saint, so why blame me if she becomes one?"

As I said stop playing the victim.

" Well, I don't usually pray to saints, anyhow..."

But you do occasionally then.

"Steve, let me remind you of your list of condemnations, I also "don't respect human sacrifices, the brutality of Moses that somehow manages to get him a bye, inquisitions, torture, stonings, antisemitism, the exclusion of women, circumcision, waging imperialistic wars and quite a few other religious traditions that I won't go on to list." I ask again, why in the world would you imply that I would respect any of these atrocities?"

You said you respected religious traditions. Which ones of these are not tradition?

"What makes you think that you have the right to condemn me for the misdeeds of others? I have not denied any of the misdeeds of religion - but neither do I espouse them."

You don't condemn them either, and, after all, you are an enthusiastic member of the club.

" To blame and condemn me for the misdeeds of another, is the very essence of bigotry. And you, sir, are guilty."

Judge not.

"So, what is it I believe? I suppose if it all boils down to the basics, I believe in Good, which I personify as God. Whether Good/God is a real or metaphorical person, is something I won't answer. But whatever the case, my basic choice of faith is that I choose to believe in Good. St. John says God is Love, and that has meaning for me, too. One could say that God is the perfection of all superlatives that lead to Good, and I'd buy that."

Well I believe in good too. But your God is very bad indeed. He presides over plagues, famines and all manner of human suffering, including the deaths of millions more embryos than all the abortion clinics in the world combined could manage, and he fails to intervene in wars fought in his name. And all because Eve bit an apple. A bloody apple. Your doctrine stinks, doesn't it. It's rubbish, and, deep down, I think you know it.

"Armstrong says all the religions were established to express some form of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). I'd say the Golden Rule, some form of basic morality, is but one aspect of religious faith. "

And I'd say that the Golden Rule can be executed utterly Godlessly, and usually is. If you think you need religion to realise some kind of moral rule you're coming up with, you have a lot of explaining to do, like why most atheists are not mass murderers, rapists, thieves or child abusers.

"Others may see it otherwise, but I insist on being judged and heard only by my own words and thoughts and actions"

But you don't mind calling me a bigot and telling me I'm guilty (what judges usually say). You accuse me of blather. I accuse you of typing something then ten minutes later in the same post forgetting what you typed. I could have accused you of hypocrisy instead, couldn't I.

Your tendentious conflation of Good and God is fooling no-one. If I conflated atheism with good you'd be belly-laughing all the way to tomorrow morning. Yet I've got plenty of evidence that you're shaky and I'd be solid.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 06:01 PM

Multiplying cells are a pretty good indication of life

So by your definition, cancer is "life", Joe? Then its a sin as far as you're concerned to remove tumors?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 06:06 PM

You won't get anywhere, Greg. These guys never think things through enough not to leave bloody great big gaping holes in their arguments. Yet they claim that God doesn't stunt their intellects.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 06:17 PM

Perhaps I ought to let it be, but as it,s only me you,re abusing, and I got the bit between my teeth now, here goes........          1         Since you claim the intellectual high ground here, asking me who made God is merely evasion.    2.    I don't believe in a God who needs creating himself.    3.      To demand who made him is thus just the same as saying , you don't accept there is a God, since at least in Christian teaching, the eternal, and God, are synonymous.    4.    It is an observable scientific principle that life only comes from life.       5       Christians believe that he is living and though it is not a giving of life in temporal terms, he has given life to his creatures.

   6. I have always accepted that faith comes into it, but you claim yours is not a faith position, but as you believe what you have no evidence for, it is just accepted on faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 06:35 PM

Yeah, you ought to let it be. I should apologise for calling you a buffoon I suppose (I'm not doing because you probably are one). However, you fling abuse around like confetti. You disrespect the life's work of honest scientists in favour of of a bunch of demented creationist bigots and you do it out loud and from a position of cheerful ignorance. I wouldn't complain too much about being abused, you poor thing. To be honest, you get away with blue murder here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 06:44 PM

'An nae insults please!

Good luck with that Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 10:35 PM

Pete..." How do you know there was not enough water below to augment that from above."?

Avoiding for a moment reminding you that YOU have no way of knowing and having records of how things were in "deep time"........(no, old religious tracts are not evidence. Who would have seen that happen and lived to write it down?)

First, elementary arithmetic. We have X amount of water now, and there's no math I can see that would explain where it went after drowning everything.

Second, 'below' is a pretty hot place. Water that does manage to get 'below' is heated and finds its way back up in places like out Yellowstone Park.

Third, there's no reason in physics and geology that water would BE below in such large quantities. There are large aquifers in places, but that water began ^above and gradually seeped down.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 12:16 AM

Greg_F sez: So by your definition, cancer is "life", Joe? Then its a sin as far as you're concerned to remove tumors?

Yes, Greg, cancer cells are living cells. Didn't you know that?

Taking a life is a sin in certain circumstances. At other times, it is necessary, but usually has some regrettable aspects. Didn't you know that?

As in most things, there are few absolutes. Didn't you know that?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 02:28 AM

Pete sez: Your simple faith sounds complicated to me joe. You seem to see God in the abstract rather than a personal being, yet you say you believe in the resurrection. How does that work out?

Oh, I see God as a personal being, Pete, but I have no quarrel with those who see God as abstraction. But above all things, I believe that God is Good. I believe Jesus is the incarnation of God, God become human in a form we can understand. As I've said before, the Bible does not give the specifics of how the birth of Jesus/Incarnation/Virgin Birth came about, or how the Resurrection happened. I just believe they happened, and that we'll know the specifics when the time comes for us to know. But don't you also believe that God is Good? Isn't that the primary belief of all believers?

Steve Shaw, I'm sorry my faith is not as complicated as you wanted it to be, but that's what I believe - simply that God is Good. I believe in Good, and I believe in God as the personification of Good. Some people don't buy the personification, but it works for me. And no, I don't believe in all that bad stuff you list, and I don't support or defend it. Why should I? Why should anybody?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 04:15 AM

Just my view on the way the thread has developed, I think intelligent people do understand about religion and the part it plays in many peoples lives....I think Steve and Bill understand that, and also understand what Joe has explained about "goodness", the ancient analogy. Personally I am moving away from outright atheism because of people like Dawkins who appear to be ideologically motivated.

It has become about the killing of spirituality and Joe's "goodness", to bring about a society where anything is permissible, where moral rules set out over centuries can be ignored.

In short, to banish social conservatism.
History has shown us that we do so at our peril.

Guest....there has not been many insults here, Pete seems to come in for some abuse, but I enjoy his contributions, he fairly makes the sparks fly..... :0)

Insults always come from people who find themselves without an answer, so they are almost always an admission of defeat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 04:17 AM

"Since you claim the intellectual high ground here, asking me who made God is merely evasion."

No it's not - it's an obvious question!   

"I don't believe in a God who needs creating himself."

Surely, it's not just a question of 'belief', is it, Pete? You can't call on (your very peculiar versions of) 'logic and 'reason' when it suits you and then ditch them for 'belief' when it doesn't.   

"To demand who made him is thus just the same as saying , you don't accept there is a God, since at least in Christian teaching, the eternal, and God, are synonymous."

If this 'debate' is really about logic, reason and science (oh, if only it were!) then no questions are impermissible; appealing to pious religious waffle convinces no-one.

"It is an observable scientific principle that life only comes from life."

"Christians believe that he is living and though it is not a giving of life in temporal terms, he has given life to his creatures."

Declaring that God created life (out of nothing) because Christians believe He did is all about faith - and faith has nothing to do with 'logic' and 'reason'.

The trouble with you, Pete, is that you don't actually know what 'logic' and 'reason' are, do you? You constantly confuse these terms with 'belief'. Time after time you tell us that a particular scientific discovery is not 'logical' or 'reasonable' merely because you have chosen not to believe it. My advice to you is to stick to religion and leave the science to the scientists!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 04:57 AM

I do not believe in a global flood, but you are wrong to deny the existence of water deep down.

New Scientist.
"A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth's surface. The finding could help explain where Earth's seas came from.

The water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies 700 kilometres underground in the mantle, the layer of hot rock between Earth's surface and its core."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 05:17 AM

" Personally I am moving away from outright atheism because of people like Dawkins who appear to be ideologically motivated."

Personally I am moving towards mild Catholicism because our local priest has got a very nice hat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 05:45 AM

Question for Pete. You keep telling us, Pete that: "It is an observable scientific principle that life only comes from life."

Bearing in mind that the words "observable", "scientific" and "principle" seem to mean different things to you than they mean to normal people, what is the latest MAINSTREAM scientific thinking on the origins of life? Remember, we don't want to know what 'Creation.com' thinks and we don't want to know which findings you have chosen to believe or not to believe. Perhaps it would be best to go away and research the subject and come back with a list of references which we can then read and make up our own minds. Can you do that, Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Monique
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 05:48 AM

May I suggest some reading some reading which is more about "Know thyself"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:44 AM

"Taking a life is a sin in certain circumstances. At other times, it is necessary, but usually has some regrettable aspects. Didn't you know that?"

And did YOU know that saying to a woman who's planning an abortion that what she's doing is "regrettable" sounds judgemental, patronising, sanctimonious and downright upsetting? Never forget that you are a man.

"Steve Shaw, I'm sorry my faith is not as complicated as you wanted it to be, but that's what I believe - simply that God is Good. I believe in Good, and I believe in God as the personification of Good."

Sorry, I'm not allowing you to get away with usurping "good" in that manner. I also believe in Good but I know that Good comes out of people unhampered by a God. If someone is "good" on the back of a God who almost certainly isn't there, then it doesn't say much about that person. If you believe that a God is THE personification of Good, as you state, you are not thinking this through. See below apropos of sloppy language...

"And no, I don't believe in all that bad stuff you list, and I don't support or defend it."

Don't you think I already know that? Why do you think I picked you up on it? Because you expressed it in sloppy language, that's why, shortly after castigating me over my understanding of English and calling me a dunce. Sailor Jack used to do the same thing and he got the same treatment. And I suppose you're now going to say that you can't respond to Steve Shaw and his blathering. Or maybe you've learned.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:52 AM

Shimrod, the is no scientific consensus on the origin of life.
Just theories.
On Earth it seems to have been a single event.
All life has a common ancestor.
That single event occurred as soon as the Earth was cool enough for life .
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 09:18 AM

I think that you're missing the point, Keith A!

Pete constantly makes statements like: "It is an observable scientific principle that life only comes from life." The boldness of such statements suggests that he views himself as some sort of authority. But when you look closely at most of the stuff he writes, it soon becomes obvious that it derives from the website 'Creation.com' and his literal interpretation of biblical texts. I strongly believe that if he wishes to pose as an authority he has to look beyond those two dubious sources.
The purpose of my last post was to challenge Pete to read more widely and to consider all of the available evidence. You've gone and ruined it now - thanks a bunch!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 09:44 AM

That was a rather superficial article of the popular science variety, Keith, but you should have clicked the link at the bottom to the next page, which explains very clearly why scientists never say "just a theory", as you just did.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 09:44 AM

As in most things, there are few absolutes. Didn't you know that?

Now, now, Joe, don't get on my case, eh?

YOU'RE the one that provided the "multiplying cells" definition of "life".

Care to give the definition another try?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 09:50 AM

" Multiplying cells are a pretty good indication of life. What's your definition?"

I happen to be on first name terms with a friendly neighbourhood amoeba. When I told him/her this, he/she was highly indignant and accused Joe Offer of being bloody multicellularist.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 10:13 AM

"I happen to be on first name terms with a friendly neighbourhood amoeba."

Finally found your proper level then Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 10:20 AM

Yesterday:
"Guest....there has not been many insults here...Insults always come from people who find themselves without an answer, so they are almost always an admission of defeat."

Today:
"Finally found your proper level then Steve?"

Are you saying that you lose? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 10:22 AM

Steve,
That was a rather superficial article of the popular science variety, Keith,

Yes, but you can not deny that a single ancestor is widely accepted in the Scientific community .
Or do you Steve?

Re creationism in UK schools.
In other words, YES in the UK, Keith. You were wrong. You're really not going to admit it, are you, Keith?

Obviously no-one could ever say something was never taught in any school in any country, whatever the law.
No UK state funded school can legally teach creationissm.
It is not allowed here.

It is just over a year since the ban was extended to the new "free schools."
A few do not yet comply.
If they fail to comply they will lose their funding as some already have.

So far 54 left out of over 24000.
Within months there will be none.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 11:00 AM

About that "deep water": There seems to be a couple of dozen sites quoting the same source...usually just wholesale C&P. I'm not sure which is the original... but here is a section [my highlighting]

"Four hundred miles beneath North America, Schmandt and Jacobsen found deep pockets of magma, which indicates the presence of water. However, this isn't water in any of the three forms we are familiar with. The pressure coupled with the high temperatures forces the water to split into a hydroxyl radical (OH) which is then able to combine with the minerals on a molecular level."

The situation is: they did seismic tests, and got *readings* which *indicate* the presence of Ringwoodite 500-700 KM down. This mineral can contain water "...in the form of hydroxide contained within the wadsleyite and ringwoodite crystal structure,..."

   Now, this is fascinating... and something I had never heard of.... but water 'bound in a form we never see' is not exactly compelling evidence that it once gushed up to "float Noah's boat". If water DID such a thing, by some process we don't understand, it seems to have gone back down... or away.. or something. At the time that the 'event' referenced in some old scriptural documents occurred, there WERE mountains; and not just in the Middle East near Ararat. There were much higher mountains in North America and Tibet...etc.
No amount of scripture can metaphorically account for a 'flatter' topology which could be universally flooded by huge volumes of water gushing UP then settling back down. *IF* (that's a BIG IF) some unknown process in the distant past transformed Ringwoodite into 'water' and gave us our seas, it was billions of years ago, not thousands...and one wonders why only 'some' Ringwoodite was transformed... and how. (Yes, I know.. God can do anything..)

All this relates to why Willie of Ockham sharpened his razor: It just makes more sense to find a simpler, obvious story about a localized flood that we are now finding physical evidence of on the Black Sea that affected a lot of people 10,000 years or so ago, than to posit huge amounts of water gushing UP (and somehow becoming rain?) from deep deposits of a rare mineral, then going away after 40 days.

I can't tell anyone what to 'believe', but I can look at evidence and logic and sort out reasonable answers from apocryphal stories.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 11:31 AM

"Yes, but you can not deny that a single ancestor is widely accepted in the Scientific community .
Or do you Steve?"

Nope. I said it was superficial, not that it was wrong.

"Obviously no-one could ever say something was never taught in any school in any country, whatever the law.
No UK state funded school can legally teach creationissm.
It is not allowed here."

But you categorically and rather authoritatively said not in the UK. This was incorrect. This is a classic example of why most people here treat your arguments with distrust, scepticism or derision. If I make a mistake I own up. It doesn't stop me from being a complete bastard but at least we don't have to spend hours with you persisting and me denying.

It is just over a year since the ban was extended to the new "free schools."
A few do not yet comply.
If they fail to comply they will lose their funding as some already have.

So far 54 left out of over 24000.
Within months there will be none.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 11:43 AM

goalposts are moved yet again. yesterday creationism is NOT taught in any UK school. FULL STOP.

Today it is not legal to teach creationism.

Why not admit you were mistaken professor.

Oh i forgot you are never wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 12:01 PM

Sorry, I neglected to delete the last five lines of my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 12:08 PM

Steve, I was responding to the claim, "it's worth noting that there are schools in the UK & USA where this stuff is being taught as a science"

That gives the false impression that it is permissible to teach it in UK schools as it is in US schools.
I simply replied "Not in UK schools."

It is not.
It can not legally be taught in UK state funded schools.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 12:15 PM

That gives the false impression that it is permissible to teach it in UK schools.,?I>

It does nothing of the sort, Professor - apparently you know as much about the English language as you do about everything else - i.e. nil.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 02:17 PM

Thank , Ake , for noting in one place that it is mainly me who gets the insults , and in another place that those offering arguments do so because they are losing the argument ......think that's more or less correct......glad someone's noticing !.                      Thanks joe for clarifying for me.                                                                                           Thanks keith, for providing the ref I did not have to hand, even though not supporting my position. Which brings me to bill.   You will remember I hope, that I never claimed that it was proof of the noahic flood , but that this evidence was consistent with it. Neither am I claiming I can prove the geologic model proposed from the bible , but then neither can you prove your model....or should I say current model. It has been calculated that were the earth flat all round the sea would cover it to some depth. The creationist model is of a pre flood world of less pronounced ups and downs giving way to higher mountains and deeper ocean basins from major geologic activity during the flood. As I say, can't prove it, but the model accounts for the water......ringwoodite or not !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 02:42 PM

So Steve , just disagreeing with the paradigm amounts to abuse of scientists! But if the scientists are creation believing it is ok to abuse them is it ?. Some of that subjective good that you believe in , I suppose. After all, I don't suppose you have an objective standard to appeal to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 02:51 PM

"The creationist model is of a pre flood world of less pronounced ups and down.."

"Model" is a word often substituted for 'wild guess' to explain something that common sense & science can't wrap their narrow little minds around...

One more case of sticking the dart on the wall and drawing the bullseye around it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 04:31 PM

Well I suppose that I might have been better not to use that word, as I am not a scientist, but as it is a word used by scientists of either persuasion I shall not lose any sleep over it. And as for narrow minds, evolutionism excludes the design , creation explanation a priori ........can't allow".....a divine foot in the door..." Talk about putting the dart in the door and drawing a circle around it!.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 04:46 PM

Insults always come from people who find themselves without an answer, so they are almost always an admission of defeat.

Glad it was you that said that, ake. Were you, by any chance, referring to St. Joe's drive by character assassinations of Date: 13 Oct 15 - 05:16 AM and 13 Oct 15 - 05:52 AM. They seemed very full of insult, insinuation and had very little by way of answers...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 05:59 PM

"One more case of sticking the dart on the wall and drawing the bullseye around it."

Bill, I wish to inform you that not only are you a genius but also that I am going to be using this amazing expression ad nauseam for the rest of my life, and it's all your fault! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:05 PM

Has anyone seen the picture of presidential candidate Ben Carson and his homie? If not, please let me reassure you all that so far none of you have it right. Carson's the one to ask.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:13 PM

"Steve, I was responding to the claim, "it's worth noting that there are schools in the UK & USA where this stuff is being taught as a science"

That gives the false impression that it is permissible to teach it in UK schools as it is in US schools.
I simply replied "Not in UK schools."

It is not.
It can not legally be taught in UK state funded schools."

I'm a very simple man, Keith, as you know. You clearly stated that creationism is not taught in UK schools. You were wrong, because we provided insurmountable evidence that it is. You are now pretending that what you said is, er, not what you actually said. Don't you realise how you demean yourself by adopting such a dishonest approach? Actually, I'm almost beginning to feel a bit sorry for you. I'll get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:24 PM

LOL Steve! I've been called worse than a genius and been blamed for getting far worse things stuck in folks heads.

Good metaphors make for less typing....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:32 PM

"But if the scientists are creation believing it is ok to abuse them is it ?"

Yes, of course! If they're "creation believing" they're not scientists - they are religious maniacs who mimic scientific jargon in order to give the bullshit that they spout a veneer of respectability..

" ... but as it is a word used by scientists of either persuasion ..."

There are NOT two 'persuasions' of scientists!There are real scientists and there are religious nutters who are pissed off because science doesn't support their mindless dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:43 PM

Well, Dave, St Joe doesn't much care for atheists. I get that. For millennia, it's been impossible to criticise religion unless you don't mind being burned at the stake, having your head cut off, being ostracised from society, being honour-killed or being thrown into a dungeon. This meant that religion enjoyed a rather cosy and invulnerable position. Of course, that has now changed. Nowadays, we can have militant atheists who are actually free to speak their minds. No-one is likely to be killed. But for Joe and his ilk, this has rather put them on the back foot. They have several options. They could ignore us. They could take us on with honest argument. Or they can flail around and insult us, as Joe is inclined to do (and don't I only know it), realising in their panic that they have been, er, sussed, big time. That their theology and instruments of control are actually built on foundations of sand.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:51 PM

I actually like atheists who are interested in civil discussion, Steve. They're usually open-minded and tolerant. It's only the born-again atheists in constant attack mode that I find to be blathering. You know, the ones who play loose with the truth.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 07:26 PM

Well, Joe, I haven't actually met any of these born-again chappies. As an atheist, I've been happy to engage with thoughtful fellows like DMcG and McGrath. I disagree with them like buggery and none of us pulls our punches. But you're different. You're defensive and incredibly worried and, as Dave describes and as I can attest, you resort to silly insults. Once again, I note your risible use of the word "blathering", which makes me think that you think you're beaten. You're being seriously taken on and you show every sign of not being used to being lured out of your comfort zone. Tough. Welcome to the real world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 08:18 PM

And that definition of "life" is what again, Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 10:23 PM

As I said earlier, I don't think I can define life, Greg - but I knows it when I sees it. Cells multiplying, even cancerous cells, are a pretty good indication of life, but not an adequate definition of life.

If one has cancerous cells, one would be advised to have them removed. A fetus is also life, and contains multiplying cells. I would suggest that the decision to remove a fetus, is different from the decision to remove cancerous cells. Both decisions should not be taken lightly, but there are different implications in these different decisions.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 05:35 AM

And as for narrow minds, evolutionism excludes the design , creation explanation a priori ........can't allow".....a divine foot in the door..."

It's not narrow mindedness that excludes design - it's simply the demonstrable absence of any divine foot in the door.

You may well believe the universe was created by Santa Claus in 1974 despite the fact that a lot of us were born some time before that. You may say that reality is an illusion on the part of Satan to test our faith. That if we pass, it's all iced buns and an eternity of Cliff Richard; but if we fail, we'll be handed over to Mother Theresa and her legion of priapic priests.

You may believe Santa ordain all this; yeah, even that he came down to earth on the 9th day to be aborted from a virgin's womb whereupon his foetus fed on sewage until 12 jolly dons nailed him to a christmas tree on Xmas morn whereupon the penguin wept in her piety even as Mother Theresa withheld the paracetamol.

You may believe this to be the reason Santa created the 14 moons of Neptune and named each of them after an apostle; and that he created the tardigrades to watch over the faithful as they sleep, whilst He made eye-worms to torment heretics & homosexuals whom he also created; both male and female created he them.

Happily, faith has nothing to do with empirical reality. Best we keep the two things separate.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 05:35 AM

Squabbling about balls of dividing cells, when exactly life starts, etc., is a time-honoured way of getting nowhere. The real issue, one which the Catholic hierarchy dishonestly skirts around, is how to provide the education, the respect for self and others, and the contraceptive means and advice for both men and women, so that women don't find themselves needing abortions in the first place. Instead, every obstacle is put in the way, then, when it happens, the sanctimonious moralising begins. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. The Catholic church is the very last outfit that should expect to have a respectable hearing on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 06:25 AM

Respectful would have been better.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 06:37 AM

I find myself in the position of being on board with most of what Steve says,I also agree with most of what Joe says. Although asking Joe to defend the indefensible is a cheap lazy shot. Most of the debate here is decades out of date,yer of your time fellas. Future generations will grasp this nettle, currently en mass we're not up to it. I'm Obviously not talking about the God/Source 'thang but the consciousness potential of each of us.
         We reach our true potential most of societies issues disolve. Yes I may be a a dreamer but I'm ...blahblah.
         You see what I wanted to discuss is a reality that many many experience and always have done down through the ages, that's an indisputable fact. Inconvenient I know, but we have to get to grips with it and at least understand it a bit better, instead of hiding from it. Peek a Boo ! ..Or ignore and carry on, where collective human existence is the energetically repressed toxic mess it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 06:49 AM

You see, Time stamp, there you go again with discussing your mystic realities that only a few know and are an indisputable fact to those who reach their true potential. Now, as it happens, I know what you are hinting at but, for heavens sake, get a grip man. Stop going for the Maharishi Yogi act and just tell people what you mean. But expect to be told that you are doing the the work of the devil by some ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 07:10 AM

What I'm talking about transcends mystical, Dtg. It's a place where all that sort of stuff disolves is understood and irrelevant.
      No all I'm intersted in is what physically happens to the human body when people experience this. I want all labels/misunderstandings stripped from it. I want it mapped as far as we humanly can and it acknowledged. Simples really ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 07:18 AM

No all I'm intersted in is what physically happens to the human body when people experience this.

Well, may I suggest you start your own thread about it if that is all you are interested in. WTF has it got to do with the Pope in America? If it is all you are interested in you must be as pissed off with some of the posters on this thread as I am!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 07:34 AM

The thread has been all over the place 8) You can't get the big picture in regards to religion/ Spiritual practices etc without taking in to account what I was talking about.. imo of course,well it's not just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 08:00 AM

All long threads tend to go all over the place, but the Pope is a a Catholic and most of the discussions have centred around Catholicism. Ish. I am quite interested in being educated about your notions of consciousness but I've also got a one a-track mind and I can't cope with being spoken to in riddles!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 08:17 AM

When we propose to stamp out religion, as a few here do, we must take into account that we will be stamping on a very large section of society who believe in the "goodness" analogy and who are not fundamentalist in any degree.
We will also be stamping on a very large section of society which sees religion as a steadying influence a braking system on those who would push society too far...too quickly.

It all comes back to advancing "liberal" ideology and the Christian religion is seen as a huge impediment to that end,
I mention the Christian religion, because Western "liberals" focus on its destruction, while ignoring the actions of groups who are wildly fundamentalist in nature, destroying, beheading and burning alive all in their path.
Western "liberals" are backed by a powerful and persuasive media which now constitutes the true government of so called liberal and democratic nations....their actions are similar to those of forum members who tried to silence and intimidate all who dared to oppose their ideology......thankfully one small victory for "goodness" and common sense ensued.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 08:55 AM

Steve, Would parables be better for you..ducks flying grotty slipper.
      No riddles, in all seriousness, People who can breathe through any pre conceived notions and their shit and genuinly interested can see this. What you're asking me is, how can I see this without experiencing it. I can't currently help you personally with that.I've tried and failed. If you relax go looking you will see what I have pointed to.Working stuff out yourself is far healthier than being told something. Try it I'm sure Carl Sagan would've approved. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 10:44 AM

Tell you what, Mr Stamp. Your posts may seem cryptic but I would live with that any day above the craptic one that preceded it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 12:01 PM

Most of the stuff I've learned that has actually stayed in my head is stuff I've learned for myself. If you think you've tried and failed with me, have another go. Try to not give up explaining half way through. Get me going and I'll grab the rest. I think the problem we have here is your apparent inability to articulate your ideas clearly. By all means carry on insinuating that I'm too thick to get it. My head may be thick but my hide is even thicker.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 12:05 PM

And I haven't seen a single person here trying to stamp out religion. We militant atheists tend to espouse far more freedom of thought than many people of faith, old chap. We view the abuse perpetrated by over-zealous believers in a slightly less kindly light, admittedly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 01:01 PM

You seem to be more upset by the Joe's of this world teaching their children about "goodness" than you do about the head choppers of ISIS.

I don't think I have ever heard you condemn these lunatics in the terms you use to Joe, as I said, your chagrin is ideologically based.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 03:25 PM

What a load of old rubbish. I'm hardly going to go out of my way on a thread about Catholicism to condemn ISIS, am I? Do you think I should go on a thread about WWI and condemn the tactics of Stoke City FC? Maybe I should go on to a thread about
Singing Together and rail against the education cuts. In the right places I have condemned ISIS. Though what it has got to do with this God only knows.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 04:23 PM

It isn't just insults people use when they are on the ropes, Steve. They try to distract, shout and scream about abuse and bullying, and resort to quoting 'expert' statistics. You see it all the time here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 07:32 PM

Time Stamp sez: We reach our true potential most of society's issues dissolve.

Keep talkin', Time Stamp. You're onto something. There should be a point where denominational differences no longer matter, where even the difference between atheists and believers doesn't matter.

I'm not sure that's beyond mysticism, but maybe that's just a matter of semantics. I think what you're seeking is what mystics seek. And of course what you say is pertinent in a discussion about the Pope. Despite the efforts of some to limit this discussion to what's bad about the Catholic Church (and I will freely admit to those shortcomings), there are those of many faiths and of no faith who seek what is beyond all that divides us.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 08:29 PM

Well I've yet to meet these fictitious people who wish to limit the discussion to what's bad about the Catholic Church. Thread drift is always wonderful for me. However, as the Pope is the head of that church, and as this thread is supposedly about him and his outfit, we can reasonably expect to find some stuff in favour and some not. The deluded versus the rational.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 09:02 PM

Steve Shaw sez: we can reasonably expect to find some stuff in favour (of the Catholic Church) and some not. The deluded versus the rational.

So, Steve, are those who favor the Catholic Church the ones who are deluded?

I think it's a mixed bag. Sometimes, I'm very angry at my Catholic Church. Other times, especially in dealing with the homeless and immigrants, I've very proud.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 09:29 PM

I can't knock the Church for helping the homeless and the immigrants. I would point out that the Church is far from alone in doing so. Not quite breast-beating material as yet.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 10:48 PM

"If you agree with me you are rational. If you don't agree with me you are delusional."

That strikes me as the mindset of bigotry. A million miles away from what I would see as the essential ground of a rational discussion - "I believe my view is right, and that yours is wrong."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 11:32 PM

McGrath, you risk being painted with the same brush I've been painted with. I'm sure you and I and DMcG agree that there's no need for rigid answers, and there's no need for condemnation. What's needed is open, respectful discussion.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 04:30 AM

Not the mindset of bigotry. That's too broadbrush. It depends on whether my conviction can be supported by evidence. If you don't agree with me that evolution happens you are deluded and I am not bigoted. Possibly undiplomatic but not bigoted.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 05:04 AM

They try to distract, shout and scream about abuse and bullying, and resort to quoting 'expert' statistics.

They object to abusive, bullying behaviour and resort to producing hard,   objective, verifiable evidence!

The bastards!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 05:15 AM

resort to producing hard,   objective, verifiable evidence

Go on then, Keith. I'll bite. Exactly what hard, objective, verifiable evidence do you have for the existence of god? Considering that seems to be the main thrust of disagreement here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 05:44 AM

There is none Dave, and I have never argued for it.

I was replying to your complaint,
"They try to distract, shout and scream about abuse and bullying, and resort to quoting 'expert' statistics."

They object to abusive, bullying behaviour and resort to producing hard,   objective, verifiable evidence!

The bastards!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 05:49 AM

I know you was Keith. You said "(they) resort to producing hard,   objective, verifiable evidence!" and I asked where the hard, objective, verifiable evidence was for the existence of god. Which is what this argument is about. What is so difficult about that?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:02 AM

Keith has just answered your question troll. Please stop trying to close my thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:09 AM

Dave,
I asked where the hard, objective, verifiable evidence was for the existence of god. Which is what this argument is about.

That is not what you were talking about, or you would not have complained about people who "resort to quoting 'expert' statistics."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:24 AM

The problem with these discussions is that if someone like pete says that evolution is false, it lends him a respectability he doesn't deserve if I simply say politely to him that I disagree. It isn't even honest of me. It is not that I disagree, it's that he is ignorantly wrong. The same applies to someone who says he sees God when looking at a starry night. He could just as easily say that it brings to mind the God he believes in. In the first instance I'm likely to say, in undiplomatic mode, no you don't, and don't talk such rubbish. In the second instance I'd be more inclined to tell him instead to contemplate the wonderful science behind those stars, their size, their temperatures, the planets we've found going round some of them, why they don't all look the same, the elements they're made of and how we find out, the way that we are looking into the past when we see them, what they tell us about the origin of the universe, of themselves and of ourselves, why the sky is completely filled with light, and a dozen more wondrous things, a lifetime of enthusiastic delving. Saying you see God is a way of shutting the door on grappling with the marvellous and TRUE reality. And it's quite annoying. It derails rational discussion just as readily as all the squabbling does.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:27 AM

Why the sky is NOT completely filled with light is what I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:36 AM

That is not what you were talking about

Yes it is.

Keith has just answered your question troll.

Back to insults again I see. Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 07:52 AM

We were not arguing about the existence of God Dave.
The only person who has ever made a case for that is Pete, and he has never produced a single statistic about it.

You complained about people (plural) who, "resort to quoting 'expert' statistics." and who object to bullying and abuse.

Hence my reply,

"They object to abusive, bullying behaviour and resort to producing hard,   objective, verifiable evidence!

The bastards!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM

Just goes to show how wrong you can be then doesn't it Keith. We were not arguing at all, I was commenting on things that had nothing to do with you but you decided to make an issue of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 08:15 AM

Dave, YOU said we were arguing.

You said " I asked where the hard, objective, verifiable evidence was for the existence of god. Which is what this argument is about. "

I decided to "make an issue about it" because you were complaining about good forum behaviour.
You complained about people who object to abusive and bullying behaviour, and who "resort" to hard evidence, i.e. "expert statistics."

What is wrong with people who do that Dave?
I think Mudcat would be better with more of those and fewer of the abusive bullies who can not support their assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 08:20 AM

Oh, good grief. My comment was in answer to one made by Steve earlier. This irritating aside happened when you decided to jump in with both feet and respond to a comment that was nothing to do with you in the first place. It is all up there for everyone to see.

And you say you do not turn threads to be about you...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 09:18 AM

"We were not arguing about the existence of God Dave.
The only person who has ever made a case for that is Pete, and he has never produced a single statistic about it."

Well I've made a case on a number of occasions, but not involving statistics. I concluded that, while there is a case for God's existence, it's incredibly wafer-thin. The chance that he exists seems vanishingly small. The case against is very simple. His existence is predicated on breaking every known law of nature. In spite of millennia of assertions, claims, witnesses, visions, writings, tradition and dictats, no evidence has ever been produced, statistical or not. All that remains is the application of reason to these facts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 10:00 AM

"The same applies to someone who says he sees God when looking at a starry night."

Well Steve, as weak as that seems to you & me, it is exactly the type of 'evidence' that appeals to many. They say something like... "here we are, with all the universe around us, as well as birds & bees and bananas... and something must have created them." Pete uses a form of that 'proof' regularly. It is very like Dr. Johnson making fun of solipism:

"Here, from the Life of Johnson (1791), Boswell speaks, recounting Johnson's famous refutation of solipsism sans the term solipsism..."

**After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus.""

*shrug* "Proof" just is understood differently by many, and it is very hard to change minds on such a seemingly simple idea.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 10:10 AM

Steve, I agree there is no evidence either way.
Only Pete is even making a case about it.

Dave, you made the post, and I pointed out how silly it was.

You said,
"They try to distract, shout and scream about abuse and bullying, and resort to quoting 'expert' statistics."

I replied,
"They object to abusive, bullying behaviour and resort to producing hard,   objective, verifiable evidence!
The bastards!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 10:24 AM

Dave, you made the post, and I pointed out how silly it was.

Exactly, Keith. You jumped in with both feet on a conversation that was nothing to do with you in the first place. Do you do that in real life? You tried, once again, to make it about you when it was not. Feel free to call my comments silly if you like and I can chose to ignore or ridicule that opinion (see other thread) as I will. But don't pretend it is anything other than an argument for arguments sake.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 10:32 AM

I did not "try to make it about me" Dave.
Your post was silly whoever it was aimed at, and anyone is free say so.

There is nothing wrong with complaining about bullying and abuse, and nothing wrong with quoting statistical evidence in support of expressed opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 10:44 AM

Your post was silly whoever it was aimed at, and anyone is free say so.

Of course you are, Keith. Just as I am free to say that you talk through your arse most of the time. And there is nothing wrong with complaining about etc. etc. Just as there is nothing wrong in pointing out when the complaints are put as as a diversionary tactic. I think you may be getting the knack of this forum at long last. Anyone can say what they want. Anyone else can tell them to go and fuck themselves. Seemples!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 11:39 AM

Well, Bill, it may well be a feeling that they have, but to claim that as evidence in any sense of the word I've ever come across would be, er, demented. Equally, Keith has a point, though he expresses it in a faux-neutral manner. There can't be evidence against because the concept has been quite deliberately formulated to put God outside scientific enquiry. Reason tells us that it's best to work within what we know but to keep on exploring, using the scientific approach allied to our imaginings. What we know is that God disobeys every law of nature so far discovered, and that he's never been seen in any sense that can be corroborated. That does not rule him out completely, but non- deluded people weigh up the odds and shrug.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 11:45 AM

I suppose that if you are Christian but believe the evolutionary story , you will say there is no evidence either way for the existence of God. I should stress here that we are talking about ...evidence....not. ......proof...as bill misrepresented , perhaps mistakenly, my position.   Dawkins, in his praise of Darwin said that the latter made it possible for him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That sounds reasonable because if it were not for evolutionism being accepted it would be hard to find many other ideas for creation , other than God. This is why I bring up the evidences that evolutionism is impossible, and contrary to observable science.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 12:11 PM

evolutionism is impossible

Talk sense, man. Evolutionism is the belief in evolution which does exist and is proven by the very existence of the people that do believe in evolution.. I think what you are trying to say is that evolution does not exist, which is a different concept and requires different proof. If you are going to argue gibberish at least argue the right gibberish.

Tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM

Heheh. I note the sneaky entrance for the second time in a week of the God Of The Gaps. Unfortunately, this time God was like one of those bodhran players who thought he'd seen a spare seat at the session, to find it had mysteriously disappeared after he'd turned his back for a second.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:42 PM

"I suppose that if you are Christian but believe the evolutionary story , you will say there is no evidence either way for the existence of God."

There is NO evidence for the existence of God. Are you saying that there are Christians who don't believe in God?

"This is why I bring up the evidences that evolutionism is impossible, and contrary to observable science."

You "bring up" NO "evidences" - "either way" - you merely choose to disbelieve in evolution! You must believe in "evolutionism" (whatever that is?) because that's what you're in opposition to ... isn't it? I'm confused ... or, rather, you're VERY confused!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 02:17 PM

Evolutionism is the belief in evolution

1. There is no such thing as "evolutionism"

@. Evolution is not a "belief", its a scientific fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM

It doesn't even have to be a scientific fact, Greg. It's a true phenomenon that the scientific process can set about explaining, and it's a very jolly thing to get involved in. At least a million times jollier than God. Or twenty. Or even eight.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:08 PM

Not the mindset of bigotry. That's too broadbrush. It depends on whether my conviction can be supported by evidence. If you don't agree with me that evolution happens you are deluded and I am not bigoted. Possibly undiplomatic but not bigoted.
The remark on which I commented was made in relation to the Catholic Church, which has no problems in recognising the existence of evolution, so that is hardly relevant.

I'd question your suggestion that where there is strong evidence for something that excludes the possibility of bigotry. It's perfectly possible to be bigoted at the same time as being correct. In fact that kind of bigot can be the most dangerous.

Note that I didn't accuse you of being a bigot, which I don't believe you are. But I hold to my view that what you said was reasonably classed as bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 05:01 PM

C'mon all you folks on my side... you rail against the wrong things. What is relevant is that, no matter their source, their details, or lack of 'evidence'..(sorry Pete... I occasionally use words carelessly)..religious beliefs are easy, comfortable and have been widely held for thousands of years.

It is beyond useless to call people ignorant, uninformed, demented or unreasonable..... they are using 'reason' in ways that I disagree with, but as long as they just 'believe', there's little *I* can do. The problem is when they attempt to establish certain aspects of religion into law, public policy and the educational system that we need to be constantly on guard.

In the meantime, there are well informed entities explaining the relevant concepts:

http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/god-in-the-white-house/

decline of religiously affiliated

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:10 PM

they are using 'reason' in ways that I disagree with

Actually, Bill, they're using UN-reason.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 15 - 07:40 PM

Well, Kevin, if you hold out that evolution is false, against all the evidence, and that the world was created in 4004 BC or whatever it was, you are a fool. I can be very diplomatic and not actually call you a fool and try to be very nice in trying, pointlessly, to change your mind. Or I can hold exactly the same opinion of you and shoot with both barrels. I can't be bigoted the one way and not the other. I tend towards the latter because I feel that religion has done a lot of damage to a lot of people and has drawn thoroughly undeserved respect for millennia, quite often achieved by coercion. I love very many people in my life who believe in God, but each and every one of them is deluded in that regard. Not in every regard but definitely in that one. I could choose a nicer word, but deluded is accurate. I don't mind being called undiplomatic, but if you want to show that I'm bigoted you'd better be able to point to exactly what the factual stuff is that I've missed. So far, that has not been forthcoming. "Bigoted" does not mean the same as "rude and disagreeing with Joe, Kevin and pete."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 12:08 AM

and me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 04:12 AM

It's not all about you Keith, you've been told that many times. We know you would like it to be all about Keith but it ain't.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 04:30 AM

I am allowed to say that Steve and I disagree I think.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 05:24 AM

Me, me, me. What about me. Grow up man.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 10:34 AM

Relevant to the current discussion

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 10:56 AM

Somehow left out of my previous post... I asked for it to be added, but here it is again.

>http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/god-in-the-white-house/

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:47 PM

Well thank you gnome for that hair splitting correction to my faulty use of language. Thanks to you , all those other posters who did,nt know what I meant will understand what I,m getting at.................good job it was you who said it's ok to take the p--- !               Steve say that evolution is a " true phenomenon that the scientific process can set about explaining ..."   If he is equivocating between natural selection and the full evolution story , he is correct about the former, but it is way short of explaining the latter. If he means the latter, it is begging the question to say it is a ...true....phrnimenom , unless he can evidence it, and in numerous posts he and his fellow believers have failed to do so.   If he means that in principle, science ...read evolutionists...will one day give validating evidence, then that is a faith position.. Or if he means , explain the story line and theory, it merely means mastery over the dogma......and that IMO is what passes for evidence most of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:50 PM

thank you gnome for that hair splitting correction to my faulty use of language

No hair splitting at all. Evolutionism is not the sane as evolution any more than creationism is the same as creation. Tosser is pretty interchangeable with wanker though. Just saying.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 04:13 PM

Just to comment on Mcgraphs post. As I understand it, evolution is not the official position of the Catholic Church and though the current pope seems to embrace it , perhaps taking advice from other hierarchy I suspect that many if not most rank and file Catholics worldwide take the creation account at face value. And neither is it just the supposed uneducated either. The kolbe institute is a catholic creationist body. I read a review only recently of a father cleric who is well qualified in science and theology and a substantial book he wrote on the subject.                                                                              Bill suggests that religion is popular because it is comfortable and easy. In the sense that knowing your sins are forgiven and eternal life is given by the merits of Christ,s work of atonement , I suppose so, but being a Christian has often been far from easy and comfortable . Christians have in the past, and sometimes still do , pay with their lives.    Belief in God certainly has been held for thousands of years , but probably because it was a presuppositional obvious. As for establishing aspects of religion into law, public policy and education, that is exactly what secular religion is doing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 04:41 PM

I suspect that many if not most rank and file Catholics worldwide take the creation account at face value. And neither is it just the supposed uneducated either. The kolbe institute is a catholic creationist body.

And, just so you know, I suspect the exact opposite, and do so very strongly indeed. But that's the great thing about suspicion, isn't it? No need to be able to demonstrate it!

As for the Kolbe Institute: they don't seem to have any claims for membership size, but their Facebook page has 2031 likes. Now, how large is the Catholic Church membership again?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 05:57 PM

"Well thank you gnome for that hair splitting correction to my faulty use of language. Thanks to you , all those other posters who did,nt know what I meant will understand what I,m getting at..."

Your use of language was faulty, Pete. So faulty, in fact, that it was quite hard to understand what you were "getting at". I would expect a 'distinguished expert' on evolut ... ion ...ism ... errr ... something to express himself more clearly than that!

"Christians have in the past, and sometimes still do , pay with their lives."

Often at the hands of other Christians ... ?

"Belief in God certainly has been held for thousands of years , but probably because it was a presuppositional obvious."

What??!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 06:22 PM

You are quite right dmcg, it is not a determined statistic, and maybe both our biases inform our suspicions. But, tell me, am I correct that though the pope favours evolutionary ideas, that the official church teaching is still creation ?.   And I would certainly not want to argue with how many likes the Kolbe institute has on Facebook. I was merely pointing out that evolutionism does not hold full sway over all catholic thinking. But I shall try and find them and add another like, as a Protestant !

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 07:13 PM

"...being a Christian has often been far from easy and comfortable ."

That is irrelevant to my point,Pete. The *IDEA* is easy & comfortable. And not only that, but believing in 'heaven' means that if one does "pay with their life", they will be assured of eternal life.....just as many Muslims believe that certain actions get them into Paradise quickly. The whole idea of Heaven/Paradise makes belief popular... whether it actually works that way or not!

"...it was a presuppositional obvious."

No... it was not. It was common and a useful superstition to explain some events, but if a modern child were raised with no mention of religion and learned only reason & science, he MAY very well NOT see 'God' as obvious.

"...establishing aspects of religion into law, public policy and education, that is exactly what secular religion is doing. "

Leaving aside the silly idea of "secular religion",the whole point of law & policy is supposed to be neutral and based on reason and the needs of society. What does it even mean to accuse an institution of acting as it is supposed to act? "Secular" does not mean *opposed to religion*, but merely not USING religion as its basis.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 10:28 PM

I'd question whether it makes sense to talk about religious belief as "easy and comfortable". It all depends, and can be the reverse. But what does seem pretty clear is that it is part of our nature as human beings. By which I mean, it's how we tend to behave. Analogous to the way language works. Wherever humans are, with the exception of a very individuals, we communicate with each other in analogous ways. Noam Chomsky's theories about us having a kind of inbuilt grammar makes sense.

And it seems to me that very much the same is the case with religious beliefs and patterns of expressing them individually and socially. Which is maybe why arguments centred on truth, or rather on facts, are not really as relevant or effective ss thosemaking them assume.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 10:54 PM

Steve Shaw sez; What we know is that God disobeys every law of nature so far discovered

Either that, or God is the essence of every law of nature, which is what I believe.

I believe that God creates through the wonderful, natural process called Evolution. Why shouldn't God follow the laws of nature in the process, Big Bang and all?

This seems to be the general direction of Catholic thinking, although the Catholic church considers evolution to be a matter for science, not for doctrine. The official teaching of the Catholic Church on creation begins here (click). There is no doubt that Catholics believe that God created heaven and earth. Although Catholic doctrine pays great respect to scientific research into the origins of the universe, the doctrine does not specify evolution as the way the universe came to be.

If God created the laws of nature, why should God then have to violate them?

Now, I'm sure some will most likely be appalled by this Catholic belief in God as the Source of Nature, but I don't understand why. I fail to see how this belief can cause any harm. It should certainly motivate Catholics to have respect, even reverence, for our environment. This is what Pope Francis taught in his latest encyclical, Laudato Si. An encyclical is, by the way, official Church teaching. Though not considered to be infallible dogma, it is not just the Pope's personal opinion.

---

Pete sez: But, tell me, am I correct that though the pope favours evolutionary ideas, that the official church teaching is still creation ?. And I would certainly not want to argue with how many likes the Kolbe institute has on Facebook. I was merely pointing out that evolutionism does not hold full sway over all catholic thinking.
Yes, Pete, the official church teaching is still "creation," and it will always be. But the means of creation is not specified. I was educated in the 1960s in a Catholic seminary, licensed by the Vatican to teach theology. We were taught evolution.
But if you wish, you can "like" the Kolbe Center here: https://www.facebook.com/KolbeCenter/. Catholic doctrine is not determined by Facebook "likes," however.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 11:24 PM

The Church doesn't go in for scientific theories about such things these days, thank God. Once bitten, twice shy... The principle of Subsidiarity applies, which in this case means, leave it to the scientists to work out what they think is true, and provisionally accept their views.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 02:29 AM

I've been re-reading (or trying to re-read) some of your most recent posts, Pete (they're 'phrnimenom-inal'!). I note that you're still demanding that WE give YOU evidence for evolution. But we all know, don't we, that if we supplied you with any evidence you would reject it - or rather, you would delve about in 'Creation.com' and 'parrot' whatever they have to say about it - a tiresome ploy which we're all heartily sick of! If you REALLY want to know about the evidence for evolution (which, of course, you don't) you have to get your nose out of 'Creation.com' and read some of the vast mountain of technical and popular literature on it. But you won't do that, will you, Pete? You won't do that because you're a lazy, ignorant, pious fool who is completely incapable of thinking for himself. But we will come down on you, like the proverbial 'ton-of-bricks', when you insult generations of hard-working scientists and when you preach pernicious nonsense. In addition, I, personally, will have no compunction, whatsoever, about criticising you for your appalling, sub-literate spelling and grammar! If you have the temerity to set yourself up as some sort of 'expert' on something as sophisticated and complex as evolutionary biology, then you at least might make more of an effort to express yourself clearly!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 02:49 AM

I suppose you Europeans think that we Americans are all primitive creationists. And even if we accept evolution without renouncing belief in God, you still think we're primitive. But we have a remarkable permanent exhibit at our Smithsonian Institution called the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins. Click the link and take a look. David Koch is usually associated with right-wing causes, so it's interesting to see that he supported a major exhibit on evolution. He has also strongly supported efforts against mass incarceration, so maybe he's not such a bad guy.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 05:17 AM

Well, over forty percent of you are. I can sum up the posts by Kevin and Joe thus: You can believe whatever you like (agreed!) but it doesn't matter whether all or any of it can be substantiated by reason and evidence. Science with its Spock-like demands for logic needn't get in the way. We are beyond all that in our beliefs, and our God can be anything we make him, regardless of any laws of nature. Well, lads, what's there to argue with! You wish to put God in a place where's he's invulnerable to attack from the likes of me, and if I do try to apply the very human demands for reason and evidence to him, you'll just use language to shift him a bit further away still. Not very original really. It worked in the Middle Ages when I could have been beheaded for pursuing the matter, but it's looking mighty thin these days as the questions pile in on you and your answers show all the signs of desperate quasi-philosophical scrabbling

Joe Offer, you can't say what you say about God and evolution until you understand what evolution actually is. You appear to have a rather stylised and romanticated view of it. There is no way of blending creation and evolution or giving God a role. You are valiantly trying to sidestep a conflict that your Church has long realised is a losing battle and you're praying we won't notice the sidestep.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 06:35 AM

Let's be clear, Joe, as a European I'm aware that SOME Americans are primitive creationists. But, at the same time, America has produced, and continues to produce, some of the world's greatest scientists, writers, philosophers, artists etc. I am strongly opposed to judging and condemning an entire nation on the basis of the failings (or perceived failings) of some of its citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 07:56 AM

I agree with Shimrod of course. However, yanks, don't get too big-headed. You also produced McCarthy, J Edgar Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Dubya, Rumsfeld, Trump and the Hockey Mom.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 08:10 AM

...and Cheez wiz!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 09:45 AM

I suppose you Europeans think that we Americans are all primitive creationists.

Joe, you're backing the wrong horse.

42% of Americans hold the creationist belief that God created humanity as it currently exists a mere 10,000 years ago, according to a Gallup poll from May 2014. And that, I think you'll find, is far and away the greatest percentage of any country on the face of the earth with pretentions to civilization. Its also quite frightening that there are that many folks that abysmally ignorant in the U.S.

But we have a remarkable permanent exhibit at our Smithsonian Institution called the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins.

We also have the Creation Museum in Kentucky, the Kansas State Board of "Education"[sic] and the Boards in Texas, Louisisna, and Kentucky. Fourteen (count 'em!) states use public tax dollars to fund the teaching of creationism.

It is a travesty and a disgrace.

Oh - and the Koch brothers? They're crap and the poster children for what's wrong with the electoral process in the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 09:53 AM

Oh, and Joe - that Koch Exhibit you think so much of is a climate-change denier's wet dream masquerading as one on evolution.

One Of Many Articles Here

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 12:23 PM

Shimrod, personal attacks like the last one on Pete are uncalled for in a debating forum......I thought with the removal of the Muskets, all that nonsense had been binned along with them.

This has been a good thread, lots of interesting posts and hardly any agro, but you are starting to sound like a bully who just wants to intimidate pete.   I remember a number of years ago when YOU were the butt of such intimidation, and a lot of posters myself included rallied round to condemn the aggressor.....maybe you don't remember that?

Pete's beliefs don't affect you or society in the slightest, this is simply a discussion a sharing of ideas, don't get things out of proportion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 01:02 PM

Pete's beliefs don't affect you or society in the slightest,

Ah, but they do- when those beliefs influence legislation.

Also, one has to wonder if that particular idiocy is accepted abd embraced, what OTHER idiocies will be uncritically accepted as truth?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 03:24 PM

I find it hard to imagine Pete's posting here has had any impact on legislation.

Shimrod, you do seem very knowledgeable about that creationist site you mention, and also of other similar, since you invariably identify that one as the source of al unwisdom. There do appear to be a fair number of them. And a lot of books too. How can you be so sure that Pete relies just on the one at the top of the list when you google "creationist sites"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 03:26 PM

Greg_F. sez: 42% of Americans hold the creationist belief that God created humanity as it currently exists a mere 10,000 years ago, according to a Gallup poll from May 2014.

Just reading that statement from Greg, I couldn't believe it. How could 42% of Americans agree that humanity was created 10,000 years ago, and not 9,000 or 11,000? And don't the real creationists put the date at closer to 5,000 years? So, on the face, Greg's statement seemed incredible. But Greg's statement is a direct quote from a statement that appears thousands of times on the Internet, so it must be as true as Pete's belief in a Facebook page because it has thousands of "likes." As far as I can see, Greg's quote comes from an article by Yasmine Hafiz that was originally published in the Huffington Post 2 June 2014.

And Greg's quote is there, but farther down in the article, Hafiz contradicts herself. Apparently, the Gallup poll gave people three choices:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the development and origin of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

Note that the poll asked which answer came closest to the views held by the people responding. That means there could be a broad spectrum of understanding for each answer. I would guess that that third answer encompasses the broadest spectrum. Some of those people are dyed-in-the-wool creationists, but many don't care and don't know anything more than what Grandma told them.
But whatever the case, the poll does not show results that are as specific as Greg's quote would have us think.

And I'd guess that close to 42% of people in Great Britain don't know and don't care, either. I suppose this is a terrible thing to say about something that is so crucial to Greg and Steve and Shimrod and Pete, but I can't bring myself to lose much sleep about the issue of evolution, either. I just can't see it as anything to get to worked up about. If 42% of people don't know or don't care, who cares?

Greg also posted a link to thinkprogress.org, which attacks the Smithsonian exhibit on evolution, an exhibit funded by the infamous Koch brothers. That article is based on an article from the New Yorker about the Koch Brothers. I'll try to find time later today to read the New Yorker article, which I think is likely to be more reliable.

But I still like the exhibit, and didn't notice any attempt in it to deny climate change. I didn't read all the signs in the exhibit, though. Do people actually do that? They must be the same people who buy Playboy to read the articles...

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 03:43 PM

Don't remember if you said ...the iDEA of...originally bill, but anyway I acknowledged that in my reply, as well as saying that believing is not the easy option very often.          Bill sez also....common and useful superstition...   I think that is known as begging the question, alternate view is that God has revealed something of himself in creation, not to mention revelation. WHIch brings me to your next claim, that children not exposed to religion will not nesecarily believe in God. You specified reason and science being taught them , and I can go with that as long as they are not taught the religion of evolutionism either. However,I think there have been studies done with children that indicate that left to themselves they look at things in creation and conclude that someone made them ( I confess not rechecked that yet) , so as I suggested , a presuppositional obvious. However if you have a source to cite that supports your claim. Please share as I want to be fair in this.    And what you say is my ...silly...idea is IMO far from that. Rather I think you are being naïve if you think law can really be truly neutral. Take for example Dawkins and co campaigning against kids being taught the options re origins. It is their religiously held atheism driving them to push to get laws to outlaw giving kids alternate views.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 04:16 PM

Thank ake , but as you alluded earlier those that resort to that sort of behaviour demonstrate they are losing the argument.....so rage on , rage on....talking of which , I was reading an article today by Eugene Scott on the septic tank site....oops, skeptic tank, in which she acknowledged that in most cases when there have been debates it is usually the creationists who come out on top. She even alluded to some of the arguments the evolutionary champions were unable to answer. Of course she qualified all this by claiming that the evolutionary case takes too long to outline, and even made the daft analogy ...IMO !....of American football where the weak team occasionally gets a goal !. Very scientific , that girl. How about meeting the challenges , rather than just claiming people need more indoctrination....er, education '!    A lot of the blurb there reminded me of what I get here, perhaps it is one of the sources used here.......                Oh joe, I was introducing what I thought was a bit of lighthearted banter , not imagining that Facebook likes inform catholic teaching. It's a pity IMO, though that it is,nt formed by faithfulness to the text ..and scientific evidence demonstrating evolutionists delusion.
,.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 05:42 PM

But Greg's statement is a direct quote from a statement that appears thousands of times on the Internet, so it must be as true

Thanks for the thinly disguised gratuitous insult/personal attack Joe. Much appreciated.

However you wish to wriggle and squirm, 42% agreed with "3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." What is it about that answer that confuses you? It has nothing to do with "being posted thousands of times on the internet. The survey, and the results, are documented. Live with it.

RE: the Koch's climate change denial exhibit and fully paid-for commercial for the petroleum industry, its not just ThinkProgress and The New Yorker that have panned the commercial, er, "exhibit" - do a little more googling and you'll be talking out of the other side of your mouth.

And have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 05:45 PM

If 42% of people don't know or don't care, who cares?

I do, and you should, as they're using your tax dollars to propogate horseshit and fill children's heads with nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 07:29 PM

Strictly speaking it would be possible for someone to go for option (3) even if they believed in evolution option (1), but thought that 10,000 years ago was about the right sort of time for pre-humans to have evolved into true humans, God-guided evolution being regarded as the method of this creation.

Not a timetable that squares with the fossil record, but people who aren't particularly worked up about these kind of things aren't liable to know much about the fossil record. They were just picking the one of the three answers that felt right to them.

So I don't think Joe is too far off in suggesting too much shouldn't be made of that poll.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 07:39 PM

"I can't bring myself to lose much sleep about the issue of evolution, either. I just can't see it as anything to get to worked up about. If 42% of people don't know or don't care..."

Well, Joe Offer, as evolution explains all of life on Earth, including the existence of all those creeps you see in Sunday mass who've reverted to type by Sunday noon, I'd say that people who don't care are both incurious and pig-ignorant. That 42 percent really should be making you lose sleep. Unfortunately, in your case they won't, because it seems like you're one of them. You like the idea of creationism, and you don't really care to grapple with what evolution is all about. You're a nornal ignorant US Catholic, Joe. You and Pete are two cheeks of the same arse, and you couldn't put a credit card between 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 08:19 PM

people who aren't particularly worked up about these kind of things aren't liable to know much about the fossil record.

Anyone graduating from an elementary school in the U.S. (excepting those that teach Creationism) SHOULD know enough about the fossil record to know that the 10,000 year bit is bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 09:08 PM

It's a matter of perspective.

That is from

http://geroldblog.com/2013/01/27/humor-jokes-n-stuff-vol-2/

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 10:24 PM

Pete...No time to create my usual long reply today... but I will say this: If you continue to use phrases like "religion of evolutionism" I may decide not to play any more.

That is a gross misrepresentation of what evolutionary theory is, and if that is truly your position, rather than just a slogan, you have abused much of the credit I have given you as a spokesman for the religious side of this discussion.

Evolution and/or Darwin and their scientific basis have NOTHING to do with the same sort of reasoning & evidence that are used in actual religious reasoning. You may believe what you will about 'creation', but don't misrepresent what science actually says and does.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 11:25 PM

Steve and Greg, clear your minds for a moment and admit that the following quote posted by Greg is both false and misleading. Sez Greg: 42% of Americans hold the creationist belief that God created humanity as it currently exists a mere 10,000 years ago, according to a Gallup poll from May 2014.

Greg repeats (changing the words ever so slightly but not admitting to it): However you wish to wriggle and squirm, 42% agreed with "3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." What is it about that answer that confuses you? It has nothing to do with "being posted thousands of times on the internet. The survey, and the results, are documented. Live with it.

Here are the facts, Greg: 42% said that the third statement came closest to their views. Admit it. That's a huge difference.

And I think the survey would have much more credibility it it offered a fourth scenario:

4. I don't know and I don't care.

I think the vast majority would choose #4. Many, many things are far more important than evolution in the minds and lives of most people.

The idea of evolution is credible to me, and it's what I taught my children. But I wouldn't lose sleep if a better theory came out tomorrow. I can go for weeks without thinking of evolution for a moment, but yet Pete sees opposition to evolution as a major aspect of his faith.

That would be a good survey question: How much do you really care about evolution?

1. My entire world would come to an end if it were proved true/untrue
   
2. It's interesting, but not as interesting as yesterday's hockey game
   
3. Not at all

Click here to go to the actual Gallup poll. Why depend on third-hand sources?

And I think "I don't know and I don't care" goes for lots of stuff in this thread. For most normal people, it's just not all that important to have possession of the absolute truth on all subjects. We know the stuff we do, and we know the stuff we're interested in. For the rest of things, it's nice to have general knowledge, but not all that important to be absolutely correct about every little thing. And those people who are concerned about being absolutely correct, are blinded so that they cannot see or understand or respect alternate perspectives. Is it more important to be correct and to stand for The Truth, than it is to be open to a variety of perspectives? I know our militant atheists don't like my calling them "born again atheists," because they really are just as rigid in their thinking as the "born again Christians" are. I keep trying to shock them into being open to a variety of perspectives. It won't hurt them.

Try being wrong on occasion, Steve and Shimrod and Raggytash - and Pete. It won't hurt you, and it may open your eyes to alternatives.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:21 AM

Young Earth Creationism is a term I've never heard in the Catholic Church. Wikipedia says "Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a relatively short period, between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago." And many of these people will give you an exact date of creation, not just a rough guess of "between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago."

I suppose some people will classify me as an Old Earth Creationist, but I don't think so.

I believe in Evolution, or Evolutionism, or whatever you want to call it. I don't call myself an expert, so my level of certainty is not absolute. Nonetheless, just as the jury weighs the evidence and believes the defendant to be guilty or not guilty, I have weighed the evidence and chosen to believe in evolution (mixed with God stuff). That won't satisfy any of our born-again absolutists, on either side. But oh, well....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 04:13 AM

I would consider it quite alarming that 42% of my fellow countrymen believed that god created human being in the last 10,000 years or so. Not merely from any religious perspective but more importantly from the viewpoint that the educational system of my country was so poor.

These people will have the vote, be able to have children of their own, run businesses, carry guns for goodness sake. Everything that requires a degree of education not demonstrated by believing that god created human being 10,000 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 04:20 AM

Well, Joe Offer, as evolution explains all of life on Earth,

It does not explain the origin of life at all.
That is still a mystery.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 04:27 AM

Or, Raggytash, one could think it quite impressive that almost 60 percent of the citizens of a nation are sophisticated enough to have somewhat of an understanding of evolution.

Are people on the eastern side of the Atlantic so universally sophisticated that they all believe in evolution and all don't believe in God?

As for me, I really don't care if my car mechanic believes in evolution, or whether he/she believes in God. Hell, he can even be a Republican, for all I care.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 05:02 AM

Firstly Joe, I can make no claim for a superior educational system on this side of the pond I'm sure there are people on Mudcat who can advise us of that. Although when I first went to University one chap "Big Dan, the Yankee Man" came over to the UK in the THIRD year of his course in the USA to join our FIRST year. Lovely man by the way.

As for not caring, that bit does worry me. I do care that people have not had, or not benefitted from, a full education. That I would consider a very sad indictment of our educational system.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 05:15 AM

There is not one single evolutionary biologist who believes in evolution. There is no room for belief. There is evidence and reason.

I note your "alternative perspectives" ploy creeping in more and more. It is not an alternative. It's a pack of lies.

The reason why 42%, or whatever it is, deny evolution is because they have been lied to by people teaching religion. You are a hearty advocate of this miseducation, and you believe in a creator. You are not giving an "alternative perspective" at all. That's just dressing it up to make it look respectable. You are telling children lies. That is wicked. But you don't care. You think you can make people see deeper truths by telling them lies instead of the truth. Yet Greg, Raggytash, Shimrod, Greg and I are the absolutist fundamentalists. Well if that's what we have to be in order to expose your dishonest nonsense, so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 06:35 AM

I think you have a very strange definition of "believe" there, Steve, and one which I don't really believe you would use in daily life.

creeps you see in Sunday mass who've reverted to type by Sunday noon, I'd say that people who don't care are both incurious and pig-ignorant. I am afraid that strikes me very much as the language of bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 06:55 AM

Concerning the survey. The questions asked and the analysis of responses is neutral. It looks perfectly respectable to me and appears to provide fair evidence within the limits of these things. As for a don't know-don't care question, it would be invalid. I went shopping to Asda this morning. As I perused the special offers, I neither knew nor cared about God or evolution. But when asked I drag them back to the front of my mind. The Gallup survey was non-tendentious. Within each of the three enquiries there would have been a wide spectrum of enthusiasm of response ranging from passionate to shrugging. No reason in the world for a fourth question. I'm glad to see how the results cause Joe such buttock-shuffling.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 06:57 AM

So what precisely was the bigotry, please?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 07:12 AM

Dictionary.reference.com defines bigotry as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own"


Plenty of that, on all sides, on this thread I suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 07:23 AM

Read what you wrote again, Steve, and consider what you'd think if someone had posted saying, for example, those creeps you see in Shul on Saturday who've reverted to type by Saturday lunchtime.

I suppose we might perhaps have different understandings of what can constitute the language of bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 07:29 AM

I suggest you reread the sentence. Bigotry would have been dissing everyone in the mass. Which I didn't do, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 07:37 AM

That is not a good definition of bigotry, with respect. No indication of prejudice or ignorance. Mere intolerance can be a virtue if you are intolerant of something that's damaging. Religion has been extremely damaging and I'm very intolerant of it. I am not intolerant of anyone's personal, private beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 07:49 AM

It was the first definition in the list that came up: I didn't spend any time looking to see what definition of bigotry best suited my understanding. So I agree it isn't brilliant. But once you start including things like prejudice and ignorance and harm and (as one definition did) reasonableness then the whole thing starts to slip away. An outright racist will often think he is reasonable and is preventing harm and that everyone else is ignorant of "what is really going on".

So despite its limitations that does encapsulate the key features for me.

Subject: RE: BS: eThe Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 07:52 AM

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 08:00 AM

Well I prefer proper definitions myself. Ones that merely suit one's understanding merely risk prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 08:07 AM

As you may have gathered from last non-blank post, I did have a look for a better definition after your previous response. They all had various holes that, in my view, allowed someone who was racist to escape being classified as a bigot.

The best solution in my mind is that it has to be someone other than the speaker or poster who decides whether a statement is bigoted or not, and all the poster can do is ask themselves "Could this be seen as bigotted" and then "Do I want to post anyway?"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 09:03 AM

These people will have the vote, be able to have children of their own, run businesses, carry guns for goodness sake. Everything that requires a degree of education not demonstrated by believing that god created human being 10,000 years ago.

Amen. In the U.S. today, stupidity is seen as a virtue.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 09:31 AM

And those people who are concerned about being absolutely correct, are blinded so that they cannot see or understand or respect alternate perspectives.

Joe, its not aout "being absolutely correct". Its about the difference between fact and horseshit.

That the earth is only 10,000 years old isn't an "alternate perspective".

Its horseshit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 11:15 AM

That the earth is only 10,000 years old isn't an "alternate perspective".

Its horseshit.

Dylan almighty, that's the first time I've ever agreed with something Greg F said. I think I need to lie down.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 11:22 AM

Evidently you do indeed have a different understanding of what bigotry means from me, Steve.
.........
As I read what Joe wrote, Greg, when he referred to "alternative perspectives" he wasn't referring to daft beliefs about creationism, but rather to the fact that many/most people don't give a monkey's about any of this stuff, and saying "so what if they don't".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 11:54 AM

Actually, the "alternative perspective" isn't creationism. There's too much evidence that refutes creationism, so I wouldn't expect anyone to consider it.

But the fact of the matter is that many wise people through history have had some sort of belief in a deity - a wide spectrum of beliefs that reflect a wide variety of cultures and schools of thought. I don't expect people to espouse a belief in a deity - but I think that truly wise people can respect the perspectives of others and learn from those perspectives, without espousing them.

And I think that "creationist" people can have valid perspectives on many things other than their creationism, so it's best to disregard that topic with them and move onto other things.

And I realize that militant atheists will say that there's too much evidence that refutes belief in God, but the idea of God they refute usually has little to do with what people actually believe.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 12:29 PM

"It's not about whether or not someone is a bigot, but whether or not the argument which that someone is arguing is worth being a bigot about." 
― Criss Jami, Killosophy

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 12:41 PM

"What is more arrogant than to assume that, of all the paths through the woods, yours is the only true one." 
― Marty Rubin

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 12:48 PM

And I think that "creationist" people can have valid perspectives on many things other than their creationism, so it's best to disregard that topic with them and move onto other things.

Just as, I suppose, racists, homophobes, white supremecists, Holocaust deniers, "supply-side" economists, batshit crazy doctors (well, maybe not Dr. Batshit Crazy) & etc can have valid perspectives on many other things, so it's best to disregard their racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism & etc. and move onto other things.

Gotcha, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 12:51 PM

"What is more arrogant than to assume that, of all the paths through the woods, yours is the only true one."

Are you offering this as a defense of creationism, Ed? Or as a condemnation thereof?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 01:24 PM

Hmm. Let's just pause for a sec and examine this little word "creationist." Tell me this, "Moderate Joe" Offer. Do you believe that God is the creator of the universe and everything therein? If you do, you are a creationist just as much as pete is a creationist. It doesn't really matter how long ago God did it, does it? Two cheeks, same arse!   If you don't, you need to explain what the point of God is. After all, you know he didn't create everything and I know he has nothing to do with the diversity, complexity and beauty of life on Earth, as evolution by natural selection explains all that. Not an awful lot left for God, eh? Unless, of course, you ARE a creationist. Answer without twisting, please. If you like.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 01:39 PM

Steve sez: Do you believe that God is the creator of the universe and everything therein?

Yes, Steve, I do - but I tend to believe that God is the essence of the creation of the universe and everything therein, not necessarily an external force. That is a significant difference from what you prescribed. And from outward appearance, there is no difference in how it all took place, with or without God.

What I see as divine, is the wonder of all that surrounds me. Some people see the same thing and don't regard it as divine. That's OK, too.

As I've said before, I see God as That Which Is Beyond, and That Which Is Within. Not observable, not provable - it's just what I believe, my perspective on life. It works for me, and it has worked for many others before me. If others believe otherwise, I can learn from them without compromising what I believe myself.

Steve sez: he has nothing to do with the diversity, complexity and beauty of life on Earth, as evolution by natural selection explains all that. In response, I'd say God IS "the diversity, complexity and beauty of life on Earth, as evol[ved] by natural selection" - or vice versa.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 02:04 PM

I see that I've been accused of bullying Pete. Well, I have to confess, that he does have a tendency to bring out my 'dark side' (we've all got one, haven't we?). But if anyone deserved to be pinched, have his hair pulled and his arm twisted, behind the bike sheds, it's Pete!

Those who know me know that I'm an easy-going, tolerant sort of bloke. My 'default' position is to treat everyone I meet with respect. Nevertheless, on fairly rare occasions, I have the misfortune of meeting someone who doesn't deserve respect! Sadly, in my opinion, Pete is one of the latter. He is:

- narrow-minded and fanatical.

- has a fixed opinion which never changes no matter what reasonable arguments are put to him.

- appears to have no true opinions of his own and also appears to derive all of those opinions from highly biased sources (or source = 'Creation.com'?) which have no credibility in academic circles.

- doesn't know the difference between 'belief' and 'evidence'; he thinks that if he chooses not to believe a proposition that that counts as evidence against the proposition.

- usually completely fails to think anything through. For example, if God created the Universe, where did God come from and where did He get his materials? Pete's usually arbitrarily changes the rules of the debate by declaring that "God is un-knowable" (this pathetic 'argument' has further implications - which we won't go into here).

- doesn't even begin to understand science, its aims and objectives or its underlying philosophy. He appears to believe that science is a sort of quasi-religion - just another belief system.

- he has the temerity to set himself as a sort of expert or authority on evolution when it is obvious that he has read none of the mainstream literature on the subject and derives all of his 'information' from creationist sources.

- posts grossly uninformed, wilfully ignorant drivel which is an insult to thousands of ingenious, open-minded, hard-working scientists both past and present.

Normally, if accused of bullying, I would hang my head in shame but sadly Pete deserves everything he gets!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 02:04 PM

Just as I expected. Bullshit. Clever bullshit, as befits your training. But you can put lipstick on bullshit, but it's still bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:13 PM

"To a man with only a hammer, a screw is a defective nail."
Orson Scott

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:15 PM

The last post was guest Ed.T, on a friends computer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:50 PM

I agree with all that, Shimrod. You play a great role here. When we have a good cop like Bill, we need the balance of a bad cop like you!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 05:35 PM

HA! I'm not sure can live up to being a genius, a good cop and being purveyer of timeless metaphors, as well as being too lenient on Pete.............. all at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 07:12 PM

One good thing you can say about Pete is that he is invariably courteous in his posts, including when he is arguing with people who are not.

That is not something which can be taken for granted. In fact it is pretty unusual.

So what if what he is arguing for is not true? There are plenty of false beliefs that are harmful and even evil, including both those held by a few, and some which are very widely accepted, and it is right to try to fight them. But the beliefs that Pete is arguing for do not fall into that category, any more than believing in the Loch Ness Monster does.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 07:40 PM

Well, here's what Miss Manners had to say about it.

"You've likely offended some readers with your honesty. How does that differ from being rude?

"Honesty" in social life is often used as a cover for rudeness. But there is quite a difference between being candid in what you're talking about, and people voicing their insulting opinions under the name of honesty."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 08:10 PM

Pete is by far the most offensive person who posts here. Do take your blinkers off.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 08:13 PM

Sorry, Kevin, but the beliefs that pete is arguing for are, indeed, harmful to society as a whole in any number of ways. Particularly when that are imposed on others who do not share his delusion and ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 08:30 PM

I did a bloody great big long post in response to Joe's, but the damn thing is on its way to Proxima Centauri, never to be retrieved. I blame the God squad.

Just a couple of things. From Joe: "others believe otherwise, I can learn from them without compromising what I believe myself."

Rather rigid, eh, Joe? So you don't listen, do you? Just a tad absolutist, eh?

And this:

"Steve sez: he has nothing to do with the diversity, complexity and beauty of life on Earth, as evolution by natural selection explains all that. In response, I'd say God IS "the diversity, complexity and beauty of life on Earth, as evol[ved] by natural selection" - or vice versa."

You really are beginning to look rather suspect, Joe. Would you like to take a little time out to find out what evolution actually is? The worrying thing is that I'm getting rather close to having the same conversation with you as I've "enjoyed" down the years with pete.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 10:17 PM

"Pete is by far the most offensive person who posts here. "

No Steve... by that post, you just moved way ahead.

As McGrath noted, Pete is courteous in his debate. I argue with him, but I respect his honesty........ not his position, but his purposeful defense of a strongly held belief. He is not alone in the beliefs he holds, and far from the most strident voice of creationist theology.

You Steve, have a most..... 'unusual'... notion of what counts as offensive. Pete's arguments are odd, quaint and unreasonable to most of us, but 'offensive' is a pejorative term that I reserve for very extreme behavior, not for quiet exchange of views, no matter how much I disagree with them

"further, deponent sayeth not"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 03:03 AM

"Sorry, Kevin, but the beliefs that pete is arguing for are, indeed, harmful to society as a whole in any number of ways. Particularly when that are imposed on others who do not share his delusion and ignorance."

I think you've nailed it there, Greg!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 03:53 AM

The destruction of religious faith ...would be many times more harmful to society than anything Pete says or defends.

Thankfully, given the nature of humanity, that is highly unlikely to happen. Religious faith has survived everywhere on earth no matter how many times it has been proscribed by authority.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 04:07 AM

Religious faith has survived everywhere on earth no matter how many times it has been proscribed by authority.

Tell that to the faiths followed by those who were crushed by conquistadors or to the martyrs of various sects over the years. What you mean is that the religious faith that killed and tortured most people survived everywhere. It is still happening today.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 04:22 AM

Pete is by far the most offensive person who posts here. Do take your blinkers off.

Pete is not offensive at all, unlike many of your posts against him Steve.

I agree with McG, "Pete is that he is invariably courteous in his posts, including when he is arguing with people who are not.
That is not something which can be taken for granted. In fact it is pretty unusual."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 04:25 AM

Christians are certainly being persecuted in many places ( even Mudcat)?.......but Christianity will survive.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:07 AM

I certainly have no desire to persecute Christians. In fact, I suspect that persecution would only encourage them - the martyrdom complex and all that. What I object to, though, is aggressive evangelising - the deliberate spreading of unreason - THAT must be resisted.

Hopefully, religion will eventually fade away of its own accord. Perhaps it's an evolutionary thing?

This 'vision' came to me the other day (Hallejulah!!). In the vision thousands of people were sat staring at a giant screen. On the screen there were depictions of shepherds and prophets, tablets of stone and temples, loaves, fishes, altars and virgins (giving birth). The scene was static and unmoving. Occasionally fights broke out, among the audience, over points of detail - fights often leading to deaths.

Gradually, the audience became aware of a low rumbling sound coming from behind them. Glancing over their shoulders, they saw great juggernaut bearing down on them. The juggernaut was labelled SCIENCE. It hurtled past, and as it did so it snagged the screen, ripped it aside and revealing the vast Universe behind in all its majestic and terrifying glory!

Some of the audience are still scrabbling on the ground for fragments of the screen and attempting to piece it together again. They won't succeed, however much they shout, scream and flail about!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:22 AM

Let me imagine a different vision. Despite the best part of a century trying, no satisfactory way of unifying relativity and quantum theory had been found. Then a mathematician came up with an application of godel's theorem (which as you know shows any mathematical system must be incomplete or inconsistent) to prove there could be no theory that unites those domains, no matter how we rewrite them.

I don't think that is likely, of course. But it is not unthinkable

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 08:22 AM

Just because we disagree with someone, and feel offended by what they say, that doesn't really justify calling it "offensive". Otherwise there wouldn't be an opinion on anything that wasn't "offensive", because just about anything you say can get up someone's nose.

"Good morning" "How dare you say good morning. My wife has just left me."

"I blame it on Margaret Thatcher." "Mrs Thatcher is my hero. I find that remark deeply offensive."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 08:50 AM

Well thank you , the more moderate opponents !   Never the less , bill, thinks he might not "play anymore " if I persist in referring to evolutionism as a religion. I will risk that as , 1, that would be allowing you to set the rules of the game, bill. 2, evolutionists believe a lot of stuff that they are not able to substantiate by observable, testable ,repeatable science , and most of what they do offer has been countered by creationists. 3, since there are things they believe only on faith , calling it religion is not unreasonable( there are other parallels also ) . 4, your equating evolutionism with science , is misleading as there is a difference in what is scientifically testable and more or less beyond dispute, than origins research. I reject the notion that being a creationist is equivalent to rejecting science. In fact I could do the reverse and have , indeed , Cited when it does reject known decay rates because they threaten the paradigm.       Joe sez, " there is too much evidence that refutes creationism". Really....shall we have some then      If you cannot demonstrate that alleged evidence, you are just making an unsupported assertion, and you are accepting evolutionism (albeit theistic ) on faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 09:28 AM

In few words,

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,MTB
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 10:23 AM

Pete wrote:
evolutionists believe a lot of stuff that they are not able to substantiate by observable, testable ,repeatable science , and most of what they do offer has been countered by creationists.


You could write the exact opposite - "creationists believe a lot of stuff that they are not able to substantiate by observable, testable ,repeatable science , and most of what they do offer has been countered by evolutionists."

In 2002 Scientific American published an article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ which contains, amongst other things, these paragraphs -

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Riah Sahiltaahk
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 10:32 AM

I persist in referring to evolutionism as a religion

Evolution is as much a religion as Christian Fundamentalism is a science.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 10:47 AM

I suppose it it can be possible to distinguish between evolution, which is what happens, and evolutionism, the latter being actively proselytising about it

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 11:47 AM

"..2, evolutionists believe a lot of stuff that they are not able to substantiate by observable, testable ,repeatable science... "

They do not "believe" in stuff they have not substantiated, they theorize about it and hold those theories until new evidence either confirms or refutes them--- then they revise the theories and look for MORE evidence---- always trying to make the search follow standard rules of logic and "testable ,repeatable science"

You are disputing an entire realm of science based on your premise that interpretations of various religious texts would lose credibility if the science is correct...and you ignore all the 'stuff' that science IS able to show, test & prove right in front of your nose.

I have refuted your assertion many times that " 3, since there are things they believe only on faith , calling it religion is not unreasonable". It most certainly IS unreasonable.

Pete, your ultimate refuge is simply stating... not showing or proving, but just asserting... that you will view the parts of science that are 'theory' as dubious and will continue to use YOUR version of 'creation' as just as good, even though it cannot EVER be proved.

..so, with that attitude, do you wonder that I... or anyone dedicated to scientific research... would grow weary of answering the same flawed analysis over & over? You are using rhetoric to avoid certain facts, and distorting standard definitions of concepts to conform to your set of unproven beliefs.

So... you are in this little box- a good, honest guy who believes in one thing (that I am not even trying to refute-- that a supreme being created everything) while trying to refute all the research of centuries of science about HOW creation happened and as many steps as we can find.

I can't argue with "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:05 PM

Pete hasn't actually got a clue what the phrase "observable, testable, repeatable science" means. In fact he has consistently demonstrated that he doesn't know what the word "science" means.

Sadly, MTB, Pete won't have read anything in 'Scientific American' or similar publications. If he did, he might learn something - and that would never do! He only reads stuff written by creationists - presumably because such material confirms his preconceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:08 PM

the latter being actively proselytising about it

What constitutes this proselytising amd who does it?

And there is still no such thing, or word, as "evolutionism".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:16 PM

I do not have a canine in this discussion. I will however state unequivocally that I am all for the separation of church and hate.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 01:44 PM

"For the human race is, more than any other species, at once social by nature and quarrelsome by perversion." 
― Augustine of Hippo

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 02:21 PM

Sigh.

pete does not offend me. No-one here ever offends me. Only people in real life are capable of that (and they don't, generally speaking). In any case, I have no right not be be offended. Religion has no right not to be offended, even though it has tried to pretend to have that right by cutting people's heads off and putting them under house arrest or throwing them into dungeons. Religious people actually deserve to be offended if they open their mouths to children and other vulnerable people with their wicked and harmful lies.

pete is profoundly offensive for the following reasons. He pretends to discuss but his ears and eyes are tight shut. He is wasting your time quite deliberately, and, to me, that is very offensive behaviour. He is extremely insulting to honest and hard-working scientists, using pejorative words to characterise them. He repeats the same nonsense in the same terms over and over again, taking advantage of your good nature. He pretends to be involved in discussion, but he is not here for that at all. He is simply here to dishonestly discredit science and peddle his creationist nonsense. Pure poison. Finally, he writes lazily and illiterately even though he is capable of doing it properly. He doesn't give a monkey's. Now none of this offends me in the slightest, but it is all highly offensive. There is a difference. Now what's going to happen next is that I'm going to be told that I'm offensive too. Worse than him. Which justifies his offensiveness, which you'll say isn't offensiveness at all. He's just a misguided little sweetie, isn't he. Ahhh! Good. Fire away!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM

"I suppose it it can be possible to distinguish between evolution, which is what happens, and evolutionism, the latter being actively proselytising about it"

You can't proselytise about evolution. You can't have pro-evolution propaganda. You can't believe in evolution. You can only proselytise about things that you are trying to make people believe. Scientists do not try to persuade people to believe in things. Scientists search for, discover, interpret and communicate evidence. EV-I-DENCE. Scientists expect their ideas to be dismissed, modified, expanded on, stood on the shoulders of. Most of the people posting to these threads are perfectly intelligent (there are notable exceptions). Unfortunately, an unhealthy number of them are too lazy to find out what science demands and what evolution is. We keep on getting dismal references to proving things, only a theory, God's involvement, to shambolic popular science articles, and now to scientific proselytising. The back of the class should be getting very crowded.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 09:37 PM

Of course you are trying to make people believe what you believe, Steve. If you really do believe you are not, I cannot help but feel that you are, in that respect, as detached from reality as any "young earth creationist" or indeed someone who insists the moon is made of green cheese.

As for the claim that "Scientists do not try to persuade people to believe in things", that just doesn't square with the facts. Like any other academics scientists fight and feud, and sometimes even cheat by adjusting their findings to win out in conflicts with other scuentists. They are human beings, who are liable to hate to have pet theories disproved by other scientists. The development of science is an example of Natural Selection in action. Which is why it gets places.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 02:38 AM

For a classic example of an eminent scientist holding on to his favoured theory in face of overwhelming evidence, take Sir Fred Hoyle, who persisted in his rejection of the Big Bang (a mocking term he appears to have coined) and in sticking to his belief in a steady state universe for the last 50 years of his life.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 02:50 AM

Sigh.

pete does not offend me. No-one here ever offends me.

None of us can know your feelings, Steve, so if you say you are not offended, I'll go with that.

But all the evidence we actually have to go on, which are the posts you make, *do* read as if they are from someone who is highly offended, not only by pete but all religion everywhere. And I could live with that: if someone actually is offended I don't see why they shouldn't say so.

Or perhaps you are trying to draw a distinction between being offended and being angry? "Righteous Anger" has a very respectable history, after all. It can be hard to tell them apart, but I would say a touchstone is that an ad hominem attack is a strong indicator of being offended rather than anger.

As for pete wasting our time, that's our choice. We respond to him, or not. We waste our time, not him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:35 AM

"For a classic example of an eminent scientist holding on to his favoured theory in face of overwhelming evidence, take Sir Fred Hoyle, who persisted in his rejection of the Big Bang ..."

Yes, McGoH, that is ONE example of an eminent scientist who MAY not have lived up to the scientific ideal ... now find me 3000 more. In this case, a single exception does not break a rule. Scientists are human, and potentially fallible, after all. The fact remains, though, that if the majority of scientists didn't strive for objectivity and didn't "expect their ideas to be dismissed, modified, expanded on, stood on the shoulders of", science would never advance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM

Yes, McGoH, that is ONE example of an eminent scientist who MAY not have lived up to the scientific ideal ... now find me 3000 more.

As you say, scientists are only human too, so they will not always live up their own highest ideals. For 3000, I offer you every scientist fighting for a grant to pursue his own piece of research against others who he or she privately thinks might be more promising. But a man (or woman) must live..

And, at the risk of getting pete too excited, at this stage we are genuinely taking belief, not evidence, as in "I believe my research will lead to this or that" (but since I haven't done the research yet I clearly can't have the evidence it will).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM

Well, some of you appear not to know that your time is being wasted, as you continually engage in the same old futile "discussions" with him time and time again. What was that about repeating things that you know won't work over and over again...

The last refuge of a scoundrel who hasn't got anything useful left to say is to accuse your adversary of having personality defects. I put my points very directly and undiplomatically when it comes to religion and I know some of you don't like it. Well I'm glad you don't because you haven't really got a leg to stand on but you refuse to confront it. What do I mean by that? Why, you believe in a deity who is far less likely to exist than fairies at the bottom of my garden. You wrap him up in profoundly meaningless, flowery language that's merely an attempt to dignify him and stop yourselves from looking foolish. You tell children to believe in him and make them bow their heads and sing silly hymns praising him. You can't tell me why it's better to tell them lies instead of the truth. It's self-infantilisation on a massive scale and you simply can't see it.

And by the way, Kevin your comments about belief merely confirm that you have a lot of homework to do concerning your understanding of science. And plucking out a handful of charlatans in an attempt to characterise it is just desperate. Franco partook of holy communion every day. How would you like it if I tried to use him to characterise the whole of Christianity?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM

you continually engage in the same old futile "discussions" with him time and time again. What was that about repeating things that you know won't work over and over again...

As you do, Steve, as you do. *smile*

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 07:19 AM

Well yes, I do, but not to pete I don't. I gave that up yonks ago. I limit myself to the occasional sideswipe at his most egregious emanations every now and again, more for amusement and ridicule than anything, though I try to be dignified about it. If I repeat myself to you, Joe and Kevin, you should see it as a compliment in that at least I don't think you're a complete waste of time. And perhaps you could reflect on the fact that, more often than not, what I repeat is repeated in different contexts, differently nuanced, to different people. I suspect that you are more troubled by the fact that you can't respond to my repeated accusations against religion's causing damage and its dishonesty than you are about the repetitions per se.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 07:44 AM

I suspect that you are more troubled by the fact that you can't respond to my repeated accusations against religion's causing damage and its dishonesty than you are about the repetitions per se.

I'm not troubled by either. I have responded to all your accusations by giving you my understanding. For example on your comment about 'telling lies to children' we had a long discussion during which I explained why I thought the question was over-simplistic but even on its simple interpretation I - and others - had plenty to say. So while it is true that no one could answer that question to your satisfaction, that is a completely different thing to saying they could not answer the question. And no, I'm not about to go all round the loop again, since as I've also said casting things in terms of 'adversaries' is not a game I want to play. If I can learn something from you or from pete, great. But that's where I draw my line.

As for you repeating yourself in general, I simply find it uninteresting. Say new things and I engage. But when we are well over a thousand and a half posts into a topic, repetitions are unlikely to add anything of value.

And finally an apology to pete. When I said a post or two ago about wasting time talking to pete, that was simply because I was quoting your message. While I profoundly disagree with pete on many things, I rarely find talking to him a waste of time, since it almost always increases my understanding of his viewpoint, however much I disagree with it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM

Sir Fred Hoyle was not a charleton. He was a scientist who was convinced a theory he had developed was true, despite evidence that indicated it wasn't. That's something that has often happened - and in some cases it has turned out subsequently that further evidence confirms their "discredited" ideas.

The history of science is a lot more complicated than you seem to present it, Steve. And scientists are as liable to behave in ways that aren't consistent with scientific principles as Christians are to behave in ways that aren't consistent with Christian principles. (And Shimrod, one exception does in fact break a rule, if the rule is one that does not allow for exceptions. "Scientistsd do not..." is such a rule. "Some scientists" or "most scientists" or "no scientists should" would not be.)

I have in fact responded to your repeated accusations, Steve, as has Joe. You aren't satisfied with the responses. That's fine by me, I'm really am not trying to persuade you to change your views, and don't expect to. You've done so in the past, as you've indicated, perhaps you might again in the future, but that's not my concern.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:08 AM

Well I really can't see that there's much to delve into concerning his viewpoint. As for my question being simplistic, it just isn't. If you tell children to believe in a God and make them chant prayers to him that are full of certainties, you are telling lies. It's a simple, unassailable fact, but there's nothing simplistic about it at all. And all I want to know is why that is so much better than telling them the truth. I may couch those questions in simple language, but they are fair questions, plain but not simplistic, and you don't answer them, to your eternal discredit. All the dressing-up in the world, telling me I'm simplistic, that I'm angry, that God can't be seen in the terms I set out, that he is beyond understanding, that he is the great life-force, he that is within and without, and all the rest of the guff, are no more than attempts to turn an impossibility into something respectable and to stop yourself from looking foolish. There's nothing more simplistic than grown, intelligent people infantilising themselves by resorting to this kind of idiocy. And you may just have noticed that I don't appreciate being called simplistic or angry when I'm neither. That's just you getting desperate.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:16 AM

"He was a scientist who was convinced a theory he had developed was true"

That is an absurd sentence. Well, I've been accused of repeating myself. So here I go again. No good scientist is ever convinced that theories are true. Theories are attempts to explain phenomena and are never "true." it's entirely the wrong way to put it. If you're right about him, he wasn't a scientist. In this case, I suspect that it's you not understanding the scientific process. You do have form.

"The history of science is a lot more complicated than you seem to present it, Steve. "

Going from your shaky understanding of what science is all about, I'd respectfully suggest that you may not be the best person to be advising me of that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:22 AM

And you may just have noticed that I don't appreciate being called simplistic or angry when I'm neither. That's just you getting desperate.

And I have done neither. I said one specific question was over simplistic and in previous posts I explained why. That says nothing at all about you in general. As for anger, you will remember I was talking about 'Righteous anger'. Nothing to do with losing your temper, for example. I would say that Lord Shaftesbury, for example, is an exemplar of how righteous anger drove his philanthropy and thirst for social reform.

And if you want to take being identified with the spirit that drove that, and the suffragettes and the anti-slavery campaigners as an insult, well, there's not a lot I can do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

Well, for the record, when I post here I rarely, if ever, raise my temperature above ice-cool. This is not real life, though it can be an entertaining place to air views and hear what strangers have to say. The day I feel angry whilst posting is the day I stop posting. I've said this several times before. Sorry to repeat. You have to ask yourself on occasion if you end up repeating because people don't listen. Ho hum. My questions are couched in simple, direct words, child-LIKE. Your beliefs and assertions have as much foundation as Santa and the tooth fairy, childISH. A useful distinction.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:33 AM

"And Shimrod, one exception does in fact break a rule, if the rule is one that does not allow for exceptions."

How did I know that you would say that? Nevertheless, it's a futile reply which does nothing to advance the discussion. It just makes you look like a nit-picking clever-dick!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:47 AM

Scientists should indeed recognise that their theories are provisional, rather than "true" in an absolute sense. But if course that doesn't stop them holding on to them even when evidence seems to disprove them, and from trying to find ways to cast doubt on that evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:51 AM

Just picking up the point that there is not much to learn from pete's viewpoint. Some people are more inclined to be 'analysts' and seek to divide things into the component parts. I am more of a synthesist and am more inclined to make relationships between things. All of us are both to some extent, of course.

Now, to me there are interesting relationships between pete's views and the mapplethorpe obscenity trial. In particular the comment that one of the people who brought the case made when they lost. "No, we didn't lose. We taught all the galleries to avoid exhibitions where we might bring a very expensive case against them if they don't stay within the bounds we set." That's a paraphrase because it is a long time ago, but the sentiment is right. We will fall into that sort of trap if we do not understand how other people think. And we will not get that understanding of how people think if we just keep parroting creationism is stupid, we know God doesn't exist, they are not listening to me and all that stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:34 AM

Well, I neither know nor care whether God exists, so I'm not sure where that came from (actually, that's another thing I keep repeating...) As for pete and his viewpoint, he hasn't actually got one as such. Everything he tells you is predigested from somebody else's viewpoint. On the rare occasions I've bothered to investigate where he gets his notions from, I've found the exact words he uses churned out by somebody else before him. Try it for yourself some time. The day we start to give credence and respectability to brainwashed people would be a very dangerous day indeed. By the way, if creationism isn't stupid, I'd be quite interested to hear your reasoning. But remember that anyone who believes in a God that created everything, whether in 4000 BC or thirteen billion years ago, is just as much a creationist as pete is,maybe just a different kind of creationist. Different, but no more respectable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:40 AM

"Scientists should indeed recognise that their theories are provisional, rather than "true" in an absolute sense."

Good scientists do. But even good scientists are human beings, which is their finest attribute.

"But if course that doesn't stop them holding on to them even when evidence seems to disprove them, and from trying to find ways to cast doubt on that evidence."

Which is why science insists on peer review of evidence. As I say, you have a fair bit to learn about what good science gets up to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:58 AM

You miss my point, Steve. It was not whether creationism is stupid or not, it was, having recognised we are unlikely to persuade Pete of that, simply repeatedly making the same point it is the most beneficial thing we can do.

And as you well know, the term creationists refers to a whole host of things, like the literal interpretation of Genesis, the idea that the earth is around 6000 years old, that all the fossil evidence is misinterpreted and much more. Not just that God was involved in creation. Taking that one aspect and saying that everyone who thinks that God (whatever that means) was involved (ditto) in creation (ditto again) is also a creationist is at the very least unwise because of the confusion it will cause.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 11:39 AM

Steve.. you said: " Your beliefs and assertions have as much foundation as Santa and the tooth fairy, childISH. A useful distinction. "

Yes... useful, but in the case of religious beliefs, not quite comparable. I gave up Santa & the tooth fairy (and the Easter Bunny) by the age of 7 or so... but God persisted until I was about 16. (That is, the 'god' of the Christian bible.)

It is fairly easy to link Santa and the tooth fairy to adult tales to amuse children, but the idea of God(s) is in a different category, no matter what culture it is in. Being concerned with the unfathomable mysteries of Being leads even adults who smile at Santa Claus to worry about 'where we/it all came from'. I have, as you have, decided that I cannot know about that, so I don't worry about it in the abstract..... but I DO react when those who take god(s) literally & seriously affect the fabric of my culture with contradictory & negative activities.
The problem is, some.. like Quakers... just quietly worship and act in ways that don't bother others much, while some openly proselytize and try to insert their version of morality, culture, etc. into education, politics and medicine...etc.---- and there are hundreds of steps between Quakers & radical fundamentalists.

I put Pete somewhere near the Quakers as a practical matter. His theories are extreme, but as far as I know, his actions are not. He has not tried to persuade ME to join some fundamentalist church, and he has not, as far as I can tell, advocated teaching his views in his local schools.... thus, I can discuss science & philosophy with him without any notion of 'offensive' clouding our debate.
I must just conclude that we load our definition of 'offensive' with different connotations.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM

Steve a loose recollection of your last post to me,..you're a smart boy but you need more to go on from me. What I've given you is (1) what to look for (2) where to look for it (3) how to look for it. Being a smart fella what more could you want for crying out loud. I would say we're done until you investigate thoroughly what I'm saying which is going to take you a fair while. Here's a refresher on what I'm saying..At the heart of all religions and spiritual practices and mind body disciplines is a physical process that delivers 'a state of being' labelled enlightenment,Awakened/natural state/ Nirvana etc.. Nothing more to be said between us until you catch up and acknowledge this ridiculously evident reality. A post you made in response to McG shows the closed minded disingenuous way you approach this and related matters so I'm not holding my breath.
          Now back to my real reason for posting. @Joe-- Hi, 8) Imo Christianity needs to get back to its roots and start talking about and facilitating Gnosis (ooh what an old and scary loaded word) All Gnosis is, is experience of our true base nature with all baggage removed, a higher state of consciousness. Anymore detail than that gets in the way because we can't be trusted with anything. Look at the giants down through the ages who tried to explain but have obviously failed to properly convey it. That's because it's impossible to convey isn't it, words can never do it justice unless between people who have been there, and even then they are very limiting. Imo, and others probably yours too, most of the problems we have globally emanate from the state of our psyche. Consensus
is never going to be reached on anything until we solve the human psyche. Now there is a consensus silently lovingly waiting in the background for us to realise and it's called enlightenment. Never going to happen anytime soon though..ah well.
          Here is a chap (link) half hour down the road from me, never met him but Imo he is rightly trying to reclaim Christianity and restore it to it's true purpose, and delivering the same message as Christ, whether Christ be fiction or not, the message is truth it's just been obscured, messed with and abused.
~                                                                   ~
   http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Articles/260552/Network_Norwich_and_Norfolk/Resources/Culture/Norwich_vicar_tells_of_road_to_enlightenment.aspx
~
          "The pitch is 'If you are seeking 'enlightenment', then why not find it in the Christian Tradition, people have been finding it there for centuries.' The idea is to start where people are, with their own experience of consciousness, and then build from there."
~

Here is Schopenhauer an athiest, talking about the same thing I'm talking about. I don't mind what it's called either.

    " " The better consciousness in me lifts me into a world where there is no longer personality and causality or subject or object. My hope and my belief is that this better (supersensible and extra-temporal) consciousness will become my only one, and for that reason I hope that it is not God. But if anyone wants to use the expression God symbolically for the better consciousness itself or for much that we are able to separate or name, so let it be, yet not among philosophers I would have thought " "
            Right that really is me finished on this topic as life is too short and it's a serious thread hijack and I acknowledge that. If Steve you ever feel like responding if you get interested I'll give you my email. Neither of us is stupid and hopefully we can recognise that you assuming your well honed stance here and the group dynamic is going to make it difficult for us to honestly discuss anything. Btw any difference of opinion we have here I won't carry over to other threads if I post on them,which I seriously doubt as none of the other contentious topics interest me that much. Plus most of my spare energy goes on transcribing box players n chunes which can send you daft btw so don't take anything I say to heart and fester on it. I'm here to liberate you ! (ok bad joke)
             You can now go back to getting Joe to defend the indefensible and explaining the unexplainable (Jeez Joe tough crowd 8)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 12:32 PM

"At the heart of all religions and spiritual practices and mind body disciplines is a physical process that delivers 'a state of being' labelled enlightenment,Awakened/natural state/ Nirvana etc.. Nothing more to be said between us until you catch up and acknowledge this ridiculously evident reality."

Fairies live at the bottom of my garden. That's a RIDICULOUSLY evident reality! Of course they do! It's RIDICULOUS to say otherwise. Ha! RIDICULOUS!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 12:51 PM

Yes could've phrased that better but you get the gist. Yes Shimrod I believe you haven't a clue what I'm talking about and that's fine.Me really done on this thread and topic just thought Shimrod needed some attention, but anymore will be not be responded. Life is far too short.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 02:09 PM

Yes Shimrod I believe you haven't a clue what I'm talking about

Problem is, Mr. Stamp, that YOU haven't a clue what you're talking aout.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 03:04 PM

Best laugh I've had for ages .....you're an unconscious comedian Stevie boy!

"There's nothing more simplistic than grown, intelligent people infantilising themselves by resorting to this kind of idiocy. And you may just have noticed that I don't appreciate being called simplistic or angry when I'm neither. That's just you getting desperate."

They say Budelians don't get irony :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

I'm sure our resident expert Mr McGrath enjoyed it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:14 PM

Time stamp sez: Jeez Joe tough crowd 8

Aw, they ain't so bad, Time stamp. Just stay away from their teeth unless you've had a rabies shot.

-Joe, taking a break to do music-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:00 PM

A fair bit lo learn about what good science gets up to? But science is what real fallible human scientists get up to, which can be far from perfect. Both when carrying out investigations etc, and when inviolved in peer review. Over time evolutionary processe occur, and things move along pretty well.

But the way you talk about this, Scientists appear to be seen as a kind of dedicated priesthood. And that's as shaky a version of scientists as it is of actual priests. By which I mean, most of the time it's probably not too far away from the truth, but by no means always, and all too often, it's nowhere near.

And that isn't just away charletons or incimpetents getting by, but also some of most productive and effective, including some Nobel Prizewinners.

And in no way am I putting down science or scientists, just pointing out they are orddinary people in most ways.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:10 PM

Time Stamp sez: Imo Christianity needs to get back to its roots and start talking about and facilitating Gnosis

Agreed, but if I used the word "gnosis," I would be misunderstood...If one wants to espouse something that used to be considered by Christians to be a heresy, one must simply use a different name (or, simply must use a different name)

Time Stamp links to this article:
http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Articles/260552/Network_Norwich_and_Norfolk/Resources/Culture/Norwich_vicar_tells_of_road_to_enlightenment.aspx

Pertinent quote:

"The pitch is 'If you are seeking 'enlightenment', then why not find it in the Christian Tradition, people have been finding it there for centuries.' The idea is to start where people are, with their own experience of consciousness, and then build from there."

Well said. That's a point I've been trying to get across for years.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 08:31 PM

McGrath: "Scientists should indeed recognise that their theories are provisional, rather than "true" in an absolute sense."
Shaw: Good scientists do. But even good scientists are human beings, which is their finest attribute.
Offer: and even priests are human beings. Think of that!

McGrath: "But if course that doesn't stop them holding on to them even when evidence seems to disprove them, and from trying to find ways to cast doubt on that evidence."
Shaw: Which is why science insists on peer review of evidence. As I say, you have a fair bit to learn about what good science gets up to.
Offer: Gee, Steve, theologians do peer review, too!

McGrath: "But the way you talk about this, Scientists appear to be seen as a kind of dedicated priesthood. And that's as shaky a version of scientists as it is of actual priests. By which I mean, most of the time it's probably not too far away from the truth, but by no means always, and all too often, it's nowhere near."
Offer: I think that both scientists and priests/theologians have far more self-awareness that we give them credit for having. Both are far more self-questioning than their disciples are.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:22 PM

Hmm. If there was such a word as endarkenment, I'd say that it could be a very accurate description of what Christianity does to people's brains. To me, enlightenment involves freeing the mind from false notions that hinder progressive thinking. I can't see that believing in an almost impossible God, whose existence requires us to agree to sidelining the laws of the universe before we can do so, can be in any sense at all "enlightening". Neither can praying to a Jesus who may not have existed at all, or worshipping his mother who miraculously conceived him shaglessly (Gawd, Joseph, you mug!), or thinking that water can be turned into wine or that Jesus's mates could be raised from the dead. If any enlightenment at all can be gleaned from any of that nonsense, well blow me down is all I can say.

And as you well know, the term creationists refers to a whole host of things, like the literal interpretation of Genesis, the idea that the earth is around 6000 years old, that all the fossil evidence is misinterpreted and much more. Not just that God was involved in creation. Taking that one aspect and saying that everyone who thinks that God (whatever that means) was involved (ditto) in creation (ditto again) is also a creationist is at the very least unwise because of the confusion it will cause.

And as YOU well know, I'm a very simple man. The quoted passage here is obfuscation personified. Back to basics. I don't care about how you interpret the fairy tale known as Genesis or whether you disagree with pete and his 6000 years, etc. All you're doing here is employing the time-honoured believers' stunt of wrapping up a very simple matter in manufactured complications in order to try to confuse demurrers. Well you picked the wrong man. I know what creation means, unfortunately. Now I happen to know that no God ever "created" the universe, you, me, that daisy on my lawn nor anything else. I have plenty of science that goes a very long way to explaining how it all came about, not all the answers by any means as yet of course, and poor old God doesn't get a look in. He is simply not required. You see, I want things EXPLAINED. I don't want romanticated guesswork about supernatural beings for whom there is not one scrap of evidence. I don't want things "explained" by an impossible being who himself can't be explained and who has never once shown his hand. That is not an explanation at all. In fact, it's worse than that, because it stops us from looking for the real explanations, which can be arrived at only by means of evidence and reason, not by resort to fairy stories or by the seeking of mythical "deeper truths." We believed the corrupt police about the perpetrators of the Birmingham pub bombings, which stopped us from looking for the real culprits, so we ended up with six wrecked families and no closure for the victims. That's what happens when you believe nonsense and stop looking for real evidence and the real truth. It stops children from looking for the real explanations too, if they're told to believe this vile Godly nonsense, which hundreds of millions of them are indeed told to believe. In my book, that's just wickedness.

So the simple matter I referred to is this. Do you, or do you not, believe that the universe and all within it was created by a deity, no matter how you wish to define him? Yes or no? If you don't, then tell me what God actually did do, if anything. If you do, then you are a creationist, aren't you? Yes or no? No fannying around now. The yes/no requirement here is very fair. It doesn't matter whether you think God did the Big Bang billions of years ago or whether you think he did it all with one fell swoop in 4004 BC, setting tricks for us by laying down fake fossils. He can't really have "sort of" created it all. He either did or he didn't. The time for the bullshit about "whole hosts of things," etc., has passed. I get accused of repetition. I get accused of being simplistic. Well you are also very repetitive, in that you repeatedly fail to answer questions. Not fail to answer questions to my satisfaction, but fail to answer them at all. Did God create the universe or not? Is it better to tell children lies than tell them the truth? Simple questions, not simplistic questions. I can bore the arse off you if you like and expand the questions, but that would be repetitive, as I've done that so many times before. You wouldn't like that, but I imagine that we're past caring about such niceties.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:43 PM

"But even good scientists are human beings, which is their finest attribute."

I said that. Not Kevin nor Joe. They don't listen though. I'm accused of turning scientists into Spocks or priests. What rubbish, chaps. Read the above. And shame on anyone for ever equating science with religion in any sense at all. The one relies on invisible supernatural beings, the other relies on evidence and reason. How desperate can you get. I think I get repetitive because I have to, because some people around here doggedly refuse to take things in (not just from me, of course. Even I'm not that arrogant). Musket would have had a handy two-word expression for such people, and it wasn't Top Cat, but I'm a lot nicer than that, you lucky people.

More laughably still, and on the same theme, Joe Offer compares scientific peer review with theological peer review. My dear boy, scientists peer review each other's EVIDENCE. Whatever it is that theologians peer review, it isn't evidence. And you have the gall to equate the self-questioning of priests and scientists. A good scientist has to be a free thinker. A priest is required to do all his thinking within a tight ringfence of belief, or, if he dares to allow his thinking to stray outside of it, he'd better keep quiet about it. Either that or pack it in and get a proper job. No comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:27 AM

OK, Steve, but it seems to me that you speak only of a God who is an external force who defies the laws of nature to accomplish the impossible. I believe in a God who is the source and the essence of nature and the laws of nature, a God who by definition cannot defy the laws of nature because this God is the essence of nature. Christianity is not the only belief system that has seen God as the essence of nature, not a contradiction of nature.

Now granted that I see God as far more than the essence of nature, but I see the essence of nature as an integral aspect of this undefinable entity I worship as God.

Why do you see it necessary for God to violate the laws of nature and to be incompatible with science? I see science as unfolding the mystery of God with every new discovery.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:41 AM

Steve Shaw says: If there was such a word as endarkenment, I'd say that it could be a very accurate description of what Christianity does to people's brains. To me, enlightenment involves freeing the mind from false notions that hinder progressive thinking. I can't see that believing in an almost impossible God, whose existence requires us to agree to sidelining the laws of the universe before we can do so, can be in any sense at all "enlightening". Neither can praying to a Jesus who may not have existed at all, or worshipping his mother who miraculously conceived him shaglessly (Gawd, Joseph, you mug!), or thinking that water can be turned into wine or that Jesus's mates could be raised from the dead. If any enlightenment at all can be gleaned from any of that nonsense, well blow me down is all I can say.

All that may be more-or-less true, Steve, for some people of faith. Other believers have an understanding of a God who promotes progressive thinking. How can it be necessary for God to hinder thinking? Where are the rules that say that has to be the case?

Why does God have to follow your definition of God? I believe in a God who is totally compatible with the principles of science, because I believe God is the Source of science. Other believers think differently, so their results may vary.

This is not complicated, Steve. It just doesn't jive with your preconceived notion of a stupid God, and stupid believers who follow this God. Maybe God isn't so stupid as you define God to be - and maybe some believers aren't stupid, either.

But you sound like a teenager in your arguments, since your basic premise seems to be that everyone outside yourself is stupid.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:58 AM


And as you well know, the term creationists refers to a whole host of things, like the literal interpretation of Genesis, the idea that the earth is around 6000 years old, that all the fossil evidence is misinterpreted and much more. Not just that God was involved in creation. Taking that one aspect and saying that everyone who thinks that God (whatever that means) was involved (ditto) in creation (ditto again) is also a creationist is at the very least unwise because of the confusion it will cause.

And as YOU well know, I'm a very simple man. The quoted passage here is obfuscation personified.

And yet you get very hot under the collar (while somehow remaining ice-cold) when someone claims in that simplicity you have over-simplified something.

That passage you quoted is not concerned with creationism: it is concerned with how people communicate. Words have meanings and when you say you intend to use a word in a way that is significantly different from how everyone in the world interprets it I say that is unwise. Isn't that simple enough for you?   It may not be, I realise, since a few posts earlier you failed to understood that a public forum the word 'we' does not necessarily mean 'you'.

To stress again, it is about trying to get effective communication by ensuring words are going to be understood by the reader rather than inventing your own personal meaning which can do nothing but harm communication.

You say I fail to answer the questions you pose, I say I do answer them but not to your satisfaction. But let's have one last attempt at the impossible and answer your questions.

Did God create the universe or not?
As always, you fall into the 'excluded middle' logical error.
The statement 'To the best of our understanding the universe came into existence with any need for God' is true. God is not needed for any such explanation. I'm not sure if you are happy with that, but even if you are you won't be happy with the next bit. Nevertheless, it is also true to say I believe God created the Universe.


Is it better to tell children lies than tell them the truth?
Of course not: tell the truth. No question about that.
But does it then follow that we have a common understanding of what is a lie? No, we don't.


So we are onto the repetition bit again, and once again you seem to want to make this some sort of mental wrestling match between us. I'm not interested, sorry. I present my views and (repeating once again!)
I think it entirely up to you whether you abuse them, ignore them, think you can learn something even where you disagree or whatever. Equally I am interested in learning other people views. Examining and questioning others views in the interest of learning something? Well and good. But if things deteriorate into "Who won the fight?" I have no interest. And as you appear to have settled once again into the same old rut where you are no longer interesting in exchanging ideas but simply shouting your own, I will take another leave of absence. Last time it was some 300 posts before I came back (no, Steve, I haven't counted them: that's an estimate) so I anticipate a similar absence if the thread is still going them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:11 AM

Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn

'To the best of our understanding the universe came into existence withOUT any need for God' is true.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:07 AM

Hmm. Well, "the essence of nature" is one of those handy made-up phrases that actually means about as much as "the essence of Walmart". Your God of the essence is a superimposed figure (intra-imposed even, if there is such a word) who stops you from seeing the true reality of the wonderful nature of things. Try taking him away (I promise to let you put him back). There, you see? You've lost nothing! Everything is just as wonderful and just as mystical and spiritual as you want it to be (and even I want it to be just a little). You don't need him, and the great thing is that you're now free to look for the real evidence of how things come about and use your full intellect to relish the enjoyment of interpreting it. We call it science, and it's lovely.

As for your accusations concerning my characterisations of God, let me repeat myself yet again in order to tell you that what I say about him is simply the upshot of the ludicrous (and quite presumptuous - sinful, I thought) claims made in his name by you and others when they are applied to reality. I don't have any God model in my brain at all. It's all your own doing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:50 AM

"When they are subjected to reality" is what I intended.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 08:00 AM

"To stress again, it is about trying to get effective communication by ensuring words are going to be understood by the reader rather than inventing your own personal meaning which can do nothing but harm communication."

Well I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, inventing personal meanings (usually pretty mystical and impenetrable ones, deliberately made so in order to add gravitas and stave off the sceptics, of course) for God is the sine qua non of religion.

"You say I fail to answer the questions you pose,...But let's have one last attempt at the impossible....

Did God create the universe or not?
As always, you fall into the 'excluded middle' logical error.
The statement 'To the best of our understanding the universe came into existence with any need for God' is true. God is not needed for any such explanation. I'm not sure if you are happy with that, but even if you are you won't be happy with the next bit. Nevertheless, it is also true to say I believe God created the Universe."

Ha ha ha. Three lines of bullshit, then, finally, the simple answer to the simple question. You are no less a creationist than pete. Not an ignoramus or a mouthpiece or a science-denier as such, unlike him, but still a creationist. The next step is to ask yourself whether you have to admit to that through gritted teeth in order to give God at least some role in things. Unless he's the creator, he isn't really much use, is he? Oops, unless he's merely the "essence..."


"Is it better to tell children lies than tell them the truth?
Of course not: tell the truth. No question about that.
But does it then follow that we have a common understanding of what is a lie? No, we don't."

Well let's investigate. Here's just some of the things children are told.

There is definitely a God (Our Father who art in heaven). No doubt in that prayer, and they all have to learn it off by heart. Lots of other prayers and hymns contain similar unchallenged assertions, not just about God but also about some of his baggage, the Virgin Mary for example.

Jesus was born to a virgin.

We are all born in sin because a woman stole one apple from God and Jesus had to die to save us.

Jesus could raise the dead, feed five thousand people on a few scraps, could predict exactly what was going to happen when a cock crowed, and could come back to life even though he'd bled to death two days earlier.

There is a heaven that you will get into only if you're good.

If you do bad things, but not too bad, you will have to be tortured for a while in purgatory before you get into heaven, unless you're lucky enough to have just come out of confession before you die or if someone has earned you an indulgence by chanting some prayers, perhaps by going in and out of a church a few times or doing a few decades of the Rosary.

When we want to make good Catholics into saints, it has to be proven that miracles connected with them took place first.

You were made by God. No argument. It's the first statement in the catechism.

Now you say it's better to tell children the truth. I can't conclusively demonstrate that all the above are definitely not true, though I can say that if you believe at least some of them you must be deluded. What is definite is that not a single one can be shown to be even remotely true. Yet this is what children are taught. We've had a lot of shilly-shallying around this in this and lots of other threads. You've just told me that it's better to tell children the truth. Well here's how you can tell them all this stuff and still be telling the truth. Are you listening?

"This is a list of some of the things that some Catholics believe. When you believe something, you don't need to ask anyone to show that it's true. But, when you look at that list, you might be surprised at some of the beliefs in it. Some of them look like magic and others are about God, or Jesus, or Mary, people we're not sure were ever real at all. When you're told about something unexpected, such as about a man who could come back to life, the best thing is to ask for more information. If you think like a scientist thinks, you probably won't believe anything that seems unusual unless the person telling you about it can show you some evidence. Your science teacher can tell you what we mean by evidence and give you some examples of what is useful evidence and what isn't. You don't have to prove anything, but you need enough information to make up your own mind. Bright people never let other people make up their minds for them. If the person telling you can't give you the evidence, he may be trying to trick you, so it's best to be polite yet suspicious, even if that person is an authority figure such as your dad, a priest or even me. If a belief looks too complicated to understand, you can always wait until you're older before going back to investigate it again. And no-one is forcing you to be a Catholic, and no-one will think badly of you if you decide not to be one."

And finally:

"... you seem to want to make this some sort of mental wrestling match between us. I'm not interested, sorry. I present my views..."

Well I present my views too but I also want to tease out your take. I'm honest enough to admit that I'm on the lookout for your inconsistencies, but that's what argument is all about (in saying that, I'm expecting some philosophical stick, of course). I tend to find that the inconsistencies, woolly thinking and vaguenesses that emanate from people of faith are so legion that the debate is more a walk in the park than a wrestling match, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:19 AM

Ok, I admit it! I have been irked into a reply by that last splurge, but promise I really will stop now whatever you say in reply to this.

You said: "To stress again, it is about trying to get effective communication by ensuring words are going to be understood by the reader rather than inventing your own personal meaning which can do nothing but harm communication."

Well I couldn't agree more.

Actually, you did not agree at all, because what that paragraph was about was you redefining the word 'creationist' to have a completely different meaning to the whole rest of the world. You know that, I know that, all the readers of this thread know that. And why did you have to do that? Just so you could get a little burst of pleasure by saying "Ha ha ha. Three lines of bullshit, then, finally, the simple answer to the simple question. You are no less a creationist than pete". And please don't try to say you are so ice-cold when you post that the 'ha ha ha' does not indicate a touch of glee that you think you have forced me into admitting something I was fighting against.

That is simply foolish, and you are better than that. Why on earth should I object to being labelled as a creationist-but-only-in-the-sense-that-Steve-uses-it-and-no-one-else-in-the-world?   What I do object to is a deliberate attempt on your part to deceive the careless reader into thinking when you say "You are no less a creationist than pete" that it means what all the rest of the world thinks it means. That is the opposite of what true debate is about and you know it.

Then we get the three lines of bullshit bit. Really, Steve, you do need to read more widely. Have a chat with Bill D: he will give you a bit of guidance about what things like 'excluded middle', 'equivocation' and all the rest mean.

Just to sign off, I have reproduced the middle paragraph of Steve's post of 14 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM, swapped the first sentence to the end and added a bit of highlighting. Food for thought on your approach, Steve.


I put my points very directly and undiplomatically when it comes to religion and I know some of you don't like it. Well I'm glad you don't because you haven't really got a leg to stand on but you refuse to confront it. What do I mean by that? Why, you believe in a deity who is far less likely to exist than fairies at the bottom of my garden. You wrap him up in profoundly meaningless, flowery language that's merely an attempt to dignify him and stop yourselves from looking foolish. You tell children to believe in him and make them bow their heads and sing silly hymns praising him. You can't tell me why it's better to tell them lies instead of the truth. It's self-infantilisation on a massive scale and you simply can't see it.

The last refuge of a scoundrel who hasn't got anything useful left to say is to accuse your adversary of having personality defects.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:55 AM

Cor. I haven't accused you of having personality defects! In fact, I excused you entirely from the ones I see in pete. Now I know all about the different species of creationists. But you do all have the one unassailable thing in common, that you believe that God created the universe. I really can't see what you're getting aerated about. Well, I suppose that were I a creationist I wouldn't wish to be associated with pete's version. But creationist seems to be a useful characterisation for anyone who thinks God created everything, and I did differentiate you sharply from pete. As for the bullshit, well I asked you a very straightforward question, which you eventually answered, but you preceded it with verbiage that you hoped would qualify it. It wasn't necessary. The haha was not me taking pleasure in trapping you. I don't do tricks like that. It was a here-we-go-agaIn moment.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 10:24 AM

Well I've just had a look at the wiki page on "creationism." As with the Pope, I never hold wiki to be infallible, of course. But, just reading the introductory section, I glean that DMcG appears to have this wrong, and that the terms creationist and creationism may be properly applied to any people or notions that hold that God created the universe. Of course, I fully understand that the young-earth version is not something that anyone in their right mind would wish to be associated with, and I did my level best to dissociate him from it. But if you think that God created everything, you're a creationist! I think it and wiki thinks it and that's nowhere near enough, of course. Never will be if you're on a forum with pete!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 11:13 AM

" I really can't see what you're getting aerated about."

I don't think anyone for whose benefit you've been posting in such energetic fashion has in fact got the least aerated, Steve. Whereas you...

You do go on! Still it's been an interesting thread in its way. But you really do need to accept that there are people who just don't see the world in the way you do, and who don't see the least conflict between science and religious belief, any more than there is between the world picture we construct with our eyes, and that we construct with our ears.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 11:56 AM

"there are people who just don't see the world in the way you do, and who don't see the least conflict between science and religious belief, any more than there is between the world picture we construct with our eyes, and that we construct with our ears."

I can't quite put my finger on why, but that's one of the silliest analogies that I've come across in ages!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:40 PM

Anyone who can't see conflict between science and religious belief is, frankly, using neither their eyes, their ears nor their brains. No wonder I get accused of repetition. Heads and brick walls spring to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 01:38 PM

Any accusations of repetition, Steve, arise because you do persistently, and insistently choose to repeat yourself.

I am sure anyone who has read this thread already knows that you are 100% sure that you are right and that anyone who doesn't share your beliefs is 100% wrong, but I am not quite so sure that is necessary for you to keep saying it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 01:44 PM

That's a terrible misrepresentation, I assume borne out of frustration. How many times do I have to keep repeating myself. I'm not certain of anything. I don't know whether there's a God or not. Kevin, tell me. Have you ever read that before in any of my posts, by any chance? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:19 PM

A young couple sat at opposite ends of a couch. He moved half of the distance toward her. She then moved half the remaining distance toward him. They continued to repeat that sequence. Theoretically, they never reached each other; but, for all practical purposes...

Theoretically, Steve has never reached certainty that there is no God...          : )

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:30 PM

Nothing theoretical about it. No real atheist can ever say there is definitely no God. We're a pretty honest bunch, you know. Unlike some of the Christians around here, who can't even be honest with themselves, let alone their kids.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:43 PM

Isn't it more simple than that? In my world "GOD" is what you want God to be......and one certainty is that everyone has a "God" even if they don't recognise it or admit it.

Steve continually goes on in really insulting terms about an old man in a white robe floating around on a cloud.....well not in so many words, but he implies that believers are immature or deranged.

When it comes down to it , it is none of his business what people believe or tell their children as long as it does not damage the children or society.
I certainly do not see present day Christianity doing anything but "good".......Joe's "goodness" metaphor carries a lot of weight with me, and during my wife's illness many Christians where I live have expressed good wishes and prayers for her recovery even though neither of us are churchgoers. Their kind thoughts and prayers have been very welcome and have been made in all sincerity.

I hope Christianity is never abandoned or weakened further, without it and Jesus the philosopher, humanity would be the poorer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:54 PM

Why am I not a "believer"?

In all honesty I think I am too weak, too cynical, to "rational"

Joe's posts have made me see that sometimes we have get on to a higher plain, rise above the mundane.....let "goodness" take over the controls.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 07:38 PM

"Steve continually goes on in really insulting terms about an old man in a white robe floating around on a cloud.....well not in so many words, but he implies that believers are immature or deranged."

I have never got anywhere near mentioning old men in robes on clouds, nor have I either stated or implied that believers are immature or deranged.

"When it comes down to it , it is none of his business what people believe"

Correct, and I've said it dozens of times.

"...or tell their children as long as it does not damage the children or society."

Well I actually think it's everyone's business what people tell their children. Children are strapping bombs to their bodies because adults have told them that blowing themselves up in a crowd of infidels will give them priority in paradise. I regard that as fully my business, actually. More benignly, Christians tell children lies under the guise of religious "education". That's my business too. Those children are my future just as much as their parents'. As a matter of fact, my tax money is used to pay teachers of religion to tell those lies. That definitely makes it my business.

"I certainly do not see present day Christianity doing anything but "good".......Joe's "goodness" metaphor carries a lot of weight with me, and during my wife's illness many Christians where I live have expressed good wishes and prayers for her recovery even though neither of us are churchgoers. Their kind thoughts and prayers have been very welcome and have been made in all sincerity."

Well their prayers may have been welcome but they didn't do your wife much good, and I note that you mention only Christians. I suppose that it takes Christianity to provide all the help and good wishes that your wife ever gets. I trust that you always check the religious credentials of all those doctors and nurses before you let them go near your wife.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 08:21 PM

I certainly do not see present day Christianity doing anything but "good"

Then you sure as hell ain't lookin' at what's going on with the "Christians"[sic] in the Southern Bible Belt in the U.S. of A. or at the Republican idiots pandering to them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 08:53 PM

He's clueless, Greg, just like pete. I only bother taking either of them on these days while I'm waiting for my late-night cup of tea to cool down enough to drink. If I had Mrs Steve's asbestos mouth and throat, I wouldn't bother with the silly buggers at all!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:34 PM

Speaking of what's none of my business:

"When it comes down to it , it is none of his business what people believe or tell their children as long as it does not damage the children or society."

Well what a shame you can't apply this same principle to what gay people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, or to gay people who want to marry each other, neither of which damages either anyone else or society. And this is not an attempt to get you going on those futile matters (I won't bite if you do try it), but it is an attempt to point to your sheer unthinking hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:00 AM

Steve, why print such rubbish if you do not want a response?
That is a cowardly tactic.

The two issues are not related at all.
It should be perfectly clear to all here by now, the dangers related to homosexuality, both to themselves, and via legislation, to society.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:27 AM

Neither is there any legislation in place to force you to accept Christianity, or to stop you denigrating people of faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:38 AM

"The two issues are not related at all. It should be perfectly clear to all here by now, the dangers related to homosexuality, both to themselves, and via legislation, to society"

I would think the dangers of religion have been clearly demonstrated this weekend.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:10 AM

Rag, only an Islamophobe would blame Islam for it.
Most Muslims abhor such actions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 06:17 AM

Hmm. While that's true, Keith (I'd guess that you should have said the vast majority of Muslims), we wouldn't have had the Crusades without Christianity and we wouldn't have a bellicose Jewish state without Zionist Judaism. By saying that, one is not saying that all Christians and Jews are evil people. It's tiny minorities who instigate such things. By saying that certain extreme elements in Islam are responsible for radicalising susceptible young people, one is not being Islamophobic. My main gripe with all religion, aimed in this thread mostly at Catholicism as that's central to the thread, is that its adherents, quite often even the mild and moderate-sounding types (they are usually no such thing), have a penchant for trying to entrap young people very early. They will go to almost any length, including herding them to services to chant brainless prayers and forcing them to endure religious miseducation (by which I mean being lied to under a crucifix on the classroom wall). If that didn't happen I'd have very little to say about religion at all. Mind you, if that didn't happen, religion wouldn't last very long. Indoctrination and infiltration into almost every aspect of society are its only strategies for survival.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 06:19 AM

Oops, I misread your "most" for "many".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 06:48 AM

For once Keith I fully agree with you. Sadly a small minority in all religions that I know of give the rest of them a very bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 07:21 AM

I have not seen anyone blaming Islam for the weekends atrocity. Not on this thread anyway. It is down to fundamentalism and extremism. Those fundamental and extreme views usually come from the teachings of someone who has subverted the religion for their own nefarious purposes. Which brings us back to it being very important and everyone's business what youngsters, or anyone else for that matter, are taught both at school and by their parents.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:47 AM

Rich James, a correspondent in today's (16.11.2015) 'Independent' newspaper Letters column, writes:

"Terrorists do not learn fundamentalism in terrorist training camps; they acquire the ability to have logical thinking warped at the hands of mild-mannered, "moderate" pastors, rabbis and imams, who instil in them as impressionable young people the ability to believe in absurdities with no need for tangible proof of any kind.
From there, with the mind weakened, it is a short road to fundamentalism."

That's a very plausible hypothesis well worth checking out and a message that several posters on here won't want to hear!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 09:52 AM

What terrorists in recent decades are likely to have been influenced by pastors or rabbis?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:09 AM

That's one of my themes, Shimrod, that religious belief stunts the intellect by discouraging people from looking for the true explanations for things. It militates against critical thinking and the demand for evidence. A stunted intellect is sure to be more open to bigotry and radicalisation. There are plenty of signs of the stunting of intellect on this forum when you read how believers justify their faith in flowery language and refuse to face up to sceptical questioning. So much energy going into ardent efforts to circumvent reality.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:34 AM

"What terrorists in recent decades are likely to have been influenced by pastors or rabbis?"

As you well know, KAoH - or, at least, you SHOULD well know - a key aim of terrorism is to cause the majority within a society to blame, persecute and victimise a minority (who the terrorists claim to represent) within that society so that members of the minority become alienated and more easily radicalised. I'm sure that the Independent's correspondent, Mr James, was well aware of that and was trying to be even-handed. I'm sure that we could come up with examples of Christian and Jewish terrorists if we put our minds to it.

I agree with Mr James and Steve - lying to children is a bad thing to do. Our culture is far too respectful to religion and it needs to get a much rougher ride and be forced to justify itself and its attitudes and behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:56 AM

I suspect that someone is trying to suggest that terrorist attacks are primarily Muslim. Of course they do not mention the 99% that are not for some reason. But why this argument is starting on a thread about the pope visiting America is beyond me. Just waiting for the arguments about Israel to start...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:38 PM

I posted last night but it either did,nt take or disappeared after! So a short one....most of the criticism centred around my argument that evolutionism is a religious worldview. On my previous post, I had forgotten to add point 5 , which was that some evolutionists have admitted the religious, faith, belief dimension of their position. I have previously posted some of these, and I am sure I could find the quotes again if need be. As the thread has moved on, I shall perhaps leave anything else till it rolls round again!.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:45 PM

"...most of the criticism centred around my argument that evolutionism is a religious worldview."

It isn't an "argument." It's a piece of profound idiocy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:48 PM

For all I know, something called "evolutionism" might be a "religious worldview" - but as "evolutionism" only seems to exist in the heads of creationists (or, possibly, only in your head, Pete?) it's all very puzzling ... or very pointless and stupid?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:53 PM

I just reread my post of 10.09. "...justify their faith in flowery language" is absurd. Even I don't have any faith in flowery language. "Justify their faith using flowery language" would have been gooder.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:56 PM

Nah, Shimrod. No need to credit him with originality. I found "evolutionism" all over some of those wacko websites he probably gets all his stuff from.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:41 PM


What terrorists in recent decades are likely to have been influenced by pastors or rabbis?

Well, Profesor, just as a small sample, there's Paul Jennings, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, John C. Salvi, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, Shelley Shannon, Frederick Griffin, Joseph Kony, Larry Steven McQuilliams, Denis Michael Rohan, Charles Barbee, Robert Berry, Jay Merelle, James Charles Kopp, Frazier Glenn Miller, Wade Michael Page, Larry Wayne Shoemake, Benjamin Matthew Williams, James Tyler Williams, Shawna Forde, James Von Brunn...the list goes on and on and on and on.........................................

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 06:53 PM

All Americans, unless I am mistaken. The ideology that might be more relevant might perhaps be American Exceptionalism.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 07:15 PM

Steve Shaw says: Anyone who can't see conflict between science and religious belief is, frankly, using neither their eyes, their ears nor their brains.

I'm sorry, Steve, but I can't buy that. There are those on both sides of the discussion who invent conflicts between science and religious belief, but that conflict should not be necessary.

I heard a quote in seminary, years and years ago, and then I could never find it again. It came from somebody famous like Galileo or Copernicus. It went something like this: there are God's works and there are God's words. If the words conflict with the works, then we are not understanding the words correctly.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:12 PM

" ...some evolutionists have admitted the religious, faith, belief dimension of their position."

So what, Pete?... some fundamentalist Christians have 'admitted' the value & primacy of science in studying everything.

You can find a small % of most groups who don't agree with some of the main points of the group. You used to bring up 'some' palentologists who had 'different' ideas about the age of bones.... and you consider the exceptions to be more important than the huge majority who basically agree with each other?
The exact quotes might explain a bit more about what those few mean by 'faith'... but you are still left with 98%+ who would think the idea is silly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:27 PM

Well that goes to show that even Galileo and Copernicus could be idiots too on their off-days.

Unfortunately for religion, it is severely affected by science, ever more so as more and more of the ancient sacred myths are debunked by new evidence (and my, how religion squeals). The planets going round the sun provoked huge resistance from religion even in the face of insurmountable evidence. Evolution, likewise. Fortunately for Darwin, he lived slightly after the period when he might have been chucked into a dungeon, but the Christians (ordinary ones, not just fundamentalists, people conceivably just like you), didn't half give the poor bugger some stick, so much so that he went around at times worrying more about diplomacy than being able freely to communicate the science. We're nanoseconds away from the Big Bang, and guess what: not a trace of the supernatural in sight. Because Christianity doesn't understand science, there are frequent manifestations of absurdity that, if we let them, make nonsense of the whole thing. The vain attempts to reconcile God and evolution spring to mind, with well-meaning but ignorant believers telling us that God kicked off evolution, or that he runs it from the background like a well-oiled machine, or is some kind of driving force. Science is strong enough to be invulnerable from being made a mockery of in this manner, as honesty, evidence and reason will always prevail in the end, characteristics egregiously missing from religious faith. A century and a half after Darwin, religion's unwilling great nemesis, we still have to endure these dismal pseudoscientific notions, even from several of you in this thread. And after millennia of Christianity we get pete. Who you defend!!

Having said all that, of course, it isn't impossible for a fellow to be a good scientist and still go to mass on Sunday. He isn't thinking straight in the case of the latter, of course, but as long as he keeps them apart... He would struggle if his science ever took him to the point where it meets with serious philosophy, but, mostly, he'd manage all right. We can all do things that seem incongruous side by side. In a matter of hours, I can listen to a Beethoven late quartet, score in hand, and then watch Liverpool on the telly with a big bag of pork scratchings and a bottle of Peroni. I get by.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 09:04 PM

All Americans, unless I am mistaken.

Most, but not all, Kevin. A simple web search will turn up whole bunches more from Europe, Asia, Australia & etc.; I didn't have time or room to list them all. Google "Christian Terrorists" for example.

The ideology that might be more relevant might perhaps be American Exceptionalism.

Nothing to do with "American Exceptionalism" - these guys are all professed Christians and brag of/are proud of being such.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:15 PM

I still can't understand your thinking, Steve. When I attended a Catholic seminary 1962-70, there was never a word spoken against Darwin. We were taught the Scientific Method, and taught to generally accept the discoveries of science as reliable unless proven otherwise by other scientists. We were also taught that since the essence of the laws of nature, physics, and science flow from God, it is impossible for God and science to be in conflict.

So, whether one does or doesn't believe in a God, the laws of nature, physics, and science are exactly the same.

Where's the conflict?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:17 AM

"We were also taught that since the essence of the laws of nature, physics, and science flow from God, ..."

I bet that you weren't provided with any evidence to support that particular teaching, though, were you Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:26 AM

Nope, Shimrod, the God aspect of life is a matter of sheer belief. I choose to believe, and it has been a good choice for me. It has given me a positive outlook on life and pushed me toward serendipity instead of safer choices. It has made me more generous and more adventuresome that I might be otherwise. I take risks because I somehow feel that God will take care of things, and that has given me a richer and fuller life. As the Good Book says, I have been rewarded a hundredfold for risking to be generous and serendipitous. If that's not the right choice for somebody else, then I hope they will feel free to choose what they wish.
But for me, it works.
And it also makes me believe that the laws of science, nature, and physics are a blessing. That also has worked well for me. Maybe it's just Norman Vincent Peale's Power of Positive Thinking. I dunno, but it works for me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:41 AM

How do you know it's "worked"? How do you know that a life without a Godly safety net might not have been even more edgy, exciting and rewarding? Did the people in your seminary tell you to apply the scientific method to the existence of God, by any chance? In all honesty, they should have done. I do, which is why I'm a heathen. There is simply no other conclusion to reach. Of course, if they taught you that the scientific method can be applied to some things and not others, they weren't being very, er, scientific, were they?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:44 AM

By the way, we scientifically-minded people don't recognise "proven otherwise." Just thought I'd mention it. For the millionth time. Well, twentieth maybe. Or is it eight....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:16 AM

Steve Shaw sez: By the way, we scientifically-minded people don't recognise "proven otherwise."

Do I take that to mean that you think Scientists (uppercase "S") never make mistakes, Steve?

-Joe Offer-

P.S. I don't know if a nonbelieving life would be just as satisfying, and I guess I never will, Steve. Maybe it is; but I chose another path, and I'm quite happy where I am.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:44 AM

Well I'm blowed if I can see how that follows on from what I said. God's children work in mysterious ways I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 12:48 PM

I think I already said what the "so what " is bill.   Ie, that beside the other reasons why I think I am justified in describing evolutionism as a religious worldview , is the added reason that even some evolutionists admit it. I shall return the compliment.... So 98 percent don't agree...so what !. If they cannot demonstrate to the contrary , my point stands .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 12:55 PM

What terrorists in recent decades are likely to have been influenced by pastors or rabbis?

By KATHERINE STEWART    NOV. 16, 2015

EARLIER this month, in Des Moines, the prominent home-schooling advocate and pastor Kevin Swanson again called for the punishment of homosexuality by death. To be clear, he added that the time for eliminating America's gay population was "not yet" at hand. We must wait for the nation to embrace the one true religion, he suggested, and gay people must be allowed to repent and convert.

Mr. Swanson proposed this at the National Religious Liberties Conference, an event he organized. Featured speakers included three Republican contenders for the presidency: the former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

Mr. Huckabee later pleaded ignorance. Yet a quick web search will turn up Mr. Swanson's references to the demonic power of "the homosexual Borg," the unmitigated evil of Harry Potter and the Disney character Princess Elsa's lesbian agenda.

Mr. Cruz apparently felt little need to make excuses. He was accompanying another of the featured speakers at the conference: his father, Rafael Cruz — a politically connected pastor who told a 2013 Family Leadership Summit that same-sex marriage was a government plot to destroy the family.

Senator Ted Cruz spoke at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Des Moines on Nov. 6. Credit Mark Kauzlarich/Reuters

On Saturday, father and son traveled to Bob Jones University in South Carolina to join a Rally for Religious Liberty. Among the speakers was Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who has called L.G.B.T. activists "hateful" and "pawns" of the devil.

The comfortable thing to do would be to dismiss Mr. Swanson as just another wombat from the embarrassing fringe of American politics. But that would be a mistake. Mr. Swanson's murderous imaginings did not interfere with his ability to attract senior Republican figures to his conference, including as a keynote speaker Bob Vander Plaats, an Iowa politician who will grant the "Most Wanted Endorsement of 2016," according to the Conservative Review.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM

Keith asks: What terrorists in recent decades are likely to have been influenced by pastors or rabbis?

I don't think I would have asked a question like that.

There are lots of lunatic pastors in this world. Don't know of any lunatic rabbis right off, but I'm sure the West Bank settlers have some.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:18 PM

I know you're ignoring me, Pete, but if you will insist on posting your repetitive, obsessional nonsense, I will insist on replying. Here, again, is how I responded to your last idiotic post:

"For all I know, something called "evolutionism" might be a "religious worldview" - but as "evolutionism" only seems to exist in the heads of creationists (or, possibly, only in your head, Pete?) it's all very puzzling ... or very pointless and stupid?"

And you know what is the worse thing about your nonsense? It doesn't really represent your considered, informed opinion, does it, Pete? You're just 'parroting' it from weirdo creationist websites, aren't you, Pete? You know nothing about evolutionary biology, do you? Go away, you oaf, and do some reading!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:18 PM

Steve being optimistic!.   Nano seconds away from the Big Bang ! What does he mean ?! As to the absurd notion that religion is a hindrance to science , methinks he has it backwards. Science blossomed and flourished in Christianised Europe , and the fact that many , if not most scientists in history were creationists was certainly no hindrance. Contrast that to evolutionism that has been slow off the mark because the paradigm blinded them. It is not Christian faith that is being challenged by observational, repeatable and testable science but the evolutionary faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:36 PM

Yes, nanoseconds away from the Big Bang. That's how close we are to understanding what happened. We know what happened to the universe nanoseconds after it began. Nanoseconds in fourteen billion years and no sign of God, poor fellow. Deny the science and celebrate your ignorance. As for science blossoming in Christianised Europe, why, do you think Europe is Christianised now? If bums on pews is any measure, it doesn't come close and probably never did. One difference is that doubters had to shut up in the good old days. You could even get your head chopped off for having the wrong kind of Christianity! If we could ask Darwin, tortured by the realisation that his growing doubts about religion had to be suppressed, or Galileo, a less diplomatic fellow who took on the establishment and found himself incarcerated, I somehow doubt whether they'd be crediting Christianity with any blossoming of science. The very opposite.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:00 PM

"As to the absurd notion that religion is a hindrance to science , ..."

Well, religion is certainly a hindrance to you UNDERSTANDING of science, isn't it, Pete?

I'm here, Pete, I'm on your case and I'm not going to go away! Yoo hoo! I'm here, parroty Pete!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:29 PM

"We were also taught that since the essence of the laws of nature, physics, and science flow from God, it is impossible for God and science to be in conflict.

So, whether one does or doesn't believe in a God, the laws of nature, physics, and science are exactly the same.

Where's the conflict?"

Well I don't know who these people are who don't believe in God. Not me for a start. I don't know whether there's a God or not. Belief don't come into it this end, one way or the other. Now you claim that God and science can't be in inflict. Well God relies on sheer faith. Science is predicated on evidence, reason and progressive open-mindedness. The potential for conflict is huge, and, because of the history of religion's opposing science for centuries and the current trend for misinformed accommodation with science, the potential is realised. "Evolution works through God." I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM

In conflict

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM

"It is not Christian faith that is being challenged by observational, repeatable and testable science . . . ."

That's one proposition, but faith itself isn't reasonable as a factor in debate. Faith--which I don't mind in people--is simply the magic card that gets played when facts aren't convenient.

"It is not Christian faith that is being challenged by observational, repeatable and testable science but the evolutionary faith."

That's another argument. People who study evolution as a science eventually have to put up or shut up. They know that. They may have 'faith' they are or aren't on the right track, but they will need proof eventually. And there's the rub.

I challenge anyone to watch and record the next twenty license plates they encounter. Record only the first two numbers on the plate. Stop when you get to twenty numbers. I'll give fhree to one odds that two of the two digit numbers will match. (Remember, there are all the numbers between 00 and 99 that could come up.) If anyone will play ten games, you're on. I will most likely win, no faith involved. It's just how the odds are and odds are just a short way of saying probability.

I have many friends who are religious--one brand or another. I am happy for them because in general their god is kind. But I don't stick around too long when one's faith gets into any discussion about science. That is something I feel my friends should talk about with others who feel as they do. I have great tolerance for people whether or not they agree with me, but soon as their god gets into it I'm outta there. It's tough being the only atheist at the church service :-)

Anyway, pete, you keep being the guy you are, because if faith works for you that's cool with me. I disagree with your science, but then I disagree with much that humans think and do and so far it ain't changed nothin' ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:30 PM

"People who study evolution as a science eventually have to put up or shut up. They know that. They may have 'faith' they are or aren't on the right track, but they will need proof eventually."

Your general drift is fine but this little section is shaky. Evolution isn't a science. It's a phenomenon of nature. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation we have for evolution, arrived at by the scientific method. We put up, but we don't feel the need to shut up, as we are exceptionally willing to take on board new evidence, following which we are only too happy to adjust the theory. No need for faith and no search for proof. It's quite important that we stay on track here, as we need religion finding holes in our logic like we need a hole in the head. As for me, I study evolution and I won't need proof 'til the day I die. The path is beautiful and I don't need an end to it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:05 PM

We have two very different understandings of God on the table here, which makes the discussion multi-faceted. Steve has a very difficult time arguing against both at the same time, so I guess I ought to have some sympathy for him.

One is a view of God as an external entity guiding or controlling the universe from outside - more likely doing things by miracles rather than by following the laws of nature. My view is of a God tied more directly to the essence of ourselves and of the universe that surrounds us. In my view, God is the essence of the laws of nature, and thus there is no contradiction between God and nature.

Is there a "right" view? Well, I'd say they are different views, and leave it at that. I still can't see why these evangelistic atheists are so hell-bent on refuting the views believers have of God. Seems to me that "live and let live" would be a better approach. We can't know what's in the hearts of others. Maybe we'd be best off just respecting them.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:15 PM

Steve says ....evolution is not a science....!    Are we getting somewhere !? Of course he qualifies this by claiming natural selection evidences it.    But in this he is playing the bait and switch game. Natural selection evidences just that...natural selection. It does not, and it cannot evidence microbes to mudcatters evolution.   He also has great faith in the impartiality of himself and his fellow believers that they are open to new evidence.   BUT not only is the history of science (dis)graced with countless examples of the paradigm being painfully slow (sometimes fatally for some) to take on board fresh evidence that threatened the ruling paradigm, but he is not dealing with the evidence that threatens evolutionism now. How many counter evidences are needed ? The answer cannot be known, because this paradigm is religiously accepted and will take much more to break therefore than previous entrenched ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:48 PM

Let me graciously dismiss you in a sentence, Pete. You don't know what paradigm means. Sleep well.

Joe Offer, your God of the Essence is even more dismal than the God of the Gaps. He's inserted into a place where there aren't even gaps, and he adds absolutely nothing to either our knowledge or experience. As of live and let live, tell me when you Catholic aficionados have ever allowed your children to live and let live. You send them to faith schools to sit under crucifixes, to be told lies and to chant prayers and sing hymns to a God (not to speak of his son and his "virgin" daughter-in-law) who almost certainly does not exist. They are told what to believe and told of the penalties for demurring. They are christened into your club before they can speak, walk, talk, argue back or think for themselves. If this is your idea of live and let live, well think I'd rather toddle off to live under some military dictatorship or other, where I just might be better treated than your poor kids are.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:50 PM

I suppose speaking and talking could be synonymous...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:06 PM

Paradigm! Pretty Polly! Squawk, squawk! Paradigm! Squawk, squawk! Pretty Polly, pretty Polly! Paradigm, paradigm!! Squawk!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:18 PM

Damn, Steve. You sure must have had a messed-up Catholic childhood. I was a Catholic child, too, and my experience was very different from yours.
Sorry it happened to you that way. I certainly have known of situations where children have had your kind of experience growing up Catholic. I also know of other situations that were very positive. It's a big world, and different things happen to different people in different ways.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:39 PM

Goodnight to you too Steve. Maybe if you sleep on it you may be able to come up with a more constructive reply !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 07:02 PM

There is no such thing as a Catholic child. Or a Muslim child, or a Jewish child, or a Hindu child, or a Protestant child. A child is too innocent to espouse all the wrap-around horrors of indoctrinating religion. This is what you guys serially fail to understand. A child is born innocent of your polluting notions, far wiser than you will ever be, but that isn't enough for you. Your urgent desire to pollute children's minds overrides all other considerations. Or maybe some of you do understand, but are evil enough to ignore what's self-evidently right and proceed to indoctrinate anyway. Everything you say here, Joe Offer, betrays the way your mind has been strangled by your faith. You don't understand science, demonstrated by your inability to leave a mythical God out of it. Instead of a beautiful universe, ripe for exploration by the best of human endeavour and imagination, when you look at a starry night you "see God." But the fact that you actually think that there can be such a thing as a "Catholic child" clinches it once and for all. Dismal in the extreme. Very sad, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 07:21 PM

Yes, Steve, and to think that you were subjected to all this crap until you became enlightened and liberated at the age of thirty. And you became so adept at the use of bigoted melodramatic language then!

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 07:46 PM

"bigoted melodramatic language"

Well now he's vying with pete for who can use English more inanely. Care to work "paradigm" into your frustrated rants too, Joe? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 08:34 PM

wrap-around horrors of indoctrinating religion.

It is hardly believable that could anyone conceivably describe that as "melodramatic"!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 08:49 PM

Well tell me what's wrong with it. OK to lie to children about the existence of an extremely unlikely God? OK to tell them to read dodgy scripture, full of uncorrobotabke. storjres about heroes,

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 09:03 PM

Oops, bloody iPad. I shall try to continue in a more sensitive direction!

Well tell me what's wrong with it. OK to lie to children about the existence of an extremely unlikely God? OK to tell them to read dodgy scripture, full of uncorroboratable stories about heroes and demented visionaries? Well good for you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 12:14 AM

Yep, and I sang "Puff the Magic Dragon" to 'em, too. Ruined their lives forever.
-Evil Dad-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 04:30 AM

And no doubt you told them that Puff had to be prayed to and worshipped, had a virgin mother and could breathe life into dead bodies with his hot fiery breath and would have eternal life. That it would be a sin to fail to worship him in a service every Sunday, and, if you denied his existence you'd be frowned on by the Puff Club and would never know happiness. That he's up there among the stars in the sky. Come to think of it, he's exactly as plausible as God, isn't he, only you can't see it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:32 AM

Joe's two views of God:

"One is a view of God as an external entity guiding or controlling the universe from outside - more likely doing things by miracles rather than by following the laws of nature. My view is of a God tied more directly to the essence of ourselves and of the universe that surrounds us. In my view, God is the essence of the laws of nature, and thus there is no contradiction between God and nature."

Overwhelmingly, the first view is what is taught to children, and, I'd bet, the one that most grown-ups who haven't actually ditched religion hang on to. The second is the one that you have to work out for yourself if you can be arsed to rethink the original, or the one you get taught in seminaries. It's the one that is used mostly to try to stave off people like me, who "don't get God's true essence", "think he's just a bearded man in the clouds", etc. It looks intellectually attractive, doesn't it, but its attractions are meretricious. It's a substitute for the search for the magic of reality (as Richard Dawkins puts it). Take the "essence of God" from your wonderful starry night and not only have you removed a totally unnecessary bolt-on but also you've opened the way to a lifetime's quest for the real truth, far more scintillating a prospect than the abject, mind-cluttering deity. Of course, first of all you may have to unteach yourself the doctrine of not thinking for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 12:29 PM

So Steve, why is it wrong for Christian parents to tell their kids what they believe is true, but not for a teacher to tell us that we are merely chance accidents that just happened to evolve from the slime over eons of time.   Not only is that unproven philosophical assertion , but is no basis for saying anything is right or wrong. Surely to say anything is wrong you need to have some kind of objective standard.....or maybe borrow from a Christian one !   So , being as you like to rail against Christians as evil, on what objective standard do you thus ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 12:35 PM

Not only is that unproven philosophical assertion
Jesus wept. As it were....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 02:01 PM

"why is it wrong for Christian parents to tell their kids what they believe is true, but not for a teacher to tell us that we are merely chance accidents that just happened to evolve from the slime over eons of time."

Because it's NOT a question of BELIEF - you ignorant oaf!

"Not only is that unproven philosophical assertion , ..."

First, is it even possible to 'prove' a philosophical assertion?

Second, do the Theory of Evolution and evolutionary biology involve philosophical assertions? Probably only in the minds of creationists.

Third, where's the proof that God created everything? Surely, if you creationists demand proof from scientists then you should be able to provide it for your own "philosophical assertions". But then, God is 'unknowable', isn't He, Pete? So, if He's unknowable, you'll never know if He created everything or not, will you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 02:36 PM

No-one should ever tell anyone else that they should believe anything, pete. No-one teaching about evolution can do that because the theory will never "be true". That is not what theories are for. In science we weigh up probabilities (using reason) on the strength of evidence. We are always open to revising our conclusions, which are never final. If you had a science teacher who did it differently, he wasn't a good science teacher. It does happen. In science we are pretty strict about what counts as evidence. Applying our rules to the things that are claimed as evidence for God, well sadly you haven't actually got any. Unwisely, you rely solely on faith. As I was telling Joe, Puff the Magic Dragon has precisely equal merit with God in the likelihood of existence stakes. Now we don't set the bar high in order to exclude God. We set the bar high so that science can progress human knowledge. Unlike you, we can't afford to be sloppy about this.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:35 PM

Seems to me that shelving data that contradicts the belief system is what is "sloppy"   Just as you say there is zero evidence for a creator , we would say there is zero evidence for evolutionism. Of course you can point to certain recognised phenomenon , but nothing that demonstrates what is needed to change fish to philosophers. It is an article of faith on your part that organisms can change beyond the observable limits seen in nature. THE latter is an observation consistent with the creation model of reproducing "after their kind".   Interesting you are now saying the "theory will never "be true""" after all those interactions with snail in the past. Or perhaps you differentiate between the ...theory ..and the (supposed) ...fact... Of evolution. That would be convenient I suppose , but it is not just the details that have to be changed or rescheduled , but the supposed fact of the general theory of evolution that is questionable and speculative. I suspect also that you are not being quite straight when you say... theory... , since though the word can legitimately mean something might or might not be true, in science it is also used of gravity and other things generally considered observationaly verified . IMO though , evolutionary ideas are closer to the speculative meaning !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:58 PM

So you should never tell someone to believe something - but it's fine to tell them not to believe something?

Or is it that it's wrong to tell someone that you believe something, but fine to tell them that you don't believe something?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:14 PM

Anyway, Pete, as I was saying, if God is unknowable, how do you know that He created everything? And if you don't know because you can't know (plus the fact that you've got no evidence, of course) should you be teaching kids that God created everything? I suppose that you'll tell me (or you would tell me if you were talking to me) that you have 'faith' that God created everything but 'faith' is the fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for the existence of which there's no evidence and should you be polluting kids' minds with such bullshit?

Oh yes, for the umpty billionth time, evolutionary biology is NOT a "belief system" - you brainwashed oaf!

Finally: " ... we would say there is zero evidence for evolutionism."

I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted it! There is no such '-ism' as "evolutionism"!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:18 PM

"So you should never tell someone to believe something"

Correct. You should always advise people to be sceptical and ask for evidence. Anyone who tell you to believe something without that should be regarded with extreme suspicion.

.."but it's fine to tell them not to believe something?"

No. People who tell you to believe something, or not believe something, without evidence are seeking to control you. Your convictions should always be predicated on evidence and reason, not belief or faith.

"Or is it that it's wrong to tell someone that you believe something"

No, that's fine. As long as there's no pressure on them to believe it as well, pressure that can be quite subtle, derived from your position of authority, for example. Parents, teachers and priests have particular responsibility in this regard. Lamentably, that responsibility has been denied in this thread by people of alleged integrity, which is very sad.

"...but fine to tell them that you don't believe something?"

Well, speaking personally, I don't "not believe" things. I'd rather tell them that I dismiss certain notions on the grounds of evidence and reason. Belief and unbelief are predicated on lack of evidence, or at least lack of any evidence that you happen not to have considered, either through prejudice or through ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:38 AM

It's interesting. Ordinarily, I would never talk about this stuff outside of a religious setting. But since Steve & Co. are so sure they know what I'm thinking and that what I'm thinking is a danger to the universe, I find myself in a position where I feel forced to say what it is I really think, even though they think it horrible.

I can't see how it's horrible, and it still seems to me that they're spouting off a lot of bigoted antireligious propaganda; but it's clear to me that they're sincerely worried that what Pete and I and others believe is going to do serious harm to the universe.

These Dawkins/Hitchens guys, are they kinda like the liberal British equivalent of the Rev. Jerry Falwell? Hell, I may do permanent damage if I say a Hail Mary, I guess....

It's all kinda silly, I think. Melodramatic describes Mr. Shaw's mindset quite well, I think. Too bad, that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:43 AM

Pete, twice now you've informed us that "evolutionism" is impossible or doesn't exist. For example on 09 Nov 15 at 11.45 AM you wrote:

"This is why I bring up the evidences that evolutionism is impossible, and contrary to observable science."

And on 18 Nov at 05.35 PM you wrote:

" ... we would say there is zero evidence for evolutionism."

So there's no such '-ism' as "evolutionism" is there? So why do you keep using the term?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 04:29 AM

Don't know that you have a leg to stand on, Shimrod. No matter how hard you protest, "evolutionism" certainly seems to be a legitimate word. And most certainly, there are many who believe the Theory of Evolution to be true, to be factual. Certainly, belief in evolution can be called "evolutionism," as opposed to those who don't believe evolution to be true. The fact that you aver that it is not a legitimate word, does not make the word invalid. If Pete uses the word, people understand what he means.

Belief is most often based on evidence, whether you think so or not. The members of a jury weigh the evidence, then believe the defense or the prosecution.

Why do you people put so much faith in semantics? Don't you have anything of substance to talk about?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 04:45 AM

Two dreadful posts from Joe, ignorance mixed with bitterness and frustration. Take this:

"... but it's clear to me that they're sincerely worried that what Pete and I and others believe is going to do serious harm to the universe."

It is not dealing in semantics to remind you that I've said at least twenty times, maybe as many as eight, that it's not what you believe. It's what you DO with those beliefs, especially to children.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:26 AM

Joe, the only person I know who uses the word "evolutionism" is Pete. And Pete seems incapable of expressing himself clearly - so much so that he now appears to be telling us that the term "evolutionism" is invalid. Now in the normal course of events I would ignore such terminological faux pas but Pete wants us to believe that he is some sort of expert or authority on evolutionary biology. Such an expert or authority is OBLIGED to express himself clearly. He is also OBLIGED to educate himself about current mainstream scientific thinking on his chosen subject; he can't JUST rely on his religious faith and material published on dubious websites (sources of 'information' which are VERY far from the mainstream!).

Above all, as Steve, I and others, have been telling him ad nauseum, he is OBLIGED to learn the difference between BELIEF and EVIDENCE!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:35 AM

"Don't know that you have a leg to stand on, Shimrod. No matter how hard you protest, "evolutionism" certainly seems to be a legitimate word. And most certainly, there are many who believe the Theory of Evolution to be true, to be factual. Certainly, belief in evolution can be called "evolutionism," as opposed to those who don't believe evolution to be true. The fact that you aver that it is not a legitimate word, does not make the word invalid. If Pete uses the word, people understand what he means."

"Irregardless" is a real word too, but it doesn't mean you should use it. Evolutionism is a loaded word, full of pejorative undertones. Think Thatcherism, Stalinism, Naziism. It implies adherence to a creed. Well, as we keep patiently pointing out, the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation we have for a phenomenon of nature that definitely occurs. There is nothing immutable about the theory, in fact a huge amount of new evidence to add to it has been discovered in genetics, physiology and cell structure and biochemistry that Darwin hadn't even dreamed about. It is not a creed or a belief system, and Joe and pete equating it to one is dismal and dishonest, and utterly ignorant. No-one who understands science "believes the Theory of Evolution to be true" and the fact you can type that nonsense shows all too clearly that you don't know what you're talking about. It seems that you negotiate your way through the thread with your hands clasped over your ears. It isn't exactly as though we haven't tried to explain this to you ad nauseam, is it? But, you see, this is what happens to people with belief systems. Their thinking and their understanding becomes rigid and stunted, immune from challenge. That's the way you've been told to think, thinking outside the box discouraged lest the faith be threatened. Intellect wasted.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:58 AM

"Evolutionism".....Well shim, I've started to use it, tho' I haven't given the issue much thought before.

I find Pete's contributions interesting and thought provoking, he certainly has an arguable position and he never calls other members "ignorant oafs"......I think most of those have been pointed in the direction of the door.

For the last few hundred years society has been encouraged that the most important thing in life is the acquisition of wealth and the promotion of self.
I think we are moving into a phase where materialism will be impossible to sustain....we need a stronger spiritual dimension for humanity to survive.
Science has produced procedures which look good in the short term but have turned out to be a curse on humanity.....typical examples being nuclear power, antibiotics etc ......proposed as ways of making life better, but containing the threat of the extermination of human life

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:42 AM

If it is a loaded word, no more so than creationISM. But I don't get on tender hooks about it.   The reason being, I prefer to engage on substance rather than semantics of isms. And the flow of accusatory words directed toward Christian believers could just as well be applied to you and your belief system with just a few word changes, Steve . It is you , IMO, who has hands clapped over ears , not engaging on the debate beyond sloganeering.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:48 AM

Hmm. Nuclear power (as distinct from nuclear weapons) may yet save the planet, as it relies on carbon-free energy generation. Antibiotics have saved hundreds of millions of lives and cured hundreds of millions of cases of miserable diseases. Oddly, God has never bothered to do that, all because one woman stole one of his apples. I hardly think that either nuclear power or antibiotics is the numero uno threat to human existence. Still, your interventions are nothing if not amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:58 AM

Well, Pete, creationism is a good word because it characterises a creed, a set of beliefs predicated on faith rather than evidence. You and Joe are accusing us of playing with semantics whereas, in fact, we're calling for the clear and appropriate use of careful
English. You wouldn't appear from the evidence of your posts to be the man to be making accusations of that sort. Still, I suppose you have to try something.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 08:01 AM

Still with the creation ism stuff?

The far better theory is Ithappenedism.
At least its believable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 08:57 AM

Not believable, Donuel. Checkupable, investigateable, researchable, admirable. Real.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:02 AM

full of pejorative undertones. Think Thatcherism, Stalinism, Naziism. It implies adherence to a creed.

Socialism?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 10:51 AM

And your point is, KAoH?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 11:24 AM

Nice one keith !. I don't think Steve thought that through .

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 12:03 PM

Pete... you used the phrase "fish to philosophers", and on a hunch, I Googled it. It seems to be a major catch phrase for all those who want to cast doubt on the evidence of science. For example this site, which says in part

"If you are an atheist then you believe that we are advanced protoplasm that evolved by evolutionary methods of chemical reactions from a fish to philosophers. A process that no one has ever observed. I have never heard of anyone witnessing a fish become a different animal, i.e. a fish becoming a racoon in Darwinian evolution.

We have gone round & round on this for several years... " fish to philosophers" is a straw man error! It is a mis-statement of what evolutionary theory actually claims. By picking an absurd example and making fun of that, you think you are showing something about the entire concept. NO ONE who takes evolution seriously pretends that fish become racoons! You are, whether you realize it or not, exemplifying the "ladder vs. bush" debate in evolutionary theory.
   There are no direct 'steps' from fish to racoon... or to man, or tiger or any other silly example.

Read this... if you dare... and see how it applies directly to humans.
http://www.academia.edu/6168378/A_bush_not_a_ladder_Speciation_and_replacement_in_human_evolution

No one has seriously posited the 'ladder' model for over a hundred years, but that is essentially what you are holding up as a flawed idea.

Along with the "my belief is just as good as YOUR belief" game... which is an example of the "equivocation" fallacy [they are NOT both beliefs], "fish to philosopher" is a lame attempt to pin an error on someone when it is not even what they said!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 12:10 PM

And your point is, KAoH?

When was the last time The Profesor had a point?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:18 PM

Yep, socialism is a definite -ism, Keith. A set of tenets, principles and aspirations. Not an undeniable phenomenon of nature, like evolution. Which is why evolutionism, whilst a perfectly real word, is not the right one. Evolution is a natural phenomenon with a rather good theory for explaining it. People who specialise in its study do not regard evolution as a set of beliefs. Those people are termed evolutionary biologists. As ever, you always side with the wrong people. It's quite instructive that you now have pete on board. I'd hate that if I were you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:55 PM

"I find Pete's contributions interesting and thought provoking, he certainly has an arguable position and he never calls other members "ignorant oafs"..."

"Interesting and thought provoking" eh, Ake? Not the words I would have chosen ... I would have chosen "bigoted and wilfully ignorant" ... but that's just me!

As for calling him names, I think I've explained, somewhere above, that my default position is to treat everyone with respect. Nevertheless, I occasionally run into some character who forfeits my respect - and Pete is definitely one of those! I feel no guilt whatsoever about treating him with contempt.

As for an "arguable position"! You do realise, don't you, that silly stuff that he spouts is not even his own opinion? He just 'parrots' stuff from Creationist websites and then expects us to regard him as some sort of expert or authority. Pathetic!

And as for: " ...we need a stronger spiritual dimension for humanity to survive". Words (almost) fail me! Are you saying that we should throw logic, reason and evidence out of the window and rely on wishy-washy notions, like faith, in order to survive? What planet are you on?!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:05 PM

Steve Shaw says that it's not what you believe. It's what you DO with those beliefs, especially to children.

Well, that's nice, Steve. While I realize others do similar things without being believers, I've used my beliefs and the wisdom of those who taught me in religious schools as a starting place to work to end racism, warfare, capital punishment, poverty, homelessness, capital punishment, and mass incarceration - and I've encouraged my children to do the same. My belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ has led me to oppose these evils and to work against them.

I've also worked a lot to promote environmentalism and pacifism.

Others work for these causes for other reasons, but my religious faith is a primary motivator for me.

Oh, and I taught my children the same principles of critical thinking that I learned in seminary. Note that none of them practice any religion - but they do respect mine. They don't waste their time on rude, vicious, silly attacks on faith like what I see so often here.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:55 PM

"belief and unbelief are predicated on lack of evidence"

On which basis, Steve, your view would be that nobody should ever believe anything. But of course, by definition, you don't believe that...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:16 PM

Well, Joe, I espouse all those values too, and I've also taught my children to espouse them. I seem to have managed all this without the crutch of a Jesus Christ. I've managed to oppose those evils without recourse to that fellow. I suggest, being nice to you, that you might have been that way even without him. I also suggest that people who can oppose all those evils without the Jesus crutch could just conceivably be made of sterner stuff. I went to the funeral of a good friend I'd known for over forty years. A lovely, gentle man he was, a fantastic family man who would do anything for anybody. He hated religion and would only go near a church for weddings and funerals. His Christian family wanted a Christian funeral service. The vicar at the service regaled us all with the assertion that my friend had learned his moral values from his Christian background. I nearly died suppressing my laughter. You blokes who try to equate your goodness with your religion have got a lot to learn. It has nothing to do with it, old chap. The evidence is all around you for the taking. Good believers, bad believers, good atheists, bad atheists. If you need Jesus to make you good, there's something wrong with you. As for your critical thinking, it doesn't seem to extend to your consideration of evolution or starry nights. It certainly hasn't helped your understanding of science. And there is no excuse for sending children to a school where you know they will be lied to under a crucifix. That's just immoral.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 04:16 PM

Steve Shaw says: I seem to have managed all this without the crutch of a Jesus Christ. I've managed to oppose those evils without recourse to that fellow. I suggest, being nice to you, that you might have been that way even without him. I also suggest that people who can oppose all those evils without the Jesus crutch could just conceivably be made of sterner stuff.

"Crutch" is your word, Steve. I find wisdom in the teachings of Christ and of my church, and I have learned from them - how is that a "crutch"? No doubt, I would have been involved in the same causes had I not been a believer - and I said that many others are involved in those causes without being religious. Nonetheless, most of the nonprofit social services in my town have Catholic roots (but serve all and are staffed by all). My saying that my involvement in causes flows from my Catholic faith, should not be interpreted to imply that similar involvement cannot flow from other sources.

The fact that I'm Catholic, is who I am. It is not a crutch, but it is part of my self-identity, and it is a path that I have chosen to take because I find it worthwhile. And I am no less and no more a person because I'm Catholic. It's just who I am, and I like being that way. Why can't you understand that? Why do you feel so driven to insult and deride and attack and demean?

Neil Devore posted an interesting piece in the Atheist Hymns thread, a song or poem he wrote titled "Freedom." To me, it expresses disillusionment with the pretentiousness and guilt that can certainly be a part of religion for some people. It's an honest assessment, and I admit that parts of it are hard to take for me. But it's a reasonable observation, quite different from your insulting attacks. Maybe you could learn to be a little less viciously doctrinaire, and a little more reasonable. Then, maybe you'd have something worthwhile to say. But your blathering attacks are just worthless bigotry.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 04:28 PM

I always wondered what would happen when an unstoppable force met an immovable object.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 04:42 PM

No comprendo, Señor #

-José-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:06 PM

My alleged vicious attacks are couched in far more moderate tones than Joe's cornered-cat responses. They are put mostly in the form of questions and challenges. I don't attack anyone's privately-held beliefs. I do attack the things done as a result of those beliefs. I do that because I think it's high time we stopped respecting religion and leaving it wrapped in cotton wool. Religion in any guise is always predicated on falsehood and I think it needs shooting down. Yes you are telling lies to children. Don't make me go over all that again. You simply have no answer. Yes you do pervert science when you try to insert a God into it. I tend to make my criticisms in a measured and thoughtful manner. I try to avoid sloppy English, especially when we are discussing scientific practice, but, in doing so, I get accused of dabbling in semantics. When you're desperate you'll try anything. I get that. But this thread has gone a long way towards exposing the institutional dishonesty of Christianity. Evidence and reason are the great evils, to be sneered at or worse, yet they're very attributes of science that have been the drivers of human progress, along with culture. There really is no difference between you and the illiberal forces who vehemently opposed Darwin and Galileo. You haven't moved on. You just have to be a little more gentle about them these days in what you say because you don't want to make yourselves look foolish. It's all very sad.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:28 PM

Steve, your entire presence here seems to be based on attacking what others hold sacred. The only thing I attack, is your attacks.

Can't you see the difference?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:29 PM

"On which basis, Steve, your view would be that nobody should ever believe anything. But of course, by definition, you don't believe that..."

Well, define " believe". Apart from believing that Liverpool are the greatest team on earth and that Bill Shankly was greater than God (and that's the truth of it, of course), why should I accept anything on someone else's say so? Well, I might trust that person implicitly, though that will come after a long period of knowing that person very well and seeing plenty of evidence of his integrity. There may be other occasions when the matter in question may be neither here nor there to me and I might as well take the assertion in question at face value in order to save time. But for anything important I want evidence. That doesn't make me Mr Spock. That makes me someone who doesn't care to be controlled or hoodwinked. I'll leave that approach to organised religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:33 PM

"Steve, your entire presence here seems to be based on attacking what others hold sacred."

Desperate stuff, Joe. You are held in high regard here. Don't make a fool of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 05:43 PM

"O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:09 PM

Well as we're into verse, here's a few lines from Neil D's hymn that Joe thought was so good:

When the scales drop from your eyes
And fall beneath the bridge of sighs
With no one there to hear your cries
You're beginning to breathe free

With no one there to criticize
To damn your eyes or demonize
You'll begin to realize
The way we're meant to be

Absolutely. Let the scales fall from your eyes, Joe offer et al. Begin to breathe free. Begin to realise the way we're meant to be. Exactly what I'm saying but in far more eloquent words. And enjoy the quest to study nature in its true real magic and glory. But not your dismal kind of magic, which isn't magic at all. It's a strangulating lie.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:20 PM

José,

The arguments have become circular (and repetitive).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 06:37 PM

The arguments may be repetitive, but they are not circular.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM

You're right, #. I've been trying to take a day off in between times when I post a message or three. I do wonder why I bother posting to a thread like this. I guess it's because many folkies seem to take it for granted that atheism is the Universal Religion of Folkdom. In most situations, I think that folkies are very tolerant, but not in the area of religion. After a while, it starts to bother me that there are people here who speak without opposition as they deride and attack those with religious beliefs. I come from a time when religious people and religious leaders were at the forefront of the peace and civil rights movements, and they were treated with respect but with no feeling that anybody had to join one religion or another.

Then came the advent of born-again, bigoted Christianity, and the takeover of broadcasting and inroads into politics by the religious right. All of a sudden, all religious people got painted with the same brush - and people began to tie me to the mindlessness of the religious right. When people put me into that sort of pigeonhole and begin telling me what I think and how wrong I am to think it, I think I have a right to react viscerally.

It's too bad that such bigotry has taken such a strong foothold in Folkdom. I thought folk music people were better than that. I want to work on equal footing with others on the list I gave before - working to end racism, warfare, capital punishment, poverty, homelessness, capital punishment, and mass incarceration. I shouldn't have to put up with having my personal beliefs attacked constantly by people I thought should be working on the same causes I work for.

But instead, they're working to insult, attack, and silence what I hold to be sacred. It's enough to cause a person to become disillusioned.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 07:32 PM

"The arguments may be repetitive, but they are not circular."

OK then, helical.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 07:48 PM

Religious people and leaders were indeed frequently at the forefront of civil rights, etc., but, at least equally, so were people like me, and you insult us with this barrage of claims, implicit yet bloody obvious, that your religion has anything to do with the moral high ground in those campaigns. Actually, I seem to recall that an awful lot of Southern "Christians" were not exactly of your liberal persuasion, to say the least. If you really want me to, I can give you loads of examples of how your religion was at the forefront of antisemitism and collaboration with the Nazis and a whole host of military dictatorships, not to speak of the disgusting cover-ups of child sex abuse by priests, including by a pope who you want to be made a saint. Actually, I generally choose not to do that, as it's unfair on most people of your belief system, but if you will insist on claiming the virtues of your good bits then I'm going to forcefully remind you of your bad bits, just in case your fake sense of morality goes to your head. Regard my statements as a corrective to your sanctimoniousness, OK? As they say, Joe Offer, sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 07:55 PM

Bill ,your link did,nt come up , but I shall assume it is an amplification of the ladder v bush concept. Maybe I was unclear , or maybe it is you who are presenting the straw man. Infact, I had previously mentioned that darwins tree is now a bush. I hear it is a very tangled bush with plenty of branches unjointed! I did not really know of the ladder concept. When I say fish to philosopher, or microbes to mudcatters, I am assuming the (supposed)intervening eons are understood.   I also understand that the bush concept is not all vertical in a straight line, but sideways and messy as well. Either way, you are espousing what cannot be evidenced....or falsified !       And I reject your charge of equivocation , as I said before, if you cannot evidence your theory, it is a belief system......and all the more so, when experimental science contradicts the theory.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 07:56 PM

Don't think its really an argument #.....Steve is saying Joe is wrong to be a Christian, a believer and to tell his own children about his beliefs.
Joe says it's none of Steve's business....end of story.
People can support Joe or Steve, but Steve continues to reassert the charges.

Not really an argument at all just one member abusing another for his beliefs, but Steve is supposed to be the epitome of tolerance a true liberal, so he says! Joe is a good guy, we all know that......who is Steve to tell him what to think or how to bring up his family?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:12 PM

Ok Pete... you seem to understand the basics of what I am supporting in favor of evolution and even understand what my complaints about your arguments against evolution entail.
Now, what we seem to have at rock-bottom is your assertion that both are basically 'beliefs': and that there is at least 'some' evidence for biblical stories, which you feel balances my evidence for evolution.

(and by the way, you need a different word.. "evidence" is not usually considered a verb. You don't 'evidence' something.)

In both your system & mine, claims need data. Clear & obvious data from various reputable sources are **good** evidence. The word I will use for the moment is that lots of data giving good evidence supports a theory, whether you call it 'belief' or not.

If I had hours..(and thought it would help)... I could describe various everyday activities where both you & I make assumptions and act on them with little doubt about the underlying 'beliefs' one needs to make decisions about their ..ummm... validity, reproducibility, etc. If I could play Socratic method with you, you'd agree that certain things made sense....... yet, when it comes to evolution, you deny the very reasoning that you accept about other things! This notion that because 'the past' can't be continuously observed & tested, any logical inferences we make about it are 'only' theories and beliefs, and thus no better than various religious theories & beliefs is just...... I am at a loss- (I'm sure Steve & Shimrod would supply a word). I'll pick for the moment 'deluded'. You are defending one set of theories-- the religious ones-- by attempting to reduce the status of the scientific ones so that it's purely personal what one chooses.
(Yes.. I know you make certain attempts to justify & support religious beliefs on their own, but you break all sorts of solid, accepted rules of logic & 'evidence in doing so... and when I challenge you, you just equivocate about the language used!)
So... as long as you operate from a totally different and VERY subjective set of premises about 'evidence' and 'proof' and 'belief', there's very little I can say. Your basic, rock-bottom thesis IS circular, as you **implicitly** use certain of your premises to define & support your conclusions. By denying standard values for scientific methods, you have locked yourself into a pattern that cannot be dealt with by those of us who know & understand WHY science & logic work.... and why they must be followed and why errors in them are gradually self-correcting.

I can tell you that my image of myself right now is of a bruised & bloody forehead from beating my metaphorical head against a wall... :>).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:14 PM

Gosh, this is entertaining...

"Steve is saying Joe is wrong to be a Christian

Nope. Don't give a fig.

"...a believer"

Nope. Not my problem.

"... and to tell his own children about his beliefs."

Nope. I tell my children about what I think is true or not true, but beliefs don't come Into it. But they are not required to take my conclusions on board.

"Joe says it's none of Steve's business....end of story."

Well, as those children who are severely damaged by being forced to chant prayers, sing hymns and attend meaningless services, not to speak of being told what to believe under a crucifix on the classroom wall, will influence my life greatly as I enter my dotage, I think it is my business, actually.

"People can support Joe or Steve..."

Carry on. I don't give a monkey's. It isn't a competition.

"Not really an argument at all just one member abusing another for his beliefs"

I have never done that. But I will abuse anyone who justifies forcing their children to endure religious miseducation in faith schools.

"but Steve is supposed to be the epitome of tolerance a true liberal, so he says!"

Never said it in my life. God, you're amusing.

" Joe is a good guy, we all know that......who is Steve to tell him what to think or how to bring up his family?"

Well I'm sure he is, misguided though his thinking is. I don't tell anyone to do anything. I reserve the right to be critical of people's actions, that's alI, not what they think. I have never told anyone what to think. Contrast that with Catholic teaching. Joe was told what to think, and he has still to recover.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:15 PM

So, Steve, exactly whom are you referring to by "pope who [I] want to be made a saint"?

Considering Popes since about 1300, I can think of two who should be saints: Leo XIII and John XXIII (who was declared a saint). Leo XIII reigned from 1878-1903, and was the Pope who initiated Catholic Social Teaching with his Rerum Novarum encyclical. He spoke out for the rights of workers and the poor. John XXIII reigned from 1958-1963, and did much to bring the Catholic Church out of isolation and into the modern world. John XXIII was canonized 27 April 2014, along with John Paul II. I didn't think much of John Paul, the darling of the neoconservatives. I do think that he was the one primarily responsible for what you rightly call "disgusting cover-ups of child sex abuse by priests" - which is just one of the many reasons for my disdain for him.

If the Pope you think I'm promoting for sainthood isn't Leo XIII or John XXIII, then you're putting words in my mouth. You do that quite often.

I'd also like to see the Catholic Church declare sainthood for Dorothy Day, Chicago's Joseph Cardinal Bernadin, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Julian of Norwich, and Dag Hammarskjöld. I'm glad to see that Hildegard von Bingen was canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church by Benedict XVI in 2012.

Can't say I'm pleased with the canonization of Junipero Serra, and I don't understand why Pope Francis did that. Serra is too much a symbol of European oppression of native peoples. I will say, however, that Serra is a symbol to us Californians that Hispanic people have a right to be here, and many of my fellow Californians do not believe that.

Oh, and I think that Pope Francis has done enough already to merit sainthood.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:21 PM

Well blow me down, John-Paul II is a saint already. That was quick. That's who I meant. I must try to keep up. Thanks for the entertaining list. When is it the turn of the poison dwarf of Romania? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:45 PM

I think I should ignore Steve for a while and let him blather in his bigotry.

Bill, what do you think of religious myth? Do you think they were intended to be accepted as factual representations of history and of the origins of the universe, or did the writers have another purpose?

I suppose I base my thinking mostly on the books and video presentations by Joseph Campbell. I see importance and wisdom in the foundational myths of most of the ancient religions. I think that they were intended to instill a sense of awe and wonder, and a kinship with an entity beyond and above the immediate, everyday reality. I pay particular attention to the ancient sacred writings of Christians and Jews (The Bible) and Muslims (The Koran), but I am also intrigued by the mythologies of the Greeks, Egyptians, Celts, and particularly the Native Americans of my area. I don't think these mythologies were intended to mislead or control people. I think they were meant to draw people to a higher ideal and a deeper appreciation of the world that surrounded them.

No doubt there are many who have interpreted these myths in many detrimental ways, but I think their original intent was constructive - and I don't think that most of them were intended to be understood literally. I think that humans have an inherent ability to understand myth and fiction. I consider literalism to be an aberration - and I see that literalism in some who support and some who attack sacred myth. But I think that for the most part, people understand myth and can benefit from it greatly - especially if they view the myth of various cultures with an open mind.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 10:03 PM

You'll find me quite hard to ignore, Joe! Good luck with that!

I think that humans have an inherent ability to understand myth and fiction."

Ha. The evidence against you is that billions of people have been persuaded that myth is truth, that there is a God, that there was a real Jesus who worked miracles, etc. What you should be asking yourself, instead of telling us how all this mythology is so meaningful, is why we need it at all, when the world is already such a wonderful place, so full of non-supernatural magic. But you won't ask yourself that. You've been well and truly got at, old chap!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 10:37 PM

"Bill, what do you think of religious myth? Do you think they were intended to be accepted as factual representations of history ..."

Joe.. it depends on which ones. If they were originally presented AS myths, the answer is obvious... they must be assumed to carry some sort of message...using images & metaphor.

The problem is that many of the older ones 'feel like' they were either believed to be true at the start, or were so compelling that they soon moved into the category of 'almost truths', moderated only by interpretation & translation. I think this because of the reverence and stalwart defense put up when their relevance is questioned... or when artifacts are involved. As Steve indicates, myths which sound good are very often adopted AS truth & fact by the common people of any religion. It happens in Buddhism and certain trees are revered as somehow directly connected to the person. Christianity has many stories, artifacts & locations which have become icons and are defended as if they are fact, whether or not they were originally intended just as educational, inspirational myths.... and it is hard to tell the difference.... and church leaders often find treating them AS fact makes it easier to ....ummm.... herd the sheep. The "Master of the Sheepfold" needs a dedicated "hireling shepherd" to go out in the storm for one stray sheep.
I think that, if a religion is successful, the connection between myth & reality almost automatically assumes a path toward belief. You are, as you are probably aware, a fairly uncommon sort of Catholic in your ability to balance belief with metaphor. I;d with that, for practical reasons, there were more like you... but I suspect that most of the flock wants simpler answers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 03:13 AM

The Pope refuses to say that we are all equal. He perpetuates misogyny, actively encourages homophobia and agreed to run rather than shut down the most corrupt crime racket on the planet.

I can see why a particularly confused person on here supports giving moral guidance to the leader of a crime racket, I can see why Joe Offer has no issue with that.

But the Pope's opportunity to put substance to his platitudes the other week? He bottled out.

Luckily, the majority of people are capable of their own moral compass rather than sacrifice their intelligence and contract out their morality to medieval anachronisms.

Boutique Christianity is a waste of a Sunday morning and believing in sky fairies requires a lowering of education that is too late for the articulate western world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 03:40 AM

"In both your system & mine, claims need data."

Nice try, Bill. But the problem is that Pete doesn't actually have a system - he has 'Creation.com's' system. When you attempted to teach him about the 'ladder and bush' analogy he scuttled off to his favourite website and 'parroted' what they have to say about it. But the thing that he will never understand - because he's incapable of thinking anything through - is that creationism is not even a system - it's a sort of dead-end. Creationists believe what the Bible tells them to believe i.e. God created the world ... however many thousands of years ago (?) - The End. To them, none of this is open to question and God is unknowable anyway.

Then along comes the Great Beast Science and blows this cosy excuse for switching off your brain (or, more accurately, switching off the brains of the 'flock') apart! The Christian origins myth no longer makes any sense whatsoever and is shown to have no scientific validity. Creationists are now fighting a desperate rear-guard action. They portray themselves as noble Christian 'scientists' defending The Truth against the heathen. But what they, and Pete, refuse to acknowledge is that REAL scientists don't START with the truth! Real scientists work painstakingly TOWARDS the truth. If the truth were really known already, there would be no point in doing science!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 06:15 AM

It's all very well, a few "educated" Catholics (or people of any religious creed) who recognise that myths are just that, myths, an effective channel for good messages to pass down, whilst knowing that the rest, as Bill says, need simpler answers. My strong suspicion is the well-educated echelons are quite happy to let the majority keep on thinking that the myths are real. That's the way to keep the club, or the flock, together, the whole edifice founded on a big lie. For a well-educated Catholic to keep telling us that he does this and that, that his children are free to go, that he's taught them to be critical, etc., is all very well, laudable in fact in some regards, but unfortunately he is not representative, and the trouble is I think he knows that. Yet he defends the system that cheerfully feeds the masses those simpler answers, getting cross when I lambast faith schools, for example. That just leaves me scratching my head, frankly. I know that religion isn't going away any time soon, but I would at least like to see it getting a damn sight more honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:50 AM

"I had read once that dumb people didn't know they were dumb. They thought they were just as smart as anybody else. That was a very unsettling thought. What if I was really dumb and didn't know it?" 
― Dinah Katt, 

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 09:00 AM

It's a pity that the myths can't just be seen as myths. I loved Aesop's Fables when I was little and may even have picked up a few pieces of morality from them, but not for a single second did I not know they were myths. Myths can be colourful, absorbing and instructive. Jesus, or the committee that posed as Jesus, came up with some elegant and true teachings. Not all of it (I can't go along with turning the other cheek, giving all my stuff away, the misogynistic bits about putting your wife away, not worrying about tomorrow and, worst of all, believing without seeing evidence: shame on Thomas for getting that right then caving in!), but quite a lot of it. I won't accept the bad bits just because I'm told that God says they must be beyond question. We all know where that leads.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:23 AM

Then came the advent of born-again, bigoted Christianity, and the takeover of broadcasting and inroads into politics by the religious right. All of a sudden, all religious people got painted with the same brush

If those religious people who are not born-again bigots were to actively condemn, disassociate themselves from and campaign against the born-again bigots instead of remaining largely silent, they would find that they weren't "painted with the same brush" and they would be doing society a service.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:26 AM

I thought I'd post one more link for Pete to explain away:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1119/These-slimy-deep-sea-worms-are-actually-quite-close-cousins-to-humans

_______________________

But getting Pete to see the point of this and other examples of scientific progress towards understanding what we are is no harder than getting Steve and Greg and Shimrod and a few others to see why Pete and other deeply religious folk believe as they do. It is not enough to study science & logic in order to comprehend why evolution makes sense......... there is also a need to study history and culture and philosophy and psychology in order to cope with the strange situation we have where basically intelligent people can look at the same data/evidence and draw different, incompatible conclusions.
It is not as though Pete (and even Joe Offer) were rare specimens who fail to grasp what is now 'obvious' to most of the human race..... Face it- they are in the majority that 'believe' in some sort of metaphysical entity (or entities) that control or affect the universe!
Of course it is tempting to lay out 'evidence' to show the ignorant how much better YOUR system is... but when you encounter 'stubbornness' or 'ignorance'(which is different than stupidity), why would you think that arrogance and insults might turn the tide?
No, I'm sure you DON'T think that making fun of different views will suffice.... it's just an common human response - perhaps allowing one to 'feel superior'?

I argue with Pete.. but I don't really expect him to change much, so I try to comprehend why he thinks that way. Then I argue with those who denigrate Pete... and I try to understand why they feel it necessary to react that way.----- You know, it's easier in some ways to have a polite, although frustrating, debate with Pete than to cope with the attitudes of some of those with whom I agree!

Ain't we humans fascinating?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:49 AM

Greg...I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but what do you mean by a "born again bigot".....I don't think we have any Christians in the UK that I could label as such.
What is so bad about them? what atrocities do they commit? why does the American liberal dislike them so much?

If you don't want to answer on the thread, feel free to PM me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:57 AM

I just found this in an old thread.... for some reason it seemed relevant to all this:

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
                                        Friedrich Nietzsche

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 12:09 PM

Oh frustration.....I typed a detailed response to you previous post , bill , but lost it ! But the main point was that your lengthy post really amounted to relying on consensus science.....and that is not scientific, it is following the herd. On to last post. So acorn worms share a percentage of genes with humans. Do you suppose that God should have used something else ? What we have is a measure of correlation , not an explanation of how the evolution bush developed. Did,nt we have all this with apes and humans , but when more data came to light , the greater detail revealed far more difference than first suggested.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 12:28 PM

Methinks, bill , that the reason some of your fellow atheists resort to ridicule and bad mouthing is simply that they got nothing else to go on. At least you try to debate tHe issues though for the life of me I can't see (leaving Aside spiritual reasons) why you as so educated are so illogical. ....smile....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 12:38 PM

A bit rich isn't it? A god botherer reckoning others have nothing to go on.

In answer to why normal people get hostile towards those who try to inflict superstition on others, just open a fucking newspaper. Pages one to thirty will do.

No born again bigots in The UK??? 😳 Keep going, this is priceless material for the jokes between songs. New strings usually means more waffle time. Pointing and laughing at the one in every village fills a few minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 02:09 PM

Greg...I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but what do you mean by a "born again bigot"

Take it up with Joe - he coined the phrase, I was quoting him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:54 PM

consensus science

Another meaningless expression like evolutionism. Do you make these up all by yourself, pete, or does god reveal these to you one-on-one?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 05:01 PM

"But getting Pete to see the point of this and other examples of scientific progress towards understanding what we are is no harder than getting Steve and Greg and Shimrod and a few others to see why Pete and other deeply religious folk believe as they do."

You don't have to try too hard with me, Bill. I do get it. When we were little we were all swamped by religion. It's the default. It WILL be fed to us and that won't be questioned. Millions of people will never enter a free-enough thinking environment where this can be questioned guilt-free (it was hard enough for those of us who did manage to unshackle ourselves). I understand why enforced belief sticks. There would be no religion if it didn't. But this is absolutely not my issue. Unlike you, I think that, after centuries of a free pass for religion, it's high time that it was comprehensively attacked. Charles Darwin was as diplomatic as can be towards religion once he realised how the truth of evolution was undermining it, but he was attacked and demonised vehemently nonetheless. He still is being from certain quarters, as we see on this forum, and it stinks. Soft-soaping organised religion is spineless. All religion is predicated on falsehood and proselytisation and it's incredibly damaging. Religion NEEDS to be attacked. Not to do so would be immoral.

"It is not enough to study science & logic in order to comprehend why evolution makes sense......... there is also a need to study history and culture and philosophy and psychology in order to cope with the strange situation we have where basically intelligent people can look at the same data/evidence and draw different, incompatible conclusions."

I don't agree with this. Only people blinded by religion would fail to comprehend why the beautiful and true phenomenon of evolution makes sense. There is no other explanation for life on earth. Anyone confronting the truth of evolution who then continues to deny it, or who tries to subvert it by positing Godly input, is not as intelligent as you're suggesting. As I've said over and over again, religious faith stuns the intellect. If you deny evolution, you are not especially intelligent. Their conclusions are not incompatible. You're being far too indulgent. Their conclusions are wrong. Say so.

"Of course it is tempting to lay out 'evidence' to show the ignorant how much better YOUR system is... but when you encounter 'stubbornness' or 'ignorance'(which is different than stupidity), why would you think that arrogance and insults might turn the tide?"

I am very disappointed that you feel the need to put evidence in speech marks. And there is more muddle here. I haven't got a system for a start, and even if I did I wouldn't be doing the schoolyard mine's-better-than-yours thing. I can do better than that, thanks. As for arrogance and insults, well I'm a direct fellow, though I've more or less abandoned name-calling in case you haven't noticed. I prefer to counter with argument laced, admittedly, with that thing that's the lowest form of wit. I would also suggest that your approach is absolutely no better at turning the tide than mine, but hey ho. I must say, I admire your staying power apropos of pete's incessant inanity, but brick walls and heads spring to mind. I would also say that pete is one of the most Insulting people it's ever been my misfortune to encounter, even though he dresses up his insults in a particular brand of sloppy and smiley wackiness.

"No, I'm sure you DON'T think that making fun of different views will suffice.... it's just an common human response - perhaps allowing one to 'feel superior'?"

Or perhaps not, Bill. Your rather aloof and objective philosophical approach here is admirable and valuable, but I wouldn't dream of saying that you were doing it to look superior. However, it probably stands slightly more chance of eliciting that response from the average reader around here than our merely making fun...

"I argue with Pete.. but I don't really expect him to change much, so I try to comprehend why he thinks that way. Then I argue with those who denigrate Pete... and I try to understand why they feel it necessary to react that way.----- You know, it's easier in some ways to have a polite, although frustrating, debate with Pete than to cope with the attitudes of some of those with whom I agree!"

I suppose you're not a bad old boy on the whole... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 05:14 PM

so I try to comprehend why he thinks that way.

Ah, but Bill- you've put your finger right on the problem: he DOESN'T think - he parrots, he quotes, he repeats what others have told him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 05:44 PM

Who told him?

Oh. The lickle baby jesus

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 06:26 PM

"But the main point was that your lengthy post really amounted to relying on consensus science.....and that is not scientific, it is following the herd."

"Consensus science" - another 'straw man', Pete! Do you expect every scientist to disagree with every other scientist? Every human endeavour that I can think advances through consensus, you prick! Even fundamentalist, religious maniacs, like you and your creationist chums, agree on the details of the nonsense that you and they spout. And how dare you characterise members of the scientific community as "the herd" - you arrogant, ignorant, brain-washed dullard!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM

Cor. I meant STUNTS the intellect. I find that a surfeit of vino rosso can stun my intellect, but the effect is only temporary (I hope).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:00 PM

Re: Born-again bigot

In the U.S. in the 1970s, there was a resurgence of conservative, evangelical Christianity, promoted by radio and television evangelists. It derived much of its power from reacting to the Civil Rights and antiwar movements, and has continued to draw power by opposing evolution, anti-poverty work, feminism, gay rights, and other social justice causes.

There are some evangelicals who are finally realizing that their opposition to social justice is contrary to the Gospel they preach, and so we have some very interesting evangelicals like Jim Wallis and his Sojourners movement, and (to a lesser degree) Rick Warren and his "purpose-driven life." It's nice to see hopeful signs from the evangelicals, although I suppose their religious traditions will not be acceptable to literalists like Mr. Shaw.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:19 PM

Joe, see 20 Nov 15 - 10:23 AM

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 02:01 AM

Joe. You use the word tradition. Those you speak of use the word truth, with the odd use of literal.

Presumably you would stand in their way when they hold lit fire torches shouting "To the observatory!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:56 AM

thanks Joe, but I still cant work out why Christians would be against the things you mention with the arguable exception of homosexual marriage legislation.

War, civil rights, poverty, why on earth would Christians oppose such things when they are obviously against Christian principles?

UK Christians do not oppose such things, to do so would be indefensible.

Are you sure these people are not being manipulated by political forces?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:01 AM

I've been thinking about Pete's latest 'straw man' of "scientific consensus". What he seemed to be implying with that jibe is that mainstream scientists, working in the field of evolutionary biology and related fields, are sharing a common delusion or are engaging in some sort of giant (anti-religious?) conspiracy. I have challenged him on the conspiracy hypothesis before, on this thread, and he has ruled it out. So that leaves us with the common delusion. So we are asked to believe (with no evidence, of course) that many thousands of scientists worldwide, plus the great institutions of learning that they are affiliated to, plus numerous grant awarding bodies, plus the editors and staff of the distinguished journals that they publish their work in are ALL deluded; does that seem likely? Does it also seem likely that a bunch of religious fundamentalists - based mainly in the US (sorry Joe!) - are the only group who are not deluded?

And if evolutionary biologists and palaeontologists and geologists and geneticists and molecular biologists are deluded, where does it stop? Are physicists and chemists deluded too? If all scientists are deluded, we wouldn't be having this discussion, in this medium, would we? We wouldn't be having this discussion because personal computers and the Internet wouldn't exist, would they?

So who am I to take most seriously and find most credible: a bunch of religious fundamentalist bigots and a barely literate, scientifically ignorant oaf they appear to have brainwashed or thousands of ingenious, hard working, mainstream scientists? That's not a difficult choice, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:47 AM

"We wouldn't be having this discussion because personal computers and the Internet wouldn't exist, would they?"

I think you are wrong there Shim, In my apprentice days people got involved in discussion much more than they do today. There was more time to meet up and debate. At work discussions of all sorts abounded, books we were reading politics, religion, morality, football, shinty, war experiences, vegetable and livestock cultivation. Some of us have more information available, but we have become insular, unable to relate to others....your remarks to pete would never have been tolerated.
Being subjected to abusive stalking as I have been here lately would have been treated with scorn.

The internet has opened some doors, mainly marketing doors, but has closed many more, like face to face debate, non mainstream views....much too easy to manipulate the cyber world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:55 AM

People are very easily manipulated, and it is not confined to "evangelicals", liberals are manipulated all the time, into the role of "good cop".......in the Thought Police force.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 05:11 AM

I can't see how any of that is relevant to the main point that I was making, Ake, i.e. that it is highly unlikely that all scientists are deluded.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:33 AM

So religion needs to be attacked , does it, Steve ? I assume you are excepting your own religious worldview.   And not to do so would be immoral, you say. So, Steve , on what objective standard do you judge what is immoral or not .   You also seem to think that there would be no religion if people were not taught it, or lived in a religion free environment. I assume you mean theistic religion, and not Buddhism , atheism, new age etc.            but apart from just about everyone worshipping /devoted to something (even if it's only a football team !) the prevalence of belief in a God/gods is so widespread and natural that appeal to indoctrination just don't suffice as an explanation.    And it is not just "the religious" that struggle to make sense of the evolution story , even evolution believers sometimes recognise their own story don't add up and look for alternatives , but being unwilling to fully discard what they know is erroneous , still hang on to the concept.    Such is the power of entrenched religious worldviews......

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:39 AM

Evangelicals and social work and campaigning , joe, have quite a rich tradition. The Salvation Army and wilberforce as just two examples. However, it should be expected that evangelicals will be opposed to moral issues as per bible teaching.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:25 AM

This thread represents faith's confrontation with science rather well.

In the beginning, we have the creationists (for now, as I've been attacked for stating otherwise, I'll limit that term to the young-earth variety). Like the rest of us, they enjoy all the fruits of science and technology, but they deny the scientific method as the means of explaining and understanding the universe. They do not accept true evidence such as that gleaned from radioisotope dating and the fossil record and they deny the true conclusion that the earth is billions of years old. Instead, they adhere to the unsubstantiated and simplistic belief that God, a supernatural entity of some kind, created everything, more or less all at once and in its present form, a few thousand years ago. Not only that, they have a tendency to attack any science that seems to threaten this belief.

Then there are the moderate Christians (we haven't had input from other belief systems so I'll stick with just Christians for now). They also believe in a creator, though some of them, for some reason, don't like to be called creationists. They probably believe in a similar God to the young-earth brigade, but they may define him in various ways in argument, as some kind of spiritual presence or driving force or as an unknowable he-who-is-within. The claim is that God need not be seen as a bearded chap in the clouds who sees all and knows all, though it's a good bet that most Christians, and children signed up as Christians, do see him in something like that kind of way, whatever our more sophisticated and philosophical types say.

Both the above types have scripture as their main guide book, though the young-earthers tend to take it rather more literally. In any case, scripture is the bedrock of the teaching that goes on in schools, teaching which mainly aims to get children to believe in what their parents, teachers and priests believe in, more or less. On the whole, unless the teaching is solely about comparing world religions and the history of religious belief, it can't be called education, as there is no scope for children to ask for true evidence to which they can apply critical thinking, an essential study skill in any process calling itself education. What's more, part of their school religion experience will probably consist of attending services, saying prayers and singing hymns, either to praise this deity or his close relatives, to thank him for doing things, to ask him for things or to beseech him to save us from hell. None of the hymns or prayers ever reveal any scope for doubt as to whether the deity actually exists in the first place. Much of this will be done standing or kneeling before graven images, a bit odd as their commandments wouldn't seem to allow this.

This latter group has an ambivalent relationship with science. History has taught them that it is always unwise to deny science, even when it seems to threaten faith, as they are always shown in the end that they were wrong to do so. They do their best to espouse science, but, where they see the clashes that are inevitable, instead of denying the science they attempt to subvert it by trying to give God a role. For example, they will say that God kick-started evolution, or that he is its driving force, doing his creating along the way. Unfortunately, this approach makes utter nonsense of the science. Science is, of course, big enough and strong enough to resist this, and this is what can cause conflict.

As science is predicated on evidence and reason alone, it will always win out. This doesn't mean that religion will disappear. The pull of the supernatural, the propensity of the imagination to espouse myth and magic and the fear of the afterlife are very strong forces. Unfortunately, they are not true, and the minds of those who embrace these notions waste a lot of energy on them, to the tragic detriment of their seeking the true evidence about everything. It's worse than that. Not only is their explanation not an explanation at all, it completely blocks any possibility that the truth about everything will ever be found. No matter what the philosophers and theologians might say, there is only one path to finding truth, which is searching out real evidence and applying all the might of the human brain to interpreting it honestly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:31 AM

I meant the religious teaching in schools, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:39 AM

You can attack what you see as my "worldview" (whatever that means) whenever you like, pete. If I can make head or tail of what you're on about I'll bite back. Unfortunately, that is a very rare occurrence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:43 AM

And Mudcat still allows hatred towards people without moderation.

There is no such thing as "marriage."

Any chance of Mudcat maturing enough to allow people coming on without being confronted by homophobic hatred? Don't the rules preclude such bigotry being propagated?

You don't need to be gay in order to feel queasy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:45 AM

"Are you sure these (right-wing Christian) people are not being manipulated by political forces?"

I doubt if it ever occurred to Joe, if to anyone else here, that these people weren't being manipulated. It's one big tangle of manipulation. You start with people with limited education and religious backgrounds which often explicitly foster narrow mindedness. The only social change they could possibly be comfortable with would be seeing more of the world becoming just like themselves. Then bring on a wave of mass media evangelists who are just charismatic specimens of that population or, all too often, totally unscrupulous predators who recognize a substantial financial resource. Some of those evangelists, and a significant number of unscrupulous politicos, also recognize and nurture a hefty potential voting block. It takes little more than a few standard catch phrases for a politician to endear himself to that faction.
And...Sarah Palin may be the first American woman to reach the magnitude she did as a poster child for the whole mess.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:49 AM

Guest, some slight progress has been made there. The chief culprit actually mentioned Homosexual Marriage without putting "-" around it.
Not much progress but some.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 11:06 AM

Sorry Raggytash, slight oversight ...."marriage"....that better?
I am sorry, but even as an agnostic, I cannot recognise the relationship of two people of the same sex as marriage, even if they "love" one another. To me marriage has a deeper and more complicated definition.


Seriously though, see how political the opposition to religion really is?
As I have said many times the opposition to religion amongst "liberals" is almost always driven by their political ideology. They are in possession of no more provable facts than religious people are.....in fact they are often more doctrinaire than people of faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 11:23 AM

My personal experience, and that of others, has led me to believe that we don't actually need any religion in any form.

My politics do not come into the equation and the fact they don't have "provable facts" has been explained here many time by Steve far more eruditely than I ever could.

Science is, and probably always will be, a work in progress.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:21 PM

People have different "needs", but I don't really think having faith in "god" is a "need" at all......as far as I can see, it is more about "giving".

Round this area, the church people do more for the community than anyone, always collecting for charity, giving their time to community projects etc...and never mentioning "god" or religion, but if pressed they will say quite openly that god plays a major part in
how they live their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:30 PM

Being part of a community group doesn't need to entail religion though. For example mywife and I have been involved in a Rescue boat for about 20 years. Neither we or the other people involved evoke a religion.

With ONE notable exception. When we get a new boat the crew want it to be blessed. I suspect that is more than a tad based in superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:32 PM

Hmm. Faith is about giving all right. Giving people false notions, especially children, unless that faith is kept to oneself.

I don't recognise homosexual marriage either. I recognise marriage. I've been in a happy "heterosexual marriage" for 39 years. The heterosexual part of it has played a relatively small part (though quite an important one) in that marriage. When I tell people I'm married, or put it on a form, I tell them I'm married. I've probably had to do this thousands of times. Not once have I ever told anyone that I am heterosexually married. I'm afraid the evidence is that you have an extremely unhealthy interest in people's private sex lives. I should get that seen to if I were you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:35 PM

I suppose that if there was evidence that blessed boats are significantly less likely to sink and drown their occupants than unblessed ones, I'd have do some rethinking.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:57 PM

I don't agree that the likes of Akenaton should be allowed to breed but until this point I had the courtesy to keep my view to myself.

If it's free speech he bleats about, how come he screams about seeing an imaginary solicitor whenever anyone mentions the Argylle greyhound trainer convicted of animal cruelty? Not nice, having a go at people is it Alex?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 12:59 PM

"My personal experience, and that of others, has led me to believe that we don't actually need any religion in any form."

I've certainly never needed it, Raggytash. In fact, it's always been a rather puzzling irrelevance to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 01:39 PM

Well the faith brigade will tell you that billions of people do appear to "need" religion and will use the fact to accord it legitimacy. It's a fallacious argument, but hey ho.   Speaking from just my own experience, I soaked up Catholicism without question at school (and at home and at church, but mostly at school) for the first eighteen years of my life. What was that like? Well, it felt warm and cosy on the whole, except for those few very scary days between committing what I'd thought had been a mortal sin and getting to the next confession session. Hell beckoned and I had to be especially careful about crossing the road, etc., for those few days. Apart from that, and never quite being able to work out whether masturbating was venial or mortal (and who could you ask!), all was fine. It took over a decade of ever-increasing doubt before I managed to shake it off. I mean, why risk hellfire (and the wrath of me granny)? At least for a Catholic I wasn't going to have my hand cut off or be honour-killed for apostasy, but it still wasn't that easy. We hear a lot about the human need for belief, implying that there really must be something in it, but I don't think that's true. I think there's the possibility that that most vital of human attributes, the thing that gives us our culture, our almost unbounded imagination, by its very nature is quite vulnerable to hijacking. I think that's what religion does, and the younger and more impressionable they catch you, the more effective the strategy. And I've decided that I don't like that kind of manipulation, and I think that otherwise mild fellows like Joe Offer refuse to see it and just carry on as before, deluding not just themselves but passing the delusion on, guilt-free, to children. I don't care what people do or don't believe, but I can't stomach that last bit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 01:44 PM

"At least BEING a Catholic..." would have read better.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:03 PM

That's you Steve, and good luck to you. You started out being a Catholic, and later gave it up.

So did most people I know who are Catholics. The difference is, we came back to it.

You write these enormous diatriibes in post after poost, essentially saying the same thing over and over again. Who are you actually trying to convince?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:08 PM

Greg F says: If those religious people who are not born-again bigots were to actively condemn, disassociate themselves from and campaign against the born-again bigots instead of remaining largely silent, they would find that they weren't "painted with the same brush" and they would be doing society a service.

That's an argument that's used often, Greg, and I think it's invalid. It's been used against blacks, Jews, Arabs, and just about every group that has been targeted for discrimination.

The argument could be seen as a weak attempt to rationalize bigotry.

I've listed the causes I work for. They are causes that are supported by many progressive Christians, Muslims, and Jews - and atheists. Many of them are in direct opposition to the positions of the born-again bigots. But you're saying it's right for people to class us with the bigots, unless we attack the bigots directly.

I think that direct attacks on bigots, often serve to make them stronger. People like the Westboro Baptist Church [ http://godhatesfags.com/ ] thrive on the condemnation they receive. Better to work for the good, rather than to attempt to destroy the bad.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:39 PM

Raggytash sez: When we get a new boat the crew want it to be blessed. I suspect that is more than a tad based in superstition.

True, but isn't the christening a pretty good excuse for a party?

And aren't churches pretty good places for marking the events of life, the births and deaths and marriages? Certainly, there are other ways of marking these events, but I like the way we celebrate these things in churches. I went to a Catholic funeral yesterday, and it was a wonderful celebration of the life of a remarkable woman. And the music was terrific.

I have never said that being religious is better than not being religious, although that accusation has been hurled at me dozens of times here at Mudcat. It's just one of a number of ways of doing things - and it works for me.

I think it is inappropriate for anyone who does not practice religion, to expect to be able to use church facilities or clergy to celebrate life events. I see people who want to use our church for a wedding because it's pretty. And there was the group who didn't want a funeral service, but they wanted the free funeral luncheon prepared by the ladies of the parish. And it really grates me when people want to have their child baptized into the Church because it's a family tradition, but they don't want to attend the preparation classes and don't want to promise to bring the child to church regularly after the baptism.

Our Irish-born pastor wisely stretches the restrictions and will celebrate a funeral or wedding or whatnot if he thinks the religious service will do the people good - but he draws the line when he feels he's just being rented as part of the performance.

I think there's something primal in human beings that makes us want to join together in times of joy and sorrow, when we want to express things that words cannot express. I think that religion fills this need very well - and it adds a wonderful aspect of tradition and ties to our ancestors that doesn't come as naturally in most other settings.

Raggytash says: My personal experience, and that of others, has led me to believe that we don't actually need any religion in any form. Shimrod agrees, and I'd agree too. But that's not the point - religion should be something that people choose to do because they want to, not because they need to.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:40 PM

I am not saying the same thing every time. In that post I was trying to point out to the pillocks who accuse me all the time of being some kind of bitter and militant ex-Catholic that I am nothing of the sort. You simply don't like the fact that I've given it up and have decided to speak out. I'm really sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but, as for me, I'm well within my own comfort zone, thank you. I would prefer it if you abandoned your unwarranted dismissive stance and addressed the substance of what I say. I don't even mind if you say nothing. DMcG has decided to do just that and I can respect that. If you really want to speak out against someone who is genuinely idiotic and repetitive, let's hear it for pete and akenaton, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:41 PM

Steve sez, ........faith against science....and I can go with that, but not as he means. The evolutionist has faith in his Darwinism, despite creationists pointing out how science and more recent data demonstrate it to be erroneous. The continual cry that "science" is continuous and self correcting, is really just a faith position, when the data contradicts their story. How do you know you will find a way to accommodate the contrary evidence ?.....because evolution is true. !    How do you know it's true ?........because most scientists say it is !    We are back to consensus science...which ain't science, it is just groupthink, peer pressure and the grip of the paradigm.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:15 PM

"Raggytash says: My personal experience, and that of others, has led me to believe that we don't actually need any religion in any form. Shimrod agrees, and I'd agree too. But that's not the point - religion should be something that people choose to do because they want to, not because they need to."

So those millions of children forced to say prayers, sing hymns and be told lies to in faith schools chose to have all that imposed on them, did they? Blimey, some choice that was, Joe. At the present time here in Blighty we have millions of turkeys voting for Christmas too. Or maybe twenty. Or could be eight.

Unbelievable. And I don't even believe in belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:21 PM

Part 2, Steve says that YEC ,s benefit from science despite supposedly denying science. Tell me Steve of anything that needed evolutionism(ie the idea of microbes to man etc) to be invented. In fact, science don't need evolutionism at all to function, and made great strides when most scientists were bible believers. Of course , there will often be the expected homage paid to evolution, but it is quite irrelevant to technological advance, so , Steve, that is a fallacious argument of the equivocal variety .       Neither do we deny the scientific method. You cannot do repeatable , observable test on the past....because it been , done and gone , and we were not there. But you say, we have dating methods and creationists don't accept them. Well , as it happens, many time evolutionists don't accept them either, disagree over them, and different methods can give diverse dates.......not to mention when they date for eons old, when a recent date is known.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:42 PM

Part 3, .....and the fossil record....billions of years...   Neither do we deny the fossil record. The fact is, evolutionism assumes deep time and interprets the data accordingly and assumes the sequence relates to very slow and gradual,(with some catastrophism in the mix , cos they can't deny it any more) , whereas creationism interprets the data as an order of burial. This accords well with the evidence , such as trees through more than one layer......but perhaps that's when you will accept some kind of rapid burial!?       Steve sez, science is predicated on evidence and reason alone...well that might be true in the abstract , but it is fallible humans that practise it. People who are chasing grants, or locked into a mindset like Steve is, or afraid to buck the trend, or face ridicule, and these factors might not be exhaustive either.       I did read far enough into origins to read that Darwin himself conceded that what he had presented was open to other interpretation. Whether that was humility or diplomacy I know not , but he said it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 05:28 PM

science don't need evolutionism at all to function, and made great strides when most scientists were bible believers

It does. You can;t keep science going when you selectively ignore the evidence. It made progress when people were "bible believers"* because at that stage there was no conflict with the evidence. That evolved later.

* Note the Taliban awfulness here. Thousands of evolutionary scientists are Christians. They are "Bible believers" just as much as Pete is, but are fully engaged with the demonstrated evolutionary history of life, and its prebiotic origins. But certain greedy persuasions grab the whole bloody book, and it's interpretation, as their own exclusive property.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:00 PM

The whole point of the fossil record is that it is predicated, truly, on three and a half billion years of history. Your perverted take on it, that somehow it's only a few thousand years old, represents a crude and evidence-innocent denial of everything that science is about. I tend to avoid feeling offended or insulted around here, but I must confess that, with the honourable exception of Shimrod, and one or two others who don't post so much on this topic in any case, it is frustrating to see how I am so much attacked while a charlatan like you gets a bye. I suppose that being a liar, a serial denier and insulter of science and a copy-and-paster from disreputable websites can be held in higher regard than an honest fellow who has simply decided that diplomacy isn't necessarily the highest priority. Still, I'm not jealous. Religion has a track record of celebrating liars. Just think of all those holy men (rarely women: go figure, as the yanks say) who peddle lies to children in schools and in church. They are your friends, pete, and, sadly for them, you are theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:02 PM

Steve Shaw sez: So those millions of children forced to say prayers, sing hymns and be told lies to in faith schools chose to have all that imposed on them, did they? Blimey, some choice that was, Joe.
Steve's oft-repeated defenses of children, have implications that sound very much like Orwell's 1984.
Mother: "No, Johnny, you can't attend Grandpa's funeral. He was religious, you know; and the Authorities will not admit anyone under 21 because there may be mention of angels and paradise and other untruths that might harm you."

Somehow, I think it should be left to parents to choose how to educate their children, even if portions of that education are not Correct. I don't want Steve or the Authorities controlling what I teach my kids.

---

Steve also says, I was trying to point out to the pillocks who accuse me all the time of being some kind of bitter and militant ex-Catholic that I am nothing of the sort.

In this case, I am reminded very much of something that both looks and quacks like a duck...

---

One other thing: I see that people here often accuse Pete of relying on creation.com or other creationist Websites. I wonder how often Pete's detractors rely on the Websites of Dawkins and St. Hitchens.

Pete should teach his kids what he wants to teach them (assuming that Pete lives in the United States, where that sort of thing is allowed...).

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:41 PM

Well I for one have never been on a Dawkins or Hitchens website, nor do I know if they even exist, nor would I go on them even if they did. Try to be not so bloody silly for a change. And I'm not defending children, I'm attacking YOU for espousing ideas that are likely to damage them, even though your adherence to your belief system is so strong that you really don't care. Your priority is the perpetuation of your belief system, and children's independence of thought can be sacrificed on that altar. You would rather peddle myths as truth to them than tell them the truth, the one and only way of keeping them in the club. Shame on you. It's also dishonest. As for that being your own private business, well I suppose that any decision you might make to sell their bodies on the street would be your exclusive business too. You wouldn't, of course, but abuse is abuse. I couldn't agree with you less. Your children are very far from being your exclusive private affair. They are the future of your country and the future of the planet, and we all have an investment in every one of them. In fact, in this country, and likely in yours too, people like me have to pay taxes to keep your confounded faith schools afloat, so don't dare tell me that your sending your kids to them is none of my business, please. How bloody arrogant can you get. I suppose that if your children are your own exclusive business then so is your wife, along with all your other goods and chattels. She's no less human than the kids, vice versa if you like, after all. I think I might have heard of other religions that think like that. You're not so different, are you. As they say, sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:44 PM

Er, "it's all so dishonest" is what I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:53 PM

"Pete should teach his kids what he wants to teach them"

Would you say the same about the radicalisers of Al Qaeda or ISIS? Last I heard, some of them were teaching their six-year-olds to use Kalashnikovs to shoot infidels. Oh well. None of our business, I suppose. And, after all, we Christians are so much more civilised...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:52 PM

Of course you don't say the same thing every time, Steve. Some of your postsii are one liners, others lengthy screeds. But you do indeed say the same things over and over and over again.

I note you wrote in a post just now "How bloody arrogant can you get." I am tempted to suggest that there are examples of precisely that in a fair number of your own posts in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,badge
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:53 PM

 "Whoever is not God is nothing"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:10 PM

Absolutely untrue, Kevin. Show me when I've said the same thing over and over again, taking context into account. And, if I may say so, you, Pete and Joe crack on as if you haven't read a single word I've said. Your responses are apparently determined in advance. It's what cornered, defensive Christians always do. You are intelligent enough to address the issues. Your choice. I'm actually amazed that I've managed to bracket you with pete, but you are just as adept at not listening as he is. Your prerogative, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 11:05 PM

Steve, it's at the point where we can predict what you're going to say - almost word-for-word. I'm sure there's some reason why you harbor such disdain for religion. Many people have been harmed by religion - I have no doubt of that. Many others find great benefit in their religious practices.
So, what "issues" haven't I answered, Steve? I think it boils down to this: I believe in God and practice a religion and you don't. Either way is fine, although you don't seem to think so.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:16 AM

I think that it is a bit unfair to accuse Steve of being repetitive whilst ignoring the fact that Pete has been repeating the same old nonsense over and over and over again for years! At least Steve's opinions are his own and not someone else's. At least Steve is his own man and not a semi-articulate 'mouthpiece' who has been brainwashed and (dare I write it?) 'radicalised' by religious fundamentalists!
I suspect that a lot of the hostility towards Steve's opinions are based on the fact that, in some quarters, religion is still seen as being beyond reproach and criticism. In short, many of you see Steve as a heretic!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:59 AM

No, Shimrod, there's a big difference. All Steve does is attack others - he is constantly on the offensive - and he is attacking us personally and what we hold sacred. There is no chance of having a reasonable and constructive discussion with him because he's constantly seeking to destroy and find fault - never to find common ground and agreement. If you talk with Steve, you have to be on your guard every moment. He is not a nice person. He's in this for battle, not understanding or discussion. Just like the worst of the born-agains, he is absolutely convinced that he's right. He has no ability to question his own position at all. And with such an extreme point of view, I wonder if there's any chance he can work constructively with people of faith in real life.

Pete is defending his own viewpoint - a positive point of view that he holds sacred, whether it be right or wrong.

Steve's whole program is merely to attack religion. I don't think any of us think religion is beyond reproach. We've all had both good and bad experiences with religion. Even Steve admits to having had some good experiences.

People who live only to attack and destroy, are not likely to be the most popular kids on the block.

You and Raggytash may not agree with religion, but it feels possible to have a discussion with you without being on guard every moment.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:10 AM

Talk about repetitive. How many times have you now used the keep-'em-at-arm's-length reference to "what you hold sacred"? You ask me what it is you haven't addressed (not that I care that you haven't, but since you ask). I've asked you over and over again why you find it difficult to support telling children the plain truth. Why you prefer to see them having myths fed to them as truth. And please spare me your he-who-is-within-and-without, deeper truths stuff. That is not what children are told in schools. The plain truth, not an opinion, is that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity. The plain truth is that you have to accept magic and suspend disbelief in order to accommodate him. The PLAIN TRUTH is that stories in gospels about miracles and coming back from the dead and virgin births are NOT TRUE. Honesty dictates that children are told in plain words that these things are stories, just as the Grimm fairy tales are stories, and that they should not believe them as truth unless they have evidence confirming them (which you know full well they will never get). I have absolutely no issue with parables and stories used to convey messages, as long as it's always made clear that the actual stories are not true. Great idea. But that is not what happens. They come away thinking that these are true stories, not just myths with messages like Aesop's Fables. It's no good keeping telling us that Joe Offer and his kids understand all this, but Joe Offer spent years studying theology, unlike 99.9% of other Catholics (or is it twenty, or maybe eight...) And you have a whole plethora of hymns and prayers that they have to learn to confirm this pack of LIES. But honesty will lose you members and you know it. I've asked you to justify this and you haven't, not just "to my satisfaction," but not at all. You call me a not very nice person (even though you've never met me) for putting this challenge to you. Too bad. You accuse me of visiting websites that I don't even know exist and you insinuate that I somehow must have had horrible Catholic experiences, both stabs in the dark and completely unfounded (and not true), and very judgemental, something you're not supposed to be if I remember correctly. If I'm not very nice, you are in denial about the real truth and you don't seem to care if you pass this brand of sheer dishonesty to children. And don't get me started about how you have to mangle science in order to make it fit your belief system. You are supposed to be an intelligent man and you have been known to say many intelligent things on this board. So wassup!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:49 AM

Talk about repetitive. How many times have you now used the keep-'em-at-arm's-length reference to "what you hold sacred"? You ask me what it is you haven't addressed (not that I care that you haven't, but since you ask). I've asked you over and over again why you find it difficult to support telling children the plain truth. Why you prefer to see them having myths fed to them as truth. And please spare me your he-who-is-within-and-without, deeper truths stuff. That is not what children are told in schools. The plain truth, not an opinion, is that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity. The plain truth is that you have to accept magic and suspend disbelief in order to accommodate him. The PLAIN TRUTH is that stories in gospels about miracles and coming back from the dead and virgin births are NOT TRUE. Honesty dictates that children are told in plain words that these things are stories, just as the Grimm fairy tales are stories, and that they should not believe them as truth unless they have evidence confirming them (which you know full well they will never get). I have absolutely no issue with parables and stories used to convey messages, as long as it's always made clear that the actual stories are not true. Great idea. But that is not what happens. They come away thinking that these are true stories, not just myths with messages like Aesop's Fables. It's no good keeping telling us that Joe Offer and his kids understand all this, but Joe Offer spent years studying theology, unlike 99.9% of other Catholics (or is it twenty, or maybe eight...) And you have a whole plethora of hymns and prayers that they have to learn to confirm this pack of LIES. But honesty will lose you members and you know it. I've asked you to justify this and you haven't, not just "to my satisfaction," but not at all. You call me a not very nice person (even though you've never met me) for putting this challenge to you. Too bad. You accuse me of visiting websites that I don't even know exist and you insinuate that I somehow must have had horrible Catholic experiences, both stabs in the dark and completely unfounded (and not true), and very judgemental, something you're not supposed to be if I remember correctly. If I'm not very nice, you are in denial about the real truth and you don't seem to care if you pass this brand of sheer dishonesty to children. And don't get me started about how you have to mangle science in order to make it fit your belief system. You are supposed to be an intelligent man and you have been known to say many intelligent things on this board. So wassup!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM

Well Steve, I don't think you have any right to tell Joe what to tell his children, or that I have any right to stop you teaching yours the worst excesses of "liberal" ideology.

It is simply none of your business and none of mine, I hold certain conservative social views and I shall defend them until I die, with facts and statistics which I believe prove me correct. You reject my views and I have absolutely no right to stop you passing yours on to your children.....no matter how wrong and damaging I feel them to be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:15 AM

Shimrod, the hostility I get here (which involves far more personal attacks than I ever mete out these days: I prefer to put my points as plainly as I can, that's all) actually cheers me up in a peculiar way. It is a reflection of the fact that they feel very uncomfortable about having real challenges put to them for a change, something they never get within their cosy club, not even from other religious groups, which all share similar sentiments. I think that the new brand of attack atheism is an excellent thing. Religion has done so much damage and had it far too easy for far too long and it's time it was put under attack and made to account for itself. Its unpreparedness for this is reflected in the responses from believers we often see here. Heretics unite!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:59 AM

Talk about repetitive. I have no idea why that's here twice!

I hear this morning that the organisation that puts up ads on cinema screens has refused to show a recital of the Lord's Prayer produced by the Church of England. The latter had wanted it shown before the latest Star Wars movie, which will be shown to families with children, among others. Well good for the advertisers. Let the C of E get their own picture houses to which only Christians are invited! The indignation of the faithful at this decision is highly amusing. It just shows that religion thinks it has a God-given right to insert itself into whatever areas of life it wishes. What a mindset!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

"Pete is defending his own viewpoint - a positive point of view that he holds sacred, whether it be right or wrong.

Steve's whole program is merely to attack religion."

Hmmm! I'm going to have to choose my words carefully here. As I've said before, my default position is to treat everyone I meet with respect. I think that this attitude has paid off because I know that in my own community people respect me and that, in turn, gives me a strong sense of belonging. I believe that earning the respect of my friends and neighbours is one of my life's achievements that I am most proud of. Then along comes Pete and ruins it because I can't respect him, no matter how hard I try. I can't respect his absolutism, his credulity and ignorance and his disrespect for science - which is, quite simply, one of our species' greatest achievements.

You see, I was trained as a scientist and earned my living as a scientist for over 40 years. True, I worked in the consumer products industry - which was hardly 'cutting edge' - but, still, I gained a perspective on the world around me which, perhaps, non-scientists don't have. A key thing that I learned is that there are few absolutes or certainties - for a start, all of my results and conclusions had probability estimates attached to them. In addition the constant striving for objectivity and the elimination of bias was something which impressed me deeply and changed the way that I think. I know that the scientists whose work Pete derides think in much the same way - and implying that they don't is like implying that a fish can't swim!

As for religious faith, here's something which you might like to ponder, Joe (perhaps also think about in your dealings with Steve?). I was brought up in the 'wishy-washy' Church of England. The religious instruction that I received might be described as 'lite' and made little impression on me. But now I live in a great Northern English city. The Catholic church is very strong here and many people were raised as Catholics. Many of my friends and acquaintances were so raised - but most of those are now 'lapsed'. Nevertheless, I can't help noticing that their view of life tends to be different from mine. For a start, they often have a tendency to see things in 'black-and-white' and also have a tendency towards absolutism. In discussions and arguments they also have a tendency to immediately seize the 'moral high ground' and reject anything which doesn't fit with their 'black and white' view of morality - even when it may not be appropriate to do so.

I think that it's very telling that recently I was discussing the state of the environment with a local woman who is a lapsed Catholic (and a non-scientist). Her view was that we shouldn't worry because science will eventually solve all of our problems (!). I suddenly realised that she was telling me that she has FAITH that science will solve all of our problems. I'm still thinking through the implications of that! As a scientist myself, I'm more sanguine. I think that it's unlikely that science will be able to solve all of our environmental problems and we've all got to work together to solve our environmental problems (if they're even solvable). If that lady's response stems from her Catholic upbringing (I suspect that it's highly likely) has she been equipped with the tools necessary to deal with a changing world?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:08 AM

Does the picture say enough about brainwashing

I find the picture at the front of this BBC article abhorrent. If this is not a clear example of the brainwashing that Steve refers too I don't know what is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:11 AM

Well the older I get the less I see things in the black and white of my youth. I can't decide whether I agree with bombing Syria. I think that nuclear power is the best way forward. I think we all need to cut politicians some slack. I support the work that the police do on the whole. Stuff like that. Thirty years ago I'd probably have been saying the polar opposite of all those things. Issues such as those all have lots of things to argue about. It's a long time since I was a person of faith. I exited Catholicism gradually and gently, no apostasy traumas in sight. There are many Catholics in my extended family still. I do see some of those constricted notions among a lot of them that Shimrod mentions, though I wouldn't issue a blanket assertion about them. All the awkward questions and challenges I put here are the same ones I put to myself decades ago. I was just like Joe, Kevin and DMcG. The difference is that I did confront those questions as honestly as I could and found that there were no satisfactory answers. It simply isn't all right to send children to schools in which they will be lied to. And it is lies. There is no evidence that anything in your belief system is founded on biblical truth, no evidence for a deity. Confront that, please. Lies can never be an artful way of getting at deeper truths. Only the truth can do that, and children in faith schools of all varieties are simply not being told the truth. I did it myself when I started teaching in 1973. For a year I took Catholic assemblies, sang in the school choir and even taught RE to 11-year-olds. I was telling them the same lies that I'm accusing others of telling now. Instead of beating myself up about it, water under the bridge and all that, I've decided to do the honest thing and fight it. I have actually seen it from the inside, everything I'm arguing against right now. It doesn't matter what you believe. It does matter a great deal what you do with your belief, especially when you belief becomes a conviction and when the conviction is distorted into fake truth. Similarly, it doesn't matter what science discovers. Science and culture are what make us human and both are unstoppable. It does matter what is done with science. Science will never wreck the planet, but the misuse of scientific discoveries probably will. Same but different. Belief is a house built on sand. Tread carefully in it and stop trying to draw other people in.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:16 AM

That's an argument that's used often, Greg, and I think it's invalid...The argument could be seen as a weak attempt to rationalize bigotry.

Your opinion doesn't make it any less true as things operate in the real world, Joe. YOUR arguement could be seen as a whitewash & excuse for folks who won't put their money where their mouths are.

"If you're not part of the solution....."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:21 AM

But you're saying it's right for people to class us with the bigots, unless we attack the bigots directly.

Not at all, Joe. I'm saying its all right to classify such people as largely innefective and not a little bit hypocritical.

And you are the one wh included yourself among such people, not I.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 12:31 PM

But Raggytash, the picture is so warm, so cosy, the little children so beautiful and so neat and scrubbed, so obedient, so serene. The fact that they are far too young to have a clue about what they're chanting is beside the point! But the prayer they're chanting is so full of certainty! It doesn't matter that what they're chanting is completely untrue. The power and the glory have eased them ever so gently into line. Things will get a little sterner when they grow up a bit more. They should thank God they're not Catholics, as that's sterner still, or Muslims, the sternest bunch of the lot. All the same God, though, all the same truth deficit, just a matter of degree.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 12:59 PM

What is it that Steve attacks that you hold sacred Mr Offer? Religion wishes to be relevant beyond its membership. ISIS are trying to build a fucking country on the basis, Iran already had and Saudi Arabia is hypocritical. The USA is getting there, shameful speech at a time.

If religion is so "sacred" then nobody can get offended by criticism because your mate Jesus will come and sort us all out.

Or Allah, Buddha, the Noodly one, whatever.

No. If you have a faith then fine, enjoy. This thread is about the damage organised religion does to society, fucks people up and makes them bigots. As Steve Shaw points out, the supposedly moderate Church of England is bleating over a short film of people praying being banned from being shown before Star Wars in cinemas. Good! If people want their children to be fucked up, they'd take them to church. Nobody pays good money to see a film and be subjected to offensive claptrap. Meanwhile the same church defends their vicars when they ban yoga sessions from church halls because of a historical link long forgotten to a religion that isn't theirs, and support attempts to ban adverts on buses saying there probably is no God so go and enjoy your life.

If you can't understand why people are fed up with shallow low intelligence mumbo jumbo, it's because it isn't benign. It really is bad for society. We vote in politicians and therefore the laws they bring are as high as it gets. With the film, I heard a bishop on the radio today claim that the church is above the law. No it fucking isn't, and neither is the mosque, chapel, synagogue or Lloyds.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:17 PM

I was thinking about that bus advert. At least it expressed doubt, saying that there PROBABLY isn't a God. You won't find a scintilla of doubt in that Lord's Prayer, even though the whole thing is completely false.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:34 PM

Paul, I am quite aware that there are many Christians that accept the evolution story , but I am sure that if I asked you what you think the bible actually says, I doubt that you would tell me that it says that billions of years ago nothing exploded. Etc etc. I suspect that the Christians who accept the secular story do so believing science demonstrates it's veracity , and are imposing that on what the text actually says. When someone can actually demonstrate that the evolutionary story is true, I shall have no more to say on the subject. ......I won't hold my breath !    Of course many of those Christians also don't hold all the narrative text to be dependable. I do , and I shall leave the others to speak for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:49 PM

Heheh. "Evolutionary story."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:53 PM

Have to admit I laughed at your duck quip joe, though I should ,nt really as it's quite sad.    Btw, I live in England where it is still legal to teach your kids your faith, but as you can see certain posters here , and the Dawkins brigade in general tend to equate that to child abuse. Must be coincidental that Steve and co assert the same accusation. They are doing their best to legalise their restrictive ideas by campaigning and pressure from government.         Of course, they don't want their own unproven (and contradicted by observational science) beliefs to be curtailed !.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:01 PM

My ideas are already perfectly legal and I have no desire to make yours illegal. I'd far sooner use argument and, in your case, ridicule, when the fancy takes me. Much more fun than having you banned. Don't talk such twaddle.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:26 PM

Not stopping, but I just wanted to say that I think whoever dreamt up the idea of an advert for any church before Star Wars should take a long hard look at themselves. I find it pretty abhorrent in a wide variety of ways.

So in this case I am firmly in the shaw-shimrod wing of this thread. Just saying.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:45 PM

Potssl: but I am sure that if I asked you what you think the bible actually says

I know pretty well what it says, both versions, and you can't reconcile them unless you're a better sophist than the apologists of the last half millennium. It's demonstrable nonsense, and thinking Christians have realised long ago - about two hundred years ago- that it's a story, like the parable of the sower. No one (not even you) thinks that the story of the sower was about a factual event, it was just a story illustrating a point. Which of course leads to the question that, if some bits of the Bible are metaphorical, how do we distinguish (and more importantly WHO gets to distinguish) between the straight "facts" and the edification?

But as Les Barker said (quoting whom I know not), never argue with an idiot, for he is doing the same. And I've just burnt the dinner writing this nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 04:18 PM

Hear hear. I am not particularly a Bible scholar but I do sometimes wonder whether I haven't got a better handle on the bloody thing than some of the faithful around here. I will not condemn the Bible as a pack of lies because I don't know whether any, some, all, or none of it was ever meant to be regarded as true. There have been two thousand years of tendentious charlatanism to corrupt it and turn it into a tool of proselytisation, so who knows. If only Christianity was honest enough to say to us that the Bible consists of some history, some myth, all a bit inseparable, that we can take some moral lessons from it, but should take absolutely none of it as true stories, because we don't have the evidence. That would be honest. Instead, children in Christian schools are told that Jesus is true and that the stories about him are true, including the faux-magical bits. The prayers and hymns say it, just to reinforce it, and if they're really unlucky they'll have to relive the whole thing in the school nativity play. Sentient beings on this forum just know that all this is so wrong. Come and join us.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:10 PM

It seems to me that most of the religious attacks here at Mudcat are built on one basic fallacy: that any group of people can be monolithic. It's the principle that underlies all bigotry: find the worst individuals in a group, and then attack the entire group on the basis of the conduct of that minority.

And then there are all the condemnations based on the born-ageain atheists' concept of what they think people believe. Steve Shaw provides a wealth of examples, but let me call to mind his condemnation of my support for the sainthood of a pope he didn't name. As I suspected, he was condemning me for supporting the sainthood of John Paul II, a man I have held absolute disdain for almost since the day he was elected Pope in 1978. I agreed that JPII was the one responsible for the coverup of the sexual abuse of children, and said that coverup was a primary reason for my contempt for the man. Steve admitted it was JPII he spoke of - but did he apologize for accusing me of supporting the man? No, of course not. Steve's goal in life is to attack, not to apologize.

I'm a Catholic, and I've been so all my life, so it's clear that my Catholic faith is sacred to me. And I have a college degree in Theology from a Catholic seminary I attended eight years, so I know my faith quite well. I know what's doctrine, and what's not. I believe in the Creed, and I believe in the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Those are the non-negotiable beliefs of the Catholic faith - but there is a wide and healthy spectrum of understanding of those beliefs, and all else is more-or-less open to discussion. Do I believe in the incarnation (God becoming man) and the virgin birth? Yes. The resurrection? Yes. But as I've said before, the Scriptures do not give detailed information about the specifics of how these events took place, so I leave them in a cloud and figure I'll understand them some day. I have faith that some day it will all make sense to me. And no, these are not things that I can argue about or defend - and I believe that unless I force others to believe these things, I have no reason to defend my beliefs. I do believe that I have a right to share my beliefs with my children, although they exercised their clear right to reject those beliefs in their teenage years. I didn't "force" my beliefs on my children - I just told them what I believe, and they went along with those beliefs for a time and then sorted out what they wanted to believe and what they didn't.

Those are the beliefs of a typical Catholic, which is what I am. They are part of who I am. If you attack and ridicule my beliefs, then you attack and ridicule me. You're not going to change my mind or prove I'm wrong, so why bother? What good would it do you or the world to prove my beliefs wrong? Why is it so fucking important to you to prove that Mary wasn't a virgin?

Now, Pete has a different set of beliefs, and those beliefs are as important to him as mine are to me. You're not going to prove to him that his beliefs are wrong, so why bother? What would you accomplish if you did succeed in proving him wrong? Nothing, really - you would just take away something that is important to him.

Your attacks on religious belief serve no constructive purpose. They serve only to attempt to destroy traditions that are dear to the hearts of people who believe. Nobody here at Mudcat has tried to force religion on you. In fact, the religious people here, including me, have been very reluctant to even share what it is we believe. And it's clear that you naysayers have no chance of understanding what is the essence of our faith - the fact you don't want to understand or respect us is just the first reason.

But whatever you think of our beliefs, those beliefs are ours, and they are sacred to us. If you attack our beliefs, as Mr. Shaw does incessantly, you attack us. And on top of that, you attack us in a place where we are very vulnerable, a place deep in our hearts.

And what satisfaction do you get from your attacks? Do your attacks prove that you are better than we are, smarter than we are, more powerful than we are?

Nope, about all your attacks prove, is how mean-spirited you are.

I spent the morning in church today, as I do almost every Sunday. I hugged people and shook hands, laughed a lot, sang a lot, and listened to the joys and sorrows expressed by a number of people. And we came together to celebrate a sacred ritual that went beyond doctrine and debate, a ritual that brought us together in worship although we have a wide variety of political and theological and ethnic and generational perspectives. And we had a good time. No guilt, no condemnation, no looking down on others who don't believe as we do. We just enjoyed our morning together.

And gee, we never once spoke about evolution, or homosexuality, or any of those other things you outsiders condemn us for. We did talk about the homeless shelter we opened this year, and we talked about people we know who are sick, and we prayed for peace. And then we prayed for healing of those who were hurt in the violence of the last two weeks. And then we prayed for peace again. Oh, and the priest talked how important it is to forgive and to accept forgiveness, so we don't go through life burdened with grudges and guilt.

How you people have the nerve to condemn that, I'll never know.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:10 PM

I thought the ad was very well done , and far from pushy.....but the thought police strike again.       Paul, your reply was mildly amusing . One mans nonsense is another mans sense.   And the fact that so many Christians adopted evolutionary ideas so relatively recently in history only illustrates my point. Before uniformitarianism and Darwinism took hold on the culture just about no Christian read anything into the text but divine act of creation only about 6,000 yr ago. And so the sad situation where Christians...not all by any means...started to find long ages in the text demonstrates that they were imposing the "science" on the text.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:44 PM

How you people have the nerve to condemn that, I'll never know.

je vous en prie

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 06:02 PM

What a load of rubbish, Joe. Just focus and cut the straw man stuff. I get accused of repeating myself but I'll take a risk and try again. I don't care what you believe. What goes on inside your head is your business alone. Now try rereading your long post bearing that in mind, and it's hardly as if I've never said it before, is it now!   But I do care what people of faith DO with their beliefs. I especially care what you do with those beliefs apropos of CHILDREN. Are you getting this yet, Joe? Joe Offer is a rare breed, a Catholic who spent eight years getting a theology degree. I don't know whether he's one in a million Catholics, one in a thousand or even one in eight or one in twenty. But one thing's for sure. His educated, measured take on what he told his kids is NOT representative of what goes on in Catholicism. He absolutely NEVER addresses this. He seems perfectly happy knowing that nearly all Catholics around the world go around with the beardie-in-the-sky image of God, and, by the way, everyone forgot to remind them that you're allowed a dose of Joe Offer free thinking in order to ditch it all if you wanted to.

And just get this:

"It's the principle that underlies all bigotry: find the wost individuals in a group, and then attack the entire group on the basis of the conduct of that minority.

And then there are all the condemnations based on the born-ageain atheists' concept of what they think people believe. Steve Shaw provides a wealth of examples..."

Wow, I didn't even have to snip. The irony of that is completely lost on you, eh, Joe?

You talk about non-negotiable beliefs. You spent eight years studying theology and you talk about "non-negotiable beliefs!" Well, non-negotiable means that you are not permitted to ditch them. You are not allowed to think for yourself. Eight years doing theology and you can't think for yourself. Well I pity the hundreds of millions of other poor buggers who didn't have your opportunities, that's all I can say to that. Get off yer knees, Joe!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 06:05 PM

And gee, we never once spoke about evolution, or homosexuality, or any of those other things you outsiders condemn us for.

Just curious, Joe, but I suspect you didn't talk about trying to prevent bigots from persecuting or violating the civil rights of homosexuals or preventing idiots from teaching that the world is only 10,000 years old in Public Schools, either.

Perhaps you should have. Think abiut it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 06:28 PM

That's absolutely it, Greg. You're In a huge, billion-strong club called the Catholic Church. But you might as well not be, because as long as you see you own path as being virtuous you need say nothing about any rottenness that any of your co-members get up to. And I seem to vaguely remember something about sins of omission. Not too many Pastor Niemöllers in this thread, eh? Oh, I remember now. He was a Lutheran!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 06:49 PM

the fact that so many Christians adopted evolutionary ideas so relatively recently in history only illustrates my point. Before uniformitarianism and Darwinism took hold on the culture just about no Christian read anything into the text but divine act of creation

pete, you've really outdone yourself. That has to be the most assinine, idiotic and ignorant thing you've said yet - and it has some pretty stiff competition.

You know - or perhaps you don't? - that before Galileo proved otherwise (he was one of those Devilish scientists, dontcha know) all Christians believed that the sun revolved around the earth.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:59 PM

"Why is it so fucking important to you to prove that Mary wasn't a virgin?"

Well this is really quite Interesting. Mary's alleged virginity is not an isolated example of the miraculous claims in your scripture. A couple of things from your remark. First, I don't give a monkey's whether you think Mary was a virgin or not. If there was a Mary, and she had a son called Jesus (or anything else, come to think of it), then she was not a virgin. Believe me, I don't need to prove it, just like I don't need to prove anything at all. If you want to believe that a virgin had a baby, that is entirely your problem. Do continue. However, I'm slightly curious to know why you think that such ridiculous stories are deemed to be necessary at all. The truth is so much better.   Save it. I have to go to bed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:28 PM

Pete... about 'teaching your children your faith'....

When children are very young, they are very suggestive. They believe almost anything.. until they learn about stories & fibs & outright lies. They accept, then reject, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy...etc, as they learn that some stories are just for children to 'enhance' a holiday.
But at the same time they are learning Santa Claus, they are often hearing about Jesus and/or other 'serious' figures. This usually continues, with varying degrees of pressure according to their family & church, until real choice about religion is not easy to make.... it is too ingrained to easily doubt - and of course that is the point in most cases. Seriously religious parents do not want the children to have any doubts, and if by some odd chance, the kids do have doubts, it can lead to very hard feelings and crisis.

Is there any fair & practical way around this? I doubt it.... some children grow disillusioned with religion for various reasons: liberal education, bad experiences (like abuse), or just simply thinking for themselves- as happened with me. I was a Methodist, but it was not *firmly driven into me*. Religion was not a part of daily life, and no one threatened me one way or another.

If I could choose, this is how it would be for everyone. "Here's what various people believe... most of our family & friends believe 'X'... others believe 'Y' 'Z' or nothing. YOU must decide if you 'like' the idea of church and the afterlife... etc."

   There would STILL be religions & churches, I'd still respect their beliefs.. if they kept them out of schools & politics...etc.

The issues is... when people **seriously believe**, they tend to feel obligated to get others to believe the same way, "go, and become fishers of men" and 'fair' gives way to schemes and pressures & often, outright lies.

I DO understand why many believers do believe... and for some, they emotionally & psychologically NEED that.... no matter what form it may take.... and the issues of whether it's all true or not gets lost- because 'truth' and 'proof' in religion simply are not easily dealt with.

That, in the smallest nutshell I can reduce it to, is what all these posts are really about. Some need/want to defend various religious stances, others react and say hold on.. "It ain't necessarily so.." (like in the song).
I have tried for several years now to explain & categorize the logic, language, history, science and cultural norms that are involved, but if my attempts get too close to a nerve, you..(and a few others).. seek various ways to dodge what I'm saying by challenging the very basis of my reasoning!..and in doing so, you break the very rules fair debate & analysis are based on... (and of course, you will deny THIS)... and so it goes.

There are no winners in this, and yet all forge ahead. I will be VERY busy the next 10 days and will not try to keep up. I have no idea how I'll feel when I glance at another couple of hundreds posts.... frustrated, I'd guess.

Take care: :>)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:57 PM

That is spot on, Bill. Exactly what I think but with diplomacy added. I really wish these people could see that it is not their faith that is being attacked. In line with my lack of diplomacy, I should like to suggest that the conflation of "faith" with "what you DO with your faith" is deliberate. By affecting insult over this, they are trying to protect their actions, not just their faith. Telling someone who has sent their child to a faith school that they were wrong to do so is not an attack on their faith. It's an attack on what they DO with that faith. Yet I am seen here as an attacker of faith. It simply isn't so. It would be very nice if everyone abandoned their belief in fairy stories, but I'll defend to the hilt their right to those beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:08 PM

God, you guys are running around like a swarm of mad ants after the ant hill got disturbed. You are all so fucking obsessed with the truth that you cannot see how foolish you all look - and how you all look like little Jerry Falwells screaming about how everybody else in the world is wrong and therefore evil. It's far more important to get along with people in mutual respect, than it is to be right. But you people just can't see that. You can't fathom the idea of having peace with anybody who doesn't agree with you, who doesn't follow your idea of "correct" thinking. And that's just like all the religious extremists out there do - uniform "correct" thinking is far more important to them, than peace and tolerance. Yes, I've run into many right-wing Catholics who are just as obsessed with the truth - and I don't want any part of it. The truth, such as it is, is just not that important.

Greg F sez: Just curious, Joe, but I suspect you didn't talk about trying to prevent bigots from persecuting or violating the civil rights of homosexuals or preventing idiots from teaching that the world is only 10,000 years old in Public Schools, either.


Actually, Greg, I'm on your side on both causes, and I take every opportunity I get to speak for the civil rights of homosexuals. Our young Filipino priest told me I was contradicting Church teaching, and he "unfriended" me on Facebook to stop me from posting things opposing his homophobia. And I campaigned against California Proposition 8, a measure funded by Mormon and Catholic leaders in an attempt to outlaw gay marriage. The measure passed, but the court declared it invalid.

And I haven't lived in a place in my lifetime where teaching "creationism" has been proposed in either public or Catholic schools, so I haven't had reason to be an activist on the topic. And as I said, I'm not inclined to go do battle against creationists just for the sake of doing battle.

But no, Greg, to answer your question exactly: today the subjects of evolution and homosexuality did not come up, and I saw no need for off-the-subject proselytizing. It was far more important today to listen to a couple people talk about their parents, who are at death's door.

I certainly oppose any attempt to impose conservative Christian values on my community - but I also oppose attempts to force conservative Christians to accept progressive thinking. I think people must be allowed to think what they want to think - and to express their thinking to the world and to their children.

But you guys can only swarm about, obsessing about the importance of your so-called "truth." Do you ever accomplish anything in life, or do you just argue?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:26 AM

By the way, let me make it clear that I don't think it's very important whether Mary was a virgin or not. It's part of the foundational myth/story of the Catholic faith, so I accept it. As I teach my students in Bible study, it's important to respect the integrity of the story. Better to take the story as it is, and not worry too much about what is myth and what is factual. Save the arguments for the crucial matters.

Pete holds to a more direct method of creation. He believes in a God who can do anything, so why can't such a God create a world in whatever way that God deigns to create? He has a point there. It's not the way I see things, but what good does it do for me to fight him about it? Face it people, Pete is never going to accept the idea of evolution as factual. No amount of derision is going to change his mind. That being the case, then the derision is just derision - and what's the value of that?

I suppose I don't hold on to my Creed quite so tightly. I see it as enlightening my understanding of God, not as contradicting science. I figure that if the creed is supposed to be literally true, then there will someday be a way to reconcile the Creed and science. In the meantime, I'll heed science for scientific things and religion for religious things. And it will all work out in the end, without my having to disprove either science or my creed. And generally, I don't think most modern Christians hold onto beliefs as some would have us think. I just don't think most people see such a chasm separating science and religious faith.

And as for me, the most important aspect of my faith is the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew:

34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.'

This is the only time in the Bible that Jesus describes the Last Judgment. Note that it is based completely on serving those in need, not in sexual morality or in having possession of the Truth. Jesus gives this list four times, which makes me think it is of primary importance.

So, while you people argue about who's right and who's wrong, I'll go work at the homeless shelter. See you later. Don't kill each other in the process.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:55 AM

Wow. I log onto Mudcat only very occasionally these days. This is only the second time in six months. Yet deja vu doesn't even begin to cover it.

As this thread is as long as it is surreal, I have only skimmed till the last couple of pages. Glad I did though, it's fascinating.

Joe Offer states above that he fights for the civil rights of homosexuals. Funny that I gave up on Mudcat and my good friend Musket (of the kilted variety) complained at his ISP after Joe sent me an email saying he couldn't find anything in Akenaton's posts that displayed homophobia. Before you fight Joe, best to get an idea what they looked like. In Hartlepool they thought the enemy was small and hairy and couldn't speak English.

Nobody is decrying your or anyone else's right to get a warm and a cup of tea on a Sunday morning (or the California equivalent.) many people get a lot out of their hobby and find a good social outlet from it. Me? I prefer hugs that are spontaneous rather than the next item on the agenda but I digress.

The Mary virgin bit is s red herring anyway because Jesus is an amalgamation of would be rebel leaders brought into a rather touching fable a couple of hundred years later. Unless archaeologists find 2,000 years old test tubes, any mother has had a bit of rumpy pumpy with a bloke. Period. Once you sort out the bits of the bible that cannot physically happen and the bits demonstrating a point by a story, you are left with what? A historical book of interest to scholars concerning how people 400 years ago thought, and perhaps if you can read Latin, a slightly earlier version. If you can read Ancient Greek or Hebrew, your study of how people thought and dreamt might go back 1800 years or so.

Look at pete. That's what happens when superstition is encouraged. I'm sure he can tie his own shoe laces and I'm sure he smiles more than me, but is it right to perpetuate ignorance on such an appalling scale? He is right. He is allowed to fuck with his kids' heads. Tragic but true. Luckily you can see Star Wars this winter without endangering your own kids. (Another story in the news at the moment is a Canon who says reading banns is irrelevant to this day and age coupled with a reply from CofE saying it is a good earner and there may be the opportunity to convince a few people to join the club.)

If the club is headed by a magician, why bother? Just make everybody go to church. Alter the minds of Muslims, Sikhs and even normal rational people.

Well? What is he waiting for?

That's my point. Enjoy your hobby but like the man who likes wearing his wife's knickers, just don't go boasting about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:00 AM

"Pete holds to a more direct method of creation. He believes in a God who can do anything, ..."

If he believes such a thing then he has no business talking about science. Such a belief implies that every observable phenomenon is attributable to God - end of story. If that is really the nature of the Universe, then there's no point in any further study - everything there is to know, is known already. That leaves us stuck in the Dark Ages though. Is that what God intended?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:10 AM

My word, Joe Offer hasn't half gone on off on one. The trouble is, Joe, when you get mad and start spraying your accusations out in all directions, the first victim is accuracy. No-one on this side of the divide is claiming that they own the truth or is obsessed by it. Requiring evidence before you embrace any notion is neither Spock-like nor obsessive. It is RATIONAL. And now you're telling us that the truth isn't so important after all. Well, a few months ago you were telling me that all the myths and stories and all the rest of religion's contrivances were all about seeking deeper truths. I see that that concept has now gone out of the window. Well in a sense I can agree that having the whole truth is not the be-all and end-all. What is important is the trajectory towards truth. Religious superstition is a massive obstacle on that trajectory, so much so that it prevents us from having any chance of getting there. Supernatural "explanations" are not explanations at all, and they too easily satisfy incurious minds, with the effect that the search for real explanations, such as Darwin's quest, is either sidelined, perverted (as in your case) or scornfully dismissed (pete). You are getting cross because we attack this. Well how do you think scientists feel under such an effective barrage from faith that almost half of the population believe in magic instead?

As for the virgin birth, well answer me one simple question. If it's irrelevant, why is it in the story in the first place and why are we going to be regaled with the assertion all over the next few tedious weeks as we run up to Christmas? You know full well why it's in the story. It's because the story needs Jesus to be set apart as someone a bit more special than everybody else, the possessor of a uniqueness. You can't just tell us that he's unique, you have to prove it by giving him magic powers, and the virgin birth was just the start! As ever, Joe Offer can get his head round this but fails to acknowledge that most Catholics actually believe that it's true. By the way, Joe, many of your posts are now filled with your good deeds. Kudos to you for them. But we heathens do good stuff too at times but we don't necessarily feel that it's evidence for the defence. What was that about hiding your light under a bushel...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:47 AM

I thought the Virginia birth, stable, wise men and other bits were borrowed from older religions? Weaving other religions into a Judean cult was a way of attracting members. They kept adding them to a folder which eventually evolved into a book called bible.

See? Even sky fairy superstition itself is subject to evolution.

By the way, what in the name of everything that is fun has working at a homeless shelter to do with it? You sound like one of those idiots who claim they do charitable works because their religion demands it. The rest of us do whatever we do because it is a nice thing to do.

A serious question for Mr Offer. Does your religion require you to help others in need or do you ascribe your natural sense of altruism to it in order to extend your default goodness to it? Is it giving you a good name or are you lending yours to it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:04 AM

It all makes for a great story. It would just be nice if everybody who was told it KNEW it was just a story. I quite like stories myself as it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:11 AM

Not that it happened in Virginia. Pesky phone knows more than I do.

Wasn't it A senator from Virginia who said if the English language was good enough for Jesus. It's good enough for Hispanics?

I could be geographically astray but unlike the subject, factual.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:14 AM

Joe, I'm not winding you up here- I'm genuinely curious.

What's your take on the Catholic Worker Movement, Walter Rauschenbusch's approach and Winwood Reade's "Martyrdom Of Man"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:46 AM

"You can't just tell us that he's unique, you have to prove it by giving him magic powers, and the virgin birth was just the start!"

Yes and no, Steve. It's worth reading about the Marian Dogmas because they make clear the changing position of the Catholic Church from its 'official' earliest days (which I take to be more-or-less defined by the Edict of Milan, 313 CE). The so-called virgin birth was not a new story because there had been others according to the literature. As for magic powers, that's one way to see it. But for many Catholics, JC's resurrection just about caps it. And that happens early on in the tale.

I think religions and their collective ideologies are one area of study, and the sciences with their collective methodologies are quite another. As an aside, I neither like nor accept the conflation of the two.

For those who rail against religion, have at it. For those who rail against evolution, have at it. But there is no need to attack the individual Mudcatters involved regardless which side of or where on the issue they come down. I

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:48 AM

Well said #

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 11:06 AM

By far the most attacked person around here in this thread is me! You are the one doing the conflating here, conflating attacks on religion and attacks on Joe Offer. Reading your sentence again, I'm not at all sure that you're not muddling the word with something else, actually. What you're doing is what I'm not doing, as a matter of fact.
You are equating science and religion as somehow being academic-style disciplines with respectably-equivalent but different methodologies. Well I think you're being way too nice about religion. Science is the process that delivers all human knowledge. Religion is a take-it or leave-it (or force-it) instrument of control. No equivalence whatsoever. As for magic powers being "one way to see it", well tell me another way of seeing feeding five thousand on a few scraps, walking on water, raising the dead, turning water into wine, predicting exactly what would happen when a cock crows and coming back to life having been bled dry two days earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:48 PM

Well bill, if you are still around........yes children will believe just about anything.   And it depends on the age, IMO, how you handle it. As the parent, believing scripture as authoritative why would I want to sow doubts. In their heads. As they get older, they will get enough indoctrination at school. I don't really imagine Steve telling the kids that evolutionism is just a story and cannot be shown to be true !   So, for young children I think it is perfectly proper to instruct and expose their kids to Christian teaching as being true, just as I am convinced it is. However, as they get older the game plan will change to telling them why we believe it is true , with the hope that they will retain / embrace the faith as they grow into adults, or perhaps return to it later.   Part of that game plan will involve telling them facts that are contradictory to evolutionary theory and it's deep time story.   On the one hand evolutionism has the upper hand (at least in the UK ) because it is all pervasive and presented as factual, but on the other hand for the informed creationist, it is relatively easy to highlight a few glaring holes in the evolutionary faith. After all , after all these posts and threads , you,s still not demonstrated it is true.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:51 PM

Sorry, I'm guilty of conflation meself there, misreading it as "methodologies" for both, which is not what you said. One of my sentences is no longer valid. I'll stick with the rest of it though!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:57 PM

Well that's about as perfect a strategy for naked indoctrination as I've ever read. Boys and girls, you now know how pete would do it. Harmless, smiley little pete. There you have it. And you still think we should just leave him and his ilk alone, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 01:41 PM

Steve, my apologies if you thought my last post was directed at you specifically. It wasn't. True that you have been attacked, but in fairness you're no slouch at dishing it out either.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM

Part 2 bill is tolerant of people's beliefs as long as they keep them out of politics and schools....    This presupposes that only Christians and others of theist persuasion have beliefs.   But this is not true. Atheists try to squirm out of the predicament by claiming theirs is an absence of belief , but it is obvious to me that if you believe there is no god ,you must believe. that the universe got here by itself. And that materialism is all there is , or that anything else derives from it.      Secondly, though perhaps Christians should not be involved in party politics , ie equating only one party with with Christianity, Christians are called to confront, or at least decline submission to the system when it would involve accepting anything contradictory to biblical belief or morality. Much social reform followed from Christians involved in politics , following their convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:07 PM

Well Guest#, I've definitely cut down on the name-calling. I'd put Joe way above me in that particular league table in recent times. I suppose I could work harder on being diplomatic, like Bill, with whom I agree on almost everything (don't want to make him feel too uncomfortable...), but sometimes I feel that certain people just need to be told straight ;-). It's the Celt in me, I've been told. You know that I think that religion cries out to be attacked. For centuries it's got away with murder (sometimes literally) and it's damaged millions of people in all kinds of ways and discouraged people from seeking the truth. Hiding behind ridiculous heresy laws, poking its nose into every facet of life, and demanding respect for things that adherents think should be held sacred that in reality sorely need to be confronted, has all gone on for too long. All right, so it's sometimes impossible to attack religion without criticising what many believers hold dear. That's their problem I'm afraid, not mine. But always it's the belief that's under attack, not the believer, unless that person is trying to do harm with their beliefs, to children for example. Anyway, that's where I am, so excuse me while I duck.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:16 PM

By far the most attacked person around this thread is me.

I'm impressed. I'd rather taken it that you were hard wired to insist on evidence for extraordinary claims.

Still, I must admit I haven't read all the 1,500 + posts, so I've presumably missed the attacks. But it strikes me that no one has been challenging your views (I won't call them beliefs, in deference to how you define that word), just defending their right to have different views.

As for the suggestion of repetition on your part, perhaps the main example is your constant trope that evidence has to be the only basis for any decision as to what to accept as true, and to demand such evidence. You just won't accept the response you have been given, which essentially is that religious belief is essentially a matter of making a decision, rather than of evidence. Demands for "scientific evidence" just aren't relevant. It's analogous to aesthetic judgements - scientific evidence just don't have any connection with such matters, and asking for them time and time again would be pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:34 PM

This is the issue. Read what pete star has put.

Then tell me that religion isn't a danger to society.

You'd be moaning if we taught kids that 1+1+3 or that wind farms are there to cool the fields down. Yet allowing the search for knowledge to be suppressed? I told mine Santa and the tooth fairy existed and now my eldest tells my granddaughter the same thing. But stopping believing in child fantasy is a rite of passage. My youngest's room mate at 'uni spent a lot of his first year reading Harry Potter novels because his loony parents refused to let him read it. Apparently wizards and other fantasy confuse you when your parents want their Jesus fantasy to rule supreme. I'd laugh If it weren't so fucking tragic that God botherers crave respect and want to influence society.

Teaching superstition as fact and calling the search for knowledge a story is child abuse, it really is.

Perpetuating it by embracing literal idiots as your own just abuses their low intellect and their vulnerability. We see the problem with believing superstition literally with the Middle East now. It's too damned convenient to abuse their low intelligence to nefarious ends by manipulative evil bastards.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:49 PM

"Much social reform followed from Christians involved in politics , following their convictions."

Pete, much the same can be said of any ideologists following the dictates of their beliefs. But beliefs don't make it right. Christians are a large minority of religiously-affiliated peoples in the world, true. But then so are Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others. Buddhists are basically non-theistic and although I'm not Buddhist, I am also a- or non-theistic.

Some religions like Islam and Christianity would perceive me/label me as spawn of the devil, but I'm not.

I don't support any religion--and I won't--just because the top guy behaves like a Mafia don and his followers like apostles who hang around to ensure everyone listens to the don. So I try to follow a simpler trail and listen to reason instead of platitudes. When humans are subservient to religious 'systems of belief' it makes me wonder what they'll do in the name of their leader, because after all is said and done, they read from their own rule book and despite my having read and understood the books, I just don't agree with much that's being espoused.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:48 PM

the informed creationist,

Contradiction in terms.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:18 PM

As for the virgin birth, well answer me one simple question. If it's irrelevant, why is it in the story in the first place and why are we going to be regaled with the assertion all over the next few tedious weeks as we run up to Christmas? You know full well why it's in the story. It's because the story needs Jesus to be set apart as someone a bit more special than everybody else, the possessor of a uniqueness. You can't just tell us that he's unique, you have to prove it by giving him magic powers, and the virgin birth was just the start!

Not quite that simple. The Koran also asserts the virgin birth of Jesus but doesn't ascribe superhuman powers to him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:39 PM

very briefly:

" Christians are called to confront, or at least decline submission to the system when it would involve accepting anything contradictory to biblical belief or morality. "

That is what scares me, pete. Did you just admit/state that "the system", which I take it means the 'state', must follow biblical Christianity or be defied? Even when it involves morality?

I had never seen you go quite that far before... at least not explicitly. I don't have time to explain in detail MY reactions... but perhaps you'd reflect on the detailed implications of that attitude.... and what it might mean for YOU if something other than Christianity were to achieve a majority and act as YOU seem to feel....

Think about it.... that's why the 1st amendment to the US constitution is worded as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:55 PM

the 'state', must follow biblical Christianity or be defied?

NOW you're catching on, Bill! All hail Kim Davis!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:32 PM

I appreciate your low-grade sarcasm, Kevin :-). However, I have been called a bigot, a literalist, a fundamentalist, an absolutist, mean-spirited, an evolutionist, a member of a swarm of ants, a born-again atheist and, worst of all, Mr Shaw. And that's just in the last few days. It's evidence, Kevin, but not as you may want to recognise it. :-)

"As for the suggestion of repetition on your part, perhaps the main example is your constant trope that evidence has to be the only basis for any decision as to what to accept as true, and to demand such evidence."

Well how else can we find truth? Wildest imaginings? Fanciful speculation? Whimsy? Resort to magic and the supernatural? Mystic Meg?? Would you please tell me what is wrong with seeking evidence? While you're at it, what alternative paths to truth are there? Seeking deeper truths by telling lies, maybe? Well tell us what your concept of truth is, and tell us how we can get there without evidence. I'm blowed if I know of any other way.

"You just won't accept the response you have been given, which essentially is that religious belief is essentially a matter of making a decision, rather than of evidence."

I don't give a fig whether anyone believes that or not. All I'd say is that when I make a decision about something I want it to be predicated on being informed. Personally, although I fail quite often in my efforts like most people do, I want my decisions to be on a rational basis. Please tell me where I'm going wrong if you have a minute. Oh, and I'm no automaton, you know. This weekend I've been indulging in my lifelong love of Beethoven's late music and Mozart's piano concertos and I've been reading my two journals from the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland and the Royal Meteorological Society, and last week I went to see Carmen. I've made some great advances in the last few months with my knowledge of Britain's moths and butterflies and I've been to a talk on the dragonflies of Andalucia. Mr Spock would be scratching his Vulcan head.

"Demands for "scientific evidence" just aren't relevant. It's analogous to aesthetic judgements..."

So you judge whether to adhere to a belief system on analogies to aesthetic grounds? I mean, are you feeling OK? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM

I'd rate those kind of thing more as expressions of difference than "attacks".

"I don't give a fig whether anyone believes that or not" - but you clearly do, because you don't accept it as an answer to your demand for the kind of evidence you ask for, or you wouldn't keep making the same demand.

You require that kind of evidence to make a decision. Fine, that's understood. Why should I "tell you where you're going wrong"? In relation to a whole range of things you're quite right. It's just not the way I work in relation to certain things, and I gave aethetic judgements as an illustration of another field in which I don't work in that way - and one where I rather suspect you might not either, not being an automaton, as I have always assumed. As for using analogies, I see that as a perfectly valid way of explaining my meaning. Problems arise when they get extended beyond strict limits, and I avoid doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:10 PM

Well, Jack, I suppose the Qu'ran is an improvement in that case, but let's still admit it. There was no virgin birth. I've heard about it in aphids and dandelions and one or two other organisms, but I think Jesus might have been slightly annoyed to have been aligned with bugs that suck the sap out of rose bushes or piss-the-bed flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 08:10 PM

"I'd rate those kind of thing more as expressions of difference than "attacks".

I honestly don't care. If you really think that calling a non-bigot a bigot, calling someone who doesn't agree with you an ant in a swarm (not that ants in a disturbed nest swarm anyway. Poor Joe. Pity he prefers God to reality!), and calling me "born again" are just "expressions of difference", well maybe we don't speak the same brand of English. I'd call those attacks myself, but hey ho. We can easily see whose side you're on. Fine.

"...but you clearly do, because you don't accept it as an answer to your demand for the kind of evidence you ask for, or you wouldn't keep making the same demand."

Well as far as I'm concerned I'm not going to debate "kinds of evidence" with you. I have only one kind, for which the bar is set high. You invent your own if you like. You have plenty of of allies. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would be a start (even though they were about as close to Jesus as I am to Queen Victoria). Then you have all that tradition and ceremony and whatever a celibate old man in the Vatican tells you, and St Bernadette to boot. Good luck!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:20 PM

I wouldn't actually rate calling something a person has said bigotted, if you think it is, an attack rather than an expression of difference. (I don,t like to noun "bigot", because it is a lot more wide ranging, and refers to a person as a whole rather than something they may have said on some occasion.) "Ant in a swarm" is pretty mild, and "born again" for someone who has radically changed their world view in adult life, either in a religious or political context, is surely fair enough?

As for only one kind of evidence... I doubt very much if you or anyone else uses scientific evidence in relation to views about Mozart or Beethoven. (Which isn't an analogy this time, but a counter-example.)

But never mind. Not to worry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:49 PM

I don't. So many times I've said that I think that science and culture are the two strands of human endeavour. There is no way I'd ever conflate them in terms of the way they edify us, or in the way we'd interpret their mysteries. Vive le difference.

Now don't get me wrong here. Being called names is an excellent sign that you're tweaking someone's nose. I really don't give a stuff. Always says a damn sight more about the name-caller than the target. Having said that, calling an atheist "born again" is puerile. We all know perfectly well what the connotations of that are. Saying that, as Joe likes to do, or defending it, like you like to do, ratchets you both right down to Pete's level. You may as well just call us evolutionists or tell us that we have an atheist religion. Do enjoy life in that particular gutter. By your fruits shall we know you!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:17 AM

" ... evidence has to be the only basis for any decision as to what to accept as true ... "

Absolutely right! Spot on, McGoH! But deciding that you like, or are moved by, the music of Mozart or Beethoven is a personal, aesthetic decision - nothing to do with truth in any broad scientific sense.

Pete keeps demanding that we supply him with evidence to support, what he insists on calling, "evolutionism". But we all know that if we played his tiresome little game he would (a) declare that he didn't believe the evidence any we supplied him with, or (b) scuttle off to 'Creation.com' and 'refute' the evidence by parroting some nonsense from that. The fact is that he refuses to confront the vast mountain (mountain range?) of evidence which is out there - or, more likely, he is incapable of comprehending it.

God (sorry God!) - I'm so BORED with this!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:21 AM

Mozart and Beethoven aren't put up as rigid creeds for the "swarm" to follow.

We can all be creative and artistic and yes, it doesn't add up to scientific scrutiny. Salvador Dahli painted scenes outside the laws of physics. Music is by definition an abstract.

But two things to note. 1. Religion is an abstract too, unless and until someone acts by it. 2. Bach's cadences explain infinity better than any mathematician.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:43 AM

The Pope in America?

The Pope in The Vatican is pathetic enough.

The BBC News website reckons they are taking a couple of journalists to trial for publishing leaked documents outlining corruption in The Vatican. The accused haven't been given information regarding the actual charges and if found guilty face up to eight years in prison.

Notwithstanding they have no prisons and Italy protect freedom of press so their prisons won't help....

The leak was recent. The child abuse allegations against their wicked employees go back in time yet still awaiting charges to be brought despite promises.

Oh yes. Let's all sit back and be lectured by religious types on morality. I could do with a laugh.

Meet the pope. Same as the last pope. Ad naueseum.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 06:30 AM

Yep. As I keep repeating (ha), your faith is your business. What you do with it may be mine. It can be just lecturing on "morals" (God, I'm getting like akenaton...) or it can be giving orders. Trying to get people to endure well-scrubbed, smiley Christians saying a prayer at the flicks, then getting all indignant when you're told no you can't. Never mind that Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and atheists also go to the flicks. They should be forced to put up with your free speech at your whim, just like we have to put up with Songs of Praise, Choral Evensong, Sunday Worship and Thought For The Day (all of which, like those faith schools, I have to pay for). Sending children to schools in which they will be taught that lies are true and that those lies are the path to deeper truths. Telling people that your tenets, predicated on those same lies, are sacred, and reviling you for criticising them. Telling people that abstinence is a virtue, that using condoms and masturbating are immoral, then that so is getting an abortion (the need for which could conceivably follow on from banning the first two, especially when combined with keeping people ignorant). Mainly, it will be celibate men who tell you this (now that Mother Teresa's gone to join the Choir Invisible). Those same celibate men will also tell you that the very idea of women in the hierarchy is totally unacceptable, that they're probably better off making the tea after mass or joining the Union of Catholic Mothers from where they can target vulnerable young women to moralise at. Eek! I think I'll collect my own set of morals, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:53 AM

"You could be stood in Tesco with your trousers round your ankles buggering a goat whilst playing a banjo"

Humph. Tried that and all that happened is that a bouncer confiscated me Clubcard...

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:17 AM

I was going by what you'd said in a previous post, Steve, when you dismissed the notion of different kinds of evidence as not worth debating, as there was only one kind. My point was that when it came to stuff like music, that really didn't apply. With which you essentially agree. Maybe there's a verbal difference around our use of the word "evidence".
..........

I've heard "born again" used often enough in the context of politics for example when you get former Marxists turning up on the right of the Tory party, and also in other contexts, such as gender reassignment.

It's a metaphor to start with, for a total upheaval in how someone sees the world, as valid for a one time Christian becoming an atheist as it would be for an atheist becoming a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:17 AM

I was going by what you'd said in a previous post, Steve, when you dismissed the notion of different kinds of evidence as not worth debating, as there was only one kind. My point was that when it came to stuff like music, that really didn't apply. With which you essentially agree. Maybe there's a verbal difference around our use of the word "evidence".
..........

I've heard "born again" used often enough in the context of politics for example when you get former Marxists turning up on the right of the Tory party, and also in other contexts, such as gender reassignment.

It's a metaphor to start with, for a total upheaval in how someone sees the world, as valid for a one time Christian becoming an atheist as it would be for an atheist becoming a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:57 AM

Pastor Who Hosted GOP: Paris Victims Were 'Devil-Worshippers'

After standing with Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee, Kevin Swanson says the 89 people gunned down in the Bataclan "loved the devil."

A Christian pastor who hosted Republican presidential candidates a week before the Paris terrorist attack says its victims received divine retribution for worshipping Satan.

Kevin Swanson of Generations Ministries said last Thursday that the 89 people massacred inside the Bataclan theater were "devil-worshippers." Two weeks earlier, Swanson headlined his own "Freedom 2015: National Religious Liberties Conference" featuring Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal.

Swanson believes God will annihilate America for tolerating homosexuality and seemed to say God already made an example out of the Bataclan.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:44 AM

"I think I'll go for wank, get some beef in for Friday and buy a few condoms."

That is the most interesting post to this thread. However, may I suggest you buy the condoms before getting 'some beef in'?

The devil is in the details dontcha know.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:54 AM

I thought that was pork.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:59 AM

If God is angry that the US tolerates gays then it is a bit of an odd response to attack Paris. Why not a gay pride parade, for example? Mysterious ways indeed

(just in case anyone has any doubts, I see that pastor is on the far side of the bonkers barrier and think in the uk he should be prosecuted for hate speech. In the US I appreciate that is more difficult)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 11:09 AM

I care not a jot whether I get called a born-again atheist, but be aware of a couple of things. First, the term is typically applied to bad people who suddenly find Jesus and go a bit mental about it. I for one have never been much of a bad person and nothing about me changed suddenly. No conversion on the road to Damascus for me. Second, if you say born-again atheist, in light of what I've said, you are making atheism into something equivalent to a religion. Well if that's what you think, you are absolutely in bed with pete. Don't expect me to let it pass. Derision shall pour down on you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 11:11 AM

And there's hundreds (thousands?) more where Swanson came from. And most of the Republican presidential hopefuls agree with him. Would clog up the court system something fierce.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:39 PM

Here's an example of "born again" being used in a political context - and there are plenty more. Born again Socialist, born again Feminist - and of course born again Atheist (I see there's even a book with that title, by an atheist happy to adopt it!) I don't think this excellent metaphor should be abandoned to weird American fundamentalists, and clearly so do a lot of other people who wouldn't have too much in common.

"Why should the devil have all the best tunes?" Even if the devil's voice is coming from someone like that unspeakable "Kevin Swanson", masquerading as a Man of God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:16 PM

Well context is everything. In this thread born-again has pejorative undertones only. But I'm not bothered. You can call me it if you like. I've apprised you of its inappropriateness in my case. Just don't be surprised if I bracket you with pete, loud and proud.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:43 PM

Yes, # , many ideologies might have adherents who follow convictions that are beneficial , but I think the context was the accusation that my faith is harmful , though I have not gone all the way back to check it for exactness.          Very briefly , bill ....you more or less understood right. When the apostles were arrested for preaching Christ, the authorities ordered them "not to teach or preach in that name again". They replied " judge for yourselves if we should obey God or men ". Individual Christians might not draw the line in exactly the same place but that is the general principal.       Now that does not mean attacking abortionists , or bombing their shops for example, but it does mean that a nurse might prefer to risk losing her job rather than be party to killing an unborn child. That was an example not an attempt to steer the thread elsewhere btw.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Harry Forest - if you must know
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:29 PM

If a nurse goes against the terms of her registration, she is struck off or rehabilitated. If anybody says they answer to other than the law, they are a danger to society, same as any other potential criminal. Churches don't decide the duties of a nurse, competent bodies, especially NMC do.

There is no line to draw. It is drawn for you by the highest authority of all. Parliament.

If religions cannot abide by the law, shut the fuckers down. We do with other organised crime. Yet I suspect pete doesn't speak for real Christians anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:36 PM

Don't quite agree Harry.
Just one name: Rosa Parks. There are many others.

The bottom line is that if you defy the law you do so with the willingness to take the consequences, and you are the one who takes them. Not, for example, pregnant women outside a clinic you object to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:02 PM

Well as my taxes pay for the training of doctors and nurses in this country, I expect the ethical part of that training to emphasise that it is not in their gift to arbitrarily refuse to treat people on the grounds of your being out of sympathy with them. They have to treat fat people, drug addicts, drunks, dirty and smelly people, people who contract HIV via unprotected sex and criminals. If you choose a career path in medicine which puts you in contact with women who want abortions and you then refuse to deal with them, you should be sacked.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:09 PM

". When the apostles were arrested for preaching Christ, ..."

That was then.....
Now the issue is not what they preach or teach, but where, and to whom. If someone tries to insert preaching & teaching in public schools, we have a problem. A sincere belief in God ought to include the idea that God can hear silent, personal prayers. Those who demand the 'right' to pray aloud when many have different beliefs are mistaking what 'freedom of religion' is about.
   You say "that does not mean attacking abortionists ", but it does mean that to some. As to nurses, they usually don't take jobs that would compromise their beliefs. In many ways, that is how it should be handled. **Be aware of what the job entails and don't set yourself up for a conflict.**
When "the system" says merely that religion is permitted, but should be a private matter among people who all think the same way, that is NOT 'suppressing' religion.


Now... off to 4-5 days at a crafts show.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:02 PM

Because of where we are in the UK, Steve and Bill, I'd agree on the abortion situation, because anyone now entering the profession knows exactly what they are agreeing to. But let us suppose Parliament decided to approve assisted dying in some circumstances. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for some nurses - atheist, Christian or whatever - to feel this goes against what they signed up to/their beliefs and to say they are prepared to do everything else but if this is insisted on they will leave the profession. And whether you or I paid for their training through taxes does not give us the right to insist they stay.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:25 PM

That's a different issue. Abortion has been legal in this country since well before any current doctors and nurses were trained. A new law about assisted dying would not have been anticipated by any of our current doctors and nurses and should therefore be a matter of conscience. It could be a different matter for those trained after the new law came in. We'd probably want to avoid a two-tier profession in that regard, however. It could also be a matter of which particular aspects of the dying process we would expect people to be involved in.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:31 PM

Which is exactlly what my first sentence said, Steve!

My point, though, was really about Harry's suggestion that it the law as passed by Parliament that is the line you should follow . And my example was supposed to say "Well, it's not always that easy"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:36 PM

Exactly DMcG.....we should all oppose what we consider to be BAD laws.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:38 PM

Yes dmcg , and I think, it would be perfectly proper to decline those "duties" while still remaining in the employment that did not require "mercy killing"when the medic was trained and then employed. Of course this is the situation with the marriage clerks who in all good conscience could not put their name to registering same sex "marriage".   You have a point about not entering a profession where you know you would have to offend your conscience to fulfil your contract.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:39 PM

The Church especially has a duty to oppose BAD laws.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:40 PM

Nothing goes against your vow under your professional registration. If it does, you resign, not carry on. In healthcare, if we took it to its ultimate legal status, knowingly acting outside your professional obligations means no indemnity insurance and if you touch a patient in a professional capacity it is criminal assault.

In essence, nobody gives a fuck about a necklace if it is short enough not to compromise infection control measures but the nurse in question was a district nurse who was invited into homes as a nurse then offered to pray with patients and left them cards with contact details of her particular cult. Sacking was a decent compromise. The law courts were an option. I know some of the people involved in her case and their decision was in the interest of patients.

If Muslim doctors and nurses didn't put their religion to one side, men wouldn't treat women and vice versa. Obviously they are less fundamental than Christians? Or more importantly, they aren't used to the bigoted UK society pandering to their creed like Christians are.

We work hard together in The NHS and from a staff standpoint, we are inclusive and do not recognise the separate communities debates in the press. I ended the probationary period of a Muslim nurse who wouldn't wear disposable sleeves and refused to bare to the elbows. I doubt she can find work as a nurse in The UK. What was telling was the support the trust had from staff in getting rid. Even an Imam from our team chaplaincy advised that her position was untenable.

Luckily, most people with a religious conviction don't let it interfere with their profession where it could be in conflict. Aggressive cultists get no sympathy from real people. I doubt our position is unique to Bristol and every NHS trust in the country would have a similar attitude.

The Christian nurse got no support from the industry she shamed. As a nurse myself I look to employers and regulators to ensure our professional obligations are shared.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:44 PM

I think Pete you missed my point that you are "duty bound" to offer to resign because you are unwilling to undertake the duties. If agreeing to same sex marriages offends you, resign and take the penalty. What is not on is to make someone else suffer penalties while you carry on as before.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:43 PM

The principle should be that you don't apply for jobs in which there is a reasonable prospect of a conflict with your conscience arising, unless you are prepared to override your conscience with good grace. Taking a job like that, then refusing to carry out a part of it for conscience reasons, is upsetting for those being refused service and is highly vexatious. You should resign or be sacked. If an unforeseen conflict arises once you're in post, I should think that sensible negotiation would be the way to go, within reason, but only for issues that most reasonable people would regard as issues. A greyish area.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:48 PM

I would sack Pete anyway - just for fun! Who cares about conscience!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 06:30 PM

There are any number of examples of laws which have existed, even under what are counted as democratic laws, which deserve to be challenged. There are any number of examples where people have been required by their employers, including the State, to do things which are against their conscience.

In such a situation the right thing to do is to refuse, and take the consequences. Resignation is one otion. Another may be to refuse, in the knowledge that disciplinary action will follow, typically being sacked. And in some cases challenging that sacking through appropriate methods would be right, including industrial action by other workers.

Such conflicts can arise in the context of religion, but in many others as well. Refusing to cross a picket line or cooperate in an eviction are every bit as relevant examples as refusing to take off a crucifix or a hijab.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 06:35 PM

Refusing to cross a picket line or cooperate in an eviction are every bit as relevant examples as refusing to take off a crucifix or a hijab.

Problem occurs when someone wants to force someone else to wear a crucifix or a hijab, to not marry someone they love, or to not terminate an unwanted pregnancy, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 06:40 PM

There are millions of people who are not allowed to marry someone they love.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:25 PM

"There are millions of people who are not allowed to marry someone they love."

Yes, and if you had your way you would create millions more.

The daily act of worship is enforced in most schools (it's the law here), though it's illegal to force teachers to take part. The child has no choice, of course, though their parents can withdraw them and make them look like pariahs, so they rarely do. We didn't withdraw ours. I think that this is a good example of a bad law. Many free-thinking head teachers circumvent the requirement quite skilfully, managing the ritual with little or no bowing of heads or joining of hands whilst satisfying the needs of any gullible Ofsted inspector or evangelical school governor who happens along. I spent several years in conflict with an ardent Christian senior mistress at my last school, as I refused to take my class to the hall for religious assembly. I sent them instead and they behaved perfectly. She tried to get me to come into the hall for the announcements and duck out from the prayers section. I regarded that as an unreasonable request as it would have made me look foolish, and in any case it was impossible to predict when the chanting was about to begin. In the end, after many an argument, she dropped the thing. What a bloody waste of energy it all was. My inquisitive class wanted to know what I was up to, and, being an honest man who likes to deal in clarity, I told them that I was simply thinking for myself, and suggested that we could talk about that. I doubt that I converted any of them!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:45 PM

Suggesting you leave the worship part of a school assembly sounds like a fairly reasonable suggestion on the part of your colleague, Steve. I can't imagine why you should think it would have made you look foolish, rather than principled.

But earlier you seemed to be saying that if doing what they were employed to do, and complying with what the law laid down, was against their principles, people should resign, or not be employed in those jobs in the first place. But now you seem to condone covertly evading the law in cases where you disapprove of it. Some might consider there might just possibly be a conflict between those two positions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:45 PM

I don't know enough about what makes people wear hijabs to take much of a position about them. For many years in my teaching career I would not wear a tie at school, as I have always regarded ties to be a pretty stupid and pointless garment, actually no more than quite a modern passing fad. I couldn't be forced to wear one, any more than I could be forced to get my hair cut. I'm not going to criticise anyone for what they wear as long as they are not actually flaunting their bare bottoms in front of children or something like that. I do think that children should at least be able to see their teachers' faces, but that's only my opinion. A crucifix necklace is not the same thing at all. It is non-functional as an item of clothing and it is entirely optional. It is a declaration of a particular kind of partisanship. Perhaps hijabs don't quite fall into that category. In 1977 we had to endure the Queen's silver jubilee, and I bought a large badge that said "Stuff the Jubilee" on it in large letters, a declaration of another kind of partisanship. Do you think I should have worn it in front of my class of thirteen-year-olds? So what's the difference? I think that I have a right not to wear a tie and that a woman has the right to wear a hijab, and in neither case should there be pressure. I don't think it's right to flaunt religion in the faces of hospital patients and I don't think I had the right to wear that badge in my classroom.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:49 PM

I told you, I wasn't evading any law. Teachers can't be forced to attend worship. I thought I'd made that clear. The layout of the hall and where I would be sitting with my class made exiting and re-entering totally impractical, and I would have had no way of knowing when the praying had ended. Kevin, you really did have to be there.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Harry Forest if you must know
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 03:15 AM

Opposing laws whilst being drawn up is a basic human right.

Opposing them once the government have done their duty is a criminal act if opposition goes beyond saying you disagree with the law.

If a religious leader encourages his or her flock to break the law, they stand in the dock to be tried. Society expects better from its citizens.

Yes, millions cannot marry the ones they love. Gay marriage is sadly still illegal in many countries. The link? Religious control of law in said countries. I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:22 AM

China?
N.Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM

any free-thinking head teachers circumvent the requirement quite skilfully, managing the ritual with little or no bowing of heads or joining of hands whilst satisfying the needs of any gullible Ofsted inspector

That's what I meant when I said "covertly evading the law", and I certainly didn't understood you to be disapproving of such actions.

An in-your-face badge like that with a slogan is one thing - but a better parallel might be badge with the Humanist Society symbol. I'd be wholly opposed to any school barring teachers frrom wearing that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 05:01 AM

So should we take it Harry Forest that you would be opposed to actively resisting laws that discriminate against minorities?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 07:50 AM

It is extremely stupid to say that all who "love" one another should be able to marry.

Most people we "love" are close family members. Marriage between close family members is illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:40 AM

It's extremely stupid to presume from this statement: "Yes, millions cannot marry the ones they love. Gay marriage is sadly still illegal in many countries." that the poster was advocating the legalization of marriage between close family members. Still grasping at straws, Aketung.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: GUEST,Harry Forest
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:44 AM

The only law that actually discriminates against minorities is the one saying CofE churches cannot conduct same sex marriages and gay employees who have been ordained cannot get married.

Mind you, there is test case looming on that one.

Whilst there is shocking discrimination in many areas, it is misapplication or ignorance of law that allows it. The Equalities Act covers everything else.

(UK. I am not conversant with foreign law.)

I am opposed to breaking the law because you cannot change law if that just shifts the law breaking to the other view. There are ways of changing laws in a democracy. I don't like a lot that this government has done but I certainly don't break the law. How could you distinguish between refusing to put stamps on envelopes and murder? Protest, industrial action, petition, vote, stand for office and lobby. All good ideas and all fall short of becoming a criminal.

Regarding the obscene post above, incest marriages brought to case have all been from heterosexual marriages. In fact, I notice that in Norfolk, Argyll and Lincolnshire there are not that many surnames in many communities.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM

I am no more in favour of incestuous "marriage" than I am of homosexual marriage. Both mean huge societal and health problems in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 01:00 PM

"The only law that actually discriminates against minorities is the one saying CofE churches cannot conduct same sex marriages and gay employees who have been ordained cannot get married."

There are and have been laws that discriminate against all sorts of minorities in all sorts of countries all over the world. Your declaration that laws should always be accepted once they are in existence didn't say that only applied in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 01:14 PM

The only law that acatually discriminates against minorities is the one saying CofE churches cannot conduct same sex marriages and gay employees who have been ordained cannot get married.. There are laws discriminating against all kinds of minorities in all sorts of places round the world. Even including the death penalty. Harry Forest appeared to be saying that such laws should never be defied.
..............
I can't see how aken can reasonably be criticised for pointing out that the claim that marriage should be available for all people who love each other, unless it is qualified, does in fact imply that incestuous marriage should be legal. That isn't saying that people making that claim intend that, but it does imply they should be more careful to say what they actually mean.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 02:24 PM

"any free-thinking head teachers circumvent the requirement quite skilfully, managing the ritual with little or no bowing of heads or joining of hands whilst satisfying the needs of any gullible Ofsted inspector"

That's what I meant when I said "covertly evading the law", and I certainly didn't understood you to be disapproving of such actions.

An in-your-face badge like that with a slogan is one thing - but a better parallel might be badge with the Humanist Society symbol. I'd be wholly opposed to any school barring teachers frrom wearing that.

Skilfully circumventing the requirement to the satisfaction of all concerned, rather than openly refusing to comply, is a time-honoured tactic that avoids conflict. There are tens of thousands of schools in this country, many of which contravene this silly law to a greater or lesser extent. You will rarely read about any in the papers. I'm biased and I'm happy with it. We must sometimes oil the wheels of life.

Yes the badge was in-your-face. No doubt as to its intended message. A Humanist Society symbol would convey nothing to most of the people in a school who see it, defeating the whole object of wearing it. A crucifix dangled in a patient's face is just as explicit a statement as that badge. Almost everyone knows precisely what it means, a slogan without words. "I'm a Christian, I'm proud of it and you'd better know about it".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 02:26 PM

Uganda is a parliamentary democracy. It is also a country where there is significant anti-gay legislation, where the desth penalty for gays was very nearly introduced, and where there is considerable support for such a law. A binding ballot calling for such a law could well be put to the voters in California, and could get passed.

Democracies are quite capable of introducing terrible laws. After all, every anti-gay or anti-black law which has been swept away in countries such as the UK or the USA was introduced in countries which were democracies..
..............
It occurs to me that if a couple of generations back someone had declared that all those who loved each other should be allowed to get married, and someone else had responded pointing out that this implied that people would be able to marry people of the same sex,, there is no doubt but that they would have been attacked in very similar terms as aken, for making a disgusting suggestion.

---

From Joe Offer: I found this thread to be very troubling, but I'm not the one who closed it and I don't know which moderator did. It's clear that it was time for it to be closed, however. Religious belief is something personal, not something to be fought about or defended. And when it becomes a subject of combat, people get hurt. It shouldn't have to be that way. There should be room for many ways of thinking, and people should have the freedom to be able to formulate and test their ways of thinking without fear of being attacked.
But this thread was getting worse and worse, so I said my goodbyes a couple days ago and left the thread. I came across a video today that honestly addresses a number of issues addressed in this thread. It's a very thought-provoking presentation, critical of all sides without condemning anyone. I think it's worth your consideration, whatever your thinking might be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TGS-JD80nE
I keep trying to find a quote I heard once from architect Louis Kahn. It goes something like this: Everything everyone says is the truth. It may be their truth, but it is nonetheless the truth. I think that's true here. People said what they think in this thread and told their truth, and some of it was hurtful. I know I got hurt, and that's why I left the thread.
I hope someday we will be able to discuss these things without hurting each other.
I thank the moderator who decided to close this thread. I think it was time.
-Joe Offer-